jump to navigation

Bishop Farrell’s Doctrine Evolution in a Nutshell October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’m about to be stuck in the lab for the rest of the day, so enjoy this brief synopsis of Kevin  J. Farrell’s “evolution” in thinking over the course of his 8 1/2  years in Dallas.

First, that pretty fair voting guide he and Bishop Kevin Vann produced prior to the 2008 election, shredding the “seamless garment” and providing pretty clear guidance to Catholic voters (noting, however, even this could/should have been vastly better).

Next, a tweet from two months ago:

farrell_bergoglian

That’s courtesy Rorate.  No wonder I hate Twitter with such a passion.

Dang.  I’ve read all the Gospels like 7 or 8 times cover to cover.  I must really suck at reading comprehension.

Is that what you call closing the deal for a Secretariat and red hat?

Then of course there was the parish gun ban debacle, which, thank God, didn’t go as he expected (at all), then the 180 on immigration, then permitting Biden to receive Communion in the Diocese, then the liberalization of the ministry conference, then further mucking around with UD, then……

We all wondered, back in the day, who really was the impetus behind that voting guide, Farrell, or Vann?  I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

 

Advertisements

Obama Admin, UN Deliberately Abandoning Syrian Christians…… October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

……while showing a marked preference to allow tens of thousands of Syrian muslims to emigrate to the US and Europe.

What’s that?  You’re shocked, shocked to discover the first muslim president showing a marked preference to his fellow muslims when it comes to escaping warfare (largely engendered by muslims)?  Perhaps so, but the numbers might add a bit of depressing reality to this constant anti-Christian bias.  Via the Wall Street Journal:

For instance, the Obama administration’s expanded refugee program for Syria depends on refugee referrals from the UNHCR. Yet Syria’s genocide survivors have been consistently underrepresented. State’s database shows that of 12,587 Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, only 68 were Christians and 24 were members of the Yazidi sect. That means 0.5% were Christians, though they have long accounted for 10% of Syria’s population. In 2015, among 1,682 Syrians admitted, there were 30 Christians and no Yazidis.

Asked about these numbers at a Sept. 28 Senate hearing, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Simon Henshaw asserted that only 1% of Syria’s registered refugees are Christians. How to square that with the estimate that half a million Syrian Christians—a quarter of that community—have fled, as Syriac Catholic Patriarch Younan warned in August.

State Department officials variously speculate that Christians don’t want to register for resettlement abroad, or that they are waiting in line behind hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims who left Syria earlier.

Yet there is evidence to suggest that the problem lies within UNHCR. Citing reports from many displaced Christians, a January report on Christian refugees in Lebanon by the Catholic News Service stated: “Exit options seem hopeless as refugees complain that the staff members of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are not following up on their cases after an initial interview.” This failure could be another example of why the U.N. Internal Audit Division’s April 2016/034 report reprimanded the UNHCR for “unsatisfactory” management.

At a December press conference in Washington, D.C., I asked the U.N.’s then-high commissioner for refugees, António Guterres, to explain the disproportionately low number of Syrian Christians resettled abroad. The replies—from a man poised to be the U.N’s next secretary-general—were shocking and illuminating.

Mr. Guterres said that generally Syria’s Christians should not be resettled, because they are part of the “DNA of the Middle East.” He added that Lebanon’s Christian president had asked him not to remove Christian refugees. Mr. Guterres thus appeared to be articulating what amounts to a religious-discrimination policy, for political ends.

I suppose there is a positive way to take Guterres’ comments – that Christians have been present in Syria and the rest of the Mideast for far longer than muslims, that it is their ancestral home, and that they have a perfect right to live there, but given that half a million or more have already fled, that’s pretty weak tea.  It seems they want to leave, but are not being permitted to do so.

Where is the USCCB publicly denouncing administration policy and forcefully calling for all persecuted Christians, mostly Catholics, to be permitted to emigrate to the US?  Oh, right.  Well, actually, they have spoken about it a bit.  You can judge for yourself how effective or forceful that communication has been – and note these are all policy pieces for legislators, deep-inside baseball lobbyist stuff, there has been no real effort to mobilize Catholics to exert political pressure to accept more Syrian Catholic refugees.

What a world.  The universe’s most corrupt organization – the UN – is given charge over life and death decisions affecting millions of people, with absolutely no one holding them accountable.  And, of course, the Obama admin is only too happy to hide behind those blue helmets, importing more muslims while abandoning Christians to a grim fate.

We’ve been fundamentally transformed.

 

Scientist accused of “crying wolf,” pretending Arctic would be ice-free by now October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

The only catch here is that he is actually being so accused by fellow scare-mongering warmist scientists, who only complain that his pretensions were over the top and easily disprovable, by such things as the thousands of square miles of sea-ice that have been added in the past few years.  These other scientists make claims that are a bit harder to disprove, by setting their disastrous outcomes relatively far into the future, when hopefully everyone will have forgotten, and not next year or the year after.

Al Gore, other crazies hardest hit:

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be free of sea ice by September have proven unfounded after satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists including Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, a warning that has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, who is considered a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeated the assertion that the Arctic would be free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet when figures were released for the yearly minimum on Sept 10, they showed that there was still 4.14 million sq km of sea ice, which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

For the month of September overall there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show, amounting to an extra 1.09 million sq km of sea ice……..

………Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the department of meteorology at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.

“We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic but there is a real danger of ’crying wolf’ and that does not help anyone. [Then why is the Antarctic setting records for total ice accumulation, if the world is warming so darn much?]

“As global temperatures rise we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill………

[But this is just a total one off, right? I mean, our secular pagan high priests, the scienticians, have never otherwise erred, correct?]……It is the latest example of experts making alarming predictions which do not come to pass. Earlier this week environmentalists were accused of misleading the public about the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” after aerial shots proved there was no “island of rubbish” in the middle of the ocean.

Likewise, warnings that the hole in the ozone layer would never close were debunked in June. [Oh, damn]

In point of fact, as government funding of science first exploded, then became the norm, then became almost the only source of funding, the pressure on scientists to reach politically preferred conclusions increased astronomically, in inverse relation to the quality of the science being performed.  The more government has become involved in science, turning into a semi-socialist corporatist melange, the more grievous errors has science produced (fat makes you fat!  Sugar is great for you!).

This is actually an enormous danger for the current, dominant socio-political ruling clique, which leans very heavily on supposedly unbiased science as the arbiter of its secular truths.  Eventually the esteem in which people are willing to hold supposed scientific opinions is going to collapse as more and more outlandish claims are found to be completely contrary to reality.  This is one of the prime, if largely unseen (because it is so built into the thinking of vast swaths of people) mechanisms by which sexular paganism has supported and expanded its belief set over the past 100+ years.  First get science to attack religion. Get more people to believe in scientific than religious claims, even if many of the former have far fewer supports in fact than the latter (evolution, big bang, etc).  Constantly mock and deride religious belief as “unscientific” and contrary to reason.  All along, do a quick sleight of hand to get people to buy more and more outrageous claims from science.  In a short time, you’ve essentially converted people from authentic religion (Christianity) to sexular pagan sciencism.

If you can convert vast swaths of the churches themselves to accept the tenets of sciencism over the tenets of their religion, all the better, and the coup is practically complete.  But humans always have a tendency to over-reach, and finally ruin themselves through pride and unfettered hubris.  Or God does it for them.  Either or.  But we’ve a long way to go before we reach that point, I fear, at least by human means.

The USCCB, which accepts even the most outrageous scare-mongering climate claims without question, could not be reached for comment. Because I didn’t bother.

Oppose Francis.

 

Dallas’ former Bishop Farrell Gets Red Hat October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’ll admit, I was a bit shocked by the timing.  I’ve mentioned the wise local priest who more or less predicted the course of Bishop Farrell’s tenure here (in very broad, but accurate, strokes), and one additional thing he told me was that Dallas was viewed as such a hardship assignment after 17 disastrous years of administration by Charles Grahmann, and Bishop Farrell had such a golden boy aura about him, that his next sinecure would be a really plumb one, and would probably come with a red hat attached.  But he thought that would be several years down the road, not literally a few days after Bishop Farrell’s arrival in Rome.

Well, the ladder has been climbed.  I guess spending virtually no time as a parish priest has its rewards.

Snark aside, Bishop Farrell is, if nothing else, a relatively able administrator.  I think he could have done a very great deal more to reform and reorient this diocese in a much more successful and faithful direction, but apparently, the powers that be, be very, very pleased.  It is difficult to convey what a wreck he inherited here.  Grahmann was, as a commenter rightly noted, laying the groundwork for lay-administered Eucharistic services and basically priestless parishes a la Albany and Rochester (and Dallas was nearly in that league back in 2007 or so).  Farrell did stop that trend and emphasized the requirement for virtually all parishes (aside from some very small ones administered by priests from elsewhere) to have permanently assigned priests.  He also saw a number of relatively to strongly orthodox young men ordained, men who will one day form, it is fervently hoped, the backbone of a much improved clergy in Dallas.

It’s a bit interesting that Farrell gained his red piping along with a group that is widely viewed as exceedingly liberal, including two of the most liberal prelates in the US, Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin (not the relatively conservative Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI).  Just as interesting is who was passed over, again: Gomez, Chaput, and Vigernon, men who have led far larger dioceses for far longer than either Tobin or Farrell, and who serve in archdioceses almost always associated with a cardinal’s hat, historically.  But they are seen as conservatives, and thus out of fashion in this pontificate.  You can draw your own conclusions on where deep Church insiders view Farrell’s ideology/ecclesiology, since he was included in such a group.  He started out somewhat conservativish here, at least from a lay person’s perspective, but visibly swung liberal under Francis.  At least, that’s what I and my two friends think.

Pope Francis will conclude the Year of Mercy by creating 17 new cardinals, including three from the United States: Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago; Bishop Kevin J. Farrell, prefect of the new Vatican office for laity, family and life; and Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis.

Announcing the names of the new cardinals Oct. 9, Pope Francis said, “Their coming from 11 nations expresses the universality of the church that proclaims and witnesses the good news of God’s mercy in every corner of the earth.”

The new cardinals — 13 of whom are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope and four over 80 being honored for their “clear Christian witness” — will be inducted into the College of Cardinals Nov. 19, the eve of the close of the Year of Mercy.

The next day, Nov. 20, they will join Pope Francis and other cardinals in celebrating the feast of Christ the King and closing the Year of Mercy, the pope said……..

……..In creating 13 cardinal-electors — those under the age of 80 — Pope Francis will exceed by one the 120 cardinal-elector limit set by Blessed Paul VI. The number of potential electors will return to 120 Nov. 28 when Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, celebrates his 80th birthday.

The youngest of the new cardinals — who will be the youngest member of the College of Cardinals — is 49-year-old Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic……..

………Seven of the 11 nations represented by the new cardinals did not have a cardinal at the time of the pope’s announcement: Central African Republic, Bangladesh, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea will now have cardinal-electors. Malayasia [are there a million Catholics in all of Malaysia?  There are not], Lesotho and Albania will be represented in the College of Cardinals, although their cardinals will be too old to vote in a conclave.

Here is the list of new cardinals in the order in which Pope Francis announced them:

— Archbishop Zenari, an Italian who is 70 years old.

— Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic, 49.

— Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra of Madrid, 71.

— Archbishop Sergio da Rocha of Brasilia, Brazil, who will be 57 Oct. 21.

— Archbishop Cupich, 67.

— Archbishop Patrick D’Rozario of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 73.

— Archbishop Baltazar Porras Cardozo of Merida, Venezuela, who turns 72 Oct. 10.

— Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, 69.

— Archbishop Maurice Piat of Port-Louis, Mauritius, 75.

— Bishop Farrell, 69.

— Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes of Tlalnepantla, Mexico, 66.

— Archbishop John Ribat of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 59.

— Archbishop Tobin, 64.

— Retired Archbishop Anthony Soter Fernandez of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 84.

— Retired Archbishop Renato Corti of Novara, Italy, 80.

— Retired Bishop Sebastian Koto Khoarai of Mohale’s Hoek, Lesotho, 87.

— Father Simoni, 87.

Ever read The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, and descriptions of how European liberals co-opted possibly naive third-world bishops to back their agenda?

And the boyos continue to have outsize influence on the US episcopate.  Both Farrell and Tobin are Irish, and I wonder if Cupich isn’t, too.