BREAKING: Father Daniel Fitzpatrick, an Ordained Catholic Priest, Revealed to be a WOMAN!

"Father" Fitzpatrick

Remember Pope Joan? Meet Father Patricia.

In a shocking development earlier this morning, Tanya Cohen, an investigative reporter for the British newspaper The Sun revealed that a Catholic priest in the diocese of Hexham and Newcastle was actually a woman. "Fr. Daniel Fitzpatrick" had been living under a false identity ever since entering seminary in 2008. The "Father" is actually Patricia Fitzdaniel of Leeds.

How Ms. Fitzdaniel could have concealed her true identity for so long, especially in the close male environment of a seminary remains a mystery, though interviews of fellow seminarians by Cohen indicated that while other students remarked upon "Daniel's" often feminine appearance and demeanor, they simply assumed "he" was homosexual.

In recent years the youngish priest had become a minor media celebrity along with fellow priest, Fr. Marc Lyden-Smith. The duo hosted a podcast, initiated a series of faith talks at a pub called "iThirst", appeared on a BBC game-show together and became well-known social media supporters of "progressive" Catholic causes including openness to gay marriage.

The sex of Fr. Lyden-Smith is not at issue.

Ironically, "Father Dan" (as Patricia Fitzdaniel called herself) was involved in a recent social media kerfuffle, threatening to sue a fellow Catholic blogger for defamation. The blogger had criticized Father Dan for tweeting that the Holy Spirit was in fact female.

Neither Father Dan or Lyden-Smith have been available for comment. Parishioners arriving at church a few hours after the story hit, found a note on the front door apologizing for the fact that Mass would not be celebrated by Father Dan for the foreseeable future. It was signed "Patricia", and included the words, "Thank you for three wonderful years. Long live Pope Francis and the true People of God! Always remember, God made them male AND female. Male AND female He made them."

At a time when some Catholics have questioned the Church's absolute bar on the ordination of women, a few bloggers and journalists have publicly wondered whether the case of Father Dan, an obvious embarrassment for the Church, may in fact be a positive spur to the pro-female ordination progressives. By all accounts Father Dan was popular with his parishioners and exercised his priestly duties at all levels with competence and distinction.

In a related development, Chris Ross, a solicitor with the firm Swinburne Maddison and the lawyer responsible for threatening legal action concerning allegedly false and defamatory claims against Father Dan, was arrested Friday on charges of embezzling £5.5 million from a local orphanage.     

In America: Anti-Islam Protest Organizer Goes Into Hiding

From Jason Molinet at the New York Daily News (AP Video below):

‘Tyranny is in America’: Anti-Muslim armed rally organizer says he’s headed into hiding after getting death threats

The ex-Marine who organized an anti-Muslim rally outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix Friday evening said he’s going into hiding after receiving several death threats. 

“This is proof tyranny is in America,” said Jon Ritzheimer, revealing he's come under siege since taking to Facebook to organize the event. 

Up to 500 protesters gathered in 100-degree heat — some clutching assault rifles, American flags and placards — in the latest flashpoint in the U.S. anti-Islam movement.  

Ritzheimer planned the protest, billed as "Freedom of Speech Rally," in response to an ISIS-inspired attack outside a controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest May 3 in Texas. 

Two gunmen were shot dead by SWAT team members as they attempted to storm the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, an event organized by anti-Islamic activist Pamela Geller. 

But now Ritzheimer claims he's been targeted by terrorists. 

“I’m having to sell my house. My family is going into hiding,” an armed Ritzheimer, flanked by burly men wearing "F--- Islam!" T-shirts, told reporters at the rally. “They’re calling for lone wolves to behead me. That’s terrorism right here in America.”

The latest rally also included a Prophet Muhammad cartoon drawing contest, which drew plenty of people protesting the protest by holding signs with messages like "Love not hate" and "Stop the hate." 

Arizona is an open carry state. Several people, many wearing fatigues, showed up to the rally with assault rifles. 

The event began at 6:15 p.m. and anti-rally demonstrators quickly poured in. 

Usama Shami, the president of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, hugged a Christian pastor from a nearby church who came in support. 

The two sides faced off before protesters were separated with yellow tape and police in riot gear. 

The protest, despite instances of hate speech (sic) and stepping on the Koran, was peaceful. Phoenix police made no arrests. 

"I hope more patriots take a stand,"Ritzheimer said.

When Sincere Non-Catholic Christians Ask You What You Think of the Pope, What Do You Tell Them?

Stephen VI: The original Bad Pope

I asked this, among other things because one of the arguments of the Franboys is that being critical of the Pope confuses non-Catholics and makes our Faith less attractive or self-defeating or some such.

I don't agree, obviously, but it's not a completely unreasonable or irrational worry.

I asked this of my wife--a faithful Catholic Traditionalist who, like me is a recent convert but unlike me comes from a strong Evangelical Christian background.

