add a comment
The Foreign Minister of the ragingly
traditionalist endemically Catholic socialist and religiously indifferent government of France has offered, as a humanitarian gesture, to grant asylum to persecuted Iraqi Christians. Meanwhile, muslim Alinksyite President Obama remains completely indifferent to their plight, even as he moves to “fundamentally transform” America through his encouragement of unconstrained immigration over our southern border. So, it’s not that he doesn’t like immigrants…….it’s something else entirely:
The French government says it is willing to grant asylum to Iraqi Christians in the face of a jihadist onslaught against them.
“We are assisting displaced persons who are fleeing the Islamic State’s threats and seeking refuge in Kurdistan,” Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in a joint statement this week. “Should they so wish, we are prepared to offer them asylum on our soil.”
In Washington, meanwhile, a leading religious freedom advocate on Capitol Hill slammed both President Obama and Congress Tuesday for their “silence” about the plight of Iraq’s Christians, which he said amounted to “genocide.”
“The silence in this town – in Washington – is deafening,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said on the House floor. “Does Washington even care?”
That’s one of those questions that doesn’t even need an answer.
It is interesting the lengths to which American progressives will go in their hatred of Christians. And by interesting, I mean terrifying.
That is why I say the American left, ignorant and muddle-headed as it is (with each generation more blindingly ignorant than the one before), will don the burqa before they would convert to Christianity, because they have turned being anti-Christian into one of the pillars of their deranged point of view. To be Christian, in the pov of the left in this country, is to be ignorant, superstitious, backwards, afraid, etc – all the things the left really is, but desperately wants to believe it is not. Thus in their usual projection, they have defined an enemy they can never reconcile with because the enemy is ultimately themselves. Even though, as a religion, Christianity, even very orthodox Christianity, is far more compatible with many aspects of progressive thought than is islam, which is hostile to everything that is not inshallah. But that matters not, blinded by bias as they are.
Two rebuttals – there are progressive “Christians,” but the left accepts them as agent provocateurs within Christianity to make it acceptable to progressivism – that is, to turn it into just one more impotent NGO. Secondly, aren’t almost all those Hispanic immigrants Christian, and the left loves them, right? The left loves them not because they are Christian, but tolerate their Christianity in pursuit of the larger goals this influx can achieve. They have no interest in bringing Iraqi Christians here because a, the primary reason for their coming would be their religion and b, Mideast immigrants tend not to break so decisively in favor of the democrats in terms of voting. Plus, the populations from the south are just much more convenient.
Meanwhile in Pakistan a muslim mob killed a 7 year old girl and her baby sister and grandmother due to a picture on Facebook that was deemed offensive to the pathological religion of islam. “Yet, such violence is viewed by these extremists to be the act of truly faithful Muslims and pleasing to God.”
But these people don’t need to convert to be saved, right?!?
Oh, another final note. While the USCCB is falling all over itself promoting Hispanic immigration, has one US prelate visited the persecuted Iraqis and Syrians as a number of French bishops have?
The USCCB’s flawed left-wing approach to immigration ignores Leo XIII while overstressing post-conciliar ethos July 31, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, Immigration, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
add a comment
I almost said “obsessively promoting post-conciliar ethos.” A really good post by an author I’ve not read before, who explores how the USCCB’s selective reading of the dogmatic Magisterium has led it to promote dangerously flawed and destructive policies with regard to immigration:
The issue, of course, can be defined differently—as a “border crisis that has raised humanitarian concerns,” but the document disparages that definition and, by implication, the US citizens who hold it. It declares: “The US and its regional partners must avoid the simplistic approach of addressing the forced migration by forcing children back through increased border enforcement. This response is akin to sending these children back into a burning building they just fled. Instead the approach must prioritize protection for those who are displaced from their homes, especially children, the most vulnerable.” (This is hardly a responsible consideration of consequences. The bishops ignore the likely effects of failing to enforce the border—encouraging the countries of origin to continue neglecting their social problems, rewarding the lawless “coyotes” for violating US laws, and most important, subjecting the children to deprivation and physical/sexual abuse during their journey and hardship thereafter.) [We also need to understand the huge play on the word "child" going on. 50% of this immigrant flood are males 15-17 yo. Many have prior drug and gang history. These are not innocent 6 year olds with Dora jammies and a teddy bear trying to make it 1500 miles to a desert border crossing.]
The USCCB document devotes considerable space to [almost exclusively post-conciliar] Catholic social teaching, stressing the idea that all people are created in the image and likeness of God and therefore possess an inherent dignity and fundamental human rights. Citing John Paul II, it claims that illegal as well as legal immigrants possess these rights and the illegals’ rights should be balanced against “the rights of nations to control their borders.” Note that the quoted phrasing compares people’s rights with nation’s rights. Is this a fair comparison? Should it not be the rights of certain people (immigrants) versus the rights of other people (citizens)? More about this when I discussRerum Novarum. [It is not a fair comparison and is in fact a deliberate and Orwellian twisting of language, again. People generate sympathy, powerful nations, rarely so. But nations are comprised of......people. And the people of this nation have MORE rights, according to Aquinas, in this nation, than do those trying to immigrate. Just as the people of Honduras have more rights viz a viz the expat Americans who live there.]
