Understanding the cold sterility of perverse, “same-sex” relations October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
The very philosophical E.Bougis at FideCogitActio has a post examining the ontological differences between normal, rightly ordered (and God-ordained) desires ordered towards the procreation of children, and the cold, barren sterility of perverse relations between people of the same sex. Both Mr. Bougis’ own analysis, and a quote from Germain Grisez are worthy of reading. First, Mr. Bougis:
Homosexuality is, by definition, love of one’s sameness-in-sex. It is, in other words, love of one’s self-in-sex. Homosexuality is, therefore, onanism by a longer name. It is the quintessence of the contraceptive (i.e. sterile) mentality. As such, it is not simply immoral; it is an aesthetic outrage, and therefore it is the pageant of our grotesque age.
For those who are, like me, unaware of what “onanism” means, it means self-abuse. And without going into too much detail, I fervently agree. I have long believed that so-called homosexuality is a very highly developed form of narcissistic self-love, fed by self-abuse, that over time and especially with repeated exposure to pornography can eventually – not in every case, but in some – cause an individual to actually develop appetites for the same in intimate relations rather than the opposite. Yes there are many corollary factors such as childhood sex abuse by a same-sex abuser (THE number one cause for falling into this kind of lifestyle), absent or distant fathers, perhaps even a certain predisposition to this kind of perversion, but overall, the perverse appetites develop as a result of unconstrained and truly abusive descent into addictive self-pleasuring. As the mind and soul experience more and more of this pleasure at the, ahem, hands of the self, somehow the natural appetites are deranged to desire not the opposite, but the same in this powerful and almost totally misunderstood realm of psycho-sexual behavior. Acceptance of self-abuse as “natural, normal, and harmless” in pseudo-scientific literature on the subject in such disastrous “guides” as The Joy of Sex and others caused, I believe, the explosion in perverse behavior we have seen in the past few decades. Between normal relations rendered sterile by contraception, and the virtual epidemic of self-abuse in our culture (virtually every man today abuses himself regularly, and the large majority of women now, too), individual’s normal repulsion towards unnatural behaviors has been dramatically lessened, and the groundwork laid for “tolerance” and even “acceptance” of incredibly destructive behaviors. We presently have an epidemic of intentional sterility in our culture, and that epidemic is destroying it. God always allows our own worst sins to be our downfall, whether as individuals, or as a society.
On to Germain Grisez’ comments:
“[A]lthough it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. [Which is why so many same-sex "couples" practice serial "infidelity" and few relations last any length of time. Even those most "committed" partnerings held up as examples of "virtuous" same-sex behavior almost always tolerate regular couplings outside the "committed" relationship]Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends.
Someone who admits that sodomy necessarily lacks the unitive significance of heterosexual intercourse which makes a couple a single reproductive principle might nevertheless suggest that a couple can choose such sodomitic intercourse as a way of communicating good will and affection. [I'm sorry, but to sodomize someone is such a violent, unnatural act, I find any such claims to be mere shams, ridiculous cover given to try to excuse the inexcusable.]However, just as with fornicators, sexual intercourse is not chosen by sodomites in preference to conversation and mutually beneficial acts because it is the more expressive means of communicating good will and affection. Rather, it is chosen because it provides subjective satisfactions otherwise unavailable. [And I think the act in question involves the acting out of very sick and twisted roles of aggressor and submissive which, in almost every human society in history until now, were always understood to be the resort of a demented mind. Fem-fem acting out is just as sick even if the abuse takes place in different ways.] Consequently, while sodomites may not choose, as fornicators do, an illusory good instead of a real one, they do choose to use their own and each other’s bodies to provide subjective satisfactions, and thus they choose self-disintegrity as masturbators do. Of course, while masturbators can be interested exclusively in the experience of sexual arousal and orgasm, sodomites also are interested in the illusion of intimacy.” (From The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 2)
Perhaps, but I would argue that even these relatively benign (but still outrageously perverse) reasons for this behavior given above are rare in the individuals so accursed. That is why even in public demonstrations of their perversions these poor lost souls cannot help but engage in outrageous displays of nudity, sado-masochism, denigration of wholesome institutions (like the Church and family), and violence. Anyone who has seen photos of “pride” parades knows this to be true, and while perhaps most do not engage in these very public displays of degeneration, a very large number do so in private.
And what is more, these folks know, deep down inside, what they are. That is why they demand such constant affirmations and even glorification from the culture at large, and why they will persecute the faithful with an unyielding savagery.
It is amazing I even have to write this. The very idea that someone would have to explain the manifest grotesqueness of this perverse behavior against widespread societal acceptance would have shocked the average person from even 20 or 30 years ago. That is how far we have fallen, so very fast.
And yet our beloved Church is absolutely infested with this perversion. Lord, have mercy.
