Photos of Biden at St. Thomas Aquinas May 6, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
I’ve been given approval to post these photos of VP Joe Biden at St. Thomas Aquinas parish in Dallas this past Sunday. No, they don’t show him receiving, but I am told by two people who were there that not only did he receive the Blessed Sacrament, he did so from the hand of the priest, I believe pastor Fr. John Libone. Someone has promised me pics from the inside of the church but I haven’t received those, yet. Nevertheless, it is certain Biden was at the 9 am Mass, and that he received the Blessed Sacrament without challenge. So, yet another wound to our poor lacerated Lord:
Compare photo location to this one of front facade of St. Thomas Aquinas:
Same double-double doors, same statue of the Angelic Doctor.
He gabbed around with Girl Scouts (a scandal in itself). They’re lucky they weren’t groped:
Joltin’ Joe stepping out to Kenwood Ave.
He was there. He received the Blessed Sacrament. The Knights are in an uproar (as well they should be). He is, after all, one of their number, since Supreme Knight Carl Andersen squashed all dissent and used heavy-handed tactics to prevent ANY KoC council from terminating the membership of a high-profile heretic political member like Biden. Yes, his home and state councils in Delaware did try to act against him, but they were quite brusquely made to stand down by Andersen.
And it is for that very reason that I left the KoC.
I’ll post more as it becomes available.
Educated beyond imbecility – Australian “philosophers” question value of family, state parents should feel guilty for spending time with kids May 6, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
There is no limit to the error and evil to which souls will descend when they reject God. To explain the mind-numbing catalog of evils of the former Soviet system, the best Alexander Solzhenitsyn could do was to say: “people have forgotten about God.” I can’t think of a much better one-phrase explanation for the accelerating descent into madness and barbarity that we see all around us. This latest episode from some Australian philosophers is simply beyond description. You have to read it to believe that people would actually think thoughts so inane.
Two Australian philosophers have posited that having an intact and healthy family life constitutes an “unfair advantage,” and that parents who spend time with children, for instance, by reading to them, should be wracked with guilt over their care, because there are other, slovenly parents who don’t do so, and isn’t it evil to create such a disparity? This is cultural marxism to the Nth degree, courtesy of our insane academic class:
‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.
‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’ [Well, duh! We need a PhD to tell us that. Sure earning your salary there, bud]
Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations……. [The poor you will always have with you. But the left would destroy the family not to aid the poor as they purport, but to serve themselves. The family is the final block to ultimate leftist power. See how the family was destroyed in the old USSR]
……‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’ [But at what cost? Just because Plato argued in favor of a limited application of this theory (he was refuted by the far more moral, and brilliant, Aristotle) doesn’t make it reasonable. I know a woman who adopted a child raised in a post-Soviet Russian orphanage. There were tens or hundreds of thousands of children abandoned by their mothers in the wake of the Soviet collapse. So many of those children received the level of care one would expect from a communist orphanage. Left alone in their cribs for week, with no love, no comforting caress, the vast majority of them developed life-long attachment disorders and profound psychological problems. The boy I know, and so many like him, will never be remotely right. They will in fact be a future source of suffering for others, either through their cruelty and criminal activities or through their inability to truly love and care for someone else. And this is what this philosopher sees as “good,” a bunch of devastated, broken human zombies.]
…..‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’. [Remember how I said this was all about power and control. Believe me now? So they’ll decide what parents are allowed to do. You think homeschooling is high on their list of allowables?]
The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.
For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.
‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’…… [No, of course not. All children must attend the same government-run
conformity centers public schools! You can bet they have an even more negative view of homseschooling]
……..So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?
‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’…… [And remember the mandatory self-flagellation for contributing to inequality!]
……Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.
‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’ [Yes, having bored, disinterested, low-paid government employees raise children would surely be better. Sure worked out well for my friend’s Russian adoptee!]
From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.
‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift. [And I think you can now see what this entire effort has been about all along – rationalizing perverse individuals adopting or making frankenstein babies and “diverse living arrangements.” Sick.]
It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. [Only in the mind of a leftist academic. For billions of people around the world, what constitutes family is crystal clear.] A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions…….
‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’
Oh bull! That’s just another arbitrary distinction with no fundamental basis. If you are going to argue that groups of casually-related people (primarily through sex) can constitute a family, there is no upper limit to the number. Saying “10 is too many” is a completely arbitrary distinction and doesn’t stand the slightest scrutiny.
None of the above does. I am reminded of the fact that the satanic “ethicist” Peter Singer has advocated for child-murder on children up to five years old, simply because mom or dad feel like it. Because a child’s life is worth nothing, but an ethicist’s is. But why stop at 5? Singer actually has a point, in that the distinction presently made between killing children in the womb or those outside it is as artificial as the limit on the number of parents above, once you destroy the concept of the family as mother, father, and children. Singer based his entire argument on the fact that abortion is legal, so why not child murder? Personally, I’d prefer we pare down the number of academics by a few hundred thousand.
And the critical part is that all of this insanely perverse, diabolically evil thinking stems from one central fact: rejection of God and a transcendent source of Truth. When men try to be god and reject that truth, there is no limit to the insanity and depravity that will follow, as the above so aptly demonstrates (which, believe it or not, was part of a broader effort to somehow “justify” the existence of the family as such a horrid source of inequality. And the (forgive me, Lord) idiotic reporter just sat there and lapped it up uncritically. Gashats.
Start Novena for the Ascension today! May 5, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Novenas, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
add a comment
Just as a reminder, in case I forget, you also start a Novena to the Holy Ghost on the day after Ascension Thursday. That runs from Friday after the Ascension until the Vigil of Pentecost.
I did not find many options for a Novena for the Ascension. The one below comes from EWTN. For once, an EWTN Novena is not book-length. I tried to find other options, but they were either incredibly short or problematic. So…….here you go:
Jesus, I honor You on the feast of Your Ascension into heaven. I rejoice with all my heart at the glory into which You entered to reign as King of heaven and earth. When the struggle of this life is over, give me the grace to share Your joy and triumph in heaven for all eternity.
I believe that You entered into Your glorious Kingdom to prepare a place for me, for You promised to come again to take me to Yourself. Grant that I may seek only the joys of Your friendship and love, so that I may deserve to be united with You in heaven.
In the hour of my own homecoming, when I appear before Your Father to give an account of my life on earth, have mercy on me.
Jesus, in Your love for me You have brought me from evil to good and from misery to happiness. Give me the grace to rise above my human weakness. May Your Humanity give me courage in my weakness and free me from my sins.
Through Your grace, give me the courage of perseverance for You have called and justified me by faith. May I hold fast to the life You have given me and come to the eternal gifts You promised.
You love me, dear Jesus. Help me to love You in return. I ask You to grant this special favor:
(Mention your request).
By Your unceasing care, guide my steps toward the life of glory You have prepared for those who love You. Make me grow in holiness and thank You by a life of faithful service.
Start Fatima Novena today! May 4, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, Novenas, Our Lady, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
1 comment so far
Thanks to MJD for the head’s up. While May 13 is not recognized as a particular feast day in the 1962 Calendar, Fatima is certainly a Marian apparition to which many faithful Catholics have a profound devotion. Use the below as you desire. I pray it brings you great spiritual fruit:
Recite this prayer for 9 days…start today!
Most Holy Virgin,
who has deigned to come to Fatima
to reveal to the three little shepherds
the treasures of graces hidden in the recitation of the Rosary,
inspire our hearts with a sincere love of this devotion,
so that by meditating on the mysteries
of our redemption that are recalled in it,
we may gather the fruits
and obtain the conversion of sinners,
the conversion of Russia,
and this favor that I so earnestly seek….
(State your request here…)
which I ask of you in this Novena,
for the greater glory of God,
for your own honor,
and for the good of all people.
Pray 3 sets of : Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be.
Prayers Taught to the Children at Fatima
O My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you! And I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love you.
Prayer of Reparation
O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore thee profoundly. I offer thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of thee the conversion of poor sinners.
Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, my God, I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament!
O my Jesus, it is for love of you, in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for the conversion of poor sinners.
Rosary Decade Prayer
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.
So here’s a question. Do you think the Third Secret has ever been fully revealed? I have long thought the answer is no. It has not been fully revealed, nor has Our Lady’s command to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart been obeyed properly, either.
Vatican climate push must of necessity push abortion and other global fertility-lowering efforts May 4, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Some of the very, very first laws the Bolsheviks put into effect upon taking power in the former Imperial Russia were laws not just allowing, but encouraging divorce, contraception, and abortion. Why in heavens would that be one of their earliest moves? What could they possibly have to gain from diabolical efforts? Control.
