Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts:
Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.
Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing.
………This sensitive information pertaining to the Third Secret, which has been circulating among certain Catholic groups for a few years now, has now been personally confirmed to me by Fr. Dollinger himself, at a time in history where the Church seems to have fallen into a pit of confusion. It might help explain, at least in part, why we are where we are now.
Importantly, it shows the loving mercy of the Mother of God to warn us and to prepare her children for this battle that the Church now finds herself in. In spite of the decision of those in responsible places within the Church, She has made sure the fuller truth would still be revealed and spread………
1 comment so far
There has long been a debate within the pro-life community whether graphic displays of the reality of abortion are powerful tools to make people realize the awful reality of “a woman’s right to choose,” or excessive displays that turn off more people than they attract. I’ve long leaned towards the former, having seen a handful of people change their stance on abortion after being shown just what a baby at, say, 12 weeks gestation looks like (a tiny baby, instead of a blob of cells), and just what abortion does to their perfect, tiny bodies. But I know a good number of people who disagree, mostly because they feel these displays just turn too many people off.
Live Action has shown what might amount to a third way. They have produced some videos that use animation to demonstrate the reality of abortion. By using animation, the reality can be conveyed, while the horrifying reality of abortion can be somewhat sanitized through the unreality of animation.
The video below is one of those. It shows a typical “D&E” abortion on a 2nd trimester child. The baby is literally ripped limb from limb, before being pulled apart through the birth canal. The video is graphic and will be disturbing for some, but the reality is so important I think it should be shared:
I guess Live Action produced a whole series of these videos during the time I was away from the blog. They can all be found on their Youtube channel.
The interesting aspect to me was the reaction of a number of pro-aborts when shown the reality of abortion. Live Action maintains that 1/3 of the pro-aborts who witnessed the video above changed their position on abortion on the spot. Who knows how many may change their position later? I pray these “conversions,” so to speak, are permanent, at any rate:
Unfortunately, these “conversions” may not be lasting. These folks were on the spot, with people coming from an obvious pro-life viewpoint asking them to justify the unjustifiable. I pray they don’t revert to their previous blithe support for this horror later.
I mentioned in another post that Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been conducting a tour of US college campuses seeking to challenge the leftist repression of free speech and anti-left viewpoints so prevalent in American academia, had a rough ride at DePaul last night. I don’t think I’ll have a chance to get into the details of how he was assaulted and interrupted (as were many of his supporters), you can check out his channel for that, but I did find this interview below meaningful, as it demonstrates how an admittedly powerful personality can completely cow and over-awe a committed baby murder supporter through command of the facts and relentless argumentation. The relevant part is from 16:15 – 17:45, but the entire thing is worth listening to, if you can excuse the occasional foul language:
Perhaps overawe was the wrong term. Complete crushing, from the standpoint of argumentation and totally silencing the opponent, is perhaps more apt. Not sure her mind was changed, but at least the silence that resulted was blissful.
The point being, don’t be afraid to argue with these people face to face. Another rather unquestioned tenet of the pro-life movement of the past several decades is that confrontation is bad, that we should be kind and courteous and accepting and stay far away from judgment. I’m not sure that tactic has served the pro-life movement well. Yes, there have been many (mostly small) pro-life successes on the state and local level in terms of limitations opposed on abortion, but at the end of the day, abortion is just as legal as it ever was and just about as many abortions are being performed today as were being performed 30 years ago. We haven’t got a great deal to show for our niceness.
I’m not advocating that we stand there screaming insults at prospective baby murderers, but I do think we can be more aggressive in our use of facts and communication of the hideous reality of abortion to pro-aborts everywhere, be they outside a mill or not. I’d like to think there is room for both approaches, but many sidewalk counselors have been trained by various CLPCs and other pro-life groups that confrontation is very, very bad. I’m not certain I believe that, as I believe I’ve seen about as many positive results (walkaways, saves) from confrontation as I have from the more passive, supportive approach. I think it depends a great deal on the individual you’re dealing with.
There’s just no end with these people. Everything must be bent to serve the agenda or narrative, no matter how preposterous, no matter how blasphemous. There is no limit to the depths to which they will stoop in order to justify their depraved views and endless diabolical narcissism. Amazingly, these are the people who are utterly convinced they are the “good guys,” and we, who observe the moral creed that build Western civilization, the bad.
So, with total inevitability, we are now treated to screeds (safe link) arguing that the Christ is “transgender,” so look how wrong you are with your outdated morality and your hate-filled bigotry, Christofascist. Even more inevitably, the author of this demonic bile is a professor of “theological ethics” at the, ahem, Catholic university of Villanova:
Since Jesus had no human biological father, and since God, his heavenly Father, lacks a body, then Jesus was a man who likely had no Y chromosome. Would this not make Jesus more like a transgender person than a cis-gender one? We could grant Jesus a Y chromosome, but then we would have to assign his virgin mother Mary one as well. Either way, the miracle of sex-less conception suggests that Jesus can qualify as a “real man” only if Mary qualifies as something less than a “real woman.” (And I hope you can tell I that I am using quotation marks in order to signal extreme sarcasm).
