The Catholic Left Never Fails to Disappoint

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

From Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts:

 

Yeah.  Really.  The low point of American politics in 2018, and the good deacon jumps on board the sham train.  Naturally, being good Catholic that he is, he takes the absolute worst, most leftist partisan interpretation of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook.  That’s his high school yearbook.  If I was a Catholic at this point, I would reach out and say how shameful this is from such a well established Catholic deacon.

This as conveyed to me via Mark Shea who, naturally, gushes over all of the accusers – yes, all three of them – and dismisses anything from Kavanaugh.  You really have to see it to believe it.  Oh, and since both have banned me from their accounts for daring to question leftist narratives, I feel no guilt about pointing out their embarrassing devotion to the worst of the Left on my own page.

Remember, these are Catholics willing to unpack the adolescent years of a SCOTUS nominee, tearing apart any drinking, spinning any youthful joking, condemning even the slightest teenage indiscretion in a yearbook from high school.  We all know how puritanical Catholics are after all, especially when it comes to language.  But then, we all know how the Left has always championed an Ozzie and Harriet morality.  Here today, gone later today.  The Left’s approach to morals.

Again, all of the good deacon’s – and by extension, Mark’s – take on this relies on accepting the worst possible interpretation of what Kavanaugh did – WHEN HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.  Think on that. The great fear of the Left is that Kavanaugh might curtail unlimited abortion rights.  That’s what this is all about, and everyone knows it.  And now you have Catholic apologist Mark Shea and Catholic deacon and movie critic Steven Greydanus jumping on board, accepting guilty until proven innocent, and joining the new puritanism that says anything but the most clean and puritanical behavior from an American adolescent can be grounds for wrecking your life at any point in the future.

Bonus points to Mark for dropping the pejorative ‘White’ into the mix, reminding us that Mark is also slavishly devoted to the new racism of the Left. Also note that, like Colbert, he doesn’t care a whit about any suffering on Kavanaugh’s part, or even mention Kavanaugh’s family’s suffering, choosing to mock and deride Kavanaugh’s own pain that even the pagans have admitted was tough to watch. Apparently suffering and death threats only count when they’re aimed at those who are useful to the Left.   New prolife.  Ha!

BTW, Catholics.  Stop bellyaching about the priests and leadership and the pope and all.  These two represent what the majority of Catholics are, and where they stand.  They’d rather adopt a puritanical McCarthyism filled with all of the false attacks and destruction of due process rather than take a chance on letting a judge on the court who might roll back abortion rights.  Before you go complaining about the bishops and cardinals, you might want to let that sink in.

 

Go here to comment.  Without Catholic votes, the Democrat party would be a fringe party in electoral strength as well as in some of its more arcane core beliefs.  The vile attacks by Catholic Leftists on Judge Kavanaugh, a faithful Catholic who attempts to live his faith, is part and parcel of the fact that most Catholic Democrats are first Democrats by conviction and only Catholic when it does not conflict with their prime allegiance.  Shea of course has long been a lost cause in his crazed journey to the extreme portside of our national political life.  I expected better of Greydanus.

More to explorer

Maybe MPS Can Explain This

  Hard to believe that Scotland once produced Highland troops, some of the toughest fighting men on Earth:   Gingerbread men have been

You Are On Your Own Jack

  Ed Peters reminds us that any priest who stands up for traditional Catholic teaching, is completely on his own when the

Pardon Omnes

There is an exception to the power of pardon, that it shall not extend to cases of impeachment, which takes from the

72 Comments

  1. So what you (and Dave) are saying is the same people who studiously deny deny deny the credibly sourced allegations about what Pope Francis and other Bishops did to diminish or end punishments against abusive clerics are completely comfortable swallowing uncorroborated allegations against Kavenaugh.

    But don’t you dare call them partisan hacks.

  2. Yep. I avoid Mark’s blog now, but when I saw the link to it saying it was Deacon Greydanus, I had to check. I was sort of surprised, and a little disappointed. But I wasn’t shocked or anything.

  3. Mark who?, that phony deacon, and all Catholics that voted dem are abortion apologists.

    Dr. Fraud had eight years from the 2012 election campaign, when PP produced a propaganda piece/photo-shopped NYT article about how Judge Kavanaugh was the deciding vote on the overturn of Roe. Ergo she had eight years for hypnosis, drugs, etc. to come to believe her fabrications.

    Plus, Dr. Fraud’s memory is weak. She forgot to pack her pink vagina hat.

  4. Greydanus is being precious. You see that from time to time.

    As for Shea, his intellectual and moral decline is a puzzle.

  5. Greydanus has given some bizarre movie reviews, such as one supporting a film promoting man-boy relationships. I think every once in a while he lets down his guard and reveals who is really is.

  6. Greydanus’s commentary is just incoherent babble.

    As for Shea, he somehow manages to top himself in amazing new ways with each public pronouncement. By the way, can anyone show me the links to Shea’s condemnation of Keith Ellison? I’m sure he has spilled a lot of digital ink on that issue, right?

  7. I started noticing a leftward shift (albeit subtle) in some of the posts of Greydanus around two years ago. I have not read his stuff since then.

  8. Greydanus is not a doctrinaire leftist, at least not of the type Mark has become. He is, however, not a very deep thinker. He unquestioningly distills conventional thinking into bite-size chunks and regurgitates it for his audience, and those who are even shallower thinkers (like Mark) greedily swallow it all up.

  9. In related news: if you’ve lost <a href=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/408887-editors-of-jesuit-magazine-calls-on-trump-to-withdraw-kavanaugh<America, have you really lost America?

  10. Then again, that pinnacle of Catholic thought, the Jesuit mouthpiece, “America,” has come out against Kavanaugh, solidifying his solid Catholic credentials.

  11. I think heaven might be nearly empty if we judged everyone solely on their negative actions from ages 14-25. I wish I could erase some of those memories because they are so painful and humiliating.
    A high school yearbook! As I said yesterday these people should be ashamed but they lack the humility to even feel a sense of shame.

  12. I wonder if the root of the problem in our politics is that we’ve grown too sentimental. Graydanus and Shea are virtue signaling here, I believe the victim.

    Well I believe the victim too. It’s just that they and I disagree about who the real victim is.

  13. Roe disenfranchised every father of his child. There is no rational support for denying a man his seed, his offspring. Any man who supports Roe is obviously brain dead. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put HUMPTY DUMPTY together again.
    The Supreme Court has sown the wind and is reaping the whirlwind.
    Kavanaugh is reality. The rest is a lie.

  14. Anyone else think that even with Kavanaugh on the court, we’re still one vote shy of overturning Casey/Roe?

  15. When “America” supported Al Gore for president against Bush, I submitted a letter to the Editor castigating them. Of course, it wasn’t published. Their leftist political bias trumps what should be their Catholic beliefs. What is it with Jesuits and casuistry?

  16. Anyone else think that even with Kavanaugh on the court, we’re still one vote shy of overturning Casey/Roe?

    I have no concerns about Kavanaugh regarding anything “Dr.” Ford had to say – pure rubbish. However, (1) Kavanaugh did seem to be a bit too eager to drop feminists sops during his testimony (maybe just a smokescreen?), (2) he went to Jesuit schools (3) he clerked for Kennedy, and (4) another Catholic Irish political figure whose last name begins with “K” – we have not had much luck with those.

    Will he “grow” in office? Who knows. If he is confirmed, perhaps this experience will solidify in him the realization that with the Left, no quarter is given. The favor must be returned.

  17. He is, however, not a very deep thinker. He unquestioningly distills conventional thinking into bite-size chunks and regurgitates it for his audience, and those who are even shallower thinkers (like Mark) greedily swallow it all up.

    His piece was ruminative and inconsequential. In re Kavanaugh, he contrivedly refuses to address any factual or normative questions. Shea fancies he’s ‘reasoning’ with “Kavanaugh’s defenders”, but that’s what he is assiduously avoiding. He’s got a word-count quota, and it shows.

  18. I abhor word-count-quotas and hard-and-fast need to fill with blather three hours of talk radio.

    If I was intent on self-flagellation, I’d read Mark-who to count the logical fallacies.

  19. Shea says it’s obvious Kavanaugh is lying and guilty. Given that all four people she identified as being present undercut her story (her pal Leland most brutally), that nothing she had to say about Mark Judge couldn’t have been found in his memoir, and that no one has made a direct or circumstantial case that she was ever a personal acquaintance of Kavanaugh or Judge, that’s pretty funny, though more funny strange than funny mirthful.

    He’s obsessing over Kavanaugh’s yearbook. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that slang hasn’t fixed Merriam-Webster denotations, that the slang is 35 years old (consider how ‘gay’ was used in 1947 and how it was used in 1982), and that those notations are tongue-in-cheek. (I’m none too distant from BK in age and background, but I’d never heard these terms, and I lived in Maryland around that time).

    Thomas Sowell’s remark that intelligence and articulateness are not the same thing is salient here. I haven’t figured out if Shea’s just…kinda…dopey or if he’s so emotions-driven that it doesn’t matter how much g a psychometrician might locate.

  20. Shea is just that emotionally driven, Art. You can see it when he will give every benefit of the doubt to someone he knows personally even if moments before he was blasting a stranger for making the exact same points.

  21. Thomas is solid, Alito should be, Gorsuch I guess is still too early to tell. I suppose Roberts could be a bit of a wild card given his Obamacare disaster. Was Roberts the other question mark?

  22. Nate, excellent point. By Mark’s standards, why should we believe his own nephew instead of his nephew’s accuser? FWIW, I do believe his nephew, since to be accused does not equate to guilt. I still feel it’s up to the accuser to prove the accusation. I have a feeling Mark is like many today, betting the farm on the fact that if we do go straight police state, it will only impact others.

  23. Once upon a time Shea scolded anyone tiptoeing up to evil. The accusations against Kavanaugh have no evidence. Spreading such claims is thus calumny. Calumny is not only an evil, but given the gravity, can be a mortal sin. The calumny against Kavanaugh is seriously grave given the public damage to his name. Thus it is a mortal sin. Shea takes part in its dissemination. He is thus cooperating with mortal sin.
    So much for tiptoeing. Take care of your soul Mark

  24. Phillip, Mark makes false accusations as a matter of course. He accused me of horrible things before he banned me. He’s done it to others. Kavanaugh should not be expected to be anything other than another case study, in this case the noteworthy part being Deacon Greydanus.

  25. Philip,

    Both Mark who? and Professor Fraud apparently are committing a mortal sin: Detraction -m unjust damaging of a good man’s name. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually “believe” their lies – calumny would be knowingly lying. Detraction, in a general sense, is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice.

    Anyhow, every democrat and liberal is also guilty of almost every mortal sin on a daily basis.

  26. “…calumny would be knowingly lying.” I don’t know if it necessarily needs to be “knowingly.” I suspect vincible vs. invincible ignorance comes into play. Perhaps Ford has some false memories or falsely recollected memories, but I suspect if her four witnesses reject her claims its hard for her to assert that she is telling the truth. As for Mark, I think he should be able to discern the truth of the matter and is guilty of calumny.

  27. Here is Mark’s latest comments on his message board.

    My initial response to the accusation was skepticism. However, I think it is obvious now that she’s telling the truth and that he is lying. And yes, it is rape apologetics to say “Who among us has not clapped our hand over a girl’s mouth to keep her from screaming and tried to rip off her pants?” Come on.

    And.

    I think that, as Steve showed, people can have doubts, but they cannot have *reasonable* doubts. Ford was credible. Kavanaugh was obviously full of crap.

    Get it? No there is no way a “reasonable” person can doubt Kavanaugh’s guilt.

    I assume this is also why Mark would never make it as a lawyer.

  28. Also note that in parallel with Dave’s point that the Left spares no thought for the past, notice how they adopt no concern for the future. With Mark and his cohorts, there is a lot of wondering (seemingly innocent) and why this matters to Republicans at all and what’s the big deal. Apparently they are incapable of grasping that a precedent might be set which will not end well and THAT is what is being fought, not the immediate concern.

  29. Don, I’m surprised you actually expected better from Dcn. Greydanus. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s been a Mark proto-Shea for several years now.

  30. As I said elsewhere, this is what comes of trying to be reasonable and say you believe Ford when she claims somebody attempted to sexually assault her, but she’s mistaken about Kavanaugh being her attacker.

  31. I recall Mark Shea asking his readers to pray for his nephew who was at the time being accused of sexually assaulting a young woman. Mark was on the front foot and was adamant his nephew was innocent from the get go. Before any investigation. Before any evidence. Only because HE (Mark) declared him innocent. Because the young man was his nephew.

    Mark is police, Judge AND jury on all matters. Mark decides Kavanaugh is guilty from the get go, before any hearing, before any facts are corroborated. Only this time Mark doesn’t care what hell some other innocent family are enduring. As long as it’s not his family. And as long as Mark is right. Mark, we salute you!

  32. As I said elsewhere, this is what comes of trying to be reasonable and say you believe Ford when she claims somebody attempted to sexually assault her, but she’s mistaken about Kavanaugh being her attacker.

    There’s a difference between being reasonable and just temporizing for the hell of it.

    . Your memory of an event doesn’t improve with years. If she had a head injury at the time from which she recovered, a precis of her medical records would be entered into evidence. There was no head trauma.

