Denver Newsroom, Jun 11, 2020 / 07:28 am (CNA).-
President Trump on Wednesday tweeted that he was honored by a letter written to him by former apostolic nuncio Archbishop Carlo Viganò, which warned the president against secular and ecclesiastical agents of an atheistic globalist new world order.
The president’s tweet is the latest in a series of events that have kept the archbishop in the headlines for much of the last two years, a period in which he has become a polarizing figure in the Catholic Church, and morphed in the public eye from a whistleblowing diplomat to a prognosticator of impending doom amid a spiritual and political battle for world domination.
“So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me. I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it,” Trump tweeted June 10, linking to Vigano’s recent open letter addressed to the president.
So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me. I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it! https://t.co/fVhkCz89g5
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
Viganò’s missive to Trump is one of several open letters and interviews the archbishop has published in recent weeks, which make apocalyptic claims about a looming spiritual battle and a globalist conspiracy pursuing a one-world government, alongside a denunciation of the Second Vatican Council, claims about the third secret of Our Lady of Fatima, the charge that some bishops are “false shepherds,” and encouragement that at least some Catholics disobey their bishop.
The June 6 letter said “it appears that the children of darkness – whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans.”
“They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions,” Vigano wrote.
“The investigations already under way will reveal the true responsibility of those who managed the Covid emergency not only in the area of health care but also in politics, the economy, and the media. We will probably find that in this colossal operation of social engineering there are people who have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations,” he added.
Viganò claimed that “just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God.”
The archbishop praised Trump, claiming that “both of us are on the same side in this battle, albeit with different weapons,” and adding that criticism of Trump’s June 2 visit to the National Shrine of St. John Paul II is part of an “orchestrated media narrative” against the president.
Viganò added that some bishops, including Washington’s Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who criticized Trump, are “subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.”
The archbishop did not offer proof to support the claims in his letter.
Nor has Viganò offered proof to support the claims of his recent letter on the coronavirus pandemic.
On May 7, Viganò published an open letter written principally by himself but signed by several Church leaders, which said the coronavirus pandemic had been exaggerated to foster widespread social panic and undercut freedom, as a willful preparation for the establishment of a one-world government.
That letter lamented social distancing and stay-at-home orders issued to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting they were contrived mechanisms of social control, with a nefarious purpose.
“We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements,” the letter said.
“The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control,” it added. (bold original)
The letter did not identify the “powers” in question, or the source of Viganò’s information.
Among the letters signatories were three cardinals and one sitting U.S. diocesan bishop, as well as Fr. Curzio Nitoglia, a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist group in “irregular communion” with the Church. Nitoglia is the author of “The Magisterium of Vatican II,” a 1994 article that claims that “the church of Vatican II is therefore not the Apostolic and Roman Catholic Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of a Vatican dicastery, was originally listed as a signatory to the letter, but distanced himself from the letter after it was published.
CNA asked Bishop Joseph Strickland, the U.S. bishop who signed the letter, to explain its claims, but the bishop declined to do so.
CNA asked Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Strickland’s metropolitan archbishop, whether he had concerns about the bishop’s endorsement of the claim that the coronavirus pandemic was a pretext to “allow centuries of Christian civilization to be erased under the pretext of a virus, and an odious technological tyranny to be established, in which nameless and faceless people can decide the fate of the world by confining us to a virtual reality.”
The cardinal did not respond.
Weeks before that letter, in April, Viganò gave an interview in which he declared that the Vatican has been for decades concealing the third secret of Fatima, despite the publication in 2000 of the third part of Mary’s message from the apparition at Fatima, by order of Pope St. John Paul II, and despite an accompanying theological commentary written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI.
Speculation that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI lied about releasing the message of Fatima is a common topic among Catholic sedevacantists and other conspiracy theorists.
Kevin Symonds, author of a book on the third part of the Fatima message, wrote subsequently that Viganò’s “grasp of the details is not very precise,” and, under scrutiny, “quickly breaks down.”
“Archbishop Viganò’s remarks indicate a lack of knowledge on the history of the third part of the secret of Fátima. The archbishop faces a grave danger: uninformed statements undermining his credibility,” Symonds added.
Having discussed both Fatima and the coronavirus pandemic already, in June Viganò penned his missive on Trump, and a letter on the Second Vatican Council.
That letter criticized ecumenical and interreligious efforts of Pope St. John Paul, claiming that pope’s Assisi prayer gatherings “initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.”