More proof leftism is a false religion October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, rank stupidity, secularism, self-serving, Society.
Our “friends” on the left like to tell us they are the “rational,” “fact-based” community. But when it comes to the sacred shibboleths of leftism: whether abortion may cause cancer, or the disastrous effect divorce and contraception have had on the family- they are almost impervious to any contrary evidence.
And when it comes to one of their latest fetishes,
global warming cooling climate change, they are so uniquely opposed to any contrary evidence and so determined to enforce lockstep doctrinal uniformity that the religious connection becomes clear. Take, for instance, recently unearthed satellite weather photos from the early-mid 1960s that show radical changes in polar ice caps at least as large, if not larger, than those we see today, which were supposed to be “unprecedented.” Do the acolytes and high priests take this new evidence to re-evaluate their theory? Of course not! This new evidence is simply inexplicable!
Scientists have uncovered a cache of satellite images of Earth from the 1960s that had been forgotten in storage for nearly 50 years and that push back the first satellite images of our planet a full 17 years. [well I know of some shots from the Ranger Program that showed the entire earth by 1965. Yet again the media screws up a very easy topic - I guess they were saying their were no shots of the full earth from space until 1980 or so?!? What about all the Apollo pictures!?!]\
What they found astonished them: The images revealed new records for both the smallest maximum [Antarctic] sea ice ever recorded and the largest. The latter record was just broken this year. The two records were just two years apart, but the difference in sea ice extent was more than 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers), an area twice the size of Mexico.
“We’re talking a 20 percent difference,” says Gallaher. “That’s a sizeable change.”
The Nimbus satellites also caught images of the Arctic before warming from climate change accelerated. Gallaher and Campbell were surprised to see some mysterious holes in the ice in the old images. [See how they do that! Present "global warming" and "climate change accelerated" as accomplished facts, rather than highly dubious and contested theories. This new, old evidence rather explodes the theory, does it not, or at least gravely undermine some of its central assumptions? But rather than discuss that, we have scientists acting bewildered, unable to explain how this could be, since the "theory" isn't a theory, but a religious tenet.]
Holes in the Arctic ice are a common phenomenon today, as the Arctic warms. But in the colder 1960s, a large patch of thin or melted ice was unexpected—and nothing like it was seen again until the 21st century.
Now, wait, how do you know that? How many other photos are “missing?” During the 60s, 70s, and most of the 80s no one was much concerned about polar ice caps or gerbal worming so there may not have been much notice taken of such photos but I guarantee they exist. We have no idea what the ice coverage looked like from space then. So you can’t say this is some weird 60s-2000s phenomenon.
We also now know supposed “unprecedented” changes in the levels of polar ice, which are supposed to “prove” climate change (whatever that means, today), do in fact have precedent. We also have little to no proof that the Arctic has “warmed” any more than an absolutely trivial amount. And ice coverage in the Arctic is higher this year than it has been in some time.
It is also very significant that ice coverage in Antarctica varied 20% in only 2 years. That tells me our scienticians have very little idea of how this ice coverage behaves, or its significance.
But, being the cardinal archbishops of the religion of materialist sexular paganism, that won’t stop them from dictating to the rest of us huge penances for the sins of carbon emissions in order to appease the dread god Gaia.
I tell you, if we had a few thousand of these climate change scientists as Catholic bishops and priests our troubles in the Church would soon be over my friends. That kind of religious fervor is rarely found in the Church today.
On the contrary, our present situation in the Church today is that a sizable number of nominal Catholics, including a good number of bishops and priests, have more faith in “global warming” than they do in Jesus Christ, the Real Presence, and all the Truths of our Faith.
Expert imam proclaims violence endemic to islam October 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
add a comment
The following qoutes, also from Catholic newspaper, are from probably the most famous islamic cleric and scholar of the past 100 years, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the world’s first modern islamic republic. The Ayatollah makes many claims from the koran and hadiths……can any muslim, using the same sources alone, refute his claims as to what islam commands?
Militant muslims constantly point to the numerous surahs that call for killing the enemies of islam, lying to them, cheating them, taking their women, etc., etc. But some muslim proselytes in the West, and even the dialogue obsessed within the Church, always tell us that islam is this great religion of peace that is misrepresented by the militants. But the evidence from around the world seems to indicate that the violent interpretation is by far predominant, and we never, ever see some mass movement of “peaceable” muslims against the radicals, policing their own religion, as it were. All too often, the formerly peaceful ones join in the militancy once it is clear the militants are dominant and controlling a given area. It seems the claims of a peaceful, loving islam are more rhetoric than fact.
