The Unseemly Garment Crew Strikes Again

I’m a Laura Igraham fan, so, as usual, I’m ticked. Why? Read on:

http://www.speroforum.com/a/EKCLWBZHXE6/77365-Catholic-diocese-bars-Laura-Ingraham-from-prolife-event

Let me give you the short version: the seamless garment crew doesn’t like some of Laura Ingraham’s ideas. She was set to speak at a PRO-LIFE dinner, not an immigration policy dinner, for goodness sake! I’d also like to point out that it’s a pro-life group which has worked with the diocese in the past, and, really, what could their beef be with them? Despite that, the diocese has directed their parishes not to advertise for said dinner.

Let’s take a look:

Catholic Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima, Washington, has disconcerted members of his flock over his stance on a pro-life charity event. Diocesan officials are discouraging parishes from advertising a dinner being hosted by Image Point Mobile Medical Services, a private non-profit that maintains and operates a mobile medical unit that offers services at the site of abortion providers that including counseling and ultrasound. The organizers are hoping to raise money for another mobile testing facility for Image Point.

You’d think the diocese would be totally behind bringing a mobile pregnancy clinic where it’s needed the most. You know, places like clinics where women are about to walk in for an abortion. They are, apparently, successful enough that they are looking to get yet another mobile testing facility. Yay for them!

An email missive from a diocesan official to the priests of the diocese cited what was called Image Point’s alleged failure to “collaborate in a meaningful way with the Diocese,” after having received a grant from the Knights of Columbus. In his email, Monsignor Robert Siler, Bishop Tyson’s Chief of Staff, wrote:

Let’s just pause for a moment. “Collaborate in a meaningful way with the Diocese”?!? What the heck does that mean? And before they say that, they might want to read their own website, which has plugged Image Point’s events before (likely because there wasn’t much being sponsored by the Diocese of Yakima itself). From the diocesan website (http://www.yakimadiocese.org/articles/447-january-pro-life-activities-in-yakima):

January Pro Life Activities in Yakima

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion in our country, two community events are being planned in the Yakima area, along with whatever events will be held in local churches.

On Saturday, January 19, the Yakima Valley Walk for Life will begin at St. Paul Cathedral, 1206 W. Chestnut Avenue, at 1 p.m. Following a prayer service in the church, participants will walk down Yakima Avenue to Millennium Plaza. After the concluding prayers there, participants will gather at Madison House Youth Center, 402 S. Fourth Street, for fellowship. Transportation will be provided for those needing it to return to St. Paul’s.

The Walk for Life is being sponsored this year by Image Point Mobile Medical Services, with support from the Diocese. Another event by the Diocese is planned for the first weekend of October, when the Catholic Church observes Respect Life Sunday.

Tuesday, January 22, is the annual Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children. The second annual Mass for Giving Thanks to God for the Gift of Human Life will be celebrated at 6 p.m. at St. Paul Cathedral. A dinner will follow. Priests and deacons of the diocese are welcome to concelebrate, and the Diocese would be honored to have Protestant clergy join us. For more information, contact Monsignor Robert Siler, robert.siler@yakimadiocese.org. To RSVP for the dinner, contact Diana Aparicio-Sosa at the Diocese: diana.aparicio@yakimadiocese.org

Granted, this was a few years back, but it’s what I could find when I googled “diocese of Yakima prolife”.

Back to the article:

“Second, the speaker they have invited, Laura Ingraham, while having a positive pro-life witness including her personal choice to adopt three children from other countries, is a strident opponent of many of the immigration positions held by the US bishops. As such, her visit to Yakima sends a profoundly mixed message to our community. As a very public figure with a national audience, she is held to a higher degree.”

Laura Ingraham is a Catholic, who also is a well-known radio/television commentator and attorney. She is also the editor-in-chief of the LifeZette news service.

The email from Monsignor Siler concluded, “Given these two points, it is not appropriate to advertise Image Point’s event in any way. This isn’t about advertising future events, as will we make those decisions on a case by case basis and should be brought to me.”

Given what two points? The point that Image Point apparently doesn’t do enough for you and that Laura Ingraham is a public person? Please. No, really, please. Please point out where Laura Ingraham contradicts Church teaching? Cite the document. You can’t, can you?

Again, I’d like to reiterate that this is a pro-life dinner use to raise money for a pro-life organization which is crucial and successful in saving babies from, you know, death. But Miss Laura isn’t going all seamless garment, so let’s just try to blow up a fundraiser for a group who’s doing a job you are not – being at ground zero to save lives.

I’d like to issue a challenge to the Diocese of Yakima. First, please read “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” (https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM). Note that not all topics carry the same weight and we are free to disagree on many things, but not abortion, euthanasia, etc. Also, cut out the seamless garment crud you have here, and act like babies are being killed. You put out this pastoral plan, but your diocese has little to no plan, period. http://www.yakimadiocese.org/articles/468-pastoral-plan-for-pro-life-activities

Yes, I know I’m repeating but this is kind of important. Act like babies are being killed! Do you know how long I had to look to find your “pro-life” page on your website? Here it is with two little blurbs from goodness knows when http://yakimadiocese.org/ministries/cornerstone-ministry.

I also looked at their “PREPARES” ministry. It’s needed, but it’s not aimed at stopping women from entering an abortion clinic. Perhaps Image Point doesn’t partner with you in any meaningful way because you aren’t doing anything resembling their goal with their ministry?

Ingraham fired back, saying that it is “disconcerting” to see her standing as a “good Catholic” used to suppress turnout for the fundraising event. She said, “By disseminating this warning to parishes, the Diocese is in violation of Canon Law and hurting a pro-life group that it couldn’t control.”

Go, Laura! How can someone in good conscience try to torpedo a pro-life organization whose sole mission is to keep babies from dying and their mothers being permanently harmed? Do you REALLY think Laura Ingraham is coming to a pro-life event to talk about immigration? Get a clue.

For his part, Monsignor Siler said that the diocese has not made public any criticism of Ingraham in what he called “an internal communication to our pastors.” Moreover, Siler said that it is not the intention of his diocese to embarrass or pick a fight with Ingraham, but that it is the right to promote events that “best uplift our Catholic teachings in their entirety.”

One more time, read Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. There are non-negotiables and there are other things. It’s ridiculous to injure an organization because they’re not jumping on the “let everyone immigrate” bandwagon. In fact, they haven’t taken a position on this at all. They are trying to raise money for their pro-life organization, and bringing in a notable, entertaining pro-life speaker is going to bring in a lot of money. I will say this, I’m reasonably sure that everyone who’s sick and tired of this stupid seamless garment babbling is going to go buy tickets for this dinner now. I know I would if I lived anywhere within a few hours of Yakima. So, I suppose we should all say thank you to the diocese for their bumbling maneuvers in the pro-life arena.

Ingraham was incensed at the clarification. “So are we now saying that Catholics should ignore the rule of law and that only those who seek to dismantle our borders can speak credibly on pro-life issues? For some reason the diocese is intentionally undermining a pro-life organization and personally attacking me. I would have expected more in this Year of Mercy.”

LOL! As if I thought she really needed my help. I’m writing for me. She can more than handle herself.

