The Wolves are Cozy on the Couch

This has been an awful week for the Catholic Church, hands down.  Can’t say I didn’t see it coming, but the trifecta of bad cardinal appointments stings like hell (and I mean that literally).  I was hoping the devastation would be offset by a Cardinal Chaput appointment, but my hopes were dashed.  The liberals won this battle, pure and simple.  So what are we to do?  What is happening with the Pope?  Why is this happening?  Etc., etc., etc.  These are just some of the questions my poor readers are asking. Sorry this post is going to stray far from the sarcastic norm.

Those of you who read the blog regularly have probably noticed that I don’t criticize the Holy Father.  I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I have questions and thoughts in my head that I don’t convey.  Why don’t I relay them?  Because what good would it do? It would simply  give comfort to the enemy.  He certainly is the Pope.  Anyone who believes a less than stellar pope is not THE Pope doesn’t know history all that well.  We’ve had some pretty awful ones, and we’ve also had great ones who have made less-than-desirable moves.  I mean, who was it again that elevated Cardinal Mahoney?  If that wasn’t an epic mistake, I’m not sure what was. Yet that pope was the guy whose right hand man was Pope Benedict.  Heck, he’s canonized! Everyone has a bad day.  I hope that’s what’s going on here with Pope Francis. 

So, what is the girl who sits on her hands and avoids all attempts to criticize the Pope going to say?  Well, first of all, I feel your pain and I’ll try to be a voice for you.  Yes, these were bad appointments that are going to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Faith – namely Fr. James Martin, SJ, and his cohorts in crime.  There’s no way to spin it.  However, it’s one battle.  It ain’t the war, and we already know the outcome of that.  It’s just a matter of how bad things will be until we get to that outcome.

So what about Pope Francis?  I’m hardly Rocco Palmo, but my GUESS is that this is what you get when you have a cardinal from Argentina elevated to the papacy.  He was so far removed from the politics of Rome that he doesn’t know who the enemy really is. He has, frankly, Argentinian notions about the rest of the world, and I think he’s actually seen that some of these notions weren’t quite what he thought.  He was insulated there and he’s insulated now. He has no clue and simply trusts those that appear to be friendly really are.  Heck, I’ve seen that happen to great bishops right here in America.  It’s amazing how well the dissidents can gain confidence when they adjust those halos.  However, the faithful bishops and cardinals had better figure out a way to clue him in that he is being handled, or the Church that my kids have to live in is going to tank for the foreseeable future. 

One thing I notice here in the States is that we have this really weird view of collegiality.  Rarely do faithful bishops or cardinals take on a bishop who is undermining doctrine and morality. They’ll all get together on topics where they feel they can win in society, but not on the issues that affect all of us.  Or, at least, this is the view from the pew.  I mean, if the good guys really care about the laity, why don’t they something???  If my husband saw his brother abusing his family, he certainly wouldn’t sit there and say, “Not my problem!”  His brother’s family would also be his family, even if he isn’t the head of their household.  My husband would also lend a brother a hand if they were in crisis and needed back up when they were in the right.  Unfortunately, I don’t really remember the bishops around the United States rallying around Archbishop Cordileone when he rightly wanted to hold his teachers to Catholic standards.  A rally cry instead should have gone up from all the faithful bishops that he was quite right to try to protect the students of the Catholic schools.

Heck, from my point of view, it seems as if the bishops living 20 minutes from each other don’t even consult together.  SOMEBODY, please call for a national summit of faithful bishops, because the laity is dying here!  I mean DYING!  Where the laity is concerned, giving Cupich a red hat doesn’t just affect the people of his diocese.  It affects us all!  The liberal priests, bishops, and cardinals are what they are.  We need the more-than-a -few good men to help us out here.  Why is it the liberals can band together but you guys cannot? It’s almost like watching the Republican party flail around these days.  Meanwhile, over in National catholic Reporter land, they have no qualms about forming an army to put down one faithful priest, bishop, or cardinal at a time.  Then there’s the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good.  Anyone catch Wikileaks this week?  Yes, our conspiracy theories have been validated.

In all seriousness, I would like to see the guys who love their flocks, the Church, the lost, AND my children all get on a plane and knock on Pope Francis’ door and give him the real score.  There is strength in numbers, and this isn’t just a saying.  You can’t let Cardinal Burke do all the talking and be relegated to Malta for the unforeseeable future. When one of you does something necessary to preserve the Faith in one area, you should all be publicizing it in your own dioceses.  Back each other up! More importantly, unite for the sake of MY children. 

Sometimes I feel like we faithful are an afterthought to many of you. That might be unfair but I guarantee that’s how many of us feel. You need to stop worrying about your job, and I’m not saying that in the “That’s all you care about way!”  I know that you want to stay with your flock to affect the most positive of outcomes, but it’s not working. You are essentially being extorted because you’re trying to do it all by yourself.  Cupich and club are undermining you at every turn, and you guys are still plodding on and keeping your noses to the grindstones.  I get the intention, but I think you all need to start being as “sly as the serpent and as gentle as doves” in a little more proactive way.

