jump to navigation

War of Words: Chaput Fires Back at Farrell November 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’ll take practical schism for $400, Alex.

Yesterday, we saw the unfortunate comments of former Bishop of Dallas, and now Cardinal-Elect, Kevin Farrell, singing the Francis tune for all its worth.  In the same interview, he also dropped some none-too-subtle criticisms of American prelates like Chaput who have made clear they will not be implementing false mercy for manifest adulterers, admitting them to reception of the Blessed Sacrament.  Farrell made clear he had wished Chaput and similar conservativish bishops had waited until the USCCB – a locus of administrative bureaucracy to the point of killing faith if I’ve ever seen one – had reached some common, watered down, soul-numbing policy all could agree to.

Well, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has now fired back, wondering if Farrell even read his archdiocesan policy, claiming Farrell’s concerns were very far from the mark.  Given what I know of Farrell’s lack of what you might call thoroughness and intellectual persistence, and near total acceptance of the cultural conventional wisdom, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet to conclude he not only hadn’t read the policy, but couldn’t care less.  Let’s see what Chaput had to say in rebuttal (my emphasis and comments):

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has fired back at Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell’s suggestion that his guidelines for implementing Pope Francis’ controversial Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are causing “division.”

“I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion,” the archbishop stated in comments emailed to LifeSiteNews.

Earlier this week, Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters — said that he disagreed with Chaput issuing his own guidelines in his own diocese, stating that implementing the pope’s exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops. [Well.  So did Farrell similarly complain when the bishops of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires chose to implement Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ revolutionary intent, instead of waiting for a joint decision of all the bishops of Argentina?  Yeah…….we’ll see that about a month after hell freezes over]

But at the center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”

For Farrell, this is problematic.

“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.” [This is nothing but an apologia for excusing and ultimately ignoring sin.  This is exactly – I mean precisely, even to the use of the exact same words – the same argument put forth by the Currans and Drinans with regard to use of contraception in the late 60s and early 70s.  Contraception would only be for married persons, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, under the watchful eye of a priest.  Yeah……how has that worked out.  Exactly as they intended, that’s how, with Catholic use of contraception completely indistinguishable from that of the general population, and souls likely – almost certainly –  falling into hell like snowflakes]

But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, and the fact that he issued the guidelines as a bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”

“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said. [That’s the least of what could be said in rebuttal]

“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. [Whatever] As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality,” he added. [Maybe they aren’t so puzzling after all. Maybe the message is, you will comply, or else.  Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but soon, there will be repercussions for “dissent”]

Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.

Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce,” he said.

Dang right.  Good for Chaput.  I’d rather it be said with a bit more emphasis, that the veil of false episcopal decorum be dropped entirely, but so be it.  He still made a very effective rebuttal.  Farrell can hardly respond save for appeal to authority – “bu- bu- but the pope said!”  That used to be all one had to say, but who knows what the future may hold.

 

Plenary Indulgence Available Today at Dallas Cathedral November 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Restoration, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Thanks to reader MJD. I think this is associated with the “holy doors” for the Year of Mercy.

Guadalupe Cathedral in Dallas (confessions still offered M, T. W, TH, F before the 12 Noon and 7 PM Masses – arrive at least 30-45 minutes before the mass starts)

or

St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Ft. Worth

Friday, Nov. 18  – earn a plenary indulgence for yourself or the holy souls in purgatory/departed loved ones

“A plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who visit a Cathedral on the feast of the Cathedral of St. Peter the Apostle and there recite an Our Father and the Creed – (Nicene or Apostle’s Creed)

**Requirements for obtaining a plenary indulgence:

・Do the work while in a state of grace,

・Receive Sacramental confession within 20 days of the work (several plenary indulgences may be earned per reception),

・Receive Eucharistic communion (one plenary indulgence may be earned per reception),

・Have no attachment to sin (even venial) – i.e., it is sufficient that the Christian makes an act of the  will to love God and despise sin.

When Politics Is Your Religion, Every Defeat Is a Hell November 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, the enemy, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Another interesting analysis of the Left, this one coming to the same conclusion I reached some time back: that Leftism is not a political philosophy, but a pseudo-religious movement based on secular materialism and with profound gnostic overtones:

According to progressive faith, the “arc of history” always bends Left. Well, history just spawned Donald Trump, and if European political trends are indicative, this is not an isolated incident. For leftists, this is akin to if Christians woke up to find Jesus’ bones had been discovered.[How, exactly, would that be proved?]It shattered their faith.

The freak-out is especially acute among millennials. These are the “nones” and the “spiritual but not religious” bunch we’ve heard about the past decade. Millennials, we were told, didn’t abandon faith per se—can the human spirit truly live without faith?—they simply redirected it away from “organized religion” toward other things, chief among which was politics. I wonder how that’s working out for them.

As ridiculous and ubiquitous as the pathetically referenced “stages of grief” has become to explain how they feel about losing an election (!), the depth of leftist grief does magnify the essential religiosity they place on politics……..

The author then goes on to explain the gnostic overtones, which is fine, but probably not terribly interesting to most of my readers.

I’d also go much further than the author – basing many of my conclusion from Fr. Dominic Bourmaud’s  research – that leftism isn’t an “accidental” religion, but was designed as such from the start.  Not consciously (at least at the start), but in effect, because the point of rationalism/secularism/liberalism/modernism/leftism was always one and the same: to usurp the power of Christianity in Christendom – which in reality meant the Church – and to replace it with a materialist/rationalist conception of the universe.  As Leftism gained more and more influence over the culture it became more and more open in its violence against the Church and more and more strident in its claims, positing an origins story, providing moral strictures to be observed, and even providing visions of “heaven” and “hell” on earth.

We’ve now just about reached end game in his process with thorough penetration of Leftism into all the churches and sects, and with whole generations being raised who – by and large – have no conception of what Christianity is, what it means, and why it is unique and most powerful in comparison to all the other religions of the world, including their own.

If you go back to Monday and go through my series of posts on Leftism as a sort of arc, the conclusions are, I think, not too difficult to see.  Outside miraculous conversion, the Left is inveterately hostile, desires the total destruction of Christianity, is a deliberately formed means to persecute Christianity, is endlessly corrupting, and is both unreachable and unteachable.  This is a very harsh assessment, but not an unfair, or inaccurate, one.  Dealing with an inveterately hostile competing religion requires a very different approach from interaction with souls not so ill-disposed.  Tread very carefully.

As for retaking the culture from this anti-Christian religion, that’s a work of generations, and even then our collective efforts to date feel more like a desperate and not terribly effective rear-guard than any kind of counter-revolution.  I’ve long felt the sense we need a change of tactics, but that’s really probably a matter of another post.

 

A Liberal Refutes Every Outrageous Claim Being Made Against Trump……. November 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

………and his supporters.

I say again, this writer – who I’ve never heard of before – admits to being a progressive.  But he is one of the few who has enough sense to note that the Left is increasingly losing control over political debates and even the cultural battleground due to their constant, reflexive use of insult and calumny against their opponents.

The novella he wrote – it’s over 8000 words – goes into extensive detail to refute that Trump is racist, that his “sexism,” to the extent it exists, is little different than many other political elites, and much less than his opponent’s spouse, that Bill Clinton ran on exactly the same platform of severe immigration control in 1996, etc.  Basically, every single claim the Left has been making against Trump and his supporters is refuted, and in detail, with extensive supporting information.  It’s a long post, but well worth a read.

He notes something else, more significant.  While there are many, many genuine criticisms of Trump one can make, the Left has become so intolerant of dissent, so intellectually lazy, and so enveloped in the worst aspects of identity politics that they have literally lost the ability to form cogent arguments and are now reduced to doing nothing but shouting epithets at those who disagree.  Far from Trump – and his supporters – being the harbinger of some kind of totalitarian shift in this nation’s governance, it is the Left themselves who are becoming increasingly open to the vicious strong man who will give them what they want more than anything else – the destruction of those they hate most.  Their very simple-mindedness and divorce from evidentiary argument is a virtual invitation to this kind of creature coming to the fore in future.

Even more, the Left is – with complete inevitability – increasingly coming to embrace the very racism they constantly apply to others.  Witness how many open castigations of all white people as being irredeemably evil and worthy only of being crushed, if not death, have emerged in the past week.  On the other hand, with respect to the strong man argument, the Left’s constant use of claims of racism and sexism against people who very plainly are not, have made those terms meaningless in the culture, so that the future possibility that a monster motivated by real racism and real sexism will not face effective opposition, since the terms have been used to such excess that they simply carry no weight.  Of course, the Left always projects their own psychoses onto their opponents, so when they decry the racism, sexism, or whatever-ism of others, they are really only revealing their own.

It’s a good piece, and even if you don’t agree with his conclusions – after all, he wants to “save” the Left in this country and make it more effective in future elections – the data he provides is eminently useful.  I encourage you to check it out.