The words of the Ayatollah, one of the most evil men of the past few centuries, as quoted in Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism and reported by Catholic newspaper:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries and peoples so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country of the world. But those who study islamic holy war will understand why islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of islam pretend that islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidels? Islam says kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies. Does this mean sitting back until infidels overcome us? Islam says kill in the service of allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other koranic verses and hadiths urging muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
There you have it, from the Ayatollah himself. This man managed to convince an entire muslim country – or enough of it to take it over – that he was right. His language and understanding of islam is echoed by centuries of other imams and caliphs. The most devoted muslims almost universally share this understanding. And then there is the entire matter of taqiyyah.
How can the Church “dialogue” with this?
Non sequitur: Ooops October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, disaster, error, Flightline Friday, foolishness, non squitur, silliness, Society.
It looks like the Russian-engined competitor for SpaceX NASA ginned up to supply the International Space Station had a little oopsie:
The Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft – consisting of a great deal of Euro-content – unusually launch from Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) in Virginia. This launch site is at such a high latitude it is at a distinct disadvantage, but somehow the state of Virginia enticed Orbital Sciences Corp to use it. There is only one orbital launch complex at MARS, and over 25o tons of fuel and liquid oxygen just burned it to a crisp. I don’t think they will be launching from there anytime soon.
It looked to me that something went awry with the launch tower falling away. I could be wrong. There has been much sturm and drang regarding the current sanctions imposed against Russia and the Russian engines used on several important US launch vehicles (not SpaceX, though). Those engines will not be available in future should the sanctions continue much longer. It is somewhat unusual to see only the engine of a rocket explode. The rest of it remained intact until impact with the ground. Sabotage? Doubtful. Still, rather strange.
And SpaceX remains in the driver’s seat, in spite of NASA and Air Force preference for suppliers that have in bed with them for a longer period of time.
The Council of Trent is still completely relevant today October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, reading, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, Tradition.
1 comment so far
I am reading a book on the history of the Church written in the late 20s by a Father Poulet and translated into English in the 30s by a Dr. Raemers. I already pulled one set of quotes out of the book regarding protestantism and the immorality of both private interpretation and justification by faith alone. The fact that I pulled these quoted out does not mean that I am not a sinner – as one commenter ludicrously tried to claim – but that was not the point. The point is, how much good can come from a theology that is rooted so deeply in error and can be shown to have given rise to other errors and even highly destructive behaviors within even months of its promulgation and acceptance by confused souls? The answer is, not much. This latter consideration used to weigh heavily on the Church’s approach to separated sects, but under the misguided ecumenical movement of today, these considerations of basic facts of theological derangement are ignored in the pursuit of earthly goals.
But on a broader level, there is much wisdom in this basic history book (intended for college students and adults) that extends far beyond the errors of protestants. As some excerpts from the canons of the Council of Trent show, they have great relevance for Catholics today, which only makes sense, as Trent was a Council for all time, and not just for one particular moment of mid-20th century humanist exuberance. See if you agree with me as I quote from pp. 91-93 of Church History by Dom Charles Poulet of Solesmes:
“The teaching mission of the Church,” says the Council of Trent, at the head of its dogmatic decrees,”is to keep intact those two sources of our faith, Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In virtue of this authority which it has received from Christ, the Council reiterates the ancient canon of the Scriptures, declares the Latin translation known as the Vulgate to be the only normal and authentic text, and, finally, watches over its spread and interpretation. Again, in matters pertaining to faith and morals no one may interpret the Scriptures against the authoritative interpretation of the Church or against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” [And what would the Fathers have to say about admitting those in manifest states of adultery/concubinage to the Blessed Sacrament, or to be married by high Church officials without Confession and any sign of contrition on their part, or at least the termination of their concubinage prior to marriage, let alone the enormous scandal of purported "gifts" offered the Church by unrepentant sodomites. They would be staggered at the audacity of the error, and broken-hearted to learn its high source]
…….The Council also defined the divine institution, nature, minister and effects of the Sacraments, as well as the dispositions required to receive them. It concerned itself especially with the Eucharist and the Mass, which had been so distorted by protestants. The Council defined both the reality of the Real Presence and its integrity. “If anyone denies that in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist are truly, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Person of Jesus Christ, but maintains that they are there only as a sign or figure, or virtually; let him be anathema.” In respect to the mode of this Presence, and in reply to the objection of John Calvin that if Christ were here on earth, He would no longer be in Heaven, the Council defined: “There is no contradiction between the two facts that Our Savior continues to exist in Heaven and at the right hand of His Father, according to His natural manner of being (juxta modum existendi naturalem), and that nevertheless He is present to us in several other places by His Substance and in a sacramental manner (sacramentaliter prasens sua substantia nobis adsit). This second mode of being is one which we can but imperfectly describe in words, although our reason, enlightened by faith, can understand how such a mode of being is possible with God.” Finally, in opposition to the Lutheran theory of impanation, or consubstantiation, the Council affirmed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: “If anyone says that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and denies that marvelous and unique change of the whole substance of bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, a change which leaves only the appearances of bread and wine, and which the Catholic Church very appropriately terms transubstantiation: let him be anathema.“
A few points on that second paragraph quoted. First, was that really the best Calvin could come up with, that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself, could not be both in Heaven and on earth?!? Really?!? Because that’s just so infantile and silly it is ludicrous. No wonder Saint John’s Apocalypse was also under scrutiny by the protestant revolutionaries (again, I do not call them reformers, nor do I capitalize protestants, because I think it has been an enormous mistake by faithful sons of the Church to give even that much credit to these rebels against the Faith. They did not reform, but deform, and they are not Churches proper, and thus do not deserve to be capitalized. I know that violates rules of spelling, but I care not) for exclusion from the Canon of Scripture, since it makes plain that Christ’s Sacrifice is always ongoing before the Father in Heaven and that the prayers and sacrifices of the faithful on earth (especially the Mass) are also offered in that same mystical rite so beyond our limited comprehension.
