Pro-lifers demand women seek permission to leave homes, take aspirin, speak, breathe….UPDATE December 12, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, asshatery, Christendom, contraception, Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, fun, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, silliness, Society.
You’ve got to hand it to the contemporary left, they know which buttons to push. The diabolically pro-abort Emily’s List has sent out a release to their subscribers (those poor, lost souls) stating that if “House Republicans” have their way (with what?), women will not be allowed to leave their homes, speak, or take an aspirin without “permission.” I have to wonder, permission from whom? House Republicans? There are only 230 odd House Republicans, they’re going to be awfully busy answering the requests of 150 million women…….
But what is frightening, is that Emily’s List may be excitable and leftist, but they are not dumb. They know that kind of talk resonates with the kind of people who subscribe to their list. Which is pretty incredible when you think about it. It’s the stupid Handmaid’s Tale grafted onto real life.
What is interesting, is that subjugation of women, at least in Christendom, grew more out of protestant ideals than it did the Catholic ethos. Women were more subjugated in protestant Prussia of 1800 than they were of Catholic England of 1400. The ultimate bad ideas regarding treating women as property developed from that same protestant ethos that was the precursor to the endarkenment, rationalism, leftism, and all the rest. So, philosophically speaking, it is the modern left that is really more likely, philosophically, to treat women as chattle than the Catholic Church, one of pro-abort Emily’s biggest enemies.
And don’t we see that every day, in the silence of ostensible feminists in the face of sex-selective abortion, where in some countries the male-female birth rate has become so skewed as to go above 60-40? But pro-aborts cannot criticize, or even acknowledge, this very elemental attack on women, because to do so would lead to other uncomfortable questions and thoughts regarding abortion overall. So, they have to largely pretend this nightmare doesn’t exist, and develop pretend boogeymen on the “radical right” who are just hankering to keep women thoroughly subjugated.
Unfortunately, we do see a bit of this kind of hyperbolic on the “right,” as well. I may even fall prey to such from time to time. When one really cares about a cause – like ending the ceaseless murder of a huge percentage of all infants conceived worldwide – it is possible to go too far. Looking back, I can see I’ve gone a bit over the top a time or two. Taking a break, saying a prayer, and asking for some Divine Light on a matter is always a good way to keep from uttering embarrassing, emotional statements. I should probably heed my own counsel more than I do!
Still, this made me laugh. I thought it was pretty funny, that the women who make up the majority of the pro-life movement just can’t wait to “go back to a time” when they have to beg their husbands for permission to speak (after 20 years of marriage, even the very idea is so opposite from reality, it’s just ludicrous). That is so utterly counter to the reality of the pro-life women I know that I just had to burst out laughing when I read it.
I think they’ve run out of ideas.
UPDATE: Boy am I dumb. I don’t know how I missed this part: “Right now, the only thing that’s keeping the Republican Party out of your doctor’s office and out of your bedroom is the Democratic majority in the Senate.”
Wait, now who is exactly in who’s doctor’s office? How many MILLIONS of Americans can no longer see their preferred physician due to the legislation rammed through on a strict party line vote by the demonrats? Which party is causing millions now, and tens of millions next year, to lose their health insurance? This is probably the most savagely invasive legislation in the history of this nation! And it’s Republicans who want to invade women’s privacy?
Please. The left does nothing but project its own prejudices and twisted psychology on its purported enemies. Incredible.
Rorate summarizes recent documents on FFIs, and it isn’t pretty December 12, 2013Posted by tantamergo in disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Liturgy, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return, Tradition, true leadership.
Rorate Caeli has helpfully summarized the recent explosion of information on the plight – and boy, do I mean plight – of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate that I have covered extensively this week on this blog. It’s nice to have all the pieces in one place.
And, linking Rorate allows me to copy some of their analysis, which is a repeat of what they said when this story first broke months ago, in contradiction to many “conservative” pooh-poohers, who said the sacking of the FFIs didn’t have even a slight implication towards the traditional practice of the Faith.
As Rorate notes, there has not been a radical, heretical, unfaithful modernist-progressive order in the Church treated with even half the severity now being applied to the FFIs, now or in the past 50 years. We are also informed, very clearly, that the intervention and steps being taken against the FFIs – even very recent steps, like the closing of their seminary and persecution of the associated lay orders – is coming directly from the Vicar of Christ. Rorate:
Notable are Fr. Volpi’s affirmation that the intervention into the Franciscans of the Immaculate was “specifically ordered by the Vicar of Christ” and his speculation that the FI ”has become the battleground of a struggle between different currents in the Curia, with the specific involvement of persons in opposition to the new pontificate of Pope Francis”!…….……These documents, and especially the two interventions from Fr. Volpi, speak for themselves and confirm what we already knew:the intervention in the Franciscans of the Immaculate was precipitated by their increasing attachment to Traditional Catholic theological positions – not just to the Traditional Latin Mass. [I think I've said as much - yes, the TLM and traditional Liturgy are annoying, but due to Pope Benedict must be permitted. However, the FFIs were also sponsoring publications that took an increasingly critical view of the Council, and there are many powerful people in the Church for whom such criticism cannot be allowed.]
