jump to navigation

Alfie Evans Must Die to Maintain the Fiction of the NHS in Britain April 26, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

The public execution, through denial of medical care, by the government of the United Kingdom of a child who has been offered free medical care, transportation, etc. by a hospital in Italy has received wide coverage.  And rightly so.  This is not the first time we have seen such an atrocity play out in full view of the public. Last year it was Charlie Gard, who was denied “lifesaving treatment that would be given in any US hospital.”  Now it is little Alfie Evans.

The court case is through, the judge (as always seems the case in Britain) sided with the apparatchiks of the state health care rationing scheme, euphemistically called the National Health Service, and the child’s parents are even being barred from assisting the child in breathing or other such minimal provisions.  Little Alfie is to be offered “palliative care” only, which means, he will be kept in a heavily drugged stupor until he dies.

Many pro-life, Catholic, and other conservative sites have offered numerous explanations for why the government and legal system in England seem to find it so easy to kill through neglect children with severe, but quite possibly still treatable, medical problems.  That the vast majority of Britons, and especially their cultural-political elite, are now godless heathens possessed of a reprobate sense is one obvious explanation, as Mundabor notes below (h/t reader TT):

The dramatic events surrounding poor little Alfie Evans give a shocking portrait of what the United Kingdom has become: a Country in which every Christian vestige is rapidly disappearing as a deep vain of Nazism pervades the fabric of its society.

A hospital trying all they can to put an end to the life of a child, and a “justice” system supporting them in their effort: this is XXI Century Britain.

It order for the inhumanity to appear egalitarian, the child is not even allowed to live abroad, where Christian minds would have compassion of his little life. No, little Alfie Evans has to die, to satisfy the Nazi mentality informing our “health” system………

…….This, my dear readers, is a Country allowing himself a big debate and years of controversies about the very occasional, perfectly legal killing of… vermin, but cannot stand the thought of a child whose life they deem unworthy of living (this is a Nazi concept: lebensunwertes Leben, “life unworthy of living”) to be allowed to live.

All this and much other commentary on the deplorable state of morals in Britain today is undoubtedly true.  Not that the US is in any measurable sense superior.

But one point I thought should be made, is that this is also a case of a corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, and ineffective bureaucracy going to any lengths to shield itself from well deserved criticism.  The NHS needs not reform, but abolishing.  Hundreds if not thousands of Britons die every year through sheer neglect, mismanagement, incompetence, and inability to procure necessary care in a system that is hamstrung through its limited taxpayer funding.  Were an Alfie Evans or a Charlie Gard to be treated in another country and make a spectacular recovery, that would be a huge PR hit for the socialist pyramid scheme and greatly undermine public confidence in the state as the primary if not sole means of medical care in a nation.  Even though Britons have been very carefully and deliberately propagandized to believe that no NHS = millions dying in the streets – you know, just like it is in the US, where you can hardly take a step without tripping over all the dead bodies – a few such incidents like that could result in calls for reform, reduced funding, or, the utterly unthinkable to the statists/apparatchiks of the NHS and the politicians dependent upon it for their political support – abolishment.

So, it is much, much easier for all involved – at least in the ruling class – to just allow a little boy to die unnecessarily, rather than deal with the potential fallout from his treatment elsewhere. And this kind of calculus is entirely informed by the godless, neo-pagan secular spirit that pervades the ruling class in Briton and throughout Christendom today, as Mundabor notes above.  In a very real sense, the state, symbolized by the NHS in Britain, has become the replacement god for these poor, lost souls.  And as the next post will show, millions of Americans are undergoing, or have already undergone, a similar transformation into decadent, selfish sexular paganism.

As I said just the other day, the US has been following the same trajectory as the already-post-Christian countries like Canada and the UK, we’ve only been a few decades behind.  Yes there are more traditional Christian elements in this country that are resisting the trend, but they are steadily weakening and losing influence.  I don’t say this to promote dejection, but simply as an accurate assessment of our times.  In spite of the heartening the election of Trump meant to all of us, he hasn’t fundamentally altered the social/cultural trajectory of this country, yet.  We already have millions of our own Alfie Evans, they never even get far enough to be named or be born, but the same underlying solipsistic belief system is at work.

Advertisements

This Nation Is Headed for a Most Unhappy Breakup February 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, cultural marxism, different religion, firearms, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’m not a big fan of David French or National Review – or T. Codrington Van Vorhies IV of the National Topsider, as Iowahawk calls them – but he does raise an important point in a recent post on how the Left is driving increasing political, social, and moral polarization in this country, to the extent now that we have two very large segments of this country who can no longer agree on even such basic things as what constitutes a male or female human, and whether bakers should be forced by government gun to bake a cake for a non-wedding of two people of the same sex.

What is developing is a situation where each side is so alienated from the other – a process driven by the Left’s relentless demands for always more revolutionary change – that it finds being governed by representatives of the other side intolerable.  Furthermore, the internet has encouraged and enabled the formation of ideological bubbles where most of us screen our sources of information to those which not only tend to comfortably reinforce our views, but even have a tendency to make them more extreme in confirming them.

However, as French notes, it is the Left that always, always leads in both of the phenomenons above.  The right was concerned and a bit panicked about the election of Obama, but we didn’t have public breakdowns and still-ongoing (more than a year after the event) screaming hissy fits about the election of someone other than our preferred candidate.  And it is the Left that is much more typically broadly ignorant of policy, and especially the viewpoints of the Right, than it is the other way around. The Left has virtually always forced the issues that divide us, and always always always presses for ever more radical developments, especially moral/cultural ones, but the right is also becoming radicalized as a process of both natural reaction to the constant antagonism of the Left, and as part of a process of coming to recognize its core principles more and more through media dedicated to that purpose.  The end result of this process appears to be such polarization that a Civil War type breakdown seems increasingly likely.

I don’t see much hope of the polarization decreasing in the future. In fact, I look forward to it continually increasing.  I also think the two sides will grow less and less able to live together.  However many believing Christians (and orthodox Jews) there are, there are tens of millions of people who continue to live with a fundamentally Christian moral framework.  Coexistence with the always more radical left is becoming increasingly difficult, and for more and more, impossible.  This cannot lead anywhere good.  I expect the national breakup with be short, sharp, ugly, and bloody.

