Wednesday, December 28, 2016

KC dedicates letter to Fr. Martin Fox's soliciting bad Catholic hymnals

 Father Fox, et. al.

I wrote this letter for my   pastor back in 2007 when I was agitating for us to lose our RITUALSONG  hymnal.   .................                                                                                                                                                                  05 JUL 07

......... A couple of months ago you asked me if there was something wrong with our hymnal, RitualSong.  It has taken me a while to put my thoughts on the subject in order, so please bear with me.

I will begin with a recent quote by the Pope regarding church music and Gregorian chant: ( I colored the red portions myself, not His Holiness)

"In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love.
This heritage must not be lost. Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration. Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons. Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the synod fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy."

To RitualSong’s credit, it does have a section of Gregorian chant.  It also includes the proper readings for each Sunday.

On the down side, I briefly surveyed RitualSong’s ratio of old hymns to new (i.e. those composed after Vatican II) and the balance seems to be about a 1 to 4 ratio (old to new).  Given the perspective of 2000 years, RitualSong’s compilers opted to weight the hymnal heavily in favor of hymns most of which had yet to pass the test of time.  A huge number of RitualSong’s new hymns have already fallen into disuse and it has only been ten years since the hymnal’s release.  The compilers decided to do this at the expense of having us forget Catholic hymns which are 100, 200, 1500 years old, which have passed the test of time and have appealed to the Catholic Church throughout the ages and throughout the entire world and not just to American baby-boomers.

Secondly, on the issue of altering the lyrics of old hymns:  Whatever advantage there might be for doing that, there seem to be at least two negative things going on,
i.                 dumming us down so we won’t have to deal with “Thee’s and Thou’s” of the original, and
ii.                Altering the meaning of older hymns to match the editors’ modern problems with traditional Catholic doctrine. Below I show examples of older hymns being edited to avoid mentioning Christ’s Death as well as being edited to avoid mention of Christian Martyrdom.   Ironically we get spared Thee’s and Thou’s of old Catholic hymns, presumably we cannot understand old English, but then we are expected to understand Amen Siakudumisa, (698), Bwana Awabriki (720), Mayenziwe (725), Jesus Tawa Pano (806), Thuma Mina (796)  All these are more unintelligible than archaic English, yet they are all in RitualSong, while “Sweet Sacrament we Thee adore”, “Panis Angelicus”, Ave Verum, the Te Deum … are not. 

I feel the easiest way to illustrate my point is in the form of the table, below, which presents some of the hymns which I feel have problems and what I specifically see as a problem.  This is not exhaustive. However it did exhaust (and exasperate) me compiling it.  J 

You will see, I concentrate on RitualSong’s “Eucharistic” section.  It seems to me, in the future, if a hymnal we consider for adoption has a preponderance of its “Eucharistic” hymns being penned by protestants who don’t even believe in the Eucharist, then that should be a red flag for us, indicating that the compilers were more interested in being stylish and modern than in helping us to worship and pray as Catholics.  Earlier I forwarded to you an email from our former pastor, Bishop Flores, where he also mentions being irked by modern Eucharistic hymns, therefore I don’t think I am alone in this arena, and this raises the whole question of why we ever would want to sing hymns that irk people, like Bishop Flores, who are simply trying to be true to Catholic tradition and teaching.  Lex orandi lex credendi.  Aside from doctrinal considerations, I think it is just insensitive.

I hope and pray you will not be offended by what I have written here, and I ask forgiveness in advance  if I what I have written here seems brash or angry. (I have stopped being angry and have  ‘moved on’ to just being puzzled) I certainly think   it is the role of the committee formed to look around and make sure we have enough options to choose from (which don’t offend any Catholic believers) before we decide on our next hymnal selection.

For Example
Let Us Break Bread Together
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass

In Christ There is a Table Set for All
Ambiguous and confusing Eucharistic statement. However if it is remembered that the author is Methodist, then there is no real ambiguity.  The song is about the protestant “Lord’s Supper” and not about the Holy Eucharist.
“Here he gives himself to us as bread”
Draw Us in the Spirit’s Tether
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass

Taste and See
Though it is loosely based on Psalm 34,  the only thing having remotely hinting of the Eucharist is the word “taste”
The tune is a fake gospel style complete with swaying to the music
Francis Patrick O’brien is not an. African Amercan Baptist. Just an Irish Catholic priest from Boston “tryin’ to get down”
As the Grains of Wheat
Though loosely based upon the Didache, the Eucharist’s Sacrificial emphasis which is central to the Didache, has been edited out

At That First Eucharist
This beautiful hymn has been butchered to change “Thou” into “You”, I have to wonder why  RitualSong didn’t update the protestant “How Great Thou Art?  Are only old Protestant hymns too holy to alter?
Somehow “grant us at every Eucharist to say with longing heart and soul, ‘Thy will be done’” becomes:
“At this our Eucharist again preside and in our hearts your law of love renew”
It just doesn’t have the same meaning
Song of the Body of Christ
This song seems to be all about “us”, not about Jesus, and has no hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass

Take the Bread, Children
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
I believe we are to RECEIVE the Holy Eucharist, not TAKE it. Singing “take the bread” over and over, manages to simultaneously perpetuate two misconceptions in one little phrase.
All who hunger
The closest this gets to Eucharistic teaching is the statement “Jesus is the living Bread”, yet any protestant who denies Transubstantiation would make the identical statement
The author is the Canadian Protestant Union’s first self-avowed lesbian priestess
Bread to Share
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass

Let Us Be Bread
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass

Jesus Is Here Right Now
No hint of Transubstantiation
nor of the sacrificial nature of the Mass
“with this bread and wine, his peace you’ll find” contributes to an deficient understanding of the Eucharist
Now In This Banquet
It does say “Christ is our bread”, (as would any Protestant hymns,) but that is as far as it goes.
“bring us dancing into to day” hearkens back to the 70’s and liturgical dancing

A Mighty Fortress
Besides being The ‘battle hymn’ of the Reformers because it was written by the man who split the Church. Martin Luther believed many odd things, e.g. there is no free will, God hates the vast majority of humanity, the souls of the blessed sleep until Christ returns, mentally retarded people are “changelings” and should be euthanized, polygamy is ok, and many other errors.

Gather Us In

Not in some heaven light-years away” (last verse)
seems to be sneering at the Catholic teaching on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell.  Maybe it is only sneering at #3.
I Danced in the Morning
Flippant lyrics, which put rhyming and cuteness above reverence

“I danced on a Friday when the sky turned black
It’s hard to dance with devil on your back”
The author, explains his pithy lyrics  as follows:
"I see Christ as the incarnation of the piper who is calling us. He dances that shape and pattern which is at the heart of our reality. By Christ I mean not only Jesus; in other times and places, other planets, there may be other Lords of the Dance”

Faith of our Fathers
Unrecognizable when compared to the original. 
The martyrdom verse has been edited out and replaced with a trendy “faith of our brothers and sisters”
Crown Him with many Crowns
The changes made to this beautiful hymn seem to be made just for the sake of change but then again……….
Changing “Of Him who died for Thee”
“Of Him who set us free’ seems to be doctrinally driven by the modernist reluctance to mention Christ’s Redeeming Death.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Questions about Russia and hacking

Watching Chuck Todd go after Reince Priebus ( Reince and Chuck Todd )on Sunday was a little frustrating because one indisputable fact ended up being overlooked i.e.:

Whoever hacked Hillary et. al.'s emails was engaged in truth-telling. period.

Did they spread misinformation? no.

Did they try to steal nuclear codes? no

Did they try to crash the stock market? no

Did they broadcast our state secrets and do grave harm to our national security? no

Did they tell the truth? yes

The foundational, indisputable fact is that truth got out and the American media is livid.
They are especially incensed that this truth might have informed American voters.
What does that say about the American media's relationship to truth?

Was it the 400 lb kid in his parents' basement?  good for him

Was it the Russians? good for them

No, wait a minute!  Shame on them for telling Americans the truth!  Let's declare war on them!

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Kneeling Catholic spars with Never-Trumper "Bonfire of the Vanities"

You can see the whole thing over on Father Fox's blog....


Post a Comment On: Bonfire of the Vanities

"Reacting to Trump"

14 Comments - Show Original PostCollapse comments

1 – 14 of 14
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...
Father, I hope your reason for not endorsing Trump was because of your clergy status and not because of some never-Trumper (goodie-two-shoes) argument!

If I had been a never-Trumper--as many in my family were. Goodie-two-shoes to a man/woman!! --, I think the third debate would have brought me around to his side. ( Mr. Trump stated his pro-life stance without apology and more emphatically than any Republican candidate I can recall...

Thought experiment: Do you think applying a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates--Mr. Trump's promise-- might eventually save even one poor child's life? perhaps tens of thousands? I had this discussion with a sister of mine. She was of the opinion that because it wouldn't save ALL unborn lives, then she felt justified in not supporting Trump. I wish I had had the acuity to simply ask her if she meant that if you could not prevent all evil, then it is OK not to try to prevent any, i.e. if you cannot accomplish everything worthwhile, then it is best not to try to accomplish ANYTHING worthwhile.

Thank God, Mr. Trump has been elected. I fully expect him to be the first and only Republican president ever to fulfill their promise of getting Roe v Wade overturned. When this happens, many unborn lives will be saved. I feel sorry for her and for you, that you both felt that that was not a worthwhile goal and that both of you, when you were needed, stood on the sidelines and did nothing.

November 10, 2016 at 7:41 PM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
Kneeling Catholic -

You accuse me and your sister of not thinking saving babies to be a worthwhile goal. I hope you give some thought to that, and realize you owe me an apology for certain, and perhaps your sister as well.
November 10, 2016 at 9:10 PM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

I will give you a full apology, if you can explain why Mr. Trump's promise to appoint only prolife Justices to the Supreme Court did not compel you to support him.

I apologize in advance!

November 11, 2016 at 12:38 PM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
Kneeling Catholic:

That's not an apology. When you apologize for accusing me of not thinking saving babies to be a worthwhile goal, then I'll be happy to discuss the matter further.
November 11, 2016 at 3:34 PM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

I do apologize.

Help me see what I am missing!

Trump's pledge to get Roe v Wade overturned is huge, no?

Even if I detested Trump and thought there were a 99% chance he would backtrack on his pledge, wouldn't I still be obligated to hope for that 1% versus Hillary's zero? If one of my children were drowning and I had only a 1% chance of rescuing him, wouldn't I still be obligated to try something as opposed to nothing?
November 12, 2016 at 1:39 PM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
Kneeling Catholic:

Thank you for your apology!

Trump's pledge to get Roe v Wade overturned is huge, no?

When did he make such a pledge? I know he released a list of possible Supreme Court appointments that look promising; he also said he wouldn't limit himself to that list.

Also, Mr. Trump supports some abortions. He thinks babies whose fathers are rapists or who commit incest should not be protected. That is both morally and intellectually incoherent.

And, Mr. Trump endorses torture. And, he called for the deliberate killing of non-combatants who are related to terrorists. Another word for that is murder.

Those are three grave evils that Mr. Trump endorsed, not counting his appeals to bigotry and his execrable behavior (admitted) toward women.

Even without these, no one -- repeat, NO ONE -- is "obligated" to vote for him. No such obligation arises from Catholic teaching. This is because each and every voter is called upon to make a decision about the fitness of a candidate. Catholic teaching never tells voters, you MUST vote FOR Candidate "X"; but it does sometimes say, you CANNOT vote for candidates who endorse grave evil.

The exception to the latter being, when there is no candidate who does not endorse grave evil.

Conclusion? Catholics could, morally, vote for Trump, not to endorse his many embraces of grave evil, but as a way to limit Clinton; or they could vote for a third party candidate; or they could leave that race blank. But absolutely no one was obligated to vote for Mr. Trump, or any other candidate.

You are entitled to think your vote for Mr. Trump was the right move; but you are not entitled to think others who disagree with you are bad Catholics, or lack zeal for righteousness.
November 12, 2016 at 3:07 PM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...
Hello, Father!

Pardon this splayed response but I do want to briefly address each of your responses....


I referenced his 3rd Debate remarks in my first comment. It has a link which has a short youtube video. He says he will only appoint pro-life justices and that after appointing 2 or 3 of these, then Roe v Wade will be overturned.


Trump's position is only as incoherent as Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, and every Pro-life Republican President's and candidate's since Roe v Wade. Forgive me for bringing this up if you likewise have refused to support any of these others for that same reason. Regardless, your objection here seems to be the same as my dear sister's...which I understand as...'because we cannot save every life, then we are justified in not trying to save any", i.e. voting for McMullin, or for Ronald McDonald....

3) <<>>>

This sounds to me like Bernardin's seamless garment'. i.e. trying to erase any weighting of issues. It's kind of like when Protestants say that all sins are of equal gravity. I totally disagree. If Mr. Trump would like to water-board the San Bernadino shooter, Syed Farook's, friend who helped him buy armaments, to see if there is anyone else he helped to arm and to plot impending attacks, you see that as just as bad as supporting Roe v Wade? Did you still support Pres. Bush in 2004 after we found out that he was for "torture"? (The Abu Gurayb scandal(May2004) was well aired by the time of the Nov. election).

It is sad that after Pres. Obama's righteous condemnation of Bush's torture interrogations of captured enemies, Obama's solution was then to go for out and out death squads and death drones which kill many more innocent people than actual bad guys. Who's approach was better? I think there is some gray area here that you are not recognizing. like for instance, the definition of torture. Is water-boarding torture in the medieval sense? Pres. Bush was waterboarding a few individuals to prevent another 9-11 like attack...You don't believe in double effect? not in war-time?


Certainly whoever told you that, Father, was being dishonest. Let me give you missing context. Trump backed off that here ( He clarified his remark. I hope this is genuine good news to you.

very respectfully
November 14, 2016 at 1:12 AM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

the quotes for each section did not print...
They should be...

1. Where did Trump pledge to overturn Roe v Wade?
2.Trump's abortion position is incoherent
3. Trump supports torture
4. Trump wants to kill innocent family members of Terrorists
November 14, 2016 at 1:15 AM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...

Thank you for the link; I did not see that debate, so I didn't see those comments by Mr. Trump.

Trump's position is only as incoherent as Mitt Romney's, John McCain's, and every Pro-life Republican President's and candidate's since Roe v Wade.

No, that's not true. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 was completely prolife; no exceptions, except "for the life of the mother," which really means, banning abortion won't mean banning life-saving measures that unavoidably lead to an abortion. When he ran in 1988 and 1992, President George H.W. Bush took the same position. I can't recall Bob Dole's position in 1996, but prior to that, his was the same position -- i.e., 100% prolife.

The decisive change -- which perhaps you didn't notice -- took place in 2000 with George W. Bush. He adopted the morally and intellectually incoherent position that it was wrong to kill babies, except when their fathers' commit a grave crime; then it becomes ok to kill those babies.

You don't understand why this is morally or intellectually incoherent?

Regardless, your objection here seems to be the same as my dear sister's...which I understand as...'because we cannot save every life, then we are justified in not trying to save any", i.e. voting for McMullin, or for Ronald McDonald....

Nonsense! I don't know your sister, or what she says, but I strongly suspect your characterization of her views is as bizarre and, I'm sorry, blockheaded as your characterization of mine! I strongly doubt your sister says "we are justified in not trying to save any" babies from abortion. Rather, I suspect she agrees with me that when a candidate says s/he is ok with killing any babies, that's evil -- which is precisely what the Catholic Church says. You claim to be Catholic -- do you not agree with the Church that the killing of babies, because their father's committed rape and incest, is evil?

Can you really not understand why someone would want to refuse to support a candidate who embraces evil? Or, is it your position that so long as one candidate embraces somewhat less evil, Catholic must vote for the less-evil candidate? Is that actually your position?

I caution you to re-read that last paragraph, and think long and hard about your answer. Because if you say, yes to that last paragraph, realize you are saying yes to the following:

Candidate A: embezzler; Candidate B: rapist -- Catholics must vote for one of these.
Candidate A: racist; Candidate B: advocates legal abortion -- Catholics must vote for one.
Candidate A: supports abortion 100% of the time; Candidate B: supports abortion 90% of the time -- Catholics must vote for one.

Now, contrary to your view that Catholics must vote for an evil-endorsing candidate, as long as there is someone worse, the Catholic Church never teaches that. The U.S. bishops stated very clearly that embracing grave evil disqualifies any and all candidates, and when faced with a situation in which both are disqualified, there are several moral options, one of which is to vote for an otherwise disqualified candidate as a way to limit harm; but they never said "must."

Now, it's worth noting that not that long ago, we reasonably expected GOP candidates to be 100% prolife; now we have self-described prolifers (such as you) who think that's unreasonable to expect. How did this happen? It happened precisely because, too many "settled" for W. Bush's position, which became the default position.

That deals with your comments on abortion. I'll respond to your other comments next.
November 15, 2016 at 11:02 AM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
This [i.e., referring to the issue of torture] sounds to me like Bernardin's seamless garment'. i.e. trying to erase any weighting of issues. It's kind of like when Protestants say that all sins are of equal gravity.

No, that's nonsense. First, I never claimed all evils are of equal weight. Please read what I actually wrote, rather than read into it what it suits you to find there. I was simply pointing out instances where Mr. Trump endorsed grave evil. Do you not consider torture intrinsically evil? Perhaps not, but the Church does. From Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, paragraph 64:

Our 1998 statement, Living the Gospel of Life, declares, "Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others" (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.

This statement is echoed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2297, and various statements by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.

I totally disagree. If Mr. Trump would like to water-board the San Bernadino shooter, Syed Farook's, friend who helped him buy armaments, to see if there is anyone else he helped to arm and to plot impending attacks, you see that as just as bad as supporting Roe v Wade?

False. I never said "just as bad." Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Did you still support Pres. Bush in 2004 after we found out that he was for "torture"? (The Abu Gurayb scandal(May2004) was well aired by the time of the Nov. election).

No, I didn't support him in either 2000 or 2004, precisely because he endorsed the grave evil of abortion when the child's father had committed rape and incest.

You don't believe in double effect? not in war-time?

I do believe in the principle of double effect, but it doesn't apply to evil actions, but rather, to morally good or neutral actions. This is a critical distinction. The principle of double effect can only be applied where the action in view is neutral or morally good. For example, advocates of legal abortion have tried to use the principle of double effect to justify killing an unborn child because of the good that will result. But Pope John Paul II said very clearly: we can never (NEVER!) do evil that good may come of it.

And wartime doesn't justify what is otherwise evil.

Finally, as regards Mr. Trump's intention to kill non-combatants, no one "told" me: I heard him say it, on TV, during one of the debates in the primaries. And, I am aware of the comment you cited, in which he backed away. However, he wasn't being honest there. When he was asked, during the primaries, about "targeting" family members, the person asking him the question specifically referred to killing them, and asked, is this what you mean? And Mr. Trump stood by his intention to "target" them, even when he was asked specifically about killing "non combatants," which is what we're talking about.

The fact that he later saw the need to "clean it up" doesn't mean he didn't say it in the first place, and mean it. You are free to believe he never meant it in the first place; I see no reason why I'm obliged to believe that.
November 15, 2016 at 11:30 AM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...

I do apologize, again, for assuming that you supported George W. Although I think your clarification shows that your strategy is flawed. Your uncompromising 'prolife'presidents -- Reagan and Bush I-- still managed to appoint prochoice supreme court justices, Oconnor, Kennedy, Souter, whereas W solely appointed prolife justices, Alito and Roberts. Perhaps I am again presuming too much in thinking you would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.