This is not the first time that Bishop Tyson has crossed swords with pro-life Catholics. He once called off an annual March for Life that had been a decades-long tradition. In another instance, the Hope Medical Group received financial assistance from the Knights of Columbus to acquire ultrasound equipment. Because the grant was to an organization within his diocese, a signature from Bishop Tyson was required on a one-page form and thus grant his consent, sources say. Bishop Tyson refused, and then piled on by barring the pro-life organization from advertising in parish bulletins or seeking Catholic volunteers. He has also barred yet another pro-life group, 40 Days for Life, from functioning in his parishes. Many other dioceses have embraced the group, however.

How pro-life and merciful of you, Bishop Tyson. I feel sorry for the day when you meet the children aborted because YOU decided groups weren’t perfect enough for you and didn’t lick your boots. I hope parishioners in the Yakima diocese simply decide to stand outside their local parishes (on the sidewalk where most people consider freedom of speech legal) and advertise this dinner. I also hope the Knight of Columbus continue to fund this great organization.  The Knights have, lately, really had to step up around the country to do the right thing in the face of adversity coming from the wrong places!

Reflecting a focus on the needs of the mostly Spanish-speaking immigrant community in the region, the diocesan website features material in English and Spanish, and has “Multicultural Ministries” to “honor the sacredness and interdependence of individuals and cultural groups.” Some priests in the diocese contend that the bishop leans towards the left in political matters and do not agree with him on issues relating to immigration.

Hey, you want to go multi-cultural, great. It shouldn’t affect the saving of babies, though. Babies who, I might add, are disproportionately minorities! How about a priority of saving their lives FIRST? Can’t have multi-cultural events with people who have been killed, can you?!

In November 2015, Bishop Tyson expressed an open-ness to serving Syrian refugees coming to the United States. While he said in an interview that improved screening by the federal government may be necessary, citizens should not lose sight of the fact that refugees are fleeing persecution. In an interview with KAPP-TV, a local Catholic, Gilbert Martinez said “The church is supposed to be serving like a church, not involved in other things from another country or the wars or this or that.”

Hey, I don’t have trouble with refugees, and I highly doubt Laura Ingraham does either. We might disagree on the best way to handle them, but we certainly want to keep people from HAVING THEIR HEADS CHOPPED OFF!!! There are ways to make sure they are thoroughly vetted. The government isn’t interested in that, but the Church certainly can do it. While I don’t have a lovefest for Glenn Beck, his organization is doing it the right way. They are going over there, meeting with the pastors, and identifying people who truly do not want to harm us and who are truly in harm’s way. He was even placing Catholic refugees with Catholic parishes. He’s not playing the “I won’t help people of different faiths” card. Want a refugee who doesn’t want to kill Americans, Bishop Tyson? Call somebody who is doing that despite being a mean ol’ conservative.

In conclusion, please help Image Point reach their fundraising goals, despite Bishop Tyson’s best efforts to the contrary, by donating at https://www.servicenetwork.com/olg/ipm/Donate.asp?Frequency=Monthly  It’s Lent.  Give up those mochas and donate to them.  Let’s save women and their babies!

 

Trump: Trying to Date the Preacher’s Daughter

When I wrote the piece on South Carolina (https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/south-carolina-dum-spiro-spero/), I really expected to hear a lot of back and forth bantering on the virtues of Rubio vs. Cruz. What I’m seeing is people extolling the virtues of (or more like making half-hearted arguments for) Trump because they’re scared. It’s really shocking coming from Catholics or evangelicals. Please, Trumpies, take a moment and ask yourself which of these thing attract you most about Trump.

Do you support him because:

-he supported abortion, including partial birth abortion, until he decided to run for president, and in the last week, he’s extolled the virtue of Planned Parenthood? (You’d think “The Donald” would know what “fungible” money is. Here’s the thing. He does.)

-he’s built and owned adult entertainment businesses? (Maybe he’ll have his presidential portrait be with him and the Playboy Bunnies?)

-he’s on his third marriage and has said some just lovely things about how husbands should financially treat their wives? (Things he has learned as a philanderer?)

-he’s tried to evict an old lady to build a parking lot?

-his stance on “gay marriage”? (You’d be quite on target if you asked what in the heck that was.)

-his use of profanity? (Seriously, you are suggesting people vote for someone who willfully swears on camera. Explain that to your kids.)

-his profane suggestions about MANY different women? (Mommy, what’s “good on your knees” mean?)

-he’s stated he’s never asked God for forgiveness (that is until it affected his poll numbers)? (Can you say god-complex?)

– he said this: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” (Can you say narcissistic personality disorder?)

-he said “I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to.” (And haven’t we seen that already?)

I was watching someone interviewed about Trump and he made THE most excellent verbal illustration about Trump. He said “He’s just trying to date the preacher’s daughter.” That nailed it better than all of the voluminous things said about Trump. Succinct. The really sad thing is that the “preachers” are totally and utterly falling for it. Wake up, Christians voting for Trump! You’re being taken. You look utterly ridiculous and YOU are ruining the country right now. Why? Because you are scared. This is where the rubber meets the road, Christians. You don’t ditch God in your vote because you are scared He isn’t electable. You fall for this EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Eight years and you’ve learned absolutely nothing. It’s either that or you’ve ditched the whole Christianity part of your civic duty. Are you compartmentalizing? “I’m Catholic/Christian here, but I just want to win over there”?

Can I just remind you Trumpies that there was a guy in the Bible who was told to kill his beloved child and he was going to follow through because it was God’s command and he trusted God? Really? And we can’t vote for a more morally decent candidate than Trump? TRUST IN GOD, people. He will give us what we need to win if we do so.
 

Because the South Carolina Primary is Tomorrow…

I’m going to repost!  I still have hope and things a looking really good. Many astounding things have come to light in the Trump and Rubio camp and some highlights can be found  here: https://www.facebook.com/OneMadMomBlog/?ref=hl!  Offering as many prayers as I can!

South Carolina: Dum Spiro Spero!

South Carolina: Dum Spiro Spero!

For those of you not into Latin or Googling, South Carolina has a state motto that really defines me. Translated, it means “While I breathe, I hope!” They actually have two, but this is my favorite by far.

What am I hoping, South Carolina? I’m hoping that you will dump Trump and go with someone who is not trying to take you for a ride. I mean, really? Trump is ahead by double digits in South Carolina? What in the heck is wrong with you? You’re in the South, for heaven’s sake. Your polls (and no, I never believe them to be all that true) show an overwhelming belief that the guy from the North who should be offending all of your sensibilities is wildly ahead!

Please, South Carolinians, look at the events of the week and ask yourself, “Do we really want Donald Trump picking the next SEVERAL Supreme Court justices?” Hang everything else. This is really, really what it comes down to. If this happens, the South will lose the 10 Commandments, crosses will likely come down, and your court clerks will likely have to marry a lady and her cat. The Trumpster doesn’t give a flying fig about anything socially or morally conservative. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth on a daily basis and has admitted that he’s a chameleon. How about this quote: “I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to.”? And he will as soon as he’s elected. Is this what the south wants?

