Hart Ponder Jr

I created this image at first light as the sun broke across the Arizona horizon, sending radiant beams through the still morning air. The light gently touched a towering saguaro cactus in the foreground while the legendary Golden Gate Peak (sometimes called Golden Gate Mountain). The rugged mountain backdrop made famous by Old Tucson Studios in Tucson, Arizona — stood tall in the distance. Built in 1939, the historic film studio and surrounding desert have served as the setting for hundreds of westerns and Hollywood productions, making this landscape a true symbol of America’s frontier storytelling.

@grok Iran has engaged in significant asymmetric aggression against the US via proxies and direct actions over the past 45 years, without a conventional invasion. Key examples: - 1983 Beirut barracks bombing by Iran-backed Hezbollah killed 241 US Marines. - Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq used EFPs/rockets to kill hundreds of US troops post-2003. - 170+ proxy attacks on US bases in Iraq/Syria/Jordan since Oct 2023, killing 3 US service members in Jordan (2024). - Houthis (Iran proxy) attacked Red Sea shipping & US forces. - Naval clashes, tanker attacks in Gulf, and embassy assaults (e.g., 2019-2020). Sources: US State Dept, Congressional records, Brookings.

The morons are people impressed by arguments like this. The hostage crisis was resolved when the U.S. and Iran signed the Algiers Accords in 1981. You might as well say that a conflict with Japan would not be a new war, on the grounds that they attacked us at Pearl Harbor in 1941

@FeserEdward @grok what aggression has Iran committed on the US the last 45 years including its proxies?

Don’t confuse separation with disagreement. Even Paul the Apostle openly corrected Peter the Pope: “I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.” (Galatians 2:11) Paul didn’t break communion. He didn’t start a rival church. He remained in unity while confronting an error. That’s the distinction people miss. You can challenge, correct, even strongly rebuke within the Church, and still be fully united to it. Separation is walking away from that unity. Disagreement, even sharp disagreement, is not the same thing.

“Whoever, then, separates himself from this Catholic Church, no matter how praiseworthy he believes his life to be, will not have life because of this sin alone of being separated from the unity of Christ. Rather, the anger of God will remain over him.” ~ Saint Augustine, Letter 141

Indeed! To be fair, Donald Trump played a decisive role in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling by appointing three Supreme Court justices who formed the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. That’s just a fact, whether someone likes him or not. But the deeper issue isn’t Trump, Republicans, or political strategy. Scripture already settled that: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.” (Psalm 146:3) That’s the real lesson. If people are looking to politicians to carry the moral weight of the Gospel, they’re already off track. The harder question, and it cuts deeper: Which is worse Politicians acting like politicians, shaped by the world and often blind to God’s law or Catholic clergy knowingly giving Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who publicly reject grave moral teaching, especially on something as serious as abortion? One is ignorance or worldliness. The other risks sacrilege and scandal from those entrusted to guard the Eucharist. That’s where the accountability gets uncomfortable. This teaching alone reminds me where true saving salvation will come from: CCC 677

Look at the numbers for this post of Trent’s! How sad so few people want to confront the reality of abortion these days of Trump and passive Republicans. Trent always have. Few do. Lord Jesus have mercy on us.

Fun fact, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker (May 1) wasn’t just dropped onto the calendar randomly. It was established in 1955 by Pope Pius XII to place the dignity of human labor under St. Joseph’s patronage, deliberately offering a Christian vision of work in contrast to purely secular “Labor Day” movements. That’s the exact lens Pope John Paul II develops in Laborem Exercens, where he writes, “work is for man, not man for work,” grounding the meaning of labor in the human person made in the image of God, not in economics or production alone.

Feast of St. Joseph the Worker is the best day ever to read St. John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens. This and his Letter to Artists are probably the best writings ever on the theology of human work. vatican.va/content/john-p…

@TaylorRMarshall Lower case “g,” adding insult to injury for sure.

Vivek, We don't need Hindoos teaching us about Jesus Christ. You worship an elephant headed deity. Go back to your Hindoo nation.

This is exactly why we run into problems, when the standard shifts from Scriptural qualifications and Holy Tradition to political narratives or payback. The real question is what is his spiritual qualifications as outlined in sacred scriptures? 1 Timothy 3:1–7 Titus 1:5–9 1 Peter 5:1–3 Acts 20:28 A bishop must be above reproach, exemplary in conduct, free from scandal, and have a good reputation even among outsiders. That’s the test, not his immigration story. Does Evelio Menjívar-Ayala teach error, contradict the faith, or cause scandal in a way that undermines his office? That’s the only relevant questions. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The Church teaches that the state has the right to regulate immigration and that just laws must be obeyed. A bishop must be exemplary, above reproach, and not cause confusion or scandal. If Evelio Menjívar-Ayala is encouraging disregard for immigration law, that’s a real concern. That goes directly to his public witness. The pushback matters because a bishop must have a good reputation even among outsiders. If his actions are seen as undermining lawful authority, that raises a legitimate question about his fitness to lead. The standard isn’t politics, it’s holiness, orthodoxy, and fitness to shepherd.

the dispute between the papacy and the empire in the early second millennium in Europe was about who had  the power to appoint bishops - the pope or the emperor - and whether the bishops had to obey the pope or the emperor. In the long run the papacy won that fight , and we still see the result of that victory today.

This is exactly why we run into problems, when the standard shifts from Scriptural qualifications and Holy Tradition to political narratives or payback. The real question is what is his spiritual qualifications as outlined in sacred scriptures? 1 Timothy 3:1–7 Titus 1:5–9 1 Peter 5:1–3 Acts 20:28 A bishop must be above reproach, exemplary in conduct, free from scandal, and have a good reputation even among outsiders. That’s the test, not his immigration story. Does Evelio Menjívar-Ayala teach error, contradict the faith, or cause scandal in a way that undermines his office? That’s the only relevant questions. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The Church teaches that the state has the right to regulate immigration and that just laws must be obeyed. A bishop must be exemplary, above reproach, and not cause confusion or scandal. If Evelio Menjívar-Ayala is encouraging disregard for immigration law, that’s a real concern. That goes directly to his public witness. The pushback matters because a bishop must have a good reputation even among outsiders. If his actions are seen as undermining lawful authority, that raises a legitimate question about his fitness to lead. The standard isn’t politics, it’s holiness, orthodoxy, and fitness to shepherd.

Pope Leo’s pick for West Virginia bishop came to the US illegally from El Salvador thepostmillennial.com/pope-leos-pick…

This is exactly why we run into problems, when the standard shifts from Scriptural qualifications and Holy Tradition to political narratives or payback. The real question is what is his spiritual qualifications as outlined in sacred scriptures? 1 Timothy 3:1–7 Titus 1:5–9 1 Peter 5:1–3 Acts 20:28 A bishop must be above reproach, exemplary in conduct, free from scandal, and have a good reputation even among outsiders. That’s the test, not his immigration story. Does Evelio Menjívar-Ayala teach error, contradict the faith, or cause scandal in a way that undermines his office? That’s the only relevant questions. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The Church teaches that the state has the right to regulate immigration and that just laws must be obeyed. A bishop must be exemplary, above reproach, and not cause confusion or scandal. If Evelio Menjívar-Ayala is encouraging disregard for immigration law, that’s a real concern. That goes directly to his public witness. The pushback matters because a bishop must have a good reputation even among outsiders. If his actions are seen as undermining lawful authority, that raises a legitimate question about his fitness to lead. The standard isn’t politics, it’s holiness, orthodoxy, and fitness to shepherd.

Father Evelio confirmed my kids & gave them their First Communion. A tireless advocate for working people—a priest who shows faith by standing with the poor. He’s a bold choice for West Virginia & if folks can see past race they’ll find a real champion for people who are hurting.

This is exactly why we run into problems, when the standard shifts from Scriptural qualifications and Holy Tradition to political narratives or payback. The real question is what is his spiritual qualifications as outlined in sacred scriptures? 1 Timothy 3:1–7 Titus 1:5–9 1 Peter 5:1–3 Acts 20:28 A bishop must be above reproach, exemplary in conduct, free from scandal, and have a good reputation even among outsiders. That’s the test, not his immigration story. Does Evelio Menjívar-Ayala teach error, contradict the faith, or cause scandal in a way that undermines his office? That’s the only relevant questions. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. The Church teaches that the state has the right to regulate immigration and that just laws must be obeyed. A bishop must be exemplary, above reproach, and not cause confusion or scandal. If Evelio Menjívar-Ayala is encouraging disregard for immigration law, that’s a real concern. That goes directly to his public witness. The pushback matters because a bishop must have a good reputation even among outsiders. If his actions are seen as undermining lawful authority, that raises a legitimate question about his fitness to lead. The standard isn’t politics, it’s holiness, orthodoxy, and fitness to shepherd.

NEW: Pope Leo XIV has named Salvadoran immigrant Evelio Menijar-Ayala to be West Virginia’s lone Catholic bishop. As a teenager, he made three attempts to enter the United States illegally. He finally arrived in California in 1990, having been smuggled in the trunk of a car with his brother over the border crossing between Tijuana and San Diego. Over the next several years, Menjivar-Ayala worked janitorial and construction jobs in California before deciding to become a priest. It’s a remarkable choice in a state that is over 90% white and voted for President Trump by 42 points.

@FrStephenImb Daniel 2:44, CCC 56, 1040-1046

The Republicans have morals? Sorry, but neither party can claim the moral high ground anymore in our country. The best Republicans can say is we’re not as depraved and insane as the Democrats.

The better question cuts deeper than “who’s your authority?” It’s this: how has God dealt with His people when their visible leaders failed? Look at the pattern. With King Saul, David did not seize power or break away, even when Saul was clearly in the wrong. He said: “I will not raise my hand against the Lord’s anointed.” (1 Samuel 24:10) He stayed within the order God established, while still recognizing injustice. Then look at Jesus Christ dealing with corrupt leadership. He didn’t deny their authority outright. He said: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” (Matthew 23:2–3) That’s the key distinction: Authority remains real Abuses and failures are still called out So yes, Christ established a visible authority, the Church centered on Peter. But Scripture shows that when leaders fail, the response is not to abandon the structure, nor to pretend everything is fine. It’s fidelity within the Church, not rejection of it. That’s the tension people are wrestling with, not the existence of authority, but how to remain faithful when those exercising it fall short.

To all those Catholics who reject the Pope and the “VCII Church” either as heretical, schismatic, or apostate; two questions. Do you agree that Christ divinely established an earthly ecclesiastical authority? If not the Pope or the Church in Rome, then who is your ecclesiastical authority?

@dtlogic1 @mkcselby World Youth Day crowds aren’t the measuring stick. Neither is what one priest casually does off duty. The Church calls for intentional reverence, not lowest-common-denominator behavior. Bottom line: Showing up is good. But how you show up still matters.

@PonderHart @mkcselby I went to a talk by a Claretian priest saying that he sometimes goes to mass in shorts when he is not saying it. Also, at the Jubilee of Youth and World Youth Day, large numbers of the crowds wore shorts and nobody had an issue with it.

Bro’s focused more on the dress than on the fact they showed up to Mass in the first place. Classic Pharisee behaviour. You’ve missed the point of our faith, sir.

The Eucharist is not a “prop,” but neither may the faithful be ignored or denied Communion simply because they kneel. The Church is clear. Canon 843. 1 says: “Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” And Redemptionis Sacramentum 91 says: “Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.” So if this family approached reverently, kneeling, and properly disposed, they should not have been ignored or refused. That is not using the Eucharist as a prop, that is the faithful seeking Our Lord in the manner the Church permits.

Using the Eucharist as a prop? No one is correct here! Making a statement more important than receiving Jesus! Never.

Religious relativism is the danger here, and it starts by pretending the differences aren’t real. Yes, the Pope can meet anyone. But let’s be clear, we are not all “just Christians” in the same sense. The Church does not recognize Anglican orders as valid, so this is not simply bishop meeting bishop. In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders: “absolutely null and utterly void.” And on women’s ordination, Pope John Paul II taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… and this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” So presenting a female “archbishop” as if this were just another Christian counterpart isn’t harmless, it risks blurring what the Church definitively teaches. Even Dominus Iesus warns against a relativism that treats real doctrinal differences as secondary. Yes to dialogue, yes to charity. But clarity matters, because unity without truth isn’t unity at all.

"Yet throughout her visit, Rome received Mullally — who has described herself in the past as “pro-choice rather than pro-life” and supports blessings for same-sex couples — with an enthusiasm that conveyed precisely the opposite impression. From the moment she arrived, Vatican officials rolled out the red carpet, extending courtesies that went well beyond diplomatic hospitality and included gestures laden with ecclesial significance." edwardpentin.substack.com/p/the-vaticans…

That’s too simplistic, and not how the saints actually acted. Yes, surrender to God and obedience matter. But the saints didn’t treat obedience as blind or absolute in every circumstance. Galatians 2:11 says: “And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.” That’s Paul the Apostle correcting Peter the Apostle publicly, not out of rebellion, but to defend the truth of the Gospel. So the model from the saints isn’t “never act” or “never resist.” It’s fidelity to the faith, even when that involves confronting authority in a crisis. The real question isn’t whether action was taken, it’s whether the action was justified.

I understand that Marcel Lefebvre was in a tough situation at the time. But in tough situations, we should learn from the saints. They're our examples. There's two things the saints would have done for sure: 1) Surrender to God and not take things into their own hands 2) Obey the Holy Father. Unfortunately, Marcel Lefebvre's example is NOT the one to follow. We should never stop praying for his soul.

Religious relativism is the danger, it blurs real differences in the name of unity. Yes, the Pope can meet anyone. But publicly receiving someone as a “bishop” isn’t neutral, it can signal recognition and cause confusion. The Church has already ruled. In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders: “absolutely null and utterly void.” And Pope John Paul II taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…” Even Dominus Iesus warns against relativism that blurs doctrine. Yes to dialogue, yes to charity. Not at the expense of clarity on Holy Orders.

Pope Leo's ecumenism should be understood in the light of God's plan to allow Protestantism to expire. At a certain point there will be no Anglican church left. Establishing good  relations in the interim lets them know they are welcome in the Catholic Church.

Respect for the Pope doesn’t cancel discernment. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: “Test everything; retain what is good.” And in Acts of the Apostles 17:11: “These Jews were more noble… for they received the word with great eagerness, but they examined the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” The apostolic model is clear, receive with openness, but also examine, test, and hold fast to what is true.

When inclined to correct Pope Leo why not stop and see if he is correcting you?

“Come as you are” is the door, not the destination. The first work of the Holy Spirit is conversion, you leave the old self behind. A well formed conscience doesn’t say “whatever I want,” it asks, does this honor God and avoid distracting others from the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 8:9 warns: “Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” And 1 Timothy 2:9 calls for modesty in worship. That’s not legalism, it’s charity. You don’t just show up, you offer your best, in a way that keeps the focus where it belongs, on Christ in the Eucharist.

@PonderHart @mkcselby From the parish I like in Chicago. "We embrace a “come as you are” mindset. Some members of our community choose to wear their “Sunday best,” but there is no dress code for Mass and we invite you to be yourself!" I agree with this parish.

Religious relativism is the danger here, and it starts by pretending the differences aren’t real. Yes, the Pope can meet anyone. But let’s be clear, we are not all “just Christians” in the same sense. The Church does not recognize Anglican orders as valid, so this is not simply bishop meeting bishop. In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders: “absolutely null and utterly void.” And on women’s ordination, Pope John Paul II taught in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women… and this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” So presenting a female “archbishop” as if this were just another Christian counterpart isn’t harmless, it risks blurring what the Church definitively teaches. Even Dominus Iesus warns against a relativism that treats real doctrinal differences as secondary. Yes to dialogue, yes to charity. But clarity matters, because unity without truth isn’t unity at all.

Perhaps one of the lessons we should learn from the Vatican's welcome of Mrs Mullally is that, despite all our profound differences and disagreements, we are on the same side.