She gave a great answer, but I don't want to prejudice the conversation by relating it here.

I have the impression that my online Catholic friends come from a diversity of backgrounds.

This is not a question for the Franboys. I know what you think and frankly I'm a bit tired of hearing it, especially as it usually is accompanied by insults, slander and hate directed against fellow Catholics.

So, for the rest of us, when sincere non-Catholic Christians ask you what you think of the Pope, what do you tell them? 

Cardinal Tauran: Key Document of Vatican II Rewritten So As Not To Annoy Muslims

Cardinal Tauran and Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the current President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue had this to say a few days ago about the Council's Declaration on Non-Christian religions:

Nostra Aetate came about because St John XXIII wanted some sort of document along those lines for Vatican II but he died in 1963, before the council could consider it,. Some delegates to the council did not want to have such a document come up for discussion, Cardinal Tauran explained, and when discussion finally took place, “some bishops from the Middle East were concerned about this problem” that the draft of the document spoke only about the relationship between Catholics and Jews, and that this would not sit well with Muslim civic and religious leaders in the region. 

“It soon became clear that 'Nostra Aetate' had nothing to do with (the state of) Israel,” Cardinal Tauran said, and the document was modified to include Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other faith systems.

I'm not sure what the Cardinal means by "it soon became clear..." Nostra Aetate doesn't explicitly discuss the state of Israel, though much of it obviously is devoted to a discussion of Judaism and the Jews. Does he mean that when the document was originally drafted as the "Decree on the Jews" there were initially references to Israel that were taken out when it was broadened to include other religions?

Pope: "My Only Formal Source of News is Reading a Leftist Anti-Catholic Newspaper for Ten Minutes a Day"

"The only bad thing about La Repubblica is that it uses so many big words."

Well, even only a few days later, this is an old story item to veteran Pope watchers. And of course, the Pope didn't say exactly that. But no one can claim that the title of this blog is an inaccurate or unfair parsing of what the Pope actually did say in an interview with an Argentinian journalist: He doesn't watch television or use the internet. And he leafs through La Repubblica--a leftist, anti-Catholic newspaper--for not more than ten-minutes a day.

The Pope's only formal source of news is a leftist anti-Catholic newspaper.

La Repubblica was founded forty years ago in part to oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Keep in mind that Pope Francis is if anything more concerned with world events than any other pope of modern times. His last encyclical was half about income inequality. His next encyclical will be about "climate change".

If I read nothing but La Repubblica, I would be concerned about climate change too.

And I wouldn't be a Catholic.

When this story came out a few days ago, here's what happened:

Traditionalists and other anti-Pope Francis Catholics shook their heads. Nothing surprises us any more.

A few Catholics in the middle were finally jolted into quitting their daily intake of Ultramontanist Kool-Aid.

Jimmy Aiken wrote a 60,000 word blog post precisely explaining why reading La Repubblica for ten minutes a day does not formally contradict any infallible teachings of the Magisterium.

The world continued to turn. For now at least.

Welcome to the New Normal.

In just two years Jose Maria Bergoglio has moved the Papal Normal line to a location previously  inconceivable. Most of us don't even realize it.

Say what you want about his two predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. You don't like the John Paul II altar girl thing? Fine. You don't like how Benedict didn't wear a cassock in the early 1960's? Fine. But you have to admit, these men were Catholic titans compared to Bergoglio.

John Paul read two complete philosophy journals before going to bed.

Benedict wrote the equivalent of two complete philosophy journals before going to bed.

Francis finishes up the La Repubblica comics before going to bed.

John Paul was Winston Churchill.

Benedict was Konrad Adenauer.

Francis is Chance the Gardener.

Finally, Good News! Illinois House and Senate Unanimously Vote to Stick It to Those Who Want to Stick It to the Jews

Boycott this, you Nazi freaks

So, as everyone paying attention knows by now, the United States currently has the most anti-Israel President in its history.

The good news is the mood of the country may be going in the opposite direction.

The unanimous result surprised even this Illinois resident. I do have to admit that I was looking forward to the vote but then missed it when it happened last week. I was reminded by PJ Media, but the following story is from Haaretz on May 19:

The Illinois State House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that would bar state pension funds from including companies that participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. 

The bill passed the state House on Monday by a vote of 102-0. It previously passed the Illinois State Senate unanimously, 49-0. 

The legislation now awaits Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner’s signature. With the governor’s signature, Illinois will become the first state to legislate against BDS. 

The bill requires the state’s pension system to remove companies that boycott Israel from their portfolios. The bill, an amendment, is based on existing legislation that the Illinois Investment Policy Board currently enforces, mandating that state pension funds be divested from foreign firms doing business in Iran, Sudan or other countries with known human rights violations. 

