Pope takes shot at ecclesiastical pomp and c.

Company Man

Simplify, simplify:

In a . . . move aimed at reforming the clergy and eliminating careerism in the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has abolished the conferral of the Pontifical Honor of ‘Monsignor’ on secular priests under the age of 65.

Henceforth, the only Pontifical Honor that will be conferred on ‘secular priests’  will be that of ‘Chaplain to His Holiness’ and this will be conferred only on ‘worthy priests’ who are over 65 years of age. (‘Secular priests’ are priests in a diocese, who are not monks or members of religious institutes or orders). . . . .

more more more here . . .

Know what I think? He’s been talking all along to priests and bishops — this moving with the poor, for instance (= get out of your rectories and offices — and classrooms?). Once a religious superior . . .  You can take the Jesuit out…

View original post 38 more words

Pope: “Little Monsters” as priests

Pope tell-it-like-is, again:

Pope Francis has warned that priests can become “little monsters” if they aren’t trained properly as seminarians, saying their time studying must be used to mold their hearts as well as their minds.
Francis also warned against accepting men for the priesthood who may have been implicated in sexual abuse or other problems, saying the protection of the Catholic faithful is most important.

This is the holiest of clerical fathers talking about what he knows about.

If he were this astute in economics . . . Oh forget about it.

When Ducks Cry

Phil Robertson

Here’s an analysis — from Taki’s Magazine — to make one sit up and take notice:

When asked what he considered sinful, Robertson paraphrased a passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is reprinted here from the New International Version:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Clearly the Christian Bible preaches that “men who have sex with men” will not go to heaven.

That’s the gist of what made GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) mad. There’s more — in the January GQ article “What the Duck?” about Robertson, star of “Duck Dynasty,” the most successful show in cable-television history — but not family-newspaper-friendly stuff.

Let it be noted that the article got 230,000 likes, 628 tweets, 591 google-plus recommendations, and 5,074 comments and that the Robertson family says the show (on A&E) won’t go on if Phil’s indefinite suspension from it does.

Powerful lobby at work here, however, and A&E may be willing to tell its biggest audience ever to take a hike — as we know.

 

Phil and his dynasty and who’s in charge at A&E

It’s a whole new ball game:

When the Robertson family announced that they “cannot imagine the show going forward” without the participation of their family patriarch, Phil, what they were saying, essentially, was this: This is our show, this is our business, we are bigger than A&E and the terrified executives who run it, and we have the numbers to prove it. They’re right. And they were also saying this: if you put real characters on television, you can’t freak out when they act real and in character.

They wanted interaction, they got it.

Kinzinger reminds you of what young combat vet congressman who wanted the country to do better?

Dec. 17 at a state Republican fund-raiser in Merchandise Mart Plaza, Congr. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL, Ottawa) played the Reagan card to good effect, invoking RR’s “shining city on a hill” motif.

“A dark cloud” hung over the nation in November, 1979 (when Reagan used the phrase announcing his candidacy for president), Kinzinger said, acknowledging that he was two years old at the time. He cited the troubled aftermath of the Viet Nam War, inflation, and rising gas prices — though not Pres. Jimmy Carter’s “malaise“ speech of earlier that year.

(I listened to that speech on a tiny TV in the back yard, myself without steady work but hustling pay checks with some modest success. I could swear I heard Carter say “malaise,” and I know I rejected his pessimism, having voted for him, by the way. But transcripts such as this do not have the word.)

Kinzinger’s talk came in the middle of a meet-and-greet in a room at Nick’s Fishmarket. Gemütlichkeit abounded.

Ten years later, Kinzinger continued, Reagan revisited the concept in his farewell address, reiterating his “positive vision” for the country. Kinzinger fleshed that out in the present context, as in reference to the growing national debt. Last year’s interest, he said, equaled the cost of “five Afghan wars.”

To Republicans of this day, Kinzinger called for working toward the “self-actualizing of inner-city youth” and “going to the disenfranchised.” In that he evoked another Reagan-era Republican, longtime congressman and then HUD secretary under Reagan, Jack Kemp — unless I am unduly influenced by my daily dose of the exemplary Larry Kudlow on CNBC.

The nation’s foreign policy, said Kinzinger, who is on the House foreign relations committee, is “in the toilet.“ The GOP is “the last best hope for us in the world.”

Very serious stuff for Nick’s Fishmarket. He’s a serious guy. At 35 he still flies, for the Air National Guard. He met us at the room entrance, shook hands. I must say, a friendly, likable guy.

He commended the “17- and 18-year-olds signing on” in the military,putting their lives on the line, “not knowing what they are fighting for” — “Why don’t they?” a man asked — but Kinzinger kept on with his (larger) point, about having a sense of history and of what‘s at stake for the nation.

The young men put their lives on the line, elected officials have only their careers to lose, he said, speaking up for a foreign policy that leaves “enemies that know never to touch us and our allies,” he said. “I envision a renewed America.”

It was a serious, short talk that gave a taste of how he would go over from the stump. He is one of those young men who signed up, for one thing. He’s a John F. Kennedy type, it looks from here.