jump to navigation

A Highly Illuminating Blast from the Past February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in fun, General Catholic, history, huh?, Revolution, secularism, sickness, Society, the enemy.
comments closed

Wow.  You might find the video below as intriguing as I did.  It covers the early part of George Wallace’s 1968 election campaign as a third party candidate. Later he chose the often unfairly maligned Curtis E. LeMay for his running mate.

It’s interesting what is and isn’t discussed in the video, which I believe was produced by a friendly Alabama TV station.  Segregation is never directly addressed – which of course had been a huge part of Wallace’s political past (though leftists might hear a “dog whistle” in repeated appeals to law and order) – but then neither is Vietnam.  What is discussed may sound eerily familiar to you, as it did to me.  Many of the same concerns that resulted in Trump’s election were being voiced by millions of Americans (Wallace got 14% of the vote and won several southern states) fifty years ago: horror at liberal overreach, grave concern over an increasingly totalitarian judiciary pushing an always leftist agenda, an increasing sense that individual liberties were being steadily curtailed.  Hey, 60s people, wait till you get a load of cultural marxism/political correctness!  Are any of you Wallace supporters still around?!

May dad had an AuH20 (Goldwater in that very atomic time) sticker on his car in ’64, but voted for Nixon in ’68.  West Texas used to be covered in billboards demanding the impeachment of both Johnson and Earl Warren.  Those early efforts were sadly unsuccessful, and now we’re much further down the line of leftist totalitarianism, being perhaps one presidential administration away from the final demise of the “American experiment.”  Fortunately, that did not come to pass, at least, in 2016.  But it might in 2020, if Trump cannot roll much of this leftist agenda back.

Wallace, of course, did not earn much Catholic support.  Jim Crow segregationists -and he had definitely been one – had little more love for Catholics than they did for blacks.  Catholics returned the sentiment, in general.  It is surprising that Wallace did attract quite a bit of support outside the South, as the video makes clear.  Numerous Americans were disgusted by Johnson and exceedingly concerned over what was then the still quite nascent advance of cultural marxism and leftism in our country.  Whatever Wallace was, and I’m certainly no big student of him, he seemed to appeal to developing and broad-ranging concern that America had gotten badly off-track and was in danger of becoming lost.  Reagan would tap into this same sentiment to great success in 1980, finally gaining wide crossover support from Catholics for a Republican nominee.

No I am not endorsing Wallace or some of his more unfortunate views in posting this.  It is to me a highly revealing time capsule of an America that was, which ain’t nearly so different as we might have thought it would be from today.  If you’ve got 30 or 60 minutes to invest, I think it’s worth your time. Wallace certainly did recognize some of the gravest threats this republic faced then and now, and articulated them quite well.  Of course, a few years later, after being shot in 1972, he would reverse many of these opinions and become much more liberal.  Nevertheless I think this has some value from both the historical perspective and from a sociological point of view, in terms of comprehending just how long and deep the same concerns that led to Trump’s media-aided emergence in 2016 have existed.  I tell you what, it is almost mind-blowing to see George Wallace packing halls in, of all places, San Francisco!! – California used to be a fairly conservative state until the invasion of illegal immigrants and burned out hippy summer of love leftovers totally remade that state’s demographics.

If you want to save time I think  you can get a good feel for the whole by just watching the first 10 or 15 minutes. After that it does become a bit more repetitive.

UPDATE: Wallace took some stands that most people today find appalling.  His “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” seems unfathomable.  Of course, he was always more a populist than a true segregationist – that portion of the Alabama white populace that elected him in ’64 wanted segregation to persist, so Wallace became that group’s champion.  As desegregation became inevitable Wallace jettisoned that rhetoric quickly, and as I noted, in later life wholly repudiated those policy positions.

Having said that, LBJ, often lauded as a civil rights pioneer, is widely reported to have said, regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of the welfare state – “we’ll have the niggars voting for us (the democrats) for 200 years.” This was part and parcel with a racism inherent within much of the democrat party that I think, in much more subtle but possibly more destructive ways, persists to this day.  Of course, virtually everyone has forgotten that all of those measures required strong Republican support to pass Congress, as the democrat party was badly split on those issues.  Interesting how that works out, the democrats have always reaped the electoral rewards of these stands taken in the 60s today, to the extent that the entire Republican party, or merely to vote Republican, is considered irretrievably racist by the Black Lives Matters movement and others dedicated to the furtherance of Democrat political interests.  The current Republican president is being presented as history’s biggest monster simply because he exists, not because of anything he’s actually done, which isn’t much, yet.  This is the new normal for Republicans going forward.  The media-government complex  (those Wallace lambasted as “pseudo-intellectuals”) cannot be destroyed soon enough.

Meanwhile, democrats continue to cultivate a virtual plantation where they keep minorities voting reliably for them even as those same minorities cultural, moral, and even economic situation continues to horribly deteriorate as a deliberate result of democrat-leftist  policies.  Someone will write a great comic tragedy someday, some great masterpiece of literature, if such things still exist 100 years from now, covering exactly this comedy of errors.  It would be unbelievably if it were not true.

Advertisements

Prayer For Unity of Faith in a Divided Family February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Interior Life, sanctity, Tradition, unity, Virtue.
comments closed

Pulling some more content from Father’s Manual by Fr. A Coombs, SJ (before they went insane), a nice little prayer and devotion for families that are divided in faith.  I certainly know the pain of that situation, while my own “nuclear” family is at present and by God’s Grace at one in the Faith, none of the rest of my family is Catholic.  I know how painful that can be.  I imagine it would be even more painful to be divided on such a vital matter from one’s spouse or children.  I pray I never have to experience that myself, while I pray for forgiveness from my parents by alienating myself from their faith.  It was something I simply had to do, for many reasons, and it has changed my life, let alone making my salvation so much more possible.

That aside, I pray some who struggle in this situation find this prayer helpful (I changed the prayer to work for either spouse; it was originally intended for husbands):

Lord God, according to your holy designs you have ordained that in matrimony man and wife shall be so closely united as to become “one flesh.”  Grant now that my [spouse] and I may be closely united in all things according to your holy law.

Grant us  your abundant graces that we may enjoy the blessing of being joined by a common faith.  You know what it would mean to us if we could share completely the same religious views and convictions, if we could be united closely in the same religious practices and observances.  You know what it would mean if we could share the same belief in the sacraments and have the same understanding of them and the same love for them.

That this may be realized according to your holy ways, let me never falter in my own personal obligations and in my observances of all that is by your law of love.  Bestow, in your mercy, your bounteous graces now on my [spouse] and me so that one day, as completely united as possible in this life, we may both approach in joy your communion banquet and there receive together your blessing and your love.

———-End Quote———

 That prayer is quite a bit shorter than yesterday’s!

How the Elitist Uniparty Works February 28, 2017

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

Barbara Bush is headlining a fundraiser for Planned Butcherhood here in Texas. Franklin Graham is not amused:

Franklin Graham is calling out former President George W. Bush’s daughter, Barbara Pierce Bush, for speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on Thursday, saying that raising funds for the abortion business is like raising money for Nazi death camps.

“Planned Parenthood is the #1 abortion provider in the United States,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post yesterday. “Raising funds for this organization is like raising money to fund a Nazi death camp — like Auschwitz, except for innocent babies in their mother’s wombs!”

The Christian evangelist and son of Billy Graham continued: “Reports say they [Planned Parenthood] perform over 300,000 abortions per year. And this is the organization whose employees were caught on video trying to sell baby body parts over wine. Disgusting.”

Bush will be the keynote speaker at the fundraiser for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. Individual tickets to the event cost $150, and sponsorship levels go up to $20,000.

As LifeSiteNews reported, Bush’s company, Global Health Corps, which promotes “health equity,” works closely with Planned Parenthood, which Bush labeled an “exceptional organization.” A senior staffer for GHC is a former board member of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, and the Pacific Northwest Abortion Fund.

Bush and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards “are enthusiastic supporters of each other’s work,” The New York Times reported in an article celebrating their alliance.

When it comes to social issues, Bush seems to have imbibed the liberal worldview of former First Lady Laura Bush, who is pro-abortion-on-demand and pro-“gay marriage.”

………Barbara Bush also supported Hillary Clinton’s run for president.

So, I’m an ardent pro-lifer.  I know many others who are.  I can’t say I know many of those ardent pro-life fathers and mothers whose kids wound up becoming pro-abort.  I’m far from sure I know any couples where the husband and wife ostensibly disagree stridently on matters such as abortion and pseudo-sodo-marriage.  The point being, this is further evidence whatever slight pro-life stands Bush ’43 took were probably simply for political expedience and not related to some deeply held belief.

It’s more than passing odd that this formerly leading family of the Republican party has so many close and happy associations with ardent leftists.  That’s what I mean by self-serving elitist uniparty.  They all attend the same institutions, go to the same parties, marry within the group, seek to please the same corporate masters, and wind up believing pretty much the same things.

More on the Bush family’s long-time love affair with contraception and abortion.  Yes it’s Mother Jones but there are many other articles from less left-wing sites confirming the same thing, but this one gave the most detail.

If the SSPX Regularizes Under Francis, There Will Be No Going Back February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Rorate Caeli, with all the good work they do, continues to hint strongly that an accord regularizing the SSPX is very close to being finalized.  Rorate has also long indicated their unqualified support for this regularization to occur, even, or especially?, under Francis.  The great hope, I believe, is that regularization of the canonical status of the SSPX will introduce a great leaven into the Church, strengthening the cause of Tradition all around and hastening the much longed for restoration of Holy Mother Church.  Of course, most feel there is much to be desired in regularization as an end to itself, as something that is very necessary for the good of the souls within or associated with the Society of St. Pius X.

I have not been so wholeheartedly in favor of this regularization, at least not now, under Francis, because I see the man as having a very clear agenda to wholly remake the Church, and that does not include long “permitting” recalcitrant recusants like the SSPX and others who hold to the great Tradition of our Faith to remain even a minor annoyance.  Many in the Society seem aware of the potential for danger, even what might be called a “betrayal,” in the regularization, for the same penalties and attempts at co-opting made in the 70s and 80s seem to be at least quite possible in the present-day Church environment, but some tend to brush these concerns aside, claiming that if the Society could “escape” the post-conciliar milieu once, they can do it again.  It is this kind of thinking I’d like to address in this post.

But before I do, at what cost will the regularization be granted?  I am supremely doubtful that Francis regularizing the SSPX without any changes in thought, practice, or behavior on their part is simply one of his patented acts of mercy.  Indeed, some believe there already exist hints that the Society IS changing in response to the potential for regularization.  An anonymous priest recently levied the charge that the SSPX has been noticeably quiet in response to many of Francis’ errors and attacks on the Faith. A brief review of the SSPX website covering articles going back a month or so does not reveal any specific criticisms  of the present pontificate, even though there are continuing general explorations of the problems of the post-conciliar Church and even the notion of papal heresy considered generally. Those who follow the SSPX more closely than I do (which is hardly at all) may rebut this particular claim.  Even still, I would find it remarkable if this pontiff would really regularize the SSPX without some kind of quid pro quo.  And let’s consider this, even if there is no quid pro quo demanding SSPX silence on certain matters, is it not human nature to want to play it safe during periods of delicate negotiation and subsequent “re-entry” into the full, regular life of the Church?

I’d also like to note that I am not entirely comfortable with the sense of fear and trepidation I have over regularization now, under Francis, while I certainly desire it as an overall objective to be realized.  Part of me desires to see the SSPX enjoy full canonical recognition/regularity instantly, which would largely simply recognize their reality as being Catholic and part of the Church.  I have a certain measure of guilt over my sense that this accord, if it occurs, will be supremely dangerous to the cause of Tradition and could even set it back decades, erasing all the small gains made in recent years and pushing whatever tiny bit of tradition remains to the extreme fringes of the Church, if not wholly outside it.  But I completely understand the “regularization now is the only acceptable stand” arguments and on many levels wish I could share them.

But regarding regularization and then some kind of betrayal, could the SSPX simply “go back?”  We have to look at the history.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not set out to create a canonically irregular body “separated” from the Roman authority or somehow at odds with it.  He simply wanted to preserve some semblance of the traditional practice of the Faith amidst the insanity of the immediate post-VII years, so he started a seminary to continue training priests in the pre-conciliar ways.  As was inevitable in Church of the 70s, most bishops and powers in Rome were overtly hostile to this new priestly society.  It didn’t take long before charges of disobedience were levied and refusals to abandon the traditional practice of Faith – the Catholic Faith – resulted in a certain ostracization from the “mainstream Church.”  Eventually the issue was forced by various matters, especially the consecrations of 1988, for which Lefebvre, the four consecrated bishops, and others directly involved were excommunicated.  Some of those excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, but the canonical irregularity has remained.

The reason I go over this very complex history, admittedly very briefly, is because it is critical to understand that what happened then is radically different to what would have to occur if the SSPX is regularized, finds its situation intolerable, and then tries to revert to its present status.  What occurred very gradually and under very different circumstances then – a gradual process of alienation between the SSPX and the authorities in Rome – would have to occur suddenly, almost violently, should the Society be regularized.  Back in 1974, say, no one knew what would develop 5 or 10 or 15 years later, what the “end point” would be.  But today the situation would be inverted, where all would know exactly what was in the offing and what the final destination would be – more excommunications, loss of canonical status, etc.  This is huge.

Then there is the factor of human nature.  After fighting a long, lonely struggle for decades, and finally achieving fully regular canonical status, would the wherewithal really exist to separate themselves again should things go south?  It took an enormously charismatic, convicted figure in Archbishop Lefebvre to create and hold together the SSPX during its initial, very trying period of formation and then alienation from authority.  Does such a figure exist today?  Again, it is so important to note that everyone now knows where another irreconcilable dispute between Rome and the SSPX will lead to, instantly, this time.  None of that was certain or known when Archbishop Lefebvre was treading these choppy waters decades ago.

From a psychological perspective, for a very long time, the Society maintained that they did not need to “return” to the Church, but that the Church needed to return to herself, and then reconciliation would occur naturally.  Almost, in a sense, “Rome” coming hat in hand to the Society begging forgiveness for having lost its collective mind in the 60s and 70s and asking readmittance to the Church the SSPX had maintained.  Whether that notion was ever realistic or not, the point is, Rome has not changed.  In fact, under Francis, it has gotten far worse than it’s been in decades.  Will a return at this time not entail a certain surrender of the vital, animating focal point of the Society’s existence?

Our experience in recent years with other, admittedly much more secular organizations, is that those who have resisted the secular pagal progressive zeitgeist for years, even decades, and then surrender on some key point – like the Boy Scouts – quickly surrender on all or many points of vital import. Resistance becomes totally untenable.  They become co-opted, as it were, by the process of accommodating whatever it is the powers that be demand of them.

I’m sure people within the SSPX ,or closer to it than I am, have hashed over these matters in far more detail than I can. Indeed, the SSPX-SO split off because they see regularization as tantamount to surrender.  I’m sure they’re aware of the risks.   At least, I hope they are.  Because I fear what is at stake in this process is far more than the canonical status of the SSPX, but possibly the entire traditional practice of the Faith, extending to the Ecclesia Dei communities, tradition-embracing religious orders, and even Summorum Pontificum and the ability of some diocesan priests, under friendlier bishops than we’ve had here in Dallas, to offer the TLM.  All of these latter entities either came into being as a direct result of the SSPX’s existence, and the pressure that existence exerted on the Church. Indeed, many of them were created or allowed to exist both as a form of pressure on the SSPX (keeping people who otherwise might have associated formally with the SSPX from doing so) and as a carrot to lure them “back.”  If the SSPX is regularized and back within the fold, then what purpose do those things serve anymore, from a realpolitik point of view?  None.  How long will the be permitted to continue to exist?

These men in power today in Rome, they do not fool around, and they despise all things traditional to a degree many readers would find unimaginable. Is this a leap of Faith, trusting in God’s Grace to prevail in the end, or a leap into the abyss?   On a cost-benefit ratio, do the benefits come close to equaling the dangers here?

Anyway, those are my concerns.  Some will think this makes me a bad Catholic and short on faith, but I simply see so much danger here, and we have the example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to guide us.  I’m also less and less sure what real meaning canonical regularity has in a Church where adultery is praised and fornicators are held up as virtuous examples for the rest of us, while being a faithful soul is excoriated as the very worst kind of person to be.  With this kind of rank (and mass) moral inversion ongoing, the finer points of canonical regularity seem like arguing how many angels can dance on the  head of a pin.

Not Exactly What You Want to See Outside Your House at Night February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, disaster, family, foolishness, Immigration, sickness, Society.
comments closed

So, this happened:

20170227_213947

That was the scene outside my house about 9:30 last night.  First rapidly approaching police sirens, then a loud crunch, then looking outside the window to find first one policeman with weapon drawn and then within seconds 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 police SUVs screeching to a halt.  Well.  I wonder what that’s all about.

Did I run and grab a handgun?  Yes, yes I did.  Forgot the body armor, though, but the police had things under control within seconds, so there’s that.  I mean, for a brief instant, I had thoughts of someone(s) bailing out of the wrecked car and running through my backyard, and finding no way out, then what?  But I’ve always had a bit overactive imagination.

Turns out it was a group of kids who have had many run-ins with the law. They were underage driving around with open alcohol containers and decided they didn’t want another serious misdemeanor on their record, so they tried to run.  They didn’t get very far.  The cops did not sound like these kids had committed violent crimes, they’re just very wild and unsupervised.  It was mom’s car they wrecked.

Really, though, what transpired was miraculous.  They hit a tree in our front yard, missing our mailbox by inches, but if they had gone 4 or 5 ft on either side they could have gone down one empty driveway straight into a concrete lined former creek now drainage ditch, or they could have smashed into my truck, chicken pen, and shed.  A bit further to either side, they could have driven into either our house or my neighbor’s.  So, Deo Gratias that about the most benign outcome possible occurred.  The kids were uninjured. Even though they hit the tree at about 20 mph, airbags did not deploy, for some reason.  Maybe someone pulled the fuse.  Even the tree is virtually undamaged, at least it appears to be, for now.  Trees are much, much stronger than automobiles, even large SUVs:

20170227_220049

20170227_220101

Shorter post: just another night in south Irving.  I’d say the Tahoe is totaled.