Reality Neutral Fordham

Congratulations, Fordham University! You have now become a “religion neutral” university.  Or, how about “reality neutral” university?  Whatever it is, it certainly ain’t Catholic, it’s just plain idiotic!  Wouldn’t it be nice if you thought of “Catholic inclusive” when you came up with this game plan?‘Gender-Inclusive’-Campaign.aspx

Let me just let you in on something, Fordham, as PC as it is, 99.9% of women in this world don’t want to go to the bathroom anywhere near the opposite sex. The Battlestar Galactica circa 2009 isn’t real.  Real women don’t want to “do their business” in earshot, eyeshot, or anywhere within 10,000 feet of a man.  Not only that, we don’t want men using our facilities, no matter how much they “feel like a woman.”  It’s ingrained into us, and any woman who disagrees has taken feminism to an all new and disturbing level.

Guys are not the neatest, and I’m sure everyone woman who’s used the Starbuck’s unisex bathroom is thinking, “Oh yeah, right!” at this point.  I’m not a guy, so I won’t presume to answer for them, but I’m pretty sure that, unless they’re completely perverted, they feel the same way.  Remember, we’re not just talking about “men who feel like women” and vice versa, we’re talking about all men and women using the same restroom.  Talk about ruining the mystery.  It’s just a new and exciting way to ruin the attraction for the opposite sex.

To those hipsters who think it’s going to be cool to be so liberated from the constraints of society, just you wait. I’m predicting this will be gone soon, along with your beards.  Women don’t really like those, either.  To those that claim they do…I can’t help you.


So Sorry, San Diego!

My sincere apologies to San Diego. While we weren’t thrilled about Auxiliary Bishop McElroy being an annoying, backstabbing kind of guy in our area, we really weren’t looking to inflict him on anyone else, either, much less have him elevated to any real public area.  Sadly, here he is:–catholic-bishops-new-voter-guide-ignores-key-causes-of-pope-critics-say.html

I’m sure he’s being joined by Archbishop Cupich, the National catholic Reporter, America Mag, and the rest of the usual seamless garment gang, but he’s the one flapping his gums this go around.

“I believe that this document is gravely hobbled,” said McElroy, who was an outspoken advocate of the church’s social-justice teachings even before Francis named him to lead the large and growing southern California diocese this year.

“Specifically, I think the pope is telling us that alongside the issues of abortion and euthanasia — which are central aspects of our commitment to transform this world — poverty and the degradation of the Earth are also central,” McElroy said. “But this document keeps to the structure of the worldview of 2007. It does not put those there.”

Umm, no, Bishop McElroy. Absolutely nothing is more paramount than life itself, and, thankfully, the majority of your fellow bishops understand that.  “Poverty and the degradation of the Earth” may be important, but they are not “central”.  We’re talking murder here.  Murder and hunger are not the same.  Murder and pollution are not the same.  You also don’t have to take the same actions to respond to either of these situations as you do to stop murder.  Murder must stop, plain and simple.  We wouldn’t look at a 3-year-old with a gun to her head and say, “Hey, we really need to look at carbon emissions that might cause her great-great-great grandchildren to have to endure an ice age or 150-degree heat (or whatever the argument of the day is)!” Hunger or pollution can be fixed in a myriad of different ways, and making people understand the basic right to life, first and foremost, is a pretty darn good way to start fixing the rest of what ails us.  History tells us that many civilizations, if not all, that have perished had one very important thing in common – murder became an accepted part of their society.  This doesn’t bode well for us.  The biggest question on our minds should be, “How long will God hold back His wrath?”

Downplaying the gravity of murder is one of the reasons why, in this country, we have an every growing issue with poverty. If there is no value to human life, why would people worry about people going hungry?  It’s easier to let them die, or worse, just kill them.  Think about it.  That really was Margaret Sanger’s solution.  Kill the poor people and keep them from reproducing.

I also found McElroy’s comment about the “worldview of 2007” pretty darn interesting. I don’t give a flying fig about the worldview, period.  This is one of the things I find rather troubling about McElroy, Cupich, et. al.  Their focus is the world when it should be God.

Here’s a novel idea. What if we all worked like hell to end abortion and euthanasia?  What if every homily we heard in our churches was about how and why abortion and euthanasia are mortal sins?  How about if we heard murder used as a synonym?  What if we heard about the intrinsic value of every human life?  Don’t you think that would be transformative in the rest of the areas of the Catholic Church and the world once they saw us following through? Don’t you think, starting with the faithful (or at this point, AKA the uneducated), the rest of the world might start thinking, “Wow!  If this is this serious, and every human life has value, then this human life or that other human life must have value too!”?  Want to talk “trickle down?”  That tactic might act as a dang waterfall!

As it stands now, many Catholics don’t even value life. Forget the rest of society.  Like everything else, it’s all about how someone’s life affects them.  If it’s hard, if it’s inconvenient, if it’s not perfect, then it’s better that it didn’t exist.  Of course that’s going to bleed into all other areas of our society.  When you are killing babies in the womb and the elderly because they are burdens, you’re devaluing life, so you’re going to turn a blind eye to anyone else who’s a burden. We (that’s the societal we) have spent an exhaustive amount of time telling our youth that they are valuable and they should have self-worth.  For the life of me, though, I can’t understand why they’d believe us when we show them by example of how to treat a burden.  Of course we’re going to have suicides, mass killings, bullying, etc.  We kill the most vulnerable.  Why should they believe their lives have worth anymore, when just about everything in society says the polar opposite?  They know society is telling them that their existence is simply about their parents being fulfilled, not that they have intrinsic value.  And guess what, Bishop McElroy, your minimizing murder by trying to water it down with all of your other pet issues is to blame for this mentality.  Congratulations!  Remember that when we have the next school shooting.  While you and your merry mob continue to talk about the immorality of hunger and “climate change” when you can’t even manage to teach that life is sacred is beyond me.  Why would God ever bless these peripheral issues?

So, yes, I will continue to prioritize my voting with life at the top, and a hearty thank you to the USCCB for telling the seamless garment crew to take a hike. They laid out the non-negotiables, and despite what you think, Pope Francis has never put these on par with anything else as much as you wish he would.  Now if we could only hear these things more than once or twice a year!!!  This can’t go the way of “The Fortnight of Freedom” which only a handful of us have even heard about.  The laity needs to be hit upside the head on these issues on a regular basis.  If we can’t end the atrocities of abortion and euthanasia, none of our other social ills will ever be straightened out.  We will be doomed.

One last note, there is no direct quote from Bishop McElroy in the article, so I’m going to try my hardest to give him the benefit of the doubt, but whoever is floating this nonsense needs to stop.

McElroy’s position was supported by a number of other bishops, some of whom also were dismayed by the number of times the draft mentioned same-sex marriage, even though the U.S. Supreme Court effectively settled the issue by legalizing gay marriage in June.

I might remind whoever inspired this lamest afterthought ever that the Supreme Court said slavery and abortion were legal too. What the heck does it matter what the Supreme Court decides if it’s completely immoral?  Again, I’m sure there is just a small “number of other bishops” who want us just to drop it.  Thanks to God we didn’t stop fighting against slavery and that we haven’t stopped fighting against abortion, despite the losers who suggest this mealy-mouthed garbage.  Have they learned nothing from history and the saints who have been martyred for opposing bad laws? We must never stop fighting evil and the destruction of life and family!  That might be the only reason God has held back his wrath thus far.

Miss Me?

As you may or may not have noticed, I’ve been a bit MIA this week.  I have increasing computer issues which has rendered me ready to toss it across the room.  Rather than waste a piece of hardware that might just be salvageable with some TLC, I’ve just taken a vacation!

I am going to repost this in lieu of something from me.  Sadly, you wouldn’t be able to tell fact from sarcasm at my alma mater.  Not kidding.  I’m not sure I saw anything between this piece of satire and what I experienced at the high school I attended.  Yes, this is what most Catholic schools in California are like.  See why I homeschool?

On France: We Should’ve Followed the Lead of Pope St. Pius V

Our hearts are broken. A country that was once considered one of the most Catholic countries in the world has been overrun by Islam and attacked by jihadists. Can we just forget about climate change now? Get your heads out of the sand (I’m talking to you, liberal Catholics!) and realize that there are FAR more important things in our world. We can sit and worry about the weather, or we can worry about what’s really going to affect our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

You see, Islamists have long known what liberal Catholics have forgotten. We were supposed to be an army of God, and we were supposed to be raising an army of God. However, we’ve pretty much birth-controlled that out of our population in the last century. We’ve become narcissistic, we’ve become secular, and we’ve certainly given up on raising up an army. Children are now just here to give us pleasure. If they don’t give us pleasure, we don’t want them. Islamists know what God told his people all along. God-fearing children are arrows in our quivers, but Islamists know we’ve given up all our ammo – no faith, no family, and the Rosary has become an antiquity of the past rather than a weapon against our foes. They’re striking us now because they think we are weak. They are completely right. So, while the liberal Catholics continue to push for climate control measures, false mercy, and gay marriage, Islamists laugh at us and plan their revenge for Lepanto. Is it any wonder why we’re seeing this? While they promote their false teachings as truth, our liberal religious and priests are promoting truth as mutable.