The left, most admittedly in its pure and distilled form of communism, but in all its forms, seeks to control people on a level never dreamed of by the most benighted despots of the past. They seek not just control over your political activities, or your economic life, or of your social involvements, but all these things plus much more besides. They seek to control your inner thoughts and your relationship with God. The left, as I have argued many times in the past, is ultimately at war with the Christian God and has been for hundreds of years.
How is religion most intimately and effectively communicated from one generation to the next? The family. How can the left ever pry us stubborn God-botherers away from our magic talks with God unless they destroy the family and stand up the state in its stead? And how can one destroy the family, anyway? Well……turning sex into a competitive sport and loosing all the checks and balances God provided on human reproductive behavior was, and remains, a great place to start. So you legalize divorce, fornication, contraception, and especially baby murder, and go from there. As we have seen in this country, a few decades of such legalization will lead society to the precipice of self-destruction. And even after the regime that foisted such evils on the people goes away, the evils remain for decades after. Witness Russia today, with still one of the world’s highest abortion rates, and general death-wishing nihilism driving incredibly high rates of alcoholism and drug addiction, producing one of the lowest life expectancies for men of any largely developed nation.
Communism is nothing if not relentless. They tried the direct method of competition with the more capitalist West and failed. So now they are trying manifold other, less obvious but more insidious methods, like cultural marxism and environmentalism. But these replacements are no different from their predecessor, and contain all the same assumptions and desires that the old Soviet state did – total control over the lives and thoughts of everyone on earth, the destruction of the family, the “death” of God. Cultural marxism and environmentalism are of course as tied up in the sexular pagan death cult as the most fire-breathing Bolshevist of Stalin’s days.
Which brings me to the main point – this recent highly publicized and very important “climate conference” or “conference on sustainable development” at the Vatican. Yes there have been highly unfortunate flirtations with the left wing socialists at the UN and in the environmental movement by the Vatican before, but never with such official approbation, and never with so much influence on official papal documents of doctrinal import. I say influence, because the Vatican itself widely reported that the meeting between Pope Francis and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as well as the entirely one-sided conferences organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, were oriented towards providing input for the upcoming papal encyclical on “climate change” and sustainable development. As I noted in the link above, the conferences featured some of the most prominent pro-aborts and population control zealots in the world today. That pro-abort maximalists like Jeffrey Sachs (abortion on demand at public expense and without apology) were given a platform to speak – even if “only” on a subject intimately related to their population control obsessions, “climate change” and sustainable development – is hugely scandalous in its own rite. But to openly tie this platform with the upcoming encyclical is completely unprecedented.
Yes, we certainly don’t have the encyclical before us, yet, so some might hold out hope that it won’t venture beyond broad platitudes of previous papal discussion of such topics. And I pray they are right. But the way the PR offensive is shaping up, and given Pope Francis’ own comments on the subject and the many hints he has dropped, it looks like this encyclical will be further unprecedented in the degree to which it assigns blame and demands action (change) from certain parties. It also looks to tie climate change/sustainable development to an unprecedented array of moral evils – “respect for…….the poor, the excluded, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, children and future generations.” Which last bit is an odd juxtaposition to the inclusion of so many radical pro-abort sexular pagans at the pontifical conferences. It also seems quite odd to include almost exclusively muslim slavery and the depravity of pedophilia in a mention of matters affiliated with “sustainable development.” Such inclusion came across to me as egregiously piling on.
I could keep ranting, but I think Michael Matt has summed up the matter better than I can:
The questions Matt asks at the end are certainly trenchant. Is he right to do so? Have we come to a point where Catholics must definitively oppose the Pope on this environmental push or even more broadly? What do you think?
And even if you and I do, will anyone listen?
I know I have a lot of local readers. Many fellow parishioners have found this blog. God bless you, thanks. How about making your voice heard now? No, no one will see your e-mail or be able to ID you if you don’t want. Commenting is as anonymous as you want it to be. I am really, genuinely asking, because I find this current situation massively uncomfortable. I know some folks who are regular commenters have made up their minds pretty well. What of the hundreds of you who rarely or never comment? Will you stand up and be heard?
