Monday, March 8, 2010


Over the last few weeks, there have been quite a number of comments.

First, I thank those who read this blog and are so inclined to comment. I attempt to post as many as possible but there have been a few which I have deleted.

I have noticed a real change in the tone of the comments over the last few weeks. And to be quite honest, I do not appreciate the tone. These comments are the product of a small number of readers.

So, I will ask again, to please be civil in your comments.

If you cannot be civil, then do not comment.

Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Let's start from scratch, in going back to the following recommendation posted by the Archdiocese of Washington Catholic author in a previous post:

"That call should be: "Do not get involved in contracts with government." This call should not be based on the so called 'separation of church/state.' It is more along the lines that when you take money from the government, you almost become addicted to it. You will do almost whatever it takes to keep from losing it, including keeping silent at times.

I believe, and I have done so for a long time, that we should divest ourselves of all government contracts.

That observation hits an extremely important target. If the divesting were to be done, it would need to be done through a phrasing out policy, or it would have to be immediately replaced with a number of fund raising campaigns. This is where religious orders come in handy.

At the same time, there has to be an admission that some contract services really weren't all that necessary. Plus, the church can't expect to continue making income via government contracts simply because of the size of the national debt.

The alternative would be to let things fall into place. Then, departments reorganize. And maybe someone knocks on a church door here, or rings up a church office there, saying, "Excuse me, but we need such and such. Can you provide it?"

The surmise was that the church's involvement with government contracts was merely an excuse to make money. However, the first objective of the church is to not compromise with any entity to the point of being an accomplice of that entity's mortal sins; especially those sins that have been institutionalized. This includes the entity known as government.

You know, the church changed Ireland. Ireland didn't change the church. Then, after the church changed Ireland, Ireland went out and changed Europe for the better. So, in America, the objective to NOT accommodate the ongoing chaos of moral anarchy, no matter how much government contract money is offered to you. The objective is to end the chaos.

Should the Catholic Church once again perform its duty as Conscientious Objector (regarding legalized mortal sins), do you think that God will let the church be cast aside and ignored to the point of dissolving? Don't you think that God will then be confronted with the moral obligation to provide for a church that took a valiant stand, foregoing contract money in preference for a clear conscience?

The Catholic population in America is so huge that it is bewildering as to why there has been fear of a handful of politicians, even though it is obvious that such a fear involves the church's tax exempt status and government contract participation. Having a nexus with (an association with) a government that legalized a series self annihilating crimes against God and man is deadly for any community, including the Catholic Church.

Declining to accommodate those sins has nothing to do with being anti-American. This is because the particular legalized sins in question were unheard of in the America of the 1950s, the 1870s, and even the 1790s.

Of course, a political operative might state that America has been un-American in all this time.
Even at that, it is not a matter of being American vs. un-American. It's a matter of being a descent human being. It's also a matter of knowing that, in the end, all people end up in a spiritual terminal where the flights take off to either Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell. The state in which you leave this life is the state in which you enter the next one. If you accommodate a mortal sin, you become mortal sin. One's eternal destiny is the single most important consideration in anyone's life.

Tom in Vegas said...

I don't envy your surroundings. Living in Washington DC, where so many of these duplicitous political hacks swear up and down they're faithful Catholics, then vote (conduct) themselves in a manner that is diametrically opposed to just about every Church teaching there is would drive me insane.

And to be at such close proximity to Pelosi and Biden!

I will keep you and the Washington, DC diocese in my prayers.

Tom in Vegas said...

I don't envy your surroundings. To be in a city full of duplicitous political hacks, many of which swear they're faithful Catholics then cast their votes in favor of issues that are diametrically opposed to Church teaching, would drive me insane.

And to be at such close proximity to Pelosi and Biden!

I will keep you and the Diocese of DC in my prayers.

Anonymous said...

Tom in Vegas, you are not alone. Hearing the hypocrisy of those politicians is what makes you feel as if spools of razor wire were suddenly wrapped around you and tightened in one fast swoop.

If those politicians refuse to be Catholic, then they should be honest enough to admit it. But of course, the reason why they present themselves as Catholics is obvious. These politicians want the Catholic vote.

Interesting, Tom, how the politicians highly value the Catholic vote as a precious metal, yet they treat the actual Catholic as a worthless and non-descript entity.

You know what? Instead of calling yourself Tom In Vegas, you should add luminosity to your name and call yourself, Tom IS Vegas.

Go in style, Tom. And be good, Robin Hood --- especially in Vegas.

Anonymous said...

The Archdiocese of Washington Catholic blogger stated that the tone of the comments of the past few weeks had been changed and that he/she didn't like the tone. That statement calls for a response.

The tone of the comments match the tone of the articles. For example, the blogger twice posted an article urging people to not give to the archbishop's appeal fund. He then enumerated his grievances against that archbishop. As a result, comments in relative concurrence with at least the author's final recommendation were posted. Yet, he would later come to say that he didn't like the the tone of the comments. That would mean that he/she didn't like the article he/she posted twice.

In two other articles, the blogger objected to the ADW's honoring of certain pro-abortion celebrities. As a result, one of the celebrities was called a disgrace by a commenter. Furthermore, in one of the articles, the blogger wrote, "For Shame Donald Wuerl." That would constitute a changed tone. In the same tone was an article titled "Someone Has Some 'Splaining to do," as well as another one titled, "Time To Go." In fact, there was even a sarcastic satire on global warming recently posted.

These articles have comments which match their tones. The blogger is the one who set the tone that he/she now condemns. The tone of the articles amount to the blogger proverbially sticking his neck out. So, it seemed to be a reflex action to support some of the blogger's beliefs on the comment board, in order to protect him/her from the potential character assassinations that might come from a political operative. In light of this, it is reasonable to see why such a blogger would keep himself anonymous enough to not have posted his name in neon lights.

It is not expected that everyone will agree with everything asserted by the ADW Catholic blogger, in matters of political policy or even church administration. I don't. But, there are issues that have no debate in the true Catholic world. The communion issue and the abortion on demand issue would be two issues without warranted debate.

This particular article came about as a result of a very short-term phase of imprudently written comments. The imprudence can be attributed to the archbishop's noted ability of bringing out the worst in everyone, in the grief he causes. Plus, time is no longer an expendable luxury, at this hour. One thing is for certain. If the archbishop of Washington were someone different than the one there today, the comments posted here in past few weeks would never have been posted.

The recent news from Germany was enlightening in that it shows a plausible reason why certain things in need of change will be neglected and allowed to continue on their present courses. The news suggests that certain bishops who should be removed will be left to remain in power, because the one empowered to remove such bishops doesn't want to be called the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black."

Perhaps the sum total of issues needed to be addressed and acted upon is too overwhelming for any single blogger. None the less, there is work to be done. One cannot deny that we live in an era where evils move in a stampede fashion. Thus, it is time for a rally to be done in the fashion of a Saint Michael the Archangel, but only in human form. The question is where out there would such a rally point would be.