What do you think of this list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics? – UPDATED February 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
So Church Militant TV has a new video up I both saw, and a reader sent to me, concerning a list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics of the last 100 years.
Now, the list remains incomplete, only half has been released so far, but as I read it, I was quite surprised to find so few in the upper echelons of the hierarchy. The entire list is there if you take the survey. My mistake, I only read the article at Church Militant itself. So all the points made below stand. No popes listed, the names are heavily American, and almost no one in the curia or a major leader at Vatican II. For instance, Donald Wuerl is a politician, tends modernist (or is, whatever), and has given scandal on numerous occasions, but, really? Top 20 worst Catholics? Not even close. He’s nothing compared to some of the radicals in Europe, or some of those from the 60s-70s timeframe. To leave off Cardinal Martini is inexplicable to me. He’s the father of the current-day progressive wing in the Church. No de Chardin? No Congar? But bear in mind, some of those – de Chardin, Congar – received numerous plaudits from post-conciliar popes. Perhaps that played a role?
Here are some of the more prominent names:
Hans Urs von Balthasar
I’m struck by several things. For one, the list is overwhelmingly American. But many of the most destructive ideas have flowed out of Europe, and often, from high cardinals and others deeply entrenched at the highest levels of the Church. Most of the names listed here are priests, whose ideas, while certainly damnable, would not have had the impact they did had ecclesiastical authority not failed in its duty to discipline them or exclude them from the body of the faithful.
Now, the list is only half complete, so I’m hoping a whole slew of names – Martini, Frings, Alfrink, Bea, Congar, Suenens, Bugnini, etc., will make the list. Well, they didn’t. A list that does not include a number of the leading radicals from Vatican II – which includes those appointed by Paul VI to lead the Council – is woefully incomplete. And there are more top officials from today that I might include in my list – Koch, Schoenborn, Marx, Kasper…….basically the entire German episcopate.
But I’ll say something else. It is true that the crisis in the Church is a crisis of bishops. But who has appointed those bishops, and kept them in office, and even protected them, at times? If the list of “most dangerous Catholics” means those who have contributed the most to the crisis in the Church, can any list be complete that does not feature the names of Giovanni Montini and possibly Jose Bergoglio?
Look, I understand CMTVs editorial views. I know they are loathe to criticize any pontiff, especially the post-conciliar ones. I understand their viewpoint, even if I think it erroneous.
Having said that, from what limited study I’ve done of Vatican II, I am unable to conclude otherwise than that Pope Paul VI got the Council he wanted, more or less. John XXIII set the tone, but it was Paul VI who packed the all-important leadership/management with the Council almost entirely with thoroughgoing progressives. It was Paul VI who decided, at virtually every important logjam, in favor of the progressives, at least until the very end, when their excesses began to surprise and shock even him. And it was Paul VI who unleashed the Novus Ordo and deliberately put forth the notion that the TLM was abrogated, to the point of persecuting those priests who refused to go along. I could go on, HJA Sire and others have thoroughly criticized the pontificate of Paul VI in quite harsh terms.
Since the Council, with some exception for Benedict XVI, the dominant liberal interpretation of it has been allowed to stand, and even be promoted, by every pontiff of the intervening period, at least by silence and inaction if not by actual promotion (which, of course, has frequently occurred, as well). But you know all this already.
So I guess the question is…….can a list of the most “dangerous” Catholics of the last 100 years be complete without including any popes? Or is it tending too much towards scandal, with the wide audience CMTV has, to say so? (I tend to take more liberties, as I regard my readership as generally very well formed and steadfast, and able to stand “sterner stuff”).
And what of the many non-Americans/fathers of Vatican II who have contributed most to the collapse? And no Tielhard de Chardin? No Anibale Bugnini?
Nevertheless, while argument over who should be included could go on forever, I think the basic idea, to identify by name some of the most damaging Catholics of recent years is a pretty good one. While you or I might already be aware of most or all of these folks, many are not. It’s helpful to get those names out there. Who else would you have on your list?
“Saved by Race Alone:” Great riposte to Vatican’s Judaizing stand February 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, different religion, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness.
