Once again you nailed it, Mr. Richert.  And to Hitchcock, add the names of Fr. Frank Pavone, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, Michael Novak, George Wiegel and a host of other Catholic neo-cons.  It’s hard to tell which is worse - their betrayal of the Church or their betrayal of the pro-life movement, now discredited by its identification with bloody handed militarism and conquest.  I find it easier to forgive the Hagee style Christian Zionists - they’re heretics anyway and may not know any better.  But what is the excuse of these supposedly well-educated Catholics?  Thank God for Popes John-Paul II and Benedict XVI and for loyal sons of the Church like you, Mr. Richert.

Great essay Scott, I have been following this for a while,Hitchcock, Father Neuhaus, Michael Novak,and the other Catholic neocons have sold there souls to their neocon Jewish buddies.Fred Barnes another Rudy backer is supposed to adress our Right to Life meeting next spring, I hope to stop him.Most prolifers don’t realize how the Republicans and neocons have used us.

wonderful..thank you very much.  I’m sharing this with as many fellow Roman Catholics as I can.

Scott, this is an extraordinary piece. I had never considered that the war on Iraq was meant as a distraction to the pro-life cause.  But it makes so much sense now.  I had always wondered how Bush’s neo-con handlers were able to reconcile themselves to Bush’s avowed pro-life stance.  You answered my question.  The innocent lives are sacrificed so it can remain a campaign issue.  The only truly pro-life Catholics are also anti-war.

AS many have pointed out in this blog, notably Kirt Higdon, Bush’s war on radical Islam could just as easily be described as a war on Arab Christians
when you consider that as a result of the war radical Islam has thrived and the Christian Arabs are refugees.  I have long suspected that a hidden agenda to this war is to bring abortion to all parts of the middle east. The only true hard line pro-life stance is anti-abortion and anti-war.

In a recent article in the Wanderer Joe Sobran points out the lunacy of Oliver North’s statements about the west being defenders of Muslim women when we
really hope to bring abortion to them.  It truly sickens me to hear that one of our greatest writers such as Joe Sobran is being attacked by this Hitchcock creature, who as you pointed out is educated and should know better.  The pro-war Catholics have made a deal with the devil.  This war is nothing more than a huge social experiment gone awry to destroy religion and bring secular values to bear on all pro-life advocates throughout the world.

Scott Richert nails it.  The Human Life Review is a sad shadow of its former self.  Soon, the Catholic neocons will be instructing us on the moral necessity of voting for the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights adulterer Rudy Guiliani.

First of all, I oppose abortion, I oppose the war, I oppose the Neocons, I oppose Liberal and Sodomite Catholics, and I support Benedict, and not just because I’m Catholic. Two problems with above.

President Bush had six years in which he controlled both houses of Congress to make good on his pro-life promises, yet he made no effort to do so How could he?  The Supreme Court’s got the ball. And hasn’t he appointed two pro-life justices?

Confusion.  The Magisterium has said that ALL abortions are wrong.  The Magisterium has not said that all wars are wrong, but only certain ones.  There is NO statement from the Magisterium that opposes (or supports) the Iraq war.  Everything a pope says isn’t the Magisterium.  What is more, the application of the Magisterium’s general teaching on war to an actual war is the duty of the laity, who of course must consider papal and episcopal statements in the formation of conscience.

Dr. Hitchcock and his wife have done Trojan and meritorious labor for Authentic Catholicism.  Nothing of this is recognized by the article above. And he isn’t a card-carrying Neocon.  Has Mr. Richert learned his methods from Robert Welch?

Mr. Richert has misrepresented the teaching of the Church and smeared a good man.  Does his hatred for Neocons trump his Catholic faith and his honesty to a good man, who may be wrong on the war, but not on the faith?  Well, Mr. Richert will get his wish: the Neocons will be gone 20 Jan 2009 (so why waste time on them?), Nurse Ratched will throw Mr. Richart in jail for “hate speech”, and Dr. Hitchcock will continue to do what he can to save the unborn, which he sees as the supreme priority, as Mr. Richart sees as defeating neocons.  (mine, for the record, is defeating the more serious enemy, Cultural Marxism.)

Mr. Richert is wise about many things. He’s wrong on this one.

It’s interesting how the Liberal/Left oppose abortion
on one hand, and then support the Just War theory
because it fits in with their opposition to the Iraq
War.

It’s like them telling us that all sexual and gender
behavior are socially programned, except for homosexuality
which is hard-wired and genetic. Or Mayor Gavin Newsome
and Hillary Clinton support GAY marriage, but not the
sanctity of marriage in their own lives.

It just goes to show that opposition to the war in
Iraq on Left and the Right comes from far different
world views, and never the twain shall meet.

Last fall I waged a futile, one-man battle with Catholic personal friends on the board of my state’s official, affiliated “Right to Life” organization for including on their “pro-life” sample ballots some notorious Republican pro-aborts.  Two such--"preferred", not “endorsed” (so what’s the difference?)--are equally notorious for their years of joint effort to drive real pro-life Republicans out of the party and to marginalize or co-opt those who able to withstand their attacks.

The “preferred” pro-abort Republican congresswoman was re-elected by such a razor-thin margin (there was a mandatory recount) that one can reasonably--without being able to prove it--attribute her margin of victory to “pro-lifers” who voted for Republican pro-aborts at the bidding not only of the state RTL, but of National “Right to Life.” Thus was the power and influence of her incumbency preserved, and the door of opportunity to run a real pro-life Republican for the seat in two years slammed shut.

Since her re-election, Congresswoman Pryce’s every related vote has been pro-abort, pro-homosexual and anti-family.  Her defeated Democratic opponent would have voted identically.  I predicted all of this ahead of the election to my Catholic Pryce supporters and I have grown weary ever since the election of saying “I told you so.” Thankfully, at least one has listened and intends to mend his endorsement ways and, hopefully, those of his RTL colleagues.

However, I waged a totally futile war of words recently with a young Catholic friend and father over his persistent support of the war on Iraq, regardless of its current form and manifold, morphing justifications.  In addition to the Constitution, I invoked Catholic just war theory ("Op. Iraqi Freedom” doesn’t fit).  I asked him what possible moral standing any nation can have for unprovoked aggression on another when the aggressing nation daily murders over 3,000 of its unborn and doggedly preserves and protects--through both political action and inaction--the “right” to do.

Finally, I invoked empathy.  I won’t ask you to sign up to fight, or even which of your children is worth sacrificing to this unholy cause, I said.  Rather, I asked him, which of your friends or close relatives with children would you look in the eye and say that you would approve the sacrifice of the life of any one of his offspring to Bush’s Iraq war?  Without blinking (i.e. no hesitation or equivocation in his emailed reply), he told me he would approve the sacrifice of one of his own children or any of his friends’.

This is no raving yahoo, but an intelligent, well-educated Catholic man who is besotted and dazzled by the likes of the “pro-life"/pro-war Catholic influence-makers cited by my brother Kirt, above.  Where do you go with with someone who “thinks” that way?  Nothing to do but shake the dust off your feet and move on.

As a long time subscriber and reader of CHRONICLES and
THE REMNANT, I applaud Scott Richert’s article. He is
dead right about James Hitchcock, whose career I have
watched with interest since the 1960s. I have never
considered him the “shining knight” that some do.

I do agree most heartily with Sid Cundiff that not
everything a pope simply says is of the Magisterium
(parenthetical note here: as a worshipper at chapels
of the Society of St. Pius X I would like to emphasize
that! Archbishop Lefebvre, by the way, was excommunicated
NOT for doctrinal reasons but for disciplinary one;
there was never a question of his orthodoxy in doctrine);
but the overwhelming weight of Catholic teaching
(including Just War theolgy)militates against this war.
It may not be of the same clarity as the Church’s
position on abortion, but it is just the same, very
clear.

This might be an unintentional mixing of the metaphor, but how can you tell if a seamless garment is turned inside out since there are no seams which would look different?

That said, I frequently comment and post that whatever can be used to do violence and vandalism against a people - some with only tenuous connection to those who committed the 9/11 crimes - can and MUST be used to justify the same treatment of Aborturaries, abortionists, and their supporters.  And vice versa.

The USA, and the majority of Christians are ultrapacifistic in the face of a Holocaust Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would blush at - they at least had political and great if evil goals.  Our Molech is the god of immediate convenience.

The question at the white throne will not be why you were a warmonger on whatever is going on on the other side of the planet, but why at the same time you were exactly the opposite with the crisis down the street.

Let he who wants war drop the first bomb, but let them explain why it should be in the middle east and not on a clinic.

The man who started smearing people was Hitchcock,not Scott.He is the one attacking the Wanderer and Joe Sobran.Scott is telling the truth about Hitchcock. Hitchcock’s attack on antiwar Catholics is just another attempt to stifle disent.the only reason we don’t have Harriet Meirs on the court is because prolifers finally revolted against another Sandra Day Oconner.Hitchcock is either a neocon or a stooge of the neocons.Reagan and the Bushes have talked a good game but given us little.Five republican judges rammed Roe vs Wade down Americas throat and three O’Conner, Kennedy ,and Souter have kept it.Bush will go to the matt destroying the Republican party and the prolife movement to please the fat cats of wall street and aipac. The country club republicans think we are nothing but votes and fodder for the trenches.They are laughing their asses off at us.I stand with 2 popes for life and peace.

Thank you, Mr. Richert for your wise words. I despaired
for a long time to find an abortion opponent who was
not a willing dupe of the Dunce in Chief and his advisers

Try telling them “they had six years to ban abortion, if
they didn’t it is because they do not want to.” Tell
them “it is bait and switch, they promise you an
abortion ban and they give you a war we should not
fight, outsourcing, fiscal irresponsibility, and
enrichment of their cronies”. No way. They are true
believers, unshakeable in their faith.

It is not often that a virtue like faith is squandered
on such a worthless object. In which case the virtue
becomes a vice, that of throwing pearls to swine.

God, give me a liberal any day. With them on the basis
of not agreeing you can start a dialogue. But how can
you argue with people who lie to you?

To the poster that says that Newsome and Hilary
Clinto do not support the sanctity of marriage in
their own lives.

I cannot comment on Newsome, but it was **Bill**
Clinton who did not support the sanctity of marriage
in his own life. Hillary, being the aggrieved
spouse, chose to cling to a mate guilty of adultery,
a position that the Catholic Church supports.

There are other grounds to dislike Hillary, but
not for not being a patient forbearing spouse.

Editor:

I no longer read THE WANDERER, for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I am certainly not blind to the fact that they have always been staunchly anti-abortion.  What confuses me is Mr Hitchcock: I always thought he was a loyal WANDERER contributor.  If I’m not mistaken about that I’m curious as to why he has started to attack them.

I’m also curious as to why pro-lifers continue to look to the Republican Party as their savior.  Are they still following that tired “lesser of two evils” road?  Both parties are so obviously evil that it is frankly surprising any serious Catholic would want to associate with either of them.  Those who do, I suppose, are still clinging to the myths of America as learned in their fifth grade history textbooks.  It really is about time they came to their senses on that point.

Political hacks have been using abortion as a carrot to curry votes from dumb-downed Americans ever since Roe v. Wade.  It will stop being so when there is
no more political advantage or monetary reward or when
Americans vote into power men of honor, like Ron Paul.
As for Mr. Sid Cundiff’s remark that, “There is NO
statement from the Magisterium that opposes
(or supports) the Iraq war,” I do believe that Pope
John Paul II did describe the Iraq War in 2003 as
unjust.  It is a prudent Catholic who heeds the words
of the Pope, even if they are not a matter of
ex cathedra.

I know, and willingly accept, that this comment will invite some volleys of rotten-eggs, but here goes:

Several things have persuaded me, recently, to do what I ought to have done long ago as a matter of integrity:  to convert from my
native Roman Catholic Church, to become a Protestant.  (I will join my ancestral Anglican Church, in which I am most “at home”, meanwhile remembering that Jesus said “in my Father’s house there are many mansions.")

The three most important phenomena which have persuaded me to convert to Protestantism are:

1.  I have never believed in Papal infallibility or in 100 percent of the Catholic catechism - although, to be fair, I admire Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul above all world leaders of the past 100 years; so, as a matter of integrity I ought to have converted long ago, out of respect for true believers in the Roman Catholic Church (from whom I ask forgiveness for refraining from leaving the Church until now);

2.  I want to dissociate myself from the majority of American Catholics who, either by commission or omission, supported this evil war in Iraq.

3. I want to dissociate myself from the legions of putative “Catholics” who are racist antisemitic shits.  (Who, to be fair, are antipathetic and hostile to the authentic Christian faith of this blog’s Christian/Catholic editor, FJ Sarto.)

(Sarcasm):  Good job, you Catholic Brownshirts.  You’ve persuaded me to leave the Catholic Church, for a more simple, more straightforward, more uncomplicated kind of Christianity.

All I can say, without any reservation, is that I believe in Christ and in the Gospel, and I’m pro-life.  But all too many putative “Catholics” are not.

As Martin Luther said:  “Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders!”

A popular Kenyan prayer

“From the cowardice that dare not face new truths,
From the laziness that is contented with half truth,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Good Lord, deliver me.”

To John Ball:
I am deeply saddened by you loss of faith in the Church
founded by Our Lord Himself. I will refrain from making
comments on the reasons you cite, except to say that
to leave Christ’s Church because of what you claim are
“Catholic Brownshirts” and “legions of putative Catholics
who are antisemitic shits [sic!]” says more, I’m
afraid about your lack of faith, than the faith of
those you attack. The Faith does not change, it remains
the same, even if some would attempt to disfigure it
for whatever purposes. That you could not (or would
not) see that and overcome that, is a very sad
commentary indeed. I pray for you, for you have
apostasized, and turned your back on the fullness of
Truth.

Sertorius: There are 3 levels of Catholic teaching

1. ex cathedra infallibility teachings of the Magisterium

2. teachings of the Magisterium that are not infallible but just as binding: abortion and just war among them

3. statements by the Holy Father and bishops are the local Ordinary that are not Magisterial, not binding, but which good Catholics must seriously consider in forming conscience.

JPII and BXVI’s statement of Iraq are, and can only be #3. They nonetheless must be given just this serious consideration.  In judging if Iraq is a “just war” or not, the Church’s leaders are in the same place as the laity: reading the papers.  For myself, Iraq is hardly a just war.

John Ball: read up on the official teaching on infallibility from the First Vatican Council so that you know exactly what that teaching is. Briefly, it must be about a dogma of faith or a principle of morals, it must be addressed to the whole world, and infallibility must be invokes.  Thus there can’t be an infallible teaching that Sid Cundiff is an SOB. Read Newman on infallibility as well.  Then know that it has only be used twice in Catholic history:1854 for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (backdated from 1870) and 1950 with the dogma of the Assumption. Note that both of these dogmas deal with devotional matters.

You know that I, a Catholic, have fought both Neocon warmongers and Brown racists. The effects of original sin are with us Catholics too.  To judge a group my all its members would disqualify the original Church: for even Our Lord had His Judas.  Leave us when our leaders, God forbid, turn warmonger or Brown.  That hasn’t happened yet, and my faith is strong enough to believe that it won’t happen.

Sid, you’re wrong. Congress can remove ANY item from consideration by the federal courts, and the Bush administration has, in fact, proposed legislation concerning the Pledge of Allegiance and torture that would have taken that constitutional route. They refused, however, to endorse a Republican-sponsored bill that would have done the same for abortion.

It is not all in the hands of the Court; that is simply what the Republican Party wants you to think.

John:

No one cares to hear the self-justification for your apostasy, or for you to turn this pro-life piece into a podium for you to rant against the Eternal Church.  I do, however, sincerely hope you are “comfortable” in your new church, after all, your comfort is paramont to the Allmighty. For He so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that you may have great bake sales.

Oh, and sorry you were abused by those “pro-war anti-semitic” Catholics.  Odd how I thought those sentiments to be mutually exclusive on this issue.  But we really need to do something about those damn Catholics.  We should start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

Sid, where did I misrepresent Catholic teaching? You distinguish between the Church’s opposition to abortion and two popes’ opposition to this war--a valid distinction. But then you put words in my mouth--I never said that their opposition to the war was infallible. I simply pointed out that some of us hold views that are more consistently in line with those two popes, and yet Hitchcock accuses such people, therefore, of never actually caring about abortion.

Second, how did I “smear” Hitchcock? By quoting him? By taking his argument seriously, and attempting to refute it?

Where did you learn your tactics, Mr. Cundiff? From Morris Dees?

Right Scott, take away the courts jurisdiction, its in the Constitution.Ron Paul introduced such a law, it only needs a majority vote and the Presidents signing.Roe vs Wade would be history.He got no support from any republican. They had six years to get it done but the insane war with Iraq is more important.The neocon Israeli vote, 1&#xof; the total republican has more to say than the 70% prolife vote.

Sid, just a few additional notes on “infallibility.”
In addition to the definition of Vatican I (about faith
and morals, to all of mankind, and stated as such),
Catholic dogma is also “infallible” when it reflects
a doctrine that has been consistently taught and
consistently believed. It does not have to be explicitly
defined per se to be “infallible” in that sense. Perhapos
a better word, and one used by traditional theologians,
is “indefectible,” in the sense that a teaching is
beyond any doubt truthful, without error, and binding
in conscience.

Let me cite just one example: on religious liberty.
There is a consistent and unchanging teaching of the
Popes and the Fathers of the Church that “error has
no rights,” metaphysically and by natural law. In the
past two hundred years, just to take more recent times,
Popes Gregory XVI (in MIRARI VOS), Blessed Pius IX (in
QUANTA CURA), Leo XIII (in DIUTERNUM, LIBERTAS, and
IMMORTALE DEI), St.Pius X (in PASCENDI), Pius IX, and
Pius XII have reaffirmed that (1) there is only one
true Church (Benedict XVI just restated that back
in July of this year), (2) that expressions of error
do not enjoy a natural right of free expression, but
(3) that through charity and/or prudence a Catholic
state may choose to tolerate error (the hypothesis)
on those occasions when intolerance might be inadvisable
or imprudent. But NEVER has the Church taught that
all religions deserve equal rights or are of equal
status. Previously in Catholic countries such as
Spain, Poland, Ireland, and Italy,the Church has fought
legislation that would have legalized “equality of
religions.”

Now, more explicitly the Blessed Pius IX in QUANTA
CURA expressly states that he is invoking all the full
power of the Magisterium, that his declaration reflects
an unbroken teaching with all the weight associated
with it, that he is addressing the whole world, and
that QUANTA CURA applies both in practice and in
conscience. In my research (e.g. Choupin’s classic
VALEURS DOCTRINALES, Fernand Mourret, the DTC, etc.)
almost every theologian attributes the weight of
infallibility to the Blessed Pius’ pronouncement.
Even Yves Congar, who disliked the traditional teaching,
admitted as much, stating (about the declaration
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE of Vatican II): that “it presents
an almost word for word substantial contradiction in
paragraph 7 of the traditional teaching of the Church,
which is considered by many to be infallible.” This,
by the way, is one of the reason I have previously
stated that there were ambiguities in some of the
pastoral “declarations” of Vatican II; and even
Benedict XVI now seems to recognize some of these.

The dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate
Conception, true, were explicitly defined, but they
reflect a constant teaching of the magisterium, the
popes, and belief of the faithful previous to those
definitions. The specific definition by the Popes
reflects only the final step in a process---but they
were definitely held to be true and indefectible long
prior to 1870 and 1950. [They are not, let it be said,
just devotional, but involve also profoundly deep
theological doctrines regarding the Incarnation and
translation of grace, which have definite impact on
all the faithful.]

Mr. Ball, I can understand your first reason for leaving the Catholic Church.  If you no longer accept all of Catholic doctrine, it is more honest to leave than to become a “cafeteria Catholic” or “a Catholic, but . . .”. I can only pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten you.

But your second and third reasons remind me of what an Episcopalian once said to me, “The problem with you papists is that you have no standards; you let in all the riff-raff”.  Indeed we do, as did Christ, who dined with prostitutes and other sinners, including (I still have problems with this one myself) tax collectors. I rather suspect you’ll find some unsavory characters in your ancestral Anglican Church as well.  After all, it was founded by the royal serial killer Henry VIII and its first members were his opportunistic and/or cowardly courtiers.

@John Ball

I am sorry that you have to leave the Catholic
Church, but I understand why. It is probably the
same reason why I will never be baptized in it, no
matter how much sympathy I feel for it (While I do
not dare compare myself to Simone Weil, in this I
imitate her).

My problem was with the political activity of the
Church in Argentina, mainly that of Cardinal Caggiano,
and his aiding and abetting the overthrow of the most
decent President Argentina had in a long time, Dr.
Arturo Illia.

Had Illia been allowed to end his term we could have
seen the political scene stabilized, with Peronists
accepting the rules of the political game instead of
going for the gun, and with the economy building up
slowly and patiently.  Instead there was a military
coup with the idea of insituting a corporatist regime
that would do the necessary social engineering to
prevent “sinful” modernism taking over society. This
coup had the full support of Cardinal Caggiano who
envisioned a Franco like regime.

One of the first actions of the new illegal government
was to intervene the University and beat up professors
and students who protested. It was called “The night of
the long clubs”.

After this my parents who were University scientists
decided to get out of Argentina, as did so many others,
thus destroying an illustirous tradition of scietific
research in Argentina.

Caggiano blessed this.

After this example that if you do not like what the
Government does you can overthrow it, too many young
people followed the lead, only on the Left.

I blame all the blood, death and pain that followed on
Caggiano. And because of that I cannot join a Church in
which maggots like him achieve positions of power.

On this forum, I keep seeing allusions to “brownshirts” and racist/anti-semitic Catholics. I suppose I live in a cave, but exactly who and where are these people? Are they in any sense a serious problem?

Adriana: I must admit something to you. After I received
my Ph. D. in Spain, and spent time doing theological
studies in Switzerland, I also taught in Argentina.
I realize that what I say will not endear me to you,
but I was close friends with members of the government
of Admiral Ongania, and the former Minister Roberto
Gorostiaga, Father Julio Meinvielle, and other Catholic
peronists centered around the Catholic review VERBO.
I admired greatly Cardinal Caggiano, and I hoped
greatly for the instauration of a Catholic national
corporativist state. Not only that, but I sincerely
believe that the action of the military agsinst
the urban Montanero guerillas saved Argentina from
chaos later on. My only criticism was/is that they
used Francisco Franco as a model, when he was much too
weak and vacilating....

Dr. Cathey

You have given me reasons to hate you.

I will explain. Burke justified revolutions only
in these circumstances:

The situation is desperate
Changes cannot be made institutionally.
The purpose must be to recover something lost, not
embark on experiments.

Ongania failed on all three.

The situation was not desperate.
There was ample opportunity to make changes institutionally
as Dr. Illia’s goverment was one of the few ones which
respected the rights of the opposition.
The object was not to “recover what was lost” but
to experiment to create a corporatist model of
society which, since it had not been tried before they
had no idea if it would work or not.

Ongania, Meinville, Caggiano and the others were as
wicked as the French Revolutionists taht Burke
condemned. We were not human beings to them, but
guinea pigs on which to try their theories.

I am sure glad that I am not a Catholic!

Tony: Sid Cundiff, John Ball, and a few others on this
site term anyone a “Brown” who disagrees with their
views about race, judaism, and nationalism.

The term obviously is meant to impute some sort of
SA Brownshirt affinity to anyone who disagrees with
them. I find this insinuation both insulting and preposterous.
Disgracefully, the very same sort of “p.c” brow-
beating that takes place in broader society is taking
place here; thus, anyone who dares to critique Jewish
influence in US foreign policy or America’s slavish
relationship to the state of Israel, for instance, can
be and usually is termed, unjustly, an “antisemite.”
And the insinuation is that, darkly and maliciously,
there may be some of us planning some sort of pogrom
or some other awful act. If you read an earlier
dscussion about the Church and the Jews you can
see this debated in more detail.

As well, to suggest that there are definable genetic
differences in the races, Oh No! that draws forth
howls from some who write on these pages that there
are NO differences at all between the races (despite
a mountain of verifiable research to the contrary).
Indeed, once again the “p.c.” mentality goes to work,
and such people who maintain that there are indeed
differences are called by some on this site “racists”
or worse.

The same kind of censorious and condescending virus
that characterized (and still characterizes) the
National Review, as it excommunicated first the old
libertarians (Rothbard et al), then the poor Birchers,
then the Southern agrarians (Davidson, Bradford, Clyde
Wilson) and the old Right altogether, also seems to
infect those who wish to excommunicate anyone who
dissents from their views on Judaism, race, and
nationalism, even on an avowedly “old right” site
like this. Perhaps those topics are just “too hot”
for some to handle---but that’s the point. We SHOULD
be able to discuss those topics without terming our
potential opponents (to quote John Ball) “antisemite
shits.” Such an attitude--and language--is not only
insulting to a great many of us who are NOT in any way
“related” to SA Brownshirts, but, as it resorts to
name-calling rather than serious thinking, is
anti-intellectual and self-destructive.

I do not share his definition or demarcations. I do
believe that those terms are grossly overused and
the definitions given here terribly simplified.

Adriana, Adriana!---You said you hated me back in
early September! Nothing has changed!! I disagree
with you profoundly about Dr.Illia’s government, and I
was delighted to see Admiral Ongania take power. I
only wish he had been able to achieve what he wanted
to do.

And, NO, I don’t hate you---I pray for you that your
hatred for Christ and His church will be transformed,
and that “the scales of error” will fall from your eyes.

@Dr. Cathey

Since you mention the theme Montoneros let me
put some things in their true perspective.

1) Montoneros was originally a right-wing nationalist
group, which descended from “Tacuara” an ultracatolic,
corporatist group with more than a bit of anti-semitism
(they were accused of instances of kidnapping of
young Jewish students and carving swastikas on their
foreheads and cheeks). It was later on that they, in
their nationalistic fervor went for help to another
nationalist, ex-nazi sympathizer, America-hater, Fidel
Castro.

2) You talk of Montoneros, which became notorious in
the 70s, while the coup that I deplore and denounce
happened in 1964. A date in which most Argentinian
hisotrias agree everything went downhill real fast.

3) The Montoneros, and the ERP were but the students
of the philosophy of Ongania, Mienvillie, etc. which
says that “if you do not like the way the Government or
the society works, then overthrow it, and make things
according to your model of what an ideal society would
be.” The only difference is the model chosen. They
were both too enamored of their mental constructs to
worry about something going wrong, and too despective
of the people living under the new system, which should
be made to agree, and punished if not sufficiently
grateful for having been given a better society.

The Montoneros were the children of the coup-makers of
1964, no more no less.

Cursed be Ongania
Cursed be Father Mienvielle
Cursed be Gorostiaga
Cursed be Caggiano.

Dr. Bothey, when I consider the evil that those Catholics
unleased on my poor country, evils which is still
recovering from, I am two fingers away from blaspheming.

If you do not want me to blaspheme, do not address me
again, on anything.

@Dr. Cathey

Do not confuse hartred for the evil you did to me and
my country with hartred of Christ.

Nice to know that you do not hate me. But why should you
hate me? Have I ever done any evil to you? Have I
applauded when you were forced to leave your country
and find a new life in exile? Have I thought it a
good thing that one of your relatives was “disapperaed”
I have done none of those things, so you have no
reason to hate me.

But you have done those things to me.

I have a right to hate you.

The only right you have is to beg forgiveness, and beg
it not as a duty but as a free gift to which you
are not entitled.

Cursed be those who experiment on helpless people in
order to bring about their dreams of a proper society.

Burke knew your kind, and knew that you were the scum
of the Earth.

Oh my dearest Adriana---if you have already thought
blasphemy in your mind, you are already guilty of it,
and nothing more I can say will prevent you from
committing it, so, dearest, go ahead and have at it.

And two of us can play that cursing game:

Viva el Presidente Ongania!
Viva el Padre Julio Meinvielle!
y Viva el Cardinal Caggiano…

Que mueran en su sangre todos los enemigos de Cristo
y de su Iglesia!

All the best and have a great evening

Well, indeed, now I am “scum of the earth”? Hmm,
I am tempted to say it takes one to know one. By the
way, I apologize for nothing in Argentina; I only
wish the military had been more thorough in cleaning
out the leftists and communists who infested that
society. Now that was the real scum....

All the best, and don’t forget to blaspheme before
you say your prayers tonight…

No, I ahve not blasphemed yet.

I have not cursed Christ, nor the Virgin Mary.

Ongania is not Crhist, neither is Meinveille, nor
none of those I cursed. You are not God, nor the
Virgin Mary.

I can tell the difference.

They truly deserve to be spat on, and if they insist
in shielding themselves behind Christ, some of the
saliva might hit Him, which I do not wish.

So, be a man, stop hiding being Jesus or the Virgin.
Do not blame them for your errors. Take responsibilty
for your wicked actions.

We were treated like helpless guinea pigs by your
friends. We were denied the basic human dignity and
reduced to laboratory animals for your theories of
government.

And now you shield yourself behind Christ, after
treating me and mine in such un-Christian fashion.

Shame on you!

No, I will not blaspheme, because you are not Christ,
you can never be Christ, and you have no right to
hide yourself behind Him.

By the way, did your friend Mienvielle also loved
with Christian love Gabriela Sirota?

Do you know who she was?

Just a 19 year old student. An ordinary person, with
an ordinary life. Until one day a group of young men
from the group that Father Mienvielle adviced kidnapped
her, tortured her, and carved a swastika on her face.

Her crime? She was Jewish.

This man was your friend?

And you want us to believe that you are not
antisemite????

How come you can remember injuries done by Jews centuries
ago and forget this one injury done less than fifty
years ago?

What you are has nothing to do with Christianity. You
are just a bad person who used Chrsitianity as an
excuse for your own wickedness, and no more fit to
teach Christian doctrina than Luciano Pavarotti was
to teach proper eating habits.

Get over it, Adriana. I applaud what Juan Carlos
Ongania tried to do. I do not need to stand behind
anyone. I do not hide my beliefs. I am not ashamed
of them at all, thank you.

Your comments are ridiculous and assinine. Period.
Get over it.

This is my final comment, as this “discussion” is
going nowehere. I will not dignify further any
of your hysterical remarks with a response. Good night.

I stand corrected by Mr. Richert about the powers of the Supreme Court. If Dr. Hitchcock is no longer the fine man whom I knew, then I would stand corrected again. Let me see his words and then judge if he merited the denigration visited upon him.

If he has argued that to oppose the war detracts from the war on abortion, then he is wrong and attacking me myself. And good men can be wrong about certain matters.

Point of fact: One can oppose a non-magisterial statement by a pope and be a good Catholic.  St. Paul tells us he fought it out with the first pope about the latter’s unwillingness to baptize non-Jews.  Paul won the day.  Newman said he strongly disagreed with the pope who issued the medal celebrating the St. Bart’s massacre. I strong disagree with the gross Anti-Semitic actions of Pius IV of unhappy memory. 

Dr. Cathey, like Mr. Richert, usually has much of value to say.  In responding to Tony, he has not been at his best.  He has employed Red Herring and supposed guilt by association with Neocons and Reds and their tactics.  Everyone who knows anything about Western History knows damn well who the Browns are.  Those who don’t can start with the work of Roger Griffin on Fascism—not the only theory, but a good place to begin. And everyone who knows what caused the two world wars (nationalism) knows damn well that we ought to pause before pandering to Nationalist ranting once again.  The fundamental principles of the Browns are quite different from real Conservatism (e.g. Burke). 

Dr. Cathey is quite correct that to call those opposed to the Iraq war Judeophobes is indeed underhanded. Then there is the race matter again: no proof offered for the assertion of race.  But then Artur de Gobeneau, Houston Steward Chamberlain, and Madison Grant had nothing but pseudoscience to offer as well. (Not that Dr. Cathey buys into their crap, mind you, and I don’t consider Dr. Cathey Brown). 

Adriana:  The Church is chocked full of grossly perverted and callously wicked people.  I too have suffered grievously at the hands of downright evil religious, priests, and bishops, because I saw 20 years earlier the scandal that broke out in 2002, and at the time told the proper authority, and got my “reward”.  More than few bishops need to be wearing orange for, at best, gross negligence, obstruction of the course of justice, and a severe breach of fiduciary duty to priests, seminarians, laity, and male teenagers. Throw in fraudulent inducement of funds from parishioners who thought they were paying for the the work of God, and in fact were paying, unknown to them, for the deliberate maintenance of a homosexual subculture in the US Catholic church. Don’t believe me?  Read some of the pleadings papers of those now seeking redress.

Give Satan some credit: he knows where his supreme enemy is located, and knows how to attack her.  Will he ultimately succeed?  Buonaparte in his Italian Campaign told a cardinal “I will destroy the Church!” The cardinal replied, “No you won’t!” Buonaparte repeated, “I will destroy the Church!” The cardinal replied: “We priests, bishops, and popes have tried for 18 centuries to destroy the church.  What makes you think that YOU will succeed?”

The proper approach is to judge the Church ... by the Church’s standards, as you yourself, ironically, are doing.  Is what the Church teaches to be the doctrine of faith and morals wrong?  That to me is the really significant question to ask the Church, not if bad people make the church stink. It’s not churchmen who stink; human beings stink.  The world isn’t divided into good people and bad people, but between bad people and God.

St. Catherine of Siena disagreed with a pope.  She went to Avignon and told the pope that his living there and not in Rome was “spittle in the face of Christ!”.  That little lady—not the theologians or the bishops or the popes—saved the Church.  One tough gal.

@Dr. Cathey

Do you stand behind the kidnapping, torture and
mutilation of Gabriela Sirota?

