A commenter asked why I picked on Anthony Kennedy in my initial reaction to the destruction of marriage decision issued last week, when there was another ‘Catholic’ justice who voted in favor of this demonic nightmare (Sotomayor). Well, I did that for two reasons…….one, this is about the umpteenth time Kennedy has voted against the solemnly proclaimed Doctrine of the Faith – it was he who kept abortion legal in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, he who de-criminalized sodomy in Lawrence vs. Texas (and wrote the solipsistic majority opinion), he who cast the deciding vote in 2013 in favor of the federal government recognizing “same sex marriage” as actual marriage……and those are just the highlights. Secondly, and more importantly, while Sotomayor does not present herself as a faithful, orthodox Catholic, she acknowledges she differs from the Church on a number of matters, Kennedy DOES present himself as a faithful Catholic. That’s a big distinction.
Anyway, Kennedy has struck again, staying the implementation of aspects of Texas House Bill 2 which has resulted in the shuttering of a large majority of the state’s abortion mills. It is quite possible given this stay, some which had shut down will re-open, at least temporarily:
The Supreme Court barred Texas on Monday from implementing a law that would have forced more than half the state’s 19 abortion clinics to close their doors this week.
The law, which was to take effect Wednesday, would require clinics to adhere to strict new physical standards and the doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The court granted the reprieve after abortion rights groups requested an emergency stay, having unsuccessfully sought to have the law overturned. The stay will probably remain in place at least through the summer while the parties assemble a legal case and the court decides whether to take it up in the next term.
The court did not offer a reason for its 5-to-4 decision, and the law’s ultimate fate remains unclear. The court’s reliably conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — dissented and would have let the law take effect.
So what are the odds Kennedy will let HB2 stand? I’d say about 50:1 against, at least.
I have been heartened by some of the reaction I have seen to last week’s travesty of a decision. I have seen a large number of conservatives finally, if belatedly, come to the realization that the Supreme Court decades ago ceased to be a deliberative body dedicated to interpreting the Constitution with respect to various laws and regulations, and has in fact become a “third legislature” of nine unelected lawyers (see Scalia’s blistering dissent) whose function is to enact social revolution which could never, or only with great difficulty, have been enacted by normal legislative action (re: “democracy”) into law.
That this is true is revealed by the fact that no one, anywhere, ever had any doubt as to which way any of the four hard leftists on the Court would vote on these matters. It was simply never in doubt. That’s because these leftists don’t give a whit for the Constitution or what it says, they are there to carry out the revolution by other means. This has been the case for at least 60 years and frankly, longer than that.
And the “conservatives”…..please. None of them is rock solid, and Kennedy has morphed more and more into an out and out leftist, at least so far as social matters are concerned. But every single one of them can be turned to statism on this issue or that, as Thomas showed when he voted with the leftist block to support a TEXAS law forbidding Confederate flag symbols (for the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization) on Texas license plates. Scalia supports statism when it comes to law enforcement and the “war on drugs,” Roberts of course has tied himself in knots trying to find ways to keep Obamacare “constitutional”…….they all will squish on one issue or the other. And since the four leftists are utterly unmovable, all it takes is one.
On a more important matter, how have we as a nation come to this point? How have we come to the point when the Church’s very ability to exist in this country is coming under severe threat?
I think we all know……we are here due to the ABJECT, MANIFEST AND NEAR TOTAL FAILURE of episcopal leadership in this country and around the world going back to the late 1800s when the foul and never fully repressed Americanist heresy reared its ugly head. The Church as we have experienced it in this country over the past several decades is simply Americanism in action – indifferentism masked as ecumenism, excess focus on public or social virtues, doctrinal weakness/incoherence, toleration of rebellion, excess deference to protestantism, liturgical abuse, and most of all, heaping doses of moral cowardice masquerading as a false virtue of tolerance. We have come to this point because the leadership of the Church has not only not fought hard enough against the sexular pagan revolution, many key players willingly aided and advanced the sexular pagan revolution through their covert relations with Planned Barrenhood, their Hyannisport meetings, their Land O’ Lakes conference and their “seamless garments.” They have, very nearly to a man, totally failed in their duty to exercise Church discipline, protect the sanctity of the Church’s doctrinal edifice, and use the (truly charitable) means available to them to stamp out heresy and abuse. Instead they have played footsie with heresy and cozied up to politicians and others who have done massive damage to the Faith, all out of desire to “maintain a place at the table” and keep the privileges enjoyed in the past for as long as possible, the impact to souls be damned.
God will not be mocked. He allows our sins to destroy us or at the very least really, really chastise us. The Church in this country is about to go through an unbelievable chastisement due to the failure – at all levels, it must be said – to live the Faith rightly for decades now. It is not going to be at all pretty, or fun. It’s going to be a bitter trial and diabolical confusion.
As I said, may God have mercy on us all. I do think we shall have many opportunities for heroic virtue in the days ahead.
Pray like mad: working document for upcoming Synod pushes Kasper proposal, “gifts” of sodomy June 23, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, episcopate, error, Eucharist, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Noted fire-breathing, knuckle-dragging raddest of trad sites Whispers in the Loggia (I kid) has announced the release of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, for the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family
and the Destruction of Marriage (I’m sorry, getting a bit jaded). The text, in spite of having significant portions fail to gain the requisite approval at the Extraordinary Synod, includes the full Kasperite proposal (and goes even further in some respects), as well as the ground-laying language on sodomy which is sure to lead to an eventual push to declare sodomy no longer a sin and some kind of recognition of pretended sodo-marriages.
