Hijinx on Bill O’Reilly with a socialist prof from Notre Shame

Last night on Bill O’Reilly’s show we were treated to a nutty display by a … and I can’t believe I am about to type this … full professor at Notre Shame.  Prof. Candida Moss attacked O’Reilly for not mentioning in his new book, Killing Jesus, that … well, here’s Fox News Insider to tell you the tale!

Candida Moss, professor of New Testament at the University of Notre Dame, wrote a critical review of Bill O’Reilly’s best-selling book, Killing Jesus. In a Daily Beast column, Moss slammed O’Reilly for not mentioning the free health care offered by Jesus. [?!?]

Tonight on The Factor, O’Reilly and Moss went head-to-head over the history of Jesus. She called it an “oversight” that O’Reilly failed to mention Jesus’ insistence that the wealthy give away their possessions.  [Is that the point of O’Reilly’s book?  I haven’t read it.]

O’Reilly reminded her that his book is not about the doctrine. He said it’s dramatically clear that Jesus stood up for the poor. Moss fired back, “No, it’s a historical fact that he told people that in order to go to heaven they had to give away their possessions.[?!?]

O’Reilly told Moss, “You’re taking it literally when these are parables. If you’re going to sit there, professor, as a theology professor at Notre Dame and tell me that everybody on this earth has to sell all their stuff and can’t have anything, or they’re not going to heaven, I’m going to say you’re a loon.[And we are going to repeat it: she’s a loon.]

Candida disagreed, saying, “A rich man is condemned to hell merely for not giving away his possessions.[And for not voting for Pres. Obama!]

O’Reilly called her out for misreading the gospel. He clarified that people have an obligation to help the poor, and that if possessions rule over you, then you will not go to heaven. “But he didn’t say you gotta sell everything, because then you’re going to hell, I’m going to hell and everybody watching is going to hell.”

“Jesus is not a free market capitalist,” Moss responded. “I think in your book, […] you misrepresent and cherry pick the facts.”

So, who is this person?

The Cardinal Newman Society – see their feed on my side bar! – has been watching her antics for a while.

Back in February CNS wrote:

Yale-educated University of Notre Dame professor of New Testament and early Christianity, Candida Moss has released a video promoting her new book, “The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom.”

In the video, Moss discounts the accounts of early Christian martyrdom:

[Let’s pause and watch Candida plug her own crazy theory.]


[Wow… just wow… ROFL!  If you made it through that, kudos.  Let’s move on.]

Contrary to traditional Church teaching, and popular belief, Christians were not systematically tortured and killed by the Romans merely because they refused to deny Christ. [Right, they were periodically tortured and killed.]

Rather, these stories were exaggerated, revised, and forged, often centuries later, and the history of the Church was reshaped in order to combat heresy, to inspire and educate the faithful, and to fund Churches.

She describes the goals of her book as “getting the history right,” and to “expose the dangerous legacy that these misunderstandings about Christian martyrdom have had for us today.”

The rhetoric of martyrdom and persecution persists especially in the language of the religious and political right, [?!?] and just as early Christians employed the martyrdom myth, this myth is still used to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of cultural warriors. [THAT’s why we venerate martyrs!]

The idea that Christians are, by their very nature, persecuted, is grounded in an inaccurate history of the early Church. Christians were not relentlessly persecuted in the first few centuries, and they’re not systematically and continually persecuted today.

Moss is delivering a lecture on the topic on March 21 at the Washington National Cathedral. The description of that talk says that “there is the troubling use of this heritage to silence the voice of those who act outside the perceived orthodoxies of the day.”

Let’s now see the O’Reilly video.  O’Reilly makes some mistakes along the way: Jesus actually said certain things or he didn’t and how we interpret them is a theological exercise.  But let that pass for now.


Okay, having watched the videos two questions come to mind.

QUAERUNTUR: What’s the real reason O’Reilly had her on? And do you think she figured it out?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Blatteroons, Liberals, Modern Martyrs, Pò sì jiù, Saints: Stories & Symbols, Throwing a Nutty, What are they REALLY saying?, You must be joking! and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Gratias says:

    I watched this exchange. Was amazed that a Catholic University has become a conduit for Socialist indoctrination.

  2. Te real reason Mr. O’Reilly usually has for having people on is to make himself look good. So perhaps this guest makes his positions look EXTRA correct. When in fact, his grasp of the tenets of our faith are not always accurate. And he feels that he MUST talk about it. Sigh.
    The interview was headache-inducing. And her name keeps reminding me of a thrush infection.

  3. John V says:

    Questions for Prof. Moss: If the rich have to give away all their possessions to save their souls from hell, to whom shall they give them? The poor? But once the poor have them, would they not also have to give them away, lest they themselves now be doomed to hell? And if the rich give away their possessions knowing that having them condemns one to hell, are they not sinning by causing the downfall of those to whom they give their possessions? Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, eh?

    I guess to be a professor you don’t have to be able to think, just publish.

  4. wmeyer says:

    The good professor fails to acknowledge that she has herself “cherry-picked” the Gospel messages to reach her own conclusion. A conclusion, I must add, which have yet to find in any papal message, any competent biblical commentary, or the CCC.

  5. Geoffrey says:

    I watched this when it aired. I couldn’t stop laughing.

  6. Magash says:

    O’Reilly had her on because she wrote a review critical of his book. A blogger or columnist would have written a rebuttal, but O’Reilly is a TV guy and so he had her on his show in order to allow him to get out his rebuttal.
    I was impressed that O’Reilly pointed out the reading from two weeks ago. He obviously attends Mass and pays attention to the readings. His theology is not top notch, but it isn’t his area of specialty and he did say repeatedly he didn’t want to get into theology. Generally speaking his understanding isn’t horrible, though an apologist would have pointed out that blessed are the poor is a reference to spiritual poverty, which can exist in anyone irregardless of their level of material possessions.
    It’s very difficult to refute a cherry picked Gospel quote about giving all your stuff away to follow Jesus without having a long discussion about the radical poverty expected of a religious (or an Apostle) and the reasonable use of material possessions by others not bound to a vow of poverty.
    I’m not as nice or charitable as O’Reilly and would have asked the Professor how much stuff she owned and why she hadn’t given it to some of those nice Occupy people.

  7. majuscule says:

    Is she married to Bart Ehrman?

    I am going to go all ad hominem here and say that I’m sure glad she pulled her hair behind her ear for the O’Reilly interview. I got fed up with her peeking out from behind her blond locks in her book promo video. [Pretty much on target.]

    Watching the O’Reilly video, I kept waiting for a headline about Middle Eastern Christians to scroll by, but that would have been too ironic…

  8. Suburbanbanshee says:

    She’s got possessions. She’s a full professor, so she’s not in the upper middle class anymore.

    So she went on TV to say that she’s going to Hell? Really?

  9. teomatteo says:

    St. Stephen pray for us….

  10. APX says:

    She’s tiny. She’s toony.
    She’s past a little loony.
    At Notre Shame Uni
    She’s defaming your degree.

    After listening to her speak, I’ve come to the conclusion she and Notre Shame University need their own theme song. This wonderful little gem from my childhood seems to fit:

    I’m not as nice or charitable as O’Reilly and would have asked the Professor how much stuff she owned and why she hadn’t given it to some of those nice Occupy people.


  11. PA mom says:

    I hope he is doing it to shine light on the exact beliefs of these people who are being entrusted with the development of so many souls.

  12. BLB Oregon says:

    OK, let us say they were martyred for refusing to perform acts of worship required by the Roman government, rather than condemned specifically for refusing to renounce worship of Jesus Christ. The Romans, being pantheists, might not have cared who else you worshipped, as long as you didn’t fail to worship who they told you to worship in the way they told you to do it. I could conceivably concede that point, if this is the point she’s trying to make. I hope she is not denying that Roman leaders sometimes used Christians as convenient scapegoats because they needed an odd and unpopular minority to shoulder some undeserved blame.

    To say that dying for refusing false worship instead of dying for “committing” true worship somehow not truly a martyrdom is the worst kind of hair-splitting. It is hair-splitting to the point of farce! To have complied with the Roman edicts to worship their false gods was the same as renouncing Christ, whether the Romans “got” that or not. The Romans were killing people who failed to practice the religious edicts handed down by the state, and Christians were killed for that. There are even accounts of Roman judges trying very hard to convince Christians to just go through the ritual, for crying out loud, because the judges did not want to condemn them. Inexplicably to these Roman officials, the Christians dug in their heels and chose death instead of violating the law of God. That is real martyrdom. If the good professor doesn’t believe that, she could go to Saudi Arabia and try it some time.

  13. Johnno says:

    Someone ask this loon what Jesus teches us about the sick and the elderly and honoring thy mother and thy father.

    Because Obamacare is all NOT about that. It’s about systematic euthanasia of the elderly and trying its best not to help anyone, unless of you are part of Obama’s elite establishment which makes you exempt. It’s about establishing the Communist States of america – Total Control over individuals and their finances.

    Get educated about Obamacare!

  14. OrthodoxChick says:

    O’Reilly had her on so he could sell some more books. Why else would he give this whackadoodle the time of night in prime time? And she accepted so she could promote her own book. This is nothing more than a case of two people using one another, whether they realized it or not. For O’Reilly, it’s double-dipping because he also gets good ratings out of the deal. At least he uses his wealth to generously support several charities. Wonder if we can say the same about this anti-Catholic employee of Notre Shame.

    So what are we to infer from this? First, deny the holocaust, then deny Christian persecution and matyrdom. Do progressives realize that they are trying to get all sweetsie-sweetsie with people who will cut their heads off for supporting a gay agenda?

    Good grief.

  15. Prof. Moss,
    A shining example of why it is the Church, and not the individual, who is (and should be) the authoritative interpreter of scripture. The operative question then becomes just how, and by whom, was the lady hired by Notre Dame? Whoever made that decision needs to be identified, and removed from the position of selecting new professors. Secondarily, if Moss is an H-1B immigrant to this country, it should be made very clear to her that she is quite welcome to return to her country of origin.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  16. Actually, the problem with Moss’s book on the persecutions is not her history. It has been recognized by virtually all ancient church historians that the persecutions were, with two or three major exceptions, local, intermittent, often only indirectly religious, and that there were long periods, with no state persecutions at all. For most ancient Christians the experience of persecution was that your neighbors despised you and thought you went to orgies and ate babies (I am not making that up). The image of a continuous, savage, universal state persecution is very much a 19th century “Romantic” one.

    That Moss gets wrong is to give the perception that her “history” in new and earth shaking, when it is generally old news and borrowed. The real problem with the book is that it uses the consensus scholarship to argue political points against Republicans and others who point out that Christians are being killed around the would, charging that the hostility they point out is a “myth” because the 19th century Romantic version of the ancient persecutions is a myth. The logical gaps in this are, well, huge.

    This is what happens when theologians try to do history. History dances to ideology. Watch out!

  17. wmeyer says:

    Keith, when you discover she was recruited by McBrien, you will be shocked, right? ;)

  18. Facta Non Verba says:

    I watched that interview last night. At one point, Professor Moss insisted that Jesus was a socialist. While I doubt it, and I follow what the Church teaches on this, I do often wonder about that passage in the Acts of the Apostles that describes the earliest disciples as living together in a community and contributing from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Isn’t that what Karl Marx professed?

  19. Jack Hughes says:

    The only positive thing I have to say about professor Moss is that for a liberal she is moderately attractive [Yep. Close to the bullseye.]

  20. LarryW2LJ says:

    When I see and hear stuff like this, I realize it’s time to go find a quiet place and say a rosary.

  21. OrthodoxChick says:

    Fr. Thompson,
    But in the video above, Ms. Moss didn’t describe the persecutions as you just did. She described them as a “myth”, as in fiction. If that’s also the premise in her book, then she’s not presenting her view of history in the same way as you just summarized the Christian persecutions above. I think it’s one thing to point out that there are some inaccuracies about the nature of Christian persecutions, but to state plainly that the persecutions are the stuff of mythology is rather another argument altogether, IMHO.

  22. SpittleFleckedNutty says:

    Wow, Prof. Moss is going to be treated like a leper now! Denying the holocaust will turn so many people against … oh, it’s Christian persecution she’s denying? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..

    Also, kudos to the professor for completing her training at the Nancy Pelosi Center for Awkward and Weird Hand Gestures While Speaking.

  23. Scott W. says:

    Anyone know what her view of the Incarnation and Trinity is? I ask because if the Church made up the martyr stories, what else does she think they made up? That is to say, if she thinks the Word made Flesh is buncombe, then her whole rigamarole about giving away all your possessions is worthless because that would mean just another merely human guru shooting his mouth off with no more authority than an deranged bum muttering at buildings.

