jump to navigation

Big shock – Wendy Davis dramatically misrepresents her life story January 20, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Pro-baby-killing Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has created a mythology about herself, claiming she left an abusive marriage at age 19 and worked her way through college as a single mom before beginning her political career.  That mythos was established to try to give her special credibility in standing in opposition to the major pro-life measures (although still highly deficient) passed by the Texas legislature in special session last summer.  See, she was a woman who knew what it was like for young women to struggle, and didn’t want them to be burdened with a baby to make their climb up the materialist ladder that much more difficult.  Or something.

As it turns out, her life story is quite a bit different.  One might say she misrepresented herself, or, one might say she’s a near pathological liar, totally re-creating her past at variance with facts in order to improve her electoral prospects.  For one thing, the current demonrat darling originally ran as a Republican in Tarrant County:

Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator whose filibuster for abortion rights made her a Democratic superstar and launched her campaign for governor, has admitted to the Dallas Morning News that she lied about key events in her life, including her first divorce. Davis may even have lied under oath, testifying in a federal lawsuit over redistricting that “I got divorced by the time I was 19 years old,” when in fact she was divorced at age 21.

Other missing details have included: her second husband paid her way through law school and she divorced him the day after the last payment was made; her ex-husband accused her in initial court filings of adultery, and was awarded custody of their two daughters; and she first ran for city council in Fort Worth as a Republican.

“My language should be tighter,” she said, admitting her campaign biography has been less than truthful.

“Tighter,” meaning, “I made it up out of whole cloth, but now that I’ve been caught out, I need to remove the egregious lies. They served their purpose, though, they made me a left wing media darling for a few weeks.”

It remains to be seen whether voters will be concerned about this lack of memory.

So, let’s see, she was not a single mom, save for a few months, some are saying she’s essentially a gold-digger or grifter, divorcing her second husband the day after he finished paying for her Harvard Law education, and she was originally not a democrat, but a Republican.  Even more oddly, her own biological daughter stayed with her second husband, even though he was not her father, and the father was granted child support, meaning the fault in the divorce must have been overwhelmingly on Davis’ side.

A few more telling quotes from the original Dallas Morning News article, which bent over backwards trying to downplay Davis’ past and re-construe it in a positive light (in fact, that is almost certainly the reason this story came out, to allow Davis to message it and control how it is received, rather than having her Republican opponent reveal it for the first time):

“Wendy is tremendously ambitious,” he said, speaking only on condition of anonymity in order to give what he called an honest assessment. “She’s not going to let family or raising children or anything else get in her way.” [Well, at least we know her priorities…..]

He said: “She’s going to find a way, and she’s going to figure out a way to spin herself in a way that grabs at the heart strings. A lot of it isn’t true about her, but that’s just us who knew her. But she’d be a good governor.”

I have also seen some rumors there is much more to come, regarding that divorce, and just how much her second ex drained himself to pay off those Harvard loans, in spite of Davis rhetoric to the contrary.  But I will admit, he seems very supportive now.

There was a time in this country when being a divorcee would have meant being automatically excluded from high public office.  Adlai Stevenson was the first major party candidate to be a divorce back in 1952, and it was a pretty big scandal.  So much has changed since then.  Marriage has been totally trashed, and by men and women, not men and men.

Davis never had a prayer, but she’s likely to lose by double digits if her fabricated past is deconstructed.

It is amazing how inseparable the pro-aborts are from lies.

Boniface on magical post-conciliar Sacraments January 20, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, Basics, Christendom, error, Eucharist, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

Boniface is one of my favorite Catholic bloggers. He does not post often, only once a week or so, but almost all his posts are very insightful and get right to the heart of complex matters.  His most recent post is on magical Sacraments.  Boniface laments that many in the Church since Vatican II seem to have, at least in practice, embraced a notion of the efficacy of 578097_10151002632063210_1904214918_n.jpgSacraments as magical acts, without reference to our great need to cooperate with the Grace within the Sacrament in order to benefit by it!  I will add emphasis and comments as usual:

Going back to our initial Catholic theological formation, we recall the distinction between the grace attained through the sacraments ex opere operato and the grace available ex opere operantis.  [“First theological formation?”  I doubt 1 Catholic in 100 today would have any idea what he is talking about]  The former refers to the reality of the sacraments as means of grace objectively (i.e., not dependent upon the faith or consent of the person receiving them); the latter, ex opere operantis, refers to the grace received through the sacrament that is relative to the disposition of the receiver.This distinction explains why, for example, even though in each Holy Communion enough grace is objectively present to sanctify the entire universe, the actual amount of grace received by each individual will vary based on their disposition, preparedness, etc. For the saints, a single Holy Communion is immeasurably profitable; for the hardened sinner, a hundred Holy Communions per year may not profit him at all if his heart remains obstinate. [Hopefully, that sinner made a valid confession before receiving!]

