jump to navigation

“I want them all [Christians] to die in a fire” September 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

A few brief quotes from Maggie Gallagher (quoting a lot of Irish today!) on the subject of the growing progressive hatred of Christians.  I disagree with Gallagher that because the views below are representative of only a minority of progressives, we need not be overly concerned.  The numbers are less important then who these progressives are.  They are the most well-educated, well-connected elite among progressives, and the history of the past several decades has conclusively shown that the views this elite holds almost always trickles down to the great majority of the rank and file.  If the best educated, best paid, most influential progressives are burning with a de-humanizing, irrational hatred for Christians (that is, realizing the basic nature of leftism), history indicates that before very long, the vast majority of progressives will share these views.

I picked this up via CMR, I cut to the chase with the most bombastic quotes:

………they found is that religious prejudice is much more prominent than racial prejudice…….

………But the difference that leapt out for Yancey and Williamson is between the social groups who are anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim or anti-black, and those who dislike conservative Christians: the anti-fundamentalist animus was the prejudice of the powerful, not (like hatred of Muslims or Jews) of the relatively powerless. “Our research confirms the finding of our 2010 study that people who harbor animosity towards conservative Christians hold relatively high levels of social power.”………

…….“I want them all to die in a fire,” said one man with a doctorate. “I would be in favor of establishing a state for them. . . . If not then sterilize them so they can’t breed more,” said a middle aged man with a master’s degree. [Note how comfortable the extreme  left is with the language and tactics of the cruelest totalitarian states.  This is straight out of Nazism]“The only good Christian is a dead Christian,” said another under-45-year-old man with a doctorate. “I abhor them and I wish we could do away with them,” said a middle-aged woman with a master’s degree. “A tortuous death would be too good for them,” said a college-educated man between the ages of 36 and 45. “They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse,” said an elderly woman with a master’s degree. [Again, almost verbatim a Hitler phrase]

……Yancey and Williamson asked these anti-Christian progressives…….what laws they would support to “deal with” conservative Christians……[A] substantial minority (37 percent) could think of many laws they wished to pass, from stripping churches of tax exemptions, to banning homeschooling[They hate, hate, HATE us for homeschooling. They recognize why most parents homeschool and the threat that poses to the satanic sexular pagan dystopia they want to foist on us all]

Astonishingly, many well-educated progressives in this sample supported laws stripping conservative Christians of basic human rights: “Restrict their ability to become judges, senators, representatives, member of Cabinet, military chief of staff and other powerful members of government,” said a man over 75 with a bachelor’s degree. [Because Christians aren’t quite human] “Should not be able to make decisions regarding the law, they should somehow have to be supervised if they are working with other people (drastic, I know),” said a woman under 45 with a master’s degree. “We should put in place mandatory extreme prison sentences for anyone or any group that attempts to take away civil liberties guaranteed by our constitution,” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. [Apparently, and I mean this with all sincerity, something about succumbing to an extremely militant, leftist viewpoint also means jettisoning and and all sense of irony.  Don’t you find the idea of someone advocating for the stripping of someone else’s rights under the guise that the dreaded “other” somehow threatens those same rights a bit ironic?] “Churches should not be allowed to provide orphanages and adoption programs,” said one elderly man with a doctorate. [What’s with all these oldsters hating on the Church?] I think we should restrict the indoctrination of children in religious dogma and ritual” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. Conservative Christians should “not be allowed to hold political office, be police etc., serve in the armed forces,” said another middle aged man with a doctorate. [And again, who wants to strip whose rights?]

Yikes. Mind you, 37% of self-identified progressives held opinions generally of this kind, if not always quite so virulent (I’m frankly not sure), but, again, the survey identifies these folks as the “thought leaders” of the left.  It is their ideas that tend to influence the rank and file and drive the progressive agenda.

