jump to navigation

Heresy driven by lust leads to apostasy – the Vicki Gene Robinson story May 29, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking.
comments closed

My my my, Vicki Gene must be feeling the need for some additional attention these days. As he is so often wont to do, the former pretend bishop of a pretend church is out there causing an uproar, this time trying to claim that Christ was gay, or at least may repressed, and also claiming ludicrously that Christ never spoke about homosexuality.  Here is what was reported (my emphasis and comments):

The first openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, made  controversial remarks on ABC Australia’s popular “Q&A” show on Monday,  noting that Jesus lived an “alternative lifestyle” while highlighting how Jesus  spent time with male disciples and that he loved them.

Jesus had a very kind of  alternative lifestyle,” Robinson said, hinting at a possible sexual orientation  for the Savior of the world.

When asked “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” the Episcopal bishop  responded “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.” [Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Jesus lived a lifestyle that was not uncommon in 1st century Palestine. There were a number of groups of celibate male Jews who spent time in prayer and evangelization, such as the Zealouts. That makes Jesus standing out all the more remarkable – he had a great deal of competition. Others had proclaimed themselves the Messiah in roughly the same timeframe, as Gamaliel points out in Acts.

The more important question is did Christ condemn homosexuality. Absolutely. His several references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the punishments they well deserved, communicated to His listeners at that time an implicit condemnation of the horrific sins of those places, which now rest at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Christ was claiming that worse would happen to those who did not follow Him, after having heard Him, than occurred, quite rightly, to Sodom, for the nightmarish perversions that dominated it before it’s destruction.  And Christ certainly wasn’t saying Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable. Give me a break.]

“This is a man who remained single for virtually all his lifetime in a  culture that demanded marriage. [No, not really. There were a number of celibate Jewish groups at that time. It’s hard to believe a “bishop” could be so ignorant. This is Biblical History 101] He spent most of his time with twelve men, he  singled three of them out for special leadership, and one of them is known as  the beloved disciple, the one whom Jesus loved,” Robinson said. [S0, at this point, Vicki Jean has definitely painted a picture of a homosexual male, or tried very hard to do so.]

[Realizing he has just lost all conservative, moderate, and moderate liberal Christians…….]But quickly he added,”I’m not saying he was gay. I’m not saying he ever had  sex with anyone. I’m just saying this is a man who lived outside the normal  boundaries of his own culture and knew about a family of choice.”

Please. Once again, no, He did not.  Yes, Christ’s lifestyle as itinerant preacher – for 3 years, not 30! – may not have been the dominant norm, but it was hardly radical.  So, this entire argument is just stupid.

In terms of logic, it’s all falls into a logical fallacy called special pleading – which goes along the line of “but you don’t understand! It was different!  But you have to see…….!” etc, etc.  None of which has the slightest bearing on what Vicki Gene is trying to prove, which is that Christ would have, somehow, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary (including being the literal Word in inspired and inerrant Scripture, which condemns homosexuality AND homosexual acts repeatedly, in both Old and New Testaments, and 2000 years of Tradition within the Mystical Body of Christ) approved of homosexuality if only He had been “allowed” to. Needless to say, just by his very arguments Robinson is proving himself to be a modernist who rejects the veracity or plain meaning of Scripture, and applies hiw own interpretation to it.  Which is hardly surprising, given his background in the protestant sects, where such is part and parcel of their existence.

And I think this whole exercise, if it has any great meaning, is just that. As a good priest that I know said at a nuptial Mass earlier in the month, what we are seeing today, with the rampant heresies and immorality and cultural collapse and the gravest of evils being held up as not only normal, but beautiful and right and fully equal to God’s created intent, is not only the natural result of protestant private interpretation of Scripture, but the only and inevitable result of the cultural dominance of this deformed system of belief.  “Homosexual marriage” didn’t start in 1970 with the “Stonewall riots,” or Allen Ginsburg moving to San Francisco, or the birth control pill, or the foundation of the United States. It started on All Hallow’s Eve in 1517, when Luther posted his “95 theses.”  The inability to contain the protestant heresy was the climax, the rest has all been tragic denoument.