Perhaps the most revealing characteristic of the USCCB document is that it speaks almost exclusively about the response of governments and the Catholic Church to the “humanitarian crisis,” but says virtually nothing about the response of American citizens, taxpayers, or even Catholic parishioners. For example, it declares that “the institutional Catholic Church in the United States has played a critical role in the care of unaccompanied children.” That wording is highly misleading. In reality, everything the “institutional Catholic Church” does is financed by citizen’s taxes (awarded in the form of federal grants), by the generosity of Catholic parishioners, or by both. [The vast majority comes from confiscatory taxation, at the end of a government gun] The focus on institutional efforts is therefore an insult to the millions of Americans who actually fund the works of charity and mercy. It is also, in effect if not intent, a subtle denial that legal US residents also possess God-given dignity and rights. [Dang right, and a huge point. And that is why I think so many Americans feel so strongly about this fake "crisis," because they see their rights - as taxpayers and people who have often given a lot for this country - being trampled on in favor of recent immigrants and narrow elite interests, like the incredibly corrupt and self serving US Chamber of Commerce.]
[The author Professor Ruggiero goes on to list elements of Rerum Novarum ignored by US Bishops, then gets back to his arguments.......] By omitting any reference to Rerum Novarum, the USCCB document conveniently ignores a theological argument that challenges the bishops’ argument. [Gee, wonder why they left it out, then? Surely not because they have some self-interest?!? Perish the thought! In fact, how much pre-conciliar Catholicism has been dropped or attacked for that same reason?!]
If we apply Leo’s ideas to the present US immigration crisis, we will conclude that citizens of the United States are also children of God with fundamental rights that should not be abridged, especially not by the State. [As I briefly allude in this post] Those rights include secure borders and protection from unfair taxation to provide entitlements to illegal aliens. [And disease vectors, terrorist risks, open venues for drug smuggling (how much of that could be prevented with a fence?!?), destruction of national unity, escalating gang violence, more drunken violence, higher crime rates, higher prison costs, families broken asunder, divorce, growth in santa muerte......I could go on a long time. The costs of unconstrained immigration are very, very high, and the USCCB ignores almost all of them] Moreover, again following Leo, we will conclude that, though we all have a debt to our less fortunate neighbors, it is a debt in charity rather than justice, and we are answerable to God, rather than to the government, for its fulfillment.
Even if the US bishops lean toward the thinking of Gustavo Gutiérrez, [that is a nice little head snapping point there. I like that] they are surely familiar with Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical, [I would not make that assumption! Most have probably heard of it, but I bet the vast majority have not read any of it. The scandal of atrocious formation has been ongoing for decades and applies to bishops too, now] and they should therefore understand its relevance to the present discussion of illegal immigration. [Maybe they should, but it's inconvenient knowledge, so it goes in the memory hole.] When they dismiss a line of thought consistent with Pope Leo’s insights as a “simplistic approach,” they do Pope Leo, their fellow Catholics, and the Catholic theological tradition a grave disservice. And when they pretend that only their perspective is compatible with Christ’s exhortation to care for those in need, they deepen the offense. [All very true. But once again, maybe most of the bishops really do believe there was a "new pentecost" and a "newchurch" born in 1965, and that anything that came before that is inconvenient, contradictory, or just not "with it" enough, and can be safely ignored and marginalized]
I don’t know a thing about the author – although I like the piece and respect the thinking in it – but I know a lot of people have started wandering through Rerum Novarum, Quas Primas, the Syllabus, Trent, etc, and started wondering…….why have I never heard of this? Why have I never seen this wonderful, clear cut catechesis? And then they come to start wondering, how did we get here? What happened? How on earth can I reconcile 1900 in the Church with 1990? After cutting through the propaganda on the non-dogmatic uber-council, then they really start to wonder!
I don’t know if this professor, a good deal older than I, is on that path, but it’s a doozy!
Some messages for Cardinal Kasper July 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking.
A few messages for Cardinal Kasper and his ideological allies, via Fr. Carota and Cardinal Muller. First, Fr. Carota had the following pics, one quoting a great priest and the other a great Saint, along with an emphatic statement in support for the inability of Doctrine to be contradicted:
We need to scream out a thousand million times: CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CAN NOT AND WILL NOT CHANGE. We can further develop our understanding of it, we can further define it, but if it changes, it is no longer Catholic or the immutable Deposit of Faith given to us by Jesus Christ. When people come up with “catholic doctrine” that has changed, it is absolutely no longer Catholic. It is absolutely and nothing more than heresy.
Today, if you even question the changes in Catholic Doctrines, you are automatically persecuted and ostracized by most bishops, priests, religious and people.
All of us have a responsibility to suffer for defending the purity of Catholic truth. TheArians, (Jesus is not equal to God the Father) were the majority of “catholics” for around 200 + years (300 – 500 A.D.). Many “catholics” were Iconoclasts, (condemned painting or sculpturing of Catholic religious art), for hundreds of years too (Late 600′s- Early 800′s). All those who resisted these heresies were exiled, punished, persecuted or put to death.
We might have such a glorious future to look forward to!
The awesome pics:
Next, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Gerhard Muller has given a book length interview in which he once again forcefully restates Catholic Doctrine on marriage, adultery, divorce, reception of the Blessed Sacrament, etc., and really takes apart the Kasperite gambit (as so many have already done). At least Cardinal Muller appears much more orthodox on this topic than he is in some of his Marian theology and especially with regard to liberation theology:
Not even an ecumenical council can change the doctrine of the Church, because its founder, Jesus Christ, has entrusted the faithful custody of his teachings and his doctrine to the apostles and their successors. We have a well-developed and structured doctrine on marriage, based on the word of Jesus, which must be offered in its integrity. The absolute indissolubility of a valid marriage is not a mere doctrine, but rather a divine dogma that has been defined by the Church. In the face of the de facto rupture of a valid marriage, another civil “marriage” is not admissible. If it were, we would be facing a contradiction, because if the previous union, the “first” marriage – or rather, simply the marriage – is really a marriage, another subsequent union is not “marriage.” It is only by a play on words that one can speak of a first and second “marriage.” A second marriage is possible only when the legitimate spouse has died, or when the marriage has been declared invalid, because in these cases the previous bond has been dissolved. If this is not the case, we are in the presence of what is called the “impediment of the bond.”
…..“The image of the field hospital is very beautiful. Nonetheless we cannot manipulate the pope by reducing the whole reality of the Church to this image. The Church in itself is not a hospital: the Church is also the house of the Father.”……
……“A simple ‘adaptation’ of the reality of marriage to the expectations of the world does not bear any fruit, but rather turns out to be counterproductive: the Church cannot respond to the challenges of the modern world with a pragmatic adaptation. In opposing an easy pragmatic adaptation, we are called to choose the prophetic audacity of martyrdom. With this we can bear witness to the Gospel of the holiness of marriage. A lukewarm prophet, through an adjustment to the spirit of the time, would be seeking his own salvation, not the salvation that only God can give.”
There is much more from Cardinal Muller at the link. He goes on to some length refuting this latest attempt to, in effect, destroy the Sacrament of Marriage and blaspheme the Holy Spirit through mass, sacrilegious reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Cardinal Kasper, if he had any, should be ashamed for even bringing this up. His arguments, such as they are, have been completely refuted from Scripture, Tradition, and even the post-conciliar Magisterial statements of Pope Saint John Paul II. It is ludicrous this is even being discussed. Kasper has been strongly opposed by Cardinals Muller, Burke, Collins, Brandmuller, Sebastian, Caffarra, De Paolis, and others. But he has a lot of support from other corners, such as most of the very disordered Germanic episcopate.
But, in spite of all that, this Synod will likely come down to where the pope stands. If he strongly supports the Kasperite gambit, we shall have to pray much to the Holy Ghost.
Rorate is reporting that an Italian blogger who has reported on the persevention against the Franciscans of the Immaculate has been charged by Fr. Alfonso Bruno, the new head of the FI’s after the sacking of their founder and former leadership, with a formal case of defamation with the Italian authorities.
Below, Rorate’s summation of the situation. I’m not sure how confirmed all this is, but the case was reported by a major Italian daily. Certainly, newspapers of all stripes make errors and are at times given to sensationalism, but at present there is no reason to suspect fabrication, exaggeration, or subterfuge:
By the senior religious correspondent of Italian daily La Stampa, the startling news: those responsible for the intervention on the Franciscans of the Immaculate, after silencing their innocent victims inside the Church, now use the Police to intimidate journalists and bloggers — and their family members ! — in Italy.It is probably the most serious attempt by an ecclesial authority to make use of the police forces to limit the freedom of the press in Italy in living memory — the attempt is based on scraps of a couple of past posts, but the intent and likely result is obviously to intimidate the future activity of the media on covering some ecclesial activities. It is a shocking new chapter in the grotesque soap opera of the intervention in the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
So the web of persecution surrounding the Franciscans of the Immaculate spreads ever wider. You can read the actual report at Rorate. I’d like to approach this matter from a slightly skewed angle, if you will.
I’m sure my readers are aware that there is an American priest of the FIs who has been deeply involved in this tragic and very unsettling persevention. I used to read him regularly, before he began his jihad against his strawman caricature of traditional Catholics in late 2010. He is certainly very busy writing and blogging hither and yon “(and also “visiting” many FI monasteries, to make sure they understand the new order of things and the powers that now be). He has been striving to get his interpretation, which is that of the new leadership, of the “intervention” across in many venues.
But he seems frustrated. He seems to feel that somehow his “side is losing the PR battle.” And he seems quite exasperated with this. He feels the “facts” are inseparably on his side, and that his small group saved this formerly growing, stable, and vibrant order from themselves. Even at the cost of inflicting misery on many hundreds of his confrere’s and shattering that vibrancy, he seems quite invincibly convinced of his being in the right. What he cannot seem to understand is why he is having such a hard time selling his side of the story.
Well, the above, this kind of heavy handed repression is why! I mean, who sues family man bloggers, other than trolls and thugs? This is hardly the first time the nouveau leadership of the FIs has stooped to such tactics. It has in fact been part and parcel of the new regime since its installation. What have we seen in less than a year? We have seen the founder locked up under house arrest, surely the most dangerous octogenarian on the planet. We have seen the former leadership forced under pain of obedience to endure scattering to distant missionary apostolates very far from the center of events. That certainly appears to be an attempt to get them out of the way. We have seen ludicrous stories of malfeasance on the part of the former administration, and even some of their lay associates and family members, made up well after the fact. Stories that have never been even remotely supported by any substantive evidence and, after having served their purpose of disparaging the reputations of certain individuals, have been quietly dropped.
What else have we seen? We’ve seen the reputations of devout novices trashed because they asked uncomfortable questions of the nouveau leadership and the Pope, through completely fabricated and meaningless (but very revealing) claims that the individual in question “rejected Vatican II.” What would that even mean? We have seen the same intervention inflicted on the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, even though there was never even a hint of “division,” nor of any moral or doctrinal problem. Oh, but there was, maybe, a “drift.” Heavens to Betsy, let’s call out the legions of modernist female religious to set them straight. We have seen many dozens of priests denied the right to offer the TLM under Summorum Pontificum, a grave injustice that remains to this day. We have seen a formerly vibrant order shattered. We have seen a mass exodus of devoted souls from this order, which used to be one of the few growing religious orders in the entire Church.
These are not the typical behaviors of those who have the might of right on their side. These are not the normal behaviors of virtuous souls. Perhaps the arguments haven’t convinced people, because they are fundamentally unconvincing! Or maybe actions speak many times louder than words, and the actions speak of repression and a determination to inflict a certain vision on many unwitting and unwilling souls, no matter the cost- the same vision which has resulted in so much chaos, destruction, and dissolution in so many other religious orders. Already we have seen evidence that the seriousness with which the FIs used to take their vow of poverty has already slipped a great deal.
Now, there are potentially charitable explanations for some of the items above. But taken in totality, along with many other actions not mentioned, they stretch charitable interpretations beyond the breaking point. And behind them all, is the strange fact that this most obedient (as their meek submission over the past year has so eloquently demonstrated) and doctrinally orthodox of orders has been singled out for this (what for all the world appears to be) savage treatment, while so many other far more problematic, heretical, and destructive orders have been able to continue on their merry way making chaos and slowly (or very quickly) killing themselves and religious life – the heart of the Church – generally.
That is why you are having such a hard time convincing people. The actions are just too repressive, the double standard too massive to ignore.
And the more you use tactics like suing bloggers, the more unconvincing will you be.
I happened to be at a used bookstore yesterday, browsing their huge but pathetic selection of “Catholic” books. The vast majority were either outwardly modernist and heretical, or they were lost in the dominant secular/progressive mentality and essentially useless. I only found a few good books in the “nostalgia” section, books from way before the Council. Nothing by TAN, only one book by Loreto, but it I already had…..it was a bust as book shopping goes (not that I really need books, a reader just gifted me a really nice collection that will keep me occupied for a year or more, but I was out, so I looked).
But I did find one book that sort of piqued my interest. It was from the USCCB’s predecessor, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was published in the late 90s. I believe it is still in use. It was a guidance document ostensibly for all dioceses and seminaries to provide basic guidelines and philosophical underpinnings for the formation of priests. It’s called Program of Priestly Formation. While the version I browsed through was from 1999, a 2006 edition is still in use, and the changes between the two are not very significant.
I thought it might be interesting to see what the USCCB had to say regarding what are the most important elements in the formation of priests. I was especially interested in the first section, on the “Foundations of Priestly Formation.”
I wish……I really wish……..I could say that I was blown away by the depth of Catholic sentiment and the communication of a strong understanding of just what Catholic priests do as their highest calling. But it wasn’t really there. There was a lot verbiage on the difference between priests and laity (opposing, I suppose, the strong trend in many seminaries to mute this distinction between the two, and pretend that St. Peter’s mention of a “universal priesthood” made the need for consecrated priests passe’), there was discussion of the need for priests to serve as “teacher” and “leader” of the people of God, there was a lot of focus on administrative duties, etc. But there was one huge thing missing, the thing that makes the Catholic Faith and the Catholic priesthood so utterly vital and necessary.
What was missing was any talk of sacrifice, or the reality of the priest serving as alter Christus during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And yet, this is the very Source and Summit not only of our Faith, through the miracle of Consecration that occurs at every Mass, but also what gives the priesthood its essence and power. And yet it was not mentioned at all in the first chapter, nor could I find any references to it throughout the entire document. I did not read every single word, so there could have been brief mention of this truly amazing, supernatural gift that all priests possess and offer on a continual basis, but I did not find discussion at any substantive length on this vital subject.
That is a most grave omission. I would say it is so grave as to make this formation document gravely deficient, even disordered, possibly deranged. I certainly pray that this subject of the transcendent role priests play in re-presenting the Most Holy Sacrifice of Calvary receives far more attention in seminaries than it did in this document. It was pretty disconcerting to see that this guidance document did not mention the subject at all when describing the role of the priest! I fear that is very revealing, and a potential problem point – among many others – in the formation that most seminarians receive.
Thus it was interesting to me, and quite possibly providential, that I found the video below bandying about traditional sites in the past 24 hours or so. It has already been deconstructed pretty well by others, but I’ll add a little bit below. Certainly, I did not find anything so blatantly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the Church in the USCCB book. But I think the critical missing elements point to the fact that far too many disgraceful priests like the one below either have a voice in the process of seminary formation, or they have to be at least somehow placated by leaving out the “offensive” reference to Christ, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and all the rest. There is a great deal of evidence that priests like the one below have had a disastrous influence on seminary formation, and the process of approving candidates for ordination, over the past several decades. All in all, the priesthood has been horribly disfigured and weakened as a result:
I want to talk about his opening erroneous claim, that the Gospels were written way, way, waaaaaay after Christ’s Ascension. First of all, St. Matthew’s Gospel was first, period. Msgr. claims that the most recent “scholarship” places the dates for the writings of the Gospels later and later and later. That is, first of all, not true. There is a growing body of belief, even among secular academics, in the “early origin” of the Gospels, closer to the time of Christ and more in line with Catholic Tradition. The “late origin” theory reached its peak about 30 years ago (so did the theory that St.Paul did not write the Letter to the Hebrews).
But even among those that still cling to the “late origin” theory, on what do they base their claims? The number one underlying assumption of these modernist “scholars” is that miracles are impossible and thus must have a “rational” explanation. Thus, Christ prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem means that Gospel had to be written after the actual event, or AD 70. Another foundational error of modernist scholarship is the widely accepted “form” theory of Bultmann, who claimed that writing styles and other factors indicate when a given document was written. But this theory has been exploded by such examples as, for instance, “proving” that Tennyson never wrote “Idylls of the King” (of course he did, it is the “form” theory that is wrong, it is so nebulous that it can be used to “prove” anything).
More substantially than any of the above, however, is that it does not really matter. Those who go nuts over precise dates of Scripture miss the fact that the Catholic Faith existed prior to any of the Gospels being written, and for hundreds of years before the Canon of Sacred Scripture was ever determined (by the Church). We have the infallible knowledge that the Holy Ghost preserved Dogma intact from the Apostles on, in spite of the effects of time and the assaults of too many errors and outright heresies to count. This can be confirmed in many, many instances by reading what the early Church Fathers themselves believed, which, surprise!, happens to correspond to the Doctrine of the Faith. The Bible is wonderful, it is vital, but the Church, contrary to the sects, is more than just the Bible.
As I said, most of the rest has already been taken apart handsomely but I wanted to address the typical modernist droning about the dating of the Bible because it has only one purpose – to undermine the orthodox Faith, which is a terrible, terrible sin against charity. I should also note that this priest comes from the Diocese of Erie, long under the administration of the arch-modernist Bishop Donald Trautman, who is so extreme (thank goodness now retired) that he violently opposed even the very mild improvements to the English translation of the Novus Ordo released in 2011. So it is little surprise this guy is not only a priest “in good standing,” but was even made a Monsignor.
It is terrible to contemplate the damage to souls such men have wrought. One must ask what possible reason could have kept them in a Church they disbelieve and even seem to hate so much, unless it was to try to hurt Her from within.
To say this man needs prayers would be a great understatement. He needs a massive moral miracle, poor lost soul.
Hey, monsignor, every time you look in the mirror, you see the reason why the traditional movement is experiencing explosive growth.
Two good sermons on the martial arts July 25, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, sadness, scandals, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
I am just about out of time for the day, but hope you will enjoy the sermons below, both related to the martial arts, or Christianity’s more militant side. The first is a good history of the Battle of Vienna of 1683, that awesome battle in which King Jan Sobieski and his winged hussars stopped islam’s final attempt (until now) to advance into the heart of Europe. This priest is nothing if not a great story teller (but also very much more)!
The second is not historical, but examines aspects of serving in the military today. Father starts off with a description of the life the martyr Blessed Franz Jagerstatter, who refused to fight for the immoral Nazi regime. Sadly, our own country has veered so far into immorality, and the military in particular has been used as a vehicle to advance that immorality, that the proud tradition of military service in the United States is now more morally questionable than ever. “Wars are punishments for the sins of the worlds.” Father considers just and unjust wars, and the distinction between fighting in them. Many of the wars the US has fought over the past few decades, with our very troubling defense policy, are highly suspect (if not outright damnable) from a just war standpoint. Thus, volunteering to serve in the US military is increasingly problematic.
This video may be controversial, I don’t know, but I think the points raised deserve the most serious examination:
You might bear in mind this priest is most well-suited by personal experience to speak on this topic. I shall leave it at that.
“Solution” to immigration “crisis:” Obama directs agencies to go to Central America, bring immigrants here July 25, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
This to me is essentially the smoking gun that the Obama Administration has been behind this false crisis all along. Once again, before anyone hyperventilates, I say this crisis is false because the sudden mass waves of immigration are not a natural phenomenon, but are being created by some artificial pressure – either the promise of amnesty, a covert PR campaign, what have you.
Obama, I think, planned to tilt the electorate decisively in his party’s favor by encouraging (or forcing, if you will), mass waves of immigration. Or at least, helping to promote a long term electoral advantage. He also loves a crisis, especially ones he creates. That frees him to take dramatic, often unconstitutional steps to act in response to the “crisis.”
But the current situation hasn’t been entirely favorable to Obama, as there has been a great deal of negative PR associated with the dangers many immigrants, especially the minors, encounter in trying to get through Mexico to the United States. There have been lurid stories of mass sex abuse, people murdered, children dying in the desert, etc. Faced with a bit of a problem, how to deal with this negative PR while still pursuing his goal, Obama has arrived at a solution: why not just send federal agents to these countries, declare the emigre’s “refugees,” and bring them here on nice, safe, taxpayer-funded US transport! Why, it’s a socialist’s dream come true:
A foolproof plan to ease pressure on the border that’s currently being considered by the White House. Why force kids to make a dangerous trip through Mexico only to end up as illegal immigrants in the United States when we could go to them, grant them legal status, and send them north to America ourselves? It’s so crazy it just. might. work.
Minor footnote: Federal law doesn’t allow refugee status to be granted for fear of street gangs, only for fear of racial/religious/political persecution, but oh well. Legal details never stopped Obama before…..
……..The next step, logically, should be to expand this policy to places like Iraq and Syria where there really are lots of refugees as that term is traditionally understood, but since Iraqis and Syrians lack the sort of massive political constituency in the U.S. that Latino voters represent for Central Americans, I assume they’ll be SOL. Or do I assume too much? The Honduras proposal is really the logical endgame of hard-left support for amnesty: If you want to start absorbing foreign populations, it’s silly and even mean to force them to make difficult journeys north and then play hide and seek with the Border Patrol to earn their prize. Why not go to where they are and start handing out visas and bus tickets? If Obama tries this idea, the pressure on him to expand the number of visas granted annually from 1,750 to many times that number will be instant and intense, precisely because this is a game of mass population absorption, not token gestures to a handful of the local citizens. In fact, this may even be the beginning of a new Orwellian transformation in the terminology used for this subject. First it was “aliens,” then it became “illegal immigrants,” then it became “undocumented immigrants” (or “undocumented Americans” for true Newspeak devotees), and maybe now we’ll see a concerted movement to dub all illegals “refugees,” even if they don’t qualify by law. It’s a short progressive leap from handing out asylum to people fleeing general street violence to fleeing “economic violence” or whatever. Why not them too? Why not everyone?
Indeed, and that has been the double standard (and a rather self-serving one at that) I have noted in the USCCB’s position regarding mass illegal Hispanic immigration. Why isn’t the USCCB advocating to bring all the truly abused, truly suffering Catholic refugees to the US from Iraq and Syria? Why are they only focused on Hispanic immigration? And what of all the non-Catholics around the world suffering under far worse conditions than those prevalent in Central America right now? Should they not, by the same logic, be receiving the bishop’s unlimited, unquestioning support?
There are two factors at play: Hispanic immigration meets the bishop’s needs for both many new Catholics to replace the hundreds of thousands who fall away from the Church every year (including many recent immigrants themselves), and it also suits the political predispositions of most bishops. “The democrat party at prayer,” and all that. This is a win-win as far as they’re concerned, but Arab Catholics from the Mideast, or African animists for that matter, not as much. While all immigrants tend to vote democrat for at least the first generation or two, Hispanics are by far the most reliable in doing so. Those from other parts of the world tend to split a little more evenly. So why take a risk?
At least, that’s the only reason I can think of for the inconsistency in the USCCB’s position. Or maybe they just haven’t thought that hard about it.
You remember the raging feminist professor who attacked pro-life students from Thomas Aquinas College at UC-Santa Barbara a few months ago? She pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charges. So, yay for justice? Money says she gets a slap on the wrist:
The pro-abortion feminist studies professor at University of California Santa Barbara who attacked a young pro-life activist, stole and destroyed her sign, and encouraged a group of students to violence, inciting an angry mob, has plead no contest to criminal charges.
The incident, which took place on March 4, saw two pro-life students Thrin and Joan Short, lead the peaceful pro-life outreach event with 11 friends, most of whom were students from Thomas Aquinas College.
They used signs displaying images of abortion victims to begin conversations with students before a confrontation by Professor of Feminist Studies, Mireille Miller-Young turned violent. The angry professor interrupted the students’ calm interaction with the activists by grabbing a pro-life sign out of the hands of one of them, carrying the sign off through the campus flanked by her students, and then assaulting Thrin Short while trying to hide from police, who were on their way, the group said.
Police officers later found the remains of the sign, which had been destroyed. UC Santa Barbara police are completing their report to be submitted for prosecution.
Now, Miller-Young has entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest) to the criminal charges against her, which include grand theft, vandalism, and battery. The plea means that she will be convicted on the three misdemeanor charges. A sentencing hearing has been set for late August, 2014.
This being California, and a really radically left wing college campus (one of the most thoroughly leftist in the country), and she being a radical feminist, I bet the total penalty comes down to 10 hours community service and a fine of less than $100.
Duties at college will count for community service, so the change in her life will be minimal.
The university has been very defensive and has imposed no known sanction against the professor (of a made up subject). University officials have, for the most part, blamed the pro-lifers for the incident.
Peace and love, after all. Until you get in our f—in’ way…….
Texas Governor Rick Perry gave an interview last night in which he outlined some truly calamitous results from absolutely unconstrained illegal immigration over the southern border of the United States. Perry claimed some 3000 murders and 8000 sexual assaults were directly attributable to illegal immigrants – and just since 2008! He also said 203,000 immigrants over that period had been jailed for one crime or another:
This is an absolute catastrophe on so many levels. Catastrophic for the victims, for the moral integrity of the state and nation, and even catastrophic for the perpetrators, who perhaps would not have found themselves in the circumstances to commit such crimes had they remain at home. I don’t know how these figures were arrived at, or how accurate they are (or what they leave out – like how many people have been maimed for life due to the drunken driving that is epidemic among many Hispanic immigrants), but they point to just one “small” problem area with unconstrained immigration.
A local priest related a tale during a sermon some time back. It seemed a young Mexican man had wanted to come to the US. He had even prayed to the Blessed Virgin to help him come here. He tried this for months, but still he was unable to immigrate. Then he tried praying to the demon “santa muerte,” and, what do you know, he made it to the US! But then everything went horribly wrong. He fell into gangs and drugs, committed many terrible crimes, and was sentenced to life in prison – a life ruined and a huge burden on this nation’s taxpayers. He confessed to the priest that he did not know why things had gone so wrong. The priest told him it was not God’s Will that he come to the US, that the Blessed Virgin had been protecting him by keeping him in Mexico, and that the demon lured him here and to ultimate destruction.
How many similar tales are there?!? Perhaps not involving santa muerte, but who knows, it’s very popular in Mexico and Central America.
There is a good post here discussing a proper, non-ideological and unbiased (that is, not self-serving) Catholic approach to immigration, as outlined by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Yes, there is a Christian duty to care for the less fortunate in our midst and even welcome strangers in certain regards, but a nation has a primary duty to safeguard its own citizens, promote the greater good, preserve morals, and prevent fractious spirits or those who refuse to assimilate the nation’s values into its midst. There is also a reasonable limit – a nation does not have to permit itself to be overrun by huge numbers of immigrants in a short period of time, because doing so would pose a threat to the nation’s unity and the security and well-being of the existing citizenry. Reasonable laws can be set, and no, not everyone has a “right” to come to this nation or any other.
All these things are eminently logical and clearly discernible from the natural law and human reason. This ain’t rocket science. And yet such reasonable and sensical policies seem utterly missing from the current debate, and, it must sadly be said, from the leadership (ahem) we’ve seen from our bishops on this matter. Self-serving arguments are rarely convincing, but in this case it is sad to see self-interest cause reason and even what could be considered by many the greatest good, of all involved (citizen and non-citizen alike), to be cast aside. It is also most dismaying to see the leadership of the Church in this country using the manipulative language and blatant emotionalism of the Left in this debate. All of this is very far from the classical or traditional Catholic approach.
