Although I have and will continue to hit back at those maliciously attacking the Church in General and the Pope in particular, none of this changes our obligation to pray for these people and to keep them in our prayers.

If we fail to do so, we fail as Christians in general and Catholics in particular

I would really like to see what “experts” are saying the Catholic Church is in turmoil. It is not for nothing that the story has a big correction at its head.

I submit that cafeteria Catholics and the media are seeing and trying to make turmoil where it doesn’t exist. As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio… said

called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

via Brutally Honest.

If the media bothered to look they would notice the huge attendance at events like the Catholic men’s conference among Catholics who actually believe and attend mass.

If Catholicism is so weak why was such a fuss made when dissenting nuns supported it? If Catholic opinion doesn’t matter why fund pseudo Catholic groups? In my opinion it is no coincidence that the scandals that struck the church were at their height as the church walked away from traditional practices.

I would suggest going to the Anchoress site and reading the whole thing as opposed to say Morning Joe trumpeting the BS class action case against the pope is a great example of this nonsense propagating the “big lie“:

Which brings us to Crimen sollicitationis. The document was crafted to ensure that if a Catholic were solicited to commit a sexual sin by a priest while going to confession, he or she could denounce that priest without being exposed to public scandal. Sinead O’Connor (and many, many others who have been flogging this particular Big Lie) have it precisely backwards. Crimen sollicitationis was not written to protect sexually abusive priests from punishment; it was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession. In fact, the protections required by Crimen sollicitationis encouraged victims of abuse to come forward. By requiring secrecy of the bishop and priests who handled any complaint about a priest-confessor who was a sexual predator, the Church tried to protect the confidentiality of the confessional and the privacy of the victim, not to prevent the crime from being reported to the police by the victim, who was never under any obligation of secrecy. The appropriate analogy is not to some Mafia-like international criminal conspiracy, but to the secrecy of those newspapers that choose not to print the names of rape victims.

The ignorance of American Catholics concerning their own faith in criminal, ironically foes of the church are using that ignorance to allow the former Bishops in Milwaukee to pass onto the pope their responsibility for turning a blind eye to their own problems.

Any Catholic who uses the New York Times in general and Maureen Dowd in particular as a source for their opinion of their church has real problems. Perhaps if they talked to the actual priest who served as the Judicial Vicar in the Milwaukee case they might learn something, oh sorry the NYT didn’t bother to even ask for an interview.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My suggestion to Mika and Barnicle is to read the whole thing until they have done so their comments on the case are simply uninformed gibberish. Perhaps they should try talking to or interviewing Fr. Thomas Brundage themselves before they jump on the Dowd bandwagon.

Update: I of course meant the “Dowd” bandwagon rather than the “Down” in the last sentence. I’ve corrected it.

…something we mentioned last night at the Twin City Tea Party:

* 1) Do not allow yourself or another Tea Partier to be taunted or provoked into saying or doing anything that could be interpreted as racist or violent. Always be civil and act intelligently. You never know when you are being recorded.
* 2) Take a video camera with you and record the faces of anyone instigating or participating in any such incidences so that they can be identified later.

Remember we will be defined by the media by our least flattering picture.

…on what to do to fight big government if you live in an uncompetitive district. My two favorites:

“Campaign against your local Congress critter regardless. Donate to his opponents. Even if he wins in spite of your efforts the strength of the opposition may worry him and affect his votes. And you might beat him. Who expected us to win Kennedy’s seat (sic) in Mass.?”

I like that suggestion a lot, it was lonely holding that McCain/Palin sign but it made people know someone else was there.

Another reader emails: “I live within 100 miles of a Dem congressman’s district in my state. He voted against the bill. BUT…before the vote I called his office and informed them I will contribute to his opponent if the Democrats pass this. AND I told them I will drive the 1 1/2 hours to help his opponent knock on doors, stuff envelopes, answer phones, get out the vote….whatever it takes to defeat him. As a clincher, I told them I am unemployed thanks to his party’s policies. I’ll have plenty of time to devote to his opponent.”

…if I had any more to add I would suggest some publicity perhaps hiring a fellow with a fedora to cover your candidate for a week.

…not in terms of entertainment, Willie and Savannah are entertaining, (I really think the show is a good influence on younger journalists in the sense that it keep them from taking themselves too seriously, that will pay dividends, both personal and professional, for decades) but in terms of balance.

Item: The Wet sloppy kiss stuff continues, Pat was outnumbered 3-1 and discussing the poll without not pointing to the skew of the poll sample. It’s not hard to get a 53% approval when you have a 10 point democratic vs republican sample.

Item: They have talked about Sarah Palin only 4-1, O’Donnell gets props for pointing out that without Palin there would not be a strong counter point. Unfortunately for some reason although they’ve talked about her appearing for McCain (calling it uncomfortable). Not a word about the “dozens” in Searchlight.

Item: We are about to have our second hit on the Pope with Pat outnumbered 3-1 this time (Norah O’Donnell has joined the table along with Mark Penn), they are quoting Maureen Dowd, always an unbiased source on the church. O’Donnell is of course talking about “bringing down the church”. Pat brings up yet again that the liberal Milwaukee diocese role and the fact that the case came to the then Cardinal Ratzinger two months before the priest in question died. It was also very dishonest to suggest that the Pope reference to “gossip” was about the abuse in Milwaukee rather than the allegations people are trying to make against him.

It is not quite 8 a.m. yet EST so maybe we will see something different but it would be nice to see at least one more Conservative sitting at that table. I think it can be done without too many MSNBC viewers going Kryten.

Oh boy 8 a.m. and the Kelly O’Donnell joins the table creating as Savannah put it an “O’Donnell sandwich”, (I shudder to think what Stacy & Ace will do with that image.) that will add to the media balance, I do give Kelly full marks for pointed out how the Democrats managed to avoid recess to keep President Bush from doing recess appointments during his last term.

Update: Did I just hear Norah O’Donnell call the tea party people “good hard working Americans”? Did she point out the number of women as leaders? And then she goes and spoils it by repeating the Pope BS. Oh well. You take what I can get.