I think the professor needs to go back to class. As if we needed another damning indictment of the Catholic colleges in this country. Wait till you see how Milo Yiannopolous was treated at “Catholic” DePaul yesterday.
As writer David French at NRO notes, this is probably less a serious effort to advocate some ludicrously insupportable new claim, than it is a part of that favorite left-wing pastime of virtue signalling and insulting the faithful:
None of this is intellectually or theologically serious, of course. It’s trolling for the sophisticated and deception for the simple. For elitist readers, it’s the kind of “ha ha look what we can do to Christian teachings” piece they love to share amongst themselves as “proof” that you can make any kind of argument from the Bible. For the vulnerable, it’s a quick Google search away from basic assurance that Christ is cool with their transition. [In other words, it’s all about serving the agenda, which is really about giving leftists their “sacred” good feelz, no matter how many have to get hurt in the process]
Oh, and it’s also blasphemous. But no big deal – it’s not like the authors were arguing that Mohammed was transgender. That would be disrespectful. Everyone knows that Mohammed was a revered religious figure, and it’s just wrong to hurt or anger his followers.
Great point. We can be assured this author would never DARE to insult the leader of a great religion like islam. But all progressives know, Christianity is not a great religion, it’s the deadly enemy of their substitute religion, leftism. And it must be destroyed at all costs. That has been the objective of leftism since its inception, and I continue to maintain that leftists will happily don the hijab and see their daughters (the few they allow to be born) in harems when the time comes.
Another blithering idiot is trying to claim that Eve was a trans woman, because she was born from Adam’s side, and thus must have had a Y chromosome. As if the Lord and Creator of the universe could not – and does not – raise up new life from dust. Can you imagine the insufferable pride that causes a person to limit God’s power to the present, inherently faulty state of human knowledge? Preposterous doesn’t begin to describe it. Only diabolical disorientation could result in such willful blindness and catastrophic illogic.
These are endlessly wicked, sick, and hate-filled people. The joy they experience in blaspheming Christ and constantly attacking His religion is palpable in their works. There’s a term for that – the reprobate sense. It is a terrible, terrible place to be (I’ve been there), a place where right and wrong are literally inverted, where lies become truth and Truth a lie. It is a sign of demonic oppression and it is mind-blowing that Catholic universities would employ individuals who give such obvious signs of hatred for God and His Church.
Mind-blowing, that is, if one operates from the assumption that those charged with overseeing Catholic universities – the bishops – possess the Faith themselves. An assumption that is all but inoperable in these dark days.
LMS Chairman: Sacrosanctum Concilium a self-contradictory document unsuited for guiding liturgical reform May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
Joseph Shaw, chair of the Latin Mass Society in England, has penned a piece for Rorate Caeli noting the massive contradictions that riddle the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. What can be said about Sacrosanctum Concilium can be said about every document of Vatican II, which is that they are less clear pronunciations on the Doctrine of the Faith for all ages, than they are the transcripts of a very heated debate that took place at particular place and time, and which was never resolved. Thus, aspects of other documents of Vatican II seem bizarrely out of date.
I have long argued that the documents of VII are documents at war with themselves, filled with rather banal declarations of orthodoxy weakened with caveats that permitted the entry of mass amounts of destructive novelty. Or, vague statements permitting endless novelty “corrected” by weak endorsements of the constant belief and practice of the Faith. It reads like a debate in which the orthodox, unable to articulate the Doctrine of the Faith cogently, fought a rearguard action of damage limitation. Their efforts were largely unsuccessful, almost entirely because the conciliar popes sided overwhelmingly with the progressives, and so we have what we have today, a Church riven by discord, but with the progressives firmly in command. One could even argue that the documents of Vatican II are so riven with self-contradiction that they create an environment in which endless debate will be the inevitable result. Feature or bug?
Shaw makes some very good points, and demonstrates how both SC, and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes, have at various times endorsed both liturgical orthodoxy and dangerous innovation, which are well worth reading and considering. I’ll skip over those, and note his general summaries, which correspond very closely with my own thinking (which means he must be right, of course):
Liturgical conservatives and progressives argue endlessly about this. Their argument will never be resolved, both because Sacrosanctum Concilium was and the subsequent magisterium has been self-contradictory, but also because neither side in the debate is willing to be honest about the historical facts. I am sorry to be harsh, but having read the output of both sides of the debate over a number of years, it is time it was said.
First, Sacrosantum Concilium: how is it self-contradictory? It makes few concrete suggestions, but it does make some. It calls for wider use of the vernacular (63); the removal of ‘useless repetition’ (34), and a more ‘lavish’ presentation of the Scriptures in the readings, arranged over a ‘prescribed number of years’ (51). It leaves further details to local initiative and an official commission. On the other hand, it says (23):
There must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
It is perfectly obvious that the this double condition is not satisfied by the concrete suggestions the document itselfmakes. There is no precedent in the liturgical tradition of the Church, in any Rite, for a multi-year lectionary, and to suggest that such a thing could grow ‘organically’ out of a single-year lectionary is obviously absurd. There is no precedent for a mixing of Latin and the vernacular in the liturgy, or for the liturgy to be translated into dozens of vernaculars for different countries. The principle militating against ‘useless repetition’ is entirely foreign to the Church’s liturgical tradition. And none of these changes could possibly, in advance, be said to be required ‘genuinely and certainly’ by the good of the Church.