Who am I rooting for? One would think, being Catholic, that I would be in Rubio’s corner. Truth be told, I was intrigued by him and I think him a solid second place in people who might actually do something to save the country. But, again, this is coming down to SCOTUS picks. Ask yourself, if you looked long and hard at Rubio and Cruz in the eye, who do you really trust to pick authentic, moral conservatives for the Supreme Court? I think we’ve already seen Rubio do a little waffling. I don’t want a waffler. I don’t want a second guesser. I want someone who’s likely got a list of twenty Supreme Court nominees he could rattle off in less than thirty seconds who are known and already vetted to be morally conservative Constitutionalists like our great and amazing Antonin Scalia – may Perpetual Light shine upon him. Cruz is the man I see when I think of this, and, apparently, I’m not alone: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-presidential-candidate-republican-say-they-trust-to-appoint-sup

So, yes, I’m officially (if anyone cares) joining the Cruz Crew. I don’t want to hear that he can’t win. We’ve fallen for this way too many times. How about we put our Faith in God, pray like crazy for God’s mercy, fast, and spend some time praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament (for those who are Catholic) for the win instead of sounding like Eeyore? Wishy-washy has gotten us into the mess we’re in, and we can’t, for our children’s sake, keep nominating a wimp or a morally lax nominee. It is pointless. Again, have some Faith and remember that, with God, all things are possible. Stop paying lip service to this notion.

Also, while you are on your knees, start thinking about the fact that Ted Cruz won running against ethanol mandates in an ethanol state. Hello! This is huge! The supposed conservative governor was against him (thanks to his brother in the ethanol industry), and they were running merciless ads against Ted Cruz, yet he won! Please don’t tell me he can’t win.

Next, think about the fact that, despite all odds, Ted Cruz came in third in NH. Third! He beat out liberal Christie and the projected possible second place guy, Marco Rubio. Rubio finished fifth, and that’s BEHIND JEB! The media wants Donald Trump and they want Marco Rubio, because Ted Cruz scares the heck out of the liberals. They know he can out-debate any of them against Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. I couldn’t care less if the polls say “Only Marco can beat them!” He can’t even beat Jeb Bush! BUSH! Wake up people. This is the reason that Trump won’t do a Lincoln/Douglas debate with Cruz. It would be suicide.

I get the Trump appeal. Really, I do. We’re sick of watching wimps. That said, don’t trade the wimp for the snake. Let’s pick someone better. If Trump wasn’t in the race, we all know that Ted Cruz would be labeled THE anti-establishment, don’t-back-down guy. He’s not the type to roll over. Don’t let The Donald’s narcissistic bombast fool you. I’m sure some of you are thinking (as the media has told you) that nobody in Congress likes Ted, and therefor he won’t get anything done. First of all, SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. That is THE most important thing the next president will do. Next, baloney! Many people, even those that disagree, like Cruz and have publicly said so. In fact, he’s so likeable that even The Donald has said he likes him and thinks he would make a good VP. This is all media spin. I’ve met a lot of people who know Ted Cruz personally (those not living in the “mom cave”), and they have great hope in Ted Cruz. He’s picking up endorsements daily. I also think, as more and more candidates bail out of the race, Cruz’s campaign will get stronger and stronger.

As far as Cruz being a liar about Rubio’s record…uhh, I see the same things in Rubio’s record. It’s public record so feel free to call me a liar too. I think him pro-life, but I don’t think him as dedicated to the cause nearly as much as Ted Cruz. He missed some crucial votes, although it seems some pro-lifers around the country are quibbling on the crucial-ness of the votes he missed. Sorry, every other candidate who considers life precious made those votes. They were there to lean on as many people as possible. And as I recall, they were only short seven votes. Marco would have made it six, and who knows how many we may have lost not being united on it. Marco was MIA! Too busy campaigning. Next, Rubio just said Cruz didn’t speak Spanish (kind of using the liberal tactic that Ted’s just not Hispanic enough)! Umm, pot meet kettle. I think Cruz just owned Rubio on that little inaccuracy. So, Marco, when crying “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” you might want to keep your house in order.

And let’s talk about the resume. My gosh! Please spend a moment and really do some background checking on this. Ted Cruz’s resume blows everyone else away: http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruzs-resume-is-very-impressive-should-make-him-standout-amongst-other-candidates/ Cruz can sway people to his understanding. Notice that I didn’t say “his way.” He doesn’t want to get his way. He wants to show people what America can be. Now, with the House and Senate in our corner (or supposedly in our corner), he should be able to get a lot done. If not, I have little doubt he will make his case to the people in the same way Ronald Reagan blew past Tip O’Neill and went straight to the people, who in turn pressured their congressmen and senators to vote with him. Is Cruz Reagan? Personally, I think him better than Reagan in many ways.

Lastly, how about ground game? Cruz is running circles around all of them. He learned from Obama and the silly, old Republican guard’s last loss and went high tech. I’m not sure why Republicans can’t figure out that data analytics are important. I actually saw a story the other day saying “Cruz uses data mining to find out about your personal behavior!” as if the info isn’t available to EVERYONE, and as if smart candidates everywhere aren’t already using it. Take off the tinfoil hats and embrace micro-targeting, people. All of your retailers do. It keeps them (and candidates) from wasting time and, more importantly, money. I think that shows how Cruz can embrace innovation and should make him super cool to the hipsters who develop these dang programs. Cruz has been able to spend far less of his supporters’ money with better results than the rest of the candidates. Might that translate in how he’d spend the nation’s money? I think “yes!”

So, South Carolina, what do you say? Can you have a little faith and buck the media narrative for your state? If South Carolina won’t do it, hopefully the rest of the South will put them to shame. While I breathe, I hope!

Mountain Echo = Mountain Echo Chamber to the Board

Can I just say I’m really enjoying this one? These “kids” are doing a great job of garnering attention. As someone who was just interviewed by a college newspaper, I have to say, these journalists from the Mountain Echo are head and shoulders above some of their peers. I missed this earlier but would like to bring your attention to these budding journalists from the Mountain Echo: http://msmecho.com/2016/01/27/editorial-retention-plan-follow-up-fallout/

So, here’s an update to the update on the flap at Mount St. Mary’s: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-mount-st-marys-20160215-story.html. (If you aren’t familiar with the story, please see these two previous posts: https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/when-the-donald-runs-mount-st-marys/ and https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/mount-st-marys-update/)

 The president of Mount St. Mary’s University defiantly rejected on Monday the faculty’s demand for his resignation, telling scores of cheering students at a rally in Emmitsburg, “I’m not going to stop.”

Would anyone expect anything less from “The Donald?” Clearly, he’s read “The Art of the Deal.”

Faculty members announced Friday that they had voted 87-3 to ask embattled President Simon Newman to resign.

But a survey of about 60 percent of students at the small Catholic university north of Frederick found that a majority support him. The survey was conducted over the weekend by the student government.

I’ve just got to ask if this survey was done at the rally for President Newman. How was it conducted? How were those polled chosen? Wouldn’t it be nice if the Baltimore Sun were as thorough as the Mountain Echo in their reporting? Anyways, I think we can be a tad bit skeptical of a poll lacking such information.

