jump to navigation

Oh Dolan! June 21, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving.
comments closed

Cardinal Dolan is becoming a one man gaffe machine. Just this week, he encouraged muslims to remain muslims:

On a recent visit to a mosque, he told the Muslims there that their plight was similar to that of Catholic immigrants 150 years ago, and they face the same challenge of “how to become loyal, responsible, patriotic Americans without losing their faith.”

His Eminence went on to say how the Muslims take their “faith” in the one, true God.

Certainly, the very last thing his very modern model of a modern major Cardinal wants is muslims becoming Catholic!

Does anything trump the false idol of ecumenism?

I cant post from my phone worth a darn.


Doing a procession up right in Shafter June 21, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Latin Mass.
comments closed

I have no time to add text on this, but the below video is from last  year’s Christ the King Procession in Shafter, TX, with Fr. Michael Rodriguez.  Enjoy!

Support Father by supporting the St. Vincent Ferrer foundation!  All donations are tax deductible and go to supporting Traditional Roman Catholic activities like the Procession above:

Website: http://svfonline.org/about-the-foundation/
Email: stvincentferreroftexas@gmail.com

The USCCB has been undermining the Faith for 50 years June 21, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, priests, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the enemy.
comments closed

I’ve been reading some really explosive material of late, recommended to me by a local priest.  Much is contained in a book by E. Michael Jones, but written before he adopted his current bizaare ideology.  This is the “good” Jones.  Fortunately, I have been able to confirm much of what is below separately, and a good deal of it is part of the public record via the Federal Register and other sources.  For today, I only have time to lay out the bare basics.  I must note, however, that some of the information Jones gained access to, in the process of writing a biography of Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia, was unique in that much was dervied from normally private Church archives that are not available even to Catholic university researchers.

The history: from the early 60s, population control zealots like John David Rockefeller III had been trying to buy Catholic support for their contraceptive, sexual libertine, pro-abort programs.  In 1962, they struck gold when they convinced Fr. Theodore Hesburgh to sponsor a population control conference at Notre Dame. The carrot was wads of grant money from the Rockefeller and other private foundations.  Hesburgh agreed very eagerly, and several subsequent – but very private, very low profile – such conferences were funded at Notre Dame in the early 60s. This was essentially the beginning of the anti-Catholic Catholic, “dissenting,” or catholyc crowd.

Fast forward to the mid-60s, and these conferences at Notre Dame had built up a cadre of pro-contracept Catholic academics who were extremely willing to muddy the waters of public discourse over what the Church really believed. These were the individuals – the Dexter Hanleys, Charles Currans, Michael Novaks, etc, who made media appearance after media appearance claiming that a) the Church had no sure doctrine on contraception (which was a baldfaced lie), and b) even to the extent that the Church did, it was sure to change in the wake of Vatican II.

In 1965, LBJ’s first major “war on poverty” bill was under consideration in the Senate. Radical pro-contracept and pro-abort forces, led by Planned Parenthood, got friendly senators to add provisions to the bill to use this “war on poverty” money to start to evangelize for contraception.  Government money would be used both to encourage those receiving welfare benefits to contracept, and, later, to distribute contraception directly through federal money provided to entities like Planned Parenthood. Those efforts were ultimately successful, as we all well know, but in 1965 this was all still very controversial.

The orthodox elements in the hierarchy, led by Cardinals Krol and O’Boyle of Washington, DC, were determined to stop this attempt at government-funded contraception.  They arranged for a top-notch faithful Catholic lawyer named William Ball, who had been fighting contraceptive efforts in the state of Pennsylvania, to speak to a major Senate committee meeting, the Gruening Committee, that was “debating” whether to include this contraception aspect into the poverty bill.  This Gruening committee had up to that time been a complete joke, with a deck completely stacked by population alarmists, Planned Parenthood types, and others supportive of the sexual libertine/contraception agenda.  No one opposed had spoken.

However, in the course of arranging for Ball to give testimony, Krol began coordinating with the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), the progenitor of today’s USCCB.  Krol had been frustrated by NCWC’s failure to oppose these efforts to foist federally-funded contraception on the nation. He did not understand why the NCWC refused to take a stand on this issue of critical import to the life and influence of the Church.  He was even more astounded, when on the day Ball was scheduled to testify, Ball was bumped from his speaking time early in the morning to be replaced by a Fr. Dexter Hanley, SJ, from the NCWC.  Hanley proceeded to give testimony that equivocated terribly on the issue of contraception stating (and won’t this sound familiar!), that the NCWC did not want to see a major piece of anti-poverty legislation de-railed because of “small” provisions regarding contraception Catholics found unacceptable!  The NCWC did not want to see “the good” the poverty legislation could do lost because of some trifling thing like gross immorality.  Again, how often do we hear the same equivocations from the USCCB today!  They have apparently forgotten that evil may not be done that good may come of it.

Ball did eventually get to testify, and his testimony was devastatingly effective. I don’t want to get into its content now, but suffice it to say that his testimony derailed the coupling of contraception and poverty legislation at least for the year 1965.

Now, why did the NCWC attempt to undermine Ball’s testimony. Why did the NCWC feel it was critical to muddy the waters, to provide “cover” for those who wanted to advance the sexual libertine/contraceptive agenda, making it appear to the world that the Church was of two minds on this subject?

There were many reasons.  For one, the then head of the NCWC Lawrence Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore was quite liberal.  He later defended Charles Curran when Curran went into open heresy over Humanae Vitae.  By this point, almost all the mainline protestant churches had gone over to supporting the whole population control-sexual libertine-contraceptive agenda, and Shehan was afraid a strong Catholic stand would harm the burgeoning “ecumenical” relations with these separated sects (again, how often have we heard THAT as an excuse not to defend Catholic orthodoxy!).   Shehan was also heavily intimidated by the increasing number of Catholic academics who, seeing the great prize of huge private and federal grants for their “research” dangled in front of their eyes, had gone over to the pro-contracept-side.

Around this same time, this same Fr. Hanley who had testified in contradiction to Ball at the Gruening hearings circulated a “statement,” which reads like a playbook for how the “dissenting” crowd would operate for the next 50 years. The statement echoed his testimony, highlighting in addition a claim that Catholics, in a modern, pluralistic society could not “force” their moral views on others.  Essentially, to Hanley, echoing the most “progressive” takes on those bewildering statements from Dignitatus Humanae that  the “primacy of the individual conscience” is supreme, and those ideas of “separation of Church and state” advocated by Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ (Jesuits were the main drivers behind all this catastrophe), the Church had “no right” to use her moral force to “impose” Church Doctrine on the population at large, through involvement in the political process and general advocacy.  Which is an utter joke, because Hanley and other denizens of the NCWC did then, and still today, insist the Church MUST use its moral force to advocate for items amenable to the left-liberal agenda.  It’s only those items that run counter to that agenda that are out of bounds!

Other arguments Hanley used stressed the “division” that would be caused in the Church by strong stands against contraception and all the rest, since many Catholics had already gone over to support those immoralities.  It is interesting that Cardinal Shehan adopted almost all the positions from the Hanley statement as his own.

Krol, O’Boyle, and many other orthodox prelates were now left fighting a war on two fronts, against not only an external enemy of the Church and right morality, but also an even more frustrating and damaging enemy within, which sought an “accomodation” with those advocating for rank immorality in order to advance other aspects of the left-liberal agenda, and, quite possibly, with a mind to receiving tremendous benefits in terms of funding for “playing ball.”  I should not that even today, the vast majority of funding for major Catholic programs like Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, etc., comes from the federal government, as do most major grants to so-called Catholic universities.  Jones argues quite eloquently, that Hesburgh and many other Catholic academics sold doctrinal orthodoxy, and quite possibly their souls, for money.  In sum, from this time forward, the NCWC, the forerunner of today’s USCCB, would essentially oppose the efforts of orthodox bishops to fight the spreading evil of sexual-libertinism, contraception, divorce on demand, etc. I have to wonder, knowing what we know now (such as a large number of very liberal Jesuits and other priests leaving the priesthood and marrying or pursuing depraved sexual relations), just how many of those at NCWC and Catholic univesities who opposed the constant belief of the Church did not have their own, more private, interests in the matter.

Some quotes from pp. 276-277 that I hope might be elucidating, and help tie the above frenetic prose together (I add more in red):

Many of the people who signed Hanley’s statement, it turns out, were from the Archdiocese of Baltimore  [where Cardinal Shehan was Archbishop! – shocking that a liberal prelate would in turn have many liberal priests!], and Shehan was worried that the aggressive nature of Ball’s statement  [his testimony to Congress] , coupled with the fact that it was made in the name of the bishops, of which Shehan was a prominent example, would cause a division in the ranks………..”the bishops will now be in one corner and the academic community in the other.” [And how is it today! Was the “academic community” ameliorated by the bishop’s timidity, or did that only embolden their heresy tending towards apostasy?  How are Catholic colleges today?]

Shehan especially feared the power of the Jesuits and of the Jesuit law schools, adn the prestige that Father Hanley, who was both a Jesuit and a law school professor at Georgetown, had among that group. Hanley’s statement, it turns out, had enjoyed wide circulation among the lawyers and scholars at the NCWC for months before he gave it as a talk to the ABA. It should come as no surprise, then, that outrage on the part of the NCWC should come as a major result of Ball’s testimony before the Gruening Hearings. Ball had, in effect, destroyed the NCWCs carefully worked out position of accomodation, a position which had the backing of the Jesuits and virtually all of the apparatus of Catholic academia. [Another Jesuit, Fr. Robert Drinan, helped drive the Kennedy’s into becoming pro-abort. Charles Curran was a Jesuit. Beginning to see a trend?  One thing I failed to mention above, which truly galled Cardinal Krol, was how the NCWC was now working to undermine the positions of the bishops in matters of Doctrine. This was the beginning stages of the national conference bureaucracy pursuing its own agenda, often directly counter to the Faith, instead of enabling and assisting the bishops in performing their role as chief shepherds. As we witness with the massive scandals continuing in organizations like CCHD, Catholic Charities, CRS, etc., this subversive agenda continues today.  But today, the bishops have grown so dependent on the bureaucracy, and are, seemingly, so dominated by it, that they even defend the indefensible at organizations at CCHD.  Of course, many of our shepherds today are of a like mind to the radical elements in these bureaucracies, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised]

What Ball was proposing was war on birth control in the bishop’s name, as a proxy for Krol and other “hardliners” on the issue, at the very same time that the image of acceptance by the secular powers that be, with all of the funding that would go with that, was being dangled enticingly in fornt of the eyes of the people who were in charge of the Catholic universities and other intellectual organs. The Catholic intellectuals of the day craved acceptance by the secular authorities of the time.

—————End Quote—————

And I sure don’t think that craving has lessened with time.  Of course, the story of the revolution in the Church would play out with many sad episodes over the rest of the 60s and early 70s, until the point was reached, it seems, that most bishops decided it was simply easier to go along to get along, rather than continue fighting against the raging modernism in the Church. Certainly, the heretical beliefs, the tactics, the constant leftist agitprop, are all very familiar to any who have followed events in the Church over the past 50 years. It is impossible to look at the present state of the Church in this country and say that things are better today.  The revolution was just really getting spun up in 1965.  But already so many of the names, the organizations, and the cultural currents were readily apparent to any with eyes to see in that fateful year. But many did not want to see.

One aspect I have not noted above, is that the Vatican imposed a gag order on the subject of contraception in late 1964, telling all orthodox bishops and priests they were not to address the subject.  Whether this really came from Pope Paul VI, or some revolutionary element speaking in his name, is impossible to say, but the effect is readily apparent: from 1964 until the appearance of Humanae Vitae in 1968, the orthodox bishops of the US were almost totally silenced on the issue of contraception, while the radical, disobedient elements had the field all to themselves.  The orthodox bishops railed against this regulation, but being the good obedient soldiers they were, they followed orders, even as they saw the other side grow more and more powerful in the face of their forced silence. In fact, it was during this time that the notion really go spread among the laity that the Church was going to “change” its Doctrine on contraception (as if that could even occur!), and when that did not, in fact, occur, many were already hooked on contraception and the groundwork for massive dissent/heresy had already been laid.  I don’t know who, ultimately, issued this gag order, but it is incredible they could not foresee the effect it would have.  The conspiracy theorist in me says they did know, and that the effect was quite intentional.

Enough.  I hope to provide more on these topics later.