jump to navigation

What do you think of this? August 13, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, Society.
comments closed

Voris believes Catholic monarchy is the way to go.  Thoughts?  Is he crazy?  Or is democracy eventually doomed to failure, due to selfish citizens voting to give to themselves, even to the point of destruction?   We may have an opportunity to find that out in this country, and in my lifetime.  I would not have believed that 20 years ago, not even 10.

Late term abortionists dump licenses to escape prosecution, then come to Dallas! August 13, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, scandals, silliness.
comments closed

Dear Lord, forgive us.  Dallas late term abortuary “Southwest Women’s Options” has just welcomed two new butchers abortionists to their abatoir, who just happen to have closed their facilities in Kansas to escape prosecution for illegal abortions.  Isn’t that known as murder?  From an Lifenews.com:

Two New Mexico-based late-term abortion practitioners who formerly practiced in Kansas have abandoned their medical licenses there to avoid prosecution by the Kansas medical board. Their decision came after the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts said it would discipline another practitioner for problems.

Last month, the board filed an eleven-count recommendation that late-term abortion practitioner Ann Kristin Neuhaus be disciplined.

She allegedly violated the Healing Arts Act concerning abortion referrals she made to late abortion practitioner George Tiller.

Now, abortion practitioners Shelley Sella and Susan C. Robinson have dumped their Kansas medical licenses — placing them outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the board.

Sella canceled her Kansas license the same week the KSBHA announced its potential disciplining of Neuhaus. And Robinson voluntarily put her Kansas license on “Inactive” status a month after Tiller’s abortion business closed following his shooting death. . . . Both abortion practitioners are now operating in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at Southwestern Women’s Options, a late-term abortion center owned by former illegal back alley abortion practitioner Curtis Boyd.

Boyd boasts of having done thousands of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and acknowledges that he is aware that he is killing by doing abortions.

Sounds like a prince of a man.  So two women get run out of Kansas, and yet they can show up in Dallas and just start a-butcherin’ away?  Wouldn’t you think that the Texas Medical Association or state board would look into people who got run out of another state?  How can they just move in and start working with a man who, by his own admission, performed illegal abortions (also known as murder)?  I thought abortion was “safe, legal, and rare?” 

Just a note, Southwest abortuary is the site of this year’s 40 Days For Life campaign, kicking off on Septemer 22.  All faithful Catholics are encouraged to join in the prayer vigils outside Southwest (which is at the northeast corner of Royal and Greenville in Dallas), as well as fasting and doing penance for the terrible sin of abortion.  I shall be there!

OK, read this real quick August 13, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

I’m feeling like my blog is becoming “all homosexuality, all the time,” and I don’t want that to be, so I’ll just point you over to CatholicVoteAction where Thomas Peters has a post up taking apart Kate Childs Graham, a writer for the distorter, claiming that it is wrong to use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” with regards to homosexuality, and that faithful Catholics should just “love” them.  I don’t like that phrase, anyway, because I think it removes personal culpability for sin to a degree that can be unhealthy, but the rest of his analysis is spot on.  He uses many of the same arguments I’ve used here:

Let’s take for an example a male rapist. As a Christian, Graham should agree with me that we must love the man as a person (”Love the sinner”), but I’d be truly shocked to find out that Graham loves his sin of raping. I’d also be shocked if she says we should simply tolerate this man’s propensity to rape people. Therefore she does not “love” his sin. She, in fact, must hate it, because it is evil. Rape hurts the victim, and the rapist is also guilty of a grave sin. No one wins (even if the rapist thinks he loves raping).

So the principle “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a sound one. If something is truly sinful, we should hate it, because it hurts the person we love. We should hate the heroin addict’s use of heroin, we should hate the murder’s act of murder, etc. And yet, for all these individuals, we should still love them. We should attempt to help the heroin addict overcome his addiction. We should remove the murderer from society where he may murder again (or be killed by someone avenging his victim’s death), and punish him in justice for his taking of another innocent human life, to allow him a chance for reparation and expiation. In other words, we should love the sinner, and hate the sin.

What Graham really doesn’t like is that people think her homosexual acts are wrong. No one likes hearing they are doing something wrong. And Graham, like most people who refuse to hear a hard word, has chosen instead to attack the very concept that what she is doing, is wrong. But instead of having the courage and clarity of mind to do so, she has chosen instead to attack a very sound principle, that all of us (Graham included) should love the sinner, and hate the sin.

I note in passing that in addition to being an out n’ proud lesbian with a position writing for the distorter, she’s also in favor of women posing as priests after fake ordination ceremonies, people being denied the sacraments, and is in favor of women being able to have their children killed.  So, she has all that going for her. 

Peters’ final note is the most important to be made in this whole sorry episode:  “What Graham misses, I believe, is that people who tell her they love her and hate her sin, in telling her they hate her sin, are in that very moment loving her. As we all know, there is no friendship among those who allow their friends to hurt themselves.”

