jump to navigation

Episcopal suicide, Mk. MCCLXXVII May 2, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Or, a whole bunch of ’em.  In the “oh, that’s SURE to save them” department, the Episcopal Church is getting ready to approve, not same-sex “marriages,” but the next best thing!, blessings of same-sex relationships.  And it appears Texas Episcopalians are leading the way!

This July, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church will decide whether to approve “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant,” a rite for the blessing of homosexual relationships.

If the proposed rite is approved, the presider will ask each person, “N., do you freely and unreservedly offer yourself to N.?” and “Will you live together in faithfulness and holiness of life as long as you both shall live?”…..

…….In discussing Romans 1:26-27–in which St. Paul states that “women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error”–the commission’s report comments:

This chapter, especially verses 26-27, has been used to support the Church’s reluctance to embrace the loving faithfulness of same-gender couples and continues to influence conversation in Christian communities. In interpreting this Pauline passage, it is difficult to know precisely what Paul meant by “unnatural” in those verses and to whom he was addressing these concerns.

Oh……..please!   That is utterly ridiculous.  2000 years of Christian patrimony have established, without question, what St. Paul was talking about in this section of Romans.  It’s the same thing he talked about in 1 Corinthians and it’s the same thing denounced as the sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance in Leviticus, as well as being decried as no less evil in Genesis and Numbers and other places in the Bible.  To put it bluntly, homosexual acts and effeminity in men, in particular, are described as gravely sinful throughout Sacred Scripture.  There have been attempts of late by the pro-gay agenda groups to make it seem as if the Bible only mentions it once or twice, and so obliquely and generically that we can’t possibly understand what the bibilical position on homosexuality is.  Give. Me. A. Break.

I should note that the Episcopals haven’t approved this change yet, but, given their track record, it’s a metaphysical certitude that they will.

And so, in trying to desperately to be relevant, to appease the culture, to be of the world, the Episcopals will make another slice of their proverbial wrists.

That’s OK.  It was bound to happen.  But there’s a place for those disaffected episcopals that can’t abide by this redefinition of their religion.  All they have to do is tap their heels together three times while saying “There’s no place like Rome……..There’s no place like Rome………There’s no place like Rome…….”

In honor of Our Lady’s month May 2, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Some Marian chant!  Nothing better than that!  I should have done this yesterday, but got bogged down.  One new hymn for this blog, and one old, my favorite:

This one, a recreation of a chant from Crusader times.  Ah, do I love the Crusades.  We need a new one:

Ah, what the heck, here’s one more, not specifically Marian but with some great visuals:

Chant is the foundational music of the Church!  Let us have it back in every Mass!

I’m also all for laity participating in sung prayers of the Divine Office.  Compline tonight at 8 pm at Mater Dei!  Poor Fr. W. keeps putting up with our butchering it.  It’s a mortification, to be sure.


Some more thoughts about the Texas Women’s Health Program May 2, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, disaster, General Catholic, sadness, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

When I was researching the post I did yesterday on the Texas Women’s Health Program, and the fact that it is nothing but a vehicle for free contraception, I came across some data that disturbed me.  Or, maybe it was more some thinking I did after reviewing the data that was disturbing.  But the point of the WHP is to make contraception available for women who ostensibly cannot afford it.  While they do some basic medical tests and screenings, the reason for the WHP’s existence is to get contraception into the hands of women, for free.

Which got me to thinking?  Why?  Why is a program like this needed?  Contraception is not expensive.  Despite Sandra Fluke’s claims to the contrary, a month’s supply of oral contraception can be had for $9 at WalMart.  Single use condoms are even cheaper – if a woman had sex 10 times a month, that would cost her about $6, tops.  Even more exotic forms of birth control only range in the $20 a month or so range.  Many of the people who “can’t afford” contraception, then, spend more on a meal at McDonalds than they would for a month’s supply of contraception.

The expense is not egregious.  It could be easily born by virtually anyone.  So what is the program really about?  Could it be about foisting contraception on poorer people?  Could this program, and its heavy advertisement in poor areas, be intended to insure that certain groups of people don’t reproduce too much?  Whatever “too much” is?  Could it also be a tacit endorsement of sexual license among certain segments of the population, encouraging moral decay?

Look on it this way.  There’s an old saying in government – what you don’t want to succeed, you tax, and what you do want to succeed, you subsidize.  The people who have put these programs together are not dumb.  They look beyond surface effects.  And they are subsidizing the heck out of contraception.  Why?  Are people who copulate freely and frequently immorally likely to be more placid, or otherwise more controllable?  Are the effects of such immorality in terms of the breakdown of the family and thus greater dependence on government desirable to certain elites?  What interests does this promotion, this subsidization of something that is very cheap, anyways, serve?  And why is there such an incredible interest in the cultural elites on this subject, so that what amounts to a tiny government program in one state ($40 million is chicken feed in government terms) becomes the focus of national media attention and hand-wringing from all kinds of the self-anointed?

It doesn’t make sense, on the surface.  Unless this little program for free contraception is part of a much larger agenda.

Another thought.  I’ve expressed it before, long ago.  Is there a tendency towards careerism in the pro-life movement?  That is to say, now that opposition to legalized abortion has been around for decades, has it become institutionalized, so that people may have become dependent on the pro-life movement as their career?  Would a person who  makes their prime income off of working for some pro-life cause really want to see abortion go away, forever?  I don’t think the above applies to the vast majority of those who work in pro-life.  But I wonder if it might not apply to some, especially those who steadfastly refuse to oppose the root evil of contraception.  Or those who are at the highest levels of some well known pro-life groups and who serve as the gatekeepers of access to the levers of political and corporate power.

I’m not saying I really have answers for all the above.  But I think these are questions that pro-lifers should be asking.

Men increasingly an endangered species on college campuses May 2, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Four plus decades of Title IX preferential treatment has led to this: women now outnumber men on college campuses almost 3:2 (three women for every 2 men on a given college campus).  The most recent data shows that women will receive almost 60% of all degrees conferred this year, with men receiving just over 40%.  This is the complete opposite of the situation before Title IX, which is a federal law demanding equal participation for women in college and other environments.  I would say it has been more than a resounding success. 

It is estimated that this trend will continue going into the future.  Which begs the question – since women have now, demonstrably and for many years going back decades now, exceeded men in terms of enrollment and graduation from colleges, why do they still receive preferential treatment in terms of admissions, special aid programs, etc?

As this blog post notes, there are also hundreds of “women’s centers” on college campuses across the nation, all dedicated to achieving a goal which was achieved over 30 years ago – “equality” for women on college campuses.  Well, mission accomplished…….can we close them now?

OF COURSE NOT! What, are  you crazy?  These centers don’t exist to help gain an equality gained 30 years ago, they exist to advance an agenda, an agenda of radical feminism, and we can’t stop that! 

A little personal aside.  My first job out of college was at a terrible, hideous, life-threatening phosphorous chemicals factory on an Indian reservation in Idaho.  The place was a mess (it’s now a Superfund site, and they shut the plant down rather than spend $200 million to bring it into environmental compliance).   If you don’t know anything about elemental phosphorous, it’s one of the nastiest substances in creation.  It combusts violently when exposed to air at room temperature, and so has to be kept submerged in water at all times when being handled and processed.  This facility I worked at was in such bad condition and had been so ill-maintained for decades that phos, as it was called, leaked all over the place.  You would walk through “phossy water,” (water contaminated with phosphorous, which was everywhere) go back to your desk, and your boots would catch on fire. I am not making this up.  Oh, and if you got phos on your skin, not only would it burn you from the flames of the violent oxidation, a product of the oxidation was phosphoric acid, so you’d get double burned!  It was so much fun.  The things I’ve been through, you have no idea, gentle reader.

But that’s not the point.  That plant, I mentioned, was on an Indian reservation.  Partly because of that, and partly because of a general PC attitude that prevailed in management, they had a totally out of control “equality council” at the plant.  They subjected us engineers, most of whom were white and male, to regular beratings about how white men had subjected women and “people of color” through the ages, and how the tables were now turned with equality laws and anti-discrimination rules and hate crime legislation and all that, and now white men were going to suffer.  We were going to pay the price for the evils allegedly committed by our forefathers.  When it was pointed out, by me, that this was not exactly fair or right, to still discriminate but just in a different direction, I was told that was just too bad, and I’d get to pay the price for the depredations of my predecessors.   I had no idea that my great great grandfather, who lived in a cave in Kansas for 20 years while he built up the farm, was so rapacious and cruel. 

I know it sounds crazy, but I am not making any of this up.  The woman who ran their ‘corporate equality’ office or whatever it was called literally did say that reverse discrimination was wonderful and good and that we evil white males deserved everything we go.

It was a toxic environment in every possible sense. Do such attitudes prevail at these women’s centers on college campuses?  Is there a drive to now “stick-it” to men, in general?  

Difficult questions, I know.

The plant from hell