What is Happening to the Catholic Church?

SickleCrossThumbby Lady Krystyna
A couple of Sundays ago I was at Mass and something happened that really chapped my hide.

For those who are not familiar with a Catholic Mass, after the homily there is the Prayer of the Faithful, also known as The Universal Prayer, which is described as follows:

The Universal Prayer
69. In the Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in some sense to the Word of God which they have received in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal Priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is desirable that there usually be such a form of prayer in Masses celebrated with the people, so that petitions may be offered for holy Church, for those who govern with authority over us, for those weighed down by various needs, for all humanity, and for the salvation of the whole world.

70. The series of intentions is usually to be:
a) for the needs of the Church;
b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
d) for the local community.

Well on this particular Sunday there were two offensive “prayers”, and I paraphrase:

1. A prayer that medical care is provided for everyone through legislation; and

2. A prayer that everyone receives a “living wage.”

Now, perhaps to some those two things don’t sound that terrible. But many of us know that this is Leftist-speak disguised as Christian charity.

I refused to “pray” for such things that day (and even my mother noticed) as I find them to be against Christ’s teachings. Christ taught us to give of ourselves individually. Never once does Jesus say to anyone (or even imply): “Give up all your worldly goods to the Romans so that they can create programs to redistribute that wealth to those they deem worthy of aid.”

It would appear that a form of Leftism has infected the Catholic Church and I’m not sure when that happened or how it happened.

Praying for “medical care for all” through legislation and a “living wage,” to me, is the same as asking God to win the lottery. I feel that too many Catholics are surrendering their duty to be charitable to the government. They feel that if they pray for such intentions, pay their taxes, and vote for those who will promise to “take care of the poor,” that they’ve done their duty.

However, the biggest problem I have with this is that this places Catholics on the same side as Democrats, who also advocate for unfettered abortions, birth control, same sex marriage, and who also are, on the whole, secular humanists. The Democrats were the ones that pushed prayer out of schools; they are the ones filing lawsuits anytime someone wants to put up a cross or a Nativity scene, or say a prayer at a graduation. They are the ones telling us that “free exercise” of our religion only applies when we are in Church and at no other time and place.

More specifically, the Church is standing with those who passed and signed a bill – Obamacare – which violates the religious liberty of many Protestants and Catholics and which, if fully implemented, may actually require many Catholic charities and organizations to either violate their religious beliefs or have to close down.

My understanding is that the American bishops were for Obamacare, before they were against it. They played the frog to the Democrats’ scorpion. And as you will see below regarding amnesty, they didn’t learn from that lesson.

As for a “living wage,” this smacks of Marxism. All the popes during my lifetime have criticized “greed” and “the rich” and even directly “capitalism.” I’m not one to say that the Church should embrace capitalism, per se. However, an acknowledgement, as Bono just provided, that capitalism does more to lift people out of poverty than any other economic system, would be a step in the right direction.

The Church can still preach against greed and materialism, but even Jesus never preached damnation of the rich, per se. He preached about loving God first and foremost, and loving your neighbor as yourself. His statement about rich men having a hard time getting into Heaven, and His encounter with the rich young man who would not give up his riches and follow Him, were not meant to preach proto-Marxism. They were meant to show that people who value the material over God and over helping their neighbors were in trouble spiritually.

What the Church seems to be missing is that what Leftism teaches is to be covetous, which is in direct violation of the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ teachings. The Left’s entire ideology is based on the “haves” v. the “have nots” and how the “have nots” need to take from the “haves.” Of course, that taking is always at the point of a gun, whether quite literally, or simply through legislation and regulation that must be followed on pain of fines or imprisonment.

How is that better than simply preaching that, even under a free market system, we should remember to be charitable to our less fortunate brothers and sisters?
And if that wasn’t enough to chap your hide, there’s this…and this:

(As a side note, if the priest starts preaching about amnesty at my Church that Sunday, I’m quietly, but defiantly walking out. I feel that that is the only way I can express myself about this issue.)

Again, the Church stands with those who generally oppose it and what it teaches.

I can understand the desire to see that everyone is treated humanely and to feel pity for those who come from rabidly poor countries. However, I can’t understand the Church countenancing the breaking of laws, especially those that are not inherently unjust.

Further, how is it humane to allow millions of unskilled workers into this country which is already suffering from high unemployment? How is it humane to reward those who break the law? Jesus may have forgiven sinners, but he always admonished that they should “sin no more.”

Why is the Church even getting so involved on these issues? Abortion I can understand, as it involves the protection of human life. But immigration and amnesty? Health care reform?

The Catholic Church can easily follow Christ’s teachings on both those issues without become politically involved. Charities can certainly lend some basic aid to those who come here illegally – some food, a bed for the night. And then they should be admonished to return to their home and come back legally. They can even provide legal aid so that those who want to immigrate can do it at little to no cost (is everyone forgetting about pro bono work?).

Catholic charities and hospitals provide healthcare for the poor both here in America and around the world. But under Obamacare, they will likely not be able to unless they renounce the teachings of the Church and openly violate those teachings.

All that being said, the biggest problem is this: is there any way to change the Catholic Church on these issues? The Church is not a democracy. The only thing I can think of is this: a delegation of conservative Catholics getting together and obtaining an audience with the American bishops, and perhaps even Pope Francis, to discuss these concerns and issues.

If the Catholic Church is worried about people leaving the Church, perhaps they should start asking why. Sure, some leave because they are Leftists and want more permissive Churches with “feel good” attitudes and no sin to worry about. However, perhaps many are conservatives who are tired of the Leftism that infects many aspects of the Church.

All of this also reminds me of how Hitler controlled the churches in Germany. Hitler was no Christian, no matter what the Leftist trolls like to say. At the height of his power, it was Hitler’s picture that was in the churches, not crucifixes or pictures of Jesus. And that, to me, is what the Left is doing here in America. They can’t destroy the Church from the outside, but they can infiltrate and destroy it from the inside, especially when those on the inside are easily led. (See also Europe and the Muslims).