Newman, who was named president of the university in December 2014, has drawn criticism from alumni and educators after he fired two faculty members and demoted the provost amid escalating controversy over his new academic policy. On Friday, Newman reinstated the fired professors.

So, in other words, he’s about as consistent in his moves as Donald Trump.

His policy would weed out struggling freshmen by encouraging them to leave the university. The move was intended to bolster Mount St. Mary’s student-retention rate and national ranking.

Those considering Mount St. Mary’s might want to consider that, under this president, national ranking is going to take way more precedence then, well, you or your child’s well-being and education.

Criticism escalated after the college newspaper quoted him referring to students as bunnies that should be drowned or shot. Newman later apologized and said his words were taken out of context.

Oh, please do explain the context, President Newman. I’m sure that will make it oh so much better.

During the weekend, the student government association organized its survey. The association polled 951 students, about 60 percent of the 1,600 students at the college. About 76 percent voted in support of Newman, and 24 percent voted against his leadership, according to an email from SGA President Abel Gonsalves.

Although classes were canceled Monday by a blustery snowstorm, students showed up for a rally with signs reading, “I Stand by Newman” and “Team Newman.” They listened to brief speeches by Newman and student government leaders, then invited peers to discuss the dispute at a nearby cafeteria.

Again, where and when exactly was this poll conducted? Wouldn’t you just love to know what President Newman said at this rally to the fuzzy bunnies?

Three members of the school’s board of trustees, which has so far backed Newman, attended the rally. They said afterward that the board planned to meet by teleconference Monday evening.

So, a pro-Newman rally with a small minority of pro-Newman supporters. I’m just guessing the students had to get permission for this from, uh, Newman? How many students showed up? Come on, now. Details, Baltimore Sun! I’m actually thinking they probably didn’t attend and were relying on a press release.

“We’re in the deliberative stage of gathering information,” said board member Kevin Cashen, a Baltimore-area banker. “We’re not at the point that we’ve gathered all the facts and talked to all the constituents to be able to decide on what the next step might be.”

Let’s go over this again. Fuzzy bunnies. Drownings. Glocks. Firings. Crushing freshmen early in the semester. 87 out of 90 votes calling for his resignation. Catholic jihadis. Lies to students about there being no wrong answers. Maybe you should read the Mountain Echo, “board members.” They’ve done a rather thorough job.

The student poll will be submitted to the board of trustees. In a statement released Sunday, Newman thanked the students for their “vote of confidence and support in my leadership.”

…after he allowed, spoke at, and facilitated a pep rally on his behalf? Oh, and after he produced a video showing his efforts “to bring popular musical performers and comedians to campus, new student lounges, and the arrival of Starbucks.” You know, the important stuff. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/15/mount-st-marys-reinstates-professors-it-fired Hmmm…”Want some candy little children?” comes to mind.

Meanwhile, faculty members will meet later this week to discuss Newman’s refusal to step down, David McCarthy, a professor of theology and secretary to the faculty, said in an email.

Stay tuned.

South Carolina: Dum Spiro Spero!

For those of you not into Latin or Googling, South Carolina has a state motto that really defines me. Translated, it means “While I breathe, I hope!” They actually have two, but this is my favorite by far.

What am I hoping, South Carolina? I’m hoping that you will dump Trump and go with someone who is not trying to take you for a ride. I mean, really? Trump is ahead by double digits in South Carolina? What in the heck is wrong with you? You’re in the South, for heaven’s sake. Your polls (and no, I never believe them to be all that true) show an overwhelming belief that the guy from the North who should be offending all of your sensibilities is wildly ahead!

Please, South Carolinians, look at the events of the week and ask yourself, “Do we really want Donald Trump picking the next SEVERAL Supreme Court justices?” Hang everything else. This is really, really what it comes down to. If this happens, the South will lose the 10 Commandments, crosses will likely come down, and your court clerks will likely have to marry a lady and her cat. The Trumpster doesn’t give a flying fig about anything socially or morally conservative. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth on a daily basis and has admitted that he’s a chameleon. How about this quote: “I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to.”? And he will as soon as he’s elected. Is this what the south wants?

Who am I rooting for? One would think, being Catholic, that I would be in Rubio’s corner. Truth be told, I was intrigued by him and I think him a solid second place in people who might actually do something to save the country. But, again, this is coming down to SCOTUS picks. Ask yourself, if you looked long and hard at Rubio and Cruz in the eye, who do you really trust to pick authentic, moral conservatives for the Supreme Court? I think we’ve already seen Rubio do a little waffling. I don’t want a waffler. I don’t want a second guesser. I want someone who’s likely got a list of twenty Supreme Court nominees he could rattle off in less than thirty seconds who are known and already vetted to be morally conservative Constitutionalists like our great and amazing Antonin Scalia – may Perpetual Light shine upon him. Cruz is the man I see when I think of this, and, apparently, I’m not alone: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-presidential-candidate-republican-say-they-trust-to-appoint-sup

So, yes, I’m officially (if anyone cares) joining the Cruz Crew. I don’t want to hear that he can’t win. We’ve fallen for this way too many times. How about we put our Faith in God, pray like crazy for God’s mercy, fast, and spend some time praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament (for those who are Catholic) for the win instead of sounding like Eeyore? Wishy-washy has gotten us into the mess we’re in, and we can’t, for our children’s sake, keep nominating a wimp or a morally lax nominee. It is pointless. Again, have some Faith and remember that, with God, all things are possible. Stop paying lip service to this notion.

Also, while you are on your knees, start thinking about the fact that Ted Cruz won running against ethanol mandates in an ethanol state. Hello! This is huge! The supposed conservative governor was against him (thanks to his brother in the ethanol industry), and they were running merciless ads against Ted Cruz, yet he won! Please don’t tell me he can’t win.

Next, think about the fact that, despite all odds, Ted Cruz came in third in NH. Third! He beat out liberal Christie and the projected possible second place guy, Marco Rubio. Rubio finished fifth, and that’s BEHIND JEB! The media wants Donald Trump and they want Marco Rubio, because Ted Cruz scares the heck out of the liberals. They know he can out-debate any of them against Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. I couldn’t care less if the polls say “Only Marco can beat them!” He can’t even beat Jeb Bush! BUSH! Wake up people. This is the reason that Trump won’t do a Lincoln/Douglas debate with Cruz. It would be suicide.

I get the Trump appeal. Really, I do. We’re sick of watching wimps. That said, don’t trade the wimp for the snake. Let’s pick someone better. If Trump wasn’t in the race, we all know that Ted Cruz would be labeled THE anti-establishment, don’t-back-down guy. He’s not the type to roll over. Don’t let The Donald’s narcissistic bombast fool you. I’m sure some of you are thinking (as the media has told you) that nobody in Congress likes Ted, and therefor he won’t get anything done. First of all, SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. That is THE most important thing the next president will do. Next, baloney! Many people, even those that disagree, like Cruz and have publicly said so. In fact, he’s so likeable that even The Donald has said he likes him and thinks he would make a good VP. This is all media spin. I’ve met a lot of people who know Ted Cruz personally (those not living in the “mom cave”), and they have great hope in Ted Cruz. He’s picking up endorsements daily. I also think, as more and more candidates bail out of the race, Cruz’s campaign will get stronger and stronger.

As far as Cruz being a liar about Rubio’s record…uhh, I see the same things in Rubio’s record. It’s public record so feel free to call me a liar too. I think him pro-life, but I don’t think him as dedicated to the cause nearly as much as Ted Cruz. He missed some crucial votes, although it seems some pro-lifers around the country are quibbling on the crucial-ness of the votes he missed. Sorry, every other candidate who considers life precious made those votes. They were there to lean on as many people as possible. And as I recall, they were only short seven votes. Marco would have made it six, and who knows how many we may have lost not being united on it. Marco was MIA! Too busy campaigning. Next, Rubio just said Cruz didn’t speak Spanish (kind of using the liberal tactic that Ted’s just not Hispanic enough)! Umm, pot meet kettle. I think Cruz just owned Rubio on that little inaccuracy. So, Marco, when crying “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” you might want to keep your house in order.

And let’s talk about the resume. My gosh! Please spend a moment and really do some background checking on this. Ted Cruz’s resume blows everyone else away: http://www.youngcons.com/ted-cruzs-resume-is-very-impressive-should-make-him-standout-amongst-other-candidates/ Cruz can sway people to his understanding. Notice that I didn’t say “his way.” He doesn’t want to get his way. He wants to show people what America can be. Now, with the House and Senate in our corner (or supposedly in our corner), he should be able to get a lot done. If not, I have little doubt he will make his case to the people in the same way Ronald Reagan blew past Tip O’Neill and went straight to the people, who in turn pressured their congressmen and senators to vote with him. Is Cruz Reagan? Personally, I think him better than Reagan in many ways.

Lastly, how about ground game? Cruz is running circles around all of them. He learned from Obama and the silly, old Republican guard’s last loss and went high tech. I’m not sure why Republicans can’t figure out that data analytics are important. I actually saw a story the other day saying “Cruz uses data mining to find out about your personal behavior!” as if the info isn’t available to EVERYONE, and as if smart candidates everywhere aren’t already using it. Take off the tinfoil hats and embrace micro-targeting, people. All of your retailers do. It keeps them (and candidates) from wasting time and, more importantly, money. I think that shows how Cruz can embrace innovation and should make him super cool to the hipsters who develop these dang programs. Cruz has been able to spend far less of his supporters’ money with better results than the rest of the candidates. Might that translate in how he’d spend the nation’s money? I think “yes!”

So, South Carolina, what do you say? Can you have a little faith and buck the media narrative for your state? If South Carolina won’t do it, hopefully the rest of the South will put them to shame. While I breathe, I hope!

Mount St. Mary’s Update

Thanks to OMM reader Mary’s son, we have an update on the situation at Mount St. Mary’s.  Sounds like sanity might prevail and the fuzzy bunnies will be protected.  Also sounds like faculty may be rehired.  Personally, the three who voted against this might want to look at a facility more suitable for their lack of sensibility.  Kudos to the faculty for their charitable wording.  I probably wouldn’t have been so kind.

http://bit.ly/1ob5Q1v

 

When “The Donald” Runs Mount St. Mary’s

Ooohhh! This one ticks me off: http://bit.ly/1Qba4Ty. President Newman thinks some of the students are “Catholic jihadis”??? He ain’t seen nothing yet. After you read that little piece, please fire off an email to him at president@msmary.edu. You can also go here to read more on his bio and to use alternative ways of communication: http://msmary.edu/presidents_office/.  Snail mail? A friendly phone call? Someone needs to let our friend from over the pond know he’s an idiot and that these younger “Catholic jihadis” aren’t alone!

As you read that bio, note he has absolutely no experience listed in education. He appears to be a slash and burn guy. He’s all about the numbers and actually has little to no interest in the education, and apparently the souls, of the students at Mount St. Mary’s.

Emmitsburg, Md., Feb 11, 2016 / 03:42 pm (CNA).- Amid uproar over comparing struggling students to bunnies that should be drowned or shot, Mount St. Mary’s University president is now under fire for criticizing expressions of the Catholic faith at the school.

Now, you’d think Mount St. Mary’s would, at the very least, hire someone who might possibly see the students as human beings. I mean, really, is that too much to ask? It would seem to be the bare minimum qualification to run a school. They shouldn’t be thought of as numbers or a bottom line.

Already facing turmoil, the second-oldest Catholic university in the country is now seeing alumni and former faculty members publicly expressing their concerns over President Simon Newman’s disparaging remarks about the college’s Catholic identity – even reportedly calling some students “Catholic jihadis.”

Again, he’s a business major. He has no clue on religion, ethics, or education.

Thane Naberhaus, a tenured professor who was recently fired from the Maryland university, told CNA that the president wanted to downplay the school’s Catholic identity because, in his words, “Catholic doesn’t sell.”

“He said publicly,” Naberhaus told CNA, “‘if you go in the marketplace, Catholic doesn’t sell, liberal arts doesn’t sell.”

Then, Mr. Newman, you might just want to find a product that does sell and leave the rest of us alone. It seems to sell well enough to give you a big, fat paycheck.

Since late January, Newman had been the focus of controversy. The school’s student newspaper, The Mountain Echo, ran a story about the president’s alleged plan to pursue the dismissal of 20-25 freshman students based on results from a survey predicting their future success at the school. A number of faculty members reportedly objected to the plan.

In the article, a faculty member quotes Newman as saying, “This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t. You just have to drown the bunnies…put a Glock to their heads.”

OK, first of all, gun people would know a Glock is overkill when slaying bunnies. A .22 would work just fine. Ever so slightly more important – who in the heck writes off students in their first semester of college? Who “dismisses” them after an unproven track record of failure after just three weeks and how they answered questions on a questionnaire??? And, do we really need to provide the list of geniuses that were written off as dumb, slow, or lazy? Homeschoolers can usually rattle off that list by heart. Albert Einstein ring a bell, Mr. Newman? Regardless, these are not fuzzy bunnies. They are humans with a soul and intellect, and I would hope they would sue the pants off you if they were dismissed because of a questionnaire, one which you lied and told them had no wrong answer. If I were an incoming student and this was tried again, I would refuse to take it. Can you imagine all of the students who turned down other schools suddenly being “dismissed” in week three over a simple questionnaire??? I’m not sure if the school is in financial trouble, but they’d certainly have some legal trouble.

Newman later acknowledged to the Washington Post that he used the harsh words, saying that the statement was intended only to acknowledge difficult conversations that sometimes need to occur. The board of directors issued a statement calling his words “unfortunate,” but standing by Newman as president.

Oohhh! I think the “board of directors” might need the fuzzy bunny treatment. How could you ever think it wise to dismiss this incident simply as “unfortunate?”

Amid the outcry that followed, a faculty member who served as an adviser to the student newspaper was fired, along with Naberhaus, who was a tenured philosophy professor and the director of the university’s honors program. He claims his letter of dismissal charged him with disloyalty to the university.

Hey, if the university was going to treat their students like this, I’d be disloyal too! Let’s see, the journalism guy taught the students journalism, and the philosophy teacher taught them to apply philosophy. Let’s fire them! Sounds like a grand plan. Now, let’s say that the journalism teacher approved the students lying in the article, and suppose the philosophy guy suggested the students treat the faculty like fuzzy bunnies. I mean, I could kind of understand their dismissal after that. Oh wait, that’s what the president did. Never mind.

Newman responded to the backlash over the firings in a Feb. 10 statement to parents, where he said the university was not responding with the specific details of the firings in order to “take the high road.” He added that “it is critical that you know that we would never undertake actions like that unless the conduct in question warranted it.”

Wait, NOW we’re going to engage in morality??? Puh-leez! I would suggest those dismissed release those dismissal letters. The administration doesn’t want to “take the high road.” They want to protect their behinds. It’s like they haven’t a clue that social media exists!

Mount St. Mary’s University was founded in 1808, alongside the establishment of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. The seminary shares the campus with the school and receives seminarians from various dioceses.

Apparently they didn’t get the memo that Catholic liberal arts doesn’t sell.

David McGinley, a 2011 graduate of Mount St. Mary’s and a member of the Mount’s College of Liberal Arts Advisory Board, had concerns following an Oct. 23, 2015 meeting with Newman and the university’s Board of Trustees.

In that meeting, Newman “showed a lack of appreciation for or desire to continue or further Catholic identity in any regards to what one would call traditional,” McGinley told CNA.

“What he was saying is that Catholicism has lost its relevance,” McGinley added. The concerns Newman raised, he continued, were that Mount St. Mary’s was “not going to get customers to come” if it marketed itself as a Catholic university.

Something tells me that Mr. McGinley might not be long for the Liberal Arts Advisory Board if the “board of directors” carries on the way they have. For the students’ sake, I pray that he remains, though. 

A Facebook group of concerned alumni and students, “Mount Family Speaks Out,” reported that Newman made similar remarks in an August student assembly.

According to a current administrative employee, who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, President Newman has also criticized the cross, saying in passing that there were “too many bleeding crucifixes” in the employee’s office.

“I have a broken crucifix, and I have a crucifix that is done in limestone sculpture,” the source told CNA, adding that the president had made the comment after seeing them.”

 OK “board of directors” how are you going to respond to that? Look, if you don’t want to be a Catholic school, boot the seminary and take “Catholic” and “Mary” out of your name. Otherwise, be Catholic, not idiots!

Naberhaus said that he has heard similar reports from other faculty members – including some instances of the president disparaging the crucifix and using profanity.

This is what happens when Donald Trump takes over your Catholic college. Let’s all pay a little attention to that, please. He is derisive and he’s profane. Sounds like the best guy for a Catholic institution – very Christ-like. Sigh…

Numerous alumni also pointed to the Mount St. Mary’s landing page for prospective students as an example of the new attitude towards Catholic identity, noting that the page does not contain any references to the fact that it is a Catholic school.

“That is Simon Newman’s vision for Mount Saint Mary’s right there, encapsulated in that one webpage,” Naberhaus said.

Let’s see how that works for the college. Hopefully the alumni start withholding donations, because, as Mr. Newman knows far too well, money talks. 

Naberhaus also said that he has heard Newman refer to students as “Catholic jihadis.”

 “He was kind of dividing up our student body and seeing a certain fraction of them,” Naberhaus said. “He seemed to think that there was a sizeable fraction of our campus that fell into that camp, Catholic jihadis, and I never was sure exactly what he meant by that, but he was definitely using that phrase.”

OK, I’m not a violent person, but can we “pull the trigger” on this guy’s career at a Catholic College? I mean, we’ve given this guy a little longer than he would give the students he wanted to axe. I think we can all agree that he’s not good fit in the Catholic world. Maybe “The Donald” would have a place for him.

McGinley told CNA that in his meetings with Newman, he was disturbed by other “derogatory comments towards Mount students,” including a suggestion that some of the students – largely those who had been homeschooled – were “judgmental” and could pose “trouble” for the administration if they admonished fellow freshman for partying.

Wait, first Newman wants to get rid of those who he deems underachievers, and now he wants to get rid of the homeschoolers. I would LOVE to plunk all my kids (aka Catholic jihadis) into his school tomorrow just to give him a lesson. Yes, they are judgmental. They can tell a narcissistic, pompous, Donald Trump wannabe just as well as I can, and guess what? They would not take this crud lying down. BTW, how would it pose “trouble for the administration” for reporting freshman for partying? Quite frankly, I don’t know too many homeschoolers who would bother reporting losers unless they were causing a danger to themselves or to others. I have three kids in college, and while they do “judge” people who they’d like to steer clear of, they haven’t told me about all the rowdy partiers. They exist and we all know it. We’re not really concerned about it. The kids that need a good busting are usually stupid enough to post their escapades on some social media outlet themselves.

Catholic News Agency reached out to Mount St. Mary’s for comment. The university said that it would comment at a future time.

I hope the alumni and parents put the pressure on big time so the next thing we hear is that Mount St. Mary’s and Mr. Newman have had a parting of ways. I’m sure “The Donald” built in a nice fat golden parachute into his contract, which is probably why he’s behaving so boorishly. Hopefully Mount St. Mary’s will learn from their little mistake of hiring a slash and burn guy like this.

We Don’t Do Solidarity with Intrinsic Evils

Uh, Bishop McElroy, the 70s called and they’d like their stupid seamless garment theology back! Sigh. Fellow Catholics around the United States, the California faithful apologize:   http://americamagazine.org/issue/greatness-nation

Last time I checked, the Church at large has politics covered. I’ve got to laugh at Bishop McElroy’s use of self-aggrandizement. I mean, what was his point? Doesn’t seem you can get more self-aggrandizing than his piece. Does he really think he’s added something to the documents listed below? If you think about it, though, he really has added something when he worked the seamless garment theory into his own little “document” on the issue. The following documents are a better source for Church teaching on political issues, but first, check out the Cliffs Notes “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” from Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

Here are the rest of the documents that Bishop McElroy might have wanted to give a nod to but didn’t:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles

Bishop McElroy meanders through his really long piece in typical seamless garment fashion: lay out Catholic teaching, say how important it is, quote some non-binding comments from popes, and then add the final dash of trying to bring abortion, euthanasia and the rest of the non-negotiables down to the same plane as war, hunger and poverty, workers’ rights, etc. even though the Church has said time and again they are not. Sorry, Bishop, still an epic fail. And let’s talk about your Four Pillars. Are these the Four Pillars of the Catechism? Four Pillars of Dominican Life? No, not quite.

Let’s look at this section where Bishop McElroy sets up his “Four Pillars” of the big seamless garment circus tent:

The Four Pillars of Life

A far better guide to prioritizing the major elements of the political common good of the United States lies in the intriguing words Pope Francis used in outlining those elements for the bishops of the United States: “I encourage you, then, my brothers, to confront the challenging issues of our time. Ever present within them is life as gift and responsibility.”

Ummm, there really wasn’t a prioritized list from Pope Francis. It was a list of challenging things the Church has to deal with, and it certainly doesn’t mean that all of these challenges carry the same weight. As you can see from the various Church documents I posted, they most certainly do not. Now Bishop McElroy goes on to make his own list as if it’s the prioritized list of the Church:

At this moment there are four pre-eminent political issues facing the United States that touch upon life as gift and responsibility in a decisive way.

The first is abortion. The direct destruction of more than one million human lives every year constitutes a grievous wound upon our national soul and the common good. It touches upon the very core of our understanding of life as gift and responsibility. As Pope Francis wrote in “Laudato Si’,” “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is unwanted and creates difficulties. ‘If personal and social sensitivity toward the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”

He got this one right, but then he falls off course with the others until the end.

The second is poverty. In a world of incredible wealth, more than five million children die every year from hunger, poor sanitation and the lack of potable water. Millions more die from a lack of the most elementary medical care. In “The Joy of the Gospel,” Pope Francis wrote: “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.” The United States is the most powerful economic actor in the world today, and even the most basic ethic of solidarity demands that it take dramatic steps to reform the international systems of trade, finance and development assistance in order to save lives in the poorest sections of the world. Moreover, inside the United States, the realities of exclusion and inequality created by poverty are growing, menacingly sapping the solidarity that is the foundation for our national identity and accentuating the fault lines of race and class. In the richest nation in human history, homeless people live on the streets, the seriously mentally ill are all too often left without effective care, and our prisons overflow with young men who are disproportionately poor and of color. 

A third pre-eminent issue centering upon life as gift and responsibility is care of the earth, our common home. The progressive degradation of the global environment has created increased poverty and death among many of the poorest peoples on earth. Each year thousands of species are destroyed, lost forever to our children and to the earth’s future. Most chillingly of all, science has clearly established the existence of dramatic climate change produced by human action, a peril that threatens the very future of human existence. Pope Francis underscored the urgency of global action saying: “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word, I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.

The final pre-eminent question at stake in the political common good of the United States today is assisted suicide. For at its core, assisted suicide is the bridgehead of a movement to reject the foundational understanding of life as gift and responsibility when confronting end-of-life issues. In 2015 the state legislature of California passed a bill legalizing assisted suicide but would not fund palliative care for the state’s suffering poor at the end of their lives. Such is the “false sense of compassion” that Pope Francis has described as lying at the heart of the movement to spread assisted suicide. As with abortion, this movement corrodes society’s responsibility to secure the health of its members as an integral component of the common good.

The underlying assault upon the notion of life as gift and responsibility embodied in these four issues marks them as the four central pillars of life for the election of 2016. Each of them reflects the “throwaway culture” that Pope Francis has identified as a central cancer of our modern world. The unborn child, the poor, the sick and the elderly are all disposable; even the very planet that is vital for the continuation of human life itself has become disposable.

I have little doubt the seamless garment crowd is doing some cheerleading. That said, here’s where he goes wrong. There are really five pillars of life and they go like this: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, stem cell research, and the sanctity of marriage. How can Bishop McElroy fathom leaving even one of these off the list? Without getting square on these five issues, we can kiss the fight against poverty, against human trafficking, for workers’ rights, etc., goodbye. This is why, first and foremost, we must fight against these “non-negotiables.” Then, just maybe, God will restore humanity’s respect for the human person, and we can clean up the mess left in the wake of the basic lack of respect for life and the destruction of the family. This is something the seamless garment crew just doesn’t seem to get, or maybe they just don’t want to because they have a little trouble swallowing some of them.

Now I’m going to go all “McElroy” and meander around a little aimlessly on my commenting because this part really annoyed me and I thought it best to highlight it at the end:

A Spiritual Conversion to Solidarity

Such a conversion requires deep self-scrutiny and reflection. It demands a rejection of the tribal element of politics that sees voting as the opportunity to advance the well-being of our race, our class, our religious community at the expense of others. It entails a purging of the inherent human tendency to allow anger and wedge issues to infect our voting choices. A spiritual conversion among voters demands that we reject the increasing habit in our political culture of attributing all differences of opinion to ignorance or dishonesty. And such a spiritual conversion prohibits us from framing political choice in the United States as essentially a competition between two partisan teams, one good and one bad, with all the visceral enjoyment that such a competition brings.

Most important, a spiritual political conversion requires the orientation of soul that flows from the principle of solidarity that St. John Paul II powerfully outlined as a fundamental element of Catholic social teaching. This orientation reminds us that in society we must always understand ourselves to be bound together in God’s grace and committed, in the words of “On Social Concerns,” “to the good of one’s neighbor, with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to lose oneself for the sake of the other rather than exploiting him.”

The implications of such a spiritual stance for discipleship in voting are clearly reflected in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: “The principle of solidarity requires that men and women of our day cultivate a greater awareness that they are debtors of the society of which they have become a part.”

What does Bishop McElroy’s take on “Solidarity” equal, you may ask?  It’s a big heaping plate of moral relativism. It takes the Church teachings on solidarity and twists them to try and muzzle our cries against evil. That’s actually quite the opposite of Church teaching.  We should get angry and we should fight against anything that injures justice because, as Pope Paul VI said, “if you want peace, work for justice.” We should not engage in moral relativism in the political process. Wedge issues, Bishop McElroy?! It doesn’t get more liberal speak than that.  Like what?  Abortion?  Euthanasia?  “Gay Marriage?”  They are called intrinsic evils and they are grave injustices, Your Excellency. We are called to fight them to the best of ability. We are to have solidarity with the Church and her doctrines because this is where justice and peace can be found. We are not to have solidarity with intrinsic evils for the sake of getting along.  There is right and wrong.  There is good and evil. And, yes, there is one good team and one bad team, although they are not necessarily segregated by political party. We don’t need anyone to tell us that with a condescending pat on the head.

 

 

USF: Their Latest Shark Jumping Policy

I really thought that, by the time I got around to this, it would have been done to death. I thought for sure it would have made a bigger splash, but, maybe, idiocy from the University of San Francisco Jesuits is just old news – same lunacy, different day. However, this seems to be an “all bets are off” move on the whole Catholicism thing: http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4659/‘Gender-Inclusive-Housing’-Pilot-Program-Launched-at-Univ-of-San-Francisco.aspx

The Jesuit-run University of San Francisco (USF) launched a pilot program for the 2016-2016 school year offering “gender-inclusive housing” to students who “identify as transgender” or “do not wish to be identified by any sex or gender identity,” embracing and promoting a view of human sexuality at odds with Church teaching and the statements of Pope Francis and the U.S. bishops.

Whoa-ho! “Embracing and promoting a view of human sexuality at odds with Church teaching”?!? They did WAYYYY more than that. They essentially said, “Room with whomever you choose. “ Want to room with someone who is confused about their gender (which I’d like to point out is not a mental issue but a purely scientific, factual reality)? No problem. Want to room with someone of the opposite sex (they used to call that cohabiting)? No problem.

I know many a college student who wouldn’t mind shacking up with their boyfriend/girlfriend, and they often “hook up” in their dorm rooms anyway, so they might as well be shacking up. That said, it’s usually frowned upon by a Catholic school. Yes, I realize we’re talking about the University of San Francisco but, still, codifying it in the housing code even seems a bit ridiculous for them.