Wealways maintained this position despite the denials and rationalizations invented by some non-expert commentators. [Rorate, I have come to find, has a lot of inside information. I would hesitate mightily before contradicting them]One must not feel secure that this will end with the FI — and if we say this, it is because we have a true basis for saying so.[And this is what scares me. This is not some small matter instigated by strife internal to one order. It is about much broader matters, like the growth in the traditional practice of the Faith and the threat that represents to certain entrenched powers, and preserving the progressive interpretation of the Council.][Some really important notes.....]It should be noted for the sake of truth that the accusation of “crypto-lefebvrianism” is a red herring: a religious Congregation that in practice continued to celebrate the Novus Ordo in the great majority of its apostolates even as it made liberal use of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum can scarcely be accused of “Lefebvrist” tendencies! The accusations of “embezzlement” (explained at length in the Dec. 8 letter of Fr. Volpi, the 3rd document in this post) also refer to events that occurred after the appointment of Fr. Volpi, and therefore could not be held as the reason for the Vatican’s intervention. [And thus constitute some dirty pool by Fr. Volpi, trying to get people thinking this embezzlement occurred BEFORE the intervention, and thus that the FFIs were engaged in immoral behavior. That's low, but I'm not surprised.]
Another member of the G-8 cardinals: “Church has never been against….homosexuality” December 11, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, the return.
Tancred has really done some good work today, digging up some very relevant info for all Catholics to consider and pray about. The latest involves the Indian Supreme Court vacating a lower court judgment making homosexual acts legal in India. The court’s decision means homosexual acts remain illegal, as they have been throughout the world for hundreds of years, until recently. This decision should be seen by Catholics as something of a small victory.
But, a member of the group of 8 “super” cardinals advising Pope Francis, a Cardinal Gracias, was not pleased. According to Asianews and the German site Katholisches, the cardinal claimed the following regarding this decision:
Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Mumbai took a position: “No to gay marriage, but the Christian community is against any form of discrimination. Homosexuals have the same dignity as any other person….. “ [Does a law making homosexual acts illegal discriminate against homosexuals? Are homosexuals defined solely by their acts, and, apparently, completely unable to contain themselves when it comes to sodomy? Because that is the implication the cardinal is drawing here - homosexuals are the same as these illegal acts.]
….Cardinal Gracias told Asianews that “the Catholic Church has never been against the decriminalization of homosexuality, [What? I can assure it, it most definitely has. Cardinal Gracias needs to crack a book sometime] because we have never considered homosexuals as criminals.”…… [he is clearly conflating the act, with the person. The Church could support a law against adultery, without "discriminating" against adulterers. In fact, the Church most certainly HAS endorsed such laws. Just as the Church has endorsed many civil laws against all kinds of immoral acts in its history. This is just ludicrous.]
…..Cardinal Garcia emphasized to Asianews: “As Christians, we express our full respect of homosexuals. [Well, in a sense, yes, but sin remains sin, no?] The Catholic Church opposes the legalization of gay marriage, but teaches that homosexuals have the same dignity as anyone else and condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, persecution or abuse.” [It is not against an addict's human dignity to make intemperance in drink and drug a sin, or intoxication a criminal act. It is not against a fornicator's dignity to make fornication a sin, or to make it a criminal act. This is just ludicrous. Cardinal Gracias/Garcias, whatever it is, seems highly confused on the Church's moral law and what constitutes human dignity.]
Boy, do we need to pray. No, if someone wants to ask, I’m not calling the Cardinal nor anyone else a material heretic, I’m just saying they need a lot of prayers and conversion. Lord, have mercy on us. That now makes 4 of the 8 “super cardinals” who have made very troubling statements in the past few months.
Left wing priest hates him some babies December 11, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
1 comment so far
A priest named Fr. William Grimm has said some rather awful things. This man is apparently the head of UCANews, which I have stumbled across a few times, always noting a distinctly modernist, left wing outlook in its coverage. He appears to hate him some babies. Maybe he’s been in Japan too long, since Japan is committing national seppuku through refusal to reproduce.
Whatever the case, read the below, and see if you identify any semblance of faith in a transcendent God:
For the most part, the questions are innocuous. But one stands out for its breathtaking irresponsibility: “How can an increase in births be promoted?”
Are they serious? There are already seven billion people on the planet and we continue to increase. Resources are being depleted. Other species of animals as well as plants are being driven to extinction by the pressure of human numbers. [Does this man convey any sense that we should just trust in God and He will provide? Read all the below, and see if you can find any sense other than a worldly, very left-wing outlook. Does Fr. Grimm (very apropos, don't you think?) not realize that the kings of Juda and Israel were punished - severely - for a far smaller lack of faith than he is evidencing?]
Global warming results from the burning of fossil fuels to provide power for living, transportation and manufacture. The increased demand for power means increasing reliance upon dangerous nuclear power. Air, water and soil are being degraded. Food shortages occur in precisely those areas with the greatest population pressure. People are driven to live in urban slums in a search of a livelihood. [OK, even playing his worldly game, why is the economy of Japan and so much of the West in terminal decline? The answer is lack of children. In Japan, there is 0.85 children per woman. Each woman will have less than one child in her lifetime, on average. The collapse of the Japanese birth rate took hold in 1990, which is the exact same time that their economy entered its now 23 year slump. This is not a coincidence. As for the rest of this paragraph, it's just boilerplate leftism, easily refutable and devoid of faith.]
Children are born, but die before getting a chance to live in much more than a biological sense. [I suspect Fr. Grimm is highly conflicted, at best, over abortion. I'm sure he sees many lives "not worth living."] Malnutrition and the diseases of poverty cripple others. Social, health and educational services are inadequate to ensure a truly human life. Crowding increases crime, unrest, oppression, war and a general uglification of the human environment. [Yes, there it is. If life doesn't meet Fr. Grimm's exacting standards, it is sub-par and not worthwhile. In point of fact, around the world today, the average and median standards of living are higher than they have ever been in human history. What Fr. Grimm is saying is that we should have never made it to this point, because all the poverty and suffering that existed around the world, near universally (compared to today), up until the mid-late 1800s, made life unlivable. Therefore, we should have offed ourselves long ago, which I would also imagine Fr. Grimm would agree with, if you scratched a little deeper.]
For the Church to call for an increase in births is not just stupid, it is immoral. Catholic social teaching stresses the importance of the common good. What common good is advanced by merely increasing our numbers? [Need I say more? This man is a misanthrope. He is also a self-admitted heretic. And he is influencing millions of Catholics, especially in Asia, with his twisted heresy.
A return question for Father - how is the common good served by denying billions of people the chance to live? Who are you to play God?]
Contrary to what some people seem to think, the Catholic Church does not oppose family planning. [Ummm, yes She does. But she permits this disordered act at times to avert a greater evil, but only under grave circumstances.] Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae forbids particular “artificial” methods of regulating births and has given rise to a Catholic cottage industry of “natural family planning.”
But, whatever dispute there may be over methods – and for the most part there is no dispute because Catholics have opted to ignore the teaching – [A subtle way of trying to convey the idea that it's acceptable to engage in grave sin by rejecting Church Dogma, by claiming everyone is doing it. This man is fundamentally immoral.] the fact is that the Church can encourage intelligent and responsible limitation of family size even without retreating from Pope Paul’s teaching. [Not the way you're advocating it. I can see the bats have been loosed from the belfry since last March.]
Instead of asking how we can increase births, the Catholic Church should be a world leader in calling for responsible family planning that will ensure that all people who are born have a chance to live beyond age five and have access to the food, healthcare and education that will enable them to live with the dignity of the children of God. [Man leftists love to play god! Sheesh! Only those that live beyond 5 and have a full belly, medical ease and a grand education have a worthy life! This is too much! Can this man think of anything save in the most worldly of terms!]
Wow, I don’t often read stuff from left wing fever swamps anymore, and now I remember why.
But what is incredible, is that his view is probably the predominate view within the totality of clergy in the Church today.
What is most disturbing, is that this article is plainly pointed at the Philippines, where there is a great struggle ongoing to limit contraception coverage already approved by the government, and prevent the legalization of abortion. All the hallmarks are there. If you have “too many” babies, they will get sick, and some may die. It will ruin your ability to gain wealth. It will make you and all around you miserable. ”You’ll ruin precious gaia, my true god, err, I mean, this precious creation uh, ahem, ‘god,’ has given us.” It is interesting to observe that as protestant sects have made significant inroads in the ravaged post-conciliar Filipino Church over the past 25 years, suddenly there are growing factions of Philippine society that support things like contraception, divorce and remarriage, abortion, etc.
That private judgment is a real tool of satan, isn’t it? Man, I love babies so much, it just freaks me out when I read something so obviously pedophobic.
The push is on the the next sick thing – ABC promoting “polyamory” again December 10, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
There was a time not long ago, when people who shacked up with varying quantities of strange men and women for indeterminate lengths would have been regarded as very strange, certainly perverted, and beyond the pale of normal behavior. But seemingly confident that sodomites simulating marriage will soon be the law of the land in all 50 states, the amoral left – and the media which serves as their evangelical arm – is already moving to expand the normalization of extreme kinks and unchecked concupiscence. ABC, owned by Disney, frequently leads the way, as they did with a recent, breathlessly exuberant and supportive program on so-called polyamory, as if using people for one’s basest lusts is anything like genuine love:
On Monday, ABC News decided to publicize a movement known as polyamory, meaning people bedding down with multiple romantic and sexual partners as a legitimate relationship. Co-anchor Dan Harris said, “Just for a minute, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point.”
Later, he added, “More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children.”
Nick Watt, reporting for ABC, interviewed Michael, Kamela and Rachel, a threesome that sleeps with others and still finds the time to raise a child. Watt breathlessly gasped, “They’re spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.”
The program then interviewed a quack psychologist who gave a glowing endorsement of this further attack on traditional marriage. Because that’s the next place the left wants to go, they want medical and other benefits extended to those who take part in even casual arrangements, the better to keep their voting coalition growing by hooking more and more people on government-required benefits.
With the left, there is always an agenda, and this one is twin. It is both to attack traditional morality in order to further subvert and destroy the healthy, traditional family, while at the same time promising those benefits to more and more as mentioned above, encouraging more people to abandon responsibility and duty and hop on the wealth transfer bandwagon. As the article I posted yesterday mentioned, everything, from the loftiest sounding rhetoric to the basest perversion, is at the service of expanding government’s power at the expense of family and Church. Scary stuff.
The only question I have is which ultimate perversion will be the next cause celebre, after this swinging polyamory sickness – bestiality, or pedophilia? It’s an open question, and unfortunately, I think we’ll find out the answer within a few years.
In one final note, and one that is sure to cause great joy at USCCB headquarters, noted MSNBC loon Ed Schultz was evangelizing the other day and let us all know that the eternal, Triune God unreservedly endorses Obamacare. The more the incredible destruction this monstrous law inflicts on the people of this country, the more I stand in dismay at the thought that Obamacare was endorsed by most bishops, and would have been endorsed by all but a handful had it not contained such noxious provisions for abortion and contraception. The USCCB, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities, etc, all lobbied very hard, to the tune of millions of dollars, for Obamacare’s passage. They bear at least some responsibility for the suffering of millions who are now getting cancellation letters, being told they cannot see their doctors, etc.
It will be interesting to see if the USCCB backs away from this disastrous legislation once the stuff really hits the fan next year, with millions of people employed at large corporations likely to see their coverage dropped. Estimates now range from 60-100 million Americans will lose their health care coverage under this law.
What in the history of the American socialist wealth transfer state gave any indication that this law would cause anything but massive disruption, hugely increased costs, and dramatically lower standards of service?
The dangerous and false dichotomies of George Weigel December 10, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, blogfoolery, Christendom, disconcerting, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.
I’m sure George Weigel needs no introduction to my readers. It is amazing that a man whose claim to fame was writing a middling and often uncritical biography of Pope John Paul II now seems to arrogate to himself some leadership role in defining the “new evangelization.” In fact, Weigel’s prescriptions have always seemed to me like a sad mish-mash of American fundamentalist protestantism with a weak sacramental theology dumped on top. The great Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has also examined Weigel’s proposed “evanglical Catholicism” and found it not just wanting, but founded on false premises from the beginning. The portion quoted below is part of a longer piece that shows that the feared and dreaded Catholic “integralism” (an epithet used to tar faithful Catholics) is really nothing more than Catholicism as it always was. Boniface argues persuasively that those who try to present Vatican II as an absolutely necessary break point in the Church’s history are forced to attempt to discredit the pre-conciliar Church, because if Vatican II was so great, obviously something had to be very much wrong before the Council. I highly encourage reading the whole thing.
