In the US today, lies trump truth most of the time June 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
One of the inevitable, almost certainly pre-written pieces that came out in the wake of last week’s disastrous decision to force legal recognition of pseudo-sodomarriage on all 50 states – directly contradicting the express will of 31 states and almost as many state constitutional amendments – was one having to do with the alleged superiority of such immoral “unions.” That someone could make such a claim with a straight face is a sure indication of the unprecedented depths to which the morals of this nation have descended. Unfortunately, we will likely face such ludicrous claims frequently, so we must be armed with reasoned analysis to refute them totally and forcefully. I will fisk some of the claims below for your reference:
it’s worth keeping in mind the findings of psychologists John and Julie Gottman … gay couples have an edge[.] … [G]ay couples have a healthier fighting style than straight couples. [Perhaps that’s because they have so much practice. Milo Yiannopoulos, an open sodomite, reports that nearly half of all lesbians have been assaulted at least once by their partners. These rates are stratospheric compared to the general population. Perhaps that is why lesbian partnerships almost never last more than 3 years]
……The Gottmans give an example from a workshop they held with gay and lesbian couples. They gave couples some exercises to complete and the men went through the exercises much more quickly than the women. While the lesbians felt that there was not enough time to complete the exercise properly—they wanted more time sharing answers among one another and with the group—the men wanted the exact opposite. [All the claims in this piece come from one pair of researchers who use non-statistically valid methods and self-reporting schemes. It is worthless analytically, even as it assaults reason violently]
About 60 percent of gay men, one study found, have had sex outside of their marriage and 44 percent of them said that they had done so with the blessing of their partner. By comparison, about 14 percent of straight men and women reported having sex outside of marriage… [The numbers are actually a lot higher than that, with nearly 90% of male couples requiring an “open relationship” to last more than a couple of years. The median number of lifetime partners for a sodomite of 20 years experience is in the hundreds, with many in the thousands]
… given how strong the male sex drive is, it’s unrealistic to expect men to remain monogamous for life. [This is just utter balderdash, billions of men over the course of history have managed it, this is nothing but special pleading for base behavior] Having occasional trysts outside of marriage helps gay men keep the marriage together. [A relationship founded on promiscuity is no marriage] The problem is that when individuals have an orgasm, they release a hormone called oxytocin, which makes people emotionally attached and bonded to another person. “So there is attachment taking place through sex,” he said. [My goodness, incredibly they admit there even could be a downside. But I would hazard, based on the behavior of my next door neighbor, there is little attachment going on, but a whole lot of drug and alcohol fueled screaming and yelling at 3 and 4 in the morning. His house is the sole source of police responses on our street, and they happen with some regularly. His charming response to complaints (not mine)? Go —- yourself.]
Lesbians suffer from the opposite problem. Rather than having too much sex, they seem to be having too little. The term “lesbian bed death,” coined by the sociologist Pepper Schwartz, is a now-famous descriptor for how little sex lesbian women report having.
Indeed, the vast majority of lesbian relationships become completely platonic after the first 3-6 months. That’s another point that Yiannopoulos included. These highly disordered relationships tend to feature a great deal of obsessive-compulsive behavior that tends towards the violence seen above. In order to get a new thrill and re-initiate their perverse behaviors, gomorrists tend to seek out new partners. So again, we see how the behavior of these morally lost soul has been sanitized and re-cast in terms to make them palatable to the majority, by completely misrepresenting how they actually conduct their lives.
Which gets back to a point I raised two weeks ago, which is that gomorrists admit of having far more male partners!!! than women unafflicted with this perverse lust do. I personally find in this fact very strong evidence that this lifestyle is far more about conscious choice than it is anything else. All this data has been carefully buried, of course, in service of this most demonic of social revolutions.
I should remind readers that the Talmud, one of the major sources of Jewish belief, states that God unleashed the Flood that destroyed almost all life on earth when the people became so deranged they began to “marry” people of the same sex. I don’t want readers to feel I am being overly negative, but I am trying to impress on folks the unbelievably dire situation that faces us.
I do strongly recommend reading books like Mexican Martyrdom and The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest if you want some idea of what is coming our way. Books on more recent persecutions are probably superior to older ones since they incorporate some of the invidious advances that have been made in the persecutor’s arsenal. The Last Crusade is another good source.
I will try to do a post on recommendations for sources like this at another time.
Call to end tax exempt status is really a call to end churches and plunder their property June 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, unadulterated evil.
One of the dominant characteristics of the Tudor dynasty in 16th and 17th century England was its totalitarian nature and profound lawlessness. It was this lawlessness that laid the seed-bed for 17th century rebellion against monastery and the (to the present day) total ascendance of the Parliament over the monarchy. Henry VIII infamously sacked much of the wealth of the English Church, the better to buy support among certain aristocrats and other unscrupulous souls. He did so through an instrument of totalitarian government, the Act of Supremacy, which declared Henry the sole head of the “church in England.”
History never repeats, but historical situations do recur. We don’t quite have an all-powerful king, but we do have a narrow elite hell-bent on pursuing their own narrow interest and using any and all means to do so. We also have a nation horribly in debt and unable to meet even its present-day fiscal obligations, not to mention the titanic mountain of debt that looms on the near horizon. These are two very powerful elements that, with this disastrous Obergfell Supreme Court decision, now have the means to plunder the churches both for the wealth that could be gained by so doing and, to paraphrase King Henry II, to rid themselves of these damned meddlesome Christians.