At root, leftism – or the Revolution, still ongoing – is about total rejection of the idea of a higher Being to which submission is required, and the indulging of all the passions as a sort of demonstration of the rejection of God.  Indulging of the passions is the Revolution’s prime selling point to the masses – “you get rid of your delusions about God,” they claim,”and we’ll make it so you can enjoy your every whim of perversion and license!”  That’s the basic tradeoff.

But there is a further aspect to the tradeoff that goes unspoken: not only do you have to give up your ideas regarding God, you have to accept the leftist overlord in the position of God, determining what kind of job you can have, how much money you can make, intimate aspects of family life, government intrusion into every possible minute aspect of daily life, etc.  That’s the great “trade” they propose – you give us unlimited power, and we’ll give you unlimited sexual license. At least for a brief while. Almost all totalitarian leftist states have required – of necessity, they have found – a return to at least some kind of moral order after their absolute suzerainty is assured.  There are variables…….the USSR under Lenin and early in Stalin’s rule was as amoral and licentious as they came, but the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot instilled an almost monastic life of forcible self-denial on virtually everyone not of the highest elite immediately upon taking power.

Key takeaways: they hate us with a blinding passion, they hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are, and given enough power, they will instill a persecution as severe, if not more so, than any the Church has endured in Her 2000 year history.  And all the bleating and professions of fervent progressive faith many bishops and priests make on a daily basis won’t matter a whit, because they will belong to l’infame, the object of hatred of the satanic Revolution since 1517 and before.  Unless, of course, those progressive churchmen apostasize, then they’ll be eagerly used for the confusion and destruction they can sow.

As many good priests and holy people have been warning us, we had better get prayed up.  I fear we face a very painful future, but one that is not necessarily dark, but actually full of light for us, if we remain faithful!

Confusion, chaos spreading in wake of annulment Motu Proprio September 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, Domestic Church, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I have been waiting to see some reaction to Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio  Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus before commenting, and now I have some from a somewhat surprising source.  It’s not surprising that a canon lawyer would comment on this encyclical, which is certainly right up his alley, but when Ed Peters starts to loudly lament that this Motu Proprio is already causing great confusion and alarm, that’s something worthy of notice:

The most confusing point about this list [of grounds for annulment] is that some of these factors, though presented as reasons for hearing a petition quickly, are actually grounds for nullity (e.g., simulation, force or fear); other factors, however, are most emphatically not grounds for annulment (e.g., brevity of married life); and others might, or might not, be suggestive of grounds for nullity (e.g., an extra-marital affair near the time of the wedding might show a grave lack of discretion of judgement or an inability to assume matrimonial rights and duties). Because traditional grounds of nullity have been mixed in among things that could b eevidence for other grounds of nullity, and further mixed with things that are not grounds for nullity and often are not even evidence of grounds for nullity, confusion will—and already has, judging from questions I have already received from the faithful—erupt as to whether these factors are not just reasons to hear a case speedily, but are themselves proof of matrimonial nullity. Try to explain to non-canonists why one thing the pope listed (say, simulation) is grounds for an annulment but another thing he listed (say, pregnancy) is not grounds for an annulment. [And here I must interject my continuing concern over what I term, with a bit of hyperbole, hypermontanism. You have Catholics now actively fretting whether their 30 year marriage might be invalid because of something the Pope said.  Look, my wife and I have had our ups and downs, I was a committed addict, for crying out loud, but neither of us have ever doubted whether our marriage was valid sacramentally.  Even though I wasn’t a Catholic at the time, of course it was, I knew what I was doing, and so did my lovely bride.  Hopefully some of this concern is tongue in cheek, but if a bunch of folks are now seriously wondering whether their marriage is valid because the wife was pregnant at the time…….how sad]

Worse, many, many married couples have experienced one or more of these events in their lives. Unfortunately—again I say this has already started!—people with any of these factors in their lives are going to wonder, logically and sincerely, whether their marriage might be null. They will worry, for example, whether the fact that she was pregnant at the time of the wedding means their marriage is null. If not, why does it mean that an annulment case could be heard more quickly? Or, if he was not very active in the Faith when they married, did he just pretend for (technically, simulate) his wedding promises? Many of these questions are obviously highly dependent on fact analysis (e.g., what is “improper concealment” of infertility, what counts as “incarceration”?), and so one must ask, how are such cases reliably to be investigated, considered, and decided by a bishop (a man with about a hundred other things to do at any given time) in a matter of a few weeks?

