jump to navigation

Brooklyn bishop: Obama “shameful, criminal in the eyes of God” February 7, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, contraception, episcopate, General Catholic, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Thanks to my good brother-in-law and reader JS for sending this in.

Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn says that Obama, in advocating for abortion and a thousand other immoralities, “is shameful and criminal in the eyes of God.”

In his column for the diocesan newspaper The Tablet, entitled “Deeper Into the Culture of Death,” Bishop DiMarzio praises Abraham Lincoln, the abolition of slavery, and notes how far the nation has come in electing Obama as president. DiMarzio also notes the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s  Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy and how Obama has promoted that decision.

“The so-called ‘pro-choice’ movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would ‘assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit,’” states Bishop DiMarzio.  “Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.”

“Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances,” says Bp. DiMarzio. “He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.” [Good for you. Thank you.]

The bishop also discusses the Obamacare mandate that requires nearly all health care plans to offer contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-pays, arguing that these rules “imposed on our Nation” would force “Catholic institutions to provide employees with medical procedures and services we believe to be in defiance of the will of God.” [And are thus what……?  Say the words!  MORTALLY SINFUL!  Tell all those contraceptin’ Katholyc souls out there that what they are doing is gravely sinful and that they must stop!]

“We know that, today, an administration that is hostile requires contraception and sterilization,” states the bishop. “However, as government involves itself in our internal affairs, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that the government would seek to compel religious institutions to provide abortion services in the future.”  [I would have to say, given the rather tepid overall defense of the Faith given so far on this HHS Mandate, if I were a pro-abort democrat (but I repeat myself), I’d certainly be considering throwing my rabid leftist base another bone by trying to force some further immorality on the Church. But that’s just it – they can’t make us, or the bishops, or anyone, do anything.  But far too often we see our leadership going along in things they pretend are “mandatory,” but which could be resisted by anyone with enough will.  But I digress…..]

He continues, “In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death.[Which means what? What about their souls?!? How does that vote affect their souls?  Are there souls in danger?  Could they have to answer for voting for the most rabidly, openly pro-abort president in history before Almighty God?  Shouldn’t something pastoral be said here?]   Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.”

The bishop criticizes New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, for proposing “the largest expansion of abortion rights in New York State history,” which he says is an expansion of “this culture of death.”

All true enough.  And I congratulate and thank Bishop DiMarzio for his words.  Certainly, it’s a better condemnation of this president and our death-loving culture than most bishops of the recent past and present.  But we need so much more.  The stakes are so very, very high.  A cruel persecution is coming.  The few faithful are not ready for it.  We need brilliant, saintly prelates.  We desperately need great heroes right now.

I pray Bishop DiMarzio continues to grow in true faith, zeal, and courage, and that he be a great bulwark of the Faith in this country, willing to speak the Truth AND act on it whenever and however necessary for the good of souls.

Let us be the Church MILITANT again!

Advertisements

Flightline Friday: The YF-12A and USAF’s quest for a Mach 3 interceptor February 7, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Flightline Friday, fun, history, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Throughout the 1950s, the United States spent tens of billions of very fat dollars developing a comprehensive defense against manned, air-breathing aircraft.  The nation was wallpapered with air defense radars, very expensive distant early warning radar sites were constructed in the high arctic, and thousands of interceptor aircraft were manned and at alert 24 hours a day.  Air defense bases ranged from Thule, Greenland near the Arctic Circle to Galena Air Base in western Alaska to bases all over the lower 48.  The Army had scores of land-based air defense missile sites with their own massive infrastructure.

The primary threat at that time was Soviet manned bombers armed with thermonuclear devices. Since even one of these bombers getting through would mean an unmitigated national catastrophe, the defense was oriented towards a 100% kill ratio.  Of course, such is very difficult to obtain, and over time, doubts about the perfect effectiveness of the air defense network gradually undermined support for it, but in the late 50s, support was still strong and the system was being built up to a huge climax.

One problem defense planners faced was the threat of supersonic bombers.  Throughout the 50s, all bombers had been subsonic, ranging from the 2000 B-29 copies the Soviets made by using captured US bombers (the Tu-4), to the 600 mph Tu-95 and Myasischchev M-4.  There was a democrat-orchestrated scare in the 1956 presidential election of a looming “bomber gap,” claiming that the US had fallen badly behind the Soviets in numbers of long range bombers. Such was furthest from the truth, the Soviets never had more than 200 strategic bombers at any one time throughout the history of the Cold War, compared to Strategic Air Command’s massive fleet of over 2000 bombers, but such was not clearly known at the time.