I have always been leery of utopian schemes and conspiracy theories. Constitutionally, I just shy away from “big ideas” that purport to be the all-encompassing solution for all perceived societal ills. I say that because of the extremely checkered history of utopian schemes. Communism in particular and leftism in general are utopian and how many people has they killed?
But I also know that various Popes have written extensively on political and economic organization in modern times, finding very little to like in what the world has had to offer. Proposed as an alternative is a Catholic social theory that calls for a radical reorientation of modern state constructs away from the twin decried evils of leftism and free market rapacity. However, among those who either see in papal condemnations of modern political-economic systems much that rings true, or who are simply trying to be loyal sons of the Church, there is disagreement on the ideal means of implementing this Catholic social theory. Distributism is one theory broached. I frankly haven’t studied the matter enough to really get all the fine points of distinction between distributism and other responses.
Having said that, I’ve been reading a good deal on interwar Austria of late, from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s My Battle Against Hitlerwhen to Kurt von Schussnigg’s romping adventure When Hitler Took Austria, to Fr. Johannes Messner’s hagiography of Austrian Prime Minister Engleburt Dolfuss. It is in the latter that I found the most detailed history and description of Dolfuss’ attempt to implement primarily Quadragesimo Anno into reality. But because I’m still not terribly well-formed in this area, I thought I’d ask readers if the descriptions of a proper Catholic corporative state are indeed accurate and reasonable attempts at conveying the idea behind a Church-observing Catholic state. A few quotes below that jumped out to me as most descriptive of the Catholic corporative state (I won’t go into detail, because that would take many thousands of words. I am very much just hitting some major themes and nothing more):
The party system, formal democracy, and the liberal form of society, are eliminated by the new Constitution of Austria. In their stead comes the authoritarian state with the corporative organization of the nation, the organization of the State and of society according to the requirements of Christian social philosophy as proclaimed in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. [I guess the first question I’d have is, is an authoritarian state with one strong man at the top really called for in Catholic social teaching? Because from what I’ve read this is probably a spurious claim]
…….The Constitution must, above all, be the practical expression of that natural law which for the Chancellor was the lever for the whole of the reorganization of the body politic: the just relation between unity and liberty as embodied in the political philosophy of German jurisprudence and Christianity. In politics this means nothing else than the just combination of the principle of authority with the principle of democracy. Any state which intends to fulfill its proper task must be an authoritarian state, possessing such full powers as to be able under all circumstances to take the necessary measures for the needs of the nation and for the common good. [This is certainly an approach markedly alien to those raised in the Anglosphere. It is a belief that power flows from the state down to the person and individual freedom is something of a bequest of the state, rather than the more liberal approach we are familiar with. I do note that the claim that this state simply must be authoritarian is made as a bald assertion with no supporting evidence.]
…..The principle of authoritarian government is embodied in the May Constitution of 1934 in the following way: the federal government does not depend upon any commission from legislative organs, nor is it subject to any political control of such corporations; it has an emergency power of decree extending to everything except changes to the Constitution, and it alone has the right to introduce draft legislation. The Federal Chancellor [Dolfuss] determines the policy of the government, in which the federal ministers are associated while remaining autonomous in their own spheres of public affairs; his assent is required moreover for the promulgation of any provincial law. The Federal President, elected for seven years tenure of office, cannot be deposed; he determines the number of the ministers and their sphere of competence; he appoints the provincial governors after the submission of three names by the provincial diets. He has an emergency right of decree which extends even to altering single provisions of the Constitution. [Is this not close to rule by decree? Does that matter? And by giving to the federal chancellor and president such powers over lower levels of government, is subsidiarity maintained? Anyway, now we get the “principle of authority.” What of the principle of democracy?]
The principle of democracy is protected in the Constitution of 1934 by the fact that the federal government is given four corporations to advise it regarding the laws which it shall propose to the federal diet. The four advisory corporations are: 1) the state council. It shall number 40 or 50 members, ans shall consist of men who may be expected to have a right understanding of the needs of the State. They will be chosen by the federal president. 2) The council of intellect consists of 30 or 40 members representing the clergy and religious societies, schools and educational establishments, learning and art. [chosen by who is not clear] 3) The economic council consists of 70 or 80 representatives of the economic “estates” or professional corporations. The chief departments will be represented by special groups, as follows: Agriculture and Forestry, Mining and Industry, Trade and Commerce, Finance and Credit, free professions, Public Services. [chosen by who is not clear] 4) The provincial council. To this every province and also the city of Vienna sends two representatives, namely the provincial governor [Who were appointed by the president. So two of the four estates are made up of members hand-picked by the federal president.] and his finance minister.