The archbishop also criticized specific documents of the Council, calling them “root causes” of contemporary issues.
“If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae [Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom]…. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate [Vatican II’s Declaration on non-Christian religions].”
Listing his concerns about Church in the modern world, including “the democratization of the Church,” “the demolition of the ministerial priesthood,” “the demythologization of the Papacy,” and “the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism,” Viganò attributed each of them to the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
“If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.”
Most significantly, Viganò suggested that the Second Vatican Council catalyzed a massive, but unseen, schism in the Church, ushering in a false Church alongside the true Church.
“It is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity.”
The claim that there can be distinguished a pure form of the Church distinct from the Catholic communion of sacraments, magisterial teaching, and hierarchical governance is described by some theologians as a kind of donatism, a heresy addressed by St. Augustine in the 5th century.
Vatican II, Viganò claimed, has led to a “serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed.”
The archbishop did not specify those Church leaders whom he believes are “exposed” to apostasy, which is the total repudiation of the Catholic faith.
In a June 3 letter, however, Viganò singled out Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who the day before had criticized Trump. Gregory’s Archdiocese of Washington, Viganò wrote, “has been and continues to be deeply afflicted and wounded by false shepherds whose way of life is full of lies, deceits, lust and corruption. Wherever they have been, they were a cause of serious scandal for various local Churches, for your entire country and for the whole Church.”
Viganò also urged Washington, DC Catholics to disobey Gregory.
“Do not follow them, as they lead you to perdition. They are mercenaries. They teach and practice falsehoods and corruption,” Vigano wrote, without offering additional or specific information.
No U.S. bishops have yet spoken publicly about Viganò’s recent letters, a fact that some critics have attributed to an aspect of clerical culture in which bishops are reluctant to criticize one another in public.
Viganò, however, has not been reticent to criticize fellow bishops in recent years.
The archbishop made international headlines in August 2018, when he published an 11-page “testament” accusing several senior bishops of complicity in covering up the sexual abuse of McCarrick, claiming that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI, but chose to repeal them.
In the months that followed, some aspects of Viganò’s claims were vindicated, though in some cases it became clear that Vigano’s language was imprecise or exaggerated. Other aspects of his claims are likely to be unverifiable unless the Vatican addresses them in its comprehensive report on McCarrick, whose release has been anticipated for months.
But Viganò’s original missive also called for the resignation of Pope Francis, and made allegations about the sexual orientation and activities of numerous church leaders, suggesting a homosexual “current” or network of bishops who assured mutual promotion and protection of one another.
When his first letter was published, numerous bishops, including leaders of the U.S. bishops’ conference, called for investigation into the claims made by Vigano about McCarrick. Several U.S. bishops vouched for the archbishop’s integrity, while others called aspects of his letter into question.
Viganò subsequently went into “hiding,” apparently in response to threats against his life. The archbishop is believed by some to be living with family members in the United States. He makes himself available only to selected media outlets, and, apart from additional open letters and selected interviews, does not usually respond to questions about his claims.
The archbishop released a second letter the month after his first, criticizing the pope’s response to his initial letter, and suggesting that certain Church leaders, including Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, had information that would corroborate his claims.
After exchanging additional public and polemical correspondence with Ouellet, Viganò began releasing letters on varied topics, including the conclave that elected Pope Francis, 2019’s pan-Amazonian synod, and other issues. While the archbishop continued to write, his letters did not continue to attract the level of attention that his initial correspondence had, and took on increasingly apocalyptic tones.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, former prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has criticized Viganò’s letters, noting that “attacks” like Viganò’s letter “end up questioning the credibility of the Church and her mission.”
“No one has the right to indict the pope or ask him to resign!” Muller added.
Viganòs letters were initially met with a great deal of public support among lay and clerical U.S. Catholics, sparking even a line of coffee mugs and t-shirts which declared their owners part of “Team Viganò.”
By late 2019, however, Viganò’s new letters attracted attention mostly among traditionalist Catholic websites or supporters of his call for the resignation of Pope Francis. He did again not garner considerable mainstream Catholic attention again until controversy surrounding a disagreement with Cardinal Sarah over his coronavirus letter, and his subsequently released letters, including the one addressed to Trump.
Viganò, 79, is retired from any official ecclesiastical position. A longtime member of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, he worked in positions in the government of the Vatican City State before, in 2011, he became apostolic nuncio, or papal representative, to the U.S. He held that position until 2016.
Viganò is accused, during his time as nuncio, of mishandling an investigation into former St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt, although Vigano denied charges that he ordered the investigation closed prematurely, and Bishop Andrew Cozzens, an auxiliary bishop in the Twin Cities, said in 2018 those charges were a misunderstanding.
Before he went to the U.S., Viganò was embroiled in controversy surrounding allegations of corruption in the Vatican City State, and was also involved in a family legal battle with his brother, also a priest, over the management of their father’s estate. Viganò was charged with withholding portions of a family inheritance from his brother, although family members have offered conflicting reports of the archbishop’s role in the affair.
For his part, Trump has faced criticism himself from some Catholics in recent weeks.
The president was criticized June 9 after he suggested on Twitter that Martin Gugino, a 75-year-old activist who was hospitalized after being pushed to the ground by Buffalo police officers, might have been an “ANTIFA provocateur.” Gugino is active in the Catholic Worker Movement founded by Servant of God Dorothy Day.
On June 2, Trump made a visit to the St. John Paul II National Shrine amid controversy over his response to George Floyd protests Archbishop Gregory roundly condemned the visit, which in turn prompted Viganò’s denunciation of Gregory.
At the same time, the president’s June 2 signing of an executive order on international religious liberty has drawn praise from bishops and religious freedom advocates in some parts of the world.
Viganò’s letter to Trump has attracted attention in the QAnon community, a social media based group of conspiracy theorists who believe that Trump is under attack by the “deep state” in an apocalyptic war of good against evil, in which Trump is using the presidency to wage a secret war against a global ring of Satanic pedophiles.
Since Trump’s tweet about Viganò, some figures in the QAnon community have characterized Viganò’s letter as a confirmation of the group’s theories.
No U.S. bishops have yet responded to Trump’s tweet of Viganò’s letter, or to the letter itself.
[…]
“learn from any mistakes on the part of anyone involved,”
Like, say, jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts?
“and begin the process of healing.”
I can’t begin to express how very tired I am of hearing about “the process of healing.”
The Diocese and the school bore false witness against these young men, and acted with rash judgment, participating in the calumny against them.
The only honorable thing for the Diocese and the school to do is PUBLICLY confess that the condemnation they issued was intentional, willful, and of grave matter, and a serious mistake. Then a PUBLIC apology should be issued to the students.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whoever “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” is guilty of rash judgment, and whoever, “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” is guilty of calumny.
These are not apologies.
About fifty years ago, as a member of a group of boys from an all male Catholic high school, I attended events in Washington DC. We were wearing ROTC uniforms, and I remember a moment when we were heckled by Vietnam war protesters. Some in our group wanted to respond, but others said, “…just move on, keep moving”. As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best. And, the possible discovery of our actions would have brought the ire of our famously irate principal. We were more concerned about his possible disciplinary action than fulfilling our own tribal loyalties.
What made us different from the Covington group? “There go I, but for the grace of God”? Possibly… at any rate, cooler heads prevailed in our group.
My thought is that the Covington group had multiple opportunities to truly defuse the tension, but chose instead to ramp it up by voicing “school spirit” cheers. That is the reason for spirit cheers, after all, right? Yes, express enthusiasm for your cause. We typically use those cheers in a school sports event scenario to “intimidate” the opposing team, but when used in another context, they can be threatening. The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path, and by encouraging respect. Yes, the optics here are, in a word, bad.
I think about those young men, and about my brotherhood with them, recipients of a fine education. I’m hoping that sooner, rather than later, they come to realize the reality of the situation, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged to participate in the Catholic education system.
“The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path”
That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path. He didn’t; there was a clear path to the monument already. He wanted to get into the boy’s face, and he wanted to cause an incident, or he wouldn’t have been accompanied by cameramen and so forth. You’ve only to look at his group’s attempt to disrupt Mass at the Basilica. The boys did not give him what he wanted, which was a violent reaction; and the boy in whose face he was drumming remained calm and smiling, which was admirable.
If the boys had moved away from him, it is most likely that he would have followed them or, judging by his record, have claimed that they were disrespecting an elder by walking away.
There is nothing the boys could possibly have done to make the “Black Israelites” calm down, and their cheer did nothing to provoke the “Black Israelites” because that’s group entire function seems to be to scream insults and everybody who isn’t them, including not only the boys but Indians, whom they were also badgering.