Build a fence.
Build a minefield. Keep heavy patrols. Use airborne sensors. Whatever it takes. Israel has managed to cut illegal crossings along its own long border by 99% through fences and patrols. There is no reason this nation cannot do the same. Then we can talk about what to do with those here. Then we can talk about revising the broken immigration system. Then we can set reasonable limits and argue about them like mad, because reasonable people can disagree on such things. But the present disastrous and immoral situation must end, before any other step can be taken.
And there is nothing injurious to Faith and Morals in saying so, in spite of all the rhetoric you hear to the contrary.
1914: The end of Western Civilization July 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, history, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
Rorate has linked to a very interesting video from CNS (I’m not sure what has happened, CNS now trots out some very good, even very tradition-friendly material, while CNA has suddenly swung hard left – ultra-ultramontanism?) regarding the effect WWI had on Europe. The claim made by the video by several historians is that WWI ended Western Civilization, and that we have been living in a sort of hedonistic, strange twilight denouement ever since. It’s not a claim I disagree with much.
This got me thinking though…..when did the “beginning of the end occur?” 1789? 1776? Or perhaps, was it 1517? Aye……..you could make a pretty powerful argument that what occurred starting in 1914 was a very predictable result of what occurred in 1517. For protestantism fed rationalism, which fed hostility to religion, and then on to the endarkenment, radical new forms of government sequestering Christianity to an increasingly secondary status, and on and on through the slow decay of decades until finally, inexorably, Europe arrived at 1914. It is a certainty Europe has never recovered from the disasters of the First World War, and probably never will – at least not in its present construction. Europe is one of many entities in the world that appears to desire final death and dissolution (witness the catastrophically low birth rates), to be replaced by something else, and some indeterminate point in the future.
Enough harangues from me, the video, which perhaps m any of you have already seen:
Several points that cross my mind:
- I think Rorate is right that the most significant remaining element of 2500 year old Western Civilization is the TLM, and with the TLM, complete re-birth is possible. There are some other elements remaining, as well, but primarily only observed by a limited few, often regarded as cranks or dismissed as hopelessly out of date. It is interesting to consider whether the death wish towards the TLM that overtook many very influential mid-century Church leaders was part of this general rejection of all things European, Western, traditional, etc. Think also on the cult of PC and the ludicrously exaggerated consideration expressed by Westerners towards “exotic” others – primitive jungle tribes have as valuable a “culture” as the West, or islam as a religion of “peace” equal to the Church, etc.
- It would not necessarily be the greatest argument, but one could argue that it was the Central Powers in WWI who were the main defenders of traditional European culture, rather than the Entente. Austria-Hungary was the most visibly Catholic government in Europe in 1914. All the Central Powers were monarchies. The war, in the minds of the Entente, came down to a struggle between stuffy, hidebound, reactionary monarchies and the new, liberal, “enlightened” (there’s that term, a coup of PR by the philosophes) democracies. The Central Powers of course saw the opposite – they saw themselves as the defenders of traditional European government, societal order, etc., and France and Britain as dangerous, radical nations determined to destroy European civilization. As the war dragged on, Kaiser Wilhelm II would fantasize about having all the prime ministers and other leaders of the Entente powers come and bend the knee before His Imperial Majesty, to prove the ultimate superiority of monarchism and traditional European values. Now, this argument has several fallacies – there was probably no more traditional or authoritarian country in Europe in 1914 than Russia, and she was an Entente power, and there were ardent Catholics fighting for every country involved – but it’s interesting to consider. From the standpoint of lovers of the Church and Western Civilization, there were no real “good guys” in WWI. Everyone lost.
- A final consideration is the fact that there is always something worse that can happen, and leftists/progressives/liberals have a knack for bringing that worse thing about. WWI was a “triumph for democracy” in the victorious nations (it had to be something great, instead of what it was, the ultimate futile and pointless European war), but that “triumph” unleashed the hell of WWII. The Entente Powers really did want to crush profound aspects of European culture and reshape the world according to their own liberal image. That was basically the main argument for the US entering the war – to “make the world safe for democracy.” So all the monarchies of the Central Powers were deliberately crushed, and the same rhetoric and ideals fueled the Russian Revolution. But the governments that rose from the ashes of WWI in Central Europe were either pathetically weak or even more monstrous constructs. Today, progressives seem determined to see Christianity reduced to irrelevance, but what will come in Christianity’s train? Something far worse, we can be assured.
But that makes no difference to us. We shall always remain, as we know that Jesus Christ is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. He did not promise us worldly victory or power. He just promised that if we take up our cross and follow Him, we will have eternal life.
And that, is the point of it all.