1239624618s8es1nThe ex opere operato aspect distinguishes the Catholic view from the teachings of the Protestants, while the ex opere operantis distinction means that the sacraments do not work in a “magical” or automatic fashion. There is thus a perfect balance, a meeting of grace and will. 

Unfortunately, in the modern Catholic Church, this harmonious balance of Tradition is thrown off……..

……How has the post-Conciliar Church abandoned ex opere operantis and promoted a “magical” approach to the sacraments? Let us examine what it means to be properly disposed to receive a sacrament.

Proper disposition means approaching the sacrament with pious sentiment. Our intention should be motivated by love of God, we should have a keen understanding of what we are about to receive, should have prepared for reception by prayer, and should proceed with an attitude of humility and thanksgiving. Of course, if Holy Communion, one needs to be in a state of grace and have observed the Eucharistic fast[meaning, in the current sense, they were not polishing off a McMuffin as they walk through the door of church, what with our one hour “fast.”]
So how do we cultivate these dispositions? This is the pietistical reason behind sacred art, sacred music, and sacred architecture. By hearing Gregorian Chant, one’s own prayer is lifted and mingles with the prayer of the angels, who always sing before the throne of God. In looking at sacred art, the mind is called to the mysteries of the faith, which the Church celebrates. Sacred architecture calls to mind the Incarnation, that God has entered time and space and that what is being celebrated in the liturgy is utterly unique. All of these things come together to cultivate a pious disposition in the hearts of the faithful that aid them in preparing their dsc06577heart for the sacraments.  [I agree, but also disagree. These ARE important extrinsic elements in cultivating piety, but I would argue that the CHIEF means of inculcating piety towards the Sacraments, especially the Blessed Sacrament, is catechesis. And there is no area that we have seen more widespread failure, even near total collapse, than in catechesis.  Yes, having beautiful music and architecture can help a soul towards piety, but a soul completely ignorant of the Sacraments and their meaning will only go so far, even with these external aids.  We need vastly improved catechesis if souls are going to really appreciate the awesome gifts of Grace that come in every Sacrament.]
If we strip out all our sacred art or replace it with ugly modern art… 
If we replace our sacred music with banal modern “pop” music… 
If we pitch sacred architecture for ugly, utilitarian models… 
If we do not allow moments of silence during the Mass for private prayer, filling every available moment with hymns, responses, and gestures… 
If we do not sufficiently preach on the need for confession and penance… 
Then are we not removing from the Catholic liturgical experience anything that would help create the dispositions necessary to obtain the ex opere operantis graces? We tell the faithful that the sacraments are not magical, but then we remove from them external aid to devotion that would assist them in cultivating the disposition necessary to reap the graces ex opere operantis. [They are also, by and large, denied the formation that would allow them to develop sacramental piety. Instead, they get meaningless discourses about how we are all trying to “find Jesus.”]  We expect that Sentientsthe simple reception of Holy Communion alone, without any other external aid to devotion, is sufficient to secure the necessary grace.
My friends, I’m sorry, but this is treating the sacraments like magic charms, since the faithful are expected to approach them and merit from them in isolation of any other relative factors.
In the Novus Ordo as experienced in most parishes, a parishioner has to be a saint or a mystic to truly reap the graces available in the Eucharist because they must have the requisite spiritual strength to manifest all these dispositions out of their own spiritual life with out any external aids…..
This is an interesting argument, putting aside my comments regarding bad formation.  The iconoclastic style of our churches and their modernist design, the absence of great sacred music and elimination of all those pauses for prayer 1c - Trinità altarand/or obvious signs of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, have been noted by several authors as being prime sources for the collapse of sacramental, and especially Eucharistic, piety among the vast majority of the faithful.  That seems to be the point Boniface is making.  I have a hard time arguing with it.
I think we need to understand that there was (and is) a specific agenda at work in all these liturgical and para-liturgical areas.  There was (and is) a deliberate attempt to redefine the Church’s worship to accord with a radically new theology.  It was hoped (proudly expected) that this new theology would bring all manner of great blessings and benefits to the Church and individual souls.  What has actually occurred is disaster in almost every measurable way.
That’s how it appears to me. I commented earlier today that I was stunned when I first entered a Catholic church and found the Mass was exactly the same, down to almost the smallest detail, as I had experienced in my spare to fair low Episcopal church.  Aside from my mom, I doubt if any of my episcopal brethren believed in the Real Presence.   Should we be surprised that the Catholics do not, either?

