jump to navigation

Love ≠ Moral Acceptance of People Doing Whatever They Want October 4, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, Bible, Domestic Church, episcopate, error, family, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.

In all things I have tried to accord the conduct of my life and especially my belief to the Doctrine of the Faith as it is has been exculpated and practiced for centuries, especially the centuries prior to the modernist/leftist infiltration of the Church beginning in the early 20th century.  I am more successful, probably, at the latter – the believing – than the practicing.

As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, I have radically altered many previously deeply held beliefs to be more in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith.  A few examples of these:

  • Contraception is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – I used to not believe this
  • Porn use/self-abuse are always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – ditto
  • Usury, commonly found in capitalist systems, is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – again, I changed
  • The form of government established in the USA is fraught with moral problems and compromises that made our present inevitable. So I’ve gone from “USA is the greatest country that ever could be” to………..this thing is a very serious problem and is probably not fixable.
  • Abortion is wanton murder of innocent life. There is never any justifiable reason for it – I used to be a bit squishy
  • Jesus Christ exists whole and entire in the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament of the altar – I always thought it a “symbol”
  • Homeschooling is by far the best, and quite possibly the only moral, option for educating children in this day and age – I definitely found this weird
  • Sacramental Confession is morally vital for salvation and must be frequently availed of

And the list goes on. I cannot stress how much of a rah-rah USA is the best typical Republican I used to be.  That was a core part of my personality, my belief set (even while I had strangely contrary things going on in private).  But having learned the Doctrine of the Faith and the myriad ways in which the USA, at its founding, was deliberately contrived to be very contrary to that Doctrine, I now see things very differently.

I was as attached to sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments as anyone could be.  Those were, so to speak, my “original sins.”  That kind of thing was my first addiction.  And I went very, very far down a path of personal immorality and horrific abuses to which I was constantly wedded.  I mean, this was a daily, almost constant occurrence. And this later manifested in other, worse things I won’t go into.  You could even say that these sins were who I was, so profound a part of my identity they had become.

Obviously, they took many years of enormous pain and effort and sacrifice to overcome.  I am by no means perfect in this regard, but I have completely altered my beliefs and almost totally successfully modified my behaviors, and have come to see, with grim realism, the evil that was involved in them, and the harm they did to myself and many others.  I am leaving out scads and scads of details, which would shock and dismay most if not all readers.  I have a very, very dark past.

But I am hardly unique.  Most everyone in this fallen age, having to swim in the moral sewer we occupy, have had similar experiences.  Some were more fortunate than others.  Some were able to (largely) overcome their sins through much prayer and sacrifice by themselves and often others but basically kept their lives intact. Others have not been so fortunate, and have experienced divorce, collapse of business, etc., as a result of their attachment to sin.

We swim in a sea of lies. The primary one is that the culture, under the influence of leftist thought which has penetrated very deeply into the Church, purports that love = endorsing/approving of everything someone really really wants to do especially if it is of a sexual nature or somehow serves the agencies of the political-cultural Left.  This is a total corruption of the proper understanding of love.  Love, true love, must always, everywhere, be ordered to the eternal good of souls.

What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive.  We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin.

This is not some made up belief I am proclaiming. These are not just my opinions.  We have the divine words of Jesus Christ Himself to make this clear to us, as recorded inerrantly – without error – in Sacred Scripture.

Romans i:24-28, 32

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.

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.

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. 

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………

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

Matthew xviii:15-17


But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew x:14:

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

Matthew x:34-35

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. ForI came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

To sum up all the above, Saint Paul makes clear the continuation of the constant revelation in the Old Law against those sins which have always been judged by the Church to be particularly noxious for souls and offensive to God.  Our Lord tells us very plainly that those who refuse the Doctrine of the Faith are to be excluded from the community of believers, and those who do so obstinately must even at some point be, in a manner of speaking, left apart.  And of course Our Blessed Lord told us that His beliefs, which are so contrary to our fallen natures and the evil rulers of this world, would cause strife and division even within families.

ALL OF THIS IS BASED COMPLETELY ON LOVE.  True love, that is, love ordered for the best eternal end of souls.  That love may seem shockingly contrary to this fallen world and its lying “wisdom,” but it remains all the same.

The early Church was rife with confirmations of all these beliefs.  The particular sins decried by Saint Paul were regarded with a particular revulsion by the early Church and were viewed as being particularly egregious.  As I noted in another recent post, the martyrs wouldn’t even do something so small as burn a pinch of incense to the emperor.  Do you think they turned a blind eye to sins that were so obviously and plainly denounced in the Bible?

What is outlined above is a very brief but also very holistic explanation of the nature of true love ordered for the salvation of souls. It is not sentimental.  It is, from the eyes of a world that has become a past master at twisting Scripture to its own ends and finding souls eager to listen, “hard,” unfair, even.

There are many more aspects at play.  Much of what we hear within and outside the Church is riven with overtones of moral blackmail.  If you “judge,” you don’t love.  This is so wrong as to be evil.  What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive.  We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin. “Love the sinner” has become “never question or correct the sin.”  Especially with the particular sin we are discussing now, we are presented with a particularly reprehensible form of blackmail: either you endorse my lifestyle choices, or you do not love me.  But in fact the highest act of love is to always work towards the eternal good of souls, which may, at times, require very painful choices.

The one great danger I have seen in these types of situations is that simple, tacit acceptance is rarely enough.  There is always heavy pressure to transform that acceptance  into full-throated endorsement.  That is what has happened to the “Always Our Children” groups here in the Diocese.  Whatever they might have been in the beginning, today, these are nothing but vehicles for the proclamation of the glories of perverse lifestyles and the squashing of all opposition.

There’s much more, but I’m running quite long as it is.  One additional thing I’d like to bring up is that this blog takes a very strong stand on these matters, especially those related to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, for several reasons.  For one, this blog has always been ordered primarily towards the confirmation of the faithful, and much less for those outside the Faith or wavering.

Secondly, I take a very strong stand and use sometimes harsh terms because manipulation of the language is probably the prime means by which the political-cultural Left and the perverse agenda has gained its many “victories.”  Yes I decry these sins in terms many find harsh, shocking, and maddening, but it is done to provide a sort of counterweight to the many, many voices out there in the culture declaring 2+2=5, perversion of grace-filled faculties = love, and all the rest.

Finally, I believe God commands it.  Many have deeply imbibed a very feminized, or probably better, demasculinized, understanding of the Faith, where the Christian must always  been meek and surrendering.  That’s not the way most Saints conducted themselves, especially prior to the protestant revolt.  What some may believe is harsh uncharitability, others find to be badly needed clarity.

Anyway, perhaps this helps some folks understand a little better where I come from and why I do what I do.  I have the zeal of the converted in more ways than most folk can probably imagine.

Language warning:


1. aroamingcatholicny - October 4, 2016

The Trouble with the USA is that it was founded by Men who worshipped a “Great Architect Of The Universe”, though God is The Creator, the GAOTU is actually Sinful Man.
Regarding “Consent of The Governed”, again is centred around MAN, whereas all authority in Heaven & Earth is in Christ The King.
Vivat Christus Rex!

2. Mike - October 4, 2016

Romans 1:24-28 was originally a reading for Sunday mass. It was removed by the Modernists at or immediately after Vatican II. Guess the homosexual activists were starting to get it going!

3. Fran Rooker - October 4, 2016

Thank you for sharing … and standing tall amid the morass of assorted evils and satanic deceptions that encompass ALL (striving to be) Faithful men and women. I, too, am no stranger to what you describe. I suspect your testimony resonates with many of your readers. And we stand with you, and pray for you.

The battle appears to be lonely, but that itself is a vile demonic deception. Our weapons seem puny, ethereal, vapid, ineffective, inconsequential … also a worldly deception … for our small weapons are True Tools, mighty, able to save souls, able to affect eternity itself. Though we wield them in our humanity, they possess the power of The Almighty, His Blessed Queen, and their earthly Presence the Church.

All you Holy men and women … ora pro nobis.

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

Awesome comment. The comment of the day. Thanks so much for your support. There is a terrible war waging all around us that almost all are totally oblivious to. Once your eyes are opened, however, everything appears very, very different.

4. Kathleen - October 4, 2016

Disordered love

Of someone or thing

is at the root of ALL sin.

“Love” is NOT all good.

Love in fact provides a potential starting point for sin UNLESS it is DELIBERATELY ordered to:


The love of God and flowing from that the selfless love of others.

CHARITY is THE love that is good.

So yes, as you’ve observed Tantum, the near complete absence of charity and its replacement with disordered loves and the blind, full-throated support of that dismal situation is right there in the center of the root causes.

But it makes sense, charity is taken from the baptised soul in mortal sin. Faith is left until a sin against faith is committed. And at this point mortal sin is rampant, absolutely omnipresent and even the children that have reached the age of reason but should still be spotlessly innocent are being dragged into it.

5. Tim - October 4, 2016

Bishop Williamson on Romans 1:

6. Joseph D'Hippolito - October 4, 2016

“The form of government established in the USA is fraught with moral problems and compromises that made our present inevitable.”

One also could say the same about the form of governance in the Catholic Church. Popes can change doctrine at will (JPII did this with capital punishment before Francis ever came on the scene). Canon Law is routinely ignored (cf, Canon 915), even by Popes. Bishops are hardly ever held accountable either for moral or doctrinal failures. Careerism and intellectual fashion replace orthodoxy and fidelity to the Triune God. Sexual perversion is commonplace (St. Peter Damian wrote the same thing in “Liber Gomorrahianus,” centuries before the Reformation, the Enlightenment or even Vatican II).

Where are the checks and balances within Catholicism?

The hierarchy and clergy centuries ago sacrificed their Petrine patrimony on the altar of wealth, power, political influence, secular prestige, institutional arrogance and narcissistic isolation. The laity are nothing but chaff in the minds of the hierarchs. The mere fact that the Church divides membership into hierarchy, lower clergy and laity bespeaks of an ecclesiastical feudalism that Christ Himself never countenanced.

The Church is run of, by and for the bishops and their cohorts. It’s become nothing but a religious Mafia that makes its living by taking the Triune God’s name in vain.

If you seriously think the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are amused by this situation, well…..

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

Let’s try to avoid our favorite hobby horses in this post. It was written for a purpose.

Joseph D'Hippolito - October 4, 2016

Fair enough. Sometimes I see certain phrases and I just react.

7. Baseballmom - October 4, 2016

Love is an act of the Will, not a feeling. To love the “other” one must desire what is best for the “other.” The “best” for every soul is eternal life with the Holy Trinity, all the Angels and Saints. To ignore actions by the “other” which will lead him to eternal death is not Love. It is cowardice.

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

I hope MC comments she has a child who has been in that lifestyle for years and knows a great deal about it and how to deal with it properly as a Catholic parent.

Tim - October 4, 2016

It’s more than cowardice, it is the highest form of hatred…..

8. Chris - October 4, 2016

Tantumblogo, I am grateful to have the material provided by you and your members. It is a bout 40 IQ points above my usual facebook reading. My question is not to challenge your position but rather to obtain more insight. I appreciate that Usary was once verboten. While I am not a fanatical “consumption” capitalist, I recognize some practical benefits for research, development, and economic growth that are aided by pooling financial resources and rewarding those that take the risks. Can a “free” society live in any degree of material comfort and development without usary? For sure, I am aware of the description of the Christian community at Jerusalem in the book of Acts. ironically, I am currently doing the Ascension Press study on Acts. C Gleason

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

Well, there’s usury, and there’s usury. 22% or more on a credit card is absolutely abusive and immoral. There are things that, traditionally, were supposed to be interest free, like food and housing. I am not a distributist. It’s wholly unrealistic for an advanced industrial society. It’s fit for a level of tech we had in the latter 1700s.

I am not opposed to capitalism at its most basics. Capitalism in its essence is just the free exchange of goods and services at agreed upon rates. The less government involvement in the economy, the better. What I do oppose philosophically is the idea of charging for the use of money, especially for basic necessities. This was strictly frowned upon in Christendom for centuries and Christians were not permitted to do so. That’s a major reason why Jews became so heavily involved in banking from an early date, they were free to do things like charge interest for loans that Christians were not, and thus had more successful banking endeavors. I do recognize, however, that not charging interest would mean that capital would not be available for other things that are important today and would cause an economic collapse and we’re back at the mid-18th century level again, or something thereabouts.

Thus, while opposing usury in principle, I recognize that in some cases it has become something of a necessity. I still oppose charging people 22% interest to buy their groceries, and I know a traditional priest that finds it insane that people would put things like their groceries on credit cards, but I think on a business to business level or for some major capital, non-housing purchases, a certain amount of interest charging may be licit, if not ideal.

I’m really more in criticism mode of the different systems (capitalism, socialism, our current semi-socialist corporate crony capitalism, distributism, communism, etc) than I am at a point where I can lay out a sensible, holistic approach to a Catholic economics. I think the current favored position of most traditionalists (distributism) is simply a non-starter. But I haven’t had time to do research to figure out what a more effective but still more alternative would look like in practice.

Sorry if this doesn’t help much.

DM - October 4, 2016

Respectfully I’m going to disagree with you there. I don’t get how credit card interest can be considered usury. It’s not even interest since you don’t get charged it at all unless you don’t pay off your bill on time. It’s not like a loan or mortgage where you’re always paying interest. And if someone can’t pay off a visa bill on time then they shouldn’t be using a credit card in the first place, so as far as I’m concerned it is their own fault if they do get interest.

Contrary to what that priest said, I’d say it makes total sense to put everything you can on your credit card, since you earn points/cash back with most cards. You’re actually throwing money away by not buying things on your credit card. Obviously if you can’t afford to pay it off, then you have no business using a card. If someone absolutely can’t avoid it, then get a low interest rate card.

Tim - October 4, 2016

I must agree with you. You only pay interest on credit cards if you don’t pay your monthly statement in full and on time. This gets down to personal responsibility. A rare commodity these days. I would also have to agree with Tatum that the rates are usually outrageous. My rate has been been zero since I was a stupid college kids. With all due respect the traditionalist priest is wrong. I have saved thousands of dollars for my business by getting 1 1/2% back simply by paying the bill by a certain date. What is crazy is putting charges that you cannot afford to pay in full next month.

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

I have no issue with people using credit cards. I do have a problem with banks and credit card companies charging exorbitant interest rates for people who can’t pay the full balance each month. My wife and I have almost never carried a credit card balance so it’s not an issue for us.

I think people are reading more into it than I actually said. Plus, this is becoming a rabbit hole, I wrote a quick response to an off-topic question.

c matt - October 5, 2016

To follow up on my other post (not sure where this will end up – above or below it), following the Church teaching on usury would actually make the economy more stable – if lenders could only look to the property (or business venture) to recoup their loan, they would be much more circumspect about lending to risky ventures. Sure, this may stifle some growth and innovation, but you wouldn’t get the volatility we see either.

tg - October 5, 2016

I agree with you DM. I had never heard of usury for high interest credit cards. I do think usury is those loan places that give you a loan on your pay check. I think they are called payday loans. My friend’s daughter was caught up in that. My friend gave her the money to pay the loan but the dumb girl went back to the payday loan place and got caught up in vicious cycle. I think Texas was trying to outlaw them but I don’t think it passed.

c matt - October 5, 2016

Zippy Catholic has a huge body of work on usury which I highly recommend, if at times it may seem daunting. Bottom line, usury is not based upon a specific rate of interest, but on the way the loan can be collected. In my simplistic universe, usury = recourse loan against an individual. Credit cards are “usurious” not because of the rate of interest, but because they can collect the interest against you personally, as opposed to only relying upon the property purchased with the card. Now, the rates they charge may be evil for other reasons, but I don’t think they are technically usurious in the sense taught by the Church (various laws may define certain rates as usurious, but that is a misnomer utilized by legislators who are likely ignorant).

c matt - October 5, 2016

I’ve come to the position that the form of government/economy matters less than the people who form it. Garbage in, garbage out. Or, humans can wreck any system.

Camper - October 5, 2016

That’s true, but only to a degree. Democracies don’t value liberal learning – philosophy. Case in point, the original curriculum at West Point was strictly an engineering curriculum, modeled after the French. Democracies fall apart relatively quickly. So your argument really only works with monarchies, oligarchies, and Aristotelean polities.

Camper - October 5, 2016

Those who approve of charging any interest at all on loans don’t understand what Aristotle wrote about it. In this case, the Catholic Church banned usury because Aristotle condemned it. Aristotle condemned charging interest because it was charging twice for the money – first for the money, then for the use of the money. It’s like charging for a bottle of wine and then the use of the wine. Aristotelians say that money is not time, unlike typical capitalists. If one wants dividends, then go invest in the stock market or maybe buy precious metals.
If usury were slowly phased out from society, prices for important consumer goods, like housing, cars, and other things would drop dramatically. The economy would improve, though initially there would be a recession, depending on how quickly loans were phased out of society.
Feudalism could probably never happen again because of global population density, but a similar level of government spending is much closer to holiness in my opinion than what we have now. We need economic freedom, no loans, and very small government. The government economic policies, like the welfare state, work against the family – consider Sweden.

Loans are actually anti-hierarchical. They allow climbers to get a foot in the door.

9. Brian E. Breslin - October 4, 2016

Good post, Tantum. Very interesting, you deserve a lot of credit for your success in your struggles- well, for using the grace given you in your struggles. Keep it up, brother!

Tantumblogo - October 4, 2016

It is a miracle not of my own making. I am very much aware of that, even as I am aware that I have so very, very far to go.

Thank you for your supportive words.

10. johnbryson - October 5, 2016


Thanks for the very personal post and congratulations on your fantastic blog.
I have a question. If you didn’t always believe that contraception was always wrong, how did your wife deal with you on this? I think your conversion happened after you were married for several years – no? Did she firmly refuse to use contraception despite your opinions?

Camper - October 5, 2016

Don’t you think that’s a little personal? And maybe gross? Just observing.

11. Ad te Joseph - October 6, 2016

I know someone that prayed a Novena of rosaries to Our Lady of Guadalupe and was shortly thereafter completely and permanently freed from his past sinful habits of the type you mention. This despite not actually knowing how to pray the Rosary. I’m not even sure he knew how to say the Hail Mary at the time. He just said what he knew and spent time before Her image for the nine days.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: