jump to navigation

Fr. Rutler reassigned in NYC June 20, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, persecution, priests.
comments closed

I haven’t posted as much from Fr. George Rutler as I should have. He’s a convert from episcopalianism, like me.  He’s a very erudite man.  And he’s been building up quite an orthodox parish in NYC for years.  He has been pastor of Our Savior, a beautiful church, for 12 years. Well, no more. He’s been reassigned to a St. Michael’s parish by Cardinal Dolan:

Fr. George Rutler, pastor of the vibrantly orthodox Church of Our Saviour in midtown Manhattan, is being reassigned to St. Michael’s Church in Hell’s Kitchen

At the link, we get some garbage from George Weigel about “evangelical Catholicism” and why Rutler should not have been moved.  Is there a button george_rutlerwhere I can make Weigel shut up?  Cuz I’d really like that button. Him, and Dr. Jeff Mirus, who just declared opposition to the shamnesty being foisted on us immoral. In fact, he declared immigration laws and any opposition to immigration in general immoral and un-Catholic.

But I digress. The reason this irks me, is because I really hate the post-conciliar canon law which permits bishop’s conferences to set term limits for priests. I know there are people who argue that this can be a good thing, as it allows bad priests to be moved around (here’s my solution: remove bad priests from ministry) and keeps “unhealthy” attachments from growing between parishioners and priest.  Because, you know, it’s a bad thing to be too close to your dad.  Yikes, who would want that?

I’m a selfish person, and when I’ve got an awesome priest, I want him to stay where he’s at.  I want a priest who knows me and my kids and my grandkids IMG_1442and becomes part of our family.  There was a little parish down in the Hill Country that had the same priest for 46 years.  He was a rock for the entire town. That used to be very common before the Council.  No one talked about moving around St. John Marie Vianney.  He raised up who knows how many Saints in Ars.

But that little parish in the Hill Country, the one that kept the altar rail because that old priest would never permit Communion in the hand, hasn’t been the same since he passed. It will probably be closed in the next decade. Short priest terms and constant moving around has furthered the tendency for many priests to act not as spiritual fathers to the souls in their care but to act as impersonal local managers of CatholicCo mulitnational corporation.  It’s diminished the rold of the priesthood. And it’s also been a vehicle for unscrupulous bishops to punish orthodox priests by banishing them to undesirable parishes.

I’m not speaking of Fr. Rutler’s situation specifically, but in general, I’ve had enough of it.

Below are pictures of Fr. Rutler’s parishes, old and new.  The new one is much smaller, but I’d be danged proud to assist at a TLM in either!

church-prepared-for-wedding-large

4139846581_4da7157c94_b

As I was saying….homosexuals have been playing the country for fools with regard to “marriage” June 20, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

It’s funny how success breeds arrogance.  At least, that’s what comes to mind as we start to see more and more “honest” descriptions of what homosexual “marriage” is really like.  Although, even these “honest” descriptions aren’t – they are simply laying the groundwork for the next big push in this destruction of marriage-  federal recognition of polygamy, the better for the one or two partners in a group of who knows how many to line up benefits for the rest of their orgy group, largely subsidized by taxpayers.

But, at least now we’re getting some honesty in some areas of so-called gay married life.  Such as the “different understandings of monogamy,” or, to be more accurate, the extreme rarity of monogamy among those gay couples who are simulating marriage together.  Apparently, they don’t simulate so well. Here is a self-professed homosexual writer writing in a left-liberal publication making plain that the saintly monogamous relationships the radical homosexual marriage movement likes to portray as the standard, doesn’t exist very much in reality:

But not all gay unions are built on the straight model, particularly when it comes to the issue of monogamy. The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing. [And how many do so, with their partner not knowing? I’ve seen other data that shows that the homosexual definition of monogamous, especially among males, is ludicrous]

The gay rights movement has made a calculated decision to highlight the similarities, not the differences, between straight and gay love on the road to marriage equality……. [In other words, they’ve been rather less than honest, even duplicitous. Don’t worry, the other shoe will drop, soon]

……..Both sets of stories, Sully’s and mine, reveal truths about gay relationships on the road to marriage equality. The public stories focus on the universal experiences of straights and gays, while the private ones touch on the particular gay experience of sex. [This is the key, that totally unravels the lie of “gay marriage.” They are not relations like between a man and wife. They are not about true love, about the giving of oneself in a holy, unitive way ordered towards the procreation of children. In fact, the relationships described below are as different as night is from day in comparison to healthy, holy, marriages] These latter stories  [the author had briefly described the seedy ways in which various homosexual male couples met each other]—so integral to how gay men relate to each other, are left out of the conversation about gay marriage, by and large. Where straight unions idealize fidelity, gay men’s version of a lifelong commitment doesn’t necessarily include forsaking all others. [They have been left out intentionally, because they make a lie of the very essence of marriage, that being commitment. These are largely arrangements of commitment, not the unitive joining of two people into one. Such is, in fact, impossible for homosexuals]

These arrangements can be built right into the institution of marriage. Peter Zupcofska, a leading marriage and divorce attorney for same-sex couples, says he’s dealt with premarital agreements between gay men in which they’ve agreed that sex with  other people “would not be a reason to penalize each other.” Before they ever said “I do,” they wrote a contract with “the intention that they’d have an open relationship once they were married.” [As I said….]

Zupcofska says he has never drawn up such a clause for a heterosexual couple nor, fascinatingly, for a lesbian couple. [There is a massively different psychology at work in lesbian couples, but it’s not a healthy one. It’s still warped and severely disordered.] A study out of UCLA found that two-thirds of formally legalized same-sex couples are made up of women; yet, nearly all the studies about sex and monogamy in same-sex couples focus exclusively on men.

Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships……..

Now, why on earth would that be?  If these relationships are so wonderfully healthy and homey and natural and good, why on earth would there have been a very concerted effort to hide their true nature?  Could it be because, as I have already said, the knowledge of how homosexual males truly conduct their lives, even among those in ostensibly “committed” relationships, would shock and dismay most people?

What this man is stating, in essence, is that the entire homosexual marriage movement has been founded on a massive lie. And of course it has, the entire thing is a lie!  Pretending two people of the same sex can be married is a lie!  Pretending homosexual acts are natural and normal is a lie!  Pretending these relationships even remotely approximate a marriage conducted in a virtuous, holy manner, is a lie!  If it weren’t for heterosexual destruction of the sanctity of marriage through contraception, divorce and remarriage, abortion, infidelity, self-gratification, etc., etc., everyone would know this! But we’ve been the victims, collectively, of a very carefully orchestrated and intentional campaign of sexual liberation/hedonism going back now 70 years, since the first fake Kinsey studies were trumpeted!  Studies which, though completely discredited scientifically, are still used to justify perversion of all types!

Ay yai yai, black is white, up is down, everything is wrong!  It’s so frustrating to see so many people being led by the stupid TV into believing all these monstrous, amoral lies!  It’s so frustrating to see the most foundational element of all human culture being destroyed by careless indifference to rank depravity.

So, what happens, after the Supremes Roe us on homosexual marriage, or it otherwise becomes legal?  How long before the great national “oops” begins, or does it?  Will it be like I’ve thought, like abortion, with most indifferent, 15% passionately in favor, and 30% passionately opposed, and a big fat mass in the middle who just wants to watch Celebrity Apprentice and Judge Judy? Forever?

How best to handle those who don’t believe as we do? June 20, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disconcerting, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Interior Life, manhood, sadness, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

Pertinacious Papist has a post up that quotes different pieces from Rod Dreher and Elizabeth Scalia. I used to read Scalia when she was the Anchoress, but stopped when she got visibly more squishy after moving to Patheos and got paid to blog. I’ve never liked Dreher, his whole “crunchy-con” ideology was just statism with a social conservative patina.  I’m probably just jealous of both……….

At issue is Scalia remarking on how she has a homosexual friend in NY, where she lives, who is going to “marry” one of his partners. I say one of, because, statistically, the likelihood of this simulation of marriage being truly monogamous is virtually nil. Perhaps I tip my hand right away.  But Scalia feels that while she can’t condemn this friend’s actions, “as she wants him to be happy,” (what does that mean?!), she also won’t congratulate him.  As if that’s a big deal?  What of the fate of his soul?  Does depravity lead to true happiness?

Dreher then goes on to pontificate about the nature of relationships and how, in his opinion, we can’t make ideological litmus tests for those we profess to love.  But he also recognizes there can be lines that loved ones can cross that could be an ender for a relationship – but does not specifiy what those might be.

The overall impression given is that neither Dreher or Scalia would want to threaten a cherished relationship over something like Truth.  But Dreher does perhaps leave himself an out if it turns out his favorite aunt is a serial killer or something. Dreher states, to the effect, that it is inconceivable to him that he would asses his relationships based on the beliefs of those he loves.

I find this discussion rather interesting  on a number of fronts.  I have a family who doesn’t share my militantly strident Catholic Faith. They don’t share my faith at all. They know how I feel, they probably find me annoying at times, but in general it has not affected our relationship to any great degree.  Except with my sister, with whom I have no relationship because she absolutely does terminate relationships with those who do not share her views, and with extreme prejudice. Perhaps that experience, having been on the receiving end of such treatment, is why I haven’t taken a stronger line with my other family members or friends.

But being honest, I must admit I am very much troubled by my failure to do more to convert my family!  Frankly, I have long found Scalia possessed of strong tendencies towards indifferentism, and what little I’ve read of Dreher, he’s not much different (and he hasn’t been Catholic for 10 years or so). I think Scalia’s statement that she wants her friend to be happy is very revealing. I think it betrays a very worldly view, and confuses sentimentality for charity.

What is, in the end, the most important that will ever happen to any of us?  It is our particular judgment!  And what occurs at that judgment should be of the highest concern for all of us, not only for ourselves, but for all those we love! The Church has long defined one of the most important duties of the married state as being assistance in aiding the spouse in obtaining Heaven!  That is the purpose of having and raising children in the Faith, to create new Saints!  But it seems so few people think about the Four Last Things anymore, especially in view of their relationships with others.

Is it charity to leave someone mired in sin without an attempt at correction?  But the world veritably screams at us that this is the very worst thing we can do, and I have a hard time not seeing both Scalia’s and Dreher’s thoughts in that light.  Christ said he would turn mother against daughter, father against son, etc., etc. He said we must be willing to suffer loss of friends, family, jobs, and everything, for His sake!  But so few believe that anymore!  Even some who we would think are the most faithful Catholics we know wouldn’t dream of “offending” a family member over something about religious belief. It simply isn’t done!

But is that right?  Does that demonstrate that we really want what is best for the soul?  What about the spiritual works of mercy to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. Or do we simply keep on praying for their conversion, as we watch them sink lower and lower into the abyss of sin and depravity?  I really can’t begin to lecture people, because I’m brave on the blog, but a chicken in real life.  I’ve had some discussions with my parents over religious matters, but I haven’t really laid out the whole theology or the fear I have for the state of their souls. I certainly haven’t pressed matters. I keep hoping and praying God will give me an out and magically convert them with no real cost to me.  Is that realistic?  Is it realistic to hope, as Scalia does, that the freedom we “must” accord our loved ones will result in their flying home to us, to meeting us where we’re at?  In my experience, this doesn’t happen very often.  Sometimes, the only way to reach people is to man up and NOT spare their feelings. Unfortunately, masculinity is something in very short supply in our society.

But at the same time, I also recognize that prudence must always reign, and that you can’t just constantly beat people over the head with a message they are simply not ready for. There does have to be room for Grace to operate.  Judging how much is too much, or not enough, is the entire point.  It varies from person to person, just as determining whether one can continue in a relationship with someone who is living their life or espousing views you simply can’t countenance is also very much an individual judgment call. I cannot pretend to have any hard answers.

But I do know that many, many of us are probably fooling ourselves that we’re doing enough, and are taking a road much easier than either Christ wills for us, or that is really what is best for that soul in question. Like using NFP, this is an area where self-interest very easily can masquerade as virtue.

What do you think? I have some very intelligent and thoughtful readers, I’d really appreciate hearing your thoughts on all the above, especially how to approach these delicate topics with family members, if you wish to share.

Deo Gratias!

That to which all leftism leads: the satanic nightmare of the “GULAG Archipelago” June 20, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, self-serving, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Tags:
comments closed

I have been reading, in drips and drabs which are as much as I can stand, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s GULAG Archipelago #2.  This book should be required reading in every senior level high school or freshman program in the country.  It completely, totally exposes communism for what it is: the most evil, barbarous, ineffective, satanic, nightmarish, hellish political-economic system ever unleashed upon mankind.  It is truly of the devil.  Gulag_Location_Map_svg

It is such an incredibly painful book to read.  You cannot imagine the depths to which humans can sink, both as individuals and as an institution, until you read The GULAG Archipelago.  For those who may not know, GULAG is an acronym in Russia for the organization under the NKVD/MVD (ministries of internal security) that ran the camps. It stands for: Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies.  As Solzhenitsyn makes clear, the GULAG was not just a system of repression for “political opponents” of communism.  And by “opponents,” that could be anyone, from someone who was captured by the Germans in WWII and therefore became “fascist” and “unreliable,” to millions of farmers who were accused of being “rich” and “wreckers” of the collective farms (basically, scapegoats for the failure of collective farms), to anyone whom the state,  meaning Stalin and his successors, didn’t like. Many prisoners didn’t even know what they were charged with.  Others were sent to prison for failing to commit some evil on the part of the government, like denouncing a Solzhenitsyn_Gulag_Photoneighbor. But, GULAG was much more than just a system of repression, probably the most systematically vile system ever created: it was, through the economic profit derived from forced (free) labor, the very lifeblood that kept the communist system afloat.

That is why it had to exist. Communism is such a bankrupt, inefficient, and unrealistic economic system, that it had to force millions to toil in horrific conditions for decades in order to produce products and services the mummified economy of the Soviet Union could not otherwise produce. This included everything from farm produce to timber products to (most importantly) strategic minerals like coal and gold. It was the goldmines of the Kolyma, that cold frozen hell north of the Actic Circle, that provided much of the hard currency the former Soviet Union (FSU) operated on.  There are literally thousands of other examples.  Almost the entirety of the mass system of industrial plants Stalin forced into being in the “first 5 year plan” were constructed by GULAG labor.  For which, none was ever paid a ruble.

But it wasn’t just repression and a totally immoral method of sustaining the bankrupt Soviet system. It was also a satanic means of terrorizing the entire country, since almost everyone knew someone who was in the camps.  It was a means of “right-sizing” the population, communist style, by intentionally thCAT122G6murdering millions of their own citizens, especially from “undesirable” groups, or groups that were out of favor with the party. The evils perpetrated by this system both by design, and in practice, are too many to list.

However, I’ll list a few.  Solzhenitsyn makes a number of comparisons between the “evil” regime of the Tsars, held by many, especially leftists, even today, to be so terribly barbarous and cruel.  Solzhenitsyn shows that prisoners in the Tsars prisons were orders of magnitude fewer in number than under the communist regime, were much better fed and cared for, and, most of all, did not have the truly satanic system of “he who works, eats,” which placed totally unobtainable daily production requirements on the poor souls in the GULAG, that if not met would result in the already totally inadequate, disgusting, and unnourishing rations being held back even further.

About that food. I found it interesting that the daily diet in the GULAG was exactly the same no matter which camp one was in.  Fr. Walter Cizsek was at the nightmare of the Norilsk, while Solzhenitsyn was in several different camps, but throughout the diet consisted entirely of the following:Kolyma-goldmine

  • breakfast, some kind of “oatmeal,” frequently made not with oats but out of grass or something similarly non-nourishing. They got about 4 oz.
  • lunch with “kasha,” another sort of low-protein grain.  Perhaps 8 oz.
  • dinner was a soup, generally very very thin without any meat, but sometimes left over parts of fish (like the head, bones, etc), a few vegatables.  Sometimes it was made from nettles, or “black cabbage.”  This was completely unnourishing.
  • The main source of sustenance was the daily bread ration, which was 24 1/2 oz of black, gummy, half-baked bread. But 24 1/2 oz. was only delivered if the work quotas were fulfilled. If they were not, you were on “penalty ration” of 19 oz.  Those put in the guard shacks received only 14 oz a day, and almost all of those died as a result of malnutrition.

All of which was completely, totally inadequate to sustain life in even an inactive person, but the work the GULAG sufferers had to perform was frequently kolyma_gulag1back-breaking.  Like cutting and hauling timber, with no machines to assist, in snow several feet deep.  Or digging in the clay to make bricks. Or doing much other heavy, manual labor. And not for 8 hours a day, as in the Tsarist camps!  No, for 12 or 14 hours a day, at least! And if the quotas were not filled, the workers would frequently be forced to work around the clock until they were met!

Now, if all the above sounds bad, I haven’t even gotten to the worst part. For, in addition to the “political prisoners,” who made up most of the camp’s population, Stalin and others dumped in regular criminals. The “thieves.”  These thieves were always treated preferentially to the political prisoners. They were given top roles in camp administration.  They had the softest jobs.  And they stole – oh how they stole. They acted with complete, utter immorality.  One main reason the majority of prisoners got such poor food, was because the thieves stole all the best.  And they constantly rubbed their power in the face of the totally powerless political prisoners. They literally grew fat, sometimes very fat, and very strong and healthy, while

"Thieves" living large in camp

“Thieves” living large in camp

others grew weaker and starved. The injustice of having these immoral men, men who had committed true crimes,  receive all the best treatment, and get all of the few perks there were, was one of the very worst insults of the camps.  While politicals, or “58s,” (named after the demonic article in the Soviet “constitution” they were charged under) starved eating nettle soup, the thieves had rich beef stew and all the bread they could eat.  Every day.  I cannot imagine the frustration that would build under that injustice.

In this post, I only have time to present just a few of the evils of the GULAG.  And GULAG was not unique to the Soviet Union – similar systems, under different names, have existed and do exist under communist regimes today, in places like China (where the madness has been, if possible, even greater, than it was in the FSU) and Vietnam.  And yet, our country’s leadership has seen fit to look away from these evils, and shower all manner of trade and other privileges on these manifestly evil regimes, sustaining them in power.

How many died in the camps?  This is a very contentious question.  Don’t even bother with the Wikipedia GULAG article, the numbers there are a joke – thCAYPUZU0they are the “official” numbers reported by the Soviet government, which claim “only” 1.7 million died in the camps from 1929 – 1961.  That’s ludicrous. Applebaum estimates around 6-10 million, Solzhenitsyn, who was there, about 20+ million, with many other estimates ranging in between.  Most formal records were intentionally destroyed by communist authorities during the final days of the FSU, so there isn’t much hard data.  And there are continuing efforts by apologists for communism – who exist even in spite of dozens of books by survivors of the camps and so much other evidence! – to downplay the decades-long nightmare of the GULAG.

The reason I write on this, is that I fear our own country is headed down a path that could end in GULAG. We are, as a nation, so increasingly cut off from morality, from the understanding of God as the giver of all rights and gifts, so increasingly enthralled of materialism, and more and more willing to let government take over huge aspects of our lives, all in exchange for, ostensibly, material security – I see many paths headed in the direction of GULAG.  Or, perhaps, a system more like Huxley’s Brave New World, where the “GULAG” will consist of being dominated by sex and drugs and entertainment and kept completely, utterly under exterior control, from artificial birth to artificial death. Either way, things don’t look promising.

Everyone should read Solzhenitsyn.  Even if you think you know communism, you don’t know it until you read him.

And to think, there are, fools or knaves I know not, people in the Church who advocate for communism! The whole “liberation theology” crowd.

Stalinist march in Britain this year

Stalinist march in Britain this year

Obama to Irish – Catholic schools cause of internecine strife June 20, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, persecution, pr stunts, self-serving, the return.
Tags:
comments closed

The mask slipped a bit in Belfast on Monday?  Not that he bothers with a mask very much, but rarely does Obama let his antipathy towards Christianity and the Church show quite as clearly as it did when he spoke to an audience in Belfast these words:

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity — symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others — these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it.  If towns remain divided — if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs — if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division.  It discourages cooperation.

I see, it’s the schools that are the problem!  Not the invasion and subjugation of a nation by a foreign power (England), which then proceeded to viciously impose its new religion on the country it dominated.  It’s those Catholic schools that are the problem!

I’m not one who has a tremendous attachment to Catholic schools, but this is just dumb. In fact, throughout his two days in Ireland, Obama repeatedly stated or implied that all Ireland and Northern Ireland needed to do to “solve” the conflict that has been such a painful aspect of the Emerald Isle’s history, is to jettison the very core of their culture and self-identity: the Catholic Faith.  Or, on the other side, protestantism and its institutions.  It’s basically like saying, “I, the great Obama, have the solution to your centuries of conflict!  All it requires is that you give up most everything you believe and stand for, your very identity.”  What a callous, pompous ace this man is.

I could go on about how revealing this is, and how Obama would never call on muslims to ditch their religion (because that’s the “true,” the “beautiful” religion, according to Obama, as scores die daily in Syria), but that would be boring.  The guy is just a left wing dilettante with all the style and panache of rural county extension officer. He is such a construct.  The image those who voted for him have is nothing but a construct of the media, and, irony of irony, no group has fallen for that construct more than the media that created it. I guess that sort of makes sense, an author tends to defend his work, no matter how shoddy.

So, there you go, some more revealingly cavalier and ignorant anti-Christian bias from Obama.  Note this was not some off the cuff statement in a press conference (as if he would give one! He’s given fewer than any president in recent history!), these were remarks from a prepared speech.

One final thought – did Dolan tilt his head back in a roaring laugh when he read these comments?