So many who want to “follow their conscience” or “dissent” or “deviate from Church teaching” adopt views like Graham’s.  I have tried very hard to bend my mind to that of the Church.  There are areas where this is still a struggle for me, I think my libertarian leanings are somewhat at odds with some of the Church’s social doctrine, but where I sense a difference, I try hard to change my thinking to that of the Church.  I feel for Graham, because she seems to be putting her lifestyle, which I’m sure means very much to her, and possibly her political preferences ahead of the Church.  In short, and not to be uncharitable, it is hard not to see her repeated rejection of the doctrine of the Faith as making her sexuality and her politics her god.  I wish this were not the case, but I have read her material before, and it is hard not to reach this conclusion.  In spite of Bishop Zavala’s displeasure at us knuckle dragging, uncooth, judgemental bloggers, I feel that these pieces in the distoter, coming at us as they have so consistently for decades, have done great damage to the Faith in this country and around the world.  I wish they would convert, accept all the Faith, and strive to live their life in accord with the Faith.  God is generous and loving beyond measure.  He only asks that we try our best, to give our all.  When we deliberately reject large swaths of Church doctrine, we are cutting ourselves off from His Grace.  I’m sure that offends some who feel they are very faithful Catholics beyond measure, but looking at the great Tradition and Truth of the Church, I am unable to conclude otherwise.

And I am such a sinner.  I lied again, this was meant to be a “short” post! Hah!

More thoughts on gay ‘marriage’ August 13, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, North Deanery, Society.
comments closed

Fr. Matthew Green is a relatively newly ordained priest in Newburgh, NY, an area I have been around many times due to my job.  He has  a post reflecting on today’s Gospel reading, Matt 19:3-12, concerning gay ‘marriage’.  There’s some very good doctrine, as well as some thinking on how those with same sex attraction should be treated by those in the Church:

As today’s Gospel shows, Jesus declares that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, which cannot be broken as long as they both live. God made men and women to be psychologically and biologically complementary, and the finality of marriage is the mutual love and support of the spouses and the formation of a family through procreation. These goals are not in fact always realized in marriage, but that is due to problems – culpable or not – on the part of one or both spouses as individuals; for example, some couples are not mutually supportive because of a lack of generosity, or are unable to have children due to a physical disorder. However, there is nothing intrinsic to the union of a man and a woman that makes these goals unattainable.

Christ clearly says that some people are not called to marriage, for a variety of reasons. He does not say that if this arrangement does not work for them, they can alter it and call it by the same name. If we can say that there is a right to marriage, then it is the right for individuals to enter a permanent relationship of companionship and at least potential procreation with a member of the opposite sex. “Gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms, failing by its very nature both the full complementarity and natural capacity for procreation that are part of the essence of marriage. Sexual relations between members of the same sex are contrary to God’s plan manifested in the biological structures of the genders and in revelation. Going against this plan is physically, psychologically and spiritually damaging. Hence it is not a “human right.” People who are incapable of the heterosexual relationship called “marriage” are called to live a celibate lifestyle…….

People who experience same-sex attractions are people just like anyone else, deserving of the same love, respect and consideration. Everybody has problems and sinful tendencies of one kind or another, and no one should be judged or categorized strictly according to their most obvious or egregious problem. But true compassion means wanting the best for someone in the light of truth, not distorting the truth to make everyone comfortable. This is why the Church stands firm on its teaching about marriage, and opposes anything that goes against this institution. Let us pray today that the institution of marriage be understood and respected, and that everyone will live according to the truth with respect and compassion.

I think that’s all very good, and needs to be said, repeatedly, by priests throughout the Church, because the dominant culture is so contrary to what the Church believes, and so many Catholics are badly confused on this subject.  I’ll offer just a couple of observations: until the 1960’s, procreative aspect of marriage was seen as somewhat superior to the unitive aspect.  Now, it’s probably true that back in the horrid, dark days prior to Vatican II (ahem), many in the Church probably did not stress the unitive aspects of marriage enough, which I think von Hildebrand and others were working to correct, but at the same time, I think the unitive is now somewhat over-emphasized and that this over-emphasis feeds into the contraceptive mentality that so many Catholics accept without question.   And the contraceptive mentality feeds directly into issues like gay marriage, for if a man and woman can marry and yet restrain the production of offspring through various means, and I’ll even include the long term use of NFP for no other reason than to not have more than two, or 1, or no kids in this, so that the procreative aspect of marriage is not freely accepted in its totality as a gift from God, barring some grave reason not to be open to having children, then that leaves a gaping opening through which advocates for such fundamental misconceptions as ‘gay marriage’ can march right through. 

I am very gratified to see a priest stress the fact that, as I have argued lately, everyone suffers from temptations to sin.  Some of us have been given very significant crosses to bear through great tendencies towards concupiscence, or addictions, or an unnatural love for wealth, etc.  Those with same sex attraction definitely have a significant challenge in leading lives in consonance with the mind of the Church, but they are not alone, in fact, they are in company with pretty much everyone else in the Church, to one degree or other.  I heard Fr. Smith at St. Mark today state that he thinks we, as Catholics, probably focus on the ‘gay marriage’ issue too much, when we should be focusing more on strengthening marriage between man and woman.  Well, I agree.  One reason for that is that gay marriage is an easier issue to get one’s hands on, whereas the problems with marriage as an institution in this country are many and varied.  But I wholeheartedly agree, the Church should be doing far more to strengthen marriage in this country, and so I’d by very gratified to hear pastors exhort the married faithful to start leading lives that the Church knows will greatly increase the odds that their marriage will last: through preaching not to use contraception, to be open to the creative miracle of procreation, that the Church does not view divorce as an alternative, and that marriage is an incredibly deep commitment and joining together sanctified by Christ and intended for great holiness.  I think these concepts have been almost totally lost in so many places in the Church, because they are almost never talked of.  Formation of the faithful is woefully lacking – and pastors, like this one in NY, have the primary means to address that.