Of course, in no time, this list of reasons to hear nullity cases quickly will lengthen greatly. And why not? If physical violence to extort marriage consent justifies a speedy hearing from a bishop, should not physical violence inflicted during the marriage also qualify? If pregnancy at the time of the wedding is grounds for a quick process, should not drug or alcohol or sexual abuse qualify as well? Last year Cdl. Kasper recklessly, but perhaps accurately, claimed that Francis believes half of all marriages to be null. I think that assertion, no matter who said it, is wrong, but it will take little imagination to conclude that half of all marriage cases should qualify for quick adjudication by diocesan bishops. Finally, if factors such as previous jail terms, abortions, or affairs leave a couple’s marriage liable to expedited annulment processing, is there now an obligation on couples to disclose such matters to each other—regardless of the implications such disclosures might portend for personal privacy and the internal forum? [For goodness sake, no!  What on earth would be the point, to encourage a possible divorce?!?  Yeah, that’s just brilliant advice]

At the pope’s request, a tiny group of experts, most from just one country, developed these new canons and explanations in a very short time. [Incredibly short. Just under a year.  That is unprecedented, and indicates not careful thought, but a rush to put something, anything out just prior to the Ordinary Synod.] I find, however, the implications of some of these norms for marriage law in general, and for diocesan bishops in particular, stunning, and I join Dr. Kurt Martens of CUA in wondering how bishops must feel at having such significant burdens thrust on them just in time for Christmas with, as far as one can see, virtually no prior consultation. I expressly cautioned against this approach last year and sound that claxon again. Assuming, in any event, that I have read the new norms correctly, and assuming that there are no easy resolutions to my concerns, what might one suggest? [A random thought. We know from painful experience how many bishops have chosen to ignore, or just sit on, a previous Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum.  Could that not occur in this case?]

First, and most importantly, the vacatio legis (a delay period before new laws go into effect per Canon 8) indicated for Mitis should be extended from this December until well into next year at the very least. If, as some assert, Francis’ annulment reforms are the most significant in the last three hundred years, a considerably longer period than three months is needed to prepare for them. If necessary, a request for an extension could be proposed by the upcoming Synod of Bishops. [Don’t hold yer breath]

Second, a much wider consultation about annulment reform should be conducted, a consultation that would involve, at a minimum, many identified diocesan bishops (identified precisely so observers could forward remarks to them) and canonists from several countries, especially from countries with extensive tribunal operational experience.

I have also read the considered opinion of some observers that not only does this new annulment process make uncontested petitions for annulment (where both parties agree/desire the annulment) much easier/more likely, it also makes contested ones (where one party is opposed to the declaration of nullity) easier and thus more likely to occur, as well.

But I think the process by which this document was developed and released, obviously in such haste and without due consideration of the implications (or knowing the implications full well, and actually desiring the chaos that would result), is the most disconcerting, and revealing, aspect of all this.  If Pope Francis’ intent was to dispel the “darkness of doubt” that some souls – he claims – are experiencing with regard to their marital status (after an already accomplished divorce?), the vagueness and imprecision of terms used in this Motu Proprio certainly do little to put that doubt to rest, but in fact seem to have caused an explosion of doubt among souls in untroubled, long-standing marriages, if canonist Peters is to be believed (and I have no reason not to).

It must be noted that the Church in these United States “experimented” with a major element of Pope Francis’ “reforms” 40 years ago.  It was an unmitigated disaster and something that was directly corrected by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  That element was the removal of the automatic appeal process. What happened in practice is that no one knew, or was told, that appeal was even possible and a huge number of annulments were pushed through, including some highly dubious ones.  The lack of automatic appeal seems, from the American experience, to almost invite abuse of the process, as Patrick Archbold notes.

Look, I get the desire to allow people who had genuinely invalid marriages (in whatever percentages they exist, my own surmise is that the numbers are quite small) to move on with their lives, but every single divorce/annulment must be viewed as an enormous tragedy to be avoided at almost all costs, save true neglect/danger/abuse. I generally fear and loathe anything that tends to give legitimacy to divorce and make it easier to obtain.  I can’t conclude that definitively about these reforms, yet, but the initial overview does not look good.  This reads much more like a focused attempt at the imposition of a certain ideology rather than a truly pastoral action with the best for souls in mind.  It was simply too rushed to be well considered, and I tend to agree with Mr. Archbold that this will not end well.

Video: how leftism and Peronism in particular destroyed Argentina’s economy September 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I think this has great relevance from a Catholic perspective, even though the video does not approach the topic from that 51Yplq909dL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_persective, per se’.

Understanding of the history of Argentina is generally very weak in the United States.  I am by no means a great expert.  However, I would argue that the video-creator errs a bit in claiming that Argentina had the second largest economy in the world after the US in the early 20th century. I imagine Germany would have something to say about that, and possibly Britain.  I think what he meant to say was that Argentina had the 2nd largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, that it was diversified, productive, and growing, to the extent that some foreign observers (such as some Brits) openly wondered whether Argentina or the US would emerge as the dominant Western Hemisphere power in the early 20th century.  I think that was a bit of wishful thinking on the part of certain elements of Peronismo-adoctrina-ninios-primaria-propaganda-1British society that still had heartache over the American Revolution, but whatever.

Nonetheless, the general course of the video is quite correct.  Argentina had a vibrant economy with high productivity until a radical leftist party, preying on the deadly sin of envy, convinced a good number of Argentines that some had it better than them and were deliberately keeping them mired in relative poverty.  Similar governments rose to power in various parts of the world during this same time-frame, it was the beginning of the third phase of the great anti-Catholic Revolution, the instigation of hard socialist and communist governments.  526991

Later on, Peron perfected the art of the demagogic, charismatic and totalitarian South American dictator, using class envy to divide opponents and build up a base of support.  He deliberately courted the Church as part of this process, and did win over large segments of the Church in Argentina.  Peron’s model was less Hitler (with whom he maintained warm relations, however) than Mussolini.  It was Peronism that cemented highly destructive leftist economic policies (very high taxation, nationalization of key industries, massive wealth transfers (vote buying), and government economic planning) and a totalitarian yen into Argentine society that is still present to this day.  Even though he was ousted in a military coup, he returned to power twice, and his daughter just finished up her turn as El Presidente.  Over the course of decades of Peronist control, Argentina’s formerly vibrant economy has been turned into a pathetic wreck.

The concern for Catholics is quite clear.  Maureen Mullarkey argues quite persuasively of Pope Francis’ fundamentally Peronist attitude towards many economic, political, and social issues.  But if Peronism has already been tried and proven a failure, what is being advocated by Francis is not a fresh new approach towards government economic policy from an authentically Catholic perspective, but yet another re-hash of failed South American populist socialism, the same kind of socialism presently so resurgent on that unhappy continent,spreading misery from Venezuela to Ecuador images (9)to Bolivia.  In fact, socialism has never been so widespread in South America as it is now.  And yet all of these countries are experiencing critical shortages of even the most basic necessities, while the authoritarian leadership, like the Peron’s, secretly acquires massive wealth by pilfering it from a deluded, gullible public.  Some of that wealth is used to buy off more support, but most of it fills the fabulous gold-lined pockets of the dictators of these banana republics.

I think it should go without saying that Peronismo is not a politico-economic system that accords well with the Church’s well-developed Magisterium on these matters.  It stands in marked contrast, for instance, to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno on the proper arrangement of the Christian corporatist state.  For one thing, any economic system or political philosophy grounded in the deadly sin of envy and which purports to create an earthly paradise of strictly human construction is diametrically opposed to the Doctrine of the Faith.

I just wanted to provide some background on what Peronism is and the extremely negative effect it has had on the nation of Argentina.  I don’t think Francis can be rightly understood without understanding Peronism, of which his family were fervent supporters. For more on that, read this post from Sandro Magister, including this incredible quote from Pope Francis:

I come from a radical family, my uncle was a ‘radical of ’90’ [editor’s note: the party born from the revolutionary movement that overturned the ruling regime in 1890]. Then, as an adolescent, I also got a crush on the ‘zurdaje’ [editor’s note: Argentine term that indicates the left], reading books from the Communist Party that were given to me by my teacher Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, a great woman who had been secretary of the Partido revolucionario febrerista paraguayo. [You know the old saying, about the acorn not falling very far from the tree?]

“In those years the political culture was very lively. I liked to get in on everything. Between 1951 and 1952 I would wait anxiously for the arrival, three times a week, of the socialist militants who sold ‘La Vanguardia.’ And naturally I also frequented social justice groups. But I never signed up for any party.”

The “social justice groups” that Pope Francis said he frequented were precisely those of the followers of Perón, who called his own ideology “justicialista” – a blending of “justice” and “socialism” – and gave his party the name of “Partido justicialista”.

In the five pages of reminiscences that Pope Francis dedicates to politics in the book cited, there is not even one word that sounds the least bit critical of Perón, in spite of the anti-Catholic character of the end of his first presidency and the excommunication issued against him by Pius XII in 1955.

Others appear to be taking note, as well.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Francis is the most narrow, provincial Pope elected in at least the last 300 years, and probably far longer back than that.  He is what he is, but what of the men who willingly elected him?  They connived and cajoled and got their man, apparently.  May the Lord have pity on His Church.


Is the national pro-life establishment engaging in a huge sellout over Planned Barrenhood de-funding? September 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, disaster, disconcerting, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

Erick Erickson at RedState thinks so.  In fact, he absolutely pillories the growing institutionalization of the pro-life movement, something I’ve lamented many times on this blog, arguing that many major national pro-life leaders and organizations do not actually want to see abortion go away, since their rather comfy livelihoods and the empires they’ve built depend on it remaining, for the most part, legal.  Erickson is throwing down the gauntlet for a “government shutdown” over de-funding of Planned Barrenhood, but he believes the Repubnik higher-ups and the pro-life groups have already reached a modus vivendi that they won’t do anything more than kabuki theater to that end:

For decades, the GOP and Pro-Life groups have been pouring in money from people who want to stop the killing of innocent children.


Now we have videos of Planned Parenthood pulling whole children from freezers. We have videos of Planned Parenthood cutting open the head of a little boy while his heart is beating to extract his brain. We have videos of Planned Parenthood haggling over prices. [These videos make my blood absolutely boil.  I just saw the sonogram of our baby yesterday, and I think how Planned Butcherhood uses sonograms to remove babies from women while keeping their money-making parts intact. We now have conclusive evidence that Damned Butcherhood routinely births live children to harvest their parts.  And yet the entrenched self-anointed leadership is already cowering before negative media coverage in the event Obama shuts down government over a Planned Barrenhood de-funding. And that will be the case, it won’t be the Republicans “shutting down government,” but the demonrats. The media, however, will spin it to be all the spineless, no-good R’s fault, and they haven’t got 1/10th the backbone to stand against that]

So now a large portion of the Pro-Life Movement™ and Republican Leadership are going to scramble to tell you that defunding Planned Parenthood will accomplish nothing and a government shutdown will do nothing.

Already, they are making the case that shutting down the government will not stop Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood gets money from mandatory spending, not discretionary spending. They have structured a system so they can take your money in the name of saving babies while doing nothing to stop it.

It is also utter crap.

If Republicans and the Pro-Life Movement™ want to stop Planned Parenthood, they would stop Planned Parenthood.

But they don’t really want to fight. They just want you to keep writing checks.

They will find excuses to let the killings continue and the money keep flowing all while trying to convince you not to believe your lying eyes.

I think this is absolutely true. There are pro-life organizations that are absolutely dedicated towards the true eradication of abortion and all threats to innocent life like Texas Right to Life.  Then there are other organizations who are far more institutionalized and willing to compromise.  I’m far from certain many of these groups really want to see abortion (or euthanasia, or) permanently ended. Sure, they want to report various small “victories” like certain mild limits being placed on abortion or requiring the viewing of sonograms, but it’s not clear whether these small victories are having much impact on reducing the number of abortions overall.  While surgical abortions have dropped, it seems chemical abortions have dramatically increased.

Perhaps Erickson and I and unfair in our assessments (I would say I’m not as down on pro-life groups as he seems to be), but I think there is a problem of institutionalization and mixed motives entering into the pro-life movement.  Not so much at the grass-roots, but among leadership in certain organizations.

I can say one thing – I already posted that it seems some of these major pro-life groups really believe that the post-2016 election timeframe will represent the best shot “in a generation” to repeal Roe v. Wade.  I really have no idea how they are arriving at that conclusion, it seems a forlorn hope to me (Repubniks will likely lose Senate seats and may even lose control, and who knows who the nominee will be), especially given that even with historic majorities in both houses, the R’s have managed to do absolutely NOTHING in terms of rolling back Obama’s socialist agenda or reversing destructive cultural trends.  In fact, they have willingly implemented major elements of Obama’s policies while performing kabuki theater to fool the base, pretending they tried their best but were just foiled by that cagey Obama again.

On what possible basis, then, do these pro-life groups believe that Roe v. Wade will be  under serious threat in 2017?  Even if the Republicans maintain control of both houses and win the White House, what even remote evidence is there that they will move to outlaw abortion? Give. Me. A. Break.  That is nothing but fantasy, or worse, even more kabuki theater from pro-life groups pretending if we let Planned Barrenhood pass this present crisis, we’ll get ’em next year.

Bullshit.  First of all, abortion will never go away until mass contraception use goes away, and many pro-life organizations are wishy-washy at best on contraception.  Secondly, there doesn’t exist anything remotely like a public consensus on making abortion illegal, and if the R’s and pro-life groups are afraid of what the media will do in the face of a “government shutdown,” how on earth do they expect to stand the onslaught that a move to de-legalize abortion would foster?!?  There aren’t more than a handful of R’s who would touch that with a ten foot pole.

Enjoy your theater.


Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, attachments, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, Latin Mass, manhood, persecution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed


Let’s see some more men come out!  I get at least 1000 different readers a week from the Dallas Diocese and at least 30-40% of those have to be male.  Everyone who comes out has a family and is very busy. We all are.  It’s all a matter of priority.

So come on out!  It’s a tremendous spiritual work of mercy!  To all you men who have already come, thank you, God bless you, please keep it up!

I will be praying outside  The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on WEDNESDAY SEPT 9 @ 8pm.  I will actually be across the street in the parking lot of the US Post Office.  This is directly across from the entrance to the inappropriately named “gentleman’s club.”  

We’ve had some good turnout.  I pray all of you are able to come back out this time.

The post office parking lot is well lit and set back some distance from the very busy roadway.  It is public land so we cannot be harassed for being there.  It’s really an ideal situation, we are basically impossible to miss by patrons leaving this sexually oriented business (SOB).  Men over 18 only.  All men are welcome.  You don’t have to be a member of a particular parish.  I will stay for at least an hour, maybe an hour and a half, depending on how many show up.

Just to be clear we have had no occasions of sin stemming from being adjacent to a strip club.  We are out in public and have experienced no scandal at all to this point.

No protesting, just prayer.  If we are approached by anyone associated with the SOB let one man interact with them while the rest provide prayer support.

This is a small way to push back against the culture of license, perversion, and death.  Maybe it’s even a way to get that canonized “smell of the sheep” we hear so much about.

PS – I think everyone who has come out has enjoyed it.  Every time is different.