jump to navigation

Typical – NIMBYs opposed to Mystic Monk monastery – UPDATE September 2, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, General Catholic, Latin Mass, sadness, Society.
comments closed

A group of rabblerousers (so, I should like them, right?) is trying to block development of the beautiful, traditional monastery proposed by the coffee-making Mystic Monks, also known as the Carmelites of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outside Cody, Wyoming.  Of course, it has nothing to do with building a fantastic monument to God’s great love for us!  No, it’s all about zoning restrictions and dread fear of being over-run by BILLIONS of crazed Catholics what come to worship dem sum Mary.  I suppose that’s what we get for being such idolators.

Seriously – they’re worried about a 150 foot tall, beautifully designed spire reaching up to God, in a state full of mountains that are typically 500-2000 ft above normal ground level?  Like, it’s going to block their view?  Or, they’re worried about over-development?  In rural Wyoming?  I’ve been to Wyoming many times, I’ve been to Cody – there isn’t even a fantasy of over-development in Cody, let alone anything approaching reality.  The monastery is supposed to be very quiet and private – that’s what monasteries are.   It’s 7 miles from the nearest neighbor, so I don’t think that 150 ft spire is even going to be visible at all.  And I think Wyoming, with the lowest population and second lowest population density in the Union, can handle an additional 40 monks to their population without being hopelessly swamped.

The details – religious communities, contrary to popular opinion, are not exactly awash in cash. The Mystic Monks have spent years trying to close on land for their monastery, seeking the right combination of space, privacy, and cost.  They had a deal a year or two ago that fell through.  They have a very good deal right now, but it expires on October 1st – which is why the “neighbors,” most of which live more than 30 miles away in Cody, are seeking a 30 day delay – that delay will effectively kill the project.  I’ve scanned the sight on GoogleEarth, and there is literally nothing around for miles.  Their facility will be in a valley – I can’t see the Church spire being too visible there.  The concerns about water quality are interesting to me, since there appear to be a surface mine in the same region.  I would think there would be far more concerns about a mine than a monastery with regard to water quality. I find these complaints difficult to square with reality.

Well, I’m not a coffee drinker, but I’m a huge fan of orthodox religious communities strictly adhering to their Rule, and that’s the Carmelites of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.  Would you, in your charity, pray for these monks that these objections be overcome and they be able to build their beautiful monastery?  Would you consider helping them with a donation, or buying some of their coffee?  Any of the above acts are spiritual or corporal works of Charity and virtues valued by God.

UPDATE: Fr. Z has more, including a commenter who seems to take offense at the scope of the facility.

Was I born 100 years too late?!? September 2, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Society.
comments closed

I love Pope Benedict XVI, and I try very hard to obey the Holy Father in all, but after reading on Rorate Caeli Pope St. Pius X’s Sacrorum Antistitum and his Formula against modernism, I have to ask, was I perhaps born a bit out of time?  Well, of couse not, God in His Wisdom put me here right where and when He wanted me, and I thank God for loving me into creation.  But, you’ve got to love this kind of absolute clarity, so much missing in our world today.  From the intro:

It seems to Us that it has not been ignored by none of the holy Bishops that the class of men, the modernists, whose personality was described in the encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, have not refrained from working in order to disturb the peace of the Church. They have not ceased to attract followers, either, by forming a clandestine group; by these means, they inject in the very veins of the Christian Republic the virus of their doctrine, by editing books and publishing articles in anonymity or with pseudonyms. By reading anew Our aforementioned letter, and considering it carefully, it is clearly seen that this deliberate movement is the work of the men that we described in it, enemies that are the more dangerous the closer they are; that abuse their ministry by offering poisoned nourishment and by surprising the less cautious; by handing a false doctrine in which the sum of all errors is enclosed.

The Formula, itself:

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.
And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world, that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.
Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and Lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.
I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.
I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.
Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.
This oath, which priests and bishops were asked to sign, is much made fun of today by many within the Church, including present day priests and bishops.  Even priests charged with catechetical formation have made light of this oath.  I’d like to know just what exactly is wrong or misstated in the Formula above?  What Truth revealed by Christ is denied by this Formula?  How would adhering to it somehow impede one’s coming closer in service to God?

Surprise! Man who wants to arrest Pope on UK visit wants legal sex with kids September 2, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in foolishness, General Catholic, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Ahhh, there always tends to be a certain, uh…….consistency, doesn’t there seem to be?  Peter Tatchell, the man who wants to “arrest” Pope Benedict XVI when he comes to Britain in a couple of weeks, the man who was hired by the BBC to produce a ‘fair and balanced’ (read: hatchet job) report on Benedict’s Pontificate…..this man, this prince of a man, has come out as a strident supporter of man-boy love.  In fact, he thinks kids 9-13 can make informed, unpressured decisions to have sex with adults and go on to be very happy and proud about it as adults.  As evidence, he apparently cites his own experience and that of some tribe in New Guinea.  Surer scientific evidence, I am quite certain, than has ever existed before.

Now, were a priest to make such a claim, would we ever hear the end of it?  Of course not, it would be the greatest scandal EVAH!  I can see the Huffpost headline now:  “Priest wants boy rape legalized, thinks it’s great! ELEVENTY!11!”  But, if you’re a prominent gay activist who obviously has a certain, ahhh…..interest, in seeing children made legally available to your predations, well, then you’re just another reasoned voice contributing to a sensible debate in our modern, tolerant, pluralist society.  Amazing how it always seems to work that way…..some pigs are more equal than others.

I don’t want to make too fine a point of this, since this is ostensibly the opinion of one man, but, this desire for young boys, pre-teens, hairless fantasy objects, “twinks,” (google it and see what you get but not with your kids around) is frighteningly common in the gay community, more so than the comparable interest in “barely legal” type porn objects for straight men.  While Tatchell is now calling for the legal age of consent to be lowered to 14, in the past he has stated that 9 year olds could have meaningful, peer-like relationships with an adult, while at the same time stating he did not support sex with children – I suppose it depends on what your definition of a child is.  I have a 9 year old at home – every fiber of my being tells me just how utterly sick and wrong this man’s predelictions are. 

Yesterday, I wrote about an official with the office of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster criticizing the libidinous, hyper-sexualized, neo-pagan culture prevalent in Britain.  He has been absolutely excoriated in the British press.  Tatchell, meanwhile, is treated with kid gloves.  This is a sign of a grave sickness, perhaps a terminal illness, in a society, when the Truth becomes culturally unacceptable and every manner of perversion and depravity is now fit for polite discussion, perhaps even acceptance.   This may seem like a trivial episode, but I don’t believe it is, I think it is one more sign of a great culture in its death throes. 

One final thought – these people who so hate Christianity, who seek to destroy it at every turn, are utterly terrified of Islam.  If they succeed in driving the last vestiges of Christian morality from their culture, they will be mortified – literally – at what replaces it.

A video of a great SOLT priest September 2, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, General Catholic.
comments closed

My wife sent me this video of Fr. John McHugh, who celebrated the First Communion Mass for two of our daughters. Fr. McHugh doesn’t get much public credit, but he’s one of the two founders of SOLT (Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity).  He tells great stories. He was a B-24 navigator and shot down over Germany in February 1945.  He spent a couple of months in a StalagLuft and then, when being repatriated after near-starvation, was treated by a nurse – who happened to be his sister!  He spent years in Central America helping others to know our Lord and doing great works in helping others.

He’s just being kind of silly here.  I pray he can celebrate First Communion again at OLCC.

Mission accomplished, Catholycs in Alliance for the Common Good folds September 2, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Having accomplished their primary missions of getting Obama elected, health care passed, and abortion thus enshrined as a “right,” at least for the time being, the George Soros funded “Catholics in Alliance of the Common Good” has apparently folded.  This is such a tragic loss…….CACG consisted of anywhere from two to eight people, full time paid lobbyists whose only job was to try to convince Catholics that voting for democratic supporters of abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, socialism, etc., was the best possible course for any faithful Catholic.  From Catholic Culture:

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the pro-Obama organization that presented itself as “inspired by Gospel values and the rich history of Catholic social teaching,” has apparently folded. “I’ve long asserted that CACG was a campaign organization and not a non-partisan advocate of Catholic Social Teaching as many news outfits have gullibly or willfully maintained,” said Jack Smith, editor of the newspaper of the Diocese of Kansas City – St. Joseph. “With the president elected and health care passed, it looks, for now, like the campaign is over.”

So, big surprise, right?  A fake catholyc group folds up after its lobbying work is done.  Unfortunately, there are still a number of similar groups, like Catholics for Choice and Catholics United, that consist of a few individuals, all paid lobbyists (generally receiving their funding from George Soros) who make full time jobs of trying to convince Catholics to vote for democrat politicians that hold views and support legislation that violates numerous moral doctrines of the Faith.  These people constantly misrepresent what they are (they claim to be good ‘ol folksy grass roots organizations, when they are nothing more than small, top-down directed agents of a leftist political agenda) and then cast aspersions on those faithful Catholics, many of which are bloggers, which seek to defend the true doctrine of the Faith and encourage Catholics to vote in support of that doctrine.  Many of these good folksy types at these catholyc groups later tend to get repaid with jobs from democrats they help elect (while running prostitution rings on the side), or get the democrat machine to get them elected, themselves.  So, everybody wins, right?  Oh, yeah, except that one bearded guy who said all that irrelevant stuff, like, way back in the 1800s or something.

As with all else, pray.