Thursday, November 18, 2010

Interesting Day Post Mortem

I'm still trying to process the backlash from the detractors and the fantastic round ups of bloggers.

On the one hand we have dissenters who have been using Cardinal Bernadin's diaper for 40 years to undermine the seriousness of killing infants who are behaving rather badly.

I don't want to get specific, but I had an exchange with somebody whose name rhymes with Snarlson where we were characterized as disobedient ecclesial campaigning crowing pride-filled egotistical superior mocking sedevanasit gossip slandering mongerers lacking humility and taking credit for what happened.  Satan prevails in the Church sometimes and we are confusing pollitical rehtoric for religious sentiment and politically smearing and dragging bishops through the mud.   But the worst part was his contemptible mischaracterization of Bp. Dolan as having the same poor judgment as Bp. Kicanas when it comes to sexual abusers.

I can't tell whether prudence was thrown out the window when I invited him to be tarred and feathered and thrown under the bus or when I called his sore looser attack on Bishop Dolan despicable.  Why doesn't Henry just put on the proabortion and sexual immoralikty sash and be done with the intellectual dishonesty.   Have convictions and be a man about them instead of hiding your dissent behind these silly tortured campaigns to try to shut people up who are whistleblowing about internal corruption.

It has got to go.

Don't miss MSW.  It is a must read for those of us in Boston who have been building the whistleblowing Church Militant crusade.

There is one other aspect of the story that I alluded to yesterday and which was confirmed for me by several bishops. The attacks on Bishop Kicanas in the last week before the election worked. These attacks focused on Kicanas’ service as a seminary rector, when he recommended for orders a man who went on to be a child molester. Kicanas had answered the charges at the time and there was nothing to them, but on the eve of the election, when the CNN ticker had an item about “Top bishop denies promoting child molester,” I knew there was trouble for Kicanas. Survivors’ groups unwittingly did the bidding of the most conservative bishops by joining in the attacks. If that were not enough, the gay activists in the Rainbow Sash movement sealed Kicanas’ fate when they “endorsed” him, a classic case of failing to anticipate the opposition. Still, I had anticipated there might be a sympathy backlash for Kicanas, not least because – whatever the bishops intended – some on the right now think they possess a “heckler’s veto” over USCCB elections. Throw enough mud at the last minute, and they can stop someone they do not like from winning. They sent text messages to bishops. They called the bishops’ rooms at the hotel. It was ugly. But, no bishop wanted to return to his diocese and be pummeled with questions about Kicanas’ treatment of a sexual abuser. There was enough smoke to suggest a fire, and the bishops have no desire to be burned on that score anymore.

Someone we don't like...for no good reason.   (rolling eyes)

Pardon me, but aren't these the people who wanted to lay people to be more vocal and Bishops more responsive and who just spent the last ten years whining about pedophile enablers?

Congratulations.  The chicken has come home to roost.

Like everyone else, I found the Rainbow Sash statement fascinating.   Note they mention a 'hard right' toward...the Republican party and Tea Party.  Evidently, the Pope is no longer even in the picture to the picture to them. I will say one thing for them - they at least have the decency to be honest and forthright about their convictions.

Here's Grant Gallicho's end game:

I wonder whether Rainbow Sashers knew exactly what they were doing, and are happy to use Kicanas’s loss to raise awareness–and money.
But what about the rest? Text messages? Phone calls to bishops’ hotel rooms? The attacks from conservatives may not have been the only thing that torpedoed his candidacy, but do the bishops who voted against Kicanas because of that smear campaign recognize they just caved in to the swiftboating of a brother bishop–and it could happen to them?

Everyone I think saw what happened to Cardinal Law and are acutely aware that dissenters have had them by the spines.  What happened was when orthodox Catholics also rose to hold them accountable, they had nothing left to loose and they simply just did the right thing.

Catholic World Report has a fabulous piece about the unraveling of the seamless garment which our friends from BHE have posted with commentary HERE.

The media casts Kicanas’ defeat and Dolan’s win as a “traditionalist” victory. But that is overstating it. For one thing, Dolan—though he sees himself walking in the footsteps of John O’Connor—is far from a confrontational conservative. According to the media’s telling, the “moderate” lost and the “conservative” won. But it is more accurate to say that the moderate won and the liberal lost. In reality, the immediate outcome of the USCCB election has to do primarily with the slow unraveling of the “Seamless Garment” and the aftershocks of the abuse scandal. Bernardin’s dream of the USCCB as a Vatican-resistant body of progressive political opinions was simply overtaken by the nightmare of clerical corruption.

