Why Buy the Cow???

I just couldn’t pass up commenting on this but it hardly needs an ocean of ink.  

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-leaked-e-mails-show-george-soros-paid-to-influence-bishops-during

Can I just say that this is the worst money Soros ever spent?!  I mean, seriously, Archbishop Cupich and Bishop McElroy would have done exactly what Soros wanted for free and have on multiple occasions.  Doesn’t Soros have researchers???  Personally, I’m surprised they didn’t ask Soros for help.

 

Drop That Cross & Follow Your Desires

Fr. Martin, SJ, before his silent retreat, made this suggestion: “Check out this really interesting new site on US Catholic on ‘daring, persistent, stubborn and defiant Catholic women.’”  Here’s the link to it. https://uscatholic.atavist.com/unexpectedwomen.  At first I thought “Wow!  Sounds like the site for me!” (Although I was pretty sure it wasn’t, based on the person suggesting it.) Sure enough, I found it quite a letdown.  Definitely false advertising.  Nothing but a bunch of jealous misandrists.  That is hardly the description of the “Unexpected Women.”  We’re surrounded by narcissistic women.  Totally expected it.

Let’s just look at the first article: https://uscatholic.atavist.com/unexpectedwomen#chapter-1283032

Woman, come down from your cross!

Woman Offered No. 5

By Diana Hayes

From time immemorial, women, of all races and ethnicities, of all classes, have been nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ. Willingly, even eagerly, some have climbed up and hung, believing that in doing so their sacrifice of love, their martyrdom, will protect them, their families, and especially their children. Others, unwilling and unasked, have been forced onto their crosses by those they love and by the societies in which they live, again for their own protection and the good of society. In reality, they are crucified solely because they are women and that, the world teaches, is the role of women—to sacrifice themselves, their hopes, dreams, and aspirations for everyone.

What century is she living in?!  Plus, that’s not even factually correct.  Last time I checked, we’ve been marking time long before God became flesh.  She seems to be intimating that this was wrong of women to take up their crosses.  I seemed to remember somebody famous saying that was a good thing.  What an archaic thought!

Any woman who chooses another way, seeking to serve God in her own right, is condemned as “unnatural,” prideful, and even persecuted as a witch.

What in the h-e-double-hockey sticks is she talking about?!  When was the last time a witch was persecuted around these parts, and why, again, does she assume that someone who chooses to take up a cross is not serving God in their own right?!?

Quite frankly, if you are rejecting your crosses in life, you aren’t serving God.  Who are you serving?  Oh, yourself.  This whole article is just a blatant misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Church, crosses, salvation, and women.  I’m sure I could throw in a few more things, too. Yet this is coming from a woman who is also a Georgetown professor. Who is making her sacrifice her “hopes, dreams, and aspirations” again?

Come down from the cross! If Jesus were to return today, would these not be some of the first words he would say to our world? “Come down; stop sacrificing yourselves for your alleged sins and those of others. It is no sin to be a woman; it is a grace, given by God. I died so that no one, no one, would ever have to suffer the cruel pain of crucifixion, of dying, hanging from a tree, stabbed, starved, laughed at, and derided. Come down off that cross, now! Do not wait for others to take you down; you have the right and the ability to stop your suffering yourself! Come Down!”

One has to wonder if Ms. Hayes has even picked up a Bible?  Does she remember who uttered the words, “Come down from your cross!”?  Let’s take a look at Mark 15:29-32:

29 The passers-by blasphemed against him, shaking their heads; Come now, they said, thou who wouldst destroy the temple and build it up in three days, 30 come down from that cross, and rescue thyself. 31 In the same way, the chief priests and scribes said mockingly to one another, He saved others, he cannot save himself. 32 Let Christ, the king of Israel, come down from the cross, here and now, so that we can see it and believe in him. And the men who were crucified with him uttered taunts against him.

Is that really who she thinks we should be?  The blasphemer, a chief priests or scribe, or the unrepentant?  Yep.  Sounds about right for her and her dinner club.

Too many women have been “surrogate sufferers,’ forced to live lives of sacrifice and self-effacement for the supposed good of others, especially their men, rather than being able to freely choose paths of their own making, lives of their own choosing, futures of their own desiring. They have been placed on crosses, however they may be named, that imprison rather than liberate, that impede rather than promote, that weaken rather than empower, and that cripple rather than strengthen. Motherhood and martyrdom, the virgin or the whore, these have been the extremely limited roles available to women. Any woman who chooses another way, seeking to serve God in her own right, whether by remaining single but not in religious life, by seeking further education beyond domestic skills or approved women’s fields that initially, like nursing and teaching, were also forbidden to them, is condemned as “unnatural,” prideful, and even persecuted as a witch.

Where do I begin on this paragraph???  I mean, it’s just ugly and full of jealousy and bitterness. It shows someone who has a problem realizing we live in the 21st century.  In the eyes of the Church, women have NEVER had limited roles.  Uh, hello, does Our Lady ring a bell?

Ms. Hayes, if you want t follow your own desire, you’re totally free to do so, but, I’m warning you, it’ll probably lead you to be even more bitter than you already are.  That’s saying something, since it’s clear to see you’ve been there for a while.  Why don’t you try looking a bit into history?  We have saints who were queens, soldiers, doctors (not just of the Church), teachers, former prostitutes, nurses, etc.  Not only that, the Church urges us to be saints no matter what profession we have.  Do we have a woman day trader or CEO canonized yet?  Nope, although Mother Teresa was one heck of a CEO.  I must have missed the Church saying “Oh, you’re a woman CEO.  You must quit or be burned at the stake!”

So what is she realllllllyyyyy trying to say?  Likely the same old canard.  The Church is made up of misogynist old men who won’t let women be in the priesthood, perhaps? I mean, where did the Church try to persecute her as a witch?

The cross has become historically not a symbol of a once-and-for-all freely given sacrifice of life and love but a punishment for women, the poor, persons of color, all and any who dare to be different because they are born different, as we all are born.

And that pretty much shows your misunderstanding, Ms. Hayes.  First of all, you’re pretty much a privileged priss.  You do realize that Christians in the Middle East are being hung on actual crosses for the Faith these days, don’t you?  It’s not a symbol for them nor for us.  Our cross might look far different from theirs but it’s the same one Christ spoke of when he said:

 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matt 16:24)

Remember that little verse, Ms. Hayes?  It’s kind of a biggie.

Those historically marginalized and made voiceless in our world, the majority of whom are women, must now step down from the cross. This is not why Jesus died and rose again. He died and rose again to give life, not take it away. He died to open up our lives to their limitless possibilities and not to restrict them by negativity, self-doubt, or fear.

It’s quite clear you don’t understand the difference between this temporal life and everlasting life.  Your entire existence is based on 80 or so years on this earth.  You’re not even close to seeing the end game.  It’s all me, me, me.  Heaven forbid people “die to themselves.”  That’s just an oppressive notion, in your eyes.  Sorry, babe, that’s the most freeing notion there is!  Notice those being martyred today.  Some of them even go to their deaths smiling.  They know what awaits for dying for the Faith.

Women have been condemned for their intelligence, for their sexuality, for their emotions, all gifts given to them in their creation by a God of love and compassion. God created women not as scapegoats or footstools, not as baby-making machines or mindless beings, robots without wills of their own.

Who again thinks this?  It’s not the men who follow the Church.  Get the chip off your shoulder, woman.  This isn’t the problem of the Church, it’s the problem of SOCIETY where men are seen as objects.  This is not so in the Church. And yet you are the one who’s urging people to throw off those oppressive chains of the Church and go worldly.  Banner idea.