Bishop Fulton Sheen on contraception May 29, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Grace, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

You know what I like best about this 20 minute talk below?  The fact that Bishop Sheen knew that even mentioning the phrase “birth control” was a challenge to modesty and not appropriate for young ears.  We have come so very far, and certainly not in a good way.  There used to be such a thing as decorum.  But that was before decades of cultural marxism left this nation, and much of the world, prostrate in a morass of “feel-good” (it doesn’t) hedonism and sexular pagan selfishness.

Lord, may we have such bishops again!  Please!  And now!  No man is perfect, we all sin, but where is the leadership that can speak like this? Have mercy on your Church, and send us the shepherds we so desperately need, and do not afflict us with the ones we deserve!

Speaking of affliction. I was trying to explain to my parents that the non sequitur travesty of state recognition of homosexuals simulating marriage could be seen as an affliction from God, a punishment for our – Catholics, in particular – failure to live our marriages in the light of Grace and God’s Truth. When one surveys how poorly nominally heterosexual Christians have conducted their marriages over the past several decades, with rampant contraceptive use, recourse to abortion, divorce, unchastity of all kinds, failure to form children in the Faith, etc., etc., I judge that it is not at all unlikely that this scourge of homosexual pretend marriage could be a punishment God has inflicted on us.  I did not finish the argument, as I could see my mom’s exasperation, and my father’s ire, rising visibly, but I don’t think it impossible. It’s not that God inflicts evil, but He has created a system to work a certain way, and when we rebel, there tend to be natural repercussions that He could have stayed, but has chosen not to.  It’s like the pending collapse of Western economies and contraception. We in the West have contracepted and aborted away the large majority of children we should have had over the past 50 years, destroying the normal engine of economic growth – population expansion.  So, the repercussion is economic failure and possible collapse.  I’m not saying these are things I believe terribly strongly, but they are certainly present in my mind as possibilities.

It’s as if God were to day “you have mocked marriage for lo these 50 years, I will allow you to see the fruit of your sin.”  And thus, we get, what we deserve. Or what our parents deserve.

Two big liturgical feasts coming up May 29, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, North Deanery, sanctity, scandals, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Just a quick reminder: tomorrow is the Feast of Corpus Christi. While it is no longer a Holy Day of Obligation in this country, it sure should be. It IS a Holy Day of Obligation in the universal Church.  But our good bishops, they luv us so much, they don’t want to tire us out by going to Mass more than once a week.

Forget that! Go to Mass!  Do some Adoration!  I know some local parishes are having Adoration in support of the Feast!  Go if you possibly can!


And Friday is the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary!  I love how Holy Mother Church follows Paschaltide with these wonderful holidays!

Our Lady Queen of Heaven


Cardinal Dolan paying for contraception, ABORTION, “under protest” May 29, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking.
comments closed

It is true that the vast majority of private insurance plans available cover contraception and abortion.  But one would think the Catholic Church in these United States, and the 200-odd dioceses along with the thousands of employees of the USCCB and affiliated agencies, would be large enough to self-insure, to basically write their own plan and not have to pay for grave, grave evils like contraception and abortion.  It appears the Archdiocese of New York – and likely many other dioceses – hasn’t fought or protested very hard to avoid paying for these grave evils, in effect, subsidizing some of the most offensive sins imaginable (my emphasis):

As the nation’s leading Roman Catholic bishop, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York has been spearheading the fight against a provision of the new health care law that requires employers, including some that are religiously affiliated, to cover birth control in employee health plans.

But even as Cardinal Dolan insists that requiring some religiously affiliated employers to pay for contraception services would be an unprecedented, and intolerable, government intrusion on religious liberty, the archdiocese he heads has quietly been paying for such coverage, albeit reluctantly and indirectly, for thousands of its unionized employees for over a decade.

The Archdiocese of New York has previously acknowledged that some local Catholic institutions offer health insurance plans that include contraceptive drugs to comply with state law; now, it is also acknowledging that the archdiocese’s own money is used to pay for a union health plan that covers contraception and even abortion for workers at its affiliated nursing homes and clinics.

“We provide the services under protest,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York.

Do you? Do you really protest?  Then why haven’t we heard about this before? Why has this been carefully ignored in all the rhetoric in the fight against the HHS Mandate?

Further on in the article, that “protest” seems to be pretty weak:

Bruce McIver, the president of the league since 1991, said he recalled that some Catholic organizations had expressed concern about paying for the contraception benefits in the mid- to late 1990s. But in recent years, as the number of Catholic hospitals in the city dwindled, “they just kind of stopped, from my perspective, paying attention to this issue,” he said.

“Eventually, the Catholics just said, you know, we are going to ignore the issue and pay into the fund and people are going to make their own choices about contraception and so forth,” Mr. McIver said.       

During union negotiations, “I don’t remember it coming up in the last dozen years or so, ever,” he said. “In a place like New York, their employees, not all of whom are Catholic, would react pretty badly.” [Yeah, well, what’s worse, employees reacting badly or babies being torn limb from limb in the womb?]

So, the Archdiocese has protested, just not in the last dozen years or so.  And it was the “great pro-life” Cardinal John O’Connor who first agreed to this abomination:

Mr. Zwilling, the spokesman for the New York archdiocese, said that Cardinal John J. O’Connor and the archdiocese “objected to these services’ being included in the National Benefit Fund’s health insurance plan” when joining the league in the 1990s. But the cardinal then decided “there was no other option if the Catholic Church was to continue to provide health care to these union-affiliated employees in the city of New York,” Mr. Zwilling said. [So much for the great pro-life warrior, Cardinal O’Connor. Can we please have an end to the boyo bishops club?]

So, if you were wondering how the bishops, the very heirs of the Apostles in this country, would react if truly pushed to the wall on Obamacare and forced to choose between paying for contraception and abortion, or discontinuing health care coverage or various services, now you know.  I don’t think it was ever remotely a question.

Based on this, am I wrong to doubt that any bishop, even a single one, would actually go to jail over something like the HHS Mandate?  Which is more important, to provide health care or to avoid participation in the gravest of evils?  What is the price of a human life, in the case of abortion?  Am I being unreasonable, unrealistic, to ask these things?  Is there truly “no alternative” in these cases, to participation in grave evil?

Is it not still a Catholic moral belief, a Dogma, really, that one can not do evil no matter what “good” may come from it?  How in the name of all that is holy can our bishops willfully participate in this?

What else will we find out about Cardinal Dolan and the Archdiocese of New York?  And this man was ostensibly a papal contender?  Please.  I pray not.

That sound you heard was the moral authority of the bishops collapsing.  I am certain this activity is, very “reluctantly,” going on all over the country.

Marquette professors reveals the fruitlessness of ecumenism with islam May 29, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

Most often, when I read about ostensibly Catholic Marquette University, it’s because some professor has determined Christ would have officiated at homosexual marriages or would have lobbied for abortion, had He only had the chance. I exaggerate, slightly.  But it seems there are some good professors there.  One of them, Dr. Howard Kaines, professor emeritus (and that likely explains the reasonableness), recently had a post regarding islam and the Church’s proponents of ecumenism.  It’s pretty good (I add emphasis and comments):

Islam is an “Abrahamic” religion only in the sense that Muslims claim that Abraham’s sacrifice in Genesis 22 was of Ishmael, their ancestor [Wait. He is their self-proclaimed ancestor. There is little evidence in Scripture and Tradition to support this claim]  , not Isaac. The God of Islam is not a Father, certainly not love, but rather the master of the universe, in which all human beings are his slaves. Some non-believers (as well as the mysterious spirit beings known as jinn) are actually created for hell. The commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” appears nowhere in Islam. Jesus was not the Son of God, was not crucified, and did not arise from the dead.  Rather, he preached the coming of Mohammed—a fact that does not appear in the now corrupted versions of the New Testament.  Jesus will return at the end of the world to break all crosses, kill all pigs (food eaten by Christians), destroy Christianity, and Islamize the world.  Mary was the daughter of Imran, the father of Moses and Aaron, and thus the sister of Aaron. The New Testament has been defiled. All the references of Jesus in the Gospels to the coming of Muhammad have been removed. Christians are the “vilest of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6), and can escape the death mandated for unbelievers only if they pay a special poll tax (juzya) in Muslim countries……..[Islam is, in reality, an amalgam of Arian “Christian” beliefs and very likely heretical Jewish sects in Arabia. The idea that Jesus was just a man, unlike God the Father in every respect, comes directly from extreme Arianism]