That’s the conclusion (and the extrapolation) I draw from Denny Burk’s warning that the sexular pagans are not nearly done with their revolution, and that they are coming for the churches next, both for our money, and to silence us once and for all (my emphasis and comments):
Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times is now calling for the government to remove tax-exempt status from churches. After I posted a link to his article on Facebook, a pastor friend commented: “I’m not sure our small church could survive.” That, my friends, is the point. And Oppenheimer knows it. [Well, he admits as much later]
Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame. The agenda is not tolerance for different beliefs and lifestyles. The agenda is a demand that everyone get on board with the moral revolution or be punished. That means if you or your church won’t get with the program, then the revolutionaries will endeavor to close you down. [That is it in a nutshell. Reilly establishes very clearly that this “marriage” movement is all about gaining that precious, precious affirmation these poor souls so constantly crave. It won’t work, of course, the Law of God written on their hearts will continue to keep them in misery so long as they live these terrible lives of sin]
But they aren’t going to say,”We’ll close you down,” in so many words. They will cover it in propaganda that conceals their real aim. They’ll say, as Oppenheimer does, that taxpayers are “subsidizing” churches, that ministers make fat-cat six-figure salaries, and that government should get those rich priests and preachers off the government dole. [I don’t know what our bishops in this country make, but there are some fat cats in the Church in places like Germany. But in this country, even the pastor of a large parish rarely makes more than $60k a year, though they do have many major expenses covered]
Never mind that the average base salary of a full-time senior pastor ranges from $33,000 to $70,000 (source). Never mind that ministers do pay income taxes. Never mind that it is absurd to suggest not paying taxes is a subsidy…….That doesn’t fit the fictional narrative activists wish to advance—that these churches don’t deserve to have their “subsidy” continued in light of their intolerable views on sexuality. [Yep, that’s the point. And the rhetoric about “subsidy” reveals for the tweltheenth time that leftists view ALL income as belonging by right to the state, with lowered taxes somehow becoming “subsidies” or even “gifts” from the state to the citizen. All they need now is their Fouquier-Tinville.]
No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution. When tax exemptions are removed, donors will give far less than they are giving now. Churches will become liable to property taxes.[Especially in deep blue states, but it could become universal eventually] That means that many churches will have to forfeit their property to the government because they won’t be able to afford the taxes they have to pay on it.[And what a bonanza that could be] Many of them wouldn’t be able to pay them now. If donations went down, they would be that much further from being able to pay them. As a result, churches that reside on valuable properties in urban locations would be immediately vulnerable. Eventually, so would everyone else. [Dang right. Maybe it’s been a great grace that so many traddie parishes are in undesirable locales?]
Oppenheimer knows this. That is why he argues that if churches can’t raise the money for their new tax burden, then they don’t deserve to retain their property.[Who the hell is he to say this? OK, if we ever elect a real social conservative, how about raising taxes on urban elites (especially NYC) to 95%? If government is going to be all about will to power, punish the minority and squash all dissent, then this could involve into savage persecution of the other side depending on who comes out on top after a given election. This process won’t last long, it will end in dictatorship – with a lot of people clamoring for it – just to return to some kind of perceived sense of order] After all, he argues, the government would do a better job than churches at meeting the needs of their community. [This is false, private charities have been demonstrated to be far more efficient distributors of charity, being much closer to local needs. Oppenheimer’s entire piece is full of such bald, unsupported assertions] He concludes, “So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions… When that day comes, it will be long overdue.”……[Ah – did you get that? That’s the key. It won’t be all churches. It won’t be unitarian universalists or other churches of the sexular pagan left. It will be orthodox Christian churches. So this is entirely about crushing opposition]
………When some of us warned of the religious-liberty implications of making gay marriage a fundamental constitutional right, we were told that such things would never happen. What they really meant was, “That will never happen, but when it does you Christians will deserve it.” Oppenheimer is making the case for why he thinks we deserve it.
Is it revealing the degree to which seemingly secular Jews have been playing in the advance of the sexular pagan agenda going back decades now? Is it revealing that the entire Frankfurt School of avowed communists was made up of deeply self-loathing Jews (and thoroughly miserable human beings)? Is there an eschatological element to this involvement by the Jews in the unprecedented retreat of Christendom over the past few hundred years?
Perhaps more immediate questions are: now that we have confirmation that the sexularist revolutionaries are already moving against the Church in the primary area they can influence – funding – and thus all of our dire predictions have been proved right……..does it matter? Now that we have confirmation that these same pagans are already moving to legalize polygamy and even worse, incest, and we’ve been proved right again……will that knowledge make any difference? Will enough people care? Are there enough basically orthodox Christians and protestants of any stripe to stop this runaway freight?
I’m afraid the answers are likely no. In certain regions, more rural communities in the South, West, and Great Plains, there remains a relatively large number of at least somewhat orthodox Christians and protestants, but everywhere else………we’ll be a tiny minority. We certainly are in most cities. And once real suffering starts, our numbers will decrease even more.
If persecuting policies aimed at bankrupting churches are enacted at the federal (national) level, it will be very hard on most parishes. It is possible more friendly state and local policy could offset a good deal of the damage done, however. So this will likely be a more regional phenomenon, where leftist states are able to even further drive all opposition out but survival may be possible elsewhere. Rod Dreher seems to be pointing towards rural enclaves a la the early monasteries. Much will depend on how our bishops respond, but barring an unforeseen miracle I think it will become increasingly difficult to impossible for traditional Catholic communities to exist in liberal areas generally and large coastal cities in particular. Maybe I’m being a bit too negative, but I don’t believe I am. While I predicted pseudo-sodomarriage would be the law of the land 2-3 years ago, if you had asked me 10 years ago whether any of this would come to pass, I would have thought you were crazy. That’s how fast things are moving.
It might not be a bad idea for traditional parishes to start identifying alternative centers for the Sacraments if they cannot maintain their present physical locations. This might include barns, halls, meeting places, even open fields.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone, but we’re heading into a real, red persecution. We need to be prepared.
………and Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafayette, LA calls for civil disobedience against such manifestly unjust and immoral laws.
Blaise Cupich of Chicago, however, released the formal instrument of surrender for his archdiocese.
Differing responses to the moral calamity that faces us. I am certain this will be par for the course for at least the next few years:
A dozen Catholic priests, accompanied by dozens more of the faithful, prevented the discussion of a bill to create homosexual “marriage” in the Mexican state of Chihuahua by their impassioned protest outside of the capitol building and their entrance into the congress itself to observe the proceedings, according to reports in the local and national press.
Following a prayer vigil the night before in the cathedral of the state capital, the protesters began to gather outside of the state congress and express their rejection of allowing debate over the legal recognition of homosexual unions as “marriages.” At 11:30 pm a group of about ten priests accompanied by laymen entered the congress itself to witness the proceedings, holding placards expressing support for the traditional family.
Seeing the protestors and the presence of the priests, the president of the state congress, Cesar Augusto Pacheco Hernandez, stated that the topic would not be addressed at the session, according to the local El Diario newspaper. The decision was met by cheers from the pro-family protesters……..
……..According to recent Supreme Court decisions, it is “discriminatory” to link “the requirements of marriage to sexual preferences,” as this “unjustifiably excludes homosexual couples -who are in similar conditions as heterosexual couples- from marriage,” the Court stated. It added its claim that it is “unsuitable” to “consider that the purpose of marriage is procreation,” and affirmed that the “only constitutional purpose this decree acknowledges is the protection of family as a social reality.”
They’re almost entirely fake, transitory “unions” anyways! The entire agenda is founded on a hideous lie, which is that the normal course of sodomite/gomorrist relations resembles anything like even marriage as it exists today, as abused and denigrated by “heterosexuals” as it is, let alone marriage as it has been for thousands of years – the indissoluble union of a man and woman oriented towards the creation of new life. The only way sodomite “unions” persist more than a handful of years, if not months, is through constant and expected fornication with others. Even then, above 90% of such relationships last less than 3 years. That lets alone the profoundly unnatural aspects of this behavior, with hideously high rates of all manner of horrific diseases – anal cancer, rectal prolapse, sky-high rates of domestic violence, depression, drug addiction, suicide.
No matter what court decides what, the actions that define the sodomite agenda will remain foul, contrary to nature, incredibly offensive to God and downright sickening and evil.
I’ve wondered as a blogger a few times as to why the pro-life movement has chosen to totally eschew the more confrontational tactics of the late 70s and 80s that generated a lot of controversy but also probably saved a lot of lives. At that time, human chains blocking entrances to mills and rescue operations even inside mills were quite common. I have been told that such means were counterproductive and just got the pro-life movement labeled as crazy, while noting our cultural and religious enemies rarely have such compunction. Radical tactics certainly seem to work for them.
Possibly along those lines, Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafayette, LA seems to call for civil disobedience, at least among elected officials, without postulating what that might involve (I really think, in charity, priests and prelates owe their flocks very clear moral guidelines on the forms of resistance we may morally engage in).
Personally, I’m all for considering such steps. You know I’ve been praying outside strip clubs for a little while now, and while I think that helpful and sort of an overlooked evil in our midst, I’ve been debating with myself if that’s really the most effective place to be or even if that’s what I’m being called to. Part of me wants to park myself outside some of these sodomite pseudo-churches that confirm these people in their sins by butchering Christianity into a neo-pagan evil and confronting this gravest threat to our religion more directly. But I can envision such engagement escalating quickly and I don’t think we have the numbers for that kind of confrontation, yet, even while I wonder if I am spiritually up to such (I’m sure the others are, but I am weak and cowardly). I’m sure we’ll know very soon where these pseudo-sodo-marriages are taking place, and maybe that’s where we can take a stand in the near future. I’ll think about it more.
The point being, the status quo has obviously failed. Our political and church leadership have totally collapsed in the face of the advance of this gravest of perversions. Do we just circle the wagons and prepare for the day they come for us, or do we take the fight to the enemy while we might still have a prayer of making a difference? Is it prudent to do so, or will that just make the parishes from which we emanate greater targets? Does that even matter at this point? If we’re doomed to suffer anyways, should we actively seek it out or wait till it comes to us? With the abdication of our shepherds, must the sheep become their own shepherds? I don’t know, perhaps you have some thoughts.
A commenter asked why I picked on Anthony Kennedy in my initial reaction to the destruction of marriage decision issued last week, when there was another ‘Catholic’ justice who voted in favor of this demonic nightmare (Sotomayor). Well, I did that for two reasons…….one, this is about the umpteenth time Kennedy has voted against the solemnly proclaimed Doctrine of the Faith – it was he who kept abortion legal in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, he who de-criminalized sodomy in Lawrence vs. Texas (and wrote the solipsistic majority opinion), he who cast the deciding vote in 2013 in favor of the federal government recognizing “same sex marriage” as actual marriage……and those are just the highlights. Secondly, and more importantly, while Sotomayor does not present herself as a faithful, orthodox Catholic, she acknowledges she differs from the Church on a number of matters, Kennedy DOES present himself as a faithful Catholic. That’s a big distinction.
Anyway, Kennedy has struck again, staying the implementation of aspects of Texas House Bill 2 which has resulted in the shuttering of a large majority of the state’s abortion mills. It is quite possible given this stay, some which had shut down will re-open, at least temporarily:
The Supreme Court barred Texas on Monday from implementing a law that would have forced more than half the state’s 19 abortion clinics to close their doors this week.
The law, which was to take effect Wednesday, would require clinics to adhere to strict new physical standards and the doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The court granted the reprieve after abortion rights groups requested an emergency stay, having unsuccessfully sought to have the law overturned. The stay will probably remain in place at least through the summer while the parties assemble a legal case and the court decides whether to take it up in the next term.
The court did not offer a reason for its 5-to-4 decision, and the law’s ultimate fate remains unclear. The court’s reliably conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — dissented and would have let the law take effect.
So what are the odds Kennedy will let HB2 stand? I’d say about 50:1 against, at least.
I have been heartened by some of the reaction I have seen to last week’s travesty of a decision. I have seen a large number of conservatives finally, if belatedly, come to the realization that the Supreme Court decades ago ceased to be a deliberative body dedicated to interpreting the Constitution with respect to various laws and regulations, and has in fact become a “third legislature” of nine unelected lawyers (see Scalia’s blistering dissent) whose function is to enact social revolution which could never, or only with great difficulty, have been enacted by normal legislative action (re: “democracy”) into law.
That this is true is revealed by the fact that no one, anywhere, ever had any doubt as to which way any of the four hard leftists on the Court would vote on these matters. It was simply never in doubt. That’s because these leftists don’t give a whit for the Constitution or what it says, they are there to carry out the revolution by other means. This has been the case for at least 60 years and frankly, longer than that.
And the “conservatives”…..please. None of them is rock solid, and Kennedy has morphed more and more into an out and out leftist, at least so far as social matters are concerned. But every single one of them can be turned to statism on this issue or that, as Thomas showed when he voted with the leftist block to support a TEXAS law forbidding Confederate flag symbols (for the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization) on Texas license plates. Scalia supports statism when it comes to law enforcement and the “war on drugs,” Roberts of course has tied himself in knots trying to find ways to keep Obamacare “constitutional”…….they all will squish on one issue or the other. And since the four leftists are utterly unmovable, all it takes is one.
On a more important matter, how have we as a nation come to this point? How have we come to the point when the Church’s very ability to exist in this country is coming under severe threat?
I think we all know……we are here due to the ABJECT, MANIFEST AND NEAR TOTAL FAILURE of episcopal leadership in this country and around the world going back to the late 1800s when the foul and never fully repressed Americanist heresy reared its ugly head. The Church as we have experienced it in this country over the past several decades is simply Americanism in action – indifferentism masked as ecumenism, excess focus on public or social virtues, doctrinal weakness/incoherence, toleration of rebellion, excess deference to protestantism, liturgical abuse, and most of all, heaping doses of moral cowardice masquerading as a false virtue of tolerance. We have come to this point because the leadership of the Church has not only not fought hard enough against the sexular pagan revolution, many key players willingly aided and advanced the sexular pagan revolution through their covert relations with Planned Barrenhood, their Hyannisport meetings, their Land O’ Lakes conference and their “seamless garments.” They have, very nearly to a man, totally failed in their duty to exercise Church discipline, protect the sanctity of the Church’s doctrinal edifice, and use the (truly charitable) means available to them to stamp out heresy and abuse. Instead they have played footsie with heresy and cozied up to politicians and others who have done massive damage to the Faith, all out of desire to “maintain a place at the table” and keep the privileges enjoyed in the past for as long as possible, the impact to souls be damned.
God will not be mocked. He allows our sins to destroy us or at the very least really, really chastise us. The Church in this country is about to go through an unbelievable chastisement due to the failure – at all levels, it must be said – to live the Faith rightly for decades now. It is not going to be at all pretty, or fun. It’s going to be a bitter trial and diabolical confusion.
As I said, may God have mercy on us all. I do think we shall have many opportunities for heroic virtue in the days ahead.
May God have mercy on our country June 26, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society.
Even though I am still in glorious deep rural Kansas I am aware that 9 unelected, unrepresentative, elitist oligarch lawyers in black robes just destroyed this nation as it has been known.
See previous post. It was spot on. We are beyond done. Major D’s are already speaking of eliminating tax exempt status for churches that do not comply. That will only be the beginning.
May God have mercy on us all, especially “Catholic” Anthony Kennedy AND those prelates and priests who allow him to continue gravely wounding the Church and souls, heap sin upon sin, blasphemy the Our Lord in the Flesh, and basically wage a one man war against all that is good, decent, and holy.
Pray, fast, and receive the Sacraments as much as you can, while you still can. The future of this country unfolds before us like an endless night.
America Is Done June 24, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
So says Patrick Archbold, and I am danged if I can argue with him on this one. The people of the United States (probably, who knows what voter fraud went on, especially in 2012) elected twice a man who openly hated this country and its former orientation and vowed to “fundamentally transform” it. Mission accomplished. We have seen the federal government grow more monstrous and invidious in almost every imaginable respect over the past 6+ years, and there is still a year and a half to grow. Religion, especially Christianity, is in retreat under the combined assault of federal leviathan power and a hostile, hate-filled culture like never before.
I don’t know for certain what the future holds, but I don’t think it’s going to be pleasant:
……….[T]he decision on the manufacturing of a constitutional right to gay marriage looms large. More on that in a moment. But the passage in the Senate of TPA is just another indicator that signals the end of limited constitutional government and the separation of powers.
I won’t bore with the details of this decision, but what I want to impress upon you is that elections, the throwing out one party for another, made absolutely no difference. The federal behemoth grows unabated and our sovereignty is bartered for political support from the Chamber of Commerce. What is wrong with America is beyond the normal powers of elections and the electorate to fix. [It’s not just TPA. It’s Obamacare (which Repubniks plan to save if the Supreme Court throws out the exchanges), it’s illegal immigration, it’s Export-Import, it’s the growth of the federal budget, the Republicans haven’t followed through on a single campaign promise of any substance (20 week abortion ban still pending). This is what we’ve seen from the Republican party going back since the late 90s, they are as on board with big government and radical social change as the democrats, they just lie to their base about it]
America, as we knew it and thought we understood it, is done. I know people don’t want to hear that and I understand. I know they don’t want to believe that and I understand. But it is true none the less. [I thank God I have a farm in Kansas. How to get there, and how to live there, is another matter]
If you haven’t accepted that truth yet, perhaps the decision on gay marriage will clue you in. When they invent a constitutional right to gay marriage, your first amendment rights for the free exercise of religion and speech, will be under constant assault from the very government that should be protecting our first freedoms. We may win some of the battles, but I assure you the war is lost. You will not be able to practice your religion or speak the truth without oppression from the government over employment, student loans, business permits, and the list goes on and on. People will go to jail for believing and speaking the truth. [And parishes that refuse to get on board with the new order may well be closed. And it may not be the government doing the closing]
But the truth is America has been done for a while. There is a financial reckoning coming like nothing you can imagine and likely much sooner than you can imagine. And when it comes, the government will come after everything you have.
Sorry to leave you on such a downer note. But look on it this way, standing against persecution should gain you a lot of time off in Purgatory!
Whither heresy? Pope begs forgiveness of Waldensian sect June 22, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
If one judged by the actions of two of the three most recent popes, one would have to conclude that opposing heresy even to the point of violence is always wrong, and that the Church has almost always erred in “doing so,” or supporting the secular power in doing so. So was it wrong to repress a noxious heresy that posited only two Sacraments and led hundreds of thousands if not millions astray? Or was it wrong to excommunicate prelates who explicitly rejected the Primacy of Peter, or who embraced any of a number of errors in protestantism?
Eliot Bougis claims this is a sterling example of everything wrong with Dignitatis Humanae. I would have a hard time arguing with that:
Pope Francis met on Monday with members of the Waldensian movement, an ecclesial community which suffered persecution from Catholic authorities from the 12th to 17th centuries. He apologized for the Church’s “non-Christian attitudes and behavior” towards the Waldensians during that period.
“Reflecting on the history of our relations, we can only grieve in the face of strife and violence committed in the name of faith, and ask the Lord to give us us the grace to recognize we are all sinners, and to know how to forgive one another,” the Pope said June 22 at a Waldensian temple in Turin. [But such a view can only be posited if one believes in universal salvation, can it not? Or nearly universal? Otherwise, allowing souls to remain in errors that deny them salvation would be an evil even greater, far greater, than whatever violence committed in the name of the Church the Pope has in mind?]
“I ask forgiveness for the non-Christian – even inhuman – attitudes and behaviors which, through history, we have had against you. In Jesus Christ’s name, forgive us!” [This is incredibly dangerous. So Pope Francis has now, rhetorically, at least, “excommunicated” popes, bishops, and Saints of the past for their part in repressing this heresy, among others. So popes (and others) are allowed to excoriate previous popes, but we can’t critically examine the actions of the current one? What is the time limit on the embargo of papal criticism? Is it simply when the “old beliefs” fall out of fashion, then it’s open season?]
Monday’s encounter marks the first meeting between a Pope and the Waldensian community. Founded in Lyon in the late twelfth century, it is currently centered in Italy’s Piedmont region, which Pope Francis visited June 21-22.
The movement was founded by Peter Waldo, and embraced evangelical poverty and lay preaching, and believed there were only two sacraments. The movement’s ideas were condemned as early as the Third Lateran Council, in 1179. Beginning in the early 1200s, many Waldensians were executed on account of heresy. [By the secular authority, not the Church, do note. The Church desires not the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. But when some persist in formal heresy for a protracted period of time, and do grave damage to souls, it is not entirely surprising that the secular authority would take this step in a rightly ordered concern for souls and to maintain the public order]
…….Pope Francis told the community, “On behalf of the Catholic Church, I ask for your forgiveness.” [I just cannot stand all these apologias. They are meaningless PR events and I have a very difficult time not seeing them as simply self-serving grandstanding]
During the meeting, the Roman Pontiff praised ecumenical advancements which have been made among those united in baptism and belief in Christ. [I wonder just how united in belief in Christ we really are, and is that not the core of the problem?]
“This tie is not based on simple human criteria, but on the radical sharing of founding experience of Christian life: the encounter with the love of God who reveals to us Jesus, and the transformative action of the Holy Spirit who helps us on life’s journey.” [But Holy Father, did you not also say that muslims have no need to convert and have their own path to salvation, separate from that through Jesus Christ?]
Pope Francis noted that this communion “is still on a journey, which, with prayer, with continual personal and communal conversion, and with the help of the theologians, [ominous?] we hope, trusting in the action of the Holy Spirit, can become full and visible communion in truth and charity.”
He added that unity, as a fruit of the Holy Spirit, is not the same as uniformity. [Yes, but “unity” is also a heckuva lot more than shared baptism, isn’t it? What happens when the first mortal sin is committed by a non-Catholic who has no conception of perfect contrition and no recourse to sacramental Confession? Are they still “united?”]
“In fact, our brethren are united by a common origin but are not identical to one another.”
The Holy Father cited the scriptures, which speak of different charisms and gifts.
However, wars often break out when these do not accept these differences of others, he said. [They break out because words and beliefs MEAN THINGS, and wrong belief, the Church has known for 2000 years, in matters of Dogma is a matter affecting SALVATION.]
Pope Francis thanked God that the relationship between Catholics and Waldensians continue today to be ever more rooted in “mutual respect and fraternal charity.”……..
………There are various areas where the Church and the Waldensians could work together, he said, one being evangelization. [So how does that work…..when the Church and Waldensians hold mutually exclusive beliefs? And why are we exerting so much effort over a tiny sect when millions fall away from the Church every year?]
………Pope Francis concluded by saying a“new way of unity begins with seeing the “grandeur of our shared faith and life in Christ and the Holy Spirit,” before taking into account the differences which exist.
How long, and to what extent, do we bask in this grandeur before we can take into account the differences? And how many souls get lost in the interim. The Waldensians are a small sect. In the grand scheme of things they don’t amount to much. But there are other, far larger sects that gobble up millions of souls a year -the longer we bask, the more souls fall away.
There is a horrible conceit that troubles our times, one that is rooted in modernism and libertine ideas inherited from the endarkenment. That conceit is that we are oh-so-much smarter and more sensitive than our forebears. I don’t think that is true at all. I think in fact we are a lot dumber than our forebears.
In all these apologias – and Pope Francis is not the first pope to make them, though they were unheard of prior to 1980 – this conceit is, I think, operative. Also operative is a kind of indifference that is really appalling. What is being implied is that people in the way back were just really awful, bloodthirsty, war-mongering people, people who just wanted to kill others more or less for sport, or for power, or whatever base reason. Of course, we are so much above that, we just have to condemn our lamentable forerunners in the Faith, including some notable popes and Saints (Saint Dominic was very involved in the crushing of the Albigensian heresy, including its more martial aspects).
But what if there really are – as the Church infallibly believes – errors that are so severe and noxious they literally cut you off from salvation if you knowingly profess them? What if these errors are clever and pernicious and become widely accepted? What if millions of people put their eternal souls in danger through these errors? And if you really do, as the Church used to, at least until ~1958, believe that this life is short, and that eternity is forever, and that God really does condemn people to hell, and not just a few, but a whole bunch of them (the Exodus from Egypt being the type for our sojourn on earth, with only 2 out of 600,000 Israeli men making it to the Promised Land)…….what lengths would you not go to prevent souls from falling into hell? Given fervent belief in the danger of heresy and the reality of damnation (just as real a fact today as it was in 1179), could you not even reasonably conclude that in some situations, in order to prevent souls from suffering in hell for all eternity, it might even be preferable to put to death a relatively few, as St. Ephraem said earlier today, incorrigibly corrupted, heretical people to death in order to keep many more from falling into errors that will lead to their eternal destruction?
Well, that is exactly how the Church always thought and reasoned, until the last few years, anyways, before gaining the approval of the world trumped the good of souls in the post-conciliar Church. Would anyone like to argue that point, that to a marked degree, the approval of the world is the guiding concern for most leadership in the Church over the past several decades, the good of souls be damned, so to speak? And isn’t universal salvation, then, quite a handy little thing to trot out when explaining the dichotomy that exists between the behavior of the Church that was, and the Church that is?
In comparison to the belief and practice to the Church as it existed for over 1900 years, the modern ecumenical approach is so divorced from true charity for souls that it would have scandalized to their core so many pious souls, good priests, dutiful bishops, and great Saints of the past. Is the modern ecumenical movement really grounded in love for souls, or in love for the world?
I really should send a letter to Pope Francis asking him if I made a mistake in becoming Catholic.
But you know what, I don’t think I need to……..I’m quite sure I know what answer he would give, if he would respond. Much more importantly, however, I know I did NOT make a mistake, it was the best thing I could have ever done, and I pray I shall never waver in that belief.
Isn’t it funny…… June 18, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return, the struggle for the Church.
…….that after decades of condemning the Church and the Popes for benighted scientific ignorance and knuckle-dragging medieval superstitious “sky-god” worship, the leftists now proclaim the Pontiff/papacy as the greatest source of scientific authority ever?!?
Why, it’s almost as if they hate and castigate everyone and everything that disagrees with their worldview, and extol and defend
to the death almost to the mildest inconvenience whatever does?
In other words, as so many faithful Catholics have noted for decades, it’s always, ALL about the politics, tribalism, and personal interest to these folks? Is there another way to understand their behavior?
Even the out and out pagans/wiccans are celebrating this document! A self-described pagan in the Huffpost notes that Pope Francis is using language strikingly similar to their own Gaia-mother-earth-goddess worship:
The Earth, says Pope Francis, is protesting for the wrong that we are doing to her, because of the irresponsible use and abuse of the goods that God has placed on her. We have grown up thinking that we were her owners and dominators, authorised to loot her. The violence that exists in the human heart, wounded by sin, is also manifest in the symptoms of illness that we see in the Earth, the water, the air and in living things.
Do you think you know anyone who really grew up thinking they “owned the earth” and were its dominators and authorized to loot it? Who speaks of the world so personally? Perhaps a certain casual indifference, but “dominating?” How do the very poor comport in comparison with the relatively wealthy in their care for the earth? Is the filth, decay, and litter abundant in slums an indication of a higher moral standing?
Best comment I’ve seen so far…….”The world will praise this Pope and this Encyclical because it has to do with its agenda and nothing to do with faith and morals.” The world will ignore his comments about abortion, embryos and population control. The world will not praise Paul VI forHumane Vitae.
It would have been a more profound act on the part of the Pope if this Encyclical was a call for the world to end the persecution and the annihilation of Christians or that true peace can only be found in a conversion to Jesus Christ and His Church but that would not be as politically correct in this age of toleration for everything except the truth.
Way to go, Vox.
Some Democrats have taunted Republicans for becoming “cafeteria Catholics” on the environment. But this is a red herring. When the Church prohibits abortion, it’s enunciating an absolute moral principle. When a pope criticizes the use of air conditioners or of mercury in gold mining (Francis does both) we are very much in the realm of prudential judgments. And even his larger proposals about global reforms have to operate in a world where efforts to balance differing national interests and outright human needs have made straightforward moral judgments and compromises on international agreements all but impossible…….
…….the encyclical relatively ignores the much large group of poor, at least 2 ½ billion people on several continents, who simply need development, meaning primarily clean water, electricity, and stable governments that will allow them to improve their lot and deal with whatever nature – or climate change – may throw at them. [And who, assuming draconian limits on carbon dioxide, would be almost assuredly permanently barred from ever enjoying even a fraction of the kind of wealth and comfort enjoyed by the post-Christian West. Which, I fear, may be a significant motivation behind the climate hoax]
There’s much moral denunciation of “finance” and “technology” in the encyclical, much less appreciation of how the efficiencies of markets (properly regulated) and globalization, combined with technical innovation and the entrepreneurial spread of its use, have already lifted hundreds of millions around the world out of age-old misery. And will continue to do so……
Just some of the better opinions I read today.
But by far the best was how Vox opened:
Praised be Jesus Christ.
May His Holy Name be praised on the lips of everyone in the world at all times from now until eternity, Amen.
May God have mercy on us all.
Confusing the sciences of Heaven and Earth June 18, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, technology, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Always very erudite, very prudent analysis from Fr. George Rutler on the almighty eco-encyclical:
…….the papal bull Inter Caetera by which Pope Alexander VI in 1493 divided the world between Castile and Portugal with a specified meridian. While it was not without effect, its neglect of specific degrees, and obliviousness to the immensity of the globe, led John II of Portugal to shelve it and, in France, Francis mocked it: “Show me Adam’s will.” The pope was Aragonese and, while suspected of prejudice by the Portuguese, was trying his best to establish some order in a world as novel as outer space. Prescinding from the complexities of his personal household, this was the one notorious miscalculation in a pontificate of remarkably successful undertakings in matters religious and not political. In his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, John Henry Newman lists other popes who were mistaken in certain policies: St. Victor, Liberius, Gregory XIII, Paul IV, Sixtus V, and St Peter himself when St. Paul “withstood” him. [Certainly. And you can read other great Church figures criticizing, sometimes obliquely, sometimes vociferously, actions of other pontiffs passed]
Pope Francis’ encyclical on the ecology of the earth is adventurously laden with promise and peril. It can raise consciousness of humans as stewards of creation. However, there is a double danger in using it as an economic text or scientific thesis. One of the pope’s close advisors, the hortatory Cardinal Maradiaga of Honduras said with ill-tempered diction: “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits.” [Because we all know, Cardinal, that socialist countries never ruin theirs. I’m sorry, this is naught but extreme progressive political bias, the capitalist system, whatever its faults, has shown itself to be far better stewards of the environment than socialism.There are still vast tracts of the former Soviet Union where essentially nothing lives due to rampant toxicity]From the empirical side, to prevent the disdain of more informed scientists generations from now, papal teaching must be safeguarded from attempts to exploit it as an endorsement of one hypothesis over another concerning anthropogenic causes of climate change.[I made the same point yesterday. Once climate change is refuted, the papacy will forever be saddled with an official encyclical that proclaims its the very truth. Same with evolution and any other highly argued scientific issue, for the Church to weigh in on one side or the other is fraught with tremendous dangers. 200 years from now, if there be a world left, critics will lambaste the hidebound, superstitious papacy for believing such scientific balderdash, never mentioning that the entire progressive spectrum did, as well]It is not incumbent upon a Catholic to believe, like Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited, that a pope can perfectly predict the weather. As a layman in these matters, all I know about climate change is that I have to pay for heating a very big church with an unpredictable apparatus. This is God’s house, but he sends me the ConEd utility bills.
It is noteworthy that Pope Francis would have included in an encyclical, instead of lesser teaching forms such as an apostolic constitution or motu proprio, subjects that still pertain to unsettled science (and to speak of a “consensus” allows that there is not yet a defined absolute).[I hate this. No science is ever really settled. Newtonian physics was once the gold standard, then Einstein came along and seemed to demonstrate there were situations where the Newtonian model broke down. Now a lot of Einstein’s grand theories are under assault. Science is awesome in many respects, but when it becomes a substitute for religion with dogmatic beliefs that must be held, it’s no longer science, but authoritarian politics masquerading as science] The Second Vatican Council, as does Pope Francis, makes clear that there is no claim to infallibility in such teaching. The Council (Lumen Gentium, n.25) does say that even the “ordinary Magisterium” is worthy of a “religious submission of intellect and will” but such condign assent is not clearly defined. It does not help when a prominent university professor of solid Catholic commitments says that in the encyclical “we are about to hear the voice of Peter.” That voice may be better heard when, following the advice of the encyclical (n.55) people turn down their air conditioners. One awaits the official Latin text to learn its neologism for “condizione d’aria.” While the Holy Father has spoken eloquently about the present genocide of Christians in the Middle East, those who calculate priorities would have hoped for an encyclical about this fierce persecution, surpassing that of the emperor Decius. Pictures of martyrs being beheaded, gingerly filed away by the media, give the impression that their last concern on earth was not climate fluctuations.
Saint Peter, from his fishing days, had enough hydrometeorology to know that he could not walk on water. Then the eternal Logos told him to do it, and he did, until he mixed up the sciences of heaven and earth and began to sink. As vicars of that Logos, popes speak infallibly only on faith and morals. They also have the prophetic duty to correct anyone who, for the propagation of their particular interests, imputes virtual infallibility to papal commentary on physical science while ignoring genuinely infallible teaching on contraception, abortion and marriage and the mysteries of the Lord of the Universe. At this moment, we have the paradoxical situation in which an animated, and even frenzied, secular chorus hails papal teaching as infallible, almost as if it could divide the world, provided it does NOT involve faith or morals.
Exactly. The same progressives hailing Pope Francis as a great hero and this encyclical as the final word of Catholic Doctrine would be the first to utterly reject as having ANY authority over them all the preceding papal documents and statements not so conducive to their political interests. The simple fact of the matter is, when it comes to matters outside his charism, the Pope has no more authority than you or I. I’m certain there are elements of Laudato Si where he does speak with authority, but there are at least as many if not more where he does not.
And that is the enormous tragedy not only of this document but of so many post-conciliar papal acts, and the Council itself, the mixing of the dogmatic and the arguable, the authoritative and the mere opinion, all jumbled up and with little specifying which is which. All this is horribly confusing for souls, who are tempted to throw out the whole mess for the sake of some precious clarity.
Which prompts some of the best formed souls to wonder if all this is not intentional, if this is not the diabolical confusion of modernism being formalized as a constitutive element of the Magisterium – how can one proclaim the Church has the Truth when so much confusion reigns? Is that perhaps not the desired end result of all this?
I cannot pretend to know the answers to these existential questions with any certainty. All I do know is that what once was no longer is, and what is now would have been sternly, and rightly, condemned way back when.
WHAT a new springtime! If trends hold, there will be ZERO Christians in Britain by 2067 June 17, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, demographics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Good Lord, that’s only 52 years away. That’s closer to us than the Cuban Missile Crisis or Texas’ first national championship in football.
The thing is, trends like these always change. As the number of believers decreases the trend lines will flatten out and a bottom will be reached – and that bottom will not be zero. There are a goodly number of very staunch Catholics in Britain having large families and transmitting the Faith to the younger generations. But I had no idea that Christianity was dying in Britain as fast as it is. How long before Oxford becomes a madrassah for the training if islamic imams?
It’s often said that Britain’s church congregations are shrinking, but that doesn’t come close to expressing the scale of the disaster now facing Christianity in this country. Every ten years the census spells out the situation in detail: between 2001 and 2011 the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million — about 10,000 a week. If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067………
……..Our cathedral buildings will survive, but they won’t be true cathedrals because they will have no bishops. The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that. [I doubt that. But I do look forward to the day that the false, heretical “Church” of England no longer exists. I pray all the souls belonging to it experience a real conversion and convert to the Church Christ founded, which isn’t doing all that well, either.]
……..It has all happened so quickly. Anglicans in particular are abandoning their faith at a rate that (in more ways that one) defies belief. According to the British Social Attitudes surveys, their numbers fell from 40 per cent of the population in 1983 to 29 per cent in 2004 and 17 per cent last year……
……His predecessor but one, however, is happy to do so. Lord Carey of Clifton, a more formidable figure in retirement than he was in office, last month warned the C of E that it was ‘one generation away from extinction’. The new Social Attitudes figures support his conclusions.
Between 2012 and 2014 the proportion of Britons describing themselves as Church of England or Anglican fell from 21 to 17 per cent: a loss of 1.7 million people in two years. That’s what you might expect if the established church had been engulfed in a gigantic paedophile scandal. But it hasn’t been.
Self-identifying British Catholics fell from 10 per cent to 8 per cent between 1983 and 2014. But that decline would have been far more dramatic without the arrival of Catholics from the Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Philippines. No wonder Cardinal Vincent Nichols stresses the ‘Gospel imperative’ to welcome migrants. [Yep. Same as the situation here in the US]
But he’s deluding himself if he thinks foreign Catholics will continue to fill his pews. Young Poles in England and Wales are noticeably less devout than they were ten years ago: I’d be amazed if more than a fifth of them were Mass-goers.
This applies to Scotland, too. The Poles propping up Catholic parishes won’t do so for much longer. Meanwhile, self-identification with the Church of Scotland has fallen off a cliff: from 36 per cent of Scots in 2001 to 18 per cent in 2013.
[So……why is this happening?] Why is British Christianity facing such a catastrophe? There is a one-word answer, but it requires a lot of unpacking: secularisation.
……….The American sociologist James Davison Hunter has explored this phenomenon in two books, Culture Wars (1991) and To Change the World(2010). Hunter is rude about left-wing Christians who think campaigns against carbon emissions or campus sexism are ‘Gospel causes’. On the contrary, he says, they are thoroughly secular and even if they succeed the churches won’t benefit……….
The author, Damian Thompson, as he is wont to do, then jumps the shark by saying that “conservative,” or more rightly put, faithful, observant Christianity and especially Catholicism aren’t the answer against secularization, either, because Roe v. Wade still hasn’t been repealed or something, an argument as nonsensical as it is meaningless. For instance, Thompson failed to note that the most conservative evangelical sects are among the fastest growing entities in American Christianity. Traditional Catholic parishes, while tiny by comparison, are generally growing, and quite rapidly. That would seem to point that being observant is, far from doomed to impotence, at least on the right track, if far from exercising a culture-wide influence…….yet.
But the data, if not his commentary, does raise an interesting point: there has been a sudden explosion in departures from the Church in the few remaining developed, Western countries where it was still being fairly widely practiced. Why? Why has membership in traditional Christian churches (not evangelical sects) suddenly plummeted, and especially in the past 5-10 years?
I think the answer, secularization is right, but I think Thompson misses the forest for the trees. What kind of secularization? Militant, left-wing secularization is proliferating rapidly through the leftist “march through the institutions.” They now control, by and large, the media, schools, academia, and the entertainment industry. In order to shield ourselves from all this crap, faithful families have to literally unplug from the culture. The first generation is coming to adulthood after the completion of this process, and they are turning out to be very indifferent, even hostile, to orthodox religion, after years of being formed to be exactly that. I think the internet and the notion of avant garde hipster culture also plays a huge role. That is why we have suddenly seen an unexpected explosion in really fringe, radical feminism from college age women in the past several years, as just one example. There are many others, from the sodomite front to global warming evangelizing…..our young people are profoundly religious, it’s simply that their religion is for the most part leftism. Some will come back or enter the Church as they age, but most will not.
Some things that more and more people are positively turned off to include some of the ways in which modernists try to sell the Church, to the extent they even try: desperation, obvious attempts to be cool, pandering, etc. Nothing turns off someone looking for the veracity of faith as much as a religion that seems unsure of itself, or even more, seems to stand for nothing. I think those two factors are the two predominate reasons both the Church and the mainline sects have been hemorrhaging the most members. And the eco-encyclicals, while bringing momentary notoriety, will only turn off lost souls looking for a safe harbor, and cause the Church’s enemies to mock her even more.
The only thing that will bring souls into the Church, and keep them there, is for the Church to be herself once again. But I’m afraid the powers that be are utterly insistent the Church go through complete collapse before we can even begin get back to that point.