jump to navigation

The push is on the the next sick thing – ABC promoting “polyamory” again December 10, 2013

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

There was a time not long ago, when people who shacked up with varying quantities of strange men and women for indeterminate lengths would have been regarded as very strange, certainly perverted, and beyond the pale of normal behavior.  But seemingly confident that sodomites simulating marriage will soon be the law of the land in all 50 states, the amoral left – and the media which serves as their evangelical arm – is already moving to expand the normalization of extreme kinks and unchecked concupiscence.  ABC, owned by Disney, frequently leads the way, as they did with a recent, breathlessly exuberant and supportive program on so-called polyamory, as if using people for one’s basest lusts is anything like genuine love:

On Monday, ABC News decided to publicize a movement known as polyamory, meaning people bedding down with multiple romantic and sexual partners as a legitimate relationship. Co-anchor Dan Harris said, “Just for a minute, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point.”

Later, he added, “More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children.”

Nick Watt, reporting for ABC, interviewed Michael, Kamela and Rachel, a threesome that sleeps with others and still finds the time to raise a child. Watt breathlessly gasped, “They’re spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.”

The program then interviewed a quack psychologist who gave a glowing endorsement of this further attack on traditional marriage.  Because that’s the next place the left wants to go, they want medical and other benefits extended to those who take part in even casual arrangements, the better to keep their voting coalition growing by hooking more and more people on government-required benefits.

With the left, there is always an agenda, and this one is twin.  It is both to attack traditional morality in order to further subvert and destroy the healthy, traditional family, while at the same time promising those benefits to more and more as mentioned above, encouraging more people to abandon responsibility and duty and hop on the wealth transfer bandwagon.  As the article I posted yesterday mentioned, everything, from the loftiest sounding rhetoric to the basest perversion, is at the service of expanding government’s power at the expense of family and Church.  Scary stuff.

The only question I have is which ultimate perversion will be the next cause celebre, after this swinging polyamory sickness – bestiality, or pedophilia?  It’s an open question, and unfortunately, I think we’ll find out the answer within a few years.

In one final note, and one that is sure to cause great joy at USCCB headquarters, noted MSNBC loon Ed Schultz was evangelizing the other day and let us all know that the eternal, Triune God unreservedly endorses Obamacare.  The more the incredible destruction this monstrous law inflicts on the people of this country, the more I stand in dismay at the thought that Obamacare was endorsed by most bishops, and would have been endorsed by all but a handful had it not contained such noxious provisions for abortion and contraception.  The USCCB, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities, etc, all lobbied very hard, to the tune of millions of dollars, for Obamacare’s passage.  They bear at least some responsibility for the suffering of millions who are now getting cancellation letters, being told they cannot see their doctors, etc.

It will be interesting to see if the USCCB backs away from this disastrous legislation once the stuff really hits the fan next year, with millions of people employed at large corporations likely to see their coverage dropped.  Estimates now range from 60-100 million Americans will lose their health care coverage under this law.

What in the history of the American socialist wealth transfer state gave any indication that this law would cause anything but massive disruption, hugely increased costs, and dramatically lower standards of service?

The dangerous and false dichotomies of George Weigel December 10, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, blogfoolery, Christendom, disconcerting, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, the return.
comments closed

I’m sure George Weigel needs no introduction to my readers.  It is amazing that a man whose claim to fame was writing a middling and often uncritical biography of Pope John Paul II now seems to arrogate to himself some leadership role in defining the “new evangelization.”  In fact, Weigel’s prescriptions have always seemed to me like a sad mish-mash of American fundamentalist protestantism with a weak sacramental theology dumped on top.  The great Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has also examined Weigel’s proposed “evanglical Catholicism” and found it not just wanting, but founded on false premises from the beginning.  The portion quoted below is part of a longer piece that shows that the feared and dreaded Catholic “integralism” (an epithet used to tar faithful Catholics) is really nothing more than Catholicism as it always was.  Boniface argues persuasively that those who try to present Vatican II as an absolutely necessary break point in the Church’s history are forced to attempt to discredit the pre-conciliar Church, because if Vatican II was so great, obviously something had to be very much wrong before the Council.  I highly encourage reading the whole thing.

Boniface on Weigel:

A prime example of this tendency is Mr. George Weigel, who has consistently been trumpeting the rise of what he calls “evangelical Catholicism”, which he places as a middle road between liberal progressivism and “restorationist” integralism.   [heretofore known as simply being Catholic] Never mind that all authentic Catholicism has always been evangelical! Weigel, taking the distinction between binding and customary traditions much too far, proposes that “What can be changed in the Church must be changed” and sees only a small core of fundamental teachings, aspects which he considers part of the Church’s “constitution”, which should not be changed.  [This is where I have a huge problem with Weigel. He is an Americanist.  He thinks the good ‘ol USA is the greatest country in the history of ever, and the very ideal form of government for the Church to cooperate with.  He is very wrong, of course. But he seems at times to have gone so far as to try to force the American governmental model on the Church, reducing the core beliefs of the Church to something like the US Constitution, and the rest just so much frippery. Weigel’s proposals seem as radical as anything most of the modernist set has ever produced, to me.]  The rest is up for grabs. [1] He mocks the pre-Vatican II doctrinal conservatism of such prelates as Cardinal Ottaviani, whom he uncharitably compares to Obama HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius [2]. He scoffs at the idea that traditional Catholicism could have anything to offer the modern world, saying that “The challenge also won’t be met by Catholic traditionalists retreating into auto-constructed catacombs.” [3]  [I have to wonder whether Weigel is blind. Can he not read the signs of the times?]

Central to Weigel’s thought is the presumption that Catholicism consists of two fundamental parts: a central core of eternal, non-changeable elements, which Weigel calls the Church’s “constitution”, and an outer core of practices, theories and cultural trappings which are time-bound and subject to change. Weigel creates a dichotomy between a liberal progressivism that seeks to change the Church’s fundamental ‘constitution’ and a “neo-triumphalist restorationism”, which insists on strictly maintaining the outer core of the Church’s cultural trappings. Progessivism thus denies authority where it exists, while “restorationism” creates authority where it does not exist. The true Catholic, the “evangelical Catholic”, must walk the via media between these two extremes. [First of all, the notion that there are only “two ways” in the Church right now – progressive heresy or integralist restorationism, is ludicrous.  There are all kinds of intermediate currents, and even people who possess aspects of both extremes.  The simplicity in this argument is just silly.  And it’s incredibly wrong-headed, for as Boniface shows, so-called “integralism” is nothing more than Catholicism as it was believed and practiced for many, many centuries.  And in reality, Weigel has absorbed so many progressive/modernist beliefs through his rampant Americanism that his middle way would have been considered incredibly radical and dangerous only a few decades ago.]

We, of course, do not deny that the Church is a composite of binding and non-binding traditions and teachings; there is a hierarchy of truth, and not all teachings and practices are of the same authority. But what we do deny is that the central and the ephemeral, the necessary and the disposable, can be sorted out so neatly and with such ease. In fact, the whole tragedy of the post-Conciliar period was a vast underestimation of the degrees to which these ‘secondary’ or ephemeral aspects of Catholicism (music, architecture, etc.) were actually deeply bound up with substance of the faith itself. Weigel, who states boldly that “What can be changed in the Church must be changed”, believes that what is central and what is secondary are so easily distinguished that one can partition them up with a fair degree of confidence. The difference between “Big T” and “Small T” tradition is not just a distinction but a chasm, and the “Small T” tradition can be discarded at will.  [And I’ll agree with Boniface again, ALL the wreckage caused in the Church in the past 50 years has occurred without one formal change of Doctrine, which we know is impossible.  If so much damage can be done with only the changes made to “tradition” thus far, what Weigel proposes is an entirely new religion, a culturally convenient (but theologically and salvifically deranged) mashup of neo-conservative Catholicism and protestant fundamentalism.]

What Weigel and the others of his kind have forgotten is that the Church is fundamentally understood as a Body, and in a Body, there is nothing extrinsic. Sure, there are members of more or less centrality. A man can still live with no fingers, but he cannot live with no head. Yet, if we were to propose chopping all a man’s fingers off on the premise that they were “not necessary” for his survival, would we not be foolish to expect the fingerless man to do the same things he could before?   And when we found, to our consternation, that the fingerless man could not write, play music, or do many of the things he could before we chopped his members off, would we not be even more foolish to suggest the remedy was to further dismember him by chopping off his feet, ears, nose, and anything else not strictly “necessary” on the premise that what can be discarded in the Body ought to be? Yet this is precisely the folly Weigel and those who fail to understand the Church as a Body find themselves in[And Weigel and his ilk would be just the type to express shock when the fingerless man starved to death for want of an ability to feed himself.] 

————End Quote———–

Great stuff, as always, from Boniface.  Boniface goes on to show that the dreaded “integralism” so denigrated by Weigel was nothing more than an epithet developed by modernist heretics to bash Catholics in the early 20th century.  Weigel’s free use of this term would seem to point to a rather shocking lack of knowledge of Church history.

Boniface’s post closes with some background on the great American theologian Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton and his deconstruction of the “integralist” slur. Weigel would do well to research Fenton and his works.  The very things Weigel claims he wants – a culturally relevant and influential Church that is growing and attracting new members – is shown by Fenton (as it has been by so many others) to be none other than that good old fashioned Catholicism the Church practiced for 1900+ years.  

We don’t need new programs, or agendas designed to sell books.  We just need to practice the Faith as it was handed down to us.  

That, and nothing more, is Catholicism.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand on the Lethargy of the Guardians December 10, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, reading, scandals, secularism, the return.
comments closed

Years ago, one of the first books I read on the crisis in the Faith was Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Devastated Vineyard.  My friend and reader SB gave me a wonderful first edition copy in hardback.  I did not get far in the book.  Much of it was frankly beyond me, at that time.  But I have recently returned to it, and I am enjoying it immensely.  The book begins with Dr. von Hildebrand’s assessment of the state of the episcopate as it was in the early 70s, 40 years ago.  It is a searing indictment, 41LBropyUIL__SY344_BO1,204,203,200_and even more apropos today.  For those who do not know, Dr. von Hildebrand was one of the greatest philosophers and theologians of the 20th century, winning huge accolades from Venerable Pius XII and many others.  The excerpt (with my emphasis and comments):

One of the most horrifying and widespread diseases in the Church today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the Church. I am not thinking here of those bishops who are members of the “fifth column,” who wish to destroy the Church from within, or to transform it into something completely different. I am thinking of the far more numerous bishops who have no such intentions, but who make no use whatever of their authority when it comes to intervening against heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous performances of public worship. [The national conferences play a certain role in this.  While a bishop is always free to act in his Diocese regarding denouncing error and heresy – as Bishop Bruskewitz demonstrated to a degree – there are powerful pressures via the national conferences against doing so.  Such bishops who were to, for instance, formally excommunicate a pro-abort katholyc politician would find their ambitions blocked and themselves ostracized.]   They either close their eyes and try, ostrich-style, to ignore the grievous abuses as well as appeals to their duty to intervene, or they fear to be attacked by the press or the mass media and defamed as reactionary, narrow-minded, or medieval. They fear men more than God. The words of St. DietrichvonHildebrandJohn Bosco apply to them: “The power of evil men lives on the cowardice of the good.”

…….this sickness [all the disturbing cultural trends]  has even penetrated the Church, and is a clear indication that the fight against the spirit of this world has been replaced with swimming along with the spirit of the times in the name of “aggiornamento.” One is force to think of the hireling who abandons his flocks to the wolves when one reflects on the lethargy of so many bishops and superiors who, though still orthodox themselves, do not have the courage to intervene against the most flagrant heresies and abuses of all kinds in their dioceses or in their orders. [One could hope most bishops were orthodox in personal belief in the early 70s, due to formation prior to the 1960s. But today, with almost all bishops formed after the Council, such an assumption may be less well founded]

But it is most especially infuriating when certain bishops, who themselves show this lethargy toward heretics, assume a rigorously authoritarian attitude towards those believers who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are thus doing what the bishops ought to be doing themselves!  [Have you ever personally experienced or witnessed the above?  I have!] I was once allowed to read a leter written by a man in high position in the Church, addressed to a group which had heroically taken up the cause of the true Faith, of the pure, true teaching of the Church and the Pope. This group had overcome the “cowardice of good men” of which St. John Bosco spoke, and ought thus to have been the greatest joy of the bishops. The letter said: as good Catholics, you have to do only one thing: just be obedient to all the ordinances of your bishop.  hildebrand2

[The most important part…..] This conception of a “good” Catholic is particularly surprising at a time in which the coming of age of the moderns layman is continually being emphasized. [Obviously, 40+ years of experience has shown that only a certain kind of outspokeness from the laity is desired.  In fact, clericalism is at least as strong, if not far more so, than it was before the Council. It is simply clericalism of a different kind.]   But it is also completely false for this reason: what is fitting at a time when no heresies occur in the Church without being immediately condemned by Rome, becomes inappropriate and unconscionable at a time when uncomdemned heresies wreak havoc within the Church, infecting even certain bishops, who nevertheless remain in office. Should the faithful at the time of the Arian heresy, for instance, in which the majority of the bishops were Arians, have limited themselves to being nice, and obedient to the ordinances of these bishops, instead of battling the heresy?  Is not fidelity to the true teaching of the Church to be given priority over submission to the bishop?  It is not precisely by virtue of their obedience to the revealed truths which they received from the Magisterium of the Church, that the faithful offer resistance? Are the faithful not supposed to be concerned when things are preached form the pulpit which are completely incompatible with the teaching of the Church?……[Exactly.  We are in a crisis unprecedented in the history of the Church.  Many devout souls have pointed to the laity as the source of any possible restoration.  While we must always act with charity and prudence, I do not accept blanket condemnations of any criticism of ecclesiastical superiors by the laity as being inappropriate or “unCatholic.”  There is a nuance involved, of course, and some go too far, but in this present crisis, it is our duty as faithful Catholics to adhere to the Faith of our fathers and to fight error and abuse everywhere it appears.]

…..The drivel of the heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated: the bishops tacitly acquiesce to the poisoning of the faithful. But they want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should be all rights be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy.  Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace……This clearly shows the cowardice which is hidden behind the bishops’ failure to use their authority.  [Hard words, especially considering the impeccable credentials of the source. Dr. von Hildebrand was a friend of many popes, including Benedict XVI.  His criticisms cannot be dismissed as some emotional rantings of the unhinged. Many years have passed since this was written, and some things have changed, but not many.  I think much of the reaction against the faithful (which includes general opposition to the traditional Mass and the traditional practice of the Faith in general) is driven by shame.  At least certain behaviors and some of the vindictiveness we see seem inexplicable without a powerful emotional driver, like shame.]

————–End Quote————

I strongly recommend  Dr. von Hildebrand’s works.  It is a shame, and a sign of the crisis in the Church, that he is most well known for his two books analyzing the crisis (Devastated Vineyard, and The Trojan Horse in the City of God), when he wrote at such depth and eloquence on very deep theological topics.

His wife, the estimable Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, celebrated her 90th birthday earlier this year.  This other Dr. von Hildebrand helps keep Dietrich von Hildebrand’s memory alive, while being a great author in her own right.

Ad multi annos!

Four years and 4285 blog posts ago……. December 10, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, blogfoolery, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, Interior Life, North Deanery, silliness.
comments closed

……Tantumblogo brought forth on this internet a new blog, conceived in naivete, and dedicated to the proposition that a blog might somehow make some small difference in the Church.

It has been four interesting years, filled with many twists and turns.  I don’t know how long I will continue to blog.  When I started out, I just wanted the blog to last some amount longer and have more content than the average for all blogs – 3 months, 11 posts.  I think it safe to say I’ve surpassed that initial goal by a fair amount.

I have never had grand plans and designs.  This blog started as a reaction to a scandalous conference featuring a new age sister scheduled for Lent 2010.  I quickly overcame the naivete that said that simply bringing this matter to the attention of the local authority would result in a quick resolution.  So, I started the blog in the hope that getting more information to more people might somehow make a difference.  I wasn’t real clear how that would work.  But I quickly found along the way that the biggest difference made was within myself – through the blog, I believe I have learned more and come to love more that which is great in the Church than would have ever been possible otherwise.

I hope – I pray – this blog has been of some benefit to you.  My goal, after the initial crisis was passed, has always been to help souls grow in their love and practice of the Faith. If at times it seems like I have drifted far from that focus, the failure is entirely mine.

If this blog has meaning for you, please pray for me!  Especially if you view what I write with a critical eye!

Dominus vobiscum!