Once again, too, we see strong denunciations of the modern error in the Church, so distressingly widespread, of lowering the Blessed Sacrament to just a sign or symbol. I must say, that has to be a driving belief behind the most recent attempts to destroy the Church’s Moral Doctrine, because no one to me could possibly believe in the Real Presence and yet be pushing so hard to see it constantly received sacrilegiously! We could also add those numerous pro-abort politicians, Supreme Court justices, and others, who like to pretend at faithfulness and receive the Blessed Sacrament (on their occasional appearances at Mass), albeit with great sacrilege again.
Truth is divisive. Truth is clarifying. It is not uniting. It is not indifferent. It is not worldly. It is highly dubious that Truth is “ecumenical.” Truth cuts through, it separates, it casts out. Truth is not subtle shades of grey, contradictory, or requiring of a PhD to understand.
God willing, if we are deserving, we may soon return to a more sane understanding of the Truth that Christ has revealed through His Church. Or it could be that the local priest is correct, and that we are deep into the Passion of the Church, which will mirror the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He said we are in the time when Peter denied Christ. Perhaps that is true. If so, we have a very long night and day of suffering and misery ahead of us.
God have mercy on us.
When Pope Francis spoke on corruption, just who did he condemn? October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, SOD, Spiritual Warfare.
I know many may not be comfortable with this post. I am sorry that I feel there is some necessity in putting this out. I know many others have already covered Pope Francis’ amazing comments on corruption from last Thursday, but none of that coverage has mentioned the part of this address I found most……..I don’t know, revealing, disconcerting, damning? You be the judge (just not of ……..you know).
Now, for the few who may not know, Pope Francis had an address on Thursday in which he, among other things, stated his opposition to both the death penalty and life imprisonment:
“All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment,” he said. “Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”
The pope noted that the Vatican recently eliminated life imprisonment from its own penal code.
Just for clarity’s sake I would like to reiterate that the constant Doctrine of the Faith regarding the death penalty has been that the state has the right of the sword. It is a prudential matter to determine whether, or when, to apply that power. Pope Francis may not like that fact, he may think that the death penalty’s day has passed, but he cannot declare the Church in formal opposition to the use of the death penalty, because She has never been so opposed and is not now. For many centuries the Church cooperated in the use of the death penalty by the civil authority for those who committed crimes against the Church. While many may find this cooperation abhorrent today, for me, it was just another indication of how much more seriously the Church, and the souls within Her, took at that time their considerations of the eternal life and their recognition that this life on earth is not the be all and end all of our existence. For those many long centuries, the taking of a human life, even in the name of the defense of the Faith, was seen as far preferable than running the risk of exposing many souls to pernicious, destroying error. But, as a local priest might say, compared to them, we are pygmies in the Faith, and those men giants.
I will also note in passing that Pope Francis’ declaration regarding the Vatican is pointless. When is the last time a murder took place in that uniform community of celibate males? How about an armed robbery, a rape, or a terror attack? So it is not such a great work of magnanimity, it is more another post-conciliar PR move.
Moving on, the comments that many found most perplexing in this somewhat meandering address were the following:
The corrupt one does not perceive his own corruption. It is a little like what happens with bad breath: someone who has it hardly ever realizes it; other people notice and have to tell him,” the pope said. “Corruption is an evil greater than sin. More than forgiveness, this evil needs to be cured.“
Far be it from me to question the theological formation of the reigning pontiff, but this statement is simply amazing on so many levels. There is no evil greater than sin, because all evil stems from sin. So it’s a non sequitur at the top. But often overlooked in dyspepsia about the first part is what is said in the second part: what is being said there? How does this correlate with all the calls to mercy we’ve heard? So, apparently, there are some things we can be judgmental about, especially those that interest sociaslist-leaning (Peronist) elites from Argentina? Who are we to judge the “corruption” of another? Note there was also a bit of nationalism in this part of the address, where the “corruption” was ascribed, at least to some degree, to being a particular fault of “Anglo-type” capitalism.