If you haven’t been praying like mad, now would be a very good time to do so (my emphasis and comments):
And after a second round of global consultation, it has arrived – at Roman Noon, the instrumentum laboris (baseline text) for October’s climactic Synod on the Family was released… for now, however – much like last year’s first volume – the full sequel is only available in Italian.….
……..Among other highlights, the final portion of the framework deals with the proposed changes of practice cited by their supporters as necessary for the church to better respond to families in challenging situations amid current pastoral practice.
On the assembly’s most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentum speaks of a “common accord” among the world’s bishops toward “eventual access” to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following “an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop,” and only “in situations of irreversible cohabitation.” [No there was not “common accord.” These texts were highly divisive.] The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned “in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions,” citing the interest of children born in a second union. On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a “decentralization” of the annulment courts and the floating of the “relevance of the personal faith” of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage. [I’ll just say it: BS. Just as contraception was put forth by people like Charles Curran as a recourse for well-formed Catholic married couples capable of discerning fine moral points, in practice, the Church has all but abandoned preaching the evil of contraception on a regular basis, and it is used by the large majority of self-described Catholics. The same will happen with divorce, the “precise conditions” (also a feature of the initial Anglican embrace of divorce AND contraception) will disappear overnight and we’ll have mass distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to those in adulterous unions – not that such does not already occur in this country, but the point is, these bishops are tired of fighting the culture, they’re disinclined to accept perennial Church Doctrine and practice, and they are looking for an easy way out. Period, end of sentence.]
In particular, the latter point echoes a longstanding line of the Pope’s – having quoted the impression of his predecessor in Buenos Aires, the late Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, that “half” of failed Catholic marriages there “are null” solely on the grounds of unformed faith, a papal commission formed quietly by Francis last summer is studying possible changes to the annulment process independent of the Synod itself. No timeline is set for its work. [But this is not how the Church traditionally viewed matters. The only grounds for annulments prior to the US circa 1970 were grave incapacity, failure to consummate, or evidence of marriage against one’s will. Now in the American context, excuses are sought after the fact to annul a marriage that has, by the bishop’s demand, already failed (the bishops demand a civil divorce before an annulment can be pursued). And of course the vast majority of the few US annulments appealed to the Roman Rota are rejected. So something is amiss. But it seems the desire is to apply the quite scandalous US practice to the universal Church.]
Elsewhere, three paragraphs were devoted to pastoral ministry to families “having within them a person of homosexual orientation.” While reaffirming the 2003 CDF declaration that “there exists no foundation whatsoever to integrate or compare, not even remotely, homosexual unions and the design of God for the family,” the text urges that “independent of their sexual tendency,” gays “be respected in their dignity and welcomed with sensibility and delicateness, whether in the church or society.” [While being clearly apprised of the depravity of their acts and their exclusion from the Blessed Sacrament until they repent of them, right?]
Perhaps most boldly – reflecting a key emphasis of one of the gathering’s three presidents, Cardinal Chito Tagle of Manila – the text emphasizes that “The Christian message must be announced in a language that sustains hope.
“It is necessary to adopt a clear and inviting communication [style],” the instrumentum reads, one that is “open, which doesn’t moralize, judge, nor [aim to] control, and bears witness to the moral teaching of the church, while at the same time remaining sensible to the situations of each person.” [In spite of the lip service to Doctrine, who really believes this will not mean in practice the complete abandonment of the moral doctrine of the Faith, at least as it relates to the groinal issues so sacred to the left?]
Along the same lines, the theme of “mercy” – the core of the extraordinary Holy Year conceived by Francis and opening in December [including non-ordained ministers of mercy empowered to somehow, I know not how, remit all sins and even the temporal punishment stemming therefrom, to, more or less, “re-baptize” people] – runs pointedly throughout the document, with the term cited over 30 times. Arguably in a hand-showing of the Pope’s intent, the Synod’s conclusions will be entrusted to the pontiff for him to decide upon, with the results likely to emerge sometime in mid-2016, squarely in the midst of the Jubilee Year he’s chartered.
All that said, especially given the topic’s place at the core of the church’s long polarization on family issues, one word was especially conspicuous by its absence: “contraception.” [The Japanese term is mokosatsu – to kill with silence]
All I can say is to again exhort readers to as much prayer and penance as possible. The writing is clearly on the wall. As
Rollo Tomasi Rocco Palmo at Whispers intimates, it is more that slightly significant that the final papal interpretation and enactment of the Synod’s efforts will be introduced at the high point of the Holy Year of Mercy. All the pieces point in a direction quite opposite to a Humanae Vitae moment, where Pope Paul VI, contrary to the recommendations he had received and his own inclinations, was compelled to repeat the perennial Church judgment of all contraceptive-use as inherently immoral.
But the indications at that time similarly pointed to a change in Church Doctrine, and that somehow did not happen, much to the consternation of the progressives of the world. We can only pray the Holy Ghost will intervene again if necessary and insure the doctrinal cohesiveness of the Faith. Speaking from a human point of view, things don’t look too hopeful right now. Who knows, maybe the bishops will surprise us again and not approve the more problematic aspects. Our God is a God of surprises, we’re told, right?
He said so during a presentation to the last major global climate conference in 2009 in Copenhagen. Another conference is to be held in Paris later this year. Note that the literally thousands of those who make their quite comfortable livings off the global warming hoax all FLY to these conferences, most often first class, and they stay in the very finest hotels and eat rich foods. In other words, like Al Gore, they most certainly do not practice what they preach. And in calling for the establishment of a new transnational one world government to dictate economic policy in order to “combat global warming,” they see themselves as the indispensable new aristocracy, enjoying all the riches the world has to offer while we starve and shiver in the cold.
