Chaput and the church's evangelical coming out party

I would rather reap what Abp. Chaput has sown than a harvest of abortions and homosexuality. Twist the data to suit your cause, but the largest religious groups in America are Catholic and Evangelicals, and they're both growing faster than ever before. Where's your harvest, Jamie?

Chaput and his band of like-minded prelates have more in common with Protestant Reconstructionism and Rushdoony than they do with the gospel of the Lord.     Such irony that men who insist on the importance of "Catholic identity"   (which ostensibly includes social justice)   actually espouse an extreme hybrid form of uber-conservative Calvinism and Randian economic ideology.     Even more bizarre,   true Reconstructionism   (versus the prelate adapted version)   denounces the RCC as a pagan cult and the Whore of Babylon,   and Ayn Rand herself was an avowed anti-Catholic atheist who believed that greed and selfishness were virtues.     Strange political-religious bedfellows indeed.
.
When Chaput and other neotraditionists within the RCC claim to preach the gospel while deriding those they call "cafeteria Catholics"   it is impossible not to see their own brand of cafeteria Catholicism,   including their picking and choosing within the written gospels themselves,   what the Lord actually said and what he never mentioned at all.
.
The emergence of Protestant Reconstructionism and its Catholic sympathizers into the politics of our nation three decades ago has done more to polarize and poison the well of discourse and policy than any other single factor.     Small wonder that Ayn Rand politicians latched onto the movement to further their own secular political ends to divide and conquer the electoral herd — cynically creating tribal warfare among young versus elderly,   sick versus healthy,   sinking middle class versus working poor,   native-born versus immigrant,   religious versus non-religious,   in a never-ending   'righteous us'   versus   'evil them'   culture war that destroys any sense of community and common good.     Catholic prelates like Chaput are up to their Roman collars in our mean-spirited national mess which has brought us to near anarchy.
.
If Protestant Reconstructionists ever do actually gain complete control of our government and create the theocracy they desire,   these same Catholic prelates will find themselves hiding in their chancery basements from the religious persecution that will follow.     Either these men never read the historical record of violent Catholic persecution in the United States,   or they arrogantly assume that their current political power would not let it happen again.
.

The real irony here is that while so-called liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants are increasingly comfortable worshiping together, traditional Catholics and fundamentalist Evangelicals, in their heart of hearts, think the other group is headed straight to Hell!

Superb article. Great insight, here. Chaput comes across as a bright man, but one who is stifle and brittle. I sense unsteadiness in him. The sound, temperate approach one sees in great men in our church's recent past, John XXIII, Newman, Suenens, Cushing and others doesn't seem to be his way. Hard to find an outpouring of love in him. No meaningful expression of it. And as St Paul says, “If you don’t have love, you have nothing.

just started re-reading Friar Boff's excellent 1977 theological treatise book Passion of Christ; Passion of the World (Orbis re-issue 2001, under one hundred and fifty tight pages), which so clearly lays out our Faith and where we are now. In order to get a clearer uderstanding of our Faith, in fact, we must return to such great works of our Faith, pre-wojo, pre-ratzo

edifying summer reading
liberate our church
take back the church
get our church back, and free

know what we are and why
and live and breathe once more

For some reason I can't explain I constantly find myself in disagreement with Jamie's reasoning but usually agree with her conclusions. For instance while I agree with that Chaput's appointment to Philadelphia is unfortunate and an obvious reward for his pro-forma investgation of Bishop Morris ,I disagree that the adoption of political-religious activism on the evangelical model will bring those who have sought Christ elsewhere trooping back into the Church pews. The whole message of these strident preachers is "anti" anything they disagree with. They are AGAINST abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage. all the other sins they can think of.It is a juridical and punitive model of Christianity Christianity does not preach a negative philosophy but a positive message. It is FOR life, for healthy family life, for human values, for charity and non-judgemental respect for the individual.
Conversion is not a consequence of logical proof but rather the acceptance of a faith lived and a testimony shared.We are losing members because we fail to attract them by our attitudes and our llives. Excommunication does not bring more members into the Church, it expels them.