Don’t believe me, Cardinal Kasper, Thomas Reese, Father Rosica, Father Martin, Joan Chittister, Archbishop Cupich, and all of you other heterodox religious and clergy? Watch this video: The woman toward the end is totally right.  While they’re building an army for their false God, liberal Catholics are celebrating our unencumbered lives and how great that is for the environment. You tout that the “majority” of Catholics don’t follow Church teachings, as if this is a reason they should be changed. God gave us a roadmap for the spreading of his people. “Gen 1:28 And God pronounced his blessing on them, Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and make it yours; take command of the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” You kind of forgot about that when you were plugging “civil unions”, women priests, gun control, climate control, and Communion for the divorced and remarried. Talk about misplaced priorities! Congratulations, you’ve aided and abetted these jihadis. Try picking up a history books. ISIS did.

While you liberal Catholic “leaders” are pushing for climate control, women priests and gay marriage; while you are advocating for Communion for the divorced, gun control; while your ilk floats this “coexist” mantra only hours before the Paris attacks:


the jihadists are salivating, because they know it means our death, both physically and spiritually.

One more thing: you college kids around the country who are whining about words and thoughts that are counter to yours “invading your safe space,” you don’t have a clue what an unsafe space is. You are pampered, privileged, and haven’t a modicum of understanding about the reality of this world. How do I know this? Because you probably haven’t bothered to pray for the dead in France. Instead, you take the time to send out ridiculous tweets like this:


What you deserve is to have some sense knocked into you. Again to all of you liberal religious and clergy out there who are promoting a false view of mercy and reality and encouraging the use of situation ethics, you’re created an entitled society like this.  You’ve already swayed a whole generation who are cooperating with you about the next one. What comes next is all on you.

Our Lady of Lepanto, Our Lady of Victory, Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

The Door is Closed, Joan! Stop Banging Your Head on It!

Hey NcR, are you even trying to be Catholic anymore? I guess that’s rhetorical.

First, thanks to “Joan Chittister” for dropping “Sister” from her byline. It has really been a blight on good sisters everywhere. NcR still seems insistent on reminding us she’s a sister at the end, but hey, what can you do. Quite frankly, she’s bucking for the “Father” title, so it’s not surprising she dropped “Sister.”


Ordination of married men would cause other major changes within the church

Joan Chittister |  Nov. 6, 2015 From Where I Stand

God writes straight with crooked lines. -Portuguese Proverb 

The question of the theology of ordination to the priesthood just isn’t going to go away.

First, in a meeting with Italian priests in Rome in February, the pope, they tell us, said that he is going to put the topic of the ordination of married men “into his diary.” Meaning on his list of subjects to be — what? Addressed? Discussed? Opened to consideration? Promised? The possibilities are tantalizing.

First of all, the title – it’s a ruse. She’s just floating a new tactic to eventually bring us around to women priests. There’s a shocker. I’m getting tired of liberals and their “Some unnamed priests tell us that that the pope hinted in some indiscernible comment that he might someday think about the subject of such and such…” schtick. This is what normal people call “stirring the pot.” It’s a liberal tactic that’s as subtle as Bernie Sanders’ socialism. “Let’s just keep saying it until it’s true” is liberal tactic #1. Unfortunately for just-about-80-year-old Joan Chittister, she hasn’t figured out yet that it’s not going to work anymore with the social media world. What do I mean? Just look at this quote from yet another unnamed priest in the same link Joan put in her article (

Another priest who was there told an American news agency recalled Francis’ words as: “I would not store this question in an archive”.

Wait! I think she’s putting on her little wishing hat and imagining he said, “I, Pope Francis, am going to ponder married priests as a stepping stone to women priests!” Yeah, not so much, but we’re still going to hear about it from Joan ad nauseam now. Let’s face it, she’s getting up there in years, so she probably realizes time to see her dreams come true is getting short.

In countries where some Catholic communities never see a priest more than once a year, the implications of a new and developing clergy — a married clergy as well as a celibate clergy — conjure up images of a church choosing to be vital and viable again.