This is really funny. Picked it up from Pertinacious Papist. An open letter from a Jewish Catholic convert to Francis, glad to know that, in true progressive biological determinative fashion, he is saved not by Grace, but by race, alone. He is rather non-plussed over the donations he was encouraged to make over the years, though (my emphasis and comments):
His Holiness, Pope FrancisVatican CityJanuary, 2016Dear Holy FatherI am a Jew. I have the assurance, as did Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, of direct descent from King David on my father’s side (my mother, I was assured was descended of Hillel).I am 74-years-old. I converted to the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 17 in the last year of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. I did so because I was under the conviction that I had to accept and have faith that Jesus Christ was my savior, and I believed it. And I believed that I had to be a baptized member of his Church to have a chance of salvation. So I converted and was baptized in the Catholic Church, and then I was confirmed. [I know baptism by desire and blood, but I also know, a heckuva lot of older Catholics, raised in the pre-conciliar Church, were taught to the point of total conviction that one had to be a visible member of the Church to be saved. My pious mother-in-law, God rest her soul, prayed constantly for my conversion based on that belief.]Over the years I have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to both Peters’ Pence (the pope’s own treasury about which you of course must be very familiar), and my local parish and diocese.During that time I attended thousands of Masses, hundreds of holy hours and novenas, said thousands of rosaries, and made hundreds of trips to the Confessional.Now in 2015 and 2016 I have read your words and those of your “Pontifical Commission.” You now teach that because I am a racial Jew, God’s covenant with me was never broken, and cannot be broken. You don’t qualify that teaching by specifying anything I might do that would threaten the Covenant, which you say God has with me because I am a Jew. You teach that it’s an unbreakable Covenant. You don’t even say that it depends on me being a good person. Logically speaking, if God’s Covenant with me is unbreakable, then a racial Jew such as I am can do anything he wants and God will still maintain a Covenant with me and I will go to heaven. [The public declarations are so general this “automatic salvation” can be inferred. Is it really extreme Zionist propaganda masquerading as new wisdom in the Church?]Your Pontifical Commission wrote last December, “The Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews…it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.” [This statement still hurts. Goodness what a repudiation of Jesus Christ. Lord, I pray they know not what they do.]You are the Pontiff. I believe what your Commission teaches under your banner and in your name, and what you declared during your visit to the synagogue in January. As a result, I no longer see any point in getting up every Sunday morning to go to Mass, say rosaries, or attend the Rite of Reconciliation on Saturday afternoon. All of those acts are superfluous for me. Predicated on your teaching, I now know that due to my special racial superiority in God’s eyes, I don’t need any of it. [It’s not just Jews, is it? Many people are concluding they no longer need Mass, or don’t need to take Church Doctrine seriously, because “who am I to judge” and all the rest. I personally two folks who have fallen away entirely in the last year, quoting Francis as they exited]I don’t see any reason now as to why I was baptized in 1958. There was no need for me to be baptized. I no longer see why there was a need for Jesus to come to earth either, or preach to the Jewish children of Abraham of his day. As you state, they were already saved as a result of their racial descent from the Biblical patriarchs. What would they need him for? [Let’s just chuck the entire Gospel of John while we’re at it, right?]In light of what you and your Pontifical Commission have taught me, it appears that the New Testament is a fraud, at least as it applies to Jews. All of those preachings and disputations to the Jews were for no purpose. Jesus had to know this, yet he persisted in causing a lot of trouble for the Jews by insisting they had to be born again, they had to believe he was their Messiah, they had to stop following their traditions of men, and that they couldn’t get to heaven unless they believed that he was the Son of God. [Can any of this be disputed? Can you imagine how this new line makes Jewish converts feel, how much torment and scandal it must cause?]Your holiness, you and your Commission have instructed me in the true path to my salvation: my race. It’s all I need and all I have ever needed.God has a covenant with my genes. It’s my genes that save me. My eyes are open now. [Isn’t that more or less what the Jewish “dialoguers” with the Church have demanded, though? A pretension that some are saved by race alone? And how much is liberal katholyc acceptance of this driven by latent guilt for the Holocaust and whatever else? Really, the pro-Jewish stance demanded of the Church devolves, like so many other progressive shibboleths, to “shut up,” Catholics]Consequently, you will be hearing from my lawyer. I am filing suit against the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. I want my money back, with interest, and I am seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the psychological harm your Church caused me, by making me think I needed something besides my own exalted racial identity, in order to go to heaven after I die.I am litigating as well over the time that I wasted that I could have spent working in my business, instead of squandering it worshipping a Jesus that your Church now says I don’t need to believe in for my salvation. Your prelates and clerics told me something very different in 1958. I’ve been robbed!
This blog has long had a great love for Fr. Michael Rodriguez. I was very gratified when reader skeinster sent me a link to this interview Father gave to Louie Verrecchio. Father gives some updates on his situation viz a viz El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz in this interview. Since it’s out there in the wide open internet, I guess I can cover it, and comment on it.
Below, the entire excerpt involving the impasse between Fr. Rodriguez and Bishop Seitz (emphasis in original, I add comments). I need to make very clear all commentary below is mine alone and is not based on any input from Fr. Rodriguez whatsoever:
Fr. Rodriguez: At present, January 2016, I am a priest in good standing of the Diocese of El Paso, TX, with no pastoral assignment.
My Bishop, Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz, had appointed me as the Administrator of Sacred Heart Mission in Shafter, Texas (a small mission in one of the most remote parts of the diocese), effective July 11, 2014, for a term of three years. However, as a sine qua non condition of the assignment, he insisted that I offer the Novus Ordo Missæ. At the time, I had already been offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively for almost three years!
On July 24, 2014, my Bishop issued a Personal Precept which included the order, “I enjoin you to celebrate the Mass and Sacraments according to the Novus Ordo in the Mission of Shafter. The Mass and the Sacraments must be celebrated in the vernacular of the people (English or Spanish) and not Ad Orientem.” [I know of no possible justification in the Canon Law or rubrics by which a priest could be forced to offer Mass facing the people. Versus populum has NEVER been codified as a default or required position for the priest in any authoritative Church document above national council level. And the decisions of national councils are NOT authoritative.]
Throughout my nineteen years as a priest, I have always done my best to practice the virtue of obedience, but now I was put in an impossible situation. St. John of the Cross teaches, “Obedience is a penance of the intellect and therefore a more acceptable sacrifice than all corporal penances. Hence God loves your tiniest act of obedience more than all other homages you might think of offering Him.” What was I to do? Never before had the opening words of the prayer from the Divine Office struck a deeper chord in my soul, “Deus in adiutórium meum inténde. Dómine, ad adiuvándum me festína.” “O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me.” The decision I had to make was my most difficult one yet as a priest. Holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God, intercede for me, a poor sinner.
I wrote many letters to my Bishop. The following is a sample of this correspondence; it is an excerpt from a letter which I wrote to him on September 8, 2014, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
I am 100% committed to my priestly promise of obedience. You are my bishop, and thus, I have promised obedience to you. It is my firm and sincere intention to be obedient to you. Unfortunately for me (and my conscience), your July 24, 2014, Precept contains an order which is “problematic,” to say the least.
