jump to navigation

Islam and Leftism – BFFs July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

A couple of indicators that my theorem that the religion of leftism truly only abhors ONE religion – Christianity – and that it will not only tolerate, but willingly submit to islam (or whatever else, but none seem likely to pose a similar threat in the foreseeable future) as their own false religious beliefs gradually fall to tatters before the face of an unyielding reality have come to light recently.

The first – islam is growing rapidly in communist Cuba, and the government – which has persecuted Catholics for decades – seems none too concerned:

Pedro Lazo Torres, known as the Imam Yahya, said there used to be so few Muslims in Cuba that they could hold their prayers inside someone’s home. As they grew, their prayers spilled out into the street. Torres is now president of Cuba’s Islamic League and says the number of Cubans asking to convert continues to increase.

He now operates out of a mosque that was inaugurated in June of 2015 thanks tofunding from Turkey’s president, Recep Erdoğan. Located in Old Havana, the mosque sits next to an Islamic museum, known as The Arab House, and has brand new Spanish-Arabic copies of the Koran…….

……..But for an island that sees little immigration, most Muslims in Cuba are converts.

“Ninety-nine percent of Cuban Muslims are converted to Islam and not descended of Arabs,” said Ahmed Abuero, the mosque’s religious leader…….

……..Standing on the doorstep of the mosque, Carlos Manuel, 17, a nursing student who adopted the Islamic name Ahmed Abdel Salam, says he converted to Islam over a year ago.

“My three brothers are all Christians,” he said. “For now.”

Abuero hears that and whispers “Inshallah,” or “God willing.”

Catholicism in Cuba has been pounded for decades, to the extent that a population that was once 99% Catholic is now perhaps 25%, and really only a handful actually practice the Faith seriously.  It is hardly surprising, then, that islam would make such inroads.  A further factor is Cuban’s indoctrination in leftism for decades, and a local Church that has long been morally weak and corrupt (as the biography of St. Anthony Marie Claret so clearly reveals).  Thus, souls are starved, and fed almost entirely on false progressive pablum.  Easy pickins.

Nevertheless, many of the souls now converting to islam were at least baptized Catholic, and are now throwing away their birthright for a mess of poisonous pottage.  What a tragedy.

On another continent, islam continues to advance in once secular, left-wing leaning Turkey.  It seems Kamal Ataturk’s plan to secularize Turkey has completely failed, and Turkey is descending further and further into radical islamism.  Once again, souls starved on a thin progressive gruel are casting about for anything real to replace it, and, in the absence of any substantive missionary efforts on the part of the ecumaniacal post-VII Church, muslim prayers were heard in the Hagia Sophia over the weekend for the first time in over 80 years:

The first Muslim call to prayer in the post-Atatürk era from within the Hagia Sophia occurred last week on July 1.

The former basilica, converted by force into a mosque in the 15th century, hosted a call to prayer the last Friday of Ramadan this year after the government allowed regular recitations of the Quran from within throughout the Muslim holy month. Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper notes that, while Muslim calls to prayer have been made in designated prayer areas in the Hagia Sophia complex – near the minarets Muslim conquerers added to it following the siege of Constantinople – it has not been made in the building itself in nearly a century.

The Hagia Sophia, one of the most important sites in Christian history, ceased being a mosque in 1935 after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, designated the site a secular museum……..

……The Hagia Sophia, and Turkey generally, has come under increasing Islamization during the tenure of current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Shortly before Ramadan began, Erdogan’s government announced that the site would host Koranic recitations throughout the month, an unprecedented extended use in the post-Atatürk era……

…….Turkish leaders in the ruling Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) and prominent clerics have appeared confident that the Hagia Sophia will soon be designated a mosque.

And so 90+ years of a progressive, secular oriented government in Turkey come to a close, replaced by militant islam.  This one particularly hurts, because the Hagia Sophia church is such a symbol of not only Christendom, but especially Christendom’s long resistance to muslim aggression.  Muslims are very aware of such symbolism. Having the Hagia Sophia as a mosque is, to them, incredibly important, as it symbolizes in stark terms islam’s ascendance over the West, and, especially, Christianity.

I fear especially for the ancient mosaics that have been restored in the glorious structure.  Most were lost forever when muslims either ripped them from the walls or covered them in concrete after seizing the church – for centuries, Christendom’s grandest.  A few have been restored to at least some semblance of their former glory.  But islam is a totally iconoclastic religion, even more so than the errant Judaism from which it is derived, so if the Hagia Sophia returns to being a full-time mosque, how long will these irreplaceable artistic treasures and monuments to a glorious faith survive?