So, it seems Joan thinks the vocation to the priesthood basically comes down to sex. If we just allow priests to have sex, we’ll have tons of them. Now, that may or may not be true. The real question to ask is do we really want priests whose vocation is contingent on them being able to have sex? “I will serve you, Lord, if you let me have sex.” How does that sound to you? Now, someday, the Church could conceivably change the marriage rule for its priests. It’s disciplinary, not doctrinal, after all. We already have married priests in the Church, too. It’s nothing new. It is a strange concept, however, to lobby for this. The Holy Father might just say, “Hey, we need more priests to take care of our booming Church and this is how I’m going to provide the sacraments for my flock. We need you to consider taking on the monumental task of providing for a family (and by the way, your family is going to have to make some huge sacrifices too) as well as a congregation.” It’s a whole different thing for people to push for this as if this is a grand solution! It’s like they’ve never even given thought to what that will entail. I’m sure Anglican convert priests are saying, “Yep, nobody is thinking about that!” Both jobs are 24/7.

In the United States itself, as well as in far off rural outposts, parishes are closing at a great rate. In fact, the very superstructure of the church of the ’50s — its community-building impact, its services and ministries, its vibrant witness — is dimming. People drive miles to go to Mass now or don’t go at all. They volunteer in civic agencies now rather than in parish ministries because there are few or no church projects impactful enough to demand their commitment. Instead, the church, where there is one, has become a private devotion.

I totally agree that the priest shortage is a huge problem. Why does Joan continue to look towards very complicated solutions rather than to look at what’s proven to work? Why isn’t she touting, say, the diocese of Lincoln, NE, that’s been in the top 10 for numbers of seminarians for quite awhile now? Why isn’t Joan looking at what’s being done there? I mean, there’s only a hundred and thirty something parishes and an average of 40 or so seminarians! How about the diocese of Madison, which is also totally surging in seminarian numbers? Why aren’t we looking at them, Joan? I’m pretty sure we all know why. Faithful Bishops, faithful teachings, etc. Yeah, she’s having none of that. If they don’t like Call to Action or Call to Action doesn’t like them, she’d NEVER point their methods as the cure for the seminarian shortage. Besides that, she has an ulterior motive. She’s definitely not talking married priests because she wants to solve the priest shortage. She’s looking at it as a stepping stone to women priests, and she doesn’t hide it:

But if Pope Francis takes the question of married men seriously, that could, for a change, lead to real change.

And your stats for that are? Is it the Anglican Church? They’ve got that married priesthood thing, yet they are also freaking out about a priest shortage right now. Their shortage, though, has pretty much been as a result of “women priests and bishops,” which is Joan’s main goal. This whole married priest thing is just a bait and switch. Read on:

The annual number of candidates for the priesthood might actually rise, for instance. The number of priestless parishes might be reduced. The church’s ministry to families, itself embodied in a model of family life, might become more credible. Sex would become both a male and a female thing rather than a prescription for the control of women. And, oh yes, the place and role of women in the church might very well change, too, once women began to be seen as integral to the parish and its activities.

And there you have it. Her true intentions eventually show up. She just can’t help herself and her bitterness against and jealousy of men oozes from the page. Who are these helpless women being controlled by mean old men? On the local scale, I don’t know one parish that doesn’t find women integral to the parish and its activities. What a farce!

All in all, the church might get to be much closer to the people, to its children, to the rest of the real questions of life. And it can’t come too soon.

Really, Joan? All because of married priesthood? Gals in the priesthood? Again, the Anglicans are in decline. I’m certainly not lamenting that. It’s been a boon for the Catholic Church where they’ve been coming en masse as of late. That said, it proves my point. Why would we want that for the Catholic Church?

But there is a second issue about ordination that is also crying to be heard. A recent report on the public position of a group of Irish priests concerning the ordination of women puts the issue of women in the church in a clear and penetrating perspective. They say, “We are aware that there are many women who are deeply hurt and saddened by this teaching. We also believe that the example given by the Church in discriminating against women encourages and reinforces abuse and violence against women in many cultures and societies.”

