Sounds like the kind of paradise Clay would have us adopt here, under the heel of the furthest stretch he could make of his Jesus fraud.

Little Bobbie If you had your way we'd have a similar atheist paradise with the police forcing the nonsense you regurgitate here as if it were the answer to all humanities’ problems.

Well, the Suadis may be going a little too far from the Naural Law standpoint. But generally I think some of these Middle East religionists have the right idea. As I said in a CNN interview with Don Lemon which I had my staff over at Projected American Principles put on our website, that conservative Catholics have more in common with Muslims, and a few other conservative religionists, than they do
with liberal Catholics. That is the truth, and that is why I said it on CNN. That is why at Projected American Principles we are working to bring the ethos similar to Islamic religionists, of which the Saudis are an example, to the United States. I am glad all my books on Natural Law will be put to such good use!

We know that there is no hope of trying to dialogue with other Catholics who agree on 99% of Catholic beliefs, if they do not agree on that important 1% that makes us so much better Catholics than they are and makes us authentic followers of Natural Law. My staffer Tom LaPapist posted the most amazing example from the so-called Catholic Theological Society of America recently . I think I should reproduce it here because it shows you what we are up against, and why I prefer Islamists to other Catholics. This is a partial list of the offerings from a recent conference:

"“Is Richard Dawkins a Prophetic Voice?” (”May … [Dawkins] be offering us theologians an opportunity to refine or clarify our teaching?”)
“Transgendered Images of Breast Milk” (enough said)
“Thomas Berry’s Groundwork for a Dark Green Catholic Theology” (”three scholars will … stimulate our consideration of [these thinkers'] contributions to addressing human-forced climate change”)
“A Panel Discussion on Catholic Women Theologians on the HIV/AIDS Pandemic” (this is an important topic, but can anyone doubt that contraception will be suggested as a “neglected” solution?)
“Made in the Image of God: Intersexuality and Revisioning of Theological Anthropology” (”The reality of intersex conditions and sexual development disorders suggests the need for a fundamental revisioning of the imago dei in human persons and all sex-based teleological understandings [and subsequent moral directives] of human personhood.” –> suffice it to say, this is a disastrous line of argument)
And then it gets really good:

“Critical Responses to [the pope's latest encyclical] Caritas in Veritate” … led by arch-dissenter Charles Curran, who was thrown out of Catholic University of America for his open dissent to Humanae Vitae.
“The School of Compassion: A Roman Catholic Theology of Animals” (quack)
“Can Christians Accept Muhammad as a Genuine Prophet and the Qur’an as God’s Word?” (the Muslim panelists “will answer the question in the affirmative” while the Christian panelist “will have her doubts…” –> well that’s not very re-assuring, now is it?)"

There obviously are some staff additions to the list. But you get the idea. It is helpful that the comment "quack" was added from Tom. Where is the talk of Aquinas and Natural Law? Where is the fight against gay marriage. Compassion, animals, etc.. This could make a guy quack and quack and quack. That is why Tom said he got an M.A. and S.T.B.
to tell the difference between theological quacks and the true pelican.

So let us not be harsh on the Suadis!

By the way, if you watch the video of me speaking on CNN you can see that I sort of defended Elena Kagan's nomination, at least her not having judicial experience. You might think this was purely opportunistic because I am hoping that when a Republican gets in the White House he or she will appoint me to the highest Court, even though I have no judge experience. Well, you would be wrong about that! The real reason is because a certain somebody on my staff has a crush on Elena Kagan. He says she reminds him of a lot of the girls who show up at a certain support group he goes to. I'd like to see him well settled in a traditional marriage, so I didn't want to bad mouth his crush! I have to admit, she is kind of hot!

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principle Inc.

In some circles ninety lashes are considered preferable to kisses and hugs.

Perception is everything.

Robert Georgeous - Your supposed organization isn't accessible through Google, your name returns no hits on Google, and no appearance on CNN can be found either. I think you are entirely blowing smoke out of your butt.

Mr. Littel,

If you were not such an atheist you already be familiar with me and my expositions of Natural Law on which all reasonable people can agree. Since you seem rational, I ask you, will you sign my Manhattan Declaration of Independence from Gay Marriage?

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principles, Inc.

If I might weigh in Mr. Littel, it may be that Mr. Georgeous' site has been deliberately excluded from search results by Google due to Chilling Effects. I am familiar with Mr. Georgeous' work and can vouch for his standing in the community, his reputation, and the truth of which he speaks.

Robert Georgeous - As far as I have been able to determine, you are a fraud. Maybe you are just doing this for kicks, maybe you are certifiably nuts, but you do not exist anywhere, with the only reference to you at all at google, being two about comments you have made here. What ever you are smoking, you seem to need a lot more of it.

As I recall Mr. Georgeous was here in the summer of '68 shortly after Charles Curran's attempt to replace the truth with his own stilted dogmas. The Vatican website describes it:

“In Baltimore in early August, 1968, a few days after the encyclical’s issuance, I received an invitation by telephone from a recently ordained assistant pastor to attend a gathering of some Baltimore priests at the rectory of St. William of York parish in southwest Baltimore to discuss the encyclical. The meeting was set for Sunday evening, August 4. I agreed to come. Eventually a large number of priests were gathered in the rectory’s basement. I knew them all.

