jump to navigation

The professional perverts running public schools February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Reason number 8,987,999,999,805 for homeschooling:

The former Ontario deputy education minister who oversaw the development of a controversial sex-ed program before facing child sex charges will plead guilty to a number of those charges.

Benjamin Levin, born 1952, was arrested in 2013 in the wake of an international child porn sting that led to his North York doorstep. He was not only accused of making and distributing child pornography, but also of arranging for a sexual offense with a child, and with possessing and accessing child pornography. [So he was actually raping children to make child porn. Male children.]

Levin’s lawyer Clayton Ruby confirmed Friday in court that his client will plead guilty to some of the seven charges, without clarifying which ones, reported the Toronto Star. Ruby also indicated that a guilty plea means there will be no trial. Levin will be sentenced in March

Under his watch as Ontario’s top education official from 2004 to 2009, Levin oversaw the development of an update to the provincial sex-education curriculum. Critics immediately slammed the proposal for encouraging the early sexualization of children and promoting a homosexual agenda. [Ummm……hello!  Is this a big surprise?  Is this also not the same program that the Canadian bishops knuckled under to accept, allowing clubs for those with perverse inclinations in their Catholic schools and also the teaching and normalization of this kind of behavior?

Under the umbrella of “sexual diversity,” the curriculum teaches children to question whether they are a boy or a girl, about masturbation, oral sex, and ‘diverse’ family structures. After strong backlash from outraged parents the curriculum was shelved by then-Premier Dalton McGuinty in 2010

After Levin’s arrest, Premier Kathleen Wynne, herself an open lesbian, tried to distance Levin from the sex-ed curriculum, saying at the time he had no direct role in writing it. [Horse crap.  Do you see what they are trying to do with the schools, constantly putting these kinds of people in charge?]

Critics expect the latest sex-ed curriculum proposed by Wynne to largely resemble its shelved predecessor.  [Go figure] Wynne has stated that the curriculum, slated for all publicly funded schools next fall, will teach children about giving “sexual consent” and what she calls “healthy relationships.” . . .

How many examples like the above do we have to see before we can say “grooming” is a reality?  And if it is, what are the implications for giving people like this levers of power to impose their twisted desires on millions of youth?

When I see examples like the above, I have to agree that placing kids in public schools (or Catholic schools, for that matter) poses an incredibly grave moral risk and can even be seen as a dereliction of parental duty.  Obviously some localities are better than others, some schools are better than others, and I know I’ve ranked public schools ahead of Catholic schools in terms of the danger they pose to the faith of the children that matriculate therein, but the difference is slight, and local realities can make public schools a deadly danger to the Faith.  I think as we move forward (barring some incredible miracle, like the restoration of Catholic schools en masse), that danger is only going to grow, and homeschooling is going to increasingly be the only real option for Catholic parents.  I’m very proud of families I know that have undergone tremendous suffering and self-denial in order to homeschool their children.  I know some folks just can’t do it, or feel it’s beyond them, but we really need to have eyes to see what is going on around us and do the very best we can by our children.

To do otherwise is to expose them to the ministrations of the Levin’s and Wynne’s of the world.

Excellent worksheet for Lenten sacrifices available to you February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Lent, mortification, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I know I’m a day or two late in posting this, and I’m sure the good readers of this blog already have well-established plans of prayer, penance, and almsgiving during this most penitential season of the year, but in case you need some help, or want to consider doing a bit more here at the beginning of Lent, please review the attached worksheet from the St. Vincent Ferrer Foundation.

We should really have three points of emphasis during Lent: voluntary amendment of life, works of penance, and acts of charity.  Charity could be corporal charity, but it could also be spiritual charity – praying another 5 decades of the Rosary, praying the Chaplet of the Holy Face daily (as Cardinal Burke requested), reading the Bible daily, spending more time with family, etc.   Works of penance could be so arranged to amount to a voluntary amendment of life over the course of Lent, such as giving up a bad habit.

I hope you find the worksheet helpful.  Even though I had already determined what I planned to do this Lent before seeing it, it was good to have a reminder that the acts I have planned do fulfill all the elements of Lenten sacrifice.  The worksheet is here—–>>>>Lent-is-Coming

Vatican spokesman Fr. Tom Rosica calls Cardinal Burke a “dissenter” February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I mentioned in my previous post that it was possible some recent activities by the progressive faction in the Church might be coordinated.  The bit below, also via Vox Cantoris (yes, I am trying to support them as much as possible), I think dramatically increases the likelihood of a coordinated response.

Fr. Rosica re-tweeted Cardinal Wuerl’s blog post denouncing Cardinal Burke, and straight up called Burke a “dissenter,” which is rich, coming from him:

rosica again

Some commentary from Vox Cantoris:

Father Tom Rosica is a spokesman for the Vatican. One would presume that someone in such an important and sensitive and influential position would be prudent with his personal opinions and the use of social media. It leaves one to ask an honest question; Is this his own opinion? Is it that of Father Lombardi’s and the Office of Social Communication? Is it the Holy Father’s? Or is it an attempt to smear and obfuscate the truth. I’ve written elsewhere that the tactics of Saul Alinsky are not unknown to this cleric.

……..How disingenuous is it of Cardinal Wuerl to suggest that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter, which would include your writer and probably you as well. There was a time when the word meant someone that dissented from the truth of the faith. Now it seems to mean that it is someone who upholds it.

Well isn’t that the very point of it all?  Is that not the traditionalist critique, boiled down to a nutshell?  The critique is this: at and after Vatican II, a modernist cabal aided (or permitted) by the popes in charge conducted a literal coup against the Church, turning doctrine and practice inside out, elevating error and novelty to Doctrine, and rendering the 2000 year old Doctrine down to maligned heresy, or at least “out of date” practice.  No, this was not really codified by “changes” to Doctrine (although there are plenty of problems with the documents of VII themselves), but in practice, emphasis, promotions, demotions, ordinations made and ordinations blocked a new order was installed in a frighteningly short period of time.  The media played an immeasurably important role in this process, which is why former Pope Benedict XVI alluded to “a council of the media.”

These guys are just telling us the way things are, to them.  After a long interregnum of 35 years when they had to be somewhat cagey about their ambitions to remake the Church into a church of man, for man, worshiping man (I’m not saying the pontiffs of 1978-2013 were totally hostile to that vision, but they toned some excesses down while encasing others in the stone of long, approved practice), they have apparently felt liberated like no time since the mid-70s.  They are telling us who they are, who they think we are, and what they think they have accomplished, or very nearly have. And Vox is right, in this new paradigm, faithful Catholics are the dissenters.  They seek to put us outside the Church, while installing their errors, heresies, novelties, abuses, etc., as the normative, required belief and practice of the Church.

Anyone who lived through that trial of 1965-1980 or so knows that is exactly how things were portrayed back then.  Back then, to be a faithful Catholic who desired the Traditional Latin Mass and doctrinal cohesiveness (with the past) was to open oneself up to harsh rebukes and claims of even being a “heretic” or unfaithful.

Are we not hearing some things like that today?  No, the trend is not nearly so advanced as it became in, say, the 70s, but it is still around, and it seems that the likes of Fr. Rosica and Cardinal Wuerl want to resurrect it in full force.  I’m sure readers have been told they are “disobedient” for refusing to put their kids in parish CCD for Confirmation or for using the Baltimore Catechism for First Communion.  Or that they are just trying to call attention to themselves by wearing a chapel veil.

The fact that we’re building towards the second session of the Synod on the Family adds meaning and emphasis to rhetoric like “Cardinal Burke is a dissenter.”  I have a hard time seeing this denunciation as incidental, I think it almost certainly part of a broader plan.

If I am right, rhetoric of this kind will be repeated and amplified in the months to come.