Anyway here is French’s spiel:

 In most states, the Overton window moved to the right, and it’s still moving right.

We can do this issue by issue, but an issue-based focus obscures a larger and far more significant reality. We’re no longer fighting about “the” Overton window. Our differences have grown so profound that “the” window has broken. We’ve got two windows now. One for red. One for blue.

Since 1994 the Pew Research Center has been studying political polarization in the United States, and you can watch the two windows form right in front of your eyes. Here are two images that show the difference between the political positions of the “median Republican” and “median Democrat” in the “general public” in 1994 and in 2017:

And this brings us back to the three stories that started this piece. There is a difference, I believe, between progressives and conservatives. Given their control of the academy, legacy media, and Hollywood — along with their intense geographical concentration in large, urban enclaves — progressives are not only racing further to the left, they’re also deceiving themselves about their cultural strength.

They think they’re “winning” when they’ve really moved mainly themselves. The other window either remains unmoved or moves right in response. Arguments on the far-left side of the blue Overton window (like campus temper tantrums) are greeted with complete incredulity and open mockery on the right.

In fact, even progressive conventional wisdom (such as the notion that a man can become a woman) is at best on the far-left edge of the Republican Overton window. At best. Similarly, I’d challenge a Republican to walk into a Brooklyn coffee shop and find a single person who didn’t think you were a violent bigot for believing that Caitlyn Jenner is still a man and that the Second Amendment alone grants you the right to carry a weapon.

We may have exhausted all the “why Trump won” arguments, so I won’t go there. But I will say that the notion that one Overton community will govern the other is increasingly infuriating and even terrifying to the losers of national political contests.

None of this is exactly new.  It’s been apparent to many for decades.  But the process of dissolution of common interest and increasing animosity only continues to accelerate.  The Founders set up a system that could take surprising amounts of strain, but every system has its limit.  When we cross that limit is anyone’s guess, but I am thinking we’re getting closer than anytime in the past 150 years, with the possible exception of the late 60s.

So It’s Pretty Much Obvious at This Point that Representative Democracy in the USA Is Dead February 6, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, Endless Corruption, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I know some, perhaps most, readers have believed that what we have all been sold as “democracy,” or a representative republic where the “will of the people” is expressed, at least generally, in broad strokes, by their elected leaders at the national level, has been dead for decades.  Pick your date for when it died – Marbury vs. Madison, the Civil War, the 16th Amendment, direct election of Senators, the assassination of JFK, the lies perpetrated by the intelligence apparatus to suck us into the Iraq War……whatever – the point is, many of you have been onto the fact that this thing we have been very deliberately and carefully propagandized to believe – that we have some say (again, at the national level particularly) in how we are ruled (not governed) – is a farce.  It hasn’t been true in a very long time.

I don’t mean to sound defeatist, unpatriotic, or, God forbid, like a carping leftist, but if the revelations of the mammoth, ongoing, unrepentant, largely unreported Deep State conspiracies against Donald Trump, and, more particularly, those who elected him, have shown us anything, it is that somehow, over the past few decades (I think it’s mostly occurred in my lifetime), a deeply entrenched unelected unaccountable cabal has taken over the reins of power in this country, particularly at the national level but depending on where you live all the way down to the most local level, and that democracy, or republicanism, as we have all been taught to believe, is a crock.

This cabal consists of deeply embedded, careerist bureaucrats in the government, the academic environment from which they derive their sacred credentials which they purport makes them fit to rule over others, and a media which has become wholly ideological and uncaring about having even a semblance of impartial coverage.  It is deeply classist and thoroughly bourgeois. Indeed, that is their primary objection to Trump and his supporters, that they are so working class, so often Christian, so rough and tumble, so politically incorrect (and thus heretics against their new, self-made, godless and God-hating religion) and just so gauche.

This coalition of the unworthy, this cadre of self-anointed leftists, has grown unchecked in power and influence over the past 50 years irrespective of which party is in office.  Well intentioned fool Bush ’43, however, did a very great deal to make their hold on power unshakable through the the “PATRIOT Act” and unaccountable, secretive courts and apparatus that have been, and will continue to be, ranged against the people of this country not in pursuit of national defense, but in pursuit of naked partisanism and self-aggrandizement.

We are confronted in these present days with a scandal that utterly dwarfs the defining political scandal of the past 3 generations (at least) – Watergate – in which a democrat administration and a democrat political campaign found eager partners in the intelligence and federal law enforcement bureaucracies in order to try to destroy the reputation of the Republican candidate and so swing the election to Hillary Clinton. Even after this effort failed and Trump won, the democrats and their media allies have waged an utterly unprecedented and unconstitutional (as if that matters anymore) campaign to have a sitting president accused of committing some crime, any crime, even (or especially) if it is not an actual crime, in order to drive him from office.

And the media, an absolutely vital component in the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers, has gone over wholly into this same obvious partisanship and absolute contempt for decency, fair play, or anything remotely resembling balance.  Indeed, the relations between the media, academy, infotainment complex, and government agencies is as incestuous as it is corrupt.  All of these entities have a huge stake in seeing the current system continue to grow in wealth and power, no matter the consequences for the “little people” who are being crushed through their avarice.  No, that’s wrong……crushing the little people is indeed the point, as this cabal seeks to create a new peasant class and a new aristocracy.

That this cabal is also entirely leftist and filled with loathing for this nation as founded, all non-leftists, and especially those who believe in God and adhere to traditional morality is simply the glue that holds the entire unholy enterprise together.

I’m ranting, but I think we good cause.  I have listened to hours of media coverage try to pretend that a government conspiracy to destroy a major party presidential candidate (and now president) is of absolutely no consequence, and in fact, that it is the Republicans who are damaging the Constitution and endangering the Republic.  The unmitigated gall…….but as I’ve said before, if you want to know exactly what evils leftists are guilty of, see what they accuse their opponents of.