Yeah, that’s going to work:
One of the speakers slated for the Vatican rollout of the long-awaited Papal document on climate change once said the earth is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people.
The teaching document, called an encyclical, is scheduled for release on June 18 at Vatican City. Perhaps with the exception of the 1968 encyclical on contraception, no Vatican document has been greeted with such anticipation. [I have to say, this is probably right. I plan on reviewing some of the coverage later, even though the thing isn’t officially released, yet.]
The choice of Professor John Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, as one of three presenters may be giving the left added hope and giving giving skeptics severe heartburn. He has been described as one of the more aggressive scientists on the question of man-made global warming.
In a talk given to what’s described as the “failed” 2009 Copenhagen climate conference,reported in the New York Times, Schnellnhuber, who has advised German President Angela Merkel and is a visiting professor at Oxford, said of global warming: “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” [Oh BS. Anyone who advocates such is a seething misanthrope. And yet he now is being touted by the VATICAN as someone souls should trust implicitly for guidance on matters related to what passes for climate science anymore]
Schnellnhuber is also author of what’s called the “two-degree target” that says governments must not allow the temperature to rise more than 2 degrees higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Any higher, the theory holds, and much life on earth would either perish or be gravely harmed. [Another baseless assertion.]
[As with so much of “science” today, it is the politics that drive the scientific conclusion…..]To deal with climate issues, he has also called for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” along with the creation of a “Global Council…elected by all the people on Earth”
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to which Pope Francis just promoted this Schnellnhuber character, is also on record as calling for “population control.” Sounds like this guy will fit right in.
I’m seeing gobs of coverage on the encyclical, but I don’t plan on joining that fray just yet. I imagine what is out there is at least extremely close to what will be revealed tomorrow, but I am really coming to the point where I think what the encyclical “really says” is less important than its significance as an event a la Vatican II. Thus, it’s quite possible its purpose has been achieved already, which is to signal to the world again that the Church has taken yet another decisive step in its direction. In which case, we shall all be the poorer for it.
Justifying myself a bit: look at the optics. There are few issues, short of straight up endorsement of pseudo-sodo-marriage, which I think is still impossible even for this Pope, that could get the left huffing and puffing more than an embrace of the progressive approach to “climate change.” We saw that in the silly video yesterday. They’re already spiking the ball in the endzone, and maybe that was the point -to signal yet again that this Pope is one of them, one of the “good guys,” and to stir up just a bit more excitement about the Church finally and fully embracing the worldly zeitgeist.
Just my opinion. It’s worth what it cost you.
Have the inmates taken over the asylum, or is Pope Francis getting exactly what he wants? June 12, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I have seen increasing coverage in the mainstream press over the last few weeks of the conflicts that are apparent even to secular observers within the pontificate of Pope Francis. And even some of these secular observers normally inclined to think it a good thing that the Church “modernize” a bit are beginning to express concerns over some of these things they’re seeing.
A case in point: you might recall the post I did a few weeks ago on the bitterly hostile invective directed at Catholic family groups by Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, upon receiving some quite mild questions regarding the suitability of giving major pro-aborts and population control zealots a platform to speak at the Vatican. One of Sorondo’s choicest lines:
The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us…….Ban Ki Moon and Jeffrey Sachs don’t even speak of abortion or population control……. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights…..
Which, anyone with a brain and even a toenail in the pro-life movement knows means……….abortion and population control. Family planning is the euphemism for population control, and “reproductive rights” always means abortion. Beyond that, Soronder’s rhetoric was flippant, disrespectful, dismissive, and far beneath his exalted station. It was, however, thoroughly progressive.
In fact, First Things studied some UN documents to prove, without a doubt, that when Ban Ki-Moon speaks of family planning, he means population control, and quite draconian population control at that. But when Margaret Archer, President of the Pontifical Council on Social Sciences saw the criticism in First Things, she absolutely exploded in what can only be termed a unhinged diatribe revealing both a very ill-intent and a thoroughgoing and radical progressive inclination (I quote at length, the diatribe takes the form of loaded questions directed back at First Things):
The nature of your questions [the questions from First Things] raises some very serious questions about your understanding of Catholic Social Doctrine.
1. Is your sole concern with human dignity confined to the period between conception and live-birth?
If so, this is a travesty of Catholic Social Teaching, whose concern is not confined to the newborn but extends to the development of all those potentialities and powers that exist only in potential at birth [OK, straight off, this is ridiculous. It is very possible to be concerned about both abortion and contraception AND all these other matters she introduces. But having concern over a “living wage” and all the rest doesn’t mean we have to traffic with abortion-promoters or pretend they are “on our side” when they promote such manifest evils]
2. Why are you so totally uninterested in vicious practices, such as human trafficking that are an offence to the human dignity and right to life that you purport to defend?
……..Of course, your comments imply that you are a climate change denier, but I had to laugh at 18 years being cited as a reasonable period in which to measure such change. The most recent statistics now do show that 95% of natural scientists accept the contribution of emissions, attributable to human doings, as responsible. [Well, I find it laughable that you can find a link between supposed “climate change” and human trafficking. What makes female sexual slavery possible? Could it be abortion and contraception? There is a far firmer link between human trafficking and those evils, than there is with purported climate change. Notice the language – this woman is a thoroughgoing and radical modernist progressive, and yet she holds a high office at the Vatican? Mind, it gets much, much worse.]
3. Why do you direct a hate message to Bishop Sánchez Sorondo alone? [HATE message! To the modern left, to simply question them, let alone oppose them, is all the indication they need that you HATE them. This woman is a child.]