But for me, the most incredible part of the address is this, below:
The pope spoke scathingly about the mentality of the typical corrupt person, whom he described as conceited, unable to accept criticism, and prompt to insult and even persecute those who disagree with him.
And as the Pope readily noted, corrupt people are notoriously difficult to convince of their corruption. What they need is to be cured, or, as a Catholic might say…….converted.
I believe this was much the point of Father Ray Blake’s excellent post, which conclusion I excerpt below:
The impression that is given is that Justice in the Church is itself corrupted, indeed, that it is actually about settling scores and has nothing to do with truthfulness which was once considered a Christian virtue. Rather than being consoled by accounts of these investigations I become increasingly alarmed, it seems as if some religious orders or diocese that seem to produce fruit and are orthodox are subject to investigation whilst others which are barren and often highly unorthodox carry on in their own sweet way, especially if the have powerful or wealthy friends at court. The problem is that Justice appears to used as a robber baron or some New World dictator might use it, as a means of intimidation and threat, not to bring the Salvific Light of Christ to bear on dark and hidden corners. It is as if some are above the Law and others crushed by it.
In other words, physician, heal thyself. It is more than slightly ironic that in this most “merciful” and “humble” of pontificates, both are amazingly lacking, especially if one happens to fall on the wrong side of the ecclesiastical spectrum. Far from a populist pontificate, it seems far more aristocratic and elitist, much more in the mold of the Renaissance Borgias than the early Church Fathers.
And yet, of course, the Pope remains capable of saying some good things, but I will note the below, which a commenter mentioned and which is being much ballyhooed in some quarters, seems passing strange with respect to the documents just released by the Synod on the family:
In an audience with members of an international Marian movement, Pope Francis warned that the sacrament of marriage has been reduced to a mere association, and urged participants to be witnesses in a secular world.
“The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” the Pope told those in attendance at the Oct. 25 audience.
He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”
“What is being proposed is not marriage, it’s an association. But it’s not marriage! It’s necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.
He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”
That’s all very true. And it’s nice to hear. But to quote my father: “a hundred ‘attaboy’s’ are wiped out by one ‘aw shit!'” Maybe not fair, but certainly human nature. I will note these comments are very much opposed to the spin that came out of the Synod, to Cardinal Kasper’s claims of having the fervent support of the Pope in the Synodal attacks on the family, and in Pope Francis’ refusal to clarify his stance with respect to the Synod in any public statement.
Modernists thrive on confusion. Pope Francis, I think, does enjoy adulation and attention. He was with a group of fairly orthodox Catholics. You do the math.
Perhaps I am being unfairly critical. Perhaps I am not giving the utmost benefit of the doubt. But criticism of a Holy Pontiff is most certainly permitted to the faithful, especially when we are confronted with such a bewildering array of statements, PR events, doctrinal proposals put forth in the Pope’s name, reactions, calls for clarifications, virtual defenestrations of the more orthodox members of the Curia, vibrant religious orders shut down, an apparently growing movement to sack any faithful/orthodox bishop who has even a slight scandal in his diocese, etc., etc.
Again, you do the math. Maybe the Pope’s statements on the family above fill you with great hope, but then I would ask, do the documents produced by the Synod, especially the mid-term “Relatio” which speaks in the Pope’s own voice, correspond with these statements above? Does the principle of non-contradiction still apply? And what of the Synod fathers rejecting the most egregious statements of the Relatio, and excluding them from the final report, and then the Pope reinserts them on his own authority?
So please forgive me if in my sinfulness and hardness of heart I am not overly relieved to see the Pope denounce attacks on the family. I appreciate this defense, given in nicely strong terms, but I must ask if recent actions do not correspond with this bit of rhetoric? Could these words be the start of some great conversion? Again, forgive me if I am skeptical. Just today there were some more than slightly discomfiting words from the Holy Father regarding evolution and the “big bang” theory:
Reading Genesis we imagine that God is ‘a wizard with a magic wand’ capable of doing all things, he said. ‘But it is not so. He created life and let each creature develop according to the natural laws which he had given each one.
God is not capable of doing all things? What?!? How counter to Scripture and Tradition can you get?!? You mean God is bound by our pathetic human theories, theories that have been proven wrong time and time again in the history of the religion of science? Coupled with the second half of the statement – taken in context – these are almost the views of an “enlightenment” deist.
So I do not think it will do to get into a “tit for tat” game with Pope Francis’ many off the cuff (or are they?) remarks. For one, the tally may not bode well for Pope Francis’ Catholicity, and then there is the matter that one crazy statement does more damage than a hundred orthodox ones do good. Again, maybe not fair, but that is human nature.