If you’re looking for specific reasons why I am so outraged and ranting like this, here are but a few: the US in danger of becoming East Germany, intelligence services threaten to stop even their current, feckless, recalcitrant “cooperation” with Congress in overseeing their activities, and switch to outright adversarial obstructionism, if Congress does not stop investigating their unconstitutional and tyrannical activities, the failure to send even ONE IRS or other federal gov’t employee to prison after illegally persecuting “TEA party” groups in 2011-2, the fact that Robert Mueller’s witch hunt is still ongoing after the basis for it has been shown repeatedly to be not just false, but an entirely partisan hit piece………I could go on for ages.  It’s not just where we’re at, it’s where we are so manifestly headed.  As this piece notes:

…Kamala Harris tried to imprison pro-life journalists for probing Planned Parenthood. Now she’s a U.S. senator, whom some think should run for president. What would President Harris’ FBI look like? A lot more like the Stasi than we would like to admit.

More than likely, the best that we can hope for is that Trump will not be wounded politically by all these efforts, but may even get a slight bump.  But given what we’ve witnessed in these last 5-6 years of ugly, self-serving, Chicago machine-style rule, there is absolutely zero chance that any of the major players in this attempt to destroy a properly elected Republican administration will even be convicted of a crime, let alone serve any jail time (which, manifestly, numerous people, from Lois Lerner to James Comey to Strozk and these many other characters should).  The law, the ever-multiplying rules and regulations they impose on  us, are for the little people.  The elite, the connected, the self-anointed (always holding the correct, changing-by-the-minute leftist politically correct beliefs) are above such things.

The question is, how much longer are we not just going to take it, but continue to pay for the privilege through our obsequious submission to taxation and and other means of control?

The other question is, many traditional Catholics would argue that what we are seeing now is the inevitable end state of a democracy.  All previous “experiments” in democracy have failed.  Are we doomed to repeat the experience, and must it lead to civil war and cultural collapse, as it so often has in the past?

What should we, as Catholics, advocate for, in terms of politics, if anything?  Is it better to just try to ride out the calamity, doing the best we can for our family and other loved ones, and let the chips fall where they may?  Is there a point in engaging in this system anymore, or should we only advocate for some radical alternative, whatever it may be?

Popular TV Remodeling Couple Pilloried for the Sin of Having 5 Children January 19, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

This is the upside down, inside out, black is white world we live in, shaped by dystopian leftist views and mores for decades now.  Just a few decades ago, having a large family was seen at least as a neutral thing, and generally was viewed positively, as a sign of blessing.  Certainly, there have been misanthropes for decades, often liberal protestant types, who in the 20th century coalesced around the suffrage movement and radical social theories (like eugenics) to first start to push the notion that people = bad.  But at the time, those people were generally extremist nuts.  Nowadays, the default view by the typically childless “elites” is that children = bad, a drag, an endless source of carbon emissions, while they happily plan on collecting the Social Security checks and other benefits the children of others, the children they could never be bothered to have, will provide.

It’s a sick, sick, sick, sick world:

Fans of “Fixer Upper” no doubt have heard that stars Chip and Joanna Gaines have announced they’re having a fifth child.  Feminist commentator Kristen Pyszczyk does not approve.

“Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.” [Actually, low birth rates are leading to massive social disruption and economic decline.  Japan’s economy has been in a zero growth recession for exactly as long as its birth rate has been less than replacement rate.  Europe is being remade due to the necessity of having to import millions of largely muslim immigrants to replace the babies they never had.  And the US would be experiencing a population decline, due to our lower-than-replacement native-born birth rate, and much of the poor economic performance of the last 45 years can be attributed to lack of population growth.  All the bases upon which the population explosion belief are grounded are utterly false.  But it’s a religious conviction with these people, so no amount of logic matters.]

While having a child or five is a very personal choice, it’s also a choice that affects everyone who inhabits our planet. So while many people might find the backlash unwarranted, it’s actually a conversation we need to have in order to challenge our uncritical acceptance of the life-fulfillment-through-procreation story. [That’s a massive assumption – that this well known couple has a larger than average number of kids out of some selfish desire for personal fulfillment. There are surely numerous reasons why they have 5 kids, but knowing their (protestant) Christian convictions, obeying God’s call to be fruitful and multiply is probably foremost.  Notice that feminists are all about “choice” when it comes to killing babies, but not when having them.  Reveal much?]

Now, as a feminist, I tend to oppose any cultural conversation that involves telling a woman what to do with her body. But women have long been told that they need to have kids to have a meaningful life, and they are groomed for motherhood from a very early age. [So let me make a totally unsupported assumption about you, Joanna Gaines – I imagine, transplanting the feminist critic’s selfish outlook into this unwitting recipient – and then launch on a rant, which just happens to perfectly correspond to my already held convictions, about how having lots of kids in order to “fulfill oneself” is horribly, horribly selfish.  And yet, which type is more in the solipsistic “Eat, Pray, Love” crowd – feminists, or devout Christians?”]

But we don’t often hear arguments for alternatives to motherhood. Women need to be presented with options for a fulfilling life that don’t involve taking 20 years of their lives to care for offspring. Changing the narrative around motherhood should help to offset some of the cultural conditioning we receive throughout our lives. [The eternal selfishness of the feminist mind is on stark display here.  There is more than a slight whiff of “doth protest too much” in this tawdry critique.   Unhappy with your life choices?  Find being used as a receptacle by unworthy men a bit more empty than empowering?  Taking it out on someone else may make you feel better for a few minutes, but cats are no substitute for children and grandchildren.]

Note the paradox – not having children is the key to humanity’s survival.  What she means is, “I demand the power, for myself and fellow travelers, to decide for others how many children they are allowed to have, at what time, and under what circumstances.  You see, like the endlessly evil and personally immoral Margaret Sanger, I believe only the right kind of people should be allowed to have children. Holding this view is a testament to my immense virtue and a sure signal of how much better I am than you, the grunting, rutting hoi polloi.”

Thus, our self-anointed “elites.”

Congratulations to the Gaines on their expectant arrival.

 

Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga – Poverty for Thee, but Not for Me (or my boyfriends) January 17, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

This news is almost a month old, but I think the implications are plain – once again, a leftist ecclesiastic demanding a “poorer church,” a “church of accompaniment” – has been found personally enriching himself at Church expense.  Or, at least, there is substantial evidence of such.  Even more, this enrichment seems to be directly tied to personal immorality of the type practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, and seems to make plain why these leftist cardinals and other apparatchiks in the Church seek to implode the current moral edifice of the Faith, and replace it with one that is conducive to progressive mores.

There is a long article below, but the implications are damning, both for Rodriguez-Maradiaga, and for Francis, who has apparently sat on this information for over 6 months while deciding how to treat with one of his closest advisers and allies (my emphasis and comments):

When he finished reading the inquiry drafted by the apostolic envoy he himself had sent to Honduras last May, Pope Francis’ hands went up to his skullcap. He had just found out that his friend and main councilor — powerful cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, a staunch supporter of a poor and pauperist Church and coordinator of the Council of Cardinals after he appointed him in 2013 — had received over the years from the Catholic University of Tegucigalpa around 41,600 US dollars a month, with an additional 64,200 dollars bonus in December.Bergoglio had yet to learn that several witnesses, both ecclesiastical and secular, were accusing Maradiaga of investments in some companies in London topping a 1,2 million dollars that later vanished into thin air, or that the Court of Auditors of the small Central American nation was investigating a flow of large sums of money from the Honduran government to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication and to the Suyapa Foundation, both foundations of the local Church and therefore depending on Maradiaga himself.

“The Pope is sad and saddened, but also very determined at discovering the truth,” people of his entourage at Santa Marta, his residency, explain. [Uh huh. Is that why this was not made public for over 6 months, and in fact required investigative journalism (as in, not a Vatican press release) to uncover?  Can you imagine the hue and cry if this had occurred under Benedict, with one of his closest advisers and supporters?] He wants to know every item of the investigation Argentine bishop Jorge Pedro Casaretto conducted in Honduras, on top, of course, of the final destination of the jaw-dropping sums of money obtained by the cardinal. Just in one year, 2015, as shown in an internal university report L’Espresso obtained, the cardinal received almost 600,000 dollars, a sum that according to some sources he collected for a decade in his capacity as “Grand Chancellor” of the university. However, some other rather unpleasant items account for the rest of the sums he received according to Bishop Casaretto’s report. The pope’s trustworthy person put down on paper the serious accusations many witnesses brought forward (the audits totaled around fifty witnesses and included administrative staff of the diocese and of the university, priests, seminarians and the cardinal’s driver and secretary) also against the Auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa, Juan José Pineda, among the most loyal in Maradiaga’s inner circle and de facto his deputy in Central America. [We will learn just how close Rodriguez and Pineda are later on]

After studying the dossier he received directly six months ago, Pope Francis assigned to himself all final decisions to be made. [Because of course he did.  Makes it easier to bury the unpleasant news.  As Rorate has noted, Rodriguez Maradiaga was absolutely key in securing Francis’ election in 2013, and may well have used copious distribution of funds from his leadership of Caritas International to do so – at least, that is the implication, which no one in the media seems interested in investigating]

……..The accusations are many: “Some expenses go to close friends of Pineda, like a Mexican who calls himself ‘Father Erick’, but who never took his vows,” said a missionary. “The real name of the man is Erick Cravioto Fajardo. He lived for years in an apartment adjacent to that of the cardinal at Villa Iris. Pineda, who lived with him under the same roof, recently bought him a downtown apartment and a car. The money, we fear, came from university funds or from the diocese. We denounced this close and unseemly relationship also to the Vatican………[“Close and unseemly.”  I think we can understand just what that means in this disastrous era of sodomitical penetration deep into the bowels of the Church – so to speak. So at least some of this pilfered money is going to the lover and buddy of Maradiaga’s protege and closest supporter, who just happens to live next door to the Cardinal.  But we don’t need any investigation of a “gay mafia” in the Church, right Francis?  Unbelievable.]

The witnesses envoy Casaretto audited talked also about investments to the tune of millions gone catastrophically sour: Maradiaga supposedly transferred large amounts of the diocese’s funds to some financial companies in London, like Leman Wealth Management (whose owner is one Youssry Henien, as the registers of the Company House of England and Wales show). Now part of the money entrusted (and deposited in accounts in German banks) seem to have vanished.

There is more to the story. Casaretto’s report also hints to likely huge flows of money from the media empire the archbishopric set up and Suyapa Foundation, which manages the newspapers and televisions of the diocese, controls. As to Bishop Pineda, local newspapers pinpointed him recently as being the man who orchestrated reckless financial operations and the recipient of public funds (for as much as 1,2 million dollars) allegedly destined to obscure projects aimed at “training of the faithful to the values ​​and understanding laws and social life”. According to the accusers, these expenses were never supported by valid documentation. [Which tends to be the way these guys operate, especially when they need to pay off aggrieved former lovers or the outraged families of violated children.  This would hardly be the first time vast resources intended for the good of souls have been misdirected by unworthy men to enable their corrupt and immoral lifestyles.]

The Vatican is worried also about the Court of Auditors of Honduras’ launching of an accounting probe on the Catholic diocese there between 2012 and 2014. The prosecutors at the Tribunal Superior de Cuentas want to see clear about the lawfulness of the projects for which the government transferred every year tens of millions of lempiras to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication, whose official representative is still Maradiaga. As of the time of writing — so in a letter from the prosecutors L’Espresso obtained — the church did not produce the records on assets and liabilities and expenditure documentations. [Stonewalling from post-Vatican II Church bureaucrats?  Unthinkable!]

Leftism is religion for immoral people.  As Saint Thomas Aquinas and many other great Saints and Fathers of the Church have warned us, heresy, especially from ecclesiastics, is always a cover for personal immorality, almost always involving sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments.  Once a man convinces himself that Church Doctrine is false and his error is truth, that God has lied or the Church radically misunderstood, there is no end to the depths to which he will stoop.  I am not at all surprised that a major progressive Church operator is facing accusations of corruption and immorality – I only sense that there are far, far more such instances of which we are unaware, due to deliberate complicity by a media intent on protecting its co-religionists and ideological allies.

What a catastrophe for souls.  How terribly, terribly sad. Whether AA-1025 be true or not in all its details, I think it unmistakable that communists/leftists did undertake a deliberate program to penetrate the priesthood and fill it with ravening wolves.  I think that effort is dying out, at least in North America, but we shall be stuck with the products of it for decades to come, and with its effects for even longer.

What a fireball nightmare.

1 in 4 Americans Haven’t Read a Book in a Year, Can’t Name an Author…… December 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, rank stupidity, reading, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

…….and of those who can name an author, the vast majority of those name Danielle Steele, Stephen King, or some other living, pulp fiction writer. A substantial majority fail to name a single major literary figure.