Various Cardinals were present at different meetings. Instead, blame me, blame PAS. [Umm……because HE is the CHANCELLOR overseeing the organization, HE is the one Church hierarch who ultimately holds responsibility in the Church for the behavior of this organization.]
4. Why are we not allowed to speak to Jeffrey Sachs or the Secretary General of the UN?
Professor Jeffrey Sachs concentrated his talk on how we (PASS) could influence the Sustainable Development Goals about to be re-designated by the UN…….We should never forget that every Social Encyclical since Vatican II is addressed to ‘All people of goodwill’ – and that he showed himself to be. [Well, we could talk forever about the nature of the post-conciliar “social” encyclicals, and how they comport with the pre-conciliar encyclicals, and even the potential for disorder in those. But this is all appeal to authority and a logical fallacy, she never addresses a single one of the actual questions raised, he entire response can be reduced to: “Who are you to ask US, the exalted bearers of high positions in the Church, peon?”]
……The Secretary General is to be shunned too! Well, that was not the attitude of Pope Francis who invited him to a private Audience, immediately prior to our joint PAS/PASS meeting on 28 April – to discuss climate change and human trafficking. Do you really have a higher moral standard than the Pope? Or is your own minimalistic version of the Creed, consisting of the single item: ‘’We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion’ considered to be an improvement? [Again, I am shocked by the utter lack of reason contained in this response. Asking questions as to the wisdom of giving people who hold numerous views (and more than just abortion) antithetical to the Doctrine of the Faith a platform to speak from the Vatican, without correction or counter-presentation, providing them with enormous moral authority and seeming to praise them unequivocally, is indication of a “minimalistic version of the Creed?” She is basically shouting: “I’m a FAR better Catholic than you, who are you to question ME?”]
“I am appointed by the pope and responsible directly to him. I’m afraid that leaves you and your cohort out in the cold.”
Well, I think that sums up the new attitude in the Church! Get on board with the progressive paradigm or STFU. So much for the empowerment of the laity post-Vatican II! Oh, they just love to empower us, provided we are fully on board with their program, otherwise it’s go frank yourself, pewsitter, just pray, pay, and obey.
The author quoted at the top closes his piece with this: “But right now, Pope Francis looks like a substitute teacher, barely aware of the unseemly machinations in the back of his classroom — or barely in authority to stop them.”
Is that it? Is all this really occurring somehow either in opposition to Pope Francis, or is it occurring behind his back and beyond his control? Or was it Pope Francis who told progressives to “make a mess” in the Church? Is it Pope Francis, through his numerous insults directed at those who adhere to the pre-revolutionary practice of the Faith (sourpusses, neo-Pelagians, prometheans, those who adhere to a certain liturgical “fashion,” etc) who is creating the environment in which a haughty, dismissive, and utterly disrespectful attitude is displayed towards the most faithful Catholics?
As Dr. Archer notes, she was appointed by this Pope. Archbishop Sorondo Sanchez was appointed by JPII, he’s been around a long time, so read into that what you will. Even if all this sudden proliferation of extreme progressive views within the Vatican really is occurring beyond the Pope’s control, it certainly does seem that those progressive elements feel enormously liberated and empowered by this pontificate, in comparison to their behavior over the period 1978-2013. It’s 1968 all over again, and they are beside themselves with excitement.
Or something to that effect…….what I have in mind is a response to the almost certain Supreme Court imposition of law that pretends that people of the same sex can be married. I’m a bit hazy on the early days of the pro-life movement and just how it became so deeply a part of the mainstream (if a bit orthodox) American Catholic Church experience, but I do know there was a March for Life on Jan 22, 1974 – the first anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And while I do know that organizations opposed to pseudo-sodomarriage certainly do exist and do fine work, we also know that a majority of self-described Catholics are in favor of this abominable pretended “redefinition.” Are there any efforts to start a Catholic grass-roots response to judicial imposition of pseudo-sodomarriage?
I have a feeling this is going to be a necessity. By hook or crook, we’ve seen a preference cascade in the past 3-4 years under Obama with Americans swinging hard left on many cultural issues, especially this affirmation of sodomy. But I also still have faith that we’re going through the furthest extreme of the pendulum swing of opinion, and that many people can be moved back from their support – exactly as occurred with abortion. Support for abortion among Americans peaked in the mid-late 70s, but has declined more or less steadily ever since. While most Americans do favor keeping abortion at least nominally legal, a large majority would prefer far more onerous restrictions than presently exist in most of the country. I think a similar swing is possible on this fake-gay-marriage issue- that is, if God does not quite rightly obliterate this nation 5 minutes after the Supreme Court’s edict is read.
But how to start? Where is the grass roots surge that led to the creation of the pro-life movement? Are you guys aware of any such efforts? Again, I’m talking primarily from a Church perspective. The Catholic Church has been the heart and soul of the pro-life movement since its inception, I’m certain it will be so in any pro-real-marriage movement that gets underway.
Along those lines…..what should this movement call itself? Whoever came up with the expression “pro-life” was a genius. Our cultural enemies recognize what a coup that was – at a start, it puts the pro-aborts on the defensive as they should rightly be. Readers may recall that I am reading Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Sodomy is Changing Everything. In that book, author Robert Reilly quotes sodomite activist Kevin Jennings as noting the import of the pro-life movement effectively seizing a term that granted it the moral high ground. He also outlined how sodomites had effectively deflected similar efforts by cultural conservatives to gain the high ground on the matter of marriage specifically and sodomy generally. I think his comments are astute, and have to wonder what role the lack of a simple, compelling “tag” has played in the forces of darkness rolling over the culture? The sodomites have the “marriage equality” and equal sign in their favor and I think those have been hugely influential. I think the effectiveness of simple pro-sodomy propaganda of this kind, and the lack of any similar simple “tags” from our side has played a very large role in our side losing consistently on this matter for several years now.
Certainly, there are true believers on both sides, people who won’t be moved by something as basic as a tag-line. But there is a great mass of people who rarely pay much mind to these kinds of matters and who are easily moved by such things as a well coined phrase.
So, I started trying to play around with little brief, pithy phrases to call this effort to roll back the tide of perversion and specifically the attempts to legally redefine marriage. Nothing I came up with seemed very satisfactory to me. A few of the ideas:
- PRO-MARRIAGE: Sodomites have effectively seized on people’s confusion regarding the nature of marriage to claim that they are “pro-marriage,” too, and only seek equality. I think this could work, but would require a lot of effort re-instilling a proper understanding of marriage in people. Pro-aborts try to claim to be “pro-life,” too, but only once that life has left the womb, or until it becomes inconvenient in some way. Their attempts have failed. Would ours?
- PRO-LOVE: Reilly’s book makes plain that, whatever feeling there may exist in sodomite relationships, given how unstable, short duration, and promiscuous they are, spousal love, properly understood, is not what they have. Again, this would require quite a bit of education and peeling back layers of effective propaganda by the sodomites before it could really work. Also, there is love between people of the same sex that is morally upright and which does not involve abuse of others.
- PRO-DEVOTION: I think this is too nebulous to really work. It highlights the degree to which sodomites use people as grist for their self-serving acting out, as well as the unstable nature of their relationships, but I’m not sure it has the “pop” that pro-life does in the abortion context.
- PRO-DECENCY: has some of the aforementioned weaknesses, the prime being that so few people are capable of recognizing moral decency anymore, especially when it comes to their groins.
- REAL/TRUE MARRIAGE: departs from the “pro” format, whatever that means. It does run the risk of acknowledging a “second tier” or marriage for those of perverse sexual inclinations. On the plus side, it is clear, to the point, implies a derogation of pseudo-sodomarriage, and does provide a moral high point leaving the other side somewhat on the defensive. I like this one best of all, plus a whole bunch of others I considered.
I am certainly open to your ideas. Again assuming the US of A is not a smoking cinder come July 1, how might efforts to role back this moral monstrosity get started, and how might they play out? Would it be similar to limiting abortion mostly at the state level, with states gradually applying more and more limits to pretended sodo-marriage in a “death of a thousand cuts” fashion? Or is straight up abolition the only way to go?
How can we start local pro-real-marriage efforts in our parishes? How did all the pro-life groups get started? And what other kind of action should we take? When the pro-life movement was in its infancy, it was much more confrontational than it is now. There were protests outside court houses and abortion mills, human chains that blocked entry to abortuaries, actions to disrupt the normal course of business in mills, people dragged off into police custody, etc., etc. I know the pro-life movement, as it has institutionalized, has rejected these kinds of more ‘extreme’ behaviors, but should we start protesting or keeping vigils outside, for instance, court houses where these abominable simulacrums of marriage take place, or even outside the incredibly disordered, un-Christian “Metropolitan Community Churches” and other such sects that cater to the perverse?
I’m open to your ideas. I’m sadly quite convinced we’re going to be faced with the legal imposition of a completely false understanding of “marriage” between people of the same sex very soon. And that will certainly lead directly to persecution. But that doesn’t mean we have to simply bend over and take it……….so to speak.
Great news! Fifth Circuit upholds almost all of HB2! June 10, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Tradition, Victory, Virtue.
House Bill 2 passed the Texas Legislature in 2013 and imposed a number of very sensical restrictions on abortion mills. These included requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortuaries meet the same minimal health and safety requirements as other ambulatory surgery centers. As a result of the provisions of this bill, the large majority of the mills in the state have closed. Dallas was down to 3 mills, but now with the Fifth Circuit upholding, unanimously, almost all provisions of HB2, Routh Street will close and only Southwest Women’s Butchershop and Planned Barrenhood will remain. Via Karen Garnett of the Dallas Diocese CPLC:
I know many of you have been prayerfully waiting since January to hear whether the epic omnibus pro-life law HB 2 (passed in July 2013) would stand against the most recent legal challenges and be enforced in Texas to protect women and their children. Today I couldn’t be more thrilled to share with you the answer: YES!!
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously today to uphold virtually all of HB 2 in an appeal brought by the State of Texas to reverse a ruling by a district judge in Austin barring the full enforcement of HB 2. The appeal arose out of a lawsuit brought by Texas abortion providers challenging the HB 2 requirement that all Texas abortion facilities meet the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and the abortionist admitting privileges requirement as applied to McAllen and El Paso abortion facilities. Judges Edward Prado, Catharina Haynes and Jennifer Elrod heard the appeal and concluded:
“H.B. 2 and its provisions may be applied throughout Texas, except that Supreme Court precedent requires us to partially uphold the district court’s injunction of the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, Texas, and to uphold the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to Dr. Lynn when he is working at the McAllen facility.” (Opinion in full available here)
This means that across the state of Texas, all but one abortion facility must meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center, and the state may continue to enforce the requirement that abortionists maintain local hospital admitting privileges. This ruling is expected to result in a decrease in the number of operational abortion facilities in Texas to only those which currently meet ASC standards — seven or eight in the state. Only two such facilities in Dallas meet ASC standards — Southwestern on Greenville Ave and Planned Parenthood on West Virginia Dr.