One more point – as Vox notes, Fr. Rosica is a man with a high profile office at the Vatican.  He is the English-language spokesman for the Vatican.  When he says something, it is generally taken as speaking for the Vatican and even the Pope.  Is that what he meant to do here, imply the Vatican and Pope Francis view Cardinal Burke as a “dissenter” from the new progressive orthodoxy?  Or was he implying nothing, is that the “Vatican’s” (and even Pope Francis’) view of Cardinal Burke?  Said another way, is this an underhanded way to attack a faithful prelate’s credibility?

ISIS threat to sack Rome may be no idle threat February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, Papa, persecution, rank stupidity, secularism, Society.
comments closed

Via reader MFG, the Italian government is in full blown panic mode over ISIS’ rapid strides in Libya, on a short distance away from Sicily, Pantellaria, and other Italian domains.  Italy at present receives a lot of illegal immigration across the Mediterranean, via Lampedusa and Pantellaria, of Libyan muslims.  With that papal-endorsed influx, it would be exceedingly easy for ISIS killing machines to enter Italy and much of Europe.  I’d say they have good reason to be concerned, especially given the fact that all of Europe would be hard pressed to put a full mechanized division in the field, even given a year’s warning:

Last weekend in Italy, as the threat of ISIS in Libya hit home with a new video addressed to “the nation signed with the blood of the cross” and the warning, “we are south of Rome,” Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi shuttered the Italian embassy in Tripoli and raised his fist with the threat of impending military action. Never mind that Italy has only 5,000 troops available that are even close to deployable, according to the defense ministry. [If you assess them at the level of the US, they probably haven’t got even 500 that are up to speed. “Deployable” usually means “at 90 days notice,” if not 180.  All of Europe, with some exception for Britain, have allowed their military capabilities to wither down to essentially nothing.] Or that the military budget was cut by 40 percent two years ago, which has kept the acquisition of 90 F-35 fighter jets hanging in the balance and left the country combat-challenged to lead any mission—especially one against an enemy like the Islamic State.

In fact, Renzi didn’t specify exactly who would wield that military might, and, two days later, when no one volunteered to lead the charge, he backtracked. “It’s not the time for a military intervention,” Renzi told an Italian television station Monday night and said the United Nations had to lead the way. “Our proposal is to wait for the U.N. Security Council. The strength of the U.N. is decidedly superior to that of the radical militias.” [Don’t you bet on it, bub.  Wait until they get their hands on some MANPADS and AAA.  These guys should not be underestimated…….nor should the appeal of a violent caliphate and unholy jihad has with a very large percentage of muslims]

Whether the time is right or not, there is no question that there is a palpable tension in Italy over the ISIS threat—Libya is just 109 miles away from the island of Lampedusa and 300 miles from Sicily—made worse by a 64 percent increase in illegal migrant arrivals by sea since last year. In all of 2014, more than 170,000 people arrived from Libya and Turkey, the highest number ever recorded. Last weekend, as the embassy staff made their way to Italy on a mercantile ship, 2,164 migrants left the same Libyan shores en route to Sicily. The week before, more than 300 people were lost in the same seas as their rickety fishing boats capsized before rescuers could save them.

Where on earth is the benefit to this unconstrained, mass immigration?  Oh yeah……corporate titans want to drive down wages so they can take in another $50 million in their golden stock parachutes.  But aside from that, how long are governments going to foster national suicide through this insane immigration procedures?  While the presence of muslim radicals in Mexico is a bit speculative, their presence in Libya is not!  And yet they continue to accept this mass influx!  Doing so reveals more than just a desire to appease those who buy political influence, it reveals something approaching a desire for cultural suicide.  But that’s our self-loathing leftist elite for us.

The progressive Church Empire is striking Back? February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Events over the past week have raised in my mind the specter that the progressive elements which dominate the levers of power in the Church may be signalling they have had enough pestering “input” from troublesome laity and even their own brother bishops, and are not going to let some piddling concerns over attacking perennial Dogmas or the causing of immense confusion and scandal derail their plans.

