jump to navigation

Another way to fight back against the amoral culture – boycotts March 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
12 comments

I agree with a commenter’s idea that on the specific matter of helping end division among faithful Catholics, coordination with like-minded individuals is one of the first steps to take.  Consider it done.

But on the broader matter of opposing the ongoing decline in the culture, boycotting corporations and especially charities that support egregiously amoral activities like anything related to Planned Barrenhood, sodo-marriage, and the like, is another relatively easy step to take.  No, you don’t have to send a letter, and you certainly don’t have to avoid every company and charity on the list (available here, from Life Decisions International), but you could choose to stop shopping at this place or that to make a statement.  For instance, even though I find Home Depot generally has superior product selection, because of their ardent support for sodo-marriage, I no longer shop there, but at Lowe’s.  The point is not to make your life a nightmare of narrow choices and constant moral conundrums, the point is to to what you can.

As a way of helping, find below some of the major corporations and charities that are tied to grave immorality.  First, the corporations:

JPMorgan Chase
Cigna
Chanel
Chevron
Adobe
Bank of America
Bayer
GlaxoSmithKline
Gannett
Estee’ Lauder
Johnson and Johnson
Hearst
Hilton
Home Depot
Levis (one of the worst. I used to love Levi jeans but won’t have anything to do with them anymore)
Marriot
Microsoft
Starbuck’s
Nike (another bad one)
Polo Ralph Lauren
Southwest Airlines (gives lots to Komen and Planned Barrenhood)
Time Warner
United Health
Walt Disney
Wells Fargo
Whole Foods
AOL
Symantec

Now some of the charities:

ALS
AARP
Alzheimer’s Association
American Automobile Association
American Association of University Women (particularly egregious)
American Cancer Society
Amnesty International
Boys and Girls Clubs
Camp Fire
Council of Churches
Easter Seals
Girl Scouts/Guides
Glaucoma Research Foundation
Human Rights Watch
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
Kiwanis
League of Women Voters
Lions Clubs
March of Dimes
Muscular Dystrophy Association
National Childhood Cancer Foundation
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Osteoporosis Foundation
National Parkinson’s Disease Foundation
Red Cross
Ronald McDonald House
Rotary Club
Salvation Army
Save the Children
Sierra Club
Susan G. Komen
UNICEF
UNITED WAY
YMCA
YWCA (neither are remotely Christian anymore)

More and more, as we also see in the Church, corporations and charities form a densely tangled web in which charities donate to each other, and corporations cross-pollinate their “charity” as well, and the whole thing becomes an impenetrable fog.  It’s gotten to the point that the vast majority of charities wind up giving some money to Planned Barrenhood, either directly or through another agency like Komen.  Other evil charities like the Human Rights Campaign similarly receive funds from a wide variety of other charities.

The above is not meant to beat you down. Take it for  what you will.  If it’s helpful to you, please, by all means, use the info above.  There are many more less well known companies and charities also on the banned list at FightPlannedParenthood, but bear in mind, that’s only a partial list, because it only addresses those entities that fund PP.  Others not on the list above fund many other evils (which is why I added Home Depot, they do not fund Planned Parenthood, directly, but they are big fans of sodomy, especially in San Fran and their Atlanta HQ).  To me, it’s important to try to limit my business with the especially bad actors as much as possible, but I’m probably not going to change banks over the matter.  But I won’t drink Starbucks, for about 200 reasons.  As I said, whatever works best for you.

Hope the above helps!

Another controversy flairs up over Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson March 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Christendom, contraception, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society.
6 comments

Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty TV series has landed in hot water again after making comments offensive to the dominant leftist orthodoxy.  I’m not particular fan of Robertson’s and I’ve never seen the show he’s on, but I do think the media’s reaction is very telling.  While I find Robertson’s comments rather crude (but, hey, look at the dude), I think they are actually a cogent criticism of the moral relativism inherent in today’s atheist sexular pagan orthodoxy.  See if you agree, below are Robinson’s comments:

I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’

Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’

If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right.’

Now many in the media, including a right-wing secular atheist blogger I like somewhat, Ace of Spades, are portraying this as a hideous revenge fantasy, wherein all of Robertson’s anti-Christian boogeymen get their comeuppance. I don’t think that’s it at all.  I think Robertson is arguing, in a ghastly way (possibly intended to make a point), that when a culture abandons any external moral reference in the form of an absolute source of truth (in the case of Christendom, the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Faith that created Christendom/Western culture in the first place), there are no limits to the depravity to which it will sink.  Robertson is saying the atheist really has no morality left to appeal to in the horrifying hypothetical he posited, since they have very successfully destroyed the Christian God as the source of morality for our culture, at least insofar as the elites are concerned.  In fact, Robertson makes the evil that inevitably results when a culture detaches itself from a transcendent source of Truth very clear in a follow-up comment:

