jump to navigation

91% of Planned Parenthood facilities willing to cover up child rape April 13, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, General Catholic, horror, North Deanery, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Via Jill Stanek:

In 2002 Crutcher’s organization, Life Dynamics, conducted a comprehensive sting of every Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation clinic in the U.S.

Placing phone calls from Texas, where it is legal for one party to tape conversations without another’s knowledge, an actress portraying a 13-yr-old who had been impregnated by her 22-yr-old “boyfriend” told clinics she needed an abortion to keep her parents from finding out they were sexually involved.

In all, the actress spoke with staff at 813 PP or NAF clinics in all 50 states. Adult sex with underage children is illegal in every state, and PP and NAF clinics are mandated reporters. Yet an appalling 91% of all clinics contacted expressed a willingness to help cover up the statutory rape. [This is so endemic it is structural.  I think federal racketeering statutes would apply – ED]

Until yesterday only a select few of those audiotapes had ever been released to the public.

But due to vast public interest in the topic of underage rape cover-up at abortion mills, particularly PPs,  has decided to release them all. The home page for access is ChildPredator.com. Get background info at “Understanding the Tapes,” and then have at it with audiotapes and transcripts from PP and NAF abortion mills in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Are we even surprised anymore?  Planned Parenthood is, and has been, engaged in a systematic cover up of child sexual abuse, the worst kind of abuse there is, in order to facilitate increased abortion profits.  Planned Parenthood, in spite of federal funding, makes an average profit of $100 million per year on $1 billion in revenue (where does it go? – Democrat pockets!).  I have no idea how they maintain their “non-profit” status, but, again, democrat pockets!  No wonder the democrats will do anything before taking steps to block Planned Barrenhood funding!

Advertisements

‘Catholic’ universities endorse wide-ranging gay agenda….. April 13, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…..AND it seems the Jesuits are somehow defining themselves as outside the Church.  There is almost too much to unpack in one article, it is that bad:

From March 3 through 6, an Expanding the Circle conference was held at the Hotel Nikko in San Francisco. Expanding the Circle is an initiative of the California Institute of Integral Studies, and its stated purpose is “Creating an inclusive environment in higher education for LGBTQ students and studies.” Catholic universities were well represented [Indeed, shamefully well represented.  What a very sad, sad thing.  Souls are being placed more and more in mortal danger due to misguided, almost sick visions of charity and the triumph of false notions of inclusion over Truth and true Mercy.]

Titles of some of the workshops at the conference indicated the bias common to post-modern social science, that reality is a human construction: “Reimagining Sexual Desire and Spiritual Longing in Sacred Texts”; “Does G-d Really Hate Me: Reconstructing and Reinterpreting Challenging Religious Texts”; “(Re)vamping the Queericulum: Issues in the Teaching of Language and Sexuality”; “Imagining Queer Selves: LGBTQ Literature, Libraries, and the Coming Out Process”; and the near-parodic “Fostering Multivariate Inclusion: Multiple Marginalized Identities and the Interplay of Sexuality.”

Others, while more crudely titled, were quite clear: “That’s SO Gay: Queering the Curriculum in High Schools through Community Collaboration”; “Ripe for the Picking: Queer-Themed FIGs (First-Year Interest Groups)”, and “Building a Successful LGBTQ Program at Catholic Institutions.” [There is a conscious, concerted, well funded effort aimed at peeling away as many Catholics as possible from Church Doctrine, apparently under the misguided thought that the Church sets Doctrine not on Divine Revelation, but majority rule.  All this will result in is much pain for many souls, and the risk of eternal damnation for some who will go to their deaths unrepentant, thinking it perfectly acceptable for ‘Catholics’ to reject Church Doctrine.  Tragic.] The following Catholic schools participated: College of the Holy Cross, DePaul University, Dominican University, Georgetown University, Loyola Marymount University, Marian University, Marquette University, Santa Clara University, St. Anselm College, St. Edward’s University, St. Joseph’s University, St. Louis University, and the University of San Francisco. [Can any of these institutions still be viewed as Catholic in any meaningful sense any longer?]