I know I’m late to the game (I have a life at times, too) on some of these matters, but to me it was interesting that both Cardinal Wuerl’s blatant attack on Cardinal Burke (and Archbishop Lenga?), as well as the incredible threat of lawsuit by the really scurrilous Fr. Thomas Rosica (the very epitome of post-conciliar clericalists) against a Catholic blogger came out in such close proximity to each other.  Probably coincidence, but knowing how well organized the modernist-leftist cabal in the Church is, I don’t think we can discount the possibility of a correlation.

For the few who don’t know, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, a long time dissenter from Church Doctrine in matters like the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to pro-abort politicians, even going so far as to disobey and misconstrue Pope Saint John Paul II’s order on the matter, wrote a blog post in which he excoriated those bishops he views as dissenting from the “new order” ushered in that fateful conclave of March 2013:

As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of email including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis.  Those emails reminded me of a much, much earlier time in my life when I first experienced dissent from the teaching and practice of a pope.

That’s truly rich, coming from Cardinal Wuerl, as John Henry Weston at LifeSiteNews notes:

Cardinal Wuerl is here on new ground. For years he was, by his own definition, the “dissenter” under Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict.  The issue also revolved around Holy Communion. However, rather than giving Communion to divorced and remarried, the previous popes were asking that Communion be denied to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

In 2004, Pope John Paul II had the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervene in the US Bishops deliberation over the question of Communion for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,” that a Catholic politician who would vote for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion…….

…….Archbishop Wuerl repeatedly refused to comply with that directive. In fact, he was open in his dissent.  Asked by various media since the mid-1990s, he said it was not his pastoral style, and also claimed that denying Communion is tantamount to wielding the sacrament as a weapon.

But for the Washington archbishop it wasn’t only a matter of words – he backed up his rhetoric against the pope’s wishes with action. In March 2012, he stripped a priest of his faculties to publicly celebrate Mass for refusing Communion to a woman who was known to have been living in a homosexual relationship. [I’m sure readers recall this event.  So Cardial Wuerl has taken concrete action to impose his will, so contrary to canon law, in this matter.]

…….In 2012, when asked about refusing notorious pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi Communion, Wuerl opined, “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.” [And once again we see the American bishops, along with most around the world, twisting Canon Law, Tradition, and Sacred Scripture to their own end. Canon 915 didn’t just fall from the sky, an odd-duck Doctrine that has no visible support. It comes straight from Scripture.  But perhaps Cardinal Wuerl has forgotten this bit of Scripture, since it was carefully excised from the Novus Ordo readings (all of them).  I refer to 1 Corinthians XI:27-29, wherein St. Paul makes clear that those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves, committing the gravest of sacrileges.]

At that time the head of the Catholic Church’s highest court dealing with canon law was none other than Cardinal Raymond Burke. Burke told LifeSiteNews unequivocally at the time: “The Church’s law is very clear.”

“The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [canon law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.”

So perhaps Cardinal Wuerl is savouring a little revenge with his dissenter remark. But, the hypocrisy is so very blatant. [If you think our prelates are above things like petty revenge, you’re wrong]

Speaking of petty revenge, Vatican spokesthug Fr. Thomas Rosica has threated a lawsuit against the owner of the good blog Vox Cantoris, one David Domet.  The lawsuit demands Mr. Domet remove about 10 posts mentioning Fr. Rosica, all of which, mind you, contain nothing but Rosica’s own public statements and some brief commentary on them. Domet is a Canadian, and I know free speech law there is not nearly so open and liberal (or sacrosanct, if you will) as it is in the United States, but I would say that, in the US, this would be nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit and a form of harassment that would have little chance of a finding in Rosica’s favor. But that’s not the point, the point is to bully and threaten a Catholic lay person who has pointed out numerous problematic statements by Rosica over the past 2 years into silence.  Most laypeople do not have the resources to retain attorneys and pay hundreds of dollars an hour to respond to a lawsuit.  Rosica, by contrast, apparently does. I have to wonder if this funding comes from his own pocket, or if he is able to use Church money  – our money – to fund it.  Even a threatening letter like that probably cost $4-800.

You can see the cease and desist order, in all its fury, here ——>>>>> spec-2015-02-19

Since Fr. Rosica is official English language spokesman for the Vatican under Pope Francis (and given his modernist-progressive sensibilities, what a revealing choice that was), and works directly under the questionably competent Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, one must wonder just how high up approval for this action went.  Is it limited to Fr. Rosica alone? I doubt it.  Did his boss approve?  Quite likely.  What about his boss’s boss, Pope Francis?  I tend to doubt a Pope would bother with such a trifling matter, but then again, we have been told that this is the most detail-oriented, authoritarian pope in decades, so who knows?

One thing is certain, David Domet now faces a poisonous moral choice.  I pray he gets some pro bono legal assistance, and quick.

On the positive side, Fr. Rosica would not have taken this step if Mr. Domet were not scoring some pretty significant hits.  And I say that not just of Fr. Rosica, but of the entire agenda we see unfolding before us. There’s an old saying “if you’re receiving fire, it means you’re over the target.”  That is why I think this may be part of a broader campaign to vilify and fluster the growing opposition.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself February 19, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Liturgical Year, manhood, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.

So said the great Dom Prosper Gueranger, author of the authentic liturgical reform and the great teacher and apostle of the Liturgy. Even more, Gueranger notes that failing to oppose and excoriate error in the Church – NO MATTER FROM WHENCE IT COMES – is a massive failure of justice and charity, even if that leads us to the highest authority in the Church. The quotes below come from Volume 4 of the The Liturgical Year, Septuagesima, pp. 379-380, 382-383, dealing with St. Cyril’s opposition to the Nestorian heresy:

When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.

It is usual and regular, no doubt, for doctrine to descend from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subject in the faith are not to judge their superiors.  But in the treasure of revelation there are essential doctrines which all Christians, by the very fact of their title as such, are bound to know and defend.  The principle is the same whether it be a question of belief or conduct, dogma or morals. [Dogma and practice/application cannot be separated!] Treachery like that of Nestorius is rare in the Church, but it may happen that some pastors keep silence for one reason or another in circumstances when religion itself is at stake.  The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.  [Dang right!  Because, as we have lived and seen for 50 years, error can run amok for decades without effective challenge, and how many millions of souls have fallen into hell during that time?]

…..As it always happens, there were pacifists who, though not sharing Nestorius’ errors, thought it would be best not to answer him for fear of embittering him, increasing the scandal, and wounding unity.  Cyril thus answers that singular virtue which fears the affirmations of the Christian Faith more than the audacity of heresy: “What! Nestorius dares to suffer men to say in public and in his presence that he who calls Mary the Mother of God is to be anathema!  He hurls his anathema, through his partisans, at us, at the other bishops of the Universal Church and the ancient Fathers, who in all ages and all places with one accord have acknowledged and honored the holy Mother of God!  And have we not the right to repay him in his own coin and say, “If anyone denies that Mary is the Mother of God let him be anathema??“……..

Men of another type, also represented in all ages, revealed the true motive of their hesitation when, after insisting on the advantages of peace and their ancient friendship with Nestorius, they suggested timidly that it would be dangerous to oppose so powerful and high-ranking an adversary.  “Could I but satisfy the Bishop of Constantinople, and heal the wounded spirit of my brother by suffering the loss of all my possessions,” was Cyril’s reply.  “But the Faith is at stake.  The scandal has spread through the Church, and all men are inquiring about the new ‘doctrine.’ If we, who have received from God the office of teacher, fail to remedy such great evils, will there be flames enough for us at the Day of Judgment?  I have already been struck by insult and calumny – let it pass.  If only the Faith be safe, I will yield to none in my love of Nestorius. But if the Faith suffers through the deeds of some – let there be no doubt about it – I will not risk my soul even if instant death threatens me.  If the fear of some disturbance is stronger than our zeal for God’s glory and prevents us from speaking the truth, how shall we dare in the presence of the Christian people to celebrate the holy martyrs, whose glory lies in the very fact that they carried out in their lives the worlds: “Even unto death fight for justice” (Eccl IV:33).