    1. It happened or it didn’t.

    2. If it happened, she knew it was BK and MJ at the time, or she had faces in her mind she could later assign names (with the help of those in her circle who could tell her the name which went with that face), or she didn’t know who it was and never has, or she did know it was someone else. Those are your options

    A. If she knew it was BK and MJ at the time, she is not mistaken. Of course, if she was familiar with them, we should have some documentation or witness or circumstance which could provide evidence they were acquainted. That does not exist as yet. The closest you get to it is that their fathers are known to have had memberships in the same golf club. Since the club is all male and women are debarred from the campus, she wouldn’t have met BK there and she has never claimed to have met him through that connection. NB. Her father hasn’t signed any letter of endorsement.

    B. If those faces were given a name by those who knew her and knew them, that person should be coming forward. The closest she’s come to identifying a mutual acquaintance is the mention of Christopher Garrett. He hasn’t come forward at all, much less as he come forward to say he identified BK and MJ for her.

    C. If she’s never known who the perp was, she lying now and defaming two innocent men.

    D. If she did know her assailant at the time, she’s also lying and defaming.

    “You’re mistaken” is not an option. Some others have raised the possibility of false memory, but that’s not credible, either. She was 15 or 18, not 4.

    Shea is ignoring the elephant sized holes in her story and parsing the 1983 Yearbook to distract himself. This is emotion-driven stupidity on his part. And quite contemptable.

  33. Apparently now we will get a one week “””FBI””” investigation. What will be discovered? There is no evidence. There are only five (or is it six?) parties to question. If Ford’s friend or the other two (or is it three?) males suddenly change their story all it will do is destroy their credibility; although to be realistic it will be the a-ha moment for the left and will doom his nomination. I’m not convinced Dr. Ford really wants an investigation.

    In my twisted mind this is what I’d like to see:
    Scene: A room with five doors. At thirty second intervals introduce Dr. Ford then her friend then the other two males and finally justice Kavanaugh.
    Without them knowing record the entire event. The truth would emerge in under 30 minutes.

  34. Has this ever been brought up?

    Where are Ford’s best pals from school?
    Her most trusted confidant. Her best friend.
    One would think she would speak of this horrific attempt to invade her womanhood would of been spoken about to her closest friend, her aunt, her mother. (?)

    The old acquaintances from school wouldn’t stand up for her..but you would think her best friend would if she was privy to the (attack).

  35. It looks like Kavanaugh has to ride this through and survive it. Pity for his wife and children. It’s humiliating.

    But might I add, when he is sworn in, and the dust settles he should look to file a lawsuit against the accuser and her handlers for defamation so to receive a retraction and an apology. You can’t just randomly accuse someone and just move on. A point needs to be made here on the highest level. It will also send a warning to the media. I genuinely believe he should not let this go.

    A large Catholic family, the Wagner’s, who are one of Australia’s wealthiest families (airports, quarries, mining machinery, many businesses), recently won a three year court battle against THE most prominent radio commenter in the country. This commentator who happens to be a conservative outspoken political powerbroker and whose opinion I highly regard, had to pay the family a few million $ and offer a public apology and retraction and was slapped with a gag order about ever mentioning this family in his broadcast or to the media.

    This radio personality continually accused the Wagner’s, of negligence for the loss of lives during Queensland’s floods 6 years ago because the radio personality claims the Dam which the Wagner family own, burst and caused horrific flooding throughout SE Queensland and put Brisbane city under water for weeks (I’m talking downdown bustling city with water a few meters high- it was something unbelievable at the time, to comprehend that a bustling city could flood). He claims the Wagner family were negligent in the care of their Dam and caused the events which sparked the flood, where people drowned.

    The Wagner sons had enough of his false drivel, and sued. Not because they needed the money, but because they were sick of their good name being trashed by somebody with a microphone. Their now elderly parents have a very respected name and have worked hard, from humble beginnings, for their wealth and employed many many people through their businesses over the years. I personally have met one Wagner family member who organised the headstone for my late father-in-Law. A lovely man, honest and hardworking. And my husbands family can vouche for their good name because they have lived in the same town as them for decades. This accusation against them was out of character.

    So I guess if you forgive my long story about an incident which occurred on the other side of the world, my point is that if you allow people to defame you then it sends a message that it’s ok and nobody will think twice of doing it to others.

