jump to navigation

Father de Smet and the Flathead Indians July 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, General Catholic, history, manhood, priests, sanctity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I posted the audio of the sermon below over 3 years ago, but since the links for the sermon were then on AudioSancto which is now defunct, I was glad to see this sermon come back up on Sensus Fidelium last week.

The sermon discusses the life of St. Peter de Smet and other priests, mostly Jesuits, who very effectively evangelized the quite fierce tribes of the northern plains and Rocky Mountain regions of the United States.  These were tribes that had effectively resisted conversion by protestant missionaries for centuries.  However, they found the Truth of Jesus Christ, as revealed through the Church and its many faithful priests (at that time), quite irresistible.  Tens of thousands of Native Americans were converted to the Faith through the efforts of a mere handful of men, especially Father de Smet (whose biography I strongly recommend).  To say it was a struggle would be an understatement.

Not only were the physical dangers enormous, the scope of work incredible, the difficulty in converting what may be termed barbarians, who had engaged in many immoral practices for generations, and making that conversion stick, were almost insurmountable.  Many tribes made quick converts, but tended to relapse into bad behavior, especially when protestant Americans, lusting for land and wealth, would come bringing mass quantities of liquor to trade with the tribes – a few barrels of whiskey for 10,000 acres of land, say. Even more tragically, when it became apparent that the Catholic priests were making thousands of lasting converts, the predominately protestant Americans appealed to their government to break the Catholic influence by forcibly removing them from their missions and installing protestants in their place.  Most of the natives subsequently fell away, either reverting to animistic religions or adopting a far less efficacious “ecumenical” form of Christianity.  Among those who remained nominally Christian, very few had the same depth of conviction and practice they had embraced under Catholic influence.

All of this was ordered to produce a demoralization in the native peoples to make them less cohesive, less of a threat to manifest destiny, and more apt to be moved, by force, onto always shrinking reservations, reservations often located on land so poor no white wanted it.

I say all the above as someone who is fairly cold to the “noble savage native” narrative the Left likes to impose.  For just one example, Native Americans fought many genocidal wars amongst themselves, which is why there are no, or virtually no, Mohicans or Hurons, among others, around today.  There was an urgent need for conversion, not only with regard to the eternal destiny of souls, but as a practical matter.  Many of the Catholic priests understood that, and sought to help make Native tribes/communities stronger by giving them a solid moral base on which to stand.  Thus, their exclusion from the missionary field permitted by the US government was not simply an instance of anti-Catholic bias, but also one with a tangible worldly purpose in mind.

This has long been one of my favorite sermons to listen to.  One of its best characteristics is its destruction of errors like “invincible ignorance” and “implicit baptism by desire”:

Even if you’ve heard this one before, as I have, it’s worth more than one listen!  I pick up new points every time I hear it.

Advertisements

Romans i: An  Extended  Catechesis on the Condemnation of the World    July 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, General Catholic, Saints, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership.
comments closed

Romans i is one of those portions of Sacred Scripture highly inconvenient to the culture and the modernist-progressives who have molded it. Not only does it condemn many of the modern world’s favored sins, not only does it absolutely castigate, in the strongest possible terms, the fashionable immorality of today the Left pushes in support of its broader agenda, but it also casts severe doubt on the idea, prevalent within the Church (primarily from modernist-progressives), that those who fall into sins like sodomy or fornication might be innocent of moral guilt for these sins, or, at least, have only a slight guilt.

Saint Paul heard similar excuses in his day, and would have none of it.  God’s Law is written on our hearts, God gives sufficient lights for all souls to be saved, and the Truth Christ revealed through His Church was broadcast loud and clear for centuries, even if it is a bit muted today.

Verses 16-32 below, from the Douay-Reims Commentary of Father George Leo Haydock (my emphasis and comments):

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

17 For the justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith: as it is written: *The just man liveth by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all impiety and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice. [A warning to the Pharisees, yes, but also to all those who would try to prevent the Truth of Jesus Christ from being proclaimed in His Church, and instituted in the civil sphere.]

19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them.[Translation: The light of reason demonstrates the existence of the One God, the maker and preserver of all things, and ALSO the moral law which He has written on the hearts of all.  God’s Truth is manifest from His Creation and from reason.] 

20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [One can derive from nature, for example, the right-use of those faculties suitable for the procreation of children, and also comprehend their abuse.]

21 *Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, or give thanks: but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened:

22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [I cannot think of a more apt description for the self-anointed cultural/political elites of our own time, even as they laugh Christ and His Church to scorn, they are only revealed to be the more foolish themselves]

23 *And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things. [or they worshipped their own lusts, or their perverse ideas, or made an idol of money and power, among other things]

24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, *to uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [The leftist project described in a nutshell, both within and without the Church: “they exchanged the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator]

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [which is condemned as shameful, perverse, immoral, sinful]

27 And, in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [Thus it is no coincidence that when Christianity/the Church is full of millions of souls holding dire errors, that the most heinous immorality would result. It is in fact God’s positive Will, according to St. Paul, that such would occur.  When people reject Christ and the Truth of His Church, God allows them to be afflicted with the most grievous sins, which have their own natural consequence in the afterlife]

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge; God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient, [for their salvation]

29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [In verses 28-31, St. Paul establishes the clear equivalence between sins like those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other mortal sins.  Thus the excuse-making of the sodomites, pretending that Genesis or St. Paul or Leviticus is speaking not of sodomy, but of some other sin (lack of hospitality!), is revealed as totally bankrupt. Christ, through St. Paul, is most definitely condemning sodomy, and in fact placing it at the head of a list of very severe sins, including murder.  That excuse-making, that twisting of Scripture to their own nefarious ends, is, in fact, the precise consequence, ordained by God, of their own immoral behaviors]

32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them. [Ouch. There are a lot of cardinal’s with burning ears right now.  Among others……] 

————End Quote————

Shorter St. Paul:  you have no excuse for your sins, but because you revel in them, God has given you over to a reprobate sense, compounding sin on sin and placing your soul in the greatest possible jeopardy.

I apologize if the commentary above breaks up the flow of the text, but I really wanted to expand on some of those points. But I do ask for your opinion – would it be better to do all the commentary below the verses, referencing to each verse above as I go along?

Do you think the above would be an effective argument against those lost in this lifestyle?  If not they, might it convince those who are not in the lifestyle but who have rolled over to the cultural bullying, buying into pseudo-sodo-marriage and all the rest – especially self-described Christians, who believe that you can be an active same-sex sodomite and a “good Christian?”

Snapshot of a Church in Deep Crisis July 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, General Catholic, horror, scandals, sexual depravity, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

The idea that an abortion-supporting, contraception-taking, concubine-living woman could call herself a “practicing Catholic” is about all we need to know regarding the state of the Church today.  And not merely these common sins, but willing to stand as a poster-child for perhaps the most aggressively amoral, anti-Catholic organization in the land, Planned Butcherhood:

Yulinda is a practicing Catholic. She’s also a Planned Parenthood patient and supporter. “We need to be educated about sex so that we don’t end up being parents when we don’t expect to or we’re not ready.” She and her boyfriend came to Planned Parenthood for birth control counseling so that they can prevent pregnancy and practice safe sex. Planned Parenthood is a “safe haven” where Yulinda’s beliefs and health care decisions are respected without judgment. This is her story of care.

“Safe haven” = I’ve deeply absorbed the language and logic of the radical left.  I may murder my baby (even without direct malice aforethought, by using the pill), but don’t  you dare judge me.

As for the crisis, how many sermons do you suppose this woman has heard on the evils of contraception and fornication?  She seems completely unaware, or at least uncaring, regarding the truth of the evil of contraceptive use.  Very likely, if she really is “practicing,” she has even been counseled by unworthy priests that contraception – even up to and including abortifacient methods – is perfectly fine. Her upset at being approached by someone who tried to advise her as to these evils is a sign of a very badly formed conscience.  But that formation was probably less her own fault than those who have had the grave responsibility to rightly form her in the Faith.

That’s not to say our princess here is not without moral culpability.  I think I was aware of the Church’s rejection of contraception as an 11 or 12 year old non-Catholic.  It is almost impossible to conclude this woman is innocent of that very widely known Doctrine, she has simply rejected, while attempting to wrap herself with (an unearned) mantle of faith.

I was sent this by the operator of SensusFidelium on Youtube, who does so much good work.  SensusFidelium is funded entirely by the man who runs it and the occasional donations he receives.  You can help support this very helpful apostolate here or by making a donation to  scunninghamjr@hotmail.com.

Another way to support Steve keep the videos coming is by purchasing these attractive, Catholic bumper stickers from E-bay here.  Sometimes it’s nice to receive a little something for your donation, and this helps not only give witnessto our Faith but also advertise a site that’s done a lot of good for a lot of folks.

s-l16001

I don’t see any details about a price break for volume purchases but perhaps something could be worked out.  SensusFidelium is a balm, a corrective, to the kinds of self-serving immoral propaganda put out by self-anointed Catholics every day.

Uhhhh…….what? It’s a sin to allow kids two and up to sleep with parents? July 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, huh?, Interior Life, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Does anyone have any idea what Church law or Doctrine St. John Vianney is referencing below?

You should never have your children sleeping with you from the time they are two years old.  If you do, you are committing a sin.  The Church did not make this law without reason.  You are bound to observe it………

…….Still, my dear brethren, there are fathers and mothers who are so little instructed in their religion or who are so indifferent to their duties that they will have sleeping with them children from fifteen to eighteen years of age, and often brothers and sisters together……..

……But I will return to the subject and repeat to you that all the time that you allow your children to sleep with you after they have reached two years of age, you are offending God…..

Now, on the recommendations of solid priests, I agree with the following:

  • Children above a very young age, perhaps a bit older than two, should not sleep together if possible
  • Brothers and sisters especially above 3 or 4 or 5 (depending on the children) should not sleep together
  • Yes it would be rather ridiculous to have a 15 or 18 year old sleep in the parent’s bed.  That is disordered, certainly, and could prove disastrous.
  • It is probably desirable not to have children sleep with the parents at all if it can be avoided, but when mom is exhausted and the baby wants to eat all night sometimes it just sort of happens by osmosis.  Whether there should be a “cutoff age” I think depends very much upon the child.

But what I do not comprehend is where this becomes a sin, or upon what basis.  There has been a tendency at times among certain moral rigorists to hearken back to obscure Old Testament Scripture, find some obtuse or inappropriately understood statement, and from that attempt to impose a hard law on the faithful.  However, there are few if any occasions that I can think of where the Church itself – beyond some small school or moral theologians – actually accepted these very specific “regulations” as Doctrine and imposed them on the entire Church as a matter of conscience, bound to be accepted upon pain of sin.

Would it be a sin, for instance, if the four year old frightened by a thunderstorm wants to crawl into bed with mom and dad?  My wife and I have hit upon the expedient of letting them build a little bed out of sheets and blankets on the floor next to our bed, but, sometimes, the child is just too frightened/excited for that to work.  So, is it sinful only as a normal practice, or in every case? Do you just throw the kid out and tell them to toughen up, buttercup?  That seems not only unreasonable, but uncharitable.

I was a bit offended when I read the introduction to the book The Sermons of the Cure’ of Ars that asserted that some lingering Jansenism may have crept into the Cure’s sermons, but having read the book, I’m not entirely certain that assertion was wrong.  There are a number of times the holy Cure’ claims that certain actions – dancing, for instance – are always sinful, when, plainly, they are not.

Of course, St. John Vianney was serving souls in a very different time and place.  He had taken over the care of souls who had been long abandoned to fend for themselves, more or less, and received no solid moral guidance for decades.  In that case, some toughness or rigorism may have been called for.

It’s a bit strange to say, but while with some Saints, especially the Doctors of the Church, one can take pretty much every thing they say as golden, with some other Saints, some caution may be advised, based on the particular time and place in which they carried out their apostolate and any extremities that may have been called for in that environment.  Something to keep in mind.