[This is really very important……] The order you are giving contradicts Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, Canon IX (a dogmatic canon) of Session XXII of the Holy Council of Trent, Pope Pius VI’s ConstitutionAuctorem Fidei (see the 33rd of 85 propositions which are condemned, Denzinger 1533), Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical LetterMediator Dei 59, and the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 and 54. Moreover, your order appears to be irreconcilable with the Decree of the Council of Nicea II regarding ecclesiastical tradition (Denzinger 308), and Canon XIII (a dogmatic canon) of Session VII of the Holy Council of Trent.
In addition, the order contained in your Precept appears to (a) deny the Catholic priest’s legitimate right to offer the Extraordinary Formof the Roman Rite (presumably, exclusively) as expressed in Summorum Pontificum Art. 1, and (b) dismiss Summorum PontificumArt. 1, “the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V . . . must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.” Finally, from the pastoral perspective, your order appears to disregard the expressed needs and good of the faithful of Presidio/Shafter, who are specifically requesting parish life based on the Traditional Latin Mass.
As I wrote to you in my July 1, 2014, letter, as a priest of the Diocese of El Paso, I am committed to do my very best to spiritually nourish, teach, and serve the souls placed under my care. However, I cannot do this apart from what has always been the lex orandi, lex credendiof Holy Mother Church. Thus, with respect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the celebration of the Sacraments, it is not a matter of “preference” or my “unwillingness” to obey; rather, there are all-important ecclesial, theological, liturgical, spiritual, ascetical, and pastoral reasons which compel me, in conscience, to offer the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively.
[Unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI never addressed this situation, of a former NO priest exclusively offering the TLM, directly in Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. As such, many bishops continue to pretend that the TLM was abrogated in 1970 by Paul VI and requires special permission, or conditions, to be offered. This is plainly against the spirit of Benedict XVI’s documents, and against his clear statement that the TLM was not, nor ever could be, abrogated. As a valid Rite, the priest should have the option, based on his pastoral reality, to offer the TLM exclusively, even if not a member of an Ecclesia Dei community. But because that point was never specifically addressed, it is viewed as a matter of opinion, at this time, since virtually the entire hierarchy has chosen to jettison the entirety of the pre-conciliar Magisterium as a practical reality in the day to day operation of the Church. Thus, Father’s very well supported arguments from pre-conciliar sources are simply rejected out of hand.]
In the end, I had to follow what Holy Mother Church has always taught. Out of fidelity to God and to the Church’s immemorial lex orandi, lex credendi, and for the good of the souls entrusted to my care, I could not, in conscience, follow the specific liturgical directive given by my Bishop. [I have very strong sympathy for the conclusion Father has reached. He feels in conscience he cannot offer the Novus Ordo any more. Some may feel that he is failing in obedience. That’s not my take, but I understand it. I see in this action by Bishop Seitz, especially with regard to the demand not to offer Mass Ad Orientem, as unjust and an abuse of power. The situation regarding the TLM is perhaps arguable (though I strongly side with Father on this), but insisting that a priest MUST face the people at Mass is totally unjustifiable, to my knowledge.]
Effective November 10, 2014, my Bishop revoked my appointment as Administrator of Sacred Heart Mission. I was unable to hold back my tears during the final Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which I offered in Shafter, TX, on Sunday, November 9, 2014. With a sorrowful heart and plenteous tears, I prayed the words of blessed Job, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, as it hath pleased the Lord so it is done. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21)
I begged my Bishop for a minimum one-year sabbatical, in order to have ample time to pray, study, reflect, go on an extended retreat, and discern God’s will for my future. He refused, and instead gave me only six months, and restricted the use of my priestly faculties. Eventually, he extended my sabbatical to August 31, 2015.
At the beginning of October 2015, my Bishop initiated a canonical process to determine whether or not I have committed a Delict against Ecclesiastical Authority (i.e. disobedience). Currently, I await whatever decision he may make. If necessary, I am prepared to appeal to Rome. I am under no illusion that Rome will intervene to do what is right and just, but at least by appealing, I will know, in conscience, that I went to heroic lengths in the practice of obedience by following the juridical process instituted by the Church for recourse against the abuse of power.
At present, I continue to discern God’s will for the future of my priesthood. What is Thy will, O Lord? What wilt Thou have me to do? (Acts 9:6) In spite of some very difficult trials over the past four years, I am in awe of God’s goodness, mercy, and mysterious ways.
Father then goes on to address how he’s like this situation resolved. The answers are obvious, but Father is very realistic about where he stands.
Please pray for him. He’s a very good priest who found himself in a nigh impossible situation. It is such a tragedy that this has occurred. I don’t want to pontificate too much on his situation, he just really needs prayers at this point. The future will take care of itself.
How can ecumenism be reconciled with St. Paul and the entire pre-conciliar Magisterium? February 3, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
Older Catholics will tell you, they remember a day when it was clearly taught that to even step foot in a protestant church was a mortal sin. Participating in the kind of “joint ecumenical service” that Francis – and he is not the first post-conciliar pope to do so – would have been utterly unthinkable. The mind of the Church was guided by St. Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Corinthians:
Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? *For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: **I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore, go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing:
Pope Pius XI taught that Catholics were forbidden to engage in liturgical celebrations with protestants, and in doing so he was only reiterating what the Church had clearly taught for some 350 years. The post-conciliar Church has most frequently tried to pretend that protestants and Catholics both belong to some “invisible church” consisting of “believers” (usually reduced to a shared baptism), but this kind of thinking was rejected by numerous pre-conciliar popes. Thus very clear statements such as those by St. Paul, which served as justification for “fundamentalists” like Saint Athanasius to have no contact with, and to give no recognition to, even the heretical Arian “Catholics” of his day. St. Basil stated that the faithful should even go into the desert to offer Mass, rather than participate in the liturgies of the heretics of those days.
And yet here we are, 2000 years later, after a completely novel council, the first ever in the history of the Church to proclaim no dogma and declare no anathemas, with a radically changed mindset, a mindset that much more plays to worldly thinking and approval than to the constant belief and practice of the faith.
50 years ago, in the immediate wake of Vatican II, there was a great outburst of ecumenical efforts. Thank God, those efforts largely subsided under the previous two pontificates (obviously, there were some scandalous exceptions, like Assisi), but they have come roaring back under Francis and especially in this run up to the 500th anniversary of the outbreak of the protestant heresy cum revolution. It must be remembered that many leading lights at Vatican II were scandalous in their acceptance of protestant belief, from Congar to Bugnini, who felt that in many cases the protestants had got in more right than the early Church Fathers directly informed by the Apostles. Congar reverenced Luther greatly, and Bugnini desired to create a Mass so bowdlerized of Catholic content that it would never be offensive to protestants.
Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara have a valuable video on this subject below. I found it providential that I read a biblical verse with a note that pointed me to II Cor vi:14-17 just hours before I saw this video show up in my Youtube feed. I especially like the early reference Matt makes to St. Thomas More and his excoriation of protestants for loathing order and seeking to create a society based on disorder and the triumph of the will (which, perhaps, makes subsequent German history rather less than surprising).
Some more important points regarding the below. I have already reported on the disturbingly pro-protestant nature of elements of this joint “liturgy” composed by uber-liberal Catholics in the Congregation for Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation. As Matt notes below, this Federation is exceedingly modernist/liberal in and of itself, and is rejected by more conservative Lutheran bodies like the Missouri Synod. So what this amounts to is a self-congratulatory confab of progressives in the two bodies patting themselves on the back for their progressive beliefs. But such has been the practical nature of the ecumenical movement since its inception, it’s far more about confirming progressives in their beliefs than it is concern for souls, arriving at the truth, or, most especially, conversion:
Is it too much saying that Francis is trying to destroy the Church, or complete its destruction? As I said, these kinds of things have gone on for years, though not always with such fanfare, with such high-level participants, or with as much significance as the quincentenary portends.
Having said all that, I plan, for a time, to start ignoring the many problematic statements emanating from the Vatican, and limit myself to discussion/analysis of actions. At this point, I think we, who pray we adhere to what the Church has always believed, know who and what this man is. We know his penchant for highly destructive rhetoric. To some degree, reporting on that is feeling like repetitive non-news (water is wet), and I also need to do so to preserve my own faith and sanity. This planned confab with Lutheran heretics, and modernist ones at that, is a concrete act of such monumental significance that it does merit a good deal of coverage. I pray somehow, by some miracle, there may be an end to all this, but I won’t hold my breath.
I think it important to stress that the ecumenical/interreligious dialogue movements are radically counter to the Church’s pre-conciliar approach, and serve as one of the prime indicators that the Council, no matter what was intended (those arguments are endless, and quite possibly were intended to be), ushered in an era where practice, and belief, was irreconcilable with the Catholic ethos before 1962. That’s the take-home point.
IOC to allow “transgender” men to compete in women’s events February 2, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, suicide, unbelievable BS.
Well, I suspect we’ll start seeing a whole lot of records being broken. Now any man who is quite athletic but not quite gold medal material can go on female hormones for a while and, voila, gold city.
Is there ever any end to the sickness? We haven’t even begun to adjust to the new, state-enforced “reality” of pseudo-sodo-marriage, and they’re already trying to force this mental illness of transgenderism down our throats. And what kind of a society lets men pretending to be women beat the living daylights out of a woman, and for prize money?!?
“I’ve never felt so overpowered in my life,” said female mixed martial arts fighterTamikka Brents. “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor. I can only say I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female.” [Go figure. The vast majority of men are stronger, an usually vastly so, than the vast majority of women. God designed us for different things.]
The woman Brents was referring to isn’t a woman at all, but transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, who fights as a woman against women. Brent felt the full weight of what it was like to fight a man, and even with all her training and strength, she quickly fell to Fox.
Transgenderism has invaded the public consciousness, raising awareness of gender dysphoria; but not as the disorder linked to depression and suicides at an alarmingly high rate, but a celebrated identity everyone must respect—or else. [Absolutely. Just as with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, the truth has to be buried and a lie carefully constructed to conceal the truth and advance the sexular pagan agenda] The concept of transgenderism has become so pervasive that a man can step into the ring with a woman and pummel her for money, and the media will cheer for him.
What Brents reportedly experienced at Fox’s hands was a concussion and a broken orbital bone that required staples. In other words, this woman was savaged by an opponent that was genetically advantaged with a thicker bone structure, longer reach, and denser musculature—or, put more simply, was a man. Fox was able to do this despite hormone treatments that made him more feminine in certain aspects. [Which treatments dramatically raise the risk of cancer and also cause a greatly increased reach of psychosis, or dramatically unstable behavior]
………it should be common sense to not pit men against women in any serious sporting event, regardless of any hormone treatment or any genital surgery. [It might make even more sense to bar men from beating up women, and those with severe mental problems from high-profile public events]
This has not been the opinion of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), however, which has been allowing transgender athletes to compete against athletes not of their sex since 2004. They had formerly allowed transgender athletes to compete if they had fully transitioned with cross-sex hormones and surgery. As Fox demonstrates, this transition makes very little difference to a fully trained athlete.
