Where Peter Is and a great big lie

We all heard Pope Leo a few weeks back say he's not going to obsess about some minor issue like sexual sins because there are bigger fish to fry in the world.  That's like standing in Europe in 1944 and saying armed conflicts are not the big issue right now.  The death and suffering toll of the sexual revolution almost boggles the mind, if one is willing to step back and honestly assess what we've seen.  More than that, Pope Leo's statement seems in reaction to a popular narrative - a false caricature - that Christians ever and only care about sins below the waistline and not much else. 

One of my professors said that he was having dinner with Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  During their talk, Dr. Mohler expressed frustration that the only time CNN or other news outlets wanted to talk to him was about sexual issues like the Lewinski scandal or homosexual marriage.  As a brilliant theologian and scholar in his own right, Dr. Mohler happily would have spoken to other, larger issues.  But no, not for the press.  They wanted sex or move on to someone else.  

Which is why I always chafe at the mendacity of so much modern progressive activism and its media talking points.  Who is it that only wants to talk about sex?  It's an age old pop culture stereotype that it's only those fundamentalist Christian puritan types obsessed with sex.  Which is laughable, as one need only look at pop culture to see who obsesses about sex above almost anything else including food and oxygen.  

Nonetheless, it's standard liberal tactics 101.  For example, kick down doors, leap through windows, shove gay everything in our faces, demand conformity, plaster gay everywhere, make every social function an outlet for advancing gay anything, and the second someone says 'But I sort of disagree', the liberal activist feigns indignation over the individual obsessing about homosexuality. 

So when I see a Where Peter Is headline that sexuality is not the only moral issue, I have to agree and happily report that no Christian I've met in the three major traditions - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox - would disagree.  They never say that. Ever.  Oh, it might be a constant point of discussion, but only because of the 24/7 saturation of the topic in our modern world. 

Nonetheless, what this misrepresentation does is twofold.  For the secular, godless Sodom and Gomorrah era activists, it's a way of shutting down opposition by shaming people into thinking the real problem is thinking about sex when the only thing we're told to think about is sex (unless it's racism).  

The other boon of this falsehood is that it allows an out for those Christians who don't want to get within a mile of calling out our modern secular leftwing orgy of debauchery and narcissism (ahem, Pope Leo).  You see, all people ever want to do is talk about sex, so I'm boldly going to go a different direction that won't put me in the crosshairs of modernity.  And this isn't some assumption of malice or ulterior motives on my part. It comes from watching and listening these last many decades of my Christian experience. 

Oh, and just one more thing.  Before people say that sexual sin, as catastrophic as it can be, is still rooted in deeper, spiritual problems and eternal considerations, let me say I fully agree. The problem is, those who rush out and say 'it's about more than sex' almost never go there either.  Instead, it's off to this or that socio-political problem or policy issue that aligns strangely enough with the side that has used sex to entice followers for generations to begin with. Irony alert. 

I was walking with Pope Leo and Billy Graham by the Tower of Siloam

And I noticed the tower had fallen and killed many people.  In my distress I turned to them, and Billy Graham told me there is much suffering in our fallen world.  I am no doubt suffering too.  In fact, if I'm honest, my whole life has been missing something, and as I look at that tower I can see the problems of the world that have always been.  But  it's time I admit that the only solution to my distress and depression is to turn to God by repenting and coming to Christ Jesus, to make Him Lord of my life, and then I will find what my life has been missing.  Oh, and then I should make sure I find a local church and become part of it.

I then turned to Pope Leo, who assured me that the world is filled with injustices and suffering.  He likewise assured me that God would be there for me in my own struggles and suffering, to give me the sense of His Presence, and to bring us all to be united as one family in this world.  Once I realize that, I can then get busy and start working on how to make sure no more towers like the one at Siloam fall, or that oppressive regimes can no longer mingle the blood of the innocent with their sacrifices as Pilate did.  

I thought of that when I heard some of the words of Pope Leo in Spain.  I've been listening to Pope Leo quite a bit, eagerly waiting that moment when he finally says 'Yes, Griffeys, the hell you went through to become Catholic was worth it, for there is no more pressing need in all creation than walking with God through Christ in the Catholic Faith.'  Or similar.  

Instead, I heard things that reminded me more of a Catholic version of Rick Warren's A Purpose Driven Life, with a touch of socio-economic and political concerns tagged on the end. Not horrible stuff, but in the end, I just keep getting the impression that it's all about me.  Not me in the sense that it's imperative I repent and draw near to God.  But somehow as if God is a means to an end that ultimately comes back to me.

In fact, it dawned on me that if it was up to the last couple popes we've had, I never would have become Christian, much less Catholic.  Not that they don't act like Jesus or God or the Christian Faith are important, at least from a Catholic POV.  They just aren't - necessary, at least from a modern POV.  Or at best they aren't exclusively necessary.  And there never seems to be any demand on me at all, apart from seeking justice for the oppressed and the immigrant and concerning myself about the world's climate and economic woes.  Big, lofty problems that never really put me on the spot for my own personal life choices and behaviors. 

Out of strange coincidence, as I've listened to Pope Leo, I saw an old clip of Billy Graham a few days back.  It's been a long time since I heard him.  It brough back memories.  Even as an agnostic, I always respected Rev. Graham.  As I told people then that I didn't believe in Christianity, but I knew he did.  And that meant something.  Especially compared to other prominent celebrity ministers in those days.    

Which is why, when he had his famous Crusades on television, I would sometimes watch.  Even in college, if other roommates were out and about, I'd turn him on and listen.  I must admit - and  I know people will probably find all sorts of problems with his theology or ministry style - but when he preached, something often stirred inside me.  He said much of the same thing the last popes have said. Hurting people, hurting world, injustices and all, feeling lost and alone.  But somehow he pointed past the worldly and material to the New Jerusalem (though I wouldn't have identified it as such).     

And he made it clear it wasn't a blank check. I  had to meet God halfway.  A covenant, so to speak. A new covenant, but covenant nonetheless.  God is eternal love and grace and forgiveness, but not on a one-way street. I would have to confess, to step out, to make Jesus Lord of my life for the world to see.  And let me tell you, as an agnostic, the thought of stepping out and saying I believe in Jesus publicly was like begin asked to go to the front of the class and do a calculus problem on the chalkboard.  Because something about the invitation made me think that would be a major decision on my part, nobody to hide behind or nowhere to run.  It was me and my decision or not, and I would have to live with the consequences one way or another.  Let me tell you, that was a powerful idea. 

Despite the dread I had when pondering that, I often entertained the thought.  I think, IIRC, I once actually called that hotline they had at the end of the broadcast. I don't recall if anything happened.  But that's how much it touched me.  I should say, as a Protestant minister, I often got the same zingers in my soul when I listened to Fulton Sheen.  I had never heard of him growing up, but in Louisville there was a station that showed reruns of his old TV show.  Wow, could that fellow preach.  As one from a denomination that put a huge premium on mach schau when it came to sermon delivery, I often stood in awe of Sheen's communication abilities.  A reputation Catholic priests were not always associated with. 

And, like a Catholic Billy Graham, he laid it on the line.  He didn't shy from the issues of the day. Far from it.  But it was always wrapped in higher things.  It was, you might say, a reminder that however many towers we lament or authoritarian atrocities we decry, we need to make sure we - that's me, Dave Griffey - are right with God.  And it isn't going to arrive in the mail with a picture of Ed McMahon on the envelope.  I was going to have to meet and accept God's gift; to be prepared to make the call and follow through.  

I just don't get that from so much of the Church today, including its popes.  As I said here, dignity seems to be the big idol before which our leaders bow (yes, I saw the headline). But is seems to reinforce that modernist idea that it's really all about me isn't it. God's here to give me a purpose driven life, which mainly means, in terms of obligation that I get with the picture and fix the things of the world, as opposed to come forward and confess Christ before men, or repent and sin no more.  

I should add one more thing.  I was chatting with one of my sons, as you're aware I often do.  We were talking about the heavy emphasis on such things as 'fix the problems of the world will you' that is everywhere today.  He said that's one of the things that drags so many younger people down.  The idea that they have no business being anything but miserable unless they invest themselves in fixing vast geopolitical problems that have evaded the leaders of the world since time immemorial. Again, I thought of that when I reflected on Pope Leo's call to trust that God loves us, but make sure we use this realization to get out there and be those social justice warriors that the world wants.  As opposed to focusing on anything terribly eternal in our own personal considerations.  

And now a few passages to ponder: 

For this reason, he added that those who allow themselves to be enlightened by the Gospel “also develop a critical perspective regarding a social system that does not place the person at the center and gives rise to situations of injustice and existential poverty on various levels.”   Pope Leo XIV  

"True repentance is a turning from sin... Humanly speaking, it is our small part in the plan of salvation. Our part is repenting. God will do the converting, the transforming, and the forgiving." Billy Graham

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”  Emphasis mine. 

To my thinking, one of these passages is not like the other two, even if there are similarities. 

BONUS REMINDER:  For those who grew up in the Faith, this is what people outside are often looking for when they've been primed to seek God.  It would be nice if modern Church leaders remember that:

It's that time of year again

 When Christians who have thrown their lot in with the Left rush out to explain:

Last year it was Dawn Eden's turn IIRC

It's become like those years when the news media would come out every Christmas and Easter to explain the real story behind those holidays. You can bet on it happening.  In this case it's the Christian Left forever suggesting that everything we thought we understood about the Christian faith and its teachings might not be the case.  A major theme in the modern Church it's worth noting.  And a boon for non-Christians and opponents of the Gospel if there ever was one. 

Of course it's bunk, as is so often the case.  Not that if I say I am proud of my sons it means I should burn in Hell.  We get that I can be proud of my sons.  Or my wife.  Or my parents.  Or my country.  I can take pride in that project I finished.  That is understood.  

But that's not what this is about, and we all know it.  It's justifying fealty to the Left, plain and simple. Just as those whole life and seamless garment Catholics have been so silent about the killing of that young man in Britain, or the latest case of a girl whose breasts were cut off when she was a minor owing to the Transgender movement.  Or any host of cases where rape or murder or genocide or oppression or injustice occurs, but might in some way make the narratives of the Left look flawed.  If it can't ignore inconvenient topics, it tries to muddle them in some way to avoid confronting the obvious*.  FWIW, this approach is aided by a sympathetic media and education system willing to do the same.  

I'm getting to the point where I'm honestly hard-pressed to imagine anything the Left could do that would cause the Christian Left to rise up and say enough.  Which might be why the Left, secular though it is, never really butts heads with those holding otherwise contemptable religious views who are also on the Left.  Why bother?  It is also probably why I have yet to see any Christian - including Catholic - I know who is even slightly to the left of center address the names Jesse Ridgeway, Henry Nowak, Austin Metcalf or Chloe Cole.  And I don't suspect I will. 

That's why it's imperative to never do that for Christians who don't swing left of center.  It's OK to keep things in perspective, to not fall for press narratives or false accusations against this Republican or that Trump moment.  But if something is done or said that is heinous, wrong, sinful or similar, then for heaven's sake call it out.  The last thing we want to do is assume people are too stupid to see what we would be doing, much less assume the Almighty is no less stupid.  

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.  Galatians 6.7-8

*It is worth noting that one of the pillars of various Liberation Theologies is the Oppressed v. Oppressor template.  That is, all things are filtered through one's status as part of the oppressed or oppressor demographic.  And that usually means oppressed of the West and its heritage or not.  So for instance, in Feminist Theology pride is certainly a sin ... where men are concerned.  Because it's obvious men (the oppressors) are awash in it and have been for eons.  But for women (the oppressed), pride can indeed be a virtue.  For them, humility itself could be sinful, for it might keep them from being their true selves and rising up against the shackles of ages old injustices.  Whether the above apologetic is assuming that template or not I don't know.  It just brought to mind how radically different many leftwing interpretations of the Faith are from their historical approaches.  

I hope Pope Leo is wrong

Denied!

So the press, opponents of Israel and America and Trump, and all Catholics who swing left of center are no doubt dancing in the streets as Pope Leo has strongly and loudly proclaimed:

[Jesus] does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them

Yep.  Take that George Washington.  Take that Founding Fathers.  Take that FDR.  Take that Eisenhower. Take that Pope Urban II.  Take that Joan of Arc.  Take that - any leader who has ever waged war in or out of the Bible.  Apparently God has ignored every prayer by these and others because - of course He does.  

He's the God of Love and Peace.  Not right or wrong.  Not defending the innocent against evil. Not justice.  Not good or bad.  Not anything really.  Just the assurance that as long as we don't wage war against evil, whatever evil does is small beans. Barney the Dinosaur never said it so well. 

Of course I'm reading into this.  It was likely just a swipe against Trump and the war against Iran. Likely without much thought about the larger, yet entirely logical, ramifications of what he just said.  A lazy, sloppy, social media era postmodern dig. Like most of our postmodern leadership and scholarship. It's true now because it jabs Trump.  It tells us what we want and owns the other guy.  Later it will be revised for obvious reasons that a modicum of historical studies will reveal.  Such is post-Truth modernity.  We won't even get into the Protestant anti-Catholic talking point that Catholics believe popes and God merely swap nameplates.  Which is why, apparently, popes can always say just what prayers God is and isn't listening to.  

Like his predecessor, I'm getting the feeling that Pope Leo will speak the words beloved of modern post-Western globalism, whether or not it stands up to common sense scrutiny, much less historical Catholicism.  Like Pope Francis, he speaks the words the modern World wants to hear.  The impact it has on the faithful, the faithless, or the Faith in general, increasingly seeming to be of little concern.  

I hope this if fake news

It's a story that Vice President Vance formally invited Pope Leo to attend America's 250th Birthday party, but Pope Leo declined.  Some versions have Pope Leo instead going to stand with immigrants on July 4th.  I don't know.  Most places I've seen this are merely social media outlets, or other sites that don't seem entirely credible, like this one.  

I've not found it in the MSM, Vatican or other official Catholic outlets. I don't know if Catholics on either side of the pope debates have mentioned it.  Again, blacking out on Lent over these things does make it tough to get to the bottom of things, since you'll sometimes find links you don't when following the modern press.  

I hope it's not true.  In my protestant days, one of the endearing stereotypes was that Catholic clergy prefer a world where God makes kings and popes and peasants to grovel before them.  That's why the Church has always chafed at this new American Experiment hoopla.   

So imagine my delight when I encountered such places as The American Catholic, or Mark Shea, or countless others who assured me that being Catholic does not mean having to say you're sorry about being an American.  Imagine how nice it was to learn that was a stereotype, and the Church has not always preferred any other reign of terror to God Bless America.   Of course that has changed on many fronts, especially within the vaunted Protestant Converts to Catholicism club.  

Nonetheless, I'd like to think that as an American, Pope Leo will demonstrate the same pride in his own country as we saw with Pope Francis and Argentina, or Pope John Paul II and his native Poland.   I'm still holding out hope for Pope Leo, and that this is just some partisan hackery.  After all, we almost have to. This is the twentieth anniversary of our entering the Church.  A few weeks back, one of our sons made the poignant, and devastating, observation that we entered the Church twenty years ago this year.  In that time, however, we have yet to hear a sitting pope suggest there was a pressing need for us to do so.

Given what our family went through over the years, that's tough. I think if anything else was a problem, it would be easier to swallow.  But the idea that we could have happily stayed where we were (and me, subsequently, getting close to a nice retirement), and simply supported the proper political and ideological narratives and agendas, makes it go down rather bitter, I must admit.  And Pope Leo living up to everything you expect from that approach to the modern world - better anything but the West - will go a long way toward convincing the gang that my son's observation continues to be affirmed.  

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess

 Obedience to the Political Left.   Woof:

Are we sure all ICE agents are psycho fascist murderous thugs?  And then, does that mean we're allowed to crow over the suffering of such vile criminals and even their loved ones who might be impacted?  I mean, that doesn't strike me as that portrayal of good old liberal kindness I grew up with, Christian or otherwise.  I remember when not a few Catholic apologists railed against those who cheered the death of Osama bin Laden, reminding us that real Christians never gloat over the suffering  of others, even our enemies. Or did that just mean gloating over the death of people who orchestrate the slaughter of thousands of Americans? 

Yet here, from that bastion of Christian charity, we also have similar:

It's a shame because it could harm them, or their families or loved ones.  At least those in ICE who aren't gestapo murderers.  But again, this is the modern Left, which has done yeoman's work reducing everything to a bumper sticker; of eliminating the idea that problems could be vast and complex and instead distilling reality down to Group A v. Group B.  The Left that has done wonders by convincing so many, including our leadership and even Christian institutions, that there is no human race, only intersecting demographic groups through which all worth and culpability are measured.  

BTW, doxxing.  I had to ask my sons some years ago. It means finding personal information about someone and then plastering it online.  Usually with the hope that some harm comes to them or theirs as a result.   So when one of his readers, expressing the same concern about ICE, was nonetheless concerned about Mark's vengeful tone, his response was thus:

Eeek.  

Which reminds me of Mike Lewis and his post trying to score political points in God's name when Mel Gibson's home was consumed by the LA fires.  

Now, I don't know about you, but there are plenty people out there I don't care for owing to their politics or other belief systems and behaviors.  But I would never gloat over harm done to them, even disguising it as some prophetic utterance.  And that isn't from being Christian, but merely how I was taught growing up, both by my parents and society at large.  

Not all of it has to be a flagrant disregard for the wellbeing of those who dare dissent from the Leftist State of course.  Some can be the opposite, glorifying those who the Left/Press has beautified as the type of people Jesus tried to be.  For that, here is an example from Dawn Eden, reminding us that Ana Narvo is most likely correct, Alex Pretti was the most perfect guy. 

Thus only one side of the tragedy need ever be accepted.  

And for a bonus, when anti-ICE activists broke into a church to disrupt worship services, I assumed it would be one of those embarrassments that most on the Left would try to sweep under the rug.  And for the most part I was right.  For the Left Media, the arrest of Don Lemon became the focus.  Sort of like the press focusing on free speech when people were fired for wanting more Charlie Kirk killings as opposed to focusing on the the implication of those wanting the killing of Charlie Kirk.  

But kudos to Mark, who rushes in to mock those in the church who say they were upset, or their children frightened, when their worship service was so intruded upon.  Cosplaying martyrdom he called it.  I guess freedom to worship unhindered comes with the caveat that this freedom is contingent not on what one feels about Jesus or God, but whether one conforms to the political Left and its narratives or not.  Or, more shockingly, on whether or not the Left and its corporate instruments deem you worthy of such rights. 

As I've said before, none of this is to say there is nothing wrong with how President Trump has tried to correct the border crisis.  Or would I suggest that in an operation so vast, bad things could never happen, even to innocent people. And we don't need to point out every anti-ICE advocate's refusal to even acknowledge that some detainees have been violent criminals and many thousands of Americans have been harmed or even killed as a result of illegal immigration. We won't discuss the Left's ability, courtesy of a sympathetic media, to dehumanize those who get in the way. 

No.  All of this is to ask the question - what the hell went wrong with the great Protestant Converts to Catholicism movement of yore?  I mean, to varying degrees, none of these individuals were so immersed in the leftwing tank.  Not that they were all a bunch of radical right-wingers.  But I can distinctly recall some absolutely attacking the very things we're seeing:  Condemning everyone in a group, wishing harm to those in opposing groups, and of course anyone treading on Christian praxis in the name politics.  Because Catholicism don't you know.  That great fulfillment of the Faith that set the abuses of Protestantism and our modern secular state aright.  Yet there it is.  They are far more glued to the full secular leftwing movement than any religious right Christian ever was to the political right back in the day. 

I won't give my ideas about what happened, since I don't know for sure.  I was in a discussion with someone else about those high profile converts to Catholicism who have plunged into the vat of  the secular leftwing movement.  What he said isn't too far from the likelihood, but I'd be curious if there are any other insights.  I realize that this is a small portion of Catholicism, but it isn't a small portion of the Catholic Convert Culture that was so prominent back in the day, but today looks barely different from an average MSNBC broadcast. At least in these cases. 

BTW, it should be noted that in all of the rejoicing over potential suffering of the ICE agents and anyone to do with them, none of it has anything to do with even acknowledging the thousands of Americans victimized by illegal immigration. As we've seen from even much of the Church's leadership, many have embraced the leftwing media's dictum that it's not if we should care about the suffering and death of the innocent, but when.  And that is answered as only as long as it can be exploited, and not a minute more.  Chilling, if you think about it.   But you can hardly blame those here, when most in our leadership, including Christian leadership, apparently approves this message. 

I hope there was a reason he couldn't attend, just like I lamented those who were forbidden 
to attend weddings and funerals during Covid.  I wonder if Mr. Greydanus was as indignant then.

Cardinal Cupich and the question of why bother being Catholic

 So here is his reaction to the Australia and Brown University shootings:

Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, on the Shootings in Rhode Island and Australia

December 14, 2025

Español | Polski

Once again, I write to offer solace and hope to people shocked by loss of life in places where our brothers and sisters sought to gather in places of peace and learning, yet were subjected to violence. On an Australian beach, terrorists consumed with hatred rained bullets on a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah, killing 16 and injuring many more. If anyone doubts the ancient sin of antisemitism is alive and strong today, here is proof.

Closer to home, two students preparing for final exams and a joyful holiday were murdered and a dozen injured by a gunman in the latest of a too-long series of college-related shootings.

We pray fervently for those directly affected by these attacks. But we also resolve to act against the circumstances that gave rise to them. In one case, hatred was strong enough to overcome even Australia’s strong firearms regulations. As we make ready to welcome the birth of the Christ Child to Jewish parents, let us recognize our own roots as people blessed with this tradition, speak against hatred and stand with our brothers and sisters as they claim their right to respect, safety and religious liberty.

And may we not be immunized to murder, including the latest United States campus shooting at Brown University. We must recognize that our leaders may say life is precious but act in ways that communicate it is cheap, that our children and the terminally ill are expendable. We cannot roll back mental health services and keep firearms more accessible than health care and then display outrage when the predictable consequences occur. Only if we soften the hearts of those in power can we hope to see a future where parents no longer send children to college with equal parts pride and terror. Only if we safeguard freedom of worship, including for minority faiths will we live up to the principles on which our nation was founded. Until then, we are speaking hollow platitudes about an America that is an ideal, not a reality.

Not surprising in the least.  It says everything we would expect, and carefully avoids saying everything we would expect.  Unlike his reaction to the Charlottesville shooting, in which we were treated to a lengthy essay that included Naziism, white nationalism and the history of racism in our country added to by a pinch of ISIS reference (read it here), he joins the mainstream Left by using the vague 'antisemitism sure is a problem' assessment, never bothering to mention the specifics.  And we all know why. 

But it's what isn't said that's even more telling.  He does mention the coming of Christmas, with the standard progressive emphasis on the group identity of the Christ Child being Jewish.  He brings up the terminally ill, though no clue why, since I'm not aware of that entering into the motive for any of the shooters. Of course he mentions guns, and the obvious assumption that gun control is the single hope for solving the violence we witnessed, which is why it's almost always the only thing we will talk about.  And mental health.  Apparently because the almost exclusive emphasis on mental health and subsequent tens of billions of dollars in funding we've seen over recent decades, even as the problems mental health is supposed to help have gotten worse not better, suggests the solution is more of the same.  

Nonetheless, it's that this could have been released from a politician's office.  It could have come from a mayor, a concerned corporate CEO, a celebrity.  I wouldn't be surprised if some informed and invested pop culture figure had something like this released.  There just isn't any 'there' there.  Certainly not if 'there' means even Christianity in a generic sense, much less a Catholic sense.  Heck, I've taken in more Christianity watching the original Ghostbusters than this. 

If there is any truth at all to the historical Christian Faith, or if there is any need for the Catholic Church to exist, then I'd say this whole release was nothing but a hollow platitude.  It certainly didn't suggest there was any hope beyond accepting progressive activism, narratives and policy solutions.  And it isn't as if this is the only example of such a statement I've seen since we became Catholics. 

Once again, allow me to tap into something one of my sons observed some time ago.  He said we became Catholic almost 20 years ago.  And in that time, we have yet to hear a contemporary pope suggest there was any pressing need for us to do so.  Upon reflection since he mentioned that, I have to say he's right.  And the good Cardinal Cupich simply adds one more page to the question of 'why did we become Catholic in the first place?' that has yet to be answered by those you'd think would provide such an answer. 

If you disagree with the Left then they hate you and want you dead

Is the message being defended by the press.  Yes, the press has found an out.  An out, in terms of the news media, is when a story happens that must be covered, but in some ways upends or threatens established media narratives.  Such as a young radical leftwing activist murdering a conservative.  Or a young white woman stabbed to death by a black man.  Or a transgender activist murdering children in a Church that does not officially endorse transgender activism.  

Sure, you can make it about guns.  That worked in Minneapolis as Christians and Christian leaders rushed out to assure the world that trusting in politics to ultimately solve our problems is the smart way to go, as opposed to just thoughts and prayers.  But despite some Church leaders saying Charlie Kirk's assassination was about gun violence, almost anyone beyond paramecium level of intelligence knows that there are few gun laws in history that would have stopped most of history's assassinations.

So look for - anything else in order to deflect attention.  Now we have it.  As leftwing activists have taken to their social media accounts to laugh about his death, rejoice in his murder, insist he had it coming, and call for it to be only the beginning, many have found themselves losing their jobs.  Which would normally happen.  If after the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting anyone said they had it coming for being gay, that would be the last day that person worked in 99% of our country's institutions and companies.  Most would understand that response from most companies for such a heinous thought.

Heck, if you were found to have dropped the N-word (note I can't say it) in a 20 year old email, the press would happily report on the outrage and stand back while you were chased out of your position.  Or anything regarding feminism, the LGBTQ community, Covid responses and vaccines, Muslims, you name it.  We've watched for 20 years as the cult of George Carlin has faded away and we've recalibrated our approach to free speech in a manner that would make Joe McCarthy quiver. 

But not now.  Now the press has rushed in to defend those rejoicing in the death of Kirk and calling for more of the same, by framing their removals as a potential attack on free speech. You know, the same media that had news anchor Margaret Brennan lecture Marco Rubio on the dangers of free speech.  The same that saw Lesley Stahl's 60 Minutes segment that taught us we sometimes need to rejoice in the government censorship of clearly dangerous and threatening speech.

Now, the press is making it clear: We're once again all about Free Speech full stop.  Which strongly suggests either they were lying before, or they're OK with those who hate non-leftists and want them dead and murdered.  Because apparently that is what free speech is all about.  They certainly shouldn't be punished for merely expressing an opinion (which obviously isn't a deal breaker for those press outlets). 

Insisting that what is clearly happening isn't happening is a bit like Chamberlain flying back to Munich in 1942 and hoping it might work this time.  The emerging Left, utilizing Trump as a living Death Star that must be destroyed at the cost of freedom, democracy, and life itself, is making it as crystal clear as it possibly can: You bow a knee to the Left, or you are the enemy.  And while some Christian leftists have said that still means we love our enemies like Charlie Kirk, even if the hatred and violence against him is understandable, they've made it clear they won't stand up to those who prefer their enemies of the Left dead and buried.

UPDATE: Meanwhile the Left's Ministry of Lies and Propaganda is not only making people wanting conservatives murdered into a Free Speech issue, but are framing the pledge to stop the growing tide of leftists murdering anyone in their way as mere vengeance.  See NBC: 

Of course nowhere in the story was he quoted as saying this was vengeance or revenge or any such thing.  Just treating the growing number of Leftists murdering those deemed evil by the Left as terrorists. 

Again, things are on the move.  Like Trump's first term, the anti-Western revolution is ratcheting it up and making it clear that those who don't bow a knee to the Left are the enemies.  And if people want you dead for your refusal to conform, so be it.  We call these moments in history the chance you had. 

The big winners in the Thoughts and Prayers kerfulfual

Is, as always, the secularists and atheists and non-believers of the modern godless world.  There is nothing better for them than to continually hear religious believers, including their leaders, affirm just how marginal and limited in effectiveness religious faith, practice and belief in God really is.  After all, when the Minnesota mayor belted out that the children killed were in the middle of praying, he did nothing but say 'see how utterly useless prayer can be!'  That those believers joining the 'sucks to your loser prayers' movement did nothing but circle the wagons around his speech shows how colossal the World now is versus the whimpering, emaciated Church. 

Now the whole 'sucks to your loser thoughts and prayers' line of attack came some years ago from gun control activists who were openly non-religious.  I remember this addressed on different Catholic sites.  At that time, there was obvious sympathy for the gun control activists making the charge.  But caution was advised with a gentle rebuke, reminding them (and us) that prayers are never to be seen as contingent upon worldly solutions or activism.  They shouldn't be seen as standing against such things as working to find a solution, as some either/or proposition. Likewise, at no point should we make judgments about the sincerity of those invoking prayers, since prayer is so much more than just asking God to solve our problems.  But mostly we want to be careful not to affirm the secular idea that God and all the religious stuff is worth nothing more than killing an hour on a Sunday morning versus looking for real solutions in the real world.

Well that's dead.  Now there are plenty of Christians saying just what those non-believer said, only more.  Taking the leap that nothing but the left's gun control advocacy can save us, and anyone who disagrees can be judged accordingly, it's Christians as much as anyone saying prayers and God are beneficial only within the context of proper political advocacy.

Which wouldn't be the first time someone charged forth and said my way or you aren't properly following God.  The irony, like so much we've seen in the last couple decades, is that it was the political and religious left that put the kibosh on such thinking.  After all, in WWII for instance, saying we will just pray for peace but not actually resist the Nazis would not have been seen as valid by a substantial number of people.  Yet look at all the horrible things we did to beat the Nazis. Hence those left leaning Christians I encountered warning the religious right about making one's religious life, devotion or sincerity contingent upon any worldly or secular matter, especially politics.

But again, that's dead.  The worst is, of course, that it plays into the modern narrative that Jesus is OK, God's OK, smoke'em if you got'em, but it's keeping up with the world that allows us to see the true nature of sanctification and righteousness and truth.  Something hammered home frequently during the papacy of Pope Francis.  Catholicism was OK, and Christianity as good as always.  But it was being properly ordered, which almost always looked like adhering to progressive and leftwing ideology and activism, by which we will see the good fruits.  Except for transgender activism, which Pope Francis pounded on more than once.  Odd that.  But that's for another time since right now nobody seems eager to address that particular topic.

No, I like what one fellow observed.  He said the big problem with this is how many Christian leaders now are undercutting prayer itself.  As any believer who has attended church more than a few times knows, prayer is more than a laundry list of requests we give to Santa God.  While supplications certainly have their place, prayer is so much more than just going to God with a list of demands and expecting results on our terms.  

In the MASH episode Quo Vadis, Captain Chandler, a B-52 bombardier has a meltdown and decides he is Jesus Christ.  It actually has some fairly honest theology for such a show.  But at one point, the villainous Frank Burns, who isn't buying this shell shock rubbish, says he knows he's not Jesus.  He prayed for something and it didn't happen.  To which Hawkeye quips 'just because you didn't get chocolate pudding for lunch doesn't mean anything'.  Of course it was a joke, and everyone got how stupid it would be to say 'it can't be God, because I prayed for something and didn't get it.'  Apparently those condemning the invoking of prayers because the children who were killed were praying missed that episode. 

So those who are saying your prayers are not enough have either two choices.  Either they are suggesting prayers are only good insofar as God answers them as we want, and since God hasn't saved the victims, the prayers obviously aren't enough.  Or they are saying the efficacy of prayer is entirely contingent upon one worldly solution and one worldly solution only.  I just don't see a third option here. But either way, again, the big winners are those who know religion, Christianity and certainly Catholicism are all a bunch of BS to begin with. Something our churches and leaders, and sometimes fellow believers, insist on inadvertently being the biggest cheerleaders for nowadays.  

FWIW, as for those Catholic leaders, bishops and others explaining that thoughts and prayers are fine, but must be accompanied by meaningful action?  Because meaningful action always sounds like it has been endorsed by the establishment media and DNC, while almost never daring to call out any possible part of the problem that might offend the left of center, I see that doing nothing to avoid the above concerns.  After all, even secularists and non-believers can tell court prophets when they see them.

But when it sounds like the US Catholic Leadership is taking its cues from Catholic tradition and not the latest Manhattan Democratic fundraiser, then I'll at least concede the obvious point that prayer does not negate the need for earthly action. It simply shouldn't be subordinate to political activism.  Remember, if the US bishops were 25% as passionate and zealous about calling out the border catastrophe during the Biden years as they have been condemning Trump's response to it, we might not have ended up with Trump being reelected in the first place.  The same goes for almost every other topic today, including this one. 

*Fun trivia.  In the MASH episode above, it was shown in season four.  Up until that time, the character of Radar O'Reilly had no first name.  But at the end of the episode, a young and innocent Radar asks Captain Chandler - taking at face value he might be Jesus after all - to bless his teddy bear.  At that point Captain Chandler says 'and bless you Radar.'  To which Radar responds 'I'm Walter.'  The writers had to come up with a name they thought would fit, and he became Walter as much as Radar for the rest of the show. 

However much you think the modern Left hates America

And to a broader extent, the whole of the Christian West, you doubtlessly underestimate the reality. This was brought to mind when Deacon Greydanus copied this FB post:

Woof.  Most "White" Americans in 1872 were White Supremacists?  What about 1873? That made me think of this:

The joke is that this is a fellow insisting Trump/MAGA/Conservatives are the Nazi racists when he, like so many on the modern Left, thinks nothing of judging and condemning an entire nationality based on race and ethnicity.  We call that projection, not to mention naked hypocrisy.  And, of course, it's racism plain and simple.  But it's what we're up against, and there are obviously a growing number of people in the world more than happy to cheer on this thinking, since they can clearly see where this attitude and bias is heading. 

If you're wondering, here was Deacon Greydanus's own comment in the post that linked to this typical progressive spin on our history: 

Saying you will learn anything about anything by reading such a leftist screed is like saying 'If you don't know the background of the LGBTQ community - read Fred Phelps."  We won't get into the slanted way one must see history to agree with such an appraisal.  

As the Left peddles more and more anti-Caucasian race hate for the purpose of burning the whole of the Western tradition, and further makes clear that it cares not a lick about human suffering but that it can be exploited,  and on top of it all is doing this in order to sniff around the door of walking back religious liberty, free speech, advocating cannibalism, excusing the slaughter of Jews, and pondering the benefits of human sacrifice, we're faced to confront a difficult reality. Those Christians who have long aligned with the left of center can't possibly not see what is happening.  Naivete and innocent credulity only go so far.  At some point we must concede that they know full well what is being done, they see it for what it is, and for reasons known only to them and God, they fully align with it.  Not that this hasn't happened many times in history.  It's just difficult when it's happening in your own time. 

Deacon Greydanus responds

To the piece by Mike Lewis explaining his swing to the left of center.  Apparently Lewis's piece is getting quite a bit of attention.

The response is copied from his Facebook page below. Ironically, I had blocked the good deacon some time ago because I grew tired of his playing fast and loose with honest discourse.  I hated to see him slip into the same pit I've seen far too many, especially to the left of center, slip.  That 'words speak louder than actions' trick that defines so much dialogue with those who tack progressive gets under my skin color.

Nonetheless, I thought better of it. I'm not a fan of blocking or banning people.  Especially fellow believers. It makes me think of retreating into a room in the church basement and locking the door to keep 'those other believers' out of our hipster church club.  I concede it must happen sometimes.  But it should be done like it was in the olden days of the Internet - rarely and only because of the worst cases (threats, calumny, personal attacks without stopping after multiple warnings).  So I unblocked him, only to have him block me.  That's because I finally called him out on his 'good cop/bad cop' tendency of threatening to block people who even challenge a leftwing mantra, saying he only wants the best behavior on his pages, while standing back and letting people like Shea and Rebecca Weiss and other leftwing readers rip into anyone challenging their leftwing sympathies with endless name calling, accusations and personal attacks.  So that was the end of me.

Nonetheless, there are others I know and follow who haven't been banned, and other sources that still follow him.  So from those sources this came to me, which I thought was every bit as telling as Mr. Lewis's piece (that's why no link, BTW).  What think you?  Do you notice what I notice in his reasoning?  

Apparently someone challenged the 'only those MAGA types are the real problem' template.  Deacon Greydanus's response is to that comment.  First the comment: 

All of this irritates me to no end. Fine, people on the right are too factional. So are people on the left. Every single Catholic group my wife and I ever been involved in (including breastfeeding groups, homeschooling groups, and pro-life groups) fall into the same trap of constantly pointing at someone else and saying “They’re factional!” The devil knows its a perfect trap: Factionalism is really bad, and to constantly complain about factionalism only deepens factionalism. It would be much better, I think, to spend time promoting the good that Jesus Christ offers the world and how that instantiates itself in various proposals. We never get to do that because we always say, “First of all, look what a jerk the other guy is. Now let me tell you about Jesus.

And his response:  

I have something to say about this. I don’t think your response is adequate. I don’t think you’re entirely reckoning with what this discussion is really about.

Here’s what I think you may be missing: People like Mike and me (along with many people in this thread, as you can see for yourself) are not just angry or upset about “factionalism,” or people being “jerks.” We are wounded souls processing trauma and grief over the loss of one-time heroes and friends whom we watched in dismay and disbelief as they turned against us, and against, so it seems to us, the heart of the faith we thought we shared with them, in the process of building a militant, powerful Catholic subculture organized around entrenched resistance to the pope (if not to Vatican II), a string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical, quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA.

We have heard these things said from pulpits, from episcopal offices, and in Catholic media spaces. We have been told—by people we respected and cared about, whose words we used to hang on—that we are not really Catholic if we see things differently.

I’m not saying progressive, dissenting Catholics can’t be factionalistic. I’m saying we who don’t (or, in some cases, who once didn’t) dissent from the Church never expected progressive dissenters, or any dissenters, to model Christian unity and integrity. We did expect that of our heroes and friends. Their betrayal—compounded by their accusation that *we* are the traitors—is an open wound from which we continue to suffer.

Cardinal Burke was one of my great heroes, a rock star of fidelity, erudition, and sober judgment in my eyes. To see him brought low by so absurd a rightwing canard as Covid vaccine microchip conspiracy theories was bad enough. Worse was his violence to basic canon law principles—Cardinal Burke, doing violence to canon law!—by redefining “apostasy” to include Catholics like President Biden whom he considers to have “publicly and obstinately violated the moral law,” and his quite literally scandalous “just asking questions” engagement with sedevacantist speculation about Pope Francis being invalidly elected (in discussion with Patrick Coffin, who has repeatedly platformed the likes of E. Michael Jones, among other gross things).

That’s just one example—and I don’t even know Cardinal Burke. I’ve been insulted and attacked in every way imaginable by people I once called friends. I am a fallen and flawed human being who has made many mistakes, and not every ugly word flung my way has been undeserved or incomprehensible. But some of them are simply because I believe God is doing good things in the Church through Pope Francis. Because I believe my Black neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.

Cardinal Ratzinger, shortly before his election to the chair of Peter, talked about the danger posed by those who talk about God but live contrary to him, and how this opens the door to unbelief. He talked about the great need for people who, by the enlightened faith they live, “make God credible” in the world. Our crisis, our wound, is that the very people who once made God credible for us have now turned out to be people who talk about God but live contrary to him. This has led many to doubt, to struggle with unbelief, to fall away from the Catholic communion, or to lose their faith altogether. This is not about mere factionalism. This is about making God’s love visible in the world, or distorting it in the pursuit, ultimately, of political power.