jump to navigation

Real quick post – altar girls and EF Mass June 6, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, North Deanery, scandals.
comments closed

If altar girls cannot be used in the ‘extraordinary’ form of the Mass (TLM), how can they be used for the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo)?  The Pope has said these two forms of the Mass represent ‘the same Mass.’  Then how can widely different criteria apply?

BTW, am I the only one to feel that well trained and reverent altar boys can make a material difference in the reverent feel of the celebration of Mass?  I’ve seen a huge variety, from ill trained and lackadaisical to almost military in their precision, and it can make a huge difference, to me. 

The cassock also helps!

Modesty of dress at Mass is essential June 6, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Latin Mass, North Deanery, religious, scandals.
comments closed

I wrote a few weeks ago about a group of people attending a Mass most wearing very inappropriate attire, and behaving most inappropriately.  I had heard a sermon on EWTN on that subject about the same time, but could not find it on Youtube.  Colleen Hammond has done that work for me.  Thanks Colleen.

Modesty is something all Christians are always called to – that is why it is a virtue.  But modesty at Mass is essential.  It is also countercultural in today’s times.  Be a rebel – dress nicely and modestly!

Bishop Farrell fires one off June 6, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, North Deanery, Society.
comments closed

I used to go by Bishop Farrell’s blog from time to time, but for several reasons I stopped reading it.  It was almost painfully non-controversial, it seemed that comments either were not allowed or that only very few were allowed, and I just did not get much out of it.  At a party this weekend (cuz that’s what I do – I party), I was told about a recent post where Bishop Farrell departed from this usual formula and issued some pretty hot opinions.  The subject was immigration, and he did not hold back, no, not one bit:

The so called “Sanctuary Cities Bill” passed by the Texas House is at best ill-conceived and at worst racist. [This is a very unfortunate statement, beneath the dignity of a Bishop, in my opinion.  He is casting aspersions at millions of Texans who happen to oppose him on an issue of policy.  This is a bad start] I join the other Texas bishops of the Texas Catholic Conference in registering my dismay at the action of the House and urging the Texas Senate to “affirm the dignity of all human life in our state and protect the safety of our communities.” [Is it against the ‘dignity of all human life’ to enforce immigration laws?  Is this a commentary on the pro-life community?]

Under the provisions of the legislation, cities would be prohibited from instructing police officers not to check the immigration status of persons detained in a criminal investigation. Supporters of the bill claimed that cities with such practices are in effect “sanctuary cities” where illegal immigrants are protected.

Governor Perry “fast-tracked” the bill by giving it an emergency status and the House used a legislative maneuver to cut off debate. It now goes to the State Senate for consideration.

Fears are that the bill will in effect legalize profiling by making any Hispanic subject to being stopped and forced to show proof of American citizenship.[There is little evidence to support this ‘fear.’] In addition to the dehumanizing element the bill potentially diverts scarce resources from more serious criminal activity. It is opposed by many cities and law enforcement officials.

Texas and American bishops support immigration reform,[if, by immigration reform, you mean almost totally unconstrained illegal immigration and amnesty for those here] but oppose enforcement of federal law by local and state law enforcement agencies. [More on this later] The bishops call for comprehensive immigration reform including a path to permanent residency and emphasis on family unity.

How short our memory is. The story of Texas is a history of immigration, much of it “illegal.” What we are experiencing today is not the Hispanization of Texas; it is the re-Hispanization. [I believe Bishop Farrell is implying that the Americans who settled in Mexico prior to 1836 were here illegally.  That is largely not true, all those who purchased land had to do so in land grants with the permission of the Mexican government.  In 1836, however, notions of immigration control were limited, at best.  This is a red herring.  More disturbing, however, seems to be an allusion to radical ‘latino pride’ groups like La Raza who speak of a ‘reconquista’ of the American Southwest.  If so, this statement is historically ignorant.  Why were the American immigrants to Texas successful in their independence movement?  It is because there were precious few Mexican nationals living in Texas at that time, which is why the Mexicans encouraged settlers from the US to come to Texas in the first place!  Almost all major Mexican settlements were south of San Antonio.] With over 37 percent of the population of Hispanic origin, according to the 2010 federal census, the future of Texas is obvious.

You cannot hold back the sunrise but you can keep your eyes closed. [Bishop Farrell seems to be implying that unconstrained immigration is an unstoppable force]

The bishops of Texas have yet again staked out a position I find incredible.  They are repeatedly calling for state and local law enforcement NOT to assist federal law enforcement in the enforcement of the law.  Does this only apply to immigration?  Because local law enforcement constantly works with federal law enforcement on a whole range of illegal activities, and without the support of local law enforcement, the feds would be incredibly hampered.  On crimes ranging from illegal drugs to kidnapping and murder, numerous cases that involve the federal government require the support of local law enforcement in order to be successfully prosecuted.  There is no reason that local law enforcement cannot similarly aid the feds on the matter of immigration.  Similar laws have been upheld as Constitutional, if you’re worried about that.  This normal procedure, which the bill in question only prevents being usurped by local political motivations, is only being opposed because it strikes against what I guess is becoming a huge issue for the bishops – unconstrained illegal immigration.  I don’t think we’ll see a similar missive from any bishop decrying local law enforcement assisting the feds in solving an interstate kidnapping through a routine traffic violation.

So, what do you think?  How does that post resonate with you?  If you don’t support the bishop’s open immigration plan, you’re a racist?  I’ll say this – when Bishop Farrell decides to fire something off, he really fires.

Imam to preach from Catholic pulpit June 6, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, religious, sadness, sickness.
comments closed

Early in a last decade, I read a lament from a very smart woman who claimed that one day Islam would be preached from the pulpit of Oxford.  That day has sadly come to pass.  And much more…..

This story apparently broke last Friday, but there are two scandals here, one small, and one much larger.  The first scandal is that a Catholic priest (a Jesuit, naturally!) would participate in this exercise in narcissistic moral superiority.  Only one Catholic parish appears involved.  But the larger scandal, which Voris addresses, is that the USCCB appears to be endorsing this kind of activity, or at least reporting on it favorably.  There are many problems with large bureaucracies – two of the largest are lack of accountability and the sort of lassitude this generates which allows separate agendas to surface.  The USCCB is a large bureaucracy, and the most charitable interpretation I can assign to this article is that oversight was simply lacking, and some kum-bay-yah type wrote it on their own initiative.  Otherwise, the explanation is that there are elements within the USCCB who are very friendly towards religious indifferentism.

The more I read the history of the world, and especially that of Europe and the Mideast, the more I come to the conclusion that islam is irrevocably opposed to Christianity, and, specifically, Catholicism.  Islam has constantly been hostile towards Christianity, but unlike Christianity, islam rarely tries to spread itself by evangelization – it is spread by the sword.  When islam burst out of Arabia in a great conquering wave, permissible only because of a historical quirk, a time of weakened empires and fractious infighting, it was spread by violence and intimidation.  When muslims would conquer a given region, the inhabitants had the choice of conversion or accepting second class citizenship with onerous limitations on the practice of their religion.  Islam has ALWAYS been violent and expansionistic with respect to Christianity, and for many centuries Christianity was in grave peril from the muslim threat.  It is only in the rough period 1800-2000 that the Christian nations of the world became so technologically, economically, and militarily ascendent over islam that the threat first receded, and then became something of a sad joke.  But that was then.  Now, things are much different.  A stultified West which has discarded its Faith and is in economic, moral, military, and religious decline while at the same time islam is somewhat ascendent due to high birth rates, a somewhat greater fervor for their faith (but still perverse – check out the internet statistics for porn usage in a country like Pakistan), and oil revenues, and is posing a greater and greater threat.  And due to moral and economic decline, Europe has thrown open its gates to islam – many millions professing mohammad now reside in Europe.

It doesn’t matter that those who organize this kind of effort are well meaning.  It doesn’t matter that they can find a few, or many, imams to preach peace.  Islam remains fundamentally opposed to Christianity.  And it is indifferentism at best to proclaim any other religion from a Catholic pulpit.  This is not the Faith of our fathers, it is the Faith reduced to an emotional, feel good level.