This dates to April 1, 2005. It includes additions by good friends, that I include because I'm afraid of how much material will be lost when RedState gets its next makeover.

One of the giants of the twentieth century is dead.

Karol Wojtyla was a man of salt and light, who took the Gospel message throughout the world, even to nations that opposed his very existence. He fought against the culture of death as an eloquent spokesman for the unique value of every human life. He was a suffering servant for Mankind, with his eyes always on heaven and earth at the same time.

I will speak as a Catholic first, as a conservative second.

He embodied the faith. That might sound grandiose, but it is not. He spoke of the things of heaven and earth interchangeably and yet in their proper spheres. He stood time and again for the weakest among us, and reminded us that we have duties to them beyond mere lip service. He called evil by its right name, but reminded us that evil is parasitic on good; that evil is merely separation from God, and that all that will right itself through the power of Christ in the end.

While never giving in to a distortion of the Gospel, he reminded us that Christianity carries with it a radical preference for the poor. No fan of communism, and never enthralled by socialism, yet never opposed to capitalism, he nevertheless reminded us that capitalism is not inherently good, and frequently produces unjust results. He reminded us that our portion in this world is charity.

He fought the willful slaughter of millions of defenseless children as surely as he fought the murder of the aged and infirm. He was called tyrant, murderer, oppressor, theocrat, and words a thousand times worse, but he never once yielded to anger in their face. He was called a reactionary by those opposed to him, even as he built and expanded on the infallible theology of Vatican II. He was accused of misunderstanding human sexuality while he developed the most fluent theological doctrine on the matter in the history of the Church. For his contributions to the Faith alone, he should be canonized as a Doctor.

So great has been his leadership that the dream of a united Church is now no longer merely a dream.

I speak now as a conservative. He fought the Soviet Union, undeniably one of the most evil things Men have ever wrought, not with arms, but with faith and words and moral clarity. There is a reason the KGB wished him dead in the 1980s: He was one of the greatest threats they ever faced, merely for demanding that the words of a 2,000 year dead carpenter be taken seriously.

He reminded the world that there is strength in tradition, and there is value in every human life. He gave those of us on the Right moral strength to continue in the harshest of times, while nevertheless reminding us of our own failings.

We lose a suffering servant of God and Man today. We are poorer for it. He is infinitely richer.

Update [2005-4-1 22:30:27 by Thomas]: I want to add something I neglected to add before, for which I thank God too infrequently. While there are those who play up (and in some cases misattribute) the less than perfect treatment the Church has accorded our spiritual forebears, there is no way to deny that grievous things have been done to Jews throughout the years since Christ was put on the Cross, with Christian apathy, support, or outright act. Vatican II began the process of atonement and reconciliation. This Pope, while not completing the process, has reminded us that we Christians would not be but for our Older Brothers, and that God doesn't make promises he goes on to break. It would be easy to say that his prayer at the Wailing Wall, racked with pain every step of the way, was a way of atoning for the sins of Christians against Jews throughout the centuries; but it is more than that. It was a reminder that all Christians owe that pilgrimage, at some level, for those we wounded, and for ourselves.

As a Catholic, as a conservative, and as a human being, I tell you this: Be thankful for this, if nothing else.

REQUIESCAT IN PACE

Update [2005-4-1 13:50:54 by trevino]:

The words of Karol Wojtyła.

---

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness...." (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

Pope John Paul II has passed, but his legacies of faith and freedom remain in the world. In this time of sorrow and reflection, it falls upon us to honor the fallen and the principles which guided him.

In that spirit, the editors of RedState honor the life of Karol Wojtyła by encouraging our readers to take a moment today to support the work of two
organizations that carry on the Holy Father's legacy.

Priests for Life is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization devoted with a mission directly informed by the late Pope's devotion to the culture of life:

"[To assist] clergy and laity to fight the culture of death ... to unite and encourage all in the Church to give special emphasis to the
life issues in their ministry ... and to help them take a more vocal and active role in the pro-life movement!"

They carry on his passion for the defense of the defenseless through the hands, feet, and hearts of his Church -- and its allies of all faiths. You can make your donation here.

In remembrance of the Pope's extraordinary efforts to secure freedom for all the nations of the world, we also encourage you to support the Victims of Communism Memorial.

"The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a non-profit organization, was established by an Act of Congress to build a memorial in Washington, DC to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism; to honor those who successfully resisted communist tyranny; to educate current and future generations about communism's crimes against humanity; and to pay tribute to those who helped win the Cold
War."

You can support their work here.

Please note that this represents our desire to memorialize the life and work of a great man. Neither organization has asked us to do this, and neither should be construed as willfully profiting from this tragedy.

Bless you for your generosity -- and don't forget to add your $0.02.

This post is from April 19, 2005.

