jump to navigation

Why are pro-perverse sex groups given such free rein in the Church? January 16, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, North Deanery, sadness, scandals, sexual depravity, Society.
comments closed

I think we know the answer.  But Michael Voris goes to town with another Vortex today:

I’ll just add real quick, aside from LBGTUVWXYZ groups and New Ways Ministry, there is also a group called “Outstretched Hands.”  I’ve blogged on that in the past, and having an “Outstretched Hands” community at a Catholic parish gets them a rating as “gay friendly.”

I can say, in a nutshell, that Outstretched Hands seeks to normalize homosexual behavior, has frequently advocated for acceptance of so-called homosexual marriage, and in general encourages rather than discourages those lost in this lifestyle to remain within it.

So when I presented the problems with Outstretched Hands to local authorities (and reported on this blog), especially how their own flyers and guidance documents spelled out their agenda,  was the response to squash the group?  Oh no, the response was to squash the evidence – they pulled the materials off the Seton website, but continued using them in the “gay outreach” group.

And thus, the video above.

Reason #99999999999999999 to homeschool, but persecution continues January 16, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, martyrdom, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

A warning on this post. A photo below contains words that some may not be comfortable with, and that young people should not read.  Unfortunately, the photo was taken at a school in Johnson County, Kansas, where Planned Parenthood has long kept the dirty secrets of the upper middle class and upper class denizens of that wealthy county.  There have been huge scandals with Planned Barrenhood performing underage abortions and not reporting the data to the state, as required by law.  It was these records that former Governor Kathleen Sebelius illegally destroyed.  There is a lot of sordid business there.

Is it any wonder the little darlings of Johnson County society are behaving this way, when in middle school they are being taught that about explicit sexual acts, including anal?  It appears at least one parent is upset.  What would be amazing is if they are the only one.



To have children in public school today requires the utmost diligence.  Parents really have to carefully monitor what reading is being assigned, what the textbooks say, what the teachers are saying, even what materials – like the above – are hanging from the wall of the classroom.  That is the minimal morally responsible activity, otherwise, your children could be exposed to material that will darken their soul for a lifetime.  But the schools often try to cover up what they are conveying to the students!  I am really at the point now where I feel that if there is ANY possibility to homeschool, parents are morally obligated to do so, because the problems with public schools run so deep, and the likelihood of exposing one’s child to grave sin is so high.  Some private schools are better, but many Catholic schools are not.

Speaking of homeschooling, a mainstream conservative site has noted that there is a growing backlash against homeschooling, especially overseas:

The institutional Left hates homeschooling, hates it with a remarkable intensity, even though homeschooling recently has come into vogue with a certain subset of Park Slope–style progressives. Robin West of Georgetown’s law school haswritten admiringly of the suppression of homeschooling and regimes under which “parents who did so were criminals.” She writes that homeschoolers are dangerous precisely because of the fact that, far from being docile sheep, homeschoolers are as adults more likely to be politically engaged, which Professor West worries might “undermine, limit, or destroy state functions that interfere with family and parental rights.” [and they might vote right wing!  Unacceptable!  But think about what she says…….we might undermine state functions that INTERFERE with parental rights.  Yes, dang right, I sure will!]  For good measure, she notes that many homeschoolers were enthusiastic about George W. Bush in 2000 — quelle horreur. Many others on the left argue that homeschooling should be either banned outright or effectively regulated out of existence.

Homeschooling terrifies the Left because the Left is at its core totalitarian, seeking to bring political discipline to every aspect of life — and control of education is essential to that project. The public school is in miniature what the Left believes the world should look like: Everybody arranged in orderly rows and moving about on an orderly schedule punctuated by bells, being taught about diversity and climate change by nice union ladies who also lead them to their federally subsidized lunches. If you can say “no” to that, you can say no to any part of the Left’s vision. Homeschooling is an existential threat to the privileged position of the institutional Left. The schools are the factory in which it manufactures its future clients.

