jump to navigation

The banal dishonesty of the tribunal process exposed January 11, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, horror, North Deanery, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I wonder if the famous ‘Karl’ had a hand in this?  Not much comment, I think these videos speak eloquently of themselves.  From what I understand, these videos are very accurate representations of how many Catholic divorces occur, and, much more importantly, are extremely representative of the tribunal process.  Logic and faithfulness don’t enter in.

Part two, the tribunal:

Bwahaaahaaahaaahaaaa!  I love it!  “We are using old reliable that quick healing, marriage annuling, and well greased loose canon 1095.”  And the statements regarding the illogic – the shamefulness – of the requirement for divorce before a tribunal will hear a case are dead on, too.

I know of more than a half dozen cases personally where the divorce was pretty much along the lines shown in the first video. One involved a marriage of 42 years.  And yet, the very same persons who couldn’t possibly have given consent in their first marriage are allowed to turn right around and marry again.  As the video shows, in one case, they did so twice!  The scandal this gives to the Church and the world is enormous, but the soul-crushing immensity is reserved for the children.


Big doings upcoming at the Dallas Carmel January 11, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, religious, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

If you’re like me, you’ve missed First Fridays at the Dallas Carmelite convent these past couple of months.  We won’t have a First Friday devotion again until March!  But, there are big things coming at the Carmel to which you are invited, things which must preclude the normal devotions because they are so great.

What I am referring to is a number of upcoming clothings and professions of vows!  Details below:

You are invited to the following special Masses at the  Carmelite Monastery of The Infant Jesus of Prague and St. Joseph, 600 Flowers  Ave, Dallas 75211:


Saturday, Jan. 12 – 10:30  AM Clothing Ceremony and Mass Sister Maria Consuelo of the Precious Blood, OCD – see  Sister as a Bride for Her Spouse, Jesus Christ, behind the grill, in the  parlor before Mass (not in the chapel) – arrive about  9:45 or 9:50 AMCarmelite nun.jpg


Friday, January  18 –  10:00 AM,  Profession of Vows and Mass Sister Teresa of St. Joseph, OCD


Saturday, January 26 –  10:00 AM, Clothing Ceremony and Mass Sister Maria Benedicta of the Incarnation, OCD – see  Sister as a Bride for Her Spouse, Jesus Christ, behind the grill, in the  parlor before Mass (not in the chapel) – arrive about 9:15 or 9:20  AM


First Saturday, Feb. 2 –  10:00 AM  Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, Profession of Vows and Mass Sister Veronica Maria of the Holy Face,  OCD

NO PICTURES OF THE NUNS!  Apparently, someone accused the nuns of “breaking cloister” because some pictures had appeared of them, even through the incredibly dense grill.  If that’s you…….I shake my head…….

I probably can’t make most of these, but I am praying I can be at the Vows of Sister Veronica since I was at her clothing.

Food and gifts graciously accepted, but remember, the Carmelites don’t eat meat!  Fish is OK.

Deo Gratias!


Apparently, pictures are allowed at some Carmels!  She's only a Saint.

Apparently, pictures are allowed at some Carmels! She’s only a Saint.

Rose colored glasses in heavy use in Texas Catholic Vatican II pieces January 11, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

I don’t know Steve Landregan. I’ve never met him.  I am told, by those who have, that he apparently has a voluminous knowledge of the history of the Church and, in particular, the Dallas Diocese.  That may be the case, but in the series of articles he has been writing in the Texas Catholic to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, Mr. Landregan appears to ignore much historical evidence in order to present his generation’s view of the Council as an unalloyed good, something beyond critique.

I refer in particular to the most recent article in this series, published in the January 4, 2013 Texas Catholic (as usual, not online), wherein Mr. Landregan discusses some of the differing views of the Council, most particularly, those who reject an “authentic interpretation” of the Council for either a progressive vision which utterly destroys Tradition and assumes the Church began in 1962, or those who see in the Council the framework for that radical, progressive vision and question the Council on those grounds.  There are many problems with the basic analysis – for one, equating a tiny traditionalist movement centered around the SSPX with the huge, enormous progressive movement which utterly dominated the Church from the mid-60s until well into the 90s, and is really still in overwhelming control of the Church today.  In terms of damage done to the Church, there is no comparison, the radical ecumenists and chunkers of Dogma have wreacked far more catastrophe on the Church than just about any time in its entire 2000 year history, while whatever damage traditionalists have done (if any) has been mitigated by their utter lack of influence and tiny numbers.  Not that one could tell this from the article, it is plain where Landregan’s sympathies lie and it’s not with the traditionalists (I gather this not strictly from this article, I’ve read quite a bit from Landregan and he’s always indicated great comfort in the radical changes which occurred in the Church after Vatican II).  From this article, it would appear the SSPX poses as grave a threat to the Church as all the radical re-shapers of the Faith of the last 50 years.

One huge distinction Landregan fails to draw in his analysis of the two “extremes” regarding Vatican II (how can one side be an extreme when it dominated even the mainstream of the Church for 3 or more decades?) is that the traditional critiques, questioning, or outright rejection of Vatican II are primarily based on effects – that is to say, on the catastrophies that have afflicted the Church since the Council.  Those who take a rose colored view of Vatican II often try to claim that the disasters that have occurred in the Church in the past several decades would have occurred anyways, or would have been much worse, without the Council.  Nice try.  Vatican II, we are told, ushered in a “new springtime.”  As far as the statistical evidence is concerned, and the lives of millions of Catholics, this springtime has all the appearance of the harshest, most deathly winter ever.  Landregan ignores the effects-based concerns of traditionalists and implies they simply can’t stand any changen the Church at all, something that I think is ludicrous, since virtually all traditional-type Catholics are actually clamoring for change, simply of a different sort from the progressive side (back to the more traditional practices of the Faith).  Seriously, traddy-types are generally fully on board with organic, bottom-up developments in the Faith.  What they are opposed to, and what had never occurred before in the history of the Church, was the kind of top-down changes made at Vatican II with regard to, for instance, the Liturgy.  Inorganic changes, in short.

I want to spend some time discussing a few select quotes in detail.  The first one is this: “For the majority of Catholics the changes emanating from the council [sic] were easily and quicly assimilated and resulted in a deeper understanding of their Faith, enriched experiences of liturgy and enhanced relationships with those of other faiths.”

Can anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the current state of the Church, the nightmarish calamaties of the past 50 years, and the very strong state of the Church prior to the Council, make this claim with a straight face?  How much happy gas does one have to consume to hold this viewpoint?  Which Catholics is Landregan talking about?  The 70-80% who don’t believe in the Real Presence anymore?  The tens of millions – amounting to over a 1/3 of the former Body of Christ –  who have left the Faith entirely?  The further tens of millions of self-described “Catholics” who haven’t been to Mass or Confession in years?  I would bet any sum of money that the average Catholic from 1955 could utterly trounce a Catholic from today in knowledge of the Faith. I would also claim that Catholics of a more conservative or traditional bent today tend to have a far greater understanding of the Faith than other Catholics.  As far as the “enriched experiences of the liturgy,” if Mr. Landregan is speaking for himself, I pity him for never comprehending the incalculable treasure available in the Traditional Latin Mass.

Landregan also quotes Venerable Pope John XXIII in support of his view that the inorganic changes made at Vatican II were good, very good.  What Landregan fails to mention is that after the first session of Vatican II closed in December 1962, Pope John XXIII was actively working to end the Council, even if no documents were approved or promulgated, because John XXIII had seen that the simple, short Council he envisaged had gotten out of control.  Cardinal Heenan and others confirmed that John XXIII was working with them to end the Council when the Pope’s final illness struck. Nothing occurred, and Pope John’s replacement, Paul VI, as a devoted humanist, was always supportive of many of the progressive aims of the Council.

One more paragraph particularly annoyed me: “Far from being stolen, the church [sic] of my childhood, renewed by the council [sic], emerged from four centuries of isolation to re-engage the world in the spirit of Pope Gregory the Great whose choice to engage rather than retreat created Christendom.”

Once again, I am almost speechless, except you know me, I can’t be.  This is one of the more amazing statements I’ve read, and reveals how preconceived notions can apparently trump even massive knowledge.  The Church of Trent is the Church that evangelized four continents, brought tens to hundreds of millions of souls into the light of Faith, combatted the most noxious heresy ever, fighting it to a standstill (and would have crushed it, were it not for perfidious betrayers in its own camp), continued the development of its theology, philosophy, etc, and produced untold Saints, all the while constantly interacting with the world.  I just don’t accept this idea of a Church that refused to engage the culture – what it did, is it refused to engage the culture on its own terms!  That’s the difference – the Church has always been in the world, it can’t help but be, but after Vatican II the approach changed radically to being engaging the culture on the terms dictated by the modern world.  Which is where so many of the wrong ideas about ecumenism, certain aspects of science, salvation potentiality, etc., come from – from the world!  The result has been, to put it lightly, far from positive.

It’s a very subtle switch from being in the world but not of it, to sort of allowing some of that “of it” to creep in.   It’s a difference Pope St. Gregory the Great understood very well, and the Church at that time remained in the world but constantly determined its own rules of engagement.

As an aside, as far as accepting the changes from the Council, it is true that Catholics had been conditioned by centuries of obeisance to centralized authority to do just that – to obey what came down from above without question. That, as it turns out, was a great mistake, and really marked a very radical change from how the Church operated  prior to the protestant revolt. Prior to the revolt, the faithful (laity, clergy, religious) held their superiors to account – in a very respectful way – for adherence to Doctrine.  When Pope John XXII apostasized, not only bishops but lower clergy and faithful all challenged him and there was great uproar in the Church.  As always, the Holy Ghost preserved the Faith intact, as Pope John’s apostasy was expressed as private opinion, not dogmatic statements. But the point is, the people of the Church would not tolerate this change to the Faith they had inherited from their predecessors.  But after the protestant revolt, when a centralized authority was seen as necessary to stop dissent leading to error and apostasy, the Church gradually inculcated a greater and greater obeisance to its Supreme Authority, so that by the 20th Century, the danger existed that a Pope who was not faithful to the prior Magisterium could lead the faithful away due to their unquestioning obedience. It was sort of the Loyola-ization of the Church.  Even though very few of the laity and clergy wanted to see the Mass changed, for instance, they accepted the changes with very little question.  And all the other changes, as well.  This ultra-montanism was probably unhealthy, as people gave away the greatest treasure Western Civilization has ever produced – the Mass – without thinking or questioning.

Another topic wholly glossed over by Mr. Landregan is the nature of the authority of the Council and its numerous documents. As our own Bishop has already indicated, the Council as a whole was “pastoral,” and not Dogmatic, although there are confirmations of Dogma in various documents, especially the Dogmatic Constitutions.  But even there, in documents such as Guadium Et Spes, there are numerous statements that are impossible as dogma, as they are simply pastoral guidance about how to do this or that, in often excrutiating detail, and on subject matter that is frequently very mundane.  So to claim that even these documents are wholly dogmatic is not only a stretch, its completely unrealistic. Lumen Gentium is probably the closest a single document comes to being dogmatic, and there is debate regarding certain formulations, there.

Suffice it to say, as opposed to simply painting a happy face on the whole lot and proclaiming it all good, these are discussions that should be ongoing in the Church for a long time to come.  The Church desperately needs to come to a proper understanding of Vatican II.  The Pope has given a very broad guidance (always interpret in the light of preceding Tradition), but that is not enough, as there are statements within the various documents that are very challenging to resolve with that preceding Magisterium, and in fact have not been by any authoritative source. I do not accept that the documents of Vatican II are impossible to reconcile with Tradition, simply that I do not yet understand how they can be, and have not seen them so reconciled.  But that also doesn’t mean that I have to just sit down and shut up and pretend it’s all OK. Because as I look around the Church, all is not OK, it’s far from it. We’re in the midst of the worst crisis the Church has ever faced, and most of that crisis stems from either the Council itself, or the radical interpretations and executions thereof.

