jump to navigation

Parents beware “Charlie Challenge” game for kids May 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, error, family, General Catholic, paganism, scandals, secularism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
comments closed

My wife thought I should post this.  I think this new satanic game has already gotten a lot of coverage, but one never knows.  There is apparently a new Ouija-type game out among kids that involves likely contact with the demonic.  It’s called “Charlie Challenge:

It seems to have come out of nowhere and gone viral in an instant.  There is a new “game” sweeping middle schools called “The Charlie Challenge.”  Superficially, it seems like a silly, harmless, childish fantasy.  Kids make a grid on a piece of paper that says, “yes/no.”  They make an X out of two pencils and attempt to summon an erstwhile demon named “Charlie.”  Then they ask him questions which he answers by moving the pencils.  It’s rather creepy to watch. (I won’t link the videos here because I have no interest in spreading the craze but it’s easy enough to find online if you want to look)…….. [I certainly won’t link to any]

……..Of course it all sounds like silly nonsense, except that it isn’t and in the mind of a middle school child, this game can be played for rather high stakes. Remember the 2 middle school girls who attempted to murder their friend to appease “Slenderman“?  Sometimes child’s play isn’t just stuff and fluff.

I don’t normally link to Patheos, and some of the advice given after the quotes taken above reminds me why.  It’s amazing how many folks take the Catechism of the 90s as the be all and end all of doctrine.

Faithful Catholics will know that messing around with anything even remotely demonic – and this seems more than remote – is incredibly stupid and dangerous.  It is a good way to not only lose your soul, but also enter into a life of misery, as so many former satanists have attested.  Unfortunately, the occult and demonic are all the rage in the culture today – given the collapse in morality and Christian life, go figure – from the Harry Potter books that spawned a huge genre of magic, demon, and occult related youth-oriented books, to zombies, to demon or occult focused video games, to you name it.  The spread of pornography use among our youth is not unrelated to all the above.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell my good readers, but know what your kids are doing.  Know who their friends are.  And, for goodness sake, if at all possible school them at home.  That will block over 90% of the potential for bad, even life-ruining, influence right there.

The occult and demonic are incredibly powerful.  Demons have intellectual and other capacities further above ours that we are above an animal.  Do not mess with them, ever!  They will win, and you will not be able to control what you start!  But provided we stay in the state of Grace, provided we receive the Sacraments and lead a pious life, we should have no problems from demons.  If you start to play around with them, though……..you could find yourself in a world of hurt very, very quickly.

US-China war “inevitable” unless US drops demands over South China Sea? May 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disconcerting, Flightline Friday, foolishness, huh?, non squitur, pr stunts, self-serving, Society, technology.
comments closed

No war is inevitable.  This is typical over-the-top rhetoric coming out of the Chicom press apparatus.  Still, it’s one of those areas that merits watching.  The Chinese have grown significantly more aggressive in their attempt to seize the Spratly Islands and de facto incorporate them into their territory (they are quite, quite distant). Allowing them to do so would put Chinese territory and the airbases they are constructing there directly astride the busiest shipping lanes in the world.  It would also set a dangerous precedent regarding appeasing an aggressive powert.

The Chinese are also massively expanded their military capabilities, and are probably spending about as much on defense now as the US, in spite of what their “official” statistics say.  Since the Chinese economy is now larger than ours, and they are probably spending a higher percentage of GDP than the US is on defense……..you do the math.  They keep the real amount of spending a close secret, but given the number of new aircraft and ship types they’ve unveiled in the past few years, including some fairly stealthy tactical aircraft, it seems they are spending at least comparable amounts to the US on developing new weapons systems – and may be spending quite a bit more.

The main reason the Chinese seek to stir up foreign trouble, whether it be the “Daiyou” islands, the Spratly’s, Pescadore’s, or anywhere else, is to divert the attention of their populace to their many internal problems.  Thus far, it’s been a quite effective tactic.  If you ever want a bizarre, borderline terrifying experience, go read pro-Chinese defense sites.  You’ll get a bellyful of the most crazed nationalism you’ve ever seen.  Not exactly a stable mix.china2_3318025b

China’s armed forces are to extend their operations and its air force will become an offensive as well as defensive force for the first time, in a major shift in policy that will strengthen fears of accidental conflict.

A policy document by the state council, or cabinet, said China faced a “grave and complex array of security threats”, justifying the change. [The threats always go unstated. However, in diplomatic language, a “grave” threat usually means war. But the Chinese are known for taking great liberties with the normal language of diplomacy, and tend to use over the top language as their first recourse]

The People’s Liberation Army, including its navy and air force, will be allowed to “project power” further beyond its borders at sea and more assertively in the air in order to safeguard its maritime possessions, the white paper stated.

The navy will add “open seas protection” to a traditional remit of “offshore waters defence”, it said. [The main focus of their very significant military expansion and modernization efforts has been the ability to project power.  China sees everything in what it calls the “third island chain” – including the US-held Marianas – as being within their area of total suzerainty, and they eventually want to get to the point where they have dominance within that vast region – meaning all foreign powers out.]

The posture risks escalating the tension over disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific, where the United States is determined to protect the interests of allies like Taiwan and the Philippines. [Not to US interests , one would think]

Only last week, a US aircraft ignored repeated warnings from the Chinese military to fly a reconnaissance mission over the islands. [US Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft.  Routine flight in international airspace, but the thing is, China is claiming 90% of the South China Sea as their territorial waters, meaning they would control virtually all shipping lanes from the Mideast and Europe to Japan, Korea, and even eastern Russia and the US]

Global Times, a tabloid newspaper run by the Communist Party, said that China might have to “accept” there would be conflict with the United States.

“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea”, said the paper, which is often seen as a mouth-piece of hardline nationalists in the government in Beijing.

State media reported on Tuesday that Beijing had begun building two lighthouses on reefs in the Spratly Islands, a smattering of outcrops that are claimed by an array of countries including not only China but also Vietnam and the Philippines. [They are doing a lot more than that.  They are constructing harbors, air bases, and numerous other facilities, all with a predominately military orientation.  They have basically seized these islands as a pretext to claiming the entire South China Sea there’s, and they are daring other nations to call their bluff by kicking them off]

Last month, satellite imagery revealed the Chinese had almost completed an air strip on another reef – Fiery Cross – while they are turning another rock, Mischief Reef, into a full island through land reclamation.

The Global Times article described the construction of runways, harbour facilities and buildings on the disputed Spratly Islands as SouthCHina_3270601bthe nation’s “most important bottom line”….. [Oh, good, then, you’re going to give independence to Taiwan and Hong Kong, then, right?]

…..“From the perspective of sovereignty, there is absolutely no difference”, he said, adding that “some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs”. [Meaning, what we do there doesn’t matter, it’s Chinese land, and we’re going to do what we want]

Analysts say neither Washington nor Beijing appear to be in the mood to back down and that there is a serious risk of a minor incident in airspace around the islands escalating rapidly.

“I think the concern has to be that China misjudges the situation”, said Robert Dujarric, director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at the Japan campus of Temple University.

“Neither party wants a war if it can be avoided, but there are red lines for both sides”, he said. “I worry whether Beijing considers the US to be a declining power[aren’t we?]  and assumes that Washington will back down if it shoots down a US observation aircraft”. [With President Surrender in office, if you were an aggressive foreign state with significant military capability, is that a risk you would take?  If it were me, I’d be grabbing all I could while this disinterested, narcissistic loser was still in power]

I’ll be straight up: I don’t like China as a nation.  They are communist, for one, but, even more, they are arrogant and expansionist.  I think they mean to cause trouble.  They bear endless grievances over previous Western slights and interventions in their country, and there are a goodly number of Chinese that seek redress of the most humiliating (read: violent) kind.

Then there is the whole matter of Japan.  If there is bad blood towards the increasingly decadent and declining West, there is even more towards Japan.  And not without some reason.  WWII is still bitterly remembered in China.  While the Japanese are expanding their modern Navy quite a bit, their air force is relatively small, aging, and ill-equipped, and their army, even more so.  But, they are also undergoing a cultural shift away from the imposed pacifism of the post-WWII regime, and towards a more “normal” interventionist policy.  Their political leadership is removing many of the taboos that have existed for decades against potential involvement in armed conflict – to no small amount of controversy.

I doubt anything serious develops in the near term (next few years), as the correlation of forces is not yet significantly in China’s favor and there is not much reason to shift from the status quo.  I do expect some possible unfortunate instances, though, like the shoot down or intentional ramming of some US recon assets.  In the longer term, I don’t think the Chinese tiger will be contained by the US. The mantle of responsibility (get it?) will shift elsewhere.

And maybe it was always wrong for the US to be the world’s policeman, anyway.   I increasingly have a hard time seeing the spread of US libertine democracy and cultural mores around the world as a good thing.

So, sort of an early Flightline Friday for me.

Introductory post: The “Bergoglio-Denzinger” on Francis’ ecumenism of blood May 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, episcopate, error, General Catholic, history, Papa, scandals, secularism, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

Francis’ recent statement regarding Christian persecution and the “devil-inspired ecumenism of blood,” was not his first foray into the topic.  I’d like to introduce you to a significant effort reader D alerted me to, called the “Denzinger-Bergoglio,” a site by some faithful priests, with approval of their bishop(s), who take some of Pope Francis’ statements and then compare them to statements of the traditional Magisterium.  The site started in Spanish for a Spanish milieu, but some like-minded priests are translating it into English. The priests of course remain anonymous.

The site takes it’s name from the Denzinger compendium of Catholic belief.  What they are doing is comparing many of Pope Francis’ more troubling statements to the established doctrine of the Faith.  As a sort of introduction to the site, I excerpt portions of their post on Pope Francis’ previous foray into examining this “ecumenism of blood,” in an interview given with Andrea Tornielli last year AND on other occasions.  Since they excerpt Pope Francis’ statements at length, I will take only the highlights from those, and then some of the “responses” from the Church’s perennial belief:

PF: Are you Christian? Boom!……They don’t ask them if they are Pentecostal, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox… Are they Christians? They kill them because they believe in Christ. This is the ecumenism of blood.

Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood……

“For persecutors, we are not divided; we are not Lutherans, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Catholics…No! We are one in their eyes! For persecutors we are Christians! They are not interested in anything else. This is the ecumenism of blood that we experience today….Spiritual ecumenism and the ecumenism of blood.

“We offer this Mass for our 21 Coptic brothers, slaughtered for the sole reason that they were Christians”. “Let us pray for them, that the Lord welcome them as martyrs, for their families, for my brother Tawadros, who is suffering greatly.” 

Now, some of the quotes from the Magisterium:

Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII)

-Salvation does not Exist Outside of the Church Even for Those who Have Shed their Blood for Christ

Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD)

-The ‘Martyrs’ of the Heretic are Aliens from God

Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe

-Non-Members of the Catholic Church Cannot be Saved, Even if they Shed Their Blood for the Name of Christ

Saint Cyprian of Carthage

-The Blood Shed by a Schismatic does not Wash Away the Stain of Sin
-The Torments Suffered by a Schismatic do not Serve as a Crown, but rather a Chastisement for his Perfidy
-The Baptism of Blood is Useless to a Heretic

Saint Augustine

-Those who, as Schismatics, do not Lead a Christian Life, do not Die as Martyrs
-Those who Rebel against the Body of Christ cannot presume to be persecuted for His Sake
-If a Schismatic Dies Guilty of Sacrilege how may He be Baptized by his Blood?
-The Same Furnace which Purifies the Martyrs, Reduces Heretics to Ashes

Benedict XIV

-Even if a Heretic Dies for one Article of the True Faith, He may not be Considered a Martyr

For each of the above, D-B then expands on the topic with quotes from the original source. To show you how that works, the bit from the Council of Florence (which, by the way, featured the temporary reunion of the schismatic Orthodox and the presence of Eastern Orthodox bishops) above expands to:

Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII):

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger-Hünermann 1351. Council of Florence, Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites, February 4, 1442)

OK, how about that Synod of Laodicea?

Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD):

Canon 9: The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyrs of any of the heretics, for prayer or service. […]
Canon 34: No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.  (Synod of Laodicea, The Canons, Canon 9/34)

Finally, they add a critically important supplement to the above with resources on so-called invincible ignorance, which has quite often been abused to morph into a kind of catch-all means of salvation for heretics and schismatics.  Great stuff:

Saint Thomas Aquinas:

 Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. […] if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. […] A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica II-II q. 5, a. 3)

You get the point.  You can go to the D-B site to read all the rest of the citations they have.

They do not draw conclusions.  They let Catholics, guided by faith and reason, reach their own.  I’ll do the same.  Note, they have commentary on many of Pope Francis’ voluminous statements.  There is quite a bit of analysis there, the site is really a valuable resource.

I will add this, however.  While the volume and extent of surprising statements from the papacy has certainly appeared to increase with Pope Francis, in truth, all of the post-conciliar pontiffs, even John Paul I, have made quite similar statements at times.  You can even find them occasionally in John XXIII and, more rarely, Pius XII.  Some try to use that as evidence of “A ha!  See, Pope Francis isn’t doing anything different from them, he must be OK!”  I see that continuity, to the degree it exists, less as an explanation and justification of Pope Francis’ words and actions, but more as an indication that the Church has suffered from a severe lack of catechesis and leadership, even at the very top, for decades.

The tragedy of children raised by “transgender” parents May 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Denise Shick was raised by a gravely disordered and perverse father, a man who thought he was a woman. She relates how devastating this experience was for her as a girl growing up, leading to early substance abuse and grave psychological difficulties that, I imagine, persist to this day.  She is writing in reaction to President Hussein’s recent declaration that he thinks “transgendered” individuals should be able to adopt. Her crowning point, which cannot be repeated enough, is that, as with every other sexular pagan innovation, it is the children who most bear the cost of the adult’s new-found sexual “freedom” (emphasis and comments per usual):

In a presidential proclamation for National Foster Care Month, Obama wrote, “With so many children waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure all qualified caregivers have the opportunity to serve as foster or adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.”…… [This is garbage.  There are thousands of normally married couples out there waiting to adopt, but babies are going to sodomites and, God forbid, “transgenders,” due to progressive inclinations at many adoption agencies and the superior riches of many of the perverse. It is highly debatable that there is a true shortage of married couples desiring to adopt]

……I was raised by a transgender father.

I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father[This is heart-breaking]

I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to. [And, the same applies to two “moms,” or two “dads,” or, frankly, single parents.  I know single parenthood is very common and there are people abandoned by their spouses who did nothing to deserve it, but it is still a deficient/disordered situation, at best]

My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.

There is nothing more painful for a daughter than to watch her dad put on a bra or have him wear your clothes. No daughter should have to place her clothes in her dresser drawers by a code so she can know if he had been pawing through her underclothes. [And this is supposed to be not just “normal” now, but good, brave, transgressive!  What a load of satanic LIES we are fed!]

It is not fair or healthy for a daughter to feel guilty about her developing body, or about becoming a woman. But in today’s world we encourage children to accept their parent’s sexual desires. We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children. [That’s been the entire point of the sexual revolution, to get adults to dissociate the pleasure of their gonads from the procreation and raising of children.  And it has been children – aborted children, contracepted children, abandoned children, children of divorce, poor little girls absolutely tortured like this one, who have paid the price.]

As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.

Of course not!  Because that would undermine the agenda of creating a neo-pagan sexualarist Brave New World!

It is actually a tremendous blessing the wheels are going to fly off of this thing, that this culture is almost certainly headed for collapse, given what it will surely become absent such.  But God will not be mocked, and He will allow our own sins to destroy us.  Economically, morally, culturally, this culture is either dead or on life support.  Politically and militarily will not come far behind that.  There will be grievous persecution first, then, the collapse.

Beyond that, either centuries of Catholic rebuilding, or the survivors will get a crash course in eschatology.

The morality of “prepping” May 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, manhood, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

There has been a growing movement in this country of people who go to great lengths to prepare for some possible future disaster – “prepping.”  These “preppers” are often gun nuts like myself, but go several steps further in not only acquiring personal protection (morally acceptable for many scenarios), but also stockpiling large quantities of food, water, medical supplies, fuel, etc.  Preppers as a whole are generally quite concerned that the current lavishly wealthy civil society we enjoy will at some point break down – through war, natural disaster, cyber attack, whatever – and that the elaborate, complex systems of supply, with “last minute” delivery of products and little reserve stockpiles of necessary items, will fundamentally break down, never to return.

This movement has grown to such proportions there are TV programs about preppers, and a whole subgenre of the disaster movie motif has been developed around prepping and end of the world type scenarios.  One of the more compelling of these is shown below (warning: strong violence, immoral dress, rape strongly hinted at):

The point of this post is not to examine the foolish lack of preparation for even minor calamities in most Americans today.  Nor is it to examine stockpiling food, water, ammunition, or anything else.  How to prepare for potential disaster in any regard is a prudential judgment each individual soul has to make.  If you want to invest tens of thousands of dollars in disaster preparedness, that’s just fine and dandy to me.  I certainly do believe there are many prudent steps individuals, and especially fathers as the spiritual and moral heads of their families, can and even must take to provide for the well-being of their families should our none-too-robust market-infrastructure dynamic break down for any reason, be it on a local or a global basis.

What I am interested in examining – and I really have not seen any catechesis on this – is the moral implications of having a well-prepared stockpile in times of crisis, when millions of others most certainly won’t.  My wife and I had a long discussion about this the other night, and she had some pretty strong opinions.  Some of those moral quandaries are shown in the film above, with the super-prepper family denying supplies to others and it almost coming to the point of armed conflict.

So, just a few hypotheticals:  if you’re a well-stocked, “prepped” type individual, whether in town or out in the country, and you are approached by starving individuals, crazed with thirst, could you, in good conscience, deny them supplies needed to keep them alive?  Even assuming it is a 100% certitude that if you do supply the first few people, you’ll, a) be stuck with them forever, at least until the crisis ends, because they have nowhere else to go, and b) you also know they’ll get word out to many others that here be a stockpile of food and everything else.  Would it depend on who constituted the group, or even individual, who approached you?  It might be easier, but would it be more moral, to turn away 3 starving, highly aggressive and armed men, than a docile family with children with bloated stomachs and a mother with hollowed out eyes? Assuming you have a well-stocked supply adequate for you and your family for months or even a couple of years, and you are the father, the protector and defender of your family, does that change the situation, morally?  Are you only responsible to provide for your own, and not only that, but to defend your supplies against those who did not prepare, who were starving within a day or two of the catastrophe, and who would likely reduce your stockpile to nothing in a matter of days, if not hours?  Is there some line to draw,  in terms of numbers helped?  I’ll help the first 10, but none beyond that?  And what if desperation rises to the point of armed conflict………would you be willing to kill to protect your supplies?

Some of the more difficult problems with all these scenarios are: we will have no idea at the time if the situation is temporary or permanent, how long it will persist, what kind of aid if any may be available anywhere else (assuming electricity and communications have almost completely broken down), how long our own limited supplies will thus have to last, how many people may eventually approach us, etc., etc.

I don’t mean to imply these are easy questions.  I personally would have a great deal of trouble turning away anyone, no matter how foolishly ill-prepared, in such a scenario.  And yet, most of the prepper movement, as fairly accurately depicted in the movie above, is pretty much predicated on keeping your own horde intact and denying it to others.  Naturalistically, if I had a 2 month supply of food for my family, if I started handing it out, it wouldn’t last very long, would it?  But the question is, would such denial be morally acceptable?

Another question…….is having a large stockpile in such a situation simply to make oneself a target and invite the attention of a lot of others?  In all but the most distantly rural environments, would they not eventually overwhelm you with numbers?

Obviously, I have a lot of scattered thoughts on this matter.

I bring all this up because there have been disaster preparedness classes taught at our parish for a year or more, but, so far as I know, there has been little if any guidance given to souls on the moral imperatives that would apply under these conditions.  I really cannot believe that the proper, Catholic moral response is simply all bets are off, it’s every man for himself and the many millions who are not prepared be damned.

But at the same time, it is a virtual certitude that in a long term wide scale disaster scenario, sharing your supplies will mean that your own wife and children (as well as yourself) will be among the starving and thirsty that much sooner, perhaps even within  few days.  Has anyone seen or read any reliable, Catholic moral guidance on this?

Is it morally necessary to trust in God, share all you have freely, and if that means slow starvation, then it must be His will?  Or is that more heroic, but not necessary, moral virtue?