29 April 2014

And so the conclusion...

To the Sterling situation. Or so is being reported

a. The fine

2.5 mil is chump change and probably won't affect him in anyway whatsoever. One can't force someone to think a particular way. Unfortunately with sports there's a natural tendency to lean left on social issues. There's a tendency to try and control "the image" or "the brand" so to speak and anything (or anyone) that affects the bottom line is cast off, whether for public image, or for actual substance.

Since the comments were making damage to the league, even if Sterling wished to appeal the fine, it probably wouldn't be advisable to do so.

b. The lifetime suspension

Really doesn't mean anything either, as long as he still owns the team.

c. the expulsion from the board of governors, and seeking to sell the team

Some questions to propose: Does a person's private opinions about people become a condition for ownership of anything? Should race have to do with anything? That is to say should any person be measured on the content of their character? I guess it's important to have good relationships with those that one works with, and those under them....but since when do we like everyone that we work with? Or does everyone like us back? I'm sure we've all worked for bosses who don't like us for whatever reason (or know of people who have had to work in such situations)...Does it suck? For those that need to please people, sure. But do we not make the best of these situations if we're placed in them?

The above said, he's had plenty of situations where he's been bad for the league, whether undervaluing players, and various things, all on public record.

As I've said before, the "thought police" mentality needs to be stopped regardless of the intention. We can't force others to think in a particular matter, whether we agree with them or not, as the old saying goes, you can lead people to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

To eject Sterling for being a racist wouldn't stand in the court of law if Sterling really chose to go this route. Why? Because there's a right to an opinion (even if it's wrong), California has a double consent law (both people must consent to recording). Again, while most certainly not advisable to hold such a position where minorities are in the majority, holding an ignorant opinion, doesn't hold one back...from doing *insert x* here. Of course owning a team is not a right, but a privilege which one must satisfy certain conditions.

d. The thing is, most have looked directly past the worst part of the situation

The destruction of the family via Sterling leaving his wife for another girl, who is more than likely using him for a particular purpose. Cheating is wrong, period. It seems like the entire situation is a mess. The man needs prayers for conversion...not just from his viewpoints, but to go back to his family and children.

Pax Vobis

Thought of the day

There are times when I feel Rome and Constantinople are speaking past each other and not to each other.

28 April 2014

Larry Johnson, you're apart of the problem too.

Apparently, this guy wants an "all-black" league

Your comments Larry Johnson, are if anything worse than the comments made by Sterling. If anyone should know better it's the generations following those that grew up during the ages of Jim Crow and government sanctioned segregation...One would think that we would have learned from those mistakes and not wish to inflict upon those the same thing that we fought against for several generations.

But of course that would require people to make sense, which rarely happens when you stick a microphone in front of them.

Reverse racism is just as bad as its counterpart, if anything worse. I've spoken of it before in the context of the presidential elections. As mentioned earlier, I believe in consistency. If Sterling's going to get suspended for his actions, so too should Johnson by the organization that he works for. Racism under ANY form is not to be tolerated, accepted or promoted in the public sphere, private sphere or wherever.


Donald Sterling

Everyone I'm sure everyone's heard of the Donald Sterling (alleged). comments that were made over the weekend...there was no way I wasn't going to touch on this...but my reaction is going to be a bit different than what one expects...unless you've been reading this blog for sometime, and you'll know where I stand.

a. Everyone should be outraged, but this outrage NEEDS to be consistent.

The comments that were made were flat out repulsive, demeaning and downright cruel. No real words describe how I really feel. The Clippers are already the 2nd rate team in town...now I really won't be supporting them. (Go Warriors (Well, I was rooting for the Warriors anyway, but now I really am rooting for them)). But as I've said before, racism in any form is wrong, and needs to be condemned, whether it's white to black, black to white, or whatever races have tensions towards each other. All of us are created in the image of God, and no race is superior to another....

The fact that there are still people like this that exist is absolutely horrific. It deeply angers me that people can act and be this ignorant. Apparently there's supposed to be some kind of investigation to make sure that it's him in the voice conversations....but this leads to point two.

b. These allegations are anything but new.

It's well known in Los Angeles circles that he wasn't a fan of minorities living in his housing buildings, and had some harassment charges against him, a lawsuit that was dismissed as well Something to consider, was something done then about this? Nope...Why not?

c. What can be done?

One can't control what others think (however stupid, their thoughts might be (unless one works n an indoctrination center). Does being a racist prevent one from owning a sports team? Well that's up to the other owners for setting the conditions to own a team. Just as we condemn the "thought police" for attempting to censor free speech and free thought...perhaps the words that were said, should be allowed to have consequences of their own. That is to say, let people decide that no one wants to play for him, and as such would be put out of business. (Immediately following the season, all players coaches and staff should be allowed to leave freely)

I pray for him, he needs it....I'll have more thoughts as the investigation comes out.

Pax Vobis




27 April 2014

Thought of the day

Things happen on a daily basis...just because they're allowed to happen does not imply heavenly approval. Lest all things in the world be okay.

25 April 2014

Phone calls/canonizations and such

Last week we had Mandatumgate, this week we have the phone call and the supposed clarification

Whether what's being reported in the phone call as being true or not is not even the point. It's been over a year, and if by now the Pope hasn't learned that what he says and what he does will be under a microscope and more than likely leak out to the media (whether intentionally or unintentionally)...God have mercy on him.

None of us, myself included have any clue as to what was said (and I really don't wish to know what was said it's a private conversation)....some points that need to be said.


  • It IS possible someone to proclaim the teachings of the Church in public, but not in private. It applies to everyone in the Church. need a reminder? Pope Honorius' letter was a private letter to a Bishop. 
  • I'm pretty sure the Pope was NOT expecting this conversation to go public**(see 1st paragraph)
  • The fact that this would even be plausible is shown by the fact that he HAS made various phone calls to different people at random (the traditionalist attorney suffering from cancer, nuns in a convent, and back home to Argentina)
  • The fact that he talks so ambiguously could mean that he would speak in such a manner as in bullet point one. 
Many have cried about the Holy Father being misquoted, or misrepresented...which to be fair, several times has happened, but at what point does he (Pope Francis) take responsibility for the things he says? At what point does he take responsibility for the scandal that is caused by his actions? I most certainly understand the need to give the benefit of the doubt, but this continuous explanation/wussification, whatever you wish to call it is getting beyond tiring, when does it stop?

Also, on Sunday, are the canonizations of Bl JPII and Bl John XXIII...I'll say that I'm not every excited about it. For what it seems the canonizations are more politically motivated than holiness motivated. Certainly in the case of Bl JPII, there hasn't been enough time to objectively measure his life, and much of the cult of personality still remains....(and is returning with Francis). Considering Bl John XXIII is well before my time, I have no comment on him other than, he started Vatican II....and while the council may have been necessary, one could argue it was one of the worst times to call a council...(the time to call it would have been in the 50's or the 40's to address Communism)...as for the abuses of the Liturgy, that could have been stopped via synod and didn't need a council per se to stop them. (Don't misunderstand, Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council of the Church)...Other than that, I know little about him. :p...Let us pray.

Let us pray for some clarity, and charity. 

Pax Vobis

Thought of the day

Love goes through it's various crosses. Do not give up! No matter if seems like it's destroying you, or if he goes and hides in his corner, or if she says doesn't wish to hear you speak, never give up

23 April 2014

Thought of the day

Too often people overanalyze others. For the same token, people often don't realize when they're inflicting spears in other's hearts.

22 April 2014

Oh Happy Earth Day


A rant that's even worth putting on my own blog.

Having left a comment on this post, I normally don't put my own comments on my own blog, but this was worthy of such in light of the thought of the day.

God is neither, right, nor left, but IS. The fact that certain elements can be found on each side of the issue is due to the fact that elements of Truth can be found in any which direction.

The above said, is it really of good advice or praxis to ignore the reality on the ground? If we're perfectly honest in St typical's Roman Catholic parish, sexual sins aren't talked about, liturgy is abysmal, there may be gossip and other things going on, but it's not about peoples' lives but rather the latest "Game of Thrones" episode (I chose a random TV show, but you catch my drift)...

I respectfully disagree with the private vs. public criticism comments. In certain situations we have a duty to point out an error of a person, not because we're trying to expose them or be a jerk about things, but rather out of charity because everyone has a right to the Truth, and to not be scandalized by error. This is why it's a big deal that Pelosi et her elk should not be receiving Communion, and if they're spotted they should be denied Communion. As public "servants" the problem is that their errors are promulgated to the public, and this causes scandal. And error does not have rights. Now if Pelosi were a private citizen (she becomes such when she retires) and proclaims such things without a public eye...she can't be denied Communion in this situation obviously because all people have a right to a good reputation (sins of gossip, calmuty and such). If the situation is in the public sphere it's exposed for all to see....As the same applies to Pope Francis. His actions are public (whether he likes it or not...all things that have been published by the Vatican are for public record) and I can agree that the Pope has a right to the benefit of the doubt when it comes to situations, it's in the public record, so one can disagree (as long as it's a matter of prudential judgement and not a matter of Faith and Morals) and still honor the office. It is a type of scandal that the Pope insults those on the traditional side of things (even though no one person was explicitly mentioned that is besides the point)...point out what is wrong yes, name call, no...regardless of the intention.

As we often say, the ends don't justify the means...the road of good intentions leads to bad things happening. So as nice as it is to serve the disinfranchised and most certainly all of us are called to serve the poor in our capabilities, never should it come at the expense of good Liturgy, good praxis, good dogma, and fidelity to the rubrics of Holy Mother Church. The poor have a right to good Liturgy just as much as the rest of us. Is it not an insult to go to the poorest place, and project abuses on them and say, Oh, you're poor, so you don't deserve a faithful Liturgy? Would it not be even a bigger insult to God? All of the faithful have a right via canon Law to the Liturgy of the Church being celebrated faithfully by the rubrics. Even more importantly, God has a right to be worshipped in fullness and in Truth, and not according to our subjective tendencies (hence why rubrics exist in the first place).

End of semi-coherent rant.

Pax Vobis.

Thought of the day

God is neither right, nor left. Any parallels between political positions and the Truth are because of the fact that the Truth can be found in all things. So in short, if God's not a right wing conservative, neither is He a tree hugging hippy either.

16 April 2014

Happy 87th Birthday to Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI

May God grant you many blessed and happy years.

Thought of the day

This post explains exactly how I feel about last year's and this years Holy Thursday "agenda statement" from the present pontificate.

14 April 2014

Thought of the day

I do not believe that it would serve the Church well to go back to an attitude of ignoring the Liturgy.

11 April 2014

Some thoughts on a Friday Morning


  • There are times when I feel that people are made of salt (no, not salt of the earth type), and totally insist upon pouring their whole selves into wounds. Painful, yes, annoying, even more so....continuously happening? Of course. 
  • I must say, an ignorance of the Liturgy is a deep problem. I'm realizing more and more that Summorum Pontificum was more or less, Pope Benedict XVI's way of saying, "y'all clueless and need to get your act together." Liturgy is not about us, our preferences, but about the worship of God, this is a matter of justice.
  • Honestly, I really think there is an idolatry of poverty that has been infecting the Roman church lately. Most certainly we're called to live simply, but we're not religious, and we do not have a vow of poverty. Nor for that matter do secular priests. They should not be expected to live like religious priests. 
  • I don't think it's necessary to solicit likes for pages, and various other interests. It is not necessary to publicly acknowledge everything. 
  • Sleep has been difficult to come by...I might need to move countries. 
  • Lastly isn't it interesting that often our greatest enemies are from within our own circles? 

10 April 2014

Thought of the day

Is it really necessary to tell every single detail of one's private life?

04 April 2014

Thought of the day

The Truth itself will attract, we do not need to have gimmicks to teach the Truth.

03 April 2014

The reason for the USCCB boycott sticker on the side

**A disclaimer needs to be made here, there are some fine individual Bishops, some I happen to count amongst my circle of friends....this critique is addressed to the staffers, more than likely because I do not know to what degree the individual Bishops are involved in the day to day process.

a. The giving authority to issues that are of prudential judgement.

Here's the statement on immigration reform

Two people can disagree on how this is best to be done, you can read for yourselves the position of the conference (which of course this is a matter of prudential judgement, so yes, you can disagree)...And while they do quote the catechism (rather make references), I respectfully disagree with the approach that the USCCB holds.

I do recognize this is a complex situation, and a solution really won't satisfy everyone, but, I think I can appease just about everyone with my own proposals for immigration reform, which take up much less than 12 000 words.

1) Enforce the laws that are on the books, or if the feds aren't going to (or don't have the man power to do so) allow the states to enforce those laws. Many hands make light work, it's a lot easier if more people do less than less people doing more. As the old saying goes, what good is law, if there's no way to enforce it?

2) Secure the border....use man power, whether from the states or from the feds to enforce the borders (all of them, not just the mexican border)...build a fence, just get it done.

3) Because we're broke, it's really not feasible to deport everyone...well, easy solution....give all illegal immigrants pink (not to be confused with green) cards.. This differentiates them from those who are legally here (green cards)...possession of a pink card does not allow one to the rights of being a US citizen, with the pink card, you're not allowed to apply for citizenship for 1/2 the time you've been in the US. (So if you've been in US for 20, you can't apply for 10 years)...and must pay the equivalent in tax returns based upon any salary that would be earned during that period. Those eligible for a pink card would not be those for whose visas have expired, or for those that have lost their paperwork, those are situations that should be handled on a case by case basis.

4) Criminals should be deported immediately, absolutely no exceptions

5) Streamline the process as to get the paperwork done quicker. Eliminate useless steps, bottom line with the technology that exists, it shouldn't take years to process paperwork. Have people working 24 hours on these things.

There are other examples, but of course, this is merely meant to be highlighted

b. Need we mention their support for virtually every big gov't program: Social Security, Gun Control, Support of gov't run healthcare, and the litany of offenses goes on and on.

We are by no means bound to agree with the Bishops on issues of prudential judgement....(While certainly their arguments should be heard, they are our Bishops after all, by no means are the situations that are outside the scope of Faith and Morals, bound to be listened to.

So next time you hear about "Immigration reform" position of the USCCB, yes, you can oppose it....

The above said, do pray for Our Bishops, they definitely need our prayers, and in the words of my former spiritual director, Ordination does not eliminate ignorance.

Pax Vobis



02 April 2014

Is it possible for a morally neutral situation?

I don't normally read left wing anything, but this was posted on one my social uses...and I had to say something about it...

We need to start with a premise:, when there are multiple view points on various issues, it may be possible that no one wins.

In this situation, we see what I talk about constantly, an objective situation being framed in terms of a subjective application.

The Hospital is Catholic....meaning it's going to be influenced, (and hopefully practice) by the teachings of the Church....in theory it means the hospital will likely follow the following

  • Birth control for the purpose of preventing conception will not be sold
  • Abortions, will not be allowed under any circumstances
  • The dignity of Life will be protected from conception to natural death
  • Euthanasia will not be allowed under any circumstances. 
  • Clothe the naked, feed, the hungry, live out the beatitudes.
Perhaps it hasn't helped that hospitals have not been consistent in applying Catholic teaching in their daily practices, but breaking the teachings of the Church does not make for the situation that is supposed to be normal. (Catholic hospitals being Catholic)

Now, when it comes to "birth control" access, let's be honest, if people really want it, they can find it. Strictly, I'm speaking of over the counter types, condoms and things of that nature. You can't tell me there isn't a drug store in the city where one can find these things. (As the law will not in of itself prevent people from doing bad things, as we all know in practice how this works).

As a private practice, the hospital does have a right to NOT provide birth control to its patients. (Insert arguments here). Is the hospital imposing their rights on you? In one sense yes, in one sense no. It may be a chore to go to a different hospital a few towns over, but there is no rule stating that one absolutely must go to the city hospital for that specific purpose. We do this all the time as a society. How many times do we go out our way for a specific item, because either a store doesn't have an item that we want, or the prices of insert place here are too high? Is it exactly the same thing, of course not, but since when are analogies meant to be perfect? 

Just as one's particular viewpoints might not be the same where one wishes to conduct business, most certainly the values of a particular business are interwoven throughout the store, hospital, wherever one happens to be. Most certainly my perspective, viewpoints are reflected often in my lectures, not necessarily because I'm trying to "impose" them on people, but rather, perspective, experiences, my Faith, make up the core of who I am, and as a result this is done in my actions towards people. Or in the case of a hospital, the Faith which it professes is interwoven throughout everything it does, and through it's very actions, what it believes is being expressed. That is to say exterior actions reflect the interior disposition of *insert x*

In demanding a Catholic hospital which professes the teaching of the Church to provide a person with something it in good conscience can't do, a person does the very thing that it accuses whatever it's patronizing of doing (imposing values on something)...It is a matter of justice that a hospital that professes to be Catholic, allowed to be Catholic. It'd be like expecting a Catholic School to teach Islam, when one goes to a Catholic place, one behaves like a Catholic, it's a matter of respect...Do not go to a Catholic institution expecting that your views be followed. If you do not like it, go somewhere else. 

It's kind of funny in some respects, society often talks about "going green" or "going organic" and yet pop birth control like crazy...Interesting isn't it? (Let me be clear to those that have particular issues, I'm not speaking about you in this situation, I am speaking to those that are using for the strict purpose of preventing conception...this specific issue is addressed here (paragraphs 15-16)

Most certainly a patient does have a "right" to be treated for whatever sickness they have, and most certainly deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. But there will always be situations where two peoples' perspectives/viewpoints will converge and sometimes there will not be a cure for this situation.

I'd like to give kudos to the Catholic hospital for being Catholic...

Pax Vobis