Editor's

Desk

The Red Wave That Wasn’t

That didn’t turn out as expected.

Pundits both left and right in recent days had been predicting a “red wave,” as Republicans would supposedly sweep to victory, reclaiming the House and Senate in overwhelming numbers, while picking up some governorships as well.

Instead, we see (as of this writing) at best some minor victories for Republicans. It’s likely the GOP will take over the House, but control of the Senate appears to be out of its reach.

So what happened? We’ll have some deeper analysis here at Crisis in the coming days, but here’s my initial reactions.

It’s always possible there were some election day shenanigans that helped the Democrats, but it’s more likely that the Republicans just weren’t that impressive of an option. Which, if you think about it, is pretty pathetic.

Every midterm election is bad for the party of the incumbent president, but in a year when that incumbent president is as incompetent as Joseph Biden, conventional wisdom would say that the Republicans should have won big. Like, really big.

After all, we’re living in an economy on the brink of failure, we’re pouring money we don’t have into a border dispute across the world, the Democrats have hitched their wagon to the unpopular practice of child mutilation, and the President himself is clearly not in charge. The GOP couldn’t beat that? Mentally-incapacitated John Fetterman should have been easily defeated in Pennsylvania, but milquetoast Republican Dr. Oz wasn’t even up to that challenge.

Ultimately, anti-Democrat sentiment couldn’t overcome underwhelming Republican candidates.

Even more disheartening are the results of the various state abortion-related ballot issues. In Vermont, California, and Michigan, pro-abortion proposals won. In Kentucky, a proposed amendment to make clear that there is no right to abortion in the state constitution failed.

Why does it seem that radical pro-abortion proposals succeed but even modest pro-life ballot issues fail, in spite of that fact that most polls show that Americans favor at least some restrictions on abortion? It’s hard to say for certain, but my guess is that the pro-abortion forces (backed by a compliant media) are expert at marketing their proposals as reasonable and pro-life proposals as extreme, even when the opposite is true.

The average American doesn’t want 32-week-old babies being dismembered, but they also don’t want 10-year-old victims of rape being forced to give birth. And the pro-abortion forces (again, with the help of the compliant media) make every proposal about the 10-year-old girl, not the 32-week-old baby. The pro-life movement is going to have to regroup to determine how best to move forward in this post-Roe world.

As I said on the podcast yesterday, these elections move the needle very little when it comes to actual policy and cultural issues, but they are a bellwether for the mood of the nation. And sadly, it looks like most Americans are comfortable with the total mess our country is in right now. While salvation was never coming from the GOP, it would have been nice to at least slow down the descending spiral for a bit.

As conservatives lick their wounds, let us remember the words of the Psalmist:

Put not your trust in princes,
    in a son of man, in whom there is no help.
When his breath departs he returns to his earth;
    on that very day his plans perish.
Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
    whose hope is in the Lord his God.

(Psalm 146:3-5)
Telegram

New Website!

Crisis Magazine has been around 40 years, which is a great accomplishment. Our website has been around for 8 years, which is more sad than impressive. Websites are meant to be updated and freshened up every few years, but unfortunately that hasn’t happened here. While the website has served us well, it’s clearly time for an update.

As you can undoubtedly tell, you are reading this on our redesigned website, which we hope will allow us to better serve our audience, helping them to navigate the crisis in the Church and the world and remain faithful Catholics throughout. 

Here are a few new features of the website:

  • Cleaner Interface: Magazines are meant to be read, and that includes online magazines. So we’ve cleaned up the main article page so that there is less clutter and more focus on what matters: the article itself.
  • Focus on Contributors: Our writers are what make Crisis successful, so we wanted to make sure they are front-and-center. Photos of the writers will be at the top of the page, as well as a link to a cleaner writer page.
  • Podcast Improvements: We’ve had the Crisis Point podcast for over two years, but I still find regular readers who don’t even know about it. This is because the old website made it hard to find the podcasts. No longer: Crisis Point, which is an essential part of our offering, will now be more prominently displayed and easier to use.
  • Shop: Crisis Magazine is part of Crisis Publications, and now you can purchase Crisis Publications books (along with select Sophia Institute Press books) directly on the website.
  • News: Crisis has always been fundamentally a commentary/opinion magazine, not a news operation. But of course our commentaries are often about the news, so we wanted to unite those offerings together. You’ll notice a “News” section of the website, which currently includes links to top stories of interest to Catholics. It is our hope that we can soon offer our own news stories as well.
  • Crisis Vault: Our magazine has a 40-year history, including 25 as a print magazine. We have digitized every print issue and put it online in an easy-to-navigate format in our Crisis Vault. This might be my favorite part of the new site.

I’m excited about this next phase in the history of Crisis, and I hope you enjoy the new web experience. As with all new websites, I’m sure there will be a few bugs to iron out, so if you see anything not working properly, let me know at [email protected].

Telegram

The Present Crisis, Revisited

This month we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Crisis Magazine, and I thought it would be fitting to take a look at the original editorial from the first issue that laid out the purpose of the journal. How have things changed, and how have they stayed the same since those fall days in 1982? Let’s find out.

THOSE OF US who planned this new journal did so under the working title Catholicism in Crisis. We did so with the example of Reinhold Niebuhr vividly in mind, who on February 10, 1941, under analogous circumstances, finding existing periodicals inhospitable, launched Christianity and Crisis. There were many crises in 1941, Niebuhr wrote, but only one the crisis the intention of Hitler’s armies in extinguish Christian civilization in Europe. “Our civilization was built by faith and prayers and hard work,” he wrote “—and it was also built by fighting.”

At the beginning, Ralph McInerny and Michael Novak—the founders of Catholicism in Crisis—lay out the stakes, and they are significant: our very Christian-based civilization is under attack. Forty years later, who would say they are wrong? I’m sure neither McInerny nor Novak imagined a day where a Catholic would be attacked for simply affirming that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, yet here we are. If anything, the attack on our civilization has only intensified.

Is there a Christian minister who believes that the rights which he daily enjoys and which he takes for granted, like the air he breathes, would be his to enjoy unless these rights had been fought for by Cromwell, by William of Orange and by Washington? Are Protestants in the United States to live off the liberties which others are maintaining for them and then express complete indifference to the fate of those whose sacrifice makes the tranquil and serene life of American Christians possible? Should this become the American Protestant attitude toward the world, it would inscribe one of the darkest pages of the annals of the Church.

No one would ever accuse Crisis of quietism, that’s for sure. One of the most common criticisms of Crisis—although it’s heard less and less these days— is that we focus too much on the problems in the Church and the world. But as McInerny and Novak point out, we are in a serious fight, and one does not win a fight by pretending it doesn’t exist. 

Of course, if we only focused only the “bad news” without giving the “good news” (i.e., the Gospel of Jesus Christ), then our fight would be in vain. We must both point out the dangerous path many are on, as well as the path that leads to God. 

In 1941, the Christian Church was threatened with extinction in the North Atlantic. Today the crisis which threatens Catholicism is worldwide and far more formidable in military and police power than the juggernaut built by Adolph Hitler. While that crisis can never be far from our thoughts, it is not the crisis we have most in mind in launching this journal in 1982.

In a lesser sense, our crisis is literary. We are dissatisfied with existing Catholic journals and with — as we see it — the deteriorating quality of Catholic intellectual life. As Alasdair Maclntyre describes it in another context, too much moral “debate” has been reduced to shouting slogans at one another across partisan lines.

“Today the crisis which threatens Catholicism is worldwide and far more formidable in military and police power than the juggernaut built by Adolph Hitler.” Strong words, but what serious Catholic would deny it today? Hitler was a monster, but he was a monster we could see, resist, and ultimately defeat. Today’s enemies are often hidden in our rectories, chanceries, and even in curial offices. They seek to undermine the very foundations of our civilization and our faith, all while claiming to speak in Christ’s name. 

The Editors believe that what used to be called “the liberal Catholic tradition” has virtually disappeared in the United States. Moreover, the intellectual divisions of twenty years ago between “progressives” and “conservatives” are now out of date. Many who used to be liberal have moved decisively to the left, both in substance and in style of argument. Many, formerly conservatives, have become inventive, socially conscious and politically concerned. A new Catholic spirit is being born. It calls for a new voice.

Political terms are always shifting. Today’s progressive is tomorrow’s conservative. When Crisis was founded, most progressives were adamantly anti-war. Now they are in bed with the military-industrial complex. Conservativism has changed as well—who in 1982 would have thought that there would be leading conservatives who support “gay marriage?” 

Crisis has always been known as a “conservative” magazine, and that’s relatively accurate. At one time, it was the Catholic standard-bearer for the Republican party. But in today’s era of political disintegration, that’s no longer true. Ultimately, Crisis stands with Catholicism, as understood in the long tradition of the Church. So even if conservatives today now advocate for yesterday’s liberal causes, Crisis will have no hesitation in opposing such capitulations to the culture. 

Moreover, the crisis in which we find ourselves is one of faith and theology, especially concerning questions of the temporal order and the role of the laity.

Stated precisely, the crisis is that clerical power — not only in the bishops and in their administrative stalls — has become overweening. This is a direct consequence of so-called “Vatican II theology.” This “new theology” has four parts. Each of them weakens laymen and laywomen in their proper vocation.

Here McInerny and Novak really pinpoint the roots of the crisis in the Church: Clerics have become political instead of spiritual voices, trading in their prophetic role for a seat at the latest DC cocktail party.

First is the misuse of the “collegiality” of bishops. In itself, linked to the pre-eminent authority of the Pope, such collegiality is good. But certain institutional developments seem to us quite errant. National conferences of bishops are bringing political divisions into the church.

From the beginning Crisis has been wholly opposed to the national conferences of bishops which have always been political arms of the progressive establishment. Sadly, bishops today still often exchange their divinely-ordered roles as successors to the apostles to instead be middle-managers and social workers.  

Second is the diminishment of the clergy. Many younger clergymen stress “the priesthood of the laity” in a false way, so as to diminish the distinctiveness of their own priestly role and, in effect, merely to patronize the laity. We who are laymen and laywomen are not, and do not aspire to be, priests. We do not want priests usurping lay roles. We need, and desire, a sharper theology of differentiation.

Third is the aggrandizement of the clergy. Even as the distinction between vocations (manifested even in dress) is being fudged, clergymen are everywhere preempting lay roles. There is a manifest and tangible clericalization of the Catholic church, worse now than before the Council. More and more often, priests and bishops make political, economic and social pronouncements about the temporal order, to which the laity is expected solely to react. This is an inversion of vocations and roles. It thwarts the normal workings of grace and personal vocation. It compounds mutual weaknesses. It invites hubris.

It is a paradox that we live in a time both of clericalism and anticlerical sentiment within the Church. On the one hand, the clergy try to tell the laity what to do in areas that should be under lay authority (such as politics and economics). On the other hand, any sacramental aspects of the clergy are diminished, leading to a blurring between clergy and lay in the average parish.

Fourth is the diminishment of words of faith and holiness of life. Words like “prophecy,” “witness,” and “charism” are more and more used for strictly partisan political opinions, less and less used of authentic faith and practice. This is a species of theological imperialism, the coercion of false labeling.

The crisis in the Catholic church of 1982 is that the church seems in danger of losing its true, original, and profound identity, in order to become what it is not, an instrument of temporal power. Nearly always today, this temporal assertion of the church is leftward in its force, as in former times it was often rightward. Yet whether tilting to the left or to the right, the fundamental theological error is the same.

This is also the crisis in the Catholic Church in 2022: Catholics don’t know their own identity. Many parishes have become little more than social clubs, and many Catholics do not realize the beauty and power of the Catholic Faith, thinking it but one of many political or social viewpoints.

We do not wish merely to mourn the passing of the liberal Catholic tradition; we wish to breathe life back into it. Many battles must be fought, both to our left and to our right. We are, first of all, Catholic — our faith is dear to us. To be “Catholic” means to have a sense of community, of tradition, of faith and prayer and contemplation, and perhaps of tragedy (as in the crucifixion and death) not common to those who are “liberal” in other ways.

But we are also “liberal” in the sense that not all Catholics are. We are neither socialists nor traditionalists. Our vision of the temporal order is rather like that of Jacques Maritain, from whose Center we publish. We believe that history has a narrative form; that social progress, though difficult and reversible, lies within human possibility; and that the liberal society is an authentic, although imperfect, expression of the Gospels in political economy, made possible by the long leavening of human cultures with the faith of Judaism and Christianity.

“We are neither socialists nor traditionalists.” A lot has happened in the past few decades to make “traditionalists” less of a boogey-man than they were back in 1982. Here we see perhaps too much acceptance of the progressive doctrine of “social progress.” Catholic tradition, while it does develop, ultimately is anchored to the timeless truths of the Faith, truths which do not progress but instead call every age to conform to them.

We dread the “great, climactic battle” which Solzhenitsyn predicts on the horizon. We resist the flirtation of so many in the Church with ideas of political economy certain to diminish both liberty and productivity. We look for a return of American laymen and laywomen to their full responsibilities in the Church. We expect a “new spring,” after the present critical years.

We are clearly in the “great, climactic battle” today, and sadly that “new spring” in which McInerny and Novak yearned for has not yet come. Most, in fact, would argue that the crisis has only increased since 1982. Yet we still should be filled with hope, not because a new spring will soon come here on earth in our lifetimes, but because we know the end of the story when all crises will end and Our Lord Jesus Christ will reign as King over all. That is what the founders of Crisis wanted, and what we still want today.

Telegram

Understanding the Roots of the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

We’re all familiar with The Narrative. It’s The Narrative that tells us that “love is love,” which means we must accept any and all perversities in our society as normal. The Narrative proclaims that “Masks save lives,” so we all must muzzle ourselves 24/7 in spite of no evidence it actually helps. 

The Narrative is the means by which culture is shaped and massive changes in society are implemented. Never is this more true than when it comes to war. After all, most people are naturally opposed to war—who other than a sociopath wants to see death and suffering inflicted on a mass scale? And so governments must implement The Narrative in order to gain support for an unpopular cause. That’s what’s happening here in the United States regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

Crisis Point
Crisis Point
Putin, Ukraine, and the Increasing Possibility of World War III
Loading
/

What is The Narrative regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? It states that the war is the result of the unbridled expansionism of Vladimir Putin, who wants to recreate—and enlarge—the old Soviet Empire. He’s a modern-day Adolf Hitler with paranoid delusions of Western aggression, a man to whom negotiations would be fruitless. In The Narrative, the West is spotless in its dealings with Russia, and this invasion occurred within a vacuum, with no history behind it.

While this Narrative, like every Narrative, might contain a few truthful elements,  it is not the whole story. In fact,  it leaves out so much as to essentially give a false story. What is the actual history behind this conflict, and what has been the role of America and the West in fostering it? That’s the subject of an excellent new book by Benjamin Abelow, “How the West Brought War to Ukraine.” 

The title might seem to indicate that Abelow is a Putin apologist, but he is no such thing. He states unequivocally that Putin is responsible for this war. But he wants to go beyond the cartoon version of the Russian president created by the Western media:

It is not my aim to justify Moscow’s invasion or exonerate Russia’s leaders. I have no brief for Mr. Putin. Notwithstanding all I will say, I believe he had alternatives to war. But I do want to understand him—in the sense of seeking to rationally assess the causal sequence that led him to launch the war.

In his short book, Abelow examines how Western arrogance toward Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union—expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, unilaterally abandoning nuclear arms treaties, placing missile installations within those new NATO countries close enough to destroy Moscow within 15 minutes, ignoring repeated warnings from Russia about Ukraine’s entrance into NATO, and assisting in a coup that overthrew the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine in 2014—all laid the groundwork to today’s conflict.

Understanding this history is vitally important for the cause of peace. Like Abelow, Catholics should not mindlessly follow The Narrative when it comes to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but instead should seek to understand what has led to it, for this is the way to peace. It amazes me that many conservative Catholics who easily see the lies and half-truths of the Biden Administration when it comes to abortion, transgenderism, or the economy refuse to see those same lies and half-truths when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine (lies and half-truths which have led to the United States sending almost $80 billion in aid to Ukraine—money we can’t afford to spend).

In a recent podcast, I urged Catholics to look to the model of Blessed Karl of Austria, the “Peace Emperor” during World War I. Even though it was his uncle who was assassinated, thus setting off the War to End All Wars, he never gave into a war-mongering Narrative and instead relentlessly sought peace. 

A nuclear World War III would likely be humanity’s greatest failure. Although too many Western politicians and pundits today sadly equate “negotiations” with Neville Chamberlain’s “appeasement,” we Catholics should instead see negotiations as the path of Blessed Karl, one that deescalates conflict and leads to peace. In union with Pope Francis’s recent call, we should pray and fast that Russia will immediately cease hostilities, that Ukraine will be willing to open negotiations for a just peace, and that America and the West will encourage peace rather than further bloodshed and conflict.

Blessed Karl of Austria, pray for us!

Telegram

The FBI Is Sending a Message to Pro-Life Catholics

The swatting and arrest of a pro-life activist on Friday sent shockwaves throughout the pro-life community…which is exactly what the FBI intended by their gestapo tactics.

When a swarm of fully-armed FBI agents attack the rural home of a father of seven who runs a Catholic anti-pornography ministry over a charge that was already dropped in the local courts, it’s not a mistake—it’s a message. You will be silent, you will comply—or you will be next.

Mark Houck is the founder of The King’s Men, a ministry that strives to help men to live virtuously and free from pornography. Each week he also prays in front of a Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia, sometimes bringing his 12-year-old son with him. On numerous occasions, one of the pro-abortion “escorts” directed vile and vulgar comments at the boy and came very close to him in doing so. Houck, after repeated warnings to the man, eventually pushed him away, which led to a lawsuit that was thrown out in the district court of Philadelphia.

That should have been the end of the story. However, the Department of Justice got involved, charging Houck with violations against the FACE Act, one of the most evil (and tragically, most effective) pieces of legislation in American history. FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) was enacted in 1994 in response to the growing—and effective—rescue movement. 

I was deeply involved in rescue at that time, and I remember well the impact of FACE. It essentially shut down all rescues across the country—rescues that were responsible for countless babies saved and for unsanitizing abortion in the eyes of the public. It was now a federal crime punishable up to 10 years in prison to peacefully and nonviolently block abortion clinic doors. Overnight, rescue was dead.

But of course pro-lifers did not give up. We continued to work for the end of abortion and the saving of babies, and those efforts eventually led to the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade. Needless to say, the pro-abortion forces of darkness did not take that lightly, and here is their response: full-scale persecution of pro-life activists, given a legal veneer by the FACE Act.

Some pro-lifers are arguing that Mr. Houck should not have pushed the pro-abortion attacker down, or should not even have been there, but that misses the point completely. First, a father has a right and a duty to protect his children. If you move this exact same situation to another location, say, at a ballgame with a drunk fan harassing your child, then everyone would agree (and the law would support) that a father can take this action. 

Further, if pro-lifers simply stop praying and counseling at abortion clinics because of the potential for such encounters, then the pro-aborts will have already won. They purposefully instigate these scenarios to make us afraid to come. But if we give in to our fear, then the babies will have no one to speak for them.

The real story here is the overheated response of the federal government. This arrest is another step on the path to full-scale persecution of Catholics and pro-lifers. History shows that the persecution of a class of people doesn’t appear in a vacuum; it usually takes decades or even longer of priming the society to look down on a group of people or way of life. And what has the past few decades in America been if not a growing delegitimization of Catholicism and its teachings? 

We see it all around us. Big families are ridiculed, priests are mocked, and traditional sexuality is reviled. Anyone who dares to resist this trend is progressively ostracized from society and the culture at large. It begins at the level of the major media and Hollywood until it seeps into dinner conversations and neighborhood picnics. Eventually it gets to the point that a family man can be arrested and many will just say, “Well, he probably deserved it—after all, look at the way he lives.”

The forces of evil know how to take advantage of this attitudinal shift. They push a little at a time, progressively ramping up their attacks to see what is acceptable and what is not (yet) acceptable. An arrest like this, then, serves a dual purpose: first, it sends a message to the pro-life community, and second, it checks the pulse of the culture to gauge the reaction. If this arrest is allowed to stand, then expect more in the future. 

It also must be noted the role of the FBI in all this. The arrest of Houck, along with the raid of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate and other recent egregious actions, should make clear that the FBI is not our friend. Sadly, conservatives have long supported the growing militarization of all law enforcement, and now we are seeing the consequences. A militarized law enforcement is an army ready to attack its own citizens.

Although we might have an instinctive reaction to “back the blue,” we need to understand that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are being weaponized against practicing Catholics. I’d go so far as to argue that any practicing Catholics working at the FBI need to rethink their career and consider the possibility they work for a fundamentally immoral organization.

Fortunately, not everything is bleak. The growing persecution of Catholicism and traditional values has not been met without resistance. We see it in what might at first appear to be an unrelated news story from this weekend: the election of a new Italian prime minister who is boldly and unapologetically Catholic and pro-life (which makes her “far-right” in media parlance, of course). 

The increasing insanity of the Left has one positive element: it reveals to a growing number of “normal” people that a world ruled by the Left isn’t one they want to live in. And so we will likely see more and more victories by the Right, which is really just more victories for sanity.

In the case of the Houck arrest, we must do all we can to resist this Nazi-style attack on a family man. If you are able, donate to his legal fund. Be sure to continue to pray and protest at your local abortion clinic. Attend pro-life and other Catholic marches. Pray for the Houcks, all pro-life activists, and for their persecutors. 

But most of all: Do not be silent. Do not back down. Resist.

Telegram

The Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism of the British Monarchy

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of King Charles III, the British Monarchy is dominating the news. For Catholics, this presents some tensions. After all, the British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the (heretical) Church of England, the mother church of the Anglican Communion, and of course is the successor of monarchs like King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I, who mercilessly persecuted Catholics, pillaged monasteries, and made Catholicism an illegal religion during their reigns. 

Because of this history, watching Queen Elizabeth II’s coffin being placed in state at Westminster Hall yesterday was a surreal experience for Catholics. On the one hand, the beautiful pageantry, liturgical precision, and moving chanting of the psalms all had deep Catholic roots. Yet this same room has seen the condemnations of both St. Thomas More and St. Edmund Campion for their defense of the Catholic Faith.

This dichotomy is deep in the English soil. The era from the reign of Henry VIII (d. 1547) up to the beginning of the 19th century was one of constant persecutions of Catholics, with varying levels of intensity over the years. Under Queen Elizabeth I in the late 16th century in particular, being a Catholic was a life-threatening condition at all times. It’s not an exaggeration to compare Elizabethan England to the pagan Roman Empire or the Soviet Union in terms of the level of persecution of Catholics. And latent anti-Catholicism still lingers in English culture today.

However, that’s not the whole story. Henry VIII could not have broken with Rome if at one point the Monarchy had not been united to Rome. And united it was. England has a long and glorious history of faithfulness to Rome and the Catholic religion, even to the point of being called “Mary’s Dowry” for its devotion to the Blessed Mother and the Church. 

When St. Edmund Campion was condemned, he harkened back to this glorious history to challenge his persecutors: “In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors, all our ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England—the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.”

After the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury in 597, England became a gem of Christendom, with many of her monarchs leading the way. King Alfred the Great fought against the pagan vikings to keep the island Christian, and King Edward the Confessor was a model of sanctity. Many English Monarchs enthusiastically supported the medieval crusades, fighting to stop the spread of Islam and regain the Holy Land for Christianity. Even King Henry VIII was a stout defender of the faith against the heresies of Martin Luther before his falling in with Anne Boleyn. 

It would be mistaken then, to simply dismiss the British Monarchy as an anti-Catholic institution that must be wholly rejected by Catholics today. Its history shows a deep connection to the defense and spread of Catholicism, in spite of the stains of the Reformation-era monarchs. 

I would argue then, that the British Monarchy is like a glorious and beautiful fruit tree, with roots extended deep into the ground. But next to that tree grew up a thick weed that became intertwined with the trunk and branches of the tree. It began to cover the tree’s beauty, and even to suck the nutrients from the tree, stifling its growth and health. Its fruit is no longer beautiful, no longer healthy to eat.

So the question becomes: do we try to save the tree, or should we just cut down both the tree and the weed? To me, it seems clear that the best path would be to extricate the weed from the tree, thus freeing the tree to be glorious again. This, to be sure, is far harder work than simply removing both. But instead of leaving an empty space and memories of a once-great tree, freeing the tree from the weed will return the tree to glory, thus attracting many to eat of its fruit.

How can this be done practically? After all, it’s not like any of us can talk to King Charles III and convince him to convert to Catholicism (if you can do that, though, please do so!). But we can work in our own sphere toward that goal.

One practical step would be to spiritually “adopt” an Anglican church in your area and pray for it each day to convert and become an Ordinariate parish. Imagine what would happen if dozens, even hundreds, of Anglican parishes converted en masse to the Church and became Ordinariate parishes. Would it lead to a rethinking of basic beliefs at all levels of the Anglican church, all the way up to the Supreme Governor himself? 

Perhaps if the majority of the Anglican church converted to Catholicism, the British Monarch would eventually even join his former congregants and himself convert. Yes, it’s a fantastical scenario, but I believe in a God who was raised from the dead, which is the most fantastical scenario of them all.

Make the British Monarchy Great Again: Return it to the Catholic Church, even if it means one convert at a time.

Telegram

Weapon of Choice

The Internet is full of articles ignorant of or hostile to Catholicism, and it’s a good practice to mostly just ignore them. But sometimes you come across an article that is so ignorant and so hostile that you have to pause and contemplate whether it’s more stupid or more evil, or whether it’s the perfect combination of stupidity and evil that most anti-Catholics can only dream of.

A recent article by Daniel Panneton in The Atlantic, “How the Rosary Became an Extremist Symbol,” reaches these ignominious heights. Somehow Panneton is able to perfectly synthesize his ignorance of Catholicism with his contempt, and frankly, it’s a wonder to behold.

 

Aka, How The Atlantic Became An Anti-Catholic Rag

The general thrust of the article is this: so-called “radical-traditional” (aka “rad trad”) Catholics are weaponizing the Rosary and in doing so are joining with Christian nationalists in encouraging physical violence against their many enemies. I’ll understand if my Catholic readers need to take a minute to clean up their keyboards after spitting out their coffee reading that last sentence.

The howlers in this article come fast and furious and begin in the subtitle:  “The AR-15 is a sacred object among Christian nationalists. Now ‘radical-traditional’ Catholics are bringing a sacrament of their own to the movement.” First, the Rosary is a sacramental, not a sacrament. Second, Panneton’s proof that the AR-15 is a “sacred object” among Christian nationalists is a link to a leftist website making that claim (and this is common in this article: to prove his points, Panneton mostly links to other leftist sites making similar claims.)

It would be painful—somewhat like watching a middle school play where none of your own kids are involved—to go through all the problems in this article, so I’ll just hit a few highlights.

The concept of the Rosary as a weapon has a rich history in the Catholic Church; it’s not some modern invention. But this “weaponization” of the Rosary is connected to something far deeper in Catholicism: the idea that we are engaged in a war, and each of us are called to be soldiers in that war. After all, Catholics here on earth have long been called the “Church Militant” for a reason.

As St. Paul wrote in the first century:

We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12)

Being a Catholic means being at war. If you wish to ignore that war, then you cease being a practicing Catholic.

Of course, in our modern woke world all militaristic language has become politically incorrect. Heck, even the military shies away from this language in favor of promoting the diversity of their troops (“Look, we now have black transgender disabled overweight women flying our planes!”). Any military language is sure to run foul of the woke police, so it’s not surprising that the “Rosary is a weapon” language is considered highly suspect.

Panneton further considers the growing movement among Catholics to learn how to protect ourselves and become more self-sufficient as proof that “rad trads” are preparing for war. Yet he makes no mention of the increasing violence against Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers, the desire to force faithful Catholics out of their jobs and even out of society for their refusal to comply with transgender or other woke ideology, or the violent, I mean “mostly peaceful,” BLM riots of two summers ago. Hmm…I wonder why Catholics are starting to feel like just maybe they should prepare for bad times?

I also find it interesting that Panneton finds the Rosary as the “extremist symbol” of what he calls “rad trad” Catholics. The term “rad trad” originated among Catholics who didn’t like traditional Catholics. It was a way to ostracize them—to say, “Look, I’m a practicing Catholic, but I’m not like those Catholics. I’m safe!” Of course, as society has gotten more extreme in its anti-Catholicism, so has the simple practice of Catholicism become radical and traditional in today’s world.

You can see this in some of the examples Panneton uses to distinguish these so-called “rad trads:” they “actively campaign against LGBTQ acceptance in the Church;” they oppose “abortion-rights advocates;” and they resist the child groomers prevalent in homosexual and transgender circles. In other words, they act like Catholics.

Catholics of all stripes need to realize that it is Catholicism itself that is a radical traditionalist movement in the eyes of the world. Instead of fighting amongst ourselves in an effort to appear more acceptable to the world, it’s time we united under the mantle of Our Lady, with the Rosary as our weapon of choice.

Telegram

This Republic’s Bananas Are Getting Ripe

Last night former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was raided by the FBI. Details are still unclear, but the purported reason for the raid was to search for classified documents supposedly stored at the estate.

This raid is just the latest in ongoing attempts to bring down Trump, attempts that began almost the minute he took office in 2016. From RussiaGate to multiple impeachments to the January 6th hearings, the Left, in alliance with the Deep State, has done everything it can to push Trump out of the way, preferably all the way to jail. Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached pandemic levels.

One cannot help but feel that this raid, however, represents a new and dangerous phase in our American experiment. It’s generally been understood that former Presidents are untouchable. Most of them likely have significant skeletons in their closet (can we say Jeffrey Epstein?), but Americans have an unspoken agreement that going after former Presidents, especially former Presidents of the opposing party of the current Administration, will end badly.

Of course, President Trump isn’t just any former president. He’s also the front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination. And that’s why the Left can’t give him up. It is desperate to sideline him any way it can. This raid is an obvious attempt to do that; here’s U.S. Code § 2071 (emphasis added):

(b): Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

The Number 1 goal for the Left is to disqualify Trump from running in 2024, and this goal has become an obsession, reaching insane heights. What the Left can’t seem to recognize is that their unrelenting attacks on Trump only make him more popular with his base, and even make him more popular with those who aren’t enthusiastic about him, but also don’t want to see governmental power used to frustrate the democratic process.

That’s the irony of Trump Derangement Syndrome: it attracts people to Trump. I’ve never been a big fan of Trump, as a person or as a president. However, the viciousness in which his enemies—who are often the enemies of my vision for America—attack him suggest that he has a greater ability to bring them down than I thought.

Personally, I don’t want Trump to run in 2024. But if he ends up being in jail in 2024, I guarantee I will vote for him, even if I have to write his name on the ballot. I may not be enthusiastic about Trump, but I’m far less enthusiastic about living in a banana republic.

Telegram

The Liturgy Wars Have Become Doctrinal Wars

Many Catholics over the past few decades have studiously avoided the “liturgy wars” within the Church and, frankly, I don’t blame them. Too often these battles involve a lot of heat and not a lot of light. Catholic against Catholic can become quite vicious and personal at times. Better to simply keep one’s head down, bear silently with any liturgical issues at your parish, and soldier on.

Because of this prevailing attitude, many Catholics have also only been somewhat if at all interested in Pope Francis’s efforts to restrict and ultimately eliminate the traditional Latin Mass. It doesn’t impact them directly, and it seems to concern issues above their pay grade. Again, better to keep one’s head down.

The problem is that the effort to shut down the traditional Latin Mass is only one prong in a multipronged war by the pope against the perceived threat of “traditionalism.” For whatever reason, Francis seems to believe that traditionalism is one of the most pressing problems in the Church today and needs to be vigorously resisted.

