jump to navigation

Evil Anniversary: Planned Butcherhood 100 Years Old October 17, 2016

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

Hard to believe the evil creation of the diabolical Margaret Sanger has been around 100 years.  It shows how long the several decay in moral standards in our culture goes back.  It is also interesting to contemplate where Sanger first got radicalized – the women’s suffrage movement – and the inseparable ties between that movement and attacks on the moral order.  There really was then, and remains today (far more so), a desire to destroy the Christian moral order and upend patriarchy.  What evil hath been wrought to this end is beyond human comprehension:

As this month marks Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary, we should pause and consider its destructive legacy.

Founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger in 1916, what is now known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America began as a small birth control clinic in New York City. Sanger was motivated by her belief that artificial birth control and eugenics would “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit,” including “morons” and “various criminal types” who “populate the slums.”

Today, Planned Parenthood affiliates operate over 650 clinics across the country and the organization is America’s leading abortion provider, performing 324,000 abortions last year, which works out to about one abortion every 98 seconds.

Over 57 million abortions have been performed in the United States in the years leading up to and following the tragic Roe v. Wade decision by an activist Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly to make abortion the cornerstone of Sanger’s legacy. What is that legacy?

  • Fighting parental notification laws that protect children who seek abortions.
  • Advocating for taxpayer-funded abortion in the United States and overseas. [Now the official position of the demonrat party]
  • Attacking life-affirming pregnancy resource centers that provide humane abortion alternatives.
  • Opposing laws guaranteeing informed consent for women seeking abortions.
  • Opposing partial-birth abortion bans.
  • Opposing bans on sex-selective abortion.
  • Opposing laws that protect children that survive abortions.
  • Opposing commonsense health and safety standards for abortion facilities.
  • Using its 501(c)(4) advocacy arm to spend $30 million electing pro-abortion politicians to public office. [a few more: covering up child sex abuse, covering up sex trafficking of minors and adults, condoning and covering up sexual slavery, performing abortions on minors without parental notification, etc., etc.  This is the locus of demonic sacrifice that gives supernatural impetus to the general attack on the moral order]

Planned Parenthood purports to provide a wide range of health care, but its own data reveals that it is a profit-driven, abortion-centric organization.

……….Despite its leading position in the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars through grants and reimbursements every year. Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report reveals it received over $550 million from taxpayers last year alone.

Hillary desires to increase that to up to nearly $1 billion by the end of her first term.  Planned Barrenhood then turns around and uses federal tax dollars – your money, and mine – to attack its opponents and aggressively advocate not only for abortion but for an whole swath of gravely immoral programs, from the indoctrination of children into perversion and degrading practices, to “free” contraception.  And all along, they work feverishly with groups like Komen to keep the extremely strong links between chemical birth control/abortion use and various deadly cancers under wraps.  Why do you think Banned Parenthood utterly freaked out when Komen tried to cut off funds in 2012?  It wasn’t because they were overly afraid it would lead to a stampede of de-funding, but because cutting that tie could have permitted Komen to start to publicize this well known, if deeply memory-holed, link.

Evil.

Advertisements

Explosive Question: Should Women’s Suffrage Be Abolished? October 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Domestic Church, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Reader TT sent me a recommendation to a short book that contains two lectures given by the Catholic Bishop of Denver, CO, J.P. Machebeuf, in 1877.  In those lectures, basing his reasoning almost entirely on the Epistles of Saint Paul – that is, inspired and inerrant Scripture – Bishop Machebeuf argues passionately against women’s suffrage – then a growing cause celebre among the nascent progressive faction in this country.  I read this book months ago, and have been meaning to blog on it for some time, but never took the time to sit down and try to frame the matter in a way I thought would provide a reasonable discussion, as opposed to instant recourse to emotion.

Machebeuf relies principally on the following quotes from Scripture in his argument:

I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man and the head of Christ is God; the woman is the glory of the man, for the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man (I Cor xi:13).

