Adios July 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, General Catholic, Saints, sanctity, The End.
It is with all my heart, I say the word, “Adios.” To God (A Dios) may you ever belong in this life, serving Him faithfully in the midst of the pains we all have in carrying our crosses, and in the immortal life, blessing Him eternally with all the celestial court. The greater good of our souls is to be with God; and the greatest good, to be with God alone.
He who is with God alone, is never sad, unless for having offended God, and his sadness then consists in a profound but tranquil and peaceful humility and submission, after which he rises again in the Divine Goodness, by a sweet and perfect confidence, without chagrin or vexation.
He who is with God alone seeks only God, and because God is no less in tribulation than in prosperity, he remains in peace in times of adversity.
He who is with God alone thinks often of Him in the midst of the occupations of this life. He who is with God alone would be glad that everyone should know he wishes to serve God, and to be engaged in exercises suitable to keep him united to God.
Live then entirely to God; desire only to please Him, and to please creatures only in Him; and for Him. What greater blessing can I wish you? Thus, then, by this continual wish I make for your soul, I say: Adios.
To God let us belong, without end, without reserve, without measure, as He is ours forever. May we always unite our little crosses with His great one.
To God let us live, and to God without anything more, since out of Him, and without Him, we seek for nothing; no, not even for ourselves, who, indeed, out of Him, and without Him, are only true nothings.
Adios. I desire for you the abundance of Divine Love, which is and will be forever the only good of our hearts, given to us only for Him, who has given His Heart entirely to us.
Let Jesus be our crown! Let Mary be our hope! I am, in the name of the Son and the Mother,
Tantumfrogo Francisco de Sales
Islam doubles in US in Seven Years July 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
1 comment so far
Picked this up from Mahound’s Paradise. The percentage of Americans citing islam as their religion more than doubled in a mere seven years, outpacing any other religion save for militant atheism. Not good, really not very good. BAD:
Some commentary from Mahound:
The survey relied on similar interviews conducted in the two different time periods. Roughly, people were identified as what they said they were or what they want to be identified as, without going into what being a member of X religion actually meant to them, or whether they were “practicing,” etc.
I’m not surprised that the Christian numbers went down. Nor am I surprised that the Muslim numbers went up. But I was very much surprised that the Muslim numbers more than doubled in just seven years.
I was surprised that Mormonism went down. I had always assumed that the exponential growth of that group was unstoppable. [Nah. They have huge turnover. Only so many people can be convinced to believe in unspeakable blasphemy (I’m “god!”) and magic underwear] I was also surprised that Judaism went up.
As you can see, the “Asian” religions – Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism – are now roughly tied in numbers, though Islam has moved ahead, almost certainly to stay. Hinduism went sharply up, though not as much as Islam, while Buddhism held the line………
…….obviously the momentum is with Islam. The proportion of Muslims in the United States more than doubled in seven years. I would assume the absolute numbers (given the increase in total population) came close to tripling in the last ten years.
Well, it’s been deliberate government policy, throughout the West, to import as many
militant jihadists muslims as possible. AND, this mass importation began under Bush ’43, so party has little to do with it. The elites have decided multikulti is a positive good, it gives them their good progressive feelz, and if a few thousand bible-thumpers have to die for those feelz, so be it! It does get a bit inconvenient, however, when the muslims attack the wrong sorts. Bah! No matter, never let a crisis go to waste, so it’s all good in the end.
If trends continue, in about 40-50 years, more Americans will be atheist or belong to a heathen religion than Christian. And that’s ultimately what’s dooming this nation, and the entire West. Western Civilization was built on a Christian (Catholic) basis and will not survive long apart from that basis. There is no political solution for a fundamentally moral/cultural crisis.
Shock! Widely Cited Gun Violence Study Full of Holes…… July 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, error, foolishness, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
……so to speak.
It’s always a very telling sign when a purported scientist – although sociology is not a branch of science known for its rigorous methods – refuses to share his data with other scientists. It’s also very telling when the so-called scientific journal in which he published his highly politicized study admits they don’t really do peer-review, and just sort of trust the good intentions of their authors.