The dusk was clear, hot, and humid. The quarters were cramped. We were seated on rows of benches and chairs and were led by a diocesan inner-city pastor well known for his work in liturgy and race-relations. There were also several Sulpician priests present from St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore to assist him in directing the meeting. I don’t recall their actual number.
“My expectations of the meeting proved unrealistic. I had hoped that we had been called together to receive copies of the encyclical and to discuss it. I was mistaken. Neither happened.
“After welcoming us and introducing the leadership, the inner-city pastor came to the point. He expected each of us to subscribe to the Washington “Statement of Dissent.” Mixing passion with humor, he explained the reasons. They ranged from the maintenance of the credibility of the Church among the laity to the need to allow ‘flexibility’ for married couples in forming their consciences on the use of artificial contraceptives. Before our arrival, the conveners had decided that the Baltimore priests’ rejection of the papal encyclical would be published the following morning in The Baltimore Sun, one of the daily newspapers.
The Washington statement was read aloud. Then the leader asked each of us to agree to have our names attached to it. No time was allowed for discussion, reflection, or prayer. Each priest was required individually to give a verbal “yes” or “no”. “

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20080611_temptation_en.html

The thing that tells me not to pay attention to it or any other thing like it is the length of it and the wordiness. God's message of salvation is a simple one. When we try to figure everything out with long words it complicates God's simple message of salvation and helps the devil. Accept Christ and love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. It wont matter in the end how old the world is.

Clay - You are an idiot.

Mr. Littel, and "Mr. Torquemada" ,

When my ancestors came through Ellis Island our name was shortened. That is the one I use for my philosophy. If you are as smart as you seem you can figure it out. For my blog activities, I prefer the Old World pre-Ellis Island surname Georgeous. Call me old fashioned, but that is how I am. Many people in the modern world claim that that Natural Law is a fraud. I Ibeg to differ. I am convinced that even an atheist like you can see the rightness of St. Thomas Aquinas, and thus we are justified for militating to base all of society on his premises. That is what Projected American Principles , Inc is all about. What is special about this blog is that there is a precious cross-section of beliefs, and unbelief, in your case, that I feel that it is the perfect laboratory for my overarching schema of Natural Law enforcement that my many books are premised on.

Now to the curiously named Mr. Torquemada. All Catholic intellectuals of the past half century are familiar with Father Curran. It was Fr. Curran's hubris to assume that consistency and coherence are the hallmarks of an intellectual. I have been at the forefront of rejecting this. I and several others have pioneered the "intellectual phalanx" approach to scholarship. In this approach an onslaught of footnotes and digressions is used to disarm any attempt at coherence, and therefore restore dogmatic truth to its rightful place as the groundwork of Natural Law. I have been successful at getting significant funding and scholarly heft behind this project at the highest levels of academia both here and in England to accept this apporach, that it proves that coherence naturally should follow the Principle of Subsidiarity to dogmatic truth. And we hope to base all of our society on this as well. Please join our fight!

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principles, Inc.

AGAIN , Robert Georgeous - Your supposed organization isn't accessible through Google, your name returns no hits on Google, and no appearance on CNN can be found either. I think you are entirely blowing smoke out of your butt. As far as I have been able to determine, you are a fraud. Maybe you are just doing this for kicks, maybe you are certifiably nuts, but you do not exist anywhere, with the only reference to you at all at google, being two about comments you have made here. What ever you are smoking, you seem to need a lot more of it.

Of course, that last post to Georgeous, was from me

Anonymous - Truth is not always accessible through Google.

Robert Georgeous - Though I'd never heard of the "intellectual phalanx" approach, it seems like it would be a serviceable method for participating on a blog. btw, I respect your desire to honor the pedigree of an old family name.

Tom de Torquemada - The link you put up to Cardinal Stafford's talk provided me with fruitful moments of reflection and contemplation last night. Thank you.

Camille, I thought it was interesting, too, in the Vatican link, that the liberals in Baltimore in 1968 had conspired to use the Baltimore Sun in their disinformation campaign. It is the only place that this newspaper is mentioned in two thousand years of Vatican documents.

Mr. Littel, you might try using Bing instead of Google. That's how I found you using another name at the Boston Globe. Of course I am smarter than you. So you may still be unsuccessful.

Mr, Georgeous, It is always a delight to hear the truth spoken in such plain and simple terms.

Everybody: Deus Caritas Est, Benedict Genious Est!

Dear Camille,

Thank you for your discernment. I agree that Tom Torquemada's link to the Cardinal Stafford reflections were excellent. What I particularly love is that after all his thoughts he comes to the following conclusion in his final paragraph:

"Diocesan presbyterates have not recovered from the July/August nights in 1968. Many in consecrated life also failed the evangelical test. Since January 2002, the abyss has opened up elsewhere. The whole people of God, including children and adolescents, now must look into the abyss and see what dread beasts are at its bottom. Each of us shudders before the wrath of God, each weeps in sorrow for our sins and each begs for the Father’s merciful remembrance of Christ’s obedience."

