Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I really meant to post this on the weekend, or at least on Monday, but events conspired to prevent me from doing either.
Starting Friday night, I began to see videos on Youtube from the Fatima Center highlighting an upcoming atrocity in Rome – the opening of St. Peter’s for Anglican “Evensong” prayers on Monday, March 13 – the fourth anniversary of the election – God knows why – of Bergoglio to the papacy. Fatima Center did a really good job highlighting why this event was so novel, so egregious, and then took steps to mobilize the faithful in resistance.
Unfortunately, the Vatican kept this event intentionally buried, never publicizing it on any of their PR arms (newspaper, radio, website, etc). It had to be found on the website of the tiny Anglican community in Rome. Thus, it was found out late, when there was very little time to mobilize opposition, which I am quite certain was why it was so little publicized. Nevertheless, efforts were made to stop the event, which did, however, go on.
Two videos below, one explaining the event and how it ties in with the overhaul of ecumania occurring under the pontificate of Francis – especially in this both great and dark anniversary year of 2017 – and the other featuring Chris Ferrara, who explains its dark significance. Of course, Anglicans lack valid orders and thus any liturgical simulation they perform anywhere, but especially in St. Peter’s, amounts to sacrilege. Allowing sacrilege within the very Basilica of St. Peter is simply breathtaking in its blasphemy. Ferrara explains how the cult of ecumenism is ultimately behind this latest abomination.
Sorry I did not get this coverage out before the event took place, but I haven’t seen this covered in many other places, so I thought it deserved a post, regardless:
Now Ferrara’s commentary:
And, as usual, so far as I am aware, no cardinals or bishops publicly condemned this ecumenical confab before it occurred. I am aware of few priests who did. I’m sure more will as they become aware of it, but both the indifference and information security on this were really tight.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
As if you need to guess. Planned Murderhood, which exists for no other reason than to be not only the leading baby murderer in the country but also the primary advocate for keeping abortion legal, turned down Trump’s offer to fully fund them at their desired level if they would only stop killing babies. So much for abortion only being “3% of their business,” it is the one non-negotiable activity they perform, their most “sacred” satanic sacrament they adhere to:
Half a billion dollars in federal funding isn’t enough to keep Planned Parenthood from what it does best — abortions. This week, Planned Parenthood proved once again that, for all their talk of “women’s health,” their business IS abortion.
On Monday, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration made an informal proposal to the nation’s largest abortion provider: You can keep your federal funding if you stop taking the lives of unborn children.
PP refused, as abortion services are simply “nonnegotiable.”
“Let’s be clear: Federal funds already do not pay for abortions,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “Offering money to Planned Parenthood to abandon our patients and our values is not a deal that we will ever accept. Providing critical health care services for millions of American women is nonnegotiable.”
That’s at least the talking point. But money is fungible (as anyone who has ever handled currency ought to understand).
GOP officials, of course, promised relentlessly on the campaign trail that they’ll get taxpayer dollars out from under the abortion giant. It was an issue that found new life in 2015 after undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress purported to show PP involved in a large-scale fetal tissue racket.
This all begs the question: If Planned Parenthood was really concerned about vital low-cost health services for women, and really thought the organization would not be able to adequately service patients without an enormous taxpayer kickback, why would it put said handouts on the chopping block for something it says is such a negligible part of its entire existence?
Because it’s all a crock……..
…….Given what the public now knows about the kind of operation that Planned Parenthood is running all over the country, and the Republican promises made to voters in the 2016 election cycle, there’s absolutely no reason that they should continue receiving a red cent of public money.
That is, if the courts will allow it. Texas’ attempt to defund Planned Murderhood was rejected by a West Texas Bush ’41 appointed federal district court judge. Texas plans to appeal, but the odds are the courts will reject Texas’ arguments that Planned Barrenhood’s non-abortion services are neither vital nor irreplaceable in the vast majority of the state. Which, of course, is a lie, but whatever it takes to keep the evil leftist sacrament of abortion viable.
