CNN's Whitfield on Notre Dame Scandal: Have Catholics 'Evolved' on the Moral Issues?

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

Minutes after she praised President Obama for his “courageous” decision to accept the invitation to speak at Notre Dame, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield played the role of liberal advocate for the president’s commencement address, grilling one Catholic guest who questioned the university’s decision, while going easy on her other guest who was happy to see Obama speak there. Just as MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell had done on May 14, Whitfield equivocated between the issues of abortion and the death penalty, along with war, in her question to Raymond Arroyo of the Catholic television network EWTN: “So does the death penalty fall into that and also wars...does that fall into that as well?”

Later, when Arroyo brought up how the Catholic teaching on abortion wouldn’t change, even if most of the Notre Dame graduates agreed with the decision to bring the president to campus, the CNN anchor replied, “Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things....Perhaps, it means that there’s a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say...once upon a time there wasn’t.” [Due to the large amount of transcript, the entire text of both segments of the two segments can be read here. Audio clips from both segments are available here.]

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Twenty-one minutes into the 2 pm Eastern hour, as President Obama was getting ready to receive the honorary law degree at Notre Dame, Whitfield brought on Arroyo and the Reverend James Martin, a Jesuit priest with the generally-liberal Catholic publication American magazine, during two points in the lead up to Obama’s address for a discussion of the whole controversy. After playing up the “rousing applause as the president walked in,” the anchor asked Arroyo what his impression was so far. When the EWTN news director answered that the controversy was largely over the awarding of the honorary law degree, Whitfield shot back, “But the university -- in fact, the president -- Reverend Jenkins said every president that’s been invited to -- to deliver the commencement speech always gets an honorary degree. This would be quite the slap or an aside if they were to invite the president....and not granted an honorary degree.”

Arroyo invoked the 2004 decision of the Catholic bishops in the U.S. which advised Catholic institutions to “not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles, and you shouldn’t give them honors and medals because that would be seen as supporting their policies.” When the CNN anchor replied with her death penalty/war question, Arroyo continued that “abortion...has been identified by both the Vatican and the bishops of the United States as a foundational issue. One can’t get to poverty or climate change or immigration if that person hasn’t been allowed to live.”

Whitfield then turned to Rev. Martin and asked if he agreed with Arroyo’s outline. The priest, who is with a religious order in the Catholic Church that is notoriously full of leftists and dissenters from Church teaching, did not stray from his liberal talking points the entire time: “I think first of all, if anyone deserves a degree in law, it’s this constitutional law scholar....But also, I think the pro-life world is a lot broader than simply abortion. I don’t think you can just sweep the death penalty, torture -- things like that under the carpet....I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there.”

Near the end of the first segment of their discussion, Whitfield brought up how 54% of Catholic supported President Obama during the last election: “Fifty-four perecent of Catholics who were polled in America on Election Day actually voted for this president....Hasn’t it already been made clear that many Catholics who may have been struggling with the issue, whether abortion or stem cell research -- they’ve already gotten past that part?” Arroyo countered with the recent Gallup poll that found that “more Americans are pro-life -- 51 percent -- than opposed to life or supportive of abortion rights. So what we’re seeing, I think, is a sea change. I almost look at this as the Obama effect. As these policies get wheeled out -- as people, particularly Catholics, become more cognizant of the policy choices being made, you see a shift.”

Both Whitfield and Reverend Martin seemed to ignored the poll results presented by Arroyo:

WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Arroyo, I’m wondering, are you concerned that the view that you are conveying now really is in -- is a minority view if you look at, according to the polling that the Observer newspaper on campus did -- 70% of this mostly Catholic student body actually said we do embrace -- we do welcome this president.

ARROYO: No doubt.

WHITFIELD: And that the heated protest that’s taking place involving outside groups, that is not representative of the university campus --

ARROYO: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: So is there not a mixed message being sent here?

ARROYO: Well, no one’s saying that -- that there’s a groundswell of opposition on campus. The groundswell has come from outside of campus, from the Catholic bishops, from faithful people looking in. It is -- Notre Dame is symbolic of Catholic identity in many ways, and by conferring this honor at this moment in history, when these issues, particularly issues of life, are moving to the consciousness again of Catholics, this is becoming sort of a rallying point. I think it’s a moment --

WHITFIELD: Well, Reverend Martin, I wonder, is this groundswell representative of most practicing Catholics, in your view?

MARTIN: Well, I don’t see it as a groundswell. I mean, you heard the deafening applause when we he walked in. You saw the polls of who voted for Obama in the last election. I think Catholics also realize that there are many different ways of tackling the problem of abortion. I mean, I’m pro-life, but I also think that -- sort of fundamental economic policies, trying to help the poor -- those kinds of things work against abortion as well, which is something that President Obama has talked about. So, you know, we can differ on tactics basically, but I -- I don’t think anyone is really pro-abortion. So I think what you are seeing, in terms of Notre Dame, if you do see it as an emblem of Catholic identity, is the support that he has among Catholics, who see this as more than simply a one-issue Church.
Ten minutes later, during the second segment of their discussion before the president’s commencement address, the CNN anchor again asked Rev. Martin for his take. The Jesuit couldn’t wait to sing the chief executive’s praises: “Well, I think it’s terrific that he’s coming to Notre Dame, and I think it’s terrific that, you know, he’s going to mix it up with the graduates, as well as the faculty and the larger world on this question of abortion....I think, you know, one of the things that is getting lost is I think the Catholic Church also needs to treat people with dignity and grace themselves. And I think to welcome the president -- this guy with, you know, a tremendous record -- I think it’s entirely appropriate, and I think if anyone has a problem with honoring him, I think they just need to look at his record.”

Whitfield then brought up with Arroyo how former ambassador to the Vatican and Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon had turned down Notre Dame’s highest honor due to the invitation to the president. After some confusion on the part of the CNN anchor, the EWTN director finally explained that Glendon declined the award because she thought “this event should be about the graduates themselves, not about some fake dialogue -- not about some, you know, pro-life as opposed to pro-choice going at war with each other, you know, in some sort of dialogue. That’s not what’s happening here.” She followed up by asking, “Do you like or agree with what Reverend Jenkins says, that, in part, the reason why they’re honoring the president is because he was willing to engage with those who disagree with him?”

Arroyo answered, in part, “I mean, in all of these recent decisions, whether it’s the conscience clause, the funding of abortion, I didn’t see anybody consulting religious voices....So I don’t quite know what they’re talking about. But again, what we’re seeing is the power of the president’s personality -- his rock star status being brought to bear. But if 98% of Notre Dame graduates loved and embraced this choice, it still would avoid the real question, which isn’t President Obama. The question is, should this university be honoring someone who violates the very fundamental moral values of the Catholic Church?”

This answer brought out the CNN anchor’s use of the “evolved” term:
WHITFIELD: Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things. Some of these things that you’ve outlined --

ARROYO: No, no, no, because this -- no, no, this --  there’s no --

WHITFIELD: Perhaps, it means that there’s a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say --

ARROYO: There’s no --

WHITFIELD: Once upon a time there wasn’t.

ARROYO: Yeah, there couldn’t be because there’s been no indication from the hierarchy or any official teaching that there’s been ‘evolution.’ I don’t know what ‘evolution’ from life means. I mean, if one throws life away, then torture, death penalty, war, everything is open game....It is one -- all of these issues hang together. It is one consistent ethic of life. But one can’t then say abortion can be put aside. No, no, no. It is primordial. It is -- it is fundamental, and the bishops and the popes have taught this for centuries. This is nothing new.”

WHITFIELD: So then as senator, he said I am not voting for war. Why would that not supercede, or at least have some equal footing with his position on a woman’s right to choose?

ARROYO: A great question -- because war, under some circumstances, can be just. War -- obviously, in World War II, when we were liberating people in death camps -- that was a just war, okay? But abortion, in all instances, is always intrinsically evil in the minds -- in the mind of the Church. So one can’t play this shell game. You know, as I said earlier, this isn’t a game of ‘go fish’ and find one teaching you agree with -- oh, I agree with immigration, but I’m not going to let people exercise their conscience in hospitals --

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

→ Evolved Catholics

The MSM thinks it only takes a little cajoling to get Catholics to embrace infanticide.

Voting statistics seem to verify the belief if one is to believe all who claim to be Catholic are, Catholic.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Fredricka is judging what

Fredricka is judging what proper morality is and lecturing the church on it?

Biased, Arrogant, Presumptuous, and Stupid bitch.......

(wow imagine how offended i'd be if i were a Catholic)

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Earlier the NYT had their

Earlier the NYT had their collective bloomers in a wad because some of the protesters at Notre Dame weren't even Catholic!!!

I'm guessing Whitfield isn't Catholic (because every Catholic who disagrees with the Church's stance on abortion makes it plain that he/she IS Catholic) yet there is no problem with her telling the Catholic Church what to do!

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

Martin says: "And I think

Martin says: "And I think to welcome the president -- this guy with, you know, a
tremendous record -- I think it’s entirely appropriate, and I think if
anyone has a problem with honoring him, I think they just need to look
at his record.”

Ha. If you look at his record, there's every reason that a Catholic university should not honor him.

GO CAVS!!!!!

Queenmum

look at his record??

what freaking record??

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

I think she means his

I think she means his record on life issues which is what the current controversy stems from.  He repeatedly voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Immediately upon taking office, he signed the Freedom of Choice Act.  He OK'd funding for abortion services overseas.  He gave the green light to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now in the works is the possible rescinding of the "conscience clause" which I guess he will sign.

The man's record on  sanctity of life issues is abysmal.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

let the babies die?

oh that record......

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

Yup. Thanks,

Yup. Thanks, motherbelt.

GO CAVS!!!!!

"Evolved" Catholics...

I wrote about this here yesterday, after watching that farce at Notre Dame...One of the members of ND's adminstration used the word "evolve" regarding people's perspective on abortion...

Well, as an apparently "unevolved" Catholic, I guess Ms. Whitfield must not think much of me or the rest of us "knuckledraggers" who haven't "evolved" and embraced her and the rest of the left's view that abortion is just fine and dandy, anytime and for any reason.

In that case, I'm mighty proud to be "unevolved"...

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

And why is it that they

And why is it that they always question whether those in authority in the Catholic Church, i.e. the Pope and the Bishops, are the ones out of step?

Yes, wouldn't you think those old staunch conservatives would get their rules more in tune with the mainstream??

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

mb...I know...It's always...

those of us on the right, and/or those of us who happen to have a faith (particularly Christians) who are narrow-minded, out of step, and in need of "enlightenment"...I am so sick of all this leftist, bs preaching...  

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

<bangs head against wall>

No matter how many times it gets explained to them, the liberal media hacks simply cannot understand the notion of an intrinsic evil, i.e. something evil by its very nature.

They continue to equate abortion with war and the death penalty.

 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

mb... It get's so old,

mb...

It get's so old, yet it still gets me mad, they never stop with that madness, ever, it's all they have...it is past pathetic...there is no comparison.