So, the planned dumbing down of the West’s population, addicting them to the bread and circuses of the elite, continues apace?  There is no way educational systems this bad have not been deliberately contrived, especially after – or perhaps, because of – the trillions of taxpayer dollars pumped into them.  Common core?  Give me a break.  More effective methods were available over a century ago in Catholic National Readers.

Last fall, Pew Research found that 27 percent of Americans had not read a book in the preceding year.

Unfortunately, our friends across the pond aren’t much better in this respect. According to a 2014 survey, roughly 26 percent of adults in Great Britain admitted to not reading and finishing a book for pleasure.

One might be able to dismiss such statistics to busyness or other similar factors. But is it possible that the growing numbers of the non-reading public are instead a sign of the decline of knowledge about books and the canon of literature in general? A March 2017 survey suggests such might be the case. Produced by The Royal Society of Literature, the survey asked nearly 2,000 British adults about their literature reading habits. Similar to the aforementioned 2014 survey, roughly 1 in 4 British adults had not read a piece of literature in the previous six months. [Well I’m not clear what they mean by “literature?” Does reading books about Saints count, or is this only F. Scott Fitzgerald, de Cervantes, and the like?  I think they are speaking very broadly, as in Mickey Spillane would qualify.]

But even more interesting were the responses when researchers asked respondents to name an author of a literary work. As it turns out, 20 percent of respondents were unable to name even one. Of those who were able to name an author, more than half selected a modern, living author, such as J.K. Rowling. [Such pap]

Much of the world in which we live today is laid upon a foundation of knowledge. These ideas can be found in the great literary works of William Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and other men and women who are no longer with us. If many in today’s society can’t even name these authors, how can we expect them to participate in the “Great Conversation” of ideas, insights, and knowledge which still have profound effects on us today?

We can’t.  And that would be the point, my dear.  A population so ignorant is one that cannot think for itself, and must be led by the hand by its self-anointed “betters.”  Interestingly, however, in many cases the anointed are among the most ignorant among us, if the media and academia are any indication.  Oh, they know like religious mantras the left-liberal propaganda they’ve been indoctrinated in, but they are wholly ignorant of great sweeps of subjects, from history to geography to philosophy to theology…….you get the point.  The SAT and other deformations to our educational industry have created generations of clever regurgitators and test-takers who are thus marked, like a superior caste, for the college start of the path of elite credentialization that will chart their course to the new aristocracy, but not intelligent people who can think.  In fact, most of these JournoList types are blithering idiots, and prove it constantly.  I still want my chain saw bayonet option for the AK!

Present company excepted, of course, as I ride my high horse off to my ivory tower.

Reason number infinity plus one to homeschool.  One of the innumerable things of which I am proud of my kids, is that they are almost all avid readers.  The “least” of them is quite above average, while some are absolutely voracious and hard to keep stocked with books.  Having learned to read phonetically, they can read much faster than I can, and easily devour 2 or 3 books in a day. Half Price Books loves us.

An Open Letter to Michael Knowles        December 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Not that he’ll ever read it, this post is more for my own benefit, and possibly yours.

Before I begin, I will note that I am taking Knowles straight up on his own declarations.  If he is practicing some weird and really obscure  form of “humor,” that would be a problem (and scandal) in and of itself, but a different one from what I identify below.

Who is Michael Knowles, and why should committed Catholics care?  He is the host of an internet podcast under Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire umbrella.  He hosts several episodes a week.  He is a proud, at times even militant, Catholic.  Much of his program is dedicated to answering protestant “questions” regarding Catholicism, which means, in reality, refuting arrogant, ignorant charges from American evangelicals against the Church Jesus Christ – not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not Henry VIII, not Mary Baker Eddy – founded.

And he does a good job.  In fact, he has at times given me to wonder whether he is a Trad, such is his strong grasp of catechesis, theology, etc.  He certainly presents liturgical sentiments which align quite well with the TLM and against the Novus Ordo.  He is well read in Church teaching and especially Church history. He’s pointed out on several occasions the way Francis, Bishop of Rome is at odds with Catholic Dogma. He provides such an interesting perspective I was really starting to wonder if we had the second (but better??) coming of Mike Church.

And then there was that moment……you know the one, the one where the needle goes from playing a lovely melody to sliding all the way across the record……yeah, that one.

That moment came when Knowles, in a spoken word commercial he gave for a mattress company during one of his podcasts, mentioned that he and his fiancée just love sharing a bed made of these wonderful mattresses.

That’s………..that’s a problem. That’s a very big problem.

I don’t ever like to peer into consciences and convict others of sin, but Knowles has done so himself.  He has declared that he is committing ongoing, grievous sin, at the very least by continuing to expose himself to incredible temptation by sharing a bed with a woman other than his wife, but more likely by advertising the fact that he and she are ongoing fornicators.  Even if they both sleep in PVC bodysuits that cover them head to foot, even if they’ve never so much as kissed, this situation would be sinful alone for the scandal it gives.  You are basically advertising for fornication, and proudly proclaiming yourself a Catholic while doing so.

I’m sorry, Mr. Knowles, but you are not the solution, but the problem.  This is the very crisis the Church has faced since the 60s, where public spokesman, whether they at one time had a formal mission from the Church  such as Fr. Charles Curran, or self-appointed ones like yourself (and me), publicly deviating from the Faith, even attacking and undermining it.  I have not so far heard you directly verbally challenge or undermine a Dogma or Doctrine……..at least until that mattress ad.  And then I heard several other mentions of your fiancée wherein you made clear your relationship is fundamentally indifferent from all the pagans of the world these days, lost in sin.

Which brings up an interesting point – while Knowles clearly acknowledges the evils Francis is visiting on the Church, is he at the same time positioning himself to be the beneficiary of some of this doctrinal reformulation, especially regarding reception of Communion while in a manifest state of grievous, probably mortal, sin?  Seems quite possible.

Are you receiving the Blessed Sacrament, Mr. Knowles, while persisting in this relationship with your fiancée?  Your podcast statements would seem to indicate so.  Thus, you have added sacrilege to fornication and scandal.  Don’t read I Cor xi:25-29 much?

I am really at a loss how a man so obviously well-formed can be openly and proudly persisting in a relationship that is grievously scandalous at best (and which he makes pains to announce in most episodes of late).  He seems to have a nearly Traditional level of formation, to the extent that I would almost wonder if he hasn’t received regular trad catechesis, and, one would tend to assume, Confession?  Has this never come up?  My experience of multiple FSSP/SSPX confessors would lead me to believe that any and all of them would instantly point out this massive moral problem, were they aware of it.

So, I won’t be listening to him anymore.  Until he recognizes the huge scandal he has given and indicates some public contrition, he is actually a very dangerous man, all the more so due to his talents and gifts of formation. He sounds like the real deal.  He sounds like a really authentic Catholic, and he is reaching out to tens of thousands of protestants and giving them a very bad idea of what the Catholic Church is all about.  I haven’t listened to many of his shows – maybe 7 or 8 – but I’ve never heard him called out for his scandal, even from hostile protestants (which probably shows how virtually all of them are so morally confused in this age of error that they see nothing wrong with a little pre-marital fornication).

I would advise readers to stay far away from this charlatan. He certainly had me fooled.  Once one is confronted with a figure mixing truth and error, consuming their product becomes risky, at best.  Given the other excellent sources available, there is no reason to expose oneself to this risk.

I will pray for him, and especially pray that some really good traditional priest reaches out to him and shakes him from his morally damnable situation, and convinces him to make some public act of contrition for the scandal he is causing on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Knowles, if you read this, reach out to me and I will get you in touch with multiple very solid priests who will make abundantly clear the grave danger to which you are exposing your soul, and that of your fiancee. It’s all well and good to declare ourselves committed Catholics so long as that commitment costs us little – it is when it costs us dear is where the rubber meets the road. Take up your cross and follow Christ.  Deus Vult.

For the declaration upon which this post is based, see the below, if you must, at 8:28:

New Book Blasts Francis and His Wholesale Inappropriateness for the Chair of Peter December 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, horror, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Via Steve Skojec at One Peter Five comes a review of a short (141 pp) book on Francis, his seedy and troubling past life, his outlook, his philosophical and psychological shortcomings, and his disastrous agenda.  The review is quite long, about 4000 words, so I’ll only hit some high points.  In summation, however, the author of this book, who is anonymous (and has apparently caused a furious response in Rome and a search for his identity) but who goes by the deliciously Catholic name of Marcantonio Collona (the leader of the fleet of the Papal States at Lepanto), ties together much already known about Francis and his hard left agenda, while at the same time delving into his past and revealing a very great deal about Francis’ apparently nasty personality, his carefully crafted image as a great humble man (note the contradiction), and the mysterious twists and turns that led a man who was lambasted by his superiors in the post-conciliar Jesuit order as wholly unfit for high office (think about that) to become Pope. This naturally includes a great deal about the deceased Cardinal Martini, long-time leader of the leftist/anti-Catholic “Bologna School” of misfits and miscreants in the Church otherwise known as the “St. Gallen Mafia.”

The name of this new book is The Dictator Pope, and it is available for purchase online, but only in Kindle and similar e-formats.  I look forward to purchasing the book once it is available in print, if a publisher can be found (and believe me, with this pontificate, that will not be an easy task).

Taking up with some excerpts from Skojec’s review:

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.” [Indeed.  Whatever happened to the reform of the Vatican Bank (IOR), or the advancing of even stiffer penalties and interdictions against abusive priests, or men unsuited to the priesthood due to their addiction to perversion, or the financial reform of numerous corrupt Roman ministries, especially those associated with the disgustingly corrupt Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the entire group of high prelates and curial officials who were given enormous graft from Maciel Maciel to cover up his hideous abuses and double life?  And these barely scratch the surface.  In point of fact, after battling mightily to undo the tremendous power Sodano had accumulated under Pope JPII, Benedict has had to live to see this wholly corrupt and heterodox creature not just restored to his former power and influence, but perhaps more influential than ever.  These are the kinds of creatures Francis has chosen to surround himself with, since they will OK any ideological agenda so long as their nests continue to be feathered.]

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”

OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this unusual pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.

The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. His author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle. The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear. Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and delusion” in Francis’ Vatican.

Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter. The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.

If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:

Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary: “Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”  [Gee, a hardcore leftist ideologue who is also an out and out tyrant.  Who would have known?  I thought these Vaticanistas and high cardinals were political sharpshooters?  How could they be so naïve?  Maybe they are not so sharp as they like to think.]

Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland [notice how leftists, supposed friends of the common/downtrodden man, always seem to ensconce themselves in luxury when given the chance], the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the infamous late archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical accomplishments that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)[Yep.  Look, the Leftists in the Church thought they were electing a fellow-traveler, at least, in naming a relatively unknown from Poland – a product of the sainted “Ostpolitik “ of Paul VI – as pope in 1978.  But he turned out to be much more conservative (relatively) than they wished.  So they began an illicit, illegal (in Church law) conspiracy, basically, to make sure a pope to their liking would be elected after JPII.  They didn’t quite succeed in 2005, but managed to send Benedict XVI running for fear of the wolves (under threat of the financial ruination of the Church?) and finally got their man in 2013.  The fact that any such collusion prior to an enclave automatically invalidates that enclave AND results in the excommunication of the participants didn’t bother them a whit. Why would it?  They’d have the power if their man got in, and the media would always have their back if they didn’t.  It was low-risk for them.  And since when has a pontiff had the stones to cast out large swaths of the episcopate for being heretics/schismatics, anyway?  The last time was 1908-10, wasn’t it?]

The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne. After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight. The so-called “Kasper proposal” launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.” [What kind of creature would frame anything like that, let alone the election of a pope, and most of all, this pope?  Oh, right, the same kind of man that would at least cover up, if not directly participate in, mass boy rape for decades]

And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group?

Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger. Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde in saying that it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four “dubia” cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.

———-End Excerpt————-

There is much more at the link, but I’ve taken too much already. Skojec will take a tire iron to my shooting hand if I take anymore.

But he goes into quite a bit about Francis’ emulation of his youthful political paramour, Juan Perón, and how, aside from a sort of reflexive populist leftism, little informed that man’s career save for his own lust for power.  Readers should take from this a cold shot of reality against any hopes that Franky George Bergoglio will follow his predecessor into abdication.  Quite the contrary, having access to power will probably lengthen his life by 5-10 years.  That’s how these things seem to go.  Look at finally deposed 94 year old Robert Mugabe.