The legislative organ is the federal diet. It is constituted by 20 representatives of the state council, 10 of the council of intellect, 20 of the economic council, and 9 of the provincial council. The federal diet has the right to approve or reject measures of legislation without amendment; it has, moreover, the power to call the federal government to account before the federal court of justice; and finally it has the right to certify the constitutional character or otherwise of the decrees issued by the federal government in virtue of its emergency power of decree……..The federal diet is summoned by the president.. [So, not trying to be negative, but even the “democratic” principle is highly autocratic, given that the powers of the diet are extremely limited, that half its members (at least) are hand-picked by the federal president, and even its ability to stand in session is also at the whim of the president. But it turns out that the other two councils were also to be nominated by the government/president, at least initially. Eventually it was hoped to receive nominations for such representatives in the 2nd and 3rd councils above from the interested parties themselves, but the government did not survive long enough for that to occur]
……The whole nation elects the Federal President through the governors of the autonomous provinces of Austria. [Who were in turn appointed by the president? Wuuh?] These choose from three nominees presented by the federal assembly, which is itself comprised of members drawn form the four advisory corporations. [This federal assembly was never before mentioned. I don’t know if that is the same thing as the diet or some subset of it. If it is, basically what was intended was that the president would give three names to replace himself to choose from. Those names could include his own, then he would have sweeping powers to administer government through direct control over two of the four “estates.”] The principle of democracy is especially shown in the extended autonomy of the estates, essential to the corporative system.
All those phenomena of pseudo-democracy which in the parliamentary system had been the bane of political life for the past decade, are abolished; especially the universal suffrage for the legislative branch, so that there is now no possibility of a renewal of the demagogical dissensions of the past. [The author, a close collaborator in the creation of this corporatist state, has a very dim view of both universal suffrage and parliamentary democracy] There is now a general suffrage only for the lowest representative bodies of the estates, the higher corporations being composed of delegates from these. [The “democracy” that was posited under Dolfuss was very, very different from what we, or frankly the ancient Athenians, would comprehend]
The fundamental assumption underlying the above, so different from what we were all formed to believe today, is that political power flows from God on down to little peons like you and I. We were of course taught to believe that it flows from the people up.
Having said that, it is clear that the Austrian construct was as authoritarian as it proclaimed itself to be, with the “democracy” notional, at best. I’m not sure why they even bothered with the lip-service to democracy, unless that was part of a process of appealing to the conceits of the Western powers in the tense interwar period. Austria had been wracked by two extremes in its brief parliamentary existence, extremes of right (monarchism) and left (Bolshevism and Nazism) that could not remotely come to compromise. As such, government had largely broken down and the state nearly foundered, economically, in the wake of the Great Depression and lingering economic sanctions from WWI. Thus, it was seen that government’s most critical function was to get something done, to break the status quo and try to get the country on a more solid basis again. To that extent, Dolfuss and his successor did succeed a bit, though it is difficult to assess such a brief period (5 3/4 years) of rule.
Here’s my summation – even if the above system as described is 100% as Catholic as it can be, is it fair to say it depends on a very strong man, or authoritarian ruler, to make it work? The only two modern examples we really have are Dolfuss above and Franco’s Spain. Franco tried to be pretty Catholic (as envisioned above) for the first 20 years of his rule, but did not meet with much success. Spain in 1959 was economically moribund and technologically backwards. Much more liberal economic policies were adopted from that time on, which played a role not only in greatly increasing Spanish wealth (the “Spanish miracle” of the mid-60s to late-70s), but also, most likely, laying the groundwork for the implosion of Franco’s Catholic authoritarian state and the collapse of all Church authority (and reverence for Christ) in the wake of his death.
So, if secular strong men like Dolfuss and Franco are one hit wonders (maybe) who are essentially irreplaceable, perhaps monarchy is a better way to go? At least then, some system of succession for the authority is set up? It seems very hard for particularly Catholic/traditional/conservative authoritarian governments to transfer power from one generation to the next. Leftists seem to do so better. Wonder why that is? Or are there simply not enough examples to make a firm judgment, those few we have perhaps being more dominated by events outside their control (like Anchsluss)?
Does any of the above make sense? I’m tired of this topic, moving on.
Terror comes to Texas……. May 4, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society, the enemy, unadulterated evil.
……..and fails miserably. But one must wonder whether the attack carried out in Garland last night will not serve to dampen enthusiasm for such events aimed at slowing the steady adoption of shariah islam as the de fact religion of the West. This is a most important point, because even in the media response to the attack, the conference, which awarded prize money for cartoons which were critical of islamist violence, has been widely reported as an “anti-islam” event. But why is it “anti-islam,” when the same media sources certainly did NOT find such atrocities like the “piss Christ” to be anti-Christian, but simply expressions of free speech. They can only view last night’s cartoons as “anti-islam” because, on one level or another, the media have accepted the muslim dogma that the “prophet” is never to be depicted visually in any way. And that is how islam is becoming the de facto official religion of the West.
Long intro aside, most readers are probably aware at this point that two deranged islamists attempted to attack a free speech conference organized last night for the purpose of raising money to be used to promote “moderate” islam, if any can be found. This conference was held in Garland, TX, just a few miles from my former home. Two men, one from Arizona, had apparently planned this attack for at least some days. They were fortunately set upon by the police presence called out for the controversial conference. Both men were killed, but only after lightly injuring an unarmed security guard. There was also strong suspicion that the attackers had brought explosive devices along with them, but even after detonating their car, I don’t believe any were found.
News coverage in the Dallas area has ranged from fair to heinous, with the Belo properties WFAA TV and Dallas Morning News leading the highly biased coverage. There is tons of coverage here, from one of the participants. For those few who are unaware of what transpired, here’s a decent rundown:
A free speech event organized by conservative writer Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas came under attack yesterday evening when two armed men opened fire on a security officer……Shortly after the attack began, the shooters ran into Texas law enforcement who provided a short, terminal lesson in what happens when you try something like this in the Lone Star State.
A search for explosives continued into the night Sunday after two men were shot and killed outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
The event took place at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland.
The two suspects drove up and opened fire near the center hitting a Garland ISD officer. Garland Police shot and killed the two men.
There is one bit of good news coming out of the incident. The security officer who was attacked, Bruce Joiner, was treated at a local hospital for a gunshot wound to the leg and released. He is expected to make a full recovery. The shooters… not so much.
While it’s an initial report and will need further confirmation, ABC News is reporting that one of the shooters has been identified……His name is Elton Simpson………
…….A number of Twitter messages were discovered (in addition to the ones from Simpson) from Islamic – and possibly ISIS related – sources which hinted at the coming attack. The subject of the event was a contest for artists creating displays which depict the Prophet Muhammad, a topic which has drawn terrorist attacks in the past. We’re going to have to wait, possibly for quite a while, before any definite conclusions can be drawn as to whether the shooters cooked up this plot on their own or if there are co-conspirators out there waiting to be discovered.
I don’t think this is a case of sudden jihad syndrome. This attack was announced well in advance and planned for at least a few days. At least one attacker traveled nearly 1000 miles to conduct the attack. Now they are finding out whether islam’s promises to its militant martyrs have any value, or not. I am certain those are two cosmically disappointed and disillusioned souls at this point. Pity.
I am very far from a free speech absolutist. I am gravely offended by blasphemies directed at Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. But as always with regard to the Church and other religions, and there is a huge amount of theology to support this claim – error has no rights, and the Church/religion of Jesus Christ really are radically different and deserving of not just special, but highly preferential treatment. Conversely, all other religions, according to very well developed Catholic belief, can be tolerated at best but certainly can never be put on an equivalent footing with the Church in terms of law or cultural preference. So there is no hypocrisy in being quite happy to see islam receive the ridicule is richly deserves, while maintaining that such efforts directed at Our Blessed Lord would be gravely offensive and hypocritical. And for any outsiders, no, the Church’s arguments are not founded on preference, they are founded on very strong arguments dating back to Aquinas and well before.
Not that I want to get into those now. As someone with a bit of a memory, I am absolutely floored at the degree to which people just accept periodic muslim attacks on US soil as just sort of a ho-hum thing. Can you imagine how people would have freaked out and reacted in, say, 1980 over something like this? Back then terrorism was something that happened in other countries thousands of miles away. Not anymore. And much of the media in its coverage has quite strongly implied the people at this event had it coming to them for daring to transgress against the “prophet!”