Rauner has indicated that he will sign the bill. In a tweet Monday shortly after the bill passed the House, Rauner wrote: “Looking forward to signing #SB1761 making IL first in the nation to fight BDS against Israel.” 

“At the core of the BDS movement is a quest to delegitimize Israel as a sovereign, democratic and Jewish state,” said Chicago Jewish United Fund President Steven Nasatir. “This bipartisan legislation sends a strong message that Illinois will not tolerate such efforts.” 

“We anticipate that this legislation will become a model for similar action in many other states,” Nasatir said. 

The Indiana and Tennessee state legislatures have both passed nonbinding resolutions opposing boycotts of Israel.

I don't really follow local politics, so I'm sure there are things about the nature and circumstances of the vote that I don't understand. But surely this cannot be anything but good.

Pope: "I Feel Like Saying Something Which May Sound Heretical..."

Please don't

Must the Vicar of Christ speak this way?

Seriously, must he?

In a May 23rd video address to a Christian unity gathering sponsored by the John 17 Movement, Pope Francis said:

I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps. But there is someone who ‘knows’ that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom.

I'm not now going to get into a discussion of if or when ecumenism becomes heretical, except to say that in fairness, Francis isn't really saying anything here that modern Church sources going at least as far back as Vatican II haven't already said or at least implied. And obviously, this was no solemn Papal pronouncement or document.

But the wording still disturbs. Does the Pope believe that for the contemporary Church the term "heresy" has meaning? If not, then I suppose that would be heretical. But if so, why is he using the word in that way? Clearly, he doesn't believe his (and the modern Church's) version of ecumenism is heretical. But then why does he say that it might sound heretical? How and to whom exactly? Wasn't this matter "settled" by numerous statements and official documents starting with Unitatis Redintegratio?

Now, one might say, the Pope is merely using a common turn of phrase--"this may sound heretical but I like the Designated Hitter rule" or whatever--but he's the Pope, for goodness sake, and he's speaking about issues--Christian unity and the alleged primacy of the Catholic Church, among other things--that have always been at least implicitly partly about what can and cannot be said in truth by faithful Christians and Catholics so as to be in conformity with Scripture and Christian tradition--in other words, what can and cannot be said without being heretical.

Yes, the Pope is being casual and imprecise (as he so often is) and even flippant (as he so often is) about theological terminology. But that's precisely the problem.

And of course this is against a background of the contemporary Church being rife with actual heresy.

Is this the worst from this Pope? Of course not. But that's partly because the list of these sorts of things is so long by now.

Do I take it seriously?

Yes and No.

Which, by the way, is the same answer I would give to the question of whether I take this Pope seriously.

Memorial Day

Afghanistan, 2010

O Lord Jesus Christ, the King of glory,
deliver the souls of all the faithful
departed from the pains of hell
and from the deep pit;
deliver them from the lion’s mouth
that hell engulf them not,
that they fall not into darkness;
but let Michael,
the holy standard-bearer,
bring them into the holy light
which Thou didst promise of old
to Abraham and his children.

Daniel Greenfield: ISIS is not a Reaction. It's the Underlying Pathology in the Muslim World

From Friday's Sultan Knish:

De-Islamization is the Only Way to Fight ISIS

Obama can’t defeat ISIS with soft power, though ISIS could beat him with soft power assuming its Caliph ever decided to agree to sit down at a table with John Kerry without beheading him. Iran has picked up billions in sanctions relief and the right to take over Yemen and raid ships in international waters in the Persian Gulf just for agreeing to listen to Kerry talk for an hour. 

And that might be a fair exchange. 

As bad as having your capital or ship seized by Iran is, listening to John Kerry talk is even worse. 

If ISIS were to agree to a deal, it could pick up Baghdad and Damascus just in exchange for showing up. All it would have to do is find a Jihadi who hasn’t chopped off any heads on camera to present as a moderate. The administration and its media operatives would accuse anyone who disagreed of aiding the ISIS hardliners at the expense of the ISIS moderates who also represent the hardliners. 

If Obama did that, he would at least lose in a way that he understands; instead of in a way he doesn’t. 

So far ISIS has preferred the classical approach of killing everything in its path. The approach, deemed insufficiently nuanced by masters of subtlety like Obama and Kerry, has worked surprisingly well. Their response, which is big on the Bush arsenal of drone strikes, Special Forces raids and selective air strikes, hasn’t. But Bush was fighting terrorist groups, not unrecognized states capable of taking on armies. 

It’s hard to destroy something if you don’t know what it is. And it’s hard to know what a thing is if you won’t even call it by its name or name its ideology. 

The left loves root causes, but the root cause of ISIS isn’t poverty, unemployment or a lack of democracy. 

It’s Islam. 

The Islamic State isn’t unnatural. Its strength comes from being an organic part of the region, the religion and its culture. Its Arab enemies have performed so poorly fighting it because their institutions, their governments and their armies are unstable imitations of Western entities. 