 The description on the USF website defines gender-inclusive housing as “an option for two or more students to share the same room regardless of their sex, gender, or gender identity,” and states that the housing option is intended to support the University’s mission “to create safe, affirming, and inclusive communities by providing options for students of varying identities and preferences.”

Again, what the what??? Seriously, USF, you just jumped the shark in your race to be the most cutting edge on the Catholic immorality scene!

 In addition to reasons relating to gender identity, students who “prefer to live with a roommate of a different gender” can also apply for the housing. The description noted, “Like all other on-campus housing options at the University of San Francisco, gender-inclusive housing is not intended for romantic couples though USF will not investigate your reasons for seeking gender-inclusive housing.”

Well, at least they admit they’re just going with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” for the “romantic” crowd. 

A representative of the University told The Cardinal Newman Society that the gender-inclusive housing is currently in effect for two floors of freshmen occupants, and one floor of upperclassmen in campus dorms. But the representative noted that the housing will be reserved primarily for upperclassmen on two floors next year as many freshmen were confused about the housing policy.

I think “policy” might where the confusion comes in, since you really have none. Or, maybe, parents and students are a little confused by your whole mission statement of “The core mission of the university is to promote learning in the Jesuit Catholic tradition,” since you’re clearly not following either the Jesuit tradition or a Catholic tradition. Maybe this will help: How about “Do as you damn well please while we do some fiddling!” That would probably make it a whole lot clearer. 

A number of freshmen called the student housing office about the gender-inclusive housing wanting to live with their romantic partners, the USF representative told the Newman Society. The University then had to explain that the primary purpose of the housing was for those facing gender identity concerns. The representative added that gender-inclusive housing accommodations for freshmen next year will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Doesn’t “sex-crazed college student” qualify as a gender-identity somewhere? Doesn’t it go LGBTQS…? Isn’t this whole scenario just a tad bit judgmental?

The Newman Society asked USF administration officials about consequences for students if sexual relationships are discovered in the gender-inclusive housing units, but no response was received by the time of publication.

Come on, Newman Society. This is a Jesuit school. You Pollyannas should know by now the vast majority of Jesuits and Jesuit-run schools have zero belief in or tolerance for consequences. Honestly! Consequences for your actions or theirs? Please. How antiquated.

USF officials were also asked about the new housing policy’s conflicts with Church teaching, and if any efforts were being made by the University to help students struggling with gender identity confusion to reject the current cultural push to embrace living life as their non-biological sex. No responses were received.

Sounds like USF was pretty darn quiet on the other end of that receiver. “Uh, hello? USF? Are you there? Anyone?”

Newman Society Vice President for Program Development Bob Laird said the University’s decision to embrace gender theory in their student housing “brings into question their core Catholic values.”

Pretty much everything USF does calls into question their Catholic value. It would be a much shorter list to come up with things that don’t blow Catholic teaching to hell at USF. See? Done already!

But seriously, kudos to the Newman Society for holding their feet to the fire. They go on to nicely outline the Church teaching on “gender identity” and the Holy Father’s rejection and condemnation of it. Isn’t it interesting that USF has probably used the phrase “Who am I to judge?” ad nauseum but are strangely silent on the whole “gender identity is comparable to nuclear war” thingy?

In a July 2014 statement responding to President Obama’s executive order on “gender identity discrimination,” Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore and Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, N.Y., speaking on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called gender identity a “false idea that ‘gender’ is nothing more than a social construct or psychological reality that can be chosen at variance from one’s biological sex.”

Yes, gender is kind of science, USF. So says science and so says the Church.

More recently, Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, Neb., writing in a Nebraska newspaper last month, called the promotion of gender identity among students “an act of irresponsibility.” The bishop was responding to proposals in Nebraska allowing high school students to participate in sports based on their preferred gender identity.

Jesuits, irresponsible? Inconceivable (or not).

Really, parents. Don’t waste your money on such a tragedy of a “Catholic” school. They are CINOs at the absolute best, and that’s really placing the bar just a bit above them. I’m hoping they are ordered to remove the term “Catholic” from their descriptions after this one. The whole school is one gigantic near occasion of sin – and actually more like a close occasion.

 

 

 

 

What’s Wrong with a Multicultural Rave?

 This is a sarcastic blogger’s dream story: http://abc7news.com/education/14-st-ignatius-students-suspended-for-attending-racist-themed-party/1178327/ and http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-students-suspended-over-race-themed-party/

First, a disclaimer: I do not advocate the teens’ actions in any way, shape or form. Aside from the whole racist component (which I doubt the kids thought they were even doing), I’ve seen the social media pictures of the kids dressed like prostitutes and gang bangers while holding brewskies. Personally, I can’t decide if it was better to suspend 14 students – considering 80-100 were involved – or if it might be better to assign a 15-page term paper or possibly have them scrub out all of those lovely trash cans on campus. I’m sure there are also some toilets that could use some cleaning. In short, if these were my kids, they’d wish they were suspended.

Let me reiterate the fact that the kids probably didn’t think it racist in the least. I think they thought themselves making fun of the “thug culture,” not a whole race. In fact, some of the articles I’ve seen note that there were black students in attendance. When I was in college, Berkeley, the land of the diverse and yet offended, had little parties called “Mafia Weddings” or “Italian Weddings” where everyone looked like they could be the cast of Jersey Shore.

So, now that all of the seriousness is out of the way…

Dear St. Ignatius Faculty,

Where is the “safe space” for these kids who wanted to experiment with their race? I mean, they are just racially-neutral teens. We need to allow these teens to explore their blackness a la Rachel Dolezal. We cannot crush their racially fluid selves with facts. Calling them offensive or racist is going to stunt their exploration of what it means to be a minority.

Sincerely,

Ridiculous Whiny Liberal

Honestly, I really can’t see how you can blame the teens. The little tongue-in-cheek note above is not really that far off from the example given with all of the other liberal speak passed along at this Jesuit school. I mean, I’m sure “Celebrate Diversity” is probably part of the daily chant there. When these teens take this mantra seriously, what do you expect when you don’t really focus on the core of what it means to be Catholic? Nobody seems to be able to figure out that Asian Student Coalition, the Black Student Union, the Association of Latin American Students, and (my favorite) the Safe Space Christian Life Community only serve to further segregate these kids. Or how about the See the World club? The description? “This club is for students of diverse cultural backgrounds to explore their own identities as well as the identities of the peers through food, film and fun.” Ummmmm…anyone see the irony here?

Can you imagine if the students were taught to focus on the Body of Christ? Wouldn’t that make all of these other silly clubs unnecessary? I mean, kids always need to be reminded, “Don’t be a jerk!” (Heck, I just yelled this at a couple of my kids the other day!) That’s their natural inclination, but focusing more on the Faith, being Christ-like, or (here’s a novel thought) the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, would seem to be far better remedies for this typical teen silliness than focusing on “diversity” and, in reality, the stupid sensitivity training.

 

P.S.  I hear some of you got an early preview of this.  Sorry, there was a weird WordPress glitch or user error.  It’s now open for comments!