The article unadulterated can be found HERE

William F. Buckley Jr. provided the intellectual underpinning of the conservative movement that has shaped American politics since 1964. He was also a devout Christian and a committed Catholic.

But let’s be clear, Buckley was a Catholic but a conservative first, even according to his close friends.

Once, responding to a popular profanation by Nietzsche, Buckley famously proclaimed, “And best of all it appears that God is not dead. He seems to have survived even Vatican II.”

Sounds like Tradish humor…

I did not.

Oh here we go…

I spent early mornings every day for six or seven years on my knees as an altar boy and I believed in the teaching of the Church and the infallibility of the pope. Knowingly eating meat on Friday was, indeed, a mortal sin.

Keep in mind that knowingly and willingly disobeying a law, like a penitential one, bound by the church, and doing it of your own free will is …. AHHHHH… a mortal sin, yes it is. You know what little the church asks, but people complain about little penances. Go live in the Middle East cry babies

If you stepped off the curb leaving McDonald’s just after eating a Big Mac and were killed by a truck you were consigned to an eternity absent the glory of God.

Because you knew not to do X, you knew the consequences so deal with it! Actions have consequences, what are you a progressive?

Then came Pope John XXIII. He was a breath of fresh air for a faith in need of one.

Well that’s subjective word play

Vatican II brought many changes. I was bereft over the loss of the Latin Mass, but then I was a romantic.

Wasn’t lost, but hard to find. Yet the faith was still there. You on the otherhand being a romantic, up in the air with emotions and politics?

More meaningful to many was the dismissal of the formerly mortal sin of eating meat on Friday.

Read above and also note that people were still bound to practice some form of penance if they choose to eat meat on Friday.

One had to wonder about those who had missed confession on Saturday evening because of the truck. Would this pope retrieve them from Hell?

The rhetoric is weak here. Stop the non sense. You have a free will to choose for or against Christ and for those that he gives authority to bind and loose. Christ told the Apostles he who hears you hears me and he who despises you despises me. He promised the spirit would be with them until the end of the age and that it would lead them into all truth (see Apostolic Authority that continues to this day by way of the Catholic Church that was founded by Christ)

Papal infallibility began to falter in my little corner of the world.

Pride, you want to be your own Pope be honest

Papal encyclicals are letters illuminating the pope’s thinking on some aspect of Catholic dogma to a faith of over a billion people. Pope Pius XII proclaimed them the final authority to end debate on a given topic.

This is a pure lie. Pius said nothing of the sort. The texts are part of the ordinary magestarium unless otherwise noted. Being part of the ordinary means that they are subject to the rest of the churches immemorial teachings. If novelties exist they don’t hold binding power. That’s Catholic teaching. Your citations please.

Papal encyclicals have spoken to life’s prosaic experience on earth as well as the dogma of the church.

Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, confronted industrialists for abusing the rights of workers and argued that man, created in God’s image, had inherent human rights to dignity and property.

Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, issued just after the Cuban missile crisis, proclaimed Peace on Earth and was applauded by President John F. Kennedy. Some, noting that the pope commanded no troops, considered it well intended, but benign.

In Redemptor Hominis Pope John Paul II presaged his crusade on behalf of human dignity in the face of communism. His was the most potent moral voice of the 20th Century and his nine-day pilgrimage to Poland, just one year before Solidarity, foreshadowed the end of Soviet domination in Poland and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

In the first two years of this papacy Francis seems more attuned to politics than dogma. He has issuedEvangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), an Apostolic Exhortation in which he attacked “unfettered capitalism” as a new tyranny and condemned “trickle down” economics.

In a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas he promised to sign a papal agreement implicitly recognizing a Palestinian State.

I guess you were asleep at the wheel with Benedict doing the same implicit recognition during his Papacy? Its not just bad guys there, but Catholics who the Pope cares for and wants to help however he can.

After meeting Pope Francis, Cuba’s President Raul Castro expressed a renewed interest in Catholic teachings after his 70-year absence from the sacraments and President Barack Obama has credited the pope for the thaw in relations between Cuba and the United States.

Next month Pope Francis will weigh in on climate change. We can anticipate that he will focus on the poor, and how an increase in global temperature will exacerbate the pain in their lives.

Global temperatures have been both higher and lower than today’s. Warmer temperatures have produced longer growing seasons and more rain to grow a plant to eat. CO2, the villain in the warmist’s melodrama, is necessary for that plant to grow.

In any event, the pope’s caring and empathy for the poor will not alter the sun’s impact on the earth’s temperature. His Father handles that.

Must not know too much Catholic history. For instance when the Cure of Ars was about restoring his whole Parish, the area experienced no violent storms and was well provided for.

Pope Urban VIII insinuated the papacy into frank science by imprisoning Galileo for the profanation of asserting that the earth orbits the sun.

It had to do with Galileo claiming separate authority to interprete the Bible with very little to no evidence besides his theory. Plus calling home imprisonment in his own lavish apartment with the continued ability to provide for his studies is hardly an imprisonment.

When Pope Francis locks up Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley for the profanation of ridiculing President Obama’s recent Global Warming silliness at the Coast Guard Academy graduation we will know that Lord is in his Holy Place and all is right with the world.

Perhaps mockery is your thing. Get back to confession and quit your angry streak. This is a prudential matter and mockery is not needed.

I respectfully suggest that Pope Francis’ encyclical on this difficult issue will not end, or even alter, the scientific debate on man’s impact on God’s creation.

Just as the mastery of music confers no unique insights as to nuclear war, the study of the Word of God confers no unique insights into climate science.

Oh, so now the Pope cannot put forth even principles.

Pope Francis has an elevated pulpit for instructing the faithful on the path to salvation. His instructions on the scientific method are not equally elevated.

If abortion, contraception, self-abuse, avarice, gluttony, no fault divorce as well as substantial environment harming practices remain, climate shifts will come, and they will be man made.

Dominus vobiscum.

Your not a priest.

The Blaze

Just when you thought the Tolkien controversy was the greatest side stepping of real issues affecting the church today I give you this:

So on Saturday I came home from work and saw a story on the side bar of the blaze that made me laugh, then shake my head: Catholics Divided on Libertarianism as ‘Heresy’. Ok so there is utter maddness about with the travels about of Cardinal Kasper, the generation from 18-23 year old actual Catholics being non existent, continued irreverence at least passively if not actively endorsed by Archbishop Gomez (at LA's education conference) or Pope Francis with Jesus Christ in plastic cups at world youth day. There are so many things that are so much more important to this than trying to define libertarianism, which libertarians disagree with each other about to begin with, as heresy.

First if it is heresy then you have heretics not just identifying as progressives or consevatives, but actually quite a few traditionalists who are not prone to think only of post conciliar decrees as important would identify politically as libertarians. People like Tom Woods (of How the catholic church built western civilization" book fame) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (who appears as a legal expert on many shows and makes it clear he is a pre-vatican II Catholic, which is confusing but he is not SSPX but probably more along the lines of FSSP).

If you read the Blaze article it brings up three articles written very recently by Michael Winters of NCReporter (aka fishwrap, aka that paper that John Allen wrote for knowing that the paper was heretical yet people treat him to this day like he is a good source, when he really knew he was feeding error, oh he even was endorsed by my Bishop to give a speech, oh Milwaukee you are useless). The other is by Mark Shea (the ubber reactionary of neo-cons, Mark lets be real you are reading this) which is the article that outright condemns libertarianism as a heresy. The final article I will post on this is one by Joe Hargrave entitled Mark Shea's Economic inquisiton (Which Mark Shea has been whining about ever since because hes being picked on... put on your big boy pants Mark. Consider asking Jimmy Akin to write a piece entitled "9 things to know and share about how writing posts that counter Mark Shea posts is dastardly")

I take no position on the matter of libertarianism probably because I'm a distributist and of the monarchial view on government. By the way does anyone else find it odd that Mark Shea who writes for Heresy central (AKA Patheos, think about it, its pure indifferentism) is calling others out for being heretics.

Also I have put two videos below with differing view points on the matter for those interested in seeing the two views.

The first is by a seminarian in Canada who always puts about great YouTube videos. His view is that libertarianism is not enough.

The second is by Tom Woods from his recent show where he tries to show how it is compatible with Christianity

I do think that we can agree that atheistic libertarianism espoused by the likes of Ayn Rand is devoid of compatibility. There was an interesting article on how the satanist Anton LaVey was greatly encouraged by Rand's works and recommends her stuff for what its worth on the Acton blog.

Meanwhile we whistle dixie