Another "evangelical" bad idea that many, especially in the Philadelphia area, are embracing comes from the "ex-gay" movement (already a very bad idea); whether this is conscious or not I cannot tell, but the strong trend in Philadelphia and similar dioceses is to deny priesthood to someone who is a mature, spiritual and celibate gay man (because he is "gay" and they cannot accept that there are gays in the priesthood), but they will accept someone who is "struggling with same sex attraction," because they define such a person as "not gay." The long term problem for the church is that someone who is "struggling with same sex attraction" (even if they are officially defined as "not gay") is usually very repressed and ego-dystonic, and thus a walking time bomb just waiting for the wrong event to trigger their "acting out in a same sex manner." I do not know where the archbishop-designate stands on this, but I find it to be a very worrisome trend.

We need to reclaim the loaded word "evangelize" from its bastardized use by ultra conservatives and some fundamentalists and remember its Biblical roots, i.e, to proclaim the Gospel.

What I think you refer to is fundamentalism; a sorry thing in all religious traditions. (Karen Armstrong is a superb reference on fundamentalism). It is the crabgrass in the lawns of religions. Evangelism in its Biblical use is expected of all of us - to proclaim the Gospel.

Please continue your efforts to keep the Faith pure and relevant for the young people and not warped by the the bitter old men who seek new ways to hold onto power even if they must co opt the bad movements in Protestantism. Remember that mega churches water down the message to keep congregants. We must preach what needs to be heard,which is not always warm and fuzzy, but challenges us to think.

H.G. Bishop Timothy
Pilgrim Prayer & Healing Ministries

Jamie Manson succintly describes the creeping evangelism movement in the US Catholic Church. We Catholics are called to follow the words and footsteps of Jesus through service to our sisters and brothers on this earth. But the hierarchy of the church seems to lose sight of this mission as it focuses on esoteric discussions on "matters of faith", protection of the hierarchy in the sexual abuse scandals, how to preserve church assets against losses, etc. As a catholic living in the deep south, I see every day how the evangelical churches are more of a business with pastors concerned about getting in more members in order to have more money to hava a bigger church. I cringe to think that the catholic church may be moving in that direction.

They might start with a passage from Galatians 6:7, which reminds us: "You reap whatever you sow."

... and from there they could go to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Archbishop Chaput fate in Philadelphia may prove similar to the fate of Benedict XVI's first appointee to Warsaw. When "outed" as a collaborator with the Polish Communist Security Services, both Archbishop Wielgus and the Vatican tried to brush off the scandal, unsuccessfully. Two days after taking canonical possession of his new see, Wielgus resigned less than an hour before the public ceremony of installation.

Can Archbishop Chaput and the Vatican brush off Chaput's scandalous attempts to defeat legislation in support of the victims of clergy sex abuse? Stay tuned . . .

I doubt the Fundies would like to hook up with what they perceive to be "the whore of Babylon"! Evangelicals are more likely to make common cause with the Catholic Church on the social issues in the political arena but not economic issues.

Catholics have historically been somewhat left of center on economic & poverty issues. Paulte however stands with Adam Smith & Edmund Burke on these issues. I believe that the free market as a basic principle is God's design for the economic well-being of man.

A text that deserves a reading:

FUNDAMENTALISM IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

BY GERALD ARBUCKLE

Fundamentalism is not confined to Islamic religions. In fact fundamentalist movements are to be found in all societies and religions, including Catholic Christianity. Fundamentalism is a form of organised anger in reaction to the unsettling consequences of rapid social and religious change. Fundamentalists find rapid change emotionally extremely disturbing and dangerous. Cultural, religious and personal certitudes are shaken. Consequently, fundamentalists simplistically yearn to return to a utopian past or golden age, purified of dangerous ideas and practices. They aggressively band together in order to put things right again – according to what they decide are orthodox principles. Sometimes they turn to all kinds of bullying – emotional, political, even physical violence at times – to get things back to “normal”. History must be reversed. Because fundamentalism is at depth an emotional reaction to the disorienting experience of change, fundamentalists are not open to rational discussion. Here in Australia, for example, there is a political fundamentalist movement to preserve the “pure, orthodox Australian culture” from the “endangering ways of foreigners”. It matters little to adherents that such a culture has never existed. Anthropologically every culture is the result of constant contact and mixing with other cultures over years. Fundamentalists have become especially powerful and vociferous within the Catholic communities in recent decades. Their fundamentalist reactions are the result of the impact of two massive cultural upheavals colliding. First, there is the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The credibility of ever value and institution, including the churches, were questioned. This had profound social, economic and political consequences that continue to this day. Second, there is impact from the immense cultural changes generated by the much-needed reforms of Vatican II. Catholic fundamentalism is an often aggressive reaction to the anxiety-creating turmoil of these two cultural and religious upheavals. It is an ill-defined but powerful movement in the Church to restore uncritically pre-Vatican II structures and attitudes. Here are some signs of this fundamentalism among Catholics: Nostalgia for a pre-Vatican II Golden Age, when it is assumed that Church never changed, was then a powerful force in the world, undivided by misguided devotees of the Council’s values. The fact is that the Church and its teachings have often changed. Some statements have been shown to be wrong and were either repealed or allowed to lapse. 1) A highly selective approach to what fundamentalists think pertains to the Church’s teaching: Statements on incidental issues are obsessively affirmed, but papal or episcopal pronouncements on social justice are ignored or considered matters for debate only. 2) Concern for accidentals, not for the substance of issues, e.g., the Lefebvre group stresses Latin for the Mass, failing to see that this does not pertain to authentic tradition. 3) The vehemence and intolerance with which they attack co-religionists who are striving to relate the Gospel to the world around them according to Vatican II. 4) Attempts to infiltrate governmental structures of the Church in order to obtain legitimacy for their views and to impose them on the whole Church. 5) An elitist assumption that fundamentalists have a kind of supernatural authority and right to pursue and condemn those who disagree with them, including bishops and theologians. 6) A spirituality in which Jesus Christ is portrayed as an unforgiving and punishing God; the overwhelming compassion and mercy of Christ is overlooked. In relating to fundamentalist Catholics we need to avoid hostile or heated arguments. Membership of fundamentalist groups is not a question of logic, but generally of a sincere, but misguided, search for meaning and belonging. Expressions of anger and vigorous disagreement will only affirm people in the rightness of their belief. Our best witness to the truths of our Catholic beliefs will be our inner peace built on faith, charity and concern for justice, especially among the most marginalised.

Father Gerald Arbuckle SM is co-director of the Refounding and Pastoral Development Unit at Hunters Hill in Sydney, and author of eleven books including Culture, Inculturation, and Theologians: A Postmodern Critique.

I like the diversity that Bishop Chaput represents (Native American). Bishop Chaput,Cardinal Arinze etc. really demonstrate that the future leadership of the Church is no longer a white and Italian monopoly.

Not only theological myopia, but also historical amnesia. Excuse the brusk tone, but who does the author think wrote the Gospels? Our Lord commissioned the apostles, whose preaching was recorded and came to form the Gospels. The last time we prayed the creed, "apostolic" followed "one, "holy," and "catholic" in the creed. Who is Chaput to expound these teachings of the Gospel? A bishop, successor to the apostles, with authority in faith and morals, that's who. And the trite reference to things that "Jesus never mentioned" is a weak red-herring. Very few ancient cultures wrote much about things like abortion or gay marriage, especially in an "accepting" and positive light. Although abortion and homosexuality were still certainly practiced by some, they were recognized as de-stabilizing for the social group and a taboo against human conduct. These practices were commonly understood as unacceptable, especially to the Jewish culture of Jesus' time. This would, perhaps, be a fine example of "preaching to the choir," whereas some needed a sharp reminder that religious hypocrisy and neglect of the poor were also not acceptable. (Ms. Manson, really, basing your argument on something akin to 'sola scriptura?' Who resembles 'evangelicalism' now?)

Might I also note the naivete of the situation of the church in the "post-Christian" era. Ms. Manson writes as if it is the church and Christianity that has changed the most in the last century, and not the culture or worldly standard of what is "moral." The need for a solid and structured teaching authority is antithetical to the spirit of our post-modern world, which hates teachers and anything that claims to hold to a universal truth/morality. As much as the author decries polarizing polemics, she seems to be speaking more on behalf of a "side" that wants to claim for itself authority over matters of faith and morals. Tread lightly, please. When "picking sides" in the debate of "who is right, the Church or the world," I encourage circumspection in selecting the candidate not according to how well they jive with personal sensibilities rather than the faith in Christ who entrusted authority to the apostles and their successors.

I have difficulty reconciling Chaput's aggressive disciplinarian stances with the humble, self-effacing, unambitious persona of the St. Francis of Assisi of whom he professes such admiration.

