Time Magazine Kicks Catholics -Again. Jesuit America Gave Them Feed

No one hates like a Progressive. They hate coldly, consistently, and methodically. Progressives in the last century bonded ( Woman Suffrage, Hegelian Academics,Pacifists, Prohibitionist, Abortionists, Labor Radicals, and Old Timey Ku Klux Klan Nativists) and forged a coalition that gave America Prohibition. Prohibition was repealed and Progressive melted into the Daffy obscurity from which they sprang.

Post World War II labor strife, the Cold War and the Pill cleared they way again for the Progressive.

Confronting Progressive daffiness unchecked is the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics have rules and traditions going back to the Pentecost. Pete the Fisherman was given the Keys to the Kingdom - Catholics have an unbroken line of succession from Christ to Peter to Benedict XVI.

Progressives hate this and need this Rock eroded. They hate coldly, consistently and methodically.

This week, Time Magazine takes the baton from greasy fingers of a Jesuit Academic who wrote an obscure ( Progressives do love obscure - it's a Hegelian thing) article that kicks the Pope for is rock-solid stand on sexual mores and Life Issues - Rock solid - it is in the Pope's job description.

America is a Jesuit run magazine, that to my mind, is historically pusillanimous. Too many American Catholic academics are self-conscious about their Faith. They are embarrassed to be the tripe-eating, mackerel snapping immigrant readers of Chesterton, Belloc, and Hopkins and want to suck up to the Hellman's Mayonnaise that is American 19th Century Romanticism smeared on Hegelian arugula and white bread sandwich. They reject the sure footed humility of Catholic Thought for the robust wildman homo eroticism of Whitman, Thoreau and Emerson.

Well, boys and girls, the weak sister at America play ball with the Progressive secularists in order not to be ridiculed for eating fish on Friday and following doctrine. Jews ashamed to be Jews? I have yet to meet one. Baptists and Lutherans are comfortable in their skins. Catholics? They can be really mealy-mouthed and fawning. Most Catholic working folks are as tough-minded and devout as their grandparents were, but some college papered "I'm a Cultural Catholic -more Spiritual than Anything" Milksops think that being a lick-spittle go-along will gain entree to the Progressive Pantheon. No it won't. You just be a tool and a dull tool at best.
Speaking of tools . . . America set the stage for the coming week's Time Cover Issue that assaults the Catholic Church again.

"NEW YORK, May 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A column for the Jesuit magazine America, in which Rev. James Martin, S.J. criticized Pope Benedict XVI's pro-life and pro-family message in Portugal as "bizarre," and implied it was contrary to the Gospel, has been revised to omit the strongest language.

Martin, who serves as Culture Editor at the publication, took issue with the pope's recent statement that abortion and same-sex "marriage" rank among "some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good."

"The equation of abortion, something that clearly is about a threat to life, with same-sex marriage, which no matter how you look at it, does not mean that anyone is going to die, is bizarre," he wrote. In a later version of the column, "bizarre" was deleted and replaced with "unhelpful at best."

Wrote the priest: "Why has same-sex marriage been equated with abortion? Are they really equivalent 'threats' to life?

"If you’re looking for a life issue with stakes as high as abortion, why not something that actually threatens life? Like war? Or the death penalty? Or the kind of poverty and destitution that lead to death?" he continued. "The great danger is that this increasingly popular equation will seem to many as having less to do with moral equivalency and more to do with a simple dislike, or even a hatred, of gays and lesbians.

The final sentence, which read, "And that goes against not simply Catholic teaching, but against the Gospel," was removed from the column as of Thursday. . . .


If the Holy Father's proclamation of the unchanging truth makes Father Martin uncomfortable, then it's time for Father Martin to hang up his collar," wrote Euteneuer. "How dare he misrepresent His Holiness's intent just to ingratiate himself further with the secular left, who find no sin in homosexual behavior! How dare he even imply that the Holy Father, by speaking the truth, somehow contradicts the Gospel and Catholic teaching!

"That such an offense would come from within the bowels of America Magazine is perhaps predictable, but no less infuriating."

Time Magazine is cold, consistent and methodical. The Pope will not yield, because the Church can not yield. The Church can not say that murder is choice; homosexuality is just fine for the propagation of Man; Jesus was a Woman; Peter was Transgender; Natural Law is Artificial; Abortion is Life; Euthanasia is an HBO prerogative.

Get set for Time Magazine's assault on my Church. It's Progressive.

Le dreyfus et nous coupables de Your'e le savent! (You're Guilty, Dreyfus, and We Know It!)

He's confusing a clear conscience with a lack of conscience

Please Click my post title for the contemporary certainty of Mark Brown!

January 5, 1895
BY MARQUE BRUN Temps du Soleil Chroniqueur et Arbruti

Mon Dieu! That was amazing. What a horse's behind. I just watched Alfred Dreyfus say he's going to report to prison today with a clear conscience. He says he's innocent, and he still intends to prove it.

He didn't apologize. He didn't so much as admit he made any mistakes. His defiance couldn't have been more complete if he flipped us the bird.

I hadn't intended to write about Dreyfus going to prison today. I thought everything had been said.

'Still fighting for justice'? Idiotie!But I can't let him get away with that little speech when I know many of you sat there in the Cafe Parnassus while sputtering just like me, but without the platform to express yourselves.

Dreyfus should have just kept his mouth shut if he didn't have the sense or decency to acknowledge the error of his ways.

He should have waved at the cameras and climbed into his car and drove to Cozy Île du Diable - Devil's Island, Guiana, and waved once more from inside the carriage when he got up there.

Then, in 1906 -- when the now 47-year-old former Army Staff Officer will get out of prison, if he lasts that long -- he could have waved twice more on the way home. Fine by me.

Dreyfus should have saved the baloney about "still fighting for justice" for the people who drank the absinthe and think he's a martyr because he's a Jew Officer.

Alfred Dreyfus is no martyr, whether you agree with his handling of Army AntiSemitism or not.

He did everything France's Army said -- and more
Alfred Dreyfus presided over a office in Army Ordinance where German General Staff Officers routinely obtained information with bribes, tens of thousands of dollars of which made their way into his campaign coffers -- a nasty little problem that he tried to cover up. People got killed ( The Prussians killed thousands of us in the Franco Prussian War!! )as a result of those ballistics charts out there on the road.

While Dreyfus was in Ordnance , he gave his Jew Friends an inside track on most of the big leases and contracts let by the Grande Armee. In return, they showered "gifts" on him and his family.

Perhaps he continues to confuse a clear conscience with a lack of conscience.

How exactly does Dreyfus propose to prove his innocence at this point? Is he going to find the one-armed man? Sacre Bleu! - I must be having another vision!!!!!

(Note to younger readers: There will be this television show called "The Fugitive" that they made into a movie with Harrison Ford in which this doctor is convicted of killing his wife and . . . oh, never mind.)

Alfred Dreyfus is not innocent. He's not even "not guilty," a distinction he may or may not appreciate.

Earth to Alfred. You're guilty.

You did everything the Republique accused you of doing -- and more -- and the people of France know it.

The prosecutors proved it to a judge and jury. They also proved it to the appellate court, which found the evidence overwhelming.

Dreyfus's innocence isn't really a matter of serious discussion at this stage, only whether he received a fair trial given some of the goofiness during jury deliberations.

At most, he never had a chance for anything more than a new trial, where all the evidence from the first trial would have still been in full force and effect, and where a new jury would have convicted him just as quickly as he could be brought to trial.

'10-year ordeal' for us, too
While waiting to go to COZY Devil's Island, Dreyfus has undoubtedly run into a lot of people who have expressed kind words to him either back in Mulhassen, Alsace or on his Paris restaurant circuit. People are like that. They don't want to be outwardly mean -- like newspaper columnists.

Dreyfus may be suffering under some delusion that people are on his side.

Mon Dieu! He spoke again Tuesday of his "10-year ordeal" under "unrelenting pressure."

It's been an ordeal for us, too, Alfred, wondering whether you'd ever be brought to justice with one of the best legal teams in the country pulling out all the stops on your behalf and cleverly postponing what one of the appellate court judges called your "day of reckoning."

Well, the day of reckoning is today, and whatever sympathy that might have been directed your way because of your age and your family situation, you kissed that goodbye with your defiant speech. You need a pornographer like ZOLA to help you now!~

Consider this our return kiss in your direction. Vive La France!

.........................................................back to old cynical Hickey:

( I am certain of nothing - but you just might be able click on this link to learn more about Capt. Alfred Dreyfus and how a whole country , not just a State knew that he was guilty)


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