Great column by Sandro Magister noting the rapid erosion of the formerly non-negotiable principles regarding the sanctity of life in the only Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. I’ve no time to add much commentary myself excerpt to say, yep, this is exactly right, this is exactly what one would expect to happen given a pontiff like Francis – the Church abandoning her most sacred beliefs in a pathetically false hope of earning the love and acceptance of an implacably hostile world:
And also to note the sad fact that the philosophy professor at the formerly Catholic, now Satanic University of Louvain I covered two weeks ago was indeed sacked for daring to say that abortion is murder:
There has been an uproar over events at the Catholic University of Louvain, which has suspended and finally dismissed one of its philosophy professors, Stéphane Mercier, for having written in a note for his students that “abortion is the murder of an innocent person.”
The matter is not surprising, seeing the track record of this university which is nonetheless endowed with the title of “Catholic,” the hospital of which has for some time been openly practicing euthanasia procedures, “from 12 to 15 per year,” according to the rector of the twin Flemish university of Leuven, the canonist Rik Torfs.
But what is more striking is the substantial approval that the bishops of Belgium have given to the removal of Professor Mercier.
Also startling is the reticence of the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, “Avvenire,” which in giving a concise account of the affair – the more complete documentation of which has appeared on the blog Rossoporpora – avoided taking a position, limiting itself to this: “It remains to be understood what is the meaning of what has been stated by the spokesman of the Belgian episcopal conference.” [Wherein the spokesman completely contradicted Catholic Doctrine by calling abortion a “fundamental right.” You can’t get much clearer than that, but the disciples of Francis are apparently hopelessly confused by such a statement]
Not to mention the silence of Pope Francis, who however has not failed on other occasions to call abortion a “horrendous crime.”
There is in effect a significant discrepancy between how the papacy and much of the Catholic hierarchy speak out on abortion and euthanasia today and how they used to speak out.
What during the previous pontificates were “non-negotiable principles” have now become realities to be “discerned” and “mediated” both in politics and in pastoral practice.
The Italian episcopal conference and its newspaper “Avvenire” are perfect examples of this mutation.
In February of 2009, when Italy was rocked by the case of Eluana Englaro, the young woman in a vegetative state whose life was taken when her nutrition and hydration were cut off, the current editor of “Avvenire,” Marco Tarquinio, wrote a fiery editorial, calling that act a “killing”.
While today the climate is different. It should be enough to look at the courteous detachment with which “Avvenire” refers to and comments on the law currently under discussion in Italy on advance healthcare directives, abbreviated DAT, the indications to be given to physicians beforehand on what lifesaving measures to take or not take in case of loss of consciousness.
Go to the link and read how differently the Italian bishop’s conference newspaper “Avvenire” covered euthanasia in 2009, and how it covers it today. Same writer, but much, much more “nuance” now, because the writer obviously understands that Francis believes God lives in the “shades of grey,” which historically had been regarded as the domain of the devil.
But who am I to judge? One man’s God is another man’s devil, I suppose, especially if that man is consumed with leftist ideology.
What to Make of the Francis’ SSPX Marriage Imbroglio? April 6, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, Society, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
I chose the word imbroglio, because gambit felt a bit critical, and indult seemed off the mark, too.
For those who do not know, Francis, Bishop of Rome, extended another “indulgence,” or a faculty with no formal juridical structure, to the SSPX, this time concerning marriage. Readers will know that since Advent 2015 the SSPX has had faculties to hear Confession granted from Francis himself. Originally intended for the Year of Mercy, those faculties have been extended indefinitely. A few days ago, Francis, through the CDF and Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, granted permission to local ordinaries to grant faculties for the Sacrament of Marriage, as well, under some rather odd circumstances. The “normal” means of doing this would be to have a Novus Ordo priest perform the actual marriage sacrament, or to oversee it somehow?, with the nuptial Mass following according to the ancient Rite and conducted by a Society priest. But in addition – since this would surely be a huge burden to already overtaxed (or so we are told) diocesan priests – there is also a caveat allowing faculties to simply be granted without the involvement of local clergy.
That’s admittedly a rough summation of a fairly complex initiative but you can read all the details at the Rorate link. The point of this post is not to haggle over details of this initiative, or whatever it is, and to talk aboutits implications.
I have seen two general reactions to this, and they have followed in line with sentiments folks hold towards SSPX regularization overall. Some, like Rorate, are convinced that both this latest indulgence by Francis, and the overall process of regularization that now seems coming close to fruition, are unalloyed goods and something every faithful soul should be really excited about. I would like to present some text confirming this optimistic view, but Rorate seems to have shifted much of their focus to Twitter and while I’ve seen tweets confirming their excitement at this development, such as this: “This is clearly a final step towards full regularization that will go away when the papers are signed. It’s a good thing.”
Others, like Michael Matt below, are far more skeptical. In fact, in my very narrow experience, it seems a lot of folks who have had a long time association with the Society of St. Pius X are among the most skeptical of both this latest grant of faculties and the overall process of regularization. The Remnant video:
“They are wrecking the Church, they are enabling heretics everywhere……They are raping our kids, physically and spiritually, and then they have the audacity, to demand obedience. Oh so pious. To demand OBEDIENCE, and to hold the threat of schism over the heads of little old ladies to prevent them from in any way standing in opposition to their diabolical agenda.” Great rant.
Former Catholics are now the second largest “denomination” in the country. 70% of those baptized in Catholics in the US have fallen away. 80% of even those remaining American Catholics never go to Mass (and I bet it’s at least slightly higher than that). Even the vast majority of “practicing Catholics” are heretics of one form or another. Almost all of them support the use of contraception, and a large majority do not believe in the Real Presence, the very core, the essence, of our Faith. And these statistics from the US are much better than one would find in Europe and other locales, the Church’s ancient home.
Matt brings up a key point and one that I have gradually, over the years, come to accept, not as a metaphysical certitude but as being supported by the preponderance of the evidence: that “full communion” is a term much bandied about by those who have wrought the destruction of the Church in this world while demanding obedience from all to go along with a project they can easily see is causing nothing but devastation for souls. I am not sure what meaning that term means when bishops “in full communion” can declare, with the full backing of the pope, that adulterers can freely receive the Blessed Sacrament, re-crucifying our Blessed Lord over and over and over again in a horrid sacrilege. Given what is going on in the Church and world, as evidence by those statistics above and what we see and read every day, the arguments over the canonical regularity of the SSPX seem like a tempest in a teacup. Even worse, these same Church leaders who constantly appeal to obedience while snarling at and denigrating all those who strive to practice the Faith as it has always been practiced are the very ones who have placed the Church in the direst straits of her 2000 year history!
Not that the canonical status of the SSPX is a hill I’m prepared to die on, nor something I’m overly concerned about. I know there are fervent partisans on both sides, and I’ve always struggled to stay out of those endless squabbles where partisans stack up enormous piles of books and quotes from Fathers, Doctors, and Saints to support their favored side. It just seems to me, practically speaking, all this concern over and focus on the canonical status of the SSPX is just not a huge issue, compared to all else that is going on. The Church has fallen into the worst crisis of her history and the ostensible imperfect canonical status of the 0.05% of the Church (nominally speaking) associated with the SSPX just doesn’t concern me that much.
I do continue to be very ambivalent regarding this apparently unstoppable ongoing process of regularization. I’ve been catechized to believe that this must and has to be a very good thing, but something – my own lack of faith, the temptations of satan, worldly experience, natural cynicism, something – keeps shouting in my interior spaces that this is a grave, grave danger, not just to the SSPX but to all the Ecclesia Dei communities and the entire human aspect of the Church. It is also an opportunity, yes, but given how easily communities like the Franciscans of the Immaculate have been completely crushed by the modernist powers, it seems like the opportunity is far outweighed by the dangers.
If regularization comes to pass part of me will be happy and I’ll pray like mad – as I already have been – that everything will turn out for the best. In the grand, grand scheme of things I know it will, that the Church will be restored and Christ’s reign recognized by all, but I cannot get over my concern for the millions of souls who will continue to fall into hell so long as the Church persists in this disastrous crisis. Whether SSPX regularization will ultimately be a massive turning point in the restoration of the Faith, or simply another grim milestone in the chronicle of the Church’s long demise prior to the parousia, I do not know. None of us does. So I’ll just keep hoping and praying that God will have mercy on His Church and raise up the leadership and laity we so desperately need, and not that which we and the world deserve.
If you want an even more detailed critical take on this initiative, sent in by reader D, read this. I am concerned that it seems like the leadership of the SSPX is giving evidence of an attitude of appeasement towards the overwhelmingly modernist hierarchy in the Church and not rocking the boat, which bodes ill, I think, for their role in the Church after regularization, but we shall see.
When I read the article below, I was struck with the sense that what was being demanded, what these special snowflake university students were seeking, was essentially the imposition of their ludicrous false demonic religious creed upon everyone else. Without any supporting evidence, they decried the presence of a presumably Christian preacher on their campus who, they claim, “promoted hate speech against marginalized students,” demanding that the ability to speak such heresy be banned from campus.
This is essentially religious speech, if from a pathetically weak, unreasonable (and unreasoning), and false religion. Fortunately the administrator they were trying to bully – the university president – would have none of it. At least so far. We’ll see if the president yields as almost every one of their peers at other colleges and universities has.
But the key point, the takeaway is, if ever confronted by social justice warriors attempting to foist their demonic religion on you, CALL THEM ON IT. Call them on the essentially religious nature of their beliefs, and the totalitarian nature of their methods. Tell them you will not be made a proselyte for their (provably) sick and destructive faith. Call on them to convert:
The president of a US university is facing calls to resign because she refuses to endorse safe spaces on her institution’s campus.