It’s even more telling when the media gets advance notice of the study’s publication, complete with background data sufficient to craft splashy, narrative-driving stories. The global warming scam is impacting all science, rapidly turning it into an agenda-driven, politicized joke. Which perhaps is a good thing, because we’re far bast needing to break the hold the cult of science has on the minds of far too many souls.
So, it turns out a “ground-breaking” international study that purported to show that societies with liberal gun laws had far more gun violence than those with more restrictive laws is highly dubious at best, and almost certainly yet another example of agendized scientific fraud. I know you’re as shocked as I am:
A much-heralded and widely cited study of 171 countries over nearly a half century purports to show more guns mean more mass shootings, but critics say the report uses bad methodology in a way that rigs the results.
The study by Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, was published in the journal Violence and Victims in January and has been cited by media outlets — including The New Yorker, The Washington Postand Time magazine. But the study, formally published earlier this year after a draft was released in academic circles, has raised questions about what critics consider dubious methodology.
“The Lankford ‘study’ is nothing more than junk science disguised as research, and never should have been published in a responsible scholarly journal,” Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck told FoxNews.com.
The study, titled “Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries,” concluded that “The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.”
Academic peers who have sought to examine the findings say Lankford refuses to share the data and details he used to support his findings.
Kleck and others say the obvious hazard in claiming to study 46 years’ worth of shootings in most of the world’s nations is that, while data may be easily found for U.S. shootings, compiling information for developing nations could be all but impossible.
“This would rig results in favor of finding a positive association between gun ownership and mass shootings,” Kleck said.
So get this: the Lankford guy admits neither he, nor any staff he had work on this project, spoke the language of most of the 171 countries supposedly studied. At best, he relied on English-language reports, which, for most countries, would not be available. He is very cagey about how he obtained his supposed data and refuses to share what he has. Those are both huge red flags.
In fact, it appears his data was basically entirely based on NYPD research of mass shootings, which the NYPD itself only covers English-language sites. Could it be that a heaping dose of liberal solipsism – I speak English, therefore, so must everyone else! – could have caused this scientician to make such an obvious error?
Regarding that gold-standard of peer-reviewed journals, Violence and Victims (sounds a bit dodgy from the top, doesn’t it?):
An associate editor of Violence and Victims, which published Lankford’s paper, told FoxNews.com that the journal does not see its role as that of a fact-checker.
“Journal editors generally trust the integrity of authors, and unless reviewers/referrers who are experts in the specific research area call attention to weaknesses in methodology or otherwise challenge findings, the results are not likely to be questioned,” Violence and Victims Associate Editor Edna Erez said.
Editor-in-Chief Roland Maiuro said that Lankford’s paper was approved by anonymous independent researchers. [That’s dubious practice]
“The manuscript was subject to blind review by two established researchers with expertise in the area of gun-related violence, critiqued, and revised according to the recommendations made in these reviews,” Maiuro said.
Kleck said a more rigorous and transparent peer review process was in order.
“No qualified scholar would accept work by a researcher who could not, or would not, even explain exactly how he measured his most important variable [mass shootings],” Kleck said.
Unless, of course, the goal isn’t scholarship, but political point scoring, driving the gun control narrative forward. But who am I to judge the demi-gods of science who dictate to the little people what they should, nay must, believe?
Saint Pelosi: “Those stupid blue collar white male homophobic gun nut God-botherers sure don’t know their own interest!” July 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
Or words to that effect. Not very long ago, the blue collar white demographic was the core of the democrat party. How times change. The transition from center-left to hard-left is complete. Obama has somewhat transformed the nation, but he’s completely transformed the democrat party. There is no room for pro-lifers, conservative rural types (blue dogs), and anyone who visibly adheres to the Christian faith.
And oh, the preening arrogance. These idiot blue collar whites don’t know what’s good for them!
WOODRUFF: I don’t think anyone is closer to the voters in Washington than members of the House of Representatives. You know that place very well. Right now, Donald Trump is doing much better than Hillary Clinton among white men, and particularly white men who have not attended college. How does Hillary Clinton counter that?