But now the IOC has recommended ending the surgery requirement. In the “IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” report, the committee recommends that a male-to-female transgender “must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition.” Female-to-male transgendered athletes may register to compete with male athletes without restriction. [What a freaking disaster]
Insanity. The Western world has completely lost its mind. I know better than to ask whether there is any end. Christ or chaos. By rejecting God, there is no end to the depth of depravity to which individuals, and an entire culture, can sink.
But one would think, we have to be nearing some kind of tipping point, where things really begin to break down due to rampant insanity and unreality. So many people have constructed a view of the world so dramatically counter to reality that it is amazing they are able to function, but not only do they function, they have dictated to the rest of us how things will be as they have served as totems to advance the revolution against Christendom.
Bah. I could go on forever. I’ve said all this before. It’s just sick. And, BTW, the NCAA is considering adopting the IOC’s position.
Wow. Via Eponymous Flower, one of the most disturbing statements emanating from Francis I’ve read to date. Speaking before the Italian Committee on Bioethics recently, Pope Francis had this to say, according to Vatican Insider:
Francis said: “Everyone is aware of how sensitive the Church is to ethical issues but perhaps it is not clear to everyone that the Church does not lay claim to a privileged voice in this field; [Whaaa?!?!] in fact it is a source of great satisfaction for the Church when civic responsibility at different levels is able to reflect, discern and act according to a free and open way of thinking and inspired by integral human and social values. This mature civic responsibility is a sign that the seed of the Gospel – which has been revealed and entrusted to the Church – has produced fruits, successfully fostering the search for truth and good in complex human and ethical questions” [This last statement might seem to ameliorate the first a bit, but what is he saying? He seems to be saying that “integral human and social values” are Gospel values, and they are, but that is such a reductive view of the Gospel, which is first and foremost about SALVATION. The first statement – that the Church does not lay claim to a privileged voice in ethical – or moral – matters is incredible, inexplicable, and indefensible. Like “who am I to judge,” this can be used by enemies of the constant belief and practice of the Faith within the Church for many years to come. How dare you speak out against abortion, or usury, or anything else? The Church doesn’t have a privileged voice, after all.]
…….Pope Francis said in a meeting with the Italian Committee for Bioethics today, highlighting the risk of utility and profit being the only reference points for developments in science and biological and medical technologies. He urged this advisory body of the Italian government, headed by Francesco Paolo Casavola, a Catholic, to look further into environmental degradation, “disability and the marginalisation of vulnerable individuals”. [Purely humanistic concerns. But what about the state’s role in fostering good morals and even an environment conducive to the salvation of souls, something so many previous Pope’s have highlighted?] He asked them in other words to tackle the challenge of countering today’s “throwaway culture” which “takes on many forms, including treating human embryos as disposable material, as well as sick and elderly people approaching the end”. The Pope also asked them to harmonise standards and norms in the biological and medical fields.
Francis seems increasingly to exist in a world I might call fantastic, or something like a fantasy-land. At a time when the Christian influence on the culture, especially in the post-Christian West, is falling away more rapidly than at anytime in recorded history, he points at integral human and social values in bioethics – a highly morally troubled field, to be kind – as evidence of Gospel influence? Yes, tilting one’s head sideways and ignoring a great deal of contrary evidence, there is a bit of truth to that, but implying that modern-day progressive humanist values as strongly Gospel-inspired is simply incredible.
I guess more concerning – more obviously substantial – is his correlation of humanism with the Gospel. Again, that is true, to a point, but there are no distinctions made, no rebuke against the grave errors that inhabit the mind of many “ethicists” (this is the same profession, after all, that has told us that post-birth abortion “aka murder” of children up to five is perfectly acceptable), no demarcating a clear line of distinction between the positive humanism of Jesus Christ and the profoundly negative, materialist, soul-destroying humanism of the modern-day progressive outlook.
And on top of it all, the statement that the Church has no privileged voice when it comes to public ethics! No wonder he looks down upon those praying outside abortion mills as interloping busy bodies! No wonder he opposed the effort of tens of thousands of Italian Catholics to stop their nation from accepting the lie of pseudo-sodo-marriage! Little wonder he lists “environmental degradation” as one of the most grave evils to combat!
This is well beyond even anything that Pope Paul VI was willing to advocate, heretofore far and away the most secular-minded, progressive pope in history. It is the veritable opposite of what virtually every single other predecessor of his in his vital office has ever decreed, such as Pope Leo XIII stating: “The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals.” However, this kind of declaration is in line with how a secular left-leaning individual views the Church. In fact, it is entirely in context with what we have seen of this entire agenda to remake the Church into what Francis somehow claims to loathe – just another worldly, money-funneling, occasionally-do-some-good NGO.
I’m quite surprised this comment hasn’t received far more attention than it has, because it’s really shocking. Have we already become inured to such declarations? That’s a potential follow-on effect of this pontificate, that it reshape the views of even those doubtful, or openly opposed, to its course in ways they themselves don’t quite realize. Thus the revolution embodied -and, according to many of his collaborators, intended – by this pontificate can become deeply ingrained in the Catholic psyche, affecting the sensus fidei of millions for years or decades to come And as I said, this can even trickle down to those who have grave concerns.
Feature or bug?
Mass failure: Brooklyn parish holds “Star Wars” Mass February 1, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
St. Bernard Parish in Brooklyn scheduled, and apparently yesterday held, a “fun” Star Wars themed Mass. Kids were invited to dress as their favorite characters – many adherents to a Buddhist-Shintoist religion, some of whom are guilty of genocide and other acts of depravity on an unimaginable scale – and further denigrate the sanctity and vitality of the Mass:
The theme in the Church these past few decades really seems to be: when you totally run out of ideas, ape pop culture! Pop culture is popular! Maybe some of that popularity will rub off on us!
We wish this was just a joke. It is not. It is pure sacrilege taking place in a parish in Brooklyn, New York. Not only does the Diocese of Brooklyn know about this abomination … it actually helped advertise it on facebook!…….
……..According to the advertisement, the Mass itself was to be “Star Wars” themed.
First, this Mass did take place. Parishioners have confirmed it did.
Some of those tried to downplay the event, saying the Mass was not Star Wars-themed, itself, except for the kids dressed up like little Sith and Jedi. They say there was a Star Wars party concurrent and after the Mass, instead. But the flyer clearly spoke of a Star Wars themed Mass, so……..
As I said, when the Mass undergoes a transformation from the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, the confecting of the Real Presence of Our Lord Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, into a closed circle celebration of us, awesome, awesome US, this kind of thing is bound to happen. Indeed, it is almost inevitable, and there is even room to argue it is surprising it doesn’t happen more often than it does (instead, we tend to see a proliferation of not-so-obvious abuses). Such a fundamental dereliction of the ends of the Mass, from Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving, and Supplication, to “let’s cheer for the choir,” Eucharistic Prayer II, and “active participation means everyone scurry around” reveals a profoundly humanistic, even attention-seeking ethos. Instead of reaching children by sharing with them the unspeakable glory of the Gift God makes available to us every time we assist at Mass, we get Star Wars, clown, and balloon Masses.
And the vast majority of those kids fall away. 50 years of abject failure have proven that to an irrefutable degree. Instead, those in the vast majority of the Church, be they lay, priest, or bishop, continue to try absolutely anything, no matter how disordered, no matter how irreverent, except that which worked – demonstrably, provably – so very well for 1950 years, give or take a few.
It’s very difficult to see in that steadfast refusal to return to what worked so well, for so long, something other than a revolutionary intent revealing the mindset of an incompatible religion. It was through the Liturgy that I first came to recognize the crisis in the Church, and that continues through to this day.
Hideous, glowing WaPo report on “homosexual” priests February 1, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Uff da. They may be right that half or more of current clergy are inclined to same-sex attraction, but that only indicts the horrific dereliction that has afflicted seminaries and dioceses going back decades, to before the Council. Suffice it to say, a cadre of ideologically motivated and perversely inclined men started entering the priesthood in deliberate, focused fashion in the mid-20th century, rose to occupy many levers of power in the Church, and remade the institutions they controlled into something radically different from what they were intended to be. Their presence was a key element in the revolution within the Church. The continuing influence of avowedly “gay” priests is a cancer eating away at the heart of the Church, as these men are ultimately living a lie and are, on some fundamental level, gravely handicapped, if not totally unsuited, for the sacred office they hold (happily celibate men who eschew their disordered inclination are a special case I won’t get into in this post. I’m speaking of the unapologetic types identified below).
The source is the Washington Post, so you can expect these men – who entered the priesthood knowing the Church’s clear Doctrine on the disordered nature of same-sex attraction and the manifest evil of sodomy – receive a sympathetic ear. This is in fact a push piece intended to stir up sodomitical radicalism in the Church, but it’s important to know what we’re up against (my emphasis and comments):
At a time when the phrase “coming out” is starting to sound almost quaint, the Catholic priesthood may be one of the last remaining closets — and it’s a crowded one. People who study gay clergy believe gay men make up a significant percentage of the 40,000 ordained priests in the United States, including some who believe they may even be the majority…….[Maybe. Which doesn’t make it OK, it just shows the depths of the crisis and the derangement that has afflicted the Church in the past few decades]
The Catholic Church is in the throes of a historic period of debate about homosexuality. Between Pope Francis’s now-famous “Who am I to judge?” line and two high-profile, global meetings he called in the past year to open up discussion about sex and family, there has perhaps never been as much dialogue among Catholics about how far to extend the welcome mat to gay people. [We shall never be rid of that damnable statement. It will continue to scandalize and serve as justification for noxious sin and revolution in the Church for decades to come]
……..Gay priests are invisible in this debate; the church does not research the topic. However, interviews with a dozen priests and former seminarians who are gay, and experts on gay priests, reveal a group of men mostly comfortable with their sexuality. Many express no urgency for the church to accept it. Some, however, say the priesthood remains sexually repressive; one said there is an “invisible wall” around the topic among priests. [Chastity is not repression. Sheesh the worldliness, the hedonism of these guys. I’ll just add that some of the worst child abusers in the priesthood – like those at St. John’s Abbey in Minnesota – were those who “embraced” their sexuality and had no shame whatsoever about it.]
……..The Rev. Warren Hall decided to join the tiny number of out priests after he was removed as campus minister of Seton Hall University last May. Officials noted he had supported a group on Facebook that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and racial justice……..
…….“Priests want to be good priests, they want to do their job,” said Hall, who was reassigned to a Hoboken, N.J., parish. [So he’s still in service. C’MON!]
………Priests who have come out — in some cases citing the need to confront anti-LGBT discrimination — say they have found scant support among other priests.
“Parishioners were very supportive. [Gee, a priest with a huge skeleton, something that he knows is not rightly ordered to the priesthood, raises up morally indifferent people. Color me shocked!] Religious women were very supportive. [The most disordered cohort in the Church. Shocked!] One group that was silent were my brother priests. Gay as well as straight,” said the Rev. Fred Daley, a Syracuse, N.Y., priest who came out in 2004 after he was angered by people blaming gay priests for the global clergy sex abuse crisis…….[Please. Nearly 90% of the victims were boys. Give me a break. And yet another open priest still in service. Is he celibate? Note that Syracuse in the disastrously liberal upstate NY dioceses]
The mixture of fealty to God and the church and concern about harming parishioners or their standing in the priesthood has led some gay priests to gauge each situation before opening up. [So then on some level they are fundamentally dishonest. Is that a desirable characteristic in a priest? Notice how all this revolves around THEM. More below]
A New York priest says he comes out only in rare private circumstances, when counseling someone struggling to accept their homosexuality. “I’ve been in multiple situations where someone will say: ‘I’m a piece of s—.’ I’ll say: ‘Do I look like a piece of s— to you? God made me this way.’ ”[I am so tired of hearing this. This priest is destroying who knows how many souls, as an authority figure who invincibly convinces them that their sins are No. Big. Deal. Most will never overcome that tragic experience]
A Pennsylvania priest says he’s “quietly subversive,” speaking acceptingly of gay people but not to just anyone. Even the confessional is not a truly safe place for him to tell someone who is gay that it’s not a bad thing. “We have too much to lose. I’ve invested my life in this business.”
That last bit really encapsulates the, I would say diabolical, nature of these men. First, it’s all about him, again. Second, we see the self-serving revolutionary mentality, “quietly subversive.” Thirdly, we see his incredibly disordered approach to the priesthood – “this business.” Fourth, we see a mentality that defines self around one’s sexual predilections to a disconcerting degree, which weighs heavily against the right conduct of a priestly office. But that’s what many priests have been formed to be, mid-level managers in Amchurchcorp and occasional “sacramental administrators,” whose personal life is held to be as inconsequential as that of a McDonald’s manager.
A self-identified “gay” priest argues towards the end of the article that the newer generation of priests is more conservative but just as “gay” as the preceding generations. Which, I pray is not true, but I would not be shocked to know that the lavender mafia controlling the vast majority of seminaries continues to weed out non-disordered men. I really do tend to think this kind of thing is much less prevalent in the few traditional seminaries, but I’m sure the crisis extends even there but to a dramatically lesser degree. We should bear in mind, however, the self-serving nature of the priest’s claim – he has an obvious ax to grind, his conduct of the priesthood is bolstered if he feels like it’s inevitable, “everyone is doing it,” and even the more conservative priests are “just as bad.” It could be BS.
BUT…….reports like this do highlight the grave crisis afflicting the priesthood. It’s going to take a long time for this consuming illness afflicting the priesthood to recede to more historic norms, if not be excised almost entirely. Unfortunately, with the culture losing its mind and all but trumpeting this inclination as not just equivalent to, but in many ways superior to a well-ordered, moral life, it may well get still worse. That seems incredible, but we live in unprecedented times.
On the bright side, we will never run out of things to pray for.
Another insightful Rorate interview with Bishop Schneider; gives strong support to SSPX February 1, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Papa, persecution, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
You might also recall a separate interview +Schneider gave in which he spoke positively of the SSPX. This was in the wake of his apostolic visitation, conducted at the request of Francis. That interview contained very positive comments towards the SSPX, comments that developed into a bit of a furball involving CMTV trying to get Schneider to retract or explain his comments away, which he never did, to my mind. at least not to change their meaning.
I excerpt a bit of this most recent interview below. Bishop Schneider, while drawing necessary distinctions, appears to reveal an even more positive attitude towards the SSPX than he did last summer (among a few other matters addressed – my comments as usual):
The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faithfrequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope.
The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics. [It’s a train wreck. To add to the tragedy, I have now had two different people tell me just in the past couple of weeks that protestants on the cusp on converting have backed off due to scandal and confusion caused by Francis. I imagine my two examples are hardly the last] For simple Catholics in the pews, such a situation of confusion is a real challenge of their faith, in the indestructibility of the Church. They have to keep strong the integrity of their faith according to the immutable Catholic truths, which were handed over by our fore-fathers, and which we find in in the Traditional catechisms and in the works of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church. [Bishop Schneider is saying in times like these, we cannot always look to the institutional Church for orthodox catechesis, but must turn to the unchanging “Magisterium of the Dead” – Tradition]
………When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.
When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days– even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.
In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. [I think he is pointing at the SSPX-SO here] However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplary and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SSPX. [That’s a pretty clear and bold statement. Fellay is an exemplary bishop. Quite an endorsement. And not one that seems prone to walking back.]
………We have to believe firmly: The Church is not ours, nor the Pope’s. The Church is Christ’s and He alone holds and leads her indefectibly even through the darkest periods of crisis, as our current situation indeed is. [Something very important to remember. We MUST keep the Faith, in spite of all the temptations to the contrary. We cannot run away like the twelve Apostles. But there is a world of discussion surrounding just what “keeping the Faith” means, and how that faith can be best exercised. I try to be as liberal in understanding as possible in that regard, within the bounds of my mediocre conscience, working out my salvation with fear and trembling]
This is a demonstration of the Divine character of the Church. The Church is essentially a mystery, a supernatural mystery, and we cannot approach her as we approach a political party or a pure human society. At the same time, the Church is human and on her human level she is nowadays enduring a sorrowful passion, participating in the Passion of Christ.
One can think that the Church in our days is being flagellated as our Lord, is being denuded as was Our Lord, on the tenth Cross station. The Church, our mother, is being bound in cords not only by the enemies of Christ but also by some of their collaborators in the rank of the clergy, even sometimes of the high clergy………[Or very often the high clergy. The crisis in the Church is a crisis of leadership, of bad bishops]
………We have to pray that the Pope may soon consecrate explicitly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then She will win, as the Church prayed since the old times: “Rejoice O Virgin Mary, for thou alone have destroyed all heresies in the whole world” (Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo). [So there it is. It seems Bishop Schneider believes Russia has not been explicitly consecrated, which, judging from Russia’s lack of conversion and the worsening crisis in the Church, would certainly appear to be the case.]
……..Expressions like “development of doctrine” and “pastoral compassion” are in fact usually a pretext to change the teaching of Christ, and against its perennial sense and integrity, as the Apostles had transmitted it to the whole Church, and it was faithfully preserved through the Fathers of the Church, the dogmatic teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Popes.
Ultimately, those clerics want another Church, and even another religion: A naturalistic religion, which is adapted to the spirit of the time. Such clerics are really wolves in sheep’s clothing, often flirting with the world. Not courageous shepherds – but rather cowardly rabbits.
There is a great deal more at the link. Bishop Schneider generally does not mince words and tells it like it is. He goes beyond what some of the other relatively orthodox bishops are willing to say, especially with regard to the Society. He seems to really feel they are part of the Church, even in their current situation. Which is not a point I have ever been inclined to argue, while noting that there are problems and limitations attached to that situation.
+Schneider does seem open to the possibility of confrontation with this pontificate over matters of Doctrine, which is hardly surprising. Saying so publicly, I imagine, means he has been much more strident behind the scenes, as that tends to be how such things go. He is careful in his words – which some might find disappointing – but I always try to be reasonable in my expectations of bishops who have to walk a fine line. Yes we’d love to see fire-breathing excoriations and razor-sharp clarity, but that might mean that bishop is removed from office and loses whatever influence he has. It’s not easy for lay people to understand the risks relatively good bishops like Schneider take in going even as far as they do, and the enormous pressure and threats they face.
With that in mind, I’d say it’s a very good and helpful interview, overall. I’m glad we have Bishop Schneider in the Church.
What does the NRA have, that other conservative groups do not January 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, scandals, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership.
I say that especially with regard to socially conservative groups. With the exception of the pro-life movement, which has some level of small success, conservatives have been singularly ineffective in defending the moral order and seeing their agenda enacted. All, that is, except for the NRA and the gun rights groups. I saw this article on the surrender of democrat Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe on his number one campaign promise – moves against gun rights – last night and what struck me was the fear of God the NRA can strike even in the hearts of liberal stalwarts. We have nothing similar in the social conservative movement:
Virginia’s Governor Tery McAuliffe has retreated on his Administration’s decision to sever concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states after a firestorm of criticism…….
……It’s interesting to see the Washington Post attempt to call the permanent protective order a “major concession” in order to save face for McAuliffe. It was very much a minor concession in line with what most Republicans support. no one wants an violent abuser to have access to firearms.
You can tell just how much the reversal stung gun control supporters by the screams of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Outside extremely liberal enclaves like New York, Chicago, Washington DC, etc., the pro-gun agenda tends to hold sway. Even the most anti-gun president in history has been able to do very little to limit access to firearms by law-abiding citizens in his terms of office. Not for lack of trying. But even many democrat congressman are terrified of crossing the NRA.
Why is that? Why is the NRA/gun rights movement so successful, when almost every other social conservative enterprise has failed so spectacularly over the past 40 years or so?
Well, one thing…….the NRA has money, and lots of it. They have significantly more resources than other social conservative groups. But how do they get that money? They get it through fundraising and constantly beating the bushes for more (they do also have some wealthy benefactors).
But it’s not just money that makes the NRA effective. It’s also voting. Gun “fanatics” vote. They are often single-issue voters. A politician who crosses the gun rights movement is, to all intents and purposes, dead to them, forever. We are not nearly so consistent on the pro-life or pro-traditional morality side. We do not have the strong track record of turning out of office politician after politician who votes/supports measures against our interest. Yes, there were exceptions, particularly in 2010 after the Obamacare debacle, but, for the most part, there either aren’t enough of us, or we don’t vote consistently enough, to be a major electoral factor for a lot of socially liberal politicians.
Now, political power flows from numbers. But a majority of Americans do not own guns. While the number of firearms in circulation has dramatically increased in the last decade, the actual number of firearms owners has slightly decreased. How, then, has the political power of the gun rights lobby seemingly increased?
And do gun rights advocates outnumber social conservatives, generally? Don’t the two groups largely overlap? Perhaps not. I don’t have data, but I know a lot of pro-gun people who are fairly liberal on a host of social issues. They are more libertarian than conservative.
I doubt there are more strident firearms advocates than there are pro-lifers, at least, not enough to make a huge difference, politically. So, my question remains.
I really don’t have an answer. I talked with my wife about this last night and we didn’t really come up with any brilliant solution. About the only thing I could conclude is that gun rights types vote more consistently and organize much, much better. I do think that is one thing – the gun rights groups are tightly mobilized and tend to be quite disciplined. The social conservatives are divided among themselves, and only a relative few are conservative across the whole spectrum on social issues (abortion, contraception, redefinition of marriage, sodomy, body mutilation/transgenderism, etc., etc).
I’m kind of out of time, but thought that might make an interesting topic for discussion.