This Should be Fun

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

I am hearing that the final document from , see paragraph 146 above, states that in the digital age there is a need to certify Catholic websites in order to verify if the groups are actually Catholic.

I can see it now:

Secretary:  Don, there is someone on the phone from the Vatican.

Don:  Hello, Don McClarey here.

Vatican Inquisitor:  You write for a blog calling itself The American Catholic?

Don:  Correct.

Vatican Inquisitor:  Who gave you the right to call yourself that?

Don:  The Lord God Almighty and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Vatican Inquisitor:  (Thinking:  I hate dealing with Americans!)  No Bishop has authorized you to use this name?

Don:  We never asked, and legally we do not have to do so.

Vatican Inquisitor:  We want you to stop using the name.

Don:  Who is we?

Vatican Inquisitor:  The Church.

Don:  All one billion of us?

Vatican Inquisitor:  Are you going to stop calling yourselves The American Catholic?

Don:  Well, for a formal answer I would have to consult with my co-bloggers but I am pretty sure that the answer would be no.

Vatican Inquisitor:  Would that be your final answer?

Don:  There might be an adjective tossed in before no.

Vatican Inquisitor:  In that case we might take legal action.

Don:  Just make sure that your attorneys contact me so I know who to counter sue.

Vatican Inquisitor:  (Thinking:  I really, really hate dealing with Americans!)  Hangs up the phone.

Secretary:  What was that about?

Don:  Nothing of consequence.  I am off to court, see you later.

More to explorer

26 Comments

  1. Great post Don.
    I’m one who loves to see the deceitful games being played come right out into the open, where everyone can see, and no one can deny. (with any credibility)
    It appears that Rome is seeking to extend the papal silence to all who would dare speak the truth that exposes or offends. (the very reason Christ was crucified, no?)

  2. I suspect it will go as well as certifying Catholic colleges.
    “There might be an adjective tossed in before no”
    Oh, I’ve got to remember that line….once I stop laughing.
    Great post .

  3. I am thinking, how would the Vatican know what is Catholic? If the Vatican did not listen to the victims of clerical abuse, the Vatican will not listen to the voice of the faithful. Where is there dialogue? What nonsense. More deflection, “urgent” deflection

  4. Mac,

    Is your “adjective tossed in” be a euphemism for expletives. Expletives would be my go-to.

    You left out the part where the inquisitor commands, “Bring forth the instruments of torture.”

    In conclusion, I’m with you, Mac.

  5. Gee, just yesterday these folks were demanding that colleges that allowed Hillary Clinton to speak on campus be denied the right to call themselves Catholic.

  6. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

    I think the operative words here are “should not HONOR” and “should not be given platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” I interpret this directive to mean that if a parish or Catholic institution were to sponsor, say, a public debate or candidate forum at which both pro-life and pro-abortion points of view were presented on an equal basis, for the purpose of informing the public and NOT endorsing any participant, that would be acceptable. But in the case of Catholic colleges “allowing” Hillary to speak, the question is whether they merely allowed Hillary to speak at an event that involved multiple speakers with different points of view, or whether they INVITED her to address an event as an honored guest. In most if not all cases, it was probably the latter.

  7. Too funny.
    Well unless you are receiving funding from the Catholic Church itself, they have no business in your business. A good Catholic.

    Here’s a thought- how about they go after those Institutions who are happily receive funding which comes from the Faithful’s pockets. Institutions operating under the “Catholic” guise but endorse everything which is counter to our Faith- cleaning out their own backyard would be a start. Put that McCarrick in a homeless shelter and stop feeding and clothing him. It’s mild penance considering..:

  8. “…could also a manage certification…”
    .
    I think we need a an official body whose job is to monitor the correct use of the language (in this case English; surely there are others)–oh, wait…

  9. Vatican Inquisitor: Who gave you the right to call yourself that?
    Don: The Lord God Almighty and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
    Vatican Inquisitor: (Thinking: I hate dealing with Americans!) No Bishop has authorized you to use this name?
    Don: We never asked, and legally we do not have to do so.

    That’s a pathetic exchange of rubbish.

    Have a gander at Ed Peters’ take on the canonical issues. This was written when Michael Voris was under fire for RealCatholicTV.com (long before the synod). Being in pro-life work, surely you’ve experienced the difference between what is civilly licit and canonically licit.

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-first-thing-to-understand-about-the-aod-vs-vorisrctv-dispute/
    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/a-few-more-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-the-aod-and-vorisrctv/

    It’s worth noting that permission is supposed to be obtained in advance of the use of “Catholic”, not merely defended after the fact.

    I will grant you one thing though: your blog title does capture the matter properly. American first; Catholic second.

  10. “That’s a pathetic exchange of rubbish.”

    That’s a pathetic opinion. (See how easy it is to make empty pejorative statements.)

    “It’s worth noting that permission is supposed to be obtained in advance of the use of “Catholic”, not merely defended after the fact.”

    Oh, I am quite aware of Canon 216:

    http://www.the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/10/who-gets-to-use-the-title-catholic/

    If the Church wishes to attempt to enforce Canon 216 there will be plenty of work for various Church bureaucrats from now until Doom’s Day. Among the questions I would ask of any Church bureaucrat is a list of those organizations who have been granted authority to use the term “Catholic” and those forbidden to use the term “Catholic”. Selective enforcement of a law, even Canon Law, is a factor in determining whether a law should be enforced or not.

    “I will grant you one thing though: your blog title does capture the matter properly. American first; Catholic second.”

    I do recall a fellow who talked about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar and unto God the things that are God. We do not pretend that our religion is American or our nationality Catholic. To use your phrase, to do so would be pathetic rubbish.

  11. Hummmm.

    When the hierarchy of the Catholic Church begins to dismiss the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I will ponder a guess that it will be a welcomed event for the Cassandra’s of the world.

    Who is Catholic?

    Distortion of Truth is a pathetic end game no matter who is calling the play.
    Unable to recognize Truth is why half of the Catholic Church in America believes that abortion on demand is not up for grabs. It’s a right for the woman to decide and to hell with Church teachings. Intrinsically evil doesn’t appear in their catechisms…go figure.

    Cassandra I am not condemning you. I know that Catholic women voted the most pro-death abortion loving president in history TWICE.
    How in God’s Holy name can they, without reconciliation, receive the Eucharist?

    I guess they will find their own truth.
    A Church of Mush.

    God be with you Donald.

  12. 36 years actually o’ prophetess of doom, and selective enforcement is always a defense, unless we are to assume that the Church is a tyranny for which the normal rules of equity and fairness are simply not applicable. That of course is only one of many defenses that I could raise, including laches, vagueness, conflict with civil law, violation of US copyright law, etc. As I said, it would be fun, at least for me, if not for the other side.

  13. Your appeals to civil law are irrelevant for defense, but they do reinforce that your mindset is to react with an American mindset first, rather than a Catholic one. Instead of correcting a wrong, you dig in and attempt to justify it.

  14. I’m sure the fine bloggers of The American Catholic would happily drop “Catholic: from the title

    —after the National Catholic Reporter does it.

  15. “Your appeals to civil law are irrelevant for defense, but they do reinforce that your mindset is to react with an American mindset first, rather than a Catholic one. Instead of correcting a wrong, you dig in and attempt to justify it.”

    Civil Law would be quite relevant since a successful suit would be the only way The American Catholic would ever give up the Catholic in its name. If you truly believe that being Catholic means giving up one’s civil rights, you are delusional. The only wrong is the attempt by Vatican minions to crush dissenting voices to this hostile Leftist takeover of the Bride of Christ.

Comments are closed.