BTW - do not miss the spectacular BHE trip down memory lane that notes the devastating effects of the Bernadin/Hehir seamless garment.

There are many who will try to tell you that Bernadin meant well by defining the failure to shut lights off in your home to save energy or littering on the same level of seriousness as executing unborn children in the womb.  I don't buy into it.  The fruit of the tree is just too rotten.  It was long past time to take the ax to the root

Speaking of which - do check out our blogging friend Tim who is working on an unfaithful schools blog.  He's got some reading on Boston College that is quite informative.


kd said...

One small leap for the U.S. Bishops, one giant leap for the Catholic Crusaders.

All these commentaries remind me of what is written by St. Luke;
“You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of My Name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance you will secure your lives.”

Job well done, Onward with the Crusade!

Anonymous said...


The fact that you continue your line of attack with lies and slanders says enough. If someone doesn't agree with you they are proabortion! This tactic might make you feel superior when they don't respond back to you; but you should know, your soul is what should count, not some artificial victories based upon lies.

Anonymous said...

Men in this country have let toxic liars like you beat the crap out of women who want the teachings of the Church taught to their children all over the country for 40 years and call it "charity". The pews are empty because of the likes of you. You are abusive to people who want to be obedient to the teachings of the Church.

There are plenty of comments boxes of spineless people who will entertain your attacks. I suggest you go find them.

Meanwhile, check out Phil Lawler's piece today:

Bishop Kicanas defended his handling of the case, arguing that at the time he approved McCormack for ordination, he had no evidence to indicate that the young man would become a molester. But the bishop’s argument was unsatisfactory in two respects.

First, there were multiple reports that McCormack had homosexual encounters before and during his days in the seminary. Personnel files in the Chicago archdiocese have yielded abundant evidence that McCormack had a history of homosexual behavior, and some of his reported actions could easily have been classified as abusive, even if they did not involve children. It strains credulity that the seminary rector would not have recognized, at a bare minimum, that this young man had serious problems.

Second, while he acknowledged evidence of homosexual activity in McCormack’s case, Bishop Kicanas said that he concluded that activity was “experimental and developmental,” and therefore not a threat to a future in priestly ministry. His argument downplayed both the moral gravity of homosexual acts and the psychological implications of a serious disorder. As rector the future bishop was worried about McCormack’s alcohol use, and rightly so. But he was apparently not worried about this seminarian’s homosexual flirtations—if, indeed, they were nothing more. Those were easily dismissed as “experimental and developmental.” Other observers could not dismiss them so lightly, and so they could not accept the bishop’s argument that he was blameless.

Perhaps more importantly, Bishop Kicanas showed no indication whatsoever that he has sought to learn from what was obviously a serious mistake. To this day he argues that there was no reason to question McCormack’s fitness for the priesthood. His decision to allow the man’s ordination was one problem, now fading into the distant past. But his refusal to recognize the source of his mistake—to take the problem of homosexuality seriously, and to see at least the possibility of a link between aberrant sexuality and abuse, was a problem today—a problem for his candidacy to become the public voice of the American hierarchy.

When the time came to cast their ballots, the US bishops faced a dilemma. If they elected any candidate other than Bishop Kicanas, they would be breaking a long precedent and exposing divisions within their conference.

Anonymous said...


I believe the post above was made by Henry Karlson who is. Trashing you over Terry's blog.

I agree that Henry is as underhanded as the Catholic's United and Michael Sean Winter's types and it is "despicable" to see him drumming up false charges and ill will against you.

Carol McKinley said...

And so I see. Thanks (I think?) for heads up.

Maybewhat we need is a new adjective or category for Catholics who claim to be faithful to teacchings but spend their words and actions muddle teaching and attack Catholics who faithfully defend the teachings of the Church.

How about "muddlers"? Though that doesn't quite capture the hostility the drum up to intimidate others from speaking up.

I agree it has led to serious decay and division in the Catholic Church, more so than people who are honest about their dissent.

This has to be dealt with or we will not make headway in our parishes and schools.

What we are doing is effective and Henry Karlson is on a campaign to beat it down by striking a leader.

I warned him yesterday and I am warning him again today, he needs to cease and desist with the dishonest and dishonarable attacks. If he doesn't , I will make him the poster boy of whatever word we come up with for this treachery.

I hope he heeds the call.

Carol McKinley said...

Get thee behind me.

Anonymous said...

Dear Carol:

I have just started visiting you blog while reading up on the USCCB meeting. IHO, you are doing good work and it is important for lay Catholics to stick up for the true teaching of the church.

That said maybe "conservatives" should also spend time pondering those aspects of church teaching that they find difficult. That will call us to humility.


kd said...

In response to Anonymous #1-"The pews are empty because of the likes of you." AND Anonymous #2-"Men in this country have let toxic liars like you".
Well the pews are empty because the basic teachings of The Catholic Faith have been watered down to nil - Hell is no longer spoken of, sacrileges of all kinds abound to The Body of Christ. YES Anonymous's there is a Hell. But through God's Divine Mercy even sinners the likes these 2 Anonymous posters can be forgiven. Charity is LOVE, as a Roman Catholic my #1 Love is Christ and I will defend His teachings to my death, I am certain that is true for Carol too. If I thought throwing Holy Water at my computer would reach these 2 demonic beings I would. Instead, Be gone Satan.

Anonymous said...


Boy did you ever hit Karslon between the eyes.

One of Henry Karlson's most famous tricks is accusing people of 'slander' when he defends his pro-abortion colleagues Sr. Keehnan and Obama. Protecting pedophilia and abortion is Henry's claim to fame.

He was moderated by Tito Edwards and The American Catholic for similar conduct. You might want to get in touch with them to commiserate. (see some excerpts below)

It is about time to stuff a sock in his mouth for good. Might you want to do a post on him? There's lots of evidence where this came from

"So, basically, Diogenes lied, and Tito reinforces the slander. Got it. Tito will probably next say “you slander me.” I am used to it. It’s his response when people call him out.
CHA and Sister Keehan do not think babies should be dismembered in the womb. As long as you continue with this misrepresentation, all you get is proof of your own ill will."

Tito Edwards:
Friday, June 25, 2010 A.D. at 2:56pm
Henry K.,
You wonder why you are placed on moderation?
It’s because of your unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks on many of the columnists here at TAC.
“Sister” Keehan is clearly going against Church teaching as she gleefully accepts a pen from President Obama in celebrating the murders of millions more innocent children.

Anonymous said...

He was in rare form over at Nelson's blog.

Did you know that Karlson also claimed Archbishop Chaput gave Catholics the instruction that they could vote for pro-baby killing politicians?

Henry Karlson said...

The funny thing is -- I see Archbishop Chaput's statement as a "yes." It's when certain people read into his comments their own criteria for "proportionate reasons" it becomes a no. And I say it is a no - for them. But they don't see that is the point; the reasons are going to be internal reflections, and the vote one does will always be a matter of prudential reasoning...

Henry Karlson said...

The ironic thing is that the people who have turned into my critics (not knowing, but thinking they know, my own decision in the election), and try to remove all sense of prudential reasoning in the voting process, are the first to try to dismiss judgments of Church leaders on issues of social doctrine via "prudential reasoning." They confuse areas where the Church has authority and speaks as being where they can ignore via prudence, and they think where the Church tells us "it's your decision" they can dictate for everyone else what that decision must be....

Might a "Henry Karlson Exposed" blog be in order?

Anonymous said...

I was commenting at Vox Nazi in this thread when Henry Karlson started blocking my comments. I've saved the thread of course, so I can reproduce the whole thing here if he decides to monkey with it. For the record, the big bugaboo of a comment that he deleted went like this:
Henry: There is no waffling [at Vox Nova] about abortion.

Me: I am absolutely, completely, perfectly willing to let you guys hang by your own words on that particular point.
UPDATE: Henry further opines:
More importantly, Zippy’s continued behavior, which is never accurate in presenting the views and positions of others, went way beyond the call of duty in this thread, and properly earned his exile, when he has to continue to lie to make his point. He isn’t into truth. Nor, Mark, are you.
The odd thing about this particular comment is that what I said in the comment Henry deleted, which I recorded in this post, was that I am completely, perfectly willing to let the words of VN contributors and commenters speak for themselves. Folks are absolutely welcome and indeed encouraged to determine for themselves if they think my characterizations of VN match the actual words and behavior of VN contributors.

I don't think the word "lie" means what he thinks it means.

(For what it is worth, I rather suspect that Henry actually believes his own BS).

Do check out the comments.

Anonymous said...

I have called the blog Vox Nova "debate club at Auschwitz" because the contributors generally take an airy academic inclusive approach to publicly discussing abortion, in this day and age with the mass scale horror all around us, on a blog which specifically advertises itself as Catholic perspectives. One of the contributors publicly stated that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position, for example, and other contributors have defended him. The point to the "Debate Club at Auschwitz" label is precisely that ambivalent public airy academic discussion in the presence of an actual moral horror which should be unequivocally rejected is inappropriate, like a debate club airily and academically discussing the Jewish Question at Auschwitz.

Henry - always claiming other people are gossipers, liars, calumnious, slanderers:


No, VN is pro-life. Zippy misrepresents and his constant calumnity is a problem. Second, Pope Benedict's lecture really had nothing to do with Islam, and those who keep presenting Islam as the point do not get the point. You really are confused as to the discussion and points on VN. Third, gossip is gossip, and so it is best not to accept it and hearsay.

Posted by Henry Karlson | April 26, 2009 3:16 AM

Karlson has a serious problem. People of good will should stop giving him a bully pulpit.

Anonymous said...

Henry Karlson says:
February 13, 2010 at 9:15 am
One, are you saying that we should never question anything coming from the Bishops? Are we really to blindly trust despite a record of not being trustworthy?

I’m saying we must remember their office and treat them with more respect and not gossip mongering....Gossips always have excuses for their sin....It’s just easy to gossip and say “well, it’s for the good, since they are bad.” Gossips generally think they are in the right for that reason.

Henry Karlson:
Thursday, February 4, 2010 A.D. at 1:00pm
Except the problem is: this report is filled with lies, misrepresentation, and logical fallacies. It does no one any good to be scandal mongers and gossipers using false information — though it seems it is all for politics (which is why Voris acting like an authority also suggests, falsely, anyone who said a Catholic could vote for Obama was wrong).

I am not a fan of the anchoress but the following post wordsmithing to defend Pelosi and accuse Scalia of not knowing how to pray. You can say a lot of things about the anchoress, but saying she doesn't know how to pray is not an honest debate:

Oh, really? The Anchoress is wrong here, and it is because she doesn’t know what it means to pray.

Catherine says:
March 22, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I’m shocked by this post. I can understand wanting to clear up misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Catholicism, especially on a medium like the internet which is so widely read. However, your excitement at finding a mistake in another person’s blogpost, and your subsequent rancor displayed while dissecting her statement and formulating your argument, is disturbing in its lack of Christian charity and humility.

Henry Karlson says:
March 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm

Oh, that is the problem? This post is what lacks Christian charity and humility? Ok….

Carol McKinley said...

I don't get around the internet that much unless somebody sends it or I run across it on facebook or blogroll. After these were posted last night, I did poke around to do some confirming...

I'm not sure what to say other than it is sad it has been enabled for so long, has done such great damage and I don't believe we can or should allow it to continue.

jb said...

This is rich:

Somebody should make a list of how many people Henry has railed on using bullshit lies. He always manges to believe he's the victim instead of the person doing the victimizing.

Carol McKinley said...

In spite of being rebuked, he continues to cast aspersions that I and others are lying and slandering for the purposes of revenge, and cutting and pasting allegations that righteousness and truth are sins gossip, slanderer and...and we are..haters of God!

That's a new one, truth and justice seekers are haters of God.

The culture of abusive men that protect one another and the women who have enabled them for decades, at the expense of the health, welfare and salvation of their own children is something that is going to take some time too pry out. They are not going to go down easy.

Good luck to him:

Reading 1

Rv 11:4-12

I, John, heard a voice from heaven speak to me:
Here are my two witnesses:
These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands
that stand before the Lord of the earth.
If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths
and devours their enemies.
In this way, anyone wanting to harm them is sure to be slain.
They have the power to close up the sky
so that no rain can fall during the time of their prophesying.
They also have power to turn water into blood
and to afflict the earth with any plague as often as they wish.

When they have finished their testimony,
the beast that comes up from the abyss
will wage war against them and conquer them and kill them.
Their corpses will lie in the main street of the great city,
which has the symbolic names “Sodom” and “Egypt,”
where indeed their Lord was crucified.
Those from every people, tribe, tongue, and nation
will gaze on their corpses for three and a half days,
and they will not allow their corpses to be buried.
The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them
and be glad and exchange gifts
because these two prophets tormented the inhabitants of the earth.
But after the three and a half days,
a breath of life from God entered them.
When they stood on their feet, great fear fell on those who saw them.
Then they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them, “Come up here.”
So they went up to heaven in a cloud as their enemies looked on.