jump to navigation

Catholic Relief Services gave $14 million to pro-abort, contraceptive-distributing group in 2012 July 15, 2013

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

I have long said that I strongly oppose donations to Catholic Relief Services, CCHD, and Catholic Charities because those organizations are wrongly oriented and frequently fund groups or activities antithetical to Catholic belief and practice. I am beginning to think that donating to these groups, amazingly, as they are formal arms of the national US bishop’s conference, the USCCB, may rise to the level of material cooperation with sin, as the scandals these agencies are embroiled in are so constant, and so grave, that I fear no Catholic in good conscience can support them.

Whether that be the case or not, the fact remains, Catholic Relief Services, the USCCB’s official overseas charity, gave over $14 million to pro-abort, contraception-distributing groups last year:

As the U.S. Bishops’ development agency was taking heat last summer for handing out over $5 million to the abortion-supporting group CARE, they were in the midst of giving a total of $13.8 million in grants to the same pro-abortion group during 2012, according to its recently-publishedIRS filings.

While CARE claims it “does not fund, support or perform abortions,” in 2009 its president and CEO, Helene Gayle, appeared before a Senate committee to urge the funding of abortions abroad by overturning the Mexico City Policy. CARE also heavily distributes contraceptives, including the abortifacient “emergency contraception,” as part of its development efforts.  Moreover, it partners with the illegalabortionpractitioner Marie Stopes International (page 4).

Susan Yoshihara of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) told LifeSiteNews last year that Gayle “is an avid advocate for an international human right to abortion-on-demand.”

Since LifeSiteNews’ coverage of CARE last summer, CARE issued a commitment at the Gates Foundation’s London Summit on Family Planning in which they pledged to put “reproductive rights” at the center of their work in the area of maternal health and to make “family planning” a priority in emergency services. Of the $13.8 million CRS gave to CARE in 2012, nearly $9 million was dedicated to “emergency services.” [So, CARE is now even more militantly more pro-abort, and the USCCB is helping to fund a very healthy chuck of their efforts. I wonder what crisis pregnancy centers could do with $9 million?  Which dioceses fund crisis pregnancy centers?  Dallas sure as heck doesn’t.]

Catholic pro-life leaders decried the news, saying it’s a scandal that a Church agency would support a group working against the Church’s efforts to promote a culture of life.

“Our pro-life educational and advocacy work is severely hampered, to the detriment of untold numbers of our brothers and sisters in the developing world, when groups like CARE can say that they enjoy a good working relationship with the Catholic Church,” said Fr. Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International. He said this is the case “even if behind the scenes one finds that no Catholic money goes directly to their anti-life projects.”

“The scandal is that it appears to some that the Church supports CARE’s entire program,” he added.

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said 2012 appears to be CRS’ worst year yet for funding of immoral groups.

CRS is bringing a scandal on the Church. They need to stop calling themselves Catholic because what they’re doing is in direct contradiction to the moral teachings of the Church,” she said. “And I finally want to encourage anybody who has ever given a thin dime to Catholic Relief Services to ask for a refund and never give them another penny.” [I agree with all that. Most vehemently.]

And some interesting questions from Mrs. Brown:

They don’t want birth control marketing among Catholics. So why isn’t CRS going to those bishops? Why aren’t they giving money to those dioceses in Third World instead of giving them to CARE?

Yes, why?  Because those dioceses don’t employ the left-leaning friends of CRS staffers, friends who might hire them for a lucrative position at CARE or some other NGO in a few years, or whom a CRS staffer could hire back one day?  It’s a revolving door at these government-funded charities.  Today’s director of population control at UNICEF is tomorrow’s senior level manager at CRS.  It’s amazing the little empires these people carve out for themselves, all relentlessly advancing the sexular pagan agenda behind the bishop’s backs. And the poor, hapless bishops have to defend it in order not to look ridiculous.  The massive lay bureaucracies created after Vatican II are almost totally beyond the bishop’s control.  These bureaucracies have their own agendas, and pursue those agendas relentlessly.

So, you can either choose to contribute to that agenda, or not.

PS – I’m loading you up on posts today because I’m going to be out again on Thurs and Fri.

More traditional alternative to Catholic Answers starts up – UPDATED July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, persecution, priests, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I know many of my readers have probably availed themselves of Catholic Answers – either through their many heavily promoted EWTN programs or their website – on a number of occasions. I never really have. There have been a few times I’ve gone their in search of information on some topic related to the Faith, but almost every time I came away disappointed. Their forums I found to be dens of modernist disinformation, but even the “main” website was never particularly edifying to me.

And, then, of course, there was the scandal of the recent program violently attacking traditional type Catholics, whom Patrick Coffin and Tim Staples dismiss as “radical traditionalists.”  Almost certainly aimed at the SSPX (the only practical group of heretics the hierarchy finds today, amidst a sea of apostasy) and sede vacantists, Patrick Coffin, for one, is now claiming the program was abundantly caveated with great admiration, even deference, given to those traditionalists who have not, at least formally, repudiated Vatican II.  I guess this would mean FSSP, ICX, and other such “canonically regular” groups, and those attached to such Masses. I didn’t hear the program, so, I’ll have to take their word for it, but the understanding I got was that these caveats, however present they may have been, failed to sway the overall impression the program gave, which was one of a 2 hour unrelenting attack on those who identified as traditionalists.

At any rate, if you are looking for an alternative source of information on the Faith, but from a persepective which is less redolent of the idea that the Church began in 1962, then you might want to check out the new site Faithful Answers (which reminds me – how come no one is hassling Catholic Answers about using the word Catholic in their name, as Church Militant TV was when they were still Real Catholic TV?  Could it have anything to do with the near total avoidance of any critique of the episcopate in this country Catholic Answers practices?  Does Catholic Answers have formal permission to use the term Catholic in their name?).  Contributors to Faithful Answers include Fr. Chad Rippberger, FSSP, who is a huge expert in spiritual warfare, at least, Dr. Robert Sungenis, Chad Arneson and Hugh Owen.  They already have a good lineup of articles and, of course, will be adding many more. They also link to the Kolbe Center, which presents very reasoned critiques of the sexular pagan religion of evolution from a Catholic perspective, and which I have been most remiss in not promoting in the past.

They already have quite a bit of interesting commentary up.  Just for example, here is a video from Faithful Answers that, as a tobacco user is near and dear to me, regarding moderate drinking and tobacco use:

Go poke around Faithful Answers, I think you’ll find, even at this very early date, much of interest. You can also sign up for daily or weekly updates.  Thanks to reader D for making me aware of this new site!

Dominus vobiscum!

UPDATE: Interesting reaction. I tend to agree with DDLG, why don’t we see what they actually post from Sungenis before we damn this new effort by association? When I did the post, the name sounded familiar, but I had never read or heard anything from the guy.  Getting my thinking cap back on, I recall him being quite heavily promoted on EWTN several years ago, as well as he being quite a regular part of the Catholic speaker’s guild.  He was quite mainstream.  Wikipedia lists some controversy over his comments on the Jews, which………grrr.  I would have to delve into exactly what he said in all its myriad details, but his main concern seems to have been, from my brief delving into this overnight, is that promoting the idea of the Jews having their own, separate path to salvation – an idea which has gained a frightening amount of traction in the Church inthe past 50 years – is incredibly problematic. It amounts to making a liar of Jesus Christ, who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one can come to the Father except through Me.” I know there are bizaare theories of implied implicit Grace and all that, but they all share one common denominator – they are wholly novel to the theology of the Church, save for the last several decades.

I don’t know why some Catholics fall into this trap – they seem to start out wondering why the Church no longer teaches that the Jews need Jesus Christ to be saved, and then fall into controversies which, given present cultural predelictions and shibboleths, destroy their credibility.  I am not here to defend any of it (because, frankly, I don’t know it).  What I will say is that he is one contributor to a site with many contributors, including a priest I respect immensely.  That priest’s presence on the site more or less gives it the all clear to me, as I respect his judgment that much. I would also say that Sungenis has written a whole host of very solid, very well received apologetics material on a large variety of subjects, which material was for years embraced by the whole Church roadshow establishment. His books had forewards by Scott Hahn, his story was told by Patrick Madrid, etc., etc.  So, in this case, I’m going to wait and see what develops. As I said in reply to one scandalized commenter, there is nothing on the site at present that is controversial viz a viz Judaism.

“To be faithful, Catholics must witness against America” July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, martyrdom, persecution, secularism, sickness, Society, Tradition, true leadership.
comments closed

I normally don’t find too much I fancy on First Things, but I read something quite worthwhile via Bishop Gracida’s blog.

It’s really that one line I want to discuss, but below are some highlights from the piece, starting with Bishop Gracida’s comments in bold:

You will not be martyred in a coloseum like the early Christian martyrs, nor will you be martyred as the Christians are being martyred in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, India and other places by Muslims, no, you will be martyred in courts and prisons as ‘anti-hate’ laws are enforced against you. [And, I add, fellow “Christians” will find you guilty of hate, and shame you for your hateful intolerance. So, you’ll get to enjoy that on your way to the pokey]

Justice Alito was exactly right when he wrote in dissent that Windsor was a decision between two alterative notions of marriage – one a traditional, conjugal definition and the other a consensual, romantic, emotional definition. The latter is, in the Court’s opinion, the Constitutionally-approved definition. Justice Scalia is correct too that the very same reasoning is set up to strike down State statutes and Constitutional provisions defining marriage in traditional terms. Challenges are already coming from several of the thirtysome states that currently do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. We know what this Court will decide when those cases get to them….[There is no question in my mind. State recognition of homosexual simulation of marriage will be the universal law in Clothing of Br Felix (2).jpgthese 50 states within 4-8 years.]

….All this means that Windsor presents American Christians  [Catholics should really be our concern, not this post-protestant revolution term]  with a call to martyrdom. In Greek, martyria means “witness,” specifically witness in a court. At the very least, the decision challenges American Christians to continue to teach Christian sexual ethics without compromise or apology. But Windsor presents a call to martyrdom in a more specific sense. There will be a cost for speaking the truth, a cost in reputation, opportunity, and funds if not in freedoms. Scalia’s reference to the pagan Roman claim that Christians are “enemies of mankind” was probably not fortuitous.

Many churches have already capitulated to the Zeitgeist, and many others will. Some Christians and some churches won’t be up to the challenge. [Please. Mainline protestants represent the very vanguard of the most destructive cultural elements in this country. They are almost universally on-board with abortion on demand, homosexuals pretending to be married, etc. Most Catholics are frankly not far behind. Who will resist?]  For those who heed Paul’s admonition not to be conformed to the pattern of this world, things are going to get sticky…. This will force a major adjustment in conservative Christian stance toward America. We’ve fooled ourselves for decades into believing that Christian America was derailed recently and by a small elite. It’s tough medicine to realize that principles inimical to traditional Christian morals are now deeply embedded in our laws, institutions and culture. [Well maybe, just mabye, this nation and it’s French revolutionary, enlightenment concepts of “liberty” as the ultimate god which it trusts, is the problem. Maybe the entire exercise was always doomed to failure because it was misbegotten in its inception and its aims, and the end playing out now was unavoidable?]  The only America that actually exists is one in which “marriage” includes same-sex couples and women have a Constitutional right to kill their babies. To be faithful, Christian witness must be witness against America. [Hold that thought]

God has his winnowing fork in his hand, and he’s ready to use it. There’s likely to be a lot of chaff, blown away like mist. But there will be a harvest. We’re being sent into an oven, but Jesus will crush the grain of the harvest so that, baked in the fire of the Spirit, it will become bread for the life of the world. [Great closing paragraph. This writer has some skillz]

———-End Quote———–

Two topics I wanted to expand on a bit.  First, as I’ve been saying for some time, this homosexual pretend marriage disaster will be THE vehicle of theCross_Road to Calvary_Peitro Lorenzetti persecution.  As unquoted portions of the article above make plain, the “protections” various governments have “given” religious entities against having to perform sodomite marriages are thinner than the paper they’re written on.  Churches will be sued, individuals will be sued, and we may well see jail time over “discrimination.” Already in Vermont, an innkeeper was fined $30k by the state government for merely telling a lesbian couple he let rent his inn for a reception, that he was opposed to their marriage as a Catholic.  He didn’t take a single act to prevent their reception, he merely said “I oppose this,” the lesbian flipped out, sued him, and he’s out $30k. Next time, it might be 30 months, or years. How many will stand strong against that?

Not many.  Some Catholics, a smattering of evangelicals (maybe more of them, than us Catholics, who knows). Maybe some orthodox.  We’ll have plenty of friends and family calling on us to apostasize, and then turning violently against us when we don’t (pray God you don’t), for the silent rebuke of their accomodation such refusal will portend.

Entry into Jerusalem_LORENZETTI, PietroOn the next item: I never thought I’d reach the point where I said, as a Catholic, I oppose you, United States of America, but that’s where I’m at. I’ve always been Mr. Patriotic. I loved the USA to the point I made an idol of it. I cheered when we invaded little countries for various reasons that now seem…….strange, at least. I was always one to want the US to be the baddest, strongest country in the world, and to not be afraid to use that muscle – “for good.”  Because the USA was the world’s greatest country and everything we did was automatically right and good. Or very nearly so.  Bad things like abortion or the destruction of the family were things the left had somehow imposed on my sweet, pure, clean America.

But, I don’t believe that anymore. I believe more and more this country was doomed from the start, because it consciously rejected Jesus Christ as its ultimate Prince, Judge, and Guardian. I believe more and more the outward manifestations of evil we see in our culture are merely visible signs of the problematic ordering of this nation along political, economic, moral, and religious lines.  Yes, many founders had a Christian-type faith, sometimes even a profound one, but the major lights of the “Founding Fathers” were enlightenment deists, Masons who wanted a country very far from what the Church, at least at that time, wanted.  And as time has gone by, this country has drifted further and further from the idea of promoting the Social Reign of Christ the King, the idea of having all governmental and major cultural institutions point to Jesus Christ as their guiding light and moral judge.  Thus, what we are today, a sexular pagan kingdom rapidly falling into out and out atheistic leftism, may well have been Last Supper_Pietro LORENZETTIinevitable. I increasingly believe that any nation not founded with Jesus Christ as its visible head – and the recognition of the Church as His equally visible representative on earth – will eventually fall.  It’s sort of like a corollary to Buckley’s theory of organizations: “any organization not explicitly conservative will eventually become leftist over time.”  Well, Tantumblogo’s theory of nation states is “any nation state not visibly founded on Jesus Christ as its Sovereign will inevitably fall.”

I should also note, the Church hierarchy’s tendency in this country towards Americanism, towards downplaying the necessity of visible membership in the Catholic Church for salvation and all the moral and theological precepts the Church holds dear – in short, the accomodation so many bishops have sought with this country of “religious liberty,” instead of converting it – have played a huge role in permitting this inevitable downfall.

I frankly find it amazing that I have reached these conclusions, but I look around the United States and I see a country I barely recognize anymore. It is amazing how quickly it has fallen to pieces – and really, the collapse is already irreversible.  A strange example: my paternal grandmother was born 105 years ago, which seems like a long time, but in reality, in the life of cultures, should be pretty short. And yet, she went to her grave in 1993 not knowing what oral sex is (don’t ask how I know this, it’s not like she told me, the explanation is long and silly).  How many 15 year old girls today don’t know what that is?  Even worse, how many that young haven’t partaken of this form of sodomy?  In a few short years, we’ve gone from fairly cosmopolitan small town women having no idea what such is, to its knowledge and practice being so universal even children know what it means.  That, my friends, is a sign of deep, deep collapse.

I don’t mean to be depressing. It is what it is.  We should have plenty of opportunities for mortification and even martyrdom in a few short years, I reckon.  And that can be, should be, a glorious thing.

Discuss.  Maybe I’ve gone off my rocker.

Must see interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue, Voris.
comments closed

Even with the change in the papacy, which I am certain means Bishop Schneider finds a less congenial view of his efforts from the top, this is an important man with many important things to say. I have no doubt this is a bishop who suffers.

We need far more like him.  Key quote: “Vatican II must be clarified.”  I agree.  But I fear such clarification in the present circumstances of the Church. It could be “clarified” in a way Bishop Schneider does not intend.

Great, great interview by Michael Voris:

As Bishop Schneider notes, both John XXIII who convened the Council, and Paul VI who saw it through to its conclusion, repeatedly stated that Vatican II was not a doctrinal council, at all. Vatican II defined no new doctrines – according to these popes.  They both explained its intent was merely to provide a means to explain the constantly held beliefs of the Church in a manner more suited to modern times – a completely pastoral council.  So, if a pastoral council, why do so many modernists demand it be treated as absolutely dogmatic?  In fact, it is, where it confirms constantly held dogmas, but where it ventured into new territory – like Dignitatis Humanae, the decree on “religious liberty” – just how authoritative those statements are is a matter of great, great debate.  Even curial cardinals disagree on how authoritative such documents are.

If the Council were eminently reconcilable with Tradition, the clarification Schneider calls for would not be needed. But the fact of the matter is, he is correct, there are very key articles of the Council which are, on the surface, quite difficult to reconcile with the constant Magisterial beliefs of the Church. Progressives used those ambiguities to conduct their revolution in the Chuch. Traditionalists have pointed them out for decades.  It was because VII was produced, or written, in a manner utterly unlike any preceding Council, and addressed certain topics in ways never seen before, that all this ambiguity exists.  According to Cardinal Kaspar, ambiguity may have been the intent. Which all the  more points to a need for clarification.

But I fear whether the current leadership of the Church would truly clarify the Council, or produce even more ambiguities. I apologize for my lack of faith.

Boniface has a good post on the highlights of the interview here.  A few quotes:

Like Cardinal Kasper, Schneider notes that it is not simply a problem with interpretation of the Council, what Benedict XVI called the “council of the media”, but with the some of the documents themselves. He states that “majority of the texts of the Council are very rich and traditional”, but some are “controversial or ambiguous” and suffer from a “lack of precision.” Some of these documents are “open to different interpretations” (what Kasper called “compromise formulas”). Thus, following Kasper, he admits an ambiguity in the documents.

During the interview he is asked about Kasper’s comments, and far from denying or contradicting them, he states that Kasper’s comments are correct and need to be officially stated by the Magisterium. He calls for an official clarification of the documents of Vatican II, a sort of authoritative interpretative key to ensure that the documents are understood in continuity with Tradition. He states that the Church needs to offer “some clarifications or some indications of the misinterpretations…because we have to be very, very concrete” and suggests perhaps an explanatory note, as Paul VI offered for Lumen Gentium.
So, what ambiguities does the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider find problematic?

 
His first example is the doctrine of collegiality found in Lumen Gentium. Without citing any passages in particular, he opines that the document teaches the headship of the Pope in an “insufficient” way and that the document can be read to mean that the Pope is a first among equals who has only a of primacy of honor, ignoring or downplaying his actual jurisdiction and role as episcopus episcoporum. [Many histories of VII attribute this “insufficient” definition of the Primacy of Peter to have been due to the presence of representatives from the Orthodox Churches.  There was much politicking to get them to attend, and one of the carrots that was offered to obtain their presence at the Council was the watering down of papal supremacy. The same applied to the failure to condemn communism at the Council, even though a huge number of bishops had that as their number 1 priority for the Council – but John XXIII really really wanted bishops from communist Eastern Bloc countries in attendance at the Council, and so a private deal was negotiated to not condemn communism at all, in order to obtain their attendance.  The communist authorities of Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, etc., would not have permitted the bishops of those countries to attend, otherwise.  The shadow of progressivism/leftism fell heavily over many preparations for the Council]  Schneider does not cite a text directly so I will not comment any further except to say that the view of collegiality that Schneider finds “insufficient” is very common manner.
 
Staying in Lumen Gentium, he spends quite a bit of time with Lumen Gentium 16, which he forcefully says  “needs and explanation.” The problematic passage he cites is the sentence which states that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.” His specific problem is which the last sentence, which states that Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God. Schneider says that this statement is extremely clumsy and admits of  “two substantial different levels” of interpretation. He goes on to make a phenomenally important distinction between belief in one God according to natural reason and the supernatural virtue of faith, which alone is pleasing to God:
We adore God always as a Trinity…our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims – they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural.”
The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God. Thus, even if they claim to worship the same God based on a certain historic pedigree, their worship is fundamentally different from Catholic worship and cannot be pleasing to God because they lack the supernatural virtue of faith. When Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith and said that we worship the same God, Schneider dryly says, “The Cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. Now you observe why it is necessary to strengthen this essential distinction.”
—————————End Quote———————-
Watch the whole video!  It is key!  And it is plain that Bishop Schneider’s call for clarification is from a very traditional point of view!  He hits many of the documents that most trouble traditionalists, and it is clear when he calls for “clarification” he is not limiting himself to one or two small items here or there – whole documents are problematic from the bishop’s standpoint, it would seem, like the document on “ecumenism” Unitatis Redintegratio. He even talks about Guadium et Spes 12, which I have also questioned on this blog.

 

Latin Mass tonight and prayer request July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Dallas Diocese, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Latin Mass, North Deanery, sanctity, Virtue.
comments closed

There will be Novus Ordo Latin Mass tonight at St. Mark in Plano at 7pm.

If you would, please pray for the repose of the soul of Madison Brown, a 16 y/o who tragically died of brain cancer this weekend.

Intervention of Christ and Mary_LIPPI, Filippino

Psychiatry destroys yet another soul – family lets 6 y/o girl live as boy July 15, 2013

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

As regular readers will know, I have read a number of histories regarding the catastrophes that shook the Church after the most recent ecumenical Council.  One salient aspect of that collapse was the enormous proportion of priests and religious who abjured their vows and went back to secular life. Something like 40% of US priests and a much higher percentage of religious left their sacred vows and adopted a much more worldly vocation.  That amazing process, unprecedented in Church history to my knowledge, was driven by psychiatry.  A large majority of these priests and religious were, by various means, exposed to psychiatry or other psychological manipulation, and many of those who were so exposed found themselves rejecting the vocation they had aimed their life at up to that point. It was so common it is virtually a cliche in many books written on the Council: Father X, shining star of Diocese Y and who was a junior peritus of Bishop Z at the Council, became extremely radicalized after the Council, was exposed to psychiatry (the radicalization and the exposure are like the chicken and the egg), and after visiting some devastation on Diocese Y subsequently left the priesthood. These sorts of stories are legion. 

And many of those who remained were also similarly “treated” by various “mental health professionals.”  That treatment has also had a very heavy effect on the Church, as we have seen in the priest boy-rape scandal, where so many bishops deferred to arrogant psychiatric assumptions regarding reformability of pederasts, and returned to service men who visited untold destruction on souls and the Church at large.

None of which is to say that, in certain circumstances, treatment by psychiatrists/psychologists is not warranted and necessary.  But it is to say that there are a lot of kooky psychological theories and practitioners out there, and exposing otherwise healthy souls to their machinations has caused a great many problems.

For example, witness the case of a 5 year old girl from Maryland who is now living as a boy, based on a psychiatrist’s recommendations:

The Washington Post reports that a Maryland couple has no regrets about a decision they made to allow their 5-year-old daughter to live as a boy. Now 6, Tyler (formerly known as Kathryn) has been living as a boy after his family made a public switch 18 months ago when Kathryn insisted she was really a boy. A psychiatrist told the family that the switch would be healthy if they allowed Kathryn to pick a boy’s name and if they were to able find a kindergarten that would allow them to enroll the child as a boy. Tyler’s mother said “It’s not a phase. Anyone who meets him says, ‘Yeah, that’s a boy.'”

I would say that making decisions this traumatic, this consequential, for a child this young is beyond ludicrous. I would say it’s borderline criminal abuse. Children sometimes have very powerful, very long-lasting phases. But left alone, they will grow out of them. These parents are, in my opinion, encouraging behavior which will result in confusion and misery for the rest of this child’s life, and will likely have a very unhappy end.  I think it’s tragic.

I have to thank God that my children have never professed any “gender dysphoria.”  But my son, much of the time, is utterly convinced he is “sword-man!”  He calls himself sword-man.  He got that from some book on knights and castles he saw when he was younger. He has a knight’s costume and a little plastic shield and sword, and he chases his sisters around the house with the sword, and they all have a great time.  It would never cross my mind that my son was really a knight, or that he should see a psyciatrist.  Cases like this make me rather certain none of my children will ever see a psychiatrist or other “mental health professional.”  To think that one person’s opinion, even a highly educated one (or, perhaps, especially a highly educated one) could be permitted by parents to hold such sway……..what of the biases of the psychiatrist?  What of their predelictions? Sigmund Freud was a very sick man, and he transposed much of his sickness onto the upper crust women of Venice. Alfred Kinsey did far, far worse. 

If you read the comments at the Post article, you will find many adults discussing how they went through very long, very powerful phases where they were utterly convinced they were of the opposite sex, but almost all of them grew out of it, even though in many cases the parents did not pressure them to do so.  It was simply something they had to pass through on their way to becoming an adult.

I have a strong temptation to say that cases like this are driven by the parents (again, see the comments, I think you will find evidence of subtle pressure exerted by parents of those who claim to be happy transexuals today). They rarely seem to happen in households with more than one child – and even in those rare cases, there are usually strange circumstances surrounding the child’s upbringing. I’ve reported on these cases before, of extremely young children being – I tend to think – maniuplated into these decisions by pressure subtle and gross exerted by the parents.  There were some cases reported in Britain last year of several male children being raised by lesbian couples becoming convinced they were actually girls, and some even undergoing extremely damaging hormone therapy at ludicrously young ages.  Could this be the result of some subtly – or brazenly – expressed disdain for males?  Did the child in this Maryland case pick up on the fact mom and dad really, really wanted a boy?

We’ll likely never really know.  But what we do know is that – based on statistical data gathered from around the world – those afflicted with “gender identity” problems have extraordinarily bad life outcomes. Their rates of drug abuse, suicide, serious psychological problems (a way to keep the psychiatrists in business for life!), promiscuity and attendent sexually transmitted diseases, self-mutilation, etc,. etc, are sky high. Far higher even, than the already very high rates for homosexuals. And this evidence persists even in very liberated, very tolerant locales like Holland, a country which makes a cult of its permissiveness.  So, it’s not a factor of some imagined persecution.  These people are miserable, and it is a misery that stems from very deep-seeded traumas frequently associated with childhood. And I fear greatly the increasing number of children being identified as “transgender” at incredibly young ages are being doomed to lives of great sadness and constant isolation.

What is truly frightening, is that this is a rapidly growing phenomenon.  I fear for these children.

A time for thanksgiving – landmark Texas pro-life legislation passes July 15, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, true leadership.
comments closed

All the ginned up silly fauxtrage of the pro-aborts in Austin came to naught.  Over the weekend, the state Senate passed the great pro-life legislation that will limit abortion in Texas to 20 weeks, as well as demanding dramatically improved health and safety standards for abortion mills. My initial guess is that Routh St mill on Central Expy will close. I don’t think it can be improved to meet the standards, and I doubt the owners will move their childhood murderhouse to another location.  We’ll see.

But passing the bill wasn’t easy.  Things got very crazy as Saturday wore on.  The Texas Department of Public Safety reported removing numerous vile items from pro-aborts – jars full of urine, jars of feces, bottles of paint – that pro-aborts apparently intended to use on legislators who supported the legislation. The pro-aborts got so raucous many were escorted out of the capitol building, while pro-lifers were advised to hide in a senate office for their safety.

Many pro-lifers who were there, including Jill Stanek and Brian Kemper, reported an oppresive presence on that hot Saturday afternoon.  There was a very palpable sensation of the underlying evil that drives the abortion movement.  But there was also a sense of the increasing frustration of the pro-aborts, the sense that their demonic cause is collapsing, and that seemed to fuel ever greater acts of rage.  It would seem the demons who drive abortion are in a frenzy at seeing more and more limits placed on one of their greatest sources of power over people and society at large. At least, that is what I have gleaned from various reports I read.

Members of the state Senate approved the bill to ban late-term abortions on a 19-11 margin on second reading. The chamber then approved the bill in third reading by the same 19-11 vote.

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion clinics accountable by making them meet basic health and safety standards that have closed facilities in other states that are unable to comply. The bill also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.

What I think this bill will really accomplish, is to put the fly-by-night type of abortionist out of business. This is the abortionist who practices his butchery from a motive of pure profit – just like the crooked docs I used to know who sold their souls writing scripts for pain pills and muscle relaxants to long lines of junkies, many of whom died.  Of course, many of those crooked docs were junkies themselves (and don’t think I’m putting myself above them – as I said, I was there. Pray for me that I do not backslide!) who needed huge income streams to support their own habits.  Limited experience has shown that the profit-motive child murderer will not stick around with this degree of hassle. What will be left is the truly dedicated pro-aborts, those who are in it for the cause: the Planned Barrenhood run mills, the Curtis Boyds, the LeRoy Carharts.  Thank God, the pro-abort ideologues are an increasingly aging species.  Boyd is well into his 70s, and Carhart not far behind.

I did see some fervent comments from the “abolitionist” types who argued violently on some pro-life sites that this bill is still utterly evil because it does not outlaw abortion in Texas. Funny thing is, those abolitionist groups, which are overwhelmingly pentecostal, support contraception. And we’ll never even begin to be rid of abortion until that which creates the demand for abortion in the first place – contraception – is at least drastically reduced as a foundational element of most American’s lives, if not eliminated outright.  So, I’m not entirely certain just what their point was.

I, for one, know this bill has great limits, but it is a very significant step in the right direction. If it stands in court. I, for one, am very thankful. I know this is a victory for the forces of light – if nothing else, the reaction from the other side tells us all we need to know.

And now Rick Perry will have a pro-life achievement none of his competitors for the presidential nomination in 2016 will have.