  24. Tradster says:

    I second the comment by APX. The obvious follow-up question to that airhead would have been to ask if she is working for free and giving away all her possessions. He should never have let that statement go by unchallenged.

  25. robtbrown says:

    Orthodox Chick,

    I don’t think she said the persecutions were myth, but rather that it was myth that they were systematic, I.e., continuous. This is Father Augustine’s point.

    But I do think that Hollywood had as much to do with this as the 19th century.

  26. ClavesCoelorum says:

    How on EARTH can this woman carry the title of “professor”? Good heavens, for once in my life I found myself on Bill O’Reilly’s side!

  27. thefeds says:

    We control the vertical, we control the horizontal…

  28. OrthodoxChick says:


    I don’t know. I just watched the video again, and she chose her words in such a way as to convey the meaning that persecutions were bunk, a myth that was put forward to combat heresy. That’s not what I understood Fr. Augustine Thompson to say in his comment. Yes, Ms. Moss did use the word ‘systematic’ but she used it in a context that points toward a deliberate misinformation campaign to further an agenda.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I see a world a difference between what this professor is saying by characterizing the persecutions as a ‘myth’ and what Fr. Thompson said.

  29. Michael_Thoma says:

    “Myth” is theological mumbo-jumbo doesn’t mean “fiction” necessarily. Candida knows this, she also knows that when the vast majority of people hear “myth”, they think “fairy tales”.
    In theological and academic circles, “mythos” can be a re-presented history from the perspective of the re-presenter to convey a deeper meaning – for example, the Passover “myth” that is recited every year by the Jews.

  30. Moro says:

    I’m stunned – the last sentence of the first video she has the audacity to claim Christians are not systematically persecuted today. Ever hear of Boko Haram or the People’s Republic of China. Forget her absolutely ridiculous attack on Bill O’Reilly’s works, why is someone spouting such nonsense tolerated at a Catholic school. She’s either delusion or an anti-Catholic hellbent on revisionism, or both for all I know. Thank God I didn’t go to ND. I went to another nominal Catholic college – but at least we didn’t have this loon teaching there.

  31. OrthodoxChick says:


    Thanks for sharing that. I didn’t know that. Do we know if this professor knows that? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one…

  32. Gaetano says:

    In the meantime, some orthodox Catholic Ph.D. is eking out a meager existence on a adjunct professor’s salary.

  33. Maria says:

    Candida means fungus … Moss means small plants … I hope the fungus will remain small as not to spread infection …

    Sorry … I am not charitable …

  34. J_Cathelineau says:

    HA! So that is how marxist teachers look like in USA? Must be the Mattel version of Das Kapital. Let me say that Ken at least have a beard.
    Just kidding, sorry. I never thought that someone like that could be a teacher.
    From south America,

  35. MBeauregard says:

    As someone who has researched and taught Roman and Medieval history, I must take strong objection to this professor’s erroneous slant. As Fr. Z pointed out, it is correct that there were not three centuries of continuous martyrdom. Some of the emperors before Constantine could not have cared less. For others, it was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach toward Christians. Then there were the emperors (Nero, Hadrian, Decius, Diocletian, etc.) who openly sought to kill Christians and destroy Christianity. It is a historical fact beyond doubt that there were ten major persecutions of Christians during the first three centuries.

    It is accurate that these emperors were not going after Christians because of their sole faith in Christ. Romans were not at all concerned about a person going to heaven or the salvation of one’s soul and couldn’t care less who people were worshipping. It was acceptable for them to have as many or few gods as they desired. It was also acceptable for them to borrow “other gods” such as some of the gods and goddesses worshiped by the Egyptians. The problem Romans had with Christians was that they refused to offer sacrifices to the gods. The Romans believed that this, in turn, would anger the gods who would cause wars, famines, disease, or other ailments as punishment. If Christians had only offered sacrifices in public to the false gods, there most likely would not have been so much hate and anger toward the early Christians.

    With that being said, tens of thousands of early Christians were martyred precisely because they refused to acknowledge or offer sacrifices to anyone but the one true God. Therefore, they DIED FOR REFUSING TO COMPROMISE THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH. I have not read Candida’s book, nor do I plan to. It should be clear to anyone that her spin on this is to only give credibility to her agenda.

  36. Long-Skirts says:


    For neurotic-psychotic
    “Attached” to the old
    We give you a hireling
    To take care your fold.

    No need for the shepherds
    Who seem so much keener
    They’ll tempt you with dreams
    Of pastures much greener

    And say not to mimic
    Past tolerant-barters
    So heads were cut off,
    Who could dialogue with martyrs?

    The shepherds tell fables
    Bout a man hated, hailed,
    Like you, just “attached”…
    Don’t believe He was nailed!

  37. Rachel K says:

    SpittleFleckedNutty, “Also, kudos to the professor for completing her training at the Nancy Pelosi Center for Awkward and Weird Hand Gestures While Speaking.”
    Yes, I found that really irritating – do you think it is related to having a guilty conscience?!
    And the peculiar accent? I was embarrassed to discover that Prof Moss is a Brit, ashamed that she is a compatriot of mine. She was at Oxford for her first degree in theology, knowing some Oxford theology graduates( faithful Catholics) I gather there is not much Catholic Truth being taught there…

  38. MBeauregard says:

    Using the logic of Candida Moss, Christians should NOT help the poor because if they rise out of poverty and have material possessions or any wealth, they too are going to hell. That is her logic, right?

  39. Rachel K says:

    And for a little light humour, have a look at this interview with Prof Moss:
    It contains gems such as,

    “Why did you pick to come work at Notre Dame? As a recusant Catholic from England, I always wanted the opportunity to work at the premiere Catholic university in the world. ”

    “Recusant” ?!

    “What do you think is the world’s biggest problem? Self-interest and a declining sense of responsibility to others. ”

    Erm, right, like shamelessly promoting a book full of error……

  40. JARay says:

    I just looked at the reference which Rachel K. (above) gives and I notice there that something which Candida Moss struggles with is “elementary arithmatic”
    Someone struggles with elementary spelling!
    I find Moss’s description of herself as a recusant Catholic is rather self-flattering and her book is absolute balderdash. The pair appeared on TV together simply to promote two books neither of which I will buy.

