jump to navigation

Does a Wife Owe Submission to Her Husband? How Should That Work? December 7, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Interior Life, mortification, priests, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

A fairly good video below from the Fatima Center, but I thought the priest could have gone much further in both giving concrete examples and on insisting on the primacy of the husband’s role in the spousal relationship.  Some in the comments at Youtube noted the same.  I am out of time for the year, pretty much, I might be able to get on a little next week but I’ll be in North Carolina so that’s dubious, at best.

Too many even traditional priests take St. Paul’s statement regarding “husbands, love your wives, as Christ loves the Church” to mean that wives are obviated of their duty to obey their husbands if the husbands exercise less than Christ-like perfection.  That’s an exception that completely eviscerates the rule, and is said, I fear, because too many priests either accept some degree of cultural marxist inspired feminism themselves, or they simply don’t want to have an upset woman on their hands.  This is not what St. Paul meant at all, and there are few priests in my experience who are really willing to lay out, clearly, what owing obedience to one’s spouse  entails.

This does not mean that a husband gets to come home and act like a prince, doing little and being waited on hand and foot.  It does mean, however, that when there is a disagreement between the spouses on matters, the wife should, absent anything the husband might command that would result in the commission or near occasion of sin, generally yield to the husband’s will.  The wife can certainly make her case, and lay out her reasons why the kids should be treated in such a way or this car should be bought, or whatever it may be, but if the husband decides otherwise, ultimately, the wife should submit, happily, to his decision. I have found that even among devout Catholics women prepared to make such submission are all too rare.  Not that even devout Catholic husbands are absent their own faults, either.  And of course this does not mean that husbands will necessarily decide wisely in every case, nor that a husband may use his authority to rule his home severely or tyrannically.

But obedience means nothing if it is predicated on either getting one’s way – through outright disobedience, drama-filled hysterics, or calculated manipulation –  or near-perfect behavior on the part of the husband.  One of the biggest failings of Catholic married men of the past 60 or so has been their failure to insist on their duty and right to lead the family, for which he will be strictly judged by God.  Feminism and broader cultural trends have exacerbated this shirking of duty to a heinous degree, so that we now have whole generations who have never seen proper Catholic married male leadership in action, and which have picked up many bad, destructive beliefs from the culture.  This is a major point of contention in many families and is something that is very hard to do right.

Great topic I hope to expand on when I return.  The Fatima Center indicated they would try to get the Dominican priest in the video to expand on this topic in future, addressing more concrete situations and the widespread problem of spousal disobedience/failure to lead.  That would be an excellent way of framing a post, if anyone at the Fatima Center is reading.

And, yes, I am appreciative that the Fatima Center has found a traditional religious priest to replace the much-beloved and missed Fr. Gruner.

+Schneider Likens Church to Soviet Regime December 7, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, Restoration, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Well, one leftist cohort tends to resemble another.  They are all predicated on the exaltation of man above God and the state (or institution) above all, to the extent that humans are crushed for the “greater good,” which really means the good of the tiny cabal that actually holds the reigns of power.

Leftists that treat supposedly sacrosanct “dialogue” as an arcane relic once they’ve gained power?  Color me shocked:

Before a packed room in Rome’s Centro Lepanto on Monday, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan urged the faithful to ardently hold on to the Church’s Magisterium on the indissolubility of marriage within the current state of ongoing ambiguities.

“When Christ preached 2,000 years ago, the culture and reigning spirit were radically opposed to Him. Concretely religious syncretism ruled, also Gnosticism among the intelligent leaders, as well as permissibilism among the masses — especially regarding the institution of matrimony. […] The sole purpose of the Son of God was to reveal the truth to the world.”……

……..“The formulation of dubia, as the Cardinals here have expressed in their own terms, has been a common practice in the Church,” he explained. “We need to be able to ask questions openly without being afraid of repressions.” [Progressives are all about “dialogue” and “debate” when they perceive themselves out of power, but when they believe they have power, such quaint notions go out the window.  It’s all about whatever serves their perceived interests, that’s all.]

Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the four Princes of the Church have suffered after their dubia was published. The questions still remain unanswered by Pope Francis.

“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” Bishop Schneider said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”

Schneider went to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else – that is practically like a regime.” [Leftists be leftists, wherever they are. Power is the only end they care about, and will use any means to gain it. Once they have it, they have few scruples in using it in cruel and unjust ways]

Schneider brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. His parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals.”

“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘culture of dialogue’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added. [Sure. “Dialogue” for the progressives, which really means promotion of the worst errors, and persecution for everyone else]

“If the Pope does not answer, the next step will be recourse to prayer, to supernatural means,” Schneider said, “to pray for the enlightenment of the Pope and that he will gain courage.” [Prayer is the basis of everything.  It’s a foregone conclusion.  But I hope Burke and his allies are prepared to do more in the material realm, if need be.  As in starting formal proceedings of inquiry into the orthodoxy of Francis’ beliefs.]

Schneider speculated about what might happen in the near future. “In Church history, we say that in an extreme case in which the bonum commune of the faith is threatened, then the bishops as members of the college of bishops, and in a truly collegial relation to the Pope with a brotherly obedience to him, must ask him publicly to renounce the misdeed of giving Communion to remarried divorced Catholics, as it is already being done in many dioceses.” [That’s very specific. But in a general council, Burke and those like him would be in the distinct minority, would they not?  What then?]

Rebutting the attacks of various persons against the Cardinals, he defended the four. “This situation has already had precedences in saints — not in schismatics or heretics. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Catherine of Siena, and I think this should be possible in the Church without the person being called a schismatic.” [Absolutely.  As I say, leftists always project. When they call someone schismatic, it’s because they themselves have schismatic intent.  Thus the recent article in L’Osservatore Romano by the Patriarch of Constantinople, certainly the most liberal patriarch of the Orthodox Church.]

Cardinal Burke has said a “formal correction” might be in order to resolve the situation of uncertainty. “In the language of moral theology, fraternal correction is an act of love — if it is given in obedience and with reason,” Schneider commented. “We have to return to this familiar way of dealing with it.”

Absolutely true.  I pray that not only does Cardinal Burke have the wherewithal to continue pursuing this matter – he is increasingly becoming the obvious leader of the opposition to Francis’ Reign of Error – but that he can be sufficiently persuasive to get at least 30% or so of prelates on his side.  He may not ever be able to convince a majority of spineless, careerist prelates to join him in condemning Francis’ promotion of error, but even a good 25-30% would be an enormous rebuke and a sign of pending schism. It would gravely undermine Francis’ ability to govern the Church, and, more importantly, pursue his agenda.

Schneider is correct, however, in assessing that prayer is the basis for whatever strength Burke and his allies will have.  Please devote Novenas, Rosaries, and many other prayers to him and all like him who are willing to oppose this most egregiously destructive of popes.

As an addendum, Cardinal Turkson has been, for the most part, firmly in the Franciscan camp (which is how he got a plum new assignment), but one wonders if he is wavering, given his recent statements seemingly supportive of the pointed questioning of the dubia?  Turkson is a wholly political animal, a man who plastered Rome with images of himself during the conclave of 2013, so if he is shifting, even a bit, it might be revealing of general trends within the episcopate.  Or he could simply be playing both sides of the fence.

France Squashes Speech of Pro-Lifers December 7, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Well well well.  A socialist government, on its way out of power, has taken repeated steps in recent months to block the ability to pro-lifers to speak against abortion, and has now proposed a drastic step to more or less make pro-life speech illegal in France, or at least very sharply curtailed.

This is so very revealing of the true nature of Leftism.  Their inveterate hatred of Christianity, and especially Christian morals, causes them to upend even supposed rights sacrosanct to the left-liberal ideology, like free speech.  Eventually, far enough down the road (and we’re not very far from that point in this nation, even with the election of 2016), the Left will shift to full-on totalitarian tactics to crush their perceived opponents. We’ve really only started to see that in this country; France is a little further down the road.  Now, one reason the socialists are doing this is to put the coming, more conservative government (how conservative will be decided at the polls – I hope it is National Front) in a political bind, requiring them to potentially fracture their own coalition to amend an egregious affront against a portion of it.  But overall, this is definitely the direction all leftist movements worldwide are heading towards, with a more and more open disdain for traditional morality and the religion that inspired it:

France’s socialist government is attempting to crack down on pro-life activists by criminalizing online advocacy at odds with the nation’s abortion regime.

On Thursday, the French National Assembly passed a bill that makes it a crime to post information online that challenges abortion. Pro-life activists who continue to operate online face up to two years in prison and a fine of more than $30,000.[This is truly an extreme measure. France has laws enshrining “freedom of speech” as a fundamental right, too.  Don’t look for the Constitution to protect you or your speech.  We’re going to have to fight for it.] The bill is an expansion of a 1993 law that penalized giving out “false information” or physically blocking those seeking abortion from entering clinics. The bill passed by French lawmakers will punish web operators who post material considered “deliberately misleading, intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure.”

The French legislation follows a controversy that erupted after the French government blocked an advertisement featuring smiling children with Down syndrome because it could dredge up feelings of guilt from woman who decided to abort babies diagnosed with the genetic condition in-utero. [How much more revealing can you be?!?  Oh, we don’t want women who wantonly murder their babies, often for the most prurient reasons, to ever feel a shred of guilt or self-doubt!  That might undermine further abortions!  Does anything better testify to the satanic nature of the modern Left, and its use of abortion as a literal demonic sacrifice?]  About 96 percent of all babies diagnosed with the condition are aborted in France. The two-minute ad featured testimony from Down syndrome children and adults, as well as their parents explaining that they were capable of living full and happy lives. In November a French court upheld the ban, saying the video would “‘disturb the conscience of women who, in accordance with the law, have made personal life choices.’”

French pro-life group Droit de Naître (Right to Be Born) told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement that the socialist government is trying to ram through pro-abortion legislation because of its dismal prospects in the upcoming French elections……..

……….Pro-life activists in the United States have dealt with similar attacks on their operations. In May, Illinois Democrats passed legislation backed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups that would force pro-life pregnancy clinics and doctors to provide information or references to abortion clinics, regardless of their beliefs.  In August, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the bill into law despite the fact that no Republican in the House of Representatives or state Senate voted for the bill.

Illinois is the second state to crackdown on pregnancy centers in the past 12 months. In December 2015, California adopted a similar measure. The Los Angeles City Attorney served up the state’s first violations to three crisis pregnancy centers in July. [Are abortion mills required to provide information on non-abortion alternatives.  Of course not. That shows these governments aren’t pro-choice, but pro-abort, as in, pro-murder of babies.]

Even with Trump – should nothing untoward happen to somehow derail his installation in office – these same pressures will only continue to rise in the United States.  He will be no pro-life hero, and the Left will continue to chip away at our rights wherever and however they can.

Gets ready to fight.

 

Francis Fave Spadaro: Adultery Is a Moral Duty! December 7, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

That’s plainly what his reasoning in an interview given in the amateur liberal Catholic website Crux points to.  Asked whether those persisting in extramarital unions would have to refrain from sex in order to receive the Blessed Sacrament, possibly Francis’ closest confidant and advisor Antonio Spadaro said, in some cases, they may be permitted to continue in adulterous acts and still receive the Blessed Sacrament, if they thought a “worse evil”would result.  In answering thus, Spadaro has elevated adultery to a moral duty, if some “worse evil” is to be avoided.

This is precisely the kind of anti-Christ illogic that flows from Amoris Laetitia’s direct assault on Church Doctrine, attempting to overturn Christ’s direct command with flawed, diabolically-inspired reasoning:

…..Fr Spadaro was asked whether he thought the divorced and remarried could receive Communion if still in a sexual relationship. Fr Spadaro’s answer was startling – partly because he seemed to think the answer was yes, and partly because of his reasoning.

He explained that sometimes the remarried could “be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence”. This is, of course, the only path to the Eucharist which Catholic doctrine allows. But Fr Spadaro asserted that “this option may not be practicable”. And he then said that someone might “believe they would fall into a worse error”. That is, not sleeping with one’s new partner would be worse than sleeping with them. Hence, it could be a moral obligation to sleep with them. [Folks, he HAS to say this, because Communion for adulterers is untenable unless they are allowed to continue the adultery.  I’ve said before, this is exactly like the contraception ploy of the late 60s, they present it as an rare exception accompanied by spiritual intervention, but know in the back of their minds this will be naught but a 100% removal of adultery from the list of practical mortal sins.  They won’t declare such, but that will be the effect.  And that is promotion of heresy without the slightest doubt.]

In short, a papal adviser has said that extramarital sex could be a moral duty.

This is more interesting, and more worrying, than any number of anonymous accounts and Tolkien-themed screenshots. The Church teachesthat God always gives us enough grace to follow His will. She also teaches that some acts – extramarital sex among them – are never justified, whatever the situation.

I don’t see how Fr Spadaro’s words can be reconciled with these well-established truths. (Unless he means to say “believes erroneously“, but nothing in his words indicates that.)

If Spadaro is saying this, if he believes this, then it is a virtual certitude that Franky George Bergoglio does, as well.  These two have been peas in a pod going back years, well into Francis’ Argentinian days, and there are few closer to the Bishop of Rome.

The other matter – could this be something said accidentally, because of a problem speaking English as a second language?  It’s a possibility, but what Spadaro puts forth is EXACTLY the point Francis has been driving at all along with his doctrine of false mercy, pitting Catholic Truth against a conception of mercy very appealing to the world, but extremely disconnected from the constant belief and practice of the Faith.  Logically speaking, given Francis’ obvious push to permit manifest adulterers, whether civilly remarried or not, to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and since abstaining from the marital act would almost certainly cause many of these second relationships to shatter, it is logically consistent for Spadaro to advance the notion that continued adultery would be a “moral duty” to avoid the “worse” evil of another divorce or breakup.  This is a total inversion of the Truth, of course, but also very revealing.  It reveals the intent is not merely to permit, out of some misguided sense of mercy (a “mercy” which would have the effect of putting millions of souls at the gravest risk of eternal hellfire), civilly remarried Catholics to receive the Blessed Sacrament, but it is to upend, or, more accurately, invert, the entire moral Doctrine of the Faith.

Some people have had the honesty and audacity to point this out for years.  Some are only just coming around to this realization.  But as the evidence accumulates, this veneer of “mercy” wears increasingly thin, and more and more people are realizing the consequences of what Francis is driving at. And with another synod in the offing for the coming year, we can expect the assault on the Faith ton continue.

Please pray for Cardinal Burke and his allies, that they will have the strength to drive the examination of Francis’ errors (can they be doubted as such any more?) to the conclusion God desires.  May God have mercy on our Church, and on us all.  We are in circumstances that are just unbelievable.

Good post on preparation for the coming spiritual war here at Non Veni Pacem.  I am gratified to see that Cardinal Burke is claiming that refusal to ask the dubia is being taken as admission of error.  I also agree with the thrust of the post, that the time is coming that those who reject the errors being promoted by the Bishop of Rome will be castigated by ostensible Catholics and that this schism will break out into the open, probably in the coming year.  We need to be getting ready for some real suffering NOW, because it is coming in a hurry.