Mr. Trump is the first candidate--now president-elect-- to pledge to apply a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates. I don't understand why that didn't 'move the needle' for you. Making pie-in-the-sky pronouncements about 'no exceptions', without revealing a course of action, seems to be a guarantee that Roe v Wade will stand. It certainly worked out that way for 12 straight years of Reagan Bush, whereas at least the partial birth abortion ban was passed under W.

So, I need to back up and please do not be offended...I have to you think reversing Roe v Wade, will save ANY lives?
November 16, 2016 at 11:21 PM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...

Your uncompromising 'prolife'presidents -- Reagan and Bush I-- still managed to appoint prochoice supreme court justices, Oconnor, Kennedy, Souter, whereas W solely appointed prolife justices, Alito and Roberts.

The first part of your statement is true, but the second one assumes facts not in evidence. Justices Alito and Roberts have yet to rule on whether Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be upheld, modified or overturned. So I suggest you are counting your chickens before they are hatched.

Perhaps I am again presuming too much in thinking you would like to see Roe v Wade overturned.

Of course I would like to see it overturned! It boggles my mind that you are confused over this. I fail to see how supporting candidates who are weak on the abortion issue is somehow better than supporting those who are strong. Mr. Trump has answered the questions the right way on some occasions, which is great, but I cannot understand overlooking the many other troubling facts in his record.

Mr. Trump is the first candidate--now president-elect-- to pledge to apply a pro-life litmus test to Supreme Court candidates. I don't understand why that didn't 'move the needle' for you.

May I suggest you read what follows very slowly, since you seem not to be getting this:


Get that? Clear?

Largely because...


Get that? He endorses evil things. Abortion in some cases. Torture. Killing non-combatants.

Saying the right things about abortion during the GOP primary does not wipe all that away.

What I don't understand is how you can wink at all this (not to mention his loathsome behavior toward people who he did business with, his wives, his family, women, veterans and their families, former POWs, illegal immigrants -- it's a really long list). Apparently, none of this matters to you. Mr. Trump said, he could murder someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. That seems to include you. Apparently, Mr. Trump could say and do anything, anything at all, and as long as he claims to be pro-life, you'll support him. Apparently, simply saying the magic words about abortion make any and all other positions irrelevant.

Is that not true? Then please tell me, what precisely he would have to do for you to say, "That's too far; I cannot support him." What would that be?
November 17, 2016 at 11:40 AM
Blogger Kneeling Catholic said...
Father, lemmee see! 'what would that be?'....I might have to get back with you on that. :-)

My argument for supporting Mr. Trump is kind of related to my understanding of doctrine 'ex opere operato'.What I understand that to mean is: 'it would be nice if your plumber is a saint, but it's not necessary for him to be a saint to be a good plumber'. The same holds true for many professions, Trump's and yours included.

My own experience has biased me to think that people who expect you to cut them some slack because of their personal holiness--we had a president like that once--generally aren't very good at their jobs, nor are they especially holy unless you count preening as one of the acts of mercy. But let's say President Carter is on his way to heaven for his virtues and Trump to hell for his lack thereof. If Trump gets Roe v Wade overturned, it will still save thousands of babies lives, just as instituting Roe v Wade surely has cost millions.

Well, I seem to be repeating myself. It has to be time to let you have the last word
November 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM
Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
Kneeling --

So, to be clear, you are willing to vote for any candidate, no matter what other evil things s/he advocates, no matter what other problems, as long as that candidate utters the words, "I will overturn Roe v. Wade"?

You would vote for former KKK grand wizard David Duke, as long as he was for overturning Roe v. Wade. Correct?

In short, your position is, any amount of cooperation with evil is justified if you can overturn Roe in the process.

