jump to navigation

The distorter completely drops the mask December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, sadness, scandals, secularism.
comments closed

The National Catholic Reporter, or Distorter, completely dropped all pretense and came out full-on in favor of heresy in rejecting a solemnly defined Dogma – that only men can be priests – and calling for widespread rejection of that Dogma.  No, Pope John Paul II did not make a statement ex cathedra reaffirming that only men can be priests, but he did the next closest thing in making a solemn proclamation requiring the assent of faith from all Catholics, an action which should, for all intents and purposes, completely terminate all argument on the subject.  But, when the Authority instituted by Christ to govern His Church and make determinations on such matters gets the answer “wrong,” from the progressive point of view, assent is optional.  But radical interpretations of social justice doctrine, now that’s dogmatic!

The National Catholic Reporter has called for the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood, condemning the Church’s teaching on the issue as “unjust.”

“Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand,” the Reporter proclaimed in an editorial published December 3.

The editorial decried the Vatican’s decision to dismiss Roy Bourgeois from the Maryknoll society because of his public support for women’s ordination, and concluded by saying that the paper “joins its voice” with that of Bourgeois in that effort.

…..The Reporter editorial urges Catholics to defy the Vatican and continue pressing for women’s ordination:

We must speak up in every forum available to us: in parish council meetings, faith-sharing groups, diocesan convocations and academic seminars. We should write letters to our bishops, to the editors of our local papers and television news channels.

In a related development, the Sisters of Mercy have stopped just short of their own explicit call for women’s ordination, in a public statement protesting the disciplinary action against Roy Bourgeois…….

You can see the distorter’s mentality, in the fact that they don’t even give the slightest thought to the danger posed to the souls they are encouraging to apostasize, nor to their own.  They are far too avante garde to believe in such things……

Big surprise that the Sisters of Mercy, one of the most radical female religious orders around, and one with the sharpest drop in vocations, joins in the protest.

One pro-life website is calling on all faithful Catholics to contact Bishop Finn of Kansas City, where the distorter is located, to revoke thier ability to use the word Catholic in their name.  Of course, a bishop of Kansas City did just that in 1968, but that hasn’t stopped them from continuing to misrepresent themselves for 45 years.  You can send a dignified, respectful e-mail to Bishop Finn, here.  I’ve stuck up for Bishop Finn a few times on this blog, but it is a scandal of stupendous proportions that a publication of such low caliber, of such constant antipathy towards the timeless practice of the Faith, should operate with impunity in his diocese for decades.

The real scandal is that almost every parish in the US continues to carry this dissenting drivel (not to mention many chanceries). If it weren’t for parish subscriptions (often 2, 3, 5, or 10 copies per parish), the distorter would have shut down years ago.

Senate refuses to ratify UN disability treaty December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Domestic Church, General Catholic, North Deanery, persecution, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I blogged on this last week – the Senate narrowly failed to ratify another disastrous UN treaty, this one ostensibly protecting the rights of the disabled, but written in such a way that it posed a grave threat to the liberty of all parents and the rights of homeschooling parents in particular.  The vote was 61-38.  I’m not sure how Hutchison voted, yet, but who cares, she’s done in 2 weeks, anyways.  International treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority – 67 votes.  This measure failed by 6 votes, even though 8 repubniks voted with demonrats in favor of the treaty.  Thank goodness.

The scandal of Gregory Baum and the Canadian Church – UPDATED December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, catachesis, contraception, disaster, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, priests, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness.
comments closed

A little off topic for this blog, but it is in the same vein as the posts I’ve done previously on this blog and the radio show I did last Thursday night.  Former Father Gregory Baum has been one of the most influential theologians in the revolutionary sect of the Church which sprang into being during and after Vatican II, and his influence has been most thoroughly felt in Canada.  Indeed, it was Gregory Baum who, according to Anne Roche Muggeridge penned most of the Canadian bishop’s execrable “Winnipeg Statement” in which they, collectively, apostasized, by rejecting the timeless and authoritative Doctrine on contraception.  If that had been the limit of Baum’s baleful influence, it would have been enough to mark him as one of the most destructive theologians of the 20th century.  But he’s done far more than that.

About a month ago, Michael Voris ran some videos that discussed Baum, and another figure, Fr. Tom Rosica, the head of the tiny Salt+Light TV network that runs in parts of Canada and the US northeast.  It’s a rather liberal competitor to EWTN.  I have read some very disturbing things regarding Fr. Rosica. He has worked behind the scenes to try to undermine, persecute, or otherwise destroy certain blogs and websites he dislikes.  He’s been pretty hard on LifeSiteNews, in particular.  But even given what I knew about Fr. Rosica, his penchant for progressive thought and his distaste of more traditional Catholics, I was shocked that he would bring Gregory Baum onto his network and give him a glowing introduction, and refer to him as someone who “loves his theology,” which makes plain this wasn’t some cross-examination of a controversial figure, this was Rosica giving a platform to a theological dissident – heck, a manifest heretic – to proclaim his error as truth and to undermine the faith of a few thousand more Catholics.  It’s more than shameful.  It’s diabolical, to present the man who, I agree, has probably done more to destroy the Church in Canada than any other person (and that’s saying something, because the Church in the US is like 13th Century France compared to Canada) as some great hero and inspiration.  It tells us, I think, all we need to know of Fr. Rosica.

The relevant portion in the video below begins at around the 3:00 mark:

Rosica does have some very powerful friends, it seems.  The progressive faction is still pretty dominant in Canada.

This video contains much more, the most relevant portion beginning around 4:00:

Michael Voris fisks this damnable interview quite well, so I’ll only add one bit.  When Fr. Rosica tries to sell his vision of a progressive church enlightened by the “spirit of Vatican II,” is he appealing to people’s better angels? Is it an appeal to people’s better angels to encourage them to terminate their children, sterilize themselves, engage in perverse sex, radically redefine marriage no matter the devastation that may be caused in individual lives and the culture, etc?  Is this a call to virtue?  Or is the attempted duping of minimally involved Catholic masses, who might “buy” the concept of the Church “changing her teachings” for the carrot of radically relaxed obliterated moral standards, an appeal to the very basest, most fallen aspects of mankind?

One final note on Baum, which sort of puts that whole sordid period of the Church in perspective.  That former nun/sister he married?  She was already divorced, and they divorced a few years later.  Baum has never reconciled with the Church.

UPDATE: I forgot.  Fr. Rosica made this condescending, self-serving reply to Voris here.  What do you make of that?  To me, Fr. Rosica has no argument to make in response to Voris’ very well placed ire. So, he tries to change the subject.

Michael Voris on Pope Benedict’s most recent Motu Proprio December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Papa, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I covered this new document yesterday.  Voris makes some important points, especially around the 4 minute mark, regarding the “voice of the faithful” getting to Rome, and to the very highest level of the Church. If you follow LifeSiteNews, you know the Canadian social justice organization is just about in meltdown over this (and other things).  Before we get too ecstatic, we have to realize that the enforcement of this document will still come down to the local ordinary, but this latest statement of papal authority will certainly help:

UD faculty donated 100% to Obama – UPDATED December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity.
comments closed

UPDATE:  This update goes on top.  Some people are questioning the data revealed at the CampusReform link below, and Campus Reform has now pulled the link to the data they used to compile the results presented below.  Some commenter at that link said that only one person at UD donated to Obama, but they were counting that as 100%.  That’s not what I saw, perhaps 3 hours ago, but, again, the link is now gone. So, the whole thing could be a gross exaggeration, don’t know.

The only Catholic – or is that catholyc? – university in the Diocese went 100% for Obama, at least as far as donations from the university’s faculty went.  So reports OpenSecrets.org and CampusReform.org:

Ninety-one percent of faculty and administrators from America’s top Catholic universities who contributed to presidential campaigns in 2012 gave to President Obama, a Campus Reform investigation has revealed.

The strong support for President Obama from Catholic schools came despite Democrats’ controversial health care legislation which could force employers to provide contraception for employees even though it is explicitly forbidden under Catholic doctrine.

…….Bill Donohue, who is the president of the Catholic League, for example, suggested that many prominent Catholic schools have almost entirely abandoned their religious roots.

“The difference between Boston College and Boston University, and between Georgetown and George Washington, is miniscule,” Donahue told Campus Reform in a statement.  “Indeed, at Georgetown they have two pro-abortion clubs on campus,”

“They would never allow an anti-Semitic club (nor should they) but they have no problem supporting abortion,” he added. “The pope and Cardinal Dolan know there is a serious problem, and they deserve our support.”

Father Frank Pavone who is the national director of the Catholic pro-life organizations Priests for Life told Campus Reform on Monday that his organization experiences more hostility to pro-life doctrine on Catholic campuses than on secular campuses.

“We find much more denial and resistance on Catholic campuses than on secular campuses,” said Pavone.  “It’s evidence that the [Catholic] campuses need reform, including a lot more brain power invested in the task of applying Catholic teaching to political choices.”

President of the Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, said he believes staff and faculty at Catholic Universities are now “out of touch” with what most Catholics believe.

“Clearly many professors at Catholic universities are out of touch with practicing Catholics,” Reilly said in a statement to Campus Reform.

….Among the 23 schools surveyed, the highest percentage of Obama donors came from Santa Clara University, College of the Holy Cross, Loyola University Maryland, University of Dallas, University of Portland all with 100 percent of donations going to Obama.

Remember when Bishop Farrell declared with great gravity, that he knew he was responsible for the Catholic content taught at the University of Dallas, and would be judged one day on his oversight of that university?  He said this as a means to quell alumni and student dissent over the direction of the School of Ministry at UD.  Do you think a faculty that breaks 100% in favor of Obama, and which apparently has no problem with the most open persecution of the Church in the history of this nation, will always and everywhere proclaim the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church?

I thought UD was supposed to be one of the “good” Catholic universities?  Like Steubenville, right?  Oh…….my bad.

I would almost  wager that at this point, your Catholic child is as well or better off going to Texas A&M than any college or university with Catholic in the name, or some formal (or is that former?) tie to the Church.  Or staying at home and going to a local college.

In reality, none of the above means there aren’t people at these universities who are opposed to Obama.  But it does mean his supporters feel no compunction being pretty public in their support, and his opponents either didn’t like Romney, or felt the need to hide their support pretty well.  That latter bit could be the most revealing of all, if true…….

h/t culturewarnotes

Fr. Barron makes incredible statements regarding the number of the elect December 4, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, Four Last Things, General Catholic, persecution, priests, scandals.
comments closed

I’ve written before regarding well known Fr. Robert Barron’s embrace of a view of salvation potentiality, or the number of the elect (how many will be saved?), which tends towards universalism, or the idea that everyone, or virtually everyone, is saved, Catholics, protestants, atheists, etc..  A new book has been written by Professor Ralph Martin, a professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.  Fr. Barron comments on this book here.  I haven’t read the book by Dr. Martin, and had never heard of it prior to this review by Barron, so I’ll have to take Barron’s analysis at face value.MartinRalph

From what Fr. Barron states, it appears that Martin’s book is an attempt to counter the growing, and, from the traditional Catholic viewpoint, highly suspect idea that a truly “loving God” would never condemn anyone to hell for all eternity, or, at the most, only those who are truly monstrous, the various Stalins, Lenins, Pol Pots, and Mao Tse Dungs of the world.  Much of this recent, and to me very dangerous, belief, stems from the writings of Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Baltasar, which Fr. Barron notes.  Martin’s book apparently takes many of the arguments of Rahner and von Baltasar apart quite well – Barron claims Martin “scores important points aganst both Balthasar and Rahner.”

So far, so good, Barron seems to be accepting much of what Martin relates, which as near as I can tell is the traditional, majority view of the Church.  But, then, at the end, he suddenly switches course, and then makes a really inappropriate, utterly unfair comparison.

Barron towards the end swerves back towards his previous embrace of a much more universalist position, by citing Pope Benedict’s encyclical Spe Salvi, written in 2007.  I’ve read the sections of Spe Salvi in question, and I will say that Barron gives a fair overview of the text, but I would also add that this text raises a whole host of questions, which Barron glosses over (my emphasis below):

 In a note buried on page 284 of his text, Martin cites some “remarks” of Pope Benedict XVI that have contributed, in his judgment, to confusion on the point in question. He is referring to observations in sections 45-47 of the Pope’s 2007 encyclical “Spe Salvi,” which can be summarized as follows: There are a relative handful of truly wicked people in whom the love of God and neighbor has been totally extinguished through sin, and there are a relative handful of people whose lives are utterly pure, completely given over to the demands of love. Those latter few will proceed, upon death, directly to heaven, and those former few will, upon death, enter the state that the Church calls Hell. But the Pope concludes that “the great majority of people” who, though sinners, still retain a fundamental ordering to God, can and will be brought to heaven after the necessary purification of Purgatory. Martin knows that the Pope stands athwart the position that he has taken throughout his study, for he says casually enough, “The argument of this book would suggest a need for clarification.”

Obviously, there is no easy answer to the question of who or how many will be saved, but one of the most theologically accomplished popes in history, writing at a very high level of authority, has declared that we oughtn’t to hold that Hell is densely populated. To write this off as “remarks” that require “clarification” is precisely analogous to a liberal theologian saying the same thing about Paul VI’s teaching on artificial contraception in the encyclical “Humanae Vitae.”

That is the totally unfair and ridiculous statement from Fr. Barron that utterly shocked me.  For there is no comparison between finding the Pope’s position as put forward in Spe Salvi regarding the relative number of the electm as needing more study/clarification, and apostasy from the constant teaching of the Church regarding contraception.0

I don’t know the number of the elect. Nor does any Saint, mystic, Doctor of the Church, nor any Pope, theologian, or anyone in the Church.  I personally share the fear of many great Saints that the number of the elect may be very, very much smaller than we think, but I don’t KNOW the number at all. On this blog, that’s all I’ve ever done.  In fact, the Church has stated definitively that NO ONE can ever know the number of the elect, or who in particular may be damned.  Because we can’t peer into men’s souls and really know the content thereof.  The Church has made dogmatic statements about certain conditions regarding salvation – being in the state of supernatural Grace being the the foundation – but it has never stated that person X or Y was damned.  By the Grace of God and a dispensation to His Church, the Lord does reveal by certain signs that souls are in Heaven – these are the Saints we know, which revelation God makes known to give us models for our earthly life and to encourage us in the way to salvation.  But as for the damned, we are really in the dark, all private revelation aside.

So, when the Pope writes in Spe Salvi about the relative number of the elect, I don’t take this to be a dogmatic statement, and neither did Martin.  He seems to feel that the Pope’s statements need a lot of discussion and scrutiny, and I agree, because there is muct to be unpacked there, far more than Barron reveals.  He is not reinforcing or restating some long held Doctrine of the Faith.  He is instead giving an opinion that must carry much weight because of the Office the Pope holds, but on this subject in particular, where the Church has made dogmatic statements to the effect that it has no way of knowing the number of the elect or their percentage, it is too much to say that one must give religious assent – de fide assent – to such a claim by the Pope.  Martin may have trivialized it excessively, I don’t know, but the Pope giving his opinion on this matter does not obliterate all the prior tradition and Magiserial statements.  From what I glean from this review, it appears that Martin is re-stating the traditional belief of the Church – by far the “majority opinion” – regarding the number of the elect.

In Humanae Vitae, however, in spite his strong personal disinclination to do so, Pope Paul VI was restating a constant, authoritative, I would say dogmatic belief of the Church.  Because he was not defining something new, but restating a constant belief made more forcefully in numerous other statements by many other Popes, Saints, bishops, priests, religious, theologians, etc., those statements DO require religious assent, and the assent of Faith.  They must be accepted, because this is the constant belief of the Church.  There are many other reasons for acceptance, of course, – the natural law, the proven dangers of contraception, the destruction it has caused in the culture, etc, etc,

In point of fact, I read that statement by Barron as virtually an emotional outburst against Dr. Martin, an attempt to utterly silence debate on this subject.  It is a shocking, amazing statement, because there is no comparison in terms of the doctrinal authority of the beliefs reaffirmed in Humanae Vitae, and the theological ruminations engaged in by Pope Benedict in a small portion of Spe Salvi. Fr. Barron also fails to mention his own bias in the review, which should have been related -he has written extensively on this subject, and has put forth public views that, as I said, tend toward universal salvation.  Certainly, a man of Fr. Barron’s theological background should be very capable of making the distinction between the authority in various papal statements. Not all statements in encyclicals carry the same weight, as it were – any 3rd year undergraduate theology student should know this fact cold.  It is particularly gauling that Barron would claim Martin is acting out in dissent, when, as I have already stated, his appears to be merely restating the dominant belief of the Church which held sway for centuries, before the revolution of the mid-20th century occurred.

One other point. Early in the review, Fr. Barron makes reference to the fact that while many Saints have claimed that the number of the elect is very small (St. Augustine, St. John of the Cross, St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great, St. Bernard of Clairvaux…..in short, the greatest theologians in the history of the Church almost unanimously origenshare this viewpoint, and as great as Pope Benedict XVI may be, I am not prepared to put him in the category with any of the above), there are some Saints who feel that many or most are saved. He alludes to St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, and……..Origen.  Really?  Origen?  Who was excommunicated after death and had his belief in universal salvation specifically rejected at a Council of the Church?  Ooops……that’s right……universal salvation has already been condemned by the 2nd Council of Constantinople as heretical.   Fr. Barron fails to relate any of this in hanging his hat on Origen, nor does he relate that the early Church, in the 4th and 5th centuries, definitively turned its back on ideas of universal, or even near-universal, salvation.  That might have been an important point to make, since he is excommunicating Dr. Martin for refusing to give a Pope’s encyclical statement the weight of dogma.

A final note: some may say, well, if the Church can’t judge definitively how many are saved or damned, how can it reject universal salvation?  The answer is because the Church is not being that specific, it is simply rejecting that none will be damned, because we have Christ’s assurance that damnation is a possibility for all, and statements in the Gospel state plainly that people do go there. It is counter to both Scripture and Tradition to claim that all will be saved.  And there is the gravest doubt expressed in conciliar statements, the statements of many popes, I could go on and on, about the number of the damned being minute.

This argument about the number of the elect is no sidelight for Fr. Barron – it cuts to the core of his theology.  Again, any reviewer worth his salt should make plain his own biases when reviewing others work.

Thanks to Dr. Jay Boyd for the linka.