Um, I think that issue has been heard by you, Joan. You hear what you want to hear and ignore what doesn’t fit YOUR model. Who in the heck are all these whiners and complainers? It ain’t me and my people. We hardly consider the all-male, celibate priesthood a curse to us. These men are totally willing to sacrifice something for us and our husbands! Our husbands are free to give us all of their attention. Why would we ever complain about that? Because you can’t have the title you want? Are you really insinuating that the all-male, celibate priesthood is leading to violence and abuse against women? Get a grip, Joan! It’s a nice, try at stirring sympathy, but it falls flat with those of us who have a thought in our head and don’t rely on liberal buzz. Methinks Joan might want to actually do some searching for her last shred of reality. Maybe this book would help:

More from Joan:

CARA, the research center devoted to Catholic issues and structures at Georgetown University, reports the declining number of women who are still active in the church, let alone devoted to its teachings. Mothers who were once the very catechetical arm of the church no longer support the church’s position on birth control, homosexuality, or same-sex marriage. And they say so.

Let’s talk about that. Bottom line, it’s really irrelevant, but let’s look at why is this so, just to placate you. I again point to the dioceses with faithful bishops and priests who have been around long enough to catechize their dioceses on the beauty and wonder of Church teachings. Do you really find wholesale dissent in the dioceses who’ve been doing that? I’ve lived in a few different places around the country, and I can tell you that you do not find a bunch of whiny women in those dioceses. Coming from a super-liberal diocese, I found it beautifully weird not to have to explain the faith to my fellow women Catholics. They knew it, got it, and were very involved in parish life. You see, they, like me, weren’t conditioned by a bunch of misandrists (Can you tell I’m loving that word?) to be jealous of our priests or fellow male Catholics. Misandry is what’s really going on here. It was never about misogyny.

More significant, perhaps, young unmarried women see little or no place for themselves in the male church. They can’t be deacons, they are often not encouraged or even not allowed to be altar girls again. They have no places on the standing church commissions that define liturgical practices, theological constructs or scriptural interpretations.

OK, I’m not a young unmarried woman – I once was, but none of this made me feel inferior – but I know and am related to some stellar ladies. I am going to tap a couple of them for comment on Joan’s comment on their behalf. Also, feel free to have the young, unmarried Catholic woman in your life reply in the comment section to this plate of pander.

Here are their comments:

As a young, unmarried woman; as an officer of my University’s Catholic Newman Club; as a woman who has always been encouraged to participate in and lead church activities; and as a woman who doesn’t need my worth defined by masculine standards, I will have to disagree with you, Joan. Men and women were created equal but different, each given a unique role in forming the Church. Women are given the honor of being so closely involved in the bringing of physical life, so men are given the responsibility of bringing spiritual life through the priesthood. Before I am able to help with the whole “creating life” thing, there are so many different ways I can contribute to the Church! As a musician, I am given the honor of leading the congregation in glorifying God through song. As a lay person, I am able to simply enjoy the beauty and mystery of the Mass, and I am extremely thankful for the men who are able to make this possible.

I don’t need to be given a special title like Deacon, Priest, or altar server in the so-called “male church” just so I can feel important. And before you go off and tell people that women are given no opportunity to contribute to the formation of Church teachings, do I really need to cite the female Doctors of the Church; the female founders of religious orders; and, you know, Mary, Mother of God? Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom, Help of Christians, Mother of the Church?

And another:

I believe that Joan Chittister’s interpretation of a “male church” is inaccurate. Women cannot be priests or deacons due to the Sacred Tradition that was implemented by Christ. Women, young and old, however, are welcomed and encouraged to serve the Church as Baptismal and Confirmation sponsors, CCD teachers, or “standing positions” such as Canon Lawyers, Judges, or Chancellors, and much more. We should encourage young women to serve God through these important facets, rather than challenging Christ’s Will and positioning ourselves as competitors with men. Women, such as St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Teresa of Avila (all doctors of the Church), for instance, have found meaningful positions without the title of “priest” or “deacon.” They have, instead, employed virtues, such as humility and obedience to God. Thus, women have and can continue to find a truly fulfilling and significant position in the Church by following God’s individual will for them. When in doubt, we should always turn to our most humble, yet venerated, Blessed Virgin Mother.

Beautiful and such a contrast to the Joan Chittisters of the world! They’ve got the nose to their grindstones and they’re not looking for glory.  They will likely have a great impact on our Church.

So pollsters track them as they go somewhere else seeking spiritual nourishment or, just as likely, go nowhere at all. Disillusioned with the gap between Christian teaching and Catholic practice on equality, religion has little meaning for them now. In a world where secular institutions are more likely to recognize the fullness of a woman’s humanity than the church does, church does not interest them much anymore.

