On deceiving Jesuit leader Arrupe in his approving Fr. Drinan’s running for Congress in 1972

Fr. Mankowski listening at table — the seeds of his Arrupe-Drinan investigation:

In 1991 I was living at Faber House . . . in Cambridge . . . while doing doctoral studies at Harvard. On February 5 of that year, Father William Guindon, S.J., Provincial of New England Province from 1968 to 1974, was a dinner guest at Faber House and reminisced for the assembled company about the recently dead Father Arrupe.

One of his anecdotes went like this:

Well, I was over in Beirut at the time and Arrupe summoned me to Rome. That’s when I was still Provincial. He said, “I want you to tell Fr. Drinan to withdraw from the election”—this was his first run for office—“it is in violation of canon law!”

I told him, “No no no, you don’t want to do that; you don’t understand American politics; you’ll cause more trouble than it’s worth. That’s not the way to do it; just pray that he loses.”

Then Arrupe said, “All right. But this is the last time! Never again for him or anyone else!” So Bob had the permission of all three ordinaries. [The general and two relevant bishops]

Then when I got back to province I found [Fr.] John McLaughlin in my office asking for permission to run for the Senate in Rhode Island. I said, “Can’t give you permission, John.” He said, “Why not?” I said, “For one thing Fr. Arrupe has forbidden it. For another I think you’ve got a wheel loose.”

McLaughlin ran anyhow, as a Republican, doing passably well while losing to an entrenched Democrat and then hiring on as a speechwriter for President Nixon. Yet later he left the Jesuits and carved out a 34-year career hosting his own show, “The McLaughlin Group,” on PBS. His career at the White House coincided with Drinan’s in Congress.

Picking up on Mankowski, explaining his position:

Guindon’s language recorded here is very close to verbatim. Immediately after the dinner I made notes transcribing his account and sent a copy to Father Joseph Becker, S.J., then director of the Jesuit Center for Religious Studies at Xavier University. He wrote back saying that he placed my transcript in his archives; if they still exist, it may well be on file.

By his own account, Guindon deceived Arrupe about his motives and interest in Drinan’s candidacy, not only concealing his own efforts to launch Drinan but, in his urging Arrupe to pray that Drinan would lose, falsely pretending to be opposed to his election.

By presenting himself as an exasperated but cautious administrator who was unsympathetic to Drinan, instead of the partisan that he was in fact, Guindon led Arrupe to think that they had a common interest in the outcome of the affair. By this ruse, Guindon won from Arrupe, if not a green light for Drinan, at least an agreement not to oppose publicly his (first) candidacy.

In his account of using Arrupe’s general prohibition to refuse permission to then-Father John McLaughlin, S.J.—on canonical and religious grounds the obviously correct decision—Guindon shows both that he understood Arrupe’s mind perfectly well and that he exploited the General’s leniency for his own ends: using Arrupe’s grudging one-time concession in order to advance the career of a like-minded Jesuit, and his ban in order to undercut an uncongenial one.

Mankowski, Paul; Weigel, George. Jesuit at Large: Essays and Reviews by Paul Mankowski, S.J. (pp. 154-155). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

more to come on the Drinan-Arrupe business . . .

He or she who holds all the cards should be handled with care, as on a transcontinental flight, San Fran to DC . . .

Treat him or her like an angry bear.

When fighting the mask-enforcer ain’t worth the effort. Masked man checked with passenger next to him, who said no problem if nose not covered.

So I placed it beneath my nose. But about 20 minutes into the flight, the woman across the aisle from me said, “Please wear your mask.”

What to do? I realized that she held all the cards. If I refused, she would almost certainly call the flight attendant, who, whatever her own view of enforcement, would feel compelled to enforce. They had said twice over the PA system that failure to comply could result in a prison sentence. So I kept my mask on and took it off whenever I drank, and I drank in little sips, and whenever I ate peanuts, which I did a few at a time. And I put my mask beneath my nose the two times that the woman across went to the bathroom.

I didn’t focus on my anger at her, which was only momentary. I just decided to see her as an angry bear. So I didn’t waste time thinking about revenge, thinking about nasty things to say, etc. That would have taken energy and taken away from the good feelings I was having about the trip.

Of course, there was a government component at the root of this. The airline would probably not have enforced the rule and certainly wouldn’t have able to threaten a prison sentence if President Biden had not required masks.

Which maybe is one of the reasons students chant “F–k Joe Biden.”

