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.

When John Fetterman became the voice of reason among the American Left

You wouldn't have thunk it, would you.  In the first months of his first term in office, Trump's critics were able to get my never-Trumper son to admit that the only thing that makes Trump look good is his critics.  Nothing has changed, despite the shellacking the Left got in November.  It's still pretty much scream Trump Nazi Holocaust with F-bombs and then refuse to do anything else.  

I did arrive at one conclusion after the election.  If you're going to so flagrantly ignore or downplay or mock the suffering of tens of millions just because your guy is the one in the White House, make sure they're not tens of millions of registered voters.  

Nonetheless, though the Obama years marked that  moment when the post-Western Left came out of the closet and made its desires for a post-Western world openly known, it's been rough sailing for them since.  Part of it is, I think, something I noticed some years ago.  Since the Left holds the orb, the scepter and the crown (entertainment, media, education), it's easy to miss its mistakes since none of the institutions that should be speaking truth to power are going to do so when the power is theirs.  So you can make fools of yourselves, fail miserably, and more or less do terrible things and feel it's OK since the traditional outlets charged with calling you out won't do so.  

But that only goes so far.  As we saw in 2016.  As we saw last year.  As sane people are learning, among that number being Senator Fetterman.  As for the rest of the Left?  It's not looking promising.  

That age old progressive trick

 

Note the assumption.  The assumption is that these 'white men' have been threatened by the gains of women and minorities.  Now, is this what these white men have said?  Have they said their complaints are based on feeling so threatened?  Are there any editorials by these white men stating that they feel threatened, which is why they're complaining?  I don't recall ever hearing any white man say he feels threatened by the gains of women or minorities.  Yet note the ease with which this claim is almost on par with John 3:16 in terms of its quotability in the progressive narrative. 

Fact is, preemptive assumption of bad motives and similar character defects has long been a primary weapon for progressives.  You know, a man who questions the feminist juggernaut is merely threatened by women asserting themselves or succeeding.  People who question normalizing non-heterosexual sex are accused of being homophobic bigots.  Men who questioned it were accused of being closet homosexuals themselves.  People concerned about the negative developments in our modern society are told they're only scared about losing their white privilege.  Those who wonder if a Muslim going on a killing spree in the name of Allah could have something to do with his being a Muslim are smacked down as being motivated by Islamophobic bigotry.  The point is, always assume some defect of character or morally problematic motivation for questioning anything to do with leftwing and liberal narratives or activism. 

It reminds of a CNN discussion in 2016.  Wolf Blitzer was the host.  They were discussing the whole Rise of Trump campaign as we headed into the election.  During the debate, one of the token conservatives brought up the rising suicide rates among white men in America.  Without missing a beat, one of the women on the panel simply waved him aside, insisting it's just a factor of whites upset about losing their privilege.  You know, not men who happened to be white actually struggling or suffering or such.  Nope.  Just racists sad to be losing their chance to be racists. She didn't even pretend to care.  I imagined her dismissive attitude went a long way toward showing why Trump was gaining appeal.  

I should mention that this sort of rhetorical claptrap prompted an early step that turned me from my proud days as a self-proclaimed liberal agnostic.  In a winter quarter class in 1988, we were assigned to give a speech before the class touching on a hot button social issue.  I chose an issue that was making waves then, a pushback against Affirmative Action driven by white business contractors losing their bids purely because they were white.  It was my early encounter with the term 'reverse discrimination'.  

As a liberal I supported Affirmative Action, but I also believed that any discrimination because of gender or race was wrong, never caring for the term 'reverse' discrimination.  To me it was just discrimination based on accident of birth, and so wrong.  I said in my speech there was a kernel of truth to the objections and if not acknowledged, it could eventually end up bringing down the whole of Affirmative Action.  

Wow.  You'd think I praised the Holocaust.  One girl even got up and joked she's sitting on the other side of the classroom away from me (to much laughter of course).  The only one who defended me was an older African American woman who said she wouldn't want to think her sex or race was why she got where she wanted to go.  Certainly my very white professor didn't defend me.  Though I got a decent grade (a B of sorts if I recall), she wrote something across the top of my paper that stunned me: "Why are you so afraid of women and minorities?"  I was more than offended, and spent an hour after class arguing with her, eventually asking her if she's so worried about minorities why doesn't she leave her cushy tenured position and give it to a minority?  FWIW, it was then that I first thought of what I've come to call the Left's cherished Proxy Martyrdom - hang your righteousness on causes that only cost other people and never yourself.  I also learned it's the wise student who keeps his mouth shut when he's nothing more than a schmuck student.  Though that lesson was forgotten once I went back to seminary and graduate school some years later.  

Anyhoo, I left there more than a little ticked off and for the first time (but not the last), began to rethink the assumption I had been given in our 80s culture that progressive was the way to be because liberals were always the open minded free thinking ones.  Which blew up in my face that day.  I should point out that the problem wasn't that they said I was factually wrong, or my reasoning was bad, my arguments were poor, or it was a bad speech.  No.  Those I could believe.  It was the accusation that I was - afraid.  Scared you know.  That they negatively judged what motivated my concern with nothing to go by other than I dared think outside of the progressive box.  I chaffed at that then, and have never stopped as I came to realize just how universal this leftwing tactic is.  As the good Ms. Lipman demonstrates all too well with its causal use in that opening sentence of her little rant.  

I'll let others dissect the implication that somehow white men have no business complaining because they are white men, gender and ethnicity being all important for modern liberals in determining who can do what. For me, it was a reminder of a grave moral defect that has defined so much of the progressive discourse.  A defect I've witnessed since I began paying attention on that cold winter day all those years ago. 

If your best defense is that you were only joking about someone losing their home in the LA fires

 You might want to reconsider where you've ended up in life:

Yep.  Lewis is one of the contributors over at Where Peter Is.  Mostly that site exists to remind us that only reprobates dare question the singular orthodox awesomeness of Pope Francis, with not infrequent reminders that the Left's appraisal of anyone or anything right of center is a reliable witness.

Nonetheless, Lewis's apparent defense of his dig is a good remedy for those who labor under the delusion that somehow one side of the ideological divide is where the beautiful people are, and the other side are the meanies.  An argument not a few former conservatives have used over the years to justify their alliance with advocates of what those conservatives once so strongly condemned. 

Despite those who try to insist that is why they have aligned the way they have, however, Mr. Lewis does yeoman's work showing why appeals to the better behavior on one side or the other as justification for taking a stand is generally a fool's argument.  I suppose that's something. 

BTW, we won't even get into the irony that, once again, those on the modern Left today sound more and more like the old fundamentalist stereotypes of yesterday - "they're suffering because God decreed it!"  We'll leave it with Lewis's defense that he was only joking about Gibson losing his home in the LA fires.

UPDATE:  So already I need to clarify.  I'm not saying that this only happens to the left of center.  Of course not.  I'm pointing out that 1) those former conservatives who cling to the idea that history shows progressives are the good guys as opposed to those nasty rightwing types have reality against them and, 2) increasingly the modern Left acts very much like all the things it warned us about ages ago with its stereotypes of what conservatives and fundamentalists were all about. With that extra twist being that this is demonstrated here by none other than a former conservative. 

The staggering intolerance of the modern Left

 A white Jewish liberal guy tries to shout down and keep a black man from talking:

The look you get when a white man tells a black man to shut up on national TV in 2024

Here is a link if you wish to see the video, from shortly after last year's election.  

So in  the midst of the crazy last year, we did something I haven't done in a long, long time.  We started watching a currently running TV show.  It's called Blue Bloods.  It stars Tom Selleck as the patriarch of an Irish Catholic family that works within law enforcement.  

I was aware of it only by reputation, that it was a show of rightwing bigotry, racism, and all manner of typical charges being phobia prejudice, right wing nationalist supremacy and what have you. This became a loud complaint when Selleck announced a couple years ago he wouldn't tarnish the police in accordance to BLM doctrine.  So we thought we would watch it to see. 

After watching a few seasons, I've concluded there is nothing in recent history more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant, or close minded than the modern Left, with a big helping of hypocrisy and mendacity thrown in for yeast.  

I mean, what about Blue Bloods is rightwing?  It openly supports the LGTBQ community and movement.  It is clearly left leaning in terms of America and its history.  One of its uber-storylines is that there was a time when law enforcement (if not the US in general) was everything BLM says - but those were the 'bad old days' (a phrase frequently used).  When the conflict is between men and women, the women win every time, especially if gender is the topic.  It has stories about racist cops, abusive cops, American racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, Western imperialism and its legacy.  It takes for granted that sleeping around outside of marriage is fine - even for a good Irish Catholic family.  It comes out and says that the Church needs to change and get with the times where things like homosexuality and religious tolerance are concerned, and that includes Drag Queens (who had their own episode) and virtually anything not from the historical values of the Christian West. 

Could someone tell me how this is some rightwing conservative show?  My sons had their ideas.  First, the main family is a white, heterosexual, Christian family.  Right there.  As far as Hollywood and Madison Avenue are concerned, white families don't exist in America. Spend a day watching commercials on televisions during the game and take a shot of whisky every time you see a white family.  Stone cold sober would be the result. 

Second, it does follow all of the leftwing narratives about racism, sexism, bigotry, every phobia in existence.  But - and this is crucial - sometimes it shows those aren't true.  Sometimes it isn't sexism, or racism, or bigotry.  And what is more - and this is even more crucial - sometimes those in various leftwing protected groups are the baddies.  And sometimes there are good things in America's history, society, police and institutions - even among white, heterosexual Christians!  

More than that, on rare occasion there is the race hustling black pastor exploiting an incident for his own purposes.  Sometimes the homosexual is the bad guy, though never due to his homosexuality.  Or the admission that at times Muslims can be terrorists, or Hispanic criminals.  With the exception of women as the feminine symbol of perfection, in which case feminism always shines bright, it does admit that the white, Anglo-American Christian White guy can not only be the good guy, but a victim of those in such minority groups. 

And that, likely more than anything, is how it got its 'rightwing racist propaganda show' label.  Not that it is.  In fact, most episodes pander to leftwing narratives and activism, full stop.  If Muslims are the bad guys, the main guest character will be a Muslim who is a good guy, who still shows us racism in America.  If the homosexual is bad, it will only be framed as part of larger homophobic bigotry exploiting such realities because of course gays are the oppressed group.  If the Hispanic immigrant here illegally is the villain, we're reminded that most immigrants are put-upon and oppressed by the racist structures of our society, whether illegal or not.  

Yet that's not good enough.  As the good white man in the above discussion demonstrates to that vile black guy who dares question the leftwing narrative, you will 100% conform to the Left.  Period.  100%.   Not 99.99%. Not 93%.  Not 97.1%.  100% or you're a transphobic bigot full stop.  Period.  Or a racist, period.  Or Nazi, period.  Or sexist, period.  Or whatever, period.  And that includes never, ever pointing out anything negative about what the Left says is good, or good about what the Left says is bad.  Period.  

The good news is that most Americans appear to at least ignore this level of self-deification among the Left. Perhaps they were voting against it in November.  But one thing is for sure, despite this being the dominant view disproportionately held by most of our nation's institutions and leaders, the masses appeared to at least break from the pens and corrals and took their own stand this time around.  Whether it lasts or points to greater trends we'll have to see.  Based on the last few weeks, it looks like the left/press hasn't learned anything, that's for sure.  

An observation

So I've noticed several articles mention that Ben Stiller, when discussing his critically acclaimed comedy Tropic Thunder, says he doubts if it could be made today.  Owing to the character Robert Downy, Jr. played.  Even if at the time it was passed by and supported by various members of the African American community before production.  

This is hardly new.  In recent years it has become an almost regular topic of conversation - just what in the past couldn't be made today?  What comedians of the past wouldn't work today?  What television shows couldn't be produced today?  What cartoons of old wouldn't get off the drawing board today? 

The funny thing?  When I was young and growing up, 1970s and 1980s even into the 90s, it was just the opposite.  I remember entertainers and journalists and professors and English teachers and just folks in general often saying how the latest movie or television show couldn't have been made in the past.  Sometimes owing to technology.  But often owing to changes in morals and an emphasis on the sacredness of free speech and artistic expression; an open mindedness to differing views and beliefs and lifestyles and such.  The emergence of our truly diverse and inclusive society that post-war liberalism was building.  Not that they always liked the results, but they conceded the tidal surge of emphasis on complete openness to all views and expressions was having an effect.  