No. God created woman to work in solidarity with God’s other creation, man; to stand alongside and not in back or in front of him, to care for all of God’s creation. Both creation stories confirm this. The first chapter of Genesis states that God created male and female at the same time as the pinnacle of God’s creation (Gen 1:26), to nurture and sustain it, not to dominate or destroy it. But many know nothing of this story because the emphasis of Christian churches has always been on the story of Adam and Eve.

OK, can we go back to her lack of Bible reading?  Where does she get this stuff??? The creation of the animals and the creation of man weren’t the same AT ALL.  Yes, God created the animals male and female “at the same time”, but humans?  We were special.  Not quite sure why there’s a problem with emphasizing the story of Adam and Eve, since they were, after all, humans who, unlike animals, were infused with a soul and made in the image of God and giving FREE WILL!. Yeah, not quite the same as the animals.

Even there we do not find a mandate for woman to be submissive to the will of man. Both are meant to submit to the will of God and both fail to do so, in their own way. Eve is Adam’s help-mate, a term too often misinterpreted as servant or slave, rather than one who works in harmony with him as an equal. They do not have ownership of each other or of God’s creation; they are stewards, not masters. They have the ability, by the grace of God, to think for themselves and, in doing so, as many of us finite humans continue to do to this day, they strayed from God’s path. They were punished by banishment but they were not cursed.

OK, let’s stop right there.  People have got to stop paraphrasing Bible and read it in context and in its entirety.  Let’s take a look, shall we?

16 To the woman he said, Many are the pangs, many are the throes I will give thee to endure; with pangs thou shalt give birth to children, and thou shalt be subject to thy husband; he shall be thy lord. 17 And to Adam he said, Thou hast listened to thy wife’s counsel, and hast eaten the fruit I forbade thee to eat; and now, through thy act, the ground is under a curse. All the days of thy life thou shalt win food from it with toil; 18 thorns and thistles it shall yield thee, this ground from which thou dost win thy food. 19 Still thou shalt earn thy bread with the sweat of thy brow, until thou goest back into the ground from which thou wast taken; dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 16-19)

Tell me again how women aren’t to be submissive to their husbands?

…thou shalt be subject to thy husband; he shall be thy lord.

Subject and lord, Ms. Hayes.

More important, their banishment freed them to create life themselves in their own image and likeness and that of God’s, again by the compassionate grace of God. They were freed to cultivate the land, to attain knowledge of themselves and the world around them. In other words, they were freed to be human. Eve was not the source of evil or the gateway to hell. She was and continues to be the source of life as we have come to know it in its purest and fullest sense.

Holy misinterpretation of the Bible, Batman!  Freed them??????? At this point I’ve got to wonder how much they wasted paying this lady at Georgetown.  I ‘ve got to think that she cannot possibly be this stupid and that she’s totally trying to change reality for her own end game.

Freed them?! They already had free will and they blew it.  They had it all – everlasting life, love, no pain, no toil, no sin, and they threw it away when they gave into sin. They become subject to the effects of their sin. It wasn’t freeing AT ALL.  Please, for goodness sake, re-read it again and stop spewing this insane garbage to your readers and the poor students of Georgetown when you visit!  You’re being the serpent all over again!

God created woman to work in solidarity with God’s other creation, man; to stand alongside and not in back or in front of him, to care for all of God’s creation.

And we humans ruined that from the get go when we chose to follow Satan rather than God’s commands.

Women are the bearers of life and culture. They tell the stories, sing the songs, reweave the tapestries of our lives, and pass on knowledge of life and the world around them to all of humanity. Their gifts should be celebrated rather than condemned, rewarded rather than punished, proclaimed rather than ignored. Jesus himself proclaimed in Mark 14:9 of the unknown woman who anointed him, “I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

And?  Where has the Church said anything to the contrary?  Again, Ms. Hayes will be playing the role of the serpent in today’s over dramatization.

The gospel has been preached for two millennia, but somehow this passage has been ignored, in much the same way that the role of women in Jesus’ ministry and their proclaiming of the gospel message have been ignored. Instead, we hear only of women who are sinners or martyrs, virgins or whores. Where are the real women living real lives of love, friendship, study, writing, preaching, prophesying, dancing, praying, and singing? We know little of them.

Wow!  This babe is bitter! The question is, just who is she bitter with?  The Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?  Seems like the only one focusing on “martyrs, virgins or whores” is her, judging by how she likes to put forth that list every chance she gets.  Maybe she should try reading the lives of the Saints.  Methinks she’s missed a whole bunch of them.  Also, what does she mean by “real women?”  Are the Saints suddenly now all made up?  Sorry, Ms. Hayes.  They were all real women, some of who led extra-ordinary lives and some who led really ordinary lives but transformed them with their love of God.  Your depiction of them is, well, sad.

Women, of every race and nation, have carried the weight of the world on their shoulders from time immemorial. They have suffered long enough for the sins and failings of everyone. It is time, long past time, for them to come down from the cross and walk freely into new life, a life of possibility, not pain, of progress, not false failures. This does not mean that they can walk away from responsibility toward themselves and others but that they have the freedom to choose for themselves the paths they should take, the lives they should lead, the tapestries they will weave. All adults, male and female, should be free to choose. They are free to envision different possibilities for themselves and, therefore, for those they love.

Didn’t she say this already?  Can someone explain free will, crosses, and suffering to this lady?  I cannot believe the theology people at Georgetown! (Who am I kidding?  Yes, I can!) My junior high children can probably explain a few things to them.

Woman! Come down from that cross! It is not yours to bear. Jesus was nailed to the cross, died, and rose again, making the cross a symbol of resurrection, not of pain or death. Life up your head, look the world straight in the eye, and come down from the cross to take up your life as God’s beloved, weaving a new world, free of pain and suffering, hatred, prejudice and discrimination, oppression and marginalization, into a new, complex, and fruitful life.

Come down!

How poetic and Toni Morrison sounding, and yet, oh so not Catholic and contradictory.  If, as she says, the cross is “a symbol of resurrection, not of pain or death”, why WOULDN’T you want to unite yourself with it?!? Why would you want to leave it behind you?  Make up your mind! I wish blog posts had an easy way to insert sound effects.  I think I would add retching here.  I’ll just sum it up with GAG!

It really doesn’t surprise me in the least Fr. James Martin, SJ likes this drivel but I wish he devotees would open their eyes for just a second and maybe study Catholicism all on their own.  I think they’d actually be shocked, after years of following people like Martin, Hayes, et. al., that there is a really different Catholic Church out there than what has been put forth to them.  Develop a brain for yourself people.  Read the Bible.  Read the Catechism.  Read the documents of the Church. Martin and Hayes have a little problem doing so. Please don’t take the word of Fr. James Martin, SJ and ilk.  It’ll just make you as bitter as they are. Look for yourself and see the true freedom Christ offers through the Church.

 

Finger-Wagging Fest!

I thought Catholic University of America was getting better, but they’ve got this guy as a visiting fellow?  Let’s hope he’s not visiting that long.

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/archbishop-chaputs-regrettable-column

“My column this week is a collection of personal comments,” Archbishop Charles Chaput begins his weekly column in his archdiocesan newspaper. “Read it as thoughts from a brother in the faith, not as teachings from an archbishop.” I wonder if all the “brothers in the faith” in the City of Brotherly Love get to have their “personal comments” so widely distributed? Of course, at no time is a bishop not a bishop, or a priest not a priest, so the idea that he can take off his miter and share “personal comments” is naïve at best.

