The sister of the pilot whose plane crashed into the Pentagon 9/11 asked Obama about AG Holder’s ongoing prosecution of the men who interrogated Khalid Sheik Muhammad, who may have led us to bin Ladin.
“As a former attorney I know you can’t tell the Attorney General what to do, he said, ‘No, I can’t.’ But I said ‘we — that shouldn’t stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn’t be here today if they hadn’t done their jobs. Can’t you at least give them your opinion.’ And he said ‘no I won’t,’ and he turned around and walked away.”
John Kass outdid himself here. No one else could have written this.
Assuming Richard M. was the man Kass says he was at the start, it’s a matter of power corrupting. Tough stuff.
Why let bishops drive you away from the church you love?
A cry of the heart from the left. But tell you what, it could have come from the right for different reasons.
Thing is, be cool, fella, don’t feel so much. You’ll feel better and the world, if you can believe it, will be better off.
You were wondering about this social justice thing, where it fits in the econ-political scheme of things? Here’s something gives an idea, which you may read and weep:
Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirm that “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice.” And the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.
No wonder libs embrace the idea, which according to this statement is flawed from the outset, doomed to lead us on the road to serfdom, a classic case of good intentions leading us astray — unless you think prosperity is right around the corner of government control of things.
This be part of a Wikipedia treatment which begins by attributing the term to a Jesuit and promoted by Monsignor John A. Ryan in the 20s and 30s — he who captured minds and hearts of prelates near and afar.
In today’s e-blast, Tom Roeser expatiates on possible pseudo-solution to the Card. George-Fr. Pfleger impasse. (The ball is in P’s “corner,” says Card. G., who is not good at sports terminology.) Roeser speculates that it will be dissolved in a splurge of ecclesiastical realpolitik and takes a shot at an agreeement:
Q. Not that you have a glimmer of what a possible settlement would be?
A. I don’t. But suppose…just suppose… there comes an offer for Pfleger to head up a newly created archdiocesan office of Social Justice…so he could visit a number of parishes and do variants of his St. Sabina’s act with a hand mike where he bounced off the walls imitating Hillary Clinton. Wouldn’t that be ducky?
No, no, no. Wldn’t fly with Fr. P., unless (maybe) he could live at St. S. and preach there on Sundays. The extra-St. Sabina stuff he does is ancillary. He’s married to the parish — which he never calls a parish, preferring church or congregation or faith community, because (I say) parish says unit of archdiocese, which has no place in P’s playbook. And he considers divorce immoral.
In St. S. he has a stable home, a place to belong to, where he can feel the love. He will not go gently into the dark night of unaffiliation. In my opinion.