This is wonderful because he fixes the blame for all the terrible revelations of crimes since 2002 squarely on the liberals! Thank God some one speaks it clearly. All those liberals who claim that, in their silly words, the conservative sense of denial and repression is what was to blame are completely false. Clearly what caused the rape of so many small children is in descending order of importance. 1) Heterosexual couples using Delfen to avoid pregnancy, 2) Yoga classes at parish halls, 3) Reading Thomas Merton books after he got into Zen, 4.) Making the sign of the cross saying "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier." as they did off and on at Catholic University while Fr, Curran was there.

It should self-evident that such elements lead directly to the rape of little children. Denial and repression are holy things, and lead to sanctity. I should know.

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principles, Inc.

Robert Georgeous - Provide a link to your organization, or shut your, so far, presumptive lying yap. Put up, or shut up.

Dear Mr. Littel,

Peace be with you!

Left wing atheists always want to force the truly religious to be quiet. The link is in the conversion of the heart. It is inappropriate for me to advertise my foundational activities in Natural Law on a site like this. I consider this merely my blog apostolate, and those lost to the logic of St. Thomas Aquinas and his commonsense strategy for reordering all of society are my mission. You will take a lot of work Mr. Littel, but your soul is worth it!

By the way, Mr. Littel, since you are clearly someone interested in the finer points of prose, are you aware that Shakespeare was secretly a Catholic? I was so happy to see Joseph Pearce on EWTN last night on the World Over. Mr. Pearce is a fine representative of the "intellectual phalanx' approach I have been discussing. If you have a lot of footnotes it would be ridiculous for all of them to make sense, and that is clearly not the point. That is why Pearce's books make so much sense to me and have a resonance with my own. Did you know that the famous "To be or Not to Be " soliloquy really means "To be or Not to be .... a Catholic". Also, that the most famous exploration of intense and adolescent fire of love, Romeo and Juliet, is really Shakespeare's very Catholic admonition against pre-marital sex! We now know all this thanks to Mr. Pearce. Joseph has helped make clear that there is no historical phenomenon that cannot be made Catholic if we wish it to be. This has inspired me to come out with a work I have been toying with for years showing that the basis of Spinoza' s thought is really Counter-Reformation Jesuitism. You see, Mr. Littel, this is an exciting time intellectually in the Church. We have released ourselves from the stricture of Modernism which demanded broad, secular consistency, and are following a deeper consistency. As I said, the link is in the heart.

Also, you have not answered the question I am most interested in. Will you sign my Manhattan Declaration of Independence from Gay Marriage?

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principles, Inc.

Robert Georgeous - Who am I, or you for that matter, to tell gays how and whom they may love. If you can't, or won't, provide a link to your supposed organization, then I allege that you are a liar, and a coward as well.
As to there being anything "Intellectual" going on inside of an organization based on the fallacy of unsupportable god concepts and steeped in a history of chauvinistic blood and gore, count me as justifiably sceptical.

Thank you so much, Tomas de Torquemada, for posting the link to Cardinal Stafford's commentary. Very informative, provocative, and spiritually challenging.

Clay, you missed out on a lot of truth by not reading the link. I pity your lack of curiosity/willingness to grow spiritually or intellectually with the mind that God gave you. Or the mind that evolution gave you, from the perspective of Robert Littel. :)

Thank God there are people like Laura who have the "curiosity/willingness" to put aside their own rationality and take on the mind of Natural Law. That is true intellectual curiosity, as you can see manifested in my many books and publications. I am amazed that as a macho atheist you will not at least condone the sociobiological thesis that homosexuality is against the furtherance of the human race. But clearly you are just another liberal, and I am sure that many would thank you for that. But I do not, as a crusader for Natural Law. The best way of answering your reluctance to sign my Manhattan Declaration of Independence from Gay Marriage is by discussing the great Joseph Pearce again. But this time by citing his treatment of Oscar Wilde. Joseph has acted as editor of a number of editions of Wilde from a very Catholic perspective. He sets out the very proper thesis that all the wit and rapier humor of Wilde came from his tragic sense of his own deplorable state as a homosexual. Some gay rights activists and leftist literary critics have accused Pearce of being a complete lunatic and a total embarrassment to scholarship in general, and the people who publish him as being traitors to the cause of rational scholarship. . They think that all the hilarity of Wilde's humor and wit really came from his homosexual elan, if such a thing really existed. But we know from Joseph Pearce that it comes from Wilde's own convicted sense of his own Christianity, even though his plays argue otherwise. What we have here is a failure on the part of the normal scholarly community to take on the view of Natural Law. Oscar Wilde may have been funny and and a witty genius. But those who say that people like Joseph Pearce are compounding the epic prejudice which Wilde already suffered by sullying his memory with adventitious and ham-fisted ascriptions of Catholic guilt, are just wrong. Clearly this man was funny because he was wracked with Catholic guilt. And as Joseph Pearce says, Dorian Gray is a a de facto piece of Christian apologetics. The same people who attack me are attacking Joseph Pearce. Our intellectual trajectories are identical in a thematic sense. I have been working on Natural law, trying to show how a country like the United States which was founded on Enlightenment values is in fact founded on abstruse quasi-ecclesiastical notions of Natural Law. Joseph Pearce has been showing that authors quite unlike the Catholic ethos are in fact miraculously otherwise. Some atheists may say that this is one of the most perverse and 'under-the-radar intellectual sleights-of-hand ever perpetrated. I say it is God's favor. We will prove that Shakespeare is Cathoiic, that Oscar Wilde was basically ready for reparative therapy, and the the United States is a garden of objective proofs of God' s Natural Law work in the world. You cannot stop us. This is the beauty of philosophy. This is what I mean by Winning by Principles.

Robert Georgeous, Projected American Principles, inc.

Robert Georgeous, you are a nut case and a self aggrandizer of the worst sort--a sick mind. Left wing atheists want the truly religious to be quiet? And you are a standing specimen of true religiosity? Give me a break Georgeous! Did the bard appear to you in a technicolor dream and confess his love for the Inquisitional besotted big business called Catholicism? Romeo and Juliet you say is a metaphoric representation of Catholic admonition against premarital sex---the popes of yore were always special masters at premarital sex--they sowed their illegitimate seeds across Europe while admonishing the common folks to come confess their premarital sins to the long robed rascals called priests who hid in confessional booths and boxes getting off on voyeurism. You are no more than a troll Georgeous, here to indulge in sensationalism to give yourself a special aura and your writings are deliberately laced with an uppity religiosity and intellectual sleight of hand --denial and repression directly led to the rape of children in the catholic precincts--of course you want the liberals to give up birth control and breed more children so that there will be more children to induct into your catholic empire and more children to rape. And you Georgeous are really very consistent in your ramblings--in fact your incoherence is so consistent that you are the very antithesis of what you define as intellectualism. I believe you don't believe a word of what you say--you make up stories as you go along--your antipathy for liberalism is a put on and your paean to conservative catholicism is an attention seeking devise. In short you suffer from a feeble intellect and an infantile ego that you prop up with what you fancy are eye popping statements.. Keep at it--your balloon may burst over these blogs and collapse deflated.
Ravensfan Anon

I will pray for you Ravensfan Anon. You have not grasped yet, as my dear firend, Fr. Robert Saucelicko of the Lord Acton Institute for the Revival of Medieval Polity says that "The Principle Of Subsidiarity applies to all of life, including the truth." In the Catholicism of today many things may be true, whether or not they were true in the past. The important point, as Cardinal Stafford, and Fr. Saucelicko would say is that one's own views are subsidiary to the reality of the Trinity. This is true humility. This is the mind of the Church.

Blessings Ravensfan, may the Immaculate Heart of Mary envelope you!

Robert Georgeous, Winning By Principles!

Robert Georgeous - You have not coughed up a link to any site that exists in reference to your "Projected American Principles, inc", even when pressed to do so at the realization that if you can't, you are going to be proven a bigger fool than the idiot Clay. You are a bombastic, idiotic fraud and will not be taken seriously. What you say, or what emanates from your clearly diseased mind, is delusional rubbish far outside of the delusionalism generally experienced by the "normal" believer.

Robert Georgeous - "Fr. Robert Saucelicko", is that his real name, or his porn name. The only reference on Google to a Fr. Robert Saucelicko, is your comment above. One would think that if such a person was real, that they would have generated enough splash to be picked up there. As to your Cardinal Stafford, he has already been exposed as a liar for his invented and deliberate attempt to push as real, a quote that Barack Obama never made, as well as his being a fringe nut case of the Catholic Cultists.

Always demanding proof. First you demanded proof of the existence of God. Now you want one of the most distinguished ethicists in the world to prove that he exists. The professor gave you everything you need to know inclusive of the mystery of his ycleptance.

Only children at the sensorimotor level of cognitive development need concrete proof of everything.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

Well, Mr. Littel, what can the glories of St. Thomas Aquinas' exquisitely developed Natural Law, brought to the modern world, be expected to find amongst thoroughly secular types like you? You have given an over -the-top summary of what my type of thought would engender if its parameters were conceptually made colorfully clear, which I try not do in my books and in my Foundation. There is something deeply sub rosa about my whole intellectual endeavor. Saying that involves a little bit of caricature, but not much in fact. You have been helpful to me in both summing- up what needed to be summed -up, and for convincing me that my frustrating missionary work is done here.

God Bless You, "Robby' Georgeous

P.S. If you don't mind I may pass on the idea of working a bit on this site to some of my right wing friends, all very distinguished fellows, to see if they can make a dent on you Mr. Littel. You are a worthy challenge.

Robert Georgeous - Show us a link to your much touted, "Projected American Principles, inc.", and the titles of your supposed books of wisdom. I would be interested to see how available they are, and I'm sure if you are shoveling $#!+, it will be most evident by your inability to provide either.

Don't read too much into my comment, Robert Georgeous. I am very happily Protestant, and do not take the Catholic church's viewpoints on many issues. I am in favor of gay marriage.

HOWEVER, I think that Stafford's analytical abilities and spiritual insight are quite compelling in this particular case. Although make no mistake--I do not agree with all of Stafford's doctrinal or social positions. Like Stafford, I agree that there is no place for intellectual blackmail or social coercion in the church, despite the frequent usage of those tactics throughout church history. I liked his references pulled from 2 Corinthians. Stafford is very honest about his experience in 1968, and I think is one of the only ones who comported himself well during the 1968 meeting, and afterward.

What I dislike is behavior condemning something and someone without having any knowledge of the contents. Blind faith accompanied by action is dangerous, and anyone who promotes such (Clay, Curran, the remainder of priests in DC and Baltimore during that time) does not speak to the truth of Jesus or the gospel.

Yes Mr. Littel, the good cardinal had misquoted Mr. Obama as having spoken the phrase “punished by a pregnancy.” The correct quote was “punished with a baby.”

Judge for yourselves folks, was the Cardinal wrong in exposing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZF-_EZ8mb0

Well now I am a bit impressed by the reasoning here. "Laura" must be a Protestant fan of Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, because her thought fits theirs very well. Naturally, all the sodden liberals think that you always need to prove your point to be right. Well, that is not the Catholic way these days! That Curran fellow sounds like a real piece of work. But clearly anyone in the whole Archdioceses of Baltimore and Washington who dared to disagree with Pope should be shown the damn door.
Trying to make sense all the time is, as Laura says, really "blind faith". Whereas accepting that some things are just morally so is real rationality and dialogue. That is why i figured out that when Shakespeare wrote "tongues in trees, Books in running brooks" he was not trying to make some pantheistic point. He was saying that people so were orthodox in those days that you could literally find books of the Fathers of the Church lying around in trees and on the side of rivers. People are always trying to play down how religious everyone was in the past.

Shakespearean Papist, Ave Maria Misericordia College, Bonita Springs, FL

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Well, perhaps great minds think alike Mrs.Quelquejeu. I was just thinking of Hamlet myself. In my latest book on Shakespeare's Catholicism I put forth the very strong and relevant thesis that Laertes was a "secular humanist" while Hamlet was a devoted Christian. Typically some non-conservative Catholic literary critic fops have tried to say that "secular humanism" as a phenomenon did not exist at this period, and thus it does make any sense. this is atheistic fiddle-faddle. They are missing the whole point. I do not have to explain, it is clear Laertes is a secular humanist. If that exact thing didn't exist then something exactly like it did. We don't need cultural history, we need commonsense. The Church has always has taught the same thing and its enemies have always said the same thing. Do you see how my argument about Shakespeare makes a higher sense?

Shakespearean Papist, Ave Maria Misericordia College, Bonita Springs, FL

Regardless of when the term or the concept of "secular humanism" originated, it is intriguing, albeit puzzling, to envision Laertes as representative of such. Laertes, the man of impassioned action and few words, Hamlet's mirror image. Would a secular humanist argue with a priest over skimping on the Christian burial rites for his sister, then leap into her grave to give her one last embrace?

And would such a man say, "I dare damnation - to this point I stand."

Well Mrs. Quelquejeu, or should I say "Ms "because I fear you are a liberal, I see you think textual consistency is part of the interpretive matter. Well, you are wrong. All of my interpretive strength rests with the desire to redress the falseness of history. Shakespeare should have been a Catholic, if the English Reformation had not happened. People like you want to see him as one more get-along Protestant. With the mind of the Church we can see that he was, well, secretly a Papist.

Shakespearean Papist

In the dead vast and middle of the night

did I ponder your response to my observation. It was not my intention to undermine your thesis regarding Shakespeare's religious inclinations. Indeed, I'm quite willing to leave the finer points of his biography to scholars such as yourself, preferring to indulge my time in reading his actual work.

Of course, knowing the realities of the man's life will inform interpretations of the plays, but even absent that context, his words never fail to delight the mind, quicken the senses, and steel the will.

Shakespearean Papist--aka--Robert Georgeous--you spend your time appropriating fictitious characters for the Catholic Church--sort of like conversion in reverse--a recruitment of non existent souls--Laertes a secular humanist versus a Catholic, Hamlet a Catholic--who cares man? If all of great English literature and classics were engendered by Catholicism--and let us just agree with your insane postulates about this--if all of it were engendered by Catholicism what difference would it make? A lot of great art was engendered if not supported by previous popes--what difference does it make except to those bereft of creativity, like you, who make a living out of categorizing or pigeonholing inspiration--rascals who make a living out of calling Shakespeare this or that--ascribing to his works religious or secular inspiration--you appear here with your papal devotion and in your stupidity you had rather not be alone--you want to be in the company of giants--therefore you work backward--digging up famous dead men, Western icons-- and you declare, like many cons, that they were exactly like you--Papists--conservative Catholics--and thus you revel in your made up discoveries and vindicate your own ordinariness--in the company of giants you stand you tell yourself--such is your self deception--an unworthy pursuit even for a papist---but to be expected. Don't choke on your own fraudulence while you are at it--swallow your bilge once in a while--it will certainly relieve your compatriots on these blogs.
Ravensfan Anon

AGAIN, Robert Georgeous - Show us a link to your much touted, "Projected American Principles, inc.", and the titles of your supposed books of wisdom. I would be interested to see how available they are, and I'm sure if you are shoveling $#!+, it will be most evident by your inability to provide either.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth.

No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.

All great spirits need a mask.

You think Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde are over the top for Catholic appropriation. We have been hard at work on Wittgenstein as well. I am preparing a documentary that shows that film-maker John Waters, a famous Baltimore Catholic, has been filling his films from the start with cryptic signs of his own convicted Christianity and self-hatred of sexual deviancy. When Divine ate dog shit that was a sign of his own acceptance of sinfulness and desire for redemption. It does not matter if John Waters denies it. We are doing Catholic interpretation here. Divine is a secular humanist in need of redemption. Miss Edie is a symbol of Christ. When the doggy licks his mommy's feet in Serial Mom that is like the washing to the feet by Christ on Holy Thursday. And we all know that as a very Baltimore artist, John Waters has to be basically artistically Catholic. Since he was raised Catholic, and said thank God he was, that gives us free rein.

Anyways, back to Shakespeare. You all are missing the point, but J.A.P seems to have grasped it. Intellectual life is the same as a political campaign, especially a right-wing reactionary one. It is not about convincing with evidence or
balance, it is about clobbering. That is why searing insights like Laertes being a "secular humanist" will resonate with anyone who thinks about it. People like Harold Bloom want the Shakespeare's characters to be part of the conceptual building blocks of the Western Mind. That is liberal twaddle. His characters are part of the universal story of redemption. The Western Mind is far too complicated and involves many things other than religion. If you don't think so then you must not have a redeemed soul to see it.

There is a lesson for the Church's recent crisis in all this. We must view all the victims as moments of secular temptations for holy priests. Let them purify themselves, as Oscar Wilde wanted to and Hamlet struggled to do. Those who see in my interpretative schema the same misbegotten Deus ex Machina to save the appearances once again are clearly wrong. You need the eyes of faith to see this.

Shakespearean Papist, Ave Maria Misericordia College, Bonita Springs, FL

Still waiting Robert Georgeous - Show us a link to your much touted, "Projected American Principles, inc.", and the titles of your supposed books of wisdom. I would be interested to see how available they are, and I'm sure if you are shoveling $#!+, it will be most evident by your continuing inability to provide either.

Mr. Georgeous, as I recall, suggested that he was leaving your catechisis to the rest of us.

Shakespearean Papist,
There you are--you didn't comment on what I told you--you are trying to elevate yourself from your ordinariness by saying all things great--or complex--or interesting--or exciting--must be Catholic just like you--everything in the world intriguing and celebrated comes from catholicism--no argument whatsoever about the toehold catholicism has had --either in the form of catholic guilt or in the form of outright catholic adoration--on Western thought and Western minds--according to you--Papist. And you of course find examples galore to prove your point--if the authors of these pieces themselves appeared on the scene and negated you vehemently you would still say that they don't know their own subconscious as well as you know it. But your game is clear--you are a serious heckler from the stands of these blogs--you are here to mock those who would take you seriously--you put on the face of a repressed monk, etched in a time before the Reformation, you carry on about characters who don't exist outside the realm of the imagination and you insinuate every single Western concept worth regurgitating is catholic in its provenance. And best of all in one fell swoop you vindicate the catholic abusers by saying that secularism is the cause of their erring ways.. Long before secularism became popular or well accepted or practiced, during the time of the papal indulgences, my man, the popes were running around spreading their seeds into the spread eagled thighs of women they didn't even know--the popes created wars, gave orders to kill thousands and "begat" many an illegitimate child while they were at their terrestrial work --so in secularism while you have found the perfect scapegoat and the perfect escape valve for the rascals of your church,the truth is this Vaudevillian Papist, you are a fraud and the intellectual life, you claim to be about clobbering more than about convincing--what a convoluted, pretentious and bombastic way to tell Robert you don't need to convince him--anyway the intellectual life you say is about clobbering is largely absent in your blog posts--what kind of clobbering is this, my man? It hasn't fallen with any kind of thud on these blogs--instead it has landed like the footsteps of a dying man, weak and fumbling.. We now understand your premise--that all things great and small in the west are catholic,, indirectly or directly. What next? Why does that matter so much? Where do we go from that premise--to the conclusion that your decaying church will survive the onslaught of the abused on the abusers, will survive the onslaught of its million hypocrisies?
Ravensfan Anon

Buck up, my man! Read Chesterton! Become a man! The true virility is accepting the vulnerability of one's own self to truth. The Church is truth, No matter how far it goes wrong it is true. St. Thomas Aquinas is the true commonsense! Those who say that he is not the first whig are wrong!

Shakespearean Papist

Abstinonymous - How cowardly convenient of him. He is not here because he is a fraud and got caught. He has not shown up in any thread responding to anyone, because he knows he can't produce what I asked for, and that it will be embarrassing asked for again.

Abstinonymous - Or he just shows up again as a new absurd character under the guise of Shakespearean Papist. Either way, a certifiable jack@$$.

Mr. Littel,

I take exception to your atheistic critique of Shakespeare's Catholicism in the form of an Ad Hominem attack on my character. You are no doubt referring to the fact that I was twice in jail, and that if the Catholic Church were not so desperate for people to tote their very difficult line, they would not accept a former jailed propagandist for a terrorist organization. You find this absurd. That is because you do not believe in redemption. Sweet are the uses of adversity, Mr. Littel!

Shakespearean Papist, Gen. Romeo Orlando Vásquez Velásquez Endowed Chair in Literature and Political Activism,
Ave Maria Misericordia College, Bonita Springs, FL

Little Bobbie are you going to use that pathetic attempt at ridiculing an Anonymous id on everyone who responds to you? If you are going to insult at least show some creativity. It looks like all you can do is make same demands and insults over and over.

So Robert, you think Abstenonymous is the Shakespearean Papist--I would say not--although both are clowns--Shakespearean Papist has the more bombastic vocabulary--Abstenonymous languishes for want of words and suffers from repetitious apoplexies against you--look at the Papist--he is ready to vindicate the corrupt catholic enterprise by saying that the universal truth still resides in the interior of this church and he pays slavish obeisance to Thomas Aquinas--as though calling Aquinas a Whig should have us all roped in behind the catholic Church--I know catholic madness is a an incurable malady--I didn't know the severity of it until now--I think we are conversing with a baiter on this blog--he is having fun at our expense Robert because we write back--the man is a juvenile delinquent--I am not surprised he was in jail two times and if he cooked those incarcerations up, I would say, he needs to be incarcerated, not in jail though, but in a mental institution. As per that saying, "Never fear--Underdog is here!" "Never fear--Abstenonymous here--and will never leave!"
Ravensfan Anon

I, for one, am having great fun. That the bard Papist is said to believe "that the universal truth still resides in the interior of this church" makes him most credible.

That Mr. Littel continues to use words like "jack@$$" to emphasize the level of his intellect and logic shows what is between his ears as well.

Es verdad, pues: reprimamos
esta fiera condición,
esta furia, esta ambición,
por si alguna vez soñamos.
Y sí haremos, pues estamos
en mundo tan singular,
que el vivir sólo es soñar;
y la experiencia me enseña,
que el hombre que vive, sueña
lo que es, hasta despertar.

Sueña el rey que es rey, y vive
con este engaño mandando,
disponiendo y gobernando;
y este aplauso, que recibe
prestado, en el viento escribe
y en cenizas le convierte
la muerte (¡desdicha fuerte!):
¡que hay quien intente reinar
viendo que ha de despertar
en el sueño de la muerte!

Sueña el rico en su riqueza,
que más cuidados le ofrece;
sueña el pobre que padece
su miseria y su pobreza;
sueña el que a medrar empieza,
sueña el que afana y pretende,
sueña el que agravia y ofende,
y en el mundo, en conclusión,
todos sueñan lo que son,
aunque ninguno lo entiende.

Yo sueño que estoy aquí,
destas prisiones cargado;
y soñé que en otro estado
más lisonjero me vi.
¿Qué es la vida? Un frenesí.
¿Qué es la vida? Una ilusión,
una sombra, una ficción,
y el mayor bien es pequeño;
que toda la vida es sueño,
y los sueños, sueños son.

Shakespearean Papist,

I look forward to your explication of Wittgenstein's work, and am particularly curious to know if you find Catholic corollaries in the Tractatus, and whether you think those were undermined by his later Philosophical Investigations.

Also, don't you find it interesting that, although Wittgenstein was born into Jewish bloodlines, the family had converted to Protestantism in his grandparents' time. And yet, Witt and his siblings were baptized in the faith of their maternal grandmother, a Roman Catholic. And, unlike Ophelia, he received the full RC rites at his burial.

That religious affiliation proved useful when the Nazis nevertheless classified them racially as Jews. A generous payment to the Reichsbank from the Wittgenstein family's vast wealth enabled them to be reclassified as "Mischlinge", Aryan/Jewish crossbreeds, and thus avoid the fate of may other Austrian Jews.

Ravensfan Anon – Why does someone not use an id but sign every post with the same moniker? That kind of says all anyone needs to know about your brain power. How original to attack me for what your friend little Bobbie does all the time. You both are being strung along by Papist. At least you had enough sense to figure it out finally. Maybe someday you could both surprise me and actually try and make a case for your views with something resembling an intelligent, reasonable & logical argument. From what I’ve seen so far you both rely on petty insults and ridicule to attempt to shame those who do not share your empty meaningless views.

Well, I must say that the lovely and inviting responses from the ladies present here, Miss Dana, and Mrs. Quelquejeu, tells me again that women are the best part of life. Men are animals, we all know it. O yes I am happy to bring you up to speed on the latest Catholic research on Wittgenstein. The poor man has been dragged through the mud by all the terrible liberals who want to see him as a desperate homosexual cruising the Prater. We go much deeper. In fact we can say now that Wittgenstein pioneered an early and philosophically rigorous version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Let me paraphrase him here for best effect. When he distills the essence of clarity in the search for meaningfulness in the ability to remain silent of those things which one should not speak --- well, what else could he be possibly be speaking of but homosexuality! In fact we can see the entire point of the Tractatus as delimiting the conditions under which it is right to remain quiet about being a closeted homosexual and thus assist others in doing so as well. I hear that have done some great work on this as well at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences.

As to the later post-Tractarian work, well that is even easier. The notion of "language game" is clearly understood as Wittgenstein's attempt to come up with something more religiously and philosophically fulfilling than the campy in-language of closeted Cambridge types. This is the brilliance of it. The "language game" idea allows the ungay to be witty and precise without resorting to camp or irony. It also almost goes without saying that the duck-rabbit is bit of harmless Catholic fun which defangs some very dangerous and phallic underground-homosexual cartoons.

