Some day
Vivo en el EEUU. Pero mi familia es de Sao Miguel, Porto. Y de Mexico.

Anon(or noname or whatever you go by ;-P) I think you may be thinking of Fr. Pacwa from EWTN, who is a Jesuit who in addition to the Latin rite is in the Maronite rite too, doing Maronite Liturgies and all.
I imagine a biritual priest such as him still ultimately falls under either Western or Eastern canon law, and will be under the bishop of only one Church. It would be so confusing any other way. I wonder if it is then possible for an Eastern married priest to for a good reason be given the faculty to celebrate the western Liturgy.

http://www.east2west.org/Celibacy.htm
Some good reading

but don't Latin Rite priests have bi-ritual faculties
Yes.

I meant to add that because of that they don't make it easy to change rites and then jump into a seminary and get ordained as a married priest. I also heard (I believe on EWTN's Eastern Catholic forum) that married Eastern priests are not given bi-ritual faculties. This was years ago, though, so maybe my memory is faulty.

FWIW, I've heard that the Eastern Catholic Churches are very leary of Latin Catholics changing rites to get around the celibacy rule.

Can:
1. One change rites in the Catholic Church (e.g. from the Latin/Roman Rite to let's say Ukrainian Rite or Maronite Rite Catholics)
and than
2. Get married
and than
3. Apply for seminary (and eventually become a priest) if already married and in the/Eastern Rite
and
eventually
4. Be a valid Married and Eastern Rite CATHOLIC priest
(I understand the US ban on US ordinations but that does not prohibit going overseas or to Rome, and the ban seems to be on a parochial and unjust approach from bishop Ireland and others who did not see bearded and married Catholic priests as genuinely Catholic even though they were both technically and substantively incorrect and pastorally unjust. Without going into the ban in the US at least for Carpatho-Rusyn--so called Byzantine Rite--within canon law strictures can one eventually become a Married Eastern Rite Catholic Priest even if he is Latin Rite now)
A second question is to can Eastern Rite priests increasing vocations (assuming not being able to be marriage is an impediment to vocations)do Latin Rite masses (either Novus Ordo, Misa Normative or the so called Tridentine pre-Vatican II 1962 Missal) to fill the supposed shortage of priests and lack of priests and masses and sacramental implementation. (Is this merely having faculties in a different rite for either side?)

Some Day,
I hope you don't mind my venturing to give you advice. I thought I'd give just one more example.
I have a friend who long has desired to become a priest. He wanted to be a Dominican priest. Like me he didn't rush into anything, but got some more experience of life and the maturity that even a few years brings. Though he went through a period of uncertaintly he today still feels called to the priest and will likely enter seminary next year, but he now feels called to a different, more apostolic order (I forget its name, but it is a smaller one that he hadn't even known about earlier).

Some Day, you seem to be like me, you know you shouldn't say something but you semiconciously try to let people know what it is you're not saying (what order you are in contact with). Beware, it's not a good idea. Just say what you can and leave the rest. I speak from experience.
I speak from experience here too: don't rush into something at a young age. When I was you're age (I'm 21 now) I was convinced God was calling me to be a Franciscan. Later I decided it was Monasticism, perhaps the Trappists. Now I have met a wonderful young woman and am considering marriage. Perhaps my sense of a religious vocation was an illusion based on a desire for holiness and focusing one's life on God. Perhaps not. I don't know where I will end up, but I'm glad I didn't rush into anything right away. Get out and live a little. Date a girl or two, or at least be open to the possibility if God practically throws a girl at you (as was my case). Through all of that strive to grow in prayer and abandonment to God's will.
Perhaps you are called to be a priest in this order. If so and if you remain faithful to God He will guide you to it at the end. Meanwhile some knowledge of the opposite sex and perhaps a secular subject (I'm doing Environmental Biology) could be of great assistence to you in your priestly ministry. I think you owe it to yourself and perhaps to God not to commit yourself to anything while still so young.

Ruth, I apologize, I was not trying to make some generalization about Crunchy Cons but only that one main one Rod Dreher (I think he started the term with his manifesto but I could be wrong) left the Catholic Church to the Russian Orthodox Church (in America) mainly because of the pedophile crisis. I am sympathetic to the so called Crunchy Cons but that is not the point of me bringing them up only to point out the point that at least one family and leader of Crunchy Con was very justifiably critical of this crisis and actually left the Church. If I accidently said or you interpreted as something else or more general or more offensive I do apologize.

Definetely.
I knew these people since I was 7 years old.
They were the last ones to think I would want to join. I was awefully fiesty when I met them.
Thats what you get growing up on Powerrangers.
But then I got serious at about 14 about my vocation. And now I know that is definetely what God wants of me. Couldn't see myself happier any other way.
Not that I'm saying other orders aren't faithful.
Definetely not.
Solo que estoy en my charco con ellos. No estaria feliz otro logar. Nadie es feliz si no sigue lo que Nuestra Señora quire de uno.
De que pais eres acaso?

My neice has been looking for an order to go into and has had a hard time.....sometimes you never know where God will bring you. It is a better question to ask yourselve where you can be most of God's service. There are many orders out there that are faithful to the Church...maybe you have too bleak a view of these things. Beware of those that will say you should join them because everyone else is unfaithful except for them... that is A BAD sign.

Say a prayer for me please.
My parents really don't want me to enter the seminary with my order.
I know I am only 16, but I could have entered at the Minor Seminary to do High School there 2 years ago already.
So please pray so God's will is done and not ours.

Yes I met some Franciscans in Washinton D.C. like about two weeks ago at the National Shrine.
They actually had some young postulants.
Very nice sight. And they wore habits.
That says alot these days.

Some Day...
I have always loved the Franciscans, There is a great group of them in Honduras and they need missionaries. They are humble, dedicated to dirty work of prostelizing the poor and feeding them and clothing them. Look them up Franciscan Friars of The Renewal. They also have a group of sisters.
I hope your love for God prospers... that primarily. Church politics, even, often times the heated debates of Theology are not to be mistaken for that love.
God Bless you.

Sorry.
I feel like I am bragging.
Not what my intention is.
It is to clarify the name of a prince of the Church, who in this case is innocent.
I know there is much evil in the Church.
There it is not.

Some day,
It seems that you must be in the Lay Consecrate program. Maybe instead of being so convinced that in Regnum Criste lie all of your answers you should buy a year subscription to a quality magazine like Inside the Vatican and go spend a year as an independant missionary in Africa, or Honduras.....

Not myself. The religious group I am with, which mantains contact with all the groups in the world.
Want to test it.
The Tridentine mass is in all order to be allowed,
but the Vatican will keep an eye on all new and young priests and orders who use it.
They will not be promoted.
Confirm it in the future. Then come talk.

Some day
What are you talking about? You have continious contact with the Vatican? But, of course you cannot reveal your sources. Sounds a bit weird to me.

I know the limits on questioning.
Trust me, I go over them on occasions.
But I know personally that Cardinal Law is innocent. It is because of the groups I associate myself with that I know, because they have daily communications with Rome. Forget Opus Dei.
Some newer ones, that are growing imensely, which has been quoted by the Pope as the one among the few he can still count on to be Catholic in all senses of the word. Find out for yourself.
Trust me on this one.
I give you my word. But I can't give you my name.
I am only 16.
Don't discredit me for my age.
I am certainly not a typical 16 year-old (I'll be 17 this Sunday.)
But I am in contact and participate in one of those groups I mentioned. In fact I am a sort of postulant.
Compare the response of the Vatican to Father Marciel of the Legionaries and Cardinal Law.
Vatican-style condemnation, and V-style declaration of innocence.
The Vatican.
The best school of diplomacy for 2006 years and counting.

Some Day,
Soy latina tambien.
I don't understand why you would call our objection to Cardinal Law 'heresy'.
Being 'Latina' and once firmly connected with all things Opus Dei I was taught to never question priests and Bishops, never to criticize those in Persona Criste. I think there is a time and a place though to do that when so much harm has been done and a blind eye has been turned.
It doesn't matter if Cardinal Law didn't know anything (which I don't think is the case) But he should have had a closer eye on his flock and in the old days they would have sent him to a far away place to pray the rest of his days in solitude.

And all of you who say Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are great popes are hypocrites if you say Cardinal Law is being shielded unjustly.
There that is it.
And since like I said, you don't have continous contact with the Vatican, moost of you only know what everyother blogger knows.
But some us aren't.

In spanish we have a term called "mafiando"
They ruined his reputation for being one of the good guys.
The forces that be would have none of his good, old school stuff.
So they armed a mafia against him.
But the Pope and the Vatican knew his innocence so they brought him where no one can hurt him.
But I know you don't care what I say, and untill I bring proof your finge can touch, its hearsay.
I really can't go into further details.

By the Rich,
Amen on Cardinal Law. I don't care if one feels (I wish I could put that in italics) that he is a good guy, he let a terrible problem slip through the cracks on his watch... in the very least. It is one thing to be forgiven for your sins, it is another to have a position of power and do a horrible job at it.

Hey Rich,
I am a 'Cruncy Con' and I take issue with that broad statement of yours. In fact you will find that most 'Cruncy Cons' are the ones that are avid promoters of NFP because we feel that God has given us a Natural ability to Plan our families as well as a natural order in our environment that we should respect.
Don't knock the crunchy cons.........
And as for the Pedophilia problem in the Catholic church....
1) priests are human (not an excuse keep reading), in fact even the individuals that make up the magisterium of the Church are human, sinners, which is Pith of the miracle of God working through the Church.
2) Let's just say....better formation...better screening.......more accountability....and better formation again. As much as some of us recoil at the media, the light of truth is the best thing for this situation....let them all be exposed. Glory to God.
In fact I can say that the Catechetical, and vocational formations of our parish's and Seminaries are much to blame for many things. Most Catholics don't even know what Nfp is, or what are the requirments of the Catholic church for Marriage, for the recieving of the sacraments.... on and on it goes. (My husband and I always joke that it is a good thing that we knew what we were getting into when getting married, since our parish priest gave us a compatabilty test and patted us on the head and sent us on our way.)
In fact many priests that I have run into, when I speak to them about NFP say ; "What is that?"
How sad. How can we expect people to be fully involved in our wonderful life of the Church if they never even know what that entails? They don't know what it entails because often priests don't know, don't care or disagree or are too afraid to speak out.
Formation is our biggest crisis...

I always liked Cardinal Law, he seemed Orthodox, allowd the Tridentine Mass by indult in Boston, was close to Opus Dei, close to Pope John Paul the II, on the good liberal side he was part of the Civil Rights movement marched with Martin Luther King and took strong public stands for justice for everyone regardless or race specifically African Americans (not an easy thing with racial feelings especially the Irish in Boston, very tribal and lots of conservative bad and good Dems), seemed bright and had interesting ideas on anthropology, and was very pro-life
BUT.....
I am not sure what being archpriest is or means, or why talking to the President or Bishops of every week is relevant, or if you are being sarcastic, or what Fatima has to do with this
BUT....
I have read a lot on this subject and read his letters to Shanley and other priests (who were open homosexuals running homosexual vacation houses and involved in homosexual periodicals and public and well known about it) and his notes thanking them for their service decades after he knew of their abuse, now some will come on, including Law and state that is what they knew about this "disease" at that time and it was the advice of the psychiatrists, BUT THAT DEFIES COMMON SENSE, I was involved in other youth activities at the time and the Boy Scouts were getting rid of abusers in the 80s and still have a policy against active homosexual scout leaders.
Cardinal Bernard Law had KNOWLEDGE and thus acted with intent or at least was negligent. He lacked common sense regardless of what some psychiatrist supposedely advised him. He was worse than the ostrich with his head in the sand but allowed, and encoraged abuse. He may not have been cheering in the sense of the word encouraged but by transferring priests who previously abused, that he knew about it, and put children in harms way again and again and again again means he not only allowed but facilitated it and caused it.
There is certainly and anti-Catholic bias, and a secular media, but many large cities have residual and quasi-Cultural Catholic leanings and Irish Catholic State's/District Attorneys that have overlooked, did not believed, or hushed up many of these issues. The media did us all a service by bringing this into the open because the Church would not deal with it on it's own.
The "aetheistic government" is right in many of these cases (although perhaps not all)and so was the secular media. The Church was wrong. The victims should of been the most important item.
The whole Legionnaires of Christ thing until recently reinforces the culture of the Church that is immoral and needs to be changed.
Cardinal Law should not be given a Church in Rome. He should not be shielded from civil authorities. He should be held accountable in court or he should be put in a monastery doing extreme penance. The children and families who suffered are immense. Dante would put law in a low level of hell.

You don't know the Vatican.
You are just another Catholic in the US.
Not your fault.
Most don't know insider stuff.
You got to hang with the religious orders. They know lots.

Not at all, Cardinal Law is innocent.
Trust me on this one. He isn't archpriest by error.
And he would not have weekly conversations with the President and bishops. And he would not be in Fatima if he was.
I give you my word.
If it means anything to you Anon.

When the abuse of a child of the same-sex is done, it would imply that the abuser is a homosexual. And not just inclined, but in sin too.
So you can blame homosexuals for that.
Now homosexuals aren't the only bad ones.
What about other priests who break the celebacy under the covers?
They should be punished too.
But not by an atheist government.
They should be sent to a monastary and be locked up. Like it used to be in Catholic countries.

The abusers weren't homosexuals?

Thank God for Rich if you finally got Bill912 to say goodbye. Bill912 not sure what goodbye means here or if it is a promise or a threat. Your one liners, lack of logic and background information, and your insults to other hurt your position and that of Roman Catholism and conversion. Many of your posts are mean spirited, and your one liners lack the humor of others so are left only with an ignorant bite.
Thank God, Thank Rich, and Thank Bill.
GOODBYE

Allowing married men into the priesthood will attract a different type of priest.
The Rose book Goodbye Goodmen (which supports a celibate priesthood) is good primer for the homosexual influence.
east2west.org of Anthony Dragani explains married priests in the Easter rites of the Catholic Church very well including criticisms of a Cardinal's recent book and different canon laws.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Much less a straight.

"Bill sounds the political homosexual community that states there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia."
Good-bye, Rich.

The pedophilia crisis is not a crisis exclusively of homosexual predators. There were numerous cases of pre-pubescent boys, even though clearly the majority of the cases were post-pubescent male on male consensual or somewhat consensual (different leverages teacher-student/priest-altar boy) The stories about the cleaning lady (ladies) who found vaseline on altars (go on priests and psychologists websites)are disgusting and known by bishops and other priests and stastically way to high. The number of priests and cases is way to high, higher than the average in society at large as we know it. Moreover, even if the statistic was the same as the society at large average there is two things a) it should be lower for people entrusted to our youth who should be giving and getting supernatural grace (at least supposedly) and b) the number of priests even if not higher, the number of abused children is higher because of the serial abuse eg same abuser many victims.
Bill sounds like the political homosexual community that states that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Even if that were true there clearly is a link between homosexual priests and pedophilia (and/or ebophilia)
The crisis is not just a crisis of homosexual predators. It is also a crisis of pedophiles. It is also a crisis of priests covering for other priests and Bishops covering for their priests and re-victimizing victims and hiding behind big law firms, lies, and transfering predators for decades. The crisis is one of serious crimes, conspiracy, and lies as well as sexual crimes and sins that go against any Christian or common sense definition.
While marriage will not cure pedohiles nor homosexual predators (like Republican Congressman Foley), married men attracted to the priesthood will or at least could by statistics decrease the number of homosexual priests (by definition) and thus the number of priests who abuse. This has worked well in the Catholic Churches (in full union with Rome) of the Eastern Rite for thousands of years. This does not mean that I agree that celibacy equals sexual perversion, but I do agree that celibacy and specifically the priesthood, for a variety of reasons including a male priesthood and celibacy, has attracted homosexual and abusive priests at a higher rate than they should and the national average. By allowing married men into seminaries you would per se be attracting a different type of male (insofar as they are married). More married Catholic men should definitely mean less homosexual predators.

"...it seems obvious and logical to review and revisit mandatory celibacy and a married priesthood..."
The so-called "pedophilia" crisis is actually a crisis of homosexual predators. Since when does marriage cure homosexuality?

Some suggest the pedophile crisis had seeds that were planted prior to Vativan II, some evidence seems to bear this out from those who have been removed from the priesthood or those who are dead.
This is not just a post Vatican II problem. It is also not just a liberal problem (although certainly many of the priests like Shanley were liberals and active homosexuals in the homosexual "movement"/subculture)this has affected priests associated with EWTN as well as the more recent failed Society of St. John (beautiful promotional materials)that seem to have pedophilia (actually ebophilia?) and certainly abuse and homosexuality even though they were a Traditionalist, Latin Mass, Latin language, art and culture Catholic order (with some roots in St. Pius the X SSPX Society, related to FSSP with education, and some educational roots, graduates and shared philosophy with Thomas Aquinas College) Trads, Catholics, or anyone else is not immune from sin.
The question in my mind is the more grave sin of pedohilia or even ebophilia abuse that was covered up and done in a serial way. At least the Mega Church of Ted Haggard got rid of him right away and was transparent.
Some securalists and psychiatrists and even church Historians suggest that the pedophilia and homosexuality crisis(es) have been around for the entire of history of the church.
While I was always sympathetic to conservative Catholics it seems just obvious and logical to review and revisit mandatory celibacy and a married priesthood--and no I do not think it is a red flag nor do I think however that it will solve all problems.
Rod Dreher, the so called Crunchy Con (pro-environmental conservative organic foods etc) left the Catholic Church mostly due to the pedophilia crisis and the lies from the Church.
The pedophilia crisis (or even if you want to call it ebophilia) is much larger than we thought, the media may have exagerated it but not by much and it is not the medias fault, their was blame of victims, and Cardinal Law should be in jail not protected in a Church in Rome or at least in a Monastery like Benedict put Marciel in (understanding there is a difference)|
The pedophilia and homosexuality crisis has hurt the Catholic Churche's ability to address cultural questions and be a moral authority especially on issues of human sexuality as well as intention, truth telling and hypocricy.

Jessica said "I'm really sorry that you feel that definition of the 'Modern Church' is true. I am unsure where the Church ever said contraception is alright or that homosexual acts are not disordered. Am I missing something?
"
Jessica-just look at the pedophilia scandal and the say and do nothing approach the Vatican on down has taken these past 40 years.
In its quest to get a more modern open priesthood after the reforms, Homosexuals flocked to the priesthood as they for many reasons, saw something the church after the council had to offer (the reasons for this need to be discussed in an another forum-there are many books on this subject)
The church took no action against these men, despite the following code of Canon Law which I am sure was modified by John Paul II, and I apologize for the "cut and paste", but can surely be found on www.rcf.com. Notwithstanding,these pedophiles were let into the priesthood in droves with the formation directors looking the other way, as long as these men for the most part were open to the reforms of Vatican II, were OK with a future married priesthood, and OK with a future female prieshtood.
THE CANON LAW DIGEST
Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law 1958-1962
Volume V
Canon 973
Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452--486
Excerpt pp 468--472
D. THE REQUIRED CHASTITY
29. Importance of this point; young persons are to be properly instructed and warned of its dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary “because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it.” Consequently:
a) “Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) “Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.”
c. Those to be excluded; practical directives
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tenencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a tryring martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibaby and the consequent loneliness and separation from one’s family becomes so difficulty for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life. This question sould perhaps receive more careful attention from novice masters and superiors of scholasticates than from confessors since suce natural tendencies do not come out so clearly in confession as iin the common life and daily contact.
________________________________________
This Code of Canon Law was found in The Canon Law Digest, Volume 4, in a local Catholic university library (St. Vincent's, Latrobe PA)

As for Native American culures, yes they are clearly cultures, and every culture has good points and bad. It is right to seek to obliterate bad aspects of your culture, though when you are trying to change someone elses culture I think you'll run into occasions, in minor things like clothing not major things like human sacrifice, where it is none of another cultures business to decide what is right for another. You grew up in a different culture and are judging the other through those eyes. There are universal moral norms but sometimes you have to be part of the group to judge how those apply to you.
There are also good aspects of every culture, and I hope everyone here will agree that those should be retained if possible. That means much art, archecture, music, holiday customs where possible (holly, wreaths, Yule logs, Easter eggs, etc. in European tradition) and perhaps perhaps technology if it is not better to just replace it with something more advanced. As long as anything is not overtly pagan I think the local peoples should be the ones to decide what to keep, and what European customs to adopt.
We obviously should strive to spread the gospel to all nations. This however must always be accomplished through missionary activity not violence. Europeans used both in the New World. We should praise the one and condemn the other, not lumping both together as so many do and condemning or defending the whole thing.
I think the point about Thanksgiving, inasmuch as it is seen by some (not my family for whatever reason) as comemorating the pilgrims, is that it seems to approve of colonization. It is hard to see how any of the European colonization of the Americas was just. Yes, plagues ravaged the Native Americans, but in most areas a remnant population remained. That was certainly the case in Massachsetts. That land belonged to the Indians. What the pilgrims did is invade another nation. You will have to show me from the Just War doctrine how that invasion was justified before I will accept it or any other European invasion of America, including the westward expansion of the USA in the 19th century.

I should point out that traditionalists have the unfortunate tendancy to reject recent Church teaching by overemphasizing the fact that it is not always infallible, and to set up themselves (or a traditionalist organization) as a the interpreter of what is or is not Sacred Tradition while ignoring the authenic Magisterium.
"Neocons" by contrast tend to accept whatever is coming out of the Vatican as practically the word of God and thus see themselves as simply faithful Catholics who are centered on what the Church is and teaches, not veering to the right or the left. This is more faithful and humble and fitting for the position of the layperson in the Church, but has the potential problem of ignoring anything that is less than ideal in the Church today. If the Church is so perfect today why was it so different just 50 years ago? If reform was needed then why not now?
My proposal is that we need to find a way of being totally faithful to all the teachings of the Magisterium while still being able to recognize when valuable Catholic tradition and even doctrine has been sidelined in the name of things like modernization and ecumanism.

Some Day,
The problem is that there is a political definition of neocon (President Bush and his top cabinate members would be prime examples) and a Catholic one, which would usually mean someone like Jimmy and Tim J. who accept all the teachings of the Church very much including Vatican II and other recent Magisterial acts, as opposed to traditionalsists like John who tend to see everything from Vatican II on in a negative light and want to go back to how the Church used to be before the latest reforms. I find myself somewhere in the middle.
Note that many who would fit this definition of neocon in the Catholic Church don't like the word, perhaps because it is limiting, suggests they arn't as faithful to Tradition as traditionalists, and perhaps because it associates them with political neoconservatives more closely than they would like.

John,
I'm really sorry that you feel that definition of the 'Modern Church' is true. I am unsure where the Church ever said contraception is alright or that homosexual acts are not disordered. Am I missing something?

That is not a good definition of a neocon.

Bold off!

I fit the above description and I am NOT a neocon.

Some Day
Basically a neo con or a traditional is someone who actually belives and follows ALL (note the word ALL) of the church teachings BEFORE the church itself decided to Modernize itself (at the warnings and teachings NOT to by past popes) to be more like the Modern sinful secular world and conform to the worlds sinful acts and deeds (contraception I now understand to be approved by the church in certain circumstances, and in which only 5% of married catholics actually do not use birth control, not to mention homosexuality, all faiths worship the same God and can be saved even if they do not ackowledge Jesus as God (Moslems), etc)-Neocons and Traditionals actually follow and adhere to the teachings before this all took place. Is this bad one must ask yourself
God bless

Phil
If you consider the Spaniards stopping the mass sacrifices of human beings to the sun because they believed that if they did not the sun would stop rising, and the murder and butchery of opposing civilizations (Aztecs, Inca, etc) and the conversion of these pagan worshippers (1st commandment anyone?) to be such a horrible thing-then you had better get out your PC calandar and like TV and the secular media want our children to believe just how bad the white man is and how our children should be ashamed of our heritage.
If these other groups can teach their kids to be proud about whatever culture they are brought up in, I have no problem teaching my children to be proud of all of the accomplishments that we as White European Catholics have offered and given to this world and have nothing to be sorry for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con
As good a description as I have ever read.

What is a neocon?
Sorry it takes me a while with these terms.

Tim, thanks for posting that definition.
Michael, I can't speak for others, only myself, but this weekend is a "down" time before the flurry of the next 6 weeks. I wouldn't be able to get my brain cells to put a serious thought together for any reason.