You can file this as exhibit number 87594 why the left will not fight islam but will gladly don the burqa and erect minarets when the time comes. No, not all, but most, and especially those who believe they hold any power or influence.
Reader GM sent me a link announcing a Votive Mass (TLM) for persecuted Christians to be held May 6 in Winnipeg. Given the ongoing atrocities against Christians (just in time for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, diabolical islamists in Syria destroyed the Armenian Orthodox Cathedral of Aleppo), and the rising persecution so many of us see in our own land, this would be a quite charitable and salutary imprecation to God for more traditional parishes to make:
This announcement has come in recently from The Latin Mass Society of Winnipeg:
On Wednesday, May 6th, at 7:30 pm, a Votive Mass on behalf of persecuted Christians will be celebrated at St. Ann’s Parish, 271 Hampton Street, Winnipeg.
For more information, see this link.
This is a good opportunity to suggest to NLM readers that it would be highly appropriate, in these times of violent persecution, to consider offering or organizing the celebration of the Missa votiva pro Ecclesiae defensione (In Defense of the Church) with the Commemoration Pro Ecclesiae libertate on behalf of persecuted Christians, which may be used on 4th class ferial days.
That’s how it used to be done – take a pagan Church-bashing group’s major holiday and sanctify it, turning it into something holy and pious. Nowadays, it seems the world is just so awesome and has so much to teach us, we just try to hop on whatever bandwagon the world is pushing from one moment to the next.
As a bit of celebration for this day, a 30 day Novena to St. Joseph. This might be a very good prayer to offer for strength to remain faithful in coming trials, and not fall away in the mounting persecution.
Ever blessed and glorious St. Joseph, kind and loving father, and helpful friend of all in sorrow! Thou art the good father and protector of orphans, the defender of the defenseless, the patron of those in need and sorrow. Look kindly upon my request. My sins have drawn down on me the just displeasure of my God, and so I am surrounded with unhappiness. To thee, O loving guardian of the Family of Nazareth, do I go for help and protection.
Listen, then, I beg of thee, with fatherly concern, to my earnest prayers, and obtain for me the favor I ask (here make your request).
I ask it by the infinite mercy of the Eternal Son of God, which moved Him to take our nature and to be born into this world of sorrow.
I ask it by the weariness and suffering thou didst endure when thou didst find no shelter at the inn of Bethlehem for the Holy Virgin, nor a place where the Son of God could be born. Then, being everywhere refused, thou hadst to allow the Queen of Heaven to give birth to the world’s Redeemer in a cave.
I ask it by the loveliness and power of that sacred Name, Jesus, which thou didst confer on the adorable Infant.
I ask it by that painful torture thou didst feel at the prophecy of holy Simeon, which declared the Child Jesus and His Holy Mother future victims of our sins and of their great love for us.
I ask it through thy sorrow and pain of soul when the Angel declared to thee that the life of the Child Jesus was sought by His enemies. From their evil plan thou hadst to flee with Him and His Blessed Mother into Egypt. I ask it by all the suffering, weariness, and labors of that long and dangerous journey.
I ask it by all thy care to protect the Sacred Child and His Immaculate Mother during thy second journey, when thou wert ordered to return to thine own country. I ask it by thy peaceful life in Nazareth, where thou didst meet with so many joys and sorrows.
I ask it by thy great distress when the adorable Child was lost to thee and His Mother for three days. I ask it by thy joy at finding Him in the Temple, and by the comfort thou didst find at Nazareth. I ask it by the wonderful submission He showed in His obedience to thee.
I ask it by the prefect love and conformity thou didst show in accepting the Divine order to depart from this life and from the company of Jesus and Mary. I ask it by the joy which filled thy soul when the Redeemer of the world, triumphant over death and Hell, entered into the possession of His Kingdom and led thee into it with special honors.
O good Father! I beg of thee, by all thy sufferings, sorrows, and joys, to hear me and obtain for me what I ask (here again mention you petitions or think of them).
Obtain for all those who have asked my prayers everything that is useful to them in the plan of God. Finally, my dear Patron and Father, be with me and all who are dear to me in our last moments, that we may eternally sing the praises of Jesus, Mary and Joseph!
A blameless life, O St. Joseph, may we lead, by thy kind patronage from danger freed. Amen.
Because this is a 1st class feast, Friday penance is abdicated. You can eat meat if you so choose.
Yes, but what of God? April 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A certain very well known Catholic said yesterday that the increasing problem of delayed or forlorn marriage, divorce, and low birth rates, is due to chauvinism. Or, perhaps, that to “blame women” for this is chauvinism.
Is that true? Does it matter?
In reality, both sexes bear quite enough shame for the current status of marriage in Western countries. And there may be some chauvinism in some men, for instance among the “manosphere” “red pill” blogs that increasingly put almost all the responsibility for the crisis afflicting their own marriages (mostly past) and the state of marriage in the US and other Western countries solely on women. Not that those blogs don’t at times make some important points. The broader issue is, where does any of this blame shifting get us? Just who is being helped by singling out men for bad behavior when it comes to the collapse of Western civilization. As I said before, there is plenty of blame to go around, and neither sex has covered itself in glory.
What got me thinking about the significance of that was another article I stumbled across, regarding the recent “climate conference” hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the revelation that the “report” it released was pre-prepared and almost entirely one-sided, having been written by a narrow group of climate activists. As such, it’s something of a piece with the midterm Relatio of last year’s Synod, and also the final report, which, when the “important” statements from the Relatio failed to gain the requisite votes, was included anyways. It was almost as if to say there was a conclusion that was supposed to be reached, and it was going to be reached whether the Synod fathers wanted it or not.
But what’s really bugging me is not the frequent progressive-pleasing, PR-friendly quotes that are dropped, nor what was included in this climate report, but what was not. What is missing from both, and much else besides, is reference to God as the solution to many problems facing us today.
Why is marriage in a shambles in Western countries? Because people have become callow, self-pleasing, and forgetful of God. If there is really a global environmental crisis, or if free markets really are run amok with greed and lack of concern for either the little man or cute fuzzy animals, doesn’t that also point to a lack of virtue? And who is the Author of all virtue? The solution to virtually any crisis is God – either through direct calls for His intervention to avert some catastrophe, or through begging forgiveness for our sins, calling down Grace upon ourselves, and praying that His Grace may move us to amend our lives. In other words, those old Catholic standbys, prayer and penance.
I’m not saying prayer and penance is the only solution to the marriage crisis, or baby-murder, or the gerbal worming scam. There can certainly be more worldly solutions proposed, as well. But shouldn’t the bedrock be a call to repentance, a return to God, and a rejection of the very forgetfulness of God and His rights that has caused the entire culture of the world to regress morally to an incredible degree over the past few centuries? Our collective moral standards are about as bad, if not worse, than those standards that existed, such as they were, before Our Blessed Lord was first Incarnate. Doesn’t it seem like such calls to conversion at least ought to figure in any major document a Pontifical Academy would produce on a subject it considers vital to the life of the entire world?
Well, I’ve read it, and I can tell you that there isn’t a single such exhortation in the entire document, and, more than that, the words “Lord” or “God” are also entirely absent. This wretched document is nothing but progressive boilerplate chock full of the same lectures and visions of doom we’ve been bombarded with by commumentalists for years now. It could have been written by any of dozens of leftist NGOs around the world. And, in point of fact, it was, because such individuals – including those who have mocked and berated the Church for years, and make no bones of their hatred for God and the Church He created – dominated the panel convened to write it.
For a little bit different approach, this time to the subject of marriage, a brief quote from Dom Prosper Gueranger (The Liturgical Year, Vol 8, Third Sunday after Easter, old Solemnity of St. Joseph):
Glorious guardian of the Holy Family! The family of Christendom is placed under thy special patronage’ watch over it in these troubled times. Hear the prayers of them that seek thine aid, when about to choose the partner who is to share with them the joys and the sorrows of this world, and help them to prepare for their passage to eternity. Maintain between husbands and wives that mutual respect which is the safeguard of their fidelity to each other. Obtain for them the pledge of Heaven’s blessings. Fill them with such reverence for the holy state to which they have been called, that they may never deserve the reproach given by St. Paul to certain married people of that day, whom he compares to heathens, who know not God (I Thess IV:5)
And more generally:
How truly may we say of these our times: There is now no saint; truth has vanished from among the children of men (Ps XI:2). See this world of ours, now it is become one great volcano of danger by the boasted liberty granted to sin and heresy!
Indeed. And from most surprising sources.