jump to navigation

A muslim Attacks Again – CNN’s Response? “Wear the Hijab.” November 30, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
comments closed

For solidarity, ostensibly.

I’ve argued for years, that once the Left finally feels it has crushed Christianity sufficiently, and is left with no effective rhetorical, ideological, or physical defense against islam, leftists will happily don the hijab (or force their women to – aren’t a lot of “liberated” women in for a shock) and take up the mantle of this false religion.  Leftism has always been primarily a force created to oppose Christianity.  That is its primary purpose as an ideology.  Were its reason for existence to go away, leftism would rapidly whither (there would be exceptions, to be sure) while its devotees cast about for an alternative set of religious beliefs.  With a militant islam at the doorstep demanding obeisance, most will submit.

Hastening the day, in response to yet another jihadist attack in the United States (in a safe space, gun-free university, to boot!), a CNN newsreader has decided that this jihadist was somehow justified in feeling put upon in the country which welcomed him and showered him with material largesse totally unknown in his totally dysfunctional, decrepit home-nation, and that American women should don the hijab to show their solidarity with the horrible suffering muslims are enduring, to the extent that 3 million or more have moved here in the last 10 years alone:

Americans should wear hijabs to show solidarity with Muslim women who fear being attacked for wearing the religious head covering, CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota suggested on Monday, just hours before an Islamic radical stabbed students at Ohio State University. [Oh, excuse me. She said this BEFORE the attack?  That makes my point all the more forcefully.  Part of them longs for this kind of domination, as the Leftist ideology has always been riddled with souls working out “daddy issues” well into adulthood, or even into the grave]

“Maybe there will be a movement where people wear the head scarf in solidarity. You know, even if you’re not Muslim,” Camerota said during an early-morning broadcast on CNN’s “New Day.”

“Maybe it’s the way people shave their heads, you know, sometimes in solidarity with somebody who is going through something,” she added.

Camerota was responding to a CNN segment about Muslim women who say they live in fear of being verbally or physically attacked for wearing head scarves. [Once again the Left conflates disagreement with something akin to a physical attack.  I fully endorse women dressing modestly, but I do have a problem when the  men in their lives more or less force them to do so.  And things like the burqa are just grotesque, ludicrous, a commentary far more on the muslim man’s total inability to practice self-control than it is the “wanton” nature of woman]

The segment tied a spate of alleged incidents in which Muslim women have been targeted for wearing hijabs to Donald Trump’s presidential win. [BS]

“The Trump Transition: Fearful Muslim women take steps to be safe,” read the chyron that CNN chose for the segment.

“I hope I can wear it one day again. I hope I can feel safe enough to do so,” Marwa Abdelghani, a Muslim-American woman, told the network.

The piece did not note that some of the alleged hate incidents in the aftermath of Trump’s win have been found to be hoaxes. An 18-year-old University of Louisana-Lafayette student was charged with filing a false report after she claimed that a group of white Trump supporters hurled racial slurs at her and stole her hijab several days after the election.

Ummm, as far as is known, every single one of these claims has either been a hoax, or completely unsubstantiated.  There may be a handful of real instances – there are boneheads everywhere – but this is hardly a mass movement.  Once again, the Left turns the aggressor into the victim and creates bigotry where there is none, or is in actuality not prejudice at all but rational concern based on a mountain of evidence.

Islam and Leftism are two sides of the same coin, forged in hell and flipped by satan.

Scorcese Flick “Silence” Looks Like Another Assault on the Faith November 30, 2016

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

Martin Scorsese is a man capable of bringing prodigious gifts to bear, though he has used them most often toward prurient interests and the denigration, as opposed to the uplifting, of the human spirit.  Almost all of his films are charnel-houses of violence, hedonism, unbounded lusts of all kinds, and the glorification of extremely seedy characters on the silver screen.  Of course, his “Last Temptation of Christ,”rumored for years to have been at least partially financed by the Mafia, is blasphemous from beginning to end.  It’s a shame, as he has such talents as to make even the most gruesome acts strangely mesmerizing, even beautiful in a way, but he has manifestly refused to use the gifts he has been given for more virtuous purposes.

So it should come as no surprise that Scorsese would be willing to produce a new movie based on a 1966 Japanese fiction book that depicted the supposed apostasy of numerous Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan.  And, equally unsurprising is the fact that the film has already been lauded by many worldlings who have seen advance showings, and has tragically even been embraced by the Bishop of Rome himself.  In fact, the Vatican hosted the glitzy world premiere, and there has been effusive praise for this work from many Vatican officials already.

Now, the book on which the movie is based supposedly has a good deal of merit until it veers wildly off course at the end, showing collapse of faith and total despondency, and it is unknown how faithfully Scorsese has followed the book in his movie, but given the fact that the arch-progressive James Martin, SJ, was principle advisor, I don’t think we can expect a ringing endorsement of the virtues of faith, patience, joyfully accepted suffering, and steadfastness in this upcoming epic.  Rorate provides further details, while noting the extreme differences between this new movie, and the wonderful A Man for All Seasons, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its original release:

In 1966 the movie “A Man for All Seasons” was released in the U.S., the same year Japanese author Shūsaku Endō wrote the historical fiction novel “Silence.”
Last night, the Vatican hosted the world premiere of the movie version of “Silence,” which will be released next month. Shown at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, administered by the Jesuits, approximately 400 priests and others attended. Rorate’s invitation to the screening may have been lost in the mail, so we have not seen the movie.  But based on the novel, the endings for the two 1966 works could not be more opposite. One concludes with heroism and martyrdom, the other with indifference and apostasy.

The adaption of “Silence” for the big screen was done by Mr. Martin Scorsese, a former seminarian (Cathedral College minor seminary in New York) who is now a self-proclaimed “lapsed Catholic.”  One may remember his scandalous and sacrilegious 1988 movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ.” [Saw bits of it way back in the way back when I was a blase’ protestant teen, and even then I thought it contrived, sacrilegious, and deliberately conceived to offend as many Christians as possible.  I also thought it chicken-s–t, as Scorsese would never have the cajones to make a similar film about buddhism, let alone islam.]
To make “Silence,” Scorsese chose James Martin, S.J., as a consultant for the movie…….[Which almost certainly tells us all we need to know about this production]
Before last night’s Vatican screening, Scorsese and Mexican producer Gaston Pavlovich met with Pope Francis.  According to a Variety reporter in attendance:  “The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for ‘Silence,’ Scorsese’s passion project.” [“Last Temptation” was another “passion project,” which few studios were willing to release, let alone fund, due to its deliberately hateful content.  Thus, the recourse to unconventional sources of funding.  Consider which movie he made next]
Now, perhaps the ending to the movie “Silence” is completely different from the ending to the novel “Silence.”  We sure hope so. If not, the world will soon witness a $50 million renouncement of the Catholic Church by members of the Society of Jesus, as tacitly endorsed by the current (Jesuit) pope. The novel, which was absolutely terrific up until the end, has a clear message to leave with readers — the opposite of Saint Thomas More’s example to England and the world.
Apostasy should not be celebrated by the Vatican. These Jesuits are men for no seasons.

Indeed, and have been for decades.  At this point, sad though it may be, I wait for their hastening extinction while they refuse conversion and reform. Though with this pontiff, they appear committed to hastening headlong along the same road they have been on since the arch-heretics Tyrell and Loisy corrupted their ranks.

As for the movie, there is no chance I will ever see it.  The book’s ending is very provocative and the choice the “protagonist” makes will thrill worldlings, who will now have a powerful new weapon (a whole new mythology, powered by indelible images) with which to attack Christians who hold that adherence to the Doctrine of the Faith is the sine qua non of being a Christian, in spite of all suffering and persecution. Literally hundreds of glorious, edifying movies based on lives of real martyrs could have been made, but they would not stroke the world’s ego as this book does, telling the world, pretty much, what it wants to hear from “God.”

Meh.  As if we needed further confirmation that Hollywood and the Left – ooops, oxymoron – hate us, and hate Him.

Do You Think They Will? GOP “Plans” to De-Fund Planned Barrenhood Next Year November 30, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
comments closed

We’ve heard it before.  Voters gave the GOPe party unprecedented majorities in both the House and Senate in recent years, and yet we were told they could do essentially nothing on the pro-life front because they didn’t have the presidency.  Now they have that, too, though a reduced majority in the Senate, so the PR is now that the GOP will now, finally, try to de-fund Planned Barrenhood.  I’ll believe it when I see it.  With Collins and other libs remaining among the Repubnik Senate Caucus, and with dems always possessing what seems to be far greater moral fervor for their cause than the R’s have for any socially conservative cause, I remain firmly skeptical.  We’ve been lied to far too many times for me to trust just about anything these cats say:

“The entire movement is poised for a victory,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group that opposes abortion. “We have every assurance [from congressional leaders] that it’s going to happen. Nobody is saying ‘whether,’ the question is ‘when.’”…

Eliminating Planned Parenthood’s approximately $550 million in federal funding — most of it through Medicaid — would be abortion opponent’s most tangible victory since 2007, when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions.

One possible approach is to attach the defunding of Planned Parenthood to a repeal of Obamacare and pass both items using reconciliation. That would only require a simple majority, though there is disagreement even among GOP Senators about whether a full repeal of Obamacare is possible using this maneuver.  No one seems ready to commit to a plan of action yet which is probably wise given the level of push-back it will generate.

Republicans say no final decision has been made about what they’ll do next year, although one GOP congressional aide said that among conservatives “there is an expectation that it will be included in any reconciliation bill.” But if the Obamacare repeal legislation runs into any roadblocks because it includes defunding Planned Parenthood, the provision could be cut.

Naturally, Democrats are prepared to make sure any such effort runs into every possible roadblock. And with the GOP’s narrow advantage in the Senate, it will matter if some GOP Senators refuse to back the plan:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) opposed using the reconciliation tactic to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare in 2015. Another moderate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), supported it. But she also introduced an amendment with Collins to strike the Planned Parenthood provision, indicating that she had reservations about cutting off funding. [Of course they would.  Both are strident pro-aborts]

As for President-elect Trump, he made clear during the primaries that he is committed to defunding PP because his position on abortion (which he said had evolved over time), but he was also the only Republican who defended the group saying, “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”

You can see why I am underwhelmed.  It smells to me like more kabuki-theater, deliberate failure, “well, we tried, but those darned democrats with their tiny minority just foiled us again,” etc.  In other words, a set up.  Good for the pro-life groups, though.  Great pitch angle for donations – “donate to us and we’ll de-fund Planned Parenthood!”

Perhaps I’ve become a bit jaded, but as I said, I’ll believe it when I see it.  I think the GOP could foul up de-funding Planned Barrenhood, let alone repealing Obamacare, with a 72-seat majority, let alone a 52-seat one.  That’s because most Republican senators don’t want it repealed.  Think of all the graft they can skim off federal control of 20% of the economy?  Cha-ching.

Burke, et. al., Threatened With Loss of Cardinalate Over Dubia November 30, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

The reasoning, as always with FrancisChurch, is absolutely atrocious.  Coming as it does from the Dean of the Roman Rota – the very man Francis sacked Cardinal Burke to replace with – is all the more disheartening.  Via LifeSiteNews:

While the dubia of four Cardinals concerning clarification of Amoris Laetitia spreads wider and wider ripples in the Vatican and worldwide, the dean of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the highest appeals court of the Church, says that they might lose their Cardinalate.

“The action of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted,” he says. “[The Cardinals] question not one synod but two! The ordinary and the extraordinary,” Mons. Vito Pinto explained during a conference in the Ecclesiastical University of San Dámaso in Madrid, Spain. [OK.  Whether or not the exhortation following the Synods – Amoris Laetitia – is Magisterial (normally it would be, but how can it be where it plainly intends – via Francis’ own implementation/interpretation – to contradict the Sacred Deposit of Faith!), the Synods WERE NOT.  Tiny subsets of bishops do not equate to an ecumenical council, whether they meet one time or forty times.  Not even 5% of the world’s bishops were invited to attend, and the deck was stacked with as many friendly to revolution as possible, particularly in the second synod.  This is specious, circular reasoning at its lowest]

The four Cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked Pope Francis for clarification on September 19, and then went public with their concerns earlier this month when Francis failed to answer.

“Which Church do these Cardinals defend?” Pinto reproaches. “The Pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.” [The boundless effrontery of it all is simply amazing.  So now that they have a progressive pope, the Left in the Church decrees that the Faith = whatever the pope says it is today.  They weren’t quite so ultramontanist when Benedict was in the Chair of Peter!]

“What they have done is a very serious scandal that could lead the Holy Father to remove them from the Cardinalate, as it has sometimes happened in Church history,” Pinto expounds. [I think if Francis did that, he would both be making a very big mistake, and also telling us a very great deal about his conception of mercy.  These men, after all, only asked questions, questions which permitted no wiggle room, no diabolical “shades of grey,” which Francis, apparently, has either preferred – or is unable – to answer. Who is introducing the novel doctrines here?  It is not the four cardinals, and their numerous allies.  It is Jesuit Francis.]

The Cardinalate – unlike the deaconate, priestly, or bishop’s ordination – does not entail an ontological change in the individual, but is an office conferred by the Pope. Therefore the Church speaks of “creating” Cardinals who join the College of Cardinals. They serve principally as helpers – in Latin, “hinges” (cardines) – to the Pope in ruling the Church. Therefore, they could theoretically be removed from their positions and return to being “simple” bishops or archbishops.

Mons. Vito Pinto affirms that the Pope has not directly answered their dubia but “indirectly he has told them that they only see in white or black, when in the Church there are shades of colors.” Pinto referred to multiple instances in which Pope Francis stated that life is not black and white but grey.

In the same conference, Mons. Pinto recalls, referring to Catholic “remarried” divorcees, how the center of Francis’ message is that the Church needs to accept the injured and fallen: “A nun told me that there are people divorced or living together who are communicating. And what should the Church do, say ‘yes, you may’ and ‘no, you may not’? Pope Francis wants a Church that is very close to the people.” [Which, if you note, does not address the supposed nun’s supposed concern at all.  It’s meaningless blather. In reality, the message is being conveyed, but in the typical passive-aggressive, cowardly leftist way.  They won’t straight up publicly proclaim heresy, but they hint at it, give it a wink and a nod, and basically encourage people to go that way, while in private communiques, the clear message is sent: give Communion to adulterers. I guess Christ, then, was not up to Francis’ exceedingly high standards of closeness to the people, when he said that manifest sinners who refuse the intervention of the Church should be anathematized?]

For Mons. Pinto the only solution – and the key to Francis’ pontificate – is acceptance, what he calls “mercy.” “In our time the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy and not wield the weapons of severity. The Catholic Church wishes to show herself to be a kind mother to all, patient and full of mercy to the children separated from her.”

Even while they fall into hell?  So did Our Blessed Lord tell the Truth, or not?  Is remarrying after a civil divorce adultery?  Is adultery not a grievous sin?  Did not St. Paul inform us that those who receive unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves?  And what did St. Peter tell us about false prophets and blind guides who try to soothe the itching ears of the world by telling them happy lies, lies that smell of sulfur and brimstone?  St. Paul told us that anyone who tries to bring a Gospel other than the one Christ preached must be anathematized.  Does Vio Pinto represent Christ, or Francis?

I am willing to bet Cardinal Burke will be willing to lose much more than a red hat than to fold on this matter of permitting this radical change – this insidious attack – on the Church’s moral Doctrine.