jump to navigation

Dallas homosexuals upset over parade restrictions September 16, 2013

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

WARNING: This post of necessity has some explicit content.  Children should be kept far away from this post, as should those with well-developed, sensitive consciences.

I guess yesterday was the 30th annual parade of sexual depravity and the wonderful benefits of sodomy down in Oak Lawn, popularly known as the Dallas “gay pride” parade. A reader sent me an article from last Friday, wherein the sodom and gomorrhans were in a tizzy over city codes against nudity in public and openly displayed erections.  Apparently, such travesties occurred last year, in full view of children.  Because nothing says “I have great pride and dignity,” like publicly rutting like a bull in heat.

Dallas-area homosexual activists reacted with anger and disappointment this week after city officials pledged to crack down on lewdness and nudity at the annual gay pride parade.

While past parades have featured bare-breasted women [remember last week’s post on the prevalence of obesity in lesbian women] and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city will no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law.

The pride parade rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” [Can you imagine any other community, outside of swingers and other sexual deviants, where such a rule would have to be put in place?  What does that say about these people, that they have to be warned not to run around like three year olds demanding everyone gape at the wonder of their “equipment?”]

Additionally the rules say that, “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.”

City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they want the pride parade to be more “family friendly.” [“Gay pride” and “family friendly” are mutually exclusive terms]

Michael Doughman, executive director of the Tavern Guild, which organizes the parade, said, “police [have] looked the other way for years and years and years, but public lewdness and nudity in public is not going to continue to be tolerated.” [Why on earth have the police looked the other way?  I bet there was a bit of looking the other way, yesterday, too]

“You certainly can still express yourself, but unfortunately if your way of expressing yourself is to be naked or to be aroused in public, then it’s inappropriate, and I think most of the community agrees with that,” he said.

In order to prevent a similar occurrence during this year’s parade, it has been decided that participants must wear swimsuits at a minimum – not underwear.

That has some homosexual activists outraged.

“The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible,” activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page. “It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the damn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” [Thank you for confirming who you are, rather than the pretensions your group tries to maintain in fighting political battles. Note, when homosexuals demand certain rights, they are “in love,” “in committed relationships,” just like married couples, but when they want to be “who they are,” they run around with bare breasts and with their little wee wees flopping about.  Once again, how old are you?  And does this not confirm that this lifestyle is very much centered around aberrant, dangerous, even self-destroying sexual behavior?]

On social media website Twitter, angry homosexuals vowed to wear – or not wear – whatever they want to the Pride Parade. Some ended their posts with the hashtag: #PrideOutWithYourHideOut.

That will present a challenge to Dallas policeman Jeremy Liebbe, an open homosexual, who has been charged with overseeing 95 law enforcement officers assigned to the parade route Sunday.

Calling the promised crackdown a “preventative measure,” Liebbe told gay news outlet The Dallas Voice that any parade participants who violate the event’s decency standards will be warned during lineup before the parade and given a chance to put more clothes on. But if anyone is spotted getting naked during the course of the gay pride parade, they will be removed, and may be charged with indecent exposure.

Citing a case last year of a man wearing nothing but soaking wet, see-through underwear who waved his visibly erect penis at the crowd, Liebbe said, “If there’s an erection and a child is present that could see it, it is a felony, and we don’t want to see that happen.” [It is simply unthinkable such things could occur so wantonly in public, without even a hint of intervention from law enforcement, let alone simple shame.  Amazing, in a very bad way.]

Thus, the cherished, sainted community that is presently being given such preferential treatment from the government as to destroy the foundational element of all human society, around since that society first formed, marriage.  Incredible. If you want to take a small action to help limit these parades of debauchery, then you could stop shopping at Home Depot.  I don’t know if Home Depot supported this most recent cavalcade of the unchaste in Dallas, but, nationally, they substantially support most of the major parades.  If a few million Catholics stopped shopping at Home Depot – and let them know WHY, as I have – it would have a substantial effect on Home Depot’s balance sheet.

Do what you can, protect yourself and your children, then move on.

Obama is far more Christian than most of the leading Founding Fathers…. September 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

….of these United States.  Shocking?  Perhaps.  But as Christopher Ferrara documents to exhaustive length (almost too exhaustive), few if any of the leading Founding Fathers were practicing Christians in any recognizable sense. They were, in fact, very young, very hip, very radical enlightenment deists, almost all masons to a man, many of which repudiated at great length such concepts as the Holy Trinity, the Resurrection, the Incarnation, and other absolutely essential aspects of Christianity.  This was something my dear departed friend Vicki Middleton would have taken very hard, because she really clung to the current-day evangelical Christian pretension that this nation was founded upon a bedrock of Christian belief.  Nothing could be further from the truth, at least regarding the most important leaders of the revolution.  Our current President Obama actually emotes far more orthodox Christian beliefs than many of the Founders did.

Below, I will list some of the leading lights of the American Revolution, and what kind of religious convictions, if any, they held.  All data is compiled from Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God that Failed, but what is below is exactly that, a compilation, and not meant to be an exact quote from a certain page:

George Washington: Unquestionably not a professing, practicing Christian of any stripe.  When describing his vague masonic “god,” Washington invariably used terms like “Almighty Being,” “invisible Hand,” and “the Great Author.” The pastor of Washington’s home Anglican parish, when asked about Washington’s religious convictions, answered: “Sir, Washington is a deist.”  Even more. It is no accident that Washington’s monument in the nation’s capitol is a masonic obelisk.  Washington was such a confirmed mason (as were almost all the leading enlightenment rationalists) that he donned masonic vestments and conducted a masonic “blessing” ceremony when he laid the cornerstone of the US Capitol building.  Never once in his copious writings and public speeches did Washington ever use the name of Jesus Christ, even though the country was virtually 100% Christian at that time.  It was widely known in Washington’s time that he was not a practicing Christian, and was in fact a deist.  This was scandalous to many.  It was not until decades after Washington’s death that a massive cultus was built up, attempting to turn him into a paragon of virtue (the cherry tree incident is total fabrication) and a dedicated Christian male.  Another small factoid is that he refused to kneel with the rest of the congregation whenever he did go with his wife to their Anglican church.

Thomas Jefferson:  Another enlightenment deist, Jefferson was perhaps the most militant of all the founding fathers in attacking orthodox Christian beliefs.  He was really quite contemptuous of Christianity.  He composed his own blasphemous version of the Bible, which specifically repudiated the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and was a forerunner of the kind of modernist belief that turns Jesus Christ into a really cool dude.  I’m sure such belief helped Jefferson rationalize his slave owning, beating, and fornicating. Jefferson openly rejected a Divine Chirst, and spoke derisively of “A hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads.”  He also referred to God as an “ethereal gas.”  Further, Jefferson actually counseled friends and family members that it was preferable to be atheist than a professing Christian, and felt that Catholicism was the worst religion anyone could possibly embrace.

Benjamin Franklin: Franklin was yet another enlightenment deist, this time more on the libertine side. Franklin was an early materialist, and felt any republic would have to be founded on the same kind of principles.  Deist, like modernism, was the religious belief of the elites. If we remember that deism was the 18th century version of radical modernist secularism, and we recall that Franklin was one of America’s earliest and best known popular intellects, it is no surprise that Franklin should also have been deist.  Franklin was also a great mason, which masonic beliefs actually helped organize and advance the revolution in France, when he was stationed there as US ambassador during the Revolutionary War.  Franklin referred to Our Blessed Lord as “Author and Owner of our System” – a masonic declaration of “god” if there ever was one.

James Madison: Madison was another deist using phrases like “that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations,” who also refused to kneel during prayer.  However, having seen the political price for apostasy his predecessors in the presidency had paid, especially Jefferson, whose apostasy was far too public too keep hidden, Madison adopted a shrewd policy of obfuscation and refusal to address the topic. Although a nominal member of the Anglican church, he was never confirmed and his attendance at church was desultory.  He was certainly not a convinced Christian, although he was not the militant deist like the others on this list.  Madison was another Mason.

John Adams: Adams views on Christianity were somewhat more orthodox than many of his revolutionary confederates, but he openly described that he was glad the Constitution had been framed on pluralist, non-religious grounds, and that it made no reference to God as our Creator, Benefactor, or the Foundation upon which our government rests. He was sympathetic to masonry, although Adams himself was no mason. He was, like all his confederates, a deist, only a less radical one.

A list of some of the Founding Fathers who were also Freemasons: Washington, Franklin, Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, James Otis……..in fact, it is believed that as many as 52 out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were masons.

