Catholic University Professor Reportedly Suspended After Tweets Attacking Obama and Harris

imagesWe have previously discussed the uncertain standard applying to teachers and professors who are subject to discipline for social media postings. It often seems that any termination or discipline is based upon subjective or majoritarian views of the content of postings. The latest such case is out of Catholic University of America where adjunct professor John Tieso has been suspended after tweets ridiculing Barack Obama and Kamala Harris after working for the school since 2013.  Tieso told the site The College Fix that he is considering legal action.

440px-Senator_Harris_official_senate_portraitThe action occurred after an investigation by WUSA9 anchor Larry Miller into two tweets.  One tweet on May 5 the referred to Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris as a “former escort.” Critics of Harris have long hounded her with such attacks tied to her dating of then Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown who was married and twice her age.  Brown assisted Harris in her career.  He also allegedly called President Barack Obama “[i]ncredibly incompetent and vain” and suggested Obama “consider staying in Africa and giving all his money to his people.”

According to news reports, Tieso was told by Busch School of Business Dean Andrew Abela, that he had to end such social media postings: “Your Twitter account has to go if you want to stay a member of the faculty.” 


While Tieso was told that a couple students complained, he was never given information supporting the claim.

Lawrence Morris, chief of staff and counselor to the president, sent an email to President John Garvey, citing “racial tweets” from a “Busch school adjunct.” 

Later Tieso was told of the suspension.

As we have previously discussed (including a story involving an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. The incident also raises what some faculty have complained is a double or at least uncertain standard. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

My concern is whether tweets attacking Trump like the one by the Rutgers professor would also lead to such action.  These are deeply offensive tweets but they were sent outside of the school by an adjunct in his personal capacity.  The uncertain line clearly creates a chilling effect on speech. The media attention seemed to drive the alleged action.  The concern for free speech is obvious.  There are sharply different responses to public comments and actions depending on the subject of the criticism by academics.  Academic freedom and free speech require bright lines to avoid such uncertainty as to what will or will not be tolerated.

58 thoughts on “Catholic University Professor Reportedly Suspended After Tweets Attacking Obama and Harris”

  1. Whistle while you work!
    Hitler was a jerk.
    Sweeney bit his tweeter …
    And now it doesn’t work!

  2. What does the Catholic University employment contract state?

  3. I was against the unmasking before I was for the unmasking.

  4. Your intolerance will not be tolerated. Please echo our proscribed opinions, or you shall be silenced. Thank you for your cooperation.

  5. Off Topic:

    If Israel sent Covid infected patients into Palestinian nursing homes resulting in the deaths of many elderly and vulnerable people the EU, the UN, and every news outlet in the world would be screaming ATROCITY! at full volume.

    And they would be right.

    Yet, that is exactly what governor Cuomo did in New York with a March 25 ukase to nursing homes compelling them to accept Covid patients.

    There could be no doubt that the order would lead to many deaths. And it did. Many families in the state lost parents and grandparents because of this heartless order that stank of indifference toward the lives of some New York State citizens.

    Cuomo’s reckless directive may constitute a Class D Felony under the Laws of New York:

    § 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
    A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,
    under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he
    recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
    another person.
    Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.

    It was no mystery that those in nursing homes were at increased risk. That had been learned in Washington State where authorities quickly and properly acted to protect the vulnerable.

    Healthy adults have been barred from visiting parents and grandparents in nursing homes because of the fear they may accidentally bring in the virus. But to Governor Cuomo sending in patients actually infected with and shedding the dangerous virus in every direction seemed like a grand idea. Meanwhile, he wants to keep healthy people from the beach.

    One can only hope that some district attorney in Upstate New York who has lost a loved family member to this reckless and inhumane order decides to take a close look at § 120.25.

    Cuomo appears to have committed an atrocity.

    People want an explanation and news coverage from someone other than the governor’s brother on CNN.

