jump to navigation

Support a local homeschooling family being persecuted January 29, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society.
comments closed

A Duncanville family, the Tutts, has had all their children taken from them – natural born and adopted – not because there was any neglect or abuse, not because they were in any danger, but because in the opinion of ONE court appointed official they were behind academically because they were homeschooled.  However, the official in question appears to have an animus against homeschooling, plainly has little or NO knowledge of how the state of Texas views and handles homeschooling (in short, very laissez faire, as it should be), and made up outrageous claims seeking to establish that the children were wallowing in ignorance.

This family has been extremely generous in serving as foster parents and has adopted some of its foster children, even taking on an autistic child.  Unfortunately, that autistic child wandered off one day, and while the father was out looking for him (in a matter of minutes), he was found first by a cop.  Ever since then, life for the Tutt’s has been h-e-double hockey sticks and it has not gotten much better, even though their biological children were returned to their custody.  At present, the family is not allowed to homeschool the children, and, get this, the court has placed them in one of the worst schools in Dallas County, rated academically unacceptable by the state.  But school systems haven’t been about education in decades, if they ever were – they are about funding, and funding is based on the number of student. Don’t think the judges in these cases aren’t intimately aware of that fact.

The Texas Home School Coalition (THSC) has covered this case closely. It appears pressure from outraged parents has caused CPS and the court official to back off their blatant bias against homeschooling, but it still appears that a CPS caseworker’s flippant response, that parents had to be “crazy” to have so many kids, has gotten wedged in the system’s throat and can’t be dislodged. The kids have to remain in public school until the parents complete a psychological evaluation.  THSC is investigating the  caseworker for making what appear to be erroneous and duplicitous statements.

There are posts from THSC here, here, here, and here.  Read them in order.  The last is most important, it contains contact info for state representatives that serve on oversight committees for CPS and other agencies involved. Also, if you live in Dallas County, as I do, remember the name of judge Graciela Olvera and make sure not to vote for her.

Outside true abuse and neglect, parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit, even if that means those children don’t feed the gaping maw of the public education establishment and hold views that the dominant liberal elite (even here in Texas, even among Repubnikan judges) finds abhorrent.  Texas has for the past 15 years or so, after some early persecutions, given home schooling parents a pretty free hand, but there is no question there are elements in this state that would like to see that end, and now.  We will have to fight more and more for our right to educate our children in a manner that is consonant with our Faith, and to shield our children from the indoctrination in perversion and left-wing ideologies that now make up much of the public school curriculum.

Please consider making clear to state officials that we will not be denied our right to educate our children at home (where they most often receive a superlative education, far above what even the most elite private schools provide, let alone public schools – why do you think the public school establishment so fears and loathes us?).  Again, you can find all the contact info here.

Our Lady of La Salette on the importance of daily prayer January 29, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Our Lady, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Really, I should say, it is the Fr. O’ Laverty’s interpretation of Our Lady’s words at La Salette, where she directed the shepherd children to say their prayers every morning and night.  As Fr. O’ Laverty notes, this is the very, very least we should do:

It will only be at the Judgment Day that people will know the value of the few minutes given to morning and evening prayers. When people cannot assist at Mass and receive Holy Communion each morning, [this book was published in 1925, after Pius X’s reforms, so daily Communion was possible]  then the only supernatural food for their souls is prayer.   Morning and evening prayer is just as necessary for the Our_Lady_of_La_Salette_statuepreservation of the supernatural life as food and air are to preserve our natural life. The life of sanctifying Grace, which is the supernatural life of  the soul, requires care and attention, just like the body. The body requires food, air and clothing, and the mind requires the mental food of knowledge. The soul requires the supernatural food of Holy Communion, plus prayer and self-denial, while the mind requires the supernatural food of Christian Doctrine.  Without morning and evening prayer it is practically impossible to preserve the life of sanctifying Grace, and as the body requires frequent feeding, so must the soul have God’s Grace, which is secured by prayer.  Absence of morning and evening prayer means that the soul has not strength to overcome temptations, nor will it have any zeal for spiritual things. It will have no zeal to grow in holiness, and it will not be able to appreciate heavenly truths.

———–End Quote————

Basic stuff, but critical.  The kinds of prayers Fr. O’ Laverty had in mind were quite minimal, something everyone should have time to do.  A few Our Fathers and Hail Mary’s, that sort of thing.  That is the absolute floor, the minimum.  We should strive to do much more if our station in life permits.

