London Calling

November 11, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog



The clash between what the Mormon Church teaches and what some Mormons think it teaches can be a curious thing to observe. Case in point: “Richard from London” called my Open Line radio show last week to berate me for my critical comments on an earlier show regarding Mormon theology.


Richard identified himself as a former Catholic who converted to the Mormon Church, largely, he said, due to the many “disturbing” chapters in Catholic history. I pointed out that, whatever good or bad things Catholics have done over the centuries (and, to be sure, there are innumerable examples of Catholics doing both), none of it is at all relevant to the truth claims made by the Mormon Church.

Once of those claims which the Mormon Church has made (one which, understandably, Richard denied), through the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, as well as official LDS scripture, is that God “cursed” certain people by changing their skin color from white to black and, in some cases, brown — an issue I had discussed with a different caller on an earlier show. Take a listen and see what you think.

Regarding the larger question of whether or not the Mormon Church did/does, in fact, officially teach the doctrine that God has cursed certain people by making them black or brown, I wrote an article addressing this issue in This Rock magazine, back in 1991, in response to a similar line of argumentation from another Mormon who was very squeamish about this issue being brought up. I wrote:

As for the question about racism in the doctrines and practices of the Mormon Church, your indignant comments fly in the face of the facts. For the last century and a half the Mormon Church has preached a message of racial inequality based on the theory that God has “cursed” certain people with dark skin. As you well know, this curse applies both to blacks and those of “Lamanite” descent, although for different reasons. To make my point I’ll focus just on the Lamanites.

THE BOOK of Mormon says God “cursed” the Lamanites (whom Joseph Smith alleged were originally white-skinned Palestinian Jews from the family of Laman, son of Lehi, who settled in the New World around the year 600 B.C.) in retaliation for their sins by turning them into Indians with dark skin and hair (1 Nephi 12:23; 2 Nephi 5:21-24; Jacob 3:3-5; Alma 3:6; Mormon 5:15).

The Mormon Church teaches that the Lamanites were the forerunners of North American Indians as well as of Mexicans and other Latin Americans. These are described in the Book of Mormon in unflattering terms: “dark,” “filthy,” “abominable,” “loathsome,” “idle,” “wicked,” “sorely cursed with skins of darkness,” and “beyond the description of that which hath ever been amongst us.”

If this weren’t enough to demonstrate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that certain races are inferior because of the color of their skin (isn’t that the definition of racism?), please recall that the Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes the notion that white skin is “pure and delightsome” and that brown skin is “filthy and loathsome.”

TO BE FAIR, I should mention that the Mormon Church does hold out hope to Indians, Mexicans, and all those who have been tainted by the Lamanite curse. The Book of Mormon explains that “Lamanitish” people who accept the Mormon gospel can hope to have their skins turned white.

In Jacob 3:8 the white-skinned Nephites are warned about the wages of sin: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their [the Lamanites‘] skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.” If you need more convincing about this issue see also 3 Nephi 2:15, 2 Nephi 30:6, and Alma 23:18.

Notice that I quote from the Book of Mormon–I’m not sneaking in “obscure comments,” although I could have quoted zillions of ’em, and you know it, from “obscure” Mormon leaders such as the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, plus Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Peterson, both former members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Truth or consequences, Robert. Do you believe God “cursed” people by giving them dark skin, or don’t you? The ramifications of your answer seem agonizingly clear: If you don’t believe it, you deny an explicit teaching of the Book of Mormon and over 150 years of official Mormon doctrine promulgated by prophets, apostles, and general authorities. If you do believe God curses some people with dark skin, you’ll have a hard time convincing people Mormon theology isn’t racist. . . . (continue reading)

"Why Do Catholic Apologists Need to Lie?"

November 11, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

That’s only one of several provocative questions raised, presumably by an Evangelical Protestant, on this new 3-minute video clip. If nothing else, it illustrates the kind of dense — don’t bother me with the facts! — kind of mentality we “Catholic Apologists” (and you know who you are, Steve Ray, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Jim Burnham, Mark Shea, John Salza, Father Mitch Pacwa, and the rest of you) have to deal with, from time to time. I won’t bother to try rebutting these claims. It’s enough to see them leveled with a presumably straight face in public and to know the sad truth, exemplified in this video, of our Lord’s words in Matthew 13:15.


Some of the other charges laid are:

Catholic apologists don’t represent “real” Catholicism.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are the “same” and “believe the same things.”

The Catholic Church has oral traditions that came before the Bible and are authoritative.

I like the part where he claims that “We [Protestants] have no canon other than the Bible itself . . . No one has produced any transcript or recording of any definitive ‘oral tradition.'” [NB: That is particularly interesting because the canon of Scripture is itself a Tradition and is not explicitly mentioned by Scripture.]

[Catholic apologists’] hate-filled rhetoric comes at a time when Evangelicals are most willing to discuss issues.”

“Catholic apologist = hate-filled liar. That’s just the sad fact.”

Orgulho vai antes de cair (pride goes before a fall)

November 10, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

Iuventus stultorum magister . . .


Cocky Motorcycle Showoff Gets Owned – Watch more Funny Videos

This Debate Did Not Go Well for the Catholic Side

November 10, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog


I just finished watching the video of a public debate recently held in England on the proposition: “The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World.” As a Catholic who ardently believes in the truth of that proposition, this was an exchange that was not pleasant to watch. There was so much at stake vis-a-vis public opinion that was swayed in the wrong direction as a result. It could have had a much different outcome.


The two Catholics who defended the debate proposition were Nigerian Archbishop John Onaiyekan and British MP Anne Widdecombe. The two men denying the proposition were the accomplished homosexual actor Stephen Fry and world-famous atheist author and commentator Christopher Hitchens.


— I’m sorry for the auto-play on the video. To stop it, click the “pause” button. —

The regrettable truth is that this debate was, as atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins termed it, a rout. Fry and Hitchens are clearly vastly superior rhetoricians, masters of the English language both, and they homed in relentlessly and with devastating effect on many white-hot hot-button issues that are neither easy to explain quickly (this debate was geared for quick sound bites, a skill that Hitchens has honed to an art form, by the way) nor palatable to the majority of people today (i.e., The World).

I applaud and am sincerely grateful to both Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ms. Widdecombe for their courageous efforts to publicly explain and defend the Catholic Church and Her teachings, but they were simply not prepared for this encounter. God bless them for their willingness, though, to stand up for the Faith in a very hostile environment. I truly admire them for that.

And yet, we can do better, much, much better, than that in public debates with those who take up the cudgel against the Catholic Church. And if we’re going to have any chance of winning the souls of the “undecideds,” we had better set about making our case as effectively and as vigorously and as soon as possible. If we don’t, the tide of opposition to Truth will continue to swell.

Which brings me to my impromptu list of Madrid’s Rules for Debating.

Rule 1: Don’t be afraid
to fight the good fight, but understand that, nowadays, it may
become a street-fight.

Rule 2: If you’re going to street-fight, you had better know how to street fight.

Rule 3: Always adhere to the Pell Protocol — If you’re going fight, fight to win.

If ever there is ever another opportunity to hold such a public debate with Fry and Hitchens and two Catholics, I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church’s defenders include some combination of the following street fighters and rhetorical heavyweights:

Peter Kreeft, Benjamin Wiker, Robert George, Dinesh D’Souza (who has debated Christopher Hitchens quite effectively many times), Helen Alvare, Alan Keyes, Father John Corapi, or Dr. Scott Hahn. There are other worthy contenders, to be sure, but these folks are an excellent start.

Any combination of these stalwarts would result in a much different kind of debate than what we see in this video. And I’d definitely want to be in the audience for that debate!

Watch and learn:

NYT Gives False Impression That Catholic Medal of Honor Winner Was Muslim

November 10, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

Why does this not surprise me?

So many in the mainstream media are tripping over themselves in their haste to exonerate and extol Muslims in America, in particular those in the U.S. military, especially now, in the ghastly light of last week’s terrorist attack at Fort Hood perpetrated by a murderous Muslim lunatic. Why is the American press so unwilling to report accurately on this issue?

Yes, I know. The NY Times in particular is notorious for printing “news” that’s grossly tainted by politically correct spin and occasional eruptions of yellow journalism. I expect nothing better of them. But it’s still irritating.

Try to imagine — I know it’s hard — the NYT and similar media outlets wringing their hands in worry over the “frustration,” challenges, and difficulties Catholics experienced in the military. Not gonna happen.

Andrea Elliott’s front page article in the November 9 New York Times played up the thousands of Muslims in the U.S. military and how their “service…is more necessary and more complicated than ever before,” but gave the false impression that a Medal of Honor recipient named near the end of her piece was a Muslim himself, when he was actually Catholic.

Elliott spent much of her article, “Complications Grow for Muslims Serving in the U.S. Military” (which appeared above the fold on the front page of the print edition of the Times), detailing the concerns of “many Muslim soldiers and their commanders…[who] fear that the relationship between the military and its Muslim service members will only grow more difficult” after Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood on November 5. She later noted that “[w]hatever his possible motives, the emerging portrait of Major Hasan’s life in the military casts light on some of the struggles and frustrations felt by other Muslims in the services.”

Near the end of the article, Elliott changed the subject ever so slightly that it might have gone unnoticed. The reporter quoted Captain Erich Rahman, an Iraq war veteran and Bronze Star winner: “Too many Americans overlook the heroic efforts of Arab-Americans in uniform, said Capt. Eric Rahman…He cited the example of Lieutenant Michael A. Monsoor, a Navy Seal who was awarded the Medal of Honor after pulling a team member to safety during firefight in 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq. Lieutenant Monsoor died saving another American, yet he will never be remembered like Major Hasan, said Captain Rahman. Regardless, he said, Muslim- and Arab-Americans are crucial to the military’s success in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Elliott’s specific attention to Muslims in the military and their “struggles and frustrations” for most of her article, followed by this passing reference to Monsoor (pictured above, who was actually a Petty Officer, 2nd class), certainly gives the impression, despite the use of the “Arab-American” label, that the Medal of Honor recipient was a Muslim. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth.

The Navy’s biography of Monsoor, who died in 2006 after he jumped on a grenade to save the lives of fellow Seals, notes that the lieutenant “attended Catholic Mass devotionally before operations.” Another article written in tribute to the valiant officer cited his aunt Patricia Monsoor, who recalled that he “went to confession frequently.” . . . (continue reading)

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those Without Health Insurance?

November 10, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation. . . . (source)

Robert Spencer Debunks Mainstream Media Spin on the Fort Hood Terrorist

November 9, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

Catholic author Robert Spencer, proprietor of Jihad Watch, offers a sobering corrective to the media’s strenuous efforts to downplay and ignore the religious nature of the mass murderer who killed 13 and wounded over 30 others at Fort Hood the other day. Well worth listening to his analysis.

Some Actions Have Unintended Consequences

November 9, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog

Here's a Great Way to Prepare Your Kids for Advent

November 9, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog


All Catholic parents who are serious about wanting to raise their children strong in the Faith understand how important it is to ensure that they enter as deeply as possible into the spirit and meaning of the Church’s liturgical seasons.

Lent and Advent are the two most dramatic times of preparation in the Church calendar, and so Catholic children should be taught how to experience at least as much (actually, far more) excitement and anticipation for the Nativity of the Lord during the Advent season as they do for receiving presents on Christmas. The former (the gift of the Incarnation and birth of Christ) is the foundation on which the entire gospel of Christ rests, and the latter (getting stuff for Christmas) is irrelevant and often the primary, if note sole, focus of most children between now and Christmas.

There’s an excellent new set of tools for Catholic parents who are really serious about helping their kids prepare well for this blessed event: The Holy Heroes Advent Adventure. I personally know and admire the people behind this apostolate and, while I am in no way involved or associated with the organization and derive no benefit of any kind from them, I can vouch for their orthodoxy, quality, and the effectiveness of their materials for the kiddos.

So please watch the video (preferably with your children), check out their website and, if you are so inclined, tell them Patrick Madrid sent you.


England, Anglicans, and the Prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor

November 9, 2009 by  
Filed under Patrick's Blog


I just finished reading the text of Pope Benedict’s newly promulgated apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus (“Groups of Anglicans”), in which he opened wide the door for Anglicans to convert to the Catholic Church en masse and retain their identity as Anglo-Catholics. As many have commented before me, this is a bold and hugely significant step in the direction of finally bringing England herself back into the Catholic fold. May God hasten that day!

As I reflect on Anglicanorum Coetibus, I recall having read a few prophecies from long ago regarding the eventual reconversion of England to the ancient Catholic Faith it had professed for many centuries prior to the Protestant rebellion. This one, which can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, is particularly interesting, and I am inclined to think that Pope Benedict’s historic overture to Anglicans fits nicely into what St. Edward described in his prophecy:

Ambrose Lisle Philipps in a letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury dated 28 October, 1850, in giving a sketch of English Catholic history, relates the following vision or prophecy made by St. Edward:

“During the month of January, 1066, the holy King of England St. Edward the Confessor was confined to his bed by his last illness in his royal Westminster Palace. St. Ælred, Abbott of Rievaulx, in Yorkshire, relates that a short time before his happy death, this holy king was wrapt in ecstasy, when two pious Benedictine monks of Normandy, whom he had known in his youth, during his exile in that country, appeared to him, and revealed to him what was to happen to England in future centuries, and the cause of the terrible punishment.

They said: ‘The extreme corruption and wickedness of the English nation has provoked the just anger of God. When malice shall have reached the fullness of its measure, God will, in His wrath, send to the English people wicked spirits, who will punish and afflict them with great severity, by separating the green tree from its parent stem the length of three furlongs. But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit.’

After having heard these prophetic words, the saintlyKing Edward opened his eyes, returned to his senses, and the vision vanished. He immediately related all he had seen and heard to hisvirgin spouse, Edgitha, to Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Harold, his successor to the throne, who were in his chamber praying around his bed.” (See “Vita beati Edwardi regis et confessoris”, from manuscript Selden 55 in Bodleian Library, Oxford.)

The interpretation given to this prophecy is remarkable when applied to the events which have happened. The spirits mentioned in it were the Protestant innovators who pretended, in the sixteenth century, to reform the Catholic Church in England. The severance of the green tree from its trunk signifies the separation of the English Church from the root of the Catholic Church, from the Roman See.

This tree, however, was to be separated from its life-giving root the distance of “three furlongs”. These three furlongs are understood tosignify three centuries, at the end of which England would again be reunited to the Catholic Church, and bring forth flowers of virtue and fruits of sanctity. The prophecy was quoted by Ambrose Lisle Philipps on the occasion of the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England by Pope Pius IX in 1850.

« Previous PageNext Page »