The last thing the Church needs right now are “canonizations” of the Council, but we’re getting them in spades in this anniversary year. The upcoming canonization of Pope Paul VI will be part and parcel of the process, in spite of many Catholics being utterly bewildered at this seemingly very political move.  I’m afraid its unavoidable.  Like veterans going back to Normandy Beach in their 70s and 80s, the generation that  fought the battles of Vatican II is determined to make one more push to enshrine the Council and their notions of it into final, immutable dominance. I, for one, plan to continue the discussion.

For something completely different, here is the same Mr. Landregan talking about the condition of Lee Harvey Oswald at Parkland Hospital after his shooting by Jack Ruby.  Good Lord, Landregan must be well, well into his 80s, since I’m guessing he was at least 35-38 back in 1963.


Reason #98578 never to allow your kid in public school January 11, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, foolishness, horror, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

A child was suspended recently for pointing his finger at a classmate and saying “pow!”  Obviously, such a deranged mind requires complete sequestration from his peers, careful psychological oversight, and likely a transfer into state foster care:

A 6-year-old boy was suspended from an elementary school in Maryland for forming his fingers into a gun and saying “pow,” according to UPI.

In a disciplinary letter to the parents, the boy’s actions were described as a threat “to shoot a student.”

The unnamed boy was suspended from Roscoe Nix Elementary School for one day, Dec. 21, and his parents are taking legal action against Montgomery County School District.

Robin Ficker, the attorney hired by the family, told the Washington Post that the boy “had no intention to shoot anyone,” She added that the boy is “skinny and meek. In his words, he was playing.”

Ficker suspects the suspension is a reaction to the tragic Newtown shooting as schools across the country are questioning their policies, tightening rules and asking how they can prevent similar situations from happening on their grounds. But Ficker feels that the school’s decision was unfair and that their interpretation of the incident will harm the boy’s reputation.

I don’t think this particular bit of public school idiocy needs much comment.  The Victorian grand dame clutching her pearls in shock is alive and well today, and resides in the public schools. Silliness doesn’t even begin to describe it.

This Newton shooting has been interesting to observe.  First, the media and other elites, almost entirely left wing in outlook, were stunned, shocked, that such an event could occur in one of their enclaves.  Newton is in Fairfield County, which is definitely in New York’s suburban territory.  After the shock wore off, the left trending elites experienced their natural reaction, which was to control what they feared or opposed.  So now we have huge efforts to make more gun control laws, especially against so called “assault weapons,” which are really just semi-automatic rifles that have large magazines.

What is most galling, is that many of the media and other elites have armed, private security details that won’t be affected in the slightest by any gun control laws.  Such laws will, as usual, only affect the individual, non-elite citizen.  But the new aristocracy mustn’t be bothered with such things as consistency.  That’s something for us rubes in the sticks to deal with.

Look, the various courts have ruled extensively over the past century and a half that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.  Even with Obama having a second term, any law passed or executive order promulgated is almost guaranteed to run against previous court precedent.  The only way any truly limiting gun control legislation can stand is if Obama can somehow pack the court with more anti-2nd Amendment nominees, and that’s very unlikely.  Scalia is the most likely candidate to suffer health problems that would require him to step down (or pass away outright), but I imagine his very strong political inclinations are going to incline him to hang on to his seat with grim determination, seeking to wait out at least Obama’s 2nd term. At this point, it’s all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But, it’s a potent distraction as the country charges headlong over the fiscal cliff.  That cliff is being passed over as we speak, all the fruitless “deals” arrived at changing nothing in terms of massive debt and enormous, looming future obligations.  The best Obama can hope for is to stem the collapse long enough for it to be his successor’s problem.  And then I’m sure they’ll keep blaming Bush.  I wonder how long that idiotic non-defense will stand with the public.

The only sure consequence of this event is that sales of assault rifles and ammunition will continue to soar.