Brutally Honest

'If the prevailing philosophy in our society is relativism, then “Who are you to judge?!” is the logical response to make.'

A much needed lesson on judgment from Fr. Longenecker:

Most non-Catholics will take up the fashionable cry, “Who are you to judge?!” whenever anyone disapproves of anything these days. If the prevailing philosophy in our society is relativism, then “Who are you to judge?!” is the logical response to make. If there is no such thing as truth then there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is no such thing as right or wrong, then we may do as we like and you are not to judge me and I am not to judge you. Live and let live.

Yes, but.

Catholics insist that we can make judgements. We make an objective judgement about an action but we do not make a judgement on the person or on the eternal destiny of their soul.

This is the distinction that many secularists and Protestants fail to make. They think that if you judge an action to be wrong, that you must therefore judge the person, condemn the person, isolate and finally eliminate the person.

Catholics should be able, however to step back from judging the person and separate out the action from the individual.

...

Consequently, Catholics are able to make judgements about much more thorny moral issues with objectivity and a shrug of the shoulders because while we judge an action we do not judge the person’s guilt. We do not make a definitive judgement on the person’s guilt because we do not know al the circumstances and motivation.

Most non-Catholics do not understand these distinctions and therefore misunderstand Catholic judgements in two destructive and opposite ways.

Firstly, when they hear us make a judgment about the objective right-ness or wrong-ness of an action they think we are making a judgement on the culpability of the person, and not just the person’s culpability, but also their worth as a person, whether they are a nice person or not or whether we like them or not. So if I say, “Living together before marriage is wrong.” All they hear is a personal judgement and rejection of the person. No matter how much I make the statement objective and non judgmental they hear otherwise.

Secondly, when we do not make a judgement of the person they accept it as condoning the action–which we might very well wish to condemn. So when Pope Francis rightly said he did not judge the gay person the world heard him saying that he did not condemn homosexual actions. Wrong response. He was simply being Catholic in not judging the gay person’s culpability, but if anyone had said, “So Hoy Father does that mean you approve of gay sex?” He would have immediately corrected them.

So can we judge? Yes. We can judge whether an action is objectively right or wrong. We do so not out of our own personal opinion, but based on natural law and divine revelation.

Do we judge the guilt of the person, rejecting or accepting them because of their decision? No. That’s not for us to do either in this world or in the next.

God’s the judge.

Read his entire piece.  It's beautiful stuff.  Enlightening stuff.  

Stuff that ought to be inwardly digested by every thinking and sincere believer yet likely to be ignored by every non-thinking relativist... and sadly, lots of folks who are simply misinformed and care little about changing that state.

Pass it on.  Do a good deed.

What is Palm Sunday?

It occurs to me that many, though they've heard of Palm Sunday, today really know nothing about it, know nothing of its richness and what is being commemorated.

Who better to shed light on this important day and it's meaning than Fr. Robert Barron:

Deacon Greg's dated homily underscores the importance, and the reason, for Palm Sunday:

We need to remember.

Remember that the crowd that cheered Jesus also condemned him.

Remember that the voices praising him also called for his death.

Remember that those who loved him and promised loyalty also abandoned him, denied him, and betrayed him.

And if you want to know who did that, just look at the palm branches in our hands.

We are guilty.

While we may not want to admit it, Christ’s Passion goes on today. Our betrayal of him continues, in ways large and small.

How often do we praise God on Sunday…and damn Him on Monday?

How often do we shrug Him off when things become too difficult or the rules too hard or the demands of the Christian life too taxing?
How often do we treat love as just a sentiment for greeting cards, and not a command for living?

How often do we see suffering in the faces of those in need, and simply turn away?

Christ continues to bleed and weep and cry out, “Why have you abandoned me?” He cries out today to us. Whatever you do to the least of these, he said, you do to me.

What do we do?

We encounter him on the subway, step over him on the sidewalk, and go out of our way to avoid him when we feel like he might make demands on our time.

At the office, we make jokes at his expense, or spread gossip about him at the water cooler. We suck up to people who are more popular, or attractive, or influential at work – and barely give the unimportant person who answers the phone the time of day.

Whether we realize it or not, we see Jesus every day, read about him in the papers, hear about him in the news. He is everywhere there is someone who is small, or neglected, or disrespected, or discarded.

He is with the unwanted and unloved, the bullied and abused.

“Why have you abandoned me?”

Do we hear him?

We find ways to justify our choices. But it can’t be denied. Whenever we choose death over life, sin over the gospel, popularity over integrity, indifference or disdain over love – in short, whenever we have turned away from Christ – we who claim to believe in him have, instead, betrayed him.

We have said, “Give us Barabbas.”

We have said, in effect, “Crucify him.”

And we have done it with palms in our hands and the echoes of “Hosanna” in the air.

We need this Sunday to remember that.

Here's hoping we'll each take a minute today to ponder the day's meaning and be changed in some way by that pondering.

"A gross miscarriage of justice"

Kathy Platoni's piece in the Wall Street Journal should get the widest of attention:

It was more than five years ago that the gunshots rang out, but those of us who survived can still hear their echoes. On Nov. 5, 2009, an Army psychiatrist named Nidal Hasan—an American radicalized by extremist Islamic beliefs—opened fire on his fellow soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 14 people, including an unborn child, and wounding 32.

I was there. A beloved friend, Capt. John Gaffaney, died at my knees. I was slated to become the shooter’s direct supervisor and later learned I was at the top of his hit list.

That day has faded from the minds of most Americans. But the survivors and the families of the deceased continually relive its horror. They also continue to face betrayal by the government they served.

***

At about 1:34 p.m., Hasan, seated in a building on base and armed with an FN five-seven pistol and a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, paused to bow his head. Then he stood up from behind a cubicle, shouted “Allahu akbar!” (God is great) and began spraying bullets throughout the room. Soldiers, including my friend John, charged the shooter but were gunned down before they could reach him.

Hasan took direct aim at those in uniform, including 21-year-old Pvt. Francheska Velez, who had disarmed bombs in Iraq and recently learned she was nine weeks pregnant. One survivor testified that she heard Velez plead, “Please don’t, please don’t. My baby, my baby!” Hasan shot her in the chest. Velez was headed home to Chicago for leave. Instead, she and her child died on the floor at Fort Hood.

The shooter continuously reloaded his weapons as unarmed soldiers tried to escape. After he left the building to continue his rampage, others dashed inside, secured the doors with a belt and began rendering emergency treatment. The floor was so slick with blood that those responding later said they found it hard to reach the wounded and dying.

Hasan exchanged gunfire outside with civilian police Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who was struck in the thigh and femur. As she fell, her weapon reportedly jammed and the shooter kicked it from her grasp. Finally, 10 minutes after the massacre began, Hasan was downed by five shots from another civilian police officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, and taken into custody.

Investigators found 146 shell casings inside the building and another 68 in the surrounding area. The shooter had almost as many unused rounds, 177, tucked in his pockets in 20- and 30-round extended magazines.

Hasan’s goal was to kill as many soldiers as possible. He was cold-eyed and systematic. We should have seen him coming.

The FBI and the Defense Department possessed sufficient information, collected over several years, to have detected Hasan’s radicalization. During his training, Hasan routinely and unmistakably violated strict standards by communicating with suspected terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki—email that the FBI intercepted. In 2007 he was required for his residency to give a scholarly psychiatric presentation. Instead he lectured on Islam, stating that nonbelievers should be beheaded and set on fire, and suggested that Muslim-Americans in the military pose a risk of fratricide. In another talk, Hasan justified suicide bombings on grounds that the U.S. is at war with Islam.

Both an instructor and a colleague referred to Hasan as a “ticking time bomb.” But his shocking conduct was ignored. Officer-evaluation reports “sanitized his obsession with violent Islamist extremism into praiseworthy research on counterterrorism,” a 2011 congressional review states. Political correctness, to which the military continues to bow, led many to fear that reporting Hasan would result in career-ending charges of racial or religious discrimination.

***

It is a gross miscarriage of justice that no one who supervised the shooter—overlooked his behavior and promoted him—has been held accountable. 

The rest, detailing what victims have experienced since that shooting, should be read by all.

The cancer that is political correctness is in fact an idol, refocusing society from actual truth to manipulative faux truth purposed in establishing a new social standard.

Sadly, we are allowing it to happen to us largely because we're so quick to turn our backs on Truth Himself.

The Rev. Val J. Peter expounds, in part:

Every epoch, including our own, has its own idols. One of our challenges is to find ways to avoid the Gospels being shackled in service to them.

Political correctness is one of the idols or secular sins of our times. Sometimes it is described as being trendy, up-to-date, attuned to the times and worthy of praise. Political correctness is not the same as being stylish or following the fads in the clothing industry. There is correctness there, but it is not political. It is different from the cultural norms of society, which involve customs and mores. European society is different from African society. The difference is not about political correctness. New England hospitality is different from southern hospitality. That is not about political correctness. Political correctness has to do with movements that set a new social standard to be imposed on others by an elite group. What makes it a scourge is that it insists on forced conformity for the sake of conformity.

Political correctness has been around for centuries. What is new in this post-modern age is the use of super sophisticated tools of social manipulation to help people gradually change their view without being conscious of these efforts of social manipulation.

...

Pope John Paul II reminded the bishops of Ireland in June 1999: "Christianity teaches the truth, a truth which, we ourselves, have not devised, but which comes to us as a gift . . . " He then added that they should "proclaim the truth courageously, even if what you teach sometimes goes against socially accepted opinion."

In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II said: "If there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power".

Read the whole thing.

Be aware of what's happening and pray for a turning tide.

"It is the truth of a belief, not the failure or success of alleged followers to live up to that truth, that is of importance."

Padre Steve brings us a must read Michael Coren piece on the movie that helped him come back to his Catholic roots:

I originally wrote about The Passion of the Christ the week it opened in theatres. I stated how excited I had been before I saw the film and how disappointed I was afterwards. Many supported me in my views, many opposed me. Sadly, the majority of the latter were abusive. It was a sobering experience.

Months later, I have watched Mel Gibson’s version of the death of Jesus Christ on the newly released DVD. I still believe that this work should have been different in various ways. Yet now I have seen, or allowed myself to see, what lies at the very core of The Passion. The Eucharist.

The epicentre, the quintessence of the Christian faith, was no symbolic act but a literal instruction. “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.” And “Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.”

What had been a barrier has now become a bridge. A connection between a broken, smashed and needy creature like me and his perfect and glorious creator. The great paradox of God. In so simple a matter as a wafer is the most wonderful gift in all the world. Given at a very great price indeed.

All of it should be read, and when read, these pertinent paragraphs should leap out at the reader:

Any spiritual journey is part intellectual, part emotional, part visceral, part supernatural. The path winds and turns and around each corner is revelation and wisdom. I’ve read a great deal of theology and have enormous respect for the great reformers. I love and know my Bible, including the passages that will surely be quoted to me by those who regret my swim across the Tiber.

Do not tell me about historical failings or current problems because I’ve heard them all. I’ve met lapsed Catholics and lousy Catholics as well as good Catholics and glorious Catholics. Not relevant. It is the truth of a belief, not the failure or success of alleged followers to live up to that truth, that is of importance.

I’m a miserable sinner. But at least I know it. Please pray for me. Or, if you can’t, try to tolerate me.

Amen.  A thousand amens.

"Ominous signs for the Democrats"

This from Salon no less:

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins. According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

So why are white Catholics abandoning the Democratic Party? There are some long-term trends at play. 

Interesting piece.  Some might even call it hopeful.

Read the whole thing.

“I’m not a Catholic,” [Al] Gore said, “but I could be persuaded to become one.”

It all depends on Pope Francis apparently:

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune.

Gore said forward-thinking investors are moving away from companies that invest in fossil fuels and towards companies investing in renewable energy. “We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore told the Chicago Tribune, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”

...

The former Veep even gave a nod to Pope Francis during his talk, showing a slide of the pontiff and saying “How about this Pope?” Pope Francis celebrated his two-year anniversary as Pope on Friday, riding a wave of popularity “that has reinvigorated the Catholic Church in ways not seen since the days of St. John Paul II,” said the Chicago Tribune. Gore said he was looking forward to the Pope’s highly anticipated encyclical on the environment which is due to be released in June or July. “I’m not a Catholic,” Gore said, “but I could be persuaded to become one.”

A tiny voice tells me that hell would freeze over before Al Gore becomes Catholic but... hey... I'm open to the possibility.

Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome - The Alt Archives

I was most pleased to stumble today across this archive of posts put together by Scott Eric Alt chronicling the prevailing idiocy passed along by a wide variety of buffoons (sadly including Rush Limbaugh who has dropped a number of notches down my respect ladder due to his repeated manifestations of PFDS).  

I guess I shouldn't be so hard on them.  I was once a buffoon in that I would parrot much of what I'd heard about Catholicism, more times than not in complete ignorance.  And that it seems is what's happening here.

There are now 11 volumes posted at Scott's place and I'm sure there'll be more.  Here's an excerpt of his latest related piece:

Pope Fran­cis Derange­ment Syn­drome, in the sec­u­lar media, has reached a crit­i­cal mass where more and more poor souls are report­ing them­selves shocked, shocked to find that the pope is Catholic. Such gasps would trickle in before, but now they seem to be more fre­quent. Just this week­end there were two melt­downs in the lib­eral press: the first at Mar­ket­Watch, over the shock­ing dis­cov­ery that the pope is not in favor of con­tra­cep­tion; the sec­ond at the Daily Screech, over the shock­ing dis­cov­ery that the pope is not in favor of gen­der the­ory. I mean, how could such things be? And you really have to mar­vel when one of these scrib­blers turns out to be a the­ol­ogy pro­fes­sor at a uni­ver­sity that is, so we are told, Catholic. I under­stand that there are dis­si­dents at Notre Dame—we all know that!—but that any of them should be gape-jawed to learn that the pope is Catholic is a mat­ter of pro­found won­der to me. Per­haps it shouldn’t be, but it is.

I begin at Mar­ket­Watch, where Paul Far­rell writes to tell us that “Pope Fran­cis really is a cap­i­tal­ist.” Well, this will be news to Rush Lim­baugh and Adam Pshaw (he spells it “Shaw”). But Mr. Far­rell is not cowed by such names. “For­get his ant­i­cap­i­tal­ist, anti­con­sumerism rhetoric,” he says with a scorn­ful wave of the hand. The pope is a cap­i­tal­ist! and the rea­son he knows this is because the pope speaks out against arti­fi­cial birth con­trol. Watch how Mr. Far­rell makes this sin­gu­lar and aston­ish­ing leap...

It is indeed quite the leap.  Go read the rest and minimally be entertained but more likely be educated.

And keep an eye out for new posts in the series.

PFDS hasn't reached epidemic status just yet but that could certainly become a possibility as the press continues to find evidence supporting the Pope's Catholicity.

Carry on.

Compare & Contrast; Jihad/Crusades, Mohammed/Jesus

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen 

Even though it's Friday, due to the events of the last week I thought a music video seemed rather inappropriate.

First, found this wonderful, short video over at fellow guest blogger Morgan Freeberg's place that destroys the woefully inaccurate and adolescent comparison of the Crusades and Jihad  -

Next up, a video by Steven Crowder that satirically but accurately compares Jesus and Mohammed:

Have a safe and wonderful weekend, all you Infidels.

"It is not considered acceptable in polite company to entertain this possibility"

An atheist takes on comparing and contrasting religions:

The Charlie Hebdo massacre once again has politicians and the media dancing around the question of whether there might be something a little bit special about this one particular religion, Islam, that causes its adherents to go around killing people.

It is not considered acceptable in polite company to entertain this possibility. Instead, it is necessary to insist, as a New York Times article does, that “Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions.” This, mind you, was in an article on how Muslims in the Middle East are agonizing over the violent legacy of their religion.

It is obviously true that all major religions have had violent periods, or periods in which the religion has coexisted with violence. Even those mellow pacifist Buddhists. These days, especially the Buddhists, who are currently fomenting a pogrom against a Muslim minority in Burma.

But in today’s context, it’s absurd to equate Islam and Christianity. Pointing to the Spanish Inquisition tends to undermine the point rather than confirm it: if you have to look back three hundred years to find atrocities, it’s because there are so few of them today. The mass crimes committed under the name of Islam, by contrast, are fresh and openly boasted about.

As an atheist, I have no god in this fight, so to speak. I don’t think the differences between religions make one more valid than another. But as the Charlie Hedbo attack reminds us, there is a big practical difference between them. In fact, the best argument against the equivalence of Christianity and Islam is that no one acts even remotely as if this were true. We feel free to criticize and offend Christians without a second thought—thanks, guys, for being so cool about that—but antagonizing Muslims takes courage. More courage than a lot of secular types in the West can usually muster.

So it’s a matter of some practical urgency to figure out: what is the difference? What are its root causes?

Robert Tracinski, the author, attempts to answer those questions and much more.

Fascinating piece.  Read it and learn something.  Hell, learn lots of things.

Carry on.

Everything you wanted to know about techno/science geeks...

... and all of it coming to light thanks to The Anchoress:

3) A comet scientist who has just helped to land a probe on to a comet is unlikely think think, “oh, I’m going to be interviewed, so I’d better take off this inappropriate-but-geeky shirt full of sexy-women- with-guns on it, which was designed by a female friend.”

4) Because techno/science geeks are sweet-natured, if a tweeting malcontent urinates on a great moment for science because she doesn’t like the inappropriate-but-geeky shirt, they will quickly and — unfortunately — tearfully apologize for giving offense.

5) Because techno/science geeks rarely-unto-never set out to demand attention, declare victimhood for themselves or deliberately offend their fellow humans, they don’t really understand that there are some people in the world who live to take umbrage, find things to be offended about, and make people cry.

6) These umbrage-taking, offense-seeking people mewling about the travesty of shirts bearing sexy-women-with-guns tend to be the same sorts of people who believe that when Kim Kardashian props herself up as a plasticine-nude cocktail shelf, she has offered conclusive and empowering proof that mothers can be sexy, or something. For the sake of the world.

That's four things, she's got six more at her place. 

Read the whole thing.  You'll learn lots about your average techno/science geek and more about your average wacko/feminist freak.