Boniface on Weigel:
A prime example of this tendency is Mr. George Weigel, who has consistently been trumpeting the rise of what he calls “evangelical Catholicism”, which he places as a middle road between liberal progressivism and “restorationist” integralism. [heretofore known as simply being Catholic] Never mind that all authentic Catholicism has always been evangelical! Weigel, taking the distinction between binding and customary traditions much too far, proposes that “What can be changed in the Church must be changed” and sees only a small core of fundamental teachings, aspects which he considers part of the Church’s “constitution”, which should not be changed. [This is where I have a huge problem with Weigel. He is an Americanist. He thinks the good 'ol USA is the greatest country in the history of ever, and the very ideal form of government for the Church to cooperate with. He is very wrong, of course. But he seems at times to have gone so far as to try to force the American governmental model on the Church, reducing the core beliefs of the Church to something like the US Constitution, and the rest just so much frippery. Weigel's proposals seem as radical as anything most of the modernist set has ever produced, to me.] The rest is up for grabs.  He mocks the pre-Vatican II doctrinal conservatism of such prelates as Cardinal Ottaviani, whom he uncharitably compares to Obama HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius . He scoffs at the idea that traditional Catholicism could have anything to offer the modern world, saying that “The challenge also won’t be met by Catholic traditionalists retreating into auto-constructed catacombs.”  [I have to wonder whether Weigel is blind. Can he not read the signs of the times?]
Central to Weigel’s thought is the presumption that Catholicism consists of two fundamental parts: a central core of eternal, non-changeable elements, which Weigel calls the Church’s “constitution”, and an outer core of practices, theories and cultural trappings which are time-bound and subject to change. Weigel creates a dichotomy between a liberal progressivism that seeks to change the Church’s fundamental ‘constitution’ and a “neo-triumphalist restorationism”, which insists on strictly maintaining the outer core of the Church’s cultural trappings. Progessivism thus denies authority where it exists, while “restorationism” creates authority where it does not exist. The true Catholic, the “evangelical Catholic”, must walk the via media between these two extremes. [First of all, the notion that there are only "two ways" in the Church right now - progressive heresy or integralist restorationism, is ludicrous. There are all kinds of intermediate currents, and even people who possess aspects of both extremes. The simplicity in this argument is just silly. And it's incredibly wrong-headed, for as Boniface shows, so-called "integralism" is nothing more than Catholicism as it was believed and practiced for many, many centuries. And in reality, Weigel has absorbed so many progressive/modernist beliefs through his rampant Americanism that his middle way would have been considered incredibly radical and dangerous only a few decades ago.]
We, of course, do not deny that the Church is a composite of binding and non-binding traditions and teachings; there is a hierarchy of truth, and not all teachings and practices are of the same authority. But what we do deny is that the central and the ephemeral, the necessary and the disposable, can be sorted out so neatly and with such ease. In fact, the whole tragedy of the post-Conciliar period was a vast underestimation of the degrees to which these ‘secondary’ or ephemeral aspects of Catholicism (music, architecture, etc.) were actually deeply bound up with substance of the faith itself. Weigel, who states boldly that “What can be changed in the Church must be changed”, believes that what is central and what is secondary are so easily distinguished that one can partition them up with a fair degree of confidence. The difference between “Big T” and “Small T” tradition is not just a distinction but a chasm, and the “Small T” tradition can be discarded at will. [And I'll agree with Boniface again, ALL the wreckage caused in the Church in the past 50 years has occurred without one formal change of Doctrine, which we know is impossible. If so much damage can be done with only the changes made to "tradition" thus far, what Weigel proposes is an entirely new religion, a culturally convenient (but theologically and salvifically deranged) mashup of neo-conservative Catholicism and protestant fundamentalism.]
What Weigel and the others of his kind have forgotten is that the Church is fundamentally understood as a Body, and in a Body, there is nothing extrinsic. Sure, there are members of more or less centrality. A man can still live with no fingers, but he cannot live with no head. Yet, if we were to propose chopping all a man’s fingers off on the premise that they were “not necessary” for his survival, would we not be foolish to expect the fingerless man to do the same things he could before? And when we found, to our consternation, that the fingerless man could not write, play music, or do many of the things he could before we chopped his members off, would we not be even more foolish to suggest the remedy was to further dismember him by chopping off his feet, ears, nose, and anything else not strictly “necessary” on the premise that what can be discarded in the Body ought to be? Yet this is precisely the folly Weigel and those who fail to understand the Church as a Body find themselves in. [And Weigel and his ilk would be just the type to express shock when the fingerless man starved to death for want of an ability to feed himself.]
Great stuff, as always, from Boniface. Boniface goes on to show that the dreaded “integralism” so denigrated by Weigel was nothing more than an epithet developed by modernist heretics to bash Catholics in the early 20th century. Weigel’s free use of this term would seem to point to a rather shocking lack of knowledge of Church history.
