jump to navigation

Nothing ever changes October 27, 2010

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

We think we are soo dang smart.  We think we are so advanced, so subtle, so much more nuanced than our idiotic forebears.  And certainly, the problems of today have never been addressed before.  So, I read a quote from St. Peter Damian, which is valid, and it just floors me with how concise and apropos it is for our “modern” Catholic Church, especially in this country and Europe:

For God’s sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition.    – St. Peter Damian, 1049

He’s only a Doctor of the Church, and he wrote extensively on this subject, one of several ecclesiastical abuses he railed against as a reformer at a time when the Church seriously needed reform (when does it not?). 

So why am I railing about this?  Just another pointless attack on homosexuals, to exercise my profound bigotry?  Not exactly:

The USCCB will hold its semi-annual meeting in a few weeks. One of the items on the agenda is the election of a new president. If things go as expected the vice president, Bishop Gerald Kicanis, will move up. And what a fitting appointment he is for the bishops’ vile bureaucracy. One of Bishop Kicanis’ claims to fame is his enabling of mega-sex abuser, defrocked and jailed priest, Daniel McCormack.

Kicanis was the rector of Mundelein Seminary in the 1990s when McCormack was a seminarian there and knew of three cases of “sexual improprieties,” one involving a minor. Kicanis recommended McCormack’s ordination anyway. His assessment even after McCormack’s history of child sex abuse was,  “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.” Sexual activity with a minor is part of the “developmental process?” Please!

So 23 youngsters (at least) were sexually abused and psychologically damaged because it was “unfair” to recognize McCormack’s homosexual depravity for what it was and refuse him ordination. To see exactly how horrible McCormack’s actions were go here and read what one father only recently learned about the homosexual rape of his young son over a three-year period. He can thank Bishop Kicanis for helping it happen.

How many “sexual improprieties” involving minors are necessary, Bishop Kicanis, to know someone shouldn’t be ordained? Current USCCB head, Cardinal Francis George, was also involved in promoting and enabling McCormack. He kept him on even after his own review board recommended action and after McCormack was arrested on charges of molestation.

McCormack went to jail in 2007 but the men who enabled him were elected by their brother bishops to run their national group.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Church would be far better off if all these national conferences would be abolished.  They are a constant source of problems and the politicking that must go on to reach these high positions is difficult to reconcile with our calling as Christians – far too many compromises are made to reach these high levels.  If you read the link, you’ll find that the sex abuse in question did not happen a long time ago, it was all in the past few years.  Another notorious priest-abuser.  Lives ruined.  The Church drug through the mud.  And the future president of the USCCB was instrumental in sponsoring and recommending for ordination not only an active homosexual and pederast, but an alcoholic to boot!  What kind of thinking does a person have to think this man, this “filth,” would make a fit priest?  How does one view the Church to recommend such a man for the priesthood?  Saying “oh, well, the psychologists and the lawyers all said we should get him treatment, and he would be fine….” is a complete non-starter – we’re not talking about abuse back in the 70’s, or 80’s, – we’re talking about abuse ongoing up until 3-4 years ago, when the “psychological treatment” of priests was already completely discredited.   How do you think the father of the boy, the 11 year old boy, that McCormack, the priest in question, raped, will feel seeing our new USCCB President receiving plaudits for his wonderful faith and his serene leadership?  How do you answer for the fact that many who suffered the effects of this abuse have lost their Faith?

What possible motivation could there have been to promote a man with such a twisted past and troublesome present to the priesthood?

Pope Benedict – states have the right to defend their borders, set reasonable immigration laws October 27, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, General Catholic, Immigration.
comments closed

Really?  So a “rich” country does not have a moral obligation to let in every single person that wants to come in and make them a near instant citizen, no matter of any laws they may have broken in the process and without any reckoning of the social and financial costs of this massive immigration?  The Pope said:

” The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life” (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. “

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI is merely relating the Doctrine of the Faith as it is contained in the Catechism (Cat 2241).  In fact, it’s almost a word for word re-utterance of portions of the Catechism related to immigration.  This view of immigration, which our own Bishop Farrell seems to share, is very far from what is presented by, I am sure well meaning, Catholics, including various Cardinals and Bishops, who seem to feel that Catholics must support absolutely unconstrained immigration and imply that one cannot be a good Catholic if you don’t follow the most extreme pro-immigrant views.  This is not the Doctrine the Church, in Her wisdom, has developed.  The Church feels that countries are plainly allowed, as a matter of the natural law and the authority God has granted to their properly constituted leadership, to defend their borders and set reasonable limits on immigration.  A nation under serious threat, from, say, terrorism, including terrorists who have a desire, and the known capability, to inflict massive casualities, has a very serious reason to quite tightly control its border and regulate who may or may not enter the country.  There is nothing anti-Catholic about such a view, and, in fact, stating the a nation has no such right, and that Catholic social doctrine requires almost completely unconstrained immigration (and rewarding those who break the host-nation’s laws) is the position more difficult to reconcile with Catholic doctrine. 

I am a big proponent of immigration.  I have heard numerous horror stories of very good people, well qualified people, people with skills and abilities this nation desperately needs (like engineers), waiting for years, even decades, for the ability to come to this country and to become a citizen.  That is wrong.  This nation should not have idiotic quotas limiting immigration from countries like Canada and Germany.  At the same time, our southern border is virtually overrun, with drug/terror gangs boasting that they control large swaths of American territory.  This is a serious national security issue.  It  must be addressed.  We must have the ability to better control our southern border.  And it is not Catholic to insist that those who have broken this nation’s laws have a right to become near-instant citizens.  That is an unjust position, as it slaps in the face all those who have followed the (admittedly, seriously in need of reform) rules and waited and paid out the wazoo to gain citizenship.  But then, I fear that there may be motives at play among some of the more extreme Catholic unconstrained immigration supporters than just some view of satisfying ‘social justice.’

Planned Parenthood – fewer babies mean cheaper government October 27, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, General Catholic, sickness, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Ah, that sweet, good good Planned Barrenhood, always acting so selflessly, so much with the good of the society at heart.  They are just so darned caring!  Cecille Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood, has been lobbying to include funding for contraception in Obamacare.  She argues that reducing the number of babies will reduce the cost of government provided health care:

I think it’s important … to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money,” said Richards. “So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don’t have children that they weren’t planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.

“So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only it’s the right thing to do for women, it’s good for women it’s good for their health care, but it’s frankly good public policy.” [


Such benevolent magnaminity!  I’m sure Planned Barrenhood has never done any studies that confirm that widespread use of contraception leads to an increase in the rate of abortion!  They’d never argue from their own naked self-interest!   And I love the long term thinking of Planned Parenthood!  While reducing the number of new births may reduce immediate government expenses with the misbegotten concept of socialized health insurance, in the long term, the decreased fertility rate will contribute to an economic death spiral like that being enjoyed by Europe and Japan.  When you don’t have babies, there aren’t enough new people to provide for economic growth, or to pay for all those very expensive socialistic programs (largely consumed by the elderly) that Planned Parenthood and the left love so much!  So government funding for contraception is a great plan, if you want to see a huge spike in abortions, and if you don’t care about the future economic vitality of this country (and the world at large). 
New motto: Planned Parenthood – wrong on every single issue we address!

CCHD plans reforms October 27, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, scandals.
comments closed

CCHD, oft the target of many Catholic bloggers (including me) is claiming it will institute reforms to “insure” funds don’t go to groups that work against the Doctrine of the Faith.  10 new “commitments” are promised, which, we are told, will absolutely GUARANTEE! that noooo pro-abort/gay marriage/leftist apparachik  (oops) group will ever again get Catholic money.   Apparently, there was at least a semi-serious move afoot within the USCCB to kill of CCHD, but its supporters obviously successfully staved that off.  It remains to be seen whether these “reforms,” like many that have gone before, will result in better results.  I pray it does, but I’m not going to just blindly declare victory for CCHD.  With such a checkered history, this group definitely bears continued monitoring (to the complete annoyance of Bishop Morin). 

One odd factoid is that CCHD normally releases its list of grant recipients in early September, but, this year, is delaying that release until November, shortly before the annual Thanksgiving-week collection in almost all US diocese.  Many critics of CCHD feels this late release of data may be a tactic to reduce the amount of time CCHD critics will have to go over their donation rolls.  I suppose we’ll see how well this ‘reform’ has been implemented when the data are finally released.

More nuns over 90 than under 60 October 27, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, General Catholic, sadness, scandals.
comments closed

That’s beyond sad, it’s a disaster.  Religious, especially contemplative religious, are the prayer powerhouse of the Church.  They are absolutely needed for the life of the Church and for the good of untold numbers of souls.  But the embrace of the world and the rejection of rules in favor of being “relevant” and “engaged” has absolutely gutted many religious orders, many of which have not had a new vocations in two or three…….not years……but decades!

In August 2009, the National Religious Vocation Conference published a study on recent vocations to religious life conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). Using statistics gathered from religious institutes as well as from meetings with focus groups of young religious in selected institutes, the study revealed some dramatic trends. While there are more women religious in the United States over the age of 90 than under the age of 60, some congregations are definitely experiencing an upsurge in new vocations.

The good news, I pray, that the bottom has been reached.  There are a number of more orthodox orders that are doing extremely well, both on the men’s and women’s side.   That is a great blessing, and surely an answer to many prayers.  And I pray a lesson has been learned, at least among those who aren’t so steeped in the lifestyle to be unable to learn much of anything anymore; religious vocations are not just a particularly leftist branch of social work, they are a call to something far more significant.  Oh, and one more – bitter, angry, far left feminism (and more than a little lesbianism) is not attractive to the  vast, vast majority of young women.

The demographic breakdown, I would imagine, is very revealing.  Measured on a curve, I bet the median age is now between 72 and 74, with a rapid falloff towards 60 and 90, and then just a plunge off a cliff (but then, with a small but growing spike of very young nuns – not sisters, but nuns – under 35).  No wonder the Vatican is concerned – without a major change/conversion women religious would be all but dead (ahem) as an institution within 20 years or so.  After all, not many people live much past 90, and those that do are rarely very dynamic.  Without a change, women religious in this nation will be a relic.

I pray the continued renewal of some orders and explosive growth in orthodox orders continues.  Don’t you?

I take back everything I ever said……. October 27, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, North Deanery, scandals.
comments closed

…..that could be construed as even slightly negative regarding Bishop Farrell.  Well, maybe not everything, but this is timely and needed:

Bishop Kevin Farrell of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas is publicly objecting to a Southern Methodist University professor’s upcoming lecture on U.S. Catholic bishops and abortion law.

The Rev. Charles Curran is a Catholic priest and ethicist who has long taught at SMU, and who also has a history of tangling with the Vatican over social issues.

He’s to give a noon lecture Thursday at SMU titled “The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique from Within the Church.”

An SMU press release says: “Curran’s lecture will examine how U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have made opposition to legal abortion their primary social issue, and will challenge the bishops from a theological perspective for claiming too much certitiude in their position.”

Farrell issued a statement, saying he had become aware of the lecture.

“The act of taking an unborn life is wrong and has always been wrong,” Farrell said. “This has been the constant teaching of the church.”

Near the end of the statement, Farrell said, “I regret that Father Curran has chosen to criticize the position of the U.S. bishops on this matter.”

Farrell’s statement has been posted on the SMU Catholic Ministry Website and been sent by email to people registered with the SMU Catholic Ministry.

It also was inserted into bulletins at Catholic Masses on campus Sunday, said Annette Gonzales Taylor, spokesperson for the diocese

Well thank you Bishop Farrell.  It is assuring to see some condemnatory comments directed at the actions of (the disgraced) Fr. Charles Curran, who teaches at SMU because he was barred from ever teaching at a Catholic university again due to his repeated rejections of Church doctrine (historically, this has been called heresy).  Curran is a major proponent of rejecting much of the Church’s moral doctrine, especially anything related to groinal issues.  If it’s a traditional doctrine on women’s ordination, use of contraception, the always and everywhere wrong nature of abortion, or whatever, you can be sure that Curran refuses to accept what the Church believes.   I recognize and admire Bishop Farrell sticking his neck out a bit to make clear that Curran does not speak for the Church, and that his attempts to undermine the authority of the Magisterium on these issues is unacceptable.  Personally, it is unfortunate to me that Curran can continue to use his clerical status as a bludgeon with which to attack Church doctrine – many confused people accept his arguments because he can claim he is a “priest in good standing.” 

I tell you, that Sam Hodges at the Dallas Morning News is getting to be a regular Catholic insider……..