PELOSI: With an economic agenda to create jobs, good-paying jobs, increasing paychecks. The economic agenda is what is really — it’s about the economy, you know that statement, it’s not a cliché, it’s a fact. And I think that so many times, white non-college-educated white males have voted Republican, they’ve voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.
That is softening. Some of these people will never be voting Democratic anyway, but I believe that with the turnout we expect to have, we will draw some of them in with our message, and enough other people to win the election.
Obama has presided over the worst US economy since before World War II. That economy has hit blue-collar types the most, and key planks in the demonrat platform -endless immigration, massive deficit spending, pernicious regulation – have caused many blue-collar workers to be mired with stagnant wages for the last decade, if they’ve been lucky enough to keep their jobs at all. Millions are so discouraged of finding a job they no longer bother to look, and so are invisible to the official unemployment statistics, which are so bowdlerized they are laughable.
I’d call the blue collar folks very smart, who are seeking some kind of alternative to the failed status quo – which applies to both parties, unfortunately. Most R’s are just democrat-lite, or democrat agenda with tax cuts for the top income brackets and corporate welfare. There are some truly conservative Republicans, but never enough, it seems, to make a difference.
Notice the materialism inherent in the assumptions above: these idiots still cling to their God, guns, and “hatred of gays,” rather than vote in their economic interest. This is basically a communist line of thought, only the material matters, spiritual/moral concerns are unimportant.
What is waiting in the wings is truly horrifying. A speech Hillary gave last year to some unhinged women’s group, wherein she makes plain that the continuing leftist revolution cannot advance further without destroying religion (meaning Christianity):
Excerpts of that speech above were featured in the Remnant video yesterday, and formed sort of the centerpiece for why Catholics must oppose her by voting for Trump. So you don’t have the agony of listening to Cankles for half an hour, the key bit:
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”
Religious beliefs have to be changed! Quit clinging to your Bibles and guns, you hicks! And why won’t you vote for us?
Look, I fully comprehend folks who feel Hillary must be stopped at any cost. Some are voting for Trump strictly on that basis, others are more enthusiastic or less concerned about his past expressed beliefs. I may well have to go that route myself, since I’ve had a communication from the Constitution Party of Texas and it seems Darrell Castle did not get on the ballot as a listed candidate, and even his making the list of approved write in candidates is in serious doubt.
I do agree with one thing: Hillary is pretty much a demon incarnate.
Remnant Comes out hard for Trump July 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, fun, General Catholic, secularism, Society, Tradition, Virtue, watch.
Riddle me this, Batman: Trump has been a consistent, lifelong liberal, until the last few years or less. He has deviated from liberal orthodoxy on points, but, overall, he’s been very liberal. His campaign rhetoric has been improving, going from mostly conservative a year ago to almost always conservative today. But he has years of quotes that can be pulled identifying acceptance of all manner of liberal orthodoxy.
Romney, Dole, McCain, and others, were despised for being turncoats, RINOs, sellouts, wafflers, whatever, because of their many past departures from truly conservative stands on various matters. I tend to agree very strongly with the derision those past candidates richly earned, which is why I am so strongly leaning towards standing on principle in this election, and voting for the best possible candidate in spite of odds of winning.
So here’s my question. Why does Trump seem to get a total pass on this? Because the elite establishment hates him? That’s a lot more about class aspiration and tribal signaling than policy, though.
Anyway, I know I said I was going to move away from this topic for a while, but the Remnant just put out a video that is a near perfect corollary for yesterday’s post, so here it is. I will say it appears from the comments that Matt and Ferrara were either ignorant of, or ignored, the Constitution Party alternative. I don’t think it would change their conclusions much, but I think it important to bring that up.
As the video goes along, they transition from “Yes it’s morally permissible to vote for Trump” (I’m in total agreeance) to “Dang you really should be voting for him and it’s kind of bad if you don’t.” Early on, it’s made clear that voting for Trump is not and cannot be a moral obligation, due some of his non-Catholic positions, but by the end, I was sorta getting the impression it would be a really bad mistake not to vote for him. With which I’m not in agreement, at least not at this point, anyway. Apparently I’m in a small minority on that.