  41. MikeM says:

    Fr. Augustine Thompson OP said: “That Moss gets wrong is to give the perception that her ‘history’ in new and earth shaking, when it is generally old news and borrowed.”

    Exactly! Unfortunately, it’s the clown wannabe-scholars that write books for a popular audience, go on TV, etc. And they always bill their books as groundbreaking accounts (see also, Reza Aslan’s Zealot, et al.)

    I might also dispute Moss’ assessment of the present state of politics, though, and I suspect that her assessment of the role of the tales of martyrdom in it is mostly a figment of her imagination.

  42. Alanmac says:

    Is the Catholic Church in charge of Notre Dame U?
    Why do these nutbars always have British accents?

  43. Muv says:

    Alanmac – No such thing as a British accent. She has a southern English accent fast disappearing under a layer of American. She needs to stay there for as long as possible, preferably for ever, so her dreadfully hybrid accent can totally Americanise itself. Please, on no account, send her back here.

  44. Bob B. says:

    Where’s the mandatum she signed, where is the bishop of the area, who hired this Brit – a Church of England type? Since it appears anyone can teach at Notre Shame, I would like to volunteer (I’ve been teaching Catholic 7/8th graders for a long time – can’t do any worse, it would seem!

  45. benedetta says:

    The real reason why O’Reilly had her on is because she is blonde and comely and resembles the other fox news ladies. Also she has eye sex with the camera. Very professional! Really lends credibility to her scholarship! If the scary music on her video combined with her flirtatious expression with the words “religious right” were absent, and she was someone who looked like JRR Tolkien would anyone including Notre Shame give a hoot about her persecution myth? Apparently as a recusant she believes herself having experienced persecution? As to her claim that Christians are not being persecuted today, what the hell does she have to say about what is happening in the Middle East, North Korea, China, Indonesia, India?? Way weird. Of course once I again I realize I am missing absolutely nothing worthwhile by not watching fox or any cable “news” channel.

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

    [And if she knew that… ]

  46. stgemma_0411 says:

    That Bill O’Reilly can so easily dismantle Ms. Moss’s argumentation, really calls in to question the voracity of the academic community in giving away PhD’s to people who don’t even pass the sniff test.

  47. Tom says:

    Wikipedia says she’s a Roman Catholic.
    She does not think O’Reilly is a heretic! I’m sure he’s relieved.

  48. Muv says:

    Doing my best not to sound scratchy, but she does look like a shop assistant on the make up counter in a department store. I was wondering whether she might have to give away all her shampoo, cosmetics and toiletries to avoid Hell. And her Lady Irish Eau de Parfum


  49. Nan says:

    Facta Non Verba, there’s a huge difference between a group of people pooling their resources as in the early Christians making that choice among themselves and a government imposing what people may have. Christians are also told not to feed the one who is unwilling to work; similarly, the Pilgrims began as communists, which didn’t last long as they didn’t work effectively. Once they parceled out land to individuals and each person benefited from his own work, things changed for the better. Similarly, under communism, nobody has an incentive to work harder as they won’t benefit and would also be picking up the slack for those not working.

  50. Johnno says:

    Facta Non Verba –

    When the Christians lived together and gave to one another, it was out of their own free will and act of charity.

    This is different from the Marxism where coercion at the end of a gun is the tool to get people to fork over their money. This isn’t charity. And therefore the taxpayers don’t derive the benefits of giving and being charitable that our Lord and the Apostles encouraged.

    Not to mention, that money will be rationed and only given to those deemed suitable of receiving it by the government. AKA only those deemed useful to the State machine.
    -Are you having a baby? Well, the government needs you to work, and we have a population quota. Kill the child or suffer the consequences.
    -Are you too old? Well, you’re a drain on the state’s resources. No food or medicine for you. Do your duty and die for the State that has looked after you all this time.
    -Are you a Catholic who obeys the Pope? Well the State tolerates no competing ideology. You are a danger to the stability of the nation. Your religious beliefs do not conform to our standards. Hand over your children. Your citizenship is revoked, you get no benefits. You can neither work nor buy or sell. Your finances are confiscated for redistribution to model citizens.

    The same old errors of Communism, renewed today by both parties of the U.S. of A.

  51. ChristianO says:

    This is saddening and absurd for all the reasons Fr. Z and other commenters have pointed out. Nevertheless, I believe that Notre Dame remains under Our Lady’s special patronage and that in the final analysis she will always intercede to protect it from succumbing to the most noxious effects of things like this. I don’t like to see its name (which is, after all, hers) ridiculed.

  52. Missionaryorganist says:

    Watching these videos would almost send me screaming back into the protestant Evangelical church.

  53. vandalia says:

    Something to keep in mind about her book on early Christian persecutions:

    1) She claims she got the idea for the book from a homily where the celebrant compared the current political situation to persecution of Christians during the Roman Empire.

    2) She claims that caused her to research the persecutions, where she discovered they were sporadic and not universal. (Which is no surprise at all to anyone with a basic knowledge of Patristics. In fact that very line could have been lifted from my seminary Patristic professor’s lecture notes – and he is widely considered one of the foremost Patristic scholars in the world today.)

    3) So she then creates a strawman that “everyone believes every Christian was persecuted in the Roman Empire for over 300 years without letup.” Which she then quickly knocks down.

    But here is the really funny part: in arguing that the persecution of Christian’s by the Roman Empire was not as pervavise or severe as “everyone” believes, her book actually supports the point by the unknown homilist that Christian’s in America are facing persecution similar to that faced during the Roman Empire.

    Given her overall political beliefs, THAT is a point that I am sure you would never get her to agree with.

  54. Kathleen10 says:

    I think her parents have issues. Who names their daughter Candida. Tony Orlando fans. To combine Candida with “Moss” is child abuse.

    I think he had her on to continue the buzz about his book. I don’t know why, it’s getting lots of attention anyway, but more is better, ala, Miley Cyrus.

    Notre Dame is no authentic Catholic university, from all I’ve seen in the past so many years. No serious Catholic should send their child there, and it can’t be cheap to sit in a classroom and listen to this nincompoops opinion, or any of the other hoity toity heretics Notre Dame employs.
    For the zillionth time, who oversees Catholic institutions today to monitor Catholic authenticity? Apparently, nobody. This chick should be shown the door.

  55. Kathleen10 says:

    Hey, Benedetta, I am glad to hear you say that about the Fox “ladies”! It’s beginning to get annoying. I mean, must all the conversations of any stripe include the obligatory pretty lady, always with long, flowing hair, preferably blonde? It’s just a bit unsettling when one sees they seem compulsory.
    It’s cloying, even irritating, because ultimately it’s an insult. It reminds me of the terrible dancers in that old video “Addicted to Love”, which seemed to say all women are the same and prized as eye candy only. I think Fox needs to knock it off, or give us better looking men. (kidding)

  56. how did she get a teaching job? The NT no less.

  57. SpittleFleckedNutty says:

    Meanwhile, the myth of the persecuted LGTB community, with its ‘martyrs’ created out of whole cloth, is happily propagated by the Diocletian-deniers.

  58. William Tighe says:

    “Who names their daughter Candida?”

    I read somewhere that she is English. “Candida,” while it is not a common name in England, is met with much more frequently there, than here.

  59. ndmom says:

    “No serious Catholic should send their child there, and it can’t be cheap to sit in a classroom and listen to this nincompoops opinion, or any of the other hoity toity heretics Notre Dame employs.”

    Have you been to Notre Dame? There are plenty of serious Catholics who send their children there, and there are plenty of serious Catholics in the university community. We are a faculty family of serious Catholics who have sent two children there, both of whom are still serious Catholics and neither of whom would have been caught dead in a class taught by Moss.

    The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist are on campus this week. Check out their Facebook page for their very positive observations on Notre Dame, including the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in 59 campus chapels. No, it’s not perfect, but ill-informed comments such as the one made above are inaccurate at best and malicious at worst.

  60. AA Cunningham says:

    I first stumbled across the shallow O’Reilly when he was a reporter for KMGH in Denver back in the late 70s. Along the way he’s earned the nicknames he’s been tagged with: elitist gasbag, Ted Baxter, loofahman, etc. O’Reilly had Moss on because it served his ego. She’s an attractive airhead that comes across as silly and one whom he felt he could easily defeat in a battle of wits, plus she had reviewed his latest book. If she looked like Helen Thomas, or Simone Campbell, or Maureen Fiedler, or Joan Chittister, or Jeannine Gramick, or Margaret Farley, ad infinitum, his staff most likely never would have booked her on the show.

  61. amenamen says:

    Read this:

    E. Michael Jones has a thorough book review of “The Myth of Persecution” in “Culture Wars” magazine.

    He says:

    The Myth of Persecution is not a work of scholarship about the early Church. This book is about Notre Dame. It is an attempt to use the simulacrum of scholarship to justify an increasingly untenable ideological agenda. Everything Moss writes resonates with the Obama administration’s attitude toward Catholics, not Caesar’s view of Christians. Christians are not “always” persecuted. Christians are only persecuted when they proclaim the gospel. Notre Dame is proof of that. This book was written to save Americanist Notre Dame’s standing with the Obama administration. Grants to ND doubled after Obama was given an honorary doctorate. In fact, Moss’s despicable attempt to discredit those who died rather than renounce their faith is nothing more than a cryptic gloss on the latest episode in Notre Dame’s ongoing saga of rebellion against Church authority, the one which began when Theodore Hesburgh stole the university from the Church by issuing the Land ‘o Lakes statement in 1967.

  62. robtbrown says:

    Fr Aug Thompson op says,

    This is what happens when theologians try to do history. History dances to ideology. Watch out!

    Change “theologians” to “ideologues”, and I’ll agree with you.

  63. robtbrown says:

    Orthodox Chick,

    I recommend Vandalia’s comments.

  64. robtbrown says:

    A. There are 3 basic positions on private property:
    1. It is a natural and absolute right
    2. It is a natural but relative right
    3. It is not a natural right.

    The second is the Church’s position. The third is Marxist.

    B. The Early Church in Jerusalem practiced communal property. And other Christians in other places took up a collection to support those in Jerusalem.

  65. av8er says:

    There was too much white from her eyes showing in the first vid which was scary. She cleaned up on O’Reilly’s show.
    I like Bill, though he can come off rough around the edges. As someone who grew up on Long Island, it doesn’t bother me. There’s lots of bravado and machismo on the Island. I’ve read many of his books and he does a great deal of charity work. When guns come up as the topic, he has no idea what he’s talking about.

  66. donato2 says:

    In a Daily Beast column, Moss slammed O’Reilly for not mentioning the free health care offered by Jesus. [?!?]”

    On this point, Moss is absolutely correct. For example, Jesus healed, free of charge so far as I can tell, a Roman Centurion’s servant. Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. The New Testament has many other similar examples of “free health care” (although those of little or no faith typically didn’t qualify under the plan).

  67. StWinefride says:

    I read somewhere that she is English. “Candida,” while it is not a common name in England, is met with much more frequently there, than here.

    True, and the journalist Candida Crewe comes to mind. However wrong this lady may be, I think it’s very uncharitable and mean to make fun of her name.

  68. Tom says:

    Can I order her book on Amazon. I presume it is free of charge.

  69. cdet1997 says:

    As if my alma mater’s football team wasn’t embarrassing enough. Her position in the ND theology department reminds me that the freshman theo prof I had was an episcopal minister. Sigh.

    I think St. Louis, St. Edward the Confessor, St. Margaret of Scotland, St. Thomas More, and St. Katherine Drexel would all be surprised to hear their wealth kept them out of heaven.

    As for Dr. Moss’s pleas for socialism, I wonder if she’s read Centesimus Annus. Call me crazy, but ill side with the person who’s lived through and personally suffered from socialism over a theorist whose views are fostered in the ivory towers.

  70. polycarped says:

    Moss has the most weird accent, bouncing between very English English to American style in a Gollum-esque kind of way – not to mention her constant arm-flapping. She’s clearly a bit mixed up…

  71. Muv says:

    Hear hear, St. Winefride!

    Candida is a name that is most likely to be found amongst upper middle class, privately educated girls. The fact that she has referred to herself as a “recusant,” presumably descended from an English recusant family, speaks volumes. Yes, class exists here, and accents and names make it an easy code to read for the natives.

    Plenty of saints to address our concerns to. Miss Moss needs our prayers.

    http://sainttweet.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/st-candida/ be sure to click on the link there to Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints

    Plenty of choice – Roman Martyr, Carthaginian Virgin Martyr, obscure saint buried in Dorset, the recently canonised Foundress of the Daughters of Jesus who devoted her life to the education of girls. Take your pick everyone.