—————End Quote—————-

The situation we find ourselves in today as Catholics, is that our leaders have, almost to a man, abrogated their duty to publicly defend the Faith from the manifest errors that have abounded over the past several decades.  Yes there are some leaders more willing to do so than others, Cardinal Burke has been in the forefront of those, but I would have a hard time saying even he has risen to the level of a Cyril or an Athanasius in terms of being willing to clearly and unequivocally promote the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  I suspect part of that is because all of us, even great Cardinals, even the most well-formed Trads, carry with us some modernist baggage.  That is the great evil of our time, the errors are so noxious, often so subtle, and so profuse, that few if any of us can escape having some of the garbage we swim in sticking to us.

And even among those who recognize the crisis and oppose it, there are more than a few who fear wounding unity more than promoting Truth, and so they either allow the error to go uncorrected, or they stop short at criticizing certain promoters of that error.

This is no small quote. In it is contained a truth that is at the center of a significant debate that has been afflicting faithful Catholics for many months, going back to March 2013: to what degree may one express concern with, or even criticize, a sovereign pontiff?  Some decide that prudence and unity must prevail, and that criticisms must be greatly muted, if made at all.  Others feel the Truth must be defended no matter the source of error, and that the scandal of error far outweighs any potential wound to unity, any threat that souls will be “scandalized out of the Faith.”  They are being driven out of the Faith, already, and into error that mark them, even if they maintain some association with the Church, as being outside it!  And of course there are many more who have formally left the Church, not so much through being scandalized at seeing error promoted (although that certainly does occur), but by accepting that error as truth, and so they embrace some deficient, heretical religion.

I have long felt this great fear that “Oh, if we criticize the Pope, if we do this or that, souls will flee to the SSPX!” has been a chimera, for many reasons. What of the souls becoming invincibly convinced of error, or the millions more who are silently deciding that if the Church can change her 2000 year Doctrine on marriage, She holds no Truth to be inviolable, and has absolutely nothing to offer anyone?  I fear the latter far, far more than the former, and the statistics are all on my side.  There is no evidence, not even slight anecdoctal evidence, that the SSPX has experienced great growth over the past two years. I have actually checked around about this, and, no, there has been no surge in growth.  Has the trend been over the past 40 years for souls scandalized by rampant error in the Church to fly into the SSPX?  Indeed, a very small percentage has……but far, far more, orders of magnitude more, have left the Faith entirely, or done so tacitly through open embrace of heresy.  In the great panoply of “threats” to the Church, the SSPX doesn’t fall in my top 50, if they even be one (and arguing that endless point of contention is not the point of this post).

We must confront error when we find it.  Reluctantly, painfully, but we must do it, even if it takes us to the highest levels of the Church.  Yes the Church is not a democracy, yes it is hierarchical and obedience is absolutely key, but that does not mean we can simply abrogate our duty to defend the Doctrine of the Faith because the source of an error is a highly placed Church authority.  The military runs on obedience. Without obedience, the military cannot function.  But even in the military, one does not always have to follow orders. There are clear, black and white situations, where an order may be illegal, where a command may be so blatantly evil or beyond the pale that it does not have to be followed.  Indeed,there are cases when an unlawful order must be resisted.  If a commander orders his troops to just start shooting every person they see on sight, whether they are combatants or not, that would be an immoral order that not only could be, but must be, disobeyed.  Well, the Church is the army for the salvation for souls, and our eternal destiny is far, far more valuable than even human life on earth.  What is being promoted in the Church today will mean the death of millions of souls, not just in life, but for all eternity.

Should we go along with that kind of order, or should we resist?