This is the crux of the problem. Joan sees a contradiction between “Christian teaching” and “Catholic practice.” She pits one against the other in the same way she pits faithful priests against women.

The question is what relationship, if any, is there between these two apparently different issues? What can the ordination of married men possibly have to do with the ordination of women?

There is no relationship. One is a disciplinary issue (married priests/celibate priesthood) and one is a heresy, as in a contradiction of the truth in Church doctrine. You’re familiar with heresy, aren’t you Joan? “The door is closed” (a well documented Francis quote for a change, even by Joan’s own NcR).

This new topic of a married priesthood which is now in the pope’s diary could, I think, if history is correct, conceivably change all of that. But not in the way most people might think. And that’s my problem.

One of many problems, Joan.

For the sake of full disclosure, I need to say that I am a bit hesitant about writing this column. My concerns fall into the category of “Don’t put it in the airwaves” or “Don’t even whisper this — in case. …”

Why? Because the jig is up if they figure it out.

Yeah, you should be hesitant. *Cough* Heresy! *Cough!* Sadly, this isn’t where the hesitancy comes in.

Think a minute. Why do they have ordained women priests in other Christian denominations? Think. Because they have married male priests, that’s why.

OK, putting on my thinking cap. Computing. Carnac the Magnificent says the answer is because they aren’t the One True Church! It’s really quite easy to see that, when you don’t have the deposit of Faith, you’re going to let the feminazis rule.

Just how long, for how many years, through how many canonical councils, do you think married Roman Catholic priests can hold out against the ordination of married women priests once the taboo topic of women priests is finally laid on the altar for all to hear?

Here’s the thing. We’ve had married priests throughout Catholic history. We have them today. Get it through your head, Joan, women priests aren’t “taboo”. We can talk about them all you want, and many other non-Catholic denominations can go ahead and have them. In the Catholic Church, however, they are a heresy. They aren’t even in the realm of possibility, which is why “the door is closed.” Let me spell it out for you. The reason the door is closed is that women are improper matter for the priesthood. Want to whine and complain about that one? Take it up with Christ.

I figure that the history of married priests in the Roman Catholic church will go just the way it has in every other Christian denomination: Faced with the vision of Jesus surrounded, supported, sustained by women; conscious of Jesus’ theological education of women, his ministry to them and through them; aware of His welcoming of them in every public and pastoral situation, despite the prescriptions of enclosure they had faced in earlier cultures; good priests in other Christian denominations simply could not ignore the will of God for women anymore. Eventually, it got to be more and more clear: the place of women in the church was not a problem to be solved, it was a Divine mandate meant to be honored. At last.

Yet another problem with Joan. She can’t quite understand that we’re not just like every other Christian denomination. We have the full Faith. Isn’t it great that Joan thinks she knows the will of God for women? Isn’t it more interesting to hear that she feels like other Christian denominations got it right but not the Catholic Church? Sigh. Is it really God’s will, Joan, or just the will of bitter, jealous women who will never be content unless they get a shot at the awesome white garbs and spiffy white hat? I think the latter.

And more than that, perhaps, how many conferences for how many years do you think a male priest could come home at night, throw his briefcase on the desk and say victoriously to his wife and daughters  one more time, “Well, I voted against all of you again.” Shouts of joy. Applause. Triumph?

Or maybe silence and cold mashed potatoes.

And there it is again. The Church is against women. Unbelievably, this woman has now spent decades trying to make the rest of us as unsatisfied, bitter and jealous of our Church as she is. What an annoying waste of time. Now she’s imagining the pitting of husbands against wives. She’s now in my house! What a sad, sad woman. I think she’s actually the perfect example of a misandrist. Not sure what happened in her life to make her so bitter, but it’s pathetic.

From where I stand, the scenario is a real one. But you can see why I don’t want to mention it out loud. I am convinced that until the women’s question is addressed in the church, the numbers will continue to decline, and the church will fail in the 21st century. I would hate to give the opposition time to organize against married priests in order to block the sight of women in church rectories. If Christianity is ever to be Christianity again we simply must admit that women are also full human beings and disciples of Jesus.

Indeed, the issue of married priests is an important one.

And I think this pope knows it. After all, he already has a note about it in his diary. The question is whether or not they have figured out the relationship between married male priests and the eventual ordination of women priests.

Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t tell.

Apparently over in bitterland, reality is overrated. Christianity hasn’t ceased to exist. As the young, unmarried, ladies have so eloquently stated above, the Church doesn’t see women as partial human beings. The Church holds us in far more esteem than Joan would ever admit. Lastly, married male priests have zero correlation with the never happening “ordination of women priests.”

My sincere hope is that Joan Chittister will learn to love, embrace, and support our all male, celibate priesthood during the last years of her life, and that she will let go of the bitterness and jealousy and finally see how much our Church values and treasures women. She can spend her remaining years railing against the Church, or she can look at the beautiful young women quoted above and see their peace, confidence and love.

Children! Drop Those Crucifixes at the Door! We’re Becoming Atheists!

I was going to write an entire rant on this but this guy did a pretty good and snarky job just like I like it!

I would also add that lumping Christians in with a faith that throws people off roofs for being Christian, gay, etc. in many parts of the world (Heck!  Even Bill Maher gets that!)  might not be fairest test of “religiosity” and altruism.

I would also like to point out that it seems the authors of the study do not think it’s altruistic for these children to be concerned about kids pushing and shoving in line.  That’s simply “judgmental.”   Anyone see a problem with that?  Methinks it didn’t fit into their narrative.

Thanks, William, for saving me some time!

Alterius culpa, alterius culpa, alterius maxima culpa!

I have to admit, when I first saw the story erupt about Ross Douthat, I really thought the Twitter handle @douthatNYT was just a cool way of saying “doubt that.” Yes, this just goes to show you I live in a “mom cave”. And no, I don’t often read the NY Times. I saw all these back and forths, but really didn’t give it much thought until I saw the group letter to the editor of the New York Times. It started to become a little entertaining, so I paid more attention. You just know it’s going to be good when a large number of them are Georgetown people. You also know there’s something to it when they try to marginalize someone by saying they’re not qualified to speak on a topic. That’s pretty much liberal speak for, “Dang it! He nailed it, so we must now try to convince others he has no clue.” The most hilarious phrase from the letter waspolitically partisan narrative.” Coming from Georgetown peeps and all, that’s kind of when “I’m like rubber. You’re like glue. What bounces off me, sticks to you!” started floating through my mind.

So, here’s the tweet that launched it all. Funny thing is that it’s not attached to any other conversation. It’s just there all by itself. It certainly didn’t say “Massimo Faggioli, own your heresy!”


Like I said, nowhere is a message to put this in context. None of the posts before or after this one mentions anyone who signed the letter to the editor, and yet, some say they felt inclined to sign it because Ross Douthat called Faggioli a heretic. Are we supposed to simply infer that because Douthat is a mean ol’ “conservative” Catholic? For all we know, the tweet above might have been a reference to “Take the plank out of your own eye” or something else. Isn’t it funny that the dissenters du jour chose to “own it?” Telling!

One signer said she felt inclined to sign because Douthat accused a colleague of heresy ( It’s supposed to be a “mea culpa,” but likely due to the social media backlash against the signers, it turns into more of a “it’s somebody else’s culpa” due to the fact she just can’t stop herself.

Why I Signed the Letter to the NYTimes about Ross Douthat

by Katie Grimes

I signed the letter primarily because I wanted to support my colleague who was slurred as a heretic on the very public forum of Twitter.

Hmmm, not so much, Katie. Douthat didn’t level an accusation at anyone in particular in that tweet, and I challenge people to do their own research. Don’t take my word for it. Go to Twitter and go through the tweets. I found it in about a minute. Sensitive much, signers?

Although I admire Mr. Douthat’s intelligence, piety, and passion for the faith, I signed the letter because I believe he has uttered several factual errors.  I do believe that, even in its editorial pages, that the New York Times, like all publications, has a duty to the represent the truth to the best of its ability.  More than many other figures who misrepresent or oversimplify Catholic theology in the mainstream media, Mr. Douthat has tended to portray himself as one who recites Catholic teaching rather than one who interprets it, especially over the course of the past few weeks. This alone I take issue with.

Uh, Miss Grimes? Based on your very first paragraph and the holes I punched in it in lightning speed, I’m reasonably sure you are not an expert on what constitutes a factual error.

In other words, I have no problem with any thinker expressing on even the most public forums views about Catholic theology that differ from mine. I do not even have a problem if said thinker defends and advocates for a “conservative” interpretation of Catholicism.  I have no problem admitting that I am neither objective or neutral: we all speak from a certain context, suffer under the weight of our own finitude, and perpetrate a certain sinful bias.  Although I, like every Catholic, feel very strongly about my views, I am not scandalized by the fact that Catholics disagree, mostly in good faith, about many, many things.

Aaaaaaand…here comes the not so contrite confession:

Now here comes the hard part. Many people, rightly, have taken issue with the letter’s use of the word “credentials.”  Some contend that this word makes it seem as though only those with three letters after their name are entitled to speak on questions of Catholic theology and identity.  I regret the impression this word has left in the minds of those who read the letter.  I regret my failure to anticipate this completely reasonable response in advance.

So let me clarify…not in order to make excuses for my error but to atone for it.

Oh, don’t worry, the excuses are coming…

I certainly do not believe that only those privileged and lucky enough to have crossed the doctoral finish line qualify as the sole authentic theologians.  Nor do I think that rigorous academic theological training necessarily makes one a better disciple of the crucified Christ.  In fact, human history supports the opposite conclusion: the poor and marginalized–those who sit outside of the corridors of power rather than within them–possess a superior capacity both to perceive and to life the truth.

Yeah, some of us don’t take to those “with credentials” – especially from places like Georgetown, Loyola, Villanova, etc. – patting us on the head like we’re blithering idiots who couldn’t possibly have a coherent thought on Catholicism. Clearly you get that now, and if you had just stopped there, I probably wouldn’t be writing this little rant. Unfortunately for you, since you’re going to keep up the lunacy, I’m going to join in the fun.

Speaking just for myself: I object not to the privileging of un-credentialed voices but to the Times’ inconsistent standard of credibility.  When it wished to employ an editorialist about the economy, it selected a Nobel Prize winning professor.  When the New York Times publishes articles about global warming, they trust the judgments of “credentialed” scientists.  One wonders why the New York Times does not extend to the discipline of theology the same respect?  In other words, while one does not need a PhD to perceive and to live God’s truth, one does need some sort of systematic training to pontificate (pun intended) about questions of church history and liturgical, moral, and systematic theology.  These can be found outside of the theological academy, but they must be found somewhere.

Seriously? I’ve got to ask what you’d think if it were Archbishop Chaput or Cardinal Burke who wrote this editorial? I’m reasonably sure all the whining about “experts” would have gone out the window, and we would be focusing on the term “legalistic” instead. Why, in your letter to the editor, did you not try to rebut the smallest “factual error” on Mr. Douthat’s part? Because, for Catholic dissenters, pointing out factual errors is irrelevant. Why would you ever do that when you could just tell people he’s stupid???

So perhaps rather than calling Mr. Douthat “un-credentialed,” the letter should have asked the New York Times the following question: with what criteria did they determine Mr. Douthat competent to act as an arbiter of theological truth?

Oh, for goodness sakes! I’m looking at the Op-Ed (Op stand for opinion if you didn’t know) page right now. There’s a Mr. Blow who wrote a piece on the G.O.P. His qualifications? He was a graphics editor who had a B.A. in mass communications. Not meaning to pick on Mr. Blow, but it’s just that the only “competency” one needs for an opinion is to have a brain. Now, if one wants to take someone’s opinion over another based on what they believe to be the author’s competency, so be it. I doubt I would agree with all of Mr. Douthat’s ideas, but I, personally, would likely take Mr. Douthat’s opinion over just about ANYONE at Georgetown.

But let’s be real here: some of the pushback to the letter’s use of the word “credentialed” strikes me as a bit disingenuous or self-serving. If we do not believe that academic theologians have distinctive to contribute to public debates, and if we believe their training makes them not experts but just self-inflated blowhards, then let’s go all the way with this.  If Massimo Faggioli’s PhD and professoriate in theology does not matter, then neither does Mr. Douthat’s magna cum laude graduation from Harvard.

And here’s where we see the feigned contrition isn’t so. She’s actually going to double-down with the people who opposed her for patting Douthat on the head! Let me just explain to you, Ms. Grimes, we don’t have anything against academic theologians per se. We just think you and the other signers of this letter are blowhards. Sorry, actually more like whiners.

Here’s one last comment from the liberal, self-loathing white, Catholic chick (and you can’t tell me it’s not totally predictable):

Let’s also not forget that Mr. Douthat’s position owes in no small part to the credentials of race and gender that he has accumulated but not earned. We take white men much more seriously than we take others, even when they say very silly things.

And the trifecta is complete! She not only told us Douthat is incompetent (because he’s “conservative” – it certainly wasn’t for anything he wrote), but that he is also male and “Eurocentric.” Boom! The implosion of the liberal, white, Catholic woman is now complete. You may now return to your regular programming.