From this fundamental self-contradiction, you can draw any conclusion you like. Perhaps the ‘general principle’ of section 23 should control our interpretation of the specific examples of reforms; perhaps it is the other other way around. The fact is, there is no coherent programme of reform in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Let’s not engage in make-believe. It is a compromise document with provisions pointing in different directions.
It was, however, interpreted by those appointed to interpret it, and the Novus Ordo Missae was signed off by Pope Paul VI. So what liturgical style are we guided towards by the official documents, documents of the ‘living magisterium’ as the conservatives like to call them, which accompanied and followed the promulgation of the new missal?…….
……..We need to face the fact: the magisterium’s own interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium is a moving target. It was quite different in the 1970s than it was by the mid 1990s. Who knows where it will be in ten years?
…….Those seeking, in Conciliar and post-conciliar documents, guidance on liturgical principles, with a view to the way Mass should be celebrated, and perhaps with a view to future reform, should stop right here. There is no single, coherent, vision of the liturgy in these documents. There is, instead, a debate. In the end, one side of this debate must win, and the other side must lose. [It’s been heavily back and forth since the 60s, as Shaw indicates in text not excerpted. The modernists dominated from the 60s through the 80s, but then the conservatives gained a stronger position in the 90s and 00s, not that much changed, practically speaking.]
I would like to appeal to the ‘reform of the reform’ writers, and to the progressives on Pray Tell and elsewhere: stop accusing each other (and traditional Catholics) of contradicting authoritative documents and the ‘real’ principles of Vatican II. On this subject, arguments from authority will get us nowhere.
The only way to think with the Church on the liturgy is to take a longer view: to look at what the Church has done, not over a few decades, but over millennia. The very idea of doing this, of course, contradicts the claim that everything up to 1965 was bad. But it is that idea, rather than an honest appraisal of the modern liturgical documents considered here, that is really troubling for the doctrine of the indefectability of the Church. If the Church was wrong up to 1965, why pay any attention to what she has said since then?
If you read through the entire piece, do you also come away with the impression that Shaw is recommending this: since Vatican II and the post-conciliar leadership have been blatantly contradictory on the Liturgy since 1965, we should mostly ignore their pronouncements and go back to the Church’s ancient understanding of the Mass and other Sacraments?
If so, that’s certainly something I can agree with. Not so much “rejecting” Vatican II, which has always been a meaningless canard, since the documents contain thousands of statements which can be twisted to say just about anything one wants them to, but ignoring the heterodox, novel portions therein. I’ve always favored the Japanese term mokusatsu, “to kill with silence.”
In fact, Shaw’s take is pretty sympathetic. A stronger stand would be that revolutionaries planned and/or hijacked a council, and targeted the Liturgy as their prime means of remaking the Faith. In other words, different religion.
All I know is, I plan on never assisting at a Novus Ordo again. I’m going to be in San Antonio next weekend. If there is no diocesan TLM, I’m going to St. Joseph’s.
Cover-up of perversion and sexual abuse in Hollywood goes back decades: why are we watching their product? May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
I read today that the man who was once America’s Favorite Dad, Bill Cosby, is going to face a criminal trial over the mass of evidence that he drugged, abused, and raped women for decades. Another revelation came out recently, from his own testimony in a previous civil trial, that he had “scouts” bring him a bevy of very young teen models for his perusal every day, and that he would select one or two to use for his sick pleasures. Hardly surprising, given the other evidence, but since this practice was self-admitted, and that there is evidence that some of the models may have been underage, this admission by Cosby could cause him even further well-deserved legal trouble.
But the truth is, Hollywood has known about Cosby’s sicko lusts for decades. I believe I have mentioned before that one of my best friend’s sisters was a Playboy Playmate. There’s a whole sordid tale about how that came to pass, but that’s not the point of this post. The point is, as a former Playboy Playmate, aspiring (but never successful) actress, and denizen of Hollywood, she had access to the Playboy Mansion owned by Hugh Hefner. This was a frequent gathering spot for former Playmates looking to party in a drug-soaked atmosphere with both major movie stars and the perennial Hollywood hangers-on. One of the most frequent guests at the Playboy Mansion during the 70s and 80s was one Bill Cosby.
So there I was at my best friend’s house one evening in 1991 or 1992, when his sister happened to be in town with her then-fiancée Miklos “Mickey” Hargitay, Jr. I don’t know how we got on the subject, maybe his show was on TV, but both mentioned how often they saw Bill Cosby at the Playboy Mansion back in the day. Even more, Mickey Jr., who I ran into several times, and who was a really cynical sort (I was told he was messed up from seeing his mother Jayne Mansfield decapitated right before his eyes in a terrible 1967 automobile accident), made a number of very disparaging comments about Cosby’s moral hypocrisy, how he “guessed he loves his wife Camille, now, because he sure didn’t seem to back when he was <using> 15 year olds three at a time in the mid-80s,” among other things.
Anyway, this was no big secret they had stumbled onto. Everybody who even occasionally attended the Playboy Mansion knew of Cosby’s habits, so notorious were they, and because virtually anyone who was anyone in Hollywood in that period (says, 60s-early 90s, at least) visited the Mansion at least occasionally, pretty much all of Hollywood knew what was up. They probably considered it no big deal, because many others had similar habits, whether criminal or not. Secrets like this are considered de rigueur in Hollyweird, I suppose.
For a bit more evidence of that, a number of child stars from the 60s through the 90s have alleged that child molestation is also extremely widespread, that the “casting couch” applies as much to children as it does to young adults seeking to “make it big.” Just recently, Lord of the Rings star Elijah Woods stated that child sex abuse was common in Hollywood (though he subsequently backtracked), only confirming previous claims from former child stars like Corey Haim and Corey Feldman, two youths who claim their train-wreck adult lives of addiction and worse were fostered by the abuse they suffered.
And it continues to this day. X-Men director/producer Bryan Singer may or may not have raped underage boys, but that he has a strong attraction for “barely legals” is beyond dispute. When allegations first surfaced, the Hollywood press reacted to the effect that everyone already knew this, and who cares?
Of course, these are only a few recent scandals. Hollywood has long played a pivotal role in the decline of moral standards in this country. Hollywood has been associated with moral depravity from its earliest days, whether through the perversion of major stars or “prosaic” serial divorce/adultery, the standard Hollywood set, through its massive cultural influence, provided a highly influential, highly negative example to tens of millions of Americans going back decades. Hollywood has helped normalize vice, perversion, and sin of all kinds. Even “good guys” like John Wayne, Ward Bond, or Clint Eastwood have led personal lives of highly dubious moral character.
Which leads me to my close: why the heck are we giving these sickos a dime of our money? I ask this question as much of myself as of anyone, because my kids like to have some of the recent kids movies and I have a few things I like to watch, too. If I watch anything these days, it’s mostly old westerns, but I do break down from time to time and see something “modern,” which I usually regret afterwards. Like skeinster has said in the comments, if we eschewed everything with a taint of immorality we’d have to live in a cave somewhere with no contact with the outside world. But watching movies and TV comes with an exceedingly high cultural, moral price.
I’m going to try like heck to no longer pay it. So no Captain America: Civil War for the kids, thanks to Disney leaning on Georgia to overturn their ban on men in women’s restrooms, which they unfortunately did.
So the Filipinos have elected a new president, it seems, a man who has made numerous virulently anti-Catholic statements, and who promises to institute a “3 child policy” (I don’t believe he has specified what penalties will occur if families “violate” the policy), divorce on demand and government-funded contraception.
Apparently, his hostility to the Faith did not prevent a plurality of nominally Catholic Filipinos (where roughly 80% of the population today claims the name Catholic, down from over 95% about 20 years ago) from voting for him. As in so many countries, so-called Catholics vote in their own persecutors – assuming, of course, these self-described Catholics even view these anti-Catholic policies and tirades as being opposed to the Faith, which, of course, they don’t (my emphasis and comments):
Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte said he will defy the Roman Catholic Church and seek to impose a three-child policy, putting him on a new collision course with the bishops a day after he called them “sons of whores”……..
……..Duterte’s often outrageous comments have won him huge support and his tirades about killing criminals and a joke about a murdered rape victim do not appear to have dented his popularity in the largely Catholic country.
“I only want three children for every family,” Duterte said on Sunday in Davao City. “I’m a Christian, but I’m a realist so we have to do something with our overpopulation. I will defy the opinion or the belief of the Church.”……[Not clear on if this “Christian” Duterte claims to be a Catholic or protestant. Indications are that it is the latter, which, surprise! A protestant advocating for draconian governmental interference into the most intimate of spheres, the size of family and relations between husband and wife]
…….On Saturday, he criticized the Church as the “most hypocritical institution”, meddling in government policies and said some bishops were enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. [So, opposition to your evil policies = “meddling in government policies?” How many other tyrants have said similarly over the years?]
“You sons of whores, aren’t you ashamed? You ask so many favors, even from me,” Duterte said in an interview broadcast by TV station GMA.
Monsignor Oliver Mendoza, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Lingayen, whose head is the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said the Church respected Duterte’s opinion [is that how you respond when someone calls your mother a whore? You “respect their opinion?” That’s not an opinion but an insult, and unworthy of respect. This is a major problem, an indication of leadership far too willing to bow to the secular authority, and its certainly not limited to the Philippines] but that it would continue to speak against government policies that are contrary to Church teaching. [But even after you have done your duty, say, we are unprofitable servants, for we have only done what was required of us]
…..Political analysts said they were not surprised at Duterte’s statements because some bishops spoke out against him during the election campaign. [Only some. Shocking, I know. And thus his successful election? So where does uber-progressive and Francis confidante Cardinal Tagle stand on this?]