Addressing these issues, in my humble opinion, would not mean that the Church would be abandoning any of its inherent teachings and dogma. In fact, it would be returning to it, rather than letting it fall into the hands of Christian Catholic Marxists who would destroy the Church as we know it and make it no more than another arm of the State. • (3583 views)


About ladykrystyna

Former self-described "moderate liberal", now post 9/11 Right Wing Radical, aka Independent Constitutional Conservatarian.
This entry was posted in Politics, Religion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to What is Happening to the Catholic Church?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was the first who was privileged to read this and I just want to say, “Excellent!” And if you think the graphic is wrong, let me know. I stumbled across that and it seemed appropriate. But if it’s too much, let me know. I can always find another photo of Che. 😀

    I mean, with all due respect to Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO, we now have something three times better.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There’s nothing I can add to what LadyK has already said. But her experiences are yet another great insight into the politicization of the Catholic Church as it turns from a Christ-centered church to a socialist-centered one grounded in the principles of Cultural Marxism.

    It’s very sad to see this corruption, for it was Christianity itself that provided much of the light that guided Western Civilization from the abyss of barbarism and constant warfare to something better. The messages of love, the brotherhood of man, and turning the other cheek were essential in turning mankind from brutes to something better.

    And it must be said that the corrupted and deluded priests and various ministers (Catholic or Protestant) believe that they are continuing this same sort of ethic by espousing socialism.

    But LadyK smashes these lazy conceits with her concise arguments. What the Catholic Church has done is something that Thomas Sowell has warned us about. They have become more concerned with being seen as a do-gooder and quite unconcerned with the costs of their do-gooderism. It is a shallow and narcissistic perspective. There are those in the Church such as this priest who care more that he be seen as a righteous person for promoting a cause (socialized medicine) while ignoring the great harms inherent in socialized medicine or illegal immigration.

    And it is easy for the narcissistic and silly priests to promote amnesty as an inherent good in an age where to give out “free stuff” is considered an automatic good but contemplating the price of such do-gooderism is ignored, as is the need for personal morality and good conduct. Little thought is given to the fact that amnesty is rewarding law-breakers and trespassers. Nor is the true evil upon which socialized medicine is based acknowledged. And it is the idea of coveting other people’s property and thinking that one has a right to it, let alone the monstrous evil that socializing anything tends to bring about in regards to waste, fraud, abuse, and just a lesser quality of care (in the case of health care) and access to it.

    Clearly the Catholic Church has been infected by the noxious poison of socialism and the bastardized ethic that goes with it. And clearly the message of Christ is secondary, if it is considered at all. What seems to be paramount on their minds is to preach messages that paint themselves as good and caring while caring not a whit for the actual results of those policies.

    And underpinning this all is the socialist attitude, and certainly not a Christian one. A Christian attitude does not turn people into mere pawns or mascots in a larger game, implicitly (often explicitly) blaming “the rich” for the very presence of the poor. A Christian attitude asks what is right and wrong on a personal basis, not what society as a whole is supposedly guilty of and thus owes to the individual. That is, in the authentic Christian view, man is seen as a moral creature who must be guided to make good choices not have his poor choices be lost in a collective type of morality.

    But much of the Catholic Church has imbibed Cultural Marxism where it is “society” that is to blame for perceived ills, and individual choices and conduct are not even on the radar. This is not religion being taught by the Church but Leftism.

  3. Monsieur Voltaire says:

    One of the best articles on the site. Thank you, Krystyna. As a Catholic myself, I lament some of the territory into which our church has branched, partially thanks to its getting seduced by Socialism and seeing false analogies between it and the Christian concept of us being all the same under God.

    It was (alas) the Catholic Church that gave us and sanctified the concept of social justice, first with late-19th-century movements that culminated in Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891), then with the much more aggressive and political American priests John Ryan (author of The Morality of the Aims and Methods of Labor Unions, just to give you an idea) and virulent agitator, anti-Semite and overall loon Charles Coughlin, who was even too radical a leftist for FDR to stomach.

    Google them, and you’ll see enough things to make you regurgitate your communion.

    BTW, quietly but defiantly walking out in the face of an outrageous sermon is exactly what we should do as part of “reconquering the discourse.” Your idea of Conservative high-ranking clergy retaking some of the lost ground is great, but we on the “bottom-up” end of the spectrum must also keep doing our part, being vocal, voting with our feet and providing alternative points of view. Leftists of all stripes, including our priests, must be taught that passing off their statist Credo for saintly doctrine is going to be met with at least some disapproval and opposition–because their ideas are NOT universal truths.

  4. Ed Cottingham says:

    Didn’t need no welfare state
    Everybody pulled his weight
    Gee our old LaSalle ran great
    Those were the days.

    And you knew who you were then
    Girls were girls and men were men
    Mister we could use a Catholic like Pat Buchanan again

  5. CCWriter CCWriter says:

    This is kind of ironic, because if I agree with your point about getting the Church politically involved, there are those Catholics on NRO who will call me an anti-Catholic bigot.

    • Monsieur Voltaire says:

      CCWriter–As a proud Catholic, I hereby preemptively exculpate you from all anti-Catholic charges. Apart from the fact that the Catholic house needs some serious cleaning, Christians in general need to band together at this point in our history. With Barbarians of all kinds at the gate and in our midst, there is little time for sectarian squabbles and finger-pointing among denominations.

      As my namesake said, “there are no sects in geometry,” and if we look at Christianity as a whole and stack it against what is trying to replace it, we see that Voltaire’s old quip should also apply to us. All our spiritual avenues point to the same God–and whether we worship Him standing up, sitting down, or doing a vigorous alternation of the two is irrelevant. 🙂

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        What I find interesting in all of this is that Christianity at its most basic level is about an individual’s believe in and relationship with God. Salvation comes to the individual, not the group.

        As I believe I have said here before, there is no merit for a Christian to rob Peter to pay Paul simply because Peter has more money than Paul. There is no injunction to help lawbreakers, even if a Christian believes the law is wrong. In fact, Christians are specifically, enjoined to obey the laws of their earthly rulers several times in the New Testament.

        It is only when the laws are at complete variance with biblical doctrine could disobedience to the law even considered. An example of this is when early Christians would not worship and any shrine deifying a Caesar as this would be denying the Christian God. And as to earthly justice, is was not close to being a biblical doctrine. “My Kingdom is not of this earth”.

        Social justice and other such dogmas have nothing to do with Christianity. Look at the name. I mean talk about a nebulous term with a floating definition.

        No, they have to do with modern left wing humanism which is trying to achieve “heaven” as they see it, on earth. If one really gets down to it, this is in itself heresy.

      • MarkW says:

        “there are no sects in geometry,”

        What about a di-sect?

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was just Googling a little info and found a quote from Jim Wallis that said that social justice is a faith-based committment “to serve the poor and to attack the conditions that lead to poverty.”

    Wallis is, frankly, a screwball. But if the worst thing humans faced was poverty (and St. Francis would obviously disagree because he and his Brothers actively sought it out), then attacking the conditions that lead to poverty means tackling the beliefs, practices, and ethics of socialism compared to the Yankee-spirited ethic of hard work, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.

    No honest Christian can believe that socialism is the answer to poverty. But there are plenty of dishonest ones, including Wallis.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think seeing Catholics even discussing this is somewhat remarkable, although I’ve tended to hang out with what you might call “intellectual” Catholics, and in this case I mean it in a good way.

    But for many, they’ve been programmed to obey, obey, obey. And the Church has the path of Salvation at her disposal, so you don’t cross the church.

    Me, I’m of the old Protestant mindset. I don’t need Peter and I don’t need any church. It’s between me and God. But I’m not hostile to Catholics, as you’ve likely figured out by now. But if I were going to join a church, it wouldn’t be the Catholic church simply because it’s become such a mess.

    And, well, many of the Protestant churches are a mess too. Catholics have no monopoly in regards to swapping Jesus for Che Guevara.

    And Jews are the worst of all. There is barely any Judaism Left. A fair estimate is that 70% of Jews worship Leftism, not the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

    So what’s going on? Well, I think in a nutshell is that we have become a narcissistic and silly people. Religion used to be about self-denial, at teaching people what not to do. But now it is just another consumer product where the expectation is self-fulfillment. There must be some stroking of the ego or some raising of self esteem.

    It’s sometimes scary contemplating which is worse, the godless heathen or the godly narcissist. Both are way off track, but at least the godless heathen still has his “come to Jesus” moment as a possibility. For the godly narcissist, he’s already put Jesus on the back bench and has elevated “social justice” to the main thing. He has, in essence, institutionalized the irrelevance of his own endeavors.

    These priests and ministers who stump for socialism are off track. They don’t even know their own religion. They relate to it like a thing to be marketed like anything else in this pop culture. And in that vein, the idea of actually holding people to standards of conduct is unthinkable. You must, like a marketer, always be stressing some kind of benefit. But what benefit is there in telling someone “Get off your butt and get a job” or “Don’t covet”?

    What we see with these priests and ministers who stump for socialism via “social justice” is a spiritual poverty. They understand Christianity in terms little more than as just another social program. And this is both a reason for, and result of, their spiritual poverty.

    I have known the depths of poverty that would make material poverty seem like a walk in the park. Christianity isn’t about how much “free stuff” you can get via the government. It’s not about alleviating material poverty. It’s about alleviating spiritual poverty. But these priests and ministers are as foreign to their religion as Barack Obama is to our founding principles.

    So LadyK might indeed score some points by walking out of a sermon. And yet it’s likely the priest would remain clueless as to why. I really do believe that they do not know the basics of their own religion. They have become disconnected from it. And they certainly have no business setting themselves up as the conduit of Christ. Maybe the conduit of Che or Karl Marx. But not Christ.

    Lucky that as a Protestant I can get on my bike, go deep into the woods, and have these kinds of conversations, if you will, with God. Again, I think we run into another instance where one has to kind of unplug in order to get to the real deal. I know that’s not something a Catholic can really do. But I just think many of these church officials really do not know their asses from the elbows. They, too, have been dumbed down like so many other things in this culture.

    • Monsieur Voltaire says:

      Being Catholic in the USA and in Europe is quite different. Here, there is a stricter awareness of and attachment to the differences that make us Catholic; there, especially in areas where Catholicism was always unchallenged and never had to compete for dominance with other denominations, we are sort of Catholics by default, and we tend to take a wider view of Christianity as a whole. I count myself among the latter.

      I’ve attended Anglican, Lutheran and Southern Baptist churches regularly, and what I’ve seen and heard for the most part was an unfrocked pastor delivering roughly the same messages as that I grew up hearing from Don Camillo types: be the best you can, be good to others, have a relationship with God and know you are part of a community or family of fellow Christians.

      Personally–and I know for a lot of other Catholics–having a walk in the woods and conversing with God is only directly proportional to our devotion, not dependent on our denomination. The Church hierarchy is there only to represent the authority (in the “reliable reference” sense) of an intellectual and institutional tradition that has had more continuity than any movement or government on Earth. When St. Bonaventure wrote his Journey of the Mind to God, he never mentioned passing through clergy. It’s only the world around you, you, Scripture, Jesus and God.

      Sure, we occasionally pray also to saints or to the Virgin Mary for intercession–as we do to our departed loved ones–but never to the exclusion of God or Jesus. But when I can’t find my house-keys, the remote or the dog-leash, why bother the Big Man when there’s good old St. Anthony? 😉

      And few if any of the European Catholics I know would tell you they believe the pope is infallible–we only hope that whoever occupies the Holy See has the wisdom of a great leader and the powerful charisma of an inspirational figure. Our sort of megapastor, if you will. I have seen in person each pope from Paul VI to Benedict (I have yet to see Francis, and I obviously missed JPI), but I’m glad to say that each and every time I was deeply touched and I felt that I was being pushed a little closer to my faith. In that, they didn’t fail.

      Not wishing to sound too ecumenical, but I believe there is some unique good in all the denominations I’ve mentioned, and we should complement each other and present a united front against the spiritual decay of our civilization. In general, protestants have the fire and the infectious faith. The Catholic tradition has many of history’s intellectual big guns. I say let’s put it all together.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        “Not wishing to sound too ecumenical, but I believe there is some unique good in all the denominations I’ve mentioned, and we should complement each other and present a united front against the spiritual decay of our civilization.”

        I read a book by a man whose name was, I believe, Gustaf Le Bon. He made mention of the many and often vicious arguments which have come up between Christians of various denominations over the smallest of differences. Historically, there is no doubt about it.

        In the last few weeks I had a discussion with a friend about the doctrine of the Trinity. It appears he had been reading some history and had come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church had pressed this doctrine in order to impose its will on various groups. We didn’t have a lot of time so I couldn’t go into any detail.

        It is true that the term Trinity is not mentioned once in the Bible. And it is true there were some very serious debates on the nature of God in the early Church. But by about the 5th or 6th century the doctrine of the Trinity had largely triumphed.

        Wondering about this, I decided to read the New Testament from beginning to end. After going through it, I cannot honestly tell you who is right. It is not possible to know who is right as it is not clearly stated one way or the other in the Bible. That is fact.

        My personal conclusion is that the archaic discussions on “of the same substance” or of “similar substance” may be of intense interest to some, but it is in fact impossible to know the true nature of God on a human level.

        Christianity has often been divided over things which are not clearly stated in the Bible. In fact, I would say most of the disagreements are about the grey areas. Therefore, if they calmly think about it, Christians should be able to agree to disagree on these things without demonizing other denominations.

        Whether or not one agrees with all of Catholic doctrine there is no doubt the Catholic Church alone kept the light of Western Civilization glowing for over a thousand years. There is no doubt that it was from the Catholic Church that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wycliff, Hus and many others sprang. The Protestant Reformation didn’t spring from Islam or Buddhism. And by the way, any Church which was hated so intensely by the Jacobins, Bolsheviks and various other leftist scum can’t be all bad.

        My point is, that if the various Christian denominations can’t get together to push back against those trying to destroy our civilization then we had probably be ready to give up the ship.

        • ladykrystyna says:

          Mr. Kung Fu, that was very well said. I like to call the differences between the different denominations as “the bells and whistles”. And I agree – they are minor IMHO. The biggest thing is what they agree on – that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins.

          I especially get perturbed when I hear anti-Catholic rantings. My usually response is ” What, is this the 1500s?”

          And I was happy to hear so many non Catholic Christians standing up re the birth control mandate. We need to stand together. Standing with the godless Left only means, like the Islamists, they’ll only kill you last.

      • Minty says:

        M Voltaire said, “….protestants have the fire and the infectious faith.” Those outside the Catholic Church are heretics. Christ instituted a church and not churches. True unity is conversion to the One Church instituted by Christ and grievously the new religion led by the current ‘claimant as pope’ is not the Catholic Faith. Jorge Bergoglio/Francis I was anti dogma and doctrines of the Catholic Church even before his election. One cannot be head of what one does not belong to.
        “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the church for his mother.”
        St. Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), from On the Unity of the Church.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Hi, Minty. Just FYI, we haven’t heard from Mr. Voltaire in over a year, so I don’t think he’ll be offering any further comments.

          But let’s not take Mr. Voltaire out of context. He said:

          Not wishing to sound too ecumenical, but I believe there is some unique good in all the denominations I’ve mentioned, and we should complement each other and present a united front against the spiritual decay of our civilization. In general, protestants have the fire and the infectious faith. The Catholic tradition has many of history’s intellectual big guns.

          I’ll be the first to say that there is much that Protestants can learn from Catholic tradition and history, and probably vice versa. And that’s not a pompous politically-correct nod toward “diversity” and a weak ecumenicalism for the sake of doing so and massaging tender sensibilities, but because I think it’s true. Certainly I have gained much from reading various Catholic authors.

          But, geez, come on. Is it really such a bad thing that Mr. Voltaire praised Protestants for “the fire and infectious faith”?

          Those outside the Catholic Church are heretics.

          Properly speaking, those who profess to be Christians are heretics if they do not hold to Christ.

      • Minty says:

        •”It is impious to say, ‘I respect every religion.’ This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven.”
        –Fr. Michael Müller, The Church and Her Enemies (source here)

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          ”It is impious to say, ‘I respect every religion.’

          It’s probably worse than impious. It’s not very smart. Anyone who respects Islam doesn’t know its long history of murder and aggression. It’s founder was a murdering pedophile who was quite possibly insane.

          On the other hand, I respect Christianity and Judaism. They might even be true. I take it you’re not a big fan of the multiculturalist Pope Francis then. He seems the epitome of this new goofy “I’m okay, you’re okay” attitude which seems more about being liked than playing the adult.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Well, it has made him very popular, especially with those who dislike the religion whose hierarchy he leads. I guess that matters most to him.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I read Mueller’s piece and must say I have rarely read a more tautological load of dishonest claptrap. He broad-brushes the whole world, other than Catholics, and attributes to them things which are not so. He states his opinion as fact and condemns everyone else on that basis. His logic is shallower than that of an eighth grader’s. Subtlety is wholly missing from his thought.

          I suspect this piece was the result of the Church’s 1870 decision to confirm and codify, so to speak, the pope’s infallibility. And if ever there was an argument against human infallibility, Fr. M. Mueller would be exhibit no. 1.

          I suspect Mueller’s piece is written in such a vicious manner because the position he was defending was so indefensible.

          The idea of papal infallibility appears to only have been seriously considered around AD1100. There had been some discussion prior to that time, but nothing much came of it.

          It took the Protestant Reformation to shake up a corrupt Catholic Church which then overreacted and started to take this doctrine seriously and demand unquestioning and mulish adherence to any and all Church claims. (can’t let people think for themselves as old Luther just showed us.)Of course, such power would be an advantage to the whole Church hierarchy.

          I have absolutely no problem with the Catholic or any other Church claiming they hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, but I would hope they have more intelligent and honest emissaries than F. Michael Mueller. He is an embarrassment to the Church. Had the good father not found the Church into which to pour his zealotry, he would, no doubt, have made a good Bolshevik. Absolutism appears to be part of his mindset.

          In case any of you believe I have been too harsh in my judgments, I suggest you read the following rubbish and make up your own mind.


          To my mind, it reads as if it was written for illiterates.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Thanks for the overview, Mr. Kung. I believe I’ll scratch Mueller off my reading list and stick to a few saints (St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Teresa of Avila), near saints (Mother Teresa), fathers (Nouwen, de Caussade), monks (Merton, St. Francis), legitimate popes (JPII), Doctors of the Church (Aquinas, Augustine) and mystics (John of the Cross).

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Another mystic who seems to get a lot of respect is Saint Theresa of Avila.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Very wise of you. I often come across some monumentally stupid rubbish when I read pieces which others use as a basis for their arguments. But I guess that is the cost of vigilance. The rot extends to the core of the earth, so to speak.

              Happily, I also run across something very enlightening and informative every now and then.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I have absolutely no problem with the Catholic or any other Church claiming they hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven

            Mr. Kung, I don’t think it’s a problem to have functionaries, experts, teachers, and even bureaucrats. In fact, such things are typically good and necessary.

            But it’s quite another thing to have human gatekeepers. It’s quite an extraordinary thing that Jesus said in John 14:6: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

            This is no namby-pamby ecumenical Messiah whose first commandment is “diversity.” And allegiance requires no other intermediary. And that statement is good evidence of His divinity (or at least it is consistent with someone who actually was god-as-man).

            Luther, from what I understand, was a bit of a son of a bitch himself. But there had apparently grown up in the Church a lot of self-serving mumbo-jumbo. It needed reforming, just as St. Teresa of Avila had helped to reform the Carmelite Order. Things get out of whack. This is self-evident. It happens a lot. People get off track. Human motivations sneak in under the guise of “God’s will” (thus that all-important Commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain…that is, not to use His prestige for quite earthly concerns).

  8. RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

    I fear its a death spiral. Leftism is ascendent and all cower before it. Weak minded and souled now beg before the left to show the Lefty bona fides.

    Judaism, Catholics, Protestantism have all sacrificed themselves for the new order new religion.

    The only religion standing strong is Islam yet the two groups are frantically demolishing Western Civilization so they can have the final battle themselves. Of course the Muslims will slaughter the pansies but none of us men and women of honor will be around to see it. The Left will have had the mindless ones, our future brownshirts, and stab long before the epic beheading.

    I’m not an apocalyptic person nor believe in Satan but those who write of such times would be writing about the now.

    Young Americans from all walks of life despise Jews and Christians. Jews remain the perennial greedy manipulators seeking to control the planet from behind the scenes and Christians are vile gay haters who have waged war on women and minorities for centuries. They hate America except for its opportune salaciousness allowing them to get stoned, orgasm and defecate when and where they please. After the orgy they charge off to the infanticide factories.

    What you experienced today Lady, in the place where the last stand should be fought is the final proof there is no sanctuary. American values have died and we are but living shells, hollow posterity of greater forbears who could not imagine they bled sweat cried and died for their selfish scions to fornicate at their grave and spit on the tomb.

    Its over.

    We can bid each other goodnight but no flights of angels will sing thee to our rest, just sodomites and Marxists singing ding dong the witch is dead…

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Rob, you sound like an Old Testament prophet. And we need Old Testament prophets. People are always given to doing really stupid stuff.

      The Jews were always doing really stupid stuff. When you read some of those Old Testament prophets, you can see their neck veins bulging in exasperation with them.

      It is written that the Jews witnessed several miracles as Moses led them out of bondage in Egypt. And so what happens? Moses is gone for a couple days, up collecting the Ten Commandments from Cecil B. DeMille (or someone). And what do the Jews do? Take up knitting to pass the time?

      No, someone says, “Hey, let’s build a Golden Calf and worship the pagan gods.” And they do. They had supposedly witnessed first-hand several miracles which time after time pulled their Jewish asses out of the fire.

      But with barely any cajoling, the forget all that and make a golden idol.

      The Old Testament prophets probably had to work overtime keeping up with the stupid stuff.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Speaking of Jews, I like Jews. I consider Dennis Prager my Jewru.

      But I’ve met only one religious Jew online that I can recall who was actually Jewish in his religion. Most are Leftists. It’s uncanny.

      Whether Catholic or Jew or American, we seem to be living in an age where we throw out the best of who we are, and without even so much as a by-your-leave. It’s just tossed. Gone. Discarded.

      And this is where Dennis Prager has been very helpful helping Christians understand their own religion. God knows (and I think he certainly does) that many priests and ministers haven’t a clue about their own religions.

      I’ve gained many insights from Dennis just on his radio program (he offers all kinds of CDs and mp3 downloads as well for purchase). He’s gone through most, if not all, of the Ten Commandments. And I’d never heard or read any of this ever from anyone, and I’m not without some background in this.

      Thou shall not kill. No, it’s “Thou shall not murder.” Big difference.

      Honor your mother and father does not mean you have to love them or even like them. But you have to honor them. Big difference. Dennis talks about the one fellow he knew (or who had called his show once) who said that his mother was just a nightmare to talk to because she was just one long complaint. But still he would call his mother every evening. And when he did, he would set the phone down and just let her ramble on, every once in a while picking it up to say “Uh huh.” But he didn’t scream or argue with her and he kept the contact going that his mother wanted.

      And the interpretation I loved the best was Dennis’ regarding “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.” We all know that this means don’t yell “Jesus Christ” if you hit your thumb with a hammer, right? But according to Dennis, what this actually means is don’t use the prestige or authority of God to forward your own personal or selfish motives.

      Wow. Again, maybe Dennis is right or wrong, but he does seem to be a pretty good Jewish scholar. And the implications of this hit me right between the eyes. And those implications go deep. And people should wake up to them. Religion (and Christianity) would never be the same….at least it wouldn’t be the mass-marketed crap it is now which puts as much, if not more, emphasis on Karl Marx as on the actual printed pages of the Bible and the spirit of those words.

      The same regarding worshipping no idols. I don’t think most people understand the true implications of this, even if an atheist such as Joseph Campbell apparently does. When you make an object out of god, you not only make a superstition out of him, but you bar the way for a deeper understanding. When you make a concrete “thing” out of something that is meant to be, and is, more than a commodity, a religion then becomes just a cosmic entitlement. You turn God into a silly knickknack instead of a mode to engaging the mystical and the transcendent. Yes, it may be tough to do so, but is religion of any possible use if it is no more than a glorified fast-food franchise?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      As one astute poster observed:

      Too bad they can’t extend that kind of gratuity to American students

      That’s a good point and would be a relevant point if Notre Dame officials were practicing Christianity. But they’re not. They’re practicing Leftism. For them, Original Sin has moved from mankind to Western Civilization. They no longer think in terms of personal sins but collective guilt. And that guilt is automatically (and prejudicially) assigned to the West and innocence is assigned to illegal aliens.

      It’s also a case of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. As Thomas Sowell notes, it’s about using other people as mascots or puppets to show how supposedly enlightened and righteous you are. It’s all a show.