But today, it's how many things in the past - including from that age of endless tolerance and diversity and inclusion - would never be allowed today?  Often because of activism by the same ones who once cheered how we were so able to push the boundaries and produce the unproducible from days gone by.  Think real hard on that, and you begin to realize that, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, we've been flimflammed.  

This and Harrison Butker too

We all recall the Left/Media's attack against Kansas City kicker Harrison Butker when he dared to challenge the Left's calls for more hedonism and narcissism.  Yet despite some points where those to the Left could have come together and really trounced the guy, the far-left radicals overplayed their hand. By signing petitions and trying to ruin his career, more old time liberals - like Bill Maher - balked.  

Even those who disagreed with him point by point still said they respected his right to speak in a private setting among those who shared his beliefs.  Though the press tried to fish out students at the graduation who would experience PTSD for life because of what he said, they simply found nothing worth exploiting.  

By the end, it was his fellow Catholics and the most extreme left of Lenin 'abortion and group sex' leftists who kept the outrage going.  And among Catholics not just your typical Shea/Greydanus types.  Nice guy Mark Brumley zeroed in on the criticisms.  Even Amy Welborn, whose writings I have admired for years, trounced.  Her piece was filled with so much contempt and condescension toward Butker, I would have believed Shea ghost wrote it for her.  

Oddly, the only thing the MSM went after was his statements on the worth of motherhood and the worth of fathers and masculinity.  Those do cut to the heart of the Left, I will admit.  Almost ignored was his dig at pride Month.  And it was mostly Catholics who got hung up on his statement about who killed Jesus. I suppose they forgot The Passion of the Christ firestorm when Jewish scholars and rabbis repeatedly appeared on the news to remind us that Jewish people never heard of Jesus.  All that Sanhedrin Council and Judas Iscariot rubbish was made up by the antisemitic and racist church generations later.  

But the good news is, despite extreme leftists' and his fellow Catholics' efforts to the contrary, many felt the fanatical zealots overstepped the mark.  They overplayed their hand.  In the end, most Americans, Christians, liberals and even those who disagreed with his beliefs, still upheld his right to express them. 

Now we have a journalist who went undercover with SCOTUS justices Alito and Roberts.  Posing as a conservative Christian, she interviewed them and then quickly released a 'heavily edited' (the words of the initial ABC report) version of the interviews.

First, the Liars for Jesus inquisition won't be able to say a thing.  Remember, led by Dawn Eden they made it clear that whatever evils and slaughter may happen, if someone lies to stop it, that becomes the only thing worth focusing on.  So they're out.  Heck, the interviews were so heavily edited that ABC announced it would not repeat the quotes.  

The amazing thing is that already there is pushback - and from the media as well as sane people.  In the discussion with Dan Abrams, George Stephanopoulos admitted that the questions were extremely leading.  That is, she didn't say 'what do you think about the divisions in our country', or 'what do you think would help our country?'  She actually based the premise of her question on the idea that the divisions were beyond repair, and asked Alito if it was obvious that only one side could win because there was no hope for reconciliation.

At that Alito said he wished there could be some way to live together, but it looked like there isn't much to hope for because there are strong opinions on both sides.  In other words, his answer was more balanced and open than her bating question.

Same with Justice Roberts.  She basically stated to him that we are clearly a Christian country, ain't we?  To which Justice Roberts responded that he had Jewish and Muslim friends who might disagree.  Again, she was more of a caricature of a rightwing Christian theocrat than most rightwing Christian theocrats.  And she acted a million times worse than the two justices she was trying to ensnare. 

It appears that is what bothers the press.  They don't care about undercover reporting.  Of course not.   But the fact that she was asking such leading questions moved the line beyond even entrapment.  And then, armed with the justices' moderate and understated answers, she rushed to social media with massively redacted recordings to suggest these men are compromising their roles as SCOTUS justices!  At first, some media outlets ran with it, asking if they should recuse themselves from the practice of law henceforth. 

But I've noticed over the last week or so, that has gone the way of the dodo.  More stories began to express concern.  Like this follow up report from NPR.  Not only could this have the effect of causing the Supreme Court to become more hush-hush, but there is also a growing creepy factor in all this. 

And that creepy factor is beginning to spread.  Somewhere, when added to going after the spouses of various individuals (like Alito's wife), Harrison Butker's personal beliefs in a private setting, and now the personal views of these justices, it does look like there are some leftists saying you will have no rights or freedoms at all in this country - even at your own home.  Your one freedom is to bow and grovel before the Political Left. And if you say something around the dinner table or at a private setting that dares challenge leftwing dogma, we will get you. 

Never admit you want a communist flavored totalitarian terror state until you have absolute control.  That is the lesson from the sum of the mistakes we have been seeing these last few weeks. 

Though this was brought to my attention as I finish this post.  There will come a time when I stop supporting the NAACP.  I never had an issue with them. They do their thing.  But if they push this 'white ancestors must be erased' movement, without going back to Africa and erasing its rather robust trading in slavery - including at times white slaves - then I'll happily kiss them goodbye.  I will not continue milquetoasting it with groups or individuals who want to attack my 1) Faith, 2) People (Anglo-European/Native American), 3) Country, and 4) cherished values.  The time for wimpy sissy-groveling is past if anyone cares about protecting such things. 

Courage, Rebel, Counterculture, Non-Conformist

Are words that came to my mind as I note the growing whirlwind of rage from the always tolerant and open minded progressive wing of American society.  That whirlwind involves Harrison Butker, a kicker for the Kansas City Swifts.  Apparently a more traditional leaning Catholic, he gave a commencement speech at Benedictine College.  This might be because he now holds the record for the longest kick in a Super Bowl game ever.  One that figured prominently in the team's victory I'm told.  I don't know.  

Anyhoo, from the clips the news showed this morning, he must have questioned abortion rights.  He spoke of pride in light of God, rather than the pride we see demonstrated in June. Which was reported as an attack on the LGBTQ community (note: does this mean they're saying the type of pride he condemns is, in fact, what is celebrated in June?).  And he said no matter what women in the audience want to accomplish in Corporate America, the real excitement they're waiting for is the beauty of childbirth and family.  

That last part seems to be what really got people.  In a nation that celebrates that most wonderful accomplishment of aborting 60 million pregnancies in barely three generations, you can see why.  I mean, the central message of modern progressivism is that the only reason God decided to exist was to create a vast universe spinning around me.  So suggesting anything close to giving oneself up for others is anathema.  

I've seen some pointing out that the NFL not immediately throwing him out, as compared to Colin Kaepernick who wasn't immediately thrown out, just shows racism and all.  Others - and I saw plenty of examples, since the news broadcasts only showed the critics - attacked him for...thinking women should be excited by childbirth?  Pride isn't good?  I don't know.  A whole lot of people were interviewed and quoted, outrage and more self-righteous outrage and indignation, and yet nobody said exactly what was wrong with the substance of what he said.  As usual, it was just assumed that, having not conformed to leftwing same think, it had to be stupid, wrong, hateful and evil.  At least from what I've seen so far.  I'm sure editorials explaining just what was wrong will be forthcoming.  

For instance, on Good Morning America, Robin Roberts said the problem was that a graduation speech should be about the grads, not about the speaker's opinions.  I'll have to find other examples of leftwing speakers vomiting leftwing ideological and political opinions and see if she reacted that way as well. 

On the whole, this is what being a counterculture rebel, a non-conformist, and demonstrating a certain level of courage is all about.  Conforming to post-Christian secular leftwing ideology today is about as courageous as wearing scarlet and gray to an Ohio State football game in Columbus.  But challenging leftwing dogma and activism?  When running afoul of progressive tolerance and inclusion and diversity, you're probably being as courageous as you can be outside of a real totalitarian state. 

Added Note:  I should mention that, as I prepared to publish this, I was informed by one of my sons  that there is pushback against the MSM witch hunt.  And not just conservatives.  Apparently some on the liberal side are saying hey, the guy is a Catholic speaking at a private Catholic university.  It's his beliefs.  Take a chill pill people.   Let liberal Catholics freak out and go Fred Phelps on the guy.  So not all on the Left are into this, just most in the media from what I can tell.  

More leftwing tolerance.  Now about that guy paid millions to throw a football calling cops racist

UPDATE:  That didn't take long:

From an order that appears proud to have kicked the habit, as they say.  

How old am I?

I'm old enough to remember when the Gay Rights Movement insisted nobody would ever be punished for disagreeing with gay marriage.  That was back in the 80s, when the - then - ludicrous notion that we could redefine marriage to include a gay couple was first floated.  As usual, the non liberals saw a clash of interests if gay marriage ever became a thing.  That was certainly an issue when I entered ministry, yet more than one liberal leaning colleague couldn't understand the worries.  Nothing but paranoia (or latent homosexual desires) they insisted.  All they wanted was for two adults to be able to be married and express their love for one another.  At no point would someone who disagrees be punished.  

Again, if I had three nickels for every time a progressive activist insisted they won't do something, only to watch them do it a few years later, I could buy Twitter.  It happens so regularly that, by now, we realize it isn't a coincidence or some strange development that occasionally happens.  It is part of the strategy, and has been all along. 

Oh, and that goes for the liberal objection that Kim Davis broke the law.  Yeah.  That's what comes from doing what those liberals I grew up with said is a no-no: legislating morality to impose your values on others.  You can never impose your values on others, so I was told a million times.  Again, here today, gone yesterday.  That is the modernist approach to principles. 

The only thing worse than Sam Rocha's post about Robert E. Lee

 Is that it had 75 likes and 8 reposts:

This is standard leftwing boilerplate. Simply make an accusation, no matter how demonstrably false.  I can't think of anyone I've ever met who denies seeing racism or argues there is no definition of white supremacy.  When that accusation is made, typically it means someone who has failed to conform 100% to Left-think.

Of course Rocha goes after Robert E. Lee, as if Lee and Racist White Supremacy are one and the same.  Like Donald McClarey, it sickens me what the Marxists* have done to history in the West. Typical, but sickening nonetheless. 

In any event, as one who has seen racism, and studied enough history to know white supremacy when I see it, I can assure him I deny neither.  I also admire Lee, because as a non-leftist Christian, I am bound by ideals of forgiveness, reconciliation, humility and not casting stones too speedily.  Those ideas which, until recently, were safety bumpers for the West, no matter how many would have liked to see our approach to those past sinners be what the Left has made it today. 

But as I have said before, in my recollection there is no movement in recent times more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant or close minded than the modern Left.  Which explains the 75 likes and 8 reposts.  Though the low quality of the post from a paid professor also explains the dismal knowledge base of our modern educated generations.  

*Given the growing library of posts, articles, and editorials extolling the virtues of Marx, Marxism, communism and comparing communist countries favorably to the US and the West while calling hellfire down on capitalist imperialism as the source of all evil in our modern world, I think it's safe to start calling a spade a spade.  I'm not saying they could all pass a graduate exam on the writings of Marx or communist thought.  It's enough that the influence is clearly there and a motivating factor. After all, consider the speed with which you are accused of being a fascist, white supremacist, racist, or white nationalist merely for questioning a liberal pronouncement.  I think, given the low bar they have established for being called a white supremacist fascist, Marxist is easily a fair appraisal of what we're seeing today. 

Rolling Stone goes after Sound of Freedom

Again.   It's not an unusual discussion where movies are concerned.  In every case in history, a movie is not going to reflect 100% the reality.  At best, a movie will contain some accurate information about one part of something, and not be too far off where dramatic liberties are concerned.  Generally, that's a discussion you have whenever a movie 'based on something' is released.  

But the fury, the wrath against this movie is quite stunning.  Most I saw on the Left initially adopted a 'they might be crazy right winger types, but we're glad the message is getting out' approach.  But left of Lenin rags like Rolling Stone have been calling out the fatwas on this, making sure those trouble making liberals who think tackling the issue of child slavery is the important thing learn their lesson. 

Again, the 'how accurate is this movie?' is something I've heard my whole life.  That's no problem.  Have the debate.  But this time, you can tell it's different.  There is a rage here directed at this movie that goes beyond simply 'there are problems with this film.'  This is meant to attack the movie in ways similar to that other big Jim Caviezel movie back in the day.  

Remember kids, there is nothing more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant or close minded than the modern Left.  That is demonstrated here, as almost immediately major leftwing outlets decided the discussion about child slavery might be one thing, but attacking a movie made by non-leftists is the main thing. 

Why is the movie Sound of Freedom so controversial?

 Asks this youngster in the following video:

For me, the answer is easy.  There is quite simply no movement in recent memory more self-righteously judgmental, close-minded or intolerant than the modern Left.  I used to say hypocritical as well, but I recently was corrected there.  More on that some other time.  This movie was made by someone who doesn't conform to liberalism. There's your controversy.  

Of course like most things, there can be more than one reason.  Another issue with this is that human trafficking is a part of modern slavery euphemistically called human trafficking, and is irrevocably tied up with the global sex industry.  Which, by the way, if taken as a whole has annual revenues that would make Jeff Bezos drool.  

In the last decade or so, we've started talking about this human tragedy, though in small doses.  Usually as narrow, isolated or local interest stories.  We don't focus on it as a branch of the modern, borderless slave trade that it is.   That's because we don't like to think that the thing we have declared unpardonable and all defining - slavery - is still alive and well in our modern age.  Heaven forbid some of us might benefit from it, or other variations of it (such as sweat shops or child labor camps).  

Beyond that, the sex trafficking part is linked to the overall sex industry, which exists in its vast form  today due to our modern sex culture.  The media, and the Left in general, are loath to draw thick lines between sex and anything negative.  Let people die of AIDS by the millions, let old and new STDs run rampant, let plane loads of children be whisked away as sex slaves, and we might mention something.  We might even do something.  But we will never, ever connect the dots.  If doing something means we might end up with those dots connected?  Better we do nothing at all. 

Nonetheless, the biggest problem with this film is that this subject is being brought out by a non-progressive.  Someone they say is linked to something called QAnon.  I have no clue what QAnon is beyond it being brought up in modern discourse.  I'm told it's some radical rightwing pack of lies and conspiracy theories.  

But the ones saying that about QAnon insist it's sexist to say men and women are intrinsically different, that clearly a man hitting a woman is worse because men and women are intrinsically different, and of course men and women don't biologically exist because they are subjective identities whereby a man can give birth and a woman develop testicular cancer.  So pardon me if my faith in such sources about who the big conspiracy theorists are is on shaky ground. 

In a nutshell

 

The motto of the Left could easily be summed up as 'How dare you apply our standards to us.'  

A full broadside assault on EWTN

Like many who entered the Catholic Church in the 2000s, EWTN was a big help to me, even if I never really had access to the network where I lived.  That used to bug Marcus Grodi that I had to watch EWTN on old video tapes since I lived in an area without it.  Nonetheless, I could visit the website and there was plenty of good things for someone trying to grope about for understanding Catholicism.  And sometimes I might catch an episode here or there.  Once on vacation, I saw Scott Hahn unpack the Sacrament of Reconciliation in a way that made sense to my Evangelical ears. 

That's not to say I was in love with the network.  Even in the day it seemed a bit 'corporaty' for my sensitivities, like a vast corporation rather than a ministry.  When we at CHNI went to the big memorial to Mother Angelica I was both impressed and a little squeamish.  Nonetheless, I felt the good far outweighed the bad. 

Which goes to show I would make a miserable Leftist.  For the Left, there is no outweighing the bad of rejecting sacred doctrines of the Leftist State.  You conform or else.  I have no doubt that EWTN has, like the Jesuits, changed over the years.  It is likely too Trump friendly for my taste, and perhaps focuses an inordinate amount of time criticizing Pope Francis.  Again, I don't know since it isn't available here, and I don't have cable anyway. 

Nonetheless, any support of Trump or any criticism of Pope Francis would incur the merciless and unyielding wrath of those left of center.  After all, it isn't just theology, sexuality, gender, bigotry, ideas of no personal responsibility, affronts to common sense and discrimination that the Left is peddling.  It's also helping us understand how unfair and prone to abuse such ideas as equality, forgiveness, looking beyond the past and reconciliation have been over the years.  So if you're on the Left, no need to reach out to understand or engage in some attempt at reconciling those who dissent from Leftwing conformity.  You go straight to executing the guilty verdict. 

So there is now a petition to get the Catholic bishops in the US to renounce EWTN and forbid any use of materials from the network.  You can look at the petition here, which has 10,000 signatures apparently.  

Will this do anything?  I don't know.  Most Catholics probably don't know much about it one way or another.  It's just symptomatic of the times.  These pushing the petition will likely be those coming after their fellow believers when the time comes.  They have made it clear if you don't get on the good ship Liberal, then they will gladly join the Left in punishing you to the fullest extent that they can, your relationship to Jesus or the Faith being of no consequence.

JK Rowling discovers 21st Century liberal "Tolerance"

I've often said that modern leftwing tolerance is a lot like Kosher ham.  I've seldom seen anything as self-righteously intolerant, close minded and judgmental as the modern Left.  And it covers this by projecting itself onto anyone who dissents.  If they say children should be surgically altered without parents' consent and you disagree, it's because you're the hater, you're the intolerant one, the judgmental one, the close minded one.  The threat. 

Today,  that is based on whatever the Left wakes up and decides is truth for the day.  If it says sex with teddy bears tomorrow, or that C-A-T spells 'Dog', then you had best fully support the new truth.  Oh, and you can't just invoke dead liberalism's 'live and let live' principle either.  You must 100% speak full support for the Left's latest dogmas or, well, see JK Rowling. 

Once a darling of the media and the Left, she's fallen on hard times.  So much so that this woman, comfy behind her billion dollar bank account, is beginning to crack.  Recently she was interviewed by the NYT and tried to patch things up by saying it's been a big misunderstanding.  For a woman known for her pit bull tenacity and willingness to give as good as she gets, that's quite a change. That's because the latest Harry Potter foray, a video game, is under brutal attack. Attempts to ban it are running rampant, and enough bad press is being generated against the Potter brand that some are wondering if it could impact sales.

Funny thing about being a billionaire.  You have to keep being one.  And with the realization that her once groupie press/state/academy is eerily silent while those who Mark Shea once correctly called 'Gay Brownshirts' make strides in destroying her product, her brand, her name, and her life, you can see her starting to sweat.

And this is JK Rowling.  Once a hero of the Global Left, owing to her feminism, LGTBQ advocacy, liberal values and clear post-Christian leftwing views.  The most successful author of all time.  A billionaire power player.  But she has fallen from the purer faith.  She has forgotten that to remain in the Left's good graces, you must be 100%, not 99.99%,obeient.  Anything else and, well, see JK Rowling.  That's JK Rowling, billionaire power player celebrity.  Imagine what they can do to you. 

A Halloween reflection: Vampire plagues and progressive Catholics

Early onset vampirism in Salem's Lot: Know the signs!

So for fun this year, I reread Salem’s Lot.  I’m not much of a Steve King fan.  Marcus Grodi once said he believed King to be the greatest American author.  I assumed he meant in modern times.  Since he was my boss at the time, I didn’t debate the statement.  Suffice to say I don't consider King to be near the top of American writers. 

But I do like a couple of his books. One is Salem’s Lot.  It strikes all those little chords: the haunted house, the small town secrets, the cemetery, the vampire hunter team.  Fun stuff.  It also does a neat ‘vampire plague’ spin, being what Dracula wanted to accomplish in London but didn't.

As the story unfolds and the plague of vampires grows, you can see the main characters grapple with reality as they come face to face with pure, legendary evil.  You feel them recoil as one after another, people in the town vanish or, worse, begin to show signs of becoming the latest victims of this plague of evil enveloping their home town.

I thought of that as I reflected on my last discourse with Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong.  I have followed Dave for years.  He did the heavy lifting with Catholic apologetics, often going after unfair or false accusations leveled against the Church.  His was never a blog to read with only two or three minutes to spare.  He would take his time and unpack some pretty hefty issues down to the nitty gritty.  That was more than worth the visits to his website.

For a long time, he also railed against other Catholics who were beginning to draw a line in the sand between good, GOP hating, Francis loving, new pro-life Catholics with stars on their bellies, versus stupid Francis hating Catholics who refuse to get in the progressive line.  More than once he posted long, almost tiresome attempts to reason with these Catholics who gave only one option, and that was to glorify them, the left, Pope Francis, and all that was pure Catholicism 21st Century style or pay the piper. 

Well, that was then.  Below is the discourse I had with him over a post dealing with Vatican II.  The whole of the post is here.  I have posted his end of the article summary, and my response.  My accounts of what happened are in bold, his answers and writings in italics.  The parts with no special font designs were my original posts in his actual comments section:

Brazilian Catholic writer Oliveira Leonardo has decided to start bashing and trashing Vatican II. I defend it and note that his oppositional zeal is utterly misplaced.

To which I responded with this comment:

I don't know, I think the discussion can be had.  I'm not sure the individual in question was claiming 100% of the problems in the Church are Vatican II.  There might be some who think that, but most I've read or listened to don't think that.  In fact, I've heard many not necessarily 'trashing or hashing' Vatican II, but who look at the state of the overall Church and wonder what went right, wrong and downright screwy after Vatican II.  I've heard more than one (including our priest) who clearly supports and celebrates Vatican II, but who also equally admits it was misused and abused by far too many Catholics to simply dismiss the subsequent decades as 'nothing to see here folks.'

I went back to see if there were any responses.  I noticed my comment was missing.  So I posted a question about what happened to it.  Seeing my question appear, I reposted my original comment.  Then I returned a day or so later and saw all of my comments were removed.  So I asked what’s up. And then Dave  answered:

I don't allow anti-Vatican II rhetoric on my pages unless I am in the mood for debating it (as I did in this exchange). Just take it somewhere else. I've had enough of it.

At that point, I responded:

Wait, was that my post? It couldn't have been, since it wasn't 'anti-Vatican II rhetoric' by any stretch of the phrase. All I said was the discussion about Vatican II can be had, and that most I know don't trash Vatican II as much as they try to figure what went wrong in the following decades. Which is true. So where did my comments go? I don't see them. Again, since again my posts were in no way close to 'anti-Vatican II rhetoric' I can't figure where they end up going.

Dave then responded:

That was my decision on my web page. If you don't like it, you can lump it.

With that pleasant little response, I answered thus:

You may do as you wish of course.  I wouldn't advise it since we've seen where others have ended up going with 'I have posted, now agree or be deleted.'  Mark Shea, of course, leaps to mind.  Best not to have comments at all if the only thing commenters are allowed to do is agree.   But again, despite seeing where others have gone with that approach, if that's where you wish to go, it is your blog.

Dave then responded once again:

If you bitch about it one more time, that'll be three strikes and you're out. What you are doing is universally agreed upon as trolling: continuing to strongly disagree on the policy of a site (how someone chooses to run his own pages), when the owner has made his view clear, that it crosses a line. Webmasters are benevolent dictators in their own domains. You don't like that? Get your own site and work for 29 years to build up name recognition, as I have.

You can pretend I am against free speech if you like. I guess that would be why I have 1,000+ dialogues, with my opponents' view (often, their complete article) on display for my readers. It's a standard lie when someone disagrees with me. Feel free to join the crowd there and make a fool of yourself.

I've dealt with THIS stuff for 25 years. St. Paul tells us to separate from contentious people. No one who is ever being contentious and divisive admits that he is.

This is my way of applying his command, while I still occasionally debate the issues, as I did in the OP.

With that, I then answered:

Well, there's not much I can say is there. Though I will say I had no intention of claiming you are against free speech. You might want to dial back the assumptions on that one. I would ask that you wait for me to do something before you begin piling on the problems with me if I do it. My only statement was questioning the wisdom of giving combox commenters no choice but to agree, given the track record of that approach to online discourse. Nonetheless, as you say, it is your blog and you may do with it as you wish. I'll respect your right to do so and drop the subject.

Dave then answered this way:

Wise choice. I just wrote elsewhere:

I have been totally banned for years at reactionary sites like The Remnant and Taylor Marshall's trash site. Peter Kwasniewski used to talk with me a bit. Now I am banned on his site, etc. One Peter Five banned me (under Skojec) when they had comments.

I only ban people who are persistently uncivil and hostile and won't follow my discussion rules: NOT because of what they believe. But I don't allow Vatican II-bashing or pope-bashing.

Certain folks call that "censorship." I call it Catholicism and Catholic unity.

"Best not to have comments at all if the only thing commenters are allowed to do is agree." If this lie from h e l l is NOT claiming I am against free speech on my blog, then we must have totally different brains, logic, and understandings of grammar and sentence meanings.

My final response, and my final comment on Dave’s social media platforms, was this:

With that, I'll leave you to it.

It’s worth noting this was not Dave Armstrong, c. 2006 when I first ran into him.  Or for that matter, it wasn’t him in 2016, ten years later.  It is, it should be pointed out, very similar to the likes of Mark Shea by 2016. 

I was informed it was becoming Dave Armstrong a couple years or so ago.  That was after Dave had a eureka moment, realized Pope Francis was absolutely right about banning the death penalty, came to realize the wonders of Pope Francis, and began banning people who hadn’t seen the light.  

I posted on this phenomenon of Catholics warming up to Pope Francis and growing in their intolerance of those who fail to agree, and how this was part of the war on EWTN waged by Pope Francis and his followers.  Not that those on the left, progressive Catholics or fans of Pope Francis are the only ones who do this.  But it seems an almost universal trait among those who are in those camps.

Because of that, I mentioned Dave was starting to sound strangely Sheaish in his dealings, which is never a good thing.  Dave visited my blog and protested that I had wrongly portrayed his approach to things.  He said this, despite the fact that I was going by people who he had banned for merely disagreeing with Pope Francis.  I accepted his perspective and figured fine, if he’s not going the direction that almost every Catholic who throws in with Pope Francis or progressive leanings seems to go, I’ll concede the point.

But now it’s this.  It’s like the feeling Ben Mears and Susan Norton have in Salem’s Lot as they begin to see more and more of the town show symptoms of being vampires.  As one after another shows the signs – bothered by sunlight, tired, sick feeling, strange dreams – they recoil all the more, for they know where this vermin plague of vampirism goes.

As I watch so many follow Pope Francis and inevitably end up going in the same direction in terms of intolerant behavior and vitriolic treatment of others; as I see so many jump in bed with the emerging Left, who inevitably follow the similar ‘I have spoken, celebrate or be banned’, I get the same feeling.  If it was just vampirism it wouldn't be so bad.  I fear it is much, much worse. 

Neither liberal nor Christain

I submit this link from our local Columbus Dispatch.  It's an editorial from several individuals criticizing a state resolution that would allow parents to know what their children are learning in public schools.  The bill would also make sure parents were in on discussions involving their own children and any gender topics.  Whether the bill delves into transgender athletes or bathrooms, I don't know. It might, given the references in the editorial.  

Rather than comment, I simply copied a few parts that jumped out at me.  I bold lettered things that I felt spoke louder than the words used, and underlined phrases that are particularly telling, IMO. 

All of this shows we are dealing with followers of a new, alternate reality; believers in a new universe with little in common with what we ever imagined to be true.  And it is a reality quickly being acted on and mandated in our society by threat or retaliation.  Any negative consequences of this new reality are ignored or dismissed. There is nothing Christian to this, and the below rhetoric shows it is no more liberal or tolerant than it is Christian. 

Click on the link (if you can - subscription usually required) and read the whole thing.  Though I think the below sections speak for themselves (the italicized part was the intro that describes the three authors of the editorial):  

Ben Huelskamp (he/they) is the executive director of LOVEboldly. Hank Osmundson (he/him) is the executive director of Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio and pastor of Community Engagement at St. John’s UCC in Columbus. Jon Osmundson (he/him) is associate pastor at Hilliard UMC and a father of six, four of whom attend public school

In his official biography on the State Board of Education website, [Brendan] Shea is described in terms of his faith as an “active parishioner in St. Patrick Church,” “the founder and president of the Madison County Right to Life,” and enjoying “Bible study” in his free time.

Shea may read his Bible, but he clearly needs to study it further. Because of people like Shea and their attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community from a perspective called “faith,” Christians have earned a reputation as anti-LGBTQIA+.

However, many Christians believe that a faithful Christian response does not allow for the homophobia and transphobia that Shea’s resolution demonstrates.

A Christian cannot hold a position that educators must out students to their parents based on any identity including sexual orientation and gender identity. [My note: this is key, and a revealing statement that shows exactly what they want]

As Christians, we believe that there is only one Savior [My note: From what, I wonder]. Given Shea’s bold pronouncement that he is a Christian, too, we can only assume that he agrees. Therefore, we are mystified why he and other self-proclaimed Christians are deeming themselves to be the saviors of cisgender children and adults from transgender people run amok, lest we forget the Target restroom uproar of 2016.

To be clear, we are an educator, a parent, theologians, and pastors. We are not scientists, psychologists, or medical doctors. We do, however, trust science. Thus, we feel it is important to point out that the fear-inducing rhetoric concerning the safety of cisgender people if trans people are allowed access to restrooms that match their gender identity is misplaced and false. Just one of the many examples is this 2019 study from Harvard University and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

When Shea next has free time and turns to his Bible, perhaps he will turn to Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:40: “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me

Leftwing tolerance is like kosher ham

This is actually a story.  Set aside the stupid Quidditch sport existing in the first place.  I often wonder if those hipsters who do such things know they are doing just what the corporatism they despise loves to see happen:  People obsessing and immersing themselves in a culture of corporate driven fanboy products. 

Anyway, it exists.  A game based on that sport played in the Harry Potter novels.  Well, it did exist.  They'll still play it, but now they are changing the name.  Why?   Because author J.K.Rowling has failed to conform 100% to leftwing same-think. 

Did she come out and oppose transgenderism?  Perhaps by now, but not initially.  Initially, all she did was defend a high profile Brit scientist - a woman - who was fired for saying scientists shouldn't be fired when they fail to see the science behind the transgender movement.  Like most who initially grovel before the Left, she made her statement wrapped in endless praise and adoration of feminism, the LGTBQ movement, transgender rights and any other leftwing cause.

But it did no good.  Despite her assurances of leftwing conformity, she nonetheless challenged a crucial veil for the latest attack on reality.  That is, the science isn't there behind the whole post-gender movement. Some scientists say it is, but a surprising number of scientists admit the science just doesn't add up with gender being nothing to do with anatomy.  That is why Rowling spoke out against that high profile woman being fired for saying scientists shouldn't be fired when they don't see the science behind transgender normality. 