This is a huge victory. If there are only two mills in Dallas, one in Fort Worth, two in Houston, one in Austin, and one in the Valley, where is the possible eighth one?
Texas now has far less than half the number of mills it had even 3 years ago. It hasn’t been very long since there were six or seven mills in Dallas alone.
I have to think that even with the proliferation of chemical abortion, this great reduction in number of mills – and their increasing distance from many people – will have a substantial effect on the number of abortions received in this state. Boyd’s facility on Greenville is already maxed out on space, and while the new Planned Barrenhood is quite large, there’s got to be a limit on how many abortions they can realistically perform, I would think.
At the very least, this ruling means that pro-lifers can further focus their prayer efforts on the few remaining mills. That’s how it has played out in other cities and states, where the pro-life movement was able to gradually whittle down the number of mills until there were none. Having a heavy, visible presence of holy priests has been found to be most efficacious in this process.
God bless you and thank you for your prayers! Many of us have been praying for months for this judgment to come to pass. Praise God for this bit of very welcome news. May we see the day right soon when not a single legal abortion can take place in this great State of Texas. But I am quite convinced that day will not occur until contraceptive use stops being the diabolical sacrament of far too many marriages and disordered/sinful couplings.
THIS POST DEALS WITH EXTRAORDINARILY GRUESOME AND HORRIFIC BEHAVIOR. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE A SENSITIVE CONSCIENCE OR REALLY DON’T WANT TO KNOW THE ENDLESS DEPTH OF EVIL TO WHICH PEOPLE WILL SINK WITHOUT FAITH IN GOD!!!
Four Dallas residents, two men and two women, have been arrested for beating a pregnant teen to the point that she miscarried, and then attempting to destroy the evidence of this murder in what can only be described as total loss of personal control to a demonic influence:
Four people are under arrest for beating a pregnant 14-year-old girl in order to force an abortion.
A fifth relative was arrested for sexually assaulting the girl. News 8 has chosen not to name that suspect or his exact relationship to the sexual assault victim as to not reveal the girl’s identity. [It was her own father]
According to court documents, between January and March 2013, a teenage girl was beaten at a home in Dallas. There were several adults in the house who were upset with the girl’s pregnancy.
Those arrested for the beating were cousins of the teenager.
They learned the girl was pregnant after she was sexually assaulted by a relative and wanted to get rid of the baby, so they allegedly beat the girl until she aborted. [It sounds like the 14 yo was complicit in this? Beat my baby out of me?]
……The assault occurred in the living room of Sharon Jones’ house. The girl told police that Cecila McDonald, 25, pinned the girl’s “arms down to the floor as Accomplice Lonnell McDonald sat on the complaint’s stomach and began repeatedly bouncing up and down. Accomplice Sharon Jones called suspect Cedric Jones Jr. and told him to come over to the house.”……..
……According to court documents, the suspects continued to beat, punch, and kick the girl in the stomach.
The assault caused serious bodily injury to the girl……..
The girl then began “throwing up and having severe cramps,” the affidavit said, adding these gruesome details:
“She was uncontrollably pushing and delivered what she believed was a stillborn baby … Accomplice Cecila McDonald entered the bathroom and placed the baby in a white plastic mop bucket and removed it from the room.”
At some point after the assault, the baby was placed in a short, pill-shaped, black metal charcoal grill and attempted to burn it.”
The affidavit said the family members then plotted to dispose of the body.
“Accomplice Sharon Jones contacted suspect Cedric Jones Jr. approximately two days later and offered to pay him $25 if he would take care of the rest of it. Suspect Cedric Jones, along with a witness, returned to the location at which time Suspect Cedric Jones Jr. placed the remains in a dark green plastic bag with a red drawstring, placed it in his trunk, and stashed the remains in an unknown location.”
Now, pro-aborts will point at this nightmare and say: “See what happens when there are restrictions on abortion?!” I would counter with: “See to what depths people will sink after decades of pro-abort rhetoric and constant propaganda that argues that sexual pleasure can be divorced from reproduction?!?” I would also point out that it is just this kind of underage abortion involving abuse that the abortion industry most assiduously tries to keep covered up, even up to and including major crimes committed by a sitting governor.
People have always been fallen, always prone to evil. But we’re more and more getting to a point where barbarity has a casualness, an indifference, about it that is really chilling. This is what comes of teaching people that might makes right and that emotion and self-pleasing are the only rule that should guide. This is also a direct result of the deliberate de-Christianization of this country.
Expanding the thesis a bit: is the sexular pagan culture of hookups, binging and purging, contraception, abortion, alpha male hunting, perverse sexual experimentation and rejection of proper female roles driving young women insane? Is that what is behind the unhinged feminism more and more young American women are adopting, outlandish claims of a rape epidemic, and silly hyperventilating in response to perceived “microaggressions” which require “safe spaces” with cuddly toys – a 21st century fainting couch? Is the shattering experience of being used and dropped by too many men to count what is driving nonsensical and easily disprovable claims of “rape” being maintained even after the credibility of the accuser has been destroyed? Is this why a frighteningly large proportion of young women today are under active treatment for a range of severe psychological imbalances?
Is this not the kind of wreckage that was predicted when women were encouraged to reject their true nature as caring nurturers of life and the devoted partner of one man for life? Did not Pope Paul VI indicate in Humanae Vitae that women would find themselves treated as disposable objects should mass contraceptive use become the norm? Is it not likely that the reason why so many young women are so incredibly troubled today is because they have embraced a toxic ideology that impels them to behave in ways completely contrary to their true nature? And yet, incredibly, it seems the embrace of this ideology has only accelerated in recent years. The number of women – most of whom could not tell you who won the Battle of Midway or who wrote Don Quixote – who are espousing pretentious terms like “heteronormativity,” “the male gaze,” “cisgender,” and all the rest certainly appears to be skyrocketing.