Your eminences and excellencies, just stop for a moment and pretend you are a father with children (because you are). If another parent or your child’s teacher is telling your child that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice or that sex outside of marriage was fine, or that it would be just fine for your child to get an abortion because “their circumstance” warranted it, what would you do???????  Would you simply say, “Well, what can I do?” or would you give them a stern talking to about influencing your child to commit spiritual suicide?  I know you don’t have biological children, but darn it, we are supposed to be your spiritual children, yet you are letting the wolves come in and gnaw on us.  You’re reaching out to the lambs already taken from the flock, and I wouldn’t want you to stop, but what about the rest of us? Think long and hard because that’s what’s happening to your flock.  Nobody wants to feel bad about their sin, so they will cling to anyone telling them that they are just peachy.  As a parent, I’m not going to let that happen.  We’re going to fight as a family to keep that from happening.

I get that the bishops are “leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one”, but in our present scenario, when you go after the one, a bunch more are lost.  We’re hemorrhaging the salvation of our young.  There’s no longer just one straying because the shepherds aren’t closing the gate when they go after the one and the wolves are getting in.  It’s a reality that those of us “real world” parents are experiencing.  We’re killing ourselves to make sure all the good you do isn’t undone, but we feel like we can’t get our spiritual fathers to support us because they’re busy with the other children.  You need to find balance like all parents.

Again, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go after those who are straying.  When kids stray in a family, mom and dad have to go after them relentlessly, but at the same time, they need to make sure that no more stray by presenting a mixed message.  The worst thing a parent can do is cave to emotional blackmail.  If I love my child, they are going to know it, but they are also going to know the truth and they will know that I have nothing but their immortal soul in mind.  You can be both firm and loving.  I’m not sure if this is a point lost on those with no biological children, but it needs to be understood.  Saying “No!” can often be the most loving thing you can say, and no, the wandering will not always like it.  So?  We just keep reaching out to them.

I once had a priest curtly ask me, “With all due respect, who are you?!” when I was expressing my concerns about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy exploiting them.  My answer?  “Who am I?  I’m a girl who’s concerned about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy expounding on them!”  Is that wrong??? Are we simply to keep smiling?  Can I not be concerned? Are we supposed to be in denial about how such things are being used?  I don’t claim to be anything special, but I’m betting I’m echoing the concerns of a good chunk of the laity.  I’m not going into schism and disobedience. I’m just terrified, and I want our fathers to know how terrified we are for our families. I’m not urging the bishops to go rogue.  I’m urging them to be strategic.  We really are in a war.

So, what is the laity to do?  Pray, fast, beg our bishops to fight for their children, and prepare for the next battle.  In other words, carry on.

Dissent 101 at Christ the King Parish

 Pleasant Hill parish hosts dissenting speakers

Agenda not in line with Church teaching coming to Christ the King

The following is a California Catholic Daily exclusive story by Anna Rose:

The dissenting speakers have not ceased at Christ the King parish in Pleasant Hill. On October 1, a self-identified Christian Meditation organization called the Hesed Community has invited the ever-dissident Sr. Joan Chittister to speak at the parish.

In addition, other problematic speakers are slated to speak in the upcoming months, most notably Dr. Lisa Fullam, Fr. Padraig Greene, and Luke Hansen, SJ. (

I would love to say that I’m totally and utterly shocked, but I am not.  That is par for the course for Christ the King parish.  I’m not entirely sure that the parishioners even know there’s a problem with these speakers.  They’ve been stuck with the notorious pastors for years and likely don’t have a clue.  I think many Catholics from other parishes in the Oakland Diocese were hoping that Fr. Paulson would rein in this type of stuff.  If you’re from this parish, please, please, research them and realize that they represent the antithesis of the Church teachings. In fact, if you’re looking to lead the Catholic life, I’d suggest finding another parish altogether.  If you want to feel good about your particular sin, feel free to stay.  If you want a shot at avoiding a long stint in purgatory and gaining heaven, go somewhere where they are trying to help you do that!  It isn’t at this parish.

Oh, and these are still happening per the parish website

Sr. Joan Chittister was the keynote speaker at the 2015 Call to Action Conference. In 2001, the Vatican forbade her to speak at the Women’s Ordination Conference, but she ignored them. She disagrees in many areas with the Magisterium of the Church: women’s ordination, admission of homosexuals to the priesthood, the celibate priesthood, and she is, at best, a moral relativist in the areas of abortion and birth control.