Now the average faithful Catholic might say, “But I’m not a traditionalist, I attend the Ordinary Form and I’m fine with Vatican II, so what’s it to me?” Recent remarks by the pope, however, shows that this attack on “traditionalism” in the Church goes far deeper than an attachment to the old rites—it directly impacts the doctrines of the Church.

Last week on the plane back from Canada (it’s always on a plane, isn’t it?), the pope was asked about efforts to undercut Humanae Vitae and change the Church’s absolute prohibition against artificial contraception. His answer was revealing. Instead of just simply saying that this teaching would not—because it could not—change, he launched into another diatribe against traditionalism:

But know that dogma, morality, is always on a path of development, but always developing in the same direction…I think this is very clear: a Church that does not develop its thinking in an ecclesial sense, is a Church that is going backward. This is today’s problem, and of many who call themselves traditional. No, no, they are not traditional, they are people looking to the past, going backward, without roots – it has always been done that way, that’s how it was done last century. And looking backward is a sin because it does not progress with the Church. Tradition, instead, someone said (I think I said it in one of the speeches), tradition is the living faith of those who have died. Instead, for those people who are looking backward, who call themselves traditionalists, it is the dead faith of the living. Tradition is truly the root, the inspiration by which to go forward in the Church, and this is always vertical. And looking backward is going backward, it is always closed.

In other words, to think that the Church’s teaching about artificial contraception cannot “develop” is to be a “traditionalist” who has “the dead faith of the living” (and although there’s a lot of wordplay here, “develop” essentially means “change” in this context, since an absolute moral prohibition on artificial contraception can only be changed into something it is not). Humanae Vitae is simply “how it was done last century.”

So, in the pope’s eyes, you do not have to attend the traditional Latin Mass—you don’t even have to care a lick about the liturgy—to be a “traditionalist;” simply believing that the Church cannot change her fundamental moral teachings makes you one.

We are all traditionalists now.

Telegram

Did Opus Dei Just Receive a Slap on the Wrist from the Pope?

The recent papal motu proprio Ad charisma tuendum modifying the oversight of Opus Dei came as a surprise to many. From all outward appearances, Opus Dei is in good standing with the pope and there was no push from any quarter of the Church to make changes to the personal prelature.

The short moto proprio lists six changes, but two stand out. First, Opus Dei will now be under the Dicastery for the Clergy instead of the Congregation of Bishops. This change seems to simply be keeping the oversight of Opus Dei in line with the pope’s recent structural changes to the Roman Curia. As part of this change, instead of submitting a report every five years directly to the pope, now the head of Opus Dei—the Prelate—will submit that report to the Dicastery for the Clergy. This might be a “demotion” of Opus Dei, but it might also just be some bureaucratic shuffling.

The most important change is that now the Prelate will no longer become a bishop. This is significant for a number of reasons. First, having a bishop in charge of the prelature gives it a certain prestige and authority. Second, not having a bishop as Prelate creates a greater dependence upon the Vatican. Opus Dei will always have to ask for a bishop to perform ordinations, for example. A bishop also has a certain freedom of movement in the Church that a priest, even one designated a “Supernumerary Apostolic Protonotary,” does not have. This appears to be another step by the pope to further his goal of greater centralization of the Church at the Vatican (in spite of his outward calls for “synodality”).

Most observers see these changes as a ecclesial slap at the prelature, although no one’s really sure why this slap occurred. Opus Dei has always been publicly supportive of Pope Francis, so it’s not like he’s correcting a (perceived) wayward group like his actions directed toward traditional Catholics.

Speaking of traditional Catholics, I’ve seen more than a few of them a little too happy about this motu proprio. They are noting that even if you are subservient to Francis, he’ll still come after you. I think this attitude misunderstands the work of Opus Dei, as well as shows a certain uncharitableness.

While it’s true that a few Opus Dei leaders have been a bit over-the-top in their praises of the pope at times, the vast majority of the work of Opus Dei has been to form men and women in holiness in the midst of the world. It’s not about church politics. While I’ve never been a member of Opus Dei, I did for a time attend their evenings of reflection, retreats, and circles. The talks and conversation never revolved around church politics, and never was there any talk of the current pope’s comings and goings. The focus was only on building a life of holiness.

Now I realize that Opus Dei has a reputation for being “conservative,” and that’s well-deserved. So maybe that’s why this pope is suspicious of them and wants to keep them in check. But if that’s true, then he misunderstands Opus Dei as much as some traditional Catholics do.

Telegram

Proudly a “Restorer”

In a recent interview Pope Francis lamented the existence of “restorers,” a label he appears to tag on those who do not “accept the Council.” He said,

Restorationism has come to gag the Council. The number of groups of ‘restorers’ — for example, in the United States there are many — is significant.

I was struck by the pope’s use of the term, “restorers.” Whether the pope meant it as an insult or just a descriptive label, I take it as an accurate description of my views and the views of many other Catholics (a “significant” number, according to the pope). I absolutely do want to restore many things that have been lost (or stolen away), including: ad orientem worship, processions, Rogation Days, Ember Days, Gregorian chant, sacred architecture, sacred music, high altars, beautiful vestments (including lace!), cassocks, birettas, Epiphany blessings, Epiphany and Ascension feasts celebrated on their proper days, prayers at the foot of the altar before Mass, the St. Michael prayer after Mass, the Last Gospel, the Baltimore Catechism, Septuagesima season, a zeal for converting non-Catholics, clear moral teaching on areas of sexuality, and a whole host of other traditions and devotions no longer with us.

What’s ironic is that Francis uses the term “restorers” to describe those who don’t “accept” the Council, but none of the things on the list above were abolished by Vatican II (some were even encouraged!). Show me the Council document that removes Rogation Days from the calendar (and while you’re at it, please give me a good reason these beautiful and deeply religious days were removed). Show me which Council session said we should remove our high altars and replace them with IKEA-designed tables. Show me which Council Father proposed we move Ascension Thursday to the following Sunday for modern convenience.

Of course, it’s likely that Francis means “restorers” in a negative light, painting a picture of someone with a sense of over-imaginative nostalgia who simply wants to return to things exactly as they were in 1958. While there might be a few Catholics like that, this stereotype falls short. No, we restorers want to restore a firm foundation, a foundation that can be built upon for the re-evangelization of the world. We see the foundation built in the wake of the Council as a house built upon sand (and again, this shaky foundation is more often than not unrelated to the Council itself), and so we want to restore the foundation of Tradition, which includes many of those small and seemingly insignificant traditions that have been practiced for generations, and whose value is only truly recognized when it’s taken away.

Following St. Pius X, we embrace the words of St. Paul who wanted to “restore all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:10). While it’s true that some lost traditions are far more important than others, all were developed over centuries to form a tapestry which helped countless Catholics draw closer to Christ and into a deeper relationship with him.

So, yes, Holy Father, I am a “restorer,” and I hope and pray you will be too.

 

Telegram

You WILL Comply!

As everyone is forced to know, this month in the pagan world is “Pride Month,” when corporations and governments far and wide are required to declare their allegiance to the Rainbow Flag and their undying support for the Alphabet People. This is the time when corporate virtue signaling goes into high gear; even companies that might not care about the issue make sure to show their support for fear of being cancelled by a small, but vocal (and rich), demographic.

Professional sports teams are no different, and so this month every Major League Baseball team is hosting a “Pride Night,” in which rainbow flags are flown and statements are made with inane declarations like “love is love” (is it something else?) and “we believe all people should be able to play baseball” (as if anyone is denied the right to play ball these days).

Each team decides the specifics of their Pride Night, and some teams push the agenda more than others (true story: a few years ago I accidentally attended a Pride Night at the Kansas City Royals park, and didn’t even realize it except for a single announcement during the game). This year the Tampa Bay Rays decided to up their devotion to the cause by changing their on-field uniform to have rainbow-colored team logos instead of the usual blue ones. But, perhaps realizing not every player would be on board, they allowed players to choose whether to wear the rainbow logos or the regular ones.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the culture wars in recent years should know what happened next. A few players decided not to wear the rainbow logos, and the Woke Mob was not happy. The story made national news, and of course ESPN and other Woke Media did their best to stir up the controversy.

One of the dissenting Rays spoke for the group and, to be honest, he sounds terrified.

“So it’s a hard decision,” [Rays pitcher Jason] Adam told the Tampa Bay Times. “Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.

“… It’s not judgmental. It’s not looking down. It’s just what we believe the lifestyle he’s encouraged us to live, for our good, not to withhold. But again, we love these men and women, we care about them, and we want them to feel safe and welcome here.”

This sounds like someone with a gun to his head trying to figure a way out of his predicament. And, in a sense, that’s exactly what he is. Adam knows that his career could very well be on the line—if there is enough pushback, there could be demands for his “cancellation.” Any dip in performance on the field could be used as an excuse to send him to the minor leagues or even cut him from the team, all in an effort to have forced unity on the team.

Years ago, when the “gay rights” movement demanded more and more concessions, you’d often hear their activists say, “Why are you opposed to gay rights? This won’t impact your life in any way.” Of course, they don’t even try to say that anymore, as every one knows it’s a lie. There are no longer calls for tolerance, but compliance. You MUST agree with their lifestyles, no matter how aberrant and sinful. If you don’t publicly show your support for what every generation before ours knew to be physically, mentally, psychologically, and spiritually unhealthy, then you could lose your job, your friends, and anything else you might value.

Someone on Twitter is displaying the famous picture of the German who refused make the Nazi salute every day this month, and it’s an accurate way to look at Pride Month.

Everyone thinks he is the lone guy, but anyone displaying a rainbow flag is definitely NOT the lone guy. He’s part of the compliant crowd, willing to go along in order to stay out of trouble…even if what is promoted with is troubling. Everyone today is being forced to show their compliance to the totalitarian demands of the Alphabet movement—demands made both by governments and woke corporations.

One day the Rainbow Flag will go down in history as a symbol of oppression and hatred. When that day comes, sensible people will look back at these corporations and wonder how they didn’t know they were the “baddies.” Until then, let’s pray for and support those who resist the immense pressures to comply with the Rainbow Regime.

Telegram

It’s Not a Gun Problem or a Security Problem

Like clockwork, the mainstream media is using the tragic school shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas to push for greater gun-control laws. They are joined by all the usual Leftist bloviators, including far too many Catholic bishops. In response, many on the Right, such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz, are pushing for armed guards at all our schools. Neither solution, however, even attempts to look at the roots of the problem, and both solutions would do little to solve the problem and likely would make things worse.

Whenever a tragedy like this happens, social media and the 24-hour news channels are awash with immediate “hot takes.” None of these hot takes, whether from liberal or conservative commentators, look beyond the surface problem; they complain either of too-easy access to guns or not enough security. Below the surface, however, are a multitude of problems, most of which have no easy legislative solutions (which is why they are ignored).

What are some of these underlying problems? They are legion.

First, most of these shootings happen in public schools, which too often are breeding grounds for malcontents and the mentally unstable. This should not be surprising, as the very foundational principle of public schools is a lie: that “secular” education is possible. Boys and girls are a composite of body, mind, and soul, and any education that ignores one aspect—such as the soul—will fail to truly educate the human person. Further, public schools are Petri dishes of experimentation of the latest educational fads (including demonic ones like encouraging boys to say they are girls and vice versa), most of which do nothing to form well-adjusted young men and women.

Modern public schools are also fundamentally unsuited to the education of boys and young men. They too often want these bundles of physical energy to sit still for hours each day, and then when they naturally rebel against those unnatural restrictions they are punished or, even worse, medicated.

Another problem that can’t be ignored is the impact of the Covid lockdowns and restrictions. There’s some evidence that these policies had an impact on last week’s Buffalo shooter, and we know there’s been an increase in mental health issues among young people from the lockdowns. The idea that you could simply force every child in America to essentially be in solitary confinement for months, then require them to wear masks all day and keep their distance from their peers, then convince them that they could kill their grandmas if they weren’t super-duper careful, then tell them that everyone is a dangerous vector of disease, and this would have no impact on their mental wellbeing is ludicrous.

Then there is the problem of fatherlessness. Most of these mass shooters do not have fathers in their lives. We live in a culture where manhood in general and fathers in particular are demeaned and degraded. To be a strong father is something to ridicule rather than to praise. Add to that our divorce culture and you have a recipe for young men with no models of how to be mature, well-balanced adult men.

There’s also the lack of healthy communities. Drive through a typical American suburb in the evening and what do you see? Kids playing in the street and grownups interacting? Hardly. You see empty yards and blue light emanating from house windows as everyone stares at their screens from separate rooms. This is not healthy for the body, mind, or soul.

Another factor is the weakening hold of religion on our culture. Since the 1960’s, but particularly since 2000, more and more people are leaving organized religion altogether. Young people today are often brought up not only to be non-religious, but anti-religious. The “nones” now dominate the landscape. Studies have shown that religious people are healthier and happier, yet families are increasingly fleeing religion as if it were a deadly virus.

And of course there is the underlying abortion culture that permeates our society. Any country that allows its most innocent members to be dismembered for convenience is fundamentally demonic and will reap the consequences. Pope John Paul II called it the culture of death, and death seeps into every crevice of our society. Pope Francis calls it a “throw-away culture,” and he’s right: we treat human life as no more valuable than the wrapper from a McDonald’s cheeseburger. It’s insane to think that doesn’t impact the modern mind.

These aren’t even all the underlying problems; we could mention excessive (and violent) video game playing, widespread sexual abuse of minors, the negative aspects of social media, an unwillingness to let boys settle their differences with healthy physical confrontations, and much more.

So, what is the solution? It should be clear that these are not easy problems to overcome, and none are solved by more legislation. Making it harder to obtain a gun doesn’t address any of the above issues, and likely will cause other, worse problems.

But armed guards at every school won’t help, either. A number of years ago, while I was involved in prison ministry and regularly visited a number of correctional facilities, I had to go to the local public high school to register one of my home-schooled daughters for a test. This was a typical suburban, middle-class school—not inner-city or known for any violence. I was struck, however, by how much visiting that school reminded me of visiting a jail. The security was similar and the constant surveillance was similar. No one was free to walk the halls without explicit permission and a pass. Teachers and guards hovered over the students while they were eating lunch. While I understand why a school might do this, it’s not a healthly environment. If you treat people like criminals, they will act like criminals. The negative psychological impact of spending all day, every day in such an environment cannot be dismissed.

It’s possible for individual families to address and overcome the problems I mentioned above. Homeschool your kids, don’t get divorced, go to church, be part of your community—these are ways to make sure your kids are far less likely to turn out to be the shooter or the victims of these attacks. Yet on a macro scale, none of these problems are solved easily or overnight. It will take a massive cultural shift—specifically a shift to Christ and His Church—in order to truly overcome them. Until then, we need to do all we can in our own families and communities to address the real problems that lead to these tragedies instead of looking for a silver bullet in the form of more legislation.

Telegram

Archbishop Cordileone Stands Tall

Last year San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone issued a pastoral letter Before I Formed You in the Womb, I Knew You. In this letter the Archbishop laid out the reasons why a pro-abortion Catholic politician should be denied Communion, and the steps that should be taken for this to happen. While Cordileone was not the first bishop to speak out about this important issue, his voice was particularly important due to a high-profile member of his flock: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic with a long history of rabid support for legalized abortion.

A year ago today I interviewed Archbishop Cordileone about his pastoral letter, and at one point in the conversation I asked him point blank if he would deny Holy Communion to Pelosi. He said he was not ready to do that, as he felt he still needed to further discuss with her the gravity of her actions. To be honest, I was frustrated and disappointed, and so were many Catholics. After all, Pelosi has been openly pro-abortion for decades, and Cordileone has been her Ordinary for almost a decade. What more could be said or done? What was the purpose of waiting?

Well, the wait is now over. Cordileone announced yesterday that Nancy Pelosi “is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

The timing of the announcement—one year after his pastoral letter was released—makes me wonder if this was his plan all along. Publish the letter to make clear what steps would be taken, reach out to Pelosi for a year to see if there is any change of heart, and then, if no repentance is shown, announce the denial of Communion.

Cordileone has also made clear the steps Pelosi needs to take to return to Holy Communion:

you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publicly repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.

These are hard words, but they are words of a pastor. Forgiveness is not impossible; Nancy Pelosi is a child of God who can be reconciled to our loving Father. But first she must repent and confess her sins.

Needless to say, the reactions to this news have been predictable. Faithful Catholics are rejoicing that a shepherd has taken concrete steps to defend both the unborn and the sacredness of the Eucharist. The scandal of a woman who proclaims herself a “devout Catholic” while advocating for the killing of innocent children is incalculable. The Church’s witness for life has always been muted by the hierarchy’s refusal to take action in this regard.

For the pro-abortion Left, whether Catholic or not, the anger is palpable. Critics are accusing the Archbishop of making Holy Communion a political event, as if abortion is just another political issue like tax reform or minimum wage laws. Abortion has never been just a political issue; it is a deeply moral and spiritual issue which touches what it means to be a nation.

One thing is sure: Archbishop Cordileone needs our prayers. He will be attacked, both spiritually and politically, for his act of moral courage. Abortion has always been the Sacrament of the Left, and this frontal assault on what they hold sacred will surely not go unchallenged. Expect everything to be thrown at the Archbishop in an attempt to unseat him. As Catholics, we are duty-bound to support this brave hierarch with our prayers.

One final note: with the leak of the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade a few weeks ago, and now this news, this might very well be the best month American pro-lifers have experienced in decades. Praise and thanks be to our glorious God!

Telegram

Our Artificial Controversies

Last week the baby formula shortage made the news, so of course social media was abuzz with the hot takes. Because I’m not very bright, I decided to wade in as well.

Now I’ll admit that sometimes I’ll tweet something that I know is controversial just to stir things up. But in this case I figured there were good people suffering due to the shortages, so I made what I thought was a pretty bland, non-controversial statement:

To me, what I said seems obvious. First, that we should have sympathy for those who are impacted by baby formula shortages, and second, that any shortage should be a call to more self-sufficiency. And I noted that women are literally designed to feed their young children.

I must have forgotten that we’re living in Bizarro-world. The tweet blew up. Many of my Catholic followers took exception to what I said, suggesting that I was condemning mothers who, for whatever reasons, could not breastfeed their children. Then the Pronoun Gang jumped in and all rational discourse soon evaporated. I was quickly ratioed, as everyone piled on to say how ignorant, unfeeling, and insensitive a person I was, which they could definitely divine from a single tweet.

The high (or low) point came when the New York Times said my take was “woefully ignorant.”

Two things strike me about this controversy. First, how artificial it is. Second, that many Catholics have joined our culture in being oversensitive and finding ways to be offended.

To say that “God literally designed mothers to feed their babies” is an objective fact. Just like He designed eyes to see, ears to hear, and idiots like me to tweet. The end—the purpose—of a woman’s breasts are to produce milk to feed her young children.

Does this mean that every single mother can breastfeed? Obviously not, just as some people are born blind or deaf. But those exceptions don’t invalidate the design, they just remind us that we live in a broken, fallen world that doesn’t always live up to God’s designs.

The Pronoun Crowd, however, will have none of such obvious obviousness. When you believe a man can breastfeed, then you can’t have someone saying that God designed anything. The irony that many were lambasting me for being ignorant of such things because I’m a man was evidently lost on them.

But we’ve come to expect the Pronoun Crowd to be post-logical and post-factual. It’s the response from many Catholics that was disappointing. Defending God’s design is important and necessary in today’s upside-down world. We shouldn’t let our personal disappointments and heartaches silence the proclamation of the truth.

It’s become the norm in our culture—including our Catholic culture—that we feel we must caveat and over-explain every single statement for fear of offending someone. It’s almost gotten to the point that we can’t praise a beautiful sunrise for fear of offending a blind person. But if we stop praising God’s designs out of fear of offending someone, then we will begin to forget those designs.

Breastfeeding is best for children. Mothers were designed to feed their children. These truths should be valued and cherished by every Catholic, even if through no fault of their own some aren’t able to breastfeed their children. Let’s not deny the beauty of God’s designs just because we sometimes fall short of them.

Telegram

Not in Our Name: Open Letter to President Biden on Russia-Ukraine Conflict

I am honored to be a signatory on an open letter to President Biden from a number of conservative and traditional journalists, commentators, and scholars on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Although some will want to make this out as a pro-Putin letter, it is really an anti-nuclear war, pro-peace letter. We cannot let the drumbeats of war lead us to escalate this conflict, especially when such an escalation could spell doom for the whole world.

Let us pray and fast for peace!

Full text of the letter:

Not in Our Name

Dear Mr. President,

The undersigned strongly and unambiguously express their opposition to your policy with regard to Ukraine. Your strategy is edging the world closer and closer to a nuclear war with Russia, and to another world war. Recently, you requested Congress for even more funds to be sent to Ukraine in order to help them buy more weapons for the military conflict with Russia. “So we need to contribute arms, funding, ammunition … so that they continue what they are doing,” you said on April 28 when asking for some more $33 billion in taxpayer funds to support Ukraine. “Robust military assistance” for Ukraine is your expression. Reuters reported that “President Joe Biden asked Congress for $33 billion to support Ukraine” and called it “a dramatic escalation of U.S. funding for the war with Russia.” At the same time, the U.S.-led NATO April 27 meeting in Ramstein, Germany urged NATO members to provide more military support to Ukraine, with Germany promising to send 50 self-propelled Cheetah anti-aircraft weapons. We reject your heightened escalation of this conflict as dangerous and a provocation.

The response from Russia? Just days before Biden’s appeal to Congress, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded to the increased U.S. military support of Ukraine by saying there was a “serious” risk of nuclear war over the conflict. “It’s real. It shouldn’t be underestimated,” he stated.

Do we want to risk a nuclear war with Russia over a regional conflict in Eastern Europe?

The independent journalist Glenn Greenwald just recently stated, “Whatever your views on the moral dimensions of this war, it’s hard to deny this is the most dangerous moment in US foreign policy in two decades. Every week, US/NATO involvement in the war intensifies, as Russia explicitly warns of nuclear war. For what?”

We hereby declare that your escalation of this conflict as the President of the United States has not been done in our name.

Nor did you act in our name when you, as Vice-President of the United States, were involved in the 2014 coup in Ukraine that toppled the officially elected leadership of Ukraine. At that time, a telephone conversation of your collaborator Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State under President Barak Obama) revealed how she discussed which leaders should be placed into the new government in Ukraine. The transcript of that conversation also exposed your own direct involvement in this interference with a foreign nation state. This intrusion into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation was not done in our name, either.

You designated this same official, Victoria Nuland, now as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. In that position, she has recently had to admit that Ukraine does have bio labs and that the U.S. is involved in them and is worried what Russia would do with its dangerous content should they get a hold of it. “Ukraine has biological research facilities which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops may be seeking to gain control of,” Nuland said. “So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.” Some of those very same Ukraine bio labs are ones that your own son, Hunter Biden, only months after the U.S.-led political coup in Ukraine in 2014, invested money by way of the U.S. Company Metabiota which is working with the Department of Defense. Additional evidence has been recently unearthed, effectively proving the U.S.’s involvement in Ukrainian bio labs.

This strange and troubling U.S. involvement in bio labs at the border of Russia — with direct involvement of your own family — is not done in our name, either.

And let us also remind you that the United States does not have a good moral standing when it comes to condemning unjust wars of aggression. RecentU.S. history demonstrates a pattern of multiple military invasions of sovereign states — or military and tactical support for others to do so — most prominently the unjust 2003 invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, but also in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

At this dangerous moment in history, the U.S. must exert its power to become a force for just peace, urging Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiation table in order to agree on compromises that would enable and ensure peace in the region.

The U.S. should not engage in a policy of intensification of conflict with Russia that could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people. There are grave consequences of cumulative provocations.

Not in our name, Mr. President.

(You can sign the petition in opposition to U. S. escalation of war with Russia here).

Signatories

Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Pastor, Author, Columnist, Radio Talk Show Host, Presidential Nominee

Donna F. Bethell, Esq. 

Walter E. Block, Ph.D., Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Loyola University New Orleans

Dr. Peter Chojnowski, philosopher and director of Sister Lucy Truth

Patrick Delaney, journalist

Matt Gaspers, Managing Editor, Catholic Family News

The Most Reverend Bishop René Gracida

Carrie Gress and Noelle Mering, TheologyofHome.com, Fellows, Ethics & Public Policy Center

Scholars, Institute for Human Ecology, CUA

Dr. Robert Hickson (USA ret.), retired professor of literature and military history

Dr. Maike Hickson, journalist

Steve Jalsevac, Co-Founder of LifeSiteNews.com

Jim Jatras, retired former U.S. diplomat, GOP Senate foreign policy adviser

Jason Scott Jones, movie producer, founder of the Vulnerable People Project, host of the Jason Jones Show

Dr. Clifford A Kiracofe 

Jack Maxey, journalist and political analyst

Brian M. McCall, Editor-in-Chief, Catholic Family News

Eugene G. McGuirk, BA, MA, MBA, Deacon and Educator

Eric Metaxas

Hon. Andrew P. Napolitano, former jurist, constitutional scholar, and legal commentator

Fr. David Nix, Diocesan hermit

Jack Posobiec, Editor, Human Events

Eric Sammons, Editor-in-Chief, Crisis Magazine

Dr. Michael Sirilla, Professor of Theology, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Beverly Stevens, REGINA Magazine

Frank Walker, Editor, Canon212.com

John-Henry Westen, co-founder and editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.com

Sir Owen Samuel Whitman, GCS, political commentary and consultant

Michael Yon, War Correspondent/author

Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder, YoreChildren

John Zmirak, Ph.D., Senior Editor, The Stream

The following signatories have added their names after the initial publication of the open letter.

Pastor David Reinwald, Kissinger’s Church, Wyomissing, Pa.

Rev. Ronald Charles Buxton, Pastor Van Horn Community Church, Van Horn Texas

Doug Fuda, Catholics Against Militarism blogger, Boston Church Militant Resistance co-captain

Fr. Douglas Hauber

Edward Lozansky, President, American University in Moscow

Anne Hendershott, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio

Michelle Bachmann, Dean, Regent University

Sean Feucht, Founder, Let Us Worship

Charlie Kirk, Co-Founder, Turning Point USA

Larry Taunton, Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation

Dr. Thaddeus Kozinski, Philosopher, Teacher, and Author

Timothy R. Furnish, Ph.D, Professor, Author, Eschatologist

Other scholars, journalists and other personalities of public life are invited to still sign this open letter and to give their support to this anti-war message by writing to [email protected].

Telegram

The End of the Road for Roe?

Last night a bombshell dropped: a draft majority opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was leaked that indicated the highest court in the land will soon be overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion in this country. In the draft, Alito writes, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start” and “We hold that Roe and Casey [the 1992 case that further enshrined legalized abortion] must be overruled.” If true, this would be the most significant overturning of a court decision since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and made racial segregation in public schools illegal.

A few initial take-aways from this news:

  • The need for Catholics to pray and fast for the overturning of Roe has only intensified. No doubt the demonic forces that prop up the abortion industry will work overtime to ensure this draft never becomes reality.
  • If Roe truly is overturned, the number of innocent babies saved from death will be incalculable. No matter the lies the Left has told for over a generation about “millions of back-alley abortions” in pre-Roe days, the reality is that, like legalized divorce, making abortion legal made it much more practiced as well.
  • This opinion would not make abortion illegal in the United States, but would instead throw the abortion issue back to the individual states. This is a huge improvement over our current legal landscape, but pro-lifers would need to battle in their own states to make abortion illegal locally.
  • A leak of this magnitude is unprecedented, and likely indicates an attempt to undermine the direction of the Court. Perhaps it is an attempt to change the outcome of the decision before it is released, or to prepare blue states to enact legislation to ensure access to legalized abortion, or perhaps even to begin the process of packing the Court.

Also at this time we should not forget the many pro-life heroes who have been battling abortion for almost 50 years—longtime warriors like Joan Andrews Bell, Joe Scheidler, Jack Willke, Randall Terry, and Monica Miller, as well as the newer wave of pro-life activists like Lila Rose, David Daleiden, and Abby Johnson. And of course we should remember the countless and nameless soldiers who have prayed and counseled in front of abortion clinics across the country for years. Their work—our work—is not over, but we should be grateful for all those who worked to stop child-killing and soften the hearts of a hardened country to the evil of abortion.

We should also not expect the abortion-crazed Left to take this quietly. Abortion is the chief sacrament of their demonic cause, and they will stop at nothing—nothing—to keep it legalized. If Roe and Casey are truly overturned in June, we should expect civil unrest in the summer of 2022 that will make the summer of 2020 look like a picnic. Expect attacks against the institution of the Supreme Court, and perhaps even against individual justices. While Catholics should rejoice at the news of the toppling of Roe, we should also prepare ourselves both spiritually and physically for the pro-abortion response.

Finally, it’s quite possible that the overturning of Roe will be the final nail in the coffin of the American experiment. Our country was founded upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but in 1973 we attached the “pursuit of happiness” with an attack on life. Such a Faustian bargain cannot hold, and the unravelling of the abortion regime might very well lead to the unravelling of a nation. Such a result should be lamented, of course, but at the same time no nation that wants to kill its own babies deserves to survive.

Telegram

George Orwell, Call Your Office

Politico reported yesterday:

DHS is standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia. Nina Jankowicz will head the board as executive director. She previously was a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship and oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.

A quick background check on Ms. Jankowicz reveals a dutiful soldier of the Woke Axis who once suggested the now-confirmed Hunter Biden laptop story was potentially “disinformation” coming out of Russia.

“Disinformation” is the latest Woke bogeyman, made especially scary to Leftists everywhere in light of Elon Musk’s potential takeover of Twitter. Of course, today’s “disinformation” is tomorrow’s fact—the term is used to classify any statement, whether factual or not, that contradicts The Current Narrative. We saw this particularly in regard to information surrounding Covid: remember when we were told (by the President!) the vaccine would prevent you from getting Covid, and any suggestion otherwise was considered disinformation? Now we have a four-time vaccinated Anthony Fauci refusing to attend a banquet for fear of catching the virus. 

Right now this “Disinformation Governance Board” is focused on “irregular migration” (what does that even mean?) and Russia. While that will be bad enough (any statements that don’t lead us to World War III will likely be shot down as disinformation), we can be sure that it won’t end there. “Homeland security” has always been a problematic department with too-broad objectives and too-easy ways to restrict our freedoms. Giving them authority over what we can say or not say is just one more step to full-blown 1984.

I’ve been beating the drum against the restrictions on speech under the guise of fighting “fake news” and “disinformation” among Catholics for a while now and I hope and pray Catholics will wake up to the danger. Any society that restricts the dissemination of factual statements or unpopular opinions is a direct threat to Catholicism. We can be sure this new Ministry of Truth  Disinformation Governance Board will work to prop up our anti-Catholic, warmongering, pr0-abortion government in any way it can.

Telegram

The Left’s Hatred of Free Speech in Three Parts

The Left is currently in full meltdown-mode over Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Its days of controlling what can and cannot be said on one of the world’s largest social media platforms appears to be ending. Blue check liberals are now threatening to leave Twitter, much like many conservatives left the social media giant after it increased its level of censorship in the wake of January 6th.

When conservatives flocked to Gab and Parler back then, many liberals complained that those outlets were just echo chambers that didn’t give all sides of an issue (their irony meter apparently being broken). Now, however, with Musk promising to make Twitter more open to what the Left considers unacceptable speech, liberals are looking for a safer space in which to vent.

Enter counter.social, which advertises “No trolls. No abuse. No ads. No fake-news. No foreign influence operations.” They have “zero tolerance” for any “fake news,” ban anyone coming from unacceptable countries (such as Russia), and will not allow any counter-narrative speech.

I decided to give Counter Social a try, just to see how serious they were about controlling speech.

First, I set up an account at 8:19am:

Three minutes later I posted for the first time:

Three minutes after that, at 8:25am, I was permanently suspended:

That’s all it took – one statement of biological fact and I was gone.

Telegram
+ Load More
Continue Shopping →
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00
Checkout

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMessengerMixPinterestPocketPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly