What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Formationator: "Profess Chalcedon or take a Beatin'"

HT to Lydia


Add to My Profile | More Videos

Comments (25)

I think my favorite line in that one may be near the beginning: "That's very pastoral of you."

Yes, that was funny. I think mine is: "But I believe in results".

My favorite part was the interpretive dance. Though that part could have been better by adding disco lights.

Side-splittingly funny... even after several views. Its good to know that priests of the future will be so well prepared!

"What could be more ascetical than a savage beat down?"

I think the professor's funniest line is when he says "I believe in breaking paradigms." (Exactly what a liberal would say.)

And yes the "very pastoral of you" is absolutely hilarious.

REDACTED: because basic decency requires that one's first comment on a site be least superficially respectful, and not a tedious tissue of insult and pedantry. -- Ed.

What the F was that??!!??!! [Being a humorless old pedant, I judge] that video [to be] more insane than the worn out ramblings of this website. I am a [cafeteria] Catholic and came to check out this site after [waking up with a terrible hangover]. How sad I was to see [my bottle of bourbon empty]. [You are] an embarrassment to the Church. Please stop telling people you are Catholic. Your brand of insane hate-speak is much more appropriate for the evangelical movement from whence you came. Go back. There are so many factual errors, ridiculous leaps of "logic", typos, grammatical errors, and other sophomoric revelations on this page, that I HAD TO post a message about it [replete with "factual errors, ridiculous leaps of "logic", typos, grammatical errors, and other sophomoric revelations"]. And this video... like I said; what the F was that? [I realize it may have been intended humorously, but feigned ignorance seems a better tactic here.] Thanks be to God that you are at Baylor and not at a real institution of [Liberal pedantry]. You can't do much damage there. Those kids arrive [somewhat less poisoned by Liberalism]. By the way, the teachings of Christ are [exactly what I say they are], professor. Feed the poor, heal the sick, love thy neighbor... ring a bell? And am I mistaken? [Blah blah blah, PROFESSOR!! Blah blah blah, TENURE!!! Blah blah blah, OXYMORON!!! Blah blah blah, LIES!!!]

I was wondering how a conservative mouthpiece like you would react to my critique and now I know. You did what all good conservatives do when a liberal criticizes you or makes a lucid point; you changed my words... literally. Your technique, though, was quite creative and must have taken more than a few minutes to complete. Well done. Your choices are quite revealing, however. You start out strong and funny with "humorless old pedant" and "I judge", though you use pedant(ry) three times in a very short redaction. That's two too many in my opinion. And you might not want to bring up your adversaries attention to details/rules. It automatically frames me as knowledgeable. Poor strategy. Moving on. "Cafeteria?" Commonly used and understood, but how does it apply here? In what way did I seem to be picking and choosing which of the Church's teachings I will adhere to and which I will ignore? "Cafeteria" was a very poor decision. Made you seem petty and confused; like you hadn't read what I wrote or didn't understand. I doubt that, though. Your overuse of fifty cent words leads me to believe you're fairly bright. Then the booze business came along and you just lost all credibility. How weak must your point be that you have to completely ignore the topic at hand and start "name calling"! Try to stay focused, Ed. Repeating my "factual errors" line back to me was funny. Good one. Not quite as accurate as when I used it, but a good shot. Then the moment of the year! A conservative literally replaced the words "higher learning" with "Liberal pedantry"! Priceless. Thanks for that. I'm gonna quote that forever. Boy, you guys do hate learning and thought and questions, don't you? "Poisoned"; good one. But you again reveal the weakness of your position by not addressing my tenure point. "Blah, Blah, Blah" is a very, very, very weak way to avoid dealing with getting busted. Overall, thanks for the redaction. It was fun to read and reply to.

It's me again. I wonder if anyone besides you and me are ever gonna read this nonsense, Ed. By the way, who are you? A grad student of Dr. Beckwith's? Anyway, I just checked the Baylor website and found the following: "Francis J. Beckwith is a tenured Associate Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University." That proves that I was wrong about the tenured versus associate professor point I made. I stand corrected. Welcome back to the Church, by the way, Doc. (That video was insane, you have to admit!)

Let's try to approach this by analogy, shall we Greg?

If someone bursts into your home and promptly urinates on your carpet, would your first instinct be to engage him in a polite and detailed argument on the merits of expressive excrement? If a strange man marches up to your companion and spits in his face, will your natural response be one of equanimity and solemn dialectic?

You don't see the humor in the video. Bully for you. You want a cookie or something? But describing it as insane is hyperbole of the first order. One wonders what your opinion of Saturday Night Live could be. Do you watch Anchorman in a state of sheer horror, scandalized by its diabolism?

