Pat Archbold's "Controversial" Call for Pope Francis to Normalize Relations With SSPX Removed by National Catholic Register

Since the Register won't carry it, I will (and Pat also has it at Creative Minority Report):

Pope Francis and the SSPX: An Opportunity

By PATRICK ARCHBOLD

By now, many of you have probably seen the Tony Palmer video last week that was so exciting to many.

At a Protestant conference, Tony Palmer, an Anglican priest, brought along an iPhone video of greeting from Pope Francis. The subject of the presentation and of the Pope’s recording was unity of Christians.

In his remarks, Pope Francis made the following statements to our separated brethren regarding the separation: “Separated because, it’s sin that has separated us, all our sins. The misunderstandings throughout history. It has been a long road of sins that we all shared in. Who is to blame? We all share the blame. We have all sinned. There is only one blameless, the Lord.”

It is certainly true. Regardless of the truth of Catholic doctrine, the Church has accepted its share of the blame for the misunderstanding that were allowed to deepen and harden, leading to centuries of separation.

When I heard this, something else written by Pope Francis’ predecessor came immediately to mind. In 2007, along with the issuance of the “motu proprio” Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI issued a letter explaining his reasoning. In that letter, he made the following statement.

Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

It strikes me that this may be one of those critical moments in history to which His Holiness refers.

With the breakdown of discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.

This perception of marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.

Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

I believe this generosity is warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of Pascendi Dominici Gregis before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.

Give them canonical status and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.

Please Holy Father, let us not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your successors will ever say, “If only we had done more.”

It's the Only Thing I Have to My Name After 8 Years of Blogging ...

... and these folks want to give it away to that old scoundrel Cardinal Law:

... Reader Victor Lam moves that [Anderson's] Law be changed to the Bernard Francis Law. I emphatically second that. The motion is moved and seconded. If Mr. Anderson agrees, I think it should henceforth be called the Bernard Francis Law or, alternatively, the Cardinal Law. What say you?

So, what say you? Should Anderson's Law instead be known as "the Cardinal Law"?

Honestly, I don't think it fits. Apart from not wanting to have something that originated here associated with that reprobate, let's not forget that Cardinal Law ACTUALLY DID (or aided and abetted) what Anderson's Law predicts someone will mention in an ad hominem fashion to distract from a completely unrelated discussion.

When someone inevitably mentions the scandal in a discussion completely unrelated to the scandal, is throwing Cardinal Law's name into the mix actually likely to steer the discussion back on course?

Sixth Anniversary of "Anderson's Law"

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one." 

~ Anderson's Law

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:   
See Anderson's Law

Today is the 8th Anniversary of this Blog

Time flies.

Amy's New Travel Blog

Check out Amy Welborn's new travel blog, Booked:

Booked came about this way.

I was sitting around a couple of months ago – early 2011- mulling over future writing projects, actual and proposed. I wasn’t really jazzed by any of them, and spent a few minutes whining to myself…what I really want to do is travel writing. But that can’t happen because…

But wait….why not?

So the idea for Booked was born. Because this is the Internet and I can write about anything I please, right?

Charlotte Was Both will still exist and I will still post there – about books, movies, faith. But I’m going to concentrate more of my energies into travel writing. Readers have enjoyed my travel-related posts in the past so maybe this is a season of just going with that for a while. I am thinking that I can spend a few years seeing things and telling people about those things in interesting and occasionally amusing ways – right?

[Read more]

Almost Missed It ...

... my "6th Blogiverssary", that is.

Six years ago today - 7 March 2005 - I started Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate with these two posts:

Welcome To My Blog

Roper v. Simmons: Judicial Activism and The Juvenile Death Penalty

Much has happened over the past 6 years, many of my opinions have changed, many readers have come and gone, and a loyal few followers have stuck around. I don't post near as often as I once did, and I can't say that the quality of my postings have improved. In fact, they've probably lost a lot of their thoughtful quality over the years (not that there was much thoughtful content that went into them in the first place).

At any rate, I don't know how much longer I'll be doing this gig, but I hope you'll stick around for what I have left in the tank. Thanks for reading.

Now THAT'S What I'd Call a "Debate Club at Auschwitz"

I'm not sure I could find a more apt example of a so-called "Debate Club at Auschwitz" than the current handwringing and Catholic angst over the Lila Rose exposes. I mean, this is the equivalent of us all standing around and expending all our efforts debating for days on end whether the military tactics used to liberate the death camp at Auschwitz met just war requirements while ignoring the horrible facts of the death camp itself.

I'm making no judgment whatsoever on the licity of what Lila Rose did (and I do have some doubts about the morality of Live Action's activity), but rather on the inordinate amount of time spent by Catholics handwringing over it. Just seems completely disproportionate to the alleged evil done by Lila Rose vs. the evil that was exposed via the sting operation.

The Cranky Conservative is Back in Action

Good news.

New Catholic News Site: The Pulpit

Tito's latest blogging endeavor is a new Catholic news site:

I've launched a new Catholic Newsite that distinguishes itself from other Catholic news aggregaters in that it offers only the best in Catholic punditry. From Father Zuhlsdorf to Mark Shea and from George Weigel to Ross Douthat and everything in-between.

We scour the Catholic blogosphere for the most insightful and well written articles that affect us as Catholics.

We humbly beseech thee to tell your loyal and ardent readers to come visit us!

Well, I wanted to ask you if you could make a plug for it on your personal blog, Pro Eclessia.

Oh, we're called "The Pulpit", our URL is http://thepulp.it/

or if that doesn't work try CatholicPulpit.com.

Check it out.

New Cardinal Newman Society Blog: Campus Notes

Check out the new blog of the Cardinal Newman Society, Campus Notes.

Especially pay attention over the next several days to the blog's coverage of the Society's official pilgrimage to England for the Pope's beatification of Cardinal Newman: "Official U.S. Pilgrimage to Newman’s Beatification Kicks Off in 2 Days".

The American Catholic College Football Rankings - Week 1

I'm honored to be a contributor to the only college football poll that matters:

So we’re trying a new feature here at TAC. Since we noticed we have a lot of college football fans, we thought it might be fun to start our own rankings system. This way, we have an excuse to talk college football every week in a Catholic setting. B/c we thought of it this week, this ranking is coming out on Thursday but the others should be coming out on Mondays.

Here’s how it’ll work. People will send in their rankings and I’ll assign points to them (25 for 1st, 24 for 2nd, etc.) and then average out the points and rank the teams according to that. Then I will take that score along with the computer models and…just kidding. No computer models.

My hope is that it’ll build and we’ll get more people involved (and if you want to submit rankings, let me know-you don’t have to write for TAC). At the end of the year, we may even do a special bowl pick-em thing if it seems popular enough.

Rankings follow after the jump

Since this poll is a collaboration of several writers, there are obviously some opinions as to rankings that do not reflect my own thinking and are thus, by definition, wrong.

Therefore, so that you can see the correct top-25 rankings, I am going to reveal how I voted this week:

1. Alabama - Until someone knocks off the defending champs, they're still #1.
2. Boise State - Shocker, I know, that I'm not going with Ohio State. But Boise beat a Top 10 opponent, while Ohio State beat Marshall. If the Buckeyes take care of business against Miami this week, they'll leapfrog back to #2.
3. Ohio State - See above. That said, I think that if Ohio State stays healthy they may have the team to beat at the end of the year.
4. Oregon - 72-0 (and shutting it down after the 3rd quarter or else they might have put up 100) is impressive regardless of whom one is playing.
5. Texas - Not sold on them, especially now that McCoy has moved on, and they looked pretty anemic at times on Saturday. But the cliché is actually true with respect to the Longhorns: They don't rebuild, they reload.
6. TCU - It is inexcusable that the two most consistently outstanding college football teams in the Lone Star State over the last decade don't play each other on an annual basis. But I suppose the Longhorns know they have a tough enough time with Oklahama every year to then be foolish enough to play the Horned Frogs, too. If the Big 12 ever looks to replace Colorado and/or Nebraska (or to boot Missouri from its ranks), TCU would be the perfect replacement.
7. Nebraska - Returning to glory just in time to join the Big 10 + 2 next year.
8. Iowa - The Hawkeyes, if Stanzi stays healthy (a HUGE "if" after seeing him go down again on Saturday), are the biggest impediment between Ohio State and another run to the BCS Championship game.
9. Florida - Meh. The scoreboard might not have reflected it, but they got whipped for 3 quarters by the worst Division 1 team in Ohio.
10. Miami - The one that regularly plays in Florida, not the one that went down to Florida and whipped the Gators for 3 quarters. The Hurricanes looked impressive Saturday. If they can go into Columbus and upset the Buckeyes, we may be seeing the return of "The U" to national prominence. God spare us from the thuggery.
11. Virginia Tech - Tech is not going to fall very far in my rankings after narrowly losing to my number 2 team, who had to score a last-minute touchdown to overcome the Hokies. After starting out excruciatingly slow on Monday night and falling behind 17-0, the boys from Blacksburg made an impressive and valiant recovery to take the lead against Boise State and hold it until late in the game. If they run the table the rest of the season (not unheard of), and if enough teams ahead of them lose (again, not unheard of), we could very well see a BCS championship rematch of the game we watched on Monday.
12. Oklahoma - This ranking is achieved by recruiting success and reputation only. I'm just not impressed overall with the Sooners. They are the REAL perennial underachievers every year in both the regular season and their BCS appearances. For all the crap the Buckeyes take for their BCS bowl record (which is a solid 5-3, including a National Championship), it is the Sooners who have to be embarassed by their paltry 2-5 showing in BCS bowl games, including losing 4 straight (one of them to Boise State).
13. Wisconsin - Another key stumbling block to Buckeye success this year. The Badgers never seem to get any of the hype, but they're always in the thick of things at the end of the year. An impressive bowl victory over Miami has given them momentum going into this season.
14. Florida State - Jimbo Fisher has the Seminoles back on track. Unfortunately, in the coming years, we might have to get used to seeing 3 Florida teams sitting near the top of the rankings.
15. Georgia Tech - Another underappreciated team that always seems to the last one standing among the wreckage that is the ACC over the last several years.
16. Arkansas - Not sold on them yet, but everyone else seems to think the Razorbacks have something to be excited about this year (besides their first time having a Homecoming Queen with all of her teeth).
17. Penn State - Joe Pa just keeps going and going. An impressive first game from his new freshman quarterback turns what looked like a question mark going into the season into an exclamation point going into this weekend's game against the top-ranked Crimson Tide.
18. USC - Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater. Same dirty tactics, different theater. Lane Kiffin returns to the place where he learned how to cheat at the feet of the master, and where the student athletes major in creating new and inventive ways to cheat that no one else ever thought of before.
19. Georgia - The Dawgs perennially vie with Oklahoma in competing for the underachievment crown.
20. LSU - Bayou Bengal fans should be a little worried after last week's game. It's not quite time to hit the panic button just yet, but that was one sorry showing in the 2nd half against the 2nd and 3rd team of a basketball school. Les Miles ought to be a LOT worried about keeping his job. Les ain't more anymore.
21. Auburn - The other team in Alabama has sort of dropped off the radar screen of late, having been overshadowed by its powerhouse in-state rival. This won't be the year they step out of the Tide's shadow.
22. South Carolina - A good start to the season; but let's wait to see how the Ol' Ball Coach finishes the season.
23. Michigan - A strong showing against one of the favorites in the Big East, UConn, propels the Wolverines into my top 25.
24. Notre Dame - Okay, I admit this is a reach. We'll see how the Irish do this week against Michigan.
25. North Carolina - How do you drop the Tar Heels out of the top 25 after they almost beat LSU with their 2nd and 3rd team players and their back-up point guard?

Your feedback is, of course, encouraged. Just so long as you realize that any opinion expressed that is contrary to something in my vote talley will be, by definition, wrong.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The Most Glorious Time of Year ...

Predictions for 2010 College Football Season [UPDATED]

Catholic Dads Get Makeovers, Too

Check out the makeover that Catholic Dads has undergone. Great work by Rob Kaiser!

Michael Sean Winters Reveals His Ugly, Boorish, Small-Minded Pettiness Via His Sullivanesque Obsession With Prof. Robert George [UPDATED]

The Opinionated Catholic brought to my attention an attack on Professor Robert George by lefty Catholic Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter.

It all started with this particularly boorish and mean-spirited attack by Winters at NCR:

Professor Robert George is a different kind of fraud. He pretends to be concerned with “American Principles” as his website says, but he seems only concerned with those American Principles that cohere with the current political agenda of the Republican Party. That bias is fine by me, but when he explains that the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration “will not remain silent” one is hard-pressed to ascertain why he has been so conspicuously silent about the religious freedom of Muslims to build a mosque on private property in lower Manhattan. Does he share the “all Muslims are the same” bigotry of Colson? Does he think, like Mr. Newt Gingrich, that we should only allow a mosque here when Saudi Arabia permits a church in Mecca, as if the Saudi Royal Family should be a moral compass for anyone? He has found time at his website to post articles about Proposition 8 being overturned, a photograph of King George III, a bizarre article about returning to the Gold Standard, but not a word about the religious freedom of Muslims to build a mosque, not atop the World Trade Center site, by the way, but two blocks away, not far from St. Peter’s Catholic Church and St. Paul’s Episcopal Chapel to which, presumably, no on objects because, well, you know. (As I write these words, I entertain a vision of the Uptons in “Auntie Mame” explaining that their neighborhood was “restricted” because they did not want the wrong type of people, namely Jews, living there.) Cat got your tongue professor?

To which Prof. Rick Garnett of Mirror of Justice responded:

I think it is unfair, though -- and in the case of the baseless charges lobbed at our own Robby George, mean-spirited and unworthy -- to charge those who (a) are publicly and unquestionably dedicated to religious liberty but (b) have not (yet) spoken out in strong defense of the proposal with 'hypocrisy" or "fraud." (I'm being defensive here, of course, because I spent the weekend doing things besides commenting on the mosque.)

We do this too much in our public conversations, I think (I am guilty of this sometimes too, I am sure): "You say you are on the side of the angels, but you have failed to condemn publicly [insert outrageous act or current controversy] and so . . . gotcha! You are a fraud!"

But Winters wasn't backing off:

Whenever I disagree with Professor Garnett, such disagreement always makes me think again on any topic. But, it is painful to disagree with someone I respect when there is a personal aspect to the disagreement. I understand his loyalty to his friend, Professor George. He, like others, assures me that Professor George is an upstanding person, a fine scholar, a great teacher. He may be all those things in spades for all I know. Another mutual friend of Professor George’s and me wrote a note observing: “Even if you conclude that someone advocates a policy that contradicts one of his own principles, that only makes him inconsistent or foolish, not fraudulent.” I recognize the distinction although, for someone who claims to be a philosopher, the charge of inconsistency is a grave one, and I have watched Professor George in action and he is no fool.

Fraudulence is when a person presents themselves in one way but connives to achieve other, opposed objectives. Unless Professor George has the gumption to stand up to some of his fellow political conservatives, to stand up for religious freedom and for the Constitution at a time when some of his fellow conservatives are using the issue to whip up the basest of passions, unless he is willing to recognize that, throughout history, it is not merely “the government” but the mob which is prone to threaten religious liberties, then, yes, I am afraid he is a fraud.

It was then Prof. George's turn to defend himself against Winters' unprovoked attack:

Because I've been dealing with a horrible family tragedy, I have not been reading or contributing to MoJ for the past ten days or so. During a visit to South Africa, my brother Edward's fiance, Helen Elaine Hill, was thrown from a horse and severely injured. After lingering in a coma for several days, this charming, beautiful, and brilliant young woman died. Her obituary appeared in last Sunday's New York Times. I returned to Princeton last night after attending her funeral in Lewisburg, West Virginia. As you can imagine, my brother is utterly grief-stricken and our entire family is devastated. It has been a rough period for us.

When I opened MoJ this morning to catch up, I found your report that Michael Winters, who seems to have some sort of obsession with me, has found a pretext for launching yet another vicious, flailing, personal attack at his blog. Thanks for defending me, but, honestly, the guy is plainly not interested in reasonable debate. You won't get anywhere with him. I have no idea whether what is driving him is ideological or psychological, but it is certainly not devotion to truth. He seems to have some sort of score to settle with me---what it is I can't say, since I don't know the man---and he's not going to let truth get in the way of settling it.

The last time you called attention to one of Winters' bizarre attacks, I posted a response on MoJ noting that "[w]e can go step by step to show how he willfully twists and misrepresents an interlocutor's words in order to create a false impression of what his opponent is saying." This, as it turns out, is his modus operandi. As his conduct consistently shows, he is a deeply intellectually dishonest person. This time he is trying to smear me by drawing preposterous inferences from the fact that I haven't yet published anything on the New York mosque controversy.

As a matter of fact, I'm writing an op ed with Jennifer Bryson, an outstanding scholar of contemporary Islam with whom I've worked closely in the cause of Muslim-Christian understanding, concerning controversies about mosques not only in New York City, but across the country. We are submitting our piece to the Wall Street Journal. Although we have not yet finalized the draft (precisely because I have been occupied with my family's bereavement), here are the opening sentences:

Across the country in recent months, from California, to Louisiana, to New York, anti-Muslim sentiment has become a prominent feature of opposition to new mosques. At risk in this is religious freedom itself. But not just religious freedom. Also threatened is the respectful civility that enables constructive public discourse in religiously pluralistic democratic societies. First, an attitude of "freedom for me but not for thee" rings the death knell for liberty itself. Freedom of religion is a right of all human beings, including Muslims. People who oppose the building of mosques in their communities out of anti-Islamic animus are guilty of intolerance and a lack or respect for religious freedom. Such hostility assaults the human dignity of both the hater annd the hated.

[Read the whole thing]

WOW! Pretty compelling evidence that (1) there was good reason for Prof. George to not be engaged on this topic as it became a national news story and (2) Prof. George is ANYTHING BUT a "fraud" on the topic of religious freedom.

So, you'd think an apology from Winters would be forthcoming, right? Think again. You obviously haven't been paying attention to the way a real fraud like Michael Sean Winters operates:

Unbeknownst to me, Professor Robert George has been dealing with a dreadful personal family tragedy, so I shall ignore his comments about myself and my writings at the blog Mirror of Justice.

Souls that are hurting tend to say hurtful things. Of course, I do not retract a word I have written in his regard.

[...]

Professor George has made a name for himself as a defender of religious liberty. That is why his silence heretofore was so noteworthy and so disturbing.

(emphasis added)

"That is why his silence heretofore was so noteworthy and so disturbing."

WTF?

Hey, Mikey Sean, as is clear from your acknowledgement that "Professor Robert George has been dealing with a dreadful personal family tragedy", you know damned well that Prof. George's "silence heretofore" was because he was dealing with more pressing matters of a personal nature, NOT from any reticence on his part to speak out on behalf of religious freedom for Muslims. There is absoulutely nothing "noteworthy" or "disturbing" about his being preoccupied with urgent family business and not being immediately available to wax philosophical about free exercise matters on YOUR time table.

What's worse, YOU attacked Prof. George as "a fraud" and then, without offering an apology for that - given what has been going on in the man's life that might have been distracting him somewhat from the events you believe he should have immediately spoken out about, have the chutzpah to play the victim card - "I shall ignore his comments about myself and my writings" - in that disgustingly Wormtonguesqe passive-aggressive manner that makes one feel like they need to take a shower to wash off all the slime after reading it.

To stand by and "not retract a word of" your previous comments, especially in light of what you now know to be the truth, reveals once and for all what many of your critics already knew about you: that you are a small, petty, and pathetic man (and "man" may be giving you too much credit).


UPDATE (20 August 2010)
Prof. George has responded to Winters' non-apology:

Michael Winters lets us know just what kind of guy he is
Last night, one of my former students sent me a link to Michael Winters' blog at the National Catholic Reporter, where Winters has posted a response to my MoJ post about his most recent attack on me. Here is the link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/professor-george-ground-zero-mosque. If anyone has the slightest doubt that what I said about Winters and his modus operandi is true, please open the link and see if you don't find what I said more than amply confirmed. Winters' own words fully reveal the kind of person he is. He offers no apology for the ugly smears and taunts that prompted my criticisms of him. He retracts nothing. He admits no error. On the contrary, he engages in more of his vile innuendo---suggesting that he merited no rebuke from me, and that I criticized him only because I am "hurting" from a family tragedy ("souls that are hurting tend to say hurtful things")---while purporting to applaud me for speaking up for religious liberty. The comments following his post make it plain that his readers have no difficulty seeing through this ploy. They are on to the guy. Evidently, a few of them have been on to him for some time now.

(Hat tip, once again, to Opinionated Catholic)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Liberal Catholic Michael Sean Winters Calls Out Media for Shoddy Coverage of Pope

Michael Sean Winters: "Deceitful Bogeyman" of the Catholic Left

Fr. Z Defends Well-Known Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid ... [UPDATED]

Pro-Life Kudos to Michael Sean Winters

REPOSTED and UPDATED: "... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

"... Dollars to Doughnuts ..."

For Those Interested in Irish History ...

... I have a sort of "omnibus" post coming up on Friday regarding what is arguably the most important (certainly the most history changing) event in modern Irish history.

I'm giving you a heads up now because Friday tends to be one of my "low-traffic" days here at Pro Ecclesia (although, for the past year or so, every day has tended to be a "low-traffic" day here at Pro Ecclesia).

;-)

Sorry for the Sparse Posting of Late ...

... I've been on a much-needed vacation with the family the past 2 weeks.

Some Shameless Self-Promotion ...

... using a tool that I learned about from the Regular Guy:





UPDATE
By the way, I hope no one takes this seriously. I was just staying up too late last night having a little fun with the Google Search Stories tool and the comments from the "What They're Saying" portion of my sidebar.

Pro-Life Search Videos

Thanks to my old friend the Regular Guy for sending along these great pro-life Google "SearchStories" videos:

2010 Cannonball Catholic Blog Awards

Voting starts today in the 2010 Cannonball Catholic Blog Awards.

Last year, Pro Ecclesia actually won a Canonball Award - my one and only Catholic blog award in my entire 5 years of blogging.

This year, not even a frickin' nomination.

Thanks. Bastards.

;-)

A Special Pro Ecclesia Thanks ...

... to the Cranky Con himself, Paul Zummo for meeting me for an evening of fine cigars, draught beer, and excellent conversation at Shelley's Back Room in Washington, D.C.

I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to finally meet you in person, Paul.

5 Years of Blogging ...

... as of today.

Is 5 years too long to be doing this? In some ways, it seems like only yesterday that I began this blog. In other ways, that seems ages ago.