Yikes? I know Fr. Z and others are trying to caution, and rightly so,
that this is an unconfirmed story (parts are confirmed, see below), that even if true, this is a private conversation and not a doctrinal statement, and that we don’t know all the details. All Mostly true, but nonetheless, this story fits a pattern of established behavior and also seems to align with public sentiments expressed by Francis elsewhere, so that discounting it as totally implausible seems a bit rash:
Pope Francis called an Argentine woman married to a divorced man and reportedly told her that she could receive the sacrament of Communion, according to the woman’s husband, in an apparent contradiction of Catholic law. [It's not just Catholic Dogma, it's rather straight from Christ Himself]
Julio Sabetta, from San Lorenzo in the Pope’s home country, said his wife, Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona, spoke with Francis on Monday.
Jacqueline Sabetta Lisbona wrote to the pontiff in September to ask for clarification on the Communion issue, according to her husband, who said his divorced status had prevented her from receiving the sacrament. [Yes, because since he is still married to his first spouse, she is committing adultery with a married man. Plus, this couple was only ever civilly married]
“She spoke with the Pope, and he said she was absolved of all sins and she could go and get the Holy Communion because she was not doing anything wrong,” Sabetta told Channel 3 Rosario, a CNN affiliate. [Dear Lord, I hope not. What, Confession over the phone now? Was Pope Francis wearing a stole for the call? This part seems unlikely. But keep reading, there is more.]
A Vatican spokesman confirmed the telephone call but would not comment on the conversation’s content.
“It’s between the Pope and the woman,” said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant for the Vatican press office.
Rosica said that any comments made by the Pope should not be construed as a change in church doctrine. “The magisterium of the church is not defined by personal phone calls.” [This from the same man that lauds a manifest heretic in disgraced, laicized Gregory Baum. We're making progress? None of this is a denial of the tenor or crux of the call. Rosica may not personally know, or he could, and is simply trying to defuse the matter. But none of the above is even a slight denial, in fact, it leads one to surmise that the conversation did take place and that the general gist of it is not being wildly misconstrued.]
Pope Francis and other top Vatican leaders have said the issue will be discussed at a gathering of bishops from around the world in October. The Pope was not pre-empting that debate, according to Rosica.
“To draw any conclusions about this particular situation, that the Pope may be setting an agenda, is incorrect,” he said. “The Pope is first and foremost an esteemed pastor, and dealing with a human situation is always complex.” [Yes yes, and that's the selling point of the whole Kasperite movement, isn't it? That these cases are just too darned complex to be governed by some statement from the Christ or 2000 years of Church practice?]
The most detailed coverage I’ve found is here.
Wow. More than wow………this is enough to make one catatonic and/or apoplectic. Or both at the same time.
A provocative thought from Bones:
Clearly, whatever the truth of the matter, someone is doing this undermining of the Magisterium and the Papacy on purpose. The question remains whether that person is one of the Pope’s enemies, or one of his friends, or the Pope himself.
Maybe. There are some odd bits to this report. The pretended Confession, already noted. And the Argentine divorced and remarried man reported that the Pope insisted on calling himself Father Bergoglio – almost a schizophrenic gesture, if true, as no pope can ever be a private priest again. But the scary part is the pope has plainly shown he has at least some sympathy for Cardinal Kasper’s novel approach on bigamists receiving the Blessed Sacrament, and we know he loves phone calls, so the key claim in this report is not like some bolt out of the blue. There is some possible corroboration in other recent events/statements.
I know some folks are just not going to accept this as remotely valid. Others are going to be certain it is. My advice for both is to pray like mad and gird your loins. If this report is true, which may be a big if, but if, it redounds on us all the more to pray for this pope and the entire Church and world. I have made this upcoming Synod on Marriage and the Family a very big part of my intentions for the Rosary and other prayers, I have been offering a perpetual Novena for the Pope and his sanctification, but I will redouble my efforts in both regards.
I had a funny in here regarding Michael Voris, but I took it out. I was just trying to laugh amidst our trials.
Almost 40% of women who seek abortions are victims of abuse April 23, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
1 comment so far
That data according to a post at Jill Stanek’s site. That post also contains data from the UK that says over 1/3 of women there who seek abortions have suffered physical violence from their partner, while Canadian data quoted shows that women who seek abortions are 3 to 4 times more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse than those who do not.