Boniface’s post closes with some background on the great American theologian Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and his deconstruction of the “integralist” slur. Weigel would do well to research Fenton and his works. The very things Weigel claims he wants – a culturally relevant and influential Church that is growing and attracting new members – is shown by Fenton (as it has been by so many others) to be none other than that good old fashioned Catholicism the Church practiced for 1900+ years.
We don’t need new programs, or agendas designed to sell books. We just need to practice the Faith as it was handed down to us.
That, and nothing more, is Catholicism.
Could this be where the Synod on the Family is headed? December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, self-serving.
Most readers will know that Pope Francis has scheduled a special episcopal Synod on the Family and married life next October. Surveys of the world’s bishops are apparently underway to gather views for problems affecting family life and marriage in particular. Some of these surveys have come to light. Some of the survey questions seem to point in a certain direction, that of somehow changing how the Church views issues like whether the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) can receive the Blessed Sacrament. There has been a new Secretary General for this synod appointed.
Regarding that, this new Secretary General, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, made some comments recently on the subject of admitting the divorced and remarried (w/o annulment) to Communion. Dr. Ed Peters, who normally strives to sing the corporate line, took exception to Baldisseri’s comments recently, via Bishop Rene Gracida. What did Baldiserri say? Well, among other things, this:
A new approach needs to be taken with respect to the administration of the sacraments to remarried divorcees. The Church needs to apply Church doctrine taking the circumstances of each specific case into account. This approach does not mean making general conclusions and rules for everyone….
It’s a simple, short statement, but say so much. As Dr. Ed Peters notes, there is no middle ground between admitting someone to the Blessed Sacrament, or not. And let me say, I am sick of hearing that these people are “denied the SacramentS.” No, they are denied ONE Sacrament, the Most Blessed Sacrament. They can go to Confession. They can receive Baptism.
But irrespective, what this “new approach” would seem to point to is just admitting these divorced and bigamist Catholics to receive. This is a blatant violation of Christ’s own condemnation of people who divorce and remarry, because the Church does not recognize – and nor did Christ – divorce as a severance of marriage. These people are adulterers, according to Our Blessed Lord. Calling the Church’s belief regarding the sinfulness of divorce and remarriage (adultery) a “discipline,” as Peters does, is a profound disservice. If this is not a Doctrine, straight from our Lord’s lips and 2000 years old, nothing is. We may as well close us shop.
The way I see the progressives trying to nuance this is with some claptrap about not changing “the general conclusions and rules for everyone,” but admitting the divorced and remarried “on a case by case basis.” This is laughable, we all know what will happen, the “exception,” like Extraordinary Ministers of Communion or Latin in the Mass, will become the certain, unalterable rule in about 5 seconds. It will make a mockery of the Church’s moral law.
As Peters does note, there seems a strong whiff of antnomianism (which says the Church has no moral law, “faith alone” is all that matters) about all this. I think we see in this where the progressive, primarily European elements want to take this Synod. It is very disconcerting that the Secretary General seems to be on board with their ideas. I pray the more faithful bishops will be able to derail this monstrosity. If passed, it will mark only the beginning of the progressive/modernist attempts to completely deconstruct the Church’s moral law.
“The government reserves a special hatred for the family……..” December 9, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, Christendom, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
I stumbled across the following at a secular site but I thought it eminently worth sharing. Whether this extremely apparent trend is part of the great apostasy and persecution which will occur prior to the parousia, or whether it is just a sign of how sick our culture has become, it is a reality nevertheless.
One caveat to the below – only left-wing, enlightenment-informed, “liberty-oriented” governments of the type that came out of the English, American and French revolutions (that is, the near-universal form of national government today) are fundamentally oriented towards attacking the family, because the enlightened, “liberal” government can ultimately brook no competition. While the US form of enlightenment atheist government is more conservative than most, and has taken longer to manifest the more negative tendencies of all “liberal” governments, it is still, irreversibly, of the same mold. This is not a popular statement to make, but observing the trends in the US in comparison to many other, especially European, nations, the correlation seems clear. The US is on the same path, simply 30-60 years behind its European contemporaries:
The long-term goal of the government’s social policies are to flatten society out into one atomized mass. There will be only the state and the individual, and the individual will have no protection, no mediating institutions, between itself and the state.
Antipathy towards a wide variety of actors–the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, “special interests” of all types, political parties, private universities–can all be understood in light of this fact. [And all the examples listed (save for the generic special interests) are currently the target of ongoing campaigns of persecution and intimidation by the "liberal" government and its authoritarian allies in the culture, the entire lot of which are left wing to different degrees.]
The government reserves special hatred for the family, because the family is older than the state and, unless steps are taken, will outlast it. It gives the individual a locus of attention besides the state, and therefore, must be crushed. The ongoing destruction of the concepts of both marriage and family by the left is intended to remove permanently the transcendent family from the political sphere, leaving only mere biological relationships, which are not enough to inspire resistance to the state.
I think that’s a very astute comment, with the corollary that we are talking about governments steeped in the rhetoric and thinking of the endarkenment, the latter movement founded almost entirely on the premise of removing the influence of the Catholic Church upon society.
It is amazing how illiberal and oppressive our supposedly “free” societies are. Yes, we may have the right to vote and elect our leaders (to the extent the elections are really free and fair, a very open question), but those leaders then have a power over our lives that a medieval “tyrannical” king would have found shocking, even repulsive.
It is only in the modern “liberal” society that government has arrogated to itself the right to delve deeply into the family, to assign “rights” and benefits, pick winners and losers, which have totally upended familial life in this country and many others. From declaring marriage something that can be dissolved at the whim of one partner, to massively subsidizing and encouraging forms of birth control to limit family size, to redefining the very meaning of marriage, the ostensibly “liberal” state has waged a non-stop and open war on the family since its inception. I should note here that American divorce laws, shortly after the Republic formed, were a scandal to many European countries that had not yet embraced “liberty.” They were incredibly liberal even then, over 200 years ago. So was the atheist/agnostic orientation of the US government, the first openly agnostic government in the West in around 1000 years. This latter factor had huge implications for family life.
Someone asked me once what could possibly replace the liberal “democratic” nation state. I really don’t know. But I also don’t think we will ever arrive at a solution so long as we continue to pretend that the United States as originally conceived, or as it is now, is the bestest friend the Church has ever had. I think we need to seriously examine whether liberal democracy is conducive to the practice of the Faith, the virtuous ordering of the family life and human person, and the orientation of the entire culture towards the primary goal, the salvation of souls.
I believe it is not. I believe more and more that this nation, and so many founded in its image and likeness, is inherently hostile towards the Christian religion and the Catholic Faith in particular. The Catholic Faith is a totality that must exist and if not predominate, at least profoundly influence, all sectors of a society – political, economic, cultural, social, and of course religious. But the liberal state says NO, the Church must confine Herself to religious matters only, otherwise She is an interloper in affairs not Her own and will be punished. The fact that so many Catholics, including our leadership, in essence accept the liberal state’s claims is one of the prime sources for the schizophrenia so rampant in the Church today.
I think as time goes forward, and the state, particular the US, becomes more and more openly hostile to the Faith, more people will begin to recognize the root problem. It’s not violations of the 1st Amendment or liberal demonrat over-reach, it is part and parcel of the ideals upon which this nation were founded. It might be possible to organize a democratic republic around the right practice of the Faith. But this one is not it.
If the liturgical reform failed totally, is it time to revisit Sacrosanctum Concilium? December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, General Catholic, scandals, foolishness, Latin Mass, Ecumenism, sadness, disaster, episcopate, Liturgy, error, secularism, abdication of duty.
I saw a post at Louis Verricchio’s blog that discusses the more radical aspects of Sacrosanctum Concilium. For those that don’t know, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) is the Vatican II document on the reform of the Sacred Liturgy. It was the first document promulgated at Vatican II, and set the tone for the rest with its either/or or “declaration followed by obfuscation” format. While Verricchio raised a number of valid concerns in making his point (which is that while many conservative Catholics try to point to SC as a “conservative” document of VII, there are many problematic statements in it that have been used to make very destructive changes to the Mass), I was struck by how much the reform of – or revolution against – the Liturgy has failed according to the goals set out in SC itself.
The entire reform of the Liturgy proposed at Vatican II was sold as being one that would dramatically improve the practice of the Faith in the lives of all the faithful. It was also supposed to make the Liturgy irresistibly attractive to protestants and those in other schismatic/heretical sects. In short, the “reform” was sold as being the main harbinger of that great new springtime that was so hoped for back in the days of the Council. This is apparent from the opening paragraph of SC, which states:
1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
While the reform (or destruction, according to many experts) of the Roman Rite was supposed to instill “increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful,” what we have seen, from any metric one could care to choose, is the exact opposite! We have seen a deeper, faster and more universal collapse in the practice of the Faith – especially in Mass attendance! – than in ANY other period in the entire history of the Church!
Whatever changes were made to the Mass, which were intended to “adapt it more suitably to the needs of our own times,” (and what hubris in THAT statement!), that adaptation has apparently failed spectacularly. Not only has Mass attendance collapsed, but so has participation in almost all other aspects of the life of the Faith, from Confession to Adoration (which, in many places, is still actively debased as “medieval superstition”) to material support for the Church to personal prayer life to…….I could go on and on, but they have all fallen precipitously.
Furthermore, the reformed Liturgy has failed to attain the union it set out to achieve, either through attracting more converts or – and this was incredibly dubious from the start – resulting in a single, universal “mass” used by mainline protestant sects and the Church. In fact, this dream was impossible from the start, because only the Lutherans and Anglicans had retained enough semblance of the Mass to make such a union possible. But so very, very much was lost in the futile attempt. Things have gotten so bad, now, that at ecumenical confabs with orthodox Lutherans and Catholics present, the Lutherans are frequently scandalized by the impious handling of the Blessed Sacrament and casual disregard for the sacred! If anything, the Novus Ordo has turned off more of the separated sects than it has attracted!
Again, I could keep going on and on, showing how each individual aim of the reform of the Liturgy, as outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium, has apparently failed, and massively. I could quote statistic after statistic showing the collapse in the practice of the Faith in this country and around the world.
But instead of beating this dead horse, I’ll simply ask a question – if the reform has so manifestly failed in ALL its stated objectives, perhaps it is time to end the experiment and return to the timeless Liturgy of the Church? Or, I’ll ask another way – why do converts make up a hugely disproportionate number of those who find their way to the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could it be the Mass the starry-eyed reformers were looking for, dreaming of a single Liturgy to unite all the “separated brethren,” is the one they had all along?
A good exegesis on Limbo of the Infants December 3, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, General Catholic, Abortion, Society, sadness, sickness, episcopate, Virtue, Tradition, error, Holy suffering, contraception, Four Last Things, catachesis, Grace.
Presented below is a sermon from an FSSP priest on the subject of the Limbo of the infants. I did a post on this subject a couple of months ago that was taken exception to by one fellow blogger, who made some statements that led to a falling out between us, at least on a blogging level. I don’t cotton to calling good priests heretics because you don’t like their presentation of a belief that has been widely accepted throughout the history of the Church, if it is not a formal doctrine. So, this post may be controversial.
In the previous post, I took a less strong view than does the priest in the sermon below. He argues quite forcefully for the existence of Limbo, and claims that is where unbaptized babies (and aborted babies) go. This is a serious issue and has constant real-world implications. I have personally found, as have others, that many women intending to abort their women have convinced themselves that the abortion is a “good thing,” because they have been told, or come to believe, that their baby will immediately fly to Heaven and not have to experience the travails of this life. Even if true – which, the vast preponderance of belief from the Tradition weighs against this belief – this “abortion as salvific act” would do nothing to assuage the mother’s guilt for involvement in the murder of her own child, a sin that certainly cries out to Heaven.
This is a most pernicious idea. It is very difficult to convince women otherwise, when they have been led to believe that their abortion is actually a good and holy thing. Unfortunately, in our current day and in the Church we presently have, there is a very widespread belief that aborted babies DO go to Heaven. Even many priests and theologians share this view. To say such a view greatly undermines pro-life efforts would be a tremendous understatement.
But aside from the practical aspects of what I consider to be the almost certain error of abortion as Sacrament, there is the matter of Truth, and the preponderance of theological/Magisterial opinion. Without question, the understanding that unbaptized but otherwise sinless infants and children go to Limbo, not Heaven, has been the dominant belief of Saints and theologians going back to the earliest Church. Limbo is not a medieval concept. It was posited in the early Church by great Church Fathers.
The sermon. There are some powerful quotes from early Church Fathers and Church Councils. It is critical to note that the recent opinions given casting doubt on Limbo have no authority. I also found the distinction between the hope we can have for infants who die from natural causes, to faithful Catholic parents, prior to baptism, and those who die in abortion very important. There is much greater reason to have hope for the former, than the latter:
One more small addendum. To claim that arguing strongly that unbaptized babies go to Limbo makes one a heretic is simply untenable. The great St. Augustine, one of the two or three most influential theologians in the history of the Church, posited an even “stronger,” if you will, belief – he claimed it was certain Doctrine that unbaptized babies, and all unbaptized souls, go to hell. If strongly supporting Limbo makes one a material heretic, I guess the Church is really screwed up, because one of her greatest and most influential lights was even more in “error.”
But in reality, one can believe very strongly for Limbo (or even hell) in this matter and remain a faithful Catholic, because the Church has no authoritative Dogma on the matter. However, the conservative position, if you will, is that unbaptized but sinless children most likely go to Limbo. Thus, the traditional Catholic practice of quickly baptizing newborn infants has a strong theological basis, and is not just a superstitious act as some modern theologians try to claim.