jump to navigation

Over half of all sexual assaults in military are of a homosexual nature June 28, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, manhood, scandals, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

But they just want to serve their country!  And there is no way having men with a powerful drive for depraved acts with other men, confined in close quarters with them for months at a time, would ever be a problem!


But in a debate that has focused largely on women, this fact is often overlooked: the majority of service members who are sexually assaulted each year are men.

In its latest report on sexual assault, the Pentagon estimated that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, up from 19,000 in 2010. Of those cases, the Pentagon says, 53 percent involved attacks on men, mostly by other men.

There are also reports of out and out rapes that occur, on a frighteningly frequent basis, against men, by other men. And now that the US military is obligated, by federal law and Supreme Court decision, to provide benefits to “partners” of homosexual servicemembers, it’s likely the number of assaults will increase.

But given that the US military presently consists of approximately 1.3 million active duty service members, and if 2% of the population is homosexual and that same ratio applies to the military, that means that half the homosexual in the military are committing sexual assault!  Or, there are some very, very busy sodomites who get to repeatedly harass others without any reprimand!

The numbers – 1.3E06*.02 = 26000.  53% of 26,000 assaults = 13780 assaults committed by homosexuals.  So, is the number of homosexuals in the military much higher than it is in the general populace?  Even if it’s 10%, we still have homosexuals committing sexual assualts at a rate, way, WAY higher than heterosexuals in the military or out. Why is this not reported as a problem?  Why didn’t we hear about this in the DOMA decision?

This is insane.  Look, the military bans many gang members from the military due to their propensity for uncontrolled violence, even against (or especially against) friend – fellow servicemembers.  But here we have a group that is committing sexual assaults at, what, 5-25 TIMES the rate of heterosexuals but they are still allowed to serve, becasue they are the favored minority du jour?

This is a catastrophe.

Dangit all – not ALL traditionalists are SSPXers June 28, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, blogfoolery, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, persecution, scandals, self-serving, SSPX, Tradition.
comments closed

I don’t write much on the Society of St. Pius X. I avoid it because I frankly don’t know that much about it, but also because it’s such a hot topic.  In general, I have a fair amount of sympathy for their position, but I also see problems with it. That’s all I’ll say.

But one thing I am certain of, is that I am sick and tired of seeing “mainstream” professional Catholic “conservative” news sites attacking traditionalists via the SSPX!  If the SSPX does something the mainstream conservative crowd doesn’t like, they lash out bashing “traditionalists.”  But not all traditionalists are in the SSPX!  There are many varied degrees of what is called traditional Catholicism, and many groups and fraternities and societies that strongly adhere to the traditional – the constant, unchanging, unchangeable – beliefs AND practices of the Church.

I am referring to the pounding traditionalists have taken from groups like Catholic Answers and National Catholic Register.  Catholic Answers had a 2 hour show a couple weeks ago where they just pounded on “traditionalists,” but what they really meant was the SSPX.  Whatever their criticisms of the SSPX, it is totally unfair to paint a million or more other traditionalists who are not associated with the Society with the same damning brush.

I sense a sort of jihad against “traditionalists” in some of this coverage. I also have to wonder if some of this, especially the Catholic Answers diatribe, isn’t meant to scare people away from the traditional Mass?  After all, what are traditionalists most known for, outside of being raging schismatic pelagians?  It’s the TLM.  And if TLMers are schismatic nuts, surely on their way to forming some satanic cult, you sure don’t want to go to the TLM.  I know, via various means, that Tim Staples has a less than positive attitude towards the TLM, anyway.

But, I’m sure my words will have no effect. Whatevs, it’s all part of being Catholic, taking the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and thanking God for them.

Dominus vobiscum!

Christmas_Midnight Mass_Christ the King


First Friday devotion at the Carmelite Chapel July 5 June 28, 2013

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

All night Adoration! Join the Carmelites in all night prayer!

1) All Night Vigil this Friday, July 5 – details below & in flyer

(2) Devotions to The Holy Face and Benediction on Sunday,

July 7 at 3:30 PM

All Night Vigil – Adoration First Friday, July 5

Discalced Carmelite Nuns Invite YOU!!

Starts Friday night July 5   –  come as early as 4 PM

stay 30 minutes, one hour or all night

Vigil ends just before 7 AM Mass

on Saturday, July 6

First Mass (TLM) 8:00 PM

Food & Drink available in the room next to the chapel.

Please help yourself!

2nd Mass (TLM)  3:00 AM

Leave your personal prayer requests

The Nuns will storm heaven!

The Monastery is at 600 Flowers Ave., Dallas, 75211, off of Jefferson.

All details here——–>>>>>>>> Allnightcarmelites_july2013

Carmelite Clothing July 1 at 11a June 28, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Liturgy, religious, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

An unknown sister will receive her habit Monday July 1 at 11a at the Carmelite Monastery at 600 Flowers Ave. Dallas, TX 75211.  All are welcome. You can visit with sister in the parlor before and after Mass. Some refreshments will be provided.

Yay!  Another sister gets clothed!

MJD, if you get her name, send it to me and I’ll update the post.


Huge homosexual clergy scandal about to break in Rome? – UPDATED June 27, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

TG may not want to read this.

Is this what the Cardinals were called to deal with a couple of days ago?  Wow, if even half of this is true, it’s going to be a Church-shaking shocker:

I wish I could say this is unimaginable, but it is not. It’s simply the very same depraved rot we’ve seen throughout the clergy in the West, which began with the concommitant explosion in acceptance of the dread heresy of modernism about 60 years go.

We’ll see how this develops.

UPDATE: More from Rorate. This looks confirmed.

During  the news on “La7 on the 25th June (http://tg.la7.it/cronaca/video-i722957) we learned of an inquiry in course by the Roman Magistrates concerning a head-spinning ring of sexual encounters hosted by religious  with minors. The denunciation which triggered off the investigation would contain around twenty names, among which is a papal master of ceremonies [Good Lord, not the current one, Guardini?] , a secretary to the Cardinal Vicar, four parish priests in charge of as many parishes to the north and west of Rome and other personalities of a high ecclesiastical level.

The behavior of certain ecclesiastical authorities confronted with scandals of this sort is astounding. When they learn of the existence of an immoral situation in a parish, in a college, in a seminary, they do not proceed to verify the truth, remove the guilty party and eliminate the filth, but manifest annoyance, if not reprobation towards those that have denounced the evil, and, in the best of cases, they limit themselves by taking into consideration that which may interest civil justice, for fear of being involved in judicial matters. They are silent about that which has purely a moral and canonical significance. The slogan could be “ zero tolerance” for the pedophiles, “maximum tolerance “ for homosexuals. The latter continue unperturbedly to occupy their  places as parish priests, bishops, rectors of Colleges, forming that “homo-mafia” which Pope Francis defines as the “gay lobby.”
And so long as they do continue to occupy those high positions, or any positions, these scandals will remain and grow worse.  I have written before, and I will again, many, many homosexual men are very powerfully attracted to young, adolescent age men. The treasured “twinks.”  This horrific Italian report even uses the term.  It is no surprise to me that there are many of this very powerful homosexual lobby in the Vatican  – they have been heads of major dioceses, heads of national conferences like the USCCB, and heads of religious orders, so why not in the Vatican?
I think we really need to start examining the profound links between modernist beliefs and homosexual behavior. The former condones, with its massive indifference, the latter, and seems to empower it in a sense.
More as this develops.
UPDATE 2: Rorate is now reporting the man who made the accusations has been arrested for libel.  Which, I didn’t even know one could be arrested for that, I thought it was more of a civil law matter, not criminal.  Maybe they mean making a false report?
UPDATE 3: Michael Voris back with another report that puts the various reports together and ties in numerous other recent events/scandals. I will say, however, that he really doesn’t add anything new, but it’s a convenient way to get up to speed on what has been reported:

You keep using that word…..I don’t think it means what you think it means June 27, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, error, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, Tradition.
comments closed

Pelagianism has been a much used word in Catholic circles of late.  Which is surprising, because as a formal heresy, it was fairly well stamped out  1500 years ago or so. Arianism actually persisted longer than Pelagianism.

Certainly, the Holy Father seems much enamored of the word.  He used it a couple of weeks ago to describe traditionalists to some visitors from S. America. He just used it again yesterday, when he went a bit further:

Pope Francis drew a sharp contrast between “Christians of words” and “Christians of action” during his homily at a weekday Mass on June 27.

Commenting on the Gospel image of a house built on rock, the Pope said that true Christian faith is built on Jesus Christ. However, he said, “There has always been the temptation to live our Christianity not on the rock that is Christ.” This temptation toward “a Christianity without Jesus” is doomed to failure, the Holy Father remarked, because only Jesus gives the faithful the right to address God as Father.

Pope Francis said that the “Christians of words” fall into two categories: the gnostics, who “lives floating on the surface of the Christian life;” and the pelagians, who whose rigid approach puts them “in perpetual mourning.”   

Both gnostics and pelagians “masquerade as Christians,” the Pope said, insofar as they do not base their faith on Jesus Christ. “The Holy Spirit has no place in their lives,” he added.

That’s a rather damning indictment from the Holy Father. Given that he just made rather plain two weeks ago that he sees this “pelagian” current in those traditionalists who gave him a spiritual bouquet, these latest remarks seem rather shocking.

But, be that as it may, I think from the Pope’s two statements we can begin to piece together how Pope Francis defines “pelagians.” He apparently feels they are rigorists who are joyless and think this life must be one of constant prayer and penance in order to have a chance of salvation. There is more than a slight implication that they don’t cooperate with Grace.  Given that most all of the practices traditionalists adopt are simply those used by faithful Catholics for centuries, it’s fair to ask what esteem Pope Francis holds the centuries long Tradition of the Church.

I also have to quibble more than a bit with the definition of pelagianism used by Pope Francis. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “you keep using that word…….I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

For those who don’t know, Pelagius was a 4th/5th century priest or religious type from what is now Britain who taught a rather complex heresy.  St. Augustine spent many years combatting this heresy.  I could attempt to define Pelagianism, but I think Marius Mercator, close friend and colleague of St. Augustine, does better.  Mercator spent years fighting this heresy, as well, and wrote a compendium of errors held by Pelagians. This from p. 185 of Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:

[Pelagians hold errors such as these (every single statement is an error):]….Adam was created mortal and he would have died whether he had sinned or not. The sin of Adam injured himself alone and not the whole human race.  When infants are born they are in the state in which Adam was before the Fall. Since not everyone belonging to the human race dies through Adam’s death, neither does everyone belonging to the human race rise up through Christ’s Resurrection. Infants have eternal life even if they are not baptized. These five headings are productive of one most impious and abominable opinion [or, here is what Pelagians believed in a nutshell]: he adds, moreover, that a man is able to be without sin, and can easily keep the commandments of God…….

That last bit really defines the core of Pelagianism – that man can pretty easily keep the commandments and achieve eternal life.  Which is pretty much the opposite, I think, of what the Pope is accusing his “pelagians” of believing: he sees rigid souls who think we have to just suffer and work ourselves to death to have a faint hope of achieving salvation.  Which also doesn’t exactly make them “Christians of words,” they’re simply Christians of a type of action the Pope does not find to his liking.  St. Augustine, of course, defined Pelagianism similarly to Marius Mercator above.  I will say, in the Holy Father’s defense, that there are some modern sources that define Pelagianism down to being a philosophy of “working one’s way to Heaven,” but that’s really not an accurate definition, although Pelagians did, sort of, believe that.

What the Pope is really repeating is the protestant critique of traditional (pre-conciliar) Catholicism, that Catholics have this belief we could work our way to Heaven independent of Grace. First of all, the protestants were wrong, the Church has never believed that. Secondly, that’s not the heresy he keeps bringing up.

I won’t say much else, because I don’t want to belabor the point. But I will say this: I think the Church has really gotten into a great deal of trouble over the past several decades for operating in an either/or mentality – some emphasize Scripture, others Tradition, some emphasize the active life, some the contemplative, some are involved in catachesis, others take a missionary approach which forbids catachesis, etc.  My view is that the Church is the Body of the great “both-and:” we reverence Scripture AND Tradition, the active AND the contemplative, etc. On more than a couple occasions, the Holy Father has indicated, in pretty marked terms, that he holds the more cerebral, contemplative side of the Church in something approaching a low regard.  For instance, he told that same group of S. American religious above that one should be a priest or a college professor, but not both.  Which, the previous Pope was both!

Yes, it’s a very Jesuit point of view. That’s all I’ll say about that.

Sickening – CCHD head has close ties to pro-abort senator Wendy Davis June 27, 2013

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

Tuesday, radical pro-abort senator from Ft. Worth, Wendy Davis, managed, for the time being, to talk to death Senate Bill 5, which would have imposed very reasonable and necessary limitations on abortion in this state.  Fortunately, Governor Rick Perry has called another session of the legislature, and Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has said SB 5 will be the first order of business in the coming session.  I pray they bring in about 500 troopers and Texas Rangers and post them around the entrances to the capitol building.

However, that same Wendy Davis, radical pro-abort, has close ties to one Ralph McCloud, current head of the always problematic, always leftist Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).  Thanks to reader John B for sending this in:

It’s hard to believe the long and sad story of the Catholic Campaign For Human Development’s partnership with the abortion industry could be even more sickening. But today it got even worse.

On Tuesday June 25, a Democratic in Texas Sen. Wendy Davis, attempted to filibuster a pro-life bill that would save thousands of lives.  Sen. Davis attempted to stand for 13 straight hours in an effort to put an end to a bill that would have banned the killing of persons in the womb after 20 weeks.

Sen. Davis and her allies in the abortion industry have used this filibuster to mock children in the womb and continue to destroy human life.

Mr. Ralph McCloud, while he was head of the Catholic Campaign For Human Development, was the campaign treasurer for pro-abort Wendy Davis in her successful run in 2008 for the Texas State Senate.

Not only has the Catholic Campaign For Human Development pumped millions of dollars into abortion promoting organizations the head of the CCHD worked long and hard, while head of CCHD, to elect one of the most pro-baby killing public officials in America.

As reader John B noted to me:

The campaign he worked for (Wendy Davis, a democrat State Senator from Ft. Worth), defeated an incumbent pro-life politician and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from such pro-abort groups as Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN in 2008.  Planned Parenthood of North Texas was fined by the Texas Ethics Commission for illegal contributions to Davis’ campaign, of which CCHD’s own Ralph McLoud was treasurer.  Shameful.

Which would strongly imply that McCloud helped direct these illegal pro-abort contributions, which were instrumental in getting this Davis character elected.  He’s a peach of a man, surely just the kind of very faithful, very virtuous soul Catholics would expect at the head of a major diocesan agency.

McCloud also worked for the Diocese of Ft. Worth for 14 years, which I think should give every pious soul pause.

In the video below, which John B, a true pro-life stalwart in the area, also sent on, you can see Ralph McCloud speaking at a 2008 Gamaliel Foundation fundraiser.  The Gamaliel Foundation is one of many leftist groups started by Saul Alinsky himself, which formed the very model for the CCHD. The CCHD in turn, fools Catholics into believing they are “alleviating poverty” with their annual fundraiser, and then turn around and funnel the money to left wing political activist groups like Gamaliel and its hundreds of front organizations.  CCHD does NOTHING to feed, clothe, or house the poor. It is an organization created for one purpose: to advocate for radical leftist causes using funds taken from Catholics under largely false pretenses. CCHD collections are frequently described as “helping the poor,” or “helping the poor help themselves,” which on the surface, sounds like they provide direct care services or job training and the like. Nothing could be further from the Truth –  CCHD’s vision of “empowering” the poor is a strictly left-wing vision, directing money to almost exclusively left-wing groups, many of which, again, radically oppose Catholic belief.

McCloud let the crowd know in 2008 that Obama’s election portended “a great day…..where we will realize a new Jerusalem and justice will flow like water.”

Most galling of all regarding this latest revelation regarding CCHD, is it comes in the wake of the clumsy, prevaricating, and obtuse PR effort by CCHD and its aging radical supporters to “push back” against the well-earned criticism the organization has received.  In this latest defense, CCHD supporters weren’t in the slightest bit apologetic regarding the organization’s founding purpose, to “empower” the poor by funnelling money to left wing advocacy groups. Even though many of those groups support things directly counter to the belief and practice of the Faith.  The PR blitz was really just a campaign of shooting the messenger, the messenger in this case being pro-life faithful Catholics who have been pointing up the scandal of CCHD for years.

When that collection basket for CCHD comes around Nov. 23-24, will you give?  I, for one, will not. Ever.

Slutty Housewives and Pop Psychology – Catholic school catachesis in the late 60s June 27, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, priests, religious, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society.
comments closed

If you are a Catholic convert like me, you may have struggled with the question – how did it all fall apart?  How on earth could the Church, especially in Europe and the Americas, go from being such a strong, cohesive, and vibrant institution, to one of collapse, division, and near universal apathy?  There are many reasons, of course.

But I don’t think it any exaggeration to claim that, aside from the massive problems in the Liturgy and failure to enforce ecclesiastical discipline, catachesis is quite possibly the area where the most profound damage has been done to the faith of millions of Catholics.  And catachesis – teaching Catholics, especially children, the Faith – remains a huge problem today.  Especially in Catholic schools, where the modernist mentality seems epidemic and deeply rooted.  So, how did catachesis collapse?

Well, in short, through mass acceptance and popularization of the devastating modernist beliefs of people like Teilhard de Chardin and pop psychologists like Freud and Jung, which spread like wildfire through the religious orders that then operated Catholic schools and from the religious to the lay teachers and administrators who replaced them (and right or wrong, the Council was used as the justification for all of this).  By the late 60s, many if not most all Catholic schools were teaching beliefs that would hvae been regarded as damnable heresy just a 5 or 6 years before.  I won’t get into why and how the religious orders, lay priests, and the laity themselves fell so deep and so hard right now, but I will provide some evidence for my claim via this textbook on religion, Growth in Christ, which was widely used in the late 60s in Catholic high schools. It was written by Brother Andrew Panzarella, FSC (a Christian Brother, which order ran so many schools in the northeast and midwest, and which was also very widely implicated in the boy-rape scandal), and was part of a number of catechetical books the Christian Brothers wrote around that time.  Just a note, most of the authors of these books subsequently went on to leave the priesthood/religious life, and some got quite involved in “alternative lifestyles.”

This book was extremely heavy on (now almost entirely discredited) popular theories of psychology and, as I mentioned, the new age cosmic pantheistic indifferentist heresies of Teilhard de Chardin. Here is how one orthodox Catholic writer described the book*:

By the late 60s, irate parents were asking just what all these wild theories of psychology had to do with the Catholic religion being taught their children.  They saw that Growth in Christ wreaked havoc among the students exposed to it in Catholic high schools (esp. those administered by the Christian Brothers). Catechetical texts were the causus belli in the conservative reaction to the excesses following the Council. And texts like Br. Panzarella’s gave every indication that what the parents pursued qualified as a just war. “Only recently,” Panzarella wrote in the book’s introduction, “has theology, like a cautious housewife sizing up a salesman, opened the door slightly to hear what modern psychology and sociology have to offer” [Remember, this book was intended for Catholic CHILDREN]

If caution was prescribed here, Panzarella seems not to have noticed. Of the three books teachers are recommended to read before commencing teaching this course, all are texts on psychology: Man’s Search for Meaning; A Primer of Freudian Psychology; and, Man for HimselfThe main source of inspiration for Growth in Christ, according to Panzarella’s own account, was “the viewpoint which Erich Fromm has stated so well in his book Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics.” That Fromm’s combining of the insights of Marx and Freud might be [no, I would say, surely IS] completely incompatible with the beliefs of the Catholic Church is an issue which never gets raised. What Br. Panzarella does tell us, though, is that the perennial philosophy, the one recommended by virtually every modern pope beginning with Pope Leo XIII, was hopelessly out of date and superseded by more recent insights. [Well, that is straight Teilhardian nonsense]

“There is no reason,” Panzarella continued, “why we should continue to settle for the psychology of the thirteenth century. In our own times psychology has developed in scope and depth to a degree unimagined by St. Thomas.”

End quote. Which, I’m afriad, was completely meaningless, since St. Thomas was arguing and teaching theology and philosophy at a level so sublime these 20th century dunderheads couldn’t remotely grasp it. But I would further argue that the Angelic Doctor knew more of true human psychology than all the pop theorists of the 20th century combined. These radicals really thought that “science” and the religion of evolution had truly stumped the Church, that the Church had no answer for these latest “scientific facts,” and thus, the Church must change to accomodate “science.”  This, in brief, is the Teilhardian synthesis, the massive error that the Jesuit de Chardin was able, somehow, to disseminate widely in the Church in the first part of the 20th century, so that, by 1962, most religious orders were just eat up with this garbage.

Towards the end of the 400 page book, Panzarella makes his Teilhard-worship quite plain:

“[Teilhard’s] theory of evolution is not without its flaws, but it stands out as the prophetic vision of the twentieth century…

“What is really new in Teilhard’s theory of evolution is the idea that evolution is moving towards a goal. Evolution is not just haphazard change but well ordered change moving toward the goal of the fulfillment of the universe…….”

“………Mankind is building the kingdom of God. We are participating in God’s creative activity by marshaling the elements of the universe into new forms, so that all forces material, social and cultural nourish an emerging mankind. We participate in God’s redeeming activity by ceaseless war against the forces of evil in our physical world, in our biological and psychological organisms, in our social structures, and in our culture……” [For de Chardin and his modernist/leftist followers, personal sin does not exist, only “public” sins like capitalism, environmental damage, etc]

Some other quotes:

“In adolescence a person rejects many childish religious notions on the basis of his experiences of life. This is a good and necessary part of religious growth” [This was very, very widely taught – you can’t be a faithful Catholic if you adhere to traditional religious beliefs. That Rosary just shows how “spiritually immature” you are, while yoga shows you’re at a Teresian level of spirituality.  Please.]

“Is a person religious if he keeps various religious practices and assents to various religious beliefs but does not take a stand on social issues? Can a person be religious if he does not go to church but is involved in social issues?” [No. But you can see in protean form ALL the silly beliefs catholycs hold, and all the clumsy misrepresentations of leftism as Catholicism]

What Christ left behind was an infant Church; it has been and is going to continue to mature…People who cannot get over the shock of having their superstitious idea of the Church destroyed are becoming bitter and hostile. They think that the Church is going to ruins…[Yes, yes, the new springtime. Said Br. Panzarella as he left the Church a few years later.  I think we can see, 50 years on, just what blind ideological illusions these poor sick men operated under.  And this was supposed to be catachesis!  It’s nothing more than a 400 page diatribe against the Faith!  And yet, bishops across the country OK’d this book for use!  The reasons for that would take a whole ‘nuther post]

So, there you go.  Some data points for why the wheels came off at a frightening pace in the period 1965 – 1975. And to think, that generation that has wreaked so much distruction is still chomping at the bit to prove themselves right!  It appears no amount of evidence of devastation will convince them of their error. The pride these people operate under…..ay yai yai, it’s a disaster. Pray for them.  They have so much to account for. And it continues today.

*-from Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution, edited and condensed

Two great opinions on the DOMA ruling June 26, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, silliness, Society.
comments closed

I have read two great analyses of the DOMA ruling, and I haven’t seen if Michael Voris has put anything out yet, but I’ll check momentarily.  But for now, read Pat Archbold’s op-ed in the National Catholic Register and Justice Antonin Scalia’s blistering dissenting opinion.  Both are very fine, and show the decision for what it is: nothing but the perverted will of the sexular pagan agenda foisting illogical, morally bankrupt beliefs on the entire nation with the rule of law.

First up, Archbold:

Marriage, as the union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising  children and for mutual support as recognized in culture and law, has ceased to  exist. The only reason that marriage needs be recognized by law is that previous  generations understood its value and wished to confer certain legal and societal  privileges to it so as to encourage it. They rightly understood that marriage is  the cornerstone of a society.

Advocates have used those legal and societal privileges to beat, twist, and  deform the very meaning and purpose of marriage. We now view the purpose of  marriage solely as the conferring of these legal and societal privileges, and  thus they can be granted to anyone and anything.

While many states have sought to forestall the redefinition of marriage in  their states by statute or constitution, today’s ruling basically invalidates  their efforts and has opened the floodgate to approval of same sex marriage  across the nation with no reasonable recourse. Marriage as we knew it is  dead. [I agree, with this precedent, almost all state definitions of marriage as between one man and woman are essentially dead. We now know that Kennedy has completely swallowed the dominant leftist zeitgiest. See Scalia’s thundering commentary below]

With the universal legal recognition of same-sex marriage a fait accompli,  the next fight will on the Church doorstep. The next battle will be to force  Churches, most particularly the Catholic Church, to recognize and conduct  same-sex marriage. The refusal to do so will result in a series of escalating  legal and financial ramifications.

Eventually, becuase of its refusal to recognize immoral unions as marriage,  the state will refuse to recognize Church marriages[We had better pray pray pray that is the case. I know some factions in the Church – possibly including certain bishops –  will advocate for a “truce” with the culture with consists of the Church creating “marriage under a different name” for homosexuals. Total opposition is not a foregone conclusion, look at many recent statements by European cardinals (CARDINALS!) like Daneels and Rivasi calling for “civil unions.”]As a result, more and more  people will bypass Church marriage altogether, further marginalizing faith in  this country. This effort is and has always been a war against religion and in  particular a war against the Catholic Church. Right now, it is a war we are  losing and after today, perhaps it is fair to say that we lost.

My emphasis throughout. Pat certainly got that last part right. The sexular pagan left has been waging an all out war against Christian morality for the last 60 years in this country, and we are approaching the end game. Pray that our bishops (and we, ourselves) remain strong under what is sure to be an unremitting onslaught of hostility and persecution in the coming years.  Prepare your children to exist in a culture where faithful Catholics will be pariahs, and even many of their self-described co-religionists will chastise them for their unyielding obstinacy and clinging to “old, outdated ideals.”  That will be the worst part of all.

Next up, Antonin Scalia’s devastating dissenting opinion. Just a bit now, read the whole thing here.

There are many remarkable things about the majority’s merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relations—initially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that “it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution,” and that “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism” be-cause “the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import.” Ante, at 18. But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is? [As I stated earlier today, the Supreme Court has now ruled that the federal government has all the right in the world to deny the 50 states the right to protect the lives of all its citizens, including the unborn, while it has also ruled that the federal government has no right to tell states who can and cannot legally marry in the eyes of the same government. There is absolutely no consistency]

However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. [Scalia repeatedly calls the majority in this case blithering idiots, though not in so many words]For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legis-lators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited. [And the leftist sexular pagan zeitgiest triumphs again!]

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those  who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Which gives this ruling all the validity of a Stalinist show trial. What Scalia is saying, in brief, is that these 5 justices, totally unelected and whose decisions have absolutely no recourse of appeal, have arrogated to themselves the right to make their personal opinions the law of the land, Constitution or no.  Thus the trend begun by the immoral William O. Douglas and Walter Brennan reaches its conclusion, the Supreme Court using the same reasoning it applied in Roe V. Wade to reach the opposite legal conclusion, but the point of it all is simply to enshrine the dominant cultural mores in invincible, constitutional “law.” But given how unprecedented all this is, how pathetic and full of holes the reasoning, how blatantly immoral and contrary to the natural law, and how totally disconnected from the words of the Constitution itself and the intent of the framers, I am left to conclude that the United States is now essentially lawless and all that matters now is will to power.  And we, my friends, ain’t got the power.

Wherein I stand with Pat Archbold – I’m ready for a third party, too June 26, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, Society.
comments closed

Back in the run up to the 2012 election, I argued vociferously against either staying home or voting for a third party in the presidential election.  I argued that as bad a candidate as Mitt Romney was for conservatives, he was vastly favorable to Obama and was the only realistic alternative. I chided – unfairly, I think – those who simply could not, in conscience, support a candidate like Romney who had so blatantly pandered to whichever constituency he was trying to please at given moments in time, being variably rabidly pro-abort, then pro-life, then pro-life with exceptions, etc., etc.  I went a bit over the top in claiming that those who refused to vote or went third party were basically handing the country over to Obama.

Well, in the 8 months since then, we have seen the Republican party cave on so many issues of critical import I have reached the same place that Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report has reached – I’m ready to consider a third party, or even more drastic alternatives (like secession, which I don’t hold out much hope for, but I’m much more open minded on the topic than I was a year ago). Before I post what Archbold wrote, I’ll caveat my statements with this consideration: I’m referring to national level elections. At the state level, the Republican party is doing a number of good things, things worthy of continued support, like the comprehensive abortion bill they very nearly passed last night. But, given the direction this country is taking, as we saw with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding DOMA and the overturning of the popular will with Prop 8, we may have to look for alternatives beyond what the mainstream parties can offer in order to protect our families and our Church.  But, for now, at the national level, why continue to vote Republican when they lie to us about their positions, and then happily join the sexular leftist pagan club once elected?

For years, I have advocated involvement in the Republican party by conservative Catholics as the best means of creating an effective group dedicated to the principles we hold dear.  Among these principles are life, liberty, and subsidiarity.

Many of the like-minded have had their frustration with the Republican party’s feckless, cowardly, and ineffective leadership in which show votes with no chance of becoming law are the a means to keep the base happy with the leadership and a sizable portion of the party go along with the progressive legislative agenda of the day.

We have have pinned our hopes on the American people to wake up, rise up, only to be disappointed time and again. We have put our hope in men elected with a promise no compromise with our governing elites, only to have them co-opted before even taking the oath.  We have gone along with compromises and losses portrayed as victory because we were told that it is the best we can do.

All the while the party moves further and further away from the principles we hold dear and has shown itself ineffective and unconcerned with stemming the tide.  All this while party elites look down on me and my ilk knowing that we have no place else to go.

So I as ponder all this I must ask myself, if the party will not stand for the principles I hold dear, if they have proven an ineffective block on the march of progressive death fetish, why can’t I go some place else.  Isn’t it time?

………I am done with them.  Yes the Democrats are mostly worse and I will never support them.  But my support of the Republican party has done nothing to advance the principles I hold dear or to slow the progressive steamroller.  I think maybe it is time to consider a 3rd party.  Maybe a 3rd party cannot win, but perhaps I can help the Republican party die. It deserves it.

And Archbold wrote this yesterday, before the DOMA ruling. I wonder what he thinks, now.

Just a quick final note: it is Republican Supreme Court nominees who have given us (and many were “Catholics,” too!) Roe v. Wade, Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, Lawrence vs. Texas, this DOMA ruling, the Obamacare ruling, Griswold vs. Connecticutt (making contraception legal throughout the land), etc,. etc.  With “friends” like this, we need no enemies.