jump to navigation

Two troubling articles on the attack on the family January 21, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, Domestic Church, error, family, General Catholic, horror, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.

I have just stumbled across two very troubling articles regarding views prevalent within the Church and society regarding marriage and the family. They are troubling because they are so full of error. The first is particularly egregious, as the source was a priest in what I imagine was a typical “large suburban parish.”  I kind of hate to post this, because I get the sense some of my posting has discouraged folks whose only recourse is the typical Novus Ordo “product” that is out there.  But it’s very important to be able to deal with, and refute, these kinds of errors when they come up, and they are likely to come up more and more, so I’m pressing ahead.

First up, a priest advocating for a highly distorted, one might even say, heretical understanding of marriage and the family:

The Sunday after Christmas I walked out of church furious—not part of my original plan. The theme was family as in the Holy Family—Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. In his welcome, the pastor told the congregation, “Love, not biology makes a family.” That made me sit up and take notice. His sermon elaborated. “What is a normal family any more?” he asked jovially repeating his mantra that “Love, not biology makes a family.” [Some might say this approach had some applicability due to Joseph not being the biological father of Jesus, but comparing the dire state of so many families today to the Holy Family is something I consider perverse.  When all these broken families are sinless, then we can try to normalize them.]

It just slides off the tongue: “Love makes a family.” Who could possibly disagree? After all, as he said, there are lots of blended families where husbands and wives are raising their spouse’s children. These families have come together because of love, not biology ergo “Love, not biology makes a family.” [And how many lives were wrecked in the process of this coming together?]

I can’t help wondering how many other Christians including readers of this column believe this sentimental twaddle or at least think they believe it because they’ve never thought it through.

“Love, not biology makes a family,” is among the vilest and most pernicious lies floating around infecting culture today. And it’s a particularly good lie since it contains more than a grain of truth. Marriage begins in love and that’s a good thing. Children should be conceived, welcomed, and reared in love. Lack of love indicates a failing family and children cared for out of duty rather than love don’t thrive. The loving sacrificing for a spouse’s biological children should be applauded, not condemned.

But consider the cultural and legal outcomes of “Love, not biology makes a family.” [You mean, there’s a down side to this simplistic slogan?]

Take opening marriage up to same-sex couples. Who cares about biology (though they must be called “reproductive organs” for some reason) as long as two people love each other? In fact, “Love makes a family” is a focus-group-tested vote-getter for gay marriage. [Could the priest in question not be aware of this?  That seems dubious, at best.]

“Every child a wanted child,” has been a rallying cry among the pro-abortion crowd for years. If love, not biology makes a family and an unborn child is not loved or wanted, while that child may be biologically connected, but is by definition not part of the family. Thus the unwanted child becomes a dead child.

If love, not biology makes a family, when one spouse decides he or she is no longer in love, he or she is entitled to tear apart the marriage and family. No-fault divorce laws across the country allow the no-longer-in-love spouse to end the marriage even against the other spouse’s objections. The couple may have promised, “as long as we both shall live,” but we know that means, “as long as we both shall love.” [A searing indictment, but one well earned, I must say.  There are some limited situations where divorce is the best alternative, such as real physical abuse or severe neglect.  But the vast majority of divorces have nothing to do with that, they have to do with far more self-serving reasons.  No one wins in these kinds of divorces, not the divorcee, and certainly not the children, who are traumatized and deeply wounded in the vast majority of cases.  Children are the silent sufferers of our permissive divorce culture, but hardly anyone cares.]

Finally if love, not biology makes a family, no one can object to polygamy (one man with multiple wives), polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), or polyamory (multiple “spouses”—male, female, or any combination). Logically, if love, not biology makes a family, anything goes as long as the people involved love each other. (Demands for polyamorist rights are on the way. Expect them.)

————End Quote————–

Which leads to my next link, a new bit of idiocy AND prevarication from Time Magazine, one of the vanguards of the cultural left, advocating for that polyandry described above, as being in the economic best interests of women:

“It Makes Economic Sense for a Woman to Have More Than One Husband,” the headline clearly states. They say that by having many men it provides more incomes and “combats child poverty.”

Oh, yes, certainly, the experience of black women in particular has shown just how eager men are to support the children they conceive out of wedlock, especially if that woman has multiple partners and is never entirely sure, short of a DNA test, just who the fathers of her children are.  Why, men are just lined up around the block in their eagerness to economically support these children!

What a crock.  What this is about is encouraging even more promiscuity in young women, encouraging more incorrigibly decadent behavior in men, and leaving ever growing numbers of children in the dire straights of being raised by single mothers.  A very high percentage of these single mothers currently rely on the state as their “replacement man,” or primary source of income, so what Time is really advocating for is raising up more and more children totally dependent on the state for their, ahem, welfare.  More demonrat/statist voters assured!  Can anyone really be so blindly ideological, so callously indifferent to the true welfare of children (and women), and so utterly blind to the historical data regarding the extremely bad statistical outcomes of children of single mothers, as to advocate for this?  Apparently so.  This kind of lunacy is the fruit of the rejection of God as Source and Summit of all Truth.

In reading Dr. Warren Carroll’s final volume on the history of Christendom dealing with the 19th and 20th centuries, Dr. Carroll views the 20th century as a time when satan was allowed to run absolutely rampant.  He held out pious hope that the magical “new springtime” of Vatican II and the example of John Paul II “the great” would make the 21st century a period of wonderful Catholic renewal. I have to say, I think Dr. Carroll was engaging in some pious wishful thinking here, from all signs and portents, the coming century is going to make the 20th century look like a walk in the park for Christians.  I think we are entering the darkest times since the Church began, and I am becoming increasingly convinced we are in the early stages of the great apostasy.

Be strong and pray.


1. Brad - January 21, 2014

Many doctors are teaching us as the mouth is cleaner than the hands. Many bishops are stopping communion in the hands and restoring the traditional Latin mass of 1962 as heading on getting Pope Benedict XVI new mass

TG - January 21, 2014


2. DiscipleoftheDumbOx - January 21, 2014

The only reason why abortion exists as a legal and protected ‘right’ in Texas is due to the sheepish nature of her cowardly people to blindly accept whatever ruling coming down from ‘on high’ from the ‘holy’ U.S. Supreme Court as gospel. What part of state sovereignty and the tenth amendment to do we fail to understand?

THIS is what Lincoln has wrought. Abortion as federal law. Sodomy, struck down. Protection of sovereign borders, abrogated. Property rights? What are those? Ever hear of eminent domain?

To all you ‘one nation, under God’ folks out there: You can take your federal overlords and your ‘nation’ and stick them with the sun doth not shine.

3. Baseballmom - January 22, 2014

Of course LOVE is never defined. Love is an act of the Will. It is NOT an emotion. To love someone is to desire the very best for them. The very best for every soul is Eternal Life. So, to Love is to desire eternal life for the “other.” To allow or even promote the “beloved” to live in mortal sin is not Love. It is cowardice.

4. LaGallina - January 22, 2014

“I think we are entering the darkest times since the Church began, and I am becoming increasingly convinced we are in the early stages of the great apostasy.”

What makes this the “early stages” of the great apostasy. Wouldn’t the early stages have been in the 1960s? What do you think a full-on Great Apostasy looks like?

I’m just curious. The more I realize it is almost impossible to find truly holy priests, and nearly impossible (where I live, anyway) to find priests who love Tradition, the more I think we are in the midst of a great apostasy already. But then, maybe I don’t understand the definition of “apostasy.”

c matt - January 22, 2014

I have to agree – if this is the early stages, what would full blown apostasy look like? I’d say we are in the middle of it.

tantamergo - January 22, 2014

Full on Great Apostasy is when Catholics are dying in the streets in formerly Catholic countries.

I say early stages, because it could develop and get worse for decades more. We are seeing more and more people repudiate by their thinking and actions the morality and beliefs that defined 1500+ years of Christian civilization. It’s going to take quite a bit of time for all this unwind and reach a climax.

It started well before the 60s. This has been coming for a long time.

LaGallina - January 22, 2014

If it continues to get worse for decades more, there won’t be too many Catholics left! At least not in the Western Hemisphere. That’s what breaks my heart when I look around at Mass (Mexican Americans mostly) and they are nearly all over 70. Their kids are long gone — either Evangelicals or no religion. I wonder who will be left to persecute.

I guess just the die-hards like us.

I just long to see other Catholics passionate about their faith too. But I don’t see how that can happen when the priests are giving mushy homilies EVERY WEEK about loving your brother. (Oops, I mean your neighbor. They never say “brother” anymore.)

tantamergo - January 22, 2014

Hey, I could be all wet. It’s possible this is just one of the down cycles the Church has gone through before, and things will improve tremendously one day. As our Lord said, we know not the day nor the hour.

And there ARE some good signs. Pro-life forces are growing stronger. There ARE more people attending the TLM, having large families, being faithful, etc. We’re small now, but if trends continue for 60 years or so, won’t be. There are good, holy souls around. There IS much to dismay us, but God has not left us totally without consolation, either.

We just have to keep on keepin’ on.

5. Ben Warren - January 22, 2014

Remember, be strong, pray, and use vulgar language, just like the author of the blog!

tantamergo - January 22, 2014

When did I use vulgar language?

I’ve written about 3 million words on this blog in the past 4+ years. That is equivalent to at least 6 books. Plus there are probably a million more words in the comments. I haven’t cussed or used vulgar language 4 times in all that.

You are the same person that swoons with the vapors if any term other than sodomite is used regarding those with that particular sin, even though that term is far more offensive to millions than what I guess you are complaining about now. I do use the term sodomite, but not constantly, because it tends to turn off all but the most fervent/converted.

In short, you are a pedant.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: