jump to navigation

Dangit all, it is not “anti-gay” to support the traditional definition of marriage September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, silliness, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I tired of this crap in the media – this is the “new racism” – that if you don’t believe marriage should be destroyed so a tiny minority can feel better about itself, if you believe that marriage is a God-given institution that man has no right to redefine, and if you have great charity for those with same sex attraction but refuse to endorse sin by embracing their lifestyle – then you’re “anti-gay.”

I was looking up stories on this Chick-Fil-A cave in (although the furious backlash may have them reconsidering), and over half of them use the term “anti-gay” to describe Chick-Fil-A’s previous support for marriage. So, 7 or 8 years ago, when no one was talking about “gay marriage,” were all these same elites “anti-gay,” then?  Was Obama “anti-gay” until a few months ago?  What about the vast majority of other left wing politicians who have only embraced this issue over the past few years – were they “anti-gay,” too?  How about the rest of the world, where the vast majority of the world’s population would look on this redefinition for the incredibly offensive, radical agenda that it is – are they all “anti-gay?”

Give me a break.  This is just another example of the the totally out of control lamestream, leftist dominated media finding a convenient club with which to beat conservatives and advance their agenda.  It allows the elites to mark themselves off from us brain dead Christo-fascist rubes that still believe in traditional morality, letting them pretend amongst them they are so much above us hoi polloi.  I’m sick of it.  I shall rant on this tonight, you betcha.

Have a good week! September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin.
comments closed

I’m out tomorrow and all next week. Get your paranoid troglodyte revaunchist rad trad diatribes elsewhere!

On the radio tonight 9pm CDT! September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, fun, General Catholic.
comments closed

Short post, I’m on the radio on the awesome Fidelis Radio network tonight.  Listen live here, or after the fact anytime!  I’m going to talk about the depredations  of islam and the false concept of ecumenism that has permeated too many in the Church with regard to it.  I’m also going to talk about the Chick-Fil-A collapse in defending marriage.

Survey: majority of Catholics opposed to Obama NY Catholic Charities invite September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, persecution, sadness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

I’m surprised to find that over half of Catholics are opposed to this?  How does that correspond with polls showing a majority of Catholics planning to vote for Obama (of course, there are massive problems with most polls, being push polls to try to make an Obama win look inevitable)?  How polling questions are asked can make a huge difference in the results reported.  Anyway, here is the story:

A new nationwide poll commissioned by the American Life League has found that over half of U.S. Catholics believe Cardinal Dolan’s invitation of President Obama to the Al Smith fundraising dinner sends the wrong message to Catholics.

Dolan, viewed by many in the pro-life and pro-family movements as a close ally, has so far stood firm against the criticism, defending his decision in a blog postin which he argued that “the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue.” [Ahem…..”aggiornamento.”  That is what the Council wanted to put forth.  I’m not sure it’s working very well.  Even reading the early Saints, they counseled caution when it came to engagement with the world, for they knew that the world tends to win more often than not.  But today, such engagement is often treated within the Church as en end to itself]

He posited that “anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, [????? please……”vibrant solidarity” – did he really write that?] be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.” [This doesn’t really address the criticism, does it?]

But according to ALL’s survey, the majority of American Catholics disagree. The survey found that 55% of Catholics believe the invitation sends the wrong signal to Catholics, and 53% believe the invitation gives the impression that Obama is approved by the Church.

Here’s the big graphic:

Again, much hinges on the way the questions were phrased, which weren’t provided in the article.  It is very revealing, however, that such a large number of Catholics reached the same conclusion as Dolan’s strongest critics: that inviting Obama to this dinner will almost certainly result in some Catholics concluding that it’s fine to vote for him, who otherwise may not have.  This is like St. Peter inviting Nero to dinner, palling around, having some wine, having scribes record the event and posting notices around the city about how great it was to “put aside differences” and “spend an evening together in civility,” all the while Christians are being used as torches to light the Appian way. Does anyone think St. Peter would cooperate with evil in that way?  I certainly don’t.

Many of the great Fathers of the Church knew that there were people you just can’t reach. There are implacable foes who have their own agenda, who are totally owned by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and all we can do is to pray for them.  I think the vast majority of faithful Catholics know Obama to be that kind of man.  “Engagement” is useless, unless he thinks he can derive some benefit from the charade, which he obviously does. It may make Cardinal Dolan and the tony attendees of this very high priced event feel good, but this will do nothing to promote or defend the Faith – quite the contrary, it is scandalous and will undermine the faith of many. Yes, it’s a prudential judgment, but it’s a disastrously bad one.  Yet another in a very long line of such judgments among the episcopate going back 60, 70 years.

May God have mercy on us.


Some thoughts on our first parents and evolution September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, Bible, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, Tradition.
comments closed

A new commenter, a local man named David, directed me to his blog where he asks some questions about the formation of Adam – how Adam came into being:

Where did Adam come from?

Do not misunderstand my question.  I believe that God created Adam.  I believe that the biblical account of the creation of Man is historically true.  That is to say, I believe that the creation of Man by Almighty God was a real and singular event in the history of the universe.

On the other hand, I do not believe that Adam appeared literally and physically out of nowhere, ready made in an instant, a pillar of dust whipped up into the perfect shape of an adult male.

Fellow Catholic Traditionalist, what say you?

I believe David is getting at questions of evolution, or how God may have intervened in His creation to create man.  Prior to the past few years, and being an engineer trained very thoroughly in all the modern scientific beliefs, I tended to accept the scientific theory of evolution as nearly or entirely true and valid.  I also held some view, however, that evolution may have merely been the means by which God went about doing his creation.  I should add that, while holding these views, I was not very well formed at the time.  But, the current view of the Church regarding these matters is not excluding of evolution, while also not endorsing it.

It needs to be made clear that, contrary to what Fr. Barron thinks, Adam and Eve were real, literal people.  This belief had been so universally and totally accepted that to me it is dogmatic, making up part of of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and of course it was thoroughly endorsed by Venerable Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis.  It is not until the last 100-150 years that doubts as to Adam and Eve’s existence were raised, initially by modenists but now by many Catholics.  This is a catastrophe, for, without Adam and Eve and their fall, the entire salvation history becomes meaningless and we’re down to a modernist, immanentist religion (God exists in each one of us, we kind of “create” god and religion by our faith-like desires).

But, how Adam and Eve were formed has never really been defined by the Church (please correct me if I am wrong).  As I said, I used to accept evolution more or less at face value as I had been taught in secular institutions over many years, but now I am almost totally ske9ptical. I wouldn’t say I reject completely, totally out of hand, but I doubt it, severely.  I just don’t believe that all this incredibly beautiful and varied life that is on this planet formed by accident.  I don’t believe we’re a cosmic joke, the result of some chemicals deciding to become proteins, and then those proteins forming into strings, which became more complex, and eventually resulted in cells, etc.  Give me a break. I also don’t accept the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe – where did the incredibly dense, superheated ball of matter come from that formed the universe?  “God-particle” or no, “science” will never be able to answer that.

And, science has been horribly, terribly wrong almost as often – or perhaps more often – than it has been right over the past 1000 years.  Science has given us such wonderful concepts as eugenics, invitro-fertilization, alchemy, “ether,” etc., etc.  It is imminently possible that the erudite 1000 years from now will look back on this quaint medieval time as one of pathetic, anti-scientific superstition.  They may well laugh at evolution.

So, how did God form Adam and Eve?  I will say this:  if God can create the Universe out of nothing, which I totally believe, he can create man out of dust and dirt. If God can change bread and wine into the most awesome miracle in history, His Body and Blood, He can create man from essentially nothing.  That doesn’t mean one has to accept such to be a faithful Catholic – the Church has not formally defined this, or even really settled on this informally, as far as I know – but, as I’ve grown in the Faith, I think it helps. A lot.

Why?  My personal experience has shown that there are things in Scripture that are difficult to understand. But, these things are not vital for our salvation.  I find it helps not to focus on such things.  That might be an evasive answer – I don’t mean it to be – but as I said, these things are not vital to our salvation, and one needs to ask where such questions or doubts come from.  They could come from just natural curiosity, but our enemy also wants us to doubt and question, to lose faith.  There is a danger in this.

One thing I would advise for someone with such questions is to get a really good study Bible.  Far more often than not, all these questions have been dealt with by people more holy and learned than us. I strongly recommend the Haydock Study Bible.  In a comment, David asked, “where did Cain’s wife come from?”  Fr. Haydock says that Cain married a daughter of Adam and Eve, and that God overcame the natural problems of such a union, since there was no alternative at the time.   That’s not necessarily the only answer, and certainly has an ick factor for us, but we are separated from that time and place by an immense distance, especially in the morals that were slowly inculcated into men through God’s revelation.  One can also query various other experts on morals, but I would be extremely careful which study Bible I used and which person I turned to.  Almost all Bibles written in the 20th century are colored by modernism to one degree or another, and the experts, as well.  That is why I favor the Haydock Bible, it was compiled in the late 18th century, but the language was somewhat modernized in 1859.

In summation, to a long and probably not very helpful post, I would add that people have struggled with these  questions since the inception of the Church, and especially over the past several centuries when the claims of science have been put forth as incompatible with much of the Faith.  All of these things have been thought through before, but it may take a good deal of digging to find an answer that makes sense.  I’m not sure if Cornelius a Lapide covered Genesis – I know his Commentary on the New Testament is amazingly comprehensive and has an answer for every possible objection, confusion, or concern.  You could also see if St. Robert Bellarmine (who has a great commentary on Psalms), Cardinal Tomasso Cajetan, or Suarez covered Genesis.  Sorry, I’m pretty solid on the New Testament but not so much on the Old Testament, especially Genesis.  I just haven’t gotten there, yet.  That priest at Mater Dei can probably help direct you to a good source, as well, in addition to answering your questions directly.

I apologize for any error or obscurity in the above!  As I said, early Genesis is probably one of my weakest areas in terms of Scripture knowledge.  I would stress again not to get too bogged down in these issues. I know there is a curiosity about such things, but don’t let it distract from the really dogmatic subjects.


Chick-Fil-A caving on gay marriage? – UPDATE September 20, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Bible, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, North Deanery, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

No, they’re not going to endorse state recognition of gays simulating marriage, but it appears they will stop funding defense of marriage groups.  And that’s a pretty huge capitulation, after the incredible outpouring of support they got just a couple of months ago, by millions of Americans.  It’s actually a massive shift.  They must really want that restaurant in Chicago, or they’ve been quietly told they’ll have zoning nightmares all over the country if they don’t capitulate.  Who knows:

Pressure from gay groups has forced conservative restaurant group Chick-fil-A to end financial support for organizations opposing same-sex marriage.

The fast food chain and its owners, the billionaire Cathy family, were at the center of a fierce battle this summer over their stated support for moves to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

But now, after weeks of talks with Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, the company says it will change its policy about the groups that receive donations from the Cathy family’s WinShape Foundation.

“The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas,” the company said in a letter to Moreno.

ABC News reports that from 2008-2010, the foundation gave $3.2 million to groups that advocate against same-sex marriage.

The spotlight was shined on the group after CEO Dan Cathy said in an interview that he supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his counterparts in San Francisco and Boston all spoke out against the chain, hinting they would make it difficult for the company to expand in their cities.

……Moreno said Chick-fil-A has also decided to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy and said he will now support company plans for a new restaurant in the Windy City.

That anti-discrimination policy could be the foot in the door of an enormous shift.  A capitulation. Such policies are often the forerunners of extending same-sex partner benefits.  It’s pretty amazing to see this, when it was apparent just a few months ago how very few people there are who are really behind this gay marriage nightmare, and how many are really opposed to it.  But, the gay marriage radicals have the support of many elites, and that, apparently, makes all the difference.

It is very sad to see what has heretofore been, by all accounts, about as Christian-oriented large company as their is, cave on their principles because of filthy lucre. The persecution, she is a coming.

h/t culturewarenotes

UPDATE: It’s confirmed, they will stop defending marriage.  You can let them know how you feel about that here.

Conditions for SSPX return basically set? September 19, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, priests, religious, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

This is from Andrea Tornielli, who has been very hit or miss regarding the SSPX-Vatican talks.  Are the preconditions for the SSPX return only pastoral or of  a disciplinary nature, and not doctrinal?  I’m not sure the assurances for independence outlined below are very stout. I don’t have time to comment more, maybe tomorrow:

The letter which the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, sent in response to the doctrinal preamble presented to him in the Vatican last 13 June, has not yet reached Rome. “The ball is clearly in the Fraternity’s court,” Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi had said this after the meeting. Everyone was aware that it was unlikely a response would have been sent before the Lefebvrian General Chapter held at the beginning of July. And even though over three months have gone by since the doctrinal document was handed to the Fraternity, the Holy See seems to be in no rush at all.
Following the meeting on 13 June, the Pope chose a new leader for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X): Archbishop Ludwig Müller replaced resigning cardinal William Levada as Prefect, while Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia was appointed Vice-President of the “Ecclesia Dei” Commission. So the figures Fellay will be exchanging views with will not be the same as those he met with three months ago.
The Holy See is well aware of how delicate the situation within the Society of St. Pius X is: it knows about the group that opposes an agreement with Rome, just as it knows about the (not so small) group of priests that does not want to suffer the consequences of the extreme choices of some. There is disquiet in some Lefebvrian districts in Latin America and Bishop Richard Williamson who is awaiting sentence is already on a collision course with Fellay. It is highly unlikely the Vatican will ask the Society of St. Pius X for a response to the preamble before October.
Readers may recall that last June, Fellay received a draft proposal for the canonical normalisation in the relationship of the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, by making the Fraternity a personal prelature. He received this in addition to the doctrinal preamble prepared by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by the Pope, containing some modifications proposed by the Lefebvrian Superior himself, some of which he did not fully agree with.
Vatican Insider has learnt that Fellay’s much anticipated response should still be interlocutory and contain certain conditions. If these involve requests that are to do with pastoral matters or discipline, the Holy See is willing to take these into consideration. Some conditions were discussed following the July chapter. The first three were considered “absolute” and were to do with the “freedom to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” The second condition involved the “exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962,” whilst the third requires “the guarantee of at least one bishop.” Other less binding conditions included the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance and the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops. [Having a bishop hasn’t always insulated a traditional group from external influences. I would press very hard for an Ordinariate, like the Anglicans have received, a completely stove-piped chain of command to the Holy Father]
Agreement can be reached on most points and the Holy See is prepared to discuss these and incorporate changes in the draft about the future canonical normalisation of the Society of St. Pius X. What are not subject to discussion are the doctrinal issues outlined in the preamble. Lefebvrians are required to accept the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Therefore, although they will be allowed to celebrate mass using the old Missal (an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), they will still have to recognise that the ordinary form was introduced as a result of the post-Conciliar reform, whose validity and lawfulness is unquestionable


Bah! I forgot to remind on Ember Days! September 19, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, North Deanery, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Sorry, dear readers, I had meant very much to do a reminder yesterday that the fall Ember Days are upon us.  Today, Friday, and Saturday, are traditionally days of partial fast and abstinence.  This isn’t really a matter of Church Law anymore, but I highly encourage people to avail themselves of the different penitential seasons.  These 4  yearly days of fast and abstinence help us to offer up to God the seasons of the year, as well as helping us grow in mortification and setting an early stage, if you will, for the major upcoming penitential season of Advent!

It will be doubly hard for me, as we are traveling out of town on Friday.  And we are going through Lockhart, where there will be barbeque.  Really, really good barbeque.  What a temptation!

Offer it up, as the Saints say.

Talk on Marian Devotion at Cathedral Shrine Sept 20 September 19, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, Our Lady, priests, religious, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Tomorrow night, Thursday, Sept. 20, a Fr. Hugh Gillespie of the Monfort Mission in New York will be giving a talk on Marian devotion at the Cathedral Shrine in downtown Dallas.  The talk starts at 8 and is in English. The talk is proceeded by a Mass in Spanish at 7pm.  I don’t know anything about this priest, but I think the focus is on St. Louis de Montfort’s Total Consecration to Mary, which I strongly recommend.

Details here————–>>Fr HughGillespieTalkatCathedral

St. Alphonsus Ligouri on meekness September 19, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Interior Life, religious, Saints, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Meekness and kindness are tightly intertwined.  St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote about meekness in his Ascetical Works Vol. 6 The Holy Eucharist:

Kindness should be observed towards all on all occasions and at all times. St. Bernard remarks that certain persons are gentle as long as things fall out to their taste; but scarcely do they experience some opposition or contradiction than they are instantly on fire, like Mount Vesuvius itself!…..Whoever would become a saint, must, during this life, resemble the lily among thorns, which, however much it may be pricked by them, never ceases to be a lily; that is, it is always equally sweet and serene. The soul the loves God maintains an imperturbable peace of heart; and she shows this in her very countenance, being ever mistress of herself alike in prosperity and adversity…..

Adversity brings out a person’s real character. St. Francis de Sales very tenderly loved the Order of the Visitation, which had cost him so much labor. He saw it several times in imminent danger of dissolution on account of the persecutions it underwent; but the Saint never for a moment lost his peace, and was ready, if such was the Will of God, to see it entirely destroyed; and then it was that he said “For some time back the trying oppositions and secret contrarieties which have befallen me afford me so sweet a peace, that nothing can equal it; and they give me such an earnest desire of the immediate union of my soul with God, that, in truth, they form the sole desire of my heart.” [Such amazing virtue…..to turn vicious backstabbings, calumnies, and efforts to destroy all one’s labors into an intense peace and love and desire for God……I have so very far to go.  It is frequently all I can do to pray for someone who obstructs or attacks me.  God have mercy on me.]

Whenever it happens that we have to reply to some one who insults us, let us be careful to answer with meekness; “A mild answer breaketh wrath (Prov 15:1).” A mild reply is enough to quench every spark of anger. And in case we feel irritated, it is best to keep silence, because then it seems only just to give vent to all that rises to our lips, but when our passion has subsided, we shall see that all our words were full of faults. [I so know this to be true!]

And when it happens that we ourselves commit some fault, we must also practice meekness in our own regard. To be exasperated at ourselves after a fault is not humility, but a subtle pride, as if we were anything else than the weak and miserable things we are. St. Teresa of Jesus said “The humility that disturbs does not come form God, but from the devil.” To be angry at ourselves after the commission of a fault is a fault worse than the one committed originally, and will be the occasion of many other faults; it will make us leave off our devotions, prayers, and communions; or, if we do practice them, they will be done very badly…….A soul that is troubled knows little of God and of what it ought to do.  Whenever, therefore, we fall into any fault, we should turn to God with humility and confidence, and craving his forgiveness, say to Him, with St. Catherine of Genoa: “O Lord, this is the produce of my own garden! I love Thee with my whole heart, and I repent of the displeasure I have given Thee! I will never do the like again: grant me Thy assistance!

————————–End Quote—————————-

This is a great mortification.  For me, at least.  To maintain more than calm, but peace, equanimity, and even a kind meekness in the face of opposition, hostility, even hatred, is a tremendous practice of virtue.  It is something I, for one, need great practice to grow in.  Humility comes best from willfully, joyfully accepted suffering. Mortification is the key to development of all the virtues.

There is also a delicate balance, between being dismayed at our sins, and a kind of prideful anger that says “I can’t believe I did that, because I am so wonderful!”  We do want to be displeased and humbled by our sins, but when expressing great anger at ourselves over them often shows a kind of pride, putting ourselves on some high level, as if we are above sin, when we are all fatally prone to it, and constantly dependent on God’s Grace to avoid it.

A question I should ask myself, is whether blogging/radio opinionating is conducive to meekness?!  Hmmm……I may not like the answer to that question.