    1. Young – I have been twirling this theory for a couple of days. The House wants mail-in voting and national vote harvesting. Which group is most likely harvested? Nursing homes? Who votes Republican? Nursing homes. Who should we kill off before a national election so we can harvest their votes? Nursing homes. Cuomo is a mass murderer.

      1. Paul–

        I don’t know why they would recklessly kill people in nursing homes. But Democrats aren’t exactly the party of life. Makes sense if they kill at both ends, newborns and elderly aren’t safe around them.

        But they will harvest votes in prisons and cemeteries if they can get away with it.

        1. Young,

          What? You would deny those people in cemeteries their Right to Vote?


          1. Would I deny the dead their right to vote? How could I? If they vote Democrat everyone knows they get two votes; three if they are felons.

      2. Paul,

        lol, it’s sick, but I wouldn’t put anything past them. Some races are decide by as little as a 100, 500, etc…. votes

        so far something going past 100000 dead.

        If the dead came from areas that are close it could throw the multiple elections one way or the other.

  6. If he had limited his tweet about B.O. to “[i]ncredibly incompetent and vain, do you think he would be suspended? I don’t know,but I don’t think so. So I don’t think it was his simply expressing unpopular views that got him in trouble. The second part of his statement was offensive and had no redeeming qualities, i.e., if it was intended to be humorous or clever, it got by me. I guess the question is whether offensive on one’s private time should affect employment. I think it shouldn’t, but I am not sure what law the school has violated by doing so.

  7. I plead no contest to possibly referring to the senator as the ‘CA Lap Dancer,’ frequently. I sympathize with Tieso as his career is threatened for having views not shared by those that dictate thought. Had he said that about Sen. Marsha Blackburn, I am positive he would have received tenure and been named for receiving various awards. The tables may turn, and what’s good for the goose . . .

  8. That’s why we call them Cat O Licks.
    It wouldn’t be a Willie or a Fred!
    For there ain’t no dumb like Cat O Licks…
    Nuns are on the lame.

  9. Whistle while you work.
    Hitler was a jerk.
    Castro bit his cellphone..
    And now it doesn’t work!

    1. The brief mistakenly states on page 8 that the role of the court under 48 (a) is to assure that the defendant is not abused by prosecutors. The paper below reviews the history of the writing of the law and shows that on the contrary, the purpose was to be sure a connected defendant was not allowed to skate by a corrupt prosecutor. It notes in fact that most state courts have this same rule.

      The conventional view of Rule 48(a) dismissals distinguishes between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. In United States v. Flynn, the Department of Justice argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies on forty-year-old dicta in the sole U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a), Rinaldi v. United States. There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

      But the Government’s position—and the U.S. Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case.

      To be clear, there may be good reason for the district court to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in United States v. Flynn. But the fiction that Rule 48(a) exists solely, or even chiefly, to protect defendants against prosecutorial mischief should be abandoned. This brief Essay recounts Rule 48’s forgotten history.”

      1. ok so what does the federal blackrobe presume to do if he doesn’t give leave to dismiss the charges?

        who will present the case on behalf of the government if the government will not?

        preposterous illogic. violation of separation of powers by the judicial pretender

      2. You have posted this multiple times, and it is obvious that you are either not working in the legal field, or are stupid, or are a shill. Because I provided you the Fokker case to look at. Plus, you have the Defendant’s Motion to go by. Because rules of procedure change over the years and new law alters old law,

        I suggest you find your local Sovereign Citizens group, and dump your driver’s license and stop paying for car insurance. You can even become a Federal Common Law expert! Sovereign Citizens don’t need no stupid law license!

        But don’t believe me. Go ahead and file an amicus brief with the court. That way maybe you will get to argue a whole bunch, in front of real lawyers! You can tell them all how smart you are!

        Be careful you don’t argue in front of any flag with fringe on it, because that is an Admiralty Court! 🙂

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. Laughable argument. You are just citing somebody else’s OPINION. The law is clear. If the government dismisses and the defendant agrees, there is no room for the judge to say otherwise.

            There is a difference between legal arguments and good solid legal arguments. Every lawyer has argued a legal position that he knows is crap. It comes with the business.

            People here are trying to teach you something. Have enough sense to learn.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Repprter

          2. One more attempt to get thru your thick skull:

            Here is Note 28 from a Harvard Law Review article on Fokker:

            28. Id. The Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of the “leave of court” requirement is to prevent “‘prosecutorial harassment’ of the defendant through repeated efforts to bring — and then dismiss — charges.” Id. (quoting Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977)).

            Here is the article:


            See, that makes the “leave of court” language meaningless in the Flynn context, but “leave of court” can be made to sound like a whole lot more than it is to the legally untrained individual.

            For what it is worth, It is the judge here who is harassing the Defendant.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. The article I have linked demonstrates that the intent of the commission which wrote Rule 48 with SC input intended the “leave of court” clause to not be limited to only one type of case, but was focused almost exclusively on the type of case we have here. A possible corrupt prosecutor doing favors for a connected defendant. It notes that most states have a similar rule.

              In Fokker, there was not an indictment, let alone a guilty plea lacking only a sentence as in the Flynn case. Sentencing is the court’s perogative, not the executive branches, so Flynn is literally now playing in the court’s court.

              1. You should have been a two-citizen parent birther. All that crap goes bye-bye when SCOTUS speaks. But but but Vattel! John Jay!

                Believe what you want. This is your “learnable” moment.” If you wish to remain ignorant – well, you are free, white and 21!

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

    1. Abernathy vis-a-vis King

      “Abernathy wrote that he awoke from a nap in a woman’s living room after a late-night dinner to see King and the woman emerge from a bedroom.

      – AP

      “Mr. Abernathy’s reasons for providing a detailed description of his friend’s last evening and early morning – during which King had sexual encounters with two women and a confrontation with a third close woman companion – can be known only to him.”

      – NYT

  10. “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour, Lisa Page

    “POTUS [Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to FBI paramour, Peter Strzok

    “If Comey had charged Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

  11. The owners of private property may claim and exercise dominion comprehensively. Public institutions may not deny constitutional rights. Obama and Harris may sue but I suspect their desire would be to avoid discovery of the truths tweeted by the accused.

    “…she was 29 and Brown was 60.”

    “Former S.F. Mayor Willie Brown writes about dating Kamala Harris, appointing her to posts” Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past relationship with Sen. Kamala Harris in a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle on Saturday and acknowledged giving her appointments that furthered her career. “Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago,” wrote Brown, who said he had “been peppered with calls from the national media about my ‘relationship’ with Kamala Harris, particularly since it became obvious that she was going to run for president.”

    Brown was married at the time he and Harris dated, but – because he had been “estranged from his wife” Blanche Brown since 1981, according to People magazine –the relationship was not kept secret. A Sacramento Bee reporter told People that Brown “had a succession of girlfriends” and would “go to a party with his wife on one arm and his girlfriend on the other.” A 1994 Los Angeles Times report about then-California Assembly Speaker Brown’s “rush to hand out patronage jobs” described Harris as Brown’s “frequent companion” and said several people referred to her as Brown’s girlfriend. That report also cited a column from the Chronicle’s Herb Caen that called Harris “the Speaker’s new steady.” When they met, she was 29 and Brown was 60.

    According to Caen, the couple split up in 1995, which “flabbergasted” those “who found Kamala the perfect antidote to whatever playboy tendencies still reside in the mayor-elect’s jaunty persona.” Although Brown supported Harris in her successful 2003 run for San Francisco district attorney, she tried to distance herself from him in that race, telling SF Weekly that Brown – whose career was dogged by corruption allegations – was an “albatross hanging around my neck.” Among the issues that followed Harris from her time with Brown was the allegation of cronyism in his appointment of her to two well-paying posts.