“Like most liberal, secular politicians, Duterte is a deist,” said Joselito Zulueta of the University of Santo Tomas. “This in itself is a self-serving position conceived out of human conceit. He will do as he pleases except when he’s stopped by public criticism.” [Well, someone knows the truth! And a Catholic university professor, of all people! I need my fainting couch!]
He said Duterte’s government was expected to clash more with the Catholic Church not only on population issues, but on the restoration of death penalty, legalization of divorce and planned distribution of contraceptives. [Which, if it occurs, means legalizing abortion within a few years, to deal with the “problem” of contraceptive failure (which failures are guaranteed and frequent). Legalized abortion is also necessary to insure a “3 child policy.” You can see where this diabolical plot is headed]
And once again we see bishops expending their limited and dwindling political capital on matters like the death penalty, on which the Church has spoken clearly until the last 40 years or so. The state has always had the right of the sword, according to the Church, and while there may be prudential reasons to oppose the application of the death penalty in a given country either generally or on specific occasions, proclaiming it to be an intrinsic evil, as is generally done by Church leadership today, is simply not reconcilable with the Doctrine of the Faith.
That may sound like picking nits, but it’s not. For as many people as a particular bishop, or even Francis, may turn on by making prudential matters into dogmatic ones, or elevating the progressive political platform into a pretended doctrine, they turn at least that many more off. Even more, the confusion this causes undermines the Church’s moral authority in ALL spheres and can be a precipitating factor in souls falling away.
Which gets down to the root question: is this a feature or bug of the post-conciliar paradigm?
He began the week by pretending to see deep inside the heart of every business person who fails to provide health insurance, and finding mortal sin (not a safe link, goes to Distorter). He finished by implying that Christ actually gave His blessing to divorce, rather than castigating it in the harshest terms. Before I get to the quotes, can I just say, someone capable of turning Scripture and Tradition this upside down and placing it at war with itself, is capable of literally anything.
First, today’s debacle, Franky George Bergoglio making Christ a liar in order to further his modernist-progressive deconstruction of the Church:
This morning Pope Francis gave a homily at Casa Santa Marta where he appeared to claim that Jesus approved of the Mosaic Law on divorce on the grounds of mercy. Or, as Francis put it, Jesus enunciated the “official” truth while then going above it or beyond it in order to engage in accompaniment, integration and discernment.
This is of course the very opposite of what is described in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. It is the Pharisees who attempt to use the Mosaic Law to justify divorce. And it is Jesus who rebukes them for it.
The Pope is fond of accusing his enemies of “casuistry” but it is he who consistently engages in it. This twisting of one of the most famous exchanges in the New Testament is striking in its attempt to mislead.
That would be to prevaricate, to obfuscate the Truth with deliberate intent to mislead. Is that what Francis is doing?
I am of two minds, kind of. My rational, evidentiary side says: absolutely! These 60s Jesuits are not dumb. They know precisely what they are doing, and they do it for very specific reasons, to force the Church to fit into their ideological preferences. They have been at this game for a long time, and the consistency of their arguments and willingness to make both themselves and Christ liars from one moment to the next – whichever they perceive as aiding their progressive cause the most – shows them to be agendized ideologues in single-minded pursuit of a goal.
But the other part – the merciful part – of me says, well, maybe he’s imbibed such hideous, nonsensical, contrarian nonsense for so long, Francis is not only incapable of consistent reasoning, he doesn’t even realize when he’s turning logic and the plain meaning of Scripture on its head.
I have a very hard time believing that, however. The twists and turns of Francis’ logic are simply too consistent, and too aligned with a particular goal in mind, to be honest mistakes of zeal and bad formation. That is to say, it’s well past time my doubts have been taken out behind the woodshed, and put down.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, the pontiff made the comments while delivering a homily at Casa Santa Marta on Thursday evening. He reportedly outlined a hypothetical situation in which a business employs someone from September to June but denies them health care coverage during their tenure. Francis observed that when the job ends, the worker “must eat air.”
“Exploitation of people today is a true slavery,” the pope said, referring to the suffering of workers who aren’t treated fairly. “We thought that slaves do not exist anymore. They exist. It’s true, people don’t go to Africa to take them and then sell them in America, no. But it’s in our cities.”
“Living off the blood of the people: This is a mortal sin,” he added. “And it takes much patience, much restitution to convert ourselves from this sin.”
As usual, Francis fails to make a direct point. He strongly implies, however, that failing to pay what he feels are sufficient wages (whatever that means), or only employing people on a seasonal, need-based basis (so teachers are mistreated?), or failing to provide health insurance, constitute a mortal sin.
Note the dichotomy, and note the perfect correlation with progressive (Leftist) thought: sins of the flesh are infinitely excusable, if they are even sins at all (and not occasions for “accompaniment” and “mercy”), while prudential matters that may or may not be sinful, being entirely dependent on circumstance, are not just sins, but mortal sins. Whatever happened to “who am I to judge?”