Darkness seems to be descending all around the world.



Should I Even Bother? A Catalog of Recent Atrocities from the Bishop of Rome July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Yes, I said atrocities.  What else can you say when the man given the office of the Chair of Peter, chosen to be Christ’s sweet vicar on earth, accompanied by unimaginable torrents of Grace if he would only avail himself of them, instead of adhering to his own, stupid will, says that priests should butt out of people’s moral lives?

At a general audience after the conference, the Pope was asked about how to balance Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage while welcoming Catholics who are divorced and remarried.

Francis replied that neither “rigorism nor laxity” was the right response. “The Gospel chooses another way: welcoming, accompanying, integrating, discerning, without putting our noses in the ‘moral life’ of other people,” he said.

Is that not an atrocious statement?  Is it not, at some fundamental level, a profoundly anti-Catholic statement?  No amount of burying our heads in the sand or attempts at explanation can even begin to limit the damage a statement like this causes.

In a sense, however, Francis is forced into such statements by his own ideology.  If the divorced and remarried – living, in many cases, manifestly immoral lives, which much blame for the original divorce, and thoroughly lacking any real repentance in that regard – are to be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament, to carry on as if they ARE attempting to lead solid, moral lives, then of course priests would have to totally ignore the myriad moral failings of many of their sheep, and simply pretend that all is just peachy.

This is not Catholicism, however.  It is straight up protestantism, as we saw last week.  In order to continue his great project in remaking the Church in the light of Martin Luther and Immanuel Kant, such statements become inevitable.  Confession goes out the window, unless it is “confession” for fashionable, worldly “corporate sins,” like poverty or supposed environmental degradation.

We also see just how banal and morally corrupt this “accompaniment” proclaimed by Francis really is.  It’s nothing but “I’m OK You’re OK We’re All OK” encounter therapy writ large – a perfect embodiment of the progressive zeitgeist of which Francis is so fervent an acolyte.

But that’s not all!  After all, there are seven days in a week, and Francis can apparently hardly let one go by without some assault on the Faith or another.  To that end, Francis declared how he decapitates opposition from “ultraconservatives” and had some – for a change – interesting things to say about Pope Benedict’s unprecedented abdication:

When asked how he was getting along with the “ultra-Conservatives,” Pope Francis – without challenging this depreciative description of the ostensibly orthodox part of the prelates – claims that “they say ‘no’ to everything” in relation to his own proposed reforms. As reported by La Nacion, he more specifically says:

“They do their work, I do mine. I want an open and understanding Church which accompanies the wounded families. They say ‘no’ to everything. I continue my path without being sidetracked. I do not behead people [sic]. I never have liked it. Let me repeat: I reject conflict.” He [Pope Francis] concluded with a conspicuous smile: “You remove a nail by applying pressure upwards. Or you tranquilize them, put them to the side, when they reach retirement age.” [emphasis added] [Or you force them out, on thoroughly specious, if convenient, grounds, as in the case of Bishop Robert Finn, among others]

At least he had the wherewithal to admit, though not in so many words, that he views the most orthodox, “conservative” prelates as his ideological opponents, to be anesthetized as events permit.

Now, to those comments on Pope Benedict:

He was a revolutionary. In the meeting with cardinals, shortly before the March 2013 Conclave, he told us that one of us was going to be the next pope and that he did not know his name. His generosity was unparalleled. His resignation brought to light all of the Church’s problems. His resignation had nothing to do with personal issues. It was an act of government – his last act of government. [emphasis added]

Here, Francis appears to be slamming the door on the hypothesis of Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict’s long-time aid, who recently posited that maybe there was a sort of duarchy working in the papacy with his boss’s abdication.  That is, Francis was the “active” pope, while Benedict was the contemplative one. This is, of course, nonsense, and would completely obliterate the notion of papacy as it has always been understood by the Church. I was really shocked to read such doctrinal shlock from a guy like Ganswein who is supposed to be very bright and at least fairly orthodox – it only confirmed for me either how desperate the guy is, or how deep the rot has become.

Now, regarding Francis’ claim that Benedict’s abdication had nothing to do with personal issues – that certainly fits in with my surmise from the moment this abdication was announced. I also agree the abdication was a revolutionary act, in at least two senses.  It was unprecedented,  yes (Pope Celestine was a very different case), but it was also revolutionary in what it subsequently unleashed.

One could almost read from the above that Pope Benedict’s abdication was a final, deliberate surrender to the forces he had opposed for 40+ years, ever since the young, radical theologian at Vatican II realized the chaos and destruction he had helped unleash (thus, the “generosity”).  From Francis’ standpoint, Benedict’s relative orthodoxy would have been the source of all the Church’s problems. His abdication, then, revealed the total failure of the restorationist project, in Francis’ mind, perhaps.  Of course, it is very convenient for Francis to imply that Benedict’s last act was, indeed, a surrender to the progressive faction of the Church.

We’ll see if there are subsequent revelations.  One thing progressives love to do is to gloat when victorious.  That’s how we found out about the “St. Gallen group” in the first place.  Is the above a little bit of revelation from Francis, or him just talking nonsense again?  I have my own beliefs, obviously, but ultimately I leave it to you to decide.

I have another question for you readers – do you find the coverage of Francis helpful, maddening, pointless, or?  I’m of two minds – while I feel we now know this man to a T, and further revelations may only serve to aggravate, at the same time, it’s hard to turn away from a car wreck,  you know?  Plus, it is important, at least for the record, for someone, anyone, to say “this is wrong,” or “this is not Catholic.”  But, I don’t want to be boring, beat you down, or, God forbid, cause people to lose faith.

This is an important point, maybe too important to leave appended to the end of a long post. I may repost this as a stand alone tomorrow.  I do appreciate your input.  I can’t guarantee it will result in any change, but I will absolutely consider your comments seriously.

Abortion developments: judge strikes down sex-selective abortion, college says pro-life talk a form of abuse, Mexico Supremes ban abortion, July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

All kinds of recent developments on the abortion front.  Keeping in line with recent court decisions striking down virtually any limits on the practice of child-murder for (largely) convenience, a black, Obama-appointee federal district court judge ruled Indiana’s ban against abortions performed specifically on a sex- or race-basis unconstitutional:

A federal judge has blocked Indiana’s ban against aborting a fetus based on its sex, race or disability, a law that was set to go into effect Friday.

Indiana is one of two states with bans on obtaining an abortion based on race, gender or ancestry of a fetus. Gov. Mike Pence signed the law in March after it was passed by the Republican-led legislature. A similar law in North Dakota remains in effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect Friday. The injunction was sought by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Pratt, who was nominated by President Obama in 2010, wrote that the ban violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which allows abortions before the point of fetal viability. If a woman choses to get an abortion before that point, a state can’t prohibit her based on her reasons for doing so, she wrote.

She apparently hasn’t seen Maafa21, or was unmoved by it. Since over half of all babies conceived by Americans of African descent end in abortion, this ruling is I guess a bit unsurprising.  Odds are, the judge has had an abortion herself, and, like many post-abortive women, would do anything to justify her amoral act.  Of course, abortion and contraception were both first endorsed and popularized by white eugenicists who sought to use those twin means to radically reduce the population of “undesirable” populations like minorities and those with various disabilities.  All along, however, these white racists have found eager accomplices in the black and other minority communities to help their cause succeed, a nightmare practice which continues to this day.

On another front, the so-called millennial generation, which is widely seen to be the most progressive, areligious generational cohort in US history, is helping pave the way for the persecution of Christians and any who hold traditional moral views.  At Longwood University, it is reported that students believe countering someone’s pro-abort beliefs with pro-life facts constitutes a form of “assualt,” which, presumably, should thus be illegal:

According to an “educational presentation” on the Longwood University website, being an outspoken pro-life advocate may be a form of “assault.”

The presentation, first reported by Campus Reform, lists “an anti-abortion person attack[ing] my pro-choice beliefs” as one of several “examples of assault,” along with “A student slashed my tire (on my car)” and “Almost being raped.” [both of which are, in fact, serious crimes.  So to the generation most mired in deliberate ignorance and blind adherence to leftist propaganda, refuting their amoral, erroneous beliefs now constitutes an assault almost equal to rape.  Childish much?  Even more, how bankrupt are your beliefs and how  unable to argue in favor of them must you be if your response to someone else holding contrary beliefs is to want to throw them in jail?  Is this the United States of America?  Not the one I knew.]

“Assault” is defined in another slide as “verbal or nonverbal derogations of an individual’s unique qualities such as family name or disability.” [How the heck does opposing abortion fall under this definition?  These people couldn’t think their way out of a foot-tall labyrinth.]  

All the more frightening, the university says that sentiment was actually expressed almost 10 years ago.  Boy these fragile snowflakes are going to have a hard time when the hot light of reality finally falls on them.

Finally, some good news for a change – the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that abortion – currently legal in the federal district around Mexico City only – cannot be legal in the remainder of the country.  I have no idea how they reconciled this dichotomy, but it’s somewhat good news nonetheless:

The Mexican Supreme Court has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed verdict that would have imposed abortion-on-demand during the earliest stages of pregnancy throughout the country.

The justices of the Supreme Court’s First Chamber voted 3-1 against the draft decision, which cites Roe v. Wade to justify requiring all of Mexico’s 31 states to adopt the legal regime currently in use in Mexico City. The Mexican capital allows abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy while applying restrictions in later stages of gestation of the unborn child.

Well, good for Mexico.  But I fear it’s only a matter of time, unless that nation experiences a serious Catholic revival.  So long as contraception is freely available, there will be enormous demand for abortion. Absent a true religious revival/conversion – and the same applies in this nation – eventually, a government will come to power that will give the people what they want – which is to murder the inconvenient “after products” of contraceptive sex.

Tennessee enacts law enforcing liability against gun-free zones July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

The Tennessee legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a bill that established a liability for private entities that enforced “gun free zones” on law-abiding citizens. The law became effective July 1. Those entities that ban firearms- not certain if the law applies to churches, or if any Tennessee bishops have been dumb enough to enact firearms bans from Church property – can now be sued if an attack occurs in their “no firearms allowed” premises, or even while an employee (or visitor, or whomever) is running to their car to secure a firearm to defend themselves.

This seems like a very positive development.  I read later, however, that the bill may have flaws buried deep within.  Not sure on that, I couldn’t make out what some of the critics were trying to say, but it is certain that businesses that allow citizens to defend themselves by allowing/encouraging personal firearms carriage are exempt from such liability claims.

I hope this law comes to Texas in the next legislative session (there is a lot of evidence it will), and that a clause will not be carved out for religious institutions.  It would be entertaining enough watching the steam erupt from a certain Irish prelate’s ears:

On July 1, businesses that disarm concealed carry permit holders with gun-free signage will be liable for the safety of those permit holders.

When the law, contained in SB 1736, takes effect, business owners who demand law-abiding citizens disarm themselves will assume liability for injuries they incur while on the “posted premises.” Moreover, the business owners will be liable for injuries a concealed permit holder incurs while retreating from the business to a vehicle–during an emergency–to retrieve the gun the business owner barred.

However, it ain’t all beer and skittles on the 2nd Amendment front.  Hawaii just enacted a law that would place lawful gunowners on an FBI database used to track violent criminals.  Most important to note, they will place you on this list even if you simply visit the state of Hawaii while carrying:

Hawaii’s governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said……..

…….The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called “Rap Back” will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States.

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation…….[This reads more like an attempt to harass gun owners by placing them on a primarily criminal database – as if gun ownership were a criminal act.  Of course, criminals don’t purchase their weapons legally nor do they register them as required per law in the various states, they buy them on the black market and they are never registered.  So this has nothing to do with stopping crime or enforcing gun laws, it’s all about chilling the ability of individuals to practice their 2nd Amendment rights]

“As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we’ve ever seen,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association’s institute for legislative action.

The law could affect gun owners outside Hawaii, because the state requires visitors carrying guns to register, Hunter said.

As a result, they could be added to “Rap Back” because they arrived in the state with a gun, she said. The Hawaii attorney general’s office said a weapon-carrying visitor should be able to petition for removal from the national database after leaving the state. [“Should.”  Of course, and I “should” be a billionaire.  But I wont’ be.  Any more than they will actually remove you from the database. This is a message to CHL carriers: leave your guns at home. We in Hawaii like our tourists nice and vulnerable]

Hawaii state Senator Will Espero, a Democrat who co-authored the law and owns a gun, called it “common sense legislation that does not hurt anyone.”

The law, which takes effect immediately, allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested. [So someone wrongfully arrested and later cleared could still lose their right to carry a gun in Hawaii, depending on the attitude of local law enforcement, which, in Hawaii, is stridently anti-gun almost to a man.  That’s not a right, that’s a narrowly granted privilege.]

“It just means local police will be notified,” Espero said in a phone interview. [BS]

Hello two-tier nation, where some places are still kinda sorta free, if the feds choose to leave you alone, and others are becoming increasingly tyrannical. Makes a nice companion to the destruction of the rule of law in this country, now that Hillary is to be allowed to skate from what should be a life imprisonment from literally hundreds of felony violations regarding the mishandling of classified documents.

In other words, one rule for them, and one for us.  They get private jets, armed bodyguards (paid for at our expense), and climate soirees in swank locations.  We get tyranny, taxation, and told to shut up while we freeze to death in the dark.  No, not yet.  But it’s far from inconceivable.