I am bringing this up, not just because it is pertinent information for all pro-lifers and especially sidewalk counselors to keep in their back pocket, but because of a woman my wife and others attempted to counsel outside the abortion mill this past Holy Thursday.
She was a young girl, kind of plain. She was the kind of girl you could tell she didn’t think much of herself. In fact, it was difficult to discern what this girl thought of anything, save for what her boyfriend told her to do.
She did not want to be there. She did not want an abortion. She was very embarrassed. When my wife would try to talk to her, she would repeat, like a mantra……”my boyfriend, my boyfriend, my boyfriend…..” He wanted the abortion. He put her up to this, with promises that everything would be “normal” and good again after she got this abortion. There were some very gentle efforts made to make this girl understand that abortion almost always ends a relationship like this, but she wasn’t hearing that, or anything else. So she’ll be emotionally scarred, her relationship (such as it is) will end, and she’ll have a dead baby to show for it. And her self-esteem will take another huge hit.
How many girls this guy has on a string like this, who knows? We didn’t really get to interact with him, though we saw him, briefly.
Whether he beats her, or ever has, who knows? I don’t think there were any visible signs. A woman doesn’t have to be a punching bag to be utterly dominated by a man. It seems like such should be rare today, but it isn’t. Sometimes those guys are obviously belligerent, even in public. Sometimes they’re not. It’s really hard to tell.
I think that was part of the reason I felt such powerful demonic oppression outside the mill this last week. For some reason, there were more boyfriends/significant others escorting their women to the mills this time, and they were all, to a man (save for one) just as hostile as all get out. I got the strong impression a couple of times the guys were there to make sure the job got done. I overheard one man complain something about the girl “flaking out” to his buddy (abortion as the new male bonding experience), and that he was there to make sure she went through with it this time.
Regardless of whether there is actual physical violence, that a lot of these women are coerced is a known fact. Since Routh St. is now so busy, women are having to park a couple blocks away to walk in, so you as a counselor get to see them up close and personal for way more time than usual. Such strange faces, brazen mixed with sullen with great sadness and a shade of panic thrown in.
Baaah, it’s all so sordid and evil. I’m glad my mom got to see it all, that was her first time at a mill. She said she’s going to try to move the pro-life ball forward at her Anglican church as a result of her experience. I hope so. That’s going to be a delicate task, there are almost certainly some pretty strong pro-aborts at her church.
Why are the Orthodox so hard to convert? April 23, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism.
add a comment
Alright, I’m just ripping stuff off from the CSsR’s like crazy (this from their Youtube channel), but here’s a video that’s been around for a while, but I think it still makes an excellent point:
Uff da……..pseudo women deacons! My stomach turned when I saw that.
- No, this is not a fair comparison. It’s comparing the highest of high Masses in the Orthodox Rite to one of the lowest of low Novus Ordos you can find. A better comparison would be to what goes on at St. Peter’s, where the differences would not be so enormous.
- Not all Orthodox Masses are so glorious. Modernism and habits similar to low-church trends in the Church have crept into many Orthodox Masses.
- Even though the Orthodox Rite is often glorious and very moving, attendance rates in most countries – including the US – are as low as the worst Catholic countries like France and The Netherlands
- Still, having such glorious Masses anywhere, at anytime, can cover a multitude of sins. Perhaps the vast liturgical divide between top-end or even average Orthodox practice and average Catholic practice plays a role in the difficulty in converting Orthodox
- a Solemn High Mass according to the 1962 Missal is more than an equivalent to its Orthodox counterpart, if more austere in certain respects:
A commenter in a previous post noted that a priest at a local parish, well known for being one of the more orthodox in the Diocese, stated in the Vigil Mass this Easter that Judaism is essentially equivalent to Christianity.