Do you stand behind a felony crime inspired by one
of your friends?

@Sid,

indeed, you are right. I cannot judge the Church by the
actions of Caggiano and Mienvielle, nor any other nasty
people who got ordained.

But… but there is a price to be paid for tolerating
corruption within your body, and unless the price is
paid reform did not come. It took Martin Luther for
the Church to finally do something about what was
wrong and try to fix it. (and some of the things they
did to fix it may have made thing worse). So, I am doing
my bit by refusing membership in a Church that will
not clean its act, and telling people why.

(This reminds me of the priest who tries to convert a
Jew to Christiantiy, and the Jew says that he is going
to Rome to see for himself, leaving the priest very
troubled because he knows what is going on in Rome. When
the Jew comes he narrates all the corruption he saw.
“So you won’t convert now” the priest says ."No, if
the Church, in spite of all that has been going on is]
still thriving, then there must be truth to it, so I
will convert")

But I do not like to condone bad behavior, and if by
putting a bit of pressure I can help it to reform, then
so be it.

As for Dr. Cathey, the less said, the better. He is dead
to me.

Sid: Thank you, again, for your interesting comments.
Actually, when I mentioned the topic of race I was
certainly not referring to Comte de Gobineau, Houston
Chamberlain, or even Madison Grant. Rather, I was
referencing a large body of recent scientific literature
on the topic, including works by J. Philippe Rushton
(e.g. RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR), Prof. Michael
Levin (e.g. WHY RACE MATTERS), Prof. Arthur Jensen
(e.g. THE G FACTOR), Herrnstein and Murray (THE BELL
CURVE), H. J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn, and numerous other
researchers. My point here was to point out that some on
this list have attempted to portray anyone who takes
such research seriously (even with questions) as a
“racist.” Similarly, anyone who believes that the
work of Prof. Kevin McDonald, John Cuddihy, Prof.
Albert Lindemann, Peter Nozick, or Norman Finkelstein
(these last three are Jewish) seriously, is likewise
labelled “antisemitic.” I do believe that to engage
in this kind of labelling is anti-intellectual. Indeed,
to avoid mentioning and examining these works and
suggest that anyone who raises these points is somehow
beyond the pale, so to speak, is the red-herring here.

I do believe my point stands. There are some on the
so-called “right” who wish to censor conversations
and avoid talking about difficult topics; and when
those topics arise (as on this list), they are
quick to label anyone who disagrees a “brown” or
a “racist” or an “antisemite.” And this, indeed,
resembles certain activities current on the “p.c.”
Left.

Adriana: Thanks for your reply.  St. Catherine of Siena didn’t tolerate the corruption in the Church either.

@Sid

Indeed, corruption is as old as humanity.

The problem is that people only see the more obvious
sort of corruption, involving sex and money, and forget
about more subtle, and because of that, deadlier forms
of corruption.

The thirst for power is as corrupting and the desire
for sex - probably worse. The desire to play at politics
is worse. I would rather have a prelate who whored
on his free time, than one who got involved in political
intrigues and ended up backing dubious characters or
policies out of ignorance or malice. The whoring ends
with the death of the sinner, while the political
maneuvering is an evil that lives on long after the
good they might have done is buried with their bones.

In this case, the corruption I complain about involved
thirst for power and political games, And what Burke
considered the worst sin in politics: treating a
whole population as guinea pigs in a theory if
government.

Also hartred is a corruption. Father Mienvielle was
one of several antisemites who agitated in ARgentina,
and while he was not the one who originated the
saying “be a patriot, kill a Jew”, he was of the same
branch of thought. He inspired the nationalist group
Tacuara, which splintered into right and left factions,
some going into the extreme left, and some joining the
military repressors and torturers. But before they
splintered they participated on attacks on Jews *for
being Jews*, culminating in the Sirola case, which
led President Illia to declare Tacuara outlaw.

Maybe this was one of the reason the vicious Father
Meinvielle decided that Illia deserved to be
overthrown, because he would not condone violence
against Jews. Thanks to him and too many others Argentina
lost one of its best Presidents, and the chance for
a peaceful political development.

The Church in ARgenina is deeply corrupt, and will not
be cleansed, with the result that modernims and atheism
is gaining ground there, as too many people decided tat
the Churhc is unworthy of their respect much less their
allegiance.

Sid, I am not so willing to let Dr. Cathey of the
“brown” hook. I found this information about the
man he calls himself a friend of, and whose political
attempts he views with sympathy: Father Julio Mienviellie

“Chistians must not have commercial nor social relations
with Jews, a perverse caste which hypocritically seeks
our ruin. Jews must live apart from Christians because
their own laws demand it, and because they are poisonous
for other peoples. If other peoples do not take these
precautions they must abide with the consequences, that
is be slaves and pariahs of that race”

This is the *Christian* love and charity of Father
Julio Mienvielle, Dr. Cathey’s friend. He also founded
the Guardia Restauradora Nacionalista, a far right
nationalist group that demanded pure European extraction
to belong to it (no indians and no blacks).

Sid, if Dr. Cathey is not a brown, then he has friends
who are.

I am willing to call him a “useful idiot” of the Browns.

RE Argentina: If all that Adriana has said is true, then they are not practicing the Catholic religion. While it is true that the Church opposes itself to the Jewish religion and theology (as she does to any other religion), she is opposed to consider “Jewishness” as some sort of racial characteristic. The Church is also opposed to the persecution of the adherents of the Jewish religion just for that fact. Admittedly, it has from time to time been a problem; that is why popes have proclaimed automatic excommunication for those who would harm Jews. I don’t believe that any other group or religion has been singled out that way.

I suppose that this document will not please everyone, but here is an example from Pope Gregory X in 1272:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/G10JPROT.HTM

Folks, what does this have to do with my article?

@Scott

Indeed, we went on a tangent, discussing
reasons why some would leave the Church, or
in my case, not joining.

I am deeply sorry that your article got lost
amid the shouting. It deserved better.

But such is the fate of articles in an open
forum…

@Charles

Indeed, I sometimes I think that the Catholic Church in
Argentina has no Chistianity in it. It was a Chuch
developed in a colonial situation in which rich white
families were served by Indian and Negro servants, and
thought it quite normal that it should be so, and that
may explain things a bit, though never excuse them.

During a “Dirty War” a priest became notorious for
helping to “interrogate” the kidnapped, and allaying
doubts and conscience twinges of the killers, telling
them that they were doing God’s work. After the
return of democracy, the hyerarchy spirited him away
from Justice, giving him a new identity in Chile.

More or less what they did with pedophiles here.

I wonder if a Church that has been corrupted so
shouldn’t be submitted to a thorough cleansing, with
no native-born bishops nor archbishops, much less
Cardinals left, and having the hyerarchy filled by prelates
from other countries with healthy Churches.

an alliance that has made many formerly Democratic pro-lifers uncomfortable

Probably the most telling clause in the essay…

Adriana,
Have you ever read the French Catholic writer, Georges Bernanos? He dealt with the Browns in Francos’s Spain, Petain’s France and Argentina too. And was as uncompromising in his dealings with them as you are.

Please read him for great insight into my Church and fallen human nature. It will be time well-spent.

@Kevin

I regret that I have not read him yet, but I know of
him. I know of his denonciation of Franco in “The
Great Graveyards under the Moon” and how that led
to an illuminating correspondence between him and
Simone Weil who described similar atrocities in the
Republican band (the Spanish Civil War seemed a war
between evil and evil sometimes, and the lesser evil
won).

I will go to the library here to pick up his books
as soon as possible.

Thanks

Scott,
Here is Hitchcock’s piece is here;
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2007_spring/Hitchcock.pdf

In all charity; this argument is most notable for it’s lack of it. On all sides.

While, I think JH is largely wrong, I doubt he is a neo-con or a man of bad faith.

Instead this is just another example of prolifers forming a circular firing line.

Somewhere in the lower bowels of Hell a wretched cackle can be heard. Margaret Sanger is well pleased.

After reading Hitchcock’s essay, I must agree with Scott’s take on it.  The essay in the HLR by JH is a piss poor hit job on the Old Right, a second rate version of David Frum’s equally dishonest hit job entitled Unpatriotic Conservatives published as the Iraq war was just underway.  What “Kevin” doesn’t understand is that for the most part, the politicians that JH’s endorses are not seriously against abortion, and won’t take steps that could be taken to return the issue of abortion back to the states and the people.  In his opinion on upholding the partial birth abortion ban, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he didn’t address the issue of the power of Congress to regulate abortion because neither side raised that issue in the lower courts or before the Supreme Court.  In other words, according to Thomas, the correct result regarding that law, as well as Roe v. Wade is that it is none of the business of the Federal government but should be left to the states and the people.

Some distance back in this thread, Kirt Higdon admits that, to this day, he has difficulty--as a Catholic--with the fact that Christ dined with tax collectors.  I appreciate my brother’s humor and share his wry befuddlement.  But I also note that Jesus never (on the scriptural record, at least) disputed His society’s universal characterization of t-men as sinners.  Now there’s a divine prejudice that, perhaps, we would all do well to emulate!

“...a second rate version of David Frum’s equally dishonest hit job entitled Unpatriotic Conservatives...”

JH’s piece was not even close to Frum’s in either tone or content. Please provide a link so others can judge accordingly.

“...the politicians that JH’s endorses are not seriously against abortion...”

How man politicians do you think really care about abortion? My guess maybe 15% on either side. The rest want it to go away so they can pursue their quest for power without this issue cross-cutting their constituencies.

Faced with that reality pro-lifers have to; 1) build alliances of convenience, while never getting too ensnared by the Princes of this world. Witness the damage when closely aligned with a party that is
all too cavalier with the use of our military. And 2) focus on the culture. The crisis pregnancy centers and homes in this country bear incredible witness to
the cause.

It sure beats the tedious intramural battles we’re seeing waged here.

Dear John Ball,
Please don’t let the bastards get you down. The Anglicans in the West have mostly surrendered any vestige of faith in traditional Christian morality. The faithful ones are leaving for Orthodoxy or Rome--except for those in the Developing World, who are drawing closer to Rome. The rest of the Episcopal church is a sad remnant of nice old Southern ladies and ex-Catholic homosexuals. How many Catholics really defy their popes, their good judgement, their consciences, and the evidence of their reason, to support the neocons and their murderous wars? A few loud voices in a few well-funded magazines. Not the faithful in the pews, not the bishops, not the Vatican. How many Catholics are programmatic racists of the unpleasant sort you’ve run across occasionally in the site’s comments function? A few hundred, maybe, in America? To abandon the Faith that stood firmest against the Third Reich (read Rabbi Dailin on Pius XII), and that alone can stand against the sick ideologies of the future (and they’re only getting worse) for the sake of a few pitiful cranks on a Web site suggests.... A lack of prudence to say the least. My prayers are with you pal!

Post a link to Frumster’s attack?  No thanks. JH took things out of context to attack the remnant of the right and endorse the Iraq war and a disfunctional Republican party.  BTW, I don’t consider the disputes here to be intramural as I don’t see how in any way that Sister Conduff, John Ball or Adriana are on the same side as the remnant.  On abortion, the best that can be done is to return the issue to the 50 states, all else on the issue politically is pure noise.

“On abortion, the best that can be done is to return the issue to the 50 states”

The best thing is to win over hearts and minds. That requires Witness. Not using perjoratives against allies.

One of the great pro-life voices in New York belongs to leftist Nat Hentoff, a self-described “stiff-neck atheistic Jew”. He may not pass whatever entrance requirement some of the “remnant” want imposed, but he is a man of courage and grace. Those without a voice are surely grateful for his.

I pray that one day he takes the journey to Rome, but either way he has been doing God’s work.

@John Watson

I do not know what your beef is, but your remnant
wouldn’t be so small if you did not insist in
excommunicating people who you disagree with.

Turn over hte question of abortiont to the 50 states?
You mean that you are willing to let abortion go on in Hawaii, or
California, say. if you could get it banned in
Georgia?

Then, ten, twenty years of now you would have Life
Right marches through the aborting states, with
non-violent sit ins, boycotts, fire hoses, dogs, etc.
etc., etc.?

Do not tempt the alternate historian in me…

Those using pejoratives are those named who are not part of the remnant, Sister Conduff, John Ball and Adriana.  BTW, the point of returning the issue of abortion to the states is that it is what the law requires.  That is the position of Supreme Court Justice Scalia as well as Justice Thomas.  I guess Hitchcock should be attacking them too.  It was also the position of the late great Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was one of two Justices to vote against the majority ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Adriana:  Is Dr. Cathey Brown?  No, if I read him aright, and he may strongly protest my label, I’d call him what the Europeans would call “blanc”: Legitimist, Carlist, Jacobite, Cavalier, High Tory.  I would be prompted to call this particular subset of “paleoconservative” Real Conservatism quixotic, except that some of my own views are even more quixotic.  I acknowledge that the Blancs have something valuable to offer political discussion, however Burkean Blue I otherwise am.

Is Dr. Cathey becoming a useful idiot of the Browns? Hell, ALL the paleocons are in danger of this if their not careful, myself included, and many are already infected with this virus.  I have often looked with longing and envious eyes to the Paleolibertarians and Christdemokraten, they utterly protected from the Brown tide.

Kevin, I wrote a while back that we need an English _Charles Maurras Reader_, however objectionable his anti-Dreyfus agitation was. We also need a _Georges Bernanos Reader_ .

I thank Charles for mentioning a Judeophilic papal document.  A while back I mentioned a bunch of other such documents, esp. the “Magna Charta for the Jews” from Innocent the III, and the views of Gregory the Great.

It’s very late at night and I’ve traveled 400 miles.  I shall read Hitchcock’s piece in the morning. I thank for the link, and I am a bit irked that Mr. Richert had not provided it from the start.

Sid,
Maurras was what Voegelin would call “gnostic”. An ideologue hiding behind the altar and drapery of the Church. An institution he viewed in the utilitarian terms (forerunner to some neo-cons?) as a necessary social adhesive to the French nation.

As such he was vigorously opposed by Bernanos and is best left in the library as a historical curiosity. Or, as an example of how not to lead an ostensibly Christian life in the public square.

A Bernanos Reader on the other hand is a most worthy project.

Sid, be irked all you want--a man really should play to his strengths. I didn’t include a link because it is only available as a PDF, and, in deference to those unfortunately saddled with Windows, I don’t link to things that force a download. Anyone who wanted to find the piece was given all that he needed to find it.

By the way, Sid, if you find yourself in danger of becoming a useful idiot of “the browns,” then I’d suggest that you spend your time policing yourself instead of searching out imaginary tendencies in the rest of us. Unlike you, I’m not in danger of becoming anyone’s useful idiot.

Well, something I should have added:  According to my understanding of Catholic morality, Mr Richert’s article is spot on.
But personally I think it’s best for me to refrain from the Roman Catholic sacraments, out of respect for those who - unlike me - believe in ALL Catholic doctrine unreservedly.  And Mr Richert raises a vital and sorely neglected point about how so many American Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose.  (And I admit I do the same in some ways, which is why I ought to refrain from the Catholic sacraments.) But I agree with Pope Benedict’s and John Paul’s condemnations of the war in Iraq, and their categorical condemnations of racism and antisemitism AND the fever swamp of nationalism; alas, all too many nominal Catholics don’t.

So now here’s a provocative question:  Who is the real schismatic?  An Anglican who opposes the Iraq war on the grounds that it violates St Augustine’s criteria of “just war”?  Or a Catholic who repudiates the Popes’ admonitions and advocates an illegal and immoral war?

Oh and to John Zmirak, gracious thanks for your generous and fraternal words to me.  And I think you - if not others - will understand that my refraining from the sacraments unless and until I profess Catholicism unreservedly, is a paradoxical profession of faith.

@Kevin:

Do you have any references to Maurras’ works to back up those assertions? Bernanos was an early supporter of AF—what changed his mind? What about Voegelin—isn’t his view of the Church rather suspect itself? As a political philosopher, Maurras was open to the search for order, which he found in the Church—a rather Voegelinian concept, don’t you think?

E.g., Maurras wrote:
“All my favourite ideas—order, tradition, discipline, hierarchy, authority, continuity, unity, work, family, corporation, decentralisation, autonomy, organisation of workers—had been preserved and perfected by Catholicism.”

Even without the supernatural light, Maurras could discern those natural qualities of the Church. How many “believing” Catholics show such appreciation for the Church?

John Ball,

I would say the pro-war Catholic is the schismatic.  I am all for the
church becoming much smaller.  I wish for an order of excomunication for
pro war Catholics, and pro-abortion Catholics for that matter.  I do not feel
that leadership in Rome has been strong enough on these issues.  I sometimes
feel that the church is sacrificing quality for quantity, to put it crudely.

@Sid,

Scrolling way up.  Nationalism started both World Wars?  Interesting that
communism, atheism, and modernism ended up winning two world wars.  Were
the bankers who financed both Hitler and Stalin doing so for nationalism?
I would have thought them more mercenary and opportunistic in their sentiments.

Who is the real schismatic?  An Anglican who opposes the Iraq war on the grounds that it violates St Augustine’s criteria of “just war”?  Or a Catholic who repudiates the Popes’ admonitions and advocates an illegal and immoral war?

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”11

<I>"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Jesus established one Church, not many.

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The “many mansions” citation does not refer to many different Churches.

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-John14.php

When it comes to others lamenting our dearth of defenestration, I remind them Jesus did not excommunicate Judas.  While I often can smell freshly baked Donatism, it is never a denominational Bakery I’d enter.

I forgot to add that I am four square agin the Unjust Illegal Immoral Iraq War. Saddam was a guy on a goat with a grenade in his shorts. And we sold him the grenade.

@Sid

Wheter Dr. Cathey is a brown, a blanc, or an useful
idiot is academic.

The blancs in Argentina were the ones assaulting
Jewish citizens *for being Jewish*, they were the
ones who denounced the as “children of the devil” from
the pulpit, even at the time when the Jew Jonas Salk
had just delivered their children from the threat of
polio. It was Dr. Cathey’s friend, father Meinvielle
who was the ideologue of the thugs who kidnapped,
beat up and disfigured a nineteen year old, a crime
that Dr. Cathey had yet to condemn here.

Now, tell me, to a man who is beaten up, insutled, or
killed, what difference does it make if the criminal
who does it acts out of racial or religious hartred?

Hartred is hartred, and Dr. Cathey is quite willing
to ladle it out.

@Nucci

The winners of wars have little to do with the
ones who started them. Have you not seen on the
Nature channels how often predators are driven off
their kills by others who then feast?  Have you not
seen vultures treating themselves at kills others made?

So nationalism started wars, but proved incompetent
at winning nor holding its gains. That’s all there is.

Charles,
Voegelin never called for an Order based on spiritual disbelief, expediency and nationalism. This tripod on which Action Francais stood led to Pope Pius XI rightly condemning the group in 1926.

Bernanos left his role as editor of an AF publication as his own interior life deepened. His search was for Christ not political power and he saw behind the facade that Maurras offered.

This is a start. I will look for quotes later from Bernanos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras

Maurras, from what I undestand, is an author that
a Christian must read with care, if nothing else
because someone who describes the Magnificat as
“poisonous” is not wholly to be trusted.

Just as a matter of clarification, and to give a fuller
view of Maurras. He indeed found his way to a sincere and
fervent conversion to the Catholic faith in 1937. The fine
study by Lucien Thomas (L’ACTION FRANCAISE DEVANT L’EGLISE:
DE PIE XI A PIE XII. Paris: Nouvelle Editions Latines, 1965)
provides in some detail Maurras’ personal search for and
discovery of a vibrant faith. By then, of course, the
damage to the “right” in France had been done, as former
“lights” such as Maritain (who veered off into Christian
Democracy, which would later in the 1950s implode and
bring many Catholics down with it) and Bernanos. Maritain,
towards the end of his life, recognized at least some of
the extreme damage (that he had) done. LA DEMOCRATIE CHRETIEN
was never a viable option in France; it only helped destroy
the traditional “right.” Post-war, efforts such as La Cite
Catholique and the review ITINERAIRES tried to put the
pieces back together (Rene Raymond’s history of the
“right"in France is useful here), and intellectuals like
Jean Madiran (and the fine historian of ‘Integrism’ Emile
Poulat) did much to rescue the pre-war “right” (and Maurras)
from charges of “collaborationism.” But state-side, most
Americans still have a narrow view of what happened.

Frankly, I agree with Thomas, Madiran, and some other
historians, that Pius XI was probably ill-advised to
place the works on L’Action Francaise on the Index in
1926. St. Pius X had understood the problematic nature
of the movement back in the early 1900s, but had, in a
famous quote, said: “Damnabilis, sed non damnata est.”
L’Action Francaise had done more good that ill (despite
the elements of Comtean positivism, etc.) in opposing the
democratist “Le Sillon” of Marc Sangnier; and it was
Sangnier and the proto-Christian Democrats that St. Pius X
condemned in “Notre Charge Apostolique,” and NOT L’Action
Francaise.”

One last note: the only piece of clothing that I have that
is “brown” is an old work shirt from high school days. If
the self-proclaimed ersatz “conservative” “p.c” police
want to continue their tirades about my views on Argentina,
that is just fine. Apparently they would like to censure
what is said on this site, and demand apologies from me
for what they accuse some of my acquaintances of having
said. They might as well go out and talk to the nearest
wall. They do nothing by their continue babbling but
perturb their own nasty bile. Just as I don’t aologize
for slavery (my great grandfather held slaves), so I don’t
apologize for what an acquaintance may have said back in
the 1950s and for what some of his former students MAY
have done. Again, Get over it.

Adriana, about Argentine politics and history I can make no judgement, and rely instead on folk like us.

Boyd Cathey,
“He indeed found his way to a sincere and
fervent conversion to the Catholic faith in 1937.”

Sure. His conversion was so sincere that he thought the Vichy government’s treatment of Jews too “moderate.” Much like your criticism of Franco as “weak and vacillating”.

Scott,
You still think the above howlers from Mr Cathey as just more examples of “imaginary tendencies” towards fascism?
No wonder folks like John Ball and Adriana are wary of my faith.

Check out some of the comments on Taki’s Peroxide Blondes article for more musing from the fever swamps. Including a touching reference to grandpa - “a member of the SA.”

All,
May I recommend Thomas Molnar’s ‘Bernanos, His Political Thought and Prophecy” for more insight on these issues.

Traditionalist thought has historically stood as an enemy to fascism. As the latter is a revolutionary, nationalistic (as opposed to patriotic)and anti-Christian ideology. Forget how it’s followers exploit the language and symbols of faith. It is a heresy.

One additional word on Charles Maurras and L’Action
Francaise. The Vatican interdiction of 1926 (placing
some books and the newspaper on the Index) was LIFTED
on July 10, 1939, by order of the Vatican Congregation of
the Holy Office. Here is the crucial portion of the text
of the Decree: “A dater du jour de la promulgation du
present Decret, la defense de lire et de conserver le
journal l’ACTION FRANCAISE est levee....” and with some noted
corrections in several volumes (concerning the role of
politics and religion in society). The decret was approved
and confirmed by the pope. Of course, by them the damage
had been done.

Maurras’s personal conversion came through the intercession
of St. Therese of Lisieux and the prayers of the Carmelites
of Lisieux, with whom he maintained a moving and spirtual
correspondence.

Again, I recommend Lucien Thomas’s volume as an excellent
and detailed account of these events.

Kevin: your comments reflect the same warmed-over,
inherited-from-the-Left criticisms of Maurras. It appears
that you are a part of the same “anyone-who-doesn’t-agree-
with-my-view-is-a-’brown’” cabal that would like to resort
to labelling the rest of us as “fascist” or whatever (as
a substitute for thinking)who disagree with you. You folks
always resort to personal attacks, to insinuating darkly
about a person’s beliefs, as you are doing now, as if some
of us need to go before some “star chamber” and defend
ourselves against charges of, let’s see, “racism,”
“antisemitism,” uh, not to forget “fascism.” Thank you,
but that dog won’t hunt.

I cite my sources (and would be happy to give page numbers).
By the way, Thomas Molnar is a staunch defender of
Maurras, as was T. S.Eliot. I always try to do that, but
it appears that does no good.

Once again, I state that there are those on this list
who wish to censure others and stifle discussion about
topics that make them uncomfortable or about which they
have their minds already made up. They enjoy throwing
about words such as “hate” and “antisemitism” and “fascism.”
Frankly, if I wanted to hear those terms used, I would
sign on to MoveOn.com or some such. But on a site that
supposedly in “on the right”?

I’m afraid this rhetoric and level of conversation says
much about the so-called “American Right” (and its almost
total incapacity to meet its avowed enemies) more than
anything else.

I intend to just stop posting and leave this site
altogether. Some of you would just rather engage in
emitting epithets, rather than discussion (there are, of
course, definite exceptions, and I thank Sid Cundiff for
his very interesting and intelligent responses to my
messages). So if “p.c.” control is what you want here,
then have at it. You’ve succeeded.

OK, let’s try to get back on topic once more and away from obsessing about Dr. Cathey’s connection with long dead Argentines.  Thanks to Kevin for posting a link to the Hitchcock article.

The question remains as to what is a sound strategy for the anti-abortion, anti-war Christian.  The role of the state with regard to abortion is failure to protect the lives of innocent subjects.  Issues of funding and advocacy aside, it is a sin of omission rather than commission.  From this it follows that abortion can be significantly reduced without any change in the political situation and indeed this happened during the Clinton regime when the number of abortions in the US declined every year except for 1997.  But it also means that even a total ban on abortion would not end the practice entirely.  There would have to be suitable enforcement and suitable could probably best be determined by leaving it to the states and seeing what methods were most effective.  In the present circumstances, pro-lifers are best advised to pray, provide support and counselling for women considering abortions and for abortionists who wish to leave the inductry, and legally and socially harass those who remain.  And of course, don’t vote for any pro-abort politician under any circumstances.

The war, on the other hand, is entirely a matter of state action.  Not one American will lift a finger against the Iraqis if the US government pulls out.  The thuggish mercenaries (excuse me, “private security contractors") of Blackwater, Dyncor, Triple Canopy, etc. will be gone even before the last of the US army leaves.  Hence any candidate who does not favor immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq should not be supported. 

Now out of all presidential candidates is there any one who both opposes abortion and the Iraq war, and has a consistent record of doing so.  Indeed there is - Ron Paul.  I know of no others, but if there are any, I would be happy to hear of them.

Dr. Hitchcock has been indeed denigrated.  I urge all readers to go to the link Mr. Richert didn’t provide and read Hitchcock’s words.  One would never know from Mr. Richert that Hitchcock’s primary concerns are the supremacy of anti-abortion and then Catholic Social teaching about economics.  From Mr. Richert’s essay no one would know of Hitchcock’s insightful presentation of Pius XI’s views on socialism.  What follows, however caustic to Mr. Richert, is in fact a plea for him to rethink things through.  For in the past Mr. Richert has had much of value to say.

There’s more truth than error in Hitchcock’s essay. Let’s list his errors, why he made them, and his truths.

Hitchcock’s first error is this. He says in effect that abortion is the one supreme evil, and damnation to him who thinks otherwise.  Evil in fact has several aspects that are all supreme, for Satan attacks on several fronts.  I would say the Hitchcock has made a tactical error. The war in Iraq is evil too and must be opposed with equal strength.  Mr. Richert, on the other hand has made a strategic error.  For he has decided that the one supreme evil is “Neoconservatism”, the Hamiltonians.  If I’m wrong, let him tell him tell us how he has lifted a single finger to fight Cultural Marxism. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that he spends most of ammo on Hamiltonians. For myself, among the supreme evils are two: the Reds and the Browns.

Hitchcock’s second error is to run into the danger of becoming a useful idiot of the Hamiltonians.  He isn’t alone.  AND, come Jan 2009 we will need the help of mistaken good men such as himself (as we’ll need the help of Mr. Richert and Mr. Sobran). Mr. Richert’s burning of witches deprives us of friends needed in the Kulturkampf against Cultural Marxism it its Kulturkampf against us.  If Mr. Richert be a useful idiot, he is the useful idiot of his own purblind hatred of the Hamiltonians, a blindness that has blinded him to the ultimate enemies – the Browns and the Reds.  The Hamiltonians are finished anyway in popular support and esteem, and they are only making their unpopularity increase.  Mr. Richert wishes us, like the Tories of 1660, to hang a corpse.  He and the rest of us should help Hitchcock to see his tactical error, and then join him in attacking the works of Cultural Marxism.

Why these errors of Hitchcock?  Because we don’t have Christian Democracy in America (and many paleocons probably would be happy if Leo XIII had never lived), Hitchcock, seeing quite correctly that the Browns are taking over the Paleoconservative movement, makes the error of seeking allies among the Hamiltonians.  (Indeed, the real problem with Hamiltonians is that they don’t have effective weapons against Cultural Marxism and that they make the Browns seem respectable and innocent victims with silly charges of putative anti-Semitism for those who don’t agree with the Hamiltonian program.) The correct approach is to reject both the Hamiltonians and the Browns (and the Reds) and set up a Christian Democratic movement in the USA.

Dr. Hitchcock’s errors are outweighed by his truth. Dr. Hitchcock is ignorant about Dishonest Abe (his third error).  So are 95% of Gringos. Dr. Hitchcock is NOT ignorant about the major Catholic Brown in US history: The anti-Semite and national socialist (lower case) Charles Couglin.  Dr Hitchcock knows correctly that Fascism and Naziism in America will be called “Populism”.  John Lukacs knows this too. And John Lukacs and Hitchcock are quite right to damn those who question US involvement in the struggle against Fascism and Naziism.

That Dr. Hitchcock doesn’t trust Webb is a credit to his political wisdom.  Dr. Hitchcock is quite right to oppose anyone who supports abortion.  Mr. Sobran may have forgotten and Mr. Richert seems to have forgotten Waco – a crime even worse than what the Hamiltonians are doing in the Near East, and a crime perfectly attuned with Cultural Marxist baby-killing.  I urge Sobran, Richert, and the rest of us not to be so forgetful. The ABN crowd, Anybody But “Neocons” (Hamiltonians) are truly the real useful idiots.  ABN seems to be, if Hitchcock has quoted him correctly, Sobran. Hitchcock knows well that as evil as the Hamiltonians are, the Nurse Ratched and the Cultural Marxists are even more so.  The good man never supports evil, whatever its degree, and thus the correct position is to attack both the Hamiltonians and the Cultural Marxists (and the Browns). The Hamiltonians have done Trojan labor attacking Cultural Marxism.  So has Paul Gottfried, who despite labels knows the ultimate enemy.  Mr. Richert should tell us what he has said to oppose Cultural Marxism.  He should tell us as Sobran did (if Hitchcock has quoted that good man correctly) that it is his advice that we should vote for Nurse Ratch and her baby-killing party instead of the Hamiltonians.  Damnation upon the house of any Paleocon who continues to aid and abets the Cultural Marxist takeover in 2009! 

I now formally curse the moribund “paleoconservative movement”, as it with its smear campaigns goes into the same deserved oblivion as the John Birchers.  I call all Real Conservatives, many of whom write for this website – the Burkean-Kirkans – to join hands with the Christdemokraten as a single movement – one free of the Brown, the Reds, and the Hamiltonians – , and then to seek allies from ex-Hamiltonians “run over by reality”, Jeffersonians, the Blancs, the Greens, and the Paleolibertarians.  Once again with fortissimo: Damnation to anyone who aids and abets – even unintentionally – the Cultural Marxist takeover in 2009.

Postscript:  While the Browns bitch about me, while I bitch about Mr. Richert, and he bitches about Dr. Hitchcock, there’s the Jena affair.  I can’t believe anything I read in the mainline press, because it’s either Cultural Marxist or a useful idiot of the same.  Why no one should believe what the Browns say about Jena is self-evident.  And the Paleocons leftovers – the movement as a serious force died with Sam Francis – seem to be by and large the useful idiots of the Browns.  The Hamiltonians might actually know the truth about Jena, as Poddy Senior did all the way back in the 60s.  But, the Hamiltonians think now only one thing counts: Iraq.  So the slyer tacticians, Nurse Ratched and the Cultural Marxists, win another one. Maybe the Paleolibertarians will do the job of telling us what’s really happening in Jena, as they did in Durham.  So much for a free press!  It’s shackled by self-imposed chains. 

Post postscript:  For all my anger, I offer still to Mr. Richert not the clenched fist but the open hand. I need his help in fighting Cultural Marxism.  I am also willing to be shown where I’m wrong.

Sorry for the typos.  I’m very tired.

Frankly, about Maurras, I think that after he
converted he became a “cafeteria Catholic”
picking and choosing what he liked from the
doctrine and discarding the rest.

I wish I knew if he retracted his comments
about the “poisonous” Magnificat in any way,
because in his opinion it incited the lower
orders to revolt.

I would think that someone who inside the
Church tries to change its dogma is more
dangerous than an open enemy. But what do
I know, I am not a member…

As for Dr. Cathey, I guess he thinks that events
in ARgentina are either perfectly justified, or
too old for us to be concerned about. Long dead
ARgentines…

Funny, he did not consider it old stories when he
recounted the hostilities between the Jews and the
Christians centuries past.

I see what his credo is:

“Injuries that I receive, those, no matter how old,
are to be nursed and vented at the first opportunity.

Injuires that I inflict, no matter how recent, are to
be forgotten and those who talk about them chastised
for not being of a forgiving nature.”

I say that I will not be sorry to let him go.

Boyd Cathey,
It is interesting that you say nothing to rebut Maurras’s criticism of the Vichy treatment of Jews. Isn’t mass murder a sin?

Sure Maurras drew admirers