Pope Leo XIII on the duty of Catholic parents to educate their children in the Faith…. October 28, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Domestic Church, error, family, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
…….and otherwise. I read the following a while back and have been meaning to post this material for some time. From the excellent biography of Pope Leo XIII by Fr. Bernard O’Reilly DD, an exhortation by this most underrated of popes to parents to be most careful guides in the formation of their children, especially in the Faith but also in many other regards. Excerpts from pp. 234-239 (this may be broken up into more than one post):
We should have too much to say on this subject of defective education, on which depend the direction and welfare of the present and the coming generation. We need not lose time in proving the obligation and the importance for parents to educate their children well; the voice of nature, the precepts of religion, and the sense of all mankind agree in affirming and inculcating this duty.
Still, to confess the truth, who is it that does not perceive and deplore the neglect and falling-off in the discharge of this duty which are evident in many Catholic families at this time, and that does not thence draw sad auguries for our future? Unwise and lazy parents do not know how to estimate the nobleness of the mission entrusted to them. They generally measure according to the calculations of a low and selfish interest the blessing of having children; they do not at all think of the great debt which they contract toward God, from the first day they become parents, to increase in their offspring and to continue the number of His true adorers; of that which they contract toward themselves to prepare and transmit an honored inheritance of good example and virtues; of the debt contracted toward society to rear for it members laborious, moral, and edifying.
It is true that in our day another maxim is current bearing on this same subject – namely, “To the state belongs the training of youth.” Does this maxim avail to excuse the lamentable negligence of parents in our time?
[Key.....] The duty of education, inculcated by natural reason, is so essential to the parental character and the authority that they cannot decline its performance. The state authority, by its place in the order of things, is not called upon to discharge this great parental duty, but to help the natural educators in their work, and to watch and protect the interior discipline and good direction of the family. [And this is a time honored tenet of the Faith, seemingly forgotten among so many even entrusted with the highest of offices in the Church, that it is to the parent that the duty of education of children falls, and not the state. This was once so thoroughly understood within Christendom that it went without saying, but as leftism has penetrated the culture more and more deeply, constantly arrogating to the state functions that belong by right of religion and the natural law to the family, more and more have forgotten this core truth. This is a great defense of homeschooling, and for not just state tolerance of it, but state endorsement and promotion of it! But bureaucrats care only for their security and the constantly increasing inflow of money, so they oppose homeschooling as a threat.]
What are, in reality, the relations by which man is placed from his birth, as one of the beings in the order of creation? He comes into the world as God’s creature, Who has brought him into existence; he is the child of those who have given him temporal life; he is ordained first toward religion and then toward his family; his first duties are subjection and service to God, and dependence on his parents. The family is neither the creation nor the emanation of civil society (or the state); the power of parents is not a concession of human law. The relations and duties which obtain between parents and children are anterior and superior to all human aggregation. [That is to say, government at any and all levels. And yet now the state is grown so supreme that it would dictate to people by false and oppressive laws the very definition of what a family is, pretending that sodomites and any youth they - I know not how - have suzerainty over are somehow equivalent to the family as it has always been understood! And then we have the entire matter of divorce and remarriage......]
Man is indeed born sociable; but belonging, before all, to the domestic and religious society, he only comes into the society of the state through the family and already prepared by the teaching of religion and under the guidance of parental authority. Therefore it is that as in the matter of education only an auxiliary part can be attributed to the state authority, so is it evident that the charge of educating remains as a burden they cannot decline on the conscience of the parents, who for that work are the representatives of God the creator, and are invested with His authority. [Authority over children does not go God-state-parents-child, but God-parents-child.]
If in our days all parents understood their duties in this light, and if, conceiving an adequate notion of the work they are commissioned to do, they instructed their children in time on the elevated duties and relations which every human being has to fulfil both in the domestic and the religious society, assuredly the state would be much the better for it. For no one can doubt that children who are submissive to parental authority and devoted to their family, that men who have the fear of God and who are obedient to their religion, cannot fail to be also honored citizens and serviceable to their fellow-men……..
…...You must distinguish between education, and instruction, between the moral training and molding of the heart and the simple cultivating of the intellect. Instruction, as such, ordinarily consists in filling the minds of the young with a furniture of knowledge that can help them, according to their years, to turn to a useful account their intellectual and bodily powers.
The moral training, on the contrary, should be a foundation for the development and the application of the great principles of morality and religion as bearing on men’s conduct within the family and in the social sphere.
Scientific instruction will give you learned and clever young men and women; religious education will give you, on the contrary, honest and virtuous citizens. [Indeed, it should. But religious education in the Church today, such as it is, is almost always so dominated by the conceits of progressivism and modernism that religious education within the Church (almost all schools, colleges, CCD programs, etc) is actually more detrimental to souls than avowedly secular education. There is something singularly poisonous about religious education in the Church today, which most often results in souls invincibly convinced of the most pernicious and destructive errors. Outside traditional parishes (sorry to beat that drum, I do not mean to bash your non-traditional parish, this is simply my experience) religious education is in utter collapse. All parents should undertake the dominant role in the religious formation of their children, but especially those where the danger of destructive instruction is high] Instruction, separated from education properly so called, serves rather to fill young hearts with vanity than to discipline them aright. It is quite otherwise with a right education; such a training, underthe guidance of religion…….knows how to implant and to cultivate virtue in the most illiterate souls without the aid of much scientific polishing or instruction. [And the implantation of virtue in souls is infinitely more important than any "scientific" or secular education, frankly]
Then, again, and to speak of the truth, do parents pay attention to the nature, the solidity of the instruction given to their children? Do they see to it that it is sound, useful, well-ordered, and fit to prepare and help an education such as is fit for Christian children and members of a Catholic community; that those who give such instruction have the necessary gifts of religious conviction, of virtue, of learning, such as may win them the respect and obedience of their pupils; [And I think of the Catholic school teachers who wear ludicrously immodest clothing not just to school, but to Mass. And they think they are so daring.] that, above all, the study of religion, so essential to the education and the virtuous life of young people, should hold the foremost place among all other studies, should have a proper and adequate development, and be carried on under the direction of the Church, the depository and teacher of religious doctrines? [And here is where Catholic education has fallen down in the past 5 decades. Pupils are no longer taught by nuns at least outwardly devoted to the practice of virtue and religious orthodoxy, but lay people of varying degrees of faithfulness, education, and outlook. There are some very good lay teachers of religion, no doubt, but there are also many very, very bad ones. Most embrace at least some heresy. The vast majority reject Church Doctrine on multiple points. Many lead scandalous lives. And yet they are given charge of Catholic children day, after day, after day, telling them things like the Church does not have women priests because "the pope is a male chauvinist pig." Garbage in, garbage out.]
You see, therefore, that in this respect alone there cannot be (in a secular school) [or a secularized Catholic school] a sufficient guarantee for a right and complete education, nor any reliief for parents of the great burden on their conscience.
Sorry for the long post. I will break this into two parts and complete Pope Leo XIIIs – still Cardinal Pecci when he wrote this – exhortation on the right education of Catholic children.
I pray you find this useful and edifying. As far as I am concerned, and relative to our own times, Pope Leo XIII’s words are nothing but a brilliant and forceful endorsement of homeschooling and the return to traditional Catholic education.
If I might make one more personal comment: oh that our popes and prelates spoke like this again! How edifying, how much encouragement such words give!
Catholic Hispanics joining radical islam en masse? October 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
I read some of the below last night and was most disconcerted. This is a disaster of the largest proportions, and it simply confirms for me what has been obvious to any faithful souls with eyes to see: the rejection of Doctrine and practice handed down to us by preceding generations is at utter disaster for souls.
It seems thousands of American Hispanics, who have to be at least nominally Catholic (or were not very long ago), are now embracing not just islam, but its most radical varieties. Even more amazingly, the preponderance of those Hispanics doing so are women. And they tell us why that is. They say islam, especially radical islam, gives them doctrinal certainty and a sure moral guide in a Western culture rapidly spinning out of control. It gives them a framework around which to build their lives more substantial than “if it feels good, do it, and the consequences be damned.”
It also demonstrates conclusively the utter failure of the humanist, secularist “opening to the world” the Church has engaged in, by and large, for the past 50 years. We already know millions of souls have fallen away – and each one of those is a tragedy of a magnitude we simply cannot calculate – but now those souls are opting for islam, the most repressive, backward, anti-Christian religion possible. They are telling the Church, in so many words: “You have failed me so completely I now spit you out of my mouth and join your enemy of 15 centuries.”
More Hispanics are turning towards Islam and interestingly, more than half of Miami’s 3,000 Hispanic Muslims are female…….
……A new phenomenon is occurring in the backdrop. More Latinas, such as Greisa Torres and Stephanie Londono, are turning to Islam. They are not alone.
Arriving from Miami four years ago, Torres said she had “lost her identity in the move and found it in the Prophet Muhammad”, according to a report on Voice of America.
Torres explained: “It was very hard for me because we do not have family here, just my husband and my kids. On this day, my baby – Mahdi – he was going to be born. That is why I converted to Islam because I was scared.” [Another way of saying I feel lost in this perverse culture and I need something strong and seemingly authoritative to cling to. The Church, in Her watered down, indifferentist, ecumenical and interreligious present incarnation, simply fails to offer that to the vast majority of souls who do not know or comprehend the right practice of the Faith, especially in traditional communities.]
…….“When people see you with the hijab, they respect you first. Second, it’s the emotion you feel because you are different. You believe in something. It’s amazing.” Londono said. [Yeah, well, I believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, as well as His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament]
“It defines their world on a clear grid of what’s permitted or ‘halal,’ and what’s prohibited which is ‘haram’. So they know exactly where they stand. So the Qur’an becomes this guidebook that tells you exactly what to wear, what to eat, how to wash, how to behave, when to pray.”
According to the same report on Voice of America, there are more than 3,000 Hispanic Muslims in Miami and more than 40,000 nationwide across the United States……
Great, so our own government is encouraging Hispanics to convert to islam. Big surprise.
Now, before I get too carried away, I must note that there is some other verbiage I did not include that paints the convert as a wacked out leftist. And that re-emphasizes for me the choice the left in this country and in all the West will gleefully make in increasing numbers: since leftism has always had at its foundation hatred of Christianity, and yet it is still an utterly bankrupt and unfulfilling philosophy, it is inevitable that as islam gains more and more cultural cache, more and more leftists will embrace it either through formal conversion or through willing dhimmi participation.
But once again, I do think there is something very significant here with respect to the Church: these souls are lost, they were allowed to either fall away, or felt utterly malnourished by the Faith, were encouraged to embrace leftism through so many of the bad parishes/dioceses/schools, whatever…….the Church is being rejected because of the conduct of the Faith these past 50 years. That conduct is atrociously worldly and does not give that sustenance souls desperately crave. And so they seek it out elsewhere.
It is incredible if it were not true. Data point 1,987,438 for the disasters inflicted on the Church, world, and most importantly, souls by “aggiornamento.”
Remnant video on the Synod October 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return.
The video below was posted yesterday. I agree with the sentiments expressed almost in toto, although I do hold out the possibly forlorn hope that the opposition that developed towards the end of the first portion of the Synod may coalesce into something significant. As it is, for now, it seems Pope Francis ably sidestepped that opposition and went ahead and had the disastrous paragraphs included in the final report, anyway, if in a different section and with a bit of discussion regarding the “controversy” they caused.
I can’t say I know for certain what happened at the Synod – was it everything going just about totally according to modernist revolutionary plans, who figured in advance there would be some opposition and just moved the ball as far forward as they could? Or was the “revolt,” such as it was, a sign of serious setback? I know opinions vary even among some of the best, most orthodox/traditional Catholics out there.
Michael Matt and Chris Ferrara below seem to veer predominately on the side of the Synod being almost an unalloyed victory for Pope Francis and the modernist cabal associated with him. Some of the language below (a quite small amount) gets a bit harsh and goes beyond what I would typically endorse, but there is so much good commentary it merits airing. I pray Ferrara and Matt (and D) and others are not right, but I fear they are. If they are……Lord have mercy, I have no idea what the Church looks like in a year, but it will not be good:
If criticism of the Holy Father means falling out of full communion with him, then we have an increasing number of prelates doing so. Fortunately, that is not now nor has it ever been the case.
Several things as way of a brief introduction. The man who introduces Bishop Gracida – a long time friend and supporter of the TLM and one of the most orthodox bishops in entire post-conciliar US Church -is Jim Graham, President of Texas Right to Life. There are two major pro-life political action organizations in Texas, Texas Right to Life, and Texas Alliance for Life. You really, really, really want to support the former and not the latter. Texas Right to Life is completely pro-life up and down the whole panoply of life-related issues and is very strongly Catholic. Texas Alliance for Life is much weaker on end-of-life issues and has equivocated on critical matters a number of times.
Secondly, Bishop Gracida below addresses the really pernicious error of current “end of life” declarations that have been formulated over the past 50 years to support the organ harvesting industry. Organs for transplantation MUST, with present technology, be taken from a living human being. The organs deteriorate to uselessness within just a few minutes of actual death. That is why destructive ideologies like “brain death” have been created, in order to pretend that people with still beating hearts, even those who breathe on their own, are somehow “dead,” and thus suitable victims for organ harvesting. But far too many entities in the institutional Church have accepted this illusory definition and have given the “moral OK” to perform such practices. Bishop Gracida has opposed this form of murder for decades.
Finally, I must agree with Jim Graham’s introductory notes, the reason that we have seen Western culture collapse to the terrific extent it has in the past several decades – an incredibly rapid acceleration of a process building for 500 years – is due to the failure of the Church to uphold traditional morality and Doctrine and instead try be a never challenging, often indifferentist “friend” of the world.
Some really very good comments below from Bishop Gracida, it is worth watching:
That man is 93 years old. Can you believe it? He looks and sounds 20 years younger. Which sort of explodes the mandatory retirement age program put in place after Vatican II. I can imagine how blessed the Diocese of Corpus Christi would now be had Bishop Gracida remained in office until now – over 30 years. Ad multos annos! My father-in-law looks and works 15 years younger than he is at 85 but I think Bishop Gracida might put him to shame.