I hope this helps you see the very creative direction that serious Catholic scholarship is taking.

Shakespearean Papist, Ave Maria Misericordia College, FL

What a resplendent series of propositions, Shakespearean Papist! It would seem you have resurrected Wittgenstein's own ladder and allowed us to climb places he could only dream of.

Indeed, I'm feeling somewhat breathless at this altitude. And speechless.

Come on Anonymous you should be talking about ID-- you never stop talking about it--keep indulging in the game called "pot calling the kettle black"! Your most apt name is Abstenonymous. Camille stop slobbering over the Papist--use a spittoon instead--it will work just as well. And Papist, your apoplexies over Wittgenstein's philosophically elevating Tractatus being all about the virtue of "Don't ask, don't tell!" is no more than a piece of crap. Of course the man opted for "Don't ask, don't tell!" because if he had opted for asking and also telling his neck would have been in the Catholic, or Nazi, or Protestant or Jewish noose in "them" days when life was most precarious for the gays and religions were (and are) terribly hung up on God being a happy voyeur at every bedroom door. There was safety and survivability in the closet. Some things should never be asked Papist but whoever wants to tell must feel free to do so. "Don't ask but do tell if you choose to and I won't be at your throat!" is better virtue than "Don't ask, don't tell!" And also if silence on some topics is golden according to Wittgenstein and you admire that piece of wisdom as high philosophy, you should put a sock in your "Catholicism is an all encompassing omnipresence!" thematic intrusions on these blogs. Getting kind of tiresome! You are a one track neurotic papist. You should apply to the vatican for an exorcism session. You are a candidate ripe for some broom beating, tarring and feathering and the ultimate weeping in sackcloth and ashes.

"I hear that have done some great work on this as well at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences." By the way Papist the preceding is not a sentence. What does it mean? It is easy to see Papist you respond with alacrity to the slobberers but to the detractors you have no answers. Also for a man (or a woman) with such pompous intellectual splendor (or should I say for a man or a woman with gas bag tendencies) you lack simple perspicacity--you can't be sure that Dana is a woman and neither can you be sure that Camille is one--the latter may be androgynous, a man or a woman--the only thing you can be sure of is that Abstenonymous is a frustrated and defrocked monk who follows Robert around like a nemesis--and knowing that doesn't take much genius--Abstenonymous wears his chaste heart on his sleeve and is obviously besotted with Robert!
Ravensfan Anon

Ravensfan Anon - I don't have a moniker I sign on every post like you. I’m just curious why not use that as ID? Is that really what you are reduced to now? Using that in a pathetic attempt to ridicule me. If we want to discuss apt names yours should be Little Bobbie's Shadow since you seem to follow him around helping him fight his battles. I’ve answered plenty of other posts besides Bobbies and yours. I guess it never occurred to that closed mind that some of the other Anonymous post on various articles could be mine

Alright, Ravensfan Anon, I'll stop slobbering. Are you suggesting that if we ignore the Shakespearean Papist he'll go away? That strategy hasn't exactly worked with you now, has it.

Kidding. I suspect you and I don't interpret the Papist's comments in quite the same way. Nothing wrong with that. His declarations can be read at different levels, and my exegesis isn't necessarily the correct one.

You may find his "thematic intrusions" tiresome, but as far as I can tell, anyone is allowed to say practically anything on this blog. Which, for the most part, is fine with me. When I find particular commenters tedious or in some way unpleasant, I tend to just skim over those and move on, knowing there are others who will appreciate that which I cannot.

Any “defrocked monk who follows Robert around like a nemesis” is a blessing to the faithful. I would offer him a lofty position in the Inquisition save that it would tie his hands with legal niceties and otherwise fetter his ambitions. He is the twenty first century's Hillaire Belloc, except without the Euro-centrism.

Tomas, your humor is delicious--the only thing that vindicates some catholics and pseudo catholics is their sense of humor--I guess you need one to survive the catechisms and schisms my man, (or woman) as the case may be and a sense of humor helps. Camille I actually love your posts--you are a great addition to these blogs--and Anonymous--we atheists are outnumbered on these blogs--of course I lend Robert a hand and he lends me his--but that doesn't mean we don't disagree--ask Rino he'll tell you all about these disagreements--unless of course you are also Rino--although I hope not because Rino seems less disgruntled than you and a lot more fun--loosen up Anonymous--you may yet die of melancholia or Robertitis--I think the latter is a distinct possibility--it is a disease whereby scolding is elevated to high art and civilizing an individual becomes an obsession--it produces cankerous sores in one's typing fingers and once acquired it has the destructive potential of Ebola. I wish on you a quick cure--a dip in the hot volcano spewing off in Iceland may help..Tickets are cheap to that destination unless of course you also happen to be a rich defrocked frustrated monk and money, no matter to you, can be expended on obsession cures thoughtlessly.
Ravensfan Anon
I know why you are pissed off Anonymous--you want take out a copyright on Anonymous and I intrude by not identifying myself as Ravensfan Anon thereby appearing as Anonymous to those not looking closely. That's funny Anonymous--why don't you solve the patent problem by just calling yourself Abstenonymous? That name more befits you.
R Anon

R Anon - thank you.