    “Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker,” Brown wrote Saturday. Brown was the speaker from 1980 to 1995, prior to his stint as San Francisco mayor. Brown appointed Harris to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and then to the Medical Assistance Commission – positions that paid her more than $400,000 over five years, according to SF Weekly. Brown also gave Harris a BMW. “And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco,” he said in his Chronicle letter Saturday..

    – USA Today

  12. You can’t criticize the great one Obama or any one from the Left or Democrat, you will be punished but if you are critical of Trump your rewarded.

    Colleges & College Admin., for the most part, are left wing liberal supports who will deny free speech & Bill of Rights/Constitution

  13. So what happened to freedom of speech? If President Obama or Kamila Harris were Republicans nobody would have been suspended. It’s exactly the #MeToo movement that started with Mr. Kavanagh and ended with VP Joe Biden. People are informed.

  14. JT:

    Just read about this in the College Fix. Amazing how the Church wants to return to the bad old days when folks with “intemperate” ideas were excommunicated. Wonder if Tieso wants any free legal help. Taking on hypocrites is always fun.

        1. “Inquisition 2.0 Morphs”

          “Pedophile Priests”

          “Catholic Church Shields $2 Billion in Assets to Limit Abuse Payouts”

          “Dioceses are aggressively moving and reclassifying holdings to shrink the value of their bankruptcy estates.”

          “For most of the 20th century, the Catholic Church in the U.S. minimized the damage wrought by pedophile priests by covering up the abuse. When the bishop of the Davenport, Iowa, diocese was told in the mid-1950s that one of his priests was sexually abusing boys at a local YMCA, he kept it secret. “It is consoling to know that no general notoriety has arisen, and I pray none may result,” he wrote to a priest, capturing the strategy of the era.

          “Cover-ups worked when victims and their families could be intimidated or shamed into silence. But in the 1980s and ’90s, victims started filing civil lawsuits against the dioceses where the alleged incidents took place. Church leaders across the country kept these suits quiet by settling out of court and demanding nondisclosure agreements in return. Church leaders paid out about $750 million from the early ’80s through 2002, according to, a nonprofit that tracks clergy sex abuse.

          “The veil of secrecy on these transactions was pierced when the Boston Globe published its investigations into church sex abuse in 2002, sparking public outrage at how clergy had protected their own. From 1950 to 2002, 4,392 priests were accused of abuse, according to a study by John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

          “The pace of lawsuits escalated as public awareness grew, and besieged church leaders looked to a new option: bankruptcy. When a church district that’s been sued files for Chapter 11 and then reaches a bankruptcy settlement, a percentage of its assets are divvied up by victims. Like Fortune 500 executives—and more recently the Sacklers, the family that owns OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP—church leaders see bankruptcy as an attractive solution because it provides a controlled process for settling a large number of lawsuits while holding on to as many assets as possible.

          “Another benefit is secrecy. Lawsuits and trials lead to testimony and publicity. Bankruptcy ensures a quieter mass settlement that forces an end to existing lawsuits and blocks new ones. “It provides a clean slate,” says Robert Kugler, a lawyer who represented abuse victims in the St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese. Dioceses have gone this route more than 20 times since 2004, when the Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., declared itself insolvent. relates to Catholic Church Shields $2 Billion in Assets to Limit Abuse Payouts

          “More dioceses are filing for bankruptcy now that rules are changing about how much time a victim has to sue over abuse. Seven states and the District of Columbia passed laws in 2019 that suspend the statute of limitations on civil sex abuse suits, and at least three other states are considering them. Known as “window statutes,” they’ve become popular in the wake of the #MeToo movement and public outcry over abuse by men in power. Until recently, only a half-dozen states had them. Window statutes caused churches to declare bankruptcy in San Diego, Wilmington, Del., and cities throughout Minnesota.”

          – Bloomberg

    1. It’s perfectly appropriate for Catholic University to set certain standards. It has an institutional mission and it doesn’t exist to please refractory faculty members. The trouble is the content of the standards. The administration’s complaint is inane.

    2. What was so wrong about the Inquisition?

      Today most of us live in a world where we are free to pursue whatever spiritual path we see fit, and worship whatever god- or gods- we fancy, without fear of reprisal or persecution. That was not the case for medieval Europe however, when starting in the XII century the Catholic Church launched a bloody inquisition that would last for hundreds of years and see tens of thousands of people tortured and executed…

      Seems like a win win situation!

    3. Taking on hypocrites is always fun.

      if you claim to be Catholic it means you act Catholic. Imagine that. The horror.

      His behavior online was moronic. He claims his CUA salary, as an adjunct, pays for his wife’s “treatments”. So why act online in a way that might cost you the salary that supports your wife?

      Tieso declined the interview, calling it “a biased witch Hunt [sic]” and refusing Miller’s plea to “reconsider.” His tweet about Harris is “historial [sic]” and the one about Obama “I know nothing about.” (Tieso later told The Fix he didn’t immediately remember that tweet from among tens of thousands he’s written.)

      Get a life.

      What is it with grown men acting adolescent online? Why does anonymity beget brazen insults and cringeworthy behaviors? Humor is one thing. Im guilty of the latter and playing in JT’s sandbox. However there are limits to throwing sand.

      According to news reports, Tieso was told by Busch School of Business Dean Andrew Abela, that he had to end such social media postings: “Your Twitter account has to go if you want to stay a member of the faculty.”

      His wife knows she is screwed because her husband cant do without his crack addiction to Twatter. Some Catholic

      1. estovir:

        “if you claim to be Catholic it means you act Catholic. Imagine that. The horror.”

        No it means you act Marxist or you suffer the consequences. Surely you know that the Catholic Church ceased to exist in any sense of divine grace after Vatican II. It gave in to the leftist, ecumenical wing of the Church and descended into its current state of dysfunction. Shedding members by the thousands, it disavowed its mission to save souls and started into the business of liberation theology. It then delved into legitimizing sexual deviancy and had its decades-long dirty secret of child sexual abuse blown open before its eyes. In its current state, it’s a quasi-Marxist, sexual deviant force in the world and needs either reformation or disbanding.

        1. mespo727272 says: May 19, 2020 at 7:54 PM

          “if you claim to be Catholic it means you act Catholic. Imagine that. The horror.”

          No it means you act Marxist or you suffer the consequences. Surely you know that the Catholic Church ceased to exist in any sense of divine grace after Vatican II. It gave in to the leftist, ecumenical wing of the Church and descended into its current state of dysfunction. Shedding members by the thousands, it disavowed its mission to save souls and started into the business of liberation theology. It then delved into legitimizing sexual deviancy and had its decades-long dirty secret of child sexual abuse blown open before its eyes. In its current state, it’s a quasi-Marxist, sexual deviant force in the world and needs either reformation or disbanding.

          With Catholics like you, the Church might appear to some outsiders to “disband” given you failed to give testimony of your Faith, Mark. For you see, the Church isn’t priests and bishops. It is you too, Mark, and given your disdain, disgust and public opprobrium for Catholicism, sexual deviancy and liberation theology can not hold a candle to you giving up the ghost… Holy Ghost that is. Multiply that by millions of Catholics like you, satiated with pride, sloth, gluttony, wrath, greed and the rest, there isnt an organization or organism on the planet that can exist if it does not reproduce.

          Tell us Mark your critiques of the writings of Vatican II. Was it Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings that caused you to tear your cloak in disgust? Perhaps it was Saint Pope John Paul II teachings whose pontificate embraced Vatican II in total. Avery Dulles, SJ no doubt felt your hot and fiery breath down his back in your protestations. But lets discuss some of the truly scandalous doctrines of Vatican II that more likely got you to shake the dust off of your celestial sandals.

          Dignitatis humanae more likely set you off. Rejected by Marcel Lefebvre, and crafted in large part by someone you likely thought was a scandalous heretic, John Courtney Murray, SJ, it became one of the most significant documents passed by the majority of the VII Church Fathers. I can understand why you would find DH so outrageous. For example:

          First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

          That was the kicker wasnt it Mark? That you would have responsibility in evangelization of (gasp) Jesus Christ.

          Of course that teaching of evangelization falls on the writings of my favorite theologians and philosophers, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. Rumor on this forum says you actually embraced some of those clowns at one time. However given your vast fruit and tremendous ROI in Catholicism, what would they know compared to your insight and wisdom?

          Here is Avery Dulles on Joseph Ratzinger’s influence on Dei Verbum:

          During the council and the first few years after its conclusion, Ratzinger wrote a number of commentaries on the conciliar documents. While making certain criticisms, they express his agreement with the general directions of Vatican II and his acceptance of the three objectives named by John XXIII: renewal of the Church, unity among Christians, and dialogue with the world of today. He welcomed the rejection of some of the preparatory schemas, chiefly because they were phrased in abstract scholastic terms and failed to speak pastorally to the modern world.

          Two years later Ratzinger became an archbishop and a cardinal, and then in 1981 cardinal prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. In an interview published in 1985 he denied that Vatican II was responsible for causing the confusion of the post-conciliar period. The damage, he said, was due to the unleashing of polemical and centrifugal forces within the Church and the prevalence, outside the Church, of a liberal-radical ideology that was individualistic, rationalistic, and hedonistic. He renewed his call for fidelity to the actual teaching of the council without reservations that would truncate its teaching or elaborations that would deform it.

          The misinterpretations, according to Ratzinger, must be overcome before an authentic reception can begin. Traditionalists and progressives, he said, fell into the same error: They failed to see that Vatican II stood in fundamental continuity with the past. In rejecting some of the early drafts, the council fathers were not repudiating their doctrine, which was solidly traditional, but only their style, which they found too scholastic and insufficiently pastoral.

          I do have to cut this short though. We are about to pray the Rosary as a family and our neighbor has come over to join us. She just moved into our neighborhood and we have been sharing with her some friendly hospitality. She noticed we are Catholic and wouldn’t you know, she is interested in learning more. We will of course pray it in English but perhaps you and your wife, children and in-laws can pray your Rosary for us in Latin to save our miserable souls.

          1. estovir:

            ” For you see, the Church isn’t priests and bishops. It is you too, Mark, and given your disdain, disgust and public opprobrium for Catholicism, sexual deviancy and liberation theology can not hold a candle to you giving up the ghost… Holy Ghost that is..”
            Cross ’em and you’ll see who THEY think the Church is. Here’s our local example you know about. The lesson to be learned is shut up and obey:

          2. estovir:

            Your church history is way too short and you ignore these guys even as you cite their sources:

            “This citadel of Satan which has been raised against the citadel of God has caused, unfortunately, many Catholics to lose their faith. Many of them have believed it necessary to ally themselves to the force, with powers to those who have money and thus they have made compromises. It is these that one calls liberal Catholics, condemned by Pope Pius IX, condemned by Pope Leo XIII, condemned by Saint Pius X. all these Catholics who have come to terms with the enemy and those who play the game of the enemy – it is these who have penetrated in Rome and it is these who have inspired the Second Vatican Council and all of its consequences. Thus we are in complete confusion.”

            ~Archbishop Lefebvre, 29 June 1979 Ordinations Sermon

            “Complete confusion” is an apt description:

            “Since 1998-2000, the percentage of Catholics who say they belong to a church has dropped by 13 points. In 1998-2000, 76% of Catholics said they were members of a church. By 2016-2018, this figure had dropped to 63%.”


Comments are closed.