Such indifferentism is impossible to reconcile with numerous statements made by Our Blessed Lord Himself, who made plain that acceptance of Himself as Messiah was utterly foundational for salvation. Numerous passages from Scripture support this belief, which has been elementary to the understanding and practice of Christendom since the first Pentecost:
He came into His own, and His own received Him not (Jn I:11)
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Jn III:5)
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. (Jn III:16-20)
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. (Jn XIV:6-10)
They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also. (Jn VIII:19)
Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. (Jn VIII:42-45)
Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [This is one of the most dramatic passages in the entire Bible. I absolutely love this discourse, it is so brazen in its truthfulness and in its shredding of the conceits of the Judaizers of that time] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (Jn VIII:56-59)
They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. (Jn VI:28-29). [The Jews then demand of Jesus a sign, that they may believe in him. This was the very same group that the day before witnessed the miracle of loaves and fishes! And now they ask for another sign!]
And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. (Jn VI:40)
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. (Jn VI:51-55) [This is a Dogma Jews found especially repellent, as they viewed Jesus as calling them to cannibalism. Jews of today still find this doctrine abhorrent. And yet, they are "equal?"]
I hope I’ve made my point. And this is just the Gospel of St. John. Basically, you have to throw out almost the entirety of this Gospel to pretend that Judaism and Christianity are somehow equivalent, or, that Jews have “their own path to salvation.” Maybe, if you are talking about the conversion of the Jews that will happen at the end of time, that may be true, but for Jews who have lived in history and for those who live today, many of which will die in their sins (Jn VIII: 21).
———–Begin more quotes————
Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it.(Acts II:22-24)
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. (Acts II:36-39) [But most Jews rejected the call, and almost all do today]
You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; (Acts VII:51-57a)
But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (Gal II:16)
Again, I have really only barely scratched the surface, but this post has already gotten very long.
It is simply not possible to reconcile the rife indifferentism towards Judaism in the Church today with either Sacred Scripture or Tradition. I was going to post this week about the controversy, now 10 years old, regarding the great The Passion of the Christ movie. At that time, many Jews just absolutely castigated the movie for allegedly painting them in a bad light, or stirring up the boogeyman of “antisemitism.” With respect to the Jews, all the movie does is quote Scripture. They have no problem with Mel Gibson, they have a problem with Jesus Christ.
But all these Jewish groups appealed to Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document on relations with the Jews, to buttress their arguments. That’s less an effective argument against Scripture than it is against Nostra Aetate. Interestingly, these Jewish groups claim that Nostra Aetate/Vatican II changed Church Doctrine. Thank God, that is impossible, but it does point to yet another major area where Vatican II has muddied the waters to a terrific degree, to where even Cardinals now debate what the Church “believes” on subjects that have been clear Dogmas for 2000 years. Nostra Aetate is one of the most problematic documents in Vatican II.
Anyway, this post is waaay too long, I may come back to this another day.
Some notes on proper decorum at Mass April 22, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Basics, catachesis, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, priests, reading, sadness, scandals.
I found some good points on proper behavior at Mass in von Cochem’s Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. While I tend to imagine many of these points will be remedial for many of my readers, there are always new folks coming along and I do get a pretty good amount of random traffic, so I think this effort will not be wasted. This comes from pp. 349-351:
…..how much are they to be blamed who regard the church with no more respect and reverence then their own house [if that much! And certainly, far, far less than they might offer in a movie theater!] , never thinking apparently that it is the house of God, the dwelling place of the Son of the Most High. Some persons are so shameless as to stare about them, watch all who come in or go out, and even talk or laugh, [It is stunning when this occurs. At one local parish, at one time, I could not even hear the words of consecration, despite the PA system, because the people in the row in front of me were having an extended conversation about their lunch plans] while the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, before which the angels fall prostrate upon their faces, is being offered.
To these Christ might well address the words He spoke to those who bought and sold in the temple: “My house is the house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves” (Lk XIX:46). Commenting on this passage, Cornelius a Lapide says, “The Christian Church is in very truth the house of God, for Christ dwells therein in the Adorable Sacrament of the Altar. If He drove the Jews with scourges out of the temple, how much the more do Christians deserve a like treatment who profane His holy house with idle chatter, inquisitive glances, and rude starring at strangers.”
It is more wrong to speak in church than to let one’s eyes wander; besides, not only is it a greater offense against God, but it gives scandal and disturbs others at their prayers. In order to guard against this fault let us remember Our Lord’s words “I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment” (Mt XII:36). IF we shall have to give an account of every idle word that we speak, how severely will the just Judge punish the idle words spoken at Mass-time, whereby we have shown such want of respect for His service.