I was also kind of surprised when they said it was those having a hard time supporting Trump who were causing division between traditional Catholics/people of good will. Hasn’t been my experience, but okayzers.
It’s a very good video with many good insights and I’m sure it will be a gratifying watch for the many Trump supporters who have been patiently putting up with me:
Christian Duty in the Face of Terror July 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, General Catholic, history, Latin Mass, priests, sanctity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Father George Rutler lays out basic Catholic Doctrine of the right and duty to self-defense, especially in the face of an implacable evil. He also explodes the myth put forth yesterday by Francis that there is no such thing as religious violence, or a violent religion, in naming as a unique, existential, and always hostile threat to Christendom:
Good stuff. My emphasis and comments:
After another devastating ISIS attack in France, this time against a priest in his 80s while he was saying Mass, the answer isn’t just, “Do nothing.”…..
……..Turning the other cheek is the counsel Christ gave in the instance of an individual when morally insulted: Humility conquers pride. It has nothing to do with self-defense. [Quite right. Far too many in the Church, even those who tend conservative or even traditional, hold a very pacifistic view of Catholicism. This view is false and contrary to the conduct of the Church through most of her history, especially when confronted with the existential threat of islam]
The Catholic Church has always maintained that the defiance of an evil force is not only a right but an obligation. Its Catechism (cf. #2265) cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.” [That’s a pretty broad list. The common good of the state devolves on almost all of us in a nominally democratic republic. Thus the right to self-defense devolves down on a great many people even from a national standpoint]
A father is culpable if he does not protect his family. A bishop has the same duty as a spiritual father of his sons and daughters in the church, just as the civil state has as its first responsibility the maintenance of the “tranquility of order” through self-defense. [Recall the reaction of the Archbishop of Rouen, counting the perpetrators as “victims” and claiming the only possible Catholic response was prayer. That was a dereliction of duty]
Christ warned the apostles, as shepherds, to beware of wolves. This requires both the “shrewdness of serpents and the innocence of doves.” To shrink from the moral duty to protect peace by not using force when needed is to be innocent as a serpent and shrewd as a dove. [Good line]
That is not innocence — it is naiveté. [Isn’t that what the post-conciliar Church is founded on?]
Saint John Capistrano led an army against the Moors in 1456 to protect Belgrade. In 1601, Saint Lawrence of Brindisi did the same in defense of Hungary. As Franciscans, they carried no sword and charged on horseback into battle carrying a crucifix. They inspired the shrewd generals and soldiers, whom they had assembled through artful diplomacy, with their brave innocence.
This is not obscure trivia: Were it not for Charles Martel at Tours in 732 and Jan Sobieski at the gates of Vienna in 1683 — and most certainly had Pope Saint Pius V not enlisted Andrea Doria and Don Juan at Lepanto in 1571 — we would not be here now. No Western nations as we know them — no universities, no modern science, no human rights — would exist…[Most likely true]
…….Vice has destroyed countless individual souls, but in the decline of civilizations, weakness has done more harm than vice. “Peace for our time” is as empty now as it was when Chamberlain went to Munich and honor was bartered in Vichy. [Well, vice creates moral weakness that leads to political weakness and cultural innervation. Decades being swamped in mass addiction to vice have left the West all but impotent]
Hilaire Belloc, who knew Normandy and all of Europe well, said in 1929: “We shall almost certainly have to reckon with Islam in the near future. Perhaps, if we lose our faith, it will rise. For after this subjugation of the Islamic culture by the nominally Christian had already been achieved, the political conquerors of that culture began to notice two disquieting features about it. The first was that its spiritual foundation proved immovable; the second, that its area of occupation did not recede, but on the contrary slowly expanded.”
In his old age, the priest embodied a civilization that has been betrayed by a generation whose hymn was John Lennon’s “Imagine” — that there was neither heaven nor hell but “above us only sky” and “all the people living for today.” When reality intrudes, they can only leave teddy bears and balloons at the site of a carnage they call “inexplicable.”
Quite a devastating rejoinder there at the end. I’ve noted that as well, the weird sentimentality that seems to grip people after an attack, the same people who like to bury their heads in the sand and dismiss the original threat. It’s sick, but very common. People seem to long for catharsis, but only one that is shallow and surface-layer, not one that would be efficacious of any interior conversion. Because so many love their sins so much, not that I’m much different, I’m just honest about it.
Anyway, on to bigger things.
Planned Barrenhood director: “We have a lot to learn about reproductive rights for men” July 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
Because men are going to magically start spouting uterus and fallopian tubes (among other bits) by sheer acts of the will . This director, also a low-caliber actress, was referring to “trans women,” or men who pretend to be women. Because, after all, if men get to pretend to be women, it would be unjust not to let them pretend to have abortions on the taxpayer dime, and deny Planned Parenthood all that sweet, sweet federal funding, wouldn’t it?
Don’t we live in the most catastrophically insane times in the history of Western Civilization? Witness the insane, nonstop spew of (excuse me) bullshit that masquerades as informed thought (my emphasis and comments):
Actress Amber Tamblyn admitted she has much to learn about the reproductive rights of trans women, and whether men who self-identify as women can get abortions. [Folks, it’s not so much stupidity that goes into ludicrous statements like this, it’s ideology. Once you join the leftist sexular pagan cult, you have to bend your thinking to the unhinged rantings of any of the unstable, perverse constituencies that make up that cult. So if “trans women” decide they want to be able to fake having fake abortions, you’ve got to buy into the deranged fantasy. And the thing is, the Left insists WE ALL GO ALONG.]
The Atlantic and Refinery29 hosted a panel discussion entitled “Young Women Rising: America’s Next Top Voter?” during the Democratic National Convention, Tuesday evening.
Following a 30-minute conversation on “intersectionality” [“intersectionality’ = the travails of being a black muslim Puerto Rican lesbian transgender feminist, or, how to reach the top of the leftist victimhood pyramid] and millennial feminism, a reporter asked the panel for its thoughts on reproductive rights and women’s health issues for men who ascribe to a female gender identity.
Ayanna Pressley, a Boston city councilor at-large, said the issue of men who identify as women getting abortions is all about “elevated consciousness.” [A term straight out of Maoist hell – “consciousness raising” sessions, which were really very advanced and effective forms of brainwashing, subjecting people to a circle of others criticizing and abusing them until they broke, adopted the party line, and thus had their “consciousness raised.” It is absolutely indistinguishable from O’Brien torturing Winston Smith to say 2+2=5]
“I would say ultimately all advocacy begins with elevated consciousness and because of movements like Black Lives Matter where you have seen trans women at the fore of that, because of the public accommodations legislation, because of so many things that are happening at a policy level, our consciousness is being elevated,” Pressley said. “I do believe that as our consciousness is elevated we will be better informed, better educated, and we can mobilize around those issues.”…….[Let me translate that: “We just need the transgender people to tell us what to think on this, and then we’ll parrot it, no matter how many times it changes, how contrary to logic, or how internally inconsistent”]
…….Tamblyn chimed in, arguing that the reproductive rights of trans women are at the forefront of the conversation at Planned Parenthood, where the Grudge 2 star sits on the board of directors. [Grudge 2, she must be a latter day Olivia de Havilland]
Tamblyn admitted she has a lot to learn about whether biological men are being denied abortions.
“The fact that I don’t know, the fact that I don’t have an answer should tell you a lot,” she said. “About what I need to learn.” [Once again, please indoctrinate me in your transgender fantasies so I can parrot them appropriately, and not offend against your higher status on the ziggurat of victimhood]
This is what they want to inflict on all of us, folks. Orwell was just off by a few years (mixed well with Idiocracy, and blended with Brave New World).
Traditional Catholic Principles for Voting via the SSPX July 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Restoration, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
I’ll just preface this post by stating this is not an endorsement of the SSPX or their current canonical situation in the Church, I have no relation with the SSPX, never been to one of their chapels, the sum total of my interaction with the SSPX was a few hours spent with one of their priests who wrote a very good book (it was a pleasant afternoon), blah blah, etc, etc.
Having given the obligatory caveats, commenter Missy Farber kindly provided this link to the Society’s position on proper Catholic principles for voting at my request. It’s been a while, because I haven’t heard anything from any of the local Fraternity priests yet this cycle (while hoping that comes soon), but from my recollection the direction given below is in accord with what I’ve heard from Fraternity priests in the past.
It’s important, because it makes plain that, at best, support for Trump could be permitted for reasons of prudence, but that his belief set falls far outside what is required to make supporting him a moral obligation, on pain of sin. I would also add that, given that there is an alternative, Trump’s stand on various issues, including a continuing tendency to flip flop a bit on pseudo-sodo-marriage/transgender rights/etc make supporting him more morally problematic than some other non-Hillary alternative.
Important points below, then I hope to leave the subject alone for a while (my emphasis and comments):
Voting, as well as involvement in political campaigns, must have as its ultimate motive these higher, supernatural principles, that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, and the rights of the one true Church be acknowledged publicly in society.
Manifestly, we are presently very far removed from achieving these aims. It does not mean that we should do nothing. It does mean, however, that whatever we do will necessarily involve the toleration of many evils, which we in no way desire or will. However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.
For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion.Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Freemasonry is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion. [But what if both major party candidates support a whole range of grave moral evils? Is proclaimed opposition to abortion, set against a lifetime of being a pro-abort, and at times a pretty radical one, sufficient justification to vote for such a candidate? On the basis of his extreme squishiness on “same-sex marriage,” I find it very hard to vote for Trump.]
Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue………[Immigration, building the wall, restoring the economy, closing the Fed, etc., would also fall under these matters of lesser importance]
……..Voting in local and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and permissible. However, it would certainly be obligatory to use the democratic process in place in the unlikely event that it could be used to introduce Catholic candidates who do not accept the propaganda of modern liberal democracy……….So we have Darrell Castle, who is 100% pro-life from conception to natural death (and has a long record of being so), opposes pseudo-sodo-marriage, subscribes to a much more Catholic view of subsidiarity/federalism, and should be a candidate in every state ballot, even though he has no practical chance to win. Now he’s not an outwardly Catholic candidate completely in line with the Doctrine of the Faith – he does hold some errors – so perhaps voting for him is not a moral obligation as outlined below, but it can certainly be argued that Catholics should support him given that both major party candidates hold views that are offend gravely against the moral order]
………Clearly, we are no longer in the circumstance of having to choose between Catholic and non-Catholic, morally upright and liberal representatives. All the alternatives are liberal, [but Castle is much, much less so than any of the others] the deception and the manipulation of the public by the media is rampant. In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is permissible to vote for an unworthy candidate (e.g., a candidate who only approves abortion in cases of rape or incest), for he would at least (we suppose) be the lesser evil. In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII that could oblige, no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is still permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so (e.g., to avoid abortion on demand, or promotion of unnatural methods of birth control), and one has the good intention of providing for the good of society as best one can. This is called material cooperation. However, it can never be obligatory.
Consequently, in the rare case where there are informed Catholic candidates who publicly support the teaching of the Church, there is a strict moral obligation to vote, under pain of mortal sin. Where there is a clear gain possible from the correct use of a vote for some other candidate, it can be recommended or counseled. However, when there is no clear advantage it would be better to abstain, so as not to contribute even to a material participation.
I think that sums up the Catholic view beautifully.
Morally speaking, Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle is by far the least questionable alternative. If he were a Catholic espousing a visibly Catholic platform, voting for him would be morally obligatory irrespective of his chances of winning. But, he’s not. He’s also not a viable candidate.
I’m not certain how important that latter distinction is. Basically, support for Trump by practicing Catholics (versus Castle or any other alternative that might emerge) hinges on his electability. He’s not the most morally attractive candidate, he’s the least morally offensive candidate that has a shot to win.
Is that enough? For me, the electability of a candidate is immaterial, because decades of allowing expedient choices to be foisted on us is a large part of how we got into this mess in the first place. Last election I heard a great deal from some of you about how exhausted you were supporting mediocre candidates, and how you were going to stand on principle and vote for the best candidate, period, irrespective of his chances of winning. What is it about Trump that has caused people to swing 180 degrees in this election? Even more, from a Catholic moral standpoint, I’m not sure how much electoral feasibility enters in.
Anyway, I hope this breakdown helps. I did me, and also reminded me how awful my memory is, because I knew all of this before, but it had become much muddled in my mind in the intervening four years. I think the crux is, it may be morally acceptable to vote for Trump, but a Catholic is certainly not obligated to do so, even if there is no alternative – viable or otherwise – on the ballot. I fear in future, as the moral order in this nation continues to decay, our options are only going to grow worse – barring some unforeseen miracle. For which I pray.
Remaking a Culture through Ignorance of History July 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, suicide.
Two small datapoints indicative of a huge force shaping the remaking of our culture below. Why are young people so willing to accept leftist revisionist history regarding the United States/Western Civilization as the must uniquely evil influences in the history of the world? Largely because they are so ignorant of history they have no basis for comparison and are thus unable to make any kind of comparison or distinction. The goal is malleability – young minds clueless of history are a field ripe for leftist manipulation.
Thus we get the before:
The overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government. Disregard for the importance of United States history in the undergraduate history major is matched by the overall disappearance of United States history requirements from general education, the core curriculum that should be part of every student’s education… [A] survey of seniors at the “Top 50” colleges and universities, those holding the most prestigious positions in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, found that only 22% could match the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” with the Gettysburg Address. [well thoughts like that can tend to be inconvenient for the “progressive” camp, so they are better left unlearned]
I started giving quizzes to my juniors and seniors. I gave them a ten-question American history test… just to see where they are. The vast majority of my students – I’m talking nine out of ten, in every single class, for seven consecutive years – they have no idea that slavery existed anywhere in the world before the United States. Moses, Pharaoh, they know none of it. They’re 100% convinced that slavery is a uniquely American invention… How do you give an adequate view of history and culture to kids when that’s what they think of their own country – that America invented slavery? That’s all they know.
In fact, almost the entirety of rapid growth of the racial supremacist movement known as “Black Lives Matters” (the supremacy being proved by their unremitting hostility towards those who counter “all lives matter”) can be attributed to young people’s massive ignorance of history. For them, with a narrow, solipsistic world view and abject ignorance not only of history but current affairs in the world, the United States is the most uniquely evil country in history. That this is laughable to anyone with even a light knowledge of history is, in their warped, ideological worldview, only proof of rampant racism. Thus, they are perfectly formed to be invincibly convinced activists bent only on destruction of the current “system” as they perceive it, no matter how outrageous and pathetic their rhetoric appears to those with a bit more knowledge.
For instance, how many of these black lives matters radicals know that black muslims took probably a million or more white European slaves during the Medieval and Baroque periods? How many know or would admit that slavery is still practiced in muslim Africa today? What the heck do they think Boko Haram is all about, kidnapping hundreds (or thousands) of African Christians and keeping them under forced bondage? To me, you have to be almost unbelievably uninformed to buy into the rhetoric, but study after study shows that Americans, and especially young Americans, are in fact that ignorant.
Also note that the culture of “no losers,” “everyone gets a trophy” has convinced millions of middling minds that they are, in fact, irreducibly brilliant, so brilliant, in fact, that they have absolutely nothing left to learn.
It’s a recipe for revolution. Of course, it was intended to be, all along. Too bad the student cadres are almost always the first to be strung up and shot once the revolution ends. See the Bolshevik and Cultural Revolutions, and the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia.
The term is useful idiots, and Lenin did not coin it accidentally or ironically.
Francis Not Very Welcome in Poland July 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, manhood, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
Some countries are more sensible than others. Some countries have been through the leftist wringer, watched their priests martyred and seen their churches sacked for decades. They know where modernist-progressive rhetoric always leads – suffering, misery, and moral decadence. They also know that inviting in adherents to an implacably hostile religion that has always refused conversion or even assimilation is a recipe for cultural suicide and endless internecine warfare.
Some peoples also know what it is to be denied the Faith, they know Truth from error, and know that the latter always leads to great suffering. For these reasons and many more, Francis is not being very well received in Poland:
Pope Francis is set to arrive Wednesday in Poland, but the homeland of Saint Pope John Paul II – Francis’ most popular modern-day predecessor — is not rolling out the red carpet for the pontiff whose social agenda has alienated many in the conservative nation.
Francis will be in Krakow to celebrate World Youth Day, the event initiated more than 30 years ago by Pope John Paul II in which hundreds of thousands of young people from all over the world gather. But unlike the favorite son the Eastern European nation sent to the Vatican, Francis has received a chilly reception. [World Youth Day has frequently devolved into scandal and indifference, and should be done away with. If you were wondering……]
“The Pope, an inconvenient guest,” was the headline on an article earlier this month in Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland’s largest circulation newspaper…..
….Polish bishops circulated a letter publicizing the event that was read in churches throughout the nation on July 3. The letter praised the late Pope John Paul II three times, yet made no mention of Pope Francis. [Well, if you can’t find anything nice to say, let your silence speak]
“Here in Poland – a papal country – we have a very unusual situation,” journalist Katarzyna Wisniewska wrote. “Nobody here is waiting for the pope.”
Francis’ liberal social positions clash with the Polish church’s conservative orientation and alignment with the far-right Law and Justice Party government. [Not “far right” – visibly Catholic, probably the most Catholic government in Europe, which should be praised, not belittled] Church support for Law and Justice was an important factor in the party’s landslide victory in the 2015 national elections. [I’d say good on the Church, even though the government is far from perfect]
The nationalist party is committed to defending the Catholic identity of a homogeneous Poland. [good again]
“Francis is seen as someone strange, alien, and Poles don’t relate to an Argentinian Pope,” journalist Adam Szostklewicz, who writes about the Church and international affairs for the weekly news magazine Polityka, told FoxNews.com…….
……In his first speech in the country, to an audience including President Andrzej Duda at Krakow’s Wawel Castle, the pope is expected to renew his support for refugees. Three days later, a young Syrian will speak during a prayer service presided over by the pope. [So Francis will go to a Catholic country and speak a more contradictory message than he did in Cuba, or Bolivia? He’s down with a sort of false “speaking truth to power” when it comes to a Catholic country, then?]
Poles reject that papal call. Seventy percent of Poles don’t want any Muslim refugees, according to a recent survey by CBOS, a leading pollster…….
…..According to Father Pawel Guzinski, an outspoken Dominican priest, the Polish Church gravitates more to popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, for whom obedience to Catholic doctrine is paramount.
“For Pope Francis, his commitment to the poor and disadvantaged is most important, while doctrine remains in the background,” Guzinski said. [that’s a fairly mild way of putting it]
The Polish Church is also anxious about the tide of Western secularism. [And quite rightly so]
Bishop Piotr Libera, in a speech in Radom, equated secularism with multiculturalism. [How about with evil?]
“It is a leftist policy in which all religions and cultures are equally important,” he said. “But not the one they grew up in. Christian, of Christ.”
Some other quotes, from a different, more liberal source (a good amount of nastiness towards Polish Catholics in this article, which I’ll skip):
……Arch-conservative [meaning faithful, accepting of the Doctrine of the Faith] Catholic journalists have gone so far as to question the legitimacy of his election, even accusing Francis of wanting to destroy the Church. Senior Polish clerics have stopped short of condemning such views. [Well well………]
One rightwing conspiracy website accuses Francis of “selling out to environmentalists, Freemasons, Islamists, pseudo-refugee invaders”.
“What nerve to require each parish to host an Arab refugee, while also saying that Catholics should not procreate like rabbits.”
………Francis’s progressive views on contraception — which he dubbed “not an absolute evil” — and allowing divorcees to receive communion have also long sparked mixed feelings among conservative faithful here. [Francis did say contraception is not an absolute evil, committing a grave error because contraception use has always been defined, since the earliest days of the Church, as intrinsically evil. But praying out loud in a Catholic church sanctuary hosting a muslim i
nvaderrefugee, now that’s an intrinsic evil. Not]
It’s gratifying to know some folks, even most of a nation, apparently, have caught on. Francis…….he’s not our kind of guy.