More than once, I've asked (tongue firmly planted in cheek and awaiting whistling shrimp and flying pigs) whether Friar Charles OFM Cap. will be joining the Capuchin community that lives in downtown Philadelphia, eschewing the bishop's residence and keeping his vow of poverty. He has already rationalized his donning of secular clerical garb in place of his habit. This is rather ironic, considering that religious habits and Bp. Chaput are both the darlings of the orthodox evangelical Catholics.

As with Mr. Weigel, one catches more than the whiff of careerism and opportunism in Chaput's rhetoric. Would both have been progressives four decades ago, when it was prudent and expedient to be so?

Perhaps we should all save our breath. Please, who is ever convinced to change a polarized view here?

Maybe it's time for me (us?) to log off and log on to living the beatitudes in the flesh.

Well, at leadt Chaput is coming out...about something.

It came as an "aha" moment some time ago that "fundamentalist ideology" is a sick mental state irrespective of any specific sectarian position. Whether Islamic, Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, libertarian, Republican or Democrat, they are scary, weird, not open to listening or discussion...and dangerous. Like a rabid cat, dog, coyote, pet bird they should be penned up and we should be inoculated against them.

Chaput and the ilk who lead or, who seek to capitalize on this disease must be shunted aside, not just ignored and disclosed for the sickness or perversity that they represent. If their colleague peers, e.g., bishops or "superiors" as in "magisterium" and vatican don't do it they are themselves meritting of exclusion and approbation.

To perform marriages in NYS, one need be a recognized clergy person or public official of some capacity. Now since I don't believe the author is a government offical, how can she claim on the WOC site to perform marriages, unless she claims to be clergy? And if so, then how can she claim to be Catholic is she left the Church to join another or start her own?

Have you ever written an article that didn't mention homosexuality?

Where is he going to get priests? In 10 years there won't be enough to serve 50% of the Catholics.

Religion is supposed to support tolerance. Read the Good Samaritan. However, from what I see from a good portion of the right wing there is no tolerance. Expect more war if this wing of Protestant re-constructionist and Catholic sympathizers get political control of the United States. The "New Jerusalem" religious thought fueled "Manifest Destiny" which is the root of our imperialistic foreign policy today. Crank it up a notch with unbending zeal and war will increase. And the thing to remember about war is that results are never guaranteed and usually unintended consequences occur. The waste is horrifying. Just look what we have now. Two wars going on and on. We are throwing away everything to wage war against a people with no air force, no missiles, no navy and no regular army and who do not even live on the same continent. It would be funny if it were not so terrible.

New generations of Catholics and evangelicals, as well as many of their elders, long for spiritual guidance, but not moralistic religious ideology.

I am a recent convert and I am grateful for the moralistic religious ideology of the Church... it is spiritual guidance.

As our Lord said, "I come to bring a sword". We need to choose. Are we going to serve Him or ourselves.

I like the term "Evangelical Catholics" giving immediate clarity about what they stand for.

Maybe Vatican II followers could be "Fundamentalist Catholics" because they are basing their faith not on a clearical Rome church, but on the fundamentals of Christ.

I've read the Gospels and, as you, did graduate studies. I disagree that Jesus did not "speak" about some of these things. The whole Mary, Joseph, Jesus story speaks volumes about family values, as does his discourse on divorce, likening marriage (always a bride and bridegroom and a man and woman leaving their families and becoming one flesh)as an example of God's relationship with God's people; Jesus telling the adulterous Samaritan woman to go back to her husband; Jesus' preference for children, and other examples. It is hard to imagine a God who created humanity, including sharing the gift of procreation (God creating humankind is arguably the most significant "image and likeness" trait expressing what God's love is all about), thinking abortion is okay, particularly considering that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, or putting the mother's life (living as opposed to dying, not our definition of quality of life) in danger. God is the one that designed women to be child bearers. Was the design unfair, flawed, a cruel joke? Did God decide to create a burden for women vs. men thinking we'll find a way to shut it down or make it not work, and if that fails, abortion is okay? I also don't think God quibbles about when there is a soul. We create more than a million new lives a year that we know before we have sex that we don't want or cannot have, but do it anyway. Then we kill them. It is the only law we have on the books, other than capital punishment (which the bishops are working hard to eliminate with some success) that says it is perfectly okay to kill a whole class of human life - no questions asked. In fact, it is a right. The bishops have every right to challenge that loudly. It is also hard to believe God thought it so important to create gender and link it to procreation that having both the masculine and feminine in nurturing a child doesn't matter. After all, gender is the one significant difference in human design. The rest is about shape, sizes and color of the same thing. The most complete picture of God's image and likeness takes both the masculine and feminine. God must have thought that extremely important. To say that either a mother or father are irrelevent, that procreation doesn't matter in marriage doesn't ring true. Just because a small percentage of people develop in the womb or have a developmental experience that, though they have the same physical sexual equipment common to humanity, "orients" them for same-sex sex and intimacy, doesn't mean we need to change thousands of years of understanding and conclusions about marriage - about the role of both a mother and father, about procreation and love, about the masculine and feminine. The vast majority of faith traditions - Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, half the Lutherans, most of the Prebyterians, Evangelical/Pentecostals, much of the Anglican Communion, most Methodists, the Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Hindus all deny same-sex sex and marriage. Jesus probably didn't say anything about homosexuality because he was a practicing Jew and it is roundly condemned in Hebrew Scripture. It is more likely that if he supported homosexual sex and gay marriage he would have said something because He didn't hesitate to challenge the Jews when they got it wrong. His silence may actually be more significant. As far as ordination goes, Jesus chose to enter the world as a man and chose 12 men initially as Apostles. Why He did that I do not know. I do not subscribe to the idea He did it for cultural reasons. That would limit an almighty God who certainly was not afraid to buck the going trends. The early Church fathers seem to have continued the male clergy practice from the beginning. I've got to think that the Holy Spirit was and is operative in the magisterium, and that when God is ready for women to be ordained, it will happen (I won't have a problem with it), but, as Mr. Garvey of Catholic Univ. fame once said, using the example of managing his investments and eventually hiring a professional investment advisor, the Bishops may not get it right all the time, but they are more likely to get it right than I am. I've talked to bishops about women's ordination and I haven't run into any that lead me to believe they are all just a bunch of hate-filled men trying to keep women pregnant and in the kitchen. In fact, several have told me they wish they could because it would sure make things easier. The Church needs to be compassionate, but like Jesus, it ought to also name sin. We don't like that. Naming sin is now being interpreted as hateful or wanting to hurt somoeone. Yet, if you truly beleive someone is sinning, is it really compassionate to not say so? Because we want to be forgiving and compassionate to those involved in a tough abortion decision, or our gay brothers and sisters who need affirmation and sexual fulfillment, or towards women who feel (often because they have been taught by the prevailing culture) that their ministry is insignificant because they aren't ordained, doesn't mean the Church needs to say it is all okay. Most of the Chosen People of the day turned away from Jesus because what He had to say was hard and they didn't like it, just like the Church today. He didn't change what He had to say to please them and neither should the Church. If I've learned anything about discernMEnt, it is that there is an awful lot of "me" in it and it is tough to tell the difference sometimes between the "me" and what "I" want and the "God" and what "God" wants. I always try and remember that when I'm tempeted to say I'm right and the bishops are all wrong. I also remember that the Church has had its ups and downs from the beginning. There has always been dissent and division, but the Church always survives. Having said all that, I respect your sincerity and you make some good points about evangelization identity and methodology. I will continue to pray about all these issues, and study them from all sides, as I know you will. Peace

As a member of the older generation, I have also disengaged from both the political and religious institutions because neither institution remotely resembles what their founders had intended them to be. It is not about being a non-believer, but instead about having a stronger authentic belief in God, leaving the fear and guilt behind. Regardless, I'm always looking for a parish that might be somewhat inclusive or just a bit progressive, but so far I've not found that. At the moment, I live here in Philadelphia and realize that the likelihood of finding a "home" is next to zero, now that Chaput will be the man in charge. The Philadelphia Inquirer is already helping us get adjusted to his arrival, with George Weigel's article this past Sunday.

You don't know what an evangelical christianity is. You are confusing evangelicals with fundamentalists or conservatives. Please, read more. John Stott's Basic Christianity might be a good place to start.

"Weigel declared Chaput's Denver diocese as "arguably the model Evangelical Catholic diocese in the country: a Church brimming with excitement over the adventure of the Gospel."

The adventure of the Gospel lies in our loving our enemy, and any unloved, liberating the prisoner, bringing concrete, real Good News to the Poor, feeding the hungry, sheltering the illegal alien, healing the sick, giving our shirt as well to whosoever requires our coat, walking another mile, turning the other cheek, eating with sinners, sitting outside with Lazarus at the gate, embracing the leper.

This is excitement; this is the beginning of our evangelical adventure: to sell all that we have and then come follow Jesus, the Nazarene.

Not to store up riches on earth and to lord it over others, to exclude others from the table, but to invite all who come to get closer, in love and in peace and in dignity, as compassionate family.

This is exciting; this is adventure.

What happened to the article about support for Fr. Roy?

I am always cautious around those who claim to own "the truth". I thought Jesus told us to "Judge not". I don't hear that mentioned by the most strident evangelicals - RC or otherwise. It's a bad rule to ignore, since humans are not able to actually handle the entire truth of God.

Wonderful and informative article about one of the most right wing, conservative, catholic bishops in this country. Aileen USA and Duffy have identified Chaput for what he really represents by his views. I believe that the good bishop would like this country to become a Theocracy.

There is a very good book on the subject of the mission of the evangelical movement by, Michael Standaert, "Skipping Toward Armageddon" written in 2006.
I found it in all places, The Dollar Store. The sub title "The Politics and Propaganda of the Left Behind Novels and the LaHaye Empire." These books according to the author, are a mixture of fundamentalist religion, right wing politics, and right wing conspiracy theories.
Michael if he could write about what is going on now in the right wing it would prove his theory in spades. We have several republican candidates, and have added a third in Rick Perry, who are ardent Evangelical followers. In the books apparently the Roman Catholic Church is teamed up with the anti-christ to bring about the end times and the rapture, meanwhile seeking to bring everyone into their brand of Christianity. It is dangerous, and I truly worry about America when the right wing political views are a religion,with whacky politicians espousing the cause. The real danger is, other than Chris Matthews, and Rachael Maddow on MSNBC, no media people calls them on it, or seems aware of the danger. It is no different than the extremests of the Muslim faith which brought about 911, or Timothy McVeigh, the OKC bomber, just not taking a violent form as yet.
I just hope Archbishop Chaput does not stray too far into their camp.

This tactic is being done by the pope thru Chaput and the Protestant evangelical fundies will prove to be dangerous, likely even deadly, possibly even very deadly in America and then throughout the world. Above all, this is the doings of the pope.

This will stir up a huge amount of hate which is now and will continue to come from the jihadists from the so called evangelicals who should more appropriately be called "fundamentalist evangelicals" NOT just evangelicals, because there are evangelicals(Rev. Jim Wallis, Arbp. Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, etc,etc) who would NEVER engage in this further hatreds. Now we know for sure that the papacy is a thing of evil because only satanic evil would do such things. These people are being misled by evil forces on the expressions of hatred as the way to solve problems.

Today it's homosexuals, tomorrow it will be more Muslims, Liberals and whomever the pope declares as an enemy. More than likely, the pope and his bishops like Chaput will also be targeting minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics. NOTHING good will come of this. 'Double Tap' bullets will be splitting heads open. Some bishops will say in public that this is terrible but the killing and the hating and the endless greed will continue. More than likely the economic crises and their wars will also continue.

During WWII it was Jews, Trade Unionists, Gypsies, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and others that were hated by both the Catholic papacy, Hitler, the Nazis and the Fascists. Of course, the pope and Chaput and all the bishops know that among evangelical fundamentalists guns and government hatreds are their way of life and their front issues. So we can all look for further attacks on government employees, including Congressmen like Gabby Giffords by those who espuse their hate for government because gov't steals from the Super Rich and that is the same as stealing from God, Himself. Because God made them Super Rich. That's their equation or formu7la against gov't.

Thanks to JPII,B16 two wars and most especially the economic crisis as well as the Reagan GOP, these GOP Protestant evangelical fundamentalists are on the VERY EDGE due to the unending manipulation and enraging/inflaming of the RNC the likes of ED Gillespie, Ed Rollins, Matthew Dowd, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, the Scalia SCOTUS et.al. We may well end up with another Holocaust, ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE POPES. False Gods as well as coveting, stealing and bearing false witness will abound!!

And all the while the popes and the bishops will look innocent and say: who me/us. We didn't do anything! We're totally innocent! THEY DID IT!!! Then Chaput will be the next pope, even though he and the papacy are minions of satan, spreading evil and death. The also world better watch out, these people are on the way. The Vatican greatly helpe4d to give us WWII. This will be more of the same. Done by most of the same few people like the pope and their friends the Koch Bros, Richard Mellon Scaife, etc,etc,etc. But the ultimate leader behind all of this IS the pope.

They still haven't learned a thing. Pedophilia will continue. Liberal/peaceful Catholics will leave the church in ever greater numbers. While the church will become a religion of haters, violent, aggressive and eternally vicious people; very, very,very few people as ordinary everyday Catholics view all of the hate and killing with disdain, even revulsion, regarding it as the work of satan, which it is.

These events will begin the final demise of the Roman Catholic church!!! WWIII IS very likely. It will be at the behest of the pope and his evangelicals.

Of course George Weigel loves this, he is a Neocon. Same with Jeb Bush. War/kill/death are at the forefront of their agenda. Just as long as someone else does the dying. "We the people do the fighting, we do the paying and we do the dying in THEIR wars. Same as the popes and most of the bishops, but not all. There will be a few who will try to make peace but they will be attacked and fail, like my friend the bishop.

I wonder what will happen when the popes people try to attack Communist abortion ridden China, which is the source of a huge amount of Repub business. The pope and the fundie evangelicals will be at odds, they actually think that business is a perfection, that comes from the source of all perfection, God.

Prepare for another holocaust. This WILL prove the suspicions about the last holocaust and the Vatican's role in it.

They are and have been using evangelization, Pro-life and Family Values, war and the economic crises for the unleashing of evil, hatred, violence and endless greed as well as the degradation of working class families. Which it has been all along. As I have said, repeatedly!!! Surely, St. John The Evangelist never intended for any of this. It's all nothing but an excuse to vent their hatreds and economic fears, all brought on by Republican greed!!

This IS really all about MONEY, POWER and the domination of others for greedy purposes. Economic slavery, sexual slavery and human slavery will be everywhere. Of course the pope will still be talking: ABOUT THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN BEING AND THE HUMAN BODY!!!!! WHAT HYPOCRISY!!!

Will the true nature of the papacy be revealed by these events??

What is the message, what is the lesson to be learned here in these events. The continuation or discontinuation of the pope and his people will be or reveal the message or the lesson or some of the truth of Gods love for us and those poor women the pope and the bishop are after. Is that the lesson of what we are to learn from this unfolding parable of the mighty against the poor. Is the lesson about the sin of Pride of the powerful. Only time and future events will tell.

It now seems that the papacy is very dysfunctional! St. Malachy's "Prophesy of Popes" may come true. All of this is right on time for those who WANT this to be "the end of times", The Rapture. GWB is a Rapturist. This pope spoke of it at Regensburg as inevitable. If they want it bad enough, they will make it happen!!!

Truly, religious extremism is a very dangerous thing to life and the human race. Religious terrorism is as bad as any other kind of terrorism!!! That must be why Jesus forbade the merging of religion and politics, religion and gov't, religion and it's acquisition of political power. Truly, absolute power corrupts, absolutely!! As we are now seeing.

Poor Hispanic women were created by the papacy, in it's zeal to stamp out Marxism and Socialism. But prior to those issues, it was done by a kind of Catholic superiority toward indigenous peoples by the Conquistadors. And isn't it of further interest that poverty nand fasmily destruction of Black slaves was done by the southerners and the papacy who believed that they were allowed to destroy Black family tribal values by 'USING them for their own southern economic enrichment. Now that both groups are the main source of poor women getting abortions these righteous evangelical fundies, Catholic or Protestant, want to somehow undo this great damage that THEY DIRECTLY CAUSED!!! When are the likes of the pope and the Pat Robertson-minded going to look at the very consequences/results of THEIR OWN EVIL DOINGS!!!! Even as they pass another cup of poverty onto ever more generations of people and their families due to their worship of the superiority of the Super Rich and Trickle-down economics which ACTUALLY CREATES MORE POVERTY!!!!

But they just never get the idea of "Cause and Effect". Ideologues ALWAYS create the Galileo situation, over and over and over, then dare to wonder how it all came to be. THEY DID IT. Then They blame others!!!

I see nothing good coming from any of the pope's and Chaput's doings. In fact, it all looks deadly and evil.

My esteemed bobtr900: From the context of
your extensive rant I conclude you are an
Obama supporter. May Hope and Change fulfil
your every wish.