Some of us, like me, are very weak, and need more frequent recourse to prayer throughout the day in order to keep virtue up and avoid sin.  Others may have a stronger practice of virtue and can get by with less. But personally, I strongly recommend at least a daily Rosary in addition to morning/evening prayers, and the Angelus if at all possible.  You can add other prayers, Novenas, ejaculatory (St. Alphonsus loved those), chaplets, whatever moves you best.  Penance works the same way.  We should mortify ourselves at least 3 to 5 times a day.

Fr. O’ Laverty is right, though – prayer, the Mass, penance, and the Eucharist – this is food for the soul.  Without it, the interior life, even our faith, whither and die.  And since the body and soul are so inextricably linked, this can even affect people’s behavior and health.  Lack of prayer among millions of faithful has certainly wounded the Church, severely.  And all those souls who don’t pray, don’t assist at Mass – well, it’s one reason why we see so few true men and women around nowadays.

Pray!

Our Lady of the Expectation

Ecumaniacs shocked – Cardinal says Trent “still in full force” January 29, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, manhood, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

As if it’s possible for a binding Council with dogmatic definitions and anathemas to somehow stop being effectual? But there are many in the Church, and world, today would would like to think so. Or maybe pretend so.

Apparently, Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht has stirred up a firestorm by stating what in normal times would be utterly banal, a totally non-newsworthy item: yes, the Council of Trent is “still in full force.”

Violent polemics were triggered in the Netherlands with the words of the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht, Willem Jacobus Cardinal Eijk. Here, the Cardinal had only reminded what is self-evident. He said in an interview during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that the Council of Trent still has full force and effect.   Because this self-evident fact has been very little heard any more in the past few decades, it is supposed to have caused a scandal that has provoked fierce reactions in Protestant as well as Catholic-ecumenical circles.

During the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity Calvinist  Reformatorisch Dagblad  published an interview with Cardinal Eijk, which was taken up by the daily newspaper Trouw on 20 January. Within, the Archbishop of Utrecht said that “the doctrine and the condemnations of the Council of Trent are still in full force.”  The newspaper wrote: “Cardinal Eijk is explicit in this respect: The Council of Trent’s teachings are still perfectly valid. This also applies to convictions which were adopted against those who reject the Council’s teachings. Like the Protestants.

…..Cardinal Eijk stressed in an interview that the Council of Trent was a sign of “the ability of the Roman Catholic Church for self-reform”, thanks to the “guidance of the Holy Spirit.” The Council of Trent, said the Archbishop of Utrecht, put and end to the many abuses which had crept in the late Middle Ages in the Church,  such as simony, an understanding of the pastoral office, which contradicted the biblical understanding.   But it put an end was put to the fundamental  lack of discipline of the clergy and in the monasteries: “When all decrees were implemented [the Council],  order was restored  in the Church,”  said the cardinal. [True.  Now, these abuses were overblown, severely, by protestants seeking to justify their heresies, but there were widespread problems.  This was due almost entirely to the secular power arrogating to itself the right to name bishops and priests for certain locales. This was a battle the Church fought for 1000 years, and it finally took the rending of Christendom for most of the abuse to be overcome.  There were many bad priests back then, too, men of poor moral fabric, but I don’t know if they were as widespread as today]

The Council of Trent also helped to define some “truths of faith” precisely related to the errors of the Reformation. The cardinal affirmed that these provisions continue to have perfect validity “such as transubstantiation and the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrament.” [And the nature of the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice, ecclesial authority, justification, etc., etc. Trent was one of the great councils in Church history, and a sure sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit at a dogmatic Council.]

Well, good on Cardinal Eijk.

Ecumenism will always tend towards the lowest common denominator.  This is almost inevitable. Non-dogmatic, or weakly dogmatic, churches will impose upon the more dogmatic churches their requirements that the “offending” Dogmas be played down, if not expunged entirely.  You can see that plainly in the excerpts of that “Catholics” movie I posted Monday, where the liberal priest says plainly that constant Catholic Dogmas offended the Church’s “new ecumenical partners.”  So, they had to go. The same goes for strong definitions of Dogma vs. weak definitions in the sects.  The weak definition will be the one agreed to.   I don’t know why the Church, existing for at least 1500 years longer than the sects and with a far more clearly established line of Authority, cannot say to the protestants “look, we’ve always believed this, it’s you johnny come lately’s who deviated from what Christians – Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian, etc – have always believed, so you’re going to go with what the vast majority of Christians, living and dead, have always held true.”

I guess it all comes down to who has the stronger courage of conviction.  Too often, it seems it’s the Church caving, at least in the past 50 years.

I’m glad this Cardinal can make clear that what was Truth once, always is.

Cardinal Maradiaga hails from a “decadent diocese?” January 29, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, religious, sadness, scandals, shocking, Spiritual Warfare, the return.
comments closed

It beats me……..Honduras is not one of those places that penetrates the cultural consciousness very much, nor do many Central American dioceses tend to have strong reputations in the Church universal.

But that is what top Italian Catholic journalist Antonio Socci claims, in a piece carried by Rorate Caeli.  Socci points to Maradiaga’s many disturbing statements as pointing towards a return to the very dark times of the 70s, when the revolution was in full bloom and the Church suffered immensely.  The Church has not managed to even partly recover from the effects of those terrible years.  At most, under the “conservative” pontificates of JPII and Benedict XVI, the bleeding had been mostly contained, but the wound was still gaping.  But while the faithful experienced great pain in those troubled times, the progressive elements in the Church were in full flower, reveling in their first taste of power.  According to Socci, some want to experience that taste again (emphasis and comments per usual, all mine):

There have been some great popes whose pontificates have been practically discarded by the errors of the clerics in their entourage. This risk is also present for the pontificate of Pope Francis.

In fact, there have been episodes, decisions and “bizarre outbursts” by some prelates that have been quite disturbing. I am thinking of Cardinal Maradiaga and Cardinal Braz de Aviz, who feel they are so powerful in the Vatican that they can ‘use the club’ on both the Prefect of the former Holy Office, Müller, as well as on the ‘Franciscans of the Immaculate.’

The targets of their “club-beatings” (given obviously in the name of mercy) are those who, for different reasons, have been targeted as paladins of Catholic orthodoxy and have had dealings with Pope Benedict XVI.  [Perhaps. They could also be incidental….You can draw your own conclusions based on the arguments Socci makes below]
 
The real target in fact, appears actually to be him: “guilty” of so many things: from his historical condemnation of Liberation Theology and the defense of correct doctrine, to the Motu Proprio on the liturgy.  [Well, the real target could be Catholic orthodoxy, which Pope Benedict defended pretty well for the most part. In that sense, Pope Benedict would simply be “getting in the way,” if you will, of the real target]
 
Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga is Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, in Honduras – a decadent diocese. But the prelate, who is running around the stages of the world’s mass-media, [Of that, there is no doubt. I originally thought Maradiaga must have been commissioned by Pope Francis to engage in this worldwide PR blitz – that was Rocco Palmo’s belief, as well – but now I’m not so sure.  He could be free-lancing, but then why no “calling back”?]  recently caused an uproar because of the interview he gave to a German newspaper, where – along with new-age rubbish and third-world banalities – he publically attacked the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Müller, to whom the Pope has just given the cardinal’s hat. This is also scandalous seeing that Maradiaga is the head of the commission which should reform the Curia. [Yes it is, and it is exceedingly significant. It was this highly unusual internecine strife that made me start to think maybe Maradiaga is just a wild bull right now, not acting at Francis’ behest but just running wild]
 

What had happened? Müller, who was called to that office by Benedict XVI and confirmed by Francis, had reaffirmed in recent months that – even though new pastoral ways may be sought (already indicated by Benedict XVI) – the upcoming Synod on the Family, cannot subvert the law of God with “a false call to mercy” with regard to the man-woman family, which was established by Jesus in the Gospel and which has always been taught by the Church.

Müller, who had already been personally attacked by Hans Küng, has [now] been liquidated by Maradiaga with these words: “he is German and also a German professor of theology. There is only true and false in his mentality. That’s all. But I say: my brother, the world is not like this, you should be a little more flexible.” Words that have scandalized many of the faithful. Above all, because the allusion to “the German professor of theology” inevitably brings to mind that perhaps the target is Benedict XVI, who called Müller to that office. Also because a public attack between cardinals is completely out of order, as if Muller was there to sustain his own personal theology and not the constant teaching of the Church and all of the popes. [It’s a fair point – by lambasting supposedly rigid German theology (again – are you kidding?  Luther, Malencthon, Rahner, etc), that could be taken as a shot at Pope Benedict.  Convincing?]
 
In the end, according to Maradiaga, it would be wrong to examine reality in terms of true and false – he forgets that Jesus Christ in the Gospel gave this precise commandment: “But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is from evil.” (Mt. 5,37).
 
Does Maradiaga prefer “that which is over and above these” to the proclamation of the Truth? On the themes regarding the family, where [now] we have an ideological attack similar to the Marxist one of the Seventies, various ecclesiastics are ready – as they were then – to cave in shamefully. [And the idea that there can be “pastoral solutions” that somehow preserve doctrine – in theory – while allowing for its complete abandonment in practice are nothing but sophisms aimed at plausible deniability, a shameful tactic for a prelate of Holy Mother Church.]
 
And they do it with Maradiaga’s sophisms, which state that, yes, Jesus’ words on marriage are binding, “but they can be interpreted” as today there are many new situations of cohabitation and “answers which can no longer be based on authoritarianism and moralism” are needed.  [Cardinal Maradiaga obviously has forgotten his Ecclesiastes……”there is nothing new under the sun.” To pretend there are any new moral situations today that just haven’t been thought through enough by the Church is ludicrous, and simply a pandering attempt to undermine or even reject Doctrine.  And a lot of this garbage thought is rooted in personalism.]
 
This sentence alone liquidates the entire Magisterium of the Church: evidently according to Maradiaga even Jesus was authoritarian and moralistic since He expressed Himself with great clarity.
 
But what does “more pastoral care than doctrine” mean? Every great pastor, from St. Ambrose to St. Charles [Borromeo], from Don Bosco to Padre Pio, have been paladins of doctrine.
 
Maradiaga says that what is needed for the family are “answers suitable for the world of today.” These are empty, elusive words which foster confusion and doubt. And this is the typical way which is spreading in the Church today, to raise questions without providing answers.
 
Concerning such things, St. Thomas Aquinas had this to say: “Well, these ones are false prophets, or false doctors, inasmuch as, raising a doubt without resolving it is the same as conceding to it.” (Sermon “Attendite a falsis prophetis”). [This is a really effective critique of Maradiaga’s arguments, such as they are. In fact, this analysis is shattering.  In spite of its rhetorical effectiveness, it likely won’t make a whit of difference.]
 
Today there are those in the Church who prefer the famous questionnaire associated with the Synod (which was sent to all the dioceses of the world and is presented by some as a survey) to the words of Jesus reported in the Gospel – as if revealed Truth should be substituted by the most diverse opinions. [Ouch.  But is he wrong?]

————-End Quote————

There was another part of the article, that dealt with Cardinal Bras de Aziz and the treatment the FFIs have been getting.  I won’t include that because I’ve already stolen enough, and I also got some information yesterday regarding the internal problems of the FFIs that somewhat undermine the “jealous progressives attacking an orthodox order” meme.  I say somewhat, because even if the allegations are true (they may be, but I have seen no other support for them, and unfortunately, I cannot share them), the response has been totally disproportionate to the alleged crime.  What I was told was basically an unfortunate error of excessive zeal, along with perhaps a too great acceptance of certain traditional critiques of the Novus Ordo.  I know some FFIs, and they have never even slightly revealed such beliefs as were related to me.  But, there may be some truth to it, which means there was a problem to be dealt with (which, I think there has been some understanding of that, even on this blog, notorious for its simple-mindedness), but to me it was nothing that required the cruel breaking of an order, the draconian steps taken against it, and its public excoriation as a group absolutely run amok.

Suffice it to say, the “errors” of the FFIs, if they existed, were trivial compared to the rank heresies being promoted – with full approval of ecclesiastical leadership! – at the vast majority of religious orders in the Church today.  Cardinal Bras de Aziz (why, oh why, did Pope Benedict promote him to this office?!?) has seen fit to turn the investigation of the LCWR into a whitewash with absolutely no penalties for even the most far out neo-pagan wicca lesbian saphos worshippers.  Socci notes that religious vocations continue to plummet in Italy, yet the one order that was growing and vibrant gets broken.

Please. All this tells me there were elements lying in wait for an excuse to dismantle this order. And their closeness to Benedict XVI (may God have mercy on him) does perhaps confirm some of Socci’s argument – that what we are witnessing is a progressive reaction against the former papacy, which they made no bones about despising.