"I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill? "

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader
Today on CMR —
TwitterCounter for

I'd Kill Myself If I Had That Many Kids

The mom directly across from me, who I didn't really know and hadn't seen at many games, leaned in conspiritorially and asked, "Who has five children? I'd kill myself if I had that many kids."

Dopey me, I actually felt embarrassed for her. I figured she couldn't hear all that well and didn't know who they were talking about and would regret her comment when she learned it was the man and woman sitting directly across from her.

I shouldn't have worried. The coach seemed flummoxed, pointed at us, and then quickly engaged in a conversation on the other side of the table. The woman, didn't appear to be embarrased though.

"You two have five kids?" she laughed. "You seem like normal people."

Yup. She actually said it.

Please read the entire piece at The National Catholic Register>>>

*subhead*Fun.*subhead*

The Thug Now In Charge of the FFI

If reports are accurate, and given it is from La Stampa it can be reasonably supposed to be, the new head of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Alfonso Bruno, imposed on the order as a result of Vatican intervention, has sued an Italian blogger for being critical of him.

Reading the posts in question, the worst thing said, the blogger in question called Fr. Bruno "A traitor to Fr. Manelli."

That is it. For this he sues the blogger. The blogger and his wife were interrogated by the police.

Rorate has the translation of the La Stampa article.

This is thuggery, pure and simple. This is a brazen effort to intimidate the blogger and all other bloggers from posting anything critical of the brutal suppression of the FFI.

But this should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the story.

A Blog For Dallas Area Catholics runs through some of the litany of thuggery that has been imposed on the order.

Well, the above, this kind of heavy handed repression is why! I mean, who sues family man bloggers, other than trolls and thugs? This is hardly the first time the nouveau leadership of the FIs has stooped to such tactics. It has in fact been part and parcel of the new regime since its installation. What have we seen in less than a year? We have seen the founder locked up under house arrest, surely the most dangerous octogenarian on the planet. We have seen the former leadership forced under pain of obedience to endure scattering to distant missionary apostolates very far from the center of events. That certainly appears to be an attempt to get them out of the way. We have seen ludicrous stories of malfeasance on the part of the former administration, and even some of their lay associates and family members, made up well after the fact. Stories that have never been even remotely supported by any substantive evidence and, after having served their purpose of disparaging the reputations of certain individuals, have been quietly dropped.

What else have we seen? We’ve seen the reputations of devout novices trashed because they asked uncomfortable questions of the nouveau leadership and the Pope, through completely fabricated and meaningless (but very revealing) claims that the individual in question “rejected Vatican II.” What would that even mean?
But I guess if you a re a crypto-something or other, you had it coming according to the thug in charge.

Don't like it? Sue me.

*subhead*FFI Head sues blogger.*subhead*

Court Says Ground Zero Cross Can Stay, Atheists Weep and Gnash Teeth

I don't think the atheists really had a prayer with this lawsuit. The atheist group, American Atheists, pretended to be so horrified by the sight of a cross at the 9-11 museum that they filed suit for it to be removed.

“Atheists died on 9/11, members of our organization suffered in lower Manhattan on that day, and our members helped with the rescue and recovery efforts, yet we are denied equal representation in the National Museum,” American Atheists President David Silverman reportedly said.

But the suit just got tossed out of federal court and the atheists don't know if they're going to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or not.

The Daily Caller reports:

A federal court ruled Monday that the existence of a cross at Ground Zero does not violate the Constitution, slamming the appeal filed by the secular activist group American Atheists.

The famous cross, formed by two intersecting beams left standing after the 9/11 attacks, has been a powerful spiritual symbol for many since and even during the tragedy. Frank Silecchia discovered the cross while helping recover bodies from the site. “It was a sign,” he later said. ”a sign God hadn’t deserted us.”

American Atheists felt differently. In July 2011 they filed suit over the cross, which had been included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum, saying members of their group found its presence there “offensive and repugnant to their beliefs, culture, and traditions, and allege that the symbol marginalizes them as American citizens.”

“Many of American Atheists’ members have seen the cross, either in person or on television, and are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state,” the suit read.
The Franciscan priest, Father Brian Jordan, who reportedly originally had the cross pulled from Ground Zero. “In a way, we’ve been vindicated," he said. "I’m satisfied and gratified that this will go down as a piece of history — as a reminder.”

But the Second Circuit stated that the “actual purpose in displaying The Cross at Ground Zero has always been secular: to recount the history of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath.”

The court said the cross tells “the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy."

Faith is a real part of people's lives and it shouldn't be ignored. Hey, someone want to tell the Obama administration.


*subhead*Faith.*subhead*

Judge OK's Spanking Child

I guess I'm kinda' pro-choice on spanking. I have never had to do it but I'm not against doing it. I'm not for child abuse. Some might say any physical striking of a child is abuse but I don't think so.

Anyhoo, a New York judge just ruled in favor of a Dad who spanked his eight year old who cursed at an adult. I've got to tell you that I think a kid cursing at adults is pretty horrific and might be worth a red bottom.

Fox NY reports:

The state appellate court dismissed neglect charges against a Long Island father who spanked his 8-year old son for cursing at an adult, saying spanking did not constitute excessive punishment.

Criminal defense lawyer Arthur Aidala says the judge says as long as the punishment of spanking is within reason.

"The judge looks at the overall circumstances. There are so many children who unfortunately don’t have fathers around. Here you have a dad who cares and is trying to teach his boy a lesson, you don’t curse at adults, boom here's a whack," said Aidala.

Child psychologist Nava Silton is against corporal punishment of any kind.

"The problem with spanking is what you're doing is you're using a negative action and you're reinforcing that as a way in which to deal with life's issues. And so ideally what you want to do is you want to teach what the child so do instead. So you want to teach pro social alternatives actions that the children can take as opposed to using a negative action like spanking," she said.
I'd like to know who brought charges against this father for spanking. The story doesn't go into it.

One of the problems with kids is they seem to suffer from short-term memory. That's why those long-term punishments don't really work all that well. If a kid does something wrong the punishment needs to be swift for them to connect the two things. At least that's the case with my kids.

I think if the government decides spanking is illegal you're going to have the government taking away an awful lot of children.
*subhead*Legal.*subhead*

Wrap The Clap! Time To End Clapping At Mass (And Flamenco Dancing)

You know how Sharia law calls for the hands of theives to be chopped off? Yeah, well my kids know that a similar penalty will be lovingly applied by their father if I ever catch them clapping at Mass.

For me, applause at mass it the most visible sign of the anthropocentric corruption of our worship. This corruption invariably ends up with Flamenco Dancing.

Read the story At National Catholic Register.


*subhead*Anthropocentrism run wild.*subhead*

The Modernist

Chris Jackson highlights some of the videos of Msgr. Henry A. Kriegel of Saint Patrick Church in Erie, PA. I had recently been altered to these videos, but was too busy to do anything with them? Why? Because Msgr. Kriegel makes Deacon Sandy seem like Pope St. Pius X. Msgr. Kriegel is a thoroughly modern Modernist.



Chris Jackson at The Remnant breaks down the worst of it in terrific detail. Give it a read.

*subhead*Makes Deacon Sandy seem like Pius X*subhead*

No Speeches on Catholicism Allowed on London Campus

I am really really dumb. I just read this story about a speech that was shut down at a London University that was set up by a Catholic group to discuss Catholic teaching on sexuality.

In today's highly politicized environment we have come to expect the accusation that any discussion of Catholic teaching on sexuality is an attack on homosexuals.

So I read this and at first, like an idiot, I was...not shocked...but looking for some rational explanation that the university at least used as cover. But there was no cover. It was Catholic, therefore bad, and then shut down.

Oh, they used the Indiana Jones excuse "No ticket" for the shut down but then publicly proceeded to admit they aimed to shut it down.

In October last year, I was scheduled to give a talk to the Catholic Society (or ‘CathSoc’) of University College London (UCL). The subject was to be the right of Catholics to have their own view on the contentious issue of homosexuality. I had prepared to explain what the Catholic teaching on homosexuality was, why the Church actually preaches and argues against homophobia, what the implications for this teaching are for Catholics in public life, and why civil liberties (such as freedoms of speech, religion and association) should be respected.
Ironically, given the subject matter, the talk was cancelled at the last minute by officials of the UCL Students’ Union (UCLU).

While the official reason was that the requisite paperwork had not been completed, it soon became clear that the union’s sabbatical officers, alarmed and angered about the fact that the talk was taking place, had deployed any means necessary to have it stopped. This was no mere pedantic paper-pushing; it was censorship-by-bureaucracy.
UCLU’s external affairs and campaigns officer, Hannah Webb, on a thread about my talk on the UCLU LGBT society Facebook group, celebrated the fact that ‘[t]his was cancelled!’. After being asked how this was achieved, she answered, ‘Their speaker hadn’t been preapproved, so fairly easily’. In explaining this, she revealed that the event ‘was flagged up’ – that is, someone had complained about it – and consequently ‘several of us were alarmed that such a speaker had been allowed through the external speakers vetting process’. As a result, the union officials went out of their way to look into the event and when they found out the Catholic Society had not been given approval, they moved to stop the event altogether. As Beth Sutton, the UCLU’s women’s officer, boasted on Twitter: ’[W]e managed to stop it [the talk] because union protocol wasn’t followed.’

When I asked Webb on Twitter whether she’d have been so legalistic about any other event, she replied that she would for those events that are ‘on the boundaries of what UCLU allows and requires discussion’. Such a discriminatory attitude certainly puts to bed any last-minute cancellation fears for unconfirmed speakers at the UCLU baking society, or the badminton club, but something tells me the UCLU Friends of Palestine and assorted anti-war groups are probably similarly at ease.

Webb argued that the union has to have an ‘awareness for student welfare’, which recognises that ‘[p]eople have a right to feel safe on campus’. Were anyone ‘homophobic’ allowed to speak at a student society event, she said, this would involve making ‘an oppressed group [in this case, gay people] feel even more unsafe’, and thus such speech must be prohibited.

Dan Warham, the UCLU democracy (!) and communications officer, went even further, saying that he would ‘happily do anything to stop people speaking if they were causing distress to a member of the union, at a union society event, especially if those students identify as part of a liberation group (ie, LGBT+)’. Thus, the right of a society like the CathSoc to hear the Catholic teaching on sex and sexuality explained to them is trumped by the perceived need for privileged minority treatment.
But here's the thing. Why should we be surprised when Catholic schools don't even speak about the Church teaching on sexuality. Remember than one Catholic school in New York shut down a scheduled talk on Catholicism and in another school so many parents were outraged to hear Catholic teaching from a nun that the school apologized.

Think about that, a Catholic school apologized for teaching Catholicism.

So that's where we are. So why should we expect better from the rest of the world?


*subhead*Lecture.*subhead*

Everything Is Awesome (NOT)

If the ecumenism of the last 50 years had a theme song, it would be composed by Legos.

Everything is awesome
Everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome when we're living our dream

Everything is better when we stick together
Side by side, you and I gonna win forever, let's party forever
We're the same, I'm like you, you're like me, we're all working in harmony

So fifty years of happy slappy 'you're awesome, let's be awesome together' ecumenism, fifty years of glossing over differences in hopes of getting the team back together, fifty years of avoiding uncomfortable Truths in pursuit lesser agreeable personalized truth(s), what has ecumenism wrought? Now that we have the huggiest Pope ever, is it time for us all to get back together?

Let's ask those whom we have relentlessly pursued with positive emphasis on what we hold in common. Yeah, let's ask those very same Evangelicals what they think, shall we? The same peeps who the Pope wants to apologize to so they will like us better while staying warm and cozy in their copious errors, them. So here is what they had to say.

ITALIAN EVANGELICALS ON CONTEMPORARY CATHOLICISM

Following a round table promoted by the Italian Evangelical Alliance, the Federation of Pentecostal Churches, the Assemblies of God in Italy, the Apostolic Church and the Pentecostal Congregations held in Aversa on July 19, 2014, at the Pentecostal Faculty of Religious Sciences, on the theme: “Contemporary Catholicism: an evangelical perspective” the above cited organizations, following the evangelical opening on the part of evangelical circles and international and national Pentecostals, with regard to the Catholic Church and her present Pontiff, without expressing judgment on the faith of the individual faithful, retain incompatible with the teaching of Scripture a Church that proclaims herself to be the mediatrix of salvation and presents other figures as mediators of grace, given that the grace of God comes only through faith in Christ Jesus without works (Ephesians 2:8) and without the intervention of other mediators (1 Tim 2:5).

Moreover, they retain incompatible with the teaching of Scripture a Church that assumes the responsibility of adding dogmas (like the Marian ones) to the faith once and forever transmitted to the saints (Jude 3; Apocalypse 22: 18).

Finally they retain incompatible with the teaching of Scripture a Church that has its heart in a political state, a legacy of an “imperial” Church from which it assumed titles and prerogatives. Christian churches must be careful about imitating the “princes of nations” and follow the example of Jesus Who came to serve and not to be served (Mark 10:42 – 45).

Therefore, they retain that the apparent similarities with the evangelical faith and spirituality from sectors in Catholicism are not, in themselves, reasons to hope for a true change. Considering that irreconcilable and absolutely divergent theological and ethical differences still persist, they retain they are unable to start and follow-up any initiative or ecumenical opening with regard to the Roman Catholic Church, inviting all evangelicals at the national and international level to exercise sound biblical discernment(1 John 4:1) without giving way to unionist anxieties contrary to Scripture, but rather renewing the commitment to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the world.

Aversa (Caserta), July 19, 2014

Fifty years of sending flowers, cards, and hugs and our BFF's in Christ just issued a restraining order. Good Job Ecumenism!

*subhead*Our BFF's just issued a restraining order.*subhead*

Nancy Pelosi Says We Need Amnesty or the Ten Commandments Would Never Happen. Or Something

Nancy Pelosi says that Congress must vote for amnesty because of the Ten Commandments.

"You could even speak about, if it’s your tradition, Moses,” she said. “What would we do if Moses had not been accepted by the pharaoh's family? We wouldn’t have the Ten Commandments for starters.”

You know the Ten Commandments such as Thou shall not kill or bear false witness. Yeah, those.

It's funny that when we defend the unborn she brings up the separation of Church and state but when it comes to importing more Democrat voters she suddenly says that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of her policy decision.

I'm just looking for a little consistency here.

*subhead* Church and state.*subhead*

NFP and Too Much of a Good Thing

Over at the Register I write about the unfortunate phenomenon of rhetorical overkill when in comes the NFP.

NFP can be a good thing. Too much love of that good thing, not so much.

*subhead*Say what?.*subhead*