jump to navigation

The Abuse of God’s Mercy December 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, Four Last Things, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, North Deanery, sadness, Saints, scandals.
comments closed

Earlier today, I was at Mass (NO) with a priest offering who consistently gives a very good sermon (not homily!).  He has some other regrettable habits, but the sermons are good – especially given his hispanic background and struggles with English.  The sermon was about Catholics who reject what the Church believes, and how that erroneous belief often places Catholics outside the Church. He actually said that people jeopardized their salvation with such erroneous beliefs, since they are essentially replacing Christ with themselves as the “head” of their own little personal, fundamentally protestant “church” (he did not say the very last bit).  The only problem with the sermon was that the priest did not provide some examples of belief which is contrary to the Faith – I actually fake coughed “contraception” towards the end.

It’s interesting I would hear this sermon, when just yesterday I read this excerpt from The Way of Salvation and Perfection by St. Alphonsus Liguori.  The Moral Doctor’s words also contradict the modernist Catholic error of universal salvation.

There are  two ways by which the devil endeavors to deceive men to their eternal ruin: after they have committed sin he tempts them to despair on account of the severity of divine judgment; but before they have sinned he encourages them to do so by the hope of obtaining the divine mercy. And he effects the ruin of numberless souls as well by the second as by the first artifice. “God is merciful,” says the obstinate sinner to himi who would convert him from the iniquity of his ways. “God is merciful.” But as the Mother of God expresses it in her canticle, His mercy is to them that fear Him (Lk 1:50).  Yes, the Lord deals mercifully with him that fears to offend him, but not so with the man who presumes upon his mercy to offend him still more.  [I, for one, have been deceived in this manner more times than I care to relate]

O God! I give Thee thanks for having made me sensible of Thy patience in bearing with me. Behold, I am of the number of those who, presuming on Thy goodness, have offended Thee again and again.

God is merciful; but He is also just. Sinners are desirous that he should be merciful only, without being just; but that is impossible, becasue were he only to forgive and never to chastise, he would be wanting in justice. Hence St. John of Avila [not even a venerable when St. Alphonsus wrote this, now a Doctor of the Church] observes that patience on the part of God towards those who avail themselves of his compassion to offend him more, would not be compassion, but want of justice. He is bound to chastise the ungrateful. He bears with them for a certain time, but after that abandons them.

Such a punishment, O God! has not as yet overtaken me, or else I had now dwelt in hell, or had been obstinate in my sins. But no: I desire to amend my life’ I desire to offend Thee no more. Though I have hitherto displeased Thee, I am sorry for it with my whole soul; I desire henceforth to love Thee, and I desire to love Thee more than others do, because Thou hast not shown the same patience towards others as towards me.

God is not mocked (Gal 6:7). Yet he would be mocked, if the sinner could go on continually offending Him, and yet afterwards enjoy Him in Heaven[I believe St. Alphonsus just shot Fr. Barron’s “magnum opus” to shreds] What things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap (Gal 6:8). He who sows good works shall reap rewards; but he who sows iniquities shall reap chastisements. The hope of those who commit sin because God is forgiving is an abomination in His sight; their hope, says holy Job, is an abomination (Job 11:20). Hence the sinner, by such hope, provokes God to chastise him the sooner, as that servant would provoke his master, who, becasue the master was good, took advantage of his goodness to behave ill.

Oh Jesus! such, I fear, has been my conduct towards Thee; because Thou wast good I have made no account of Thy precepts. I confess that I have done wickedly, and I detest all the offenses I have committed against Thee. Now do I love Thee more than myself, and I desire never more to displease Thee. Ah, if I should again offend Thee by mortal sin! Permit it not, O Lord; rather let me die. O Mary, Mother of Perseverance, do thou assist me!

————————End Quote———————

“Their hope is an abomination,” and yet millions of Catholics have been led into believing that God will freely and happily admit to Heaven all manners of persons with unconfessed mortal sins on their souls, or that mortal sin is virtually impossible to commit (wrong), or they have simply fallen into sin and never heard the Truth required for sincere conversion.

And all the wishing of the Barrons and von Baltasars and Rahners isn’t going to make the reality one slight bit different, which is that souls – perhaps many, maybe even most – do “choose” damnation.  They choose it because they are so lost in sin and so unfamiliar with goodness and virtue that when confronted by God, they simply fall away.  I pray pray pray for the souls that have been led to believe that our loving God could never possibly be mean enough to judge someone.  I pray pray pray people realize our judgment is not about being “nice” in a 21st century, sinful middle class American culture sense. It’s about virtue, vice, sin, charity, truth, error, and submission to God’s Will as revealed through HIS CHURCH!  But I fear many souls when asked to defend their lives will answer………”huuuh?”

The US bishops are fighting the wrong battle on the HHS Mandate….. December 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, sadness, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…..and if they stick to their present course, they are doomed to fail. Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has written a thoughtful post that points up the grave problems associated with the bishops tactics in response to the HHS mandate, seeking to garner support by appealing not to the fact that this mandate forces Catholics to commit acts which are objectively evil, but by appealing to vague and frankly false (from an orthodox Catholic perspective) ideas of religious liberty.  While appealing to religious liberty might be a tactic that makes the Catholic position more sympathetic in the eyes of many, it is fraught with moral, theological, and even practical problems (I add emphasis and comments):

 But the real problem with the “religious liberty” rallying cry is this: the behavior the HHS mandate compels is sinful and contrary to the teaching of the Church. That is the issue – not religious liberty. Religious liberty is certainly involved, but we can’t stand on the pillar of religious liberty and be consistent.

Why not? Well, suppose we expend all this time and effort arguing that this is “not just a Catholic problem” and that this is ultimately about “religious liberty.” Now suppose the government decides to attack or proscribe the practices of another religious group, but a practice which is, in fact, contrary to Catholic teaching. If this is really about religious liberty, then the Church would be in the awkward position of having to defend practices that are contrary to the truth revealed in Christ on the principle of religious liberty. In other words, arguing against the HHS mandate on the grounds of religious liberty is ultimately arguing that every religious practice is worthy of state support and protection. [That may be stretching things a bit, but the appearance of hypocritical double standards will remain.]
This time, the issue is the HHS mandate. But if we argue against this based on the grounds of religious liberty, what about when the government tells the Native American tribes of the west that they cannot use Paiute in their private, religious rituals? If the issue with HHS was religious liberty, then we have to affirm the duty of the state to sanction and protect the “right” of these folks to use illegal controlled substances for their religious worship. We have to allow for protection of Santeria practitioners to sacrifice small animals. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with orthodox Jews in Germany who are arguing against a ban on religious circumcision (even though the Council of Florence taught that circumcision for religious purposes is a grave sin).
But, if we argue against HHS on grounds of liberty, what grounds do we leave ourselves to argue against the legitimacy of any other practice? Seventh Day Adventist gatherings on Saturdays where the Catholic Church is attacked and blasphemed as the Harlot of Revelation and Jehovah’s Witness mock “communions” and everything in between all becomes equally licit and permissible and worthy of state protection because, according to the Bishops, we all have the liberty to persevere in whatever religious error we happen to be enmeshed in. The religious liberty objection really says nothing about the objective truth or falsity of the religious practice in question; it simply appeals to the fact that the practitioner believes their opinions to be true and that this should be respected. Is entirely subjective. [And, thus, the traditional belief of the Catholic Church was not the Americanist error of “freedom of conscience,” but that people had the right AND duty to seek the Truth, which is held in Jesus Christ and His One True Church. Thus, religious bodies outside the Church don’t have unlimited rights, as they are based, to varying degrees, on error.  In fact, the rights of these sects should perhaps be strictly circumscribed.  Vatican II, as it is commonly understood, seems to have promulgated the Americanist view of religious liberty, and we have had a very difficult time in the Church since because of it, in all manner of areas from evangelization (if other religions have a “right” to exist, then how can we ask people to leave them on join ours?) to false ecumenism to how to confront the manifest evil of this culture.  We are a Church fighting with both hands tied behind our back, hopping on one leg.  And the results are plain for all with eyes to see……]
Thus, when the Jews or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Voodoo folks come complaining about religious liberty being violated in any of their cases, how can the Catholic Church respond? Will we not have boxed ourselves into a corner where we are compelled to advocate religious liberty for these practices as well once we advocated it for our own?
Don’t we see that defending one religious practice in the name of “religious liberty” means defending all religious practices absolutely?
This objection to the HHS mandate on the grounds of “religious liberty” is ultimately a weak, secular objection to a very strong secular challenge……
……….The “religious liberty” objection is a profoundly secular objection to a secular problem. We cannot fight secularism with more secularity. We cannot use the enemy’s weapons against him; we cannot ourselves use the Ring to defeat Sauron. The religious liberty rallies are a uniquely American solution to an American problem; but it is not an ideal Catholic solution.
I think the argument could be made, and was in fact made by Boniface, that far from being the “ideal” Catholic solution, the religious liberty argument isn’t Catholic at all.  It’s using one error to fight another, possibly worse error.  What we should be doing, which Boniface notes, is stating clearly and forcefully that contraception is evil.  The bishops were handed a golden opportunity to catechize the culture on an issue where they have – by their own admission – utterly failed to do so over the past several decades, and, yet again, they are squandering that opportunity, seeking to “play it safe” by not challenging Catholics – let alone the rest of the American public – to give up their precious, precious contraception.  For so long as the bishops continue to abrogate their responsibility in this area of vital moral import, they will continue to have essentially no influence on the culture.

Non-sequitur – 40th anniversary of Linebacker II December 18, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, non squitur, sadness, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the final major combat operation of the Vietnam War, Linebacker II.  Linebacker2Initiated by President Nixon to force the recalcitrant, endlessly dithering North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table (so the US could find as graceful a way out of that wrongly conceived, horribly strategized war – thanks Robert Strange McNamara!), Linebacker II marked the first time that B-52s of the Strategic Air Command attacked targets in and around Hanoi.  Linebacker II lasted for 11 days, involved 729 B-52 missions, and resulted in the loss of 15 aircraft – most of which shouldn’t have been lost, if SAC hadn’t insisted on using WWII tactics in a radically changed defensive environment.  But, by the end of the campaign, the vaunted North Vietnamese air defense network had been smashed, and the country lay prostrate at the US’ feet, almost totally defenseless from further attacks. At that point, the North Vietnamese agreed to return to the negotiating table, although there, Nixon was in such a hurry to end the war he gave away what he had gained by Linebacker II.  In the end, the South Vietnamese were betrayed, and left with 300,000 North Vietnamese Army troops occupying about 10% of their country.

Lefty Wikipedia is useless on a subject like this, the leftists having put their spin on things there (and that, Jimmy Wales, is why I B-52Gs_at_Andersen_AFB_during_Linebacker_II_1972won’t give you any money).  But there is a good article here at Air Force Magazine.  The article spends a good deal of time covering the Dec. 26 raids – these were the last that were effectively contested. For the next several nights, the North Vietnamese had virtually no defense.  The POWs who were enduring their living hell in the Hanoi Hilton remarked the only time they saw fear in the North Vietnamese during the war, with all its thousands of bombing raids, was during the B-52 strikes. They then knew the US meant business.

The irony is, back in 1965, before US ground troops were involved in any great number, then US Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis LeMay had proposed a two week maximum intensity bombing campaign of North Vietnam to end the North’s armed interference in the struggling, relatively “free” South Vietnam.  Of course, McNamara, fool that he was, was totally against it, and virtually anything else LeMay had to say, and opted to commit the US to a ground intervention.  It took the exact kind of bombing operation LeMay had called for to end the war – but only after 58,000 American lives had been spent.

But not fruitlessly.  While the Vietnam War may have been badly conceived and disastrously executed by the incompetent Johnson/McNamara national security team, the US involvement there likely did prevent other nations from falling to communism. Certainly, that is the opinion of General Supatra Suavapop of Thailand, an acquiantance of mine from the Royal Thai Army who spent years fighting the Vietnamese/Chinese sponsored communist insurrection in Thailand. Those years from ~1960 to 1975 kept the Chinese and Russians mostly committed to the effort in Vietnam, and kept the other insurrections starved of support, giving countries like Thailand enough time to become strong enough to survive the upturn in insurgent activity in the late 70s and 80s. The same applies to the Philippines.   So, it was not all in vain.b52-downed-Vn7

On Youtube, I found a most remarkable series of “videos” – they’re actually not videos at all, they are recordings taken from the cockpit mikes of a B-52 crew Lilac 2 of the 306th BMW(H) from McCoy AFB, FL on Dec. 26 1972.

The video series starts here, but the most terrifying recording is #4, which covers the time when Ebony 2, described in the Air Force Magazine article above, was hit.  Some notes: Red Crown was the Navy off-shore radar picket ship that scanned the North Vietnamese airspace for MiGs.  Barracuda was the escorting EB-66C electronic warfare aircraft.  The beeping/wailing sound heard in the 4th video below is from the automatically activated omnidirectional survival radios that went off when a crewman ejected.  “Pack 6” refers to Route Package 6 – the Hanoi area.  All of North Vietnam was divided into “route packages,” areas of coverage that were split between the Air Force and Navy.  Pack 6 was the place you didn’t want to go.

These were serious men, doing serious, life or death work….adult language is used at times.

This awful video below, full of SAM calls seemingly every other second, likely shows Ebony 2 falling to earth after being hit be the second SAM.

This 5 video series is most worth listening to.  The professionalism of this aircrew is outstanding.

Surprisingly, there is no video on Youtube giving an overview of Linebacker II, save for general vids on the Vietnam Air War that last about an hour and are of varying quality.  But here is a video of interviews of pilots who took part in Linebacker II – it’s pretty good stuff, after you get past the first 2 minutes.