And now it's this.  And this is only one of many pogroms against Rowling since the whole thing erupted.  Calls to ban her books, sever ties with her brand, ostracize her have become quite common.  According to my boys, there are entire movements dedicated to bringing her down.  Not because she disagreed with transgenderism or the Left.  But because she dared even think of questioning one of its main tactics: conformity at gun point. 

I don't know this Jesus of whom you speak

So suggests Chris Pratt.  Ah, Mr. Pratt, we hardly knew ye.  

Mr. Pratt exploded on the world stage in the wake of three unlikely mega-hits: The Lego Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Jurassic World.  He had been that big, frumpy, floppy, simple-Simon fellow on the television show Parks and Recreation.  Then he met Anna Faris who whipped him into shape - literally.  In The Lego Movie we didn't see the difference.  It was his voice still being that guy from Parks and Recreation.  But when he appeared in Guardians, muscles and ripped abs and everything, he swept millions of female fans off their feet, and impressed many male fans along the way.

With a self deprecating humor, he wore his religion on his sleeve, spoke openly of his Christian faith, defended conservative views, and came off like everyone's next door dad, husband and good old friend.  His and Anna's open and gentle care of their special needs child endeared him even more to the masses, especially those within the Faith.  

Over time, his antics did grate on the nerves.  His insistence on conveying religious values with the mentality of a Nickelodeon kid's show at times became embarrassing. After his wife left him (the speculated reasons are many, but most I've heard feel it was her inability to watch his career skyrocket while hers floundered (The Emoji Movie?)), he seemed to convey those values less and less.  

My sons, who are more in tune with the goings on in pop culture today, say that Mr. Pratt has been a target of the digital lynch mob for some time.  More than once his failure to appropriately bow before the 90 Foot Left caused him to dodge and parry against one assault after another. 

By the Trump years, Marvel, like Hollywood in general, completely immersed itself in the Left's neo-McCarthyism, while more and more Marvel actors came out to condemn Lenin and Stalin for failing to be leftwing enough.  In such an environment, it isn't hard to imagine how maintaining a traditional set of Christian values would be difficult at best. 

Nonetheless, like so many we've seen in the last couple decades, the pressure was obviously too much.  In a recent interview, he downplays his religious walk, condemns religion in general, and espouses variations on the famous' Religion sucks, but I have some vague sort of kind of thing about something faith you know.' 

It's not renouncing Jesus before the altar of Caesar as much as insisting you never heard of Jesus or Caesar in the first place.  A dodge meant to cover one's own rear.  No doubt it is due to mounting pressure from the always tolerant Left.  It might also be scraping together credibility as the beaming spotlight that once illumined him has begun to dim in the wake of one turkey bomb after another.  

In generations to come, the Church will need to revisit the topic of apostasy and prepare to receive those who may return to the flock.  A good point of reference would be John 21.15-19.  Even if it takes three times, Jesus is forever willing to forgive a denial to save one's stardom, and welcome them, like He welcomes all, back into the sheepfold through the narrow gate. 

Today's Target: Word on Fire

The liberal Catholic publication National Catholic Reporter joins the hunt.  

Bishop Barron.  Poor fellow.  For more traditional Catholics, Bishop Barron is too wishy-washy.  He plays with universalism and tends to have a 'let's just get along' approach to enemies of God and man.  

That's why he was beloved of many moderate and even liberal Catholics.  It was through them I was introduced to the works of then Fr. Barron.  Especially enjoyable was his video series on Catholicism.  And critics of Fr. Barron from back then?  Just a bunch of right wingers, so forget about it. 

Now, however, it's those same Catholic liberals and former moderates leading the charge.  The accusation is the unforgivable sin of sexual misconduct.  Far removed from the dreamy, hazy days of rehabilitate and reform, sexual misconduct is one of a growing list of unforgivable sins that should be branded on your forehead for life. Until Jesus forgives you and lets you into heaven that is.  Otherwise, your criminal arse belongs to us - so said Beth Moore in a conference a couple years or so ago. 

As with all such things, it's not the sins or failings of a single person, but guilt of one taints all. Thus it becomes a 'workplace' issue.  You know the terms: hostile workplace environment, toxic workplace environment or, my favorite, hypermasculine boy's club environment.  Heh.  That's because we're setting BLM and Trans athletes aside for the moment and bringing back the old #MeToo narrative of 'the always honest woman against the always sexist man' template.  Oh, and genders are binary in this case.

Why the sudden move to destroy Word on Fire (for that's what this is about), and wreck the reputation of Bishop Barron?  I dunno.  But I've seen posts, articles and Twitter for months now going after him.  A man who was once a darling of moderate Catholics everywhere.  Again, I don't know why.  I can guess, but there's really no telling since people usually don't admit to ulterior motives.

Or at least usually don't.  I'm thinking of the Bill Cosby Pound Cake speech.  I mentioned that some time ago and one of my readers sent me to a link to The Atlantic.  In that piece, the journalist appeared quite honest about the connection between his speech and the subsequent accusations made against him.  That's because Cosby didst blaspheme the liberal gospel.  In that infamous speech that outraged the Left, Cosby said he'd give you racism and American white supremacy, but it's time for black Americans to stop whining about the past and take responsibility for their own actions.  Within months there were accusations of sexual assault and the beginning of the end.  

This has that vibe to be sure.  I know Bishop Barron has outraged Pope Francis fans by agreeing with Pope Francis, but not heaping scorn and loathing on the critics of Pope Francis.  I also know shockwaves went through the Catholic Left when Bishop Barron condemned leftwing intolerance and censorship (euphemistically known as Woke or Cancel Culture).  More to the point, he doesn't filter Catholic moral teaching through leftwing political narratives.  For many today, there appears to be politics to the right that are intruding upon the purity of our faith, and then to the left is Jesus.  Such a view doesn't allow for non-liberal hermeneutical options. 

I'm not saying if there was wrongdoing it shouldn't be addressed.  From what it looks like it was in the fellow's personal life - which is soon to be nonexistence if the Left has its way.  I'm simply noting that this does not appear to be about righting a wrong, but the Left's old favorite of Destruction by Association.  That is, a guy does something wrong, and suddenly all men are misogynists in a sexist environment terrorizing women.  There is a big difference between those two.