Catholic Resources

UnApologetic Catholic Sites

  • Pat Mulcahey's Caritas Christi Urget Nos
    a Deacon discerns the priesthood and shares his journey with us. God bless him! May Christ's love impel us all to answer His Call.
  • Cafeteria Catholic
    Demostrating yet again that the Catholic Cafeteria is as spiritually filling as the othodox deli.
  • Bad Catholic
    A "Bad in Name Only" Catholic voices strong opinions
  • Dappled Things
    Priests are busy. Thankfully, some blog, unapologetically
  • Disputations
    Criticial thinking of the highest order from a Venn Master, demonstrating that reason is the most effective apologetics
  • Journey to Vatican III
    Rebecca Nappi, Theologian and Newpaper Columnist with rare insights
  • Flos Carmeli
    Discussions in a Carmelite Tradition
  • The Lesser of Two Weevils
    A zen Catholic studying Hebrew and finding God in quantum physics is sure to have interesting things to say!
  • Built on a Rock
    Commentary on ecumenical issues is unsurpassed.
  • Noli Irritare Leones
    Yet another thoughtful calm commentary on religion, Catholics, politics and the world written by a non-Catholic.
  • Catholic Sensibility
    A "peace"ful website by a sensible Catholic liturgist usually avoiding the Catholic blog fratricide
  • Real Live Preacher
    OK, OK, He's not even Catholic--But he's a model for the unapologetic Christian who evangelizes with the lure of a Cristian life well lived and observed, not the hammer of screaming apologetics hellfire and brimstone.
  • Open Book
    Most unapologetic site by a true apologetic Catholic in the best sense of the word
  • Catholicism, Spirituality and Holiness
    Thoughtful Catholic man combines family, career and faith.

Noteworthy Catholic and Religious Blogs

  • A Cautious Man
    Pointing out that we could all be a little more cautious in forming our instant internet opinions. Heed his advice.
  • Beanbag Central
    Capital "C" equals Catholic Chaos at aptly named site.
  • Catholic and Enjoying It!
    Intentionally apologetic, can be over the top outrageous, provocative, but freqently informative, thoughtful and spirtitual
  • Fath Based Politiics
    Politics informed by faith--backwards from the usual. Maybe two ii's are better after all.
  • Musings of An Ordinary Catholic
    Not so ordinary musings
  • Ragamuffin Ramblings
    Words of wisdom from the Windy City
  • Sancta Sanctis
    You cannot miss Chesterton Thursdays! Comprehensive list of Catholic websites and a beatiful site that lives up to its name.
  • St. Blog's Parish Hall
    Graciously maintained by a holy person, whose virtue must be patience, a lengthy list of Catholic blogs, both apologetic and unapologetic.
  • The Squire
    Running from the thought police, and he's got a long way to go.
Blog powered by Typepad
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Whistling Past the Graveyard | Main | Bad Apologetics »

Comments

Talmida

Y'know if he's a catholic, what does that make me?

Scary stuff, UC. Scary stuff. :(

Ed Deluzain

Thank you for calling my attention to Fr. Sibley's post. I stopped reading his blog a long time ago.

In some ways I'm really not surprised that he would do and say what he wrote. I find him a bit arrogant and smug. If I had had a child in that class, I'm afraid a couple of things would have happened. First, she would not have taken that without arguing back. Both of my daughters, and my son-in-law, are very liberal (maybe more than I am, even), and the older one especially would have spoken up. Second, I think it likely that Fr. Sibley would have had a visit from me and my wife on the subject.

Thanks, too, for the link to the ACLU. I had never before read their position on school prayer, and I found it very enlightening.

I'm going to have to start reading your blog on a regular basis.

Ed Deluzain

Steve Bogner

Wow, that is absolutely amazing... and really... disgusting.

dulac

You find Fr. Sibley a *bit* arrogant and smug? He is the very worst kind of Rome-educated priest -- one who thinks he alone is shouldered with the defense of the Holy Mother Church and that therefore anything he does in Her defense is licit. I find myself in occassional agreement with his readings of certain documents -- but generally I find him almost dangerous. He was censored by his former bishop for six months for publicly supporting the contention of Donald Cozzens that the American College at Leuven/Louvain (a seminary/sabbatical center run by the USCCB) is "effeminate" and that it is a homosexual cult (I lived in Leuven during college, right behind the ACL and knew many of the seminarians -- believe me when I say that this is bogus).