In order to show the full amount of reverence due to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass it is well to remain on one’s knees all the time…..from the consecration until after the Communion of the priest. For if St. Paul says: “That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phill II:10). how much more ought we to bow the knee when the Divine savior is present in person upon the altar, and the work of our redemption is renewed………
Again, the above is probably only a confirmation of well established practice for most of the regulars around here, but sometimes it doesn’t hurt to hear reminders.
The main point is, behave as one should before the King of the Universe and the Savior of our souls! Don’t be flippant! And even after Mass, don’t immediately talk and laugh and carry-0n, have respect not only for the Sacrifice just concluded but also for souls who may remain praying. This is not much of a problem in traddy parishes, but in others, it is almost a universal problem. People behave with much less decorum than they would at a movie theater or a nice restaurant.
Cardinal Kasper continues to push his destructive course April 21, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
There was another piece on Cardinal Kasper’s initiative to permit those persisting in a manifest state of bigamy to receive the Blessed Sacrament last week. As I’ve stated in numerous posts, the reason for German prelates pushing this very sad and destructive effort is one of naked self-interest – divorce rates are high in Germany, especially among Catholics, and the bishops hope that if they permit all those divorced people to receive, more will check the “church tax” box on their tax returns and the Church will get more state funding.
But the entire argument has been founded on errors so great it is difficult not to call the outright falsehoods. I’ve already written about the error that is being used to support this move to permit those persisting in a state of bigamy to receive the Blessed Sacrament- that somehow, the early Church permitted this, too. That is simply false.
But as Eponymous Flower related last week, Cardinal Kasper is pushing another falsehood, in the form of a false choice. Kasper is trying to claim there is some moral conundrum facing the Church, that by denying, at least tacitly, the Blessed Sacrament to those who persist in a state of public sin, the Church is somehow being uncharitable or unmerciful:
“The decisive statement in this presentation is: ‘Penance and the Sacrament of Penance are the way to connect both aspects. Commitment to the word of the Lord, and the never-ending mercy of God’ (p. 65) It turns to the question which has not been answered by the critics: Are you allowed to refuse absolution in such a situation in which the penitent has repented and testified honestly and in good will with their best efforts to live by faith? Is it not possible with God that someone could fall into a hole from which there is no way out? If that is impossible with God, then why not in the Church …? “
The part in bold is the attempted conundrum. Kasper is claiming that these people who have divorced and remarried, without ever obtaining an annulment, are somehow being denied “mercy” if they are not permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament. The insidious claim – which reveals the depths to which Kasper will stoop – that God would be opposed to this denial, or that God would “somehow find a way out” is simply a false dichotomy.
The fundamental error is twin: that those who have divorced and remarried are somehow being “punished,” and that simply stating that one is sorry for their state of bigamy is enough to permit them to receive the Blessed Sacrament. There is actually a third error, which claims that the Church simply doesn’t “know” how to address this situation. All are demonstrably false.
Taking the last first, the Church has counselled people who are bigamists (for whatever reason) for centuries on how to demonstrate atonement for this sin - terminate the occasion of sin! That is to say, end the romantic, physical relationship that is the cause of the sin, in this case, adultery. If there is no annulment for the first marriage, that marriage is still valid and operative in the eyes of God. Whatever relationship takes place outside that first marriage is adultery. Christ Himself stated this very clearly. But Kasper apparently wants to take us back to the days of Moses, when the wickedness of men was so great divorce and remarriage had to be permitted. That is a sad commentary on the state of the Church, and even more so on Her shepherds.
There is a further option: if this relationship has persisted for some time, if children have resulted from it, and if the original spouse (often devastated, often abandoned for little or no cause) has somehow moved on with their life – for truly pastoral reasons such as these, the couple could be permitted to remain together provided they make a solemn vow to live a chaste, celibate life as brother and sister. This would permit the offspring to retain their family life, but can really only be permitted in situations where there is truly great remorse and an advanced spiritual life on the part of the individuals in question. Otherwise, the temptation to relapse into sin would likely be too great.
I do not buy claims that times are somehow different today, and that it is unrealistic to expect people to abandon relationships they have been in for years. The Church defended the sanctity of marriage at great cost for centuries, and somehow people managed to generally abide by Her wisdom during that very long period of time.
The Church has never recognized a simple apology to be sufficient to atone for public sins of this type. There must be some amends in cases such as these, which end the scandal caused by them and assure the faithful (and the souls in question) that the sin is no longer ongoing. Kasper proposes that souls basically be given carte blanche to go into a priest’s office, shed some tears, make a onetime statement of contrition, and then continue doing exactly what they have been doing before! Which is conducting an adulterous relationship. That has never been OK, it has never been permissible for such souls to receive the Blessed Sacrament. It is truly sad we have to even argue this point, with a prince of the Church, no less.
Finally, the bigamists/adulterers are not being punished, per se’. The sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament is being preserved from sacrilege, the faithful from scandal, and the souls of the bigamists preserved from piling egregious sin on sin for receiving the Blessed Sacrament unworthily. Hence, as in the case of the application of Canon 915, the Blessed Sacrament is not being used as a weapon, or politicized, but preserved from disgrace, and the Church is actually extending a great mercy (and medicine, one prays) to the souls in question by preventing them from giving such great offense to God.
I must point out here that the Church’s position on divorce is the only consistent, biblically-based position remaining among all the Christian Churches and sects, and is the only one in accord with Tradition from the earliest Fathers. That the Orthodox and virtually every protestant sect embrace divorce (and often, repeated divorce) is not a testament to their charity or wisdom, but to their falsity, and their separation from the Church Christ founded. They have fallen into error. The Church could not have made this more plain when She permitted one of the most devoutly Catholic countries in the world at that time, England, to be wrested away from Her sanctifying bosom, with great violence and enormous suffering, due to the egregious lusts of one fallen man. That is how much the Church has always valued the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, that it would rather suffer grievous loss than see the dignity of one marriage sulllied.
And yes, I know that fallen men within the Church have sometimes permitted annulments which were/are less than obviously justified, and that such has given great scandal to the faithful. We presently have a situation in the United States where such a scandal persists in truly egregious form today. But the exception only proves the rule. Those cases are departures from the normal, holy practice and belief of the Church.
This Cardinal Kasper is relentlessly pushing an agenda that is very dangerous and poses the threat of wreaking havoc in the Church. I am having a very hard time not comparing him to some of the great arch-heretics of the past. Pray for him! Pray for his conversion! And pray that the Synod stay strong against all the wiles of satan and allurements of the world, preserving constant Catholic Dogma and the plain, merciful wisdom of Christ!
As the video I have ripped off from CMR indicates, the media has long had a very soft spot in its heart for totalitarian population control measures. This interview from 1940s era BBC of Margaret Sanger is particularly egregious. Note the very domestic setting, the easy set up questions, the lack of rebuttal for answers that are nothing but naked assertion, and the final close up camera angle showing her oh-so-earnest demeanor. Notice she even got the interviewer to call her “Mrs. Slee,” which she never accepted in other venues (remaining, always, Margaret Sanger, her maiden name), a further bid at domestication:
Now CMR is making hay over the fact that, at the end, Sanger appears to say that the best baby is one that doesn’t exist. The edit seems a bit rough, so who knows what got cut off, but if that edit is genuine, wow did Sanger foul off a fat softball of a question. Irrespective of the genuineness of that particular response, we can see what kind of thinking a life of sanctimonious self-aggrandizing pleasure seeking can get up to. Sanger is, after all, a woman who:
- freely admitted marrying for money to fund her pet leftist causes
- freely admitted to constantly cheating on her spouses (she had two) and engaging in what could be described as orgies. Mind you, this was in the period 1900-1920, when such things were essentially unheard of.
- freely admitted to believing white people were/are inherently superior to those of other races and advocating for satanic population control measures, up to and including government-forced sterilization, in order to keep the wrong sorts of people (non-white, non-liberal) from being born. But Sanger was hardly alone, the early 20th century “progressive” movement widely embraced both totalitarian government and the murder of whole swaths of people for the “greater good” of mankind. These progressives were the spiritual fathers and grandfathers of today’s American left, and are essentially indistinguishable from Nazis.
- freely admitted to having no faith whatsoever in a transcendent god, and opposed Christianity in general and the Church in particular for encouraging people to adhere to timeless, God-given morality, which she, again, rejected.
- spearheaded the development of the birth control pill, which she knew would catch on like wildfire, and, more importantly, spur demand for her ultimate goal: legalized abortion.
- was, of her own admission, highly conflicted regarding being a mother. Which, I think, is obvious.
In her private, early writings, Sanger reveals a white-hot hatred for traditional female roles and motherhood in particular. This was one sick woman.
But the BBC tries to present her as Mrs. Rational Forwardthinker. So you can see where they were at, even 70+ years ago. We did not arrive at this point of cultural decay by accident. The culture has died because it was murdered, murdered by people who wanted to be free from having to answer to God – or at least, fool themselves into believing such.
Good luck with all that.
Area abortionists sue to get privileges back April 21, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, disconcerting, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
So we spent half the day on Holy Thursday outside the death house called Routh Street Women’s Clinic. Business was booming. I was pretty defeated by the end of our time there, I saw no turnaways and encountered only truly demonic hostility in all my attempts to engage with the moms and dads seeking to have their children killed. There was one bright spot, a young Hispanic couple was wandering around looking for a place to get an sonogram, and they almost walked into Routh Street. Once in, who knows what lies they might have been told to convince them to get an abortion they weren’t even seeking. I got them into White Rose and they were taken care of in a Catholic manner.
The mill was tragically busy. People were parking literally blocks away. That’s what made the refusal to respond to counseling all the more difficult, we had some pretty good opportunities but I am telling you, I have not seen such hardened hearts in a very long time, if ever. Just rough brushoffs or stone-faced passing by. The men in particular were rough, it’s been some time since I’ve been threatened by a very lost father, but it happened to me twice on Thursday. I was told by another counselor that she had several turnaways, for which I give thanks, but I did not see them.
Anyway, the mill was so busy because they are absorbing business from Robinson’s abortuary, which stopped performing abortions when his privileges were pulled by University General Hospital (UGH) – and God bless them for it. Unfortunately, Robinson lawyered up, bringing in, I am told, some high-priced attorneys from the diabolically named Center for Reproductive Rights to do his arguing for him. Whether it was the slick Manhattan attorneys, or the judge’s own personal predilections, Judge Ken Molberg (remember his name when election time comes around) issued an order demanding the hospital reinstate the privileges for two local abortionists, including Robinson:
In a lawsuit filed Thursday, two Texas abortion doctors allege a Dallas-area hospital revoked their admitting privileges shortly after it became the target of anti-abortion protesters. [That's not at all what happened. What happened is that the hospital found out what the two doctors did for a living, and didn't want to be associated with murder]
The plaintiffs, Dr. Lamar Robinson, owner of Abortion Advantage, and Dr. Jasbir Ahluwalia, the medical director of Routh Street Women’s Clinic, allege that University General Hospital in Dallas revoked their admitting privileges four days after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled new abortion regulations requiring doctors to have nearby hospital admitting privileges were constitutional. The lawsuit does not seek monetary relief but asks the court to require immediate reinstatement of their admitting privileges. [Yeah, they'll make enough money off the abortions they perform, they don't need any from the hospital]
Dallas County District Judge Ken Molberg granted the doctors’ request for a temporary reinstatement of admitting privileges and scheduled a hearing on the merits of the case on April 30. [I understand Robinson will start performing abortions again April 28. There is nothing in state law that says hospitals have to provide privileges for any "physician" that petitions for them. This judge way overstepped his bounds, there shouldn't be anything to debate.]
New abortion regulations passed by the Republican-led Texas Legislature last summer require doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where the abortion is performed, among other terms. The rules took effect in November.
Think of how many hospitals there are in Dallas. There are dozens and dozens within 30 miles of Robinson’s mill near Mockingbird and I-35. That extends even over into Fort Worth. And yet, he can only get privileges at a small start-up hospital, and that only because the hospital was new, did not understand the details of his “practice,” and quickly moved to disassociate themselves from him once they did. That says quite a bit.
Speaking of, the “doctor” that is butchering babies at Routh Street while Abhuwalia tries to get his privileges back is 80 years old. Just top-notch care at those places.
Please pray this reprieve for these abortionists is only temporary! We are making great strides, it is getting very much harder for these abortionists to operate, but they are not going away without a fight.
I tell you what Routh Street needs now is a heavy presence of priests. The demonic oppression associated with that place, always palpable, has grown ever heavier as their business has ramped up. Seeing that place ringed with priests performing at least minor exorcisms, praying, sprinkling holy water…..that would run the demons that power that place off for good. It’s worked before……..
More Minneapolis liturgical abuse – this time, with Moloch! April 15, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the enemy, the return.
Amazingly, there is a tabernacle somewhere within what I am sure is called “the worship space.” How you like these apples?:
What is the deal with progressives and puppets!
Do you think that leering bull-like figure above looks disturbing like the demonic god moloch/baal? Do they know what used to happen to babies within baal’s searing arms? Human sacrifice?
Oh wait……how many of these folks are perfectly fine with abortion?
Is that supposed to be the Consecration above? Or is that a re-enactment of the Last Supper? Why are their animals in the upper room? Why are their women? This makes no sense. It’s like they crossed the Nativity with the Last Supper. Maybe someone gets this better than I. I’m also not sure how prevalent jackrabbits and raccoons are in the Holy Land.
Why does everything look so hideous and poorly done?
The group that put on this little exhibition is called “Heart of the Beast” puppet theater. Revealing?
Sheesh……die nervous disorder, die. Another 50 kids (or 15, or however many were there) pretty much lost to the Faith forever, invincibly convinced this, this stupidity, this hassattery, is what Catholicism is.
Before I leave for a much needed break during this holiest of weeks, I would feel negligent if I did not share this excellent article which summarizes the maneuvering ongoing at the highest levels of the Church regarding Cardinal Kasper’s seemingly highly dangerous push to radically redefine Catholic Dogma on marriage, divorce, bigamy, and reception of the Blessed Sacrament, while pretending to leave that same Dogma “in place.” The goal is change the practice while pretending to leave the Dogmas untouched. This is impossible. It pretends to separate belief from practice: in theological terms, orthodoxy (right belief), from orthopraxis (right action).
That this entire push is hinged on a silly proposition (the early Church permitted divorce! Wrong.) that has already been shown to be incredibly, demonstrably false, is all the more disconcerting.
The article was originally published in the German site Katholisches. Some of the translation is rough. The article is also very long, much of which is recapping events of the past 6 months or so. But the portion that discusses the February consistory, whence Cardinal Kasper’s erroneous proposition was first broached, then ridiculed, is very important. I am going to try to clean up some of the translation from Tancred, if he doesn’t mind:
Pope Francis, however, despite substantive silence, the one who has called the Synods of Bishops on the topic of family. With his consent, his new secretary of the Synod of Bishops, the present Cardinal Baldisseri, has directed a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world. Dealing with the questionnaire has made visible the determination progressive pressure groups who want to change the Catholic moral teaching. Even so, it did not lead to rethinking in Rome. The path continues. Instead, Pope Francis commissioned Cardinal Walter Kasper, with a lecture at the cardinal consistory in late February. Neutrality is different.[I think this is saying, this was not a neutral presentation. Kasper's talk was engineered as a showcase for his modernist novelties, without rebuttal] For a proper debate about balance and to signal that, the pope could have appointed two speakers of different perspectives. For the dutiful defense of Catholic teaching on marriage, he would have to employ an orthodox advocate for the Doctrine of the Faith. But nothing of the sort occurred. The Pope decided on Cardinal Kasper, whose unorthodox position on the issue has been known at least since the 90s. A position that was rejected by both Pope Benedict XVI., and previously Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Just as they have now been rejected by today’s Prefect, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Cardinal before the consistory. We may recognize in the papal decision in favoring Kasper, a unilateral advocacy, and in Cardinal Kasper if not the voice of the Pope, so at least a trial balloon, which was allowed to ascend, to test the reactions and resistances. [This is an interpretation. Is it correct? I tend to think it may well be, but it's difficult to say. It was very strange that Cardinal Kasper was given the opportunity to, more or less, evangelize the cardinals on his novelty, without presentation of any opposing view. It was also clear Pope Francis was communicating his strong support for Cardinal Kasper's views]
The partisanship engaged unambiguous underlining in effusive praise for Kasper, which Pope Francis on the morning after his speech to the cardinals formulated his response. The reaction to Kasper’s oratory, in whom there was a cunningly palatable formula, was quite energetic. Against the horse trading suggested by the German theologian (to pretend that everything remains the same, but in reality, everything would change), protest arose more loudly. The most vocal of the Cardinals in the discussion disagreed with Kasper.
With fanatical praise it was obvious the Pope wanted to rush to the rescue of the German Cardinal. The downright ecstatic, but not very believable assertion that the strategy formulated by Kasper – a strategy formulated precisely to get rid of the Church’s teaching on marriage – is at a crucial point “theology on his knees”, makes it hard to deny representing the Pope’s closeness to Kasper’s new course. [Many took that to be an endorsement, especially among the cardinals who were there]
……..I’ll condense a bit, you can read the original at the link above. The article then goes on to note the perplexing fact that the cardinals in attendance had absolute silence imposed on them regarding the discussions at the Synod, but then someone obviously close to Kasper and/or Pope Francis leaked the text. The article posits this was done to use the tactic of poisoning the well, which posits that he who gets his message out first, tends to dominate the debate. Was such intentional? Who knows, but it would be far from unprecedented from some of this crowd, including Kasper, to use procedural tricks they then, suddenly, exempt themselves from, to shape a debate to their own advantage.
However, forestalling this advantage, the Italian daily Il Foglio that was to publish Kasper’s talk, first (and very responsibly, I might add) engaged an “opposition” to provide a contrary viewpoint. Thus, Kasper’s text appeared side by side with the great Roberto de Mattei’s rebuttal. This apparently sent Kasper into a rage – if the article is correct. Picking back up:
Kasper foamed. Even days later, he gave his anger free reign in an interview with Vatican Radio. Apparently, in a modification of the original intent and as a countermeasure to the Foglio strike he now had published even in the Osservatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, the final copy of Kasper’s and the Preface to the speech, now currently under pressure.
The Osservatore Romano could be relied upon to offer strong praise from Pope Francis to Kasper, after numerous cardinals had taken their position against remarried divorcees. This praise opened the privilege to the German cardinal to be printed in L’Osservatore Romano, which would hardly have been possible without such consent of the Pope.
Kasper’s position should therefore be given visibility and authority within the Church. The confidentiality obligation was and is still obvious to all cardinals and their contributions to the discussion in the Consistory, with a single exception: Walter Kasper. Only for him did Pope Francis lift the obligation to secrecy. Why such a privilege when all the “opinions” are taken into account? The Pope hung a muzzle so that all the Cardinals who defended the Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of marriage, and allowed only the dissenting opinion the right to speak. This is a one-sided preference for a certain position and the disability of another equal.
The result was that not only the Osservatore Romano , but also other official Church media, especially the newspapers of some Episcopal Conferences felt obliged to reprint Kasper. In contrast to Il Foglio , however, they lacked any counter position. The only one that was granted the exclusive right to raise his voice in the daily newspaper of the Holy See was Kasper. All the other cardinals and their speeches in the consistory have been kept silent. [Perhaps I'm just too jaded, but I have a hard time not seeing in all this some orchestrated campaign to endorse Kasper's modernist gambit and keep opposing views from print as much as possible.]
. ———-End Quote————
Obviously a lot of inside baseball. But it has all the makings of a very debauched realpolitik power struggle being played out in public, with Church Dogma basically held hostage by a progressive agenda seeking to advance their radical vision for the Church – a vision which after being partially implemented wreaked utter devastation.
The article ends with discussion of the completely discredited 1977 study which pretended to suddenly discover, magically, like!, that the early Church was just fine and dandy with bigamists receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The article points out the very strange coincidence that this unmissed and almost entirely forgotten book from 1977 suddenly – also magically, like! – was republished late last year. Just in time for the consistory and upcoming Synod, just when Kasper was ready for his big push.
The political aspects of this are such that it is truly trying to the Faith, seeing just how much materialist will-to-power is on display. A great exhibition of leftism in action, but within the Church.
I should end with one clear note: what is really being debated here is not so much divorce or remarriage, but whether public sinners can be admitted to the Blessed Sacrament. No one is going to “undo” Christ’s very clear guidance to us: remarriage while your spouse is still alive constitutes bigamy and adultery (yes, we have American annulment factories, but that’s a whole different topic). So what is being debated is whether it’s OK for those who persist in an objective state of mortal sin and in a public manner be allowed to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. You probably should read the whole thing.