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church.  Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the women be to their husbands in all things. (Eph v:22).

I will therefore, that men pray in every place……..In like manner the women also, in decent apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety…..as it becometh a woman professing Godliness with good works. Let the women learn in silence, with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not seduced, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression; yet she shall be saved through child bearing, if she continue in faith andlove and sanctification in sobriety (I Tim ii: 6- 8)

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’ s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Gen iii:16)

From these scriptural quotes – which are not being relayed outside modifying context, I would judge – and a few others, Bishop Machebeuf argues against allowing women the vote.  He also uses his assessments of the peculiarities of female nature as arguments against women’s suffrage, finding women perhaps more inclined to emotionalism, less inclined to the broader, long-range common good (as opposed to their own perceived, individual good), and perhaps less well disposed for making such decisions. He also feels women’s involvement in politics, even simply as an involved voter, would detract time from women’s primary duty in providing for the household and rearing the (hopefully many) children.  Primarily, however, the bishop finds women’s suffrage an affront to what he understands as God’s divinely revealed order, an order which places women, in such matters as the public trust, if not subordinate to men, at least in no position to dictate to men, through their vote, how public affairs should be conducted.

Bishop Machebeuf also presciently notes that the matter of women’s suffrage was simply the tip of the spear for a much broader move towards “women’s rights,” or the general trend towards feminism we have seen wreak such havoc on the family and culture over the past several decades. He had the foresight to see that the then very small women’s movement would metamorphose into a mass movement dedicated to the destruction of the moral order ordained by God.  A couple of quotes on this matter suffice to reveal the whole:

[The woman] cannot perform the duties of both man and woman at the same time, which makes it impossible for a woman to be a faithful wife and mother, attend to her household duties, and hold a public office – which seems to be the main object of the friends of women’s rights [Demonstrating that the Bishop foresaw, quite rightly, that the women’s suffrage movement was not just about giving women “equality” with men in terms of voting, but even putting them in positions of authority over men in the temporal realm by seeing women elected to public office.  Now we stand on the precipice of seeing perhaps the most amoral character in American political history elected to the highest office of the land.  And that character is a woman]

…….

You know, beloved brethren, what some of those discontented women want; they want to shake off the authority of men, they want to turn upside down the order established by a just God, they want to rule over man.

What are we to make of this? Is this just some uncomfortable relic from a bygone, far less enlightened age, or could the bishop perhaps be onto something?  Obviously, his thinking is entirely absent from the public mind of the Church today, at least outside maybe a few isolated individuals (who are treated as crackpots), but we also know the “public mind” of the Church, as expressed by the large majority of bishops, priests, cardinals, and lay people, is at divergence with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith on a vast panoply of subjects.  That is to say, simply because his belief seems very much at odds with the beliefs posited by the vast majority of those who claim the name Catholic today, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong because of it.

One way to look at this subject, perhaps, is to look at the course of history in the many nations that have adopted practically universal suffrage, including women, over the past century or so.  Has that trend not been overwhelmingly towards the left, towards self-seeking, and towards the undermining of the moral and religious order and its replacement with an entirely new and hostile order oriented towards paganism, immorality, totalitarian government, and selfishness?  Polls in this and most every Western country reveal that women are far more likely to vote for the left-wing candidate than men.  They have played a vital part of the left-wing coalition in this and many other countries.  The rise of the Left has been a disaster for the Church and for the moral order, generally.

Interestingly, Bishop Machebeuf predicted that this would happen, that as women diverted attention from the home and rearing of children, towards what they were told would be the greener pastures of political and economic “empowerment,” that the rearing of children would necessarily suffer, and that neglect and the relaxation of familial and societal moral discipline would soon lead to a general, and grave, moral decay.

Bishop Machebeuf does not say in so many words, but what he is arguing in favor of, and what he reveals to be divinely ordained by God through Scripture, is that virtual curse-word today, a patriarchal society.  It is very clear today, and has been for some decades, that the radical feminist movement, which was given birth (apropos turn of phrase, no?) by the women’s suffrage movement (and has continued to use many of the same methods), has developed into a movement oriented towards the destruction of the traditional patriarchal society and its replacement with something different and far more destructive.  Since patriarchy is so clearly endorsed by Scripture, feminists have both waged war, and sought to co-opt, Christian leaders into their movement, even though in so doing, those leaders have helped hasten the destruction of their religion and the entire moral order.  It is little wonder that it was only ten years from the institution of women’s suffrage in the United States, and the approval of contraceptive use by a major non-Catholic ecclesial body (Lambeth Conference, 1930).  The decline  of the moral order has unalterably advanced since then.

Am I calling for the abolishing of women’s suffrage?  Perhaps in theory, though not very strongly even there.  I think the bishop basically right in his assessment, but I do wonder why there are not more texts of this type that have come down to us.  Was Bishop Machebeuf an outlier, even 140 years ago?  Or is his rare “hardness” or orthodoxy in this matter simply an early indication of the grave problems inherent in the American episcopate all along, but which would not reveal themselves en masse until about a century later?

Either way, we are about 500 billion miles from this being even a remotely viable issue or something to push for, publicly.  The vast majority of people, even – or, especially – those who call themselves Christian and/or Catholic, are so totally convinced that women voting is such a natural good, such an inviolable right, that even broaching the subject (outside a specialty audience like those who tend to read this blog) would be, at present, simply to instantly discredit oneself, or have oneself labeled as a member of the lunatic fringe.  Then again, Catholics – true Catholics – have always been perceived as such by the society at large.

Having said that, another thing TT sent me, a link to a post by Mundabor, contains relevant argumentation that is probably better than I could make.  It’s said a bit more strongly than I would phrase things (as you know, I am always so milquetoast and diplomatic), and overlooks one reality – that the female readers of my blog and probably his, too, are far better informed and make far better choices than the vast majority of men out there in the general populace – but he does provide a helpful condensation of the arguments it would take me many hours to frame.  So take this for what you will, and I look forward to the discussion that will follow (emphasis in original):

It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.

Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.

In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place……..[I don’t think this goes nearly far enough.  If there had never been women’s suffrage, I don’t think there would have ever been a Trump, or a nation fallen far enough to give us two such unworthy candidates.]

…….Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men…….

………It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.

Two thousand words is very long for a blog post, so I’ll end here, but I’ve really only scratched the surface of a very complex, and important, topic. I may err above where I say debating this will confine one to a lunatic fringe; not that I’m wrong about how people would receive such an argument, but as to whether that matters or not.  That is to say, the truth must be revealed no matter how it is received.

So, perhaps we’ll have more on this topic in the future.

How to Amend a Sacrilegious Marriage                  October 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, family, General Catholic, Grace, Interior Life, reading, Sacraments, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I’m reading a neat little 90 year old book called Plain Talks on Marriage by Fr. Fulgence Meyer OFM.   Fr. Meyer addresses a point that is often overlooked, given the many problems afflicting marriage in the Church today (and the growing assaults on marriage coming even from the Vatican itself), but which may be even more widespread a phenomenon in this day and age than divorce and remarriage or infidelity.

The problem is reception of the Sacrament of Marriage in an unworthy, sacrilegious manner,  due to circumstances Fr. Meyer outlines below.  He also advises how one can amend for such an unworthy reception of the Sacrament, which is, after all, equal to Baptism, Confirmation, and even the Eucharist in nature.

From pp. 32-4:

You say……..that you have been married in keeping with the requirements of the Church; you were married, perhaps, with considerable ceremony.  Were  you in the state of Grace when you married?  Matrimony is a Sacrament of the living, and the recipient must not be conscious of an unforgiven mortal sin.  There are those who before marriage, in the period of courtship, sin flagrantly with each other by indulging in, or allowing, improprieties, indecent liberties, and shocking intimacies.  When they go to Confession before marriage, they are ashamed or too proud to admit these mortal sins.  They willfully make an invalid Confession, receive Holy Communion unworthily, and are married validly, indeed, yet sacrilegiously.  No wonder that they do not receive the grace of the sacrament, and that their married life is unhappy in consequence.  They started it out altogether wrong, even with the curse of God[One wonders how many failed marriages, subsequent divorces, and then even remarriages, have started out in this failed way as the couples involved were fornicating prior to marriage and never confessed the sin, and even received the Sacrament unworthily and sacrilegiously?  I suspect it is a huge source of the calamity that has befallen Catholic marriage.] What are they to do to set matters right?

All they need to do is to make a good general Confession covering the entire period from their last worthy Confession to the present time.  This Confession is not at all hard for those who have the will to get back to God.  The priests will give you what help you need, supposing you are in this plight.  And do not believe you are the first one to tell this story to the priest. He has heard it often before, and he will hear it again in the future.  Human nature is the same everywhere and at all times.  So take heart and make a clean breast of it in the spirit of true and humble contrition.  Then, when you receive absolution, you will get not only the graces of holy penance, but also those of matrimony.  They have been and are only suspended, waiting for the hindrance of mortal sin to be removed from your soul.  No sooner the hindrance is gone, the suspension will cease, and the graces of marriage will flood, strengthen and rejoice your soul.  [And, almost certainly, dramatically improve the marriage in question as those Graces long denied flood in to work their supernatural effects]

———-End Quote————-

We live in really messed up times. Practically the entire world – “friends,” peers, media, government, the demons, etc. – scream at us from a very early age to do really bad things unless one is among the very few lucky ones to have been an early homeschooler, or somehow raised by exceptionally pious and attentive parents.  I know I certainly did fall for a lot of lies the world peddles, and they seriously messed me up.

But one of the infinite number of wonderful aspects of our God is that He forgives totally, and is a an infinitely generous giver.  Once we have true contrition and make a good confession, He will flood ourselves with graces and gifts totally unearned by us, and impossible to repay, but He will send them all the same.  They can turn around situations that seem impossible to repair by human means.  I’ve certainly seen that happen more than once.  Don’t give up!

And don’t ever let some false authority figure in the Church tell you that divorce is OK, that’s it’s not that bad, that the Church (re: Franky) is providing a “do-over,”  that God “understands,” and all the similar lies.  Go to Confession, trust in God, and pray!  That is the best way to a happy life, not serial divorce/civil remarriage and the carousel of degrading use of the marital faculties that involves.

May God have mercy on all those experiencing marital pain, and who need the cleansing regeneration of Confession.

How to Buy a Cardinal’s Hat: Farrell Comes Out Hard for Amoris Laetitia October 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, attachments, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Wellity wellity wellity………the things we learn my little droogies.  I had sometimes scratched my rassoodok, wondering if perhaps I weren’t a bit too hard on our former Bishop Kevin Farrell.  Now, the evidence against him was really overwhelming, but I think most every Catholic who has a sense of fealty towards his ecclesiastical superiors does have an occasional doubt or two when he finds himself cross-ways with the man appointed to serve as his spiritual shepherd.

And Farrell had done some good.  The Fraternity parish, increase in vocations, end of the horrific run of scandals, getting the diocese’s funding situation in order, approving some orthodox lay people here and there for fairly influential assignments.  He could have been worse.  As I believe I fairly conclusively demonstrated late last week, Farrell started off his tenure probably a shade or two right of center but after March 2013 veered quite perceptibly leftwards.  What was his true inclination, if he even has one, other than parroting the opinions of the men he felt the need to please?

Well, if his first interview is any indication, I was not unfair at all in my appraisal of Farrell, and may well have even been more generous with him than I should have.  Amazingly, the Cardinal-Elect Prefect of Francis’ very powerful and influential new dicastery for the family gave his first major English-language interview to the National Heretic Reporter, and immediately launched forth on a very radical, and very combative, assessment of Amoris Laetitia, it’s doctrinal standing, and its role in the remaking of the Church.

I quote extensively from LifeSiteNews below, as there is quite a bit to unpack.  My emphasis and comments:

In a lengthy new interview, Bishop and soon-to-be cardinal Kevin Farrell said whether those in unions the Church labels adulterous may receive Communion is a “process of discernment and of conscience.” He says Amoris Laetitia “is the teaching of the Church,” comes from the Holy Spirit, and will be the “guiding document” of the new Vatican dicastery Pope Francis appointed him to head.

In August, Pope Francis named Farrell, the former bishop of Dallas, to lead the newly-formed Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life. The Pontifical Council for the Laity and to the Pontifical Council for the Family will be folded into this new dicastery. On Sunday, Pope Francis announced that Farrell had been named a cardinal along with two other U.S. bishops: Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich and Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin (not to be confused with Rhode Island’s strongly pro-life Bishop Thomas Tobin).

The appointment of these three bishops as cardinals is a “seismic shift” in the American Catholic Church, according to Vatican expert John Allen Jr.,  because Farrell, Cupich, and Tobin belong “to the centrist, non-cultural warrior wing of the country’s hierarchy.” [We can see how far left Allen is, by his incredible definition of “centrist.”  By his standards, Chairman Mao was just a shade left of center]

Speaking to the National Catholic Reporter, long condemned for its open opposition to Church teaching, Farrell said, “I think that the document Amoris Laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church. It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately. Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.” [Regarding “carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio, such a comment is beneath contempt.  It is positively Orwellian in its inversion of the truth.  And apparently, Farrell assesses something as being from the Holy Ghost or not according to how well it aligns with his own ideological views]

………“I firmly believe [Amoris Laetitia] is the teaching of the church,” said Farrell. “This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is.”

Farrell said he wasn’t necessarily saying the divorced and remarried should receive Communion.

“That’s a process of discernment and of conscience,” and a “journey,” he said. “The priest, the pastor needs to accompany people in difficult situations.” [This is EXACTLY the language the revolutionaries in the Church a generation ago used to obtain a practical apostasy on the subject of contraception and, to a lesser degree, abortion.  Charles Curran and his ilk used intentionally deceptive phrases, claiming contraceptive use could/would only be rightly used by solidly Catholic married couples after a process of discernment, guided by a priest, and only for very serious reasons.  Yeah, that lasted about 5 minutes.  Then it was all contraception, all the time, and, in fact, if you don’t contracept, you’re a bad Catholic, because look at how you are assaulting poor defenseless mother nature]

Farrell told the National Catholic Reporter the divorced and remarried should be included “in all the ministries of the church.”

In honesty, I am not surprised by this in the slightest.  This is precisely the kind of opinion I would expect both of a man so rapidly promoted by Francis, and given so important a new position.  I’m also completely unsurprised at what heterodoxy Farrell is all too happy to support, given the right reward.

What this does make clear is that this is both the required position Francis is demanding of ambitious men in the Church, and the vehicle by which a new stage of the social revolution is to be conducted.  I deliberately mentioned contraception above, because this reception of the Blessed Sacrament by manifest adulterers is an even more egregious affront to the Sovereign Lord.  These guys have no new tools, no new methods, just the same old lies they’ve trotted out for the last 50 years.  What they do have, however, is power, and the will to use it in unjust, even cruel manner.  Just as the FFIs and FSIs about that.

Enjoy your newchurch.  For me, I think the SSPX would be insane to accept the carrot of “regularization” at this time.  I also find it absolutely ludicrous that the SSPX can be held out to be irregular, while creatures like Farrell get to walk around pretending  to be the image of Catholic orthodoxy.  That is too great an affront to logic and decency for me to bear.