None.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

I wonder if these

"people" realize that mankind is the ONLY animal on the planet that WILLINGLY murders it's own offspring BEFORE they are born.  And they call THAT "evolving" or "progress"?

MM07... What a great thought

MM07...

What a great thought to remember...and I will.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

→ motherbelt

Look how long it took us to convince the Democrats that Black people are human.

They are nothing, if not slow learners.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Unfortunately, Cool...

Unfortunately Cool...

there are a good many southern conservatives who still haven't learned.

Jer

→ I know, Jer

But from his grave, he'll be laughing that his great plan now bears fruit in the prenatal death of half of all black children conceived. Strange fruit, as Billie Holliday sang.

I've got no respect for the Senior Senator and "Conscience of the Senate", Robert Byrd.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Cool,

And this has to be one of the most ironic pics ever:

http://www.blackgeno...

Just exactly how morally bankrupt do you have to be to be Barack Hussein Obama?

-Dave

→ RD

I hadn't seen that one.

Very moving.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Well...if you add the name

Well...if you add the name Soreto in there, you can't get any lower.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Jer...As a conservative who is...

from the south, I can tell you with great assurance that the vast majority of southerners today, liberal and conservative, have learned. The idea that the south is still a solidly racist bastion awash with a hatred of minorites, particularly blacks, is outdated and uninformed. 

Are there still racist elements in the south? You bet...there are also racist elements in the north, east, midwest, and west. I've lived in every one of these parts of the US, and I've seen racism, in one form or another, large and small, in all of them.

The bottom line is that in the south it was Republicans, conservatives, who pushed for and supported legislation for racial equality, while the southern Dems pitched a fit, and dragged their heels every step of the way. 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

But, but, Sky...that fact

But, but, Sky...that fact always gets omitted...via the Dept. of Education, the leftist politicians arm in arm with their daily Bull-Horn...the MSM.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

bt...Precisely! Great point!

When one reads pretty much anything written in a textbook about that issue and time in America's history, almost without exception, the south will be depicted as solidly racist. This extends to all the legislators and politicians throughout the south, which conveniently leaves out the fact that it was the southern conservatives/Repubs that largely supported the civil rights legislation, while the southern Dems ran around gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair... 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

A lot of those Dems --

A lot of those Dems -- including Strom became Republicans when lured there by the promise of an emphasis on state's rights by Goldwater, right?

bal...I am not...

saying that all southern "true" conservatives/Repubs (which Thurmond definitely was not) supported the civil rights legislation...Thurmond is not even worth talking about...He was not and never became, even after he switched to being a Republican, a conservative. He was a ridiculous old fossil, who's reasons for joining the Repub party were always suspect and driven by his own self-serving agenda...Believe me, as one who has deep roots in South Carolina and has family there, I never had any use for Strom Thurmond.  

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Who else Bal?

Name another democrat senator who signed the southern manifesto against desegration, that swithched to the republican party.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

I don't know of any others,

I don't know of any others, but I believe a lot of southern democrats followed their buddy Strom. 

Hint: there were no others

From what I've read, most of the democrats that switched did so for the State's rights beliefs of the republicans. Granted, there we many conservatives in the democrat party at that time, but to assume the republican party magically inhereted all of the racists of the south is disingenuous at best.

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Absolutly R1

Most racist I know, have there hero's neck deep in the Democrap party, both White and Black for that matter. 

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

No, g c, not absolutely...

Quite a few racist southern  Democrats moved into the Republican party during that era.  Many of them used the "states rights" issue to smokescreen the actual reasons for their switch.

Jer

I said most

You say quite a few. I live in Louisiana, and the biggest impact along racial policy was segregation. Now tell me who was for it, and who wasn't.  I am also happy to report, that this State is now a true conservative state, and not because of racism, because we know first hand, just how corrupt the Dems and the racist are. We have put enough of them in jail.

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Who was for it and who was

Who was for it and who was against it [segregation]?  White southern conservative Democrats were its most vigorous proponents.  Many--certainly not all--of those gradually switched to the Republican party or to some other political party.  I have had ex-Democrats admit to me they stopped being Democrats when the party was taken over by the "nigger-loving" [primarily] northern liberals.

Jer

Nonesense

 
I have had ex-Democrats admit to me they stopped being Democrats when
the party was taken over by the "nigger-loving" [primarily] northern
liberals.

So now your trying to convince me that the yankee liberals came down here and corrected us, BS. I guess the simple fact that we have more minorities in this state then most yankee states doesnt account for anything.

The fact that any biggiots swapped parties means nothing, the simple fact is, the Dems have always been resistant to giving others a fair shake, even today.

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

So now your trying to

So now your trying to convince me that the yankee liberals came down here and corrected us, BS. I guess the simple fact that we have more minorities in this state then most yankee states doesnt account for anything.

That's how you interpreted what I posted.  Good grief, g c.  Put your reading cap on.  They were complaining that the control of the national Democratic party had been taken over by the northern liberals.

How old are you?  How long have you lived in the south?  Have you honestly never heard that complaint before?

Wow.

Jer

Yea Jer, I read your post

You seem to think that because the racist Dem's retreated to our party, that suddenly the GOP are the racist, BS. The Repubs are the party of freedom for all, no matter who defected to this party. My neighbors are of many races, I know and talk with them as often as posable. The folks you have suggested you know in the south are a far cry from mine.
 BTW I have lived here for 25yrs, pretty much the same place. I am 15 yrs your jr, and what complaint are you talking about? I am living in the here and now, I am working hard eliminate the barriers. I have worked very hard for the RNC in this state because they believe in freedom for all. You vote for the Dems because they believe in what? Like I said the other day, defend a liberal policy.

As for you question about my reading ability, how about you do a little proof reading of your own. Dont think for a second you are going to paint this south as racist. Not today, and I live today.

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

g c... I'm not

g c...

I'm not questioning your overall reading ability.  It's just fine.  I simply questioned your interpretation of the words in my earlier post.  But maybe I was guilty of not being clear enough, so please disregard my comment about the "reading cap".  I take it back.

Moreover, I'm not painting today's south as racist.  I've lived in the region all of my life, and despite its historical imperfections--and the same can be said about every region of the country--I am a very proud southerner.  And, I have friends across the ethnic, racial, and ideological spectrum.

But I do tire of the constant drumbeat at NB condemning the Democrats, and Democrats alone--including liberal Democrats--for allegedly being the sole repository of racism, past and present.

Jer

Jer,

You get tired of it at NB. Well, we get tired of being called racists by NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, TIME, NW, CNN, Hollywood, NYC, DNC, Chicago churches, D list "commediennes",  etc... Maybe you are feeling just a little bit of what we feel??? 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

I understand, Restless...

I understand, Restless...

The libs have been far too quick for far too long in playing the race card.  I wish it would stop.

Jer

Sure

 But I do tire of the constant drumbeat at NB condemning the Democrats,
and Democrats alone--including liberal Democrats--for allegedly being
the sole repository of racism, past and present.

Jer I get tired of being painted a racist, simply because I am from La. I am not, my large family is not. 

But Jer I have to ask, your party is all about making the good hard working folks suffer for the good of others, without the color and the faith, is that not racism?  Why does your party continue to ridicule Jews and Catholics, but ignore the Muslims? Not that they should be ridiculing anyone.

Our President and his cronies seem to have a pretty good time with those of us who might be fiscally responsible, or who may run a business, or work in a finical institution, or those of faith, or those that may oppose thier policies. They make jokes and false accusation about us every day. The media ridicules us even further all day every day. You are here most every day, so you know this. Are they not racist? Or is discrimination just fine if your a liberal Dem? 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

I don't think they ALL

I don't think they ALL switched parties, but I'm sure some did. 

And then with Nixon came the distrust of the Right as "the man" which led us to where we are now. 

→ Strom Thurmond

And he was an insult to Republicans to his last days.  And the revelation that he'd kept hidden, a 78 year old daughter of whom he was ashamed because of her mixed race, was disgusting as well.

Senator Dixiecrat should have stayed with the rest of his racist buddies.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Cool..."Insult" is correct...

It always drove me crazy that that racist old fart sat on the Republican side of the aisle...For that matter, he had no business on either side of the aisle in the Senate, or anywhere in any government, state or federal... 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Wow, Cool... Now I'm

Wow, Cool...

Now I'm embarrassed to have defended Trent Lott over his remarks about how Strom would have made a great president.

Jer

→ Trent Lott

Trent Lott went a lot of years without making a comment that could be construed as racist.

I dare say most of us have made such a gaffe in our lives.

Lott stepped down from his position as Majority Leader after a gaffe he should not have committed.

Reckon Nancy Pelosi will do the same?

Don't hold your breath.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Pelosi?

If I thought holding my breath could possibly influence Pelosi's ouster, I would stop breathing right now.

Jer

Cool...I've never been able to decide...

what to think about Trent Lott's comment about Thurmond... Either Lott really believed the crap that he said, or, he was just trying to be nice to the old geezer (even though it was a really stupid thing to say, and it cost him dearly). I think (and I hope), that it's the latter...

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

I'm pretty sure it was the

I'm pretty sure it was the latter, and it's why I defended him.  Lott was primarily undercut by his own party, and he knows it.

Jer

Jer...I'm inclined to agree...

Knowing his career, and what kind of legislator Lott was, it seemed an unlikely thing that he would actually agree with, and more likely something to say that Thurmond would like to hear...Anyway, I think you're exactly right about how some in the party torpedoed Lott, and he definitely does know it. 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Prairie

Jer continues to have this idea that conservatives are and have always been the racists. He seems to believe that all of the bigots and racists of the world just all of a sudden jumped to the party that was formed to oppose them. It really is funny if you think about it. 

That said, I can assure Jer that, as I live in Texas, that the vast majority of bigots I come across are democrats. Anecdotal, I know, but true just the same. 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

RESTLESS...Thanks, and...

I appreciate the backup...And you're exactly right! I've seen and heard this same garbage about the south and conservatives all my life, and it just drives me nuts...I have lived in most of the southern states (including the great state of Texas!) at some point in my life (no kidding...military brat and wife), so I know, like you, what I'm talking about. In my experience, the libs who are racist, in the south and elsewhere, are just much better about concealing their true feelings about race, so they tend to fly "under the radar" when it comes to issues relating to racism. 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Exactly right Sky...and

Exactly right Sky...and that fact is well-known by the msm of all venues...the keep mum about that for one reason.

Power for their agenda/party!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

bt...You bet that the MSM knows it...

They keep mum because deep down they agree with it, and as you said, their failure to expose it by remaining silent, shores up their agenda and their party...Exactly! 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Prairie & BT

Well, what do we have here, then? Do we have a shining example (and the most disturbing one, at that) that illustrates how much dishonesty -- both with oneself AND others -- pervades the culture of the left, vs. the right?

I'd say we do. 

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

MrShy...I'd say...

we do, too... 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

PrairieSky

That's what I see when arguing/debating issues w/ liberals. It's an amazing amount of dishonesty about how they *really* feel, deep down, which invariably becomes hypocrisy when you compare what they say with how they live their lives, treat others, etc..

 

You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!

 

Amen to that MrS. Catch ya'

Amen to that MrS.

Catch ya' all later....early morning and all that jazz.

Btw...Have fun with Jer. ;-)

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

MrShy...Right on target!

With them, it's "do as I say, not as I do..."

Makes me nuts!

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

my experience, the libs who

my experience, the libs who are racist, in the south and elsewhere, are just much better about concealing their true feelings about race.

My experience is entirely different.  I grew up in Tennessee, and have lived in Georgia for 35 years.  The majority of conservatives don't have a racist bone in their body.  But the individuals that do are invariably conservative, and make no bones about it.

Jer

 

Jer...I think you partially made my point...

for me...I said, "In my experience, the libs who are racist, in the south and elsewhere, are just much better about concealing their true feelings about race." My meaning was, that in my experience, many of the conservative racists (in the south and elsewhere) that I have come across, have been pretty up front about how they feel (as despicable as this is to be a witness to), as opposed to the liberal racists, in my experience, (in the south and elsewhere), who generally tend to keep their true feelings to themselves, and usually only by accident or if in the company of others that they think agree with them, will they then reveal what they really think.

You said that "The majority of conservatives don't have a racist bone in their body.  But the individuals that do are invariably conservative, and make no bones about it...", meaning that, I think, as I said, the racist conservatives (in the south) are up front about how they feel about race. While I'm glad that the majority of the conservatives that you have encountered in your life haven't been racist, I don't share your experience that most of the racists are conservative. As I said, in my experience, the liberals who are racist, do tend to conceal their true feelings, and so are much harder to detect. I suppose we have had either different experiences or have perceived situations differently. 

(I have family in Georgia, and graduated from high school there...)  

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

On the contrary, Restless...

Jer continues to have this idea that conservatives are and have always been the racists.

That claim no doubt strikes a palatable note with most NB conservatives.  Nevertheless, the fact that I've never said that--and indeed have explicitly stated that such is not my belief about contemporary conservatism--should persuade you, just out of respect for accuracy, to resist the temptation to suggest otherwise.

That said, I can assure you that the vast majority of conservative Republicans I know and associate with are not bigots.  But the people I do know who are racial bigots are far more likely to be Republican than Democrat.  But maybe it's different in Texas.

Jer

Sorry Jer

I didn't mean to convey that you think all conservatives are racist. That is not what I think, and anyone who has read you posts would not think it either.

I only meant that you seem to think that the racists that are out there are overwhelmingly conservative. I don't see you alluding to all of the liberal racists running around, of which, there is an abundance.  

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

PraireSky... As one who

PraireSky...

As one who was born in the south, has lived my entire life in the south, and remembers well the racially tumultuous decades of the 50's and 60's when federal civil rights mandates were vigorously resisted by vast numbers of "Impeach Earl Warren" segregationists and unapolgetic racists, I clearly understand--and actually agree with--the principal assertions of your post.

My previous comment was a reflexive reaction to Cool--whom I like and respect--and his tediously oft-repeated themes of Dem/lib hatred of blacks, contempt for blacks, exploitation of blacks, modern-day racism, etc.

The one area of my disagreement with your post is the implication that it was only Republicans and "conservatives" who were supporting racial equality.  That is simply not the case.  Conservatives in the south--Democrats and Republicans--were generally opposed.  In contrast, liberal Democrats in the north and south generally favored civil rights legislation as did a majority of mainstream Republicans.

Jer

Jer...Don't misunderstand my meaning...

It was not my intent to imply that southern Repubs/conservatives were the only ones supporting racial equality legislation...Not at all. There were a number of southern Dems who also supported it. 

I have to disagree, though, with your contention that most of the conservatives in the south, Dems and Repubs, were opposed to racial equality. As far as the Repubs were concerned, at that time (and still today for that matter), the majority of the Repubs in the south were conservative, and the majority of the Repubs did support the civil rights legislation, as opposed to the majority of the southern Dems, who did not. In the south, it was the Repubs...conservatives and mainstream, who made up the majority of the voices and the votes who supported the civil rights legislation of the time.

(Where in the south are you from?) 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

I grew up in west

I grew up in west Tennessee.  I loved it.  I still think of it as "home."  But, when I was young, the area was highly Democratic, highly conservative, and highly segregationist.

Jer

Jer...Tennessee...

Tennessee is one of the few southern states that I haven't lived in (lol!), but I have driven through and flown over it many times, and it's beautiful!

You are right about Tennessee at one time being highly Democratic, highly conservative, and highly segregationist...This is true, and I get your point.

But, it is not true that every southern state or legislator of the time, Repub or Dem, was also highly segregationist, simply by virtue of being conservative.

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

→ But Sky?

Al Gore said his daddy was a champion of the Civil Rights movement.

Certainly he couldn't have been lying. <sarc>

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

C'mon Cool... I know you

C'mon Cool...

I know you are not politically naive.  You're well aware of the regrettable but necessary "constituency bargains" which must sometimes be made--especially in the south during that era. 

Jer

→ Stanzas on Freedom

There's a final thought from a great poem by James Russell Lowell that perfectly describes those "constituency bargains" to which you refer.

They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three

Great poem.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Great poem, indeed. Gore

Great poem, indeed.

Gore Sr. was no Bilbo "over-my-dead-body" segregationist.  But if he had been even slightly more of a moderate on racial issues, he would have been involuntarily retired from poltics early in his career. 

Jer

→ Yeah, I guess

And the Sheets kept marching for a few more years to satisfy Senior's political dreams.

Doubtless he'd do it all again if it meant his son would become a multi-millionnaire, redeeming the name of his dad with a well-told lie.

Truth means nothing.  All that matters is what you can convince others of.

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Jer...Sorry about that, but...

I don't agree with "...necessary "constituency bargains" which must sometimes be made-- " Either you are a racist who is opposed to racial equality, or you're not. Al Gore, Sr., didn't have the intestinal fortitude to be honest, one way or the other, about how he really felt about segregation...Calling himself a champion of civil rights was a lie. You can't have it both ways, and Gore Sr.'s reasons for why he did what he did were irrelevant. He was a coward...  

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Cool...Right!

He was lying, and he was a coward. 

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

Jer,

The numbers don't lie.

In the 26
major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil
rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican
majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

And here's some more facts you didn't learn in school. 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Wrong, Restless... I

Wrong, Restless...

I lived through it.  I read conservative newspapers as well as liberal newspapers.  And I learned "facts" inside and outside of school.  I have always been fully aware of the significant role of Republicans in the advancement of civil rights.

Jer

Well then Jer

Sadly, it seems you're one of the few who recognize "the significant role of Republicans in the advancement of civil rights". 

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Everett Dirksen was one of

Everett Dirksen was one of my heroes.

Jer

RESTLESS and Jer...

I just wish that more people knew the truth concerning the Repub's support of civil rights...The MSM, the NEA, and the textbook writers have made it damn near impossible for people to know and learn the truth, unless they do their own homework on this issue, which sadly, the majority have not and likely will never do.

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

It's like he's doing this to taunt me ...

"The priest, who is with a religious order in the Catholic Church that is notoriously full of leftists and dissenters from Church teaching, " (the person in question is a Jesuit)

Your honor, I object.

Good Lord, Matt, did you get a F at Georgetown or something?

Drip, drip, drip....

The American Thinker would like to submit for the defense exhibit 1 your honor -  Radically liberal Jesuit theologian Michael J. Himes (he doesn't like to be called "father").

Sidebar -- This Fundamental Catholic commenter has spiritually benefited greatly from a year-long Ignatius excercise led by a very devout Jesuit Priest and therefore, takes no pleasure in bringing to attention the views of Jesuit Theologian "Mr." Himes on NB.  However, "Mr." Himes is a glaring example of Matt's description and illustrates how removed from Catholic doctrine many Jesuit instructors have drifted.  This certainly would explain how the leadership of Notre Dame has arrived at this present controversy.  This hasn't happened overnight (notice the time frame below). 

Continued - 

"Mr." Himes gave a series of lectures and workshops while a member of Notre Dame's Department of Theology in 1987. These lectures were eventually published as a book called Doing the Truth in Love, which included an enthusiastic back-cover endorsement by ND's president emeritus Fr. Theodore Hesburgh. Consider the following excerpts, which I assure you were not invidiously taken out of context:

"Our Father in Heaven doesn't especially care whether you are good or wicked or whether you are just or unjust."  [p. 11]

"And astonishingly, not once does Jesus tell his disciples to love God."  [p. 18]

"...no religious motive is the basis for the last judgment.   Not only are specific religious acts beside the point, so are specifically religious motives."  [p. 51]

"God loves this book as much as he loves you or me; otherwise it would not exist."  [p. 102]

"Indeed, treating these formulas as the operative elements of the sacraments would reduce sacraments to magic-as long as you say the right words, poof!"  [p. 100] 

"That is not what Christianity is about at all.  We do not claim that there is a being 'out there'" [p. 18]

"God is not another person out there."  [p. 55]

"There is no all-wise, all-powerful person named God who has a plan for us..."  [p. 55] 

The Land 'o Lakes Statement was 20 years before "Mr." Himes!

From Catholic History.net (emphasis added)

The statement, drawn up and signed by a group of Catholic educators led by University of Notre Dame
president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh
, CSC, had as its purpose defining the
relationship between the modern American university and the Church, and
between the Catholic university and American intellectual life.
Characterized by historian Philip Gleason as a "declaration of
independence from the hierarchy,"
the statement provoked a decades-long
debate over the character of American Catholic higher education. For
supporters, "The Idea of the Catholic University" was a long overdue
statement of Catholic educators' agreement with the tenets of American
academia, such as academic freedom, and their willingness to contribute
fully to the nation's intellectual life. For critics, the manifesto
dangerously divorced the Catholic university from the life of faith and
set in motion a deplorable decline in the Catholic identity of American
institutions of higher education.

******

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

acumen and mb... Thanks

acumen and mb...

Thanks for this info.

I learn more everyday.

I used to have a link  long ago I bet you both would like...seems I talked about it here a long time ago, before I knew how to put in links, or if we even had the capability to do so back then.

I may look for it later via google....anyway, thank you both.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Objection

I know nothing of Mr. Himes. That's not surprising since there are hundreds of Jesuits in the United States, and I only knew a fraction of them. Even so, I knew a lot of Jesuit liberals, and a lot of conservatives.

And that's the point. There are lots of Jesuits, and they come in lots of varieties. They're not sheep. They're very intelligent people, by and large (one wonders how they accepted me), and for every whacko liberal crusader, I can name five down-to-earth, conservative old farts.

You have named one whacko. I will trust that his quotes are not taken out of context (because I really don't know him) but even so, that's one guy. So, to make my point, I submit the name of Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ. He died last year, leaving behind a legacy of brilliant scholarship, and was honored with his cardinal's hat by a well-known conservative pope.

 

Objection, KC? Aren't you

Objection, KC?

Aren't you out of...order?  ;-)

Jer

Bah-dum-bam

Throw the yellow flag. Five yards for punning. First down.

What you say may be true,

What you say may be true, but the far left liberal jesuits are the ones running the Universities. It is a systemic problem.

Like who?

Examples, please.

 

a couple of examples

I don't claim to be the world's expert on the Society of Jesus.  And granted, three of the priests I most respect are Jesuit, and two of the most well-grounded and orthodox priests I've ever known are Jesuit. But the overall tilt of the order seems decidedly left, and the majority of over two dozen S.J.'s with whom I've been personally acquainted are practically Marxist in their outlook.

Georgetown squandered its Catholic identity years ago.  But you asked for current examples.  Here are the leaders of a few universities with well-earned reputations for placing a higher priority on secular-left values than on fidelity to Catholic teaching:

Stephen Privett, S.J. -- U.of San Francisco president

William Leahy, S.J.-- Weston School of Theology president (Boston College)

and generally whoever heads the Jesuits at the GTU (Graduate Theological Union) in Berkeley, CA (the admin is presently in transition)

Creighton U. (in Omaha) is an outstanding school in many ways.  But secular political correctness have trumped Catholic moral teachings in so many of the ways that they've clashed.

 

Other schools I haven't followed as well the past couple of years, so I'd have to double-check to verify that they're still as beholden to Liberalism as I remember them.

Personal experience

Well, that's why I asked for examples, not names. I realize now that I wasn't clear. Citing names doesn't prove anything, or show how they support secular values instead of Catholic values. Citing names just makes an accusation against their reputation, but now they have no opportunity to respond. And since I don't know what you're referring to, I have no way to evaluate what you allege. So, I'd prefer we leave the names out of it. We can debate the examples, but we can't debate reputations. Let's stick to examples.

On this website, the banner says "exposing and combating liberal media bias." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the problem is liberalism itself. It's the bias, especially in the media, who portray themselves as honest and impartial. The general public has been swindled, for many years, by the illusion that the media is neutral and objective. That's what makes it unfair when they promote liberalism. You can even make the case that liberalism drives them to it, but that's a tougher sell. Being liberal, by itself, is not a sin. It's the unfairness and injustice of the "objectivity masquerade" where we find the sin.

Many Jesuits are liberal, some are whacko liberal. But I strongly deny that the order is unfair. St. Ignatius was no bleeding heart, and his attitudes infuse the Society. The Jesuits are no longer the pope's shock troops, but they're certainly not the pope's enemies. Quite the contrary, the order bends over backwards to be fair, often to a fault.

I was at Weston when I left the order. Weston was associated with Harvard at the time. I can assure you, from personal experience, that the Weston school was decidedly apolitical. It was straight theology, with no monkey business. When we studied the gospels, no professor tried to take a passage from John and use it to attack Reagan or Bush 41, or anything like that. Canon law was canon law.

No question that many in the Jesuits are liberal. It would be ridiculous for me to deny that. But they were fair, certainly to me. That's what matters. I never felt uncomfortable as a conservative. Even the most wild-eyed flaming liberals (oh the stories!) treated me with respect, and that's all you can ask for.

 

not just names

A priest friend of mine began his doctoral studies at Weston (at some point in the past decade) and transferred out after one or two semesters, citing hostile treatment by faculty and other students when he tried to stand up for Magisterial teachings that didn't pass the secular-PC litmus test.  In particular, the areas of abortion, artificial birth control, liberation theology, the question of the celibate male priesthood, and the whole gamut of sexual morality.  While the guy's demeanor tends to invite argument, he's never afraid to admit someone else is right, if they show that they are. (I would never go there in the first place, because I'd had my fill of Cambridge and snow during my undergrad years.)

Stephen Privett had his own ND-like experience at USF, when he drew a wave of criticism for giving honors to a bishop (or just a priest?) from southern Africa who supported distributing condoms to the people.

I'm not here to ridicule the Jesuits.  The way of Saint Iggy resonates with me, and if I felt called to religious community I would probably seek to become an S.J.  But it doesn't seem egregiously unfair to use the similies, "as lost as a Jesuit in liturgy" or "as left as a Jesuit's theology".

No offense taken

Well, the liturgy thing is a slam dunk against them. They're infinitely better than the average parish priest, but that's the faintest praise. I happen to love the liturgy, study it, and get exasperated at how poorly it's performed. Let's just say that many of my brother Jesuits had all the liturgical style of those plastic football players from those old electric football games.  

Second, Jesuit theology worldwide is a mixed bag. The Jesuits in Latin America, of course, were and still are involved in liberation theology. I confess that I love Jon Sobrino, SJ, who's under fire lately. But Sobrino is a giant. And I knew him, years ago. I spent a summer in Central America, and stayed at the UCA in El Salvador, where he lived (the same community who were slaughtered by the El Salvador military criminal gang a year after we were there, in 1989). I can testify to my own conversations with him that he's no maniac. He's a very humble man, and he's a obedient man, which is a high compliment for a Jesuit.

On the other hand, Jesuits boast of John Courtney Murray, Karl Rahner, and Josef Jungmann. Among theologians, that's like naming Wilt, Michael Jordan, and Bill Russell.

theo

Rahner's top-notch, though he went way over the line with the 'anonymous Christian' thing.  His brother's writings on prayer were more inspiring (ever try to start a conversation by reflecting on the horizon of absolute being or the supernatural existential?), and infinitely more readable.  I like what I read from Philip Sheldrake, who apparently left the Society.

Whether Fr. Sobrino is a maniac or a model of humility, putting temporal freedom ahead of the spiritual freedom runs counter to the direct teachings of Christ and is a favorite object of Pauline ridicule.  The freedom Christ offers transcends a person's physical circumstances. Sobrino's outlook and vision are too prone to being cross-bred with Marxist revolution doctrine, which promotes violent uprising to overthrow the 'unjust social structures' and allow a just society (an earthly utopia, essentially) to emerge. And that basically means delivering oppressed people from one form of temporal oppression to another, all supposedly in Jesus' name.

So no offense, again, but I applaud Ratzinger/B16 for holding the line on that one.

Devolved is more like

Devolved is more like it...if you believe what these MSM liars are saying.

...

You took the word right out of my mouth.  Devolved is exactly right.

In fact, these emty-headed nitwits don't seem to realize that they're going back in time, waaaay back in time, to pre-Christian pagan times where babies were aborted or born and sacrificed until Christianity modernized society by abolishing these brutal practices.  The irony that they are the ones who have not gotten with the program and are upholding such ancient, barbaric practices is lost on them.

→ Devolved?

My dyslexic self reads it as "deloved"

"I was fighting a war in Iraq!" - Nancy Lugosi

Thank goodness for Raymond Arroyo and EWTN

Raymond did a great job going up against the liberal priest ...not that either cared how he responded ...I, for one, am grateful that EWTN is a true Catholic Network ...

WHITFIELD: Well, might it

WHITFIELD: Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things.  

Or... it could mean that the "Catholics" the media spotlights aren't really Catholics anymore. My favorite Florence King quote: when told by acquaintences that they were "Catholic, but don't agree with the Church on birth control and abortion," Ms. King replied "Congratulations, you're Protestants."

Maybe they could be referred to as CINOs?

 

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams

These people, the ones that

These people, the ones that never go to mass, that support abortion and gay rights, that vote democrat, they need to stop tarnishing the Catholic brand.

And don't even get me started on the Jesuits...

 If you call a tail a leg,

 If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Five?

No, it’s four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one....attributed ot Abraham Lincoln

The Catholics you describe are only "Catholic" in the sense that that's where they choose to go to church on Sunday, if they choose to go.  It doesn't mean they actually believe what the Church teaches.

So, yes, Catholic In Name Only suits them very well.

Whe we lived in Spain, a Spanish friend explained that everyone in Spain was "Catholic" by birth.  However, not a single one of our Spanish friends EVER went to a Mass, in the three years that we knew them.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

What's the big deal about

What's the big deal about carved up fetuses?  Get knocked up, make a trip to Planned Parenthood, say a hundred Hail Marys and you're in the clear.

Besides, supporting Communism and gay marriage kinda balances out the baby killing thing-I guess?

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

evolving morals?

Something that's intrinsically evil cannot 'evolve' into something good or even neutral.  The whole "evolving morals" outlook is the alter-ego of moral relativism.  And abortion enablers who call themselves "pro-choice" keep suggesting that promoting better quality of life is on-par with (or even supersedes) prohibition of murder as a "social justice" issue.

Anyone who would try to justify elective abortion will need to remove his head from his rectum in order to see clearly anything other than his own crap.

Obama's "middle ground" is in fact a "Free Fire Zone"

Would Obama have supported a “middle ground” on women’s suffrage?

Would he have said,

“We’d ALL like to see women vote. BTW, no one will be questioned if they harass, hit or shoot a female voter.”

Real Catholics don't support 0bama

I support life.  I am a Catholic who was educated in Catholic schools, married in a Catholic church, educated all my kids in Catholic schools, attend Mass every Sunday and probably about 50-75 weekdays a year when I can work from home or travel.  I am Grand Knight in my Knights of Columbus Council.  None of that changes the first sentence.  I support life. 

Given 0bama's record with abortion and infanticide, I am deeply troubled by the number of Americans and especially Catholics who support 0bama and the Democrat party.  The Democrat party is the party of abortion.  It is a party platform.   There should be no Catholic who supports life who also supports Democrats.  My dad was a Jack Kennedy Democrat.  Strong on defense and lower taxes, but socially liberal.  Thankfully he passed away before he would have to make a choice about 0bama.  The Democrat party that my dad supported is gone (long since replaced by socialists many years after Kennedy died.  The party then supposedly supported the "little guy" and the poor not because it got them votes, but that was a big motivator, but because it was the right thing to do).

 

Abortion is killing of babies.  There are no gray areas here.  Either you are for life or you are for killing of babies.  I am deeply disappointed in priests who are political and can put abortion aside.  They should examine themselves carefully and pray for forgiveness.

,,,

There are obviously many Judas's who call themselves priests (and other clergy who are pro-abortion) who listen to Satan's whispers in their ears and therefore betray our Lord by supporting those who support the legalization of this atrocity.

I can almost guarantee you

I can almost guarantee you the Catholics that go to Church at least every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation, receive communion and go to confession, try to make a point to pray during the week, try to help out around the church, try to get in a holy hour during the week, and read their bible...will not support abortion.  

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

I'm a Catholic that

I'm a Catholic that embraces science, is that evolving enough for the MSM? Still doesn't mean I approve of divorce and abortion. Guess that makes me a barbarian.

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

If those 'staunch' Catholics

If those 'staunch' Catholics Pelosi and Plugs are examples of 'evolved' Catholics, take me back to the Middle Ages, please.

...

Hear, hear.  Well, at least only for the beautiful cathedrals that were built to honor God, rather than the god-awful "gathering spaces" built today.  :)

cathedrals: "The Pillars of the Earth"

Check out Ken Follet's "The Pillars of the Earth."

Just started it: almost 1,000 pages about the building of a (fictional) 11th century Gothic cathedral in England. Excellent, and should last me the whole summer (assuming summer actually arrives sometime).

...

Thanks.  I will check it out!