That's called consequentialism, and it is not Catholic.
November 17, 2016 at 4:30 PM
>>>>>>>>>Kneeling Catholic replies.....
Father, I guess you got me!  You want me to say, even if I knew a former KKK wizard could win with my vote and would certainly save  innocent lives, that I should instead deem it more important to keep my hands KKK clean, even in full knowledge that my abstinence would  allow a wholesale slaughter to continue?  That's more "Catholic"?
Pius XII has been attacked for not making a  blanket condemnation of the Nazis and instead just trying to save the innocent lives which were within his reach.  He directly cooperated with Rome's Nazi ambassador and its Commanding Nazi General Stahel  ( to SAVE LIVES.  I don't think Nazi officials would have been his first choice as cohorts in saving lives.  But they were his only choice.  The scenario you give me is similar in that if Duke were my only choice to save thousands of lives I think I could temporarily cooperate with him even at the risk being labelled a consequentialist. 
As I understand your weighting of issues, Pius XII, being aware of the Nazi horrors--Auschwitz, smokestacks, etc--yet cooperating with Nazi officials, was a consequentialist?

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Never-trumpers are being willfully ignorant of Trump's prolife stance

That does it!

I love these arguments. I hear them often from dear family members.

e.g. Trump is believed to be a  letcher, therefore we are morally obligated to tolerate a rapist, Bill Clinton. (?!!) Logically, declaring Trump morally unfit to be in the White house also declares Mr. Clinton as unfit to be back in the White House.  At their never-Trumper best, these arguments cancel one another out, i.e. one way or another we will be putting  womanizing jerk, perhaps criminal, in the White House. Doesn't this  force us to reevaluate their proposed policies objectively without the above noise?  (we will get to their abortion policies shortly)

For some anti-Trumpers, I am afraid there is simple snobbishness involved. These anti-Trumpers are seeing their  Conservative club inundated with the 'deplorables' i.e. uneducated and/or unemployed people who have never heard of Milton Friedman, or von Mises, people who don't give a damn about America leading the globalist agenda nor our perennial need to antagonize Russia nor our duty to give 3rd world women the opportunity to work in sweatshops to  keep Walmart well-stocked, etc. etc. Trumps pitchfork people want one thing: jobs.  Good paying jobs for MEN who work with their hands making and fixing things. The snobs don't like locking arms with  throwback males who mourn bygone days when their wives could afford to be housewives  (the horror!!), hence the snobs sit on their hands or just vote for Hillary and Bill.

Wednesday night's debate contained a stark exchange over abortion where Trump railed against late-term abortion and stated that Roe v Wade had to be overturned.  This was an exchange over which pro-life never-Trumpers are going to have to show their true colors.  please recall that Trump was attacked prior to the Wisconsin primary both by Planned Parenthood AND BY  REPUBLICANS for his pro-life stance.  Also, remember that  both Bush first ladies, Barbara and Laura( laura for gay marriage AND abortion )were and are pro-choice as was Nancy Reagan.(and also Mrs. John McCain is prochoice ) After seeing how the Bushes cozy up to Hillary for this election, should we really be surprised that the net damage done to Roe v Wade during 20 years of Reagan-Bush was:  NOTHING?

I'm beginning to think that never-Trumpers are less worried that Trump will break his pro-life pledge, and are more worried of how embarrassed they would be if Trump became the first Republican president ever to honor his pro-life pledge!

Either, being pro-life is just window-dressing for the Republican Party...where officials-- once elected--with a wink and a nod-- uphold the abortion status quo, or it is more. Watching so-called pro-lifers stab Mr. Trump in the back makes me wonder if I have been a chump for ever thinking the Bushes and the Reagans and the McCains and the Romneys and  the Becks and the Medveds and the Krauthammers and  the Kasichs and the Kristols and the Shapiros and the Wills ever gave the abortion issue very much importance.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Diamond and Silk fetch smelling salts for Bill Clinton's supporters offended byTrump's braggadocio

I am beginning to think that the Clinton campaign has stumbled into a trap.

Diamond and Silk powerfully point out the irony of those who want to put a rapist back into the white house and yet are offended by a surreptitious recording of Donald Trump bragging to a cohort about his sexploits--real or imagined-- .

Suddenly, we are told by those who say Trump exaggerates and lies about his wealth, that we must take his locker room bragging at face value. Men never lie to their buddies about sexploits! that's a fact.

 I really wonder if those genuinely offended at hearing such language have ever been around enlisted MEN in our nations military, or even around a construction site when men know the womenfolk aren't listening. It is a plain fact that the elite have no such experience.  Thankfully, many of the DeplorABLE have.

(as/I write, the NYT is printing an article about how Planned Parenthood is campaigning against Donald Trump with more money than ever before.)

Monday, July 11, 2016

Trump chooses Dallas Police Chief David Brown as VP Running Mate!

Remember, you heard it here first.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Why is Planned Parenthood only attacking Trump and not his opponents?

Actually this post is about a little more than Planned is a response to Father Guarnizo's post here trump is unstable narcissist
I just could not log in over there because I am boycotting facebook :-)

Your Excellency (and Father G),

Sadly, I must disagree with your post for the following reasons (among others)

1. Regarding Trump being egotistical:  Being mentally bent towards narcissism is not unusual in presidents, nor in presidential candidates. Any 'humility' I see in any of these people reminds me too much of the Holy Father's much heralded humility displays.  Please!.....isn't it better to just be honest about one's raw ambition?

2. Trumps bluster is his negotiating style.  I think he sees himself as able to deliver  about 10% of what he promises.  So he promises 'the world' as his opening position.  Everyone knows he is exaggerating. This is a tactic which allows adversaries to save face when they return home and say, 'if it weren't for me, that crazy man would have gotten the whole world!"

3. Trump is the only presidential candidate  who is dead serious about defending persecuted Christians--even if Israel doesn't like it-- because it favors ISIS (why State of Israel prefers ISIS ).  Trump doesn't root for Turkey when it targeted Russian planes bombing al-Qaeda and ISIS-unlike his Republican opponents, nor does
Trump root for vile punk rock groups who desecrate Russian Churches (as did Cruz in paragraph 5 of this article Ted defends Pussy Riot).  Only Donald Trump has praised Putin for his willingness take action in Syria--and both of you should know that every single Christian in Syria supports Putin's actions against ISIS there.(Russian planes boot ISIS out of Palmyra)  Lastly I don't think Trump would ever get huffy and stomp out of a meeting with persecuted Middle Eastern Christians proclaiming 'I will not stand with you!"  as Cruz did here (I will not stand with you).

4.  Regarding Trump's position on abortion:......Even as I write this, Planned Parenthood is running an ad against Trump
(Planned Parenthood singles out Trump).  Why, Father and your Excellency, isn't Planned Parenthood running an ad against Trump's opponents?  Aren't a person's enemies a good measure of his identity? On the other hand, Ted Cruz is echoing Planned Parenthood's attack,  piling on Trump's comment about punishing women who get abortions....and regarding that! really, forgive me, but I don't see what is so obviously wrong with some sort of punishment, e.g.mandatory community service--for aborting mothers.  They could 'volunteer' in a maternity ward or in a home for severely handicapped infants,    Is it not pure hot-air to say we support passing a law that will have NO penalties, NO penance for about 100% of the law's violators?  Is that what we pro-lifers have been fighting for these past 50 years? a land where it is NOT OK to perform an abortion, but IT IS OK TO HAVE AN ABORTION? Would such a toothless law save one baby's life?  Newcomer Trump is not the only one to misunderstand the Right-to-Life position.  Include me!

I certainly hope I have not overstepped.  I hold you in highest regard.

your loyal sheep,


Sunday, March 13, 2016

Archbishop Broglio of the Military Archdiocese is indignant that a kneeling communicant was denied Holy Communion

I was recently informed about a member of the Armed Services being denied Holy Communion in a military parish because they kneeled for Holy Communion.

Archbishop Broglio, the Archbishop for the Military Services responds.......

I deeply regret this lack of respect to you and your legitimate rights.
You may tell the priest in question that I will not tolerate this disregard for the options of the faithful.
I will also see how I can remind the Army priests in [deleted] about the GIRM.  Unfortunately, not everyone reads carefully everything that is published and promulgated.
May the Lord bless you and give you strength.
Sincerely in Christ,
+Timothy Broglio