Of course it doesn’t help that homeschooling is associated in the public mind with a particular strain of Evangelical Christianity, as in the case of the Romeike family. [referring to yet another German family being persecuted for homeschooling]  It is distasteful, but it should not be a surprise that the Obama administration has no objection to the political and religious suppression of such unruly Christians — the Obama administration is doing the same thing to the Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian groups that it finds inconvenient.

It also doesn’t help that homeschoolers tend to excel academically, as well.

So, yes, I strongly advise homeschooling, but be prepared to pay a price.  All it takes is a judge with a vendetta against homeschooling to make your life a living hell.  And worse may be to come.  But the rewards infinitely outweigh the risks or drawbacks.

Some more quotes from Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Liturgy January 16, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, sadness, scandals, Society, the return, Tradition.
comments closed

I don’t know what the deal is with me of late, it’s like I buy a book on Amazon and suddenly the price skyrockets. I picked up Reform of the Roman Liturgy for about $15, and then I start blogging on it and suddenly it soars to over twice that much.  I don’t know what the deal is.  It’s like I buy a book and suddenly the price goes up, just after.  I also got a steal on a copy of Denziger.

Anyway, continuing with some random excerpts from Msgr. Gamber’s book, the good Monsignor explodes the myth, put forward by progressive fans of the liturgical “renewal,” that the Traditional Latin Mass only dates to the Council of Trent, and that the same Council pretty much invented an entirely new Mass.  Both are wrong:

In the strict sense there is no “Tridentine Mass,” [Which is why it is really better called the Traditional Latin requiem-Mass-2Mass]  for at least at the conclusion of the Council of Trent, there was no creation of a new Mass order; and the “Missal of St. Pius V” is nothing else but the Missal of the Roman Curia, which had seen the light in Rome over ten centuries earlier, and which had been introduced by the Franciscans into many Western countries.  The changes made at the time by St. Pius V were so minimal that they can be noticed only by a specialist…..

…..The popes, until Paul VI, made no change in the Order of the Mass properly so-called, whereas, especially after the Council of Trent, they introduced new Propers for new feasts.  That no more suppressed the “Tridentine Mass” than, for example, additions to the civil law would cause the previously existing law to lapse. [Gamber says this because some progressives have argued that the TLM was constantly changing in a manner similar to the changes made after Vatican II.  Obviously, that is quite false. Another point to remember is that Trent/St. Pius V left older, established forms of the Mass, like the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite, alone.  Those Rites older than 200 years were allowed to remain after the Church “regularized” the Mass around the Missal of St. Pius V.]

We should therefore speak of the “Roman Rite” in contrast with the “modern Rite.”  The Roman Rite, at least in Gold_fr-barth-1st-mass-07important parts, goes back at least to the 4th century……since the fifth century, the only thing on which the popes have unceasingly insisted  [that is, until recently] is that the Roman Canon must be adopted, their argument being that it originated with the Apostle Peter…..

[Regarding changes to the Mass, in a chapter dedicated to the question of whether the Pope has the “right” or authority to change the Mass……] To change any of its essential elements is synonymous with the destruction of the Rite in its entirety.  This is what happened during the Reformation when Martin Luther did away with the canon of the Mass and made the words of consecration and institution part of the distribution of communion.  Clearly, this change destroyed the Roman Mass, even though it appeared that traditional liturgical forms continued unchanged – initially even the vestments and choral chant remained.  As soon as the traditional liturgical rite had been abandoned, however, the momentum for further liturgical changes began to accelerate among protestant communities……

[A lovely quote from an early pope on the antiquity of the Roman Rite (the TLM…] Thus, Pope Innocent I (402-417) supports his demand for a uniform rite in his letter to the Bishop of Gubbio, a Custodialetter that dealt primarily with the liturgical issues, by saying, “Who would not know or acknowledge that what has been handed down to the Roman Church by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is kept even now, ought to be preserved by all, and nothing that lacks authority or seems to take its example from another source ought to be added or introduced?”

…..It most certainly is not the function of the Holy See to introduce Church reforms. The first duty of the pope is to act as primary bishop, to watch over the traditions of the Church – her dogmatic, moral, and liturgical traditions.