Even these high subsonic bombers posed a grave threat to the US air defense system. In the mid-50s, all US interceptors were subsonic themselves.  They had perhaps a 100 mph speed advantage over the bombers.  This was sufficient to deal with the obsolete Tu-4 (B-29 copies), but not for the new jet powered bombers.  The USAF thus instituted a program to develop a new generation of supersonic interceptors, with the goal being at least Mach 2 performance.  This was eventually achieved in the F-106, as I stated a few weeks ago.

Any interceptor needs to have at least twice the top speed of its target in order to have a credible response.  This may 18F2349F6sound excessive, but in reality is the bare minimum needed.  This is because bombers tend to have cruising speeds very near their top speeds, while small fighter aircraft generally cruise at the same speeds as the bombers.  In order to overhaul a maneuvering or fleeing target, 2x speed is really necessary if the fighter is going to make the intercept before exhausting its fuel.  There are a lot of complex factors involved in all this, but the 2x rule of thumb is a pretty good one.

It should be obvious, then, that even the brand new Mach 2.3 capable F-106 were not going to be sufficient to deal with a

F-108 mockup

F-108 mockup

notional Soviet supersonic bomber.  The Soviets were working on such, but never got a truly strategic, supersonic bomber into service until the 1980s, but the US did not know that at the time.  USAF had fielded a new supersonic medium bomber, the B-58 Hustler, in service, and if the US could field such a craft, it was feared the Soviet could, too.  Thus, USAF began a program in 1958 called the Long Range Interceptor-Experimental (LRIX) to develop a Mach 3+ capable interceptor that would have a good capability against a Mach 1.5 bomber and a marginal capability against a Mach 2 bomber.  This program was being run in conjunction with a new bomber competition to field a Mach 3 bomber, which resulted in the glorious XB-70 Valkyrie.  Contracts for both the new bomber and the LRIX interceptor, now called the F-108, were issued to North American Aviation.

The F-108 program was really going along pretty smoothly, with the design continually refined during the period 1958-1960, when it was cancelled by the Eisenhower Administration.  U-2 overflights had convinced Ike that the Soviets had only a trifling bomber force, and that the Soviets were putting most of their emphasis into what they called long range rocket artillery, better known as intercontinental ballistic missiles.  He thus disfavored air defense in favor of the US 800px-Lockheed_YF-12A_3viewArmy’s fledgling Nike Zeus ballistic missile defense system (for a great overview of that system, see this).  The beautiful and very capable F-108 was consigned to the “might have been” category.

In spite of this cancellation, however, USAF remained convinced that the Soviets would likely field a supersonic bomber in the near future, since USAF was pressing ahead with its plans for the B-70.  In addition, the vast majority of the interceptor force, circa 1960, still consisted of subsonic and barely supersonic aircraft (the latter being the F-102).  All of these slower interceptors were really not sufficient to deal with even the Tu-95 “Bear” bombers it was known the Soviets were putting into service.  Furthermore, their avionics were ancient and they were rapidly aging out.  A replacement was needed to complement, and eventually supplant, the great F-106 Delta Dart.  The desired aircraft would be very much like the F-108, combining Mach 3 speed with advanced radars and other avionics to produce a new “ultimate interceptor.”YF-12_on_taxiway

Luckily for the Air Force, the CIA had engaged the famous Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson and his Lockheed Skunk Works to produce just that kind of aircraft.  Intended as a replacement for the U-2 reconnaissance plane, the “A-12” was a technological triumph of the highest order.  It was a product only the US aerospace industry, at its incredibly peak circa 1960-1970, could produce.  Telling it’s story would require a whole ‘nuther post, so we’ll move on.

The A-12 was the progenitor of the well known SR-71 Blackbird, the Mach 3.5, 90,000 ft+ aircraft that was famously shot at hundreds of times, but never shot down.