I gave you four ideologies in the last one hundred years, I see a pattern. You say, ‘why do they do what they do, why is there always murder?’ You know what the scary thing is? The fifth ideology right in behind all of this bunch of stuff we’re dealing with now, has its roots in the United States of America? You know how many they’ve killed? You say, ‘who are they?’ People call them left-wing loons, Bill O’Reilly calls them, political correct crowd, orthodox liberal opinion. You say, ‘what are they famous for?’ They’ve killed 63 million of their own children. 63 million. More than Hitler, more than Stalin. We’re slaughtering ourselves. You say, ‘who is behind it?’ Their father is, he was a murderer, from the beginning, they are slaves to sin, they are controlled by the Evil One. Duh.

This is really a deep and stinging criticism.  I am impressed with Robertson’s depth – he has correctly diagnosed that the cultural detachment from Christian truth has led, inexorably, to the deaths of 63 million babies in this country alone, and a billion and a half across the world.  Abortion only became legal in countries as they abandoned Christianity.  Thus, it first became legal in the Soviet Union, then in northern Europe, then most of western Europe, then North America, and today the front is Central and South America.  In every case, abortion did not become legalized until the governing elites had deliberately abandoned their Christian heritage, and also, decisively veered toward the left of the political-cultural spectrum.  I think Robertson has elicited such a vehement reaction, because he has drawn back the veil that shows the secret, hidden evils leftism must not just permit, but encourage, in order to satisfy its ever increasing appetite for power and control.

The great bargain leftism demands of its subjects is this: you give us total control over every other aspect of life, and we’ll give you totally unchecked sexual hedonism.  But since such hedonism invariably results in a number of evils: abortion, destruction of the family, children tortured by divorce, etc….all those things have to be kept carefully swept under the rug.  Leftism cannot stand to have the veil lifted.  And thus, the reaction, which has been even more ferocious than in his comments from last year.

I’ve got to say, having read a number of comments from Mr. Robertson, while he’s rough as a cobb, his beliefs are probably more Catholic than a great majority of those who bear that sacred name today.  He does spout some evangelical nonsense, it is true, but on the moral issues, he is practically Catholic.  And, as I said before, I am impressed with his depth.  He may look like a backwoods cracker hick, but he’s actually a deep-thinking and quite  intelligent man.

The interesting thing to me, is that our media has grown so shallow and insular they are incapable of seeing the broader moral argument being made here.  Not a single mainstream secular media source covering this story has managed to escape their leftist bubble and give these statements even a reasonable hearing.  Now, of course, they have a powerful motivation (their own commitment to the leftist cause) to do just that, but I think even more, they are so cut off from Christianity, it is so alien and hostile to them, they are not even capable of imagining these comments in a positive light.  And that likelihood should give us pause as Catholics, and move us to recognize that we are truly strangers in a strange land, visitors in our own homes.  There can be no reconciliation with elements both so hostile towards, and uncomprehending of, everything we hold dear.

Which only points up what an utter fallacy the entire notion of aggiornamento has always been.  But that’s probably meat for another post.

Hi there, Persecution! Woman throws Molotov cocktail at Austin pro-lifers March 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Yes, Austin has much more than its share of crazies.  It is a quite liberal town, and not just by Texas standards.  There are a lot of good conservatives there, too, of course, but they are outnumbered by the leftists.  We saw that a year and a half ago in the diabolical displays surrounding the passage of House Bill 2, which imposed many sensical (if far from sufficient) limitations on baby murder.

I guess that diabolical spirit is still in the air, as a crazed individual threw a Molotov cocktail gasoline bomb at some souls praying outside the local Planned Barrenhood mill.  No one was hurt, thankfully, and the perpetrator has been taken into custody:

Last night at an Austin Planned Parenthood abortion facility, a woman threw a Molotov cocktail (a type of homemade bomb) at a group of Central Texas Coalition for Life prayer volunteers. One of the volunteers was able to quickly stomp out the flame and save the group from any danger. The group was able to record the woman’s license plate number and turn that information over to the police. Police did arrest the woman who threw the bomb directly at the prayer volunteers.

Central Texas Coalition for Life Executive Director Heather Gardner responded last night. “We are so thankful that none of our courageous volunteers were injured during the incident. Because of their quick actions, the woman responsible was apprehended and will be held accountable.”

So here’s the photo of the bomb:

molotov_cocktail_thrown_at_prayer_volunteer_645_363_55 (1)

Pro-tip for use of Molotov cocktails: use a glass, not plastic, bottle.  Poor execution helped insure no one was injured.

But wait!  We all KNOW, because the media always tells US, that it is only pro-lifers who are crazed, violent terrorists, whereas abortionists and their acolytes in darkness are only peaceful, loving people……..who happen to commit and support murder all day long.

What is really surprising is that things like this don’t occur much more frequently.  But a culture increasingly hostile towards Christianity may provide a fertile ground for a great increase in attacks like these in the future.

And then there are probably a good number that go unreported, such as the frequent incidents of near vehicular manslaughter committed on a daily basis by one of the former “nurses” at the Routh Street mill.  She used to take great pleasure in tearing down the alley that serves as the main entrance to that mill at 40 mph, swerving side to side and frequently forcing opponents of abortion, including children, to scramble out of the way.

Not signing up for organ donation insufficient to prevent organ harvesting (and being killed to get to them) March 17, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, Four Last Things, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

If you are like me, you were probably under the impression that if you did not sign on your driver’s license that you are willing to be an organ donor, that meant you were more or less from being put to death by having your still-beating heart or still-breathing lungs removed if you happen to fall into a coma.  According to Life Guardian Foundation, however, recent changes in federal and state law have changed the default legal “setting” from an assumption one does not want to be forcibly disemboweled, to an assumption of willingness to “donate organs.”  You now have to take positive legal steps to prevent being a harvest candidate.

This all apparently dates to a 2006 federal law “United States Anatomical Gift Act,” the implications of which are discussed in this medical journal article from 2007.  Many, perhaps most, states, have adopted the provisions of this act, which, again, switches the default assumption with regard to organ “donation” from a no to a yes.

From the Life Guardian website:

Your “refusal” for organ donation must be documented.

Upon registering at the DMV your verbal decline, stating “no” when asked whether or not you wish to be an organ donor, is not honored. According to the language of the law, Revised Anatomical Gift Act (2006), you must “opt-out,” documenting your “refusal” in writing using “explicit language,” otherwise, it is “presumed” that you have consented to be an organ donor to be utilized for the purpose of “organ transplantation, education and research.”

Document your decision of “refusal” for organ donation, make known your wishes to have your life protected and preserved and ensure, that in the event that you cannot speak for yourself, your family and loved ones will speak on your behalf. It is a matter of life and death

1. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE FOR POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR HEALTH CARE   Click Here
2. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE FOR DEPENDENT PERSON WHO IS A MINOR OR MENTALLY          INCAPACITATED PERSON   Click Here
3. DIRECTIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE LIFE; TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE LIFE OF EVERYONE [OPT-OUT          CARD]   Click Here

The Life Guardian website also has an article from Bishops Bruskewitz and Vasa, and various moral theologians, regarding the licitness of organ donation.  Fundamentally, all organ donation (but theft might be a better term) that requires the death of the donor is essentially murder and thus gravely immoral.  Donations such as kidneys or corneas that do not necessarily entail death are not immoral and may be wonderful acts of charity, but all other organ donations are morally illicit and unsound.  The act of killing people to obtain their organs is the objectively mortal sin of murder.

Make sure you protect yourself thoroughly in all end of life decisions.  More and more, the medical establishment looks on souls in comas or a “persistent vegetative state” as being little more than fertile soul for the very lucrative cash crop of organ harvesting.  More generally, the health care industry in this country is becoming increasingly comfortable with causing death whenever a doctor or even a nurse decides someone has lived long enough, will have to suffer “too much,” or is just taking up valuable bed space.  We see in many other countries already that “voluntary euthanasia” has quickly degenerated into involuntary killing of old and sick people.  So be very clear to have a will and other clear legal documentation that DOES NOT include any terms like “no heroic measures,” “do not resuscitate,” and all the other permissions for killing.  Make sure it DOES specify that you want all medically viable treatment, that you are NOT an organ donor, and that you DO NOT want the plug pulled, so to speak.

It is an indicator of how satanic this culture has become that people have to go to extensive legal means to prevent their doctors from killing them, but that’s what you get in a post-Christian world.  May God protect and defend us all.

So……I found this interesting. College bad for girls? March 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Christendom, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I found this last night on the secular sight Ace of Spades, and I know it was meant as a joke, sort of a way to mock such old fashioned sentiments, but seeing the cover of this booklet, I thought it conveyed more truth than the person who posted it may have realized:

So I had a complaint that the pic was too revealing. I still think there is a cover there, but apparently some see something there I really don’t so I pulled it.  DDon’t think it was too obvious as it took 1500 views for someone to complain. 

Now, I’m not saying girls/women should not go to college. I do have rather grave reservations over many young people, male or female, going to college and incurring massive debt to spend four (or six) years partying and getting a degree that will never allow them to repay their often massive debts.  I think college is great and wonderful, it is one of the few true separators of “class” in our society, but I do not think everyone is meant to get a degree and the value of BA degrees in particular are being horribly watered down, to the point they don’t mean very much anymore.  So, even car dealerships advertising for used car salesman can make possession of a BA a requirement, because they are that ubiquitous.  Of course, if you have the talent and drive to get a degree in finance, computer science, engineering, hard natural sciences, etc., then go for it.  Even if you rack up some debt (some, not $250k), you will most likely have the ability to pay it off and the degree should pay for itself in the long run.  But I know folks with degrees in English or History who, 15 years on, are still paying off their 30k student loans.  It’s ridiculous.

As to the points raised in the above: every single one of the, written over 100 years ago, is a completely valid concern and reads like a prophesy for the Ivy-clad Sodom and Gomorrah virtually every college has become.  While smoking and card-playing may not be sinful or disordered in and of themselves, the rest is pretty much spot on, and boy can we see how slippery slopes certainly seem to apply to society’s moral decay.

Colleges used to take seriously their duty to serve in loco parentis……..as guardians for still very young people who matriculated on their campuses.  Many colleges maintained separate male and female housing until the late 60s, with dorm mothers or other guardians assigned to try to maintain at least a modicum of decorum and keep the temptation of closed door fraternization to a minimum.  Now, they just about positively encourage the rampant debauchery of the drunken hook up culture with absolutely no checks on liquor in dorms, males and females living on the same floor (or even in the same rooms), sharing bathrooms, etc.  It is a thoroughly debauched environment, and it was not much better even 20 years ago, when I was in college.  But today, it seems, the varying degrees of female chastity that kept the fornication to a (still contemptible but) more moderate level seems to have gone out the window more or less entirely, with girls initiating these sterile, often unhappy couplings almost as much as boys.

So I don’t know…….I see some wisdom in the booklet by E.J. Richards.  He could see the direction dormitory life would take over 100 years ago.  I doubt even he realized the depths to which it would sink today, however.  The “dating” of the 80s and 90s has given way to just random rutting today, without even a pretension of a relationship, so I can see a good deal of merit in a return to courting and chaperoned visitation.  And much of this rutting is engendered by the flood of hardcore porn on campus (somebody completely wallpapered an elevator a Jester when I was a freshman, using a really powerful epoxy, with pages from a hardcore porn mag – and that was 1989! It took them days to get it all down), yesterday’s suggestive literature run amok.

Pretty interesting little time capsule.  I have been taught that slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, but they sure seem to apply to in a number of areas where it comes to the collapse of morality in the former Christendom.  And as this booklet shows, there have been voices, almost always discounted as extremists or cranks or laughed at as prudes, who have been warning us all along.

To get back to the question asked by the booklet, aside from a few truly Catholic colleges and the option of internet learning or attending commuter colleges from home, I would say, yes, it is, but not just bad for girls, but bad for everyone, but sometimes a necessary evil for those who choose their majors wisely.  And I haven’t even broached the leftist indoctrination and manifest errors taught in the places of “higher education.”

Liberal fave McElroy named to head San Diego diocese March 3, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Robert McElroy, auxiliary of San Fran, has been covered on this blog a couple of times in the past.  It was not favorable coverage.  In 2012, he made a statement pregnant with progressive sentiment, when he said:

It is therefore the task of every Christian, he said, to undertake the lifelong task of forming his or her conscience. The church esteems conscience so highly, that a person with an informed conscience is called upon to obey it – even if it conflicts with church teaching…….

……..Contrary to what some believe, said the bishop, the church does not teach that Catholics must cast their votes based solely on a candidate’s stand on abortion. While that issue should be considered pre-eminent, the other issues can also be taken into consideration.

“This is really the hard call for us as Christians,” Bishop McElroy told the group.

Not really.  Abortion is such an incredibly grave and prevalent evil that there is really nothing else that rises to its level.  Cutting federal spending by 5, 10, or even 25% would not come even close to rising to the level of the evil of abortion.  Thus, candidates who support abortion – who are generally the progressive favorites – can never be supported.  It is a completely false equivalence to pretend that progressives who might – might – support expanded funding of grossly inefficient programs to “aid the poor” while generally enriching themselves overcome the moral stain of their support for abortion. But that is the argument liberals have made for decades.  Seamless garments, and all that.

As to the news, you can tell a lot about a man over who is friends are. The progressives are besides themselves with joy over his being named Bishop of San Diego, and the more extreme the progressive, the more giddy they are.  I won’t copy and paste any of that reaction here, but I will remind that it is true that he did lend support to the idea of Communion for unrepentant adulterers/fornicators:

To no one’s surprise and a day after the news had been leaked to the “correct” blogs and websites, the Vatican todayannounced the appointment of Robert McElroy, 61 years old and currently an Auxiliary Bishop in San Francisco, as Bishop of San Diego, California — the 13th largest diocese in the USA (out of 197). The Diocese of San Diego, it so happens, has more than double the number of Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

McElroy recently declared publicly in favor of the Kasperite thesis and has been a leading public critic of the enforcement of Canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians. We leave it to the usual “progressive” pundits to discuss his “credentials” and to openly explain, in great detail, why his appointment is great for their agenda.

On the positive side, however, perhaps removing this uber-liberal from San Fran will strengthen Archbishop Cordileone’s ability to reform the Church there. Then again, Cordileone came from San Diego, and it’s been one of the more orthodox dioceses.  So one step forward, one step back?

Bah, I’m exhausted trying to read anything broad into these appointments, whether the restoration is making any progress with this appointment or that.  It’s not going to happen that way.  It’s going to happen by individual souls and families making the conscious choice to embrace Tradition and to propagandize in its favor.

Which won’t be easy in our priest holes, but……..carry on.

 

Obama Administration demands Catholic charities provide abortion for immigrant children February 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I am sorry to say, before getting into the latest act of barbarity enacted by Obama against the Church (and believing Christians generally – and compare this to his approach to muslims, with the kid gloves on ISIS and constant apologias and “fabric of the country” and all that – I still cannot believe that most mainstream conservative commentators view calling Obama a marxist muslim Manchurian candidate out of bounds), I should say this: do we not know how this will play out?  Even with public demonstrations of opposition and most likely court challenges, do we not know that Amchurch, and especially the charitable organizations associated with the USCCB, already cooperate with the federal agenda of evangelizing for the sexular pagan religion and already cooperate with abortion providers and distributors of contraception (including abortifacients) on a wide basis?  Is that not what the continual scandals coming out of Catholic Relief Services tell us?  Even more, have not CRS and other organs basically said they have to cooperate with the sexular pagan agenda (in the form of these wicked collaborating organizations) in order to maintain that oh-so-wonderful federal funding?

Maybe I’m getting jaded, but while I’m sure the USCCB and other Church authorities and others pray hope the courts may provide some relief, if push comes to shove, I am pretty skeptical that Catholic organs will stand on sacred Doctrine and take the admittedly huge hit of losing federal funding should it actually come to that.  I think Obama knows this, which is why he continues to press and press and press.

Anyway, the report:

The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve.  [Obama is fast-tracking everything in his bid to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a muslim communist kleptocracy] The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” [Meaning, contrary to his political interest] The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

[And that’s not all!…..] The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.” [And, if that “transgender” 10 year old demands hormone treatment, under rules approved by the Obama administration recently, the aid agency would be required to provide those, too. This is beyond incredible, and, with abortion on demand for underage youth and even gender mutilation being provided gratis per the American taxpayer (my God this Obama hates this country with white hot passion), what enormous new avenues will be available to the child sex trade!  Not only will the Obama administration make it incredibly easy to sneak children into this country and allow them to stay permanently, but with no parental involvement slave traders can get them abortions when pregnant, get boys turned into more lucrative girls, etc.  Has anyone even remotely thought of the potential for the gravest evils in all this?  Or is that bug actually a feature?  How many times has Bill Clinton been to “pedophile island?”]

I hate this sick world more and more and more.  I’m sure the USCCB will go to court, and may even win.  But if they somehow don’t…….don’t you imagine a papered over face saving non-change “change” and then continuation with business as usual?

Exorcist claims women preferred targets for demonic infiltration February 25, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, catachesis, contraception, Domestic Church, General Catholic, horror, Our Lady, paganism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
comments closed

My wife saw this and sent it to me.  A prominent Italian exorcist has claimed that women are special targets for satan and his minions when it comes to demonic possession. This is not due to any particular fault in women, but due to satan’s special hatred for them as being of the same sex as Our Blessed Mother, who we know has, does, and will continue to crush satan under her foot.  See what you think of this:

There really is something about Mary – and all other women – and the devil does not like it.

“I am quite familiar with Satan’s hatred toward Mary and therefore, toward women in general on account of Mary,” said Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, a Rome-based theologian and exorcist who has assisted the legendary Fr. Gabriel Amorth, former chief exorcist of Rome.

Fr. Iannuzzi explained how Satan is humiliated by the Blessed Virgin because she – someone so humble and pure  — is the one assigned by God to defeat him.

Quoting Fr. Amorth, he said, women are more “easily exposed to the danger of the devil” and that statistics show, more women are possessed by evil spirits than men. [I think this statistic is correct.  But what do you think of the explanation?]

Fr. Iannuzzi testified to personally encountering numerous cases where women were forced to prostitute themselves because of demonic possession.

He said, the devil particularly likes preying on women who are “young and pleasing in appearance.” [Unfortunately for all involved, Fr. Euteneur may have run afoul of that tendency, if it be one]

Other seemingly progressive developments like supposed women’s rights seem to trace their roots to something hardly human.

Since it is the devil’s plan to “ape God, to mock God,” according to Fr. Iannuzzi, he also “employs the woman in the destruction, the breakdown of the family nucleus.” [An interesting claim, and I can see some reason behind it]

According to Filipinos for Life president AJ Perez, abortion, for example, is the antithesis of the Eucharist.

“In the Eucharist, God said, ‘This is my body, which will be given up for the salvation of all.’ [Well, He actually said for many, because will refuse the Gift, but……..] In abortion, it’s opposite. The woman says, ‘This is my body, I alone have the right to it, I will not make that sacrifice, therefore someone has to die,” Perez explained. [I certainly believe abortion is a demonic inversion of both the act of creation and of the Eucharist.  I think women are specially targeted due to that aspect alone]

While explaining that he is not putting the blame fair and square on women because of some intrinsic flaw, Fr. Iannuzzi said, these findings point to a diabolical loathing by substitution.

[Satan] is like a mad man. He can’t get to Mary; she’s confirmed in grace, she defeated him. So he looks for other women,” said the priest, who was talking to more than a thousand at the Marian auditorium in Miriam College last Saturday.

Fr. Iannuzzi described demonic possessions of women as Satan “avenging himself” because of Mary’s role as described in the Protoevangelium or the first announcement of the Gospel.

As I said, it’s an intriguing claim. And I believe the statistics are right, both anecdotal and formal data does point to women being more likely to fall into demonic obsession/oppression/possession than men.  I think that has many causes, including psychological, but I think it quite possible satan does have a special ire for women and a special desire to avenge his humiliation on them.  And, satan likely knows that in many cases, by corrupting a woman, many other souls can be led into sin or at least have their faith lives made weak and deficient, in other words, perfect targets for him.

But this is the kind of topic that I enjoy hearing from others on, so fire away.  Do you think this claim makes much sense, or is it just another episode of the hideous misogyny that runs rampant through the burly Bunyon-esque male-dominated (hah!) Catholic Church?

The real scoop on Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago February 16, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

A while back, I got the impression that commenter Steve (where have you gone? I did not intend to run you off entirely, I was just asking that you dial back your comments from 11 to, say, 5) thought I was being too harsh in some of my judgments regarding Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago.  I have known and read about Bishop Cupich ever since this blog started, and what I have learned has been almost universally negative.  He took some quite heavy handed actions against the traditional practice of the Faith and pious works like priests praying outside mills while in Rapid City, SD, and continued similarly in Spokane.  I knew he was the most outspoken “peasnjustus” bishop at the USCCB in some time.  And I knew a number of other things.

But Carl Olson at Catholic World Report has examined Bishop Cupich’s record, especially in Spokane, in some depth, and has come to the conclusion that the smiling, happy, liberal, “smell of the sheep” Cupich has been given since his promotion is not especially supported by actual facts.  In the report, Cupich comes across as much more insular, heavy handed, aloof, and possessed of questionable judgment, than promoters like John Allen have revealed.

It’s a good article, I recommend you read the whole thing, I provide some excerpts below. One of the main revelations made is that the Katholyc’s description of a “Francis bishop” as a simple man of the people is not the case.  If Cupich is any indicator, a “Francis bishop” appears much more to be a Church-climbing technocrat insider, devoid of a true pastoral sense and much more at home with a room full of lawyers and accountants than souls needing guidance.

I start with quotes regarding Cupich’s strange lawsuit against the Catholic law firm that had represented the Diocese of Spokane for years in sex abuse cases, suing the law firm for millions, and its subsequent settlement in the law firm’s favor shortly after Cupich’s departure.  Pretty scandalous stuff, really, and in the inexplicable conduct of the case, so typically progressive (I add emphasis and comments):

…….”Recent interviews,” the piece noted, “in Spokane with people on both sides of the issue, as well as court documents and legal experts, reveal how betrayed some felt by Cupich’s actions. [The lawyers involved – a very mom and pop organization – speak of feeling so scandalized they have very nearly lost their faith. They tried to contact Pope Francis over this apparent persecution, but received no response. Go ahead and score the easy layup, commenters] They also show how the bishop struggled to handle a painful crisis that threatened his diocese’s future.” There’s no doubt that Cupich, when he arrived in Spokane in 2010, faced serious challenges, and any bishop in that situation was going to be criticized, fairly or not. He decided, as the Tribune reports, to file “an explosive lawsuit against the law firm that handled the bankruptcy on behalf of the diocese and had helped establish the original $1 million victims’ fund.”……..