All this matters, because these men crafted this nation’s government.  Numerous Americans believe – have been very carefully led to believe – that this nation is the “shining city on a hill,” founded on Christian principles and with God’s special blessing.  Well, the hill was protestant to start with, the city is deist, and the principles were masonic.  Whether God will bless a nation that deliberately, from its inception, rejected naming Him as the Source upon which all governmental authority rests, and which made plain that His Laws would NOT form the framework for the laws of this nation, is, I think, self-evident.  This nation coasted along on the fumes of Christendom which its early settlers brought over from England, and received periodical refills of Christian belief and practice through mass immigration from Catholic countries, but that is now running to exhaustion, and the masonic, practically atheist principles upon which this nation were founded – cut off from Grace, specifically rejecting the primacy of the Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King – are now becoming glaringly apparent.

“A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin once famously said, when asked what the Constitutional Convention (unelected, and going way, way beyond it’s commission*) was working on in long, secret sessions. Keep it we have, but it appears the nation will founder, not because of some external threat, but because of the erroneous, radical liberal protestant notions cooked into it from the beginning.

So, while Obama may be a fake Christian, or a secular modernist, or a muslim, he at least mouths are feigns a Christianity far more sincere than any of the above men ever purported to hold. And that should be supremely unsettling for every American, but especially Catholic Americans.

*- I was personally shocked to learn that there was never a general vote in this country to breakaway from England, dissolve the Articles of Confederation, or even approve the Constitution.  No one was ever elected to the Continental Congress, nor to the Constitutional Convention. In every case, a narrow cabal of radical elites, determined what kind of “liberty” the people would have, and then proceeded to go about getting it. Those who refused the proferred liberty were crushed.  The vast majority of citizens had absolutely no say in any of this, and those who remained loyal to England were brutally treated and run out of the country – which helped found Canada as a viable enterprise. As Ferrara says throughout the book, liberty has always come at the barrel of a gun.  It’s just another form of power politics, without the limits imposed by the Church.

Thank God – all our problems are behind us! September 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, Papa, secularism, silliness, the return.
comments closed

Pope Francis has declared – solemnly, from the Chair of St. Peter (no, not really, I kid, don’t freak out!) – that the Church has never been better off than it is today.  This statement was actually made at a meeting with the Roman clergy at the Lateran Baslica:

I dare say that the Church has never been so well as it is today. The Church does not collapse: I am sure of it, I am sure of it!”

Given this awesome assurance, perhaps a Te Deum could be sung in St. Peter’s for this great triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil?

To parse it a bit, of the second sentence I have no doubt, if by “collapse,” one means that it will never disappear, go away, cease to exist.  Of that, we have Divine assurance. But if you are referring to all the signs of health, growth, vitality, influence, and leadership of the world’s culture, this is an incredible statement to make, and directly counter to numerous declarations of his predeccesor, as both Pope and as a Cardinal.  And not just one predecessor, but numerous popes going back decades, centuries even, have lamented the collapse of Christendom and the tribulations of the Church!

Statistically speaking, on 3 of the 5 continents where the Church has a large presence, this statement is directly counter to almost any statistic one would like to quote.  And even on those 2 continents (Asia, Africa) where the statistical data may not be so bad in terms of numbers professing the Faith, church attendance, numbers baptized and married in the Church, etc., on one of those continents (Asia) there is rampant problematic theology, and the adherence to the Faith is often as weak and worldly as one finds in the “developed” countries.  With Africa, Michael Voris and others have put forth compelling evidence that all is far from well with the Church, there, too.

I must note, that such declarations are most frequently made by those driven by a desire to “canonize” the most recent Council, and generally by those of a progressive bent, although one can certainly find some examples to the contrary.  That is not to say the Holy Father can be counted in this group, at all. It’s simply that the statement is similar to many that have been made by various progressives, especially in the period 1965-1978, or so.  To the progressive mind, this is the “greatest epoch” in the history of the Church, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, because this is the only time in the Church’s history where they have held great sway, even dominant sway, in the Church.

So, I say all the above not so much to criticize, as just to ask in wonderment, what could the Holy Father be referring to?  In what respects has the Church “never been so well as it is today?”  I must admit to feeling hard pressed to naming virtually any area where the Church is in better shape than it was 50 or 60 years ago.  Does it mean that Pope Francis holds a unique or novel interpretation of what constitutes the Church?

I really do not know.  But I strongly suggest, and will strive to do myself, great offerings of prayers and mortifications for our Holy Father and his correspondence with God’s Will and the good of souls.  Perhaps an extra daily Rosary, or a perpetual Novena, or some other prayers?  Don’t just get upset!  Do something about it that will help!

Second to last Novus Ordo Latin Mass EVER at St. Mark tonight! September 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, North Deanery, sadness, the return.
comments closed

That’s tonight, Monday, September 16 at 7pm.  I think it would be great to have the place just overflowing, although I won’t hold my breath on that count.  But it would be great to go out with a bang, so to speak.

Next week, after the final Mass, the great Schola, which has soldiered along with the Mass for the past 2 1/3 years, will sing a Te Deum in thanksgiving for this “experiment” even having been conducted.  But it does appear the results of the experiment are in, and Mater Dei and St. William in Greenville will remain the only game in town, so far as Latin Mass is concerned.  At least for the time being. I have no doubt that with the younger generation of priests, there will be more and more opportunities for Latin Mass as time goes by.

Much prayer is called for.

Dominus vobiscum!


Some day soon, I pray!

Kind of non sequitur – don’t do tattoos! September 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, secularism, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Before I begin, there is a bit of suggestive material below.  You might want to skip the whole thing!

I happen to be the kind of guy who doesn’t appreciate tattoos.  I mean, if you’re a dude in the military, especially some elite branch, and you’ve been through some very heavy stuff and sort of need to vent (that is, you got mind-blowingly drunk for 72 hours straight while on liberty in Perth/Fremantle, and you woke up with your back covered in ink) I rather get it.  Or if you got your fraternity letters tattood on your ankle in college – well, not the best choice, but not a hugey.  Our body is after all a temple given us by God, and I’m not sure that marking it up with ink of questionable “artistic” content does much honor to our Creator.

But where I’ve always really had a problem with tattoos is on women.  That’s always been just an absolute ender for me.  It just screams a whole bunch of things, none of which are positive.  I get that there are a lot of people – far too many people – nowadays who make bad decisions in their youth, and then their stuck with the effects of those decisions forever.  Because tattoos, “removed” or not (and even if you get them removed, then you’re left with a terrible scar) are forever.  That’s a whole different situation.  A different kind of feeling bad.  But with the increasing number of women who get just plastered with tacky tattoos and are all “out and proud” about them, just broadcasting them to the world, it’s like an electronic billboard blinking “Inquire further about my massive issues!”

I’m not being very nice.  I’m sure your tattoos are deeply meaningful and of impeccable artistic quality – I didn’t know Velasquez worked in skin ink!

Even The New Yorker, that paragon of leftism, gets it:


Some other possible subtexts:

A related subtext might be: “I come from a long line of rash decisionmakers.” On women, tattoos often seem to imply: “Pay attention to me because I, obviously, make poor choices, so you might get lucky.”

I’m not really trying to be mean, I actually do have a serious point, which this guy gets. Tattoos are more than just a fad in very bad taste gone out of control, they are another sign of the collapse of morality and the Christian civilization:

The increased popularity of tattoos and other forms of body decoration are visual reminders of the gradual decline of civilization in the West. Like music and art, personal decor is indicative of the long term societal trend. It’s more than a fad, it is a sign of the descent into savagery.

Indeed, many of the barbarous, non-Christian societies of the past, and the present day, practice(d) extensive body marking/mutiliation. It is virtually a hallmark of lower-level societies. 50 years ago – no, 30 years ago – tattoos were only had by a some in the military, sailors, and people on the very lowest levels of society.  Now, they are incredibly widespread.

My thoughts could just be an example of older generation fretting about the craziness of today’s “youths,” but I don’t think so.  For one thing, my generation started this nonsense back in the 90s.  Secondly, until the protestant revolt, and, especially, the “enlightenment” rationalism that followed inevitably in its wake, social standards in Christendom were quite static. You did not see massive variations from generation to generation.  And, even in this country and others that have gone over to the cult of enlightenment-derived “liberty,” the collapse in morality was initially quite slow, as it took a while to sluff off the inherited traditions of Christendom.  But now, we see with ever increasing speed, tendencies towards immorality, low culture, intellectual stultification, and general civilizational collapse that are increasing at a geometric rate as the years pass by.

Today, we essentially have little or no culture left, unless one wants to count Jerry Springer, Kim Kardasian, Miley Cyrus, modern/post-modern “art,” and all the rest of the trainwreck.

Count me out.