Monday, November 5, 2007

Personal Aside: Kristin McQueary of Daily Southtown Scores High Points in Her Debut with Paul Caprio of Family PAC…Saturday Night Live Featuring Barack Obama a Cheap Shot at Hillary…No Feedback from the Archdiocese on the DePaul President’s Rejoinder...


“Daily Southtown” political columnist Kristin McQueary scored well in her debut on my WLS-AM radio show, appearing with veteran conservative analyst Paul Caprio, director of Family PAC. One of the surprises of the night was a call from a listener who is a state employee—who said that if Gov. Blagojevich had to complete the same ethics form that every state government employee has to, he would not be able to qualify as ethics-free basis the state’s yardstick. That’s one thing about talk radio: listeners supply ideas that rarely occur to political writers. It’ll be interesting to see if this turns up in a story somewhere.

Saturday Night Live.

The highly touted “Saturday Night Live” show featuring Barack Obama was amateurish, poorly acted and constituted what I would imagine is a corporate contribution to the Obama campaign. You can see for yourself on YouTube shown on the “Sun-Times” website. Ridicule was larded on all the other Democratic candidates…particularly Hillary Clinton…by the amateurish cast. She was repeatedly called a “witch” by the actor playing her husband. Slurs were directed to candidates Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden…but the most scathing and to my mnd totally brutal presentation was given to Hillary Clinton—all as a buildup to the arrival of Destiny’s Tot Obama who was given lines like “I know who I am so I don’t have to make believe I’m someone else, Hillary.” The actress playing Hillary was dressed in a bride’s outfit: what that was supposed to symbolize I don’t know. The script could easily have been written by David Axelrod and for all I know possibly was.

Given the present level of political correctness I doubt if SNL would be up to parodying Obama. At least Saturday there were no punches or even gentle digs tossed his way. We are evidently still at a stage where it is regarded as unfunny to subject an African American candidate with the ridicule that goes undeviatingly to white ones.

No Feedback.

There has been no feedback from the archdiocese or its many bureaucrats to the rebuke delivered by the president of DePaul in letter replying to criticism of the notorious “Out There” conference, portions of which mingled gay rights advocacy along with much diluted Catholic dogma. The letter which was published in the “Chicago New World” politely told the archdiocese that DePaul runs as its faculty decides without interference from the Church.

Typically it appears the issue of DePaul’s continuation as a so-called “Catholic university” is a dead letter. Not a word about the possibility of removing it has come from Superior street. Intriguing to some is the official diocesan not-so-even-handedness in

dealing with some authenticists harshly…and with recrimination…in contrast to its proclivity to go light on liberal critics of Church dogma i.e. Fr. Andrew Greeley, an oft-time dinner guest and host who has escorted high clerical officials to dinner and the opera. Fr. Greeley has been noteworthy for his column written during the elevation of Benedict XVI that maintained that in the past the Holy Spirit erred in picking men of sinful nature to the papacy—not recognizing that Church theology maintains the power of the Holy Spirit has continued inviolate by preserving even earthen vessel popes from promulgating error. That’s what Catholics used to learn in the Baltimore Catechism. Greeley’s attacks on the Church for its “Humanae Vitae” position while a priest of the archdiocese—which constitutes scandal to many—rolls like water off a duck’s back while he enjoys hobnobbing with its officialdom.

There are still some who feel keenly the sting of the lash whenever criticism of some authenticist action is made in high places. Not this writer. We’re not in the medieval age any longer, folks. This archdiocese has a lot to answer for concerning the laxity that enabled far more than one roman-collared pedophile to prey on children while seminary files were “lost” that could have prevented same. The “teaching” that goes on at DePaul is merely an outward sign of what has been tolerated through almost administrative ineffectiveness and weakness in the past. Rather than complain about the media, archdiocesan officials should be thankful that the two major newspapers are as spinelessly tolerant as they have been heretofore.


  1. I remember the sixties when the Catholic church in many ways swung to the left. When you study the situation you soon see that for years the Catholic Church has been seen by the leftists as a ripe plum for the picking. Organized religion in its unadulterated form is against liberals and their leftist agenda which is atheist and demeaning of the Ten Commandments. The leftist social agenda thrives on sexual deviancy from adultery, to abortion, to divorce, to deviant sex. If the leftists could "move into" the Church and knock down its foundations then criticism of the left from the Church would diminish as the Church moved in line with leftist goals.

    The poison started in the seminaries.

    But the Catholic Church is not the only victim. The same thing happened to the Episcopal Church, the National Council of Churches, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and even in the Jewish Synagogue where Michael Medved lamented that the Reform Jewish Congregations were now effectively the same as the Democratic Party but with holidays.

    If you could turn the Church leftist then you could turn cities lefties, ala Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.

    This infiltration of the Church was not by accident. It is like the infiltration of the Conservative Movement by the so called "former Troskyite leftists", the neo-cons the neo-cons started off as "friends" of the traditional conservatives and then proceeded to rewrite the book! And then pushed the traditional conservatives to the side. And then insulated themselves from criticism. (click on the URL below)

    For example if you criticize the leftists in the Church hard enough.... they will get out the trusty liberal box of labels and slam a nasty one on you so as to make you look foolish, irrelevant, and ignorant.

    Oh how clever these people are! It is sad to see how many people fall for their devious ways.

  2. Mr. Roeser, you praised Cardinal George's letter. It was strongly worded, if one knows how to read the conventional language.

    Now you are lambasting him for not responding to DePaul's response in the manner you judge appropriate.

    I've got news for you: the cardinal archbishop doesn't necessarily need you to yank his chain in public. Go after DePaul, for God's sake, if you are going to use public opinion pressure methods.

    Initially that's what you did--denounced the snotty letter. Why could you not continue the pressure on DePaul? Why now turn on Cardinal George because he does not choose your method of responding. You have no idea what he is doing behind the scenes. His behind-the-scenes work has had an effect, witness the Catholic Studies Program at DePaul, which arose in significant part because of the cardinal's public, low-key criticism of DePaul for having no Catholic theology program at all and hence not needing any mandates combined, I'm sure, with plenty of private jawboning.

  3. Mr Mathetes writes that "you have no idea what Cdl. George is doing behind the scenes."

    Correct, I suppose.

    Over the last 50 years, most Catholics have had no idea what their Bishops were doing "behind the scenes." There's a good reason for that: most Bishops were doing NOTHING "behind the scenes." Worse, some Bishops were doing something--criminal assaults on children--or obstruction of justice--interfering with criminal prosecution of their priests for those same crimes.

    Back in the "good old days" Bishops and priests got away with that because, after all, no Catholic would EVER DARE question the bona fides of someone in a Roman collar.

    But the "good old days" are over. We expect actual real-live MEN (like B-16, for example) who call a spade a spade, and do so loudly (not necessarily with acrimony.)

    Yes, we want a "muscular" Roman Catholic church which operates 'in FRONT of the scenes' where actions and motives can be judged accordingly.