A cursory glance at her teachings on contemplation reveals that she ties all into her radical agenda, not the sublime objective of giving the greatest honor to God. For example, she states in her video program, “From Contemplation to Justice”, that “The contemplative can never be again a complacent participant in an oppressive system” and that “Those that have no flame in their heart for justice, no consciousness for the reign of God, no raging commitment for human community may indeed be seeking God but make no mistake, God is still, at best, only an idea to them, not a reality.” Apparently, Sr. Joan can never see someone devoted to perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as truly knowing God. She encourages being like Martha, where the Church encourages us to be more like Mary, that is, true contemplation.

The beautiful, blue links were stripped out during the copy and paste, so check out the links provided at California Catholic Daily and save me some time.  The author is totally right!  I can just see the organizers of the Chittister events saying (cue faux innocent voice) “Whaaaaattttt???  She’s just talking about the contemplative life.”  Did you even watch the video?  Nice try!  Everything she does is pretty much Dissent 101, and I’m reasonably sure she would think Eucharistic Adoration misogynistic.  Seriously, Joan can even find “inequality” in the Eucharist.  No, I’m not kidding. All this woman can see is women being shafted by the Church.  I just had to do a quick Google to find this:  She’s obsessed with misogyny.  Sorry, Joan, there are no misogynists under your bed.  You really need to let go of your “daddy issues” and stop being so bitter about the real men in our Church.  Understanding the Eucharist might be an obstacle for you, Joan, but to a good chunk of us, it’s the source and summit of the Faith.

Dr. Lisa Fullam

Dr. Lisa Fullam is an advocate of allowing same-sex civil marriages. She also has a skewed view of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and our necessary obedience to them, as shown in this quote from her article entitled, “Thou Shalt Sex Beyond the List of Don’ts”: “Christian ethical reflection on sex has tended to focus on what makes individual sex acts morally right or wrong. This view of sex that looks at acts objectively and tends to regard anything sexual as probably sinful has resulted in a rule-focused sexual morality generally expressed as lists of don’ts: Don’t masturbate. Don’t have sex before marriage. Don’t use contraception when you have sex in marriage. Don’t have sex outside marriage. Don’t have sex with someone of your own sex. Don’t abuse others sexually. I’m not dismissing these don’ts out of hand: Some don’ts are of great value, some are less valuable, and some are grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and should be discarded.”

Uh, who died and made you pope?  Oh, that’s right, nobody.  Who are you to decide which Church teachings should be discarded?  If you don’t want to be Catholic, just renounce the Faith, toddle off and leave us alone.  I love all the little accusations without a shred of backup.  I cannot believe this one is a Th.D.  Really?  How do you teach “Fundamental Moral Theology” ( when you haven’t a clue as to what it is or what it means?  Please, parents, could we scratch Santa Clara off your list?  You could get better moral theology as CSU Anywhere.

Dr. Fullam has also contradicted Church teaching that life begins at conception, when the egg and the sperm join to form a completely unique human being. She holds that life begins at implantation, and that contraception that blocks implantation is not an abortifacient because no pregnancy exists. A 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine conducted by Dr. Farr Curlin shows that only 28 percent of the 1,000 OB/GYN’s surveyed believe that life begins at implantation. Fifty-seven percent believed it begins at conception and the rest are unsure. It’s hardly the “settled science” that Dr. Lisa Fullam puts forth. Clearly to have her as an expert on science or theology is a mistake for Catholics, yet this is the woman that the staff of Christ the King thought was the person to bring in to talk about sexual ethics of the Church regarding birth control.

Seriously?  I’m not sure what’s more outrageous here.  Her general lack of scientific knowledge or the fact that someone thought she would be someone who should ever speak in a Catholic church, much less teach in a Catholic school.  Lisa, if a sperm and an egg joining isn’t a new human life, why the heck would you need any form of birth control?  Because someone sprinkles the magic fairy dust of implantation and NOW “poof” it’s a pregnancy?  Please.  Whatever happened to science?  She also doesn’t seem to grasp how abortifacients work.  Unless you know what you’re talking about, it might be nice to take a seat.  Even if her determination of life were correct, yes, abortifacients would still be abortifacients because, while they’re supposed to prevent implantation, they do not always do so. Sometimes they scrape off the newly implanted child or they cause the uterine lining to slough off regardless.  She’s wrong on when life begins, but she’s doubly wrong on abortifacients.  I mean, doesn’t she understand that even the scientific community classifies them as such?  Duh!  And, again, she’s contradicting Church teaching so why is she coming to Christ the King, a Church claiming to be Catholic?

Father Padraig Greene

Fr. Padraig Greene was arrested in 1999 by an undercover officer for lewd conduct at a city park frequented by children. He spent two days in jail and was released on $1000 bail to a rehabilitation program. The police report can be seen here. Father Greene was stationed at Christ the King parish when this incident occurred. He still works in the diocese as the parish relationship director with Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services.

This one has always baffled the faithful in the Oakland Diocese.  Just the fact that people knew about this, it was never refuted, and you can read the police report on-line seems scandalous enough to count him out of public ministry. Seriously, you kind of lose a little credibility as a moral authority when you drive from Pleasant Hill to Oakland to masturbate in a public restroom and don’t bother to stop when someone walks in on you. Liberals love to talk about “pedophile priests,” but when one of their liberal buddies gets busted for lewd conduct in a children’s sports complex bathroom, we’re suddenly judgmental and they don’t see why we’re worried about an old incident?!  I’m all for conversion, repentance, and forgiveness, but what does it say to our children when you can do something so hideous and then be made pastor?  It’s the very definition of scandal if I ever saw it.  Right up there with Bill Clinton in the White House. 

Luke Hansen, SJ, was an associate editor at America Magazine and is now an intern with FutureChurch, a pro-women’s ordination organization lobbying for ordination of women to the diaconate. His topic in the series of talks? The Ministry and Leadership of Women in the Church.

You don’t work for FutureChurch unless you want women in the priesthood.  Enough said. You want to talk “women’s role in the Church?”  I’d be happy to come in and handle that from a Catholic perspective.  It’s nothing but glorious!  I might leave people a little less bitter and jealous than Sr. Joan or the America Magazine crew.

Father Paulson Mundanmani, pastor of Christ the King parish, has been on sabbatical for some time and will return on October 1, the same date of Sr. Joan Chittister’s talk. It is not known if he is aware of the upcoming slate of speakers at his parish, but he is scheduled as one of the speakers in the series.

We had hoped that Fr. Paulson’s appointment signaled the end of this silliness.  I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt, since he’s been on sabbatical, but I hope he comes home and immediately gets his “associates” in line with Catholicism.

The Oakland Diocese has made some strides in the last few years.  I’m hoping that Bishop Barber will start requiring speakers to be vetted by the diocese.  It would be nice to hope that the pastors are doing their jobs, but hey, they do go on sabbatical sometimes (and some really don’t have a problem with these speakers).  A requirement like this would do a lot to keep these wacky speakers from undoing all the good that’s been done in one fell swoop.

If you have further evidence of why these speakers are inappropriate, please pass it along to Bishop Barber ( AND Fr. Paulson ( Feel free to send them a link to this post, too.



He Can’t Handle Intrinsic Evils

Seriously, Bishop McElroy can’t handle intrinsic evils or much of the Church’s teachings.  I think those pesky little details just get in his way.

San Diego bishop: forget about intrinsic evils when voting

Bishop Robert McElroy says using “intrinsic evils” not the best standard for deciding how to vote because there are so many of them.

So glad I wasn’t drinking when I read this one.  Can’t you just see him feeling kind of the same way about the teachings of the Church?  Canon Law? Ten Commandments?  “There are just so many of them, it makes my brain hurt, so let’s just ignore them all.” (That it should have been read in the whiniest voice you could muster.)


The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.

The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading.

Not so much, Your Excellency.  I think it’s you and your buddies like Archbishop Cupich who think we’re a little too simplistic to figure this out, so you’re going to “help” us. My guess is you two have done the high-five on social media for this one.

The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts. At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act.

Duh.  They’re not contradicting themselves, you are.  Is there a reason you won’t quote when commenting on “Faithful Citizenship?”  How’s this? 

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

  1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

  2. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

  3. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

See?  You need to look at 36 to clarify 34.  You can’t ever vote for someone who’s pro-abortion if there is a better option or if you are voting for them specifically because of their pro-abortion stance, but you can vote for someone who is pro-abortion if they are the ones who will do the least damage in this area. 

In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Oh, he leaves out one key word: “well.”  They must be guided by their well-formed conscience.

Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.

Note the heavy focus on the “voters must not have the intention of supporting that specific evil.”  He actually did OK there.  And then he goes onto blow it:

This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life.

No. No. No. No. No.  There are some intrinsic evils that have priority.  Anything that deprives life surpasses all others.  If you don’t have life, you have nothing.  Bishop McElroy must have missed this:

  1. The losers in this ethical sea change will be those who are elderly, poor, disabled and politically marginalized. None of these pass the utility test; and yet, they at least have a presence.  They at least have the possibility of organizing to be heard.  Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage.  They have no “utility,” and worse, they have no voice.  As we tinker with the beginning, the end and even the intimate cell structure of life, we tinker with our own identity as a free nation dedicated to the dignity of the human person.  When American political life becomes an experiment on people rather than for and by them, it will no longer be worth conducting.  We are arguably moving closer to that day.  Today, when the inviolable rights of the human person are proclaimed and the value of life publicly affirmed, the most basic human right, “the right to life, is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae], 18).
  1. The nature and urgency of this threat should not be misunderstood. Respect for the dignity of the human person demands a commitment to human rights across a broad spectrum:  “Both as Americans and as followers of Christ, American Catholics must be committed to the defense of life in all its stages and in every condition.”4  The culture of death extends beyond our shores: famine and starvation, denial of health care and development around the world, the deadly violence of armed conflict and the scandalous arms trade that spawns such conflict.  Our nation is witness to domestic violence, the spread of drugs, sexual activity which poses a threat to lives, and a reckless tampering with the world’s ecological balance.  Respect for human life calls us to defend life from these and other threats.  It calls us as well to enhance the conditions for human living by helping to provide food, shelter and meaningful employment, beginning with those who are most in need.  We live the Gospel of Life when we live in solidarity with the poor of the world, standing up for their lives and dignity.  Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.  They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely “the poorest of the poor.”  They are endorsed increasingly without the veil of euphemism, as supporters of abortion and euthanasia freely concede these are killing even as they promote them.  Sadly, they are practiced in those communities which ordinarily provide a safe haven for the weak — the family and the healing professions.  Such direct attacks on human life, once crimes, are today legitimized by governments sworn to protect the weak and marginalized.

    Just in case you didn’t know, the definition of preeminent is “surpassing all others.”  And I, Bishop McElroy, believe you missed this in the document you speak of but never link to:


  1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

  2. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

  3. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

While we follow both, you seem to fall right into the temptation mention when you directly contradicting number 28 .  You’re playing the “it’s just one issue among many” card to the hilt in your little statement.

Even more important, a fatal shortcoming of the category of intrinsic evil as a foundation for prioritizing the major elements of the political common good lies in the fact that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, it is not a measure of the relative gravity of evil in human or political acts. Some intrinsically evil acts are less gravely evil than other intrinsically evil actions.

Riiiggghhhhtttt!  Did you read what you just wrote?  In fact, the Church has shown us (just like the USCCB did above) the ones that get priority.  You, however, seem to want to downplay these for a reason.  Why is that? 

Intrinsically evil action can also be less gravely evil than other actions that do not fall under the category of intrinsic evil. For example, telling any lie is intrinsically evil, while launching a major war is not.  But it would be morally obtuse to propose that telling a minor lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of voting than a candidate’s policy to go to war.

And, Bishop McElroy?  Nobody is comparing the two.  This is what we like to call a red-herring.  It is just you trying to use an action that isn’t happening to downplaying the severity of the preeminent intrinsic evils that the Church has laid out. 

It is the gravity of evil or good present in electoral choices that is primarily determinative of their objective moral character and their contribution to or detraction from the common good. Moreover, because voting is a complex moral action involving mitigating circumstances, a vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils often does not involve illicit cooperation in those acts. For these reasons the category of intrinsic evil cannot provide a comprehensive moral roadmap for prioritizing the elements of the common good for voting.

We don’t need more of a road map than already given to us.  The person we should vote for should pass the test of rejecting the preeminent intrinsic evils of our time which, again, as our very own USCCB has stated, are the no brainer offenses against life.  That is PREEMINENT.  I’m not sure how many ways the Church has to say it before Bishop McElroy stop trying to confuse the voters that when two candidates are pro-choice, you can’t ever vote for the worse one, but you may be able to vote for the one who will do the least damage in this area.  If two candidates are apples to apples in this area, then you should go on to look at all of the other issues that go along with the dignity of life. 

Red Card for Fr. Brian D’Arcy!

What do you have to do to deserve a silencing, defrocking, or at the very least, a rap on the head?!?!  Personally, defrocking would be too good for this one.  Can we just hit him with the trifecta of silencing, defrocking, AND excommunicating?  I mean, this guy is advocating the murder of children.  Oh, did I mention he’s a priest?!?!?!?!

We must be help Irish women with abortion costs, says rebel priest D’Arcy

By Allan Preston

Please.  Rebel priest?  More like evil priest.  Rebel is a tad bit too classy for him.

An outspoken priest from Northern Ireland has said Irish women travelling to England for abortions should be helped with the costs of repatriation.

Fr Brian D’Arcy made the comments in the second part of an interview with Hot Press magazine published today.

Thank goodness I missed the first part of this interview.  My gag reflex is already in full swing.

The Enniskillen cleric says he has had “countless conversations” with mothers faced with the sometimes heartbreaking decision of having to travel to England for a termination.

“I have sat with mothers, night after night after night. And I have always said to mothers, ‘Whatever you choose is the right choice’,” he said.

Awww…what a guy.  Do you think he says that to the guy considering killing the 5-year-old? How about helping her out of a tough situation?  Words are cheap, Fr. D’Arcy, and yours are bargain basement cheap.

“I always say that to mothers. My own view is that we should try to save all lives.”

I wonder if he ever considered using the words of the Church that abortion is EVIL?  Not only that, it’s intrinsically evil, which means NO situation could ever make it not evil.  What a fool!  Actually, I’m reasonably sure that he knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s evil.

While insisting his views are still pro-life, Fr D’Arcy has backed the proposal to cover repatriation costs in abortion cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities, in order for the remains to be brought back to Ireland and buried if the woman has been forced to travel to Great Britain for an abortion.

Please!  This helps a woman how?  I’m sure there is more than one organization in the Catholic Church in England that would bury aborted babies.

“Whatever about the abortion, I have no problem at all having respect and love and care for the little infant whose life didn’t get a chance,” he said.

You just told a woman that allowing her child to be killed was a “right choice”, and now you think you are the one with respect and love?  You’re part of the reason children are being killed, Father.

“So, whatever we should do to make the mother and father of that infant good, so much the better. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it’s a good thing to do be compassionate and loving in that situation.”

I could repeat this a thousand times: YOU just told the mother killing her child is a “right choice.”   The compassion and loving thing is NOT to do that, you moron!

The rebel priest believes it is inevitable that the Irish government will repeal the Eighth Amendment to the State’s constitution – originally passed by referendum in 1983 – which gives the unborn an equal right to life with mothers in all circumstances.

Yeah, with priests like you allowed to roam this planet without a good censure, I wouldn’t be at all too surprised if you are correct.  This is the epitome of “The smoke of Satan.”

Fr D’Arcy has admitted his views may mean his days as a priest are numbered.

Please let this prophecy be fulfilled!  I suppose I should be praying for a change of heart, but then I think of all of those women he tossed a rope to, the ends of which weren’t anchored to anything.  He might as well have shot them and their children in the head.  They asked for loaves and he gave them stones.  Bravo, father!

The Passionist priest also said he supports gay couples adopting, would have no problem giving his blessing at same-sex marriages and has called on Pope Francis to allow divorced people to re-marry in the church.

No surprise there.  I’m reasonably sure ANYONE could have guessed that.

In the first part of the Hot Press interview published earlier this month he claimed to know that a number of women committed suicide after suffering abuse at the hands of Ireland’s most notorious paedophile priest from Belfast, Brendan Smyth.

So, what you are saying is that priests who don’t follow Church teachings harm their flock?  My gosh, man!  Get a grip.  Brendan Smyth wasn’t devout in any sense of the word.  He was, well, a lot like you. 

He also had harsh words for Cardinal Sean Brady, who was aware of children being abused by Belfast-born Fr Smyth, but chose not to go to the authorities.

“Priests molest, so feel free to kill your children!” Uh, hello!  They have zero things in common, other than disobedient priests.

“The one thing you will always say about Sean Brady is that he’s a decent man,” he said.

“But he would probably know himself now that the system had him so brainwashed that he didn’t do the right thing. He was wrapped up in this whole secrecy thing.”

Again, has ZERO to do with you saying that it’s ever OK to kill a child.  This is a very nice red-herring, father, but don’t you dare point to another’s sins to justify your own.

In the latest interview Fr D’Arcy states that half of his own congregation are in second marriages or relationships.

What does that say about their pastor, Father “Whatever you choose is the right choice” D’Arcy?

Having faced censure from the Vatican once before for his views, Fr D’Arcy speaks about risking his vocation. “I could get the second yellow card and be silenced forever,” he said.

Red card, Your Holiness!  Let’s go straight for that one.  To put it in other-than-soccer terminology, eject him from the game!

The interview also airs Fr D’Arcy’s opinions on the way women are treated in the Catholic Church, his experience of being stalked by a female admirer and of threats made to his life.

Oh, boo-hoo!  Sorry!  I have little sympathy for your hardships.  Now, your immortal soul?  I’m really sympathetic, because, from outward appearances, it’s looking mighty dicey.  Children are dying, but please tell me about your stalkers and threats to your life. 



Friendly Atheist Thinks Catholic Parents are Wrong. #ShockedNotShocked

See my shocked face?  That’s right, I don’t have one.

Methinks I’m looking a bit prophetic to some, right now.  I’ve had many email exchanges over the past couple days on the Diocese of Nashville debacle found here:  In the course of those exchanges, I pointed to what was coming next.  How did I know?  Because this is the same tactic that liberals take every single time.  Here’s what I said to one reader:

My guess is they are about to paint them all as naive people who live in the bunker and don’t have a real view of what kids are up against these days.

Not so surprisingly, it only took until Monday:

A Nashville Catholic School is Under Fire for Teaching Basic Facts About Sex and Birth Control

September 5, 2016 by Hemant Mehta

Wrong!  Let’s take a few minutes to explain to the folks at “The Friendly Atheist” a little about “the real world” shall we?  First, it isn’t “basic facts” about sex education.  Next, parents want to opt their kids out, which is their canonical right.  The parents asked for changes, didn’t get them, asked to opt out and were denied.  The school didn’t leave them much choice.  I’m the one who’s asking for this to be banished from the Catholic planet and to heck with opting out.

If I told you a Catholic high school in Nashville, Tennessee had a controversy involving basic sex education, you might brace for the worst. But Father Ryan High School is actually doing something downright sensible.

Nope, I’d say that you are an idiot who is not Catholic (The Friendly Atheist was a giveaway), that you probably have no teens, and that you have no adult children.  Yep, the dude has reached the ripe old age of 33.  Yeah, he’s obviously an expert in the area of raising teens with a healthy view of sex and marriage and in the Catholic context.  By all means, feel free to comment, Mr. Mehta.