Jesuit intrigue in the matter of Congressman Drinan SJ in the ’70s

The Drinan files! How a Jesuit provincial gave not a hoot about obedience, pinning his superior general in Rome to the wall, neutralizing him (bragging about it later to fellow Jesuits) through Machiavellian maneuvers that would put to shame many an on-the-make politician who has graced or disgraced the halls of government in these United States.

— Based on Jesuit at Large: Essays and Reviews by Paul V. Mankowski SJ, edited with introduction by George Weigel. Blithe Spirit commentary on pp 195-232, “Memorandum on the Drinan Candidacy and the NE [New England] Prov[ince] Archives,” Paul V. Mankowski SJ, April 2007.

More to come . . .

LBJ’s “Great Society” was disastrous for blacks. . .

1940-60, progress on steroids. 1960-2000, regression.

Between 1940 and 1960 the percentage of black families living in poverty declined by 40 points as blacks increased their years of education and migrated from poorer rural areas to more prosperous urban environs in the South and North.

No welfare program has ever come close to replicating that rate of black advancement, which predates affirmative action programs that often receive credit for creating the black middle class.

Moreover, what we experienced in the wake of the Great Society interventions was slower progress or outright retrogression. Black labor-force participation rates fell, black unemployment rates rose, and the black nuclear family disintegrated. In 1960 fewer than 25% of black children were being raised by a single mother; within four decades, it was more than half.

FromWall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley via Cafe Hayek

All in all, a tribute to the power of utopianism preached by unscrupulous pol as uncritically bally-hoo’d by noosepapers, radio and tee-vee.

The Pope who wasn’t there, but wait! There he is! Pope Francis on an airplane.

Giving his views on communion for politicians who support abortion, Francis calls it casuistry to say yes or no, preferring his pastoral approach. Actually, it’s the other way around, as in my 1994 book, Bending the Rules:What American Priests Tell American Catholics, in effect a study of casuistry employed for pastoral reasons.

This writer, Andrea Gagliarducci, in his “Monday Vatican” blog, puts the question, “Pope Francis, what is your approach to theological questions?” and concludes:

A synthesis would be necessary, but this is not only not offered by Pope Francis. It does not seem to be on the horizon. Pastoral care and doctrine are mixed with pragmatism, and in the end, it is difficult to understand what is the right or wrong thing to do.

He disguises it, ignoring his wholly critical role as Supreme Pontiff. “In the end,” says Gagliarducci,

. . . a sense of the Church is missing, a common point of view, while the Pope remains always at the center, loved or hated, but certainly the only decision-maker. With his choices, words, and ambiguities mixed with certainties and doctrinal orthodoxy, Pope Francis is not just a divisive Pope. He is a Pope at the center of attention. While the Church, to tell the truth, seems to be disappearing.

A damning analysis when you get down to it.

Regeneron proudly admits their monoclonal antibodies are made from stem cells harvested from leftover IVF babies. Nurse Claire and Julianne on Long Island are blowing the lid off of this devilry [sic]

The inimitable Barnhardt expatiates.

Nurse Claire and Julianne from Long Island are doing yeoman’s work getting the word out. Keep a close eye on their Twitterfeeds and share their information and links aggressively.

If you pull the focus all the way back, you realize that satan wants every human being actively participating in the molochian cult of child sacrifice – while cooperating with the Malthusian human population reduction plan. It is all of a piece.


In trying to “sell” Regeneron to the unJabbed, a non-trivial percentage of whom refuse it due to its connection to abortion, satan is trying to trick people into thinking that Regeneron is somehow a pro-life “alternative” to the poison DeathJab (as if poison DeathJabs have or require an “alternative”.)

Not only is it no such thing, it’s actually far more proximate to the murder of children – IVF “leftover” babies being harvested for their stem cells, which are then inserted into mouse embryos so that the mice will produce human antibodies. It’s hellish.

As for “devilry” above, try “deviltry.” Meanwhile, think about the above.

Benet Academy reverses course, offers lacrosse coach job to woman in same-sex marriage. ‘Never … prouder to be a Redwing,’ she says.

She publicly flouts church teaching, but so what?

Benet Academy has reversed course and offered the head coaching job of the girls lacrosse team to Amanda Kammes, an alumna of the Lisle-based Catholic high school who had seen the job offer rescinded after officials learned she was in a same-sex marriage.

Why wouldn’t it disqualify her? Scandal given here by Catholic school, slap in face, you might say, to the Church. An example for all.

Antibody Treatments For COVID Work. Why Aren’t They Being Promoted? | ZeroHedge

Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,

It’s perhaps the most effective way to save your life if you are infected with COVID-19, but probably the least known. It reduces the risk of even being hospitalized by 70% to 85%, though it must be administered early to be effective – within four days of infection. Lives probably are being lost unnecessarily because people don’t know about it.

It’s monoclonal antibody treatment, abbreviated as mAb. To the extent the public has any familiarity with it they, may know it as Regeneron, though that’s actually the name of the company that makes the leading treatment, REGEN-COV2, and there are several other mAbs from other makers.

Worth a look but embargoed in most of the nation, including Illinois.

Scottish Teachers Did Not Face an Elevated Risk of Severe COVID-19 When Schools Were Open . . .

. . . as they expected.

It’s been known since early in the pandemic that children’s risk of death from COVID-19 is extremely low. However, proponents of school closures have long argued that keeping schools open would put teachers at significant risk.

Back in January, six teaching unions urged the Government to “pause” school reopenings. They argued that returning pupils to classrooms while the virus was still spreading would expose education workers to “serious risk of ill-health”.

However, figures published by the ONS [UK
Office for National Statistics] later that month cast serious doubt on the unions’ claims. Between March and December of 2020, the COVID-19 death rate among education workers – adjusted for age and sex – was “significantly lower” than that among the general population.

The highest death rates were observed among taxi drivers, machine operators, security guards, restaurant workers, and social care staff – i.e., in working class professions. [boldface added]

This and much, much more from . . . The Daily Sceptic: Question Everything. Stay Sane. Stay Free.

La Crosse WI bishop told his side of the Fr. Altman story a year ago, Part 2 . . .

A bishop’s dilemma when faced with a recalcitrant priest with a huge public following:

. . . right now, the bishop said, he is adhering to what “the Gospel dictates,” that any means of “pastoral solicitude” in Fr. Altman’s case must be conducted in private, not “in the bright light of the public arena.”
“Most people expect a decisive move from me, one way or another. Many suggest immediate penalties that will utterly silence him; others call for complete and unwavering support of his views,” Bishop Callahan said. “Canonical penalties are not far away if my attempts at fraternal correction do not work.
“I pray that Fr. Altman’s heart and eyes might be open to the error of his ways [!] and that he might take steps to correct his behavior and heal the wound he has inflicted on the body of Christ.” [!]
He brings out the heavy artillery, which bishops often do the world over. Fr. Altman started it.
Fr. Altman opens his video with a prayer about the blood of Christ and his sacrifice on the cross to save humanity. He also quotes from the Baltimore Catechism that God made us “to know, love and serve” him, and argues that “godless politicians” and the nation’s “godless education system” have resulted in policies and people who do not know God and so cannot love and serve him.
He’s as good at it as the bishop.
He included brief flashes of photos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and an empty classroom. Pelosi is standing behind a sign calling for “equal access to abortion.” Both Pelosi and Biden, who are Catholic, support legalized abortion.
Gets political. He says,
Those who accuse him of “just being political” need to remember the words of Pope Benedict XVI: “The Church is not a political power. It is not a party, but it is a moral power. Therefore, since politics fundamentally should be a moral enterprise, then the Church in this sense has something to say about politics” and Catholics have a duty and an obligation to speak up when politicians and politics “act in an immoral way.”
The bishop agrees.
In his statement, Bishop Callahan said that after viewing Fr. Altman’s video, “I understand the undeniable truth that motivates his message.”
“When we approach issues that are contradictory to the faith and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, particularly on abortion and other life issues, we should invite dialogue and heartfelt conversion to the truth,” the bishop said. “Our approach must never seek to divide, isolate and condemn.”
Be a uniter.
“That being said,” he continued, “it is not only the underlying truth that needs to be evaluated but also the manner of delivery and the tone of his message.”
The tone’s the thing.
Bishop Callahan also pointed to Fr. Altman’s tone, saying it “comes off as angry and judgmental, lacking any charity and in a way that causes scandal both in the Church and in society.”
“His generalization and condemnation of entire groups of people is completely inappropriate and not in keeping with our values or the life of virtue,” he added.
He looks for help.
“Pray for me as I address this issue, and pray for Fr. Altman that he might hear and respond to my fraternal correction,” the bishop added. “Finally, please pray for the Church that we might seek the truth in charity and apply it in our daily actions.”
To be wondered about is what this and other bishops have done to dissuade Democrats from their pro-abortion policies and whether they have been squeamish in facing large-scale immoral behavior.