That is, the pathology continues to grow.
It appears women, in particular (it does apply to men to a degree), are being simultaneously infantalized and wantonized. A jaded vindictive hussy with the emotional maturity of a 10 year old is not a stable combination. I am convinced many of these months – or years – after the fact “rape” allegations (always stemming from situations where the matter devolves down to her word against his) are the product of latent guilt over young women giving away their most precious commodity – their virtue – at literally the drop of a hat. I think there is more than a little bit of vindictiveness mixed into many of these claims – witness how “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz apparently went to the police not to really file a charge, but to exercise a legal mechanism whereby the man she so wanted to destroy could be publicly named and shamed. Once his name was in public, she stopped cooperating with police and the charges were dropped.
But I don’t think it provocative to say that anyone who would carry around a mattress all day for months to prove a point is more than a little unhinged.
There is something more, however. Feminists like to pretend that no woman would ever, ever prevaricate when making a rape allegation. But as we have seen in the case of Emma Sulkowicz, a rape allegation conveys enormous power and prestige instantly. I can think of ten or more reasons off the top of my head why a woman would make up a rape allegation, knowing that the allegation itself is enough to destroy the credibility of the accused: revenge, mental imbalance, desire for attention, money, power, vindictiveness, to explain away infidelity, to explain away pregnancy, as a way of feeling validated, as a way to explain away personal failings, etc.
I’m starting to wander off point, but I think it has been amply made. The sexular pagan ethos is profoundly hurtful to people, but I think women, for many reasons, bear the brunt. Men are more disposed to the kind of barbaric, law of the jungle environment the left seems hell-bent on foisting on us all. Civilization in fact developed, or was given us by God, as an outgrowth of the family and as an extension of the system of protections to optimize family life. Behavioral standards were enforced, irrespective of any religious dictates, to dramatically improve the environment in which the woman-man pairing and the provision of a stable environment for the raising of children could be maintained.
But the left wants unlimited power, and the family is the largest remaining obstacle to that. They lie and pretend that they are giving people “freedom” when they are really enslaving them and spreading untold misery. We are seeing the fruits of that misery in just a few of the items above. And that’s just a tiny fraction of the ways in which sexular paganism is destroying people’s lives.
Lord, so much to pray for. Have mercy on all these poor lost souls.
Is closing of Planned Barrenhood McKinney office really a pro-life victory, or just more business as usual? – UPDATED May 26, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, North Deanery, paganism, pr stunts, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Victory.
UPDATE: So, I got a call from the woman who apparently leads the McKinney 40 Days for Life campaign and led the prayer vigils outside the former McKinney Planned Barrenhood for several years. I think it fair to say she was none too pleased with my post. She thinks a lot of progress is being made, and that this is a big victory. She also claims I made a factual error, which is that there were actually 3 Planned Parenthood’s in Collin County at one point, and now there is only one. And, this is true, I had misremembered or misunderstood when one of Planned Parenthood’s Plano locations opened and closed. The McKinney office opened in June 2008, a Plano office closed in 2011, so for about 3 years there were 3 Banned Parenthoods in Collin County. So, however significant that is to you, duly noted. The rest of the post stands, this small detail doesn’t change anything else I wrote below
There has been some excitement in certain local pro-life circles of late regarding the recent closure of the Planned Barrenhood McKinney office. This is being presented as a great triumph for the pro-life cause, since a rather large town (pop. ~ 150,000 and a county seat, to boot!) will now not have a Planned Barrenhood facility, even if it was a facility that never performed surgical abortions (but certainly did provide referrals).
But those of us with longer memories are not so sure. To some of us, it looks like Planned Barrenhood simply executing a small administrative change which will have only the most minimal effect on the availability of abortion and contraception in North Texas.
Why do I always have to be such a party-pooper? Let me elucidate:
In 2011, the State of Texas under Rick Perry made the decision to stop using Planned Barrenhood as an outlet for the falsely named “Women’s Health Program,” which was really just a program to provide highly subsidized contraception to low-income women. But since Banned Parenthood is so prominent in support of abortion and all manner of hideous moral evils, Governor Perry and others determined that de-listing PP from the program would be both a good PR move and also help wound the pro-abort giant. This was big news back then, as this article at LifeNews indicates. The state wound up losing federal funding to the tune of about $40 million per year due to blocking Planned Parenthood from the program, but Perry and others, to their credit, stuck to their guns, and as a result, numerous Planned Barrenhood facilities around the state closed. A partial list of those closures below:
1305 East Abram Street
Arlington, TX 76010
316 South Chestnut Street
Gainesville, TX 76240
3220 Gus Thomason Road, #231
Mesquite, TX 75150
1400 Summit Avenue, #CA
Plano, TX 75074
2114 Texoma Parkway. Suite 700
Sherman, TX 75090
804 East Moore Avenue, Ste A
Terrell, TX 75160
507 North Highway 77, #508
Waxahachie, TX 75165
Note that the McKinney office, which was not included in the 2011 closures, continued to operate, having started up around 2007 or 08.
Now the big news coming out of pro-life groups is that this McKinney office is now closing. But, as my old radio pal Vicki Middleton (God rest her soul) used to say, “hey, guess what?!”……..Planned Barrenhood had already re-opened their Plano office sometime between 2011 and 2015, and plans to expand it with the closure in McKinney and relocation to a new office in Plano right off Central Expressway……..where Planned Barrenhood had operated a no-surgical-abortion facility for years. So……from late 2011 to today, the number of Planned Barrenhood offices in Collin County (population: 1.1 million) remains at one. They closed Plano, but kept McKinney open, re-opened Plano, then closed McKinney while expanding Plano. This is a nice little thing for folks in McKinney, I suppose, but I can’t help but viewing this as at best a marginal “win” for the pro-life movement overall. I also don’t think it means Planned Barrenhood is still reeling from the 2011 effort to defund some of their activities – if anything, they seem to be adjusting to the new conditions and rolling along quite well.
Which brings me to my broader point: there is frankly a lot of gamesmanship and politicking in the pro-life movement that I am not entirely comfortable with. Both my wife and I (my wife in particular) are about as committed to the pro-life movement as they come (while still recognizing others even more so), but both of us fear that it has become institutionalized, and in so doing has developed its own interests and appetites and, to some degree, we both fear there are elements in the movement that, maybe even on a subconscious level, don’t really want to see abortion go away anytime soon. There is a huge amount of money tied up in the pro-life movement (and things presented as “wins” like this are almost always used for fundraising), money means interests, and those with interests often times don’t want to see them threatened. They become reliant on the industry for their livelihood. I’m not saying there are a lot of people in the pro-life movement who consciously are just in it for the money, but I do think there are elements within it that may see it more as a career or a source of income than a real, life and death moral struggle, and one critically tied to the salvation of souls.
Which gets back to the primary evils that underlie abortion and create the demand for it: the twins of fornication and contraception. Sandra Day O’Connor in the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision was diabolically right when she wrote – in favor of keeping abortion legal – that abortion forms the indispensable backstop for the entire post-modern American existence, which revolves around “sexual freedom” (really slavery) and the means to “not be punished with a baby,” as our President so demonically put it, while still “enjoying” unlimited sexual license. That is to say, until we convert souls back to a moral life, meaning a Christian moral existence, and until contraception use is not just made illegal but viewed by the vast majority as the horrendous assault against nature and God that it is, we’ll never be rid of abortion. Even today, as we congratulate ourselves on the reduction in the rate of surgical abortion, the movement tends to be very quiet about the explosion in chemical abortion through RU-486, “morning after pills,” and the like.
And if you want to hear crickets, outside a few stalwart groups and individuals, bring up the subject of contraception. The infusion of more and more protestants into the pro-life movement over the past 2 or 3 decades has been both a blessing and a curse, as many of these protestants are ambivalent at best regarding the abortion-contraception connection, and some simply refuse to see it. Even among outwardly Catholic pro-life groups, there are many who are not comfortable condemning contraception.
So, enjoy your marginal victory, but don’t get too excited about it. It’s very likely PB will decide to re-open a McKinney facility within a few years if the market dynamics change again.
Well, well, well…….if it isn’t Robert Gates, continuing his disastrous leadership in yet another critically important American institutions. After essentially destroying the defense acquisition process in his turn as Secretary of Defense, he now apparently intends to insure the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) is well and truly leveled during his administration.
Not that their present position – admitting Scouts with perverse inclinations into their ranks, but not Scoutmasters with the same affliction – is in any way tenable. I wrote at the time they disastrously surrendered that it would’t be more than a year or two before just this happened, that they would have men given over to the most unnatural lusts, the vast majority of whom allow their faculties in that regard to run wild, serving in leadership positions. Well, I was just about spot-on, Gates has all but called to lift the ban on sodo-Scout leaders (thanks to MFG):
The Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay leaders “cannot be sustained,” said president Robert Gates in remarks prepared for this week’s National Annual Meeting being held in Atlanta.
In his speech, which was posted to the Scouts’ website today and is available below, the former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA director says he is not asking for a policy change — not yet, anyway. But, he says, “I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of the CIA and secretary of defense. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
The Irving-based Boy Scouts lifted its ban on openly gay youth members at its May 2013 meeting at the Gaylord Texan — much to the displeasure of then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But it continues to prohibit openly gay adults from serving as volunteers or paid BSA staffers.
In his speech, Gates points out that many councils are “openly” challenging the current policy — among them, for instance, the Boy Scouts’ Greater New York Councils, which recently hired an openly gay 18-year-old as a camp counselor. Said Gates, expect that trend to continue.
“While technically we have the authority to revoke their charters, such an action would deny the lifelong benefits of Scouting to hundreds of thousands of boys and young men today and vastly more in the future,” he says in the prepared remarks. “I will not take that path. [So, you’ve given up. Shocking. If you took a strong stand now, you could nip this trend in the bud, but by announcing you will take no action, you are not only insuring many more poor, morally lost souls will try to gain positions of influence in the Scouts, but, even more, you are positively encouraging them to do so. You’re basically announcing, on the QT, I’m in support of this, I will do nothing to stop it. Remember to check out the Troops of Saint George for a solidly Catholic alternative to the Boy-Rape Scouts]
Further prediction: it won’t be more than 10 years or so before two things happen: there are massive lawsuits against the Scouts due to sex abuse that occurs between scouts and “masters,” and the BSA will become a predominately left-wing sexular pagan advocacy organization a la the Girl Scouts. You are going to allow at least some men with powerful inclinations towards “twinks” unfettered access to them in remote, rural locations. Normal boys will flee in spades, within a few years virtually no normal boys will join up, and you’ll be left with a much smaller sodomite-advocacy group. Satan couldn’t be happier, and Baden-Powell must be spinning in his grave.
MFG also recommends this: interesting analysis that indicates that parishes that host Boy Scout troops but who refuse sodo-marriage could be held liable. The wheels, the wheels are coming off: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/BSALegalRamifications.pdf