YF-12 with "chopped chines"

YF-12 with “chopped chines”

As top USAF leadership observed the A-12 project developing in the early 60s, they realized they had the aircraft they had always wanted for an interceptor, and, wonderfully enough, it’s development had been paid for by someone else’s budget.  It was quickly seen that the A-12, with it’s incredible performance and long range, would make an ideal interceptor.  The Air Force commissioned some modifications be made to remove the reconnaissance equipment and replace it with missiles and a fire control radar, and the YF-12A was born.

The YF-12A as produced had a top speed of 2100 mph (Mach 3.2, a little less than the SR-71 due to aerodynamic changes for the interceptor role), a peak altitude of around 85,000 ft (ditto), and a 3000 mile range.  All were huge improvements over the F-106.  In addition, the YF-12A incorporated very advanced avionics, including the world’s first look-down shoot-down fire control radar, the AN/ASG-18, and two very early, very rudimentary infra-red search and track devices at the leading edges of the now incomplete forward chines.  The YF-12 had a much larger nose to incorporate this radar with it’s 40″ diameter dish.  The “chines” which ran around the nose of the A-12 and SR-71, which served both an aerodynamic and a “stealth” or radar cross section reduction role, stopped about even with the leading edge of the canopy.

YF-12A with AIM-47 missile

YF-12A with AIM-47 missile

The YF-12A was armed with 3 AIM-47 Falcon missiles, each with either a 250 kt nuclear warhead (guaranteed kill radius – over 1 mile) or 400 lb of conventional high explosive.  The AIM-47 was the first air-to-air missile with it’s own radar seeker, making it the first true “fire and forget” missile.  It had a range of over 100 nm.  An alternative weapon for the YF-12 was a ground attack version of the AIM-47 called the AGM-76 Falcon.  This also came with either a 250 kt warhead or a large conventional one, and had a similar range.  The AGM-76/YF-12 combination was to be used to take out Soviet radar sites and SAM batteries, allowing the B-70 fleet easier access to Soviet airspace.  The Valkyrie’s would have carried some of those same missiles, themselves.

During testing, AIM-47s launched from YF-12As scored a 100% kill ratio, with the one “failure” being due to a problem with test equipment, not the missile.  The look-down shoot-down capability was proved when a YF-12 flying at Mach 3.2 Two_YF-12_aircraft_in_flightand 74,000 ft shot down a target just 500 ft off the ground – an extremely successful performance at that time.

The YF-12A first flew, out at Groom Lake (Area 51) in August, 1963.  By late 1964 testing was complete and the aircraft was ready to enter service.  Several speed and altitude records had already been set with the three test aircraft. USAF requested, and Congress approved, funding for 93 production F-12B models.

But, this is one of history’s greatest villains and incompetents, Robert Strange McNamara, entered in.  McNamara had an inveterate hatred of the Air Force, ever since he had unsuccessfully opposed the USAF becoming a separate service in 1947.  He especially disliked anything related to manned bombers and air defense.  He also, by this time, had by his lies and temporizing statements, managed to help guide the US into the Vietnam War.  That war was gobbling up vast swaths of the defense budget, already.  He needed more money for the large standing army he had created, to go fight the war that creation made all but inevitable (since Kennedy created a very large, standing, peacetime army, we have not gone 10 years without that Army being used in a ground conflict somewhere).

So, even though, for three consecutive years, Congress approved funding for the F-12B interceptor, McNamara, quite illegally, refused to spend it.  It was an early example of that lawless rule by decree that progressives so favor, and which we see in spades in our current ruling junta.   So the F-12 never entered squadron service, and became another aviation afterthought.  The Air Force never got it’s Mach 3 interceptor.

In a sense, however, McNamara was right.  The US never did have to fend off invading waves of Soviet bombers (nor missiles, thank God).  But if we had, we would have had to do it, well into the 1980s, with 1950s vintage aircraft, and only a few hundred of those.  Incredibly, in this country today, at this moment, there are not even 50 aircraft assigned to air defense.  Thus, 9/11, at least to some degree.

Proposed front cockpit for production F-12B - very similar to F-108, and very advanced for its day

Proposed front cockpit for production F-12B – very similar to F-108, and very advanced for its day

Rear cockpit for weapon system operator.  Notice huge analog radar display lower center

 

IMPORTANT: FIRST FRIDAY AT CARMEL MOVED TO MATER DEI February 7, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Dallas Diocese, Eucharist, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, Liturgy, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

The Dallas Carmel is located on top of the ridge that gives that section of Dallas – Oak Cliff – it’s name. It rises a good 100ft or more above the surrounding rolling plains.  There is a steep driveway to enter the Carmel.  It is heavily shaded, and faces north.  Because of these factors, the Carmel’s driveway is covered in the ice and snow we received yesterday.

Because of difficulties accessing the Carmel, the First Friday has been moved to Mater Dei parish in Irving. See below for new start time.

Adoration begins at 7.  First Mass at 8p.  Second Mass at 3a.  Adoration ends before 8am Mass on Saturday.  All Masses TLM.  Confession before and after each Mass.

Thanks to MD priests for picking up this devotion so it didn’t have to be cancelled.

Original Schemas of Vatican II show what might have been February 7, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, episcopate, error, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
comments closed

Prior to Vatican II, a whole slew of “schemas,” or documents, were drawn up by a worldwide commission of theological experts.  Fully orthodox, these schemas were intended to guide the conciliar discussions and, if all went well, be approved as the official VII documents with only minor changes.  They were completely, totally orthodox.  They spoke with great clarity and the conviction of Truth.  And they were killed off, one by one, by the progressive elements at the Council which, with the sure support of both pontiffs who oversaw VII, managed to utterly dominate the Council.

These documents were naturally written in Latin. Latin was for at least 1600 years the universal language of the Church (Greek being used in some parts in the early Church).  So, they have been impenetrable to most of us who do not have a command of that language, which is a sad thing, because it used to be that anyone with a decent education could read Latin and Greek.  But thanks to the work of Fr. Joseph Komonchak, who has laboriously translated these documents, 5 of the 9 schemas are now available for us to read in English:

I’m not sure who, I think it may be Boniface, at the other Unam Sanctam Catholicam site, has read the documents and noted the great differences between the pre-conciliar schemas and the actual approved documents of Vatican II:

In reading these original schemas, one is struck by their clarity, their directness, and relative to the subsequent conciliar documents, their brevity. It is also interesting to see in what ways the content of these documents are notably different from the documents that were eventually promulgated. For example, “On the Sources of Revelation” states very plainly that there are two sources of revelation which constitute a single deposit of faith; Dei Verbum, on the other, is emphatic that there is but one source of revelation which is passed on in two modes of transmission.

The source material is interesting as well. An examination of the footnotes of the discarded schemas reveals an abundant number of citations from Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, the Syllabus and even the anti-Modernist oath, none of which are cited in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example.

The tone is markedly different; instead of the humble “searching for truth” [1] that we note in the conciliar documents, the original schemas lucidly and authoritatively proclaim the truth, as well as about the errors which pervert it. De fontibus revelationis, subject to so much scorn by the Council Fathers, issues several formal condemnations. In order to see the difference in tone between the two sets of documents, consider the first as passage from the schema “On the Christian Moral Order”, paragraph 6:

“[The Church] grieves, however, that many people are transgressing the divine law, more from weakness than from wickedness, though rarely without grave guilt. It notes with great horror that errors are being spread everywhere, errors that open the way to perdition and close the gate of salvation. There are those who deny a personal God and so deprive the natural law of its foundation; there are those who, repudiating the mission of Christ, reject the law of the Gospel; there are those who rely only on human principles in explaining the moral order and therefore rob it of its genuine and ultimate obligation and sanction…Their impiety and impudence reach such a point that they attempt to assault heaven and to remove God himself from the midst. With notorious wickedness and equal foolishness they are not afraid to state that there is no supreme, most wise and most provident God distinct from the universe; there are those who maintain that the moral law is subject to changes and to evolution even in fundamental matters…” [Like, say, the German bishops?]

Now compare this with a parallel passage from Gaudium et Spes chapter 21, also dealing with atheism:

The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.”

When the Council got underway, the progressive Council Fathers saw the schemas of Ottaviani as an obstacle to their program of reform. Cardinal Bea, one of the more influential Cardinals and a favorite of Pope John XXIII, explained to his progressive colleagues:

“We must help the Holy Father achieve his goals for the Council, the ones he expresses in his radio messages and in his exhortations. These are not the same as those of the schemas, either because the Theological Commission, which directs them, is closed to the world and to ideas of peace, justice, and unity, or because of the division of the work and a lack of co-ordination. They’ve made room for everything except the Holy Spirit.” [2] [That is an amazingly rude and dismissive statement to make.  Cardinal Bea, one of the most damaging of the progressives at Vatican II, is essentially stating that Cardinal Ottaviani has no faith.  I am biting my tongue off to not discuss the tendency of modernists to project their own faults on others.  Oops.]

Thus, these schemas, which were ‘closed to the world’, were replaced with what we currently have, and the defects of which we are all well aware. As they were never adopted, these schemas have no authority; but in reading them, one cannot help but contemplating the council that might have been.

So there you go, perhaps some weekend reading for you. The documents are not that long, certainly compared to many of the VII documents themselves.

Studying Vatican II reveals a great deal about human psychology.  Various prelates would stand up at various times in the conciliar sessions and express their dismay and outrage at the way the Council was developing.  They would ask the Council if they really intended to radically make over, even upend, the Faith.  And then they would sit back down and the Council would continue as if nothing had occurred.

It was an interesting exercise in mass psychology, with heavy media pressure serving as a sort of catalyst.  Progressives like to argue that the original schemas were overthrown by some motion of the Holy Spirit.  There was a motion alright, but can’t say I’m convinced the Holy Spirit was the source of it.  It was a council unlike any other in Church history in so many respects.  And there are a lot of influential people in the Church today who think it’s time to resurrect that “spirit” and continue it’s work.

Pray pray pray for the Synod on Marriage in October February 7, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the return.
comments closed

So says Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi, one of the few American prelates ever to excommunicate a pro-abort politician.  I can’t think of a more glorious title for a name of a see – Corpus Christi.

Bishop Gracida is concerned that the same, tired old arguments are being trotted out to try to change the unchangeable, to normalize the abominable.  Just as so many progressives tried to convince the Church shortly after Vatican II that the early Mass was done facing the people, that Communion was regularly received in the hand, etc., etc, and that because these alleged practices were early, they were somehow more authentic (a condemned error known as archeologism), now we are hearing claims that the early Church allowed the divorced and remarried to Communion.  They are trotting out some progressive patristics “experts” to prove this claim. Other patristic experts refute these claims.  It’s the same old story as we saw 50 years ago with the Mass, and features the same old players, with new faces: Germanic bishops and their French allies.

The problem of archeologism is that it rejects, prima facie, the organic development of doctrine.  To claim that the early Church had a unique and superior insight into all doctrinal and prudential matters is an error that has been condemned repeatedly.  There are many areas where understanding is much more thorough today.  Furthermore, you cannot just overthrow nearly 20 centuries of Tradition in one area without radically undermining adherence to and acceptance of virtually every other area of the Faith.  The Faith is a cohesive whole, and once one thread is pulled, the entire thing quickly unravels.

And that, I fear, is the point.  Progressives are not fools, and they have a clear agenda, which is the essential wiping out of the Church’s 2000 year moral theology and its replacement with a worldly, hedonist “theology” more acceptable to modern man.  Whether these folks are just destroyers or really believe in their heart of hearts undermining vast swaths of the Faith – in spite of the torrential evidence of the past 50 years – will somehow lead to that long hoped for “new springtime,” only God knows.  But I know that a flip flop on this matter, over which the Church has suffered so immensely for centuries (when so many times it would have been so much easier to fold), will lead only to disaster.

So even if on very rare occasions the early Church did readmit souls to Communion after a divorce and remarriage in the very distant past (and only after a typically lengthy period of penance), it means, in our present context, essentially nothing.  We are not the Church we were 1700 years ago.  Doctrine once defined and defended to the point of blood over centuries cannot just be set aside.  And I am convinced, though no theologian, that any Doctrine so constantly defended and upheld over many centuries has risen to the level of an irreformable Dogma.  Goodness, we have the example of Christ Himself on this matter.  It is stunning this is even a discussion, and I fear – as Bishop Gracida apparently does – that this Germanic push is just another sign of their collapsed faith.

So please make the good outcome of this October Synod one of your main prayer intentions over the next 9 months.  Offer special Novenas or Rosaries to that end.  The Germanic bishops are plainly making a play to turn this Synod into a replay of the First Session of Vatican II. I am hearing rumblings that the Germans have called for an ongoing Synod, a sort of Council in miniature, to examine all manner of issues and, I presume, further the modernist “reforms.”

It’s a deadly serious time, folks.  Please do consider adding prayers or intentions.