Also reviewed are the synods, which I would argue were doctrinally meaningless, and the subsequent deconstruction of the Church’s moral edifice through Amoris Laetitia.

Sounds like an excellent book. I look forward to reading it, even as I wonder, just what, if anything, of the human element of the Church will be left if Francis lives another 10 years?  I fear the Franciscans of the Immaculate are our guide for the future of the Church under Francis.

Francis – “Denying” Climate Change “Perverse” November 16, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, Interior Life, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Sodomy – who am I to judge?  Adulterers committing the gravest of sacrilege in sacrilegiously receiving the Blessed Sacrament – no problem.  But denying the sacred doctrine of anthropocentric global cooling warming climate change – such perversion, such heresy!, has no place in the Church.

Rorate nailed it on the day after his election – welcome to the pontificate of Paul VI, redux:

Pope Francis on Thursday rebuked those who deny the science behind global warming and urged negotiators at climate talks in Germany to avoid falling prey to such “perverse attitudes” and instead accelerate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. [no major industrialized nation has reduced carbon emissions more over the past 10 years than has the United States. This was just reported a day or two ago.  Even if the United States went back to a 17th century economy with the attendant death of 90+% of the population, carbon emissions worldwide would still grow rapidly due to the unabated output of India, China, and similar nations.  The entire project, then, is just a joke.]

Francis issued a message to the Bonn meeting, which is working to implement the 2015 Paris accord aimed at capping global emissions. [And how many kilotons of carbon were spewed into the atmosphere by thousands of activists, plutocrats, and bureaucrats jetting into Bonn from around the world?] In it, Francis called climate change “one of the most worrisome phenomena that humanity is facing.” He urged negotiators to take action free of special interests and political or economic pressures, and to instead engage in an honest dialogue about the future of the planet. [For the leftist, “dialogue”=doing what I want. By “special interests,” Francis means those with very justifiable concerns not only about the faulty theory of human-caused climate change, but the murderous, impoverishing impact of sudden and draconian limits on emissions of what is an entirely natural substance]

Francis didn’t cite any countries by name, but the United States has announced it is withdrawing from the Paris accord, and President Donald Trump has nominated several people in his administration who question scientists’ conclusions that human activity is behind the global rise in temperatures. At the same time, the U.S. administration has promoted the use of fossil fuels like coal for U.S. energy needs.

In his landmark 2015 environmental encyclical, Francis said global warming is “mainly” due to human activity and he called for fossil fuels to be progressively phased out without delay. [Thus we have a Bishop of Rome, heir of St. Peter, endorsing, in a doctrinal document, a dubious and highly contentious scientific theorem.  This will only turn out badly, and should global warming be decisively refuted by a mass return to sanity and de-funding of government-directed scientific propaganda “research,” it will be used by enemies of the Church forever anon.]

In his message, the Argentine pope denounced that efforts to combat climate change are often frustrated by those who deny the science behind it or are indifferent to it, those who are resigned to it or think it can be solved by technical solutions, which he termed “inadequate.” [Said the doctrinaire liberal with absolutely no scientific training or credibility]

“We must avoid falling into these four perverse attitudes, which certainly don’t help honest research and sincere, productive dialogue,” he said.

Well there you go, you perverts.  You get the sense Francis is building towards something, a great and thorough rebuke of the Church That Was.  I mean, the Vatican is issuing stamps celebrating the worst, most destructive heresy in the history of the Church.  It seems more and more plausible this man wants a decisive, open break with the Church and the Tradition upon which it is founded. I mean much, much further than the things he’s already done.  Something like nailing his own figurative 99 theses on the door of the Vatican, an open, unmistakable embrace of Protestantism and call for the Church to repent of its “errors.”

I don’t mean to become overwrought over this latest, relatively minor upturned middle phalanges at the dwindling number of faithful.  It’s more the whole sweep of this pontificate, nearly 5 years old now, that I’m talking about.

h/t reader TT

USCCB Bishops – Immigration Not a Matter of Prudential Judgment       November 15, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Immigration, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

At least, maybe, when it comes to the canard of instant mass deportation.

But in reality, in their recent confab discussing the hot-button topic of immigration, what was presented an attempt to basically refute lay complaints that the US bishops – reverting to unfortunate, damaging, hurtful stands they took in the 70s and 80s – are infringing upon lay rights by insisting upon specific policy prescriptions as being the only doctrinally acceptable approach.  This echoes the dark days of the “Bernadin”-dominated US episcopate, when supposed paeans to “peace” and “justice” were in reality little more than far left talking points and anti-Reagan, anti-US defense rhetoric.

Well, personnel is policy, and Francis has been busy remaking the US episcopate in his own image and likeness.  With men like Blaise Cupich in positions of great influence, and the sidelining of more (relatively) conservative forces like Conley and  Chaput, this is hardly surprising.  Francis’ influence will likely be felt in the US episcopate for a decade or more to come, depending on how long he reigns, and how replaces him.

At any rate, here’s what the bishops, including the liturgical aesthete Cordileone, had to say about the laity and their uppity opinions regarding prudential judgment. I’ll provide a little color commentary along the way:

As the conclusion of a lengthy discussion on migration, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops decided Monday to draft a statement from their president expressing the need for humane and just immigration reform.

The Nov. 13 proposal was first floated by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, Archbishop Emeritus of Santa Fe. After debating how to go about preparing a statement, it was agreed by oral assent that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the conference, would issue a statement with the assistance of the Committee on Migration, chaired by Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, assisted by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles.

The discussion followed brief presentations from Archbishop Gomez and Bishop Vasquez. The Los Angeles archbishop outlined the principles which guide the US bishops’ work on migration, which come from Strangers No Longer, a 2003 pastoral letter issued jointly by the US and Mexican bishops’ conferences……… [That is a poor, and in many ways politically extremist, document.  It is on a par with “Always Our Children,” which tacitly or openly endorsed most of the sodomite agenda, for bad documents written by bishops in the past 20 years.  It insists upon basically a free right for Mexican and other Latin American nationals to have free access, on demand, to US jobs, welfare benefits, and services, with nothing more than lip service, and even that slight, to the extremely negative impact mass immigration of low-skill, benefits-seeking, poorly-educated has on native workers in a post-industrial economy.  This is not 1890.  We don’t have millions of manufacturing jobs suitable for a 3rd grade intellect anymore. The bishops are living in a fantasy land, constructed from their near total disconnect with the flock they lead and their needs.  The robust economy and abundant riches they refer to constantly as the driving moral imperative in favor of ceaseless mass immigration with virtually no limit or control no longer exists.  Trump was elected precisely because millions of Americans, more and more of them formerly solidly middle class, can no longer find work.  Their wages are horribly depressed by competition from illegal and other foreign workers imported into this country specifically for the purpose of driving down the cost of wages. Thus the bishops, contrary to their rhetoric, are not really so concerned about the little man – there are millions of Americans suffering gravely from the immigration pandemic – they are actually carrying water for the transnational globalist elite, who want a large and ignorant labor force that makes little more than $5 an hour. This is an environment in which everyone suffers, including the immigrants, the vast majority of which lose their faith, and generally also their moral compass, in crossing the Rio Grande. I am being harsh, the bishops may simply be naïve and myopic, but a very solid argument can be constructed that they are deliberately acting in behest of powerful interests, all the while clothing themselves in the garment of “friend of the little guy” (so long as he is not a native-born American)].

……..Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces raised the question of how to counter charges that immigration policy is a matter of prudential judgement, and that the faithful may therefore in good conscience come to a judgement which differs from that of the bishops.

Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami responded that “we’re making our prudential judgement, too … in the light of Catholic teaching.” He emphasized that “immigrants are not problems, but brothers and sisters; strangers, but strangers who should be embraced as brothers and sisters. We’re offering what we think is best, not only for the immigrants, but for our society as a whole. We can make America great, but you don’t make America great by making America mean.”

Immigration reform, he maintained, must “include the common good of everyone: Americans and those who wish to be Americans.” [OK, that’s your opinion, but many Catholic laity believe it is not only wrong, it is destructive and harmful and in many ways achieves the opposite of its intent (i.e., worse outcomes for Americans AND illegal immigrants).  We can certainly disagree in prudence.]

Bishop Soto responded that deportations do not fall under the category of prudential judgement, but rather were included by St. John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical [sic] Evangelium vitae among the sins which cry out to heaven, and so is not merely “consistent with Church teaching,” but “to discard it as a prudential judgement doesn’t reflect our tradition.” [First of all, this is a red herring. No one is seriously advocating, or seriously expects, mass deportations to begin this year, or next, or the year after that.  I for one am single-minded – build the dang wall, worry about what to do with those here after that.  We must control the situation, the inflow, before we try to reverse it.  Once the crisis is passed, we can talk sensibly about how to deal with those here.  Secondly, there are four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.  An encyclical is an important document but not the place for novel de fide definitions.  Thirdly, Evangelium Vitae, which focused primarily on abortion and contraception as evils against human life, mentions deportation once, in quoting Guadium Et Spes, the 3rd worst document of Vatican II, for a list of evils which are “infamies.”  Whether an “infamy” equals one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for justice is quite unclear.  If so, Vatican II added about 30 other sins to that list, because Guadium Et Spes 27 condemned, equally, and without distinction, everything from genocide and abortion to “living conditions” and “where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons.”  That is to say, while GeS 27 sounds impressive, it’s theological import and meaning are muddled, at best.  Naturally, then, it would be a favorite of a progressive bishop.]

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco recommended the five principles from Strangers No Longer as a sine qua non, on which “there can be no disagreement” among Catholics. “While there’s room for prudential judgement, it’s not something that can be taken lightly” because it “involves such basic considerations of justice.” [But justice to whom?  Aquinas and Augustine would indicate that justice begins with those closest to home.  When there are periods of abundance, or when economic and cultural circumstances permit, there can be quite liberal approaches to immigration. With prolonged economic depression and cultural disassociation growing to the level of near open conflict, however, prudence would indicate, even demand, a much more conservative approach.  This has been the situation in the US for over 200 years, with periods of mass immigration leading to problems followed by periods of restricted immigration allowing for cultural and economic assimilation.]

———-End Quote————

But let’s be honest, this issue of mass immigration in the present context, is at least as much – and I mean this from the bishop’s perspective, as well – about insuring permanent ascendance for progressive/leftist politics in this country as it is about any purported concern for the huddled masses yearning to breathe free (and is in fact probably much, much more about the former than the latter).

Correspondent MFG sent me this link, and he notes – quite intelligently – that this seems an attempt by the bishops to up their rhetoric and try to squash lay arguments against the bishop’s very liberal pro-immigration stance.  The prudential judgment argument has been a powerful one, and they seem to be trying to take that away.  As MFG notes, the way to combat this attempt is by returning to first sources and principles, going back to Aquinas, Augustine, Peter Canisius, and others to demonstrate the proper Catholic understanding of the role of government, of citizens of a land’s duties to one another and to those of other countries, of Catholic moral principles (in a hierarchical sense), and all such related topics.

Doing this in a systematic fashion will show that Catholics of any stripe, lay, clergy, whatever, are fully  within their rights to advocate for much more limited immigration than the status quo of the past 50 years, and to preserve the culture and heritage of the land they love, which they see slipping away faster and faster all the time.  This latest bit of rhetorical weaponry from the bishops is frankly very ugly, very manipulative and smacks of desperation.

UPDATE: Commenter CMatt makes a great point that I failed to address (in my defense, I covered quite a bit, anyway) – these are bishops talking, yes, but not necessarily YOUR bishop, and their authority over you as a soul is basically non-existent.  It only exists to the extent that the bishops unanimously approve documents or actions of the Conference, and even in that situation it is more of a tacit authority, something novel in the history of the Church and of dubious significance for souls.  That is the huge problem with episcopal conferences, and why Pope Leo XIII found them far from his liking – they muddy the lines of authority greatly and cause tremendous confusion when their actions are contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.  Much of Testem Benovolentae, Leo XIIIs encyclical denouncing the heresy of Americanism (which the US bishops have never faithfully implemented) has to do with these manifest problems that emerge from such conferences – bureaucratization, secularization, inordinate focus on money/funding, an excessive interest in the material works of mercy vice the spiritual works, etc.