Anyway, I don’t want to beat this horse too much. As I said at the top, every stinkin’ week it’s the same thing, some new outrage, some new attack. I don’t think it any coincidence that the despicable Fr. Thomas Rosica went on the offensive this week against Catholic blogs, either, castigating them/us for everything from being a “cesspool of hatred, venom, and vitriol,” to being “very disturbed, broken, and angry individuals who never found a pulpit in real life.” Once again, where is the mercy, where is the accompaniment, where the endless apologias? The truth is, those are reserved for those who serve, or advance, the ideological agenda. Opponents will be crushed.
Talk to the Franciscans of the Immaculate about that. They weren’t even given the chance to be opponents of the new authoritarian regime, they were cdestroyed in advance as warning to all others.
It’s all about power with these people. Power, and ideology.
I agree: quit all social media May 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Interior Life, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Responding to the latest revelations of marked bias against conservative viewpoints at Facebook (after previous revelations regarding not just bias, but outright persecution of conservative viewpoints on Twitter), one of the two blogs I still have time to read, is calling for a total conservative pullout of all social media. I say here here, I’m glad I deleted my Facebook long ago and don’t plan to ever return. I’ve never been on Twitter.
Note the link does contain some coarse language, I copy some of the clean bits below:
FaceBook characterizes [conservative/pro-life actress] Patricia Heaton’s endorsement of an organization that does nothing but care for unwanted children as “anti-abortion.”
Blow Up Your FaceBook Account. Quit With Extreme Prejudice.
It’s time to rattle ten million sabers and begin destroying rotten institutions one by one. Make them fear us.
Brave men and women do not continue along in their passive acceptance of a meritless enterprise. Brave men and women resign.
They don’t just stay on board merely because a bad habit has become a habit.
Take control of your lives by ending your dependency on progressive institutions and time-wasting media indulgences. [IOW, destroy your TV]
I’m a proud Twitter Quitter and my life has improved since I cut the progressive IV drip.
What do I always hear about why people stay on FaceBook? “Oh, it’s a way to keep in touch with my friends.”
Hey, remember the old days when keeping in touch with your friends meant actually keeping in touch with your friends — getting together, having a phone chat, even going old school and dropping a letter?
In what sense is it “keeping in touch” with people when your “keeping in touch” is automated and consists of looking at someone’s wall for two seconds?
And hey — if there are people in your life so ancillary to your existence that “keeping in touch” consists of publishing “news items” about yourself every few days, maybe they’re not really you “friends” at all, but very shallow zombie relationships you’re maintaining the fiction of in order to feel a social connectedness, the real version of which you’re denying yourselves by pretending at it on FaceBook.
Destroy FaceBook. Destroy Twitter. Destroy ABC/Disney/Marvel/ESPN. Destroy NBC…….
So, it costs me nothing to say this. I’ve never been big on social media, and only got sucked into Facebook to access some items not available elsewhere. A
fter Facebook started persecuting pro-lifers a couple of years ago, blocking their viewpoints or labeling them “extremist,” I quit. I got sucked back in briefly once, again to see something I couldn’t find elsewhere (which is a bad habit in and of itself, putting important Church-related content only on Facebook), but killed the account again several months ago. Of course, they still have, and sell, all the personal preference data they gleaned from me during my membership.
More than a few Catholics I know have a bit of a Facebook addiction. They spend hours on it most days. This especially affects younger people (<30) and, surprisingly, Catholic moms. A lot of Catholic stay at home moms use Facebook as a social outlet. I can understand that. And there are a lot of good Catholic resources on FB.
My views on that aren’t quite as harsh as Ace’s above, but I do think, generally, Facebook and Twitter are massive time wasters. Yeah it can be a convenient way to “stay in touch,” but how much time is spent just idly scrolling through the feed looking at a whole bunch of stuff of very questionable merit? Do you really need to post that photo of the Vietnamese vermicelli you had for lunch, or see your ex-high school crush’s new girlfriend? Etc.
People sometimes ask me how I have time to read as much as I do, blog, etc. Well, watching maybe 1 hour of TV a week, and that almost entirely movies (or pre-1970 Westerns) is one way. You’d be amazed how much more productive you can be when you cut the cord.
Make a statement. Just quit. Or at least, find a conservative alternative, like Full 30 is a gun-centric conservative alternative to Youtube. Stop giving money to your progressive overlords, the very people trying to crush the Christian religion, choke the life out of the Faith, and turn your children into progressive zombies.
The semi-official publication of the French episcopal conference, the magazine La Croix, conducted an interview with Francis recently. There have been two portions of that interview that have caused a good deal of comment. The first contains some conciliatory, if non-committal, words from Francis regarding the SSPX. He claims they are working towards full communion. That’s not exactly explosive to me, but it is a far cry from the cries of “protestant” and “schismatic” directed towards the Society by some in the hierarchy over the past 40 years.
What has caused far more controversy is this statement below, following a question from La Croix regarding islam (I’m sure there will be some argument over translation):
La Croix: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
Who, of any substance, has ever interpreted the Great Commission in such a tawdry manner? Who has ever drawn comparisons between the almost entirely peaceful spread of Christianity through Europe and much of the world (I know there have been exceptions), with the almost entirely violent spread of islam? Islam is a religion that has only and ever been spread by conquest. It has made very few converts, historically, save with the threat of physical violence and other means of repression. Only very recently, in Europe and other parts of the West, has islam begun to attract more than a handful of disaffected, disillusioned souls, souls who have never known the Truth of Jesus Christ?
One of the most disturbing qualities of Francis is his tendency to believe things which are not. Yes, many in Europe (and elsewhere) are extremely concerned over the spread of islam, and not just ISIS. No, there is no reasonable equivocation between Catholic evangelizing and muslim conquest. No, it is not possible to reconcile those who persist in manifest grave sin with reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, protestants absolutely should and indeed must convert to the Catholic Faith. And so on…….
What we are witnessing in so many aspects of this pontificate (including numerous statements in his official, magisterial works) is a fundamental failure of rational thought. Much of what is posited is not simply contrary to the Faith but an attack on reason itself. Such thinking is very prevalent among progressives, who at the same time tell us that sexuality is absolutely fixed at birth and utterly immutable (in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary), while sex (as in “gender”) is as fluid as can be, subject to change on a whim, including the whim to watch women undress. One can see a certain analogy in claiming that what has always been a sin now somehow isn’t, or at least isn’t an impediment to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Or that the peaceful spread of Christianity somehow mirrors the spread of islam.
I read at One Peter Five a statement by Steve Skojec that Francis is the most authoritarian pope the Church has seen in decades, but that he is using all that papal authority to destroy it, long term, in a sort of kamikaze fashion. That is to say, Francis is using, or intends to use, a sort of papal absolutism to drive fundamental change in the Church, in the process, transferring (it hasn’t happened quite yet?) authority from the papacy to new dicasteries (headed by women?) and especially national conferences. His successor will then be hobbled with an office denuded of much of its authority and unable to change what he hath wrought. An interesting theory, which I pray does not come to pass.
I’m out of time. Let me know what you think.
Shocking, I know. This is strictly hearsay, but a priest who claims a long association, and confidant status, with Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has claimed that the Pope Emeritus told him that not all of the Third Secret of Fatima was released in 2000. He also claims the excluded portion deals with apostasy/mass error at the highest levels of Church Authority.
See what you make of this (emphasis in original):
There follows some discussion about how then Cardinal Ratzinger apparently contradicted himself with regard to the publication of the Fatima revelations in 2000, stating at one time that the entire secret had been revealed, and at another hinting that there were unrevealed portions.
I have personally long believed that the entirety of the Third Secret is yet to be revealed, and that the Consecration of Russia demanded by Our Lady is also yet to be properly done. The last is arguable, but that’s my personal sentiment.
Having said that, all these tales of revelations pointing to a “bad council and a bad Mass” tend to come from the mid-60s on, by which time concerns over both the most recent council and changes to the Mass were prevalent (and with good reason). That is to say, they tend to confirm a reality that was already in existence, so they are less prophetic than they are descriptive. I’m not certain the unrevealed portions of the Third Secret are quite so specific as to point to a “bad council and Mass.” My reading is that they pointed more to a general apostasy or crisis of faith within the leadership of the Church – something that was increasingly obvious to those who paid close attention to internal Church matters from the early 20th century on. After all, Pope Saint Pius X did not chase after bogeymen when he wrote Pascendi.
At this point, do we need a prophecy from the 1930s or 40s to tell us that there is a crisis in the Church, and that the crisis is especially prevalent among those in positions of authority? The evidence for this crisis has been overwhelming for decades now. Perhaps knowledge of this prophecy direct from Our Lord and Lady might move a few souls to accept the reality of the situation regarding the Church at present, but I’m reminded of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus even as I type this. If they won’t believe the accumulated evidence of the past several decades (and it is prodigious), why would they believe an “ancient” prophecy?
Well, make of it what you will. As for me, I don’t need any more convincing.
How far a leap is it from “permitting” the murder of the sick and the old, and requiring it? The slippery slope is a legitimate fallacy in logic, but some slopes are indeed slippery, especially when it comes to the amoral shibboleths of the Left.
At any rate, from using ostensibly incurable cancer and other painful diseases as permissible justifications for murder, the Netherlands has now advanced to using mental illness or lasting reaction to trauma. Will it be long before being simply yet another bored soul in our infinitely-sated culture will provide sufficient merit for state-sanctioned murder? I ask only half in jest:
…..The latest figures show that last year 5,516 Dutch people — including children — were legally killed by lethal injection administered by doctors trained to do the task with rapid efficiency……[which is over 100 times the number of state executions annually in the US, which executions are entirely consistent with Catholic moral doctrine, in general terms. But where is the hue and cry for the abolition of this form of state-sanctioned death?]