This Planned Barrenhood de-funding will be another major test of both Trump and the Republican Congress. In Trump I think it safe to say his commitment to social conservatism remains mostly unproven, and in Congress decades of evidence reveal their social conservative principles to be almost entirely campaign prevarications. So I don’t expect Banned Parenthood to be defunded, but I hope and pray I will be proven wrong.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, demographics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
What is it Michael Savage has said for years? That liberalism is a mental disorder? That might be a bit broad and harsh, but for the hardcore social justice warrior millennials, their brittle, unhinged behavior may have been an inevitable outcome of their upbringing in daycare centers and the rare overinvolvement of guilt-ridden helicopter parents. So says this author I’ve never heard of, whose conclusions I agree with so of course he must be right (teasing, this actually is important and parallels a recent Paul Joseph Watson video I’ll include at the bottom):
If you were to come across someone who cried in the streets, who saw the world in terms of black and white and made death threats against strangers, who cowered in a special room and made public displays of naked self-harm and blood letting, you might conclude that they were suffering from a personality disorder.
All these symptoms can be found in the High Conflict Personality Disorder category known as Axis II in DSMV, including Anti-Social PD, Histrionic PD, Paranoid PD, Narcissistic PD, and Borderline PD.
Alternatively, you might reason that these are the everyday behaviors of the modern Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
Of course, not every SJW has a personality condition, but sufferers from High Conflict disorders are often drawn to extreme beliefs and behaviors under the illusion that they are acting politically.
A 2016 UK survey found that, since 1990, rates of depression and anxiety among the young have increased by 70%, while the American Counseling Association has reported a “rising tide of personality disorders among millennials.”
Goodness. What could have caused this generation-wide descent into self-reinforcing mental disorder?
The majority of millennial children (now aged 18-34) had two working parents; this was partly an ideological project of feminism and partly economic necessity. The downside was the damage done by daycare, services for which grew by 250% between the 1970s and ;90s (see Laura Perrins’ work on psychological trauma caused by daycare). According to Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Thesis, babies require two years of intimate attention to enable them to form the caregiver-child bond essential for secure ego formation. Any disturbance of this process will “predispose the children to respond in an anti-social way to later stresses.”
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has found:
Children in full-time day care were close to three times more likely to show behavior problems than those cared for by their mothers at home.
The more time in child care of any kind or quality, the more aggressive the child.
The result is young people who, a decade and a half after daycare, scream at the parent/State for not protecting them sufficiently. It is no coincidence that “safe spaces” resemble daycare centers.
Unfortunately, “safe spaces” enforce the distressed person’s fear of the world, trapping them in their original trauma within a psychological frame of permanent and inescapable victimhood.
Faced with histrionic students, university staff end up behaving like “Helicopter Parents”: those largely absent, full-time working parents who overcompensated by flying in to fuss over their child. Attempting to assuage parental guilt, one of the tools they used was “positive parenting” — a philosophy created by social Progressives.
Parents were taught to not scold or punish, and instead to use “positive reinforcement” in an attempt to raise their children with “high self-esteem.” This ideology also became fashionable within an increasingly progressive school system that awarded children prizes for “non-competitive sports” and for merely taking part in school activities……..
……..A false picture of the world and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance did not compensate for the foundational trauma of parental neglect. Instead, as Dr. Jean Twenge has explained, Positive Parenting created young people with a “narcissistic wound” for whom the real world would be perceived as a threat to self-worth. [And a mystery they are wholly unable to navigate, let alone unravel]
Sooo…..insecure, uneducated, brittle narcissists with delusions of grandeur.
Well, that should bode well for the future.
My boss, who is within a year or two of my own supremely awesome Gen X age (no daycare for me, just a latch key kid from age 7, but I did get that all-important two years of cuddling), and I were discussing the prospects of hiring a college intern this summer. He was really wary of hiring a millennial. I gave him my experience – some are perfectly normal, awesome go-getter kids with a lot of motivation. I tend to imagine anyone successfully navigating engineering school cannot be entirely lost in infantile narcissism, but who knows?! We’ll find out this June. He says he’ll can ’em in a week if they have any attitude.
Seriously, the cultural and economic ramifications of this ignored-yet-coddled generation are shaping up to be mammoth. Largely children of baby boomers, they may turn out to be even more destructive than their parents. Millennials are shaping up to be extremely marriage- and child-adverse. They prefer apartments, and high-rise apartments at that, to single family homes. They want to live in hip urban centers, and nearly as many would rather use Uber than own their own car. The economic portents of those three factors alone are enormously negative. Whether they ever marry or not, it appears millennials will have even fewer kids (on average, we’re talking in the broadest sweeps) than any preceding generation. The US appears poised to start down the path of final demographic decline that Europe began 40-50 years ago.
But as I’ve said many times before, it is the kids who are the ultimate, most suffering victims of the great cultural marxist consumption of our culture. These kids didn’t choose to be raised by people making $7 an hour or indoctrinated into the cult of narcissistic self-esteem. They are as much victims as anyone, the parents visiting their own sins upon their children. Sadly, each proceeding generation has grown worse and worse. I shudder to imagine what the few kids of the millennials will turn out as. Maybe a large enough percentage will be sane homeschoolers living in rural areas/the exurbs to start to turn things around.
Probably don’t quite have the numbers yet.
Is this post too much like the fave of leftists from a few years ago, the “studies reveal all conservatives are stupid” kind? Or is it OK in this case BECAUSE IT’S TRUE!
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, scandals, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
As I posted in January, popular pastor Fr. Christopher Phillips was removed by Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller rather suddenly and to the great shock and dismay of the people of the Anglican use Atonement Parish in San Antonio. Many could not fathom why the Archdiocese would take this action. There has been some speculation that it could have been due to Atonement seeking to join the Ordinariate and therefore a turf war over ownership of the really fabulous physical plant of the parish began. Having said that, and having heard very impassioned (and detailed) complaints against a certain Deacon James Orr from current and former parishioners of Atonement going back some time, I have wondered, largely to myself, whether or not an abuse allegation was not somehow involved.
Now, something has emerged regarding retired Deacon James Orr that could have been the instigation behind the San Antonio Archdiocese’s intervention at Atonement Parish. I have heard very troubling reports from family and others who have been a part of Atonement in the past regarding this deacon’s behavior around pre-teen and teenage boys. When I queried someone involved in the parish back in January, who seemed to have some first hand knowledge of the removal of Fr. Phillips, whether this matter of Deacon Orr could have played a part in the situation, this individual rather bluntly derided the idea.
But then there’s this:
I have strong indications from a confidential source who works in the Archdiocese that this may not be the only abuse complaint made against Deacon Orr. Others, of a more recent nature, may be forthcoming.
This puts a very different spin on the dismissal of Fr. Phillips. I feel more confident in coming forward with what I have heard for years, from people I know extremely well and explicitly trust, which is that Deacon Orr routinely had inappropriate relationships with young boys at the parish, involving, at the least, what some parents viewed as encouragement of alienation from their family and subsequent provision of financial support on the part of the Deacon when these boys had a final falling out with their parents and moved out of the family home. Some of these relationships were short, others have persisted for years. Some very pointed complaints regarding Deacon Orr’s activities have been made to Father Phillips , again, going back years. I was certainly not a party to any of those conversations, but I know at least some people associated with Atonement felt that Phillips failed to adequately address these concerns and may have even given the impression of dismissing them. Through it all, Phillips steadfastly defended this deacon.
This is the situation as I understand it, as has been related to me numerous times from multiple, independent sources.
I should stress that most people at Atonement have a great love for Father Phillips and continue to support him. But I would be remiss in not bringing up the very serious and mutually substantiating concerns of a minority whose complaints generally centered around Deacon Orr.
I do not know the specifics of the allegation made in February of this year. From what I understand, none of the inappropriate behavior of which I have been aware (as I describe above) ever degenerated to the level of actual physical abuse. I would like to caution everyone not to engage in either excessive demonization of Deacon Orr nor excessive defenses of Fr. Phillips in attacking those who have felt they have had very legitimate concerns for years, and whose concerns now seem to be amply justified.
We’ll have to see how this shakes out, but I was always a little suspicious that the Archdiocese of San Antonio would make a naked power play for several million dollars worth of real estate without some serious complaint behind them to back them up. This appears to be it. That doesn’t mean an ideology is not being served. That may well be the case, but it could be there were situations ongoing that had to be addressed. It’s difficult to say at this point.
PS – Some will say that the Archdiocese moved against Phillips in January, before this allegation was formally made in February. But I would be a hefty sum the Archdiocese knew of the coming allegation before it was officially made, and that may explain the timing.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I saw the following excerpt of a lengthy interview Archbishop Lori gave to the Catholic Register recently on the subject of the new presidency and the prospects it brings to the Church, and in addition to being generally disappointed with the bishop’s general view of much of the Trump agenda he was queried about, I was very surprised by this particular excerpt:
What is your assessment of the president’s proposal to eliminate the Johnson Amendment?
That’s, of course, a very complex question. We would certainly want to see, more specifically, what the president might have in mind. As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations.
I would recognize that the Johnson Amendment is lived out fairly unevenly, across religious lines, but in general, I think we would eye the adjustment of this amendment warily. I think that’s the best adverb I can give you. We are looking at this carefully and warily.
The Johnson Amendment, for those who don’t know, was something created by the corrupt, racist Lyndon Johnson in 1954 and tacked onto a defense appropriations bill to punish the churches who had opposed his 1952 candidacy to the US Senate from Texas. Johnson only won by literally manufacturing votes in magical ballot boxes, but he had faced criticism from various churches for some of his stands and he did not want to have to deal with that again. So, he created an amendment that churches that endorse or oppose specific candidates would lose their precious tax-exempt status. The amendment was shockingly non-controversial at the time, but it has had enormous ramifications.
Now why would the bishops not favor being freed from this restriction on their ability to speak freely and endorse the most moral, most worthy candidates, and oppose those who are unworthy? There are two reasons, really – money, and ideology.
Regarding the money, the USCCB – and Lori was speaking in at least a semi-official capacity for the USCCB in this interview – is wholly dependent on federal funding for almost all of their activities, activities which have come to be thoroughly politicized by this very same funding. Something like 90% of Catholic Charities and 92% of Catholic Relief Services funding comes directly from US taxpayers. One could imagine that, if freed of the Johnson Amendment the bishops would be placed in a very difficult position, not wanting to anger either party by openly opposing some or many (or all) of their candidates. Such politicking could place their precious, precious billions at risk. Can’t have that.
In addition, one can easily forecast how divided and lukewarm the bishops would be in determining which candidates to endorse or oppose.
Think how many very difficult, uncomfortable stands out milquetoast bishops would have to take should the Johnson Amendment be repealed. The house divided they worry about is their own conference’s alienation from faithful souls. Either way they went, they’d be angering a large proportion of their sharply divided flock, but in most of these cases, there is a clear, Catholic moral imperative to support one candidate and oppose another. Right now, they have the perfect excuse not to speak out much more forcefully against pro-abort, pro-contraception, pro-perversion, etc., candidates. They simply can’t speak out for fear of losing that “holy” tax exempt status. It’s great cover.
But it’s also a huge shirking of duty and conduct unworthy of a shepherd of souls. In fact, much of the division among those in this country who apply the name Catholic to themselves stems precisely from the bishop’s unwillingness to take clear stands on moral issues, and, more importantly, impose ecclesiastical penalties against politicians and others of notoriety who advocate for positions contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. How many pro-abort politicians have been denied Communion, for instance? How many have been condemned by name? How many morally worthless, mealy-mouthed “voting guides” have been trotted out over the years, always containing just enough morally ambiguous language to give a shade of cover for those who want to vote for politicians who advance morally reprehensible positions?
Overall, this commentary reveals the moral corruption at the heart of the USCCB and most national episcopal conferences. Not only do they try to enforce a rigid conformity, blocking individual ordinary’s ability to speak out by imposing penalties against those who do, they also reveal a bureaucratic contractor more concerned with getting paid than saving souls. Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow the Church and the protestant sects and others to have a stronger impact on the electoral landscape than they’ve had in decades, and thus materially improve the moral condition of this nation. In point of fact, one can trace the steady decline in morals in this country almost in a direct line back to 1954 – that is to say, the silencing of the churches played a significant role in the subsequent moral collapse of this nation.
But perhaps many of our shepherds today consider that much more of a feature, than a bug. Whatever keeps the gravy train rolling……is that their primary concern? And how many of them favor the Church to be a mute, subservient, loyal and dutiful NGO-type contractor to the government, rather than the radically countercultural Body of Christ and vehicle of salvation she is intended by our Lord to be?
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, disaster, error, family, General Catholic, horror, sadness, secularism, Society.
While much of the world is heaping praise on an Oklahoma mom who has determined to carry what doctors have determined is a child with anencephaly (virtually no brain development) to term, the reason she has specified for doing so gives pause. Her intent in carrying the child to term is to donate her organs to people in need.
There are several important aspects that the article quoted below leaves out. It is true that most children afflicted with this disorder die shortly after birth, if they make it to birth. But a growing number have lived for months or even years with this condition, defying all medical logic, such as it is as this time. The other salient factor is that to donate organs like a heart or liver – which would seem to be too small in this case to be much use to all but the youngest patients – the donor must be killed in the process of organ removal.
What the article does not tell us is how the family plans to proceed if the baby is born alive – which it is expected to be – and does not immediately die of its disorder. It reads as if they plan on letting doctors dismember their child alive in order to get at the organs. I pray this is not the case, but since the parents have apparently already determined to donate organs, and if the baby dies before the organs are removed it will defeat the stated purpose, it seems as if the baby will be whisked away to an operating room to be harvested for parts shortly after birth. Since I don’t know this to be the case – the coverage all seems to stem from the same fluffy, incomplete article – I won’t engage in speculation as to what the parents plan to do if death is not eminent for their daughter after birth, but I will note that killing a baby or any person for the purpose of getting at their organs, even to ostensibly save other lives, is morally repugnant and reduces some humans – even if this is not the intent – to virtual farm animals groomed for parts to benefit others.
Keri Young feels the kicks, has the hiccups and can hear her daughter’s heartbeat, but unlike most mothers, she won’t get to see her daughter grow up.
Her unborn daughter Eva has anencephaly and doesn’t have a brain.
Keri Young and her husband Royce, of Oklahoma City, have shared heartbreaking details of the pregnancy in a series of posts on social media.
At 19 weeks, they found out their daughter would only have 24 hours to live at birth if they decided to keep her. [This is not true in every case. As I said, a growing number of babies with this affliction have lived even for several years, and brought great joy to their families.]
Faced with terrible options, Keri said they decided to continue with the pregnancy to full term to give other children a chance at life. [Even if that means denying their own child it’s own chance?]
I don’t write this to further hurt a family going through something unimaginable. Having had to confront the mortality of one of my own children recently, I have some inkling of how incredibly painful this must be.
And it’s certainly preferable that the parents chose to at least carry the baby to term, rather than have it murdered in the womb as many people would prefer.
Nevertheless, given that anencephaly is not necessarily an automatic death sentence (and keeping in mind that we only have a tiny, distorted picture of the case), and given that donation of vital organs is……..this is really not something to be praised but to be at least questioned, pending further information, if not outright condemned. Doctors make mistakes. Babies have stunned doctors with “impossible” recoveries or by at least living for periods of time medical science says could not occur.
Decades of murdering millions of babies and treating people materialistically to get at their good parts when their lives are in jeopardy or they are in a persistent coma, etc., has played a key role in the broader devaluing of human life in our culture today. This post may well be seen as harsh or mean-spirited, but it is simply an attempt to call to mind the Truth Christ has revealed, that we must respect and do all we can to support human life from conception to natural death, no matter what the “experts” say about the futility of such support. The organ donation process – for vital organs – is wholly and integrally opposed to this respect, and exists on the basis of what often turn out to be flawed medical opinions. And yet we see how far respect for human life and a proper understanding of what that respect entails in the effusive praise that is being directed at this family, which may have morally-upright intentions, but also may not.
I pray this couple gives their baby the full chance for life God intends her to have. I cannot imagine having my child carved up into parts while still alive, no matter how great the perceived benefit to others might be nor how grim their prognosis may be.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, the enemy, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
And, beyond that, features himself in what is an obviously perverse and blasphemous work of “art.” Paglia is one of several well known extreme modernist bishops from the Italian episcopate that have experienced a rapid rise during Francis’ pontificate. Particularly shocking is the fact that this same archbishop who seems to tip his hand quite obviously regarding his own proclivities and, quite probably, extracurricular activities, has been made the president of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family and the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life. These appointments are part of a clear trend under the current Bishop of Rome to grant cover and partronage to the sodomite underworld prevalent in the clery, as Francis’ recent rollbacks of penalties put into place for priest sex abuse have helped underscore.
Many wondered how Francis would deal with this lavendar mafia. Little did they know the several-hundred page dossier on pervert priests compiled under Benedict would be used by Francis as recommendations for promotions and advancement. Of course, given the tight correlation between sodomy and hatred for the constant belief and practice of the Faith, it is probable that much of Francis’ most fervent support within the episcopate comes from those lost in this reprobate lifestyle. In spite of the fact that this archbishop and his painting were very controversial within Italy, Francis has still seen fit to give him two plum and highly influential assignments, both centering on what appears to all the world to be an attempt to undermine and ultimately destroy the moral edifice of the Faith:
The archbishop now at the helm of the Pontifical Academy for Life paid a homosexual artist to paint a blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church in 2007. The mural includes an image of the archbishop himself.
The archbishop, Vincenzo Paglia, was also recently appointed by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.
The massive mural still covers the opposite side of the facade of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.
Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.According to the artist, a homosexual Argentinean named Ricardo Cinalli who is known for his paintings of male bodies, Bishop Paglia selected him out of a list of ten internationally-known artists specifically for the task of painting the inner wall of the facade. Bishop Paglia, along with one Fr. Fabio Leonardis, oversaw every detail of Cinalli’s work, according to Cinalli, who approvingly notes that Paglia never asked him if he believed in the Christian doctrine of salvation.
“Working with him was humanly and professionally fantastic,” Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March of last year. “Never, in four months, during which we saw each other almost three times each week, did Paglia ever ask me if I believed in salvation. He never placed me in an uncomfortable position.” [Of course not! We wouldn’t want to disrupt all that pleasant “accompaniment” and “welcoming” with any talk of such a minor and trivial subject as the state of one’s eternal soul!]
“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” added Cinalli. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.” [Ergo, Paglia endorsed every portion of the monstrosity, which you can view below]
Cinalli admits to La Repubblica that the naked people in the nets are meant to be “erotic,” although Bishop Paglia drew the line when Cinalli proposed to show people actually copulating.“In this case, there was not – in this sense – a sexual intention, but erotic, yes,” said Cinalli. “I think that the erotic aspect is the most notable among the people inside the nets.” He later added, “The one thing that they didn’t permit me to insert was the copulation of two people within this net where everything is permitted.” [In a sane Church, this artist would never have been considered. This is the reduction of the Church to mere platform for the advancing of worldly left-wing ideals and, more importantly, the personal vanity of an unworthy prelate.]
The reason he wasn’t allowed to be so explicit, says Cinalli, is that his painting had already done enough to demonstrate the notion that man has “freedom” in this life and even in the next, apparently to engage in whatever sexual behavior he deems appropriate. “The bishop and Fr. Leonardis . . . told me that they didn’t think it was necessary to arrive at that extreme to demonstrate the freedom that man, in reality, has in this world and in the next.” [Orwellian. Slavery is freedom. God condones sodomy, prostitution, and drug use in “heaven.” Please. All this does is reveal to total immorality of Paglia, the priests involved, and the artist. It says nothing to anyone about God, sin, redemption, the human condition, etc.]
The article then goes on to note how Paglia has moved to undermine the Doctrine of the Faith on numerous occasions since his pontifical appointments, including this:
In July of 2016, still under the direction of Paglia, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued a new sex-ed program that includes lascivious and pornographic images so disturbing that one psychologist suggested that the archbishop be evaluated by a review board in accordance with norms of the Dallas Charter, which are meant to protect children from sexual abuse.
The images in question, which, quite frankly, are of an amateur level of quality and boringly progressive in their message. I wish these geriatric progressive perverts would understand just how tired and predictable their attempts at shocking have become (beware these images contain nudity and are, as stated above, obviously intended to be erotic:
Paglia circled. The image is obviously intended to leave vague whether it be Christ or some male love uplifting the bishop
Yes there are drug dealers and prostitutes and people obviously getting it on if out and out penetration is not show. SOOOO appropriate for a church and children. Consider how diligent a man who has no problem bombarding children with homo-erotic art every day in what should be the sanctuary of the Lord is going to be about protecting children’s innocence generally, or from predatory priests in particular.
And yet Francis has seen fit to install this man over pontifical departments dedicated to upholding the family and the sanctity of life.
Outrage doesn’t begin to describe it.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
……..policy over which they have never expressed much concern. Cynical, much? The Mexican government constantly and quite roughly deports any and all illegal immigrants they catch coming over their southern border – that is, if those immigrants don’t have sufficient inducements with which to bribe Mexican officials, not all of which involve money, if you know what I mean. The Mexican Church has had very little to say about that.
But in a sense, this very much makes sense, as bishops for a given country should have as their primary concern the well-being of their own citizens. Of course, Mexicans in the US have in a very real way repudiated their citizenship and as often as not rejected the Church (either there or here, huge numbers are walking away from the Faith). I can understand some degree of loyalty, but for the most part, this just seems like ugly politicking of a most base kind.
See what you think:
The Catholic Church in Mexico has accused the government of adopting an attitude of fear and “submission” over US President Donald Trump’s immigration measures, which it labeled “terrorism.”
Mexican authorities “only make declarations and promises, their reactions are lukewarm and they also show fear and even worse, submission,” read an editorial in the Church’s From the Faith weekly.
The editorial, entitled “Migrant Terrorism,” criticized Trump’s immigration measures, which aim to expel millions of undocumented migrants from the United States.
The Trump administration issued tough new orders Tuesday for a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigrants……..[Umm, the only ones really under threat of deportation are those who have criminal records]
“What Mr Trump does is not only apply inhuman legalism, but a real act of terror,” the editorial said. [But the Mexican government does any different? And why aren’t you castigating your government for its corruption and horrific policy which has driven so many Mexicans to flee in the first place. Most importantly – how much income does the Church in Mexico derive from remittances from Mexican expatriates living in the US? I bet it is not insubstantial]
The new rules make it easier for US Border Patrol and immigration officers to quickly deport any illegal immigrants they find, with only a few exceptions, principally children.
But on Thursday, US Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Mexican ministers promising no “mass deportations” or use of military force to expel immigrants.
Trump has infuriated Mexico by insisting the country pay for a border wall to keep undocumented immigrants out. Mexico’s foreign minister has warned that his country will impose tariffs on US products if the United States taxes Mexican imports to finance a the wall. [Good luck keeping your collapsing oil industry alive if you do that]
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
You won’t get much argument from me. Of course, we know that, in the end, Christ and His Church – including all the Truth He has revealed – will prevail. But we also know that the end of the world will be preceded by a great apostasy, the horrific persecution of true religion, the standing up of a satanic cult in the place of that religion, and a man of sin preceding the antichrist. That is to say, the Church, in her human element, will all but be destroyed. The preponderance of thinking among Fathers and Doctors has been that this would be a rapid process, taking place over a few years. Maybe it will be more drawn out, however.
Michael Matt categorizes just a small number of the recent atrocities emanating from Rome and the episcopate at large. It seems Soros money may well be pouring into Amchurch and significantly influencing attitudes – or at least making possible closer coordination between already progressive bishops and the broader anti-Trump push that is presently ongoing (to a degree that is astounding – virtually every single protest, town hall, riot, etc., has been astroturf, planned, organized, funded, and directed by Soros money. None of this is genuine).
What we are seeing certainly seems like a coalescing – in the open, as opposed to the dark corners in which they normally operate – of a transnational one world one religion global elite. Note Matt’s comments that what is being pointed at in all this is a call to conversion, but a conversion to what? There are strong rumors of an intercommunion declaration for Lutherans, whether they want one or not (that is, a wholly one-sided, Catholic affair, a surrender). I’m quite certain that won’t be the end of it. I also like the note that they seem to be rushing to get things done, this year. Given the portentuous anniversaries this year represents, that’s something worth pondering.
What do you make of the conclusion that Francis must be opposed? Is Francis not deviating from the Faith, and obviously, openly so? Goodness now even open fornicators/cohabitators are to be “welcomed,” not admonished or exhorted to convert!
And we all know just what this means – as the initial arguments by Church (maybe I should say “Church”) leftists like Curran and others in favor of contraception were supposed to be limited to mature, faithful, devout married couples, discerning in conscience whether to use contraception or not, we have seen how the Church, as people experience it in almost all local parishes, in practice tacitly now endorses, or at least never condemns (which is the same thing), contraception use by anyone at any time. So it will be with communion for divorcees and now, apparently, fornicators – there will be much brave talk of “paths of discernment” and “mature accompaniment,” but in the end – and it will take zero time – we all know that what will emerge is a deliberate, if unspoken, destruction of the Church’s condemnation of fornication and adultery (with many more coming).
That’s the end goal. That’s your “new church” coming into being. Liberal protestantism. The far left of the Lutheran spectrum and/or US mainstream Episcopalianism, which is beyond moribund and will soon die. That’s what the West’s elites want to propose as a one world religion, but islam will mow it down.
IOW, viz yesterday’s fisking, it is about subordinating the Faith to the progressive zeitgeist. You can see exactly how that will play out in that post.
Uncovering scandals in the Archdiocese of New York, or chastising Bishop McElroy’s latest idiocy, is essentially meaningless if you refuse to discuss the elephant in the Church. I assume you know to whom I am referring.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A lot of people hold the pious hope that this Francis phenomenon will simply be a short lived nightmare, a sort of slumbering return to the horrifying days of the late 60s and 70s before we wake up and get back to “normality,” meaning something more conservative-ish like JPII and Benedict (leaving aside how much these two pontiffs leave to be desired compared to, say, a Gregory XVI or Leo XIII, let alone a Pius V).
I have been trying to steel folks in my inner circle – and, to some degree, readers of the blog – to the fact that Francis and those who elected him are not at all satisfied with a trip down memory lane to their salad days as bead wearing long haired hippy revolutionaries in the Church. They mean to make the revolution they’ve always sought permanent. Even though Francis has behaved almost frenetically in trying to impose this agenda, he’s old and his pontificate could end at any moment. More importantly, he could be replaced by someone sane and possessed of a Catholic sensus fidei, and the dream would go into remission, again.
Unless, of course, they can so arrange things that Francis is simply the first of an endless line of progressive pontiffs who will “sing their new church into being.” Rorate holds similar concerns, as expressed below, considering the rumors that arch-liberal Cardinal Tagle of Manila is going to replace Cardinal Muller at the CDF and thus have a powerful resume for the next conclave:
To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian “Pope Francis”, the man seen by many as Francis’ dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.
Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia
. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year
, he will simply be retired long before turning 75.
Tagle’s own theological oeuvre
is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School’s History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in “moderate” language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election
as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church.
Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable “CV” for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery.
We shall see. We don’t know much of what the 2013 conclave was like, internally (though we have much evidence that the reason why it ended so quickly was because of illicit collaboration among progressives that some think even invalidate the results), but I think we can be sure the next one is going to be really fierce and take a lot longer. I’m sure the progressives will try to repeat their trick, but their opponents will likely be a lot more organized, if still badly outnumbered. I’m sure – or I hope? – it would be a heck of a fight.
We can do a great deal by praying like mad not only for some kind of miracle with this pontificate but even more for the next one. Men have to be open to Grace for prayer to work on them……..I think I’m not alone in wondering just how open this present occupant may be.