………If the lawsuit seemed “explosive” when filed in 2012, it appears curious and even confounding now that the Diocese has agreed to quietly settle the matter. On January 23rd, the Diocese issued a joint statement with Paine Hamblen that said, in part, that the “settlement does not constitute an admission of wrong doing by either side; rather, it is a resolution of differences in an amicable manner which allows the parties to move forward with the important work that each conducts in the service of the common good.” It also stated, “There will be no further press releases or public comment by either party or their attorneys.” That apparently resolves the legal part of the matter, but it doesn’t answer questions about the wisdom of pursing the lawsuit, about Cupich’s leadership and decision making, and what all of this means, directly or indirectly, for both the Diocese of Spokane and the Archdiocese of Chicago.

After all, if Cupich believed strongly enough in the lawsuit to pursue it despite going directly contrary to the pastoral approach and legal strategy of Skylstad, why settle the lawsuit now? Was it simply because he had moved on to greener pastures? If so, what does it suggest about his sense of pastoral responsibility? Was it because he and his new legal team in Spokane recognized, in the end, that they had little to stand on and risked embarrassment in court and bad press to follow? “On its face,” theNBCChicago.com report stated, “the settlement would appear to be a resounding vindication for the firm…” From what I know of the situation, that is an accurate assessment. [So at the very least, this very strange lawsuit (read the full story at the link) is indicative of questionable judgment and leadership, at best.]

……The overall sense, expressed in varying degrees of detail, is that Cupich’s time in Spokane was quite disappointing and frustrating, especially for those looking for vibrant, clear, and accessible leadership. Those familiar with Cupich’s schedule and activities say that he was often out of the diocese for long periods of time, even more so than the amount of time Skylstad traveled while president of the USCCB. When Cupich was in the diocese, he was not readily available, rarely meeting with diocesan priests, especially not on an individual basis, although he apparently met often with certain, older Jesuit priests at Gonzaga……. [Except for the very last bit, wow does this tale sound familiar.  Sounds rather exactly like our own Bishop Farrell here in Dallas, unless he’s changed a whole bunch in the past year or two]

…….The seminary situation is noteworthy, since prior to Cupich’s arrival, it was thriving, with over two dozen seminarians. Following the removal in 2011 of Fr. Darrin Connall, co-director of vocations and rector of the seminary since 2000, the number of seminarians has fallen to less than a half dozen.[So, go figure – progressive bishop comes to town and in 3 1/2 years wrecks 20 years of work and destroys the seminary. It is so much easier to destroy than to build]  In addition, Kries notes that Cupich “had no interest in involving himself” in “direction of Gonzaga’s core curriculum,” a statement confirmed by others with direct knowledge of the situation at the Jesuit school, which has, to put it simply, been shedding its Catholic identity with determined efficiency (as Kries describes)……..

…..”What I find to be very interesting in the Francis affect [sic] as people call it,” Cupich told O’Donnell, “is that people do have a sense that the church is listening to them, and also that he is speaking to their deepest desires.”  [No, those being listened to are the aggrieved, the disaffected, those lost in grave sins, etc.  The most faithful, devout, observant Catholics have been studiously ignored] Does that include listening to his predecessor or listening those who desire to pray quietly in front of abortion mills? While Skylstad had strongly endorsed the 40 Days for Life campaign of praying in front of abortion clinics (reportedly saying, in 2008: “I commend this effort and pray that abundant fruits flow from it”), Cupich discouraged priests and seminarians from participating and the diocesan newspaper stopped allowing 40 Days for Life to run advertisements. [I blogged on this matter, in fact, in 2011.  As so many progressives evince, Bishop Cupich pretended at the time that the matter was “too polarizing” to be discussed publicly, or involve public displays by priests, and should preferably be handled in private. He also said saves are rarely made outside mills, but, first, that’s wrong, babies are saved outside every single mill just about every single day, and often multiple times, and, second, what is the worth of one human life?  For a bishop to speak so cavalierly of human life……who could imagine?]

———–End Quote————

Again, the full article is worth your time.  It examines in depth both the deliberate media construct of both Cupich as a “Francis bishop” and thus a “caring, closely involved man of the people,” and the reality regarding that construct.  Check it out.

Radfem aborts child because it is male February 9, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, attachments, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I just lost a very long post on this subject.  Curse you, WordPress.

A self-described radical feminist has written some posts describing her descent into madness and her subsequent decision to murder her unborn son as a result. She freely admits doing so strictly because he was a boy.  Some people are claiming this woman’s story so over the top that it looks fallacious to them.  Perhaps, but I’m skeptical. Even should it turn out this story is just the sick efforts of some attention-seeker, the lesson for Catholics remains: this is what comes from decades of reducing people, in this case, unborn babies, to objects or commodities to be owned, traded, and thrown away at their “owner’s” whim.

The radfem starts her story by describing the horrific abuse she suffered that drove her to such levels of extremism that she had to destroy her son to “stop patriarchy.”  See if you can follow this sordid tale of withering abuse:

In the spring of 2012, I found out that I was pregnant. I had a good idea who the donator was, but money wasn’t really an issue, and I knew that I would be a good mother-like figure[mother-like figure,”sheesh] ” for the child by myself. I have always believed in the right for all women to have a choice in terminating their pregnancy, but when I confirmed the diagnosis about a month into into it, I decided that I WAS ready to have this child. [or not]

My journey has taken me to many different places fighting for women’s rights and carrying the banner of the Feminist Movement, even to the point of eschewing a career.[Almost certain translation: I have a women’s studies degree and no discernible skills, thus my career options are limited to the level of barista or below.  But I’ve managed to cobble together a pretty nice income by serving as a paid agent (is there any other kind?) of left-wing agitprop] One of the more prominent themes that I saw in these places was that men generally would look down on us, refuse to help us, or hardly even lend an ear so that we could air our grievances.[Yes, men, just stand there and cower while we yell at you and tell you all your manifest failings. Otherwise, you aren’t supporting] This didn’t surprise me, the patriarchy has been well entrenched since the dawn of time, but here I was, here I am, ready to change it. [While you’re at it, here’s a windmill to tilt at]

Seeking to justify her growing distrust and dislike of the patriarchy, she describes an incident early-on that happened on a plane. As she informed a male passenger sitting next to her that she was flying to an Occupy Wall Street rally, he told her “B****** like you need to learn their place”.  [I am highly dubious this event took place as described?  Who, aside some true pipe-hittin’ G would speak to a woman he just met like that on a plane?  More than likely is that she started spouting off – unprovoked – with a bunch of leftist agitprop, and she got absolutely crushed by a well-informed man sitting next to her.  This experience was so painful for our special snowflake she has, over time, decided, basically, he was saying to her “b——s need to learn their place,” because she is unable to recognize or respond to well-reasoned argument, and in fact sees (as many radfems do) logical discourse as just another tool of the patriarchy. I could be wrong, there is a very slim chance events proceeded as she describes, but I bet money I my version]  Lana describes feeling as if “His words had violated both my feelings, and my trust, perhaps as much of a violation as actual physical touch.[So much for “I am woman, hear me roar.” What, superwoman, you can’t respond to a put down without breaking out in tears?] Upon being told by the steward that he could not move the man because no violation had actually occurred, Lana reacted:

I was flabbergasted, and then betrayed as they recommended that I move to one of the empty seats. This left me in tears. I knew the only way to get away was to move seats so I did so tearfully and having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped. [Again, really? Is this what decades of radical feminism have reduced women to?  Could not any strong soul, male or female, have brushed off the jerk’s comment (if it occurred), perhaps given them a rejoinder, and found a seat away from the jerk?  There was very little the steward could have done even if he had heard the comment – jerky though it was, it wasn’t a threat and didn’t really impede the ability to have the flight.  We’re talking about a grown woman breaking down over 8 words.  Please.]

By the time we landed, my outlook had changed, I could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause. 

Of course, Lana had automatically assumed she would have a girl. When she was informed by her doctor that an ultrasound determined she was instead pregnant with a little boy, she was horrified. Her reaction to her “body’s betrayal”? [Does she not know that the man determines the sex of the child? So how did her body “betray” her?  Is she really that ignorant?  I will add this: radfems have developed really asinine, but also scary theories about things like asexual reproduction in women (oh how they long for that!) and women being to use “mind control” to determine the sex of their children.] She had an abortion a few days later. Of her decision:

I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male. [because I am so STRONG I absolutely wilt when a single man says something mean]

I don’t hate men, [B as in B, S as in S] I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable. [Enjoy your life full of cats. I really pray, for their sake, you never have a girl]

If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again. [Wow, she is really, really mad at dad about something]

This is what comes from the Church failing in Her job to preach all the Truth to everyone for half a century or more.  No, feminism didn’t come about solely due to that failure, but millions have fallen into this increasingly unhinged and diabolical mindset because of it.

Feminism has always been disordered, but it is really entering crazed paranoid tin foil hat levels of late.  It also seems not to have produced the product promised (strong, independent women) but pathetic mewling adult children constantly needing aid from others and just wilting like hothouse flowers when they don’t receive it.  Sure, the guy on the plane may have been a jerk, but that is the transformative  experience that resulted in this woman now being committed to killing all her own male offspring?

Is there not also more than a small whiff of self-loathing not just in the above, but in the whole radical fringe of feminism (which is to say, feminism)?  Why do the most radical marxist lesbians almost always ape male behavior, and why do they now extol the very worst male tendencies as the ideal for women?

Eh, “I am woman hear me roar” has become “I am sad self-absorbed bore.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 511 other followers