Fr. Rodriguez runs 50 mile marathon in Mexico January 20, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Christendom, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, manhood, priests, Society, Tradition, true leadership.
comments closed

Not just in Mexico, but in the steep mountains of Chihuahua. There is apparently a major 50 mile marathon in the Chihuahuan village of Urique, which Fr. Rodriguez visited and competed in, but this post is about much more than that!  It’s about how one priest can transform a whole town, at least for a few days.

In this part of Mexico, there is some seriously mountainous terrain around.  Apparently, Fr. Rodriguez completed the marathon in 12 hours. That is an impressive achievement. I used to be quite a runner, but never did more than a half marathon. That was before everyone and their dog has 13.1 or 26.2 stickers on their car, and not incidentally, also before I had children.

Fr. Rodriguez offered Mass in Cerocahui and Urique.  One of the churches is lovely, I think the one in Cerocahui, I’m not so sure of the one in Urique.

Reader D sent me the following photos, and some accompanying text. I’ll intermingle some of both as I enjoy seeing Fr. Rodriguez, a priest very dear to me, witnessing to the Faith in the still secular nation of Mexico:


The road to Urique is treacherous. The descent is over a road carved into the side of sheer cliffs that descends over one mile from rim to bottom. In places there is barely room for one vehicle. One month before the event, the mayor of the village and his companion lurched over the side of one of the worst precipices, falling in a single drop over one thousand feet.


The mission you see in Cerocahui is a Jesuit mission dating to the late 17th century. It is stunningly beautiful and a tourist attraction in an extremely remote area.

The Catholic Church in Urique is, as usual, right in the center of town. We arrived hitchhiking…which is extremely common down there. Father had already offered Mass that morning – the second one he offered in Cerocahui. We exited our benefactor’s vehicle right in front of the Church and, seeing the cassock, we were in a stranger’s home, seated in easy chairs drinking tea, literally within one minute. Young boys carried our gear in. From that moment forward, we had family there.


It is a small village. Some very rudimentary inns have sprung up largely because of this event, and during the time of the event, just about everyone’s home becomes an inn. We knew we were arriving later than many would and, had there been no cassock, we would have likely slept on the sidewalk.

There is no priest assigned there. After settling in, the women of our new home, along with friends, opened the Church and we set to cleaning it up…moving the table to its correct position for the authentic Mass and doing the best we could to spiff the place up. Father offered a beautiful Holy Hour there that night, attended only by women. The word got out. The next morning, the day before the race, he offered his first Mass there and there were men in attendance. Another Holy Hour that night…now some Indians and some foreigners, there for the race, were in attendance.



The race begins in the dark of the morning and ends in the dark of night. Race day, 4 AM, the bells of the Church ring and Father Rdoriguez offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Traditional form, at that hour, prior to going out and running the rugged roads for twelve hours and fifty miles. This morning the Church is even more full. Notably, more men are in attendance, villagers and otherwise. Villagers are almose exclusively Mexican, while the Indians inhabit very small communities in the surrounding mountains.


Catholic masses in Mexico, and most especially in rough-and-tumble places like this, are largely female affairs. Few males bother to attend Mass on the rare occasion a priest happens to arrive.

I am a native Spanish speaker and by now have a pretty good acquaintance going with a lot of the men. As we are sitting on the stone wall in front of the Church, watching the runners go by, some of the local village men come up to me and say : “We are going to kidnap THIS priest and keep him here so that he will give us THIS mass.” (Emphasis theirs) What a testimony to the masculinty of THIS Mass and THESE priests, as opposed to the Novus Ordo. [here here]


The day of the race, just prior to departure, Father Rodriguez offers his last Mass in Urique – the best-attended of all, using a stick to help his weary legs rise from a kneeling position.




Rorate Caeli’s Call for Unity among traditional Catholics January 20, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, Society, SSPX, Tradition, Voris.
comments closed

I have been aware, going back at least a few months, of a sort of “declaration of war” by certain traditional Catholics associated with the Ecclesia Dei communities against the Society of St. Pius X.   I have really tried to stay out of this.  The reason for that is encapsulated in the first paragraph of the post from Rorate quoted below, one prime reason why the revolution in the Church was able to occur in the late 60s and early 70s was that the opposition was so divided and more concerned with internecine warfare than fighting the revolution in the Church.  That warfare took some time to die down, but by then, the new system was firmly in place.  I also think this internecine strife is only going to wind up hurting good souls who love tradition within and without the SSPX.  But at the same time, I think there is a duty to caution souls gravely scandalized by events in the Church that there are, indeed, problems with the SSPX.  SSPX partisans at times minimize or even dismiss these problems, so I can see some utility in pointing those out (and, I think I do that from time to time on this blog).

I have a good deal of sympathy for Rorate’s position below.  Counseling in private is one thing, engaging in public warfare is another.  Is this the time to engage in that warfare?  Are we really sure scads of souls are being “scandalized out of the Faith” by “fleeing” to the Society?  What does thinking such say of how one views this pope?  If one believes this pope is so whacked out it’s a metaphysical certitude souls in their thousands will decamp to the Society unless they are vehemently warned against doing so, isn’t that declaring something rather severe about the pope?

The issue of obedience is also a key here.  Yes, the SSPX obviously raise very serious questions regarding obedience, but what of others who have been directed, under obedience, not to stir up this kind of internecine conflict, and yet they are doing so fervently, if behind the scenes?

Just some rhetorical thoughts.  Rorate:

The division of the Traditional Catholic world was a master stroke by the enemies of the 1962 Missal and of the Roman Catechism. They have managed to sow discord between friends and to establish fratricidal hatred among priests who used to march together hand in hand. The first group began to treat their brothers as radicals, the second called the others sellouts. The former were convinced that those who remained under Abp. Lefebvre would soon fall in total schism, and the latter thought with certitude that their former brothers would abandon both Mass and Catechism.
What can we say more than a quarter-century later? That, on both sides, these judgments were, in great measure, overreactions.
On its own side, for all its known problems, the Society of Saint Pius X did not become schismatic or a parallel “church”. It has always kept contacts with Rome and has made what it considered necessary in order to regularize its situation with the successive popes, even if, for reasons that its superiors considers prudential (and with which we ourselves may prudentially disagree), regularization has not been achieved for the moment. On the other side, the Ecclesia Dei communities never abandoned the Traditional Mass, nor traditional Catechesis.It must be said in all honesty: on the side of the SSPX, recognition of the Pope remains, and the desire for its work to be recognized is still sought, according to different measures that vary from person to person. On the side of the Ecclesia Dei communities, there remains a disapproval of the new Mass (regardless of the fact that it is considered both valid and legitimate) and of the alteration of traditional doctrine, both of which are also expressed differently from person to person. The exceptions within these groups confirm the rule in both communities.

A problem has been that, throughout the years, some religious authorities, while the situation remained by itself already quite confusing, proclaimed fatwas, dogmatizing attitudes that would require a certain pliancy and lots of understanding. We heard, for instance: “Visiting the SSPXers? Don’t even think about it, or you’ll be excommunicated!” Or still: “Go to a Mass with those sellouts? You’ll lose your faith there!”
In the documentary on the life of Abp. Lefebvre which was recently released in America, a famous professor and journalist, Jean Madiran, who had distanced himself from the SSPX in 1988, made nonetheless this brave declaration regarding the Lefebvre consecrations: “It is hard for me to say today that he was mistaken.” Since he passed away in 2013, it is, at least in a small way, his testament. That the most famous French layman of the Traditionalist struggle is willing to affirm this soon before dying should make us ponder. Many faithful in the young generation refuse this mutual demonization whose only motivation seems to be the fear of having some sheep escape to the neighboring pasture.
There is much more to read at Rorate.
I’m really very torn on all this.  I don’t want to see souls decamp to the SSPX, but I also don’t feel a need to excoriate the Society at present.  I understand certain souls feel compelled to be in the SSPX, and some of those folks are good people.  I kind of don’t like the idea of tearing into them. But I mainly feel that right now we who love Tradition face a grave external threat from progressive elements and we should really be oriented primarily against that.  At the same time, SSPXers and other traditionalists do seem to like to pick on sede vacantists.  Is that hypocritical (I’ve never said that I’m not.)?
Another reason I don’t feel a strong need to go after the SSPX is that I simply have not studied their situation in any great depth.  It’s not a big interest of mine.  I think if I were to stake out some strong position I’d wind up making a fool of myself at this point.  It feels pretty odd being the guy saying  “can’t we all just get along” after all the volleys of fire that have emanated from this site, but that’s kind of where I’m at.
What do you thinka?


If Winston Churchill were to come back to life, he’d be scandalized out of his mind January 20, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

So, I’ve been reading the sixth and final volume of Dr. Warren Carroll’s series on the history of Christendom.  This post is not meant as a review, although I can say this book is better than the fifth volume – substantially so – but still falls well short of his really high quality volumes 1-4.  For those who don’t know, Dr. Carroll started his series in the 80s and had four volumes completed when he suffered a massive stroke in 2003.  He had originally intended a 7 volume history, but volumes 6 and 7 got combined into one.  Volume 5, on the French Revolution and associated events, was not very strong, it was compiled from notes and portions of other books Dr. Carroll had written, and while Vol 6 also consists in small part of excerpts from some of Dr. Carroll’s other books (like his very good history of communism from 1917-1991), it has much more original material.  I do find myself growing more distant from Dr. Carroll’s point of view as time goes on, however, as he seems pretty well aligned with the Mirus-Weigel “new evangelization” line of thought.

But, to get to the point, last night I was reading on the Russian Civil War, which occurred after the communists took power in late 1918.  Large segments of Russian society were appalled at the direction the communists were taking (and rightfully so), so there were numerous armed insurrections against the reds.  Unfortunately for the entire world, these insurrections were widely separated by Russia’s massive geography, not mutually supporting, and often poorly led.  However, they did, at various times, pose a grave threat to the nascent communist oligarchy.

The Western powers were similarly concerned about the communist takeover in Russia.  Coupled with attempted revolutions in Germany and Hungary, the Western powers (Great Britain, France, to a small extent the USA and Japan) recognized communism as an existential threat.  They thus provided material aid to the “whites,” or anti-communist forces, and even deployed troops to various ports around the periphery of the Russian landmass.  However, given the dominant exhaustion from the pointless slaughter of the trenches, there was little political support for a large scale intervention by any of these powers.  Of them all, Great Britain contributed the most, and that was almost entirely due to the efforts of one man, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill.

In 1919, the Whites under Denikin, attacking from their base of support in the Don River region, had scored some impressive victories against the reds.  Churchill wanted Britain to increase its support for the whites in light of these victories.  He faced a great deal of skepticism, if not outright hostility, from Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Churchill, exasperated at one point, gave a quote which I find so very revealing:

If we are going to recognize the Bolsheviks, we might as well legalize sodomy.

Let that sink in for a moment.  As far as Churchill was concerned, communism represented the death of Christendom, of the 15 century construct centered around the Catholic Faith.  While Churchill was not Catholic, he was high Anglican and certainly had the presence of mind to recognize the threat communism posed to all who held dear not only the Christian religion, but the entire culture that flowed from it.  He saw in communism, and rightly so, the very antithesis of everything Christianity represented.

So, in examining this horrific threat, what did he use as a comparison, to illustrate the gravity of the situation facing the Western powers?  He compared acceptance/tolerance of the existence of a communist state to the legalization of sodomy!  I’m certain Churchill was looking for a metaphor that would shock his opponents out of their complacency and fire them to greater action.  It did not have the intended the effect (which is perhaps, in retrospect, very revealing), but even the use of this metaphor is amazing in our present context.

Less than one hundred years ago, a great world leader, one of the greatest of the past several centuries, viewed the idea of legalization of sodomy as both completely outrageous and something that would demonstrate the utter collapse of Christendom.  And yet, 84 years after Churchill spoke these words, the US Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas.  Rather disconcerting, no?  I find it mortifying.

This is not to say Churchill did not have a number of batty ideas, in a mind so overflowing with brilliance, there were some real clunkers, the greatest of which was Churchill later allowing himself to be blinded to the evils of communism in order to crush Nazism in WWII.  But I think here, Churchill hit on something very significant.

I have said many times on this blog that this radical pro-sodomite agenda will be the vehicle of the persecution.  Like abortion, it is a line faithful Christians will be unable to cross.  Unlike abortion, however, the other side demands not only acceptance, but positive statements or acts of endorsement for their sin from everyone they encounter, especially those who profess the Christian Faith.  Thus, they won’t leave us alone.  If we are a baker, a carpenter, a photographer, or bed and breakfast operator, they will use the courts and the power of the state to break you of your Christian Faith.  It has already occurred dozens of times, and will occur more and more.  The only question is whether Christians will stand fast in their faith or allow the culture, and this radical movement it is endorsing, to roll over it.

I think this quote also crushes those ludicrous claims made by partisans of the homosexual agenda, who always seek to normalize their perversion by claiming great historical figures shared it, and who have tried to drag Churchill into their kink.  Naturally, these people are all long dead and no longer able to defend themselves.