I mentioned two days ago on a thread about how these “Catholic” Bishops go full SJW over illegal immigration but remain silent in the face of grave evil, and I was told I was guilty of calumny.
It was just a few hours later that the latest bombshell of a decades-long cover up at the highest levels of the Church made the news. It’s not every day validation comes THAT quickly or in such a prominent manner, but…
What are the comments about this scandal on post after post? Along the lines of, “Yeah, everyone knew, but no one could talk about it because he was a powerful Cardinal”.
This, people, is PRECISELY why we much have courage and fortitude and not bend to the threats, name-calling or fear of being disinvited from the ‘right’ cocktail parties. Some of you witnessed how I was attacked just a few weeks ago on my FB timeline for offering gentle correction to a few priests behaving badly, but if you fail to speak up out of cowardice, YOU become culpable for the next victim and the greater scandal that will eventually result.
Losing a FB ‘friend’ is nothing compared to that kind of guilt. Do the right thing, regardless of the consequences! The alternative is too painful, for you, for those you love and those who deserve an advocate.
When we lived in Guatemala we saw a lot of this – large groups of affluent suburban WASPS who spent thousands of dollars on what was more or less a vacation thinly disguised as missionary work (in a country that has been Catholic for 400 years).
Imagine being so out of touch with the people you ‘serve’ that you think this is a good vocational tool. While Pittsburgh has one of the worst track records in the US for recruiting, training and retaining manly, orthodox men to the Priesthood, seminaries like those operated by the SSPX, where men live an ascetic life and engage in prayer, study and work, are full. (There may be other seminaries that are full of orthodox, masculine men, I just don’t know of them.)
There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado’s law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips’ speech to prevent him from ‘denigrating the dignity’ of same-sex couples, ‘asserting their inferiority,’ and subjecting them to ‘humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.’ These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will.
“In ‘Obergefell,’ I warned that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty, as individuals are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. This case proves that the conflict has already emerged. Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing ‘Obergefell’ from being used to stamp out every vestige of dissent and vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.”
Thomas doesn’t go far enough, of course. What the law should protect is the right of private property owners to do with their property what they want. That means refusing access to their property at any time, for any reason.
Further, no man has a right to another man’s labor, so an individual may refuse service to anyone, for any reason. The law no longer protects a man’s labor in this way, and you may even be incarcerated for refusing to serve someone.