Um, Mr. Winters, you just kind of annoy me, for starters.  Next, bishops can very well give you their personal thoughts in a public forum.  Do you think that, once the miter goes on, they must keep their mouths closed?  Give me a break.  Distribution matters little.  He was presenting no formal teaching nor telling anyone who they should vote for.  

This disclaimer raises a different question though: Why? Why does Archbishop Chaput feel the need to share these thoughts on politics which he seems to understand are not a fit object for his teaching authority? Does he think they are profound? Did he have trouble coming up with something to write about this week? Is there something that makes him crave controversy? This last characteristic is not a bad trait in a blogger, but in a bishop?

Really, Mr. Winters?  You may or may not receive spiritual guidance in temporal matters, but a lot of the faithful do.  Do you know how many times I’ve seen “What are we supposed to do?!?!” asked of our spiritual fathers?  It’s come up almost every time I’ve seen a priest since the major party candidates were locked down.  Does he really “crave controversy”, Mr.  Winters, or does he just not shy away from it, unlike some? 

Let’s just be honest.  You want to play the usual National catholic Reporter game of trying to silence an orthodox spiritual leader who takes his duty seriously, while you get to keep flapping your gums.  A good chunk of us see through this little game.

When we attend to the content of the archbishop’s column the questions and concerns deepen and multiply. Archbishop Chaput writes:

“Presidential campaigns typically hit full stride after Labor Day in an election year. But 2016 is a year in which two prominent Catholics – a sitting vice president, and the next vice presidential nominee of his party — both seem to publicly ignore or invent the content of their Catholic faith as they go along.”

And your internal drama is what??? Oh, yeah, he’s calling them on their garbage.  I’m sure that does deepen and multiply your concerns and ruin your plans.

My inner editor wishes to know what the first and second sentence have to do with one another. My inner analyst wants to know why Archbishop Chaput begins his column taking a swipe at Joe Biden and Tim Kaine? Did he hear Tim Kaine talk about the importance of faith in his life? Has he ever spoken with Biden about his faith? That faith may be in error as it pertains to some issues of public morality but the faith of these two men is undoubtedly real and important to them.

Wait!  Let’s just pause right there.  Some issues?  Important to them?  When you hold a faith dear, you usually adhere to it.  The Catholic faith isn’t their little toy.  It has nice set rules.  One can adhere to them, or one can chuck them at will, which is exactly what Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber do.  Please understand, Mr.  Winters, (and you’d think you wouldn’t have to have this explained to you since you are a “visiting fellow at Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies”) Mr. Kaine and Mr. Biden have delineated, most publicly, their dissent from Catholic teaching.  Nobody has to talk to them personally and hear from them how important their faith is when they’ve already spewed their driveling dissent.

Like Archbishop Chaput, I wish Kaine and Biden extended their obvious concern for the downtrodden to the unborn, but I can also discern the reasons they fail to do so, and those reasons do not add up to an “invention” of the content of their faith. They see the public application of their faith differently, and I think wrongly, but they are hardly charlatans.

Dude!  That’s the definition of an invention of the faith.  You are not FAITHFUL (that’s “full of faith”, in case you were unaware) to the Catholic Church if you dissent from her teachings.  They don’t get to see the public application of their faith differently.  We’ve got documents on that from our very own USCCB:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/church-teaching/catholics-in-political-life.cfm  Ironically this document was developed in part by Archbishop Chaput because, why?  Oh, he has the authority to do so!

Archbishop Chaput continues:

“And meanwhile, both candidates for the nation’s top residence, the White House, have astonishing flaws.

This is depressing and liberating at the same time. Depressing, because it’s proof of how polarized the nation has become. Liberating, because for the honest voter, it’s much easier this year to ignore the routine tribal loyalty chants of both the Democratic and Republican camps. I’ve been a registered independent for a long time and never more happily so than in this election season.”

How does the perception that both candidates for the White House have astonishing flaws offer “proof of how polarized the nation has become.” Could not that polarization be evidenced by candidates with less obvious flaws? Lincoln was no slacker, but he assumed the presidency at a time of enormous polarization. And, why do those flaws make it easier to “ignore the routine tribal loyalty chants” of the two parties? And, why is it ever hard for a bishop to “ignore the routine tribal loyalty chants” of the two parties? I thought that mostly came with the office.

I’m sorry, sir. (Am I allowed to use that term?  So hard to tell these days.)  Have you looked out the window?  Their “astonishing flaws” are fanning the flames of hate on both sides.  Neither of these two are Lincoln, and I doubt many of their supporters would say so.  Please tell me you understand at least that!  These two have whipped this world into a frenzy.  Not really seeing your point here. 

The archbishop continues:

“As Forbes magazine pointed out some months ago, the Republican candidate is worth roughly $4.5 billion. The Democratic candidate is worth roughly $45 million. Compare that with the average American household, which is worth about $144,000. The median U.S. income is about $56,000.  Neither major candidate lives anywhere near the solar system where most Americans live, work and raise families.  Nonetheless, we’re asked to trust them.

The archbishop can travel a few blocks up the Benjamin Franklin Parkway from his cathedral to see a large equestrian statue of George Washington, or he can head the other direction to the statue of Washington in front of Independence Hall. Washington was a fabulously wealthy planter in his day. Did his wealth make him suspect? Theodore and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were from different branches of the same wealthy family. Did their wealth keep them from empathy with the life of the common man? Did the American people have trouble trusting any of these presidents because of their wealth? Why is the personal wealth of the candidates so important this time?

OK, fair point here. (Thank goodness there was at least one.) That said, I think the ivory tower did get a whole lot higher since Teddy and FDR.  I mean, FDR was Sec Nav and visited France during WWI to observe military activities first hand, and Teddy was a colonel in the Spanish-American War.  Trump and Clinton never got near the trenches, much less in them.  And neither of them have overcome too much adversity, unless you consider being in disastrous marriages a triumph of some sort.

Then comes the second most troublesome part of the article. Archbishop Chaput compares the two presidential candidates, writing:

Hold on!  Here it is!  All of the other stuff was troubling, but this, this, my friends, is what troubles Mr. Winters the most!

“One candidate — in the view of a lot of people — is an eccentric businessman of defective ethics whose bombast and buffoonery make him inconceivable as president. And the other – in the view of a lot of people – should be under criminal indictment. The fact that she’s not — again, in the view of a lot of people — proves Orwell’s Animal Farm principle that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

First, I cannot ignore the qualifying phrase “in the view of a lot of people,” not least this year when Mr. Donald Trump repeatedly uses a similar rhetorical device to avoid responsibility from spreading whichever ridiculous conspiracy theory comes out of his mouth after he intones, “Well, a lot of people think that. …” We teach our children not to say things like that because it is morally irresponsible. To find such words in a column by a bishop is frankly shocking.

The horrors! The Archbishop uses a same phrase that the Trumpster uses!  Shocking, I tell you!  Except it’s not.  Are you really questioning that a lot of people think that???  Of course not.  You’re just trying to suggest the Archbishop is in the Trump tank.  Good luck with that.  You do realize that clergy who are backing Trump usually just say we cannot vote for the party whose platform is the antithesis of Church teaching.  Easy peasy if that’s where he was.

Second, there is no comparison between the two charges. Mr. Trump’s eccentricity, his bombast and buffoonery, are all things about which any viewer can form an opinion. The charge of “defective ethics” is more difficult but still the kind of thing voters routinely need to assess about a candidate. The charge that Mrs. Hillary Clinton “should be under criminal indictment” is a matter for a trained, and empowered, prosecutor to make and, in Clinton’s case, the relevant prosecutor, acting on the public advice of the Director of the FBI, James Comey, who said that no responsible prosecutor would indict Mrs. Clinton. Does Archbishop Chaput have information that Director Comey lacked? It is true that Republican Party surrogates have disparaged Comey’s claim but has anyone any basis for refuting it?

Perhaps Mr. Winters forgot what he wasted the ink in the previous paragraph telling us?  You remember “in the view of a lot of people”, don’t you Mr. Winters?  What part of the archbishop’s statement don’t you find accurate?  A LOT of people do think Hillary Clinton should be indicted!  Are you really trying to deny that?  In fact, CCN (hardly a conservative bastion) found that 56% of American adults (last time I checked that was a lot of them) DISAGREE with NOT charging her.  http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/  I guess the editor in you missed this.  If you’re going to try and quote the archbishop, you might want to get it correct.

Archbishop Chaput then pens what are to my mind the most regrettable paragraphs of the entire column. He writes:

 I guess your “inner editor” wasn’t on the clock today.  Seriously? “Concern,”  “Second most troublesome,” and now “most regrettable”?!?  What’s next?  “Super most regrettable?”  I think we’re going for fever-pitch, but it’s just getting silly.

“So what are we to do this election cycle as Catholic voters?  Note that by “Catholic,” I mean people who take their faith seriously; people who actually believe what the Catholic faith holds to be true; people who place it first in their loyalty, thoughts and actions; people who submit their lives to Jesus Christ, to Scripture and to the guidance of the community of belief we know as the Church.

Anyone else who claims the Catholic label is simply fooling himself or herself — and even more importantly, misleading others.”

“I thank thee, Lord, that I am not like other men. …” Apart from the general unattractiveness of finger-wagging, why this diversion from his main theme? Does the archbishop want to let the Catholics of Philadelphia know that he is on to them, that he knows which among them are not real Catholics, that they are fooling themselves? And who are these less-than-real Catholics? Those who do not see the world the way the archbishop sees it? Can you imagine Pope Francis writing this? He certainly challenges all of us, but never without words of encouragement and he reserves his harsh judgments for the clergy and the powerful, not for the people.

Oh the hypocrisy!  Finger-wagging is apparently unattractive unless you are Mr. Winters. Then it’s just fine as shown in this lovely piece. Personally, Catholic should be enough, but when you’ve got Biden and Kaine touting their Catholicity, somebody needs to do some ‘splaining.  You are a less-than-faithful Catholic when you are a less-than-faithful Catholic. Being a faithful Catholic doesn’t mean you’re not stupid and sin sometimes.  This means you try to live the teachings of the Catholic Church and you don’t go around dissenting from them.    For example, yes, I consider myself a faithful Catholic and try to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Do I fail?  Often, but I don’t go around telling everyone that’s peachy because my public and private life are separate, or that the Church’s teachings are superseded by situation ethics like Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.  In other words, you don’t try to justify your mistakes like these two.

I call the attention of readers to one hopeful sentiment in this. Archbishop Chaput writes of those “who submit their lives to Jesus Christ, to Scripture and to the guidance of the community of belief we know as the Church.” The Church recently offered guidance in the area of family life and marriage. That guidance took the form of the deliberations and resulting documents from two worldwide synods of bishops and a concluding Apostolic Exhortation by Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia. Archbishop Chaput has issued “guidelines” for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia in his archdiocese. As I wrote at the time, those guidelines struck me as if they could have been written before the synods took place or Pope Francis wrote his exhortation. But, what do I know? Archbishop Joseph Kurtz appointed Archbishop Chaput to lead a committee of U.S. bishops to discuss the implementation of Amoris Laetitia.

What do you know?  Not much on this issue.   Are you saying that Amoris Latitia is breaking with the tradition of the Church?  Did Fr. José Granados, vice president of the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family and consultor of the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops not say Amoris Laetitia that must be read in “doctrinal continuity”?  Is Archbishop Chaput somehow not reading it in that light? If so, let’s not allude.  Let’s through out a few little facts.

We do know that Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, has emerged as the designated interpreter of Amoris Laetitia, and that Civilta Cattolica is running a series of essays on the document that re-affirm what the synods and the Holy Father intend. One such essay, by Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J. and Fr. Lou Cameli of the Archdiocese of Chicago, looks extensively at the issue of discernment in ways that are in stark contradistinction with both the tone and the content of Archbishop Chaput’s guidelines, wherein he only mentioned discernment once and that was when he was quoting the pope. I think that the principle of non-contradiction is too often invoked in ecclesiastical discussions, and that philosophic principles must be applied gently and even a bit loosely to messy human lives. Still, the two divergent interpretations cannot co-exist forever. I am betting it will become clear to all, if it is not already, that Archbishop Chaput is staking out a position at odds with the pope and the synods.

And, who are you again?  Where exactly does your knowledge come from?  I mean, I’m not knocking a lack of degrees, but some tangible understanding of Catholic doctrine and Canon Law might be helpful before you try to cast aspersions on an archbishop simply because his narrative doesn’t fit yours.  It’s laughable to think that the tone and content is contradictory because he only mentioned discernment once.  I missed the Congregation of Whatever saying that Archbishop Chaput is at odds with the Church.  Anyone else?

I admit that I find it tiresome to have to continually criticize Archbishop Chaput. I do so in sadness not in anger. But, it must be said: If I were writing a work of fiction and I wanted to create a caricature of a culture warrior bishop, I do not think I would have the courage to create one so reckless, so uncomplicated in his moral sensibilities (and not in a good way), and so quick to render judgment against others, so willing to ignore the pope, or to cite him, as it suits his own purposes, so intellectually thin and so edgily partisan, as Archbishop Chaput’s columns show him to be.

Oh, you poor, poor man.  Here’s an idea.  Stop.  You do a pathetic job of it.  You didn’t even seem to know he’s neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  He’s a registered Independent, for goodness’ sake.  Where does his heart lie?  Uh, maybe with the Church?  Too bad it’s not the same for the “Catholics” in the race. 

Ask yourself, Mr. Winters, has the archbishop been taken to task for his instruction on Amoris Laetitia (by anyone of the hierarchy, not just you and the Reporter)?  Of course not.  Why?  Because the archbishop’s instruction is spot on and, here’s the kicker, he’s completely consistent with Church tradition no matter your ridiculous opinion.

[Michael Sean Winters is NCR Washington columnist and a visiting fellow at Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies.] Still finding this hard to believe.  Please understand that a “visiting fellow” really means zippo.  I’d love to find the full biography of his Catholic education, but I’ve yet to find anything.  Does he have any higher Catholic education, or is he just beer buddies with Fr. Martin, SJ?  Oh, and can I be a “visiting gal” Catholic University?

I’m with Him!

In case you’ve been wondering about my absence recently, I’ve been traveling A LOT this summer.   God’s just had me incredibly busy.  Of course, every time I wrap up a school year, I think “Vacation!”, but I might have finally realized after almost 20 years that I’m busier in the summer, so I’m looking forward to my next homeschool stay-cation.

Anyway, I’m trying to jump back into the blog scene.  Many things – wonderful and tragic – have occurred since my writing slowed down.  That said, there’s one thing looming like a big black cloud, and that’s the election.

I’ve spent a great deal of my summer talking to the “famous” people of the Catholic and pro-life world, and the conversation always turns to “Who are you voting for?”  It’s a conversation I’ve come to dread.  I usually get a few words out before I’m told, “You’re judging Trump’s soul!”, “You’re not thinking about the babies!”, “You’re just being prideful!”, “You’re not thinking about the Supreme Court!”, “You’re voting for Hillary!” (I would never advocate that, so don’t break out in hives!), etc.  The proverbial kitchen sink has been thrown at me without one thought that I might just have a thought or two of my own.  I mean, seriously, I’m not thinking about the Supreme Court and I’m not pro-life?  Saving babies and their mothers has been in my brain, just about non-stop, since I was sixteen.  Save it.  I’m in agony here.  “What else are we going to do?!” doesn’t cut it with me.  It’s far more complex.

I felt a sigh of relief when this came across my desk: http://catholicphilly.com/2016/08/think-tank/archbishop-chaput-column/some-personal-thoughts-on-the-months-ahead/.  Rather than casting aspersions on some really great, faithful people, I think this is the way to handle it.  In short, shut up and pray like crazy – every last one of us!  I think the good archbishop realized that the Christian faithful are tearing each other apart over this.  Quite frankly, it’s been rather sickening to see.  Vigorous debates are good!  Keep having them.  Saying good Christian souls of good-will are (crazy, etc., fill in the blank) for voting for whomever is ridiculous and quite pompous, and those engaging in this tactic might need to schedule some plank removing time.

Because links sometimes aren’t followed, let’s break this one down.

Archbishop Chaput’s column

Some personal thoughts on the months ahead

Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

 

Posted August 12, 2016

My column this week is a collection of personal comments.  Read it as thoughts from a brother in the faith, not as teachings from an archbishop.

Understood!  That’s pretty much a caveat for the ACLU and the rest of the liberals who are ready to pounce at the slightest.

Presidential campaigns typically hit full stride after Labor Day in an election year.  But 2016 is a year in which two prominent Catholics – a sitting vice president, and the next vice presidential nominee of his party — both seem to publicly ignore or invent the content of their Catholic faith as they go along.  And meanwhile, both candidates for the nation’s top residence, the White House, have astonishing flaws.

It is possible for someone to say that they are not sure who they will vote for, or even if they will vote, without saying that these two loons are peachy and we’re fine with them being in office.  Don’t believe me?  Read on.

This is depressing and liberating at the same time.  Depressing, because it’s proof of how polarized the nation has become.  Liberating, because for the honest voter, it’s much easier this year to ignore the routine tribal loyalty chants of both the Democratic and Republican camps.  I’ve been a registered independent for a long time and never more happily so than in this election season.  Both major candidates are – what’s the right word? so problematic – that neither is clearly better than the other.

And this is where I think “Finally!  Somebody gets me who’s not related to me!”  They are BOTH hugely problematic.  Please “Catholic 4 Trump”, stop candy coating him for a win.  Trump is highly problematic.  I don’t care if you pray, fast, think and vote for him anyway, but we have to admit that.  Defending him on his over the top ideas is just downright shilling for him.  If you feel you need to vote for him to stem evil, to save SCOTUS, etc., I can see that argument.  Saying he’s great?  Not so much.  Hillary?  Well, that goes without saying.  Almost all if not all of her policies are plain evil.

As Forbes magazine pointed out some months ago, the Republican candidate is worth roughly $4.5 billion.  The Democratic candidate is worth roughly $45 million.  Compare that with the average American household, which is worth about $144,000.  The median U.S. income is about $56,000.  Neither major candidate lives anywhere near the solar system where most Americans live, work and raise families.  Nonetheless, we’re asked to trust them.

That’s a big ask.  One candidate — in the view of a lot of people — is an eccentric businessman of defective ethics whose bombast and buffoonery make him inconceivable as president.  And the other – in the view of a lot of people – should be under criminal indictment.  The fact that she’s not – again, in the view of a lot of people — proves Orwell’s Animal Farm principle that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

I could have added a little more, but I can live with this, since he left us a nice “Animal Farm” quote. (Please parents, have your kids read.)

So what are we to do this election cycle as Catholic voters?  Note that by “Catholic,” I mean people who take their faith seriously; people who actually believe what the Catholic faith holds to be true; people who place it first in their loyalty, thoughts and actions; people who submit their lives to Jesus Christ, to Scripture and to the guidance of the community of belief we know as the Church.

Anyone else who claims the Catholic label is simply fooling himself or herself — and even more importantly, misleading others

Cough! *Pelosi, Biden, Kaine* Cough!

The American bishops offer valuable counsel in their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (available from the USCCB), and this year especially, they ask us to pray before we vote. This is hardly new “news.” Prayer is always important. In a year when each Catholic voter must choose between deeply flawed options, prayer is essential. And prayer involves more than mumbling a Hail Mary before we pull the voting booth lever for someone we see as the lesser of two evils. Prayer is a conversation, an engagement of the soul with God.  It involves listening for God’s voice and educating our consciences. (emphasis mine)

 

So, dear friends who’ve told me I’m doing everything from voting for Hillary to forgetting about the babies killed by abortion, do you honestly think that I’m doing this because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusion you have? This does go both ways my friends.  Do you really believe that people voting for Trump are selling their souls?  If you do, don’t you think that maybe they’ve prayed, fasted and given a lot of thought to their position?  Of course, I will say I’ve heard far more of the former than the latter, but I recognize that it does happen with people not voting for Trump..

It’s absurd – in fact, it’s blasphemous – to assume that God prefers any political party in any election year.  But God, by his nature, is always concerned with good and evil and the choices we make between the two.  For Catholics, no political or social issue stands in isolation.  But neither are all pressing issues equal in foundational importance or gravity.  The right to life undergirds all other rights and all genuine social progress.  It cannot be set aside or contextualized in the name of other “rights” or priorities without prostituting the whole idea of human dignity.

Well, that was a not-so-subtle shout out to Cupich, McElroy, and the rest of the seamless garment crowd.  I’m sure there are a whole lot of Catholics in their dioceses wishing Chaput was their archbishop.

God created us with good brains.  It follows that he will hold us accountable to think deeply and clearly, rightly ordering the factors that guide us, before we act politically.  And yet modern American life, from its pervasive social media that too often resemble a mobocracy, to the relentless catechesis of consumption on our TVs, seems designed to do the opposite.  It seems bent on turning us into opinionated and distracted cattle unable to gain mastery over our own appetites and thoughts.  Thinking and praying require silence, and the only way we can get silence is by deciding to step back and unplug.

Whether or not your final decision matches mine, I trust that faithful Catholics everywhere are attempting to do this in such a tumultuous year.  I also trust that many will do the 54 Day Novena which starts TODAY!  https://www.novenaforournation.com/ If you’re worried about this election at all, you will do this!

This year, a lot of good people will skip voting for president but vote for the “down ticket” names on their party’s ballot; or vote for a third party presidential candidate; or not vote at all; or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates.  I don’t yet know which course I’ll personally choose.  It’s a matter properly reserved for every citizen’s informed conscience.

Wait!  That’s just crazy talk!  If you’re voting for someone other than the person I’m voting for or not voting for, etc., you can’t possibly be good!  That was sarcastic in part, but I’ve actually been told that, people!  Can we go over my favorite part of that, one ore time, and kind of where I am at this moment?

or find some mysterious calculus that will allow them to vote for one or the other of the major candidates.

I still haven’t found that calculus, and it looks like I’m in good company.  Are my well meaning friends now going to tell the good archbishop that he’s voting for ‘Killary?’

But I do know a few of the things I’ll be reading between now and November.  The list is not exclusive or comprehensive.  But this year these particular titles seem especially urgent:

Living the Gospel of Life. This 1998 pastoral letter of the U.S. bishops remains the best brief guide to American Catholic political reflection yet produced.

Resurrecting the Idea of a Christian Society by R.R. Reno (Regnery) and It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies by Mary Eberstadt (HarperCollins). Both of these books are new, important, a key to understanding the current moment in our national life, and deeply engaging.  They need to be discussed and shared widely.

And finally two essays by the late, great Czech writer, Václav Havel, “Politics and Conscience” and “The Power of the Powerless.” Both are collected in Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965-1990 (Vintage Books).  Havel was not (to my knowledge) a religious believer, and he wrote as a dissident during an era of Soviet Bloc repression.  But his commitment to what he called “living in the truth,” and his understanding and critique of the weaknesses in Western societies like our own – not just Marxist ones – were remarkable.  They remain relevant right now, today.

It looks like I’ve got some more reading on my plate!  How about you?

The next few months will determine the next decade and more of our nation’s life.  We need to be awake, we need to clear our heads of media noise, and we need to think quietly and carefully before we vote.  None of us can afford to live the coming weeks on autopilot.

Right!  Autopilot bad.  This is the one thing I don’t think I’ll ever understand.  We, as a nation, took the carrot away from Trump to behave in a manner fitting of, well, almost any position we hold dear.  We said, “Hey!  We’ve got no choice! We’re voting for you!” instead of “We still have a choice to ditch you at any time because we’re not on autopilot and we can course correct if needed!  You better earn our vote!”  It’s not too late.  We can still do that.” We don’t have to be living examples of “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” I think some of the many “thinkers” already came to that conclusion or were there in the first place.  They need to figure out a way to put Trump on notice and hold his feet to the fire.

In conclusion, I respect most of you who read this blog, whether or not you’re voting for the person I’m voting for come election day.  Save the rhetoric and realize that people can pray, fast, search for answers and come to a totally different conclusion than you and still be a faithful Catholic trying their best to follow God’s will.  Regardless of who ends up as president, there’s A LOT of work we all need to do to clean up this country, and it’s much easier to do if we haven’t taken a sword to each other over this election.  We know who we can’t vote for, and now we need to figure out who God wants us – each, individually – to vote for.  “We don’t have a choice” is not a good reason to vote for someone.  We always have a choice.

 

 

Remembering the Real in Real Presence

I woke up this morning to find this story: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-priest-to-tim-kaine-dont-show-up-in-my-communion-line  I LOVE to see somebody actually defending Our Lord!  That’s exactly what Fr. Thomas Petri, OP, did.  Thank you so much, dear father!  Some are going to rant and rave that he is using the Eucharist as a “political football”, but he’s simply showing belief in the Real Presence.  This is a no-brainer.  All the other priests not coming to the same conclusion are the ones who are playing “political football.”  Quite sadly, some aren’t going to be like Tarcisius because they don’t want to get beat up. (For those who don’t know the story: (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/TARCIS.htm)  They are the ones that are constantly weighing the benefits and the consequences of whether or not to prevent the sacrilege of the Eucharist, when we all should really just be following the law that guides us.  Can’t go wrong there.  It’s a sacrilege, plain and simple.

So, can we look at the canons pertaining to reception of the Eucharist in the cases of Catholics (and yes, they are still Catholics, albeit bad ones) who hold a pro-abortion stance?  There are really two kinds. There those who hold this position privately and those who hold this position, and even champion it, publicly.

Canon 915 addresses the public sinner.  You know, the guy who says “I am a devout Catholic BUT I believe in a woman’s ‘right to choose’, gay marriage, and priestesses!” (Cough!  Tim Kaine!):

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. (Emphasis is all mine because I didn’t want anyone to miss anything!)

Tim knows what the Church teaches, yet he rejects it, and he does so very manifestly.  Canon 915 says he should not be admitted to Holy Communion.  Easy peasy.  Please note that it doesn’t say that HE should not present himself for Communion.  It says he should not be admitted to it.  It’s not a judgment call on his part, nor on the part of the person holding the Host up in front of Tim Kaine, who knows who he is and what he champions. (Ideally that should be a priest, but that’s another blog post.)

Canon 916 addresses the sinner whose sin cannot be determined by the priest (or whoever) holding the Host in front of them.  The burden of not allowing admittance now shifts to them.

Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

I’ve heard some political linebackers in the Church try to do a bit of pretzel twisting and colluding of the two canons by saying “Well, how is the person distributing Communion to know if Tim Kaine truly understands the Church teachings?” or “Well, how do we know if Tim Kaine didn’t go to confession right before Mass?”

Well here’s the answer to this nonsense.  First of all, stop blending Canon 915 and 916, which deal with manifest sin and private sin, respectively.   Canon 915 has no remedy for lack of understanding or going to confession.  Why?  Because the sin is so public it is scandalous and it can cause even more scandal and sacrilege when people see someone who’s never publicly recanted walking up to receive Our Lord.  A public, obstinate sinner must not only repent and go to confession privately but must publicly repent, or they continue to commit the sin of scandal.  It’s gone beyond the simple private sinner’s examination of conscience because it’s brought public scandal.

For instance, unless you live under a rock, we all know Tim Kaine’s stance on abortion.  Say Tim Kaine repents of his position, goes to confession, but never publicly recants the ideology.  What are the people in the pews to think?  Uh, maybe “How can we be giving Our Lord to someone who is pro-abortion???”  They have no way of knowing if he repented and went to confession.  All they see is someone publicly opposing the teachings of the Catholic Church receiving Communion, which is supposed to be a sign of communion with the truths of the Church!  Others might also be thinking “Hey, if he can hold this position and receive Communion, why can’t I?”  Still others might be led to a lack of belief in the Real Presence.  I mean, hey, if they’ll give Our Lord to someone touting those positions, why would we believe that we hold the Eucharist as something as precious as Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity?  In short, it’s scandalous all the way around, which is why we have Canon 915.

A failure to hold people to Canon 915 does great danger to the Faith and surely doesn’t encourage the rest of the faithful hold ourselves to Canon 916.  All of this contributes to lack of belief in the Real Presence.  If we don’t get serious as a Church about sacrilege, well, I suppose, it can’t get much worse than the world we’re living in today with such a blatant disregard for life and morality.  Maybe fire raining down from the sky?  It’s kind of ironic that Tim Kaine was chosen on “Sodom and Gomorrah” weekend, isn’t it?

Let’s also remember that denial of the sacraments is not only to protect the rest of the faithful from scandal, but it’s also a remedy to help the sinner.  Letting Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the Kennedy family, etc., skate on the Eucharist doesn’t help their souls.  It’s called “tough love”, my friends, but it is love no less.  Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Please, Holy Father, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests of the Church – restore the belief of the real in Real Presence!   Thank you to all of you priests who have been willing to suffer abuse to do so.  Let us pray for them and many more to join them!

Clothing NOT Optional

This showed up in my Facebook news feed. Now that she’s been “bullied,” I’d like to also add a “mom of boys” rant and “wife to a husband” tongue lashing. Can this woman be this incredibly naïve? I can’t fathom that level of cluelessness but I suppose it does exist.

http://www.naijatabloid.com/2016/07/the-lady-who-was-bullied-for-wearing.html (warning: if you click on this link you will see an ever so slightly clothed chick. I’d prefer you didn’t click but I kind of have to cite the source.)

The lady who was bullied for wearing a short dress to a wedding speaks out
Naija Tabloid Monday, July 04, 2016 Entertainment

Remember the lady who was ridiculed for wearing a short dress to a wedding? She is a fitness and nutrition coach named Liz Krueger from Minneapolis and she has hit back at the criticism by starting her own hashtag, #KruegerKindness, to inspire women to do kind things for each other.

First of all, no, I don’t remember this. I’m finding it hard to believe poor taste is news these days but whatever.

Mrs Krueger, in late june, uploaded a photo of her wearing the dress on Instagram with the caption:

“If only I knew that choosing this dress for a wedding on a 90 degree day meant so many women would be out rightly rude to me, and even come up behind me slap my ass as I’m standing alone. It was a dare from her friends, bc I was a target”.

Please, girlfriend. You didn’t put on this dress because it was going to be hot. You put on this dress because you wanted to be SEEN as hot and you wanted everyone to look at you. You weren’t “bullied” because of what you were wearing. You were “bullied” for what you weren’t wearing which was, namely, clothes. Band aids don’t count and it’s usually considered proper to actually dress for a wedding, not to undress for it.

Let me give you some wedding etiquette. It’s not “you” day. It’s the bride and groom’s day. You were being every bit as obnoxious as the guy who has had one too many and makes a pass at any woman in the room, as well as the mother of the bride. You had about as much thought for the bride and groom as that guy.

Next, I’m a mom. I would have either ask you to put on some clothes or I’d have to take my young sons out of there because I didn’t know I was attending a Playboy photoshoot. Don’t think I would? Think again. Seriously, you weren’t just embarrassing yourself but everyone in the entire room. Of course, I’m the “religious bigot” (that’s what those with a shred of common sense are called these days) so I’d also tell you that you were being a tad bit more than a near occasion of sin to the men in the vicinity. Seriously.

And then proceed to spill a full beer spilt down my arm. Just one of maaaaany acts of kindness of the night. Yup. That happened. Good thing for thick skin, being able to laugh at things and not take it personally, and good friends/hubby by my side #adultsarebullystoo .’ Regardless, we had one heck of a fun night and no “grown” women’s comments/glares could bring me down as a wedding guest:)

OK, I’m not into the bullying but really, somebody should have told you that the vast amount of “thick skin” showing was a tad bit over the top. And, back to embarrassing…Either your husband is as big of an attention seeker as you or he was probably also embarrassed. What kind of man wants all the other guys in the room looking lustily at the wife? Well, maybe he does but I’m sorry for him if that’s the case. Wonder if being a father of a girl would change that, or if he’d be happy if everyone wanted to sleep with his daughter? Are the fathering skills of Richie Sambora really going to be the new norm? “You want to wear that string bikini baby? Let’s get it into a magazine for all to see!”

Mrs Krueger also took to Facebook to thank a popular U.S blogger Constance Hall, for supporting and defending. She wrote:

‘She gets me. She supports me. And guess what? She doesn’t even know me. I am not playing a victim. I am not attention seeking. I am not vain. I am not slutty. I was not trying to upstage a bride. I didn’t have an agenda when I put on this dress. I’m not trying to name names or call anyone out. I’m not “a model trying to heighten my career. I’m sticking up for myself and my body, and the fact I can post about a bad experience I had at a wedding. Did I know it would go viral? Ummm no. I post every single day, but clearly this struck a cord with society.’

I have no clue who Constance Hall is but not vain or trying to upstage the bride when you put on the dress?! Were you in a pitch black room? Blind maybe? I can’t say whether or not you knew this would go viral but honey, you wanted attention and you wanted it bad. You don’t purchase a little number (a very little next to nothing number) like that unless you do.

She said she posted it to bring attention to the fact that women don’t treat each other well’ and that she hoped women would stop being disrespectful. She also penned a post explaining that when she attended the wedding, her intent was simply to ‘accompany my friend to a wedding, and have a fun girls night.’

Pot, meet kettle. Talk about women not treating each other well. Here’s a clue. When you want other women’s husbands, boyfriends and sons to stare at your barely clad body, you aren’t treating them well. Again, moms in the room were probably looking for blindfolds for their sons, not to mention wives and girlfriends. You were being completely disrespectful of yourself and everyone in the room. Have fun? We couldn’t care less if you wanted to have fun but don’t inflict yourself on everyone with eyes.

“A dress does not warrant being harassed by a group of girls, to make me feel like I was in middle school again. I think everyone in this situation learned a lesson, myself included. Be nice to each other. It’s what we learn as little kids. Why can’t we do it as adults?” She wrote.

So, what would you have done if someone privately pulled you aside and said that dress was inappropriate? Really, what would you have done? Would you have stopped for a second to give that message any credibility or would you have just played the “judgmental!” card? Methinks the latter, simply because you didn’t take any pause to buying it or putting it on in the first place. The people at the wedding were trying in their own idiotic way to say just that. They were offended by you because you were being offensive. Could they have handled it a different way? Sure, but the outcome would have been the same. It was all about you and the fact that everyone is just supposed to give you the thumbs up for every ridiculous outfit you choose to wear.

The fitness and nutrition coach posted a number of pictures of herself wearing dresses  (There’s a shocker!) to Instagram captioned with ‘the many looks of Liz Krueger’ and started her hashtag #kruegerkindness on Sunday morning.

‘I’m starting my own kindness movement #KruegerKindness! Whether it’s just a party of 1 (me), or others want to join me! I’m going to actively make it a priority to do good things for other women, every single day from here on out,’ she wrote. ‘I’m hoping to inspire others to do the same, just as I have with fitness journey. “

So, now you have to look like a hooker to be fit? Again, please. It has nothing to do with a fitness journey. It’s about having respect for yourself and those around you, especially a husband, to keep your dang clothes on. It has zero to do with “body shaming” (I mean it’s clear there’s not an ounce of fat on her perfect body) and everything to do with a lack of decent, basic morality and thought for those around you.

“A movement for women, by women, and it’s starting with me! If you want to join me in this movement, share your stories on social media with #KruegerKindness and let’s kill all the mean girls with kindness.”

As a mom of young women, no thanks. Movements like “Everyone look like a prostitute!” are not movements I want my family getting behind. Do I want my kids looking like they stepped out of a “Little House on the Prairie” book? No. I actually love fashion.  That said, I don’t want my girls to be a near occasion of sin for anyone else. Do they always understand my limited fashion rules of skirts to the top of the knees, leggings aren’t pants, and no underwear showing? Hardly. I’m sure that’s payback for my lack of understanding with my parents. I really don’t care. When they are in my sight, forget it, and I can only hope they have enough respect for their parents to follow through when they are out on their own. Do they think I have a clue? Probably not but they will get it when they have their own spouses and own children. There are just some things you don’t share with the outside world.

Just a note to the ladies during this nice, hot summer… Call me a prude, I really don’t care. Bikinis are pretty much underwear. I mean, really, what makes them different? The cute designs? You’re wearing a bra and panties and sometimes they’re even smaller. Deal. . Cleavage? Do I need to say more? (I remember a priest once saying if he could put the Host in your cleavage, your shirt was too dang low – hooray for bluntness?!) And the super short skirts? Sometimes I have to wonder if some women don’t have friends or mothers. When you bend over, jump up and sit, “I see Paris, I see France…” pretty much runs through my head. We really can see your underwear and quite often. It’s really mortifying and it happens all the time. In short, many of us just don’t want to see your “goods.” Your husbands don’t want others ogling your “goods”. If they do, then they are probably losers who never quite grew up and are using you to tend to their mid-life crises. Pathetic at best. Dads REALLY don’t want guys ogling their daughters (unless, or course, again, they are pathetic). We parents definitely don’t want you catching our sons’ attentions. We’ve got enough to deal with there. So, ya. We’re going to judge your attire if it makes living a moral life just a little harder. It’s not like it isn’t hard enough.

To the women who are thinking “I can’t help what guys are thinking?” and “I’m not responsible for what runs through guys’ heads?” Uh, yeah, you can and you are when you’re wearing a band aid. Give the poor guys a break! and stop playing dumb!  Take a little responsibility. To the Catholic babes out there… Think near occasion of sin. Do you really want to be one?

To the completely misguided girls out there trying to please or catch the eye of some guy or another…Think Grace Kelley and Audrey Hepburn (please don’t ask who they are. I fear there’s a whole generation who missed out on shear elegance. And, no, I’m not that old.) You can be fashionable without being frumpy OR flashing the flesh. Be elegant! When you think of elegance, does anyone truthfully think of Liz Krueger?

I’d like to take a moment to plug an on-line magazine (by young people instead of some dated gal like me) that is trying to convey all of these same ideas of modesty (See? I’m not so outdated after all!): http://verilymag.com/ If you’ve got someone in your life who thinks they need skimp to be attractive, it’s a nice site.

So, #bekindwearclothes!

I’m Sorry, So Sorry!

The Pope would like us to apologize? Why, yes, I am very happy to take the opportunity to do so.

I apologize for Fr. James Martin, SJ, and ilk who have spent a lifetime trying to advance the liberal agenda, which is the antithesis of Truth.  I apologize, especially to the homosexual community, that Fr. Martin has actively sought to drive a wedge between you and the Catholic Church.  I’m sorry that he’s tried so vehemently to get you to believe that Catholic Church has anything but your salvation in mind.  I’m sorry that he’s actively tried to undermine your salvation by twisting the truth.

I apologize for archbishops like Blase Cupich.  He has done much of the same to homosexuals.  I also apologize to the babies who weren’t saved because he shunned pro-life efforts whenever he got the opportunity.  Oh, I also apologize to those whom Archbishop Cupich has tried to actively shame for protecting themselves with a mean old gun.  I’m really sorry to any of those who have actually used a gun in self-defense, too.  I’m pretty sure that Archbishop Cupich considers you an unfortunate, overwhelming statistic.

I apologize for the Bishop McElroys of the Church for, really, anytime they open their mouths.  I mean, really, at least Martin, Cupich, and Reese try to be sly.  Bishop McElroy must have missed “Subtle Dissent 101” in seminary.  Sadly, we have to read pieces like this ten times to determine if they are satire or not: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/apr/23/sdqt-bishop-mcelroy-addresses-usd-drag-show/

Believe it or not, that was satire, so no angry posts on this parody.  There’s plenty of reality about which to rant.

I apologize for all of those bishops who didn’t bother to teach you the Faith, who didn’t give you a vision of what life would be if you embraced your crosses and rejected temptation, and who left you to your own devices to build your own “truth” which is contra to THE TRUTH and a twisting of reality.  These bishops strove for fame and likeability over your salvation.

To women, I’m totally sorry that bishops like Cupich and McElroy have marginalized your souls in their grand seamless garment plan.  They couldn’t possibly put birth control and abortion ahead of war or the death penalty. Nooooooo!  They have to be given completely equal treatment or not spoken of at all, or in reality, swept to the side in lieu of these issues so the spotlight could be totally on them and their overall “I heart peace!” agendas.  They never stopped once to think that if violence in the womb isn’t condemned, the rest of their agenda was a pipe dream. 

So, while these members of the clergy were laying down in front of weapons of war, society was waging a war on us women, and we lost.  We killed our children, gave ourselves cancer, strokes and mental problems.  We became hoodwinked into believing we weren’t becoming totally objectified by all of society, all while some bishops pretty much told us not to look because, well, we were killing death row inmates and waging wars.  I haven’t even mentioned porn, which stems from the devaluation of all life.  So, to you and my daughters, I totally apologize for these wimpy clergy who give little thought to women.

To the poor, I’m sorry that you became yet another casualty of the liberal agenda while we were being told by our liberal shepherds that most of what the Church tells us is totally subjective and that the lives of the innocent unborn are not paramount.  While closing our eyes to the Truth, nobody saw you naked, homeless and alone.  Many of us have no conscience because we’ve been told it’s wrong to judge.  Since there are no rights and wrongs anymore, you are pretty much just another thing we’ve become blind to.  Really, you just don’t make us comfortable.  You’re another cross we’re going to reject and truth to which we’re going to turn a blind eye.  For this, I am sorry.

To our homosexual brethren, again, I apologize for clergy who led you astray because of their own failures of chastity, humility and fortitude.  Misery loves company, and they apparently wanted more company in their egocentric boat.  You are the ones paying the price.  Rather than teach you to embrace your particular cross and to live chastely with an eye on the ultimate prize of everlasting life, they decided to become living examples of Luke 11:11:

And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

I guess that would be you, dear liberal bishops.

If it makes you feel at all better (and I’m sure it won’t), they’ve done the same thing to the rest of us for our particular crosses.  “Use your internal forum!” they tell us. At least you’re not alone.  I feel for you deeply.  So many of us are trying to be your companions, your support, and your encouragement to live as Christ calls us to live, but we’re thwarted every turn by some of the clergy.  They’re being used by Satan to whisper in your ear (if whispering was using bullhorn), “They’re judging you!  They hate you!  They’re saying you’re not worthy!” which is totally and utterly the opposite of what’s going on with those of us not in the Westboro Baptist club.  They’re spending all of their time pitting us against each other.  They’re using us as pawns in their own narcissistic plans. 

You know, tragedies like the massacre in Orlando have a way of bringing people together, despite Satan’s best efforts.  The complete liberal, Bill Maher, while still possessing a flawed view, caught onto this a long time ago, and it seems that homosexuals are finally starting to embrace it, too.  They have made the realization that no matter what they’ve been told, Christianity is not their problem.  It’s the ugliness and hatefulness of Islam (and no, not all Muslims embrace that ugly side.)  Christians may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and support traditional marriage, but it’s rather hard to deny that we believe ALL life is sacred.  While I am not a Trump supporter in any manner, and I don’t support the spirit of revenge, I think this video shows a turning point in the understanding of radical Islam:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IoTQlDh9U  I’m hoping that this realization drowns out the Cupiches, McElroys and Lynches of our Church who seek to draw division among us in our time of crisis, and Archbishop Wenski is starting the flood when he really let Bishop Lynch have it here:  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/miami-archbishop-rebukes-bishop-lynchs-claim-catholics-share-blame-for-orla  While McElroy and club whine about not using the term “LGBT”, I’m seeing tweets like this:

National security trumps gay marriage. Sorry. But you can’t get married if you’re DEAD. 

Despite the attempts of Bishops Cupich, McElroy, and Lynch, I’m hoping this crack in the door, the mere realization that Christians don’t want to kill homosexuals, might lead to more experiences like this man who came to the realization that he was loved:

 

Please listen to this man’s video!  It’s a beautiful and hopeful story.  Odds are all people suffering from same-sex attraction will not land exactly where he has, but he’s totally correct.  We’re all different.  Mercy and salvation is what we all should seek. These are the only things that well ever truly make us happy.

Lastly, I’m sorry to the faithful clergy.  Whenever you take two steps forward in bringing souls to Truth, you are immediately tackled by the liberal clergy and sometimes you actually lose yardage.  We’re praying you pump that spiritual iron and plow right through the liberal agenda.

Enough of an apology for you?!