A Newish Catholic Blog
Via Jay Anderson, I came across a relatively new blog today called Fidelis. It has a lot of interesting content, though it appears to line itself up unabashedly on the conservative, Republican side of things. Parenthetically, I was surprised and disappointed to see a link to Michelle Malkin and another to Blogs for Victory. Whatever may be its initial leanings, I intend to visit Fidelis regularly. Here’s part of its underlying outlook:
Fidelis (Latin for faithful) is the universal name for a group of Catholic-based political, legal, research and educational organizations whose collective mission it is to formulate, promote, and defend public policies that uphold religious freedom, human life from conception to natural death, and the traditional institutions of marriage and family.
Comments are closed.
Ugh, Malkin is possibly the single most repulsive blogger in the business.
Is Malkin the same person that made a big deal about Rachael Ray’s scarf being a terrorist scarf?
That’s her, Katerina.
Ugh, Malkin is possibly the single most repulsive blogger in the business.
As one who participated in alerting the nation and secular bloggers about the plight of Terri Schiavo, she has my thanks.
Yeah Christopher, I’m sure you’re also thanking Nicolae Ceaucescu for banning abortion in Romania.
Malkin is quite wicked. She sees terrorist plots everywhere (only Muslim ones, mind you). She demonizes her opponents to a degree that in shocking even in the current climate. She’s the one who stalked a 12-year old handicapped boy who became a spokesperson for S-CHIP– evening peering in the windows of his house to “prove” he was undeserving.
As for Terry Schiavo, you and everyone else should have deferred to the Florida bishops, the relevant moral authorities on that matter. Do you really think Malkin in sincere in protecting life? If so, I have some good swamp land to sell you.
As one who participated in alerting the nation and secular bloggers about the plight of Terri Schiavo, she has my thanks.
Good for her. At least she’s not ALL horrible.
I’m also thankful for these gems:
Open borders and the Catholic elite
It’s hard out here for an illegal alien
Stuff Muslim people don’t like(This one is especially very ecumenical and helpful!)
She’s so classy! So much charity and compassion!
She’s so classy! So much charity and compassion!
At least as much as you and MM.
Note that I only spoke with reference to Terry Schiavo.
From Steven Taylor (http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=13726):
————————————————————————-
There is a Monty Python bit (and it may have been an album-only1 one), in which a fellow is ranting on about communists everywhere. He can’t take a bath without six or seven communists jumping in with him and Koysgin was in the kitchen eating his wife’s jam. Brehznev may have been in their with him as well, I can’t recall and I cannot find a transcript of the thing online (curse you Google!). I do distinctly recall, however, that there were communists peeping out his wife’s blouse at him.
At any rate, I think of this bit practically every time I have an encounter with the paranoid rantings of Michelle Malkin. Examples include seeing capitulation to terrorists by the UN because they used Legos in a poster. Then she sees the Reconquista because the Texas Rangers wore “Los Rangers” jerseys on Cinco de Mayo a few years ago.2
Now she is seeing terrorist capitulation because Rachael Ray wore a black and white scarf in a Dunkin’ Donuts ad. No, seriously. Malkin doesn’t see a black and white scarf, she sees “hate couture” and “jihadi chic.” Today she writes: “Anti-American fashion designers abroad and at home have mainstreamed and adapted the scarves as generic pro-Palestinian jihad or anti-war statements. Yet many folks out there remain completely oblivious to the apparel’s violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones.”
Or, just as a flagpole is often just a flagpole, so, too, is a black and white scarf just a black and white scarf.
Christopher,
Why you would extend Katerina’s words about Malkin to her and to MM? Why is that necessary? I have seen both Kat and MM get heated, but they have never spit the sort of venom that comes out of Malkin’s mouth.
MM, why does there seem to be this need to turn to a partisan p*ssing contest? Is throwing around heated pejoratives such as “repulsive” really necessary? Malkin has admirable and not so admirable personal and public aspects, just like everybody else. Is it not a similar realm of hackery as some claim her to wallow in?
Malkin has admirable and not so admirable personal and public aspects, just like everybody else.
Which do you consider to be her “admirable” personal aspects, and why do you admire them? Should we all be deserving of so much face time on FOX News since we’re all just like her?
For words to retain any meaning and power and for the climate of discourse, terms such as wicked and repulsive should be reserved for the characterization of positions or for people who are indisputably wicked and repulsive. I cannot think of any commentator who would meet this standard.
It’s fine to disagree with her political positions. Spell it out; make a case. It is also too easy, cheap, uninstructive, distracting, and off-putting to throw around epithets.
Have any of you tried reading debbieschlussel.com? Her movie reviews are real gems!
At least as much as you and MM.
Thanks.
Of course
uphold … the traditional institutions of marriage and family.
usually means
“Nuh-uh ! Gay people (although they might be referred to as “people suffering from SSA”) – back of the bus, stay right there, back of the bus”
The most recent posts at Fidelis have been written by Josh Mercer, who is a former journalist for the National Catholic Register. In addition, some of the older posts have been written by Brian Burch, who heads the (multiple) organization(s) called Fidelis.
Yes, I have yet to see anything admirable about Malkin. Perhaps in her personal life, but her public persona is uniquely vile.
Gerald-
I see that you are now employing the rhetoric of leftists: Anyone who supports the Church’s non-negotiable teaching on marriage–which btw is sacrament last time I checked–hates gay people.
I see why some of your readers are upset with you.
Many of us knew for years Gerald’s perspective here; it’s only recently he has let it out of the closet. It was clear he wasn’t following a consistent Catholic ethic. Of course, I don’t think he is the only one, but I do think his recent honesty about it is at least helpful. One needs to see how this connects with other aspects of his blog and see if they might point a picture of a certain kind of movement on the net.
But, several years ago, someone found photography under his name and location on the net, and it revealed quite a bit. I wasn’t sure if they were fakes or not. I asked if they were, and suggested Gerald makes some mention of them and explain them (were they from his pre-Catholic days — but if so, why was the account recently made? — etc) but all I got as a response was deleting the comments which led to it or asked about it, Gerald putt the blog on moderation, and the photographs were deleted. It was easy to speculate as to what happened. And since things in them were — shall we say — sexual in nature and not heterosexual all the time — what has come out of the closet of late represents the unity of those pictures and the blogger; if they were fake, they had to be by someone who knew Gerald well.
However, I think there is a refreshing change in attitude in Gerald’s blog. While not perfect, there is a greater sense that things are not as easy and simplistic as he first made it out to be. I hope and pray that he — and many others — really are exploring issues deep inside, and like Roper, after the twists and turns, end up facing the right direction. Of course, I hope that for everyone, really.
Henry, you harassed me anonymously (I can figure out IPs) for over a year, on an almost daily basis, without ever emailing me personally, as I had asked. Of course I deleted that junk. Unfortunately, there is no restraining order on the internet. Not to mention that that was a shared site with more than just my photos. At the time, I was starting out sharing space with another guy in San Diego, ie not all my photos. Not to mention that they weren’t much to write home about. Since that site was pretty useless and I wanted to do my own stuff, I would have closed the account anyway, it simply accelerated it. I only do my own stuff now, have my own studio and the best equipment there is. I certainly do photograph a professional model or actress now and then, and they don’t exactly look Amish. None of it is pornographic in nature, mind you. As a European-bred man I might be used to a bit less ‘modesty’, but last I checked there were all kinds of nekkid statues in Rome. I photograph everything, from babies to churches to families to the Pope to the beautiful women and handsome men. Every one of those has its own challenges. You can email me to see some samples. GeraldAugustinus@gmail.com
As far as Feddie goes – the Church doesn’t ‘hate’ gay people, but it obviously wants them deprived of legal recognition for their relationships. If I am not mistaken, the Church opposes civil unions as well as gay marriage. That that doesn’t thrill gay folks is obvious.
Gerald
When the photograpsh came up (I didn’t find them) I asked — are these fake? You didn’t respond. You went in silence mode. Hide the truth mode. And sorry, having two naked women making out is NOT decent. You had every opportunity to respond when they came up. I gave you the benefit of the doubt saying “perhaps this is pre-conversion” etc. You didn’t give any response but delete. For you know as well as I — nude photography of women making out — is not what “Cafeteria is Closed” people thought you were doing with their money when you were asking for money for photography.
BTW, many people saw them. I was not the only one. Nor was I the only person who asked about them. Nor did I do it “every day” for a year. I did think it was indicative of something; it’s been proven right.
And we both know the photos in question were YOUR photos not others. They were with your name and address, etc. It was clear that you did the “cover up.” Sorry. You could have responded and been open about them; then I would have said nothing more. But when you constantly like to attack others about cover-up, people who might not even be doing it, and believe accusations over lack of evidence, it was also a telling sign of a problem. Again, everything I could have guessed you would be like is coming true. I still hope that when everything runs its course, the Catholic faith adheres. But I do find your comments and increasing hostility to the Church is going beyond just a few Bishops; but the attitude with the few was really the start, and yet, behind the scenes, hypocritical.
Thats a tricky point. Cardinal McCarrick is on record saying that the Church could live with civil unions, and of course the Levada compromise relies on the notion that these unions can be recognized as long as they are not considered narrowly homosexual in nature. I personally believe the legalization of gay marriage is simply a step too far, but I’m also not naive– look at the masive support amoing younger generations. I think the best and most viable solution is to more clearly distinguish the Catholic sacrament from the secular legal contract.
As for Gerald’s views, I find it ironic that he is taking heat from people whop have no qualms giving the finger to the Church on many other areas, such as war, and even some intrinsically evil acts (torture, bombing non-combatants). It’s a case of sexuality morality over everything else, which is wrongheaded and regrettable.
MM
Certainly I think the secular sphere is in a post-Christian world is difficult to navigate, and there are no clear-cut answers as some people think. But it’s different from seeing it as regretable and yet changeable by working within to fix things, and another to think “Well, psychology says it’s ok and normal, and the Church is outdated and repressive when it comes to sex.”
Why would I respond to someone posting as “A Non”. I asked you to email me, you never did. I identified you, you never identified yourself. I don’t respond to anonymous trolling. A couple of people emailed me and I responded to them. Some of the photos were mine, others weren’t. In any case, if you’ll email me I’ll send you better photos to condemn :) I’m doing professional work now – which is inherently classier than beginner’s work. I am reminded of an Italian cardinal extolling the virtues of Gina Lollobrigida’s sultry beauty. The USA is historically prudish – 25 years ago we had commercials with topless women on public tv in Austria – while at the same time having the biggest porn industry. Why anyone is interested in that ridiculously bad and stupid, un-erotic stuff, I don’t know.
And, for the record, my view on gay marriage wasn’t ‘closeted’, it simply changed. Of course I never thought “that’s cries to heaven for vengeance !” or somesuch. You said I had become less black and white – well, with that goes the advocacy of equal rights. It is true that I used to be much more of a hardass, but happy marriage calms one down. As far as ‘repressive’ church views on sex – that certainly was true on many levels and still is on some. Now, I don’t know what is people’s opinion and what’s authentic church teaching – they don’t tell you about, eg, oral sex and its ‘limits’ in RCIA. I’ve read some truly surreal, obsessive-compulsive stuff from Catholics – not in official capacity, mind you. But, I don’t care what people do or don’t do, it certainly doesn’t impact or influence my marriage – just like gay marriage doesn’t.
Initial discussion when the pictures were discovered was squashed. There were many people who saw and asked. You didn’t respond. There was no need for me to email you (a cover up response). I saw the pictures. I saw the ones with YOUR name. I saw what you did. The question is — how you explain them, and I think you had a duty out of respect to your readers to do so. You didn’t. I think they would have not given you so much money to help with your camera buying, if you did. I think you knew that as well.
Minion, sexual matters are traditionally what people, and in particular religious people, tend to get excited over the most. Nothing has ever caused a firestorm like that on my blog, and I am not the most agreeable person.
With some people, one can feel their disgust for gay folks almost physically. Sure, “hate the sin, love the sinner” is always cited, but few can pull that off. In a former job, my wife counseled a lot of gay people, and the most ‘messed up’ ones tended to be gay lapsed Catholics. I can only imagine how bad things must have been in the ‘good old days’, not just for gays. The term “Catholic guilt” must come from somewhere. Vatican II didn’t take place for no reason, even the crazy hippie happy clappy stuff must have been an over-reaction to something non-ideal.
And, Minion, as Lewis Black opined, out of all the problems we have, gay marriage being viewed as ‘the’ issue, is truly strange. You’d think we’re all about to be sold as gay concubines :P Or to speak of the ‘sanctity of marriage’ having to be defended – this of course implies that ‘unholy’ people are trying to enter into the ‘sanctuary’, threatening to ‘besmirch’ said sanctity. Who wouldn’t be offended ? Or the “Defense of Marriage Act” – what, was someone threatening to abolish marriage ? I can’t stand the whole pack of Robertson, Dobson and company. I’m not a Republican because I like them so much but because the Democrats are even worse, in particular for our situation. For once I will agree with you – there is an Evangelical influence among American Catholics, too – from bad music to biblical literalism to prudishness. Damn you, Jean Calvin :P
MM-
I am not sure if you’re referring to me, but, as you know, I oppose the death penalty and torture in all instances. I also do not support the bombing of non-combatants.
I did support the United States’s decision to go to war with Iraq based on the intelligence reports disclosed at that time, the repeated violations of UN resolutions by SH, and the overwelming evidence that SH had committed genocide against his own people. I made this decision prior to my entry into the Catholic Church, and, therefore, I did not conduct a “just war” analysis at that time. Since then, I have been critical of the manner in which the war had been managed, and I respect the views of those who believe that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. But now that we are there, I do not believe that we can leave until we have some assurances that doing so won’t result in genocide. In any event, I do not take matters of war and peace lightly. In sum, I am hardly the poster boy for the Jack Bauer element of the GOP.
That should be that “I do NOT support the bombing of non-combatants.” If one of you could edit that for me, I would appreciate it.
“Uphold the traditional institutions of family and marriage”
A comment that never seems to really square with the ancient enemies of marriage-war and poverty. So I’ll bite…
About war- where were the defenders of marriage when the Iraq War broke out? A predictable huge number of these service families will divorce. Yet, the “defenders” were more likely to cheerlead (up until about November 2006) the entire effort. War ruins families. And this goes without commenting on the Iraqi families.
And poverty ruins families. Divorce rates follow poverty. Increases in poverty increase divorce rates, but again marriage defenders routinely suggest tax cuts, agency hobbling interpretations of subsidiarity, and the most parsimonious of community support activities.
Why is this “upholding” nonsense always about gays and sex? I suspect that gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage far less in the next twenty years than the Iraq War.
“Defense of marriage” as “against gay marriage” is only a construct for propaganda.
I too cannot understand the relative hysteria evoked over the “gay” issue.
While in obvious opposition to the prudential judgment of our bishops, I simply cannot refrain myself–and I do so only with this issue– from publicly declaring my advocacy for the equitable benefits that legalized same sex domestic partnerships would grant in liberal democracies such as ours.
On a separate, but related note , I cannot for the life of me unpack and then agree with what Ratzinger meant in his ’80s CDF document that called the homosexual disposition itself an objective moral disorder,
Feddie,
I’ll edit it… I thought to myself: “Whaaaaaaaaaaat?” :)
Kat-
Thanks. I’ve got to do a better job of proofing my comments before they’re posted. I am use to being able to edit my own comments when I make mistakes. :)