    It wastes time, energy and money on meaningless hearings. It irreversibly damages a family’s good name and it perpetuates the political rot (Clinton’s) allowing them to undermine the job of the people who are there to serve the citizens of their nation- in this case, the American man, woman, boy and girl.

    Kavanaugh should not let this go. He needs to sue.

  36. My guess is his nomination won’t survive the weekend. But I’m just very, very frustrated and down at the moment.

  37. Ezabelle, under American law, I’m pretty sure the only person in this whole sleazy, sordid affair who might have a case for defamation is Renate Dolphin.

  38. Bork was defeated and we got Kennedy. Very mixed performance. I’m not sure of the reliability of Kavanaugh in regards to Roe V. Wade etc. but I’m worried about what might be put forward to replace him if in fact he is gone.

  39. Shea is an Internet bully of limited intellect. I have no time for him or his semi insane rantings. He is less of a Catholic than I am a Muslim.

  40. Ezabelle, under American law, I’m pretty sure the only person in this whole sleazy, sordid affair who might have a case for defamation is Renate Dolphin.

    Who is she going to sue? The editors of the Georgetown Prep 1983 Yearbook? And for what?

  41. “He will be on the Supreme Court prior to Columbus Day.”

    I hope and pray that prognostication is correct. And if it does become reality, expect more violence, more temper tantrums, more uncivilized behavior from the feminists. In fact, expect those things anyways regardless.

  42. “You’re mistaken” is not an option. Some others have raised the possibility of false memory, but that’s not credible, either. She was 15 or 18, not 4.

    For heaven’s sake, if you’re going to ladle on the contempt at least get some passing familiarity with the subject.
    “Recovered” memories would be the specific flavor in this case, there are several techniques for it, and it’s not something that only happens in children. It DOES require a level of trust for someone else to implant them, but the liar who comes to believe his own lies is hardly unusual.

    Most likely route for this case is that she rationalized something that made a problem she was having Not Her Fault, has polished it to within an inch of its life, and keeps “recovering” useful things which she absolutely believes, but were flatly impossible.

    A slightly more extreme case of the therapists who can’t turn around without tripping over a subject who was molested by a father figure, or whatever their specific hobby horse is.

  43. “He will be on the Supreme Court prior to Columbus Day.”
    I agree. I don’t think new allegations will come out either. The FBI will issue a report that will change nothing. Expect to see grandstanding from the dems up for reelection in red states who will now vote for Kavanaugh, “We were the ones pushing for a thorough investigation.”

    Graham did get in a jab at that nasty Hawaiian senator today. Can we just get rid of that state? Is there a single conservative on the island?

  44. Who is she going to sue?

    I think she might have a case against Hagen, Madaleno, & the NYT.

    And if she doesn’t, it’s time to tighten up the libel and slander laws.

  45. “Recovered” memories would be the specific flavor in this case, there are several techniques for it, and it’s not something that only happens in children. It DOES require a level of trust for someone else to implant them,

    Recovered memory isn’t the issue here either. She’s claimed this episode distorted and disfigured her life as a college freshman and sophomore, among other things, not that she filed it away at age 15 or age 18 and didn’t call it to mind again for 25 or 30 years.

    The most publicized case of recovered memory was that of Ross Cheit, who at 38 (so he claims) remembered something he hadn’t thought about since he was 13. Since there was ample corroborative evidence that what he recalled (being molested by a camp counselor) had happened to him and others, it’s not analogous to the situation at hand for that reason.

    but the liar who comes to believe his own lies is hardly unusual.

    Let go of my leg.

  46. “Recovered” memories would be the specific flavor in this case, there are several techniques for it, and it’s not something that only happens in children. It DOES require a level of trust for someone else to implant them, but the liar who comes to believe his own lies is hardly unusual.

    She isn’t contending (as did Ross Cheit) that she remembered something some day that she’d filed away 25 years earlier. She’s contended it distorted and disfigured her late adolescent life in Chapel Hill. In Cheit’s case, there was ample evidence of what he recalled. The molesting employee had molested others, his molestation had been discovered by management, and he’d lost a series of jobs over it. There simply isn’t any evidence of what she claims, just her words.

    Most likely route for this case is that she rationalized something that made a problem she was having Not Her Fault, has polished it to within an inch of its life, and keeps “recovering” useful things which she absolutely believes, but were flatly impossible.

    There isn’t any ‘likely route’ for this but one. She’s lying. And she knows it.

  47. That isn’t required for a recovered memory, Art.

    Most of these are where folks “get help” in “having a clearer memory” or “a better understanding” of what they remember, resulting in things like, to use an example offered to me just this week, their brother molested them…by coming in through a second story window facing the street which had nothing to climb on in any direction, totally naked. Regularly. And the window locks from the inside. That individual was totally sure she’d remembered it the whole time, and just been “freed” to talk about it more.

    Good grief, anybody who has spoken to their adult relatives has probably been given a story where they know it was wrong– they might even have the scar from it still!– but they’re placed where it “makes sense” for how the adult saw them and the world. Or it made the adult feel better when they did something they now regret. Heck, even silly things like— my grandfather smoked a pipe. Not very often, and more of a “make smoke” method, but the ash tray sat in a specific place in the living room, away from his desk, and his pipe was in it DO NOT TOUCH.
    His eldest son insists that wasn’t possible because his dad had a collapsed lung; my dad and the medical records say his lung collapsed at some point, but they fixed it. And it’s even in one of the Christmas photos from when all the boys were little.

    There’s a reason that eye-witness accounts are unreliable and prone to change, even short-term.

    This isn’t obscure stuff– rewriting your memories is pretty common PTSD therapy.

    There isn’t any ‘likely route’ for this but one. She’s lying. And she knows it.

    Oh, quit being an ass. It doesn’t make your argument any stronger, and just makes people startled when you manage to say something while not trying to insult others into agreement.

  48. Oh, quit being an ass.

    The moderator does not want interpersonal disputes of this nature in his threads, so I’m going to refrain from stating in plain terms just what I think of you as a human being.

    She isn’t misremembering an actual event. When you misremenber an actual event, you don’t insert into the story people you’ve never met who happened to have been friends with someone who has written a published memoir.

    She doesn’t have PTSD. There’s no objective indication of any trauma in her life, even a mugging or a car accident. There are no coarse indicators of any problems in living. No parental divorce, no academic failure, no citations for public drunkenness, no stints in rehab, no psychiatric hospitalization, no divorce proceedings, no job losses. She’s an professional-managerial class pest who dragged her husband into marriage counseling. We have no reason to believe that was for any reason more august than the sort of banal domestic friction other people just put up with.

    If you want to be a sucker, that’s your problem. Now, buzz off.

  49. “Who is she going to sue? The editors of the Georgetown Prep 1983 Yearbook? And for what?”

    Who said anything about “she”. I’m taking about Kavanaugh retaliating for defamation. It is “he” who should be suing “her”. Particular when she has created this whole charade without a shred of credible evidence.

  50. Sixty-five comments, Is that a record?

    Anyhow, it’s why I don’t read Mark-who. I would only come away more stupid than I am already. E.G., he believes Judge Kavanaugh is not entitled to the presumption of innocence and that a false accusation that is not only unproven but unprovable is somehow “corroborated.”

  51. T. Shaw:
    Nope! We hit 112 at one time pretty recently, can’t remember what it was on though.
    **********
    Aye, Donald. I will stop being blunt on this topic.

    ********
    Art, you’ve been making it quite clear you hold anybody who isn’t sufficiently enthusiastic with your current view in contempt (at best) with perfect regularity. On any topic of note.

    I cannot say I’m shocked you vocally dislike being responded to in any sort of kind, but you have still not managed to make any argument stronger than insisting that folks who disagree need to shut up.

  52. Bergoglio sent a huge check to Hillary. His red-hatted henchman made overt attacks on Trump. Most American bishops vote Democrat–i.e., for abortion. Michael Sean Winters, Mark Shea, and Thomas Reese, SJ, all say that abortion should be legal. (The word for that position is “pro-abortion.”) Immigrants vote 70-80% pro-abortion. Only about ten American bishops don’t commit the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-aborts.

    God will dismantle the Catholic Church in America if it remains the chief obstacle to stopping the butchering of babies.

  53. Art, you’ve been making it quite clear you hold anybody who isn’t sufficiently enthusiastic with your current view in contempt (at best) with perfect regularity. On any topic of note.

    Again, he doesn’t want this here.

    I cannot say I’m shocked you vocally dislike being responded to in any sort of kind, but you have still not managed to make any argument stronger than insisting that folks who disagree need to shut up.

    You didn’t offer an argument. You offered a confused word salad along with personal remarks. (‘Recovered memory’ is about the least plausible explanation of her conduct and there is no objective evidence of trauma of any kind in her life that has been adduced so far).

  54. Expect nothing from any of those hypocrites. The separation of the sheep from the goats has commenced, and there will, henceforth, be no such thing as a “good enough” Catholic. We will have to be all in or stop pretending.

Comments are closed.