jump to navigation

Young male HIV cases almost entirely due to sodomy September 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

From the shockingly right wing, sodomite-bashing, bullying Centers for Disease Control, more data on the “healthy homosexual lifestyle:”

HIV-Young-Adult-Males-2011-CDC

So, well over 90% of all new HIV cases among young men in 2011 were due to acts of sodomy.  Another small percentage were due to intravenous drug use.  The rates of new HIV cases from heterosexual contact were vanishingly small.  Shocking, I know.  All told, sodomy played a role in 19 out of 20 new HIV cases in 2011.  If there were ever a disease that targeted immoral behavior, this one is it.  Why, it’s almost as if it were a chastisement sent from on high………

I saw another news item a few days back, regarding the scandal of the CDC asking for $4.4 million, from our utterly broke government, to study the causes of the extremely high rates of obesity in lesbian women (approximately 80% of lesbian women, according to the CDC, are obese, with half of them morbidly so).  Is that something that really needs to be studied?  More money is spent at present trying to find cures for HIV than cancer, in this country.  In fact, cancer funding pales in comparison to HIV funding.  Even though HIV, as the data shows, is far more tightly correlated with behavior than most types of cancer.

One of the benefits of being in an officially approved group, I suppose.

Pope Francis’ latest ???? statements September 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, sadness, self-serving, Society, the return.
comments closed

The world’s press – or at least its English-speaking component – is just wetting itself over Pope Francis’ latest unprecedented PR effort, a 4 page question and answer session that runs in Italy’s La Repubblica.  The press is trying to claim that Pope Francis again indicated atheists and agnostics get to go to Heaven, which, apparently, the world’s agnostic/atheist press must want very badly, since they’re practically beside themselves with excitement. But let’s look at what Pope Francis actually said:

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

I’m very confused by this. Is Pope Francis saying that conversion and repentance are necessary for salvation, or is he saying that all one has to do is obey their (even atheist) conscience?  Saying that God is merciful to those with sincere and contrite hearts is great. But then I am lost by the statement regarding conscience that immediately follows.

So, if you are an atheist who feels, in conscience, that God does not exist, you would not go to Him for forgiveness, right?  And that it would be sinful to do so?  Or is it sinful to fake having contrition?  I did not see a quote that really, clearly says, “those who refuse to repent and convert will not be saved,” nor one that says the opposite.

The statements on conscience are just really  baffling to me.  But it’s the second time Pope Francis has said almost exactly the same thing. He apparently feels that conscience trumps all?  There was another statement he made, not quoted above, about “truth” not being absolute.  That Truth is something that subsumes us and wraps itself around us, almost a pantheist sentiment.  Taken together with the statements on conscience, it is difficult to see this Pope seeing Dogma/Doctrine as something that must be adhered to by all as a matter of religious assent, something existing outside and transcending individual conscience.  What about the requirement to form one’s conscience according to the Church?!  And is it not sinful when one forms their conscience in opposition to the Faith out of self-serving motives?

It’s just the kind of confusing statement that, even taken in Catholic context, requires a great deal of unpacking – at best.  This kind of thing was very prevalent in the 70s and 80s, but especially over the last decade such statements on conscience from the Holy Pontiff were rather rare.  Pope Benedict, for instance, highlighted the need to form one’s conscience according to the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church.

But, even acknowledging Pope Francis’ Catholic belief regarding the need for contrition, what in these statements would lead more souls to the Faith?  Or would they have a tendency to make people indifferent, at best, perhaps counting on a deathbed “conversion?”  What, exactly, is he saying to the atheists who were his target audience (the editor of La Repubblica that conducted this Q&A is an atheist)?  I’m not seeing anything like a ringing call to conversion, or even much of a muted one.  Maybe it’s sort of there, by implication, but the statements on conscience tend to undermine even that vague implication.

The Catholic Faith is the most challenging, all-encompassing, life-changing belief system out there. It demands great personal sacrifice and eschewing the ways of the world for a sublime, Grace-filled existence. It is both subtle and gross in its demands.  And our culture has spent centuries doing all it can to check, repudiate, eliminate, and excoriate that Faith.  Souls need great exhortations to fight through all the world, the flesh, and the devil throw at it to leave the Faith!  They need to be told that this Faith is very much worth the effort, that the enormous dying to self it requires is not only worth it, but vitally necessary!

I’m afraid nebulous statements like this, unfairly twisted by the press or no, only undermine the willingness of millions of souls to remain in the Faith.  And I don’t think convinced atheists are going to be won over by this kind of very coddling, very accepting treatment. In fact, I saw in several places their mocking it. They made plain they didn’t give a flip what the Pope thought. But there are millions of wavering souls, Catholic souls, who might see statements like this and conclude they needn’t bother with all that faith stuff.  That’s what really concerns me, the impact this could have on the millions of lost sheep in Christ’s Church.

 

70s_films_saturday_night_fever1

St. Bernard on the Most Holy Name of Mary September 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Our Lady, sanctity, Tradition, Victory, Virtue.
comments closed

From Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, Vol. XIV, and with the text already thankfully typed in by David Werling, the Mellifluous Doctor St. Bernard of Clairvaux on Our Blessed Mother:

“’And the Virgin’s name was Mary’ (Luke I. 21). Let us speak a little about this
name, which signifies star of the sea, and which so well befits the Virgin
Mother. Rightly is she likened to a star: for as a star emits its ray without olc
being dimmed so the Virgin brought forth her Son without receiving any injury;
the ray takes nought from the brightness of the star, nor the Son from His
Mother’s integrity. This the noble star risen out of Jacob, whose ray illumines
the whole world, whose splendour shines in the heavens, penetrates the abyss,
and, traversing the whole earth, gives warmth rather to souls than to bodies,
cherishing virtues, withering vices. Mary, I say, is that bright and
incomparable star, whom we need to see raised above this vast sea, shining by
her merits, and giving us light by her example.

“Oh, whosoever thou art that seest thyself, amid the tides of this world, tossed about by storms and
tempests rather than walking on the land, turn not thine eyes away from the
shining of this star if thou wouldst not be overwhelmed by the hurricane! If 380638207_543e609c62
squalls of temptations arise, or thou fall upon the rocks of tribulation, look
to the star, call upon Mary. If thou art tossed by the waves of pride or
ambition, detraction or envy, look to the star, call upon Mary. If anger or
avarice or the desires of the flesh dash against the ship of thy soul, turn
thine eyes towards Mary. If, troubled by the enormity of thy crimes, ashamed of
thy guilty conscience, terrified by dread of the judgment, thou beginnest to
sink into the gulf of sadness or the abyss of despair, think of Mary. In
dangers, in anguish, in doubt, think of Mary, call upon Mary. Let her be ever on
thy lips, ever in thy heart; and the better to obtain the help of her prayers,
imitate the example of her life. Following her, thou strayest not; invoking her,
thou despairest not; thinking of her, thou wanderest not; upheld by her, thou
fallest not; shielded by her, thou fearest not; guided by her, thou growest not
weary; favoured by her, thou reachest the goal. And thus dost thou experience in
thyself how good is that saying: And the Virgin’s name was Mary………”
Our Lady of the Expectation
……Our Lady: such is the title which befits her in every way, as that of Our Lord
beseems her Son; it is the doctrinal basis of that worship of hyperdulia
which belongs to her alone. She is below her Son, whom she adores as we do; but
above all God’s servants, both angels and men, inasmuch as she is His Mother. At
the name of Jesus every knee is bent; at the name of Mary every head is bowed.
And although the former is the only name whereby we may be saved; yet, as the
Son can never be separated from His Mother, heaven unites their two names in its
hymns of praise, earth in its confidence, hell in its fear and hatred.

——————-End Quote——————

As a former protestant, I will admit to having difficulty accepting all the Church’s Marian Doctrine initially. But, over time, I did, at first  just by an act of the will.  But over time, I have been blessed to have Our Lady really come into my life.  And it has been utterly transformative, as big a transformation (and hand in hand with) my understanding and practice of Traditional Catholicism.  Oh what joy Our Blessed Mother can bring!  How She can help us, and how She LOVES to help us!  What a great Grace to have a close (but needs to be much closer), prayerful relationship with My Mother!  She wants so much to be close to you!  She wants to help you!  She will bring you to Her Son!  And She will watch over all you do!

On this great Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary, give Mom a call!  Send her some roses (She loves those Rosary roses sooo much!)!  Visit her in a church!  Just spend time meditating and talking with Her!

Then, I know, you’ll also find yourself talking to Her Son alot more, too!  She always points to Him!  She told me!

Passion - Down From Cross

A sermon for this day – Fraternal Correction September 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Grace, Latin Mass, priests, sanctity, scandals, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Below is a great, and truly needed, sermon on fraternal correction, and how to avoid falling into common sins that often either render fraternal correction immoral, or which pretend to be fraternal correction while actually being some ugly detraction or calumny.

Recently, there has been a great deal of strife in the Catholic blogosphere.  I have myself participated a bit in that, even though overall such blogfoolery, as I call it, is something I try to avoid.  But this sermon presents moral guidelines for how to engage in fraternal correction, while not violating any moral precepts. While the sermon is more oriented towards private matters, as opposed to the public rows centering on Michael Voris we’ve seen lately, the basic concepts apply regardless of nature of the matters in question.

Fraternal correction is bounded by three parameters – object, intention, and circumstances.  If one’s object be not good and moral, no other circumstances can make the correction engaged in moral.  Likewise, one must have the correct intention of genuine charity and concern for the soul(s) in question – other intentions, such as getting revenge, harming another’s reputation, etc., also make any correction engaged in automatically immoral.  Finally, one must take the surrounding circumstances into account – in the instance of the gravest of crises now afflicting the Church, due to the enormity of that crisis, there can be a bit more leeway in engaging in fraternal correction of, say, major Catholic media personalities, provided that one’s object (perhaps, the good of the Church) and intention (to forewarn others of errors, or to draw the soul in question from error or sin) are good and morally licit.

So, listen to the sermon below, and then tell me if you think I’ve crossed any line with my post in defense of Michael Voris last week:

http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/20130901-Fraternal-Correction-Object-Intention-and-Circumstances.mp3

I’ve actually already confessed this matter, so, even if you think I was massively in the wrong, the matter has been dealt with.

“Abortion is not a Sacrament” September 12, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Thus said one of the very best priests I know last night, confirming what another similarly good priest said, in different words, a few weeks ago.  The subject was the prayers he was exhorting the faithful to make for a list of women he named who were considering having abortions.  The good priest said that aborted babies do not go to Heaven.  This is certainly the predominant, pre-conciliar belief of the Church, if it has never been a Dogma. I know there have been various statements since the Council that have tried to claim, infer, or piously hope tha the souls of aborted babies, or any babies who die before baptism, to to Heaven, but there is really very little in the Tradition to support this.  But, as this is not a dogmatic subject, faithful Catholics have a certain latitude to disagree.

We know from Sacred Scripture and Tradition that only the souls of the baptized go to Heaven.  The regular form of baptism requires water, the intent to baptize, and certain words to effect the Sacrament.  But we also know that Our Blessed Lord, while on the Cross, informed the good thief Dismas that he would be in Heaven with Jesus that same day.  That has led to the Church to understand another form of Baptism, Baptism by blood/desire.  Certainly, someone like a martyr, who had not yet undergone baptism but who was willing to die a terrible death (or a regular death) for the Faith, the Church has held out great hope that such souls are in Heaven, and there are some Saints who fit this description.  Dismas could be viewed as something of a martyr to the Faith, even though he was not killed for his faith.  Historically, Dismas has been viewed more as receiving either a baptism by desire, or some kind of special dispensation by God, who is infinitely Good and can save whom He wills.

But the problem with assigning either baptism by blood or desire to infants, especially those unborn, is that both of the non-standard forms of baptism require the consent of reason, which infants do not possess.  Some may feel the need to hope that these babies who die during abortion are saved, but the irrefutable logic of this pious hope is to make abortion into a Sacrament, because the death that causes the “baptism by blood” is the abortion itself.  And as the good priest said, abortion is not a Sacrament.

Now, in the past, I have seen some claims made that the infants are “baptized” by the desire of the faithful for them to be saved, even if their own parents/family couldn’t give a flip.  That is to engage in theological speculation that is really placing a well intentioned but poorly substantiated hope far above reason, Scripture, and Tradition.

For the vast majority of the Church’s history, the predominant belief (you can certainly find contrary opinions, but I’m speaking of the bulk of Saints, theologians, Thomists, etc) was that children who die before baptism, but who have committed no personal sin, go to Limbo.  Augustine argued even more “harshly,” that they went to hell, but that view was never widely accepted.

Practically speaking, those who counsel women contemplating abortion know that many justify their participation in murder by pretending their babies will be going to Heaven.  While that certainly does nothing to ameliorate their direct involvement in murder, in our incredibly lost culture, many women find great solace in this belief.  One person I know who counsels women contemplating abortion has told me how difficult it is to get such women to change their minds, once they have come to believe their murder is actually somehow “good” for the child.

But, coming back around to the beginning, if believing that aborted babies go to Heaven is just really important to you, or you just can’t believe that God wouldn’t allow a total innocent (save for Original Sin, which is no small caveat) entry to Heaven, believing such is certainly not sinful, and it doesn’t make you a “bad Catholic.”  As I said, the Church has never felt so completely sure on this topic as to make it a Dogma requiring the assent of faith.  But I do think that, in the not so distant past, there was such a preponderance of opinion on the side of such babies going to limbo, that it probably rose to the level of a (reformable?) doctrine.  Good or no, much of that prior belief has been swept away or greatly undermined in the past several decades with the new, post-VII ecclesiology.

The reason I did this post, even though I’ve discussed this subject before in the not so distant past, was because of this unfortunate video below:

You can see how much deformed protestant theology forms the erroneous interpretation of Christianity made above. Nevertheless, the root question is something of a valid one, although it ignores, even assuming all aborted babies do go to Heaven, the moral culpability of the mother (and doctors, and nurses, and family, etc) in being directly involved in murder.