The United States can’t make the Iraqi army work because Iraq isn’t America. The assumptions about meritocracy, loyalty to comrades and initiative that make our military work are foreign in Iraq and Afghanistan where the fundamental unit is not the nation, but the tribe, clan and group. 

Iraq and Syria aren’t countries; they’re collections of quarreling tribes that were forced into an arrangement that included the forms of Western government without any of the substance. When the Europeans left, kingdoms quickly became military juntas. Now the juntas are fighting for survival against Islamic insurgencies that are striving to return the region to what it was in the days of Mohammed. 

ISIS is the ultimate decolonization effort. It’s what the left claims that it wants. But real decolonization means stripping away everything the Europeans brought, including constitutions, labor unions and elections. The cities that ISIS controls have been truly decolonized. There is no music, there are no rights, slavery is back and every decision is made by a cleric with a militia or a militia leader with a cleric. 

That’s Mohammed. It’s the Koran. It’s Islam. 

ISIS, or something very much like it, was always waiting to reemerge out of the chaos. Before ISIS, there were the Wahhabi armies of the Ikhwan which did most of the same things as ISIS. The British bombed them to pieces in the 1920s and the remainder became the Saudi Arabian National Guard. The insistence on democratic institutions weakened the military juntas holding back Islamist insurgencies. Islamists took power across the region. Where they couldn’t win elections, they went to war. But whether they won on the battlefield or the ballot box, violence and instability followed them. 

The fundamental mistake of the Arab Spring was the failure to understand that Islamist democracy is still a road leading to the Caliphate. Turkey’s Erdogan, the Islamist whose rule was used to prove that Islamist democracy can work, now openly promotes the reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire. Or as Mullah Krekar of Ansar Al-Islam put it, “The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion; it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the Caliphate. All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized efforts to bring back the Caliphate.” A decade later, the Norwegian Jihadist leader has proven to be more accurate than his Western hosts. 

ISIS is not a reaction. It’s the underlying pathology in the Muslim world. Everything planted on top of that, from democracy to dictatorships, from smartphones to soft drinks, suppresses the disease. But the disease is always there. The left insists that Western colonialism is the problem. But the true regional alternative to Western colonialism is slavery, genocide and the tyranny of Jihadist bandit armies. 

Our policy for fighting ISIS is colonialism by another name. We are trying to reform Iraqi institutions in line with our values and build a viable Iraqi military along the lines of our own military. We’re doing much of what the British were doing, but without their financial interests or imperial ambitions. 

And all of this is reluctantly overseen by Barack Obama; the progressive campaigner against colonialism. 

To deal with a problem, we must be honest about what it is and what we are doing about it. If we lie to ourselves, we cannot and will not succeed. After the failure of democracy and political Islam, Obama has been forced to return to what works. Islamization has failed and so we are back to trying Westernization. The missing element is admitting that Islamization has failed because Islam was the problem all along. The West is the solution. 

But institutional Westernization that that never goes beyond a few government offices and military officers won’t work. Neither will the attempt to artificially inject a few big ideas such as democracy into an undemocratic tribal culture. The only alternative to depending on military juntas is transforming the people. Sunni Gulf Arabs responded to their military and economic dependence on the West with a largely successful campaign to Islamize the West. The West won a culture war with the USSR. It is capable of winning one with Saudi Arabia. It has even unintentionally won a culture war with Iran. 

ISIS is not a military force. It is a cultural one. Much of its success has come from its cultural appeal. 

As long as the Middle East is defined in terms of Islam, some variation of the Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood bent on recreating the Caliphate will continue reemerging. We can accept that and give up, but the growing number of Muslim migrants and settlers mean that it will emerge in our country as well. 

We have a choice between Islamization and de-Islamization. 

After defeating Saddam, we pursued the de-Baathization of Iraq. If we are going to intervene in the Muslim world, it should not be to reward one Islamist group, whether it’s Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood, at the expense of another. Instead we must carve out secular spaces by making it clear that our support is conditional on civil rights for Christians, non-believers and other non-Muslims. 

Our most potent weapon isn’t the jet, it’s our culture. We disrupt Islamists with our culture even when we aren’t trying. Imagine what we could accomplish if we really tried. 

But first we must abandon the idea that we need to take sides in Islamic civil wars. Any intervention we undertake should be conditioned on a reciprocal degree of de-Islamization from those governments that we are protecting. Instead of pursuing democracy, we should strengthen non-Islamic and counter-Islamic forces in the Muslim world. 

We can’t beat ISIS with Islam and we can’t fight for freedom while endorsing constitutions that make Sharia law into the law of the land in places like Iraq and Libya. 

We don’t only need to defeat ISIS. We must defeat the culture that makes ISIS inevitable. 

Daniel Greenfield is a blogger and columnist born in Israel and living in New York City. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Muslim Food Vendor Caught Selling $30 Hot Dogs to Tourists Outside 9/11 Memorial

The mustard was free

Ground Zero.

We kill you. Then we overcharge you.

That's from the Verse of the Sword, I think.

From the Daily Mail (scroll down for NBC 4 Video):

Crooked NYC food vendor caught charging tourists $30 for a hot dog and $15 for a pretzel outside 9/11 Memorial

• Ahmed Mohammed was caught on camera selling hot dogs for $30 to tourists in New York City outside the 9/11 Memorial
• The vendor changed his prices depending on the customer and also shortchanged some individuals
• When confronted about his practices he said he did not speak English

By Chris Spargo, 20 May, 2015.

A crooked New York City food vendor has been caught on camera as he successfully rips off tourists. 

Ahmed Mohammed is seen charging individuals anywhere from $3 to a whopping $30 for a hot dog, and as much as $15 for a pretzel. 

What's more, he is doing this just outside the 9/11 Memorial in downtown Manhattan. 

"I just felt like I was getting ripped off, and it's just making the 9/11 grounds like a big tourist trap," one woman told NBC 4. 

Another man said the price of his hot dog kept changing, going from $15 to $10, prompting the man to hand back the food to Mohammed even though he had already taken a bite. 

"To rip-off somebody, to charge them $35 for a hot dog and a pretzel, that leaves a terrible impression," said Jessica Lappin of the Alliance for Downtown New York. 

She became aware of the situation when fights began breaking out because of Mohammed's prices. 

That's not the only problem either, as other customers say the vendor will shortchange them after their purchase. 

When a reporter for the network confronted him about his prices, he suddenly declared he did not speak English, though he did offer to sell them a hot dog for $3, which is still far steeper than the normal $1 charged by most vendors in the city. 

Mohammed is currently under investigation by the Alliance.

The New Charlie Is Not Charlie

She thought they were on her side

This will break your heart:

Charlie Hebdo accused of hypocrisy as it suspends journalist after death threats over her articles attacking Islam

• Charlie Hebdo columnist Zineb El Rhazoui, 33, has been suspended
• She has received death threats for her articles attacking Islamic extremism
• Thousands have accused magazine of 'hypocrisy' for not supporting writer
• Mrs El Rhazoui 'shocked' by decision which comes months after attack

By Jenny Awford, Daily Mail, May 16, 2015. 

Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been accused of hypocrisy after it suspended a journalist who has received death threats for her articles attacking Islamic extremism. 

Zineb El Rhazoui, 33, was called to a preliminary dismissal hearing to remind her of her 'obligations' towards the French weekly following 'numerous incidents'. 

The French-Moroccan columnist accused her employers of trying to 'punish her' for speaking out about the direction of the magazine four months after the jihadist attack which left 12 dead. 

'I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,' she told Le Monde. 

My husband lost his job and had to leave Morocco because the jihadists revealed his workplace. I am under threat and having to live with friends or in a hotel and the management is thinking of firing me. Bravo Charlie.' 

The move has prompted outrage on social media with thousands calling the decision 'absurd' and bewildering'. 

Mrs El Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, received death threats on Twitter from people claiming to be from Islamic State in February. 

Photoshopped images of the couple dressed as ISIS prisoners about to be executed emerged on social media along with a map showing the places the journalist often visited. 

Speaking at the time she said: 'Pictures of my husband, his workplace and geolocation information have been published, as well as various suggestions on how to bump us off.' 

The human rights campaigner was one of 15 Charlie Hebdo writers, editors and cartoonists who wrote an open letter criticizing the magazine's owners and management in late March. 

They raised fears that the left-wing and anti-religious magazine might succumb to the 'poison of the millions' of euros that had flooded in since with terrorist attack in Paris in January. 

The group called for the magazine to become a 'co-operative' and asked for its new found riches to be placed in a trust to guarantee the magazines' survival for '30 years'. 

Killers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi targeted Charlie Hebdo after the controversial paper published cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed. 

Armed with assault rifles the masked gunmen stormed the office and butchered 12 people including editor Stéphane Charbonnier, known as Charb. 

It was labelled the 'bloodiest attack on French soil in half a century' and millions of people around the world were inspired to declare 'Je Suis Charlie' to show their solidarity. 

But now thousands, including the magazine's own writers, have accused the weekly of 'hypocrisy' after failing to support its own staff. 

Writer Patrick Pelloux said: 'We are all still trying to cope with life after the attack,' he said. 'It is nasty and unfair to call a disciplinary meeting for a member of staff who is still suffering incredibly.' 

'It is paradoxical that the magazine receives prizes for freedom of expression while disciplining a journalist whose life is under threat'. 

Oliver Farry ‏tweeted: 'The lack of self-consciousness among Charlie Hebdo management is bewildering.' 

Romain Burrel said: 'Even Charlie Hebdo is no longer Charlie. Zineb El Rhazoui is laid off.' 

A spokesman for Charlie Hebdo said there were no plans to fire Ms El Rhazoui. 

He said the journalist was suspended and called to an 'interview' to remind her of her 'responsibilities'.

And what are those responsibilities exactly?

Licking Abdul's boots?

French Mayor "Hospitalized" for Attacking Islam

Robert Chardon

Will this be the fate of all of us?

From Bare Naked Islam:

French Mayor under fire for calling for Islam to be banned in France 

The mayor of a small town in the southeast of France is sending out tweets with the message: “We must ban the Muslim faith in France.” 

World Bulletin Robert Chardon is mayor of Venelles, a town near Aix-en-Provence with a population of 8,000. He represents the Union for a Popular Movement party, one of the largest conservative parties in France, and that of former president Nicolas Sarkozy. He is also vice president of the Organization of Municipalities around Aix-en-Provence. 

Since Thursday, he has been sending out various tweets with the anti-Muslim message. “We also need a Marshall Plan to send Muslims to countries where the religion is practiced,” he said in his tweets. 

According to him, Islam belongs to the Maghreb and France should welcome more of its “brothers” among the Oriental Christians. He also said France’s 1905 secularism law — which guarantees freedom of religion — should be removed and ” the Republic should promotes the practice of the Christian faith.” 

He told the French daily Le Monde that “it’s the only solution for most of France’s problems.” 

Under the terms of French law, Chardon could be liable for criminal prosecution for making these remarks. 

Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Abdallah Zekri, president of the National Observatory against Islamophobia, denounced Chardon’s comments describing them as “unacceptable” and as a breach of France’ secularism “that grants citizens the freedom of belief.” 

” It is not up to a racist mayor, who knows nothing about religions to decide such a thing,”Zekri added. He urged French authorities and Sarkozy to declare their “clear” position regarding the mayor’s remarks. 

Sudouest As a result of his remarks, Robert Chardon was hospitalized under the involuntary confinement provision at the request of a third party in view of “the incoherence of his words”

UPDATE (9:30 CST): Gates of Vienna translates some recent French news stories, though if anything, they deepen the mystery. Apparently he is being treated for cancer. Was he "forcibly" confined? Was it for psychiatric reasons or due to his cancer? The sources differ.

Flashback: Dershowitz on the Right-Hand Man of Pope Francis: "A Notorious Anti-Semite"

Jews and capitalists must use the other stairway

More than two years ago, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI stepped down, Alan Dershowitz wrote a highly critical piece on one of the men discussed as his potential successors.

It was Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras.

As we all know, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was instead elected as Pope Francis a few weeks later. However, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga has since worked closely with Francis, and many have called him his "right-hand man". The Cardinal recently came out swinging against opponents of the anticipated encyclical on climate change, saying that they are allied to "capitalists" who "don't want to give up their profits."

Ironically, people are once again speculating that he might be the next Pope--this time to succeed Francis.

Cardinal Maradiaga has an interesting history. He is perhaps thought of now as a theological "liberal", or even modernist (he recently criticized the Church's earlier attacks on modernism) certainly a leftist on economics--perhaps a sympathizer with the liberation theology that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI opposed so strongly. However some on the left are suspicious of him. At the height of the Church's campaign against liberation theology he made some noises in favor of that campaign. Originally, a supporter of the leftist Zelaya government in Honduras, he then supported the military coup against it. He also made a number of strong public statements in seeming support of orthodox teachings on contraception and the like (though often interpreted through the lens of "colonialist oppression),.

Now he seems to be firmly behind the relativistic "who am I to judge?" philosophy of the Francis pontificate.

A cynic would say that the Cardinal adopts his words and actions to whatever he perceives to be the political mood, in a way favorable to...the Cardinal

But one of the most notorious episodes of his career was publicly placing the blame for the clerical sex-abuse scandals on, wait for it...the Jews.

The following 2013 Gatestone Institute piece by Dershowitz was an expansion of a piece he wrote in 2009, and is in turn based primarily on statements Rodriguez Maradiaga made in 2002 when the clerical abuse scandal was exploding into the public consciousness. Dershowitz comes off strong and scathing, some would even say over the top--as it typical whenever he perceives anti-semitism. (Regular readers of this blog may not find this unfamiliar.)  But given the Cardinals actual words, who can fault him? 

Will a Notorious Anti-Semite Become The Pope 

Among those being considered to succeed Pope Benedict XVI is a notorious anti-Semite, Cardinal Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras. His name has appeared on various media short lists and his photograph was featured, along with other possible candidates, on the front page of the Miami Herald. He was also under consideration the last time around, and his Latin American heritage is considered a plus this time. He is very charismatic and popular in his home country and was recently invited to speak to Latino Catholics in the United States. 

To put it most simply, Rodriguez Maradiaga is an out and out Jew-hater. He has said that "the Jews" are to blame for the scandal surrounding the sexual misconduct of priests toward young parishioners! The Jews? How did Rodriguez Maradiaga ever come up with this hair-brained idea? Here is his "logic." He begins by asserting that the Vatican is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian (as he says it should be). It follows, therefore, that "the Jews" had to get even with the Catholic Church, while at the same time deflecting attention away from Israeli injustices against the Palestinians. The Jews managed to do this by arranging for the media—which he says they control—to give disproportionate attention on the Vatican sex scandal. 

Listen to Rodriguez Maradiaga's own words: 

It certainly makes me think that in a moment in which all the attention of the mass media was focused on the Middle East, all the many injustices done against the Palestinian people, the print media and the TV in the United States became obsessed with sexual scandals that happened 40 years ago, 30 years ago. Why? I think it's also for these motives: What is the church that has received Arafat the most times and has most often confirmed the necessity of the creation of a Palestinian state? What is the church that does not accept that Jerusalem should be the indivisible capital of the State of Israel, but that it should be the capital of the three great monotheistic religions?

Rodriguez Maradiaga then goes on to compare the Jewish controlled media with "Hitler," because they are "protagonists of what I do not hesitate to define as a persecution against The Church." 

The prime media culprit in Rodriguez Maradiaga's bizarro world is the Boston Globe, which has won numerous journalistic awards for its exposure of the sex scandal and cover up. The Globe is owned by The New York Times, which is controlled by the Sulzberger family. Hence the Jewish conspiracy. The problem (among so many) with this cockamamie theory is that the Jewish community of Boston was very close to, and admiring of, Cardinal Bernard Law, who presided over the archdiocese during the scandal. Cardinal Law had built bridges between the Catholic and Jewish communities of Boston, and when the scandal was exposed by the very un-Jewish Boston Globe, the Jewish community remained largely supportive of Law. None of the leading media critics, lawyers or politicians who railed against the church were Jewish. Most were Catholic. But that didn't matter to the bigoted cardinal, who -- along with other classic anti-Semites -- believes that if there is a problem, "the Jews" must be to blame for it. As James Carrol, the distinguished columnist for the Boston Globe who is himself a Catholic, has characterized Rodriguez Maradiaga's "crackpot" mindset: "when the church has a problem—here is the oldest move of all—blame the Jews." 

When asked whether he wanted to reconsider his attack, Rodriguez Maradiaga replied: "I don't repent... sometimes it is necessary to shake things up." He later promised Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League that he wouldn't repeat his conspiratorial nonsense, but he has refused to publicly apologize or "repent." 

The Vatican has rightly called anti-Semitism a "sin," and yet an unrepentant sinner is on the short list to become the leader of the Catholic Church. Is it because the other cardinals are unaware of Rodriguez Maradiaga's anti-Semitism? Unlikely, because he has made no secret of his bigotry against the Jews. Or is it because not enough of them care as much as they should? 

As a Jew, I have no standing to, or stake in, whether the new pope is conservative or liberal on Catholic doctrine, but I and all other people who care about Catholic-Jewish relations do have standing and a major stake in assuring that an anti-Semite is never considered for such a high calling. Just as there was a universal outcry when the former Nazi Kurt Waldheim was elected to the presidency of Austria, so too should there be a universal outcry if this cardinal, whose rants could comfortably have been published by Der Stürmer, were to be elected head of the Catholic Church. 

If Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga were to be elected pope, much of the good work done by recent popes in building bridges between the Catholic Church and the Jews would be endangered. This should not be allowed to happen. The campaign against this bigot must begin now before his candidacy develops more traction. 

February 19, 2013. 

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.

---------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT: Shortly after I posted this, a friend designed this brilliant picture:

Pamela Geller on Vatican Treaty: "This is a Massive Betrayal of Israel and All Free People, and an Endorsement of the Genocidal 'Palestinian' Jihad Against the Jews"

Munich, 1972: A Palestinian nation builder

One-hundred-and-fifty years ago (and for over a thousand years before that) the Catholic Church actually had a state. And it did more than just mint postage stamps. It had soldiers and courts and taxes and everything.

Now, that "state" is for most practical purposes non-existent. And it has been reduced to making treaties with other non-existent states.

Such as "Palestine".

The Vatican recently announced it would recognize and sign a treaty with the state of Palestine--a fictional entity that the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization would like to actualize.

How many Jews did you kill at the Munich Olympics, Johnny Palestine?

And I was worried about a kissing scandal.

Let's listen to Pamela Geller, one of the great heroines of our time:

This is a massive betrayal of Israel and all free people, and an endorsement of the genocidal “Palestinian” jihad against the Jews. A “State of Palestine” will no more bring peace than did the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza: just as with Gaza, a “State of Palestine” will just become another jihad base. The Vatican has every reason to know that. The “Palestinians” on their official media outlets make no secret of their goal of wiping out Israel and killing Jews wholesale. 

Now the Vatican has signed on to that.

The current leftist Pope is supposedly utterly opposed to the very real anti-semitism of a small segment of rightest traditionalists. "Interfaith" dialogues and prayers are held with Rabbis (and Imams) on consecrated Catholic grounds--including inviting Jewish priests (and Imams) to preside at the very alters that contain the relics of the Christian martyrs.

But the Vatican has just endorsed the cause of those who wish to destroy the Jewish state.

One might be forgiven for thinking that in practice, liberal Catholicism and the most right-wing Jewish conspiracy-obsessed SSPX offshoots now agree on one thing. It's a recurrently popular philosophical claim with a venerable pedigree:

Stick it to the Jews.

At least the SSPX offshoots are more honest about it.

Every Sunday and (when I am not lazy) on other days, I attend a Traditional Latin Mass that begins with these words from Psalm 42:

Priest: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the unholy nation, deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man. 

Server: For Thou, O God, art my strength, why hast Thou cast me off? And why do I go about in sadness, while the enemy afflicts me? 

Priest: Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy mount, and into Thy tabernacles. 

Server: And I will go unto the altar of God: to God, Who gives joy to my youth.

God chose to reveal Himself first to the Jews and the Jewish nation. How fitting that the current Church on Earth--which, while refusing to kneel to God, advocates kneeling to individual men--has chosen to betray His first chosen nation.

O God...distinguish my cause from the unholy nation, deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

He will, of course.

That should bring comfort to some. And (if they have eyes to see) trepidation to many more.

NOT A PARODY: Actual Author of Evangelii Gaudium, a Priest, Also Wrote "Heal Me With Your Mouth, The Art of Kissing"

Scribble scribble. Kissy kissy.

(A more detailed analysis of Fernández and the tempest involving Muller and the upcoming encyclical was offered yesterday by Elliot Bougis on OnePeterFive.)

When we say, in the words of Mario Palmaro and journalist Alessandro Gnocchi, "we don't like this Pope," we're basing that not just on what Francis has said or done, but on the people he chooses to back, promote or surround himself with.

There's Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga--the Pope's "right-hand-man"--who, just yesterday, spat Marxist venom at those faithful Catholics who had the temerity to disagree with Francis about the weather. There's that pederast bishop in Chile. There are those spiritually dead pro-divorce cardinals in Germany, bishops of a Church of Simony, whose individual annual stipends could support entire African nations.

Then there's Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández. Now, Fernández is the Pope's ghostwriter. Unlike his predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict the XVI, Pope Francis is no scholar. He's also no writer. He may (to quote his own words) have a "humility" that his predecessors lacked. But he doesn't have the literary skill. If you're reading this right now, chances are 50/50 you could write a more fluent encyclical than Francis could. So he has a ghostwriter to write his encyclicals for him.

And no, I don't mean that Ghost writer.

First, don't misunderstand. I'm not criticizing the Pope for having a ghostwriter per se. For example, I'm confident Saint Pius X had more than a few.

But if you are a pope, you get to choose your ghostwriters. The ghostwriter of Pope Francis is a weirdo.

Why do I say this?

Well, first of all, the most important rule of ghostwriters is this: Never ever call attention you yourself.

The current Pope's ghostwriter just did exactly that. He recently went public and blamed one of the highest ranking members of the Church--Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--for why the "Pope's" next encyclical would be delayed. You see, he wouldn't be able to "get the new encyclical past him".

Oh sure, that bolsters the respect owed to the Magisterium.

But more importantly, this ghostwriter is a weirdo. Twenty years ago he wrote a book called Saname con tu boca ("Heal Me With Your Mouth, The Art of Kissing").

That's right, the actual author of Evangelii Gaudium wrote "Heal Me With Your Mouth, The Art of Kissing".

That a priest would write such a book has struck some as a bit odd. What would a priest know about "healing with my mouth"?

Stop snickering.

But Fernández actually gave an answer in an interview:

I want to clarify that this book is not written from my own experience, but from the lives of people kissing. In these pages I want to synthesize the popular feeling, what people feel when they think of a kiss, what they experienced when they kiss. For that I chatted at length with many people who have abundant experience in this area, and also with many young people learn to kiss. In addition, I consulted many books, and I wanted to show how the poets talk about the kiss. So, I tried to synthesize the immense richness of life, these pages, out of the kiss. I hope they help you kiss better, and motivate you to release the best of your being in a kiss.

This man wrote Evangelii Gaudium.

Let that sink in.

Now he's in the midst of writing the ultimate encyclical on "climate change".

I'm done, man. I'm just done. Bring on the End Times after I go to confession. How could it get any worse than this?

Don't tell me. I'm sure we'll find out tomorrow.