Ann Coulter on Mission Abort

Abort it, she says.

I gather from the recent hysteria that the Supreme Court has just ordered all 72 million American women of childbearing age to get pregnant and carry the baby to term.

This is big news, if true. I’m not at all surprised that every female journalist, activist and politician is threatening to burn down the Supreme Court over its decision last Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

On the other hand, even accepting the abortion cult’s belief that members of the weaker sex are incapable of either keeping their knees together or mastering birth control, I still only count about 100,000 women who won’t have easy access to abortions without Roe v. Wade.

Read all about it here.

Fr. Treco in the dock, Bishop Lopes declares his verdict . . .

And announces condign sentence.

Fr. Treco, in the dock for heresy and/or schism, objected to Bishop Lopes’ false, misleading or accusatory” comments about his homily and said nothing he had said called for excommunication.

Bishop L. said Fr. T. had retracted none of his “erroneous positions” and had spoken rather of hiscandor” and willingness to undergo “instruction and correction,” failing “to address the heart of the problem.”

He has accepted only those doctrines and practices approved prior to the 1960s, the bishop said.

Not exactly.

Fr. T. had said,

We can choose to teach the true Faith, and only the true Faith to our children! In this regard, a helpful rule of thumb would be to return to those theological and spiritual resources that were approved by the Holy See prior to the revolution of the 1960s!”

In any case, the preacher had argued for his position at length in a long sermon full of sweeping statements — but also offering historical details which the bishop ignores, such as actions taken and comments made by Vatican 2 popes.

Bishop L. accused him of failing to accept Vatican 2 “as an expression of the authentic and universal magisterium of the Church.”

He’s correct. Fr. T. had mounted a frontal attack on Vatican 2, even recommending to his people, “We can Resist!”

Furthermore, he had implicated every Vatican 2 pope:

[Y]ou believe that the current crisis in the Church has been caused by Pope St. John XXIII, Pope St. Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis who, in your words [5] all have denied Christ and [6] set aside the mandate given by Christ to St. Peter. . .

Oh my. Where can a bishop go with this stuff? It may not incite the faithful, but it incites bishops. Fr. Treco can use an editor.

Bishop L. said his “personal statement” about Vatican 2 “does not sufficiently reaffirm” his Profession of Faith taken in 2014 prior to being ordained a Catholic priest the next year and “intentionally calls into doubt the supreme magisterium of the Second Vatican Council….”

Score one for the bishop, who himself seems to be laying it on a bit thick. It was famously a “pastoral council” in which nothing was “defined,” as councils ordinarily do. So arguing with it seems not a capital offense. Tell that to the bishop.

The coup de grace:

Given these deficiencies, and having concluded that you are not recanting [reversing] positions that you take in your homily that [spread] confusion and [incite] animosity to the Apostolic See among the faithful, the question remains, Father Treco, do you stand by your homily or are you prepared to retract it and renew and sign the Church’s Profession of Faith.” 


I require you [not only] to retract the homily, [but also to ask] the websites where it is published to remove the text. A statement of retraction is to be published in your [parish] bulletin, as well as [on] your personal website, Facebook pages, and any other social media platforms you administer.

Erase it all, he says, and while you’re at it, remove yourself as a preacher and guide for souls.

So that further scandal can be avoided, your reaffirmation of the Profession of Faith is to be made known to your parish community.

To which he will return, their leader no more.


A copy of this retraction is to be sent to the Chancery for your personal file.


As your public dissent has caused harm to our Ordinariate and calls into question the ecclesial fidelity and ministry of every Ordinariate priest, you are to author a brief note of apology to your brother priests of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter. This you will send to me for publication to our presbyterate. 

Lest any think such a path as you have taken be an option for any but the very foolish.

More to come on this matter, but there’s a major aspect of the bishop’s overall response, that Fr. T. is in the way of poisoning the well of a very new, you might say experimental, operation, a welcoming to dissident Anglicans who have had it with Anglican shilly-shallying in re faith and morals, arriving in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, priests with wives and children. 

More later on the organization and its North American leader, appointed by Francis after a short but semi-meteoric Vatican career.

Rise in Philly carry permits leads to rise in justified homicides

Case one:

The Inquirer profiles a number of people who wound up finding themselves in such unfortunate situations. One homeowner was standing outside his house smoking a cigarette when a mugger rode up on a bike, holding a gun and demanding money. Rather than grabbing his wallet, the homeowner pulled out his registered handgun and shot the mugger fatally in the head.

Two and three:

An assistant manager at a Dollar General store was confronted by a man in a ski mask brandishing a pistol and demanding money. That robber also failed to survive after the manager shot him. (The thief’s pistol turned out to be fake, but that didn’t matter.) A third person at a food market shot an armed robber dead in March when the thief attempted to rob him while he was playing a video game.

Word gets out on the street, bad guys get it. Or don’t.

Wondering about this or that? Go to the ancient Greeks, who were good at that.

One of their stars said it well:

“It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philosophize; wondering in the first place at obvious perplexities, and then by gradual progression raising questions about the greater matters too…”   -Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b

I mean, without wondering, where are we?

The excommunicated preacher, weeks before the bell tolled for his time as pastor, has a prickly exchange with his bishop . . .

December 13: Second Chancery Meeting, Fr. Treco:

At 8:30 AM, I met again with Bishop Lopes, Fr. Perkins, and Fr. Kramer. The fruit of my night in prayer was the conviction that my next step should be to offer a personal Profession of Faith so that the bishop would have a clearer sense of my mind. Bishop Lopes concurred.

As this brief meeting was winding down, Bishop Lopes made one or two comments which I thought were disparaginto those he referred to as traditionalists. I left this meeting thinking that we had just begun what I anticipated might be a very difficult and lengthy journey.

Yes. Hope took a hit that day.

As for disparaging traditionalists, no surprise here. He’s a “Francis bishop,” owing all to the incumbent Pope, who has the utmost disdain for “traddies,” as some call themselves.

Five days later Fr. T. sent his profession, most of it embodying clear-cut traditionalism, with a cover note apologizing for its “deficiencies,” and explaining that it was intended as the start of a process to achieve “greater understanding, which would . . . provide occasion for instruction and correction, as you deem appropriate and necessary.”

He deems it so, but Bishop L., who has depicted him as heretical from the start, is another story. Too bad Fr. T. talks that way, glossing over the hostility.

He then launched a fairly irrelevant description of how his father had dealt with him and his sister when they were children, including three rules — “respectful discussion,” even in arguments, keeping focus on what’s for “the good of the family,” and keeping in mind that the final decision rests with parents.

He was not presuming that these rules would apply in this case, he explained, but was aiming “to give you a sense of the operation of my mind and will as we continue forward,” he told the bishop. To what end?

He furthermore asked the bishop’s forgiveness for “any expressions that convey an unintended hubris,” although he would “make every effort to avoid such language.” But he suspected that the bishop would not “always find language devoid of the same.” It might still happen! The bishop had to be puzzled.

The bishop got back to him promptly, but in a “dismissive tone,” the bishop remonstrated. Fr. T. was expected to send a personal profession of faith but had instead sent the Apostles Creed and the Oath Against Modernism, plus only “three brief paragraphs” of his own composition,

The Oath had been promulgated in 1910 by Pope Pius X with the requirement that it be signed by “all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.”

It remained “in effect until 1967,” the bishop noted. Its place was taken by the Profession of Faith, which he said “does not diminish, nor does it abrogate the truth of the Oath,” which seems to mean the two are interchangeable. Not so, to go by what else the bishop said, about “the principle at work here,” in this exchange, which

is that the faith is one and the same [!] and that the current Profession of Faith both receives and interprets [?] the prior articulation, not vice versa.

Whoa. Prior articulation? Oh. Interprets? If it’s one and the same, why the need for interpretation? Rather, what does the interpreting do for one’s understanding? In short, what’s the difference? The bishop’s lips are moving, what’s happening?

“Therefore, the bishop continued, addressing his subject,

you get it precisely backwards when you state at the conclusion of the document that your earlier Profession of Faith (signed December 18, 2014) is best understood within the context of the fuller statement which you now submit (December 18, 2018).

This begs [raises] the question whether, by this, you intend to rescind the Profession of Faith you made in 2014 in favor of the Oath Against Modernism as a “fuller profession of faith.”

Why? If the faith is one and the same in each, where’s the intent to rescind one of them? Is this man competent to condemn another’s expression?

Raising the question — not begging, if you don’t mind — apart from the Oath’s obligatory nature, apparently honored in the breach over several decades, what was the matter with the Oath in 1967 that would make it unsuitable for a Profession?

What was there in the Oath, again apart its obligatory nature, that made it unsuitable for a preacher to use in his defense when accused of anything?

What did the Profession have that the Oath did not have? Or what was missing that the Oath did have? And how did Fr.  T. violate that, whatever it was? 

Fr. T. also objected to the bishop’s “needlessly swift” deadline for repairing his response. He got the letter on Christmas Eve, with response expected by January 6, 13 days later, during a busy time for priests who are “unavailable for spiritual guidance,” referring apparently to advice he would be seeking.

That wasn’t the half of it. More later on Fr. Treco’s objections to his bishop’s comments and something about the latter’s reasoning in the matter and his own history . . .

Act of worship as prayer of petition

Sunday sermons, weekday observations

“I remember [deceased friend] well despite the passage of many years since we were [Jesuit novices] together in 1959.

“Received Communion for [him] and for all of you this morning as I frequently do. God bless us all.”

Am finding this worthy of note. “Receiving Communion” for someone, dating to the late ’50s, when writer became accustomed to, or more likely, had grown up Catholic with, this idea, which puts reception of communion in class with prayer of petition.


View original post

Return to the excommunicated preacher, weeks before the bell tolled for his expulsion as pastor, . . . and various exchanges between him and his excommunicating bishop

The bishop and the preacher seem unable to become friends.

Let us consider the Bishop Lopes-Fr. Treco exchanges beginning with the day after the first chancery meeting weeks before the closing down of his role as pastor and preacher.

December 13, Second Chancery Meeting, Fr. T.:

I met again with Bishop Lopes, Fr. Perkins, and Fr. Kramer. The fruit of my night in prayer was the conviction that my next step should be to offer a personal Profession of Faith so that the bishop would have a clearer sense of my mind. Bishop Lopes concurred.

As this brief meeting was winding down, Bishop Lopes made one or two comments which I thought were disparaginto those he referred to as traditionalists.

Almost certainly this was the case, as regards the disparaging part. . . .

Tales of the excommunicated preacher continued . . .

Fauci caught Covid. Should we be glad?

In most cases, no, this writer says. However:

Fauci draws more than his share of ire because he has been the most visible face of the “official” response to the epidemic. He stands or sits there with a sanctimonious expression on his face and this mild, reasonable tone of voice, and spews an endless stew of misstatements and lies.

The lifelong bureaucrat in action — never really accomplished anything — survives by being politically adept. If such bureaucrats don’t start out as incompetent in their field, they quickly get the knack of it. In government it isn’t what you know, it is who you know and how much cow manure you can spread while blaming everyone else for the odor.

Precisely. Indeed, I noted his survival in the Beast many months ago in many ways. Oh, and yes, I looked out the window and saw it was raining and I told someone it was raining, I’m soooo smart.