Bishop to enforce Church Doctrine? January 19, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, priests, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
Apparently, a number of priests in the Diocese of Minneapolis are upset that Archbishop John Nienstedt has threatened punishment if they apostasize regarding Church Law on marriage. The local paper found this remarkable, asserting that bishops rarely to never discipline clergy:
With Catholic Church leaders in Minnesota enthusiastically supporting a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would safeguard marriage, Archbishop John Nienstedt has warned his priests that “open dissension” will not be tolerated.
One priest who has challenged the archbishop on that point, Father Mike Tegeder, has reportedly been warned that he could be suspended from ministry if he continues to oppose the amendment campaign. [Yay! Not for the dissension, for the enforcement! MORE DOCTRINAL CLARITY!]
The Star-Tribune account of the conflict makes a point that is, unfortunately, difficult to dispute:
It is also uncommon for bishops to suspend priests for failing to abide by Catholic teaching.
However, the Minneapolis newspaper continues with another sentence that is at best misleading:
Still, religious scholars say that priests have been suspended in recent decades for supporting the ordination of women and having differing views about church doctrine on birth control.
In a day when internet search engines make it easy to research the issue, it is odd the the Star-Tribune finds it necessary to cite “religious scholars”–who are not named–as the authority for the claim that priests have been suspended for advocating the ordination of women. In fact, the Holy See has clearly stated that anyone who participates ina ceremony attempting the ordination of women is not suspended but excommunicated. Scores of priests who advocate openly for women’s ordination remain in active ministry.
As for the claim that priests have been suspended for opposing the Church’s teaching on contraception, the newspaper’s statement is true only if “recent decades” is understood to include the 1960s. [That, too, is sadly true. In fact, most priests never discuss contraception. The few who do often reject the plain belief of the Church. We need to hear the TRUTH!]
Feminism is a heresy January 19, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
According to author Donna Steichen, writing at Crisis Magazine. It’s a long post – a lengthy excerpt below, but there is much more at the link:
A brief historical review helps to explain how Feminism was transformed from an eccentric opinion held by a few highly educated and discontented women to an ideology that revolutionized society’s views about how to found families and how to live in them.
Make no mistake: Feminism has had that kind of power. And it has sought it. The leading “mainstream” feminist group in America, the National Organization for Women (NOW) said in its 1966 statement of goals that it would settle for nothing less than
a sex role revolution for men and women which will restructure all our institutions: childrearing, education, marriage and the family, medicine, work, politics, the economy, religion, psychological theory, human sexuality, morality, and the very evolution of the race.[i]
Where did feminists get the idea that family life needed a “revolution”? From those specialists in revolution, the Marxists (see Chapter 13). In his 1884 treatise, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Karl Marx’s best friend and co-author, Frederich Engels, asserted that the “bourgeois” family with its division of labor—men working, women raising children—was one of the greatest obstacles to the achievement of a socialist society. [Most of the terrible collapse in morals in the last century has been engineered, to one degree or another, by marxists in academia and other “elite” circles. Our culture has been degraded to an almost unimaginable degree by marxism/leftism, which has pushed “class struggles” by women, the sexually perverese, immigrants, etc. It is amazing how much of that rhetoric and belief has seeped into the Church] Engels argued that this barrier should be dismantled by encouraging women to see themselves as an oppressed class, like exploited factory workers, who must engage in Marxist “class warfare” against their fathers and husbands. Of course, “class warfare” in the workplace has been condemned by numerous popes, including Leo XIII and Pius XI.[ii] Applying that socialist principle to the intimate relations of the family is even more destructive: women who accept such a principle cease to see the family as a unit joined by common goals, and instead feel morally justified in seeking their own selfish interests—at the expense not just of their husbands but of their children. [Is the epidemic in divorce aided and advanced by this feminist mentality? So much of the damage to marriage and the family as institutions can be traced to divorce, and yet most divorcees do not report being happier after their divorce, they just feel a different kind of unhappiness. What price have we paid, as a culture, for this twisted, marxist form of “empowerment?”] If a woman’s own children can be her enemies, it is no wonder that feminists came to endorse first contraception and then abortion as central requirements for the progress of women in society.
From Class Struggle to Contraception
It is true, as “pro-life feminists” like to say, that early feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton accepted the belief, common in their era, that abortion is a barbaric crime committed by selfish men against women victims. Most nineteenth century suffragists thought that women voters, with their presumably nobler morality, would heal a world wounded by male selfishness.[These women had a very high view of themselves] But their fundamental premise—that women were an oppressed social class, a “domestic proletariat”— eventually eroded the wholesome social principles they had inherited from a deeply Christian society. Today there is not a single major feminist organization that does not support government-funded contraception and abortion on demand. Opposing either of those demands gets women drummed out of such organizations, just as pro-life female candidates for office find themselves opposed by such high-powered feminist fundraising groups as Emily’s List—whose litmus test is support for Roe v. Wade.
Even in its Victorian stages, Feminism’s implicit assumption, that wives and husbands are opponents locked in a power struggle, was corrosive of society. The words of suffragist leaders reveal that, like Engels and Marx, they wanted to do away with traditional family roles. The suffragists did not call on society to value woman’s distinctive and irreplaceable contributions as mothers and teachers of young people—who sometimes, out of necessity, had to work outside the home. Instead, they called on women to reject their natural vocation in order to live like men. In 1868, suffragist leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton, herself a married mother of seven, advocated birth control and equated traditional marriage with prostitution. She went on to say:
Our idea is that every woman of sound mind and body, with brains and two hands, is more noble, virtuous, and happy in supporting herself. [Why would one say this? Because they were so unhappy? But why assume other women were? Anyone can make themselves miserable in any situation] So long as a woman is dependent on a man, her relation to him will be a false one, either in marriage or out of it; she will despise herself and hate him whose desires she gratifies for the necessities of life; the children of such unions must needs be unloved and deserted.[This is one of the most pompous, false, and asinine statements I’ve ever read. I pity Stanton’s children, apparently she did not care for them very much] [iii]
A libertarian might suppose Feminism to be merely a strategy to give women more options, enabling those not called to motherhood to achieve other highly valued positions in society. Alas, no. For women who don’t embrace their agenda, feminists tend to advocate coercion instead of liberty. Simone de Beauvoir, author of the pioneering feminist work The Second Sex, admitted as much in 1975:
[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.
It is easy to discern how totalitarian all these utopian movements become. The psychologies that bought into and created this mythology of feminism are certainly, ah……….interesting.
There is tons more at the link. It’s a very long article, but well worth reading.
Washington gay marriage pol states that Christianity is a “small and dwindling minority” January 19, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
Perhaps it is in Olympia, Washington, one of the most pathetically leftist places in the country, but I think good state representative Jamie Pedersen, who is coincidentally “out and proud,” is about to find out that, contrary to his opinion, there are still quite a few practicing Christians in this country. I find it hilarious that a man that is part of, and advocating for, the smallest of minorities, the 1-2% that are homosexual, dismisses criticisms founded on Christian belief (and other faiths that condemn homosexual acts, which is all the monotheistic faiths) as the rantings of a “small and dwindling minority”
Thanks for your message. I strongly disagree with you on this issue and am the House prime sponsor of the bill that will provide marriage equality for same-sex couples. [no, it will gravely weaken and further undermine the bedrock institution of this culture, all so a tiny minority can attempt to assuage their haunted consciences] I can assure you that the legislation will provide strong protection for religious liberty. No priest or clergy person will be required to solemnize any marriage, and no religious organization may be compelled to permit its facilities to be used in connection with any marriage. [BS – everywhere the lunacy of gays simulating marriage has been recognized by the state (always by judicial fiat or legislative action, never once by direct vote), it has led to immediate and severe limitations on religious freedom, and serves as a truncheon with which to bludgeon those who live and witness to the Gospel. This is an utter lie, and he knows it] But civil marriage is a legal construct of the Revised Code of Washington, and it is very much up to the legislature to define who can marry. [20 years ago, this man would have been laughed out of any room for suggesting people of the same sex can marry] I believe that our state has a strong interest in not discriminating against — and harming — the families of same-sex couples based on the religious views of a small and dwindling minority.
All families in Washington are hurt by our current policy of treating some families as different and inferior. [Even if they are? Even if they are manifestly depraved and engaged in an activity that “cries out to Heaven” for redress?] All families in Washington will be strengthened by making civil marriage available to couples regardless of their sexual orientation. [Again, garbage, and nothing but extremist gay propaganda]
You can reach the good Mr. Pedersen below. I already sent him a message of my warmest regards:
Email him at: firstname.lastname@example.org [let’s crash his inbox!]
330 John L. O’Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
District Office: (206) 729-3206
I’ve said it before folks, and I’ll say it again – this militant homosexuality is the engine that is powering the growing persecution. This is the deviancy which faithful Christians simply cannot abide, and the more the culture tries to force it on us, the stronger will grow the resistance.
Vortex video series on masculinity and Catholicism January 19, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Interior Life, Liturgy, North Deanery, priests, Society.
Michael Voris is running a series on the lack of masculinity in the Church. This is a topic that I think needs great attention, as there appears to be a great lack of an truly masculine presence in many parts of the Church. This lack stems from a tremendous explosion in lay staff in the Church which has occurred since Vatican II (the “American” model), the vast majority of which are female, and, tragically, incredibly, the substantial presence of homosexuality within the clergy. This is not to say that a feminine aspect is not important, but the disparate prevalence of feminity in the Church could be driving many men away, as witnessed by many parishes where the male/female ratio at Mass is very disproportionate. This trend could be at play in the lack of vocations and many other problems.
A masculine presence tends to imply strength and resolution, while the feminine often implies consensus and a striving to get along. We’ve had perhaps too much of the latter, to the detriment of the bold proclamation of the Faith.
At any rate, we need more men involved in the Church, strong men who lead their domestic church and the broader Church at the parish, diocesan, regional, national, etc. levels. Men who love the Faith and are willing to die to themselves in supporting, defending, and proclaiming the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church!
I think the exegesis on the different focus of the pre- and post-Vatican II Liturgy is brilliant, and something I’d not thought of. The proper focus of the Liturgy is as a Sacrifice, and not a community meal, remembrance, whatever. The former is more properly masculine, the latter, feminine.
Is this thesis valid – that men are increasingly disinterested in the Faith as they perceive it as increasingly feminine? I think there is something to it. It is interesting to note that studies have shown that children of fathers who practice the Faith have the strongest tendency to practice that faith themselves, but when the father fails to practice the faith, so do most children, irrespective of how faithful mom is/was. There is a needed masculine element in the Church, an element of clarity and even division, to mark out and fight for what is right and True and what is false and error. I think the case can be made that the Church has gone too far down the path of the feminine in the last several decades.
I read on another blog that Michael Voris is insolent. I think he’s strong, confrontational, occasionally outraged, but I’ve never found him to be insolent, unless one has a view of being faithful as mewling obsequiousness.