As part of a theology course that freshmen and sophomores are required to take, the curriculum includes a discussion about basic human anatomy, how it all operates when it comes to sex, and how birth control works.

Sorry, Hemant.  Basic human anatomy is basic.  This went far beyond basic and, interestingly enough, spent a whole lot of time on how to “get the job done” rather than the results of getting the job done.  Also, if you bothered to read through it, and you are familiar with the various methods of birth-control, you’d find that the information presented was quite inadequate.  Oh, and how about the various STDs?  Don’t you think, as long as you’re providing them with “basic” information, that you provide them with the “basic” facts about those, considering that their very lives are at stake?

But I digress.  You’re missing the bigger picture, which is that parents don’t think this is the school’s place.  It is their job to teach their kids this subject in a far more appropriate setting.

That’s not to say they’re encouraging pre-marital sex or the use of birth control in any circumstance, but when you’re teaching kids about a faith that condemns contraception and has strong stances on sex outside of marriage, the students better know damn well what those controversies are all about.

Said by the naive atheist.  This is a “Don’t do it but when you do…” type of course.  That’s exactly what they’re going to get too – a whole lot of teens trying to have sex without consequences.  

So here’s what they’re teaching, according to parents who are very unhappy with the decision:

Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.

They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts.

At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.”

Students are taught about “erotic nerve endings” on both the male and female reproductive organs that react with “sexual stimulus.” They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection.

Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function.

I’m not seeing a problem.

Uh, that might be because you do not have teens or single adult children, Hemant. Do you know what a teen thinks about when you are telling them which parts of the body get stimulated and what happens when they get stimulated?  Might it be the parts of the body that get stimulated and what happens when they do?  Get a clue.

When are these kids expected to learn this material, if not in high school? This is basic, factual material. The only people who shouldn’t be able to handle this are those who can’t say the word “clitoris” without  giggling.

Let me just ask you a couple of things.  First, why do you think they need to learn this in high school?  We all agree that the Church’s teaching is no sex before marriage (although you have also seriously missed the teachings on chastity, purity, etc.).  If that is the case, why do you want them to take a class to help them visualize it so vividly? 

Now , before you throw out “She’s a prude, too!” I’ll just stop you right there.  I know the info that they are presenting to the students. In fact, I know far more than the info presented.  How do I know this?  Try I’M MARRIED AND I HAVE A BUNCH OF KIDS.  I know exactly how birth control works.  I know exactly how babies are made.  I know how men and women react to stimuli.  And guess what?  I didn’t take this course, Hemant!  How did I ever do acquire such information without Fr. Ryan’s Human Sexuality course???

Next, do you think teens don’t know how their bodies react to stimuli? Please.  Did you need to take a course to figure that out, Hemant? 

Still, again, you miss the parents’ point, which is they believe THEY should teach their teen kids about sex, reproduction, birth control, marriage, health  (there’s something not covered at all), and their bodies in general, and not in a co-ed classroom setting of 30?  I mean, I would at least think you could agree that is the best idea.  What’s your beef with that?  Are these teachers somehow magically more prepared than a parent could be?  You know, someone who was a teen, has teens, is married, is having sex in the context of a Catholic marriage, etc.?

Quite frankly, I would submit to you, Hemant, that the parents who think they should pawn this job off to anyone but themselves are the immature parents, hiding in the bunker, who are somehow so completely and utterly embarrassed about the topic that they can’t even discuss it with the people who should be their top priority in life.  Think about it.  You are passing judgment on the real grown-ups of this story. 

That group apparently includes a lot of parents, who are calling this material “salacious” and demanding that the Diocese of Nashville stop making this a required course.

“We feel like the sex-ed curriculum basically amounts to a ‘wink and a nod’ to student sexual activity, especially when the curriculum gives them an exhaustive contraception list and tests the students to make sure they know how all of them function,” one parent said.

“There are so many aspects of the school that we love, but they shouldn’t teach this to our kids. It’s the parents’ right to teach their kids about such sensitive matters. We don’t want our kids seeing images of penises and vaginas. This will only corrupt them. We want the program gone,” states the group of parents.

Just wait till these parents hear about the internet. Minds will be blown…

Grow up, Hemant.  Most of those parents were the first Facebook users and some are bloggers.  They’re only about 5 to 10 year older than you.  They’re hardly using a cane.  In short, they are the internet generation.  Yet they have one thing you seriously lack – experience.

Are you for showing them “50 Shades of Grey” too, Hemant?  Should we present it to them just because “it’s out there?”  How about some hardcore porn too why we’re at it?

Here’s an idea for you.  How about parents present a lesson on sex and marriage that teaches them about the beauty of it?  Maybe a lesson that portrays the Church’s message about it?  What an idea!

They also explain what the curriculum is lacking:

At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice.

Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation.


All of those are value judgments — and the Church agrees with them — but the purpose of this material in the theology course is to give students the facts before they begin talking about the Catholic faith’s stance on everything.

It’s meaningless to have a discussion about why masturbation is bad and chastity is good when the students don’t even have a working knowledge about how their own bodies work.

Oh, this is rich.  Why, Hermant?  Because people taking this class don’t know what masturbation is without it?  That kind of proves their point.  You, apparently, think that people are clueless if they don’t take this class.  Guess again. Again, bring on the porn.  The kids should know darn well everything before we discuss the “Catholic faith’s stance.” (Insert rolling eyes.)  I mean, really, do you really think that you need to know the ins and outs of arousing someone before you can talk about chastity?  Please.

Besides that, there isn’t a parent complaining about this course that doesn’t want their children to know how they’re bodies work.  As I’ve said before, they’re the parents who are willing to do the “heavy lifting” to teach their own kids in a manner they deem appropriate and at the time they deem appropriate.  Don’t think they could possibly have a clue to when that is because they are not credentialed teachers?  Can I point out that they are 1) Catholics 2) married 3) have teens, so they have apparently had sex at least once 4) love their kids enough to gain the knowledge to teach them via one of the fabulous programs already on the books, 5) etc., etc., etc.  You, Hemant, were a high school math teacher.  How is it again you are an expert in the field? 

It’s the same reason that, in my high school health class, we learned about different kinds of drugs and what they did to our bodies. It didn’t make me want to run out and try them. The point was that we couldn’t reasonably talk about, for example, whether marijuana should be legalized without understanding its effects on our bodies and minds.

And?  Nobody is debating that.  These parents want their kids to know how their bodies work at the appropriate times, by the appropriate means, and by the appropriate manner and appropriate to the child. 

I do love your drug class analogy though.  I’m sure you didn’t mean to but you made the point again for me.  Let me ask you, Hemant.  Were you taught how to tap the vein so you could shoot heroin more efficiently?  We you taught that you could shoot it between your toes so your tracks wouldn’t be obvious?  Were you taught how to avoid an overdose?  If you’d like to use that analogy, you might want to understand that’s basically what this class does for sex.  Did you really need to know how to shoot crystal meth or did you need to know the outcome of doing so?

If these Catholic parents really want their kids to learn Catholic values, they should realize that keeping them in a bubble is the worst possible way to do it. If anything, exposing them to the facts should make it easier to indoctrinate them.

Thanks for telling me how I should parent with your vast knowledge of parenting.  Thanks also for presuming something about which you clearly know nothing.  We don’t live in a bubble and I’m pretty sure the parents at Fr. Ryan don’t either – well,  maybe the ones who cannot foresee a negative outcome of a course in front of them.

The Diocese, to its credit, isn’t budging. If the parents don’t want their kids to take the course, the only option right now is to leave the school.

Parents don’t always know what’s best for their kids. This is perfect example of it.

Catholic parents who truly care about their kids and the Faith study up, Hemant.  I guarantee I have more knowledge about the body, the reproductive system, having children, STDs, abortion, birth control, health, the teachings of the Church, teaching sex education, helping teens to remain chaste, etc., than you will ever have.  In fact, my single, adult children likely know more than  you in most of these areas.  I’m reasonably sure that the parents fighting this program also likely know about raising teens just a tad bit better than you.  When we want to know how to be a good atheist, we’ll come to you.  Until then, shove off.

What’s next in the liberal tackle box?  We’ll probably be hearing about how devout Catholics hate sex. 

P.S.  If you haven’t done so already, please sign and share.


My Letter on the Nashville Debacle

Your Excellency and staff of Fr. Ryan High School,

Just so you understand, I have been working in the pro-life world since I was 16.  This is not the course (and I have reviewed many) that will teach these kids how to revere the beauty of sex in the context of Catholic teaching.  This is indeed a “how to” course, and if you don’t think it is, you really have no business working with teens.  Sadly, Planned Parenthood supplies educators with much of the same material as shown.

Clearly there was some missing curriculum from the Life Site News article, and I attested to that.  That said, what was shown was enough.  More context was not necessary to know this course is a near occasion of sin.  And, really, you couldn’t pick a book that didn’t point to the notorious Fr. Richard Rohr?  His fan club alone should have led you to know that you were on the wrong path.

I think Fr. Ryan High School has completely disregarded this and has missed a fabulous opportunity to aid the parents instead of usurping their authority.

I highly recommend replacing this scandalous course with the materials from either Pam Stenzel ( or Jason and Crystalina Evert programs found here:  These speakers have successfully guided many teens to chaste lives and a healthy view of sexuality.

Just so you understand, I intend to help the parents of Fr. Ryan High School until their canonical rights are restored to them.  After that, I will likely keep reporting until the material and book presented are removed.

Sincerely sorrowful,

One Mad Mom