jump to navigation

Sweet! I can’t wait to see this! November 30, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Our Lady, persecution, priests, religious, sickness, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

OK, so it may not have Saving Private Ryan production values, but who cares, the story is true, and it’s about Catholic heroes and martyrs.  I just finished reading The Guillotine and the Cross – what a great book.  It discussed the martyrs of the Vendee’ extensively.  Carroll believes it was the blood and prayers of the martyrs – all the tens or hundreds of thousands of martyrs of France – that ended the nightmare of the early French Revolution – a series of events that has prompted even cynical, secular historians to conclude that something evil was abroad in that time that was more than human.  This movie is scheduled to release in January – I pray that is so, becuase other exciting movies, like Christiada, are still without distributors and haven’t been released:

Novena for St. Andrew – great blessings! November 30, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Interior Life, North Deanery, Saints, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I was sent the below by my helper – she sends me all kinds of great prayers and Novenas.  Providentially, I was given a little blessed chain with beads – like a Rosary, but with 15 beads – by a woman today after Mass, to pray this Novena!  I believe God is trying to tell me something!

The power of this prayer is second only to the Golden Arrow prayer.  Every intention for that particular year is answered–the miracle occurs within 30 days or two years, in our experience.  I have become quite close to St Andrew through this prayer.  He was the older brother to St Peter and was the first to encounter Jesus (age 30) on the streets.  He excitedly told his brother and others that he had indeed encountered the Messiah.

We should always be praying.  This prayer is a beautiful way to deepen our Advent and Christmas experience.  St Andrew who was the first to recognize Jesus’s sacred face will intercede with our intention.  Our one intention should be specific NOT general.  So think carefully about it If you forget one day to recite the prayer, make it up the next day.

from Josephine: “Personally, i have never been disappointed and have found this Novena to be truly miraculous!”

 Begin on November 30th, The Feast of St. Andrew until Christmas Eve, Dec.24.

Pray it 15 times a day:





A formula to get invitations for heterodox and/or pro-abort speakers cancelled November 30, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, North Deanery, priests, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

Dr. Monica Miller, a true pro-life stalwart and dedicated Catholic, Michael Voris, and a Dave Thiesen have gotten together to form Operation Sacred Soil, a program to help faithful Catholics stop events that feature hetorodox, dissenting, or even pro-abort individuals on Catholic Church property (be it a parish, chancery, hospital, etc).  This formula laid out below is essentially what I/we followed in the Sister Rupp and other similar situations in the Diocese.  The only part we did not carry out was the protest – it was considered, but it was decided it would not be “prudent.”  I did not agree with this assessment.   Below are the seven steps to take in the event of a problematic, dissenting speaker cancelled:

The Seven Holy Steps:
1. Set up local observation teams to identify announcements of pro-abortion speakers in Catholic hospitals, churches, schools, and other institutions. Parish bulletins and school or hospital newsletters on-line are a good source of information. 

2. Your very first contact should be made with the pastor or Administrator where the speech is to take place. Your goal here is to convince this person in authority to rescind the invitation. 

3. If the initial contact with the pastor or administrator fails, contact the key person at the affected diocese. (This could be the Auxiliary Bishop, the Chancellor, the Moderator of the Curia, and perhaps the Ordinary himself.) Your purpose here is to get these persons to intervene and take action to have the invitation rescinded. If the diocese has a stated policy that pro-abortion speakers are not permitted to make presentations on diocesan-owned property—use that statement as a means to your end.

4. Organize a prayerful protest and give the diocese a deadline. This is a very important step. Indeed, it may be the only actual leverage you have that may result in the rescinding of the invitation.

5. Contact local media that are not likely to “poison the story” (admittedly a challenge at times).

6. Keep the diocese informed. Do not assume motives for diocesan behavior. They too must work within a system. Give them proper prayer cover as you ask them for relief. Always be polite, respectful, and act with charity. Never assume that your bishop and chancery officials are the enemy. The goal here is to work with them. 

7. If the speaker is not cancelled, hold a public, prayerful protest, outside of the parish, school, or affected institution. If the speaker is cancelled at the last minute, hold a public, prayerful thanksgiving. 

If the pastor or the diocese cancelled the speaker—thank them. Show your gratitude. 


Large entities often cite the “subsidiary rule” as a means to slow down decision-making. If you have followed the steps in order, this rule will not apply. You will have followed a proper chain of command.

If you fail to take the Holy Spirit with you, you are bound to fail in every attempt you make. The plan is always to change hearts. This cannot be done without Him.
Remember that religious orders can only operate in the diocese with the continued permission of the Ordinary (the Bishop).

Video about Jesus in the “twittering” age November 30, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, silliness, Virtue.
comments closed

What do you think of this?  Cool, interesting, too trendy, protestant?

I actually rather liked it, although I profoundly dislike twittering and the general butchering of thought and language it entails (as if blogs, ahem, were not bad enough!)

Modernism and the Catholic university November 30, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, North Deanery, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, Saints, scandals, sickness, Society, Tradition.
comments closed

Perhaps the Catholic above should be in quotes.  I have been reading, gentle reader, the Catechism of Modernism, a book originally written in 1908 to explain the horrific, insidious heresy of modernism to the faithful in the wake of Pope St. Pius X’s formal condemnation of the same in 1907, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.  I have planned to give a lengthy exegesis on modernism based on this book, but had planned to do so fairly systematically, and not simply throw out things in the book of interest when I find them.  I say I had planned, for while I am nearing the end of the book, having read it very slowly and carefully, I found something today that I believe cries out (to Heaven?) to be shared with you and with all.  This something is a little excerpt regarding how Catholic educational institutions, especially colleges and seminaries, should select directors and professors with regard to the truly dire threat of modernism – the greatest heresy in the history of the Church.  The book presents the enyclical in a question and answer format:


Q. What prudence is to be exercised, and what rules and to be followed in the choice of professors for seminaries and Catholic universities?

A. All these prescriptions [against modernism] and those of Our Predecessors are to be borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catholic universities. Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn.  The same policy is to be adopted toward those who favor modernism either by extolling the modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticizing scholasticism [the theology and philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and those who have followed faithfully in his wake], the Holy Fathers, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositories [any of its areas of competency]; and toward those who show a love of novelty in history, archeology, biblical exegesis, and finally toward those who neglect the sacred sciences [theology, Catholic philosophy] or appear to prefer them to the profane.  In all this question of studies, you can not be too watchful or too constant, but most of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the students are modelled after the pattern of their masters. Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always prudently but vigorously. 

[End Quote] So, how have our Catholic universities done in this regard?  This encyclical is still in force, and has “extra” authority, if you will, because Pope St. Pius X followed its publication with the anti-modernist oath, required of all priests, deacons, professors, seminary directors, etc., to insure they explicitly rejected modernism and all its lies and deceits (the oath itself was abrogated in 1967, but an encyclical is an encyclical).  To say that Catholic universities take even a token interest in upholding this encyclical is a cruel joke – outside of a handful, all are terribly infested with modernism, with heretical, false biblical exegesis (the historical-critical method is explicitly rejected in this encyclical), constant rejection of Church Doctrine, embrace of the fallen world and its “values,” etc., etc.  But the proposition above was directed primarily at bishops – with so many Catholic universities, and, even  more disastrously, seminaries touting modernist beliefs, how is this encyclical being supported today, or over the past several decades?  Or how was it being supported in 1967, when the calamity began in earnest? 

In the year of Our Lord 376, the Arians appeared triumphant.  They had virtually all the bishops.  They had many, perhaps most of the priests.  They had even tricked the aging pontiff into signing a confusing statement that could be read to support their heresy, after they had kidnapped the frail old man and kept him under lock and key.  They had even similarly tricked St. Isidore of Seville, who was even more old and frail.  A few bishops, most notably St. Athanasius, stood in the breech, continuing to hold fast to the Truth Christ had revealed through His Church, in spite of being driven from their office, persecuted, threatened with torture or death.  And in the end, Christ and His Truth prevailed, as it always will.  We have perhaps passed through the darkest, most bleak period of the ascendency of modernism – but we have perhaps not.  The battle against Arianism swung back and forth over decades until it was finally, decisively crushed.  But our God is a God of Truth, and He is the God of Armies (not Hosts, as commonly translated – the proper meaning is the God of Armies).  He needs an army of prayer warriors to turn this terrible tide of error and confusion.  The most effective means of prayer is the Mass.  Assist at Holy Masses.

Post-abortive women 3x as likely to develop breast cancer November 30, 2011

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

51 of 67 breast cancer studies since 1957 have shown a greatly increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had an abortion.  Breast cancer rates have exploded since first contraception, and then abortion, became legal and widespread.  A recent study from Armenia showed a nearly 3x increase in breast cancer rates for women who have had an abortion.  But somehow, the study’s author claimed there was no abortion-breast cancer link.  Armenia was formerly part of the Soviet Union – where abortion was virtually a religion and epidemic among women, and still is today.  That may have had an impact on insuring the “correct” conclusion was reached:

On Monday the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed to a new study which found a nearly 3-fold increase in the risk of breast cancer among Armenian women who had an abortion as yet another reason women should steer clear of the procedure.

The report, “Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and Prolonged Estrogen Exposure on Risk of Breast Cancer Among Women in Armenia” published in Taylor & Francis was authored by Lilit Khachatryan of the Department of Public Health at the American University of Armenia. The study included researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania.

The research found that induced abortions increased a woman’s risk of beast cancer 2.86 times — they claim however that “most evidence … points to no effect.”

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer contends that political correctness was the reason the researchers claimed there is no link.

Baruch College biology and endocrinology professor Joel Brind — an advocate of the breast cancer/abortion link — criticized the findings, explaining in a statement that the researchers “did not — and perhaps were not allowed to — characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all.”

Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed out that, though they deny a link, the researchers’ finding — that women who had an abortion were 2.68 times more likely to have breast cancer — was not a surprise as, according to Malec, 51 of 67 epidemiological studies since 1957 show a link.

The National Cancer Institutes and other groups continue to deny any link between abortion and breast cancer – but, then again, we’ve had scienticians telling us for years that we absolutely must gut our economy and give way to a small cabal running a command, “green” economy in order to stave off the dread threat of global warming.  That is to say, much “science” gets heavily politicized, and those conclusions which are not popular at times get ignored.  The fact remains, breast cancer rates have exploded over the past 50 years – faster than the growth of virtually any other form of cancer.  There must be some reason for that explosion.  Is it possible that powerful hormones in contraception are responsible, or that violenting interrupting pregnancies could be responsible? 

Certainly, with the present administration, we are unlikely to get any honest answers on this front.

Why not oppose contraception and IVF with respect to personhood amendments? November 29, 2011

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

When the personhood amendment was being debated in Mississippi, the pro-aborts proclaimed loudly and frighteningly that the proposed amendment would make much contraception, and procedures like in-vitro fertilization, illegal. Leave aside that both are completely amoral activities, totally detached from the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church – the pro-personhood side folks fell all over themselves trying to rebutt these claims.  To a large extent, they failed.  And to a large extent, it was this unease over potential impact on the legality of contraceptives and unnatural reproductive procedures Americans love so much that led to such lukewarm support for this personhood amendment in surprising corners – possibly including even the Church.  Because while it might be possible in present day America to get abortion declared illegal in certain locales, it will be virtually impossible to challenge the morality or legality of contraception or IVF, so why even bother? Or, if personhood amendments are a good way to make abortion illegal or extremely difficult to obtain, shouldn’t pro-lifers be “reasonable” and strive to insure that sacred things like contraception and IVF are “protected.”    Kassi Marks at Pro Life Texas says no:

The Personhood Amendment debate in Mississippi and the comments of its primary supporter, show a shocking, but all too common, truth about the “pro-life” community as a whole.  Even the proponents of the Amendment go out of their way to say that this would notban IVF and contraception.

     As a matter of philosophical consistency and logic, “Why not?”  If they are seeking to protect all embryos from the moment of conception and define them as persons, how do you then exclude these two forms of life-beginning-at-conception from the protection they say they want?  Are they not persons, too?  How can you “protect human embryos from the moment of conception” and not ban IVF and at least those forms of contraception that can be abortifacients? 

     It is important to realize how the Supreme Court got to its decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).  Together Roe and Doe legalized abortion across all fifty states based principally on an alleged “right of privacy” in the U.S. Constitution because the Court had already decided Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which is the all-too-often-forgotten case wherein the Court actually found that “right of privacy” in the context of deciding that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives was unconstitutional.  [Indeed, you cannot have Roe without Griswold.  And you cannot have abortion on demand without a culture addicted to contraception]

     There has been, from the very beginning, an inextricable link between contraception and abortion.  Up until about 1930, all Christian Churches [thanks, Anglicans!] condemned both contraception and abortion and were united in support of life from the moment of conception.  The only Christian Churches to remain firmly against both contraception and abortion are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church [and sadly, the Orthodox, not so much anymore.  They now permit the use of barrier methods].  When the others changed their doctrines, they started by relaxing their views concerning contraception. [And it was not 25 years in the Anglican sect between “contraception in very limited, controlled situations” and “contraception is great for everyone, and abortion, too!”]  This clarity among and within churches regarding contraception is no longer present and it has without a doubt contributed significantly to the muddled pro-life philosophy for many well-intentioned individuals.  This link must be made clear again, especially since it is now evident that certain forms of contraception can lead to abortions.  (And, not just the “Morning After Pill,” but also certain forms of “the Pill,” IUDs, etc.)  If life begins at conception and the embryo is a person, then one cannot support abortifacient contraception. 

     And, what about the “selective reductions” after a successful IVF or the destruction of unused embryos? 

Indeed, what about them?  The problem is one of practicality – while you can, today, put together a broad-based coalition opposed to both abortion and even procedures like IVF and embryonic stem cell research, you can’t find 10% of the US population to oppose contraception.  That’s the sacred cow, that’s where the education needs to occur, that’s where minds and hearts must be changed.  We won’t be able to overturn abortion laws until we have a fundamental rethinking of America’s love affair, it’s near obsession,with contraception and the sexual license it enables.  I really mean that – we, pro-lifers, will not be able to get abortion made illegal from conception to birth until a much larger proportion of the population agrees that contraception is morally wrong. 

And yet, while you can find many a priest, thankfully, who will strongly denounce abortion from the pulpit, finding one who will denounce contraceptive use is much more difficult.  There are a few, and some of the younger priests seem less concerned over upsetting folks on this issue, but not nearly enough.  The Catholic Church is the heart and soul of the pro-life movement.  But we’re crippled philosophically and practically because the Church in this country is not fully engaged in fighting this great moral evil – a moral evil every bit as great as abortion.  Until we do, we can continue to look forward to over a hundred thousand babies being put to gruesome death, in utero, every month.  It is far past time for our leaders to get fully, completely on board with proclaiming this very unpopular, but very necessary, Truth.

A little Catholic Culture for you November 29, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic.
comments closed

Courtesy Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV.  May I remind you that Michael Voris will speak at the Frontiers of Flight Museum in Dallas next March!  More details will be coming!

Contrition November 29, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, North Deanery, priests, Sacraments, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Continuing in the ongoing series of posts on the Sacrament of Confession, we’ll next move to the 2nd in the list of things needed for a good Confession: contrition.  After Examination of Conscience, and before a firm purpose of amendment, the actual confessing of sins, and penance, comes contrition.  A sincere examination of conscience brings a person face to face with the many terrible crimes and deplorable weaknesses of their soul.  After determining the number, kind, and gravity of one’s sins, the soul should be filled with confusion and sorrow.  This, then, is contrition.

Contrition is the key to God’s mercy and forgiveness.  It is the most essential condition for a worthy reception of the Sacrament of Confession. Sin is a great evil – the greatest.  Even though at times it may affect the body, its chief effect is on the soul, for it separates the soul from God, either entirely (in mortal sin) or to some extent (in venial sin).  To get back into God’s favor – into God’s good Graces – one must go to Confession,but first have a sincere sorrow for his wrongdoing and repentance of the acts involved.  We must be truly sorry from a supernatural motive and detest our sins with our whole heart, frimly resolving not to commit them again.

Without this sorrow or contrition, there can be no pardon for sin.  The priest has no power to absolve a sinner who does not have true contrition. If he attempted to do so, the absolution would be worthless. God Himself will not, and cannot, forgive anyone who is not sorry for his sins and fully determined not to offend Him again.

Contrition is defined by the Council of Trent as a sorrow of the soul and a detestation of the sins committed, with the firm determination not to sin again (Sess XIV, Cap. 4).  Note that contrition is a sorrow of the soul – not of the body.  We don’t have to be heaving great sobs, or dejected in body or word, or be striking our breasts in grief (although………it may not hurt), or make any outward signs.  But we should have a serious inward sorrow for our sins and be striving not to commit them again.

True contrition has four qualities.  It must be 1) interior, 2) supernatural, 3) universal, and 4) sovereign.  Tomorrow, God Willing, we’ll look at these four qualities of contrition.  I pray this catechesis on contrition will be helpful in guiding souls to both avail themselves more of this Sacrament, and to make their participation in this Sacrament more serious and effectual.

Bad advice – Pope Benedict calls for “effective action” on “climate change” November 29, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Bad advice, or bad timing, or?  I don’t think we in the states can understand the extent to which “climate change” hysteria has become a religion in Europe.  There may be great pressures on the Pope to say something about this issue.  But the timing was baffling – ClimateGate 2.0 breaks, showing the horrific abuse of the “scientifician process” (and I say this as a long practicing engineer), the hooliganism, the attempts to destroy the careers and reputations of “deniers” (heretics), and further proof of evidence being covered up or radically modified to support the right orthodoxy of the gaia loving climate changers – and now the Pope says this?:

Pope Benedict XVI called for effective action on climate change during his Angelus audience on Sunday, November 28. He repeated his message of concern for the environment on Monday in a meeting with an Italian youth group.

At his Sunday audience the Pope issued a message to world leaders participating in a UN conference on climate change, taking place in South Africa this week. “I hope that all members of the international community agree on a responsible and credible response to this worrisome and complex phenomenon,” the Pontiff said. He added that in their work they should be “taking into account the needs of the poorest and future generations

Wow.  That’s kind of surprising.  I know the Vatican moves slow, and I understand the prevailing orthodoxy in Europe, but this isn’t this pretty tone deaf?  “Climate change” as a political issue is now just about dead in the US, outside the true believers.  See Anthony Watt for copious details on why that is so.  The Pope later goes on to state that developed nations should work to insure that the poor are not most affected by “climate change” – but it is precisely the top-down, command economy proscriptions of the climate change watermelons that would most impact, most devastate the lives of  the poor, by causing severe economic depressions throughout the world. 

What do you guys think of this?

Back to MFG!