…….Jackie wants to die by euthanasia, too. This follows a traumatic childhood experience when she was sexually abused at five years old and developed depression as a result……[My personal experience is that those subject to sex abuse as children never fully recover. They are never quite “right.” But in spite of this woman’s suffering, choosing to die is false release and gravely offensive to God.]
Details of the controversial case were released by the Dutch authorities this week in an effort to prove to critics of the country’s liberal euthanasia laws that doctors only carry it out under strict guidelines.
The process involves a patient submitting a request to die to a doctor who, in turn, must agree they are in a medically hopeless condition, suffering ‘unbearably’, either physically or — contentiously — mentally. Above all, they must have no hope of improvement.
The request then goes to an ethics committee which makes a decision, normally within a week. [So, find one crooked doctor and get his recommendation rubber-stamped by a favorable committee……that’s sufficient review for the taking of a human life? Using the death penalty analogy again, there are always numerous reviews, appeals, and interventions, to the extent that the process takes years. And here, find a quack and a week later you’re approved to die?!? Wow……..what a robust process.]
……..Currently, 4 per cent of the 140,000 or so deaths a year in Holland are the result of doctor-assisted suicide and the tally is rising. [Put another way, Holland’s death rate is 4% higher than it need be. You could say that over 5000 people were allowed/encouraged to kill themselves or have themselves killed. And just how unbiased are the advocacy groups that often perform the killings themselves? Can no one see that people with likely treatable illnesses are being killed by the macabre, demonic advocates of “euthanasia?”]
In particular, increasing numbers of Dutch people with mental illness demand euthanasia. In 2010, two people with such conditions had their lives ended with the figure increasing to 56 last year.
Of those deaths, 36 were conducted by doctors from Amsterdam’s End Of Life clinic which has a lengthy waiting list and sends mobile euthanasia teams across Holland to help patients die in their own homes……. [As I mentioned, biased advocacy groups, who can also, by their own admission (not excerpted), assign friendly physicians to recommend suicide-murder for the poor lost souls]
……..Ms Stärcke showed a film featuring the family of a Dutch woman with post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic depression and a personality disorder, who — aged just 34 — chose euthanasia even though her own daughter was a toddler aged only three. She explained that the little girl was living with her father, whom her mother had divorced.After the woman’s euthanasia, her toddler daughter attended her mother’s funeral. [And the cycle of horrific childhood trauma yielding gravely wounded souls, souls disposed perhaps even to this total rejection of God and the gift of life, continues. Poor little girl. THIS IS WHAT COMES FROM A SOCIETY THAT HAS TOTALLY REJECTED GOD. Without belief in God, existence is pointless. I can find no
betterworse example of the diabolical narcissism that permeates our culture than this]
Ms Stärcke says that she was sure that the woman ‘would commit suicide if I didn’t help her to die’……. [The article also notes that many of these people have “numerous” past failed suicide attempts. But why were they failed? Were they failed because the attempt was more a cry for help than a real attempt at ending one’s life? Here we have yet more evidence that the presence of euthanasia advocacy and an environment that encourages suicide/murder is creating a culturally acceptable means for disturbed people to die. That is to say, it’s a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy]
……..Research shows that 70 per cent of those with psychiatric problems which the Dutch clinic helps to die are women. A quarter of them are under 50.
Many of the clinic’s mentally-ill patients — male ones, too — have already tried to commit suicide on numerous occasions, and more than 30 per cent have been refused help to die by doctors in the past, often because that desire may be linked to their psychiatric disorder.
Earlier this week, alarm bells sounded in Britain when the Mail revealed details of the young Dutch sex abuse victim’s decision to die in her 20s. [And you can see the degree to absurdity to which this will reach. How can it be declared that someone in their 20s is incurable?!?]
As I said above, this vast murder racket is directly related to the death of faith in the Christian God. Even more, it is an unavoidable outcome of the kind of pointless, materialist, Godless existence the modern sexular pagan progressive state posits.
The Netherlands has long been a cultural bellwether for Europe and most of the West. What cultural atrocities they permit or encourage eventually spread to many other nations. This is simply one of many forms of the cultural suicide the leftist-inspired diabolical narcissism overtaking our culture has brought to the fore. The Netherlands leads in this series of cultural degradations due to its being one of the most thoroughly secularized countries in the world. Sad to say, the Church in Holland has done very little to stop, or even strongly oppose, this process. To some degree, the Dutch Church, thoroughly radicalized and infested with modernism, has helped bring about these seemingly unstoppable tendencies towards collapse.
Lord have mercy on these poor lost souls. It is very easy to say “suck it up” from afar when one is dealing with unending, nightmarish pain, but that is what many Saints have done, and that is who we are called to emulate. It is the death of the day-to-day, lived Catholic Faith that has caused the redemptive value of suffering to be entirely forgotten in the West today. People who regard Jesus Christ as an ancient fairy tale find nothing in this world that can sustain them through their trial.
It’s monstrously sad, but this is just one particular example of where the death of faith leads. The endarkened new paganism many elites want to visit on the former Christendom will not bring a post-Christian rationalist nirvana into existence, but a horrific new barbarism made far worse by the technology available.
Lord, have mercy on all of us.