One of the Catholic-led workshops was called “Ways of Proceeding: Deepening the Conversation between Campus Ministries & LBGTQ Communities,” described thusly: “The panelists will share their work at Catholic and Jesuit colleges in creating spaces for LGBTQ communities to work creatively and collaboratively with those in Campus Ministry. Panelists will explore how those working in Ministry can provide frameworks of legitimacy, care, and support for the creation of safe learning environments, and create support for students, faculty and staff. We will share our experiences and ask participants to come with their own in order to have an open conversation about the positive role that Campus Ministry can play in creating an inclusive campus.”

The “Ways of Seeing” workshop was led by Donal Godfrey, SJ, former head of the University Ministry at USF; Jim Schexnayder, SJ, the resource director at the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry; and Sivagami Subbaraman, the director of the LGBTQ Resource Center at Georgetown University.

Another Catholic-led event at Expanding the Circle was “OUT THERE: A Conference Meeting of Scholars and Student Affairs Personnel Involved in LGBTQ Issues on Catholic and Jesuit Campuses.” [There it is again…..’Catholic AND Jesuit colleges.’ Is this a tacit admission that Jesuit colleges can no longer be considered Catholic?  Or is this the ‘academic Jesuits’ themselves placing themselves outside the Church?  It’s an odd turn of phrase, to be sure.]

From the description: “OUT THERE is a national meeting of scholars and student affairs personnel involved in LGBTQ issues on Catholic and Jesuit campuses….The purpose of this pre-conference meeting is to begin our exploration of how we can understand the nexus between sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression in the context of Catholic and Jesuit values and principles in higher education. Attendees will have an opportunity to discuss their experiences and network with people from other Catholic institutions. Participants from other colleges and universities will be welcome.” Translation: here’s how you undermine the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality on campus.

Participants in the OUT THERE event included Mike Duffy, director of the Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought at USF; Shirley McGuire, professor of psychology and president of the LGBTQ Caucus at USF; Sara Solloway, director of Student Retention and Success Programs and outreach director of the LGBTQ Caucus at USF; Sivagami Subbaraman, director of the LGBTQ Resource Center at Georgetown; and Michael A. Zampelli, SJ, rector of the Santa Clara University Jesuit Community.  [It’s important to get the names of those involved out there.  This effort at undermining Church Doctrine needs to be known.]

Professor McGuire sits on the advisory board of the Lane Center at the USF, where she is joined by the openly homosexual Reverend Vincent Pizzuto, who abandoned his Catholic faith, and was ordained as a minister of the Celtic Christian Church in 2007. Despite his rejection of the Catholic faith, USF saw fit to name Reverend Pizzuto as director of the university’s Catholic Studies and Social Thought minor. [Good Lord!] McGuire and Pizzuto are joined on the Lane Center’s advisory board by Robert McElroy, auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of San Francisco. [ummm……]

As I sated not too long ago, the future of Catholic higher ed is going to be found in a very few select colleges and universities remaining faithful to the Magisterium and engaged in largely from home, via internet.

Milestones in the path of holiness April 13, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, Lent, North Deanery.
comments closed

Quoting an article from Homiletic and Pastoral Review by Fr. Basil Cole, Catholic Culture presents a list of items to measure how well one is growing in holiness.  Certainly, this is a difficult thing to measure, with great Saints of the past having dedicated their lives to trying to discern the path of holiness, but these items seem pretty sensical to me (I give a self-assessment in red):

  1. Am I God-centered? This addresses the question of whether we think ourselves the center of the universe, in which case we are likely to be tense, negative and critical. We discern progress here if we come more easily to see the good in others, to accept the dispositions of Providence cheerfully, and to trust in God even in the midst of trials and temptations. [Boy, I try, but I frequently fail to see God in others.  In fact, I probably don’t do nearly enough – I probably default to NOT seeing God in others, part of my upbringing instilled in me a dim view of humanity, generally. – ED]
  2. Do I take joy in serving others? There may be times when either our normal duties or interruptions in our routine demand that we occupy ourselves with tasks we do not particularly enjoy, primarily for the benefit of others. We are growing in charity if we find such services easier to perform over time, especially with a sincere desire to be of benefit, and if we gain the ability to remain recollected and prayerful even when doing something we do not naturally enjoy. [I think I’m making progress here, but have a very long way to go – ED]
  3. Do I hate sin? As time goes on, if we are growing spiritually, we should be increasingly averse not only to great sins but to lesser ones. We should be developing a progressively stronger resolve to avoid anything—including objectively innocent pursuits—which can be an obstacle to our union with God. And of course we should be actively seeking the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, which are the opposite of the disposition to sin. [This is an area where God’s Grace has permitted me to make a pretty good amount of progress.  I have eliminated some sins very substantially, but others hang on stubbornly]
  4. Is my conscience delicate? This is closely related, and refers to the need to become ever more sensitive in discerning what is displeasing to God. In the beginning, for example, we may wish to avoid adultery but think nothing of flirting or stealing the odd kiss or two. In time, true growth demands that we more clearly perceive the sinful attitudes at work across the board. Then we will become more watchful over our virtue, even in our thoughts, and we’ll also more easily distinguish among degrees of sin, and between temptation and sin. [Yes, for most things, but I could do better without straying (I pray) into scrupolosity]
  5. Am I humble? To use Fr. Basil’s own words, a sense of humility “means a submission to whatever God desires in the moment, even if it means being unknown or unrecognized.” Pride and vainglory lead us to be calculating in all that we do, in order to increase in stature before the world. But God wants our personal surrender to Himself and to those who, in each moment, represent His will. [Heh….I try to be humble, but I’m not.  I need to grow greatly in humility.]
  6. Am I faithful in prayer? If we prefer to lose ourselves in a constant whirl of activity, and find that we are uncomfortable being alone with God in the silence of our hearts, we’ll go backwards. Spiritual growth is marked by a growing willingness to put ourselves in the presence of God, even if we suffer from dryness or distractions in prayer. [God’s Grace has permitted me to make many strides, here]
  7. Do my decisions reflect truth and prudence? As we grow spiritually, we should become more adept at knowing when to seek counsel, yet we should also be increasingly able to advise others, or act quickly and decisively ourselves, in ways that will still seem spiritually right after the fact. We should grow in our capacity to size up each situation properly and apply the right virtue and the right solution to each challenge. [I think, generally, yes, and I think I’m headed in the right direction, but I can definitely do better. I am sometimes (frequently?) imprudent right here, on this blog]
  8. Is my heart undivided? Simply put, this question asks whether we allow various interests and attachments to conflict with our thirst for God or whether we are gradually developing a more ordered appreciation of all good things in, through and for God, in proper relationship to Him. Especially with things we particularly enjoy, we should be praying and working to see them in the light of Christ. [My heart is not undivided.  I have much to work on here]
  9. Do I love the Church? To again quote Fr. Basil, “the institutional Church is the unsullied Bride of Christ through which He gives Himself and His graces to a flawed people in need of enlightenment and purification from sin.” Each day, each moment, we should find ourselves loving the Church more and more wholeheartedly, despite her all too evident human flaws. If that is not happening, it is a sure sign we are backsliding. [Oh God, yes, and I want to love it more and more.  I love the Church unequivocally, although some of the individuals in the Church and particularly their actions are maddening.  But the Church as institution I love]

Perhaps some things to think on over Lent.  I think a list like this could be handy for examination of conscience from time to time – and I managed to turn yet another post into being all about ME!  ME ME ME ME!  I’M SUPER AWESOMENESS DELICITATA!  WOOT!

Uh…..penance time!

Both parties exactly the same – Repubnikan ‘cuts’ a sham April 13, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, foolishness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

So, that much balleyhooed budget “deal” that was so very very hard fought and yielded the astounding figure of almost $40 whole billion (that’s with a B!) in cuts?  It’s a sham – the actual cuts are closer to $10 billion, AND the budget start line agreed to for 2012 is higher than 2011 AND 2010.  There are essentially no cuts at all, just the inexorable, unstoppable growth of the federal goliath:

Well, according to an analysis, our “$38.5 billion in cuts” is actually about $15 billion in cuts as what is counted as “cuts” is a large pile of stuff that wasn’t going to be spent anyway or which (as is the case with earmarks) is about what money is spent on, not how much of it, in total, is being spent.

The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance.

For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion

As Rand Paul said — and I didn’t think he was right when I first heard this, but he was, in fact right — we’ll actually spend more in 2011 then in 2010

Boehner-Obama Deal Leaves FY11 Spending $773B Above FY08 Level—About as Big an Increase as Obama’s Stimulus

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) – The budget deal cut late Friday by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) will allow $3.7555 trillion in federal spending in this fiscal year.

That is $773 billion more than federal spending was in fiscal year 2008–the fiscal year before Congress enacted a bailout for the banking industry requested by President George W. Bush and a $787-billion economic stimulus law request by President Barack Obama.

That $773 billion in spending that the federal government will do this year over and above the federal spending level of 2008 equals 98 percent of the $787 billion stimulus signed by President Obama in February 2000—on the premise that it was a one-time, short-term spending escalation needed to pump up the economy in a time of recession.

Meet the new boss, same as the old!  We done got fooled again! 

Goodbye, USofA, it was lovely knowing you.  Welcome to our new statist masters!  Please tell me what kind of toilet and light bulbs I can have, and make sure all windows are made from tempered glass because I’m too stupid not to know not to walk through one (this came from a federal requirement). 

Why bother voting?  It appears both parties are exactly the same – statists. 

It’s time for a party dedicated to the principles and morality espoused by the Church.  So, Raulito and I can go have a party of two (maybe 3, with Michael Voris).  Small, but good company.

What a joke.

New youth catechism endorses contraceptive use? – UPDATED April 13, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, silliness.
comments closed

I knew Cardinal Schoenborn had begun acting rather loopy, but producing a catechism that endorses contraceptive use?

A new Vatican-sponsored catechism intended for youth suggests that Christian couples “can and should” use “contraceptive methods” when deciding on how many children to have.

The revelation comes two days before the eve of the official launch of the so-called “YouCat,” produced specially for the Church’s World Youth Day event, to be held in Madrid this coming August.

The Vatican has scheduled a press conference for April 13 to officially release the text.

Organizers of World Youth Day have already ordered 700,000 copies of YouCat to give to young pilgrims along with a sleeping bag, map and other accessories.

The catechism is laid out in a question and answer fashion. Question 420 in the Italian language edition states:

“Q. Puo una coppia christiana fare ricorso ai metodi anticoncezionali?” (Can a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive methods?)

“A. Si, una coppia cristiana puo e deve essere responsabile nella sua facolta di poter donare la vita.” (Yes, a Christian couple can and should be responsible in its faculty of being able to give life).

Vatican sources who spoke to EWTN News April 11 on the condition of anonymity speculated that the problem was in the original German text, a fact that was later confirmed by EWTN News.

“YouCat” is to be published in 12 additional languages. The English edition, published by Ignatius Press, does not contain the problematic language. It is not yet known if other language versions also contain the same controversial statement on contraception…..

Well, this is rather different than a spelling error or a lack of emphasis on the Mass as Sacrifice.  This is unforgiveable in a catechism, which, above all, is supposed to clearly and completely convey the Doctrine of the Faith in an understandable manner.  It is not intended to undermine the Faith!  That’s doing it wrong!  The English language version produced by the reliable Ignatius Press does not contain the errors – I wonder about other languages – French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian?  I don’t know how an error like this gets made on something so widely known and so elementary.  It does tend to also raise an eyebrow regarding the rest of the product, as well.  I think I stick with the standard Catechism of the Catholic Church for our family.

Speaking of……why must we have a ‘youth catechism’?  It’s intended for teens, yes, but perhaps that isn’t wise?  Do we need to Balkanize the Church further?  I am certain the regular Catechism could be presented in a manner understandable, and relevant, to teens.  It has seemed in the past that alot of ‘youth’ initiatives seem to have problems with fidelity to the Magisterium – one does not have to be heterodox to be ‘hip’ and ‘relevant.’

UPDATE: The problem is apparently with the Italian translation of the original German, and not the original.  The publisher has pulled the book from circulation.   The Italian translation was produced under the aegis of Italian Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice.