The Orthometer via the Curt Jester cuts though the nonsense concerning the Fr. Cutie scandal:

He is unapologetic about it. He only regrets causing people pain, not violating his promises, not committing the mortal sin of adultery (the woman is evidently a divorcee). He is so unrepentant that he went on national TV where he said that celibacy is good, but it should be optional for priest. (And the man caught in adultery said, “Marital fidelity is a beautiful thing, but it should be optional.”)

Fr. Richtsteig then hits another:

If you want to know what I think about priests “falling in love” and leaving, read this. Said briefly, it is the equivalent of a married man falling in lust with another woman and leaving his family because he can’t control his hormones. Human beings are rational animals not just animals. Yes, we have feelings, but we use our mind and will to discern which are in accord with God’s will and should be acted upon.

I am also not much interested in ‘dialoguing’ with those include Cutie who want to use this challenge the Church’s apostolic teaching on celibacy. One does not need to be sexually active and/or married to lead a normal life or be free from loneliness. No one ever died or became ill from not having sex. If you think optional celibacy is the or a panacea for problem clergy, take a long hard look at Orthodox, Protestant, or Jewish clergy.

We all struggle with our own temptations, I know I do and the Curt Jester has solid advice on it:

He said that he had been under spiritual direction since he was tempted against celibacy and that this is something he struggled with. Too bad he did not take this temptation more seriously and worked to avoid situations where he would be tempted. Becoming a minor celebrity and media personality and being nicknamed “Father Oprah” was probably not the most prudent course if you are particularly tempted in this manner. We should flee from those situations where we know we are easily tempted.(emphasis mine)

Not doing so is like eating food that you know you are allergic to.

Like Mika I’m starting to get Miss Californiaed out but the Anchoress makes a point that is worth quoting:

Let this be a lesson to young ladies everywhere, but especially young ladies who profess Christ; if you’re going to take off your top for a camera, be prepared (sooner or later) to have to answer for it, both in this world, and the next. But in this world, the chances are you will have to defend your nudity against the jeers, sneers and fake prudery of those “open-minded” folks who would never, for an instant, tolerate anyone telling them what they should or should not do with their own bodies, but will crucify you for the choices you made with your own. You’ll have to answer for it because when you profess yourself a Christian, you choose exile, and you will be held to a different standard, entirely, than the world’s.

And that is not a bad thing, but you girls must think about that.

In the next world, of course, you’ll have to answer to Christ, himself, who is much more merciful than the rest of us. He will likely ask you why you threw your pearls before swine.

He may gently ask you if you realized at the time that your actions could lead others into sin, by helping them to treat another human being (you) as a “thing”.

And I can tell you from personal experience: that is one awful question to have to contemplate and answer.

This is the cellphone internet business squared.

…against the barbarians lined up against them, but you know as a Catholic the idea that the Pope owes the state of Israel an apology for the Holocaust is not only nonsense but in my opinion requires an apology for the attempt to hang Hitler’s final solution around the neck of my church in general and this Pope in particular.

The democratic state of Israel is waging a just struggle against lying barbarians who would slaughter them all and then cheer. They deserve support and as a civilized man I am obliged to give it. The Jewish race and religion are the older brothers of my Catholic faith. They are no less God’s people then they were when God spoke to Abram. They deserve respect. These are facts and one insult is not going to change it, but I’m feeling very Josey Walesish today.

Here is the speech in question:

BTW I want to again give Israellycool big props. I suspect we don’t agree on this issue but he posted the speech in full and linked to the reactions so people could make up their own mind. He has been very fair and to continue the metaphor from above, brothers disagree and get angry on occasion, but that doesn’t mean we don’t stick together.

You know everything the Pope does gets worldwide attention. When he lifted the excommunication on the St. Pius X society “bishops” the press took the opportunity to jump on him as an anti-Semite. I wonder what they will say after today:

Taking the podium after the pope without being on the original list of speakers scheduled for the evening, Tamimi, speaking at length in Arabic, accused Israel of murdering women and children in Gaza and making Palestinians refugees, and declared Jerusalem the eternal Palestinian capital.

Following the diatribe and before the meeting was officially over, the pope exited the premises.

Apparently a few years ago the guy tried the same thing with John Paul II.

Damian Thompson comments:

I reckon the Holy Father responded appropriately. He didn’t precipitate a diplomatic incident by refusing to shake the speaker’s hand, but by leaving before the meeting was over he made it absolutely plain that the Vatican does not take sides in the Israel-Palestine dispute.

The American Papist comments and notes a parallel:

Pope Benedict is a model of Catholic dialogue. Evidently there are some cases of “dialogue” that are actually “false dialogue”. If Pope Benedict is willing to walk out of a dialogue he sees as unfruitful and even harmful, what should that tell us about avoiding situations of dialogue that contradict our Catholic principles?

Oh and PS … the “Notre Dame Center”?!

Hint Hint!

LGF notes it. Gateway Pundit does too.

Nothing yet from Atlas or Yourish but Isreallycool has coverage of the trip and reveals that apparently the pope can’t please anyone, certainly not the former chief Rabbi of Israel:

“A few points were missing in the pope’s address,” said Lau. “There was no mention of the Germans, or Nazis, who carried out the massacre. There was not a word of sharing the grief or of compassion or pain for the six million victims.”

“Instead of the word ‘murdered,’ as the previous pope John Paul II used,” Lau continued, Benedict XVI used the word ‘killed.’ There is a very clear difference between the two verbs,” the former chief rabbi stressed.

The youtube of the “offensive” speech is at his site…

…oh and by the way in case you didn’t notice the Palestinians are STILL sending rockets into Israel.

Update: Glenn comments:

Hey, you can’t have meaningful dialogue with some people. So why pretend?

Update 2: Atlas Shrugs asks the question:

What was the Pope expecting? Hasn’t he read the Quran? This was pious speech! As if these savages were capable of “peace” — it is an anathema to islamic doctrine. They will never accept a Jewish state.

It’s not a question of what do you expect. The pope since he is the pope is going to treat everyone he meets with Christian love and respect. It’s up to that person to earn it. This one didn’t.

The other McCain throws a shot at LGF:

Following the diatribe and before the meeting was officially over, the pope exited the premises. Army Radio reported that the pope shook Tamimi’s hand before walking out.
The Pope was immediately denounced as a “Eurofascist” and a “notorious Pamela Geller sympathizer” by the Little Green Footballs blog.

I might have added that last part.

Update 3 Hotair’s headlines notice

Update 4 The Anchoress:

Some forums are complaining that the pope didn’t leave in the middle of the speech. Some are complaining that he shook the sheikh’s hand on the way out. I say give the Holy Father props for maintaining the absolute minimum diplomatic courtesy to a very discourteous person and then absenting himself from this evil. I say give him some props for appearing to be the last man on the international stage with some both dignity and moxie.

Update 5: I guess we now know what they will say. Why am i not even slightly surprised?

…hasn’t commented on the Notre Dame Scandal on his blog. In fact his last post was back in march.

I’d be really interested in knowing what the school’s or his position on the Notre Dame scandal is. As the president of a Catholic University who has assured me in writing that

we proclaim and practice our core identity as a Catholic and sisters of St. Anne institution in the classroom, through our programs and services, and in our practices on and off campus.

I would think he would have an opinion on the subject. A search of google news doesn’t show any hits for him. I think it would be interesting to know what he and other presidents of Catholic Universities think about this.

With Mary Ann Glendon out of the picture I think the choice of a substitute speaker is a bad choice, if you are going to go with the president, you should have someone who complements him. Cassy Fiano has found the lady:

Of course, leave it to a rabid pro-abortionist like Jessica Ferrar to see otherwise. She’s a Texas state representative, recently honored by Planned Parenthood and the proud owner of a 100% NARAL approval rating.

Hey that’s Obama too it’s a match:

She’s currently trying to force through a bill that would make Catholic hospitals be required to dispense the morning-after pill.

Sounds like the freedom of choice act, right in his wheelhouse:

Her latest bright idea? To decriminalize infanticide. Introducing Texas HB 3318, the first of its kind in the entire country, known as “the infanticide bill”. It defines infanticide as:

A person commits an offense if the person wilfully by an act or omission causes the death of a child to whom the person gave birth within the 12-month period preceding the child’s death

The bill says that infanticide should not be prosecuted as murder, though, as long as:

… at the time of the act or omission, the person’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth.

Infanticide would become a felony, punishable by no more than two years in prison, with a minimum of 180 days, and/or a fine of no more than $10,000.

That sounds odd but consider that in Texas…

This bill was passed by the Texas State Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 7 to 1 on April 28th

7-1 hey that’s where the votes are so Fr Jenkins can use her to have a conversation. And she’s Catholic!

Via gateway pundit.
Continue reading “Here comes the future”

…then I can’t see how Notre Dame can’t back down:

After talking to President Barack Obama on the phone today, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says he believes the White House will move swiftly on its Supreme Court nominee, perhaps making an announcement by the end of this week.

Obama made no timing commitments to the Utah Republican, but the senator, who has been in the middle of several pitched Supreme Court battles, said: “I’d be surprised if it went beyond this week. … I would think by the end of this week or over the weekend, he’ll nominate somebody. I’m sure they’ve discussed this internally, back and forth for months now.”

What will they say when he names a strong pro abortion candidate? How will they justify it then? Of course if that doesn’t happen then, WOAH!

Got an e-mail from a protestant friend (it was part of a blast e-mail to acquaintances of his) It was a long e-mail concerning final judgment quoting various Biblical verses. I thought it wasn’t bad but was incomplete in several ways. Here is the reply I sent:

A good passage but never forget that everyone will face their own judgment day at the hour of their death. It is more important to remember to prepare for that day. If you look too far ahead you can trip.

Also don’t forget that two other passages that are significant:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’ 12 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” Matt (7:22:27)

And Paul echoes Christ in terms of action:

Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. 9 (1 Cor 9 24-27)

Both Christ and Paul are not talking about physical death; that happens to all men (and I of course use men in it’s broadest sense as the species) So one should remember to follow up. Remember it was the apple of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected. Once they understood the difference the responsibility of salvation fell on them. That is why the paragraph concerning judgment begins with those who obey the gospel. When you know something you have a greater responsibility that if you don’t.

Now here is the e-mail I received. My comments are in Bold italic: Continue reading “Lets talk “the end times””