The university’s Student Action Coalition attacked Dr Cheng’s leadership and demanded that she quit after a tense confrontation at a Q&A session………
……….According to Arizona’s 12News channel, the incident came to a head with a question from a sophomore, who asked:
How can you promote safe spaces if you don’t take action in situations of injustice such as last week when we had the preacher on campus and he was promoting hate speech against marginalized students? As well as, not speaking out against racist incidents like blackface two months ago by student workers followed by no reform and no repercussions? [I would bet dollars to donuts this later event never happened, at least not anything like described. And these kids demonstrate the validity of my claim, demanding the quashing of one religion in favor of their own.]
Dr Cheng responded by attacking the safe space ideology wholesale, saying essentially that they only serve to coddle students and stunt their development…….
A photo of the “mass protest:”
Now, NAU has over 30,000 students, but barely over a dozen bothered to attend. This is also typical, however, a tiny but very loud minority comes to dominate not only the political scene on college campuses but the culture and even the material taught. Over 50 years, the Left has managed to bend almost every of academia outside of the hard sciences and engineering to their lunacy.
Now, I realize there are many ways to verbally/mentally oppose these little leftist ideologues. They can very truthfully be called fascists, totalitarians, bullies, liars, and many other things besides. But I think the religious angle will really throw them off, because these people almost invariably pride themselves on being wholly fact and reason-based, even if they do nothing but shout back slogans they’ve been indoctrinated to accept uncritically their entire life. Calling them out in this manner is probably more effective than simply shouting wholly descriptive but more obviously pejorative epithets at them.
Or not. Do what you will. Notice the makeup of the crowd, over 80% female. Exit question: what role has the increasing dominance of women on campus played in the steady shift towards leftism and hostility to reasoned argument on the college campus, if any? Can it not be fairly said that in the general society, granting women the vote played a substantial role in setting virtually all Western countries on an inevitably leftward arc over the past century?
Mass Media Catching On: Leftism Is a Religion April 3, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, different religion, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
They still don’t seem to understand, or – especially, given that this is the very secular-leaning “conservative” Weekly Standard – want to understand, that not only has leftism “transformed” into a religion, it was always deliberately conceived as a false counterfeit of true religion in order to oppose, subvert, replace, and ultimately destroy (if possible) Catholicism.
I’ve had this confirmed for me in many ways of late, not the least of which is reading William Thomas Walsh’s massive biography of His Catholic Majesty Philip II of Spain. Walsh, too (writing in the 20s and 30s), assessed the protestant revolt as being the first mass outbreak of leftism, and understood that leftism initially took on the trappings of religion, even the Christian religion, the better to sell itself and achieve maximum impact against its principal target, the Church. In addition, just as it is almost impossible to separate the modern Left from modern Judaism, the Jewish impact on the protestant revolt may have been much larger than is generally recognized. More on that, perhaps, later today.
All of which makes this report from the Weekly Standard at least slightly ironic? Nevertheless, it is quite gratifying to see (especially coming from a Catholic journalist) that some of the things I’ve realized for years are starting to become more widely recognized:
One of the more prescient essays in recent years is Jody Bottum’s “The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas,” which I’m proud to say was published in THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The essay posits that religious ideas are transforming politics as we know it, only instead of the hand-wringing about the Moral Majority or the George W. Bush administration’s supposed attempts to impose theocracy, it’s the left that is, ahem, “culturally appropriating” religious ideas to suit their own attempts to seize power. [They’ve been doing so for 500 years. But the religious nature of the Left has become blatantly obvious of late.]
Take ethnicity, which has become a matter of original sin. Unlike the Judeo-Christian belief, however, this sin does not apply to all of humanity. “So profound is the sin, in fact, that not even its proponents escape. The more they are aware of white privilege, the more they see it everywhere, even in themselves,” writes Bottum. He quotes an essay of University of Texas professor Robert Jensen, who wrote: “There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased.” [Jensen has been a literal nut embarrassing the University of Texas for a quarter century or more. This Jensen creature is the only guy I ever met who talked himself into becoming a sodomite in order to better conform to his political ideology. I am not much exaggerating. He is nuts.]
Even Andrew Sullivan recently reached this conclusion, when he recently examined “intersectionality,” the left-wing buzzword du jour, which he accurately describes as “neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power.” Sullivan further observes that intersectionality “is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a ‘smelly little orthodoxy,’ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., ‘check your privilege,’ and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay.”…….. [In fact, this emergence of obviously religious leftism has come as a result of the steady retreat of Christianity and the growing influence of the Left on society. This is how the Left behaves when it comes very close to power, dropping the trappings of supposed reasoned argument and appeals to false intellectualism for much more nakedly dogmatic, emotionally-laden claims.]
……….The University of Regina is asking its male students to own up to their toxic masculinity, and they’re setting up a confessional booth—similar to those in Catholic churches—where guys can confess their sins of “hypermasculinity.”………[How does one express a firm purpose of amendment against masculinity? I’m sure you can imagine the life-shattering behaviors that could result.]
……….Certainly, the religious right has had its excesses. [Such as? Are you going to quote me Fred Phelps? But are they even genuinely religious, or “right?” Authentic Christianity has rarely been seen by most in this country, unfortunately. Very few Americans below about 70 would even have a recollection what it might have looked like in odd corners of this country, dominated by Catholicism “before the fall” of 1962-5] But if you think that’s bad, just imagine the consequences of a political system dominated by a religious left that doesn’t believe in redemption.
Oh, we don’t have to imagine, the world has seen it over and over and over. The Soviet Union, China 1949-present, Cambodia, Vietnam, Allendeist Chile, all the East European satellites of the FSU, Nazi Germany, revolutionary Spain, revolutionary France, etc., etc. Everywhere leftism as religion comes to power it leaves putrid mounts of dead bodies in its wake.
Of course, the religion of leftism has become the predominant belief set of those who claim the name Catholic over the last several decades, infecting especially the hierarchy and then trickling down from there to infect millions of souls. But a detailed analysis of that is beyond the scope of this post, and has already been done to death not only here but on hundreds of other venues.
A friend and frequent reader of this blog gave me a great quote last week – virtually everyone in the US is born a first degree mason, and a first degree wiccan, etc. That’s because this country has come to hold, culturally, politically, socially, such extraordinarily liberal and libertine ideas, and we are all so inculcated in the “normality” of these ideas from such an early age, that almost all of us emerge, even from earliest childhood, as little proto-liberals and proto-libertines, unless we are extremely fortunate and have parents who form us in opposition to the dominant cultural zeitgeist. I thought that was a really good and pithy saying, and I thank TE for sharing it.
Fits in well with the content of this post, anyway.
I really meant to post this on the weekend, or at least on Monday, but events conspired to prevent me from doing either.
Starting Friday night, I began to see videos on Youtube from the Fatima Center highlighting an upcoming atrocity in Rome – the opening of St. Peter’s for Anglican “Evensong” prayers on Monday, March 13 – the fourth anniversary of the election – God knows why – of Bergoglio to the papacy. Fatima Center did a really good job highlighting why this event was so novel, so egregious, and then took steps to mobilize the faithful in resistance.
Unfortunately, the Vatican kept this event intentionally buried, never publicizing it on any of their PR arms (newspaper, radio, website, etc). It had to be found on the website of the tiny Anglican community in Rome. Thus, it was found out late, when there was very little time to mobilize opposition, which I am quite certain was why it was so little publicized. Nevertheless, efforts were made to stop the event, which did, however, go on.
Two videos below, one explaining the event and how it ties in with the overhaul of ecumania occurring under the pontificate of Francis – especially in this both great and dark anniversary year of 2017 – and the other featuring Chris Ferrara, who explains its dark significance. Of course, Anglicans lack valid orders and thus any liturgical simulation they perform anywhere, but especially in St. Peter’s, amounts to sacrilege. Allowing sacrilege within the very Basilica of St. Peter is simply breathtaking in its blasphemy. Ferrara explains how the cult of ecumenism is ultimately behind this latest abomination.
Sorry I did not get this coverage out before the event took place, but I haven’t seen this covered in many other places, so I thought it deserved a post, regardless:
Now Ferrara’s commentary:
And, as usual, so far as I am aware, no cardinals or bishops publicly condemned this ecumenical confab before it occurred. I am aware of few priests who did. I’m sure more will as they become aware of it, but both the indifference and information security on this were really tight.
Matt: Don’t Give Up, Fight for the Church! March 10, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, unbelievable BS.
I really like this video from Michael Matt. It makes a very good corollary to the two videos in the post below. Sort of like diagnosis, and treatment plan.
I should never like to give the impression that I am hopeless or despondent over the state of the Church. Much aggrieved, certainly, outraged, definitely, but not hopeless. I do know God will prevail in the end, and that all of this somehow ties in with a plan of Providence that may well forever elude human understanding. I also know that situations, even extremely dire ones, can sometimes turn on a dime, that what appears a hopelessly lost cause can rapidly transform into unbelievable triumph.
So I really like the last several minutes of the video below, and the exhortation to fight. I agree with Matt that I don’t know how to “define” Francis. I have read and seen some of the same things he has: that Francis is antipope, that Benedict’s abdication was null because it was made under duress, that Francis is the false prophet, that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since ’63, or ’58, or whenever. And while some of these arguments may have more merit than others, I have not – I cannot – fully embrace any of them because I. Just. Don’t. Know. Francis was elected. He sits in Rome. He is viewed by all the world as the pope. He exercises petrine powers. But he also attacks the Faith in ways never before seen, at least not from this most holy office. So what is he? I don’t know. Scary. Terrifying. A destroyer. A fool. A knave. a weak, flawed, failing man. All of the above.
All I know for certain is that he is wrong; dangerously, destructively, wrong. And I know he must be opposed. I have known that for a long time. I also know he – and more importantly the cardinals and bishops who surround his office and who can either put his policy wholly into effect, or block and undermine it – must be prayed for with passionate intensity. I have been doing that, too, for a long time.
As to whether “neo-Catholics” are “getting it,” I really have no idea. I don’t have the time to read their thoughts much anymore. I’m willing to take Matt’s analysis at face value, but I also know a lifetime of intellectual habit and deeply held belief – the pope must never be questioned or doubted, ever – is not an easy thing to overcome. So we shall see. As to whether there are portents to a mass resistance to Francis’ pontificate and the forces that elected, we shall have to wait for the future to see that, too. I a way, I pray that is correct, but what will that mean? Schism? Or simply a formal recognition of the schism that has existed for 60 or more years, ever since the modernist forces that badly influenced, if not hijacked, a council, first started to reveal themselves en masse?
It’s all a bit much for me to figure out. I shall be content to continue to do my part in bringing awareness, as Matt says, to how extremely radical and unprecedented this pontificate is. All else I leave in the hands of Almighty God, whose Will shall eventually triumph.
While much of what the priest in the sermons below presents is somewhat old news to any who have been following developments in this pontificate with any closeness, it is still extremely handy to have it all gone over in detail and explained just exactly how pernicious, destructive, and even blasphemous Francis’ efforts to wholly remake (as in destroy) the moral edifice of the Church are.
It is also very edifying to know there are priests out there – I certainly won’t ID him, but non-SSPX, traditional priests – who are calling a spade a spade and demonstrating clearly that, given the choice between “the pope and Jesus Christ,” this priest, at least, intends to side firmly with Jesus Christ.
There is much good formation here. Both sermons are well worth your time and constitute elements of a 6 part sermon that has all been uploaded to the Sensus Fidelium channel on Youtube.
Sermon one reviews the travesty that is Amoris Laetitia, and the clear “interpretations” Francis has given to bishops in Argentina, Malta, and other locales, which clearly demonstrate the revolutionary intent of this unprecedented encyclical. There are many clear judgments and hard-hitting phrases that we most certainly need to be hearing from our priests:
The second sermon deals with the reaction to Amoris Laetitia in the form of the dubia submitted by 4 cardinals asking very pointed and clear questions of Francis. As is already widely known, Francis has chosen to simply ignore this dubia. One hopes eventually the cardinals will then take the issue to the next level, which is to publicly examine Francis’ works in the light of Tradition, but we shall have to see:
I disagree slightly with this excellent priest in one area, that is in referring to this as a “real Henry VIII moment in the Church.” Elsewhere, he says more correctly, to my mind, that the Church has never, ever, in her entire recorded history had a pontiff make such direct, destructive attacks on the Doctrine of the Faith.
We are in a completely unprecedented situation. This post-modernist crisis is the worst the Church has ever seen for the completeness of the embrace of error and the tiny scope of the remnant faithful, but Francis has taken it to an entirely new and different level.
But while Henry VIII was certainly a lout, a glutton, a destroyer of religion, and a persecutor of the Church, he was, after all, a layman. He started the process of destruction of the Faith in one country and was rightly excommunicated for his crimes, but what we have in Francis is something entirely different. Here it is an attack from within, from the highest office in the Church, the man given such enormous torrents of Grace to correspond faithfully to the tenets of his office and the Doctrine of the Faith that his heart must be as hard as diamond to be executing the plan he is so obviously carrying out. Not only is the scope of destruction Francis can achieve infinitely larger than anything Henry VIII could have done, but after decades of neglect and collapse the forces of orthodoxy and resistance are so much smaller than they have been at probably any other time in the history of the Church.
To me, Francis’ destructive potential is greater than Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwinglii, and all the rest combined, because he presents himself as not only within the House of God but as its head! Catholics will for decades to come be fighting off arguments from protestants, atheists, etc., based on the errors that Francis has introduced. Even worse is the aid, comfort, and intellectual armament being conferred on those modernists within the Church. Now we shall be forever quoting pope against pope in trying to defend the Faith.
And we haven’t even begun to see this play out. Francis will be gone in a few years, more than likely, but what will follow in his wake? Even if that next pope is not as radical as Francis, will he roll back any of the revolutionary changes already under way? Or will he allow them to persist and continue to rot the Church from within, as the appeasement of the use of contraception did to the Church during the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc?
The only way forward for the Church, then, is for some future pope to deliberately refute the errors abounding today and anathematize the current resident of the
Vatican Doma Sancta Martha. We have got to pray that such a future pope, with enough backbone and love of Christ to do so, emerges.
On a lighter note, is not this priest a most effective, practiced speaker? Few other priests use so much inflection, emotion, and vary their meter as much as this one does.
US Bishops Oppose Appeal of Johnson Amendment – Why? March 7, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I saw the following excerpt of a lengthy interview Archbishop Lori gave to the Catholic Register recently on the subject of the new presidency and the prospects it brings to the Church, and in addition to being generally disappointed with the bishop’s general view of much of the Trump agenda he was queried about, I was very surprised by this particular excerpt:
What is your assessment of the president’s proposal to eliminate the Johnson Amendment?
That’s, of course, a very complex question. We would certainly want to see, more specifically, what the president might have in mind. As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations.
I would recognize that the Johnson Amendment is lived out fairly unevenly, across religious lines, but in general, I think we would eye the adjustment of this amendment warily. I think that’s the best adverb I can give you. We are looking at this carefully and warily.
The Johnson Amendment, for those who don’t know, was something created by the corrupt, racist Lyndon Johnson in 1954 and tacked onto a defense appropriations bill to punish the churches who had opposed his 1952 candidacy to the US Senate from Texas. Johnson only won by literally manufacturing votes in magical ballot boxes, but he had faced criticism from various churches for some of his stands and he did not want to have to deal with that again. So, he created an amendment that churches that endorse or oppose specific candidates would lose their precious tax-exempt status. The amendment was shockingly non-controversial at the time, but it has had enormous ramifications.
Now why would the bishops not favor being freed from this restriction on their ability to speak freely and endorse the most moral, most worthy candidates, and oppose those who are unworthy? There are two reasons, really – money, and ideology.
Regarding the money, the USCCB – and Lori was speaking in at least a semi-official capacity for the USCCB in this interview – is wholly dependent on federal funding for almost all of their activities, activities which have come to be thoroughly politicized by this very same funding. Something like 90% of Catholic Charities and 92% of Catholic Relief Services funding comes directly from US taxpayers. One could imagine that, if freed of the Johnson Amendment the bishops would be placed in a very difficult position, not wanting to anger either party by openly opposing some or many (or all) of their candidates. Such politicking could place their precious, precious billions at risk. Can’t have that.
In addition, one can easily forecast how divided and lukewarm the bishops would be in determining which candidates to endorse or oppose.
Think how many very difficult, uncomfortable stands out milquetoast bishops would have to take should the Johnson Amendment be repealed. The house divided they worry about is their own conference’s alienation from faithful souls. Either way they went, they’d be angering a large proportion of their sharply divided flock, but in most of these cases, there is a clear, Catholic moral imperative to support one candidate and oppose another. Right now, they have the perfect excuse not to speak out much more forcefully against pro-abort, pro-contraception, pro-perversion, etc., candidates. They simply can’t speak out for fear of losing that “holy” tax exempt status. It’s great cover.
But it’s also a huge shirking of duty and conduct unworthy of a shepherd of souls. In fact, much of the division among those in this country who apply the name Catholic to themselves stems precisely from the bishop’s unwillingness to take clear stands on moral issues, and, more importantly, impose ecclesiastical penalties against politicians and others of notoriety who advocate for positions contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. How many pro-abort politicians have been denied Communion, for instance? How many have been condemned by name? How many morally worthless, mealy-mouthed “voting guides” have been trotted out over the years, always containing just enough morally ambiguous language to give a shade of cover for those who want to vote for politicians who advance morally reprehensible positions?
Overall, this commentary reveals the moral corruption at the heart of the USCCB and most national episcopal conferences. Not only do they try to enforce a rigid conformity, blocking individual ordinary’s ability to speak out by imposing penalties against those who do, they also reveal a bureaucratic contractor more concerned with getting paid than saving souls. Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow the Church and the protestant sects and others to have a stronger impact on the electoral landscape than they’ve had in decades, and thus materially improve the moral condition of this nation. In point of fact, one can trace the steady decline in morals in this country almost in a direct line back to 1954 – that is to say, the silencing of the churches played a significant role in the subsequent moral collapse of this nation.
But perhaps many of our shepherds today consider that much more of a feature, than a bug. Whatever keeps the gravy train rolling……is that their primary concern? And how many of them favor the Church to be a mute, subservient, loyal and dutiful NGO-type contractor to the government, rather than the radically countercultural Body of Christ and vehicle of salvation she is intended by our Lord to be?
You won’t get much argument from me. Of course, we know that, in the end, Christ and His Church – including all the Truth He has revealed – will prevail. But we also know that the end of the world will be preceded by a great apostasy, the horrific persecution of true religion, the standing up of a satanic cult in the place of that religion, and a man of sin preceding the antichrist. That is to say, the Church, in her human element, will all but be destroyed. The preponderance of thinking among Fathers and Doctors has been that this would be a rapid process, taking place over a few years. Maybe it will be more drawn out, however.
Michael Matt categorizes just a small number of the recent atrocities emanating from Rome and the episcopate at large. It seems Soros money may well be pouring into Amchurch and significantly influencing attitudes – or at least making possible closer coordination between already progressive bishops and the broader anti-Trump push that is presently ongoing (to a degree that is astounding – virtually every single protest, town hall, riot, etc., has been astroturf, planned, organized, funded, and directed by Soros money. None of this is genuine).
What we are seeing certainly seems like a coalescing – in the open, as opposed to the dark corners in which they normally operate – of a transnational one world one religion global elite. Note Matt’s comments that what is being pointed at in all this is a call to conversion, but a conversion to what? There are strong rumors of an intercommunion declaration for Lutherans, whether they want one or not (that is, a wholly one-sided, Catholic affair, a surrender). I’m quite certain that won’t be the end of it. I also like the note that they seem to be rushing to get things done, this year. Given the portentuous anniversaries this year represents, that’s something worth pondering.
What do you make of the conclusion that Francis must be opposed? Is Francis not deviating from the Faith, and obviously, openly so? Goodness now even open fornicators/cohabitators are to be “welcomed,” not admonished or exhorted to convert!
And we all know just what this means – as the initial arguments by Church (maybe I should say “Church”) leftists like Curran and others in favor of contraception were supposed to be limited to mature, faithful, devout married couples, discerning in conscience whether to use contraception or not, we have seen how the Church, as people experience it in almost all local parishes, in practice tacitly now endorses, or at least never condemns (which is the same thing), contraception use by anyone at any time. So it will be with communion for divorcees and now, apparently, fornicators – there will be much brave talk of “paths of discernment” and “mature accompaniment,” but in the end – and it will take zero time – we all know that what will emerge is a deliberate, if unspoken, destruction of the Church’s condemnation of fornication and adultery (with many more coming).
That’s the end goal. That’s your “new church” coming into being. Liberal protestantism. The far left of the Lutheran spectrum and/or US mainstream Episcopalianism, which is beyond moribund and will soon die. That’s what the West’s elites want to propose as a one world religion, but islam will mow it down.
IOW, viz yesterday’s fisking, it is about subordinating the Faith to the progressive zeitgeist. You can see exactly how that will play out in that post.
Uncovering scandals in the Archdiocese of New York, or chastising Bishop McElroy’s latest idiocy, is essentially meaningless if you refuse to discuss the elephant in the Church. I assume you know to whom I am referring.
I’ve had an odd day, so didn’t expect to post, but I saw this and had to share. Does Time Magazine bother to mention that “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” is nothing more than a leftist front group intended to provide pseudo-intellectual cover for liberal self-described Catholics to vote democrat, no matter how egregiously the D candidate offends against the Doctrine of the Faith? Do they relate that “Catholics in Alliance” has a tiny and severely aging membership, and that they have been roundly decried by bishops and even the Vatican for spreading falsehoods regarding the Faith? Of course not.
Miraculously, it seems, for this leftist writer, the Truth Our Blessed Lord revealed just happens to align perfectly with his particular brand of leftism, feminism.
But, preach, brother, tell us all about this Jesus fellow we’ve been so mixed up on in the past. I pray you won’t mind if I add my own comments:
Jesus, the great protagonist of this holy season, shows us that life and redemption aren’t achieved through strength and power but by rejecting privilege and taking up the sufferings of the entire human family. [Actually, Christ spoke greatly about religious hypocrisy, but never denounced privilege – such as political or economic power – as such. He denounced the Pharisees because they twisted the true faith and used it to serve their own prurient interests. But being rich or powerful or privileged is not a sin in itself, so long as that wealth or power is turned towards the practice of virtue in sharing it as Christ demands with others]In Jesus, God takes on the fullness of human dysfunction — its disloyalty, its violence, and its terror — to redeem everything. He goes all the way down to bring everyone up. No one is excluded. [No. This is horrifically wrong. Christ did not take ON human dysfunction, in the sense that it corrupted His perfect being as both God and Man. Christ ENDURED human dysfunction, he was the victim of it, but he did not succumb to it, as this writer perversely says. The horrors that can emerge from this fatal misunderstanding of who Christ is cannot be overstated. This is an egregious error far beyond even what the Arians claimed. God is not “dysfunctional.” Sheesh.]
[Here it comes……..] As a white heterosexual Christian man it’s a reminder that if I am to authentically honor the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ this holy season, I must acknowledge and reject the privilege afforded me for the sake of taking the path of Jesus Christ. [And there it is. See my conclusion below. This poor lost soul has made the Truth of Jesus Christ subordinate to his ideology. Those privileges, for instance, should be viewed as gifts God has provided someone – gifts of normal, non-perverse sexuality, gifts of a stable home life as a child, gifts of being inculcated in the Faith (though it appears this one was done badly) – these are things to be cherished and recognized in order to demonstrate our thanks to God for them. How does one show thanks by loathing all that one is and has? That is precisely what SJWs of the feminist type demand of men, especially non-perverse white males. That loathing is the height of presumption and, yes, diabolical narcissism. Of course all sin and all are dependent on God’s Grace for salvation, but that doesn’t mean we have to bemoan whatever goods and privileges God has given us. We must simply, like the good stewards, take these gifts and make them profitable, returning 10 fold or 5 fold on them in the service of God and Holy Mother Church.]
There’s nothing better for me to do this Lent than to abstain and fast from the sexism that too often colors my life. [Speak for yourself. And perhaps you might focus on some of your more significant sins, such as finding nothing wrong in supporting politicians and policies who make baby killing their highest and most sacred belief.]
Now, let’s set the record straight: there are those who are blatantly sexist and there are those who unintentionally perpetuate micro-acts of sexism in their everyday lives. I’m most certainly a sinner, but on my best days, I’m hopefully more of the latter than the former. And perhaps that’s more pernicious in a country where Donald Trump is President. [And now we get to the point. This isn’t about Catholicism, or providing counsel to souls in need, this is about getting democrats elected and defeating Donald Trump – which is the sine qua non of the so-called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.]
His election certainly reminds us that sexism still runs rampant in the world’s longest lasting democratic republic. But to pretend that this problem is spread equally throughout the nation is to ignore the reality that some communities and institutions are the greatest offenders. [Republicans and conservatives, we can be sure. But how sexist is it to support the brutal murder of 50,000,000 million babies worldwide, which are disproportionately female (in some countries, over 80% female)? This is nothing but SJW politicking disingenuously and cynically wrapped in religious language.]
As a sinner who does his best every day to follow Jesus Christ, [I think I can safely say, you’re doing it wrong]it’s time to admit that the Christian community runs rampant with sexism, [So having a traditional family with mom at home, dad working, raising kids to do the same, going to church, and opposing abortion are now “sexist.” And the stupid link doesn’t even begin to provide any evidence of this supposed sexism, it’s another opinion piece written by – get this – a rock n’ roll front man] and that — yes — I am a big part of it. All men are. [To attribute a negative characteristic simply on the basis of one’s being – black, white, male, female, whatever – is the height of whatever “-ism” the SJWs purport to oppose. All men are sexist, and we can only redeem ourselves by completely surrendering to the leftist-feminist zeitgeist. Convenient, that. Thus, politics are made the only means of redemption, a complete perversion of the Faith.] That’s the nature of societal sin: no one is truly devoid of responsibility, though some are more responsible than others. [Christ is far less concerned with societal sin, than he is with personal sin. Once again, you reveal how you have TOTALLY subordinated whatever faith you purport to have to your ideological predilections]
I am responsible, and I ashamed. The words of the Psalmist ring in my ears: “Forgive me, O Lord, for I have sinned!” [Get this: ashamed of imaginary sexism, things he isn’t even able to be conscious of, but not of baby murder. Got it.]
………“Rend your hearts, not your garments!” It’s time for me and for the Christian community to reject artificial penance and to open our broken and confused hearts to authentic conversion and to see what it is inside of us that constantly allows us to debase and devalue women. [Again, speak for yourself. And perhaps, consider this (which is huge, and perhaps explains why leftists project so much). And this. This is again naught but a massive guilt trip – vote democrat OR YOU’RE GOING TO HELL!!!!]
[Now here we go, with such totally devastating truth bombs your mind will EXPLODE!!!!] …..M y journey towards an authentic Christian feminism isn’t novel. In fact, it’s a rediscovery of the faith as it was in the beginning. [See, Christianity was always intended to align perfectly with leftist-feminist views, before evil men – like St. Paul, St. John, St. Peter, and, oh yeah, the Holy Ghost, as He inspired all Scripture – ruined it.] Jesus Christ himself was the faith’s first feminist. The great heroes of this holy season are the strong and courageous women who stayed with Jesus through his final hours, while most of his male disciples ran away in fear.
This is really disgusting and egregious. These poor lost creatures never miss an opportunity to co-opt a great Holy Day to advance their agenda.
Here’s a notion our emasculated hero might want to contemplate: this Faith Jesus Christ conveyed is meant to be much larger than your political preferences. Indeed, the Doctrine of the Faith is meant to inform and, most importantly, transform your pre-existing notions, about, say, how wonderfully good and holy it is to murder 125,000 babies a DAY worldwide through elective abortion (Catholics in Alliance being notoriously pro-abort). I’ve radically changed numerous beliefs to conform with the Truth Jesus Christ reveals. THAT is the fundamental transformation that has to take place within each individual heart and mind before this transformation of the culture the author so longs for can even begin to occur. All else is just a fallen human construct, even diabolical, and will end in horror, as all history has shown leftism invariably tends to do.
But what a feeble, pathetic, obvious attempt.