Thursday, April 14, 2016

I myself have watched Steve Skojec’s progression downhill, through the years...

Steve Skojec

WARNING: This post contains graphic inside jokes and irony.

Don't blame me, man. I didn't say it. The post title is actually a quote from the noted Catholic apologist and Patheos blogger, Dave Armstrong. He's self-published more books than the combined Church Fathers.

(I've only self-published four books. You may purchase them here.)

But back to Steve Skojec, that miscreant. See kids, let this be a lesson to you. Listen up. Observe how the great fall. Nota bena. And so on. And don't go downhill if you can help it. Just because there's a lodge down there, featuring a well-stocked bar and a roaring fire doesn't make it all right. Stay above the tree line.

Here's a list of Dave Armstrong's most recent Patheos posts along with the number of comments:

Debates About Homosexuality (Series): 0 comments.
Atheist Deconversions from Christianity (Series): 0 comments.
“Why pray to a saint rather than to God?”: 0 comments
God’s “Punishing” of Descendants: Unjust?: 0 comments

And you were wondering why I put "Steve Skojec" in my own post title.

It beats pets.

So despite my distaste at Skojec's disgraceful embrace of gravity, I've linked to a great number of his missives. As Ronald Reagan once said when the Sandinistas shot down a plane full of journalists, "there's a little bit of good in everybody."

Which brings me full circle to a serious point:

Dave Armstrong has done a huge amount of great work in service to the Catholic faith. His childish attacks against Steve Skojec and others do not take away from that, though obviously they have the tendency to drown it out.

In the spirit of Catholic comradeship, I urge him to ease up on the blog wars. I want him on our side.

I want you on our side, Dave Armstrong.

At least think about it.


  1. Forgive me but I really don't understand this story - can somebody help me out and explain where Steve Skojec has gone downhill?

  2. Dave Armstrong has done a lot of good work over the years, but in recent years, he's become an overbearing critic of anyone who dares to question the party line. He engages in nasty name calling and long drawn out attacks against people who offend him. He even recycles attacks he made over 15 years ago against fundamentalist Protestants like Hamas White. And he even attacked young earth creationism because his fundamentalist opponents believed in it! He has become, IMO, a bitter, angry man who has become what he accuses his perceived opponents of being, his own Pope.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Just for the record; my critics delight in making out that I have supposedly ONLY "self-published". This is untrue. Among my 49 books, TEN have been published by five different well-established publishers: Sophia Institute Press (6), OSV, St. Benedict Press (now connected with TAN), Catholic Answers, and Beacon Hill Press.

    Additionally, ten more of my books are carried by Logos Bible Software (aka Faithlife): the world's largest publisher of Christian electronic books.

    20 out of 49 is 41% NOT self-published. But it sounds like I am some isolated crank, to pretend that I am only self-published. That may be true of you; it's not in my case.

    Thanks for letting me publish this clarification.

    You make no rational argument, so I don't know what the point is. If you make no argument, why in the world should I change my opinion. Skojec is wrong about Pope Francis. So I write about him. Generally, the response I receive from reactionaries is mere mockery. This was true of Ferrara, Hilary White, and now yourself. I think it speaks volumes.

    Not sure what the point of noting my recent posts and the number of comments is. Apparently it is to again send out the message that I am irrelevant and no one reads my stuff (which is the tack Chris Ferrara took when I replied to his trashing of Laudato Si).

    Two things about that: all of the posts listed were published only in the last 4-5 days or so, as I generally put out four new posts a day. And I do that because most of them are reposting old stuff to Patheos and getting proper SEO info. on them.

    Secondly, comments are not always an indication of what is being read. The Augustine piece was published two days ago. It has 1430 page views, 1700 likes, and 654 Facebook shares, but only one comment.

    So numbers of comments indicate very little. It's no gauge of interest, or of whether folks have received something of worth from one of my posts.

    My first article (of four) about the Christological errors in "The Young Messiah" has over 8,000 page views.

    I appreciate you saying that I have "done a huge amount of great work in service to the Catholic faith." All glory to God.

    I would say about Steve Skojec and you as well: that there are certainly many things you have both written that we can both agree on, as being educational and edifying, with regard to various truths in the Catholic faith.

    The attacks on Pope Francis, however, are not among these areas of agreement, and I am duty-bound as an apologist and a defender of Holy Mother Church, to speak my mind about that.

    Perhaps one of these days we can have a real conversation about the issues, rather than you guys resorting to mockery and ridicule when someone disagrees with you in good faith, and believes that the info. you are spreading about the pope and the Church is seriously harmful.

    Hilary White just denied that those of us who are not in her camp (what i call radical reactionary) are Catholics at all. Those are fightin' words. Do you expect that we will sit idly by and endure the insult that we are not Catholics at all? If I were not a Catholic, it's hardly possible that I could do "great work in service to the Catholic faith" is it? Even Steve Dalton, who has trashed me for years at every opportunity, concedes that I have "done a lot of good work over the years."

    But according to Hilary White, I'm not a Catholic at all. What am I then? It makes no sense that a non-Catholic has done "great / good" work defending the Holy Catholic Church.

    Thanks again for publishing this comment. The Remnant deletes everything I post over there: even if it is a reply to an article expressly about me.

    1. That last bit's not a great argument. I don't believe in any gods - can I not then defend Pope Francis? I'm almost certain Steve has put forth the argument (believing as he does that there is a god and it's God etc) that my failure to believe in God doesn't make him go away. Naturally I don't buy this - but I am certain that my belief that people ought not believe in gods doesn't make Catholicism go away. And so long as there are Roman Catholics there will be a Church, with a Pope to lead it, and whoever that guy is will have an incredible amount of influence on the world I live in, and will have views and make statements I find positive or negative.

      Given all that, I think Pope Francis is largely good. Some people object to his relatively modern or progressive social stances; as a fan of modern and progressive social stances, I support him in those stances and defend them. Does it not make sense that I should do so?

      Or that I might defend my friend Steve, with whom I disagree on just about everything, because I think he's an essentially good and righteous person?

    2. Dave, when I read the Remnant I see some of the things you are saying. They do not help the situation. They don’t try to give a charitable interpretation and they seem to jump on anything which they can attack the Pope with. When I read your stuff, there seems to be an issue of not being able to admit problems in the Church that stem from recent Popes (intentionally or not) or the weakening of Catholicism through other items (liturgy, Vatican II, etc.).

      It’s almost as if I am looking at two different types of reactionaries. One is always overly critical of the Pope and anything modern, the other acts as if the Pope can do no wrong and nothing the Popes do, say, or approve has any bad consequence in the Church. It’s very tiring, and neither side is helping the current crisis in this Church.

    3. "Perhaps one of these days we can have a real conversation about the issues,"

      If you were even slightly sincere about that sentiment, you would not ban everybody who disagrees with you from your commbox.

    4. "What am I then?" Far too quick to defend yourself at every turn. For the Love of God, try just shutting up every now and then.

  4. I'm your fifth comment: does that make you relevant now? Is this a popularity contest? Are you promoting the faith or are you promoting click bait?

  5. Looked up da;tl;dr - results not found.

    Explain please?

    1. Assuming the DA meant Dave Armstrong.
      tl;dr: too long, didn't read.

      It was a wisecrack.

  6. But of course no reactionary ever objects to Chris Ferrara's endless tomes, or the endless discussion comboxes under many reactionary hit pieces, including Skojec's. It's just a diversionary tactic. The issue isn't length, but objection to content. Many of my pieces today are only 800-1000 words. My latest published book consisted of chapters that were all that short.

    1. So, you're finally running out of nonsense to spew?

    2. Ferrara is not challengeable.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. "Ferrara is not challenge-able."
      Of course, anyone can not be challenged who will censor or delete any challenge.
      For your information, no one is "unchallengeable" except the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Paul certainly didn't view either himself nor saint Peter "unchallengeable". He directly challenged Saint Peter and invited the Bereans to do the same with him if they could.

    5. What are you gripping about? You were allowed to post here, weren't you? Your problem is that you can't stand to be told you're wrong or you can't take disagrements. You nearly always lash out at your perceived opponents with harsh, hateful words and insults. That approach didn't work too well when you took on James White and his friends, for they proved to be better at that stuff that you ever were. And it has costed you the friendship and respect of several people on our side of the fence as well. Do yourself (and the rest of us) a big favor, Dave. Lose the arrogant manner in which you act toward people, and you may discover you won't be a byword for a licensed, know-it-all jackass.

    6. I'm "gripping" [inside joke] about you being an unlicensed, unbridled, know-nothing jackass and all-around fool, Steve.

      Any more questions?

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. You've proven my point by your reply. I truely feel sorry for you.

    9. Geez, Dave, you either really are an asshat [inside joke], or just really skilled at making yourself appear as one.

  7. Replies
    1. I hate it when people call me that.

    2. Then enter into a fair discourse with one you accuse. Cowards die a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but once.

    3. Fine. Just don't call me chicken.

  8. This comment thread is longer than all of Dave's, minus 1.

  9. We must all be careful not to ally with Chaos. :-)

  10. ... or over-verbose reactionary stupidity.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Who said Dave Armstrong wasn't being allowed to "respond to (my) accusations"? The only person I've banned has been "Unknown" for calling me chicken. And if he comes back as "Anonymous," I'll ban him again. You're not calling me chicken, are you?

    2. My initial reply was here and now no longer is. So I posted it on my Facebook. A second one-paragraph reply is still up, and this one, if it is allowed.

      Something caused my first comment to be up at one point (I saw it) and then to disappear. Perhaps it is a glitch . . .

    3. Nothing of yours (or anyone's) has been deleted, and the "chicken" thing was just another inside joke. You are free to post anything you want here, David.

    4. Maybe it's a spam filter or something, that took it out, because I saw it up after I posted it.

      I'm delighted to hear that you value free speech and the right of a man to defend himself and his views (unlike The Remnant).

    5. Once again, my initial response (posted a second time) is gone. It must be an automatic filter that deems a comment of a certain length to be spam.

    6. I do value those things, I hope. But the Remnant helped to convert me. And it's still the best Catholic paper out there. And by the way, those 2 or 3 posts you wrote about Adam and Eve and Bishop Barron also helped to convert me. They were righteous and reasonable.

    7. I just liberated your "spam." I don't know why it was classified as such. But Google just changed something about filtering, I think. Apologies.

    8. That happens sometimes. No problem. Thanks for looking into it. I'm glad we cleared it up.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. [Typos corrected]

    Dalton has been lying about me for many years. He seems to search for any post that is critical of me and then BAM! He launches more insults in the combox.

    As one example of countless ones, he accused me of denying a literal Adam and Eve. In fact, I have vigorously defended their literal existence in many papers (and like-minded links), including two lengthy, controversial ones contra Bishop Barron.

    Anyone can see how that ignorant lie of his went down on the Unam Sanctam site. The blogmaster (a mainstream traditionalist) gave a talk in my own house, which is now online.

    1. You're a self-admitted believer in theistic evolution. If you believed in the Biblical story of a literal six-day creation, I would say you believed in Adam and Eve. Since you believe or allow for theistic evolution, I can't see how you can claim to truly believe in the histrical Adam and Eve of Christian theology.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Thank you for your comment. Very interesting. Busy now. Will reply later.

  18. I've deleted my comments concerning the initial inability of Dave Armstrong to respond to challenges to him. That has been corrected and so the remarks no longer apply.

  19. As one who was banned by Mr. Armstrong in his combox (not for attacking him), I find it quite hypocritical that he wants so much talk time and simultaneously complains about being prevented from commenting on other blogs. You do the same Mr. Armstrong.

    The credentialism of look how many books I published and how many facebook posts I have and how long I have been a major apologist doesn't guarantee anything. Truth is what counts. And that is the debate right now about Francis.

    I'll take Catholics like Oakes here and Steve who have their eyes opened and more importantly, are not afraid to publish truths about Bergoglio (who is masquerading as a pope - and no I am not sedevacantist). They certainly know it wont be a popularity contest.

    Amoris Laetitia should be an obvious sign to any REAL Catholic, but most are asleep. The pharisees had lots of credentials and yet didn't notice the Savior standing in front of them. Ditto today with what comes from Rome, but in the reverse.

    1. There is no rational argument here about my critique of Steve Skojec: only personal attacks from an anonymous intellectual coward.

      As for my comments policy, it is perfectly consistent. I don't allow mere trolling and preaching on my site. Many sites of all sorts of persuasion do that. It's basic netiquette. And I don't allow purely personal attacks (against ANYONE). I require people to make arguments and interact, and do so in a civil, charitable fashion. I don't allow pope-bashing. Or Novus Ordo-bashing, or Vatican II-bashing. All of this is stated openly in my comments policy for all to see. It's permanently linked at the top of my site.

      So that's one thing. But on the other hand, I make an exception for persons whom I critique in one of my posts. Thus if Skojec showed up, he would have a full and unlimited right to talk on my site. As I wrote at the end of my piece about him:

      "though I usually don’t allow reactionaries on my site, lest they lead people astray, I happily allow those to whom I’ve devoted an article, to defend themselves in my combox. Thus, Hilary White made many comments in reply to my three articles about her."

      The same was true of Chris Ferrara, when I critiqued his trashing of Laudato Si. But he chose mockery and talking about non sequiturs, just as folks here have devoted themselves to. There's not the slightest pretense of even attempting to deal with the rational argument that I made in my piece.

      I went after one of the reactionary sacred cows, so it is open season on me: reason and facts be damned!

      But I do appreciate the fact that Oakes is not an intellectual coward. I was the target of the OP, and I am allowed to freely speak here and defend myself. That gives me a measure of respect for him. He hasn't taken the route of mere mockery + sheer censorship (The Remnant), or mockery only, without ever engaging into reasonable dialogue (Ferrara, Hilary White), or never dealing with a critique at all (Skojec).

    2. The Remnant doesn't allow certain reactionaries on its site either since they lead people astray.

      You don't want dialogue really given your own censorship that you whine is 'correct' while others are 'wrong' as applied to you.

      I'll be happy to have rational argument at your site, but I am prevented by your 'protection' policy.

      Simply put: you are the classic hypocrite Mr Armstrong. Yes, you are 'perfectly consistent'.

      That you don't see the problems in Amoris Laetitia simply illustrates the level of your faith.

  20. Steve--

    I never heard of Dave Armstrong before. Is he someone we should listen to? Is he important? His remarks above would indicate he approves the various outcomes of Vatican II which, in my opinion, casts doubt on his orthodoxy. Anyway, I do like his Hasidic clothing. Sort of sets him off.

    1. I've never heard of you, either. What that has to do with anything, I have no idea.

      I continue to hold out hope for an actual rational reply. I believe Oakes is capable of it.

  21. I'm done here. I've waited in vain for an actual argument and cessation of the infantile insults. I won't waste any more of my time in the romper room.

    1. Maybe that's the problem: you barged in here looking for an argument, when we were all just enjoying a joke.

    2. 'infantile insults' says a guy wearing some sort of Robin Hood hat and typing a million plus words in search of a dual? You were offered a chair on Johhny Carosn's Tonight Show, and you showed up huffing and puffing and looking for some sort of Holy Grail....

  22. Mr. Mahound:
    Re: The Grinch's who steal Christmas

    Thank you for hosting this thread. I am an old man. I was privaledged to watch the birth of Catholics blogdom. And I am dismayed to see what is now an apparent civil war. For instance Mr. Skojek (who I admire) and his ilk are now called, among other things, "reactionaries" by professional Catholics.

    Every Christmas a writer associated with Big Catholicism: like NC Register, Patheos or a lady who calls herself "Mean Lizzie" launches an attack on a reactionary Catholic writer. This year it appeared to be Mr. Armstrong's turn.

    I proposed to Mr. Armstrong on his blog (big mistake) that we Catholics observe a "Christmas Truce". Mr. Armstrong was not amused.

    At the risk of angering Mr. Armstrong again I still propose a "Christmas Truce" with the added proviso that we extend it year round.

    Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not divide His Church into "reactionary" and "professional" wings.

    Keep up the good work.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  23. Thanks, Richard. I completely agree. And Wanda was right. This started off as a sort of joke. While it's true I made fun of Dave Armstrong, I also made self-deprecating fun of myself and (of course) Steve. Indeed, the post title was the result of a sort of bet--I kidded my friend Steve that I would spread his "downhill progress" all over the internet.

    While the post was for the most part humorous, my offer to David Armstrong was sincere. We have a bad pope in there, as well as a heresy that appears to be in the ascendent. I don't think we should be fighting each other. We should be fighting together for Christ.

    1. Mr. Spalding:

      You and Mr. Skojeck remind me of an Irish Priest I met in Africa - Father Joseph. He came there right after ordination and when I met Father Joseph he had spent 5-years there. He had soldiered on for half a century forgotten by the outside world while being buffeted by the winds of change in the Church.

      But he did not loose the Faith. Rather he passed it on. God knows who His champions are.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    2. I am watching the goings on with some interest. Perhaps it's nervous man energy, since we have such an intolerable situation, and watching it play out and drag on is unsettling to one's nerves. I know it is mine. It's perfectly legitimate to have disagreements on Catholic topics and to say so. The current obsession with positivity is maddening and is working to suppress authentic dialogue and the free exchange of ideas, what we ought to be having. Personally I detest the current interest with and use of parody and satire that has overrun blogdom. I don't get it, half the time believe it, and almost always am confused by it. Is it true? Is it reflecting something I don't know about? what. Either way it's annoying and worse than that, for me, it ain't funny. Probably because I don't get it. But I wish everyone who uses it would be a great big SATIRE header so I'd know and avoid it. It must be a guy thing.
      Our church is in trouble.
      Our faith is in trouble.
      Our people are divided into camps.
      Many do not see the danger.
      Souls are imperiled.
      Doctrine has been dismantled with the casual wave of a hand, "nothing to see here". move along.
      There is fear.
      There is anger.
      There is confusion.
      There is lack of conviction.
      There is careerism.
      There is cowardice.
      There is agreement in some camp that doctrine had to go.
      We will not all agree. We are not in the same camp.

  24. And I was sincere when I wrote: "Perhaps one of these days we can have a real conversation about the issues."

    I kept coming back to see if that could be had, but all I saw was juvenile personal insults (exemplified by Dalton's garbage), that you apparently don't have the slightest problem allowing on your site, so I gave up.

    If you want to come to my site sometime and talk like adults, about the issues, and not about how I am supposedly a lying scumbag, etc. you are welcome to, and I would delete anyone who tried to attack you personally. But it ain't happening here, in this poison environment.

    1. Mr. Armstrong:

      You posted in part: "But it ain't happening here, in this poison environment."

      We live in a fallen world. The environment is always going to be poisonous to the Faith. The question, as I see it, is whether the admittedly poisonous environment will be made worse by this terrible Catholic Civil War.

      You are the published, professional Catholic here. Why not turn the other check. Swallow insults. Build bridges (as Holy Father Francis urges) and take the first step to ending the Civil War?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    2. You misunderstand, Richard. This is not a Civil War, since that presupposes both parties are Catholics. Hilary White has informed us that we are not Catholics at all. We are NovusOrdists: a whole 'nother religion.

      So it ain't an in-house fight if one party ain't in the house any longer. I'm on my way to hell.

    3. Mr. Armstrong:

      Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: "This is not a Civil War"

      I hope you are right.

      and in part: "Hilary White has informed us that we are not Catholics at all"

      Turn cheek. Swallow insults. Return good for evil. Walk extra mile. Build that bridge.

      and in part: "I'm on my way to hell."

      You will not be let in with that hat. Hell has standards you know.

      Be the great SAINT. Rebuild Christ's Church in America.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  25. The current church is destroying people. Good people and good Catholics. Don't think the evil will only take effect after death. Rather, we can see it now. It's happening in front of all of our eyes. Please pray for them. And pray for all of us.


    To Mr. Armstrong and other progressive papal positivists, Steve was right and y'all are wrong

  27. ABS just checked again to be sure.

    Yep, the pope admits it so the progressive papal positivists are wrong


    Vatican website misquotes Pope Francis on Communion for the divorced and remarried

    Amoris Laetitia , Pope Francis

    No one seems to agree about whether Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, changes Church discipline and opens the door to Communion for the divorced and remarried.

    The now-infamous footnote 351 certainly appears to do just that, and this is the interpretation that Cardinal Walter Kasper - the cardinal behind the push to allow the divorced and remarried to receive Communion - himself clearly takes. But some have disputed this, pointing to clear canon law and established Church practice, as well as some of the ambiguities surrounding the footnote itself.

    So it was with eagerness that many Catholics listened to a question on the matter posed to Pope Francis this past weekend on the flight back from the Greek island of Lesbos.

    A reporter asked the pope, point blank, whether there are any “new concrete possibilities that did not exist before the publication of the exhortation” for the divorced and remarried, making specific reference to “the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments.” The reporter’s complete question is provided at the bottom of this post.

    The pope began his response saying simply, in Italian: “Io posso dire, si. Punto.” Translated into English, this means: “I can say yes. Period.”


    The progressive papal positivists should stick to making up categories and referencing them as though are normative and binding

  28. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be liable to the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    But, hasn't Mr. Armstrong called Mr. Dalton a fool in this thread?

    Hmmm, those progressives papal positivists sure seem confused at times...

  29. These [reactionary] clowns will turn on Burke just like they did with Pope Benedict: the absolute darling of both trad[itionalist]s and reactionaries, who could do no wrong (till he resigned). Mark my words. It’s inevitable: “The Wicked Novus Ordoists and Bergoglio are so nefarious and all-powerful that even good bishops are now caving. . . “
    I know these guys like the back of my hand. 25 years’ experience refuting their errors . . .

    If one's fidelity is to the truth and not to a person (other than Jesus Christ, the Head of His Church)then one is very well justified in expressing disappointment if that person contradicts himself vis a vis a particular topic- a change in discipline that undermines Doctrine.

    Now, the odd truth is that prior to the Synod, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke was insisting, publicly, that a change in discipline would mean a change on Doctrine and that if such an event happened, he would be forced to reject it.

    Well, he didn't reject A.L did he?

    And so Steve was right in terms of both truth and opposing Cardinal Burkes surrender to that which he initial opposed.

    But, for some inexplicable reason, Mr. Armstrong personally attacked and derided Mr. Skojec because he (as far as can be seen) has a personal opinion differing from that of Mr. Armstrong.

    So, Mr. Skojec is a bad cad dad fad gad had jad kad lad mad nad pad rad sad tad wad zad reactionary trad.

    All of this is quite helpful as apologetics

  30. Rorate Caeli: How can a faithful Catholic fight back? Is it in his home? Is it on a blog?

    Card Burke: I think you have to keep teaching, in your home and in your own personal life, to hold to the truth of the faith as you know it, and also to speak up about it and to make known to the Holy Father your deep concern, that in fact you cannot accept a change in the Church's discipline which would amount to a change in her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Here I think it's very important to address a false dichotomy that's been drawn by some who say, "Oh no, we're just changing disciplines. We're not touching the Church's doctrine." But if you change the Church's discipline with regard to access to Holy Communion by those who are living in adultery, then surely you are changing the Church's doctrine on adultery. You're saying that, in some circumstances, adultery is permissible and even good, if people can live in adultery and still receive the sacraments. That is a very serious matter, and Catholics have to insist that the Church's discipline not be changed in some way which would, in fact, weaken our teaching on one of the most fundamental truths, the truth about marriage and the family.

  31. Cardinal Burke: ‘I will resist’ the Pope should he contravene doctrine

    Catholic , Divorce , Synod On The Family

    February 9, 2015 ( – Vatican watchers were surprised this weekend when Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the leading voices for orthodoxy in the Church, said he would be willing to “resist” Pope Francis if the pontiff were to attempt to change the Church's practice of denying Communion to those in “second marriages.”

    Speaking to France2 television, Burke, who was recently removed by Francis as head of the Church’s highest marriage court, said, moreover, that there was no analogy between homosexual activity and marriage.

    “I cannot accept that Communion can be given to a person in an irregular union because it is adultery,” the American cardinal said. “On the question of people of the same sex, this has nothing to do with marriage. This is an affliction suffered by some people whereby they are attracted against nature sexually to people of the same sex.”

    Asked, “If, perchance, the pope will persist in this direction, what will you do?” Cardinal Burke replied, “I shall resist, I can do nothing else. There is no doubt that it is a difficult time; this is clear, this is clear.” The cardinal agreed that the situation is “painful” and “worrisome”.

    But, somehow, the problem is not that a Cardinal reneged on his word, the problem is the bad (continue the rhymes) rad trad whose notices the problem and writes about it.

    The perplexing political polemics of the progressive papal positivists are neither logical or entertaining.

    Come up with some new categories fellas,,,

  32. ABS: Rest assured DA is reading even if -- one prayer is answered! -- he is refraining from comment.