Now, as a fact, discovering who the Editor of this site is, is a feat of web-savvy which ought to require about fourteen seconds. Discovering, further, that this site welcomes Liberals of the polite and well-behaved sort, is a feat that may require three or four times that amount of time, but should not be insuperable. Why, just a week or so ago, one of our lovable Liberals earned my undying respect by revealing that he saw Bob Dylan live in his high school auditorium in 1964.

As for the supposed "weakness" of my position, well, I'm not much interested in even advancing a position at all -- not until these points of elementary propriety are observed.

Since it is the holiday season, I'm inclined to cut you a break. Please do read our Posting Rules, and take them not, indeed, as suggestions, but as strict instructions.

Perhaps it would be relevant to ask Greg who _he_ is? I do not have any idea, myself, but there seems to be some odd personal animus here, which is hardly helpful to civil discussion. Not that a humorous video based on Mundeleine's previous discomfiture by an apostolic visit (I believe it's called--Greg, do you even know the background of the video?) is exactly a call for deep conversation. I believe, by the way, that the video was made by this year's graduating class from Mundeleine as a sort of funny farewell. That bit (something like "The Class of 2007 Presents") is at the very beginning and is missing from this version.

I love it when Paul gets irked. You see a facet of his prose not normally visible.

By the way, Paul: ...this site welcomes Liberals of the polite and well-behaved sort

Why do we have to do that?

one of our lovable Liberals earned my undying respect by revealing that he saw Bob Dylan live

That really is going too far.

Feeding Greg's love of higher learning, the correct spelling of "going to" is not "gonna", and the singular possessive of "adversaries" is "adversary's".

Hey, guys. Thanks for the fan mail. A few points to waste our time with today. You are correct William. My use of "adversaries" was a mistake. Good catch. But I wasn't trying to spell "going to". I was trying to spell "gonna" and I'm pretty sure I nailed it. As for Lydia, I would recommend sticking to a simpler vocabulary. Your desire to display your mastery of the language's least used (and known) words has muddled your point. Keep it simpler. Also, why did you put underlines in between the words "who", "he", and "is"? Is that online code for something about your intended tone or something? I'm not a chat room guy and am sadly ignorant of much of that kind of thing. Thanks. Now to Paul. Where do I begin? I would offer the same advice I gave to young Lydia. Keep it way simpler, brother. If your points are clear and strong, the reader(s) will be impressed. If they are decorated with OVERLY elaborate vocabulary you end up looking like Sly Stallone on The Tonight Show trying to make us all think that he's not stupid. Word choice is not impressive. Logic and straightforwardness is. But anyway. I am forced to question your analogy. Although it was fun to read about urine and spit (much in the same way you cleverly worked in bourbon and drunkenness before), it doesn't make sense. The reason why is that it does not relate to anything I said. I never said anything about you being defensive or rude in your redaction, did I? I questioned and criticized much about your response, but did not say that you were being a jerk. I would have had to say that in order for your humorous analogy to work. Probably should have left that out. I don't like cookies. Thanks, though. And is the word "insane" so incredibly insulting? I didn't say it was horrible or evil. I just found it to be rambling, pointless, and not very funny. I guess that is rude to say though. I'm not even sure why I bothered to post a comment about it. Just bored I guess. But this back and forth really has been entertaining. I hope it will continue. I love SNL and Anchorman. I find them quite funny. You should not compare that video to those productions, though. That's hyperbole of the third order! As for the posting rules, I haven't had a chance (or taken the opportunity) to check them out yet. But I think it's great that you have a set of "strict instructions" for posting comments. I mean, leaving the masses to decide what and how they will post is just asking for a free thinking, diverse conversation... chaos. One more point to William; I'm sure Jesus will forgive you for your obvious hatred of him and his kind (liberals). But enough nastiness. I tried in my previous two postings to keep this banter at least slightly positive. I thought acknowledging your good points and funny moments, admitting my errors, and welcoming the doc back to the Church would go a little way toward seeming fair. I'm not here to JUST trash your replies to my initial (and probably senseless) comment about the video and website. I'm trying to engage in a little give and take here. So when you rip this message, at least point out something positive about it. You would think it would be I (the random and anonymous internet poster) who would be the really nasty one. So far (SINCE my first post) you guys have taken on that role. (Now, by the way, would be an appropriate opportunity to reply with your urine analogy.) So, have a nice day, enjoy the cool weather, and have a safe and happy New Year. Talk at ya soon. Oh, and peace!

I agree with you, Greg. That video was rather odd. The others of you should spend slightly less time attacking and ostracizing "Liberals" and more time focused on your own causes, i.e. being Pro-Life, etc.

Remember it is the left-leaning voters and political leaders in this country that have made America a just, reasonably equitable, and truly decent place to live. We can all thank the Conservative right for its undying dedication to strengthening our economy. They have done very well to that end. But it is the Liberals that protect our rights, ensure our opportunities, and lend our communal helping hand to those of us in need.

Food for thought. Neat site, btw.

rld

Alright Greg: simple and direct: your next comment will contain an apology to Mr. Beckwith or it will be your last.

You misunderstood my urine analogy: it referred to you original post, which began with an expletive and ended in a tissue of abuse and insult, mostly directed at Frank Beckwith, but also including the evangelical movement, Baylor students, and the rest of us at this site. You pissed on our carpet, big boy, and I'm not interested in banter until it gets cleaned up. Capice?

"But it is the Liberals that protect our rights, ensure our opportunities, and lend our communal helping hand to those of us in need."

Yeah, those pro-life conservatives never help anybody. Glad you like the site, Rick. Sorry you don't find the video funny. That's rather odd.

Btw, Paul did Greg a favor by redacting his original comment. It was a lot worse as it first stood.

When I first read Greg's comments I sighed to myself a paraphrase of that unforgettable line from the Wizard of Oz: pay no attention to the man behind the pseudonym. But the Christmas break has gotten the better of me.

Remember that Greg entered the fray because he heard my interview on EWTN radio yesterday morning. Apparently, he went from my site to this blog, and then read my last post, which included a video that I found via Lydia's comment on the "Baby Got Book" parody video. In other words, he entered the conversation long after it had begun, thinking he was present at the first sentence, as if timing were nothing rather than everything. If Tim LaHaye were writing this down, he would say it was like a backwards rapture, a passive-aggressive Left Behind, the sinner returning to earth from a Richard McBrien lecture (or Hell) mysteriously appearing in the middle of someone else's discussion in full pontification mode.

From there Greg proceeded to offer acerbic and inflammatory comments on everything from my employer, my students, my academic rank, and my return to the Catholic Church. And just for good measure, he told us that he found the video unfunny.

I wish someone would have read my last posting in its entirety. Have I not responded with SOME humility? Admitting mistakes, questioning the judgment of my own initial posting, complimenting some of your comments/jokes, and trying to improve the tone of this exchange? Come on. Reciprocate. Like I said in my last posting, I'm not even sure why I posted a comment to begin with. Rereading it now, it is quite rude and full of venom. I just got really fired up by all the anti-liberal speak on the website. I felt insulted and attacked and wanted to insult you back. I think I did. So let me apologize for that posting. I think the others have been fairly reasonable, if aggravating and immature. Thanks again for playing along, though. Lydia: I disagree that Paul's redaction was better than my original. Clever as it was, it lost much of the original flare. Why do you find it odd that Rick did not like the video? Are differing opinions from yours really odd? Now that's an odd point of view. You seem nice, though. Sorry you've gotten drug into this. I really hope you'll stick around (and I will). Rick: Thanks!!! Paul: Now that's not nice. "Big Boy"? Yikes. That's kinda (or kind of) creepy. Anyway, my original posting did NOT contain any expletives. It's not fair to be untruthful. Your most recent posting did, however, contain one. Please clean it up. Also, what do I need to clean up. I have used no profanity in ANY of my postings. Not sure what you want on that front. I apologized to Dr. Beckwith, though. You were right. He did deserve that. Frank: Greg is actually my real name and not a pseudonym. Shouldn't the Christmas season help you turn the other cheek? Not that you should have had to. Just odd logic I think. It is true that I entered the discussion after it began, but are we to be prohibited from entering any discourse for which we were not present from its outset? Certainly not. It would have helped me to be in on the inside joke nature of the video had I been a long time participant on the site. That's true. I was just commenting as an outsider. To those of us outside your group, the video seems quite weird. But like I said before, I was just offended and angered by your website's attacks on liberals. Liberal leaning Americans are your countrymen, often your fellow Christians (even some Catholics!), and, like you, want what's best for all of us. Just like you, we think we know a better way. It's so frustrating to be attacked and criticized for wanting to help as many people as we can. Can you understand that? Sorry again for attacking you and your site. That was not helpful and it was very rude. I hope you'll resist banning me. I have enjoyed this and hope the discourse here can improve to a point of real idea sharing. I am truly happy you've returned to the Church, Frank. Thanks for letting me post.

[Comments edited in light of FJB's editing]

"To those of us outside your group, the video seems quite weird."

Evidently the Catholic seminarians at Mundelein (as far as I know none of us here at WWWtW knows any of them) thought it was funny. That's why they made it. I found a Catholic blogger in Germany, totally unknown to any of us, posting it and referring to it as "hilarious." But I guess it depends on how one construes "your group." I'm not even Catholic, by the way.

Greg, if you get that upset and feel personally insulted when conservatives talk openly like conservatives and say that they have big objections to liberalism, then I think WWWtW is probably going to mess with your blood pressure. And really, this is quite a mild blog, as blogs go, even as conservative blogs go. I do intend to stick around, seeing as I'm one of the contributors...

Now that's true, Lydia. There are probably less stressful ways for me to entertain myself. But I'm sure you understand my curiosity. I'm sure you peak around at liberal sites to see what they're saying and griping about. Plus, like I said before, I just came here after hearing Dr. Beckwith on EWTN. I thought a professor at Baylor (and an Evangelical leader) coming back home to the Catholic Church was very interesting. I wanted to learn more about him and what he was doing down there.

I'm glad to hear the video is being received well by many others besides those posting here. Sorry again to have hit such a nerve with my criticism of the video. My initial email was rude and ruthless and I accept responsibility for all its faults, but certainly my attack of that video was the least of my crimes. Only one person (Paul) has come to the defense of poor Dr. Beckwith. I think my posting was far more insulting to him and his than me calling the video "insane". But it is clearly an important video and I shall never speak ill of it again.

And you're very right about the mildness of this blog. Most blogs (on either side of any issue) are quite harsh. I'm gonna run and check out the rest of your site. I just saw a couple more interesting links. Don't worry. I'll keep my opinions to myself... maybe.

Oh, never misunderstand: Your treatment of Frank Beckwith was quite inexcusable, and surprisingly so. But that had been dealt with. I merely commented further about the video because of this odd idea that it's some sort of insider cult thing. I like to bring factual evidence to bear on factual questions.

Thank you for the apologies, Greg. I was hoping you'd come through in the end.

Please do stick around, and even post a comment now and then. I would recommend that you read our About page:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/about.html

We are rather implacably opposed to Liberalism, I'm afraid. Here is our statement on it:

"Liberalism is a more obscure doctrine to define. Its grounding, we believe, lies in the assertion of Man’s sovereignty over his own nature and destiny, his brazen defiance of God. In political philosophy its mark is the reduction of all things to some strictly materialist standard, whether openly atheistic or more subtly economic. It collapses the mystery of Man’s dualistic nature. Christianity has taught us, in the common maxim, that man is in the world but not of it. Liberalism posits that he is emphatically of it; and by its logic even the worth of human life is made subject to the whims and calculations of worldly interest. The reductionism also issues in a deep antipathy for natural distinctions of any kind; Liberalism in the end renders men incapable of judgment."

So I think you'll find much to disagree with in these here parts, but that hasn't stopped our other Liberals from sticking around.

Only one person (Paul) has come to the defense of poor Dr. Beckwith...

That's because he did it so well.

Good morning, gang. I hope everyone had a nice weekend and is enjoying the last day of 2007. Thanks for your responses and acceptance of my apologies. I do plan to stop by from time to time (when work is slow as it is today) and see what you're up to. No good I will always assume. Just joking.

I read the "about us" section previously. Isn't it interesting (I promise that I mean no sarcasm here, but an actual philosophical question.) that both Conservatives and Liberals feel that their own side and its positions are more closely aligned with the moral and (often) Judeo-Christian values most dear to most of us while our opposition appears to us to be grounded only in materialistic/economic priorities? For example, Conservatives cite Liberals' tolerance of homosexuality, abortion, and lewd subject matter in the mainstream media as amoral and irreligious. And likewise, Liberals cite Conservatives' intolerance of homosexuals, disregard for the poor, and reluctance to provide health care to all Americans as the same, amoral and irreligious. It seems we must both be right. And we must both also be wrong. Can there be no way of uniting the Christian values of the right and the left and leaving the rest aside? Could there ever be a "Christian Party"? Too scary a concept for most I'm sure. How about a "Moral Party"? We could feed the poor, educate all, provide health care to all, stop abortion, stop the death penalty, clean up TV, find a middle ground on homosexual rights (if there is one), and find a way to unite those moral aspects of each side's platforms. There are plenty of "shady" issues that each side could abandon in the formation of this "more perfect union".

What a crazy hippie dreamer! Oh, well. What fun would that be anyway, right?

Have a great New Year's Eve tonight, folks. Talk to y'all soon.

-Lost Liberal in the Lone Star State

I would love to embed that on your group blog, Per Christum
, but I am not sure how to do so in that format... I do a lot with youtube, but this is a different format. Any suggestions?

You can go to this page: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8693767

The embed code is below the video.

ROTFL

I saw that on Youtube earlier this year. There is another one where the 50's seminarians kept having a cigarette break and projected on the "future" where they were on Mars, baptizing aliens with water blasters. Seminarians in the Third Millenium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxzbUAo-MSQ

2nd Tridentine Council which introduces two new minor orders:
1) Sub-sub-porter (turns the doorknob for the porter)
2) Sub-sub-deacon (whispers the prayers in the vernacular to the people)

:D

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.