  72. jflare says:

    “’No serious Catholic should send their child there, and it can’t be cheap to sit in a classroom and listen to this nincompoops opinion, or any of the other hoity toity heretics Notre Dame employs.’

    ‘No, it’s not perfect, but ill-informed comments such as the one made above are inaccurate at best and malicious at worst.'”

    I must sternly disagree with you, ndmom. If the degree of outrage or scorn in Kathleen’s comment wasn’t strictly needed, we might be bothered to consider the overall track record that Notre Dame–and other Catholic schools–have demonstrated.
    Whether it’s the act of offering a clearly pro-abortion President an honorary law degree at commencement, an act of covering crosses with something else so the President doesn’t appear with anything religious, or any of a number of other acts of..indiscretion..I’m not so sure that anyone can consider a Catholic school to be likely to willingly instill a Catholic identity. These past many years, Notre Dame and others seem rather more interested in demonstrating..something else.

    I’ve visited the campus of Notre Dame twice. Granted, in both cases, it was about 5:30 AM in January, with Mass at 6, then onward across the country to end up in Washington D.C.. ..Then to the March for Life. We had a pretty tight itinerary, so I didn’t get to tour the place much. And, the basilica IS beautiful.
    I’m saddened to say though, I honestly half-felt myself to be walking onto enemy territory anyway. Sure, the church was pretty, but when the school seems more interested in being impressive to secular interests, not in being passionately Catholic in public, I’m forced to question whether I would ever want my kids (assuming I ever marry or raise kids) to attend. I think I’d want to have a VERY close look at most everything.

    It may well be that Notre Dame and other Catholic schools have been–and are–determined to teach Catholic values and practice.
    But that is NOT the view that most of us get from living our lives. Notre Dame and other schools aren’t dunces, they must surely know how many perceive them. They COULD make efforts to correct these perceptions. That they don’t seem to say much of anything..says quite a little that I wish I didn’t have to admit.

    If I’m skeptical of academia in general, I’m afraid I’m all the more skeptical of Catholic schools. When they should be showing the way toward holiness and virtue, too often they seem too interested in satisfying..”modern” ideas.

  73. JonPatrick says:

    The comments about “free health care” by Jesus miss the purpose of Jesus healing in the Gospels. For example, the parable of the paralytic lowered through the roof, Jesus is drawing a comparison between physically healing someone and healing them spiritually, using the healing miracles to show he does have the authority to forgive sins and thereby spiritually heal as well.

    While it is unfortunate that someone like Ms Moss could become tenured faculty at a Catholic University, I am encouraged by what ndmom says. Perhaps things aren’t so black and white, and ND reflects the situation in the Church as a whole. It’s not surprising the Land O Lakes statement that started the bringing in of these kinds of teachers happened at the same time as much looniness began to affect the Church as a whole.

  74. Scott W. says:

    On this point, Moss is absolutely correct. For example, Jesus healed, free of charge so far as I can tell, a Roman Centurion’s servant. Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. The New Testament has many other similar examples of “free health care”

    I agree. I’d also point out that miraculous healings were actually free. Pure gratuity. The “free health care” she’s talking about isn’t free it all, just someone else pays for it and in our case, without any regard for human dignity, co-operation with evil, or subsidiarity.

  75. The Masked Chicken says:

    In the free software world, we make a distinction between, “free, as in beer,” and “free, as in freedom.”

    The Chicken

  76. Theo-Philo SWO says:

    I completely agree with ndmom. As a recent graduate of Notre Dame (2009) with an undergraduate degree in Theology, I will say unequivocally that I was able to receive a very orthodox Theology education there. The public face of ND Theology is usually professors like Fr. McBrien and Dr. Moss and, yes, there certainly are several other theological dingbats there, both of which are unfortunate. However, coming in to college with a strong background in my faith (and with my radar on the lookout for heretic professors behind every rock), I was pleasantly surprised to find some of the most orthodox, intelligent, and approachable professors, both religious and lay, were to be found in that department which usually gets such a bad rap publically. Occasionally I had to be careful not to take a class with certain professors, but it was not hard to get a solid Catholic education from the faculty in the department if you knew the people to avoid (and that was common knowledge).

    Because of the direct influence of professors in the Theology department, from my group of friends alone, I can think of at least 10 religious vocations being discerned currently, not to mention the great public witness of several young, orthodox, happy couples that can’t wait to raise large families and share their faith with the world. No, the University does not always make the most prudent decisions (even scandalous ones) and I do not condone those at all. However, the claim that it is impossible to get an orthodox Catholic education at Notre Dame only demonstrates a complete lack of real understanding or experience with the University at all.

  77. MikeM says:

    Whether ndmom is right about Notre Dame or not (and I have little doubt that she is), I find the suggestion that a Catholic parent is under some obligation to ensure that their 18-22 year old “child” doesn’t encounter any heterodox views in college somewhat preposterous. Really? Don’t bother sending your kids for a liberal arts degree at all, then.

  78. jflare says:

    “However, the claim that it is impossible to get an orthodox Catholic education at Notre Dame only demonstrates a complete lack of real understanding or experience with the University at all.”

    I must say, this sounds like an argument that my alma mater, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, might make regarding the value of the education that many receive from them. ..And I must disagree every bit as firmly.

    We can probably agree that we each received a worthwhile education from our respective schools, you from Notre Dame, me from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Arguably, we both did so in spite of a few loony professors and weirdos in our respective administrations. Fine.

    Here’s the problem: In both cases, we had a reasonably decent background in the faith, so we succeeded in receiving a decent education by means of ignoring a great deal of rubbish. In both cases, even though our respective schools are well known and well respected, even though we paid good money for certain expectations, yet we still had a need to ignore a fair portion of what we heard because..it was rubbish. ..And we had to take the time to discern it to BE..rubbish.

    Given the degree of bilge I’ve heard in civil life these past 20 years, I have little choice but to concede that UN-L had little reason to be terribly more forgiving toward faith. But Notre Dame?? Other schools?? Here we have schools that propose themselves as great sources of education, yet not only do some of us (like myself) not even realize that these schools are (at least tacitly) Catholic, but then we discover that they’re only vaguely aiming to provide a genuinely Catholic face to the public?

    Sure, a few will understand the lunacy, but many others will not. Our “beloved” professor in this case may wind up misleading large numbers of people, precisely by virtue of her status as a tenured professor at a (occasionally) self-proclaimed Catholic school.
    Or, if you would consider it from a different angle: If Notre Dame wants to provide a Catholic education, she’ll likely need lots of..young, eager, Catholic..students to attend.
    If I were a high school senior right now, I should think I might want to reconsider whether Notre Dame REALLY seems the best place to go. If I must face the possibility of actually being required to take a course from this person–it may be unavoidable in some cases–do I REALLY want to spend my parents hard-earned cash to learn there?
    Maybe not.

    Certainly we can agree that there’ll always be some idiocy in academia; there will always be some in every institution that involves human beings. Fine. But I should think we’d be VERY concerned about what sort of public face a university tries to present.
    If they’re interested in being distinctly Catholic, ..they’d do very well to re-write their public affairs playbook a LOT!

  79. ndmom says:

    “However, the claim that it is impossible to get an orthodox Catholic education at Notre Dame only demonstrates a complete lack of real understanding or experience with the University at all.”

    Amen. It’s unfortunate that people feel free to make sweeping judgments regarding the University and its suitability for serious Catholics after having walked through the campus a few times, holding their noses lest they be contaminated by the enemy territory. Those of us on the ground here know perfectly well that Notre Dame is struggling with some grave challenges to its Catholic identity, but we are also willing to roll up our sleeves and help solve them rather than casting aspersions from afar. And because of that involvement, we are able to influence matters behind the scenes to help strengthen the mission. There are MANY serious Catholics who have joined the faculty in recent years, in part because of the heroic efforts of donors, administrators, faculty, and alumni to recruit them away from secular universities. There are more than 100 Masses on campus each week, most of them very well-attended, and there are always students in line for confession at the Basilica before daily Mass. There are a lot of good things happening here amid the nonsense, and you are all welcome to come visit any time to see them for yourself.

  80. ArtND76 says:

    As you might guess from my handle, I went there in the mid-70’s. I come from a strong Catholic family in a majority Catholic town, was an altar boy, attended a minor seminary camp to discern whether I had a calling to the priesthood, spent a fair amount of time around the rectory with the priests (and there was NO sexual behavior there at all, deviant or otherwise), who were generous, good men mentoring boys in the proper things of manhood.

    That all turned around when I attended ND. Yes, there were loads of Mass celebrations then, too. Lots of confession as well. Trouble is, I didn’t know that most of the priests at that time preached a modernist revisionism similar in some ways to Dr. Moss’ revisionism of church history and teaching. There was a big social justice crowd at ND then. I still cringe when I hear the words “social justice” coming out of a Catholic’s mouth due to the twisted political views masquerading as Catholic social teaching many at ND meant by them. There were some orthodox theology professors back then as well – but they weren’t the ones trumpeted in the forefront. The naive, and I was naive back then, could be unluckily sucked into only hearing heresy instead of sound Catholic doctrine. It led me toward atheism before God intervened in a sovereign way.

    I have not given ND a dime since graduation. I still see no disavowal of the “Land O’Lakes” declaration by the administration of the University. Until I do, I don’t think I will be contributing either money or students to the place. Seeing Dr. Moss on O’Reilly just brought back all the old memories I had of my first naive years there – and indicated to me that not much has changed.

  81. ChristianO says:

    For anyone who may be interested, there is a terrific alumni-driven organization — The Sycamore Trust — working hard to preserve and nourish Notre Dame’s true Catholic identity and to defend her against the encroachments of secularization and heterodoxy:


  82. SpesUnica says:

    Art, with all due respect to you as my elder, both in life and in the faith, I must disagree. A lot HAS changed since you were around ND, and though I lament the bad experiences you had there, I would encourage you to not disparage young and zealous Catholics when they tell you that the tide in the war for ND’s Catholic Identity is turning. It’s not perfect, there is A LOT of work left to do, but I really do believe that things are getting better.

    Notre Dame (and I am SICK of this “Notre Shame” nonsense. That is a fantastic way of closing yourself to further learning, and certainly from any listening. I find it ironic that there are people who work so hard on this site to encourage a hermeneutic of charity when reading the Holy Father’s sometimes confusing statements while baldly espousing a hermeneutic of scorn towards one of the most influential Catholic institutions in the U.S.)

    Of course people will have a negative view of the university when the only news they read about it is the unfortunate things that do happen from time to time. It creates a slanted understanding when you only hear one side of the issues. You of course almost never hear about the wonderful things that are going on here, the fantastic hires (see Patrick Deneen, for just one example), or that some of the world’s best Catholic scholars are here (Meier, Cavadini, Daley, who are good enough to be quoted by BXVI, awarded a Papal Knighthood, and awarded the Ratzinger Prize, respectively).

    There is a lot of work to be done, sure, but so is there in every other corner of the Church, too, and in each of our hearts, I would dare to say. ND is a microcosm of the U.S. Catholic Church, for all that means, good and bad. Has the administration apologized for the ObamaDrama? No. Should they? Yes. But must that happen for us to move on? Sometimes actions should be interpreted as acknowledgments of missteps. Which is what I take from Fr. Jenkins starting to take the time to come to the March for Life with the ND Right to Life club (which is HUGE and very active, as is the campus KofC chapter), and pumping money into the new Pro-Life Initiatives group. Would I have preferred sackcloth and ashes? I dunno, maybe?

    If there is a slow but strong renewal happening in some corners of the Church, why is it so hard to believe that it might be happening at ND, too? I’m biased, no doubt. I have two degrees from ND. But I think I can back my argument up against anyone, because I’m here every day and I see it. If you want another helpful barometer, take a look at ND’s founding order, the Congregation of Holy Cross. The U.S. Province has 53 men in formation, and currently has the largest class of novices in 20 years. The habit even looks to be making a comeback.

    There will be nay-sayers. Some are even helpful, when they serve as guards of conscience and work to make improvements, like Project Sycamore. But to the rest, if you haven’t been here, you, frankly, don’t know what you’re talking about.

  83. Ichabod says:

    A little late to the party, sorry.

    The consensus that Candida Moss is a poor excuse for a professor, especially at Notre Dame, is supported by ample evidence – her own statements and writings. Notre Dame should get rid of her. In Notre Dame’s defense, however, they have over 1,000 professors and 70 in the theology department alone. Here blondeness must have blind sighted someone there, and there are probably nut jobs in every department. Notre Dame is not perfect; however they are not deserving of the sweeping attacks based on events dating back years and decades ago. TODAY, Notre Dame is the only Catholic University in the Top 20, has over 100 campus masses each Sunday, including a TLM in Alumni Hall every Sunday. Confessions,exposition of the blessed sacrament, rosaries, vespers, all well attended. The choir for the 10 am Mass in the Basilica (in the novus ordo) sings Gregorian Chant and Latin hymns. Moreau Seminary on campus has over 50 seminarians currently. The pro-life environment is strong from faculty to students — building many positives out of the mistake of inviting Obama back in ’09. Heck, ND was one of the first to sue the Obama Administration over the HHS mandate. The Cardinal Newman Society in September described ND’s pro-life community as “one of the largest pro-life student organizations in the country, as well as one of the most active and innovative.”

  84. ArtND76 says:

    To ChristianO and Ichabod:
    I completely agree that there are alumni and student organizations at ND that are wonderfully, completely Christian, Catholic, in complete alignment with our Mother the Church. I submit that ND has always had these. In the ND administration however, starting with Hesburgh, in my opinion not so much…

    There always have been a lot of Masses at ND, so the student population has the opportunity to be well sacramentalized. The open question is: how well evangelized are they? I have sadly known many daily Mass attendees, the most active of parishioners, that have no personal relationship with their God. I am not the only one to notice this in the general Catholic population at large. The book “Forming Intentional Disciples” by Sherry A. Weddell (published by OSV) describes the same situation with statistics to back it up. What her book does is merely confirm what I have observed for nearly 40 years.
    How can the ND administration be considered anything more than sacramentalized, but not evangelized, when they do not immediately disavow the rebellious nature of the “Land O’Lakes” declaration? What true Catholic Christian could possibly see the need to be “independent” of the direction of the Church founded by God? This is what that document proclaims – and proudly!
    So yes, I agree that there are many good and faithful fully Catholic alumni, students and faculty at ND. The same could be said of Texas A & M, a secular state university. The administration is the issue, and they are the ones with the power to hire and fire faculty like Dr. Moss.

  85. Imrahil says:

    Dear @ArtND76, without commenting on the rest of what you wrote,

    I have sadly known many daily Mass attendees, the most active of parishioners, that have no personal relationship with their God.

    This means that they are too shy too say they have, or don’t particularly understand the concept. There is some sense in answering the question “what is Jesus for you” with, “well, he’s Jesus Christ, the Son of God, what in all the world do you want me to answer?”

  86. ndmom says:


    I know lots of people who attend daily Mass, but I don’t know them well enough to judge the state of their “personal relationship” with God. I can’t read their souls. All I know about most of them is that they sacrifice time from their family and work responsibilities to receive our Lord in the Eucharist and perhaps spend a few moments in silent prayer before dashing back into the world.

  87. jflare says:

    “Notre Dame is not perfect; however they are not deserving of the sweeping attacks based on events dating back years and decades ago.”

    I will, again, sternly disagree with this assessment. I”m glad to hear that Notre Dame has set about to allow for the various efforts you mention. I didn’t know such things might be allowed. That’s a pleasant surprise.

    ..And that’s precisely the point!

    It’s one thing for an alum or someone else connected with ND to be able to highlight all the great things that’re happening on campus. It’s quite another for such things to be known about the school because the administration of the school makes a point to emphasize these characteristics. I remember the idiocy associated with commencement a few years ago, I have no other prominent knowledge of the school’s efforts to cause me to re-evaluate my appraisal.

    I also take issue with the view that Ms. Moss might be only 1 professor out of 1,000, or even out of 70, thus the administrators don’t know much about her. I understand this lady to be a full fledged professor with a PhD; she’s not an assistant or a visitor they don’t know. She’s a member of a body of people that likely doesn’t change too quickly. Even with 1,000 professors, I should think that the head of the school has almost certainly met her at least socially at least once; I think it likely that the head of her department knows her views VERY well. I’m sure they have their reasons for why they choose to keep her employed there.
    I’m also confident that such reasons might well explain why many of us have learned to have a somewhat jaundiced view of the school.

    If they want us all to consider Notre Dame to be a place we should all think of with awe and reverence, a place of virtue, the administration certainly has the means of making it so.
    Unfortunately, the state of what I have heard (or not) from the school doesn’t lend itself to a positive view.

  88. ndmom says:

    “I”m glad to hear that Notre Dame has set about to allow for the various efforts you mention. I didn’t know such things might be allowed. That’s a pleasant surprise.

    ..And that’s precisely the point!”

    Exactly. The point is that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, and you haven’t made any effort to learn what is really happening at Notre Dame, beyond what may reach your attention from third parties. Yet you “sternly disagree” with the statements made by those who DO know what they are talking about, because they conflict with your preconceived notion that Notre Dame is “enemy territory.”

  89. ArtND76 says:

    To Imrahil & ndmom:
    About the comments I made concerning daily Mass attendees: when I say I know someone such as a daily Mass attendee, I mean I have spoken with them regularly over many years and the conversations weren’t just about things like the weather. Do I “judge” whether they are heaven bound or not? Of course not! God alone is the judge of us all – in that sense. BUT, BUT… Do I “judge” whether or not their beliefs conform to the teachings of the Church – of course I do! How else do I love them in charity and truth (to borrow a line from Benedict XVI)? Do I endeavor to be sure I am not the one with the wrong idea about Church teaching? Absolutely! My goal is not self righteousness – that is worthless. My goal is to obey my Lord’s words in John 13:34, 15:12 & 15:17. So if I am not sure, I say nothing and pray. If I am sure, I look for an opportunity to exercise gently effective charity, starting with prayer.

  90. jflare says:

    “The point is that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, and you haven’t made any effort to learn what is really happening at Notre Dame, beyond what may reach your attention from third parties.”

    Sadly, ndmom, I do know what I’m talking about.
    Remember that Notre Dame, as an institution, has the responsibility for considering their own public image. If they wish for the general public–Catholics included–to know about their distinctively Catholic identity and activities, they certainly have means available for making those intentions clear.
    Unfortunately, I have seen little or nothing from them that makes me think I should be anything besides very nervous about visiting them.
    They do not appear terribly concerned about scandal they’ve inflicted.

  91. SpesUnica says:

    “They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”
    ? C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  92. Pingback: Candida Moss on the Socialist Jesus | Ideas of a University

Comments are closed.