I've commented before that Benedict XVI seems to, ahem, arouse some odd emotions in a certain wing of the Church.

However, this is nothing on the rampant idiocy that must see every Pope as a political figure. Of course, the Pope is not so easily rendered as that. This doesn't stop the sort of hysteria and rampant (incorrect) politicization to which the Left inevitably descends:

This particular pope has risen by being the enforcer for doctrinal purity in the Papacy of John Paul II. It is this that makes his former affiliations an issue, because he demands that people die for their faith, or suffer tremendous hardships for it. And yet he was unwilling to do so. His youth is often offered as an excuse - but he is no older than other people he demands die for their faith.

He is also part of the apparatus which has covered up peadophilia in the church, giving Bernard Law an honoured place in the festivities at Rome. Again, the issue is hypocrisy. A man who forgives so easily lies and cover ups, and yet will not forgive others who he disapproves of, is a hypocrite.

He is also part of the apparatus which meddles in the politics of other nations. And yet, his defenders demand that those who are not Catholic say nothing. I would be happy to stay out of the politics of the Church of Rome, if only it would stay out of my politics.

He is the most forward figure in manking anti-privacy and anti-choice the central moral tennet of the Catholic Church - a movement that regularly accuses its opponents of engaging in a "holocaust of abortion". It will not be right to call Ratzinger a Nazi, when Ratzinger tells his faithful to stop calling other people Nazis. Again, hypocrisy is the issue.

Yes, well. It is not enough to ramble on, without sentence structure, and accuse a man grown of hypocrisy for a youth lived against his will; rather (meanderingly), one must also pretend that the infallible teachings of the Church are mere bullet-points of political doctrine, to be treated as malleably as Newberry repeatedly treats English grammar. One must engage in non sequiturs of epic proportions to make a point that could be summed up thusly: The Church has no right to judge, so SHUT UP!! One must, in other words, throw a temper tantrum over a joyous day for the world's billion Catholics.

Look on the modern Left, and laugh.

Update [2005-4-19 21:12:53 by Thomas]: Oh, and Benedict is right about the Holocaust of abortion, too.

This dates to April 8, 2005.

A giant has been laid to rest.

The man's achievements have already been touched on at length here. To catalog the man's achievements is beyond the scope of the brief words I wish to say here; but we all owe a moment of silence for a man who, no matter what else you might say of him, with two other giants (one of whom already sits with his Maker), destroyed the most evil edifice ever created by Men.

Others, however, are already intent on making something of this great man that he was not, for their own ends. That it is inevitable does not make it right, or even excusable. And they must be condemned.

There are, of course, different ways to distort the man's memory.

There is, for example, unyielding hate. (Actually, read that whole diatribe through when you get a minute. I found it hilarious. I'm also proud to agree with at least this much: "Understand that no other organization with as many resources and as many spheres of influence is as obstructionist in matters of family planning as the Catholic Church." Preach on, sister.)

There is also the desire to say that his approach to poverty meant that he was a little bit a "progressive," too.

Yes, and I'm a fluffy white cloud.

I don't mean to pick on Markos in this. He's just a fat, slow-moving target here. And the funny part is that he's wrong and right. More wrong than right, but let's be generous and discuss the latter first.

Although apparently consumed with the need to see political machination where it is not, Markos is actually more or less on target with the "thought" behind this:

I don't want to claim the church as "liberal", and the conservatives should keep their grubby little fingers of(sic) it as well, lest they find the church they think is theirs -- an extension of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition -- is anything but.

Christianity simply is. It is not Left or Right. The radical preference for the poor stems from the same impulse that lends so much importance to the individual as an individual (for only men by their own consciences may elect the path of Christ). The Catholic Church is no more a bunch of left-liberals (that's the Jesuits) than it is so many rightists. The same impulse that repeatedly cautions against war, opposes rampant application of the death penalty, and demands a radical preference for the poor is the same impetus for demanding the end of the executions of millions of unborn children, and seeking an end to terminating the inconvenient. True, the Church is an institution that pays great heed to Tradition (and uses the proper noun, no less); but that Tradition resists the mere application of political labels.

Now, for the litany of errors:

Just remember, as Republicans try to embrace the Pope as part of their efforts to woe Catholics to the Dark Side, that the Pope was a fervent opponent of the Iraq invasion and was staunch death penalty foe. His Catholic Church is more commited to social justice than most.

First, it is not "his" Catholic Church more than it is mine, unless this means "The Catholic Church under his stewardship," in which case it's still wrong, because the Church is no different than it was before him, and will be no different tomorrow.

Second, we once again need to revisit some basics. The Church's opposition to the Iraq War and to the death penalty are not matters of doctrine, unlike the teachings on abortion and euthanasia. If we must ascribe labels based on the hot button issues of the day, I must sadly inform you one and all that the unerring and timeless opposition to the murder of unborn children weighs more heavily on the ledger than the prudential judgment that there is no longer a need for a death penalty.

The Catholic Church has always been committed to social justice. What this does not mean, however, is that the Church is committed to "progressivism"; that the Church is committed to unrepentant socialism or unrepentant capitalism as the means to effect this change; or that the imperative to clothe the poor somehow equates to the imperative to prevent the slaughter of children before they can be clothed.

Which rather nicely segues into the finale: I give you the most inappropriate obituary ever. Nothing says respect for a departed man like having someone who opposed this Pope at every turn pen your magazine's last words on the subject. Bravo.

But Carroll, benighted idiot though he might be, is nevertheless useful for making the larger point: So great was John Paul's touch on this world that even a moral midget like Carroll feels a need to appropriate the man -- transforming him into a pacifist (and, in Carroll's little mind, someday likely a Pius XII accuser). Without touching too much on the Tragedy of James Carroll, suffice it to say that simply because this most recent pope opposed many recent wars does not make him a pacifist.

Suffice it also to say that it does no credit to John Paul's memory (though it hardly does harm, so great is his legacy) for the assorted moral short bus riders to make him all things to all people.

Let it go, folks. He forgave you while he was alive. No need to use him now that he's dead.

This post is from April 19, 2005.

The funniest thing -- and it's a heated competition -- about the New Left is that everything frightens them. John Ashcroft frightened them. Don Rumsfeld. Fluoride in tap water. The new season of Dragon Tales. (The correct response to that is disgust, not fear.) And so on.

To that end: The Dread Rises.

I care less than nothing for your sexual preference; but for the love of the God you claim to worship, be a frigging man. Some excerpts:

This was a statement as much as a selection. And the statement is that the church is circling the wagons. They simply could not have picked a more extreme candidate. And that tells us something important. ...

What this says to American Catholics is quite striking: it's not just a disagreement, it's a full-scale assault. ...

I expected continuity. I didn't expect intensification of the fundamentalism and insularity of the current hierarchy. I expect an imminent ban on all gay seminarians, celibate or otherwise. ...

And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning. ...

The hard right has now cemented its complete control of the Catholic church. And so ... to prayer. What else do we now have? ...

So quick? So soon? What can that mean? Ratzinger?? The dread rises.

Grow a pair, huh?

A better, funnier, more thorough take here, and up; and here.

Update [2005-4-20 17:32:59 by Thomas]: The Dread Continues to Rise. I have to wonder at the paucity of the man's catechesis, or feel rising dread that my memory might become so poor when I pass 40.

This one is from August 4, 2006.

I once accidentally ate moldy bread and drank curdled milk, in the same sitting. (Don't ask.) Though the side effects were mild, I nevertheless wished I could undo that damage.

Little did I know, you can go back again!

Tribal leaders and indigenous rights groups will ask the pope to rescind a 1493 Vatican document which they believe paved the legal road for Europeans to take land from indigenous American people.

Twenty-three organizations and 100 individuals signed a resolution Thursday at the Summit of Indigenous Nations at Bear Butte. The resolution, which will be sent to the Vatican for review, targets the Papal Bull Inter Caetera of 1493, in which Vatican officials urged Christopher Columbus to convert indigenous Americans to Catholicism.

"We command you in virtue of holy obedience that, employing all due diligence in the premises, ... you should appoint to the aforesaid mainlands and islands worthy, God-fearing, learned, skilled and experienced men, in order to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents in the Catholic faith and train them in good morals," reads the 1493 document.

"This is going to be history in the making," Vic Camp announced before the resolution and a separate treaty amongst summit participants were signed.

Granted, in the history of pointless acts, this may be a pinnacle.

My favorite part?

Debra White Plume of Bring Back the Way, one of the summit organizers, said she experienced trauma attending Catholic boarding schools.

Honey, everyone who's attended Catholic schools has experienced trauma. Deal.

So let me pose a hypothetical:

Suppose -- and I think we can take this as a given -- that there are people who so very much hate the existence of gay men and lesbians, that it actually hurts them. They are gnawed-upon from the inside over the existence of homosexuals, for whatever reason. And, unable to bear the emotional -- and physical, in an ugly biofeedback loop -- pain, they begin sneaking up on gays while they sleep and butchering them alive. Literally: They crush, slice, and dice the bodies of these men and women, ruthlessly. They feel better when it's over.

It would not be too much of a stretch to call this inhuman. Someone who did this, deliberately, with malice aforethought, is in a state of grave sin, and should not receive communion in the Catholic Church. This is straightforward stuff. Any politician who enabled this behavior -- who said, I disagree with his choice to murder these people, but I also understand how much pain he's in, and so I refuse to interject the State into what he does with his own body would rightly be considered at best deranged, and at worst, a cold-blooded murderer. I don't imagine many people would take issue with the decision of any Church to deny that politician its sacraments.

You see where this is going.

I understand Kerry, and Cuomo, and Kennedy, and other blood-letting, coldblooded, power-mad psuedo-Catholic politicians overlooking human biology and the teachings of their faith, and trying to pretend that their sin represents bravery. They're morally incomplete; they're, like most humans, greedy, grubbing little creatures who desire power more than they desire the warmth of God's embrace.

It happens to the best of us.

What I don't understand is their flackers. Like, just for example, Andrew Sullivan. So, without fisking his argument, let's just say it this way: If you put "murdering sleeping gay men and women" in place of "abortion," you kinda gotta concede that, first, he would never make this argument; second, that his Catholic formation, such as it was, was sorely lacking; and, finally, that it makes him a bit of a moral monster.

Oh: Ramesh was too kind.

Could it be? A Catholic Bishop with a spine?

Miracles happen, kids.

What happens when faith is just another argument.

Guys, look, here's the deal. First, the Church does not "represent you to God." You represent you to God. I take it from your actions that either, one, you do not actually care about the Faith, but rather you care about making asses out of yourselves, in a way that would embarass my 1.5 year old; two, you do care, but your Catechesis is so lousy as to defy explanation; and/or three, you forget: You have free will. You can go to another Church. The guy from whom I got this link did so.

I assume for the sake of argument that you're born "that way." I know that makes it harder for you to follow the Church's teachings. My uncle has severe Down's syndrome. This makes virtually everything harder for him. In other words: Deal. Or go.

I always thought Mark Shea's references to gay fascism were overblown. Mark, if you're reading this: Mea culpa.

No sooner than I get all gushy over the Old Oligarch than he posts something with which I must mildly take issue:

Natural Woman -- so typical of many people we've known who have adopted NFP, through twists and turns and sometimes despite their pastors and DRE.

Now, I say the rest of this with the following qualifiers:

(1) Believe it or not, I really try to be a faithful Catholic. Oh, Lord knows I mess up sometimes. I've never said otherwise (except to irritate my wife, but that's different).

(2) My wife and I practice natural family planning, because, first, I understand the theology associated with it, it makes sense, and even if it didn't, my name does not start with "Pope"; and, second, my wife and I are not cavalier about the side effects of the pill, especially in light of her family's history of breast cancer.

(3) I'm not really going after anyone here, at least in my usual bared-teeth way.

That said:

I'm calling bullshit.

My wife and I have used NFP since we got married. We were -- no pun -- religious about it. We understood the whole thing -- temperature, mucus, cervical position, even (a fourth dimension on the graph!) certain bodily sensations associated with ovulation. My wife is an engineer. I am the son of an engineer and a microbiologist. We both love to chart things. My wife is an obsessive compulsive. I'm a paranoid freak. We never miss a day of charting.

We wanted to wait, after we got married, for one year before having a family. We wanted to make sure we were settled in where we were gonna stay for a while, and we wanted to make sure we had enough money to properly care for the little one. (I've never bought, not cared much for, the "We had to get to know each other" crap as a reason to wait: If you didn't know each other before you got married, why did you say, "I do"?) Accordingly, my wife charted everything for months before we got married. We continued once the chain was fastened vows were spoken. Remember: One year.

We were married in June. We apparently conceived in late July. You know, less than two months later.

Don't get me wrong; I count as God's greatest blessing to me, my son. I love him much more than my own life. I would not have his existence any other way.

But let's be honest about this: If you buy the Church's, um, teaching, that NFP is 99% or so effective, you'll buy anything.

Yeah, but it's just one time, you say. Freak incident. The exception that proves the rule.

Au contraire, copains. My wife is now in sixteen weeks along with our second child. Same religious attention to detail. Had the doctor help this time to make sure. We had been planning to wait until about, oh, now, to do this; the starting gun went off early, apparently.

Again: Don't misunderstand. My life in trade for my children without hesitation. The tortures of Hell for their safety, in a heartbeat. I am fully aware of what those tortures are -- to some extent, I've lived them for periods of time -- and I say that even so.

But.

If you have a very regular, set-your-watch-by-it cycle, NFP will work for you. Guaranteed. But for those women who do not -- who, like my wife, drop multiple eggs just at random, or who have variable cycles, or whatever -- you're playing with loaded dice. As my wife's extremely Catholic OB told her (the lady won't discuss any sort of "contraception" except NFP), when we told her that we think the wife is just scatter-shooting eggs, "Looks like you were made to be a Mommy."

Which brings me back to my point: People who use NFP -- or at least, a larger percentage than the folks at pre-Cana let on -- really are called "parents."

Just sayin'.