I spoke to Fr Leo Pucelli of Holy Cross Family Ministries at the 2018 Catholic Marketing Network Trade Show in Lancaster PA

Their web site is here.


The 2018 Catholic Marketing Network Interview Bloglist (so far)

Sept 20th Voices of CMN 2018: Fr Leo Pucelli of Holy Cross Family Ministries

Sept 19th Voices of CMN 2018 Kathy Labosh Author: The Child with Autism Learns about Faith

Sept 18th Voices of CMN 2018 Francine Calabrese Author: The Little Brown Scapular Coloring Book

Sept 17th Voices of CMN 2018 (and the Front Seat of My Car) Susan Joy Bellavance Author of King of the Shattered Glass and Will you Come to Mass?

Sept 16th Voices of CMN 2018 Pete Socks Breadbox Media Catholic Podcasting

Sept 15th Voices of CMN 2018 Mary Radford of Relevant Radio

Sept 14th Voices of CMN 2018 Karnen Saum of Viva Guadalupe and CMN

Sept 13th Voices of CMN 2018 Peter Kleponis Author Restoring Trust a Couples Guide to getting past porn

Sept 11th Voices of CMN 2018 Mary Lou Rosen Author Three Things Divorced Catholics Need to Know

Sept 10th Voices of CMN 2018 Mariana Quan CCC of America on their Animated Series Lukas Storyteller

Continue reading “Voices of CMN 2018: Fr Leo Pucelli of Holy Cross Family Ministries”

This past Tuesday marked 231st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.  Every year this date should be celebrated by everyone because of the most remarkable nature of that document, which was responsible for this country becoming the freest and wealthiest that ever existed.  Instead the Constitution is held in such ill regard by so many simply because of the indoctrination they received in college, high school, the media, and from friends.  The most common insult hurled at the Constitution is that it is a racist document with the Three-Fifths Compromise as the most damning evidence.  Frederick Douglass debunked that claim back in 1860 when he gave this speech before the Glasgow Emancipation Society.

In this quote he states the purpose of his speech was to refute the false claim that the Constitution is a proslavery document:

The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. I quote his own words: — “Article 1, section 9, provides for the continuance of the African slave trade for the 20 years, after the adoption of the Constitution. Art. 4, section 9, provides for the recovery from the other States of fugitive slaves. Art. 1, section 2, gives the slave States a representation of the three-fifths of all the slave population; and Art. 1, section 8, requires the President to use the military, naval, ordnance, and militia resources of the entire country for the suppression of slave insurrection, in the same manner as he would employ them to repel invasion.

In this next quote he discredits the claim that the Three-Fifths Compromise is racist.  He notes that it only applies to slaves, not free blacks, and that is was an incentive for freeing slaves.

It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.

Frederick Douglass stated in this quote that the Constitution abolishing the slave trade 20 years after ratification was meant to end slavery. .

Men, at that time, both in England and in America, looked upon the slave trade as the life of slavery. The abolition of the slave trade was supposed to be the certain death of slavery. Cut off the stream, and the pond will dry up, was the common notion at the time.

He also points out that the drafters of the Constitution believed that slavery was a dying institution.  At the time of the drafting of the Constitution slavery was not working economically and was collapsing.  It was the invention of the Cotton Gin that made slavery work economically and extended that despicable institution.  It was not invented until after the ratification of the Constitution.  He notes that abolishing the slave trade would have hastened slavery’s demise.

All regarded slavery as an expiring and doomed system, destined to speedily disappear from the country. But, again, it should be remembered that this very provision, if made to refer to the African slave trade at all, makes the Constitution anti-slavery rather than for slavery; for it says to the slave States, the price you will have to pay for coming into the American Union is, that the slave trade, which you would carry on indefinitely out of the Union, shall be put an end to in twenty years if you come into the Union. Secondly, if it does apply, it expired by its own limitation more than fifty years ago. Thirdly, it is anti-slavery, because it looked to the abolition of slavery rather than to its perpetuity. Fourthly, it showed that the intentions of the framers of the Constitution were good, not bad.

Frederick Douglass answers the claim that the framers of the Constitution wrote a proslavery and racist document that did not extend its benefits and protections to those of color.

But it has been said that Negroes are not included within the benefits sought under this declaration. This is said by the slaveholders in America — it is said by the City Hall orator — but it is not said by the Constitution itself. Its language is “we the people;” not we the white people, not even we the citizens, not we the privileged class, not we the high, not we the low, but we the people; not we the horses, sheep, and swine, and wheel-barrows, but we the people, we the human inhabitants; and, if Negroes are people, they are included in the benefits for which the Constitution of America was ordained and established. But how dare any man who pretends to be a friend to the Negro thus gratuitously concede away what the Negro has a right to claim under the Constitution? Why should such friends invent new arguments to increase the hopelessness of his bondage? This, I undertake to say, as the conclusion of the whole matter, that the constitutionality of slavery can be made out only by disregarding the plain and common-sense reading of the Constitution itself; by discrediting and casting away as worthless the most beneficent rules of legal interpretation; by ruling the Negro outside of these beneficent rules; by claiming that the Constitution does not mean what it says, and that it says what it does not mean; by disregarding the written Constitution, and interpreting it in the light of a secret understanding

The Constitution would not have been completed or ratified without the Three-Fifths Compromise, resulting in either a split into two countries or a break up into many smaller countries.  Would the slaves have fared better?  Frederick Douglass answers that question here:

My argument against the dissolution of the American Union is this: It would place the slave system more exclusively under the control of the slaveholding States, and withdraw it from the power in the Northern States which is opposed to slavery.

Although odious on the surface, you can see from the quote that the Three-Fifths Compromise was in the long run meant to be a positive.

Yesterday I saw the news story about the Sesame Street writer who claimed that he wrote Bert and Ernie as Gay, Sesame Street’s response (which I was only half joking as being “no their not, please don’t stop buying our stuff”

Frank Oz, the creator of Bert and Ernie and Muppet master extraordinaire tweet in reply

I was going to leave it there, after all the idea that the institutional left using media to push their message is as television itself but I the convergence of a post at PJ media with an interesting tweet, a post by Stacy McCain on campus activism and a personal experience this week all gelled.

This week my primary co-worker in my day job began a leave to recover from the final operation of what is called “Transition”. The day before I made one last attempt to persuade this person that it’s a bad idea, that such a change is not necessary for said person’s self worth and their value as a person is not defined by such things.

In Massachusetts this is a risky thing to do if you want to keep a job but if you actually care about the well being of someone you will tell them uncomfortable truths even if everyone is going along with this nonsense.

It was to no avail but I further informed said person that regardless of the decision it would not change things between us. I’ve not heard of the results of said operation but I suspect by the time you read this post I’ll have some info.

What does this have to do with Sesame Street and PJ media? Well I was a bit surprised to read that Frank Oz’s tweet produced considerable pushback and anger.

The gay brigade is not taking Oz’s announcement on Twitter very well, but he’s right. People are more than straight or gay. They are funny or smart or evil or myopic. They have likes and dislikes that aren’t tied to what they do in bed and it’s getting extremely boring and insulting to continue to see people through narrow definitions of identity politics instead of seeing them for who they are. Gay is not who you are, it’s just what you like in bed and frankly, no one wants to hear about that. Tell us something interesting about yourself instead. What’s more interesting than what gives you an orgasm is what you think makes a good friend. And Ernie and Bert can answer that one better than anyone.

And the exclamation point is this tweet:

Ah but it turns out that indeed it is and Stacy McCain explains why in an unrelated piece on woke campus activism that we have apparently exported to Australia:

What you will discover, if you examine the types of people attracted to the student “activism” scene, is that most of them are abnormal — and deliberately so. These activists disdain normality as boring. They crave the distinction of being seen as different from their peers, whom they contemptuously regard as a herd of mindless conformists. And so they go shopping around for identities and causes, donning them like costumes, in an effort to display their imagined uniqueness.

Or put simply society has spent two generations telling children that they are special and giving participation awards for just showing up. At the same time we’ve also spent two generations throwing away Christianity, which teaches that people all have intrinsic value as being a child of God and loved by him. So when such people who have been told how special they are come to the self-realization that they are, like most people, ordinary in achievement, ordinary in skill they need something to define themselves as special and worthwhile and that something can’t be Christianity.  That’s where sexual identity comes in, furthermore it’s why we’re up to 72 made up genders and counting because we’ve reached a point where just being “gay” is not unique enough anymore.

CS. Lewis explains this in Screwtape 7

Any small coterie, bound together by some interest which other men dislike or ignore, tends to develop inside itself a hothouse mutual admiration, and towards the outer world, a great deal of pride and hatred which is entertained without shame because the “Cause” is its sponsor and it is thought to be impersonal.

This is why Frank Oz’s statement that Bert isn’t gay has been met with such anger. Generations of people have made gay activists so angry.  If it is true that there is more to being a human being that being “Gay” or “Straight” then the question becomes:  “What have I done with myself besides declaring myself “gay” or “transgender” or one of the other 70+ new genders that I am?  What actual meaning does my life have?

If you want to know why the suicide rate among youth is way it, that’s your explanation.

On the other hand it’s been a great plus for the far left that needs bodies for agitation:

There is a certain percentage of college kids who aren’t happy if they don’t have something to protest against, and in the absence of legitimate issues, they’ll invent something like a “campus rape epidemic” then organize rallies against this imaginary crisis. This is why “climate change” is the perfect cause for student activism — it’s the Snuffleupagus of issues, apparent only to the “enlightened.” Being ostentatiously concerned about global warming is a type of virtue signalling, a way to communicate your own moral and intellectual superiority, which is what most “progressive” activism is really about. Considering themselves too smart to believe in anything as ordinary as Christianity, atheistic youth who fancy themselves to be intellectuals become chumps, easily scammed by promoters of three-card Monte hustles like “climate change.”

Instant meaning and instant value, that’s what this idiocy gives but like any drug it doesn’t last.

This is the cost of a post-christian society an army of people desperately searching for meaning.  The Devil couldn’t be happier.

It’s a very sad thing and such people need our prayers.