…….Islamic morality allows for practices that Catholicism abhors, including contraception, female genital mutilation, and even sexual slavery of non-believing women. Abortion is permitted in the first trimester. Child marriage is rampant in Islamic jurisdictions.  Polygamy is permitted, along with easy divorce of wives by men and “temporary” marriage laws. Sharia Law, Spencer adds, makes the chasm between Christianity and Islam almost completely unbridgeable: “Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some ‘extremist’ form of it.”

In a book I published during the 1980s, Ethics in Context, I included a section on the Golden Rule, which began with a listing of various versions of the Golden Rule in major religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.  I was unable to find anything like the Golden Rule in Islam…….

 …..Aside from tolerance and normal respect and communication with Muslims, it remains questionable whether systematic and structured “dialogues”—to come to an agreement on religious doctrines or moral values—are of any benefit whatsoever. Our main hope in addressing the Christian-Muslim “chasm” is an emphasis on natural law and natural rights, which, being written on the hearts of all men, can be activated even in the midst of religious pressures and interdictions……[But if you read the comments on the post, some pretty intriguing evidence is presented that islam is not even open to the natural law]

In a few hundred words, this professor has managed to show that islam is morally, theologically, politically, and militarily endemically hostile towards Christianity. It doesn’t take a PhD to know that, anyone who reads even a modicum of non-revisionist history knows that islam has been almost constantly, monstrously hostile towards Christianity in general, and the Church in particular, for over 1300 years. Pretending that islam worships the “same God” as the Judeo-Christian religions has always struck me as bizaare, and truly, begging the question. Muslims do not accord Catholics the same generous treatment.  In point of fact, muslims are busy eradicating the last remaining Catholics from the Mideast.

But there was one other excerpt I wanted to bring up, because I thought some readers might find it thought-provoking. Here ’tis:

Other Vatican II documents, however, envisioned extending the outreach (not strictly ecumenical dialogue, but “interfaith dialogue”) to non-Christian religions. Lumen Gentium (1964) strikingly affirmed that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”; and Nostra aetate (1965), urging “mutual understanding,” emphasized that “The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship  God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of  God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own.”

The thought exercise I thought you might find interesting, was to compare and contrast the priest’s exegesis on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus I posted yesterday, and the excerpts above, which are 100% correct and in context. I really struggle with that statement above, because saying “the plan of salvation includes…..Moslems” seems to go very far beyond the fact that some, through cooperating with Grace in an unseen way and thus living a supremely virtuous life and avoiding those grave sins which the natural law reveals, could gratuitously be saved outside visible communion with the Church.  Lumen Gentium 16 goes on to say that these people may be saved by following their religion as it dictates their conscience……but what if that religion dictates that behaviors contrary to the natural law are perfectly acceptable?  This is a severe conundrum that has not been authoritatively addressed at all, to my knowledge.  As can be read above, regularly accepted practices of islam are directly counter to the natural law on numerous fronts.

I also don’t think it any stretch to say that Lumen Gentium 16 and other statements like that referred to from Nostra Aetate above, have gravely weakened the Church’s evangelical efforts. Pope Benedict argued strenuously that such statements have to be taken in light of Tradition, but I don’t think his position is in the majority, even in the hierarchy. Or especially in the hierarchy.  In practice, these statements have led to a huge rupture with the Church’s prior Tradition.  And even Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, had to back off statements in the encyclical Dominus Iesus that greatly limited the “rupture” interpretations of Vatican II statements on ecumenism.  Whereas Dominus Iesus was initially hailed as a virtual “return to the Syllabus of Blessed Pope Pius IX,” much complaint by Jews and other non-Catholics led Ratzinger to undermine to varying degrees Dominus Iesus, which he had largely written, in later press interviews on the matter.  To say that confusion reigns supreme, would be putting things mildly.