The students did nothing wrong. Period. The full tape shows that they were verbally abused by a group of anti-Catholic bigots for an hour and did nothing in response. The phony Vietnam ” vet” who fixed appliances next to Disneyland during his Vietnam tour and ended 4 years in the USMC as a private jumped in the face of the kid for a photo op- as anybody with two synapses can see. The poor kid victimized as a “racist” did what many of us would do- try to ignore the taunts of an ignorant man.
But hey, what is that to 3 bishops who want to cast the first stone? Too bad the students were not abusing little boys- then these “princes of the Church” would have said nothing.
Acting as an apologist for the instigators is not a character trait to be proud of. The next time some thug wants to rob your home while you’re in your bed sleeping by all means diffuse the situation by getting up out of bed and help them loot your belongings.
Another big blunder by the Catholic hierarchy. They jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts just like the mainstream media did. Their revised statement should, at least, have been the first statement, instead of threatening the boys with expulsion. Another example of where the Church ranks are so quick to throw children under the bus, while they continue to close ranks and protect the SHAMEFUL coverup they’ve all engaged in over the years!!!
ALL Diocese and school authorities who bore false witness against the young men must apologize and then resign. There must be a boycott of the church until that occurs.
“That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path, he didn’t…”
I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?”
Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident. Their primary purpose, the Right to Life March, has already been relegated to footnote status. Now, Catholics are divided… some in full throated defense of the boys actions; some shaking their heads at the thoughtlessness of the participating boys.
How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?
I ask educators to examine the problem closely.
“I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?””
The difference is that there was nobody there trying to set you up and film it. But how *dared* you wear ROTC uniforms when you knew that htere were some people who hated the military?
“Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident.”
The *only* thing that caused a controversy was the Indian with the drum and the boys’ reaction to that. Nobody even knew about the Black Hebrew Israelis or whatever they call themselves until the controversy was well under way and the longer video was found. And the controversy was ginned up by selective editing. There was no reason that the boys should have had to walk away. They were doing nothing wrong. When the drummer started his bullying, they *still* did nothing wrong.
“How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?”
Pitfalls for standing and smiling? Pitfalls for dancing to a drumbeat? If they had walked away it would have been “How dare they disrespect this well-respected elder by walking away from him?”
You are blaming the victims, and it’s shameful.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents? My point is, my group was quite aware of opportunistic media reporters fifty years ago, ready to jump to photo at the first signs of a confrontation. The Covington boys should have had similar awareness.
Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.
There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek. God given, a right given to us at creation with free will. We should more carefully consider it’s practice.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.
Your original statement was, “As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best.” Really? Any response? Any at all? Even just standing there quietly and ignoring them? Manifestly a cheer routine or dancing along with any drums they may have decided to pound would have been inappropriate because you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform in the first place, you know, and provoking them).
Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame, and I have seen no action that deserve any such blame. You seem to forget that the video that caused all the outrage had nothing at all in it about the Black Isreeli group. Any responses they made to that wasn’t what caused the problem, so you can leave that aside entirely.
The Indian drummer was not blatantly heckling them at first, as you say the Vietnam War protestors were heckling you. It appears as if at first nobody knew what the drummer was up to; after all, he was unaffiliated with the Black Israeli group, and came out of nowhere, drumming; until he got into their faces and his companion starting making racist comments, why would they have moved, and after that, why should they? And the incident lasted only a few minutes. It would be as if those protestors who were heckling you had been succeeded by somebody who came up to you playing bagpipes or something. Your first thought wouldn’t have been to assume they were there to cause trouble.
“Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.”
The boys were the victims of an attempt to make them look bad. I don’t have to “create ‘victims’ of the boys.” That’s already been done.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek.”
There is no doubt in my mind that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The boy who was most vilified especially didn’t respond in any way that was blameworthy. He stood there quietly in the face of rudeness and an attempt to make him angry, and he smiled. That actually pretty much *is* turning the other cheek.
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision.”
….
If you will be kind enough to refer to my earlier posts, you should note that I stated, “some in our group wanted to respond”, (I’ll truthfully admit I was one of those wanting to respond, I never made a “brilliant decision” worth “preening” myself. In fact, I am embarrassed when I recall my actions in the event). A few cooler heads prevailed in our group. You should remember, this was at the height of the war protest era, videos and photos in the news every day, plenty of reporters in DC. And, as I stated, our primary concern was of discovery by our disciplinarian rector. I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.
“you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”
We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some. Perhaps that is not equivocal, but since you brought up “provoking”…
“Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame”
I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”. I see the words I used… “thoughtless, made a choice not to turn the other cheek, willing participants in a controversial incident, failed to recognize ,and optics are bad.”. Not a single one of my phrases fit the “heinous” or “blame” narrative that is portrayed of my posts.
I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame. I merely pointed out possible alternative actions, that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.”
Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart? That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children. Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.
Peace
I said, “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Your reply was, “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Now you’re complaining, “I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.”
I answered quite clearly. Your said that only if I had been present at your incident would I know if someone was trying to film you to set you up. The implication is that since you were there, you did know whether someone was trying to film you. I still don’t believe that anybody was filming you, for the two reasons I mentioned:
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.”
You quote me ( ““you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”) and then replied, “We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some.”
That you actually believed that I was seriously blaming you and your companions for wearing ROTC uniforms tells me a lot about you. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I was engaging in reductio ad absurdam regarding your belief that the boys are to blame for the incident because they wore MAGA hats. I can’t believe that you didn’t reply to me something along the lines of “We had every right to wear our uniforms!” as any normal person would.
“I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”.”
You have said that the situation is their fault in essence because unlike you and your companions of ffty years ago, they were not “situationally aware” and weren’t afraid of their disciplinarian principal, so they didn’t scuttle away.
“I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame.”
That makes no sense at all.
“Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart?”
1. You had a group of hecklers who were angry about the Vietnam War (a political issue which at a stretch at least connected with the fact that you were in uniform) who were probably stupid but also probably sane. You ignored them and moved away (you wrote that someone said “Keep moving,” so it might even have been that you were already moving when they started heckling you, but I can’t tell for sure).
The boys from Covington Catholic High School were gathering at a designated meeting point. They had insults yelled at them by a group of hecklers who were, to say the least, none too stable mentally, and who were yelling at them and at everybody else in the vicinity, for reasons unrelated to anything the boys were doing or wearing. They could not move away because this was where their buses were meeting them; and there was no reason they should. In any case, the heckling by the group screaming at them really wasn’t an issue, and neither was any response they made. That’s not what went viral.
2. You knew from the get-go that the hecklers were targeting you, and why. The boys from Covington at first apparently did not realize that the Indian drummer was targeting or attacking them; he was just some guy drumming who came toward them. The incident didn’t last all that long, and even after the drummer was pounding his drum in the face of students some of the group were still not sure that he was attempting to provoke them.
The hecklers in your case were quite forthright and obvious. The drummer was not, and has since lied through his teeth.
“That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children.”
You are ignoring the fact that the boys didn’t cast a stone, even a metaphorical one, at the drummer at all. I can’t think of anything gentler than smiling and not doing anything. The only confrontational approach I saw was on the part of the drummer and his companions.
“that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.” Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.”
I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. If someone stole my locked car, parked in a mall parking lot in broad daylight, I’d wish that it had never happened; but that wouldn’t mean that I considered that I should have done something differently, with the implication that it was somehow my fault, perhaps for daring to own a car.
Why do anyone you bother with this hateful astroturfer called Bob. It is obvious he was hired to “hate” in this comment area. I wouldn’t respond …the video speaks for itself. The boys are TOTALLY innocent and acted with great restraint. We should be proud of them. Look into the Indian and his background and you can see why Bob the hater loves him. It’s his reflection.
I am astounded that any poster could perceive me as a “hater”, or that my comments are “hateful”.
Again, look at the words I posted…
“the optics are bad”, meaning that the boys participation could easily be subject to varying interpretations, some not favorable.
“I think about those young men and my brotherhood with them, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged…”
“thoughlessness of the participating boys”
“boys failed to recognize…”
“boys should have had awareness”
…and so on.
Why should my comments be interpreted as anything more serious than a gentle rebuke to the boys for allowing themselves to be “played” by a group of bad actors? One of those students now expresses a wish he “could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.”. What does that tell you about a real participant’s feelings in hindsight?
A gentler discourse would provide a great example to students, perhaps allowing them to choose “the high road” rather than sacrificing their self respect for a fleeting moment of tribal gratification.
Peace
I think this sadly speaks of the cowardice and bad intentions of the Church hierarchy. The politicization of everything by secular progressives has infected the Church. Unfortunately, we don’t have Pope John Paul II to face this threat.