Beginning with the Council of Trent, the supreme authority of the Holy See also extends to the revision of litrugical texts, that is, the review of newly printed editions, and to making such minor changes as introducing the Propers of the Mass for new feast days.  That is what Pope St. Pius V did when, following the task assigned to him by the Council of Trent, he reviewed the Curiae Missale, which had already been used in Rome and in many parts of the Western Church.  In 1570 he fr magdala first mass (9)published it as the Missale Romanum. We can definitely say that the Missal published by this pope was not a “new missal.”

And we can also say that, until now, neither in the Roman Church nor in the Eastern Church has there ever been a patriarch or a bishop who, on his own authority, has undertaken a reform of liturgical rites.  That is not to say, however, that over the centuries there has not been an organic development of the liturgical forms in East and West…..

…..We can conclude by saying that there would be no objection to an organic development of the liturgical rite over time; for example, if following the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, the Pope had allowed the use of some new forms on an experimental basis, as long as the rite, per se, had not been changed.

Not only is the Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the Saints……..the countless innovations introduced as part of the liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact.

————End Quote————-

I left out some bits from this chapter that I think need a good bit of preparation to introduce.  I may or may not get to those at a future date.  Gamber questions in this chapter I quoted from whether a pope has the authority to radically change an existing Rite or introduce a new one.  He feels the matter is debatable, while others I have read says the pope clearly has such power, but to exercise it would either be highly imprudent or an abuse of that power.  Even Karl Rahner said that to nullify, or attempt to nullify, an existing liturgical rite would be a mortal sin – a mortal sin (remember, this is RAHNER) – on the part of the pope.

But we can be assured that the Novus Ordo, even with its many problems, is a valid Mass. Traditional priests I know verify that, even when they have never offered it and never would. It was promulgated according to procedure and duly approved by Pope Paul VI.  We can question the prudence of that act, but not the validity of it.  And if we have no other choice, we have to know that the 1970/2002/2008 Missal satisfies our Sunday obligation, and we have to be obedient to that reality.  As attached as I am to the TLM, when circumstances demand it, I assist at a NO on Sunday and weekdays too when I don’t have another option.  And this includes being required by circumstances to endure some pretty abusive Masses, as most in the Archdiocese of San Antonio are (where we very frequently visit).

I try to view the situation like the Apostles did after Our Blessed Lord scandalized most of his followers away with his “bread of life” discourse in John 6.  When Christ asks them if they, too, will leave, St. Peter replies: “Lord, to where would we go?  You have the words of everlasting life!”  And that is how I feel about the Blessed Sacrament in the Mass, ANY Mass.

But the above does not mean that I will not continue to share what I learn about the great liturgical Tradition of the Church and how it has been upset by the liturgical revolution.


Voris, gossip, and naming names January 16, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, blogfoolery, General Catholic, horror, priests, sadness, scandals, shocking, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I see that yesterday’s post on the recent Vortex episode regarding a report of open homosexual activity within the priesthood has resulted in a great many comments. I also see that a number of folks have taken the stand that a report like this, without explicit details of naming names and places, is nothing more than gossip.  Others value the report, but think full disclosure, even Christian charity, demands the naming of names.

To deal with the gossip claim first, folks, if that’s what you want to believe, fine, but we already have extremely well documented confirmation that the kind of thing reported by the priest in the video goes on all the time in dioceses all over the world.  I alluded to the private investigation on the priests of the Archdiocese of Miami in the original post – that is just one data point. Goodness, even the priests of Rome were caught out in homosexual brothels and bars, even bringing lovers back to the rectory, in an Italian magazine expose of a couple of years ago.  Priests from our own Diocese of Dallas were involved in a scandal involving an internet hookup site for priests interested in sodomy a few years back.  Then there are the numerous books (Goodbye, Good Men; Rite of Sodomy, etc) regarding the terrible goings on in seminaries and rectories around the country.

Because of all that, when a report like this surfaces, I am inclined to believe it, especially when it comes from a source that has generally been right in all its claims going back years. As far as naming names, this is something I think we’re going to have to do at some point, and I have argued such on this blog.  However, in this case, I can certainly understand why it is impossible to do so: the priest would be in grave danger, his career over, and reprisals, even to the point of endangering his life, likely.  In this case, to name names would be extremely imprudent and would be a grave injustice against the priest in question.

Does the failure to name names/places really make such a report invalid?  Michael Voris is a journalist, and journalists very often use anonymous sources to obtain major news stories, especially those where there is a likelihood of some kind of response, even a violent response, on the part of those being exposed.  I think there would be great value in knowing where this scandal occurred, but that knowing is not worth the damage to the priest’s career and potential endangerment of his life.

In matters like this, it all comes down to how much you trust the source.  Major investigative journalists do a great deal of background work and side-checking to try to verify the claims of those who bring important and/or controversial revelations to the fore. This is exactly the kind of work Michael did for years prior to his conversion and starting St. Michael’s Media.  These journalists build that trust by being right on these kinds of expose’s far more often than not.  That’s also the reason for the background checks and side-investigations, to make sure the journalist doesn’t get burned reporting something specious.  I feel Michael Voris has been right far more often than not.  He has my trust. If Michael presents such a report, I trust that he has knowledge of the priest in question, that he knows the priest to be reliable, and that this is a matter that rises above tale telling or gossip.

Some people may not have that level of trust.  So be it, but for me, having spent days together with the man and worked with him on a number of different occasions, Michael has earned my explicit trust.  If he makes a claim, I pretty much accept it at face value.   I have seen how Michael crafts Vortex episodes, and I don’t believe he goes off half-cocked or reacts in a flurry of emotion on any of them.  First of all, all these episodes take days to write, form, and craft.  There are a number of people involved, some of whom pose challenges and questions to the material being presented (I have seen this occur, in person).  It’s a quite professional operation.

Some have noted that Michael produces great catechetical material, but really falls down when he engages in “tabloid journalism.”  I would pose a question in reply, why are you so quick to assume that the same man who crafts such very high quality catechism/formational pieces would give in to producing schlock when it comes to the Vortex?

I think some folks just don’t like to see this kind of thing aired unless it is meticulously documented, and, in a sense, intellectually bulletproof. I can understand that, because such would give people an iron-clad assurance that their getting emotionally or otherwise involved in whatever issue is in question is above board and morally acceptable.  Unfortunately, that’s not always going to be possible in this world of ours.  There may have to be leaps of faith, so to speak, from time to time.  My experience with Michael – personally, professionally – has led me to give him a more or less blanket benefit of the doubt.  That’s not to say I agree with every opinion he has or every course of action he takes, but it does mean that when it comes to matters like this, if it’s something that is reasonable and aligns with a lot of already available evidence, I accept Michael’s claims at face value.

Now, enough blog vid-foolery!


Non Sequitur funny – Gandalf with an AK January 16, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society.
comments closed

My oldest daughter absolutely loves The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies. I’ve never quite gotten the Tolkien series, I always found them rather dry and long-winded, but to each his own.

Nevertheless, when I found this, I had to share it with my daughter:



Too sweet.  Provided he has an ammo cart full of 7.62×39, that ought to make dealing with Sauron and all the orcs and whatnot quite a bit easier.

I really like the receiver on my SKS better than that of the AK.  The SKS-M I have uses AK magazines.  I had a lot of fun shooting over the holidays.  But there is one problem with using AK magazines in an SKS, when the receiver gets hot, it gets prone to misfeeds.  Not bad, but a bit.  It’s easy to deal with, just cycle the receiver, but I guess it’s an issue.

Did you know that Mikhael Kalashnikov was wracked with guilt over the hundreds of thousands killed by the gun he invented before he died. He apparently had an exchange with the Patriarch of Moscow over the fact that his design had been used to cause so many deaths.  No word on what the Patriarch said to him in reply, they apparently had an exchange of correspondence not too much before Kalashnikov’s recent death.