Anyway. Be on notice -- Fr. Sibley generally just bans the IP addresses of anyone (myself included) who comment negatively on his posts and actions. In this case, he (and his denizens) consider him quite brave for having incited a bunch of fourth graders. If you look back a few posts, you'll find him congratulating himself for annoying the employees of a local Scientology center. I have no affection for Scientology, but really -- does the man have nothing better to do with his time? I guess I should be glad he's doing something other than indoctrinating the local schoolkids.

Bill Wilson

This is simply another example of the Catholic Church moving to the far religious right.

A couple of weeks ago, I was very disturbed to see a parish in Boca Raton, FL, St. Joan of Arc, include the American Center for Law and Justice (http://aclj.org/) among their "Catholic" web resources.

The ACLJ was established by Pat Robertson years ago to be the religious right's answer to the ACLU. It is hardly a Catholic organization, and indeed I think it harbors a good deal of anti-Catholic sentiment (except where they happen to agree with Catholics).

It's all maddening. Maybe someone should remind this particular priest and the rest of the Church that Jesus Christ was a liberal.

Steven Riddle

Dear Sir,

Thank you for this excellent specific against a very poorly considered post and action on the part of one priest. I found his judgment in the matter lacking and his encouragement of children toward hatred and misunderstanding reprehensible. It is one of the reasons I find labels so horrifying and repugnant. You can trash an entire group of people by appending something to a label and encouraging everyone to revile it.


shalom,

Steven

Young, Hip and Orthodox

liberals = gay rights
liberals = pro-homosexual agenda in schools
liberals = homosexual "marriage"
liberals = "GBLTQ" schools and clubs, for indoctrination purposes to impressionable teens (for proof, the "Q" = "questioning")
liberals = Planned Parenthood
liberals = PPs evil teenwire.com
liberals = promotion of unbridled sexuality in public media, just as long as it's "safe", so
liberals = contraception
liberals = abortifacients like the woman-destroying pill
liberals = diaphragms, IUDs, condoms, even for children
liberals = Culture of Death
liberals = marxism
liberals = communism
liberals = socialism
liberals = radical feminism
liberals = pro-abortion
liberals = euthanasia
liberals = cloning
liberals = embryonic stem cell research
liberals = ACLU
liberals = eugenicists like Margaret Sanger
liberals = Madalyn Murray O'Hare
liberals = bio-monster Peter Singer
liberals = rejection of Tradition
liberals = pro-woman priesthood
liberals = destruction of the liturgy
liberals = self over God
Yeah, what's not to love?
I bet anything that the average age of the above posters is 1960s bred 45+

Talmida

Young, Hip and Orthodox:

1. Find an English dictionary.
2. Use it.


The word "liberal" has a specific meaning. Just because some "liberals" in your particular tiny corner of the world have done something you object to does not change the meaning of the word.

Here is what Merriam-Webster online has to say:

"5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism"


The opposite of liberal is "conservative", a word that is defined in Merriam-Webster this way:

"tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution (a conservative estimate) c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners (a conservative suit)"

If I were to use your technique of defining the word by the behaviour of those who claim the label, I might think the word "conservative" meant bigoted, reactionary, racist, imperialist, war-mongering, or any number of offensive things. However I recognize that people use labels for many different reasons, and that if I want the truth, I must look beneath the label at the underlying behaviour that inspires it.

So tell me, what major religious figure can you think of was not bound by authoritarianism or orthodoxy or traditional forms? Could it be....oh, I don't know....JESUS??

Yes, Jesus was a liberal. Hung out with hookers, ate with sinners, preached suffering and peace instead of war. Broke the Sabbath, skipped the proscribed hand-washing, broke the rules of his religion.

So here's a last bit of advice:

3. Read the Gospels.

dulac

Sorry, Young Hip and Orthodox -- I'm 25.

TheSquire

Oh, Young Hip and Orthodox, ye who does not understand that liberalism is a thought process rather than a body of positions, I agree with the posts above yours and I'm merely 20. You're deluding yourself to think that all young catholics agree with you. Then again, you probably don't understand why evangelical christians are dangerous and why liberation theology has its uses, either.

Steve Bogner

Hi YH&O - I'm a moderate and 38. Name-calling between liberals and conservatives will only do harm to the church; it doesn't bring anything good to the table.

Talmida has some very good points there; we ought to all take them to heart.

Steven Riddle

Dear Y, H, & O,

What a shame you cannot tell the difference between reviling what is a blatant act of hatred and supporting an agenda. To encourage anyone to HATE anyone else for any reason, perhaps most especially for Orthodoxy, is a vile misuse of religion.

I support very few, if any of the positions above. Equally, I support no one in their hatred of people. Denounce to the ends of the Earth the insidiousness of the notion, but never show disrespect to the image of God in people.

I am every bit as Orthodox in my viewpoints as you are likely to be; perhaps more so, because I go back to the source, "Love one another as I have loved you." Encouraging a group of people to yell hatred at any person or group of people is hardly orthodox nor exemplary Christian behavior. Endorsing such behavior betrays a disturbing lack of orthodoxy on your part. I would certainly love to see the part of the Bible, the Catechism, or tradition that says, we are to hate all sinners. Not even the most staunch Calvinist could support such a view.

Don't leap to conclusions. I despise hatred from the left, hatred from the right, hatred from the middle. And this was an education in hatred, not a well considered lesson in how one reasonably objects to the things that one disagrees with.

shalom,

Steven

Ed Deluzain

I see my comment of the other day started quite a discussion. Actually, I didn't start it; I was merely the first to comment.

Dulac said of my comment: You find Fr. Sibley a *bit* arrogant and smug?

Actually, I fine Sibley VERY arrogant and smug, but I was just trying to be a good liberal and be polite. If Sibley had said what he did in a public school classroom, and then bragged about it on the internet, he probably would have been brought up on charges.

I must confess, I'm neither young nor hip (do hipsters still exist? and do they really use that word to describe themselves these days?), but, despite my efforts to embrace orthodoxy, I think our gracious host is absolutely correct when he says we're all a little heretical, at least sometimes.

As I understand it, youth often brings with it a measure of immaturity. After all, the word "sophomoric" didn't come into existence from out of nowhere.

Gislebertus

I read your post and comments, then I went to read Fr. Sibley's. While I may or may not agree with him or his tactics, what I find funny (and telling) is that none of you actually addressed the ARGUMENTS he made in his later post entitled "Wait A Moment..." Simply emoting about how evil his actions were does no one any good and surely does not do anything to advance your case.

Unapologetic Catholic

Gislebertus,

Nobody emoted, that's an unfair dismissal of some very substantive complaints. The chief complaints are that he was factually inaccurate and teaching hate. Your response as to those? Do you contend he was factually accurate regarding school prayer?

His later comments to which you refer don't help either. Here are his points:

"1. Please tell me how one should go about explaining to Fourth Graders the ideology behind modern atheistic social liberalism with all of its nuances?

2. What about when kids ask about other moral issues such as murder, stealing, lying? Should we not tell them that the people who do these things are bad?

3. Whether we like it or not, we are living in the midst of an idealogical battle in our society. Some might choose to ignore it, but I choose to fight it, or here prepare the kids to fight it. My tactics might not always be the most prudent or efficient - fine. I may be too polemical - fine."

If you are serious, do you think that we can’t explain atheism to 4th graders? Is the second question really difficult? As to the third question he has no particular expertise or insight to offer and in fact, he is demonstrably wrong in his analysis, arguing that even if the means were inappropriate, the ends justify the means. That’s certainly not Catholic teaching at all. With respect to point 3 he is fighting a war from the 19th century. Today, if you look at a calendar, it’s the 21st century. Yes, “too polemical” is an understatement.

Here’s an alternate explanation that he could have given that I made up off the top of my head—Mr. Deluzain, a teacher, could probably do better. So could Mr. Riddle, who often comments consistently with father's overall viewpoint, but does so with personal goodwill and factual accuracy:

"Q. Why can’t public school children pray in school?

A. Public school children can pray in school and they can read bibles and discuss religious issues with other students. The difference between public school and our school is that we can have school-sponsored religious events like Mass, May Day celebrations Stations of the Cross and First Friday. In public schools people come from many religions making it almost impossible to come up with a school prayer that is agreeable to everybody. For that reason there’s no school sponsored prayer in public schools.

There are also people that don’t believe in God. It’s hard to have a moral system without God, so some of these people have ideas that we Catholics would consider immoral. As you advance in your Catholic education, these ideas will be discussed. It is important to know how to deal with these ideas when you are an adult, and your education is beginning now. You are lucky that your parents care enough about your education to send you to a Catholic school."

Note two things different about this than what was actually said:

1. It’s truthful, unlike what was actually said.
2. It’s objective and fair, treating the children with respect.

Father's questions in his followup simply indicate he had no interest in accuracy or respect.

Gislebertus

Steven, you wrote, "What a shame you cannot tell the difference between reviling what is a blatant act of hatred and supporting an agenda. To encourage anyone to HATE anyone else for any reason, perhaps most especially for Orthodoxy, is a vile misuse of religion. "

Please, please, please explain to me how what Fr. Sibley did was an act of encouraging hatred? Like he said in anothger post (which was really not adressed in the above response) - if this was an act of hatred then when Paul called the Galatians "stupid" was that an act of hatred? Or when Jesus called the "Pharisees" fools? What about if a teacher were to call Nazi's bad - would that be an act of hatred?

Once again, quit emoting and clearly state what exactly makes this an act of hatred as opposed to the others mentioned. Otherwise you simply appear to be upset because you are a "liberal" and your feelings are hurt.

What a wonderful way to dismiss someone's argument, just label it "hatred" and you are done with it. Go read some of St. Paul's letters (esp. Galatians where he wishes that the Judaizers cut their genitals off) and try not to skip over the passages that don't fit into your idealogy.

Hypocrite

You say that Fr. Sibley is preaching hate by making such statements as "Liberals are bad." Well, what about you when you say that he is studid for doing that (and that all people are stupid). Aren't those categorical statements that might lead people to hate priests (and people in general). Why is it that it is wrong when he does it, but it is OK when you do it? Hypocrite.

Unapologetic Catholic

The difference is that me saying people are "stupid" is, as a careful review of what I wrote will reveal, a combination of tongue in cheek and a clear reference to a Biblical concept--all people are sinners. Stupidity is a form of sin, or as another blogger said, "Sin makes you stupid." Somehow or another that blogger is not accused of hate speech for stating the obvious, and the same thing I did in different words.

You'll notice that I even put myself in that category of human stupidity, a universal human condition. I don't see that as a "bad' thing for people, sort of an amuzeing thing, actually. It is a reminder that we should all be self aware, and far less self-righteous, not a judgment of people as a class.

The fact is that the coment about public school prayer was factually wrong. That has been pointed out to the priest in question. He knows it, conceding that perhaps he was over the top. He justified it by essentially saying the ends justify the means in the culture war. This presents two issues: He lied. He doesn't care. One of his fans posted above, following the priest's logic, somebody called Young Hip and Orthodox.

Read that letter, Hypocrite, and tell me--Is that letter an example of Christian love? Would Jesus be proud of that letter? Should any Christian be proud of that letter? Yet that kind of letter is exactly what the priest formented by his post. That letter is hate.

Here's what I wrote on stupidity:
"Dealing with stupidity is something else—it’s common, and people of good intentions often exhibit it. Often these people lead exemplary lives and usually exhibit good common sense and don’t lapse into stupidity on a regular basis."

Does that sound like hate to you? Is that calling for a dismissal of any person's point of view mrely becasue they are __________ (fill in the blank with your favorite category)?

Gilbertus has been asked a direct question and noticably didn't answer it.

Same question to you: Do you contend Father Sibley was factually accurate regarding school prayer?

The comments to this entry are closed.