Happy Anniversary!

To the world's cutest and most tolerant wife.  I hear the second 22 years are even better than the first!  Thanks for agreeing to share them with me.

Jonah Goldberg agrees with me

Wow.  I'm not saying I always agree with Mr. Goldberg, but that I caught this story before I read his take, and it is so close to my spin on events, makes me feel a little like that kid who catches a fly ball at a Cincinnati Reds home game.  I'm not in the big league, but I've touched it.

Of course it isn't difficult to see the bleeding obvious.  Only hardcore liberals and idiots can miss the obvious, level-rising-to-stink degree of hypocrisy and double standards behind the latest inquisitorial witch hunt aimed as Rudy Giuliani   FWIW, I'm not a big fan of the good former mayor, but this is laughably beyond ridiculous.  If it was a Monty Python skit or Saturday Night Live routine I would object to it on the basis of being way over the top.

But it's real.  It shows the swagger and confidence that the post-Christian Left is developing as it seeks to consolidate power and tyrannical rule by crushing opposition and ending these antiquated notions of freedom of speech and religious belief.

What Tolkien taught me

I've learned that the wisdom of Tolkien might very well exceed his intelligence, and that's saying something.  As I watch the rot set in and the rolling victories of the post-Christian Left, I must say that the keen perception that Tolkien had for the reality of things far outpaced that of most authors of the 20th century, even those more often lauded for their insights.

So one of the many lessons I've learned from Tolkien's works is that when there are failings or breakdowns in the Fellowship, you still don't leap over and join with Sauron's forces to hammer the culprit.  You might chastise, but you do so ever mindful of the dark power that grows in the East.  So when Boromir fails his test with Frodo and attempts to steal the ring, the appropriate response is not to join with the Orcs and pounce.  It is to attempt to undo the damage, ever mindful of what the enemy really is.

I thought of that, as I read this post at CAEI.  It's not hard to find this headline across the blogosphere, with many being anti-Christian and anti-religious blogs joining in, declaring that homophobes have no business being doctors, and that this is why we need laws punishing anyone who doesn't celebrate the gay juggernaut.

Personally, I think it was a bad decision by the doctor in question and poorly handled.  But I also sympathize.  We are seeing homosexuality being used as a wedge issue to ramrod a new morality into society, using every trick in the book and seeing as its end the ultimate reduction of rights, especially the right to not embrace the post-Christian secular Left.

Call it a culture war or not, but the results are the same.  And especially Catholics, who puddled the floor over the HHS mandate of the healthcare law that the Bishops otherwise fully supported, even though the Catholic Church had already reached such compromises on the state level in many cases anyway, ought not be so dismissive of those who see other fronts in this 'non-culture war' battle zone.

Taking a stand, even badly done or in a wrong way, should not be cause for daggers in the back emblazoned with Christian symbols.  At worst, it should be an admonition that the decision was wrong, but understandable given the climate in which we live, in which sane people can see that there is a concerted effort on the part of a growing swath of our society that wants to redefine what freedom and rights are, and is prepared to do so with the crushing, iron gauntlet of the law if at all possible.

Jumping on the side of the opposition (assuming it is still seen as the opposition), does little.  It won't stop those forces wishing to end liberty as previously understood, and it will silence those who may want to take a stand, for fear that the slightest deviation from perfection will be met with attacks, not from the forces arrayed against the Faith and its faithful, but from the very faithful we are supposed to be united with.

Do not criticize Obama

Don't do it. Just don't.  CNN just opened a segment saying that Giuliani's recent statements about Obama might not just ruin his legacy, it could hurt the entire GOP. Wow. I love liberalism's ability to fire verbal nuclear missiles at opponents, and then act as if the latest Holocaust took place over a pea shooter statement in return.  Reagan, Bush, Bush, Jr., have been accused of heinous, horrible things. They were accused of hating poor, children, minorities, gays, other countries.  They were called war mongers, racists, bigots.  They were accused of being idiots, of hating the world.  And the most that did was spark a discussion on Sunday morning talk shows.  

But let someone say Obama might not love America the way others have, given that many of Obama's own mentors have little love for America, and all hell breaks loose.  And naturally, David Axelrod jumps in and makes it about racism and racial divisions in order to advance the liberal agenda.  Did anybody not think that racism would be used to bludgeon anyone who didn't obey Obama?  What would liberals do without the boon of racial tensions?  

Anyone getting nauseous at the hypocrisy and wickedness of the modern Left yet?   Just wait. 

Sex, drugs and Catholicism

So, it looks like 50 Shades of Grey has made quite a stir across that strange landscape known as Catholic apologetics, and more specifically the Catholic blogosphere.  This is somewhat funny to me.  Why?  Well, here's the thing.  I once posted this.  I noticed that the Catholic world of apologetics had no problem cheering all the worst elements of the sex, drugs and even abortion culture - as long as there isn't actual abortions or sex.

So John Stewart, Andy Warhol, Roger Ebert, and any number of champions of the post-Christian secular Left also receive much praise and adoration from multiple sources in modern Catholic circles.  In addition, you have that ages old tendency that I've found Catholics live up to quite nicely.  In college, it was always assumed that if you wanted to learn about that God and Jesus stuff, it was the Protestants you wanted to hang with.  If you wanted to get wild and party, then you went Catholic.  Most Catholics I knew growing up - most, mind you - lived up to that.

Since I've been Catholic, I've noticed little to change that stereotype.  Copious amounts of cussing, F-bombs, dirty jokes, vulgar humor, drinking, smoking, even advocating for drugs are all what one can find in abundance throughout the Catholic world in America.  And you don't even have to go to a bar or party to find it.  The Sanctuary or the Church can be just the place.

I know, I know.  There's nothing wrong with cussing per se. Though the Bible does seem to prefer restraint of speech, we don't want to go puritanical legalism, and we recognize that language is a fluid thing, something Catholic advocates of speech in a manner that would make George Carlin blush are often quick to point out.  After all, Shakespeare!  Chaucer!  Even St. Paul and Jesus!  Why people in the Middle Ages said shit!  They cussed.  Sex and bathroom humor!

As one who fought against Evangelical obsessions with such things, arguing that a glass of beer or even an odd cuss word is not the end of the world, I've met my match as a Catholic.  I attended a Knights of Columbus training for the Lenten Fish Fry Fridays in the parish's school cafeteria, and was able to hear a litany of vulgarities and sex jokes and cussing the likes of which I've not heard since being in a high school locker room during track practice.

So here's the thing.  I call it 'dry-porn'.  That is, no Catholic actually condones online pornography, or sleeping with your secretary, or actually doing the things they joke about.  They just joke about it, and wallow in and enjoy the culture that produces it.  They mock those who have problems with it.  Until, you guessed it, something actually goes the next step and there is real snorting of cocaine or real penetration involved.  And then it's Katy bar the door.

Which once more illustrates that weird, strange world of Catholic living that one sees in so many places across the Catholic culture.  That idea that we can accept the premise of the latest, hippest.  We just must reject the logical conclusions. We can so mock and deride something like puritanism that we becomes cheerleaders for the opposite extreme, imagining that this is the clear and obvious solution.  Instead of fleeing from the near occasion of sin, we can slide up right next to it and cheer it on, yucking it up along the way.

So when some Catholics were bothered a few years ago about pictures that came about from a worldwide Youth celebration in Europe, showing teens sleeping together in their undies in tents far removed from adults, those expressing concern were lambasted (puritans!), since, you know, there was no actual penetration involved.

But now, that it's gone the next logical level, Catholics everywhere are now weighing in.  You see, one time years ago, I was warned about my preaching.  While doing a guest stint in northern Kentucky, I mentioned that it isn't a sin to drink alcohol.  In moderation of course.  A fellow who was a mentor told me, "Dave, those folks in Kentucky might be brewing their moonshine, but they don't want to hear it's OK."

Same here.  Something about much of the modern Catholic culture seems to love the sex, drugs and rock n' roll era and everything that comes with it.  They just don't want the actual porn and penetration and snorting that goes with the next step.  And for my money, they are no better than what was being said about those Kentuckian evangelicals when it came to alcohol.   Long and short, they were being accused of hypocrisy in the highest degree.

And furthermore, and this is just MHO, I find it hard to believe that one can be authentically pro-life in an age of AIDS and still take lightly, or even indulge in, the whole sex and drugs culture that to my mind is directly related to the pandemic that has killed more than Hitler or Stalin in their worst of days.  But that's for another post.

Bonus point: Commenter in one of the above links points to Medieval practices to suggest 50 Shades isn't all that bad!  I love it when bad arguments are turned back on those who love to use them without realizing how bad they are.

How do Catholics do it?

How do they manage to come in near last when it comes to surveys of those faithful who are knowledgeable of their own traditions, to sustain divisions and divisiveness that would shame a baptist street corner, and do so with a cocksure assurance that Catholicism doesn't suffer from all the failings and flaws that other so called Christian traditions do?  How is it that the plain sense experience most people have when they meet average Catholics or even visit the blogosphere seems to contradict the notion that since Catholics have a real life breathing mageterium, papal authority, and the Bishops, that makes Catholicism safeguarded from such problems more than other traditions?

Easy.  Case study A.  Apparently, at some point, Pope Francis said something that suggested spanking isn't the worst thing since the Holocaust.  That parents who do so aren't murderous abusers setting their children up to be the next mass murdering psycho killers.  This, of course, dismissing the fact that fewer parents than ever in the last 50 years spank their children, while violence among young people under the age of 21 has skyrocketed during the same period.  No doubt cosmic coincidence.

For liberals - and it'ts usually those who lean left who have such a righteous indignation about the practice - it's no big deal.  It's Francis.  He's Pope.  As long as he affirms the true gospel (liberalism), OK.  But otherwise, screw him.

But for Catholics who are obedient, follow the Pope, listen to the teaching authority of the Church, we have a problem.  Enter the article in question.  It is, like so many articles about the Pope, one stacked with 'you thought it was said, but I tell you what was really said.'  Context, bad translations, the evil media (believable that), all are brought to light as reasons why we don't need to believe Pope Francis disagreed with me about something I really believe, but the really true interpretation when taken in proper context and understanding of what the Pope really meant to say happens to, out of dumb luck, validate everything I thought to begin with.

Same thing happened a while ago. when Pope Francis challenged the more libertarian/liberal leaning Catholics by coming down on the idea of legalizing drugs. A problem? Not so for the creative Catholics!  They simply did what was done here with spanking, and what I've noticed has become the cornerstone of modern apologetics in the Catholic Church, especially of the Internet variety: context, true interpretation, bad reporting, etc.  Everything that proves I'm still awesome and the latest Pope happens to agree.

So there you have it.  Why is it that Catholics tend toward dead last when, according to Catholics, they have everything going for them that Protestants and Orthodox and other traditions don't?  Easy. With all due respect to Mark Twain fans who got it wrong, the most Protestant Christians I've ever known are the Christians I've met who belong to the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis may not approve

I don't visit the Catholic blogosphere much anymore

Much of it, as seen here, is a drawn out version of 'thank you God that you haven't made me like those deplorable sinners over there.'  Not to mention the clear and obvious move the Church is making toward somehow trying to find compromise with the post-Christian secular Left.  Sure, it's not going to embrace it or just jettison dogma.  It doesn't have to.  As apologists made clear during the issue of lying, there are thousands of ways to be less than honest to entirely dishonest without actually lying.

So there's plenty of opportunity to stand on the rock of ages while keeping up with the currents of the latest, hippest.  That, combined with 'someday may true heroes of the faith not have to contend with deplorable sinners who embarrass the Gospel like those over there' I just don't find much edification any more.  Not like I used to.  Truth be told, there are some Protestant and even Orthodox and Jewish sites I've found that are fare more spiritually edifying.  Sure, sometimes there can be a gem, like this.  But on the whole, it's wading through acres of chaff for a few grains of wheat.

Because of this, it's easy to lose site of some real gems out there representing the Church, the traditions, the good of the Faith and the world it helped build in ways that are challenging, edifying, and sometimes downright fun.  I give you Jimmy Akin.  Mr. Akin is honest enough to admit just embracing everything science says about the universe and evolution isn't easy, and there are legitimate questions worth answering.  It's noteworthy that the tone isn't 'loser idiots who aren't as awesome as we are don't like God or science', but rather 'here's some honest questions, let's find some answers.  Listen away.  Always good and I dare you to listen to the likes of Mr. Akin or John C. Wright and not at least be tugged a bit toward that historic Faith that walked the earth for more than a millennium before Martin Luther.

Yep

A spot on take on the modern Left and the relentless assaults against anyone and everyone who fails to conform.  This is an old take really, dealing with the Megyn Kelly kurflufal that happened when she mentioned Jesus and Santa were white.  I'm sure you remember,  All hell broke loose, and of course we were reminded why conservatives are always stupid, evil, racist and wrong.  But here is a different take.  There were, in fact, different takes then, but they were mostly dismissed or ignored by those who have no interest in truth or right.  My favorite line:  "And to be redeemed, the white liberal must constantly beat his chest and point out the evil that is his race."  Actually, to be redeemed, the liberal must embrace liberalism.  But berating his demographic, whether gender, orientation, race, nationality or religion, is the sum total of what one must do to prove fealty to the liberal way.

Yes the media lies

So my family - kids included - caught an interview with Mike Huckabee, who could be running for president.  He won't make it of course.  Too religious for our time.  Nonetheless, I like ol'Mike.  Don't always agree with him, but he doesn't stand for heinous things, and seems to take some very balanced approaches to some issues that are entirely polarized today.

Of course, not supporting Gay Marriage is enough for the media to declare NAZI!  And it never fails that the person who has endorsed all evil is left defending himself, as opposed to asking the media why things have come this far in the first place.  One common tactic in the defense is insisting that one has friends who are gay, or knows someone who is gay, or has no problem with people who are gay.  This is because the Left has always been brilliant at defining hatred, evil, bigotry, racism, sexism or anything else as simply refusing to accept liberal values.  So you don't support gay marriage?  Obviously you are a bigot who hates gays.  Thus the defense.

And that's what Mike did.  While being grilled on CNN over his refusal to jump on the bandwagon, Huckabee stated the usual, he knows gays and has gay friends.  When asked how this could be, or if it creates tension, he pointed out that he has friends who do things or think things he disagrees with or doesn't do himself.  He has friends who smoke, drink, cuss.  He doesn't, but they're friends.  They simply agree to disagree.   You'd think the problem with that answer was how wimpy it is and how much it concedes to the Leftist paradigm.  But no.  You'd be wrong.

So all day the Media, in one coordinated voice, has run the headline: Huckabee compares being gay to drinking and swearing!  That's not what he did.  In context, it's clear what he did.  But this is now.  Today.  My boys, who saw the initial interview, were stunned.   CNN was doing a recap with three women reporters.  They all ran with this.  My boys saw the recap on CNN.  As my boys said, they were lying.  They know that's not what he was doing.

What is more, one of the women went on to say that churches all over are accepting gay marriage.  Bible believing churches.  In Tennessee!   Of course.  There have been churches all along that do this.  Many have been behind gay rights and gay marriage from the beginning.  She knows what she said is not entirely true.  But it doesn't matter.  This is now.  I don't think CNN is worried that someone watching may think 'gee, I don't think that's accurate.'  I believe, at this point in time, CNN (like most media outlets) is counting on the fact that most who watch don't care what's true.  Heck, if it's a lie, all the better, as long as it advances The Cause.  I'm just glad my boys saw both the interview, and the flagrant false twisting of the reporting to see just how low the media is in today's world.  How much else is lies I wonder?  They certainly said they wonder.

Meanwhile in the land of tolerance

Another person falls victim to modern diversity.  I have no idea what he said, and it might have been offensive.   But it's still a hoot that those playing the 'absolute morality that demands conformity and punishment' card are descended from those liberals of old who promised a land of unfettered openness and tolerance and diversity.  Assignment: Read Animal Farm for understanding the modern Left.

Mitt Romney saves the GOP

By announcing he won't run.  Not that the GOP has much hope. The propaganda ministry has already anointed Hillary as the first woman president.  Unless she herself doesn't run, she'll be it.  The liberal democrats will have no problem forgetting about decades of making old age a detriment to qualified candidates, or looking forward not behind as an essential part of any credible campaign.  The GOP, being whatever it has become, is lining up some pretty strange candidates, or the usual ones, with FOX and other outlets cheering on the ones least likely to win.  Mike Huckabee would be awesome, but our society is too prejudice against traditional Christianity to allow such an outwardly religious person to win, so nice thought as it is, it's not realistic.

Unless Hillary doesn't run, or some big stinking scandal happens, my guess is we'll have four more years of liberal Democrats at the helm.  Not that eight years of a marginally moderate conservative under Bush did any good.  Fact is, it's been decades since a quality leader has been in the White House, and it shows just how important good executive leadership is for a country, and in more ways than just economical or even international policy.

Jimmy Akin still rocks

I love his blog and don't visit there regularly enough.  Here he is discussing the Liar's Paradox, and the controversy - if you can call it that - over St. Paul's use of it in his letter to Titus.  Mr. Akin and John C. Wright are two that still burn that candle of credibility and reality in the ever disintegrating credibility of the Catholic blogosphere.  For an example of the latter, see here, where once again we're told that the Church of Now is alone the True Church, and those vile and contemptible loser scum Traditionalists are wicked in their evil desires for the slaughter and damnation of others.  Rather than, you know, simply discussing the interesting issue of yet another Catholic doctrine that seems to have been declared passe, we once more hear the post-modern internet version of 'thank you God, that you haven't made me a hyphenated Catholic like those sinners over there.'