      There are two bible versus relevant to this:

      1) “There is nothing new under the sun,” and

      2) “And when you fast, do not be as the hypocrites, with sullen face, for they disfigure their faces so that they may appear to men to be fasting. Truly I say to you that they have their reward. But you in fasting, anoint your head and wash your face, so as not to appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father in secret. And your Father seeing in secret will repay you in the open.”

      I’m not sure why anyone would want to spend a dime sending their children to that school unless they thought that god was a product of man and thus controlled by man. But to the best of my knowledge, no man has a monopoly on god, or should.

      I think we’re approaching the point of coming full circle. If you believe in the faith of Christianity, it is necessary to become like a home-schooler. You unplug from the corrupt system and get together with other like-minded people. I know a friend (and Pat knows her too….he told me about this) who has an all-Sunday get-together with friends at her house where they study the bible and discuss it…not unlike, say, first or second century Christians.

      If you go to church today — and this is especially true of many Protestant churches — you will not be asked to leave your ego behind so that something else may be let in. Instead, you will be blasted by modern music, told how good you are, and not be corrected in ways that you need to be corrected. It’s all feel-goodism, which is consistent with our narcissistic culture.

      But you won’t find god or good until you can lay aside, at least sometimes, your own ego. And there is a passage for this as well: “Be still and know that I am god.”

      In the New Testament, Jesus spends quite a lot of print chastising the Jews. They tended to be a horrible bunch of hypocrites. We’re at that point again today. Somebody needs to overturn the tables in the temples. There may not be literal whores and money-changers there now, but there is the same sort of hypocrisy and corruption. Surely there is the equivalent in Christianity to that line from the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      There are still good Christians, but you won’t see me stepping foot inside a church anytime. I’ve seen even the good sincere pastors lost to what is often called the “Prosperity Church.” The church is leaderless, at least here on earth.

      • ladykrystyna says:

        “That’s a good point and would be a relevant point if Notre Dame officials were practicing Christianity. But they’re not. They’re practicing Leftism. For them, Original Sin has moved from mankind to Western Civilization. They no longer think in terms of personal sins but collective guilt. And that guilt is automatically (and prejudicially) assigned to the West and innocence is assigned to illegal aliens.”

        That is “liberation theology”, Brad. And it was something that I understand Pope John Paul II tried to get rid of, although there seems to be some hints that although it was disfavored, the economic socialist aspects of it were not as disfavored as I once thought.

        That was just what I was able to glean from a quick google search.

        Someone on the Breitbart site mentioned Bella Dodd.


        But there seems to be some conspiracy theories floating around. I think the above site seems to be the least kooky one I can find that actually mentions what Dodd said to our government back in the 1950s – it’s in the final paragraph at the link I provided.

        In short, she said that Communists had infiltrated the ranks of the Church (1100 men) and that we would notice a drastic change.

        There was also this: “A few years later, in a conversation with a new Catholic friend, Alice von Hildebrand, Bella told her that there are four cardinals within the Vatican “who are working for the Communists.” This was twelve years before Vatican II. The reader can draw his own conclusions.”

        However, I do know that there are many “traditional Catholics” that did not like Vatican II (Mel Gibson is one of the more famous ones), and I’ve seen their websites and they can be a little scary. Some anti-Semitic stuff shows up and very conspiratorial and I’m not big into conspiracy theories.

        But that doesn’t always mean that there isn’t an element of truth in there somewhere.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Liberation Theology = Marxism. Pastor Wright’s church preached Black Liberation Theology, an offshoot of a Marxist “theology” from Central America, particularly (in black culture) it’s connected to the writings of James Cone.

          As Anthony B. Bradley describes it, “The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of ‘white racism’ and oppression.”

          Again, we see stupid guilt-ridden white liberal people spreading this same noxious stuff in other forms. The Christian way to deal with illegal immigrants is not to see them as victims of white (or Western) oppression. That is just taking part in evil. The moral center of so many of these people is corrupted.

      • MarkW says:

        I’ve been to many churches that still teach the old time religion.
        Even with modern music.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There is probably a book that the “do-gooders” at Notre Dame should read (as well as all those who are falling for “social justice” and other now Marxist-derived beliefs). The quote below is from a review at Amazon.com of the book, Defending the Free Market, by Rev. Robert Sirico.

    The demeanor that Fr. Sirico adopts throughout the book is definitely a strength of his writing, however, the true power of the book is his ability to root his argument in foundational ideas. He anchors his argument for the primacy of free markets not in end results such as wealth creation, jobs, and human flourishing, though he will get to these. Instead he rightly roots his argument in the intrinsic dignity of the human person. Anthropology is at the root of most of our political and social disagreements. If biblical anthropology is correct then the uniqueness and the dignity of the individual will thrive when free to move virtuously in the marketplace with their labor, savings and expenditures. It is here that the argument for free markets is connected with first principles and can be clearly seen as a moral cause and not just an economic preference. This is the case Fr. Sirico is making. He is not naive to abuses of the market but he is wise to solutions that make the helper feel good but leave their intended beneficiary in worse shape than before “aid” came to them.

    Fr. Sirico does a masterful job articulating a biblical worldview of humanity, creativity, work, markets, and community. The biblical foundation is sound and should bolster much thinking and teaching of his readers. He then takes his theological realities and applies them to current social controversies such as health care, environmentalism and welfare. Again he winsomely exposes many compassionate solutions as being ultimately destructive. They are destructive because they do not understand, and I would argue often do not try to understand, the true nature of the human being. If we want to truly help we must look to what restores human dignity rather than what makes the giver feel noble.

    I think I’ll put that book on my own list.

  10. RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

    I’d like to note that in my post above I use the term ‘sodomite’ for Biblical gravitas not out of any base animosity towards homosexuality. My disdain is reserved for anyone or group who seeks to shred the Constitution to advance their agenda.

    As I’ve posted across the internet, homosexuality has been with us since the beginning and always will and I’m fine with that. I do think however that all things ‘sexuality’ should be kept private. As with many other traditional rules of society they serve to reward self control and distance wanton or reckless behavior and in the total such adherence to ‘the rules’ affords society the self control necessary to provide civil discourse and allow civil society.

    Bottom line – as with so many issues, you are free to do what you want, but what’s the harm in requesting you do it privately??

  11. Jeph says:

    Hey Ladyk,
    Its good you actually listen to those intentions, before you absentmindedly answer “Lord, here our prayer”. Our pastor once noticed me straining to hear the list of intentions and asked me why after Mass, I assumed concerned for my hearing.
    When I told him it was so I knew if I would add my voice to the request – he was surprised.

    Now, I’m fairly active in our parish, so Father and I have more than a nodding acquaintance. Eventually we spoke about the prayers and the intent of the prayers. Is the prayer asking for what is intended, or is it asking for more? I don’t mean to say I have a hand in writing the intentions, but I do like to think now and again, Father still looks to see if I’m adding my voice – and that is the issue here.

    I encourage you to speak with your pastor about some of your concerns – including reconciling with some of the statements Pope Francis has made. Exchanging understandings leads to knowledge, if not at least a dialog (something Francis has encouraged us to engage in.) Does your pastor really mean to ask that government healthcare be provided to everyone, or that those who are in need of healthcare may find the providers who can help them in their need? Is he even aware of how some of his Intentions are being interpreted? Does he care?

    If you don’t open the dialog with him, he (and you) will never know. Just imagine how effective that discourse could be! Effecting hundreds of people every week, if not (at least) making him aware not everyone believes he is expressing the Church view properly. One person, one priest, one parish, one diocese, one Faith. You began your quest with your post, now look for the answers from the one who got you thinking!
    God Bless you, and may the Spirit guide you to the answers you need.

  12. MarkW says:

    It’s worse than that. In your description of a person giving all he has to the Romans so it can be redistributed, at least the person is giving up his own money, and so would get some credit for that.
    These people are asking the Romans to take other people’s money so that it can be distributed to the poor.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Good point. And if a person hasn’t figured out that Marxism isn’t good for people, he or she shouldn’t be in the business of morals. If Notre Dame and others have all that money sitting around, how about helping some disadvantaged citizens of this country? Charity begins at home. And if one wants to be charitable to some foreign country, then fine. But do not aid and abet law-breakers.

  13. momiss says:

    Excellent article! I am not Catholic but was raised among them. I have been very disturbed at some of the “concessions” that churches have made, Catholic included, but this crosses the line. Very very scary times to be living in.

  14. Kurt NY says:

    Well said. Unfortunately, for all its philosophical insight, the Church has yet to grasp the fundamental morality of free market capitalism. When the local pastor inserts such political statements into the Prayer of the Faithful, he fails to understand how the measures he favors actually make it harder to achieve the goal to which he aspires. That to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people with the least dislocation to the supporting economy would not rely upon a government ukase guaranteeing coverage for all, but one which works with market forces to most efficiently allocate resources and set price.

    The Church quite rightly looks askance at human greed. Yet that most powerful human incentive, while responsible for some horrendous and deeply immoral acts, is also responsible for the raising of much of humanity from subsistence poverty. The Church condemns self interest because it can be overdone, yet properly constrained, can serve the cause of all. And sometimes a goal is best service indirectly through other means rather than measures specifically meant to address it. And which is the more moral act, activities which produce definitive good while professing no moral intent, or an act taken for a specifically moral purpose which achieves nothing?

  15. N M Dalton says:

    Very interesting. As a Catholic, aged 72, born and living in the UK, I grew up in a charitable Roman Catholic faith. In my early years the National Health Service was born and has looked after my health, even though the State has chosen to pay me poorly as a teacher. I could certainly NOT have been living today if I’d had to pay for medical, dental and all other health services.
    Was it not Jesus who overturned the tables on the money-changers in the Temple? Is not making obscene profits from (e.g.) selling “mechanically-recovered meat” as burgers etc., etc., not the modern equivalent of the money-changers?
    Never mind, Mister Trump will sort it out and the poor will perish and the Undetakers will profit no doubt!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I had no idea that Jesus had a position on “mechanically-recovered” meat.

      What you fail to take into account, NM, is that people don’t turn automatically good when they move to government. All the same sins remain and are amplified by the power of government. You have a choice to not buy someone’s “mechanically-recovered” meat but no choice but to swallow down whatever the meat-grinders in government are producing.

      And no praise for all the marvels produced by the private sector? I think you’ve reduced it all to vipers producing “mechanically-reovered” meat because the state has purchased your affections for a few pieces of entitlement silver. Sad.

  16. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I am not one to simply call an organization corrupt because a few of its members turn out to be less than pure. But after years of proven crime and immorality, there comes a time to call a spade a spade.


    There is a huge amount of corruption in the Catholic Church and perhaps the socialist pope should start spending time trying to cleanse his organization and get it back on the right path, as opposed to telling the rest of us what to do.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That’s not as much fun. And of course we can never know what he’s doing behind the scenes. If anything.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Compared to the Popes of the Renaissance these guys a keystone cops, Alexander 6th and Julius 2nd were real pros.

      However, I admit I have no skin in this game.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Mario Puzo’s last novel was a biological novel of the Borgias in the era when Alexander VI was pope.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


        I would have to agree with you. Growing up in the South, old stories about the corruption of the Catholic Church, including the immorality of many priests, were part of the culture. These stories were handed down over hundreds of years.

        One less than bright Pope was Boniface VIII who in, 1303, had the temerity to declare everyone was subject to the Papal See in things temporal as well as spiritual.

        Phillip IV disagreed and some of his adherents kidnapped and beat Boniface, who died soon thereafter. They took Boniface or the next Pope to Avignon which was where Popes resided for many years. Of course, there was also another Pope in Rome from time to time, as I recall.

        I did a little research on the guy who runs the website “Church Militant” and he appears to have said something like Protestantism is to the real Church what Rabbinical Judaism is to real Judaism. So you see, others apparently believe I was right about conservative Protestants and Jews.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          I do agree, one of the best friends we have in Fayetteville is a huge evangelical church just down the road from Temple Shalom. The Catholics in town, a small minority, and now mostly, yankees newly settled here, are ambivalent. I personally take that as a positive sign.

          All that said, I also take it personally that some damn fool should be telling me what it means to be a Jew. I’m not sue that it comes home to anybody until they have grandchildren.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Here’s an update on that. Or at least another article: Confessions of the Vatican’s Favorite Male Escort

      The humorous part is when the author of this article describes the homosexual escort as “a devout Catholic.” The article concludes with quite a magnanimous gesture by the homosexual escort;

      “I did it for the health of the church. We are talking about bad apples which, in my opinion, should be reduced to the lay state not to be punished but to have the opportunity to come into contact and reconcile with their own homosexuality,” he said. “As a person who enjoys sexual freedom, I do not condemn the homosexuality of the priests: Homosexuality is not a crime, what is condemned is the incoherence of these priests.”

      Why write the book and make the fuss if he doesn’t condemn homosexuality? What this guy obviously wants is: A) Notoriety; B) Money; C) Normalizing of his own sin; D) To promote homosexuality as the norm; E) Destroy the Catholic Church.

      I don’t believe for a moment that this guy is “a devout Catholic,” Steve’s assertion that he doesn’t want anyone telling him if he is a good Jew notwithstanding.

      With openly homosexual priests, there can be no Catholic Church. When the only sins are environmental and gender crimes, the idea of Redemption via Christ has no meaning whatsoever. Now let’s imagine that there is a Satan of some type. How would this not be his method?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        What this guy obviously wants is: A) Notoriety; B) Money; C) Normalizing of his own sin; D) To promote homosexuality as the norm; E) Destroy the Catholic Church.

        Either the above or the guy has no sense of irony and is dumb as a rock. But I’m just an eternal optimist.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          In this age when an idol is made of the human ego, when our own little universe of feelings and beliefs are held up as “just as good as anyone else’s,” the idea of objective standards vanishes. People just want what they want. And, in particular, what they want is good by definition if they are of this relativist-Leftist outlook.

          So it’s entirely possible this guy has little sense of anything other than “I want,” with the rationalizations (humans can do this quite unaware that they are rationalizing) coming later.

          But if you’re sucking off priests while decrying the state of the priesthood, there is something going on other than high ethics.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I don’t know about the fifth, but the first four are undoubtedly true.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I don’t know about the fifth, but the first four are undoubtedly true.

          Was The Reformation out to destroy the Catholic Church? Yes, in terms of at least diminishing its influence. It’s a “Reform” only in the sense that you are burning the Reichstag in order to replace it with something else.

          And that’s not to say that Martin Luther and other’s didn’t have some good theological and moral points. But I think he was more of the mindset of George W. Bush who said he had to circumvent capitalism in order to preserve it. Perhaps that’s not as nonsensical as it sounds for capitalism does indeed necessarily exist as a subset of a higher system.

          We conservatives have lost the argument, and in large measure by ascribing good motives to our adversaries. It took Dennis Prager a *long* time (which he admits) to figuring out that the Left and the Right have different aims rather than just (as he had thought) trying to achieve the same ends with different methods.

          In no instance can it be reasonably assumed that a homosexual outing priests — while making money from them as a male prostitute, and while spreading the homosexual agenda — is about preserving the Church. The Left is all about rotting out institutions from within while perhaps keeping the same superficial names. If we haven’t figured that out by now (and many haven’t) then no wonder they are winning.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I certainly don’t think he was interested in preserving the Church, nor do I say he isn’t seeking to wreck it; I just said I’m not sure about that one, whereas I am about the first 4 explanations you gave for his actions.

            Incidentally, in the historical background to Kingsley Amis’s religious alternate history The Alteration, he has More and Luther become popes, which prevents the Reformation (though they do still get the Calvinists). The book mentions the Inquisitors in Germany being Father Henricius and in Georgia Father Laurencius — aka Himmler and Beria. In England it’s the Earl of Wedgwood aka Tony Benn. By this time Amis was moving heavily rightward.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            We conservatives have lost the argument, and in large measure by ascribing good motives to our adversaries.

            I have long wondered about this strange phenomenon. Stupid or naive’?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Naive, I suppose. Conservatives tend to behave with good will, and assume others do the same. With liberals this may even have been the case. But as leftism subsumed liberalism, altruism was replaced by the hunger for total power.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I have long wondered about this strange phenomenon. Stupid or naive’?

              I just read somewhere (not this exact article, but it will do) this morning where Indonesia (the world’s most populace Muslim nation) has banned a bunch of queer stuff from various online “social” media. It noted that Googled had knuckled under for a thing or two as well.

              The key component in the Left’s ascendency is non-action by the right. We can parse all day why they (we) haven’t tried to enforce their (our) principles and I’m sure we could fire off at least a half dozen reasons (including that we may indeed tend to act more gentlemanly). But the bottom line is the Left has never paid much of a price (legally or socially) for forwarding their agenda.

              Stupid? Naive? Cowardly? Milquetoast? Non-ideological? Conformist? Too nice? All these and more may be reasons and you could tunnel down that rabbit hole exploring each and every one of these reasons. Certainly we’ve touched on them a time or two ourselves.

              But the bottom line is that the supposed “adults” of the right have generally done little but talk, talk, talk. Complain, complain, complain. Bitch, bitch, bitch. But as for confrontation and attempting to enforce their standards? They’ve (we’ve) gone missing.

              This is all within the backdrop of the Republican Party who sounded as if they wished to maintain standards and take on the Left, but they didn’t mean it. And plenty of those on the “right” didn’t particularly care that they didn’t mean it.

              The Left has run virtually unopposed were it counts. But not in Indonesia.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I spent a lot of time in Indonesia, but that was a couple of decades back.

                While there were always large Muslim organizations like Muhammadiyah, the general climate of the country was of a softish Islam. Of course, the fact that Suharto, Sukarno and before them the Dutch controlled things might have something to do with radical Islam was not allowed to lift its ugly head. Indonesia’s official credo was called Pancasila which was supposed to be an umbrella philosophy under which Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and a couple of other major beliefs could peacefully coexist.

                From what I can tell, things have changed somewhat and parties are forming around Islam or using Islam in order to gain votes. Since something like 90% of the people are Muslim, this promotion of Islam is too often used against the local Chinese and Christians (who are sometimes the same). Way back when, the Chinese made up only about 5% of the population, but controlled something like 40-50% of the economy. The government controlled a large percentage of the balance.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                That pantheistic sentiment was no doubt helped by the heavy Christian element in Timor (though Muslim attacks on the East Timor Christians helped push them to independence) and the Hinduism of Bali.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Not only in Timor, but places like the Celebes and Ambon. It should also be said that there were a number of Generals who were Christians.

                I would guess the highest concentration of Muslims would be in Northern Sumatra and West Java.

                Indonesia is incredibly rich in natural resources. I used to say that if the population were made up of 20-30 million Germans it would be one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *