Federal Judge Sidney Fitzwater issued a judgment early this morning declaring the Dallas’ City Council’s refusal to permit a repeat of last year’s disastrous Exxxotica pornucopia to be legal and constitutional. Please be aware of the link, there are manifestly immoral images. Note also, Dallas Morning News opinionist Robert Wilonsky is a secular pagan leftist, or at the least leans heavily that way. His coverage is far from unbiased (he leans in favor of the “expo”).
I did not get to cover during my break from blogging the news that Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, and the majority of the City Council, had moved to block the “sexpo” from recurring. This was in the face of very strong public opposition to this immoral activity, where, it is reported, instances of public nudity, immoral acts, and prostitution were observed. It has not been reported, yet, whether Exxxotica will attempt to appeal this decision. What the decision does mean, however, is that the event planned for next month has been definitively cancelled:
A federal judge has decided the Dallas City Council is within its rights to ban a sex expo from returning to the city-owned convention center.
In a 32-page opinion issued early Thursday, U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater denied Exxxotica’s request for a preliminary injunction, which was filed in February after seven members of the Dallas City Council sided with Mayor Mike Rawlings’ resolution banning the porn expo from returning to the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center.
Exxxotica had hoped to return next month, following last August’s Dallas debut. Today’s ruling means that will not happen.
Exxxotica might appeal the ruling, or simply allow the case to go to trial. We are awaiting comment from its attorneys and organizers.
In a prepared statement, Rawlings said he was “pleased” with the judge’s decision, and said that w”hile this case is not over and this ruling does not guarantee what would happen at trial, I am extremely proud of the seven City Council members who had the courage to support this ban.”…..
…….“As lawyers who litigate constitutional issues, we were convinced that Exxxotica was advancing a unjustifiably expansive view of the First Amendment,” said Rob Walters, who represents the Dallas Citizens Council, which last week filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s position. “We applaud Judge Fitzwater for his careful and well-reasoned opinion and Mayor Rawlings and General Paxton and the State of Texas for their leadership on this important issue.”
Paxton added in a prepared statement that he was “happy to join the Dallas Citizens Council in this effort that allows the city of Dallas to be a place where businesses can continue to flourish.”
I’d like to thank, without naming them, the local parishioners who made up part of the legal team defending the City Council decision. Dallas’ city attorneys, in another display of the pernicious infiltration of leftists into every imaginable nook and cranny of governance at all levels, had refused to defend the case in court, finding the ban supposedly unconstitutional. Thus, the city has had to retain private attorneys to argue the case.
I’d like to also note that, contra the rhetoric we’ve heard from city officials in Oklahoma City, it does seem a city can fight a First Amendment case and even win, from time to time. Prior to all the atrocities committed by satanists against the Lord, His Mother, and His Church in OKC, we were told repeatedly by the mayor and other elected officials that it was simply impossible to stop a black mass or a desecration of a statue of Our Lady because, ummm……First Amendment! That was always bullocks, as I argued at the time, cities certainly do argue First Amendment cases all the time. We can see from the above that the black mass especially could have been blocked, as it occurred on city property. The fact of the matter is, the WILL to stop the blasphemy from occurring did not exist.
I remain convinced that the heavily evangelical OKC leadership simply did not care to stop this blasphemy due to their latent anti-Catholic bias. Had it been a more protestant ox being gored, the reaction may well have been different.
I feel I now have even more evidence to support that supposition. I, therefore, continue to believe that Oklahoma City is a hotbed of seething anti-Catholic bigotry, and should be boycotted by all faithful souls to the maximum extent possible.
I should add that it was up to Catholic laity (and other Christians and even secular groups) to oppose this moral monstrosity. Bishop Farrell was silent, as usual, presumably because the matter did not touch on prudential matters such as guns or immigration, only acts which can send souls to hell for all eternity. One must have one’s priorities, after all.
More like this: great videos of Bishop Gracida, including a challenge to the faithful to call out heresy during Mass April 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, manhood, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
I’ve admired Bishop Rene Gracida Emeritus of Corpus Christi since learning about him shortly after founding this blog. I was really pleased to learn that because of severe deficiencies he has observed in the Novus Ordo, he only offers the TLM anymore.
Michael Voris has done a good service in posting several Vortex episodes featuring Bishop Gracida. If the Church had far more shepherds like him over the past several decades (he actually excommunicated pro-aborts), the Church and world would be a far better place.
Some of the info below is biographical, some is timely, and some is inspirational. Take a few minutes and watch all the videos if you have not already seen them:
OK, I think he undersells matters a bit here regarding Vatican II, but this condemnation is much further than the vast majority of bishops would go:
Now, I really like the idea Bishop Gracida proposes in the video below. It would take rather weighty stones, but we’re in desperate need of calling a spade a spade in the Church today:
So what do you think of that? Should laity start calling out – even in the midst of the Holy Sacrifice- when priests or even bishops promote error, heresy, or abuse? Some might be aghast at the idea of interrupting the sanctity of the Mass, but I can say such interruptions did occur in the early Church, especially in the East. There were a large number of liturgies at Hagia Sophia interrupted by scandalized laity calling out the proclamations of heretical leadership, especially during the iconoclast heresy.
I can say, I’ve been tempted to do so in the past. I never assist at locales where heresy and abuse is taught from the pulpit anymore, but I think, at the point of extremis in which the Church finds herself, such drastic action should not be dismissed out of hand. You don’t need to go charging up to the altar mid-Mass if the priest’s maniple is not tied right, but if Father Dudebro starts waxing about sodomite “love wins” or that the pope has declared divorce to be A-OK for the universal Church………well, we have to push back at some point, don’t we? Of course, prudence must guide all and perhaps first attempts should be made at counseling the offender, but for those who recalcitrantly refuse to stop preaching the errors of newchurch, I think such an intervention could certainly be called for.
Always remember: shame works. There is very little that motivates like shame, and avoidance of it. I believe the collapse of shame as a motivator has played a significant role in the accelerating downfall of the West. Now, a strong adherence to ideology can insulate someone from shame, as can having a lot of support from a captive audience, but I have to believe a few public shamings of heresy would have a chilling effect on its being proclaimed abroad. An interesting experiment to conduct, at any rate.
Bishop Gracida continues to amaze and impress at over 90 years of age. He looks like he could go another 20. Ad multos annos.
Francis, asked about “new concrete possibilities” for Church Doctrine, answers “Yes. Period.” April 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, Francis, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Hilary White has gone apoplectic over this, and I can see why. Francis was directly asked a very specific question by American Church-insider blogger Francis Rocca regarding change to what Rocca calls the “discipline” (it’s not mere discipline, it’s solemn Doctrine, but we can see how the constant apologists will be framing this matter, redefining Doctrine down to discipline) in the matters of morality touched on by Amoris Laetitia, and especially as it relates to those persisting in adulterous “unions.” The answer was very clear and to the point, but I’ll let you decide for yourself:
Today on the plane press conference on the way back to Rome from Greece, Pope Francis was asked a very direct question about the exhortation*:
Some maintain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments for the divorced and remarried, and that the law and the pastoral practice and obviously the doctrine remains the same; others maintain instead that much has changed and that there are many new openings and possibilities. The question is for one person, a Catholic, that wants to know: Are there new concrete possibilities, that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation or not.
His answer, though it went on longer, contained a straightforward affirmation:
“I can say yes.” (“Posso dire di sì“)
And that “yes” was immediately followed with a “punto,” meaning “period.” As in yes, period, or yes, damnit, I’m the Bishop of Rome, and I can do whatever I want.
Intent is the key to everything in the moral sphere. Asked directly if he intended to change Church “discipline” – and again, this is not a matter of discipline, but touches on a command straight from Our Blessed Lord’s own mouth – Francis did not equivocate. “New concrete possibilities” has been, for 50 years now, post-conciliar Church-speak for radical change. You can draw your own conclusions.
Now I kind of doubt Francis or the Vatican will issue clear commands to admit manifest adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament. He and his allies may be that bold, but I imagine they’ll just let events play out as they know they will – it will be the national conferences that will issue “guidelines” demanding/recommending/permitting the divorced and remarried (without annulments) to the Blessed Sacrament. Very soon this “permission” will become de rigeuer, and essentially mandatory, like Communion in the hand, god-awful protestant hymns, and barring Latin from the Mass. And I strongly doubt it will stop there. It is an open question whether the Ecclesia Dei communities will long be permitted to refuse such “service” to demanding customers.
It’s late and I’ve got to go, but I wonder if this rare moment of candor will finally convince some folks that the occasional orthodox bones they are thrown do not represent the “real” Francis of their surely well-meaning longings? I tend to doubt it, very little seems able to penetrate the bastions of the papologists, but it might move a few. Not that I rejoice in that. This whole business is as sorry as it is sad.
PS – This has been reported and translated by many and this is not a translation issue.
A few more thoughts on Amoris Laetitia April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A rare late Friday afternoon blog post for you. I haven’t thought this post through very well, I only have a few minutes……we’ll see what emerges.
I saw some commentary on the post to the effect that we shouldn’t panic, the Church still stands, a pope cannot destroy the Church, etc. I do not panic for the Church. I panic for the millions of souls who will, with absolute certainty, fall into error and lose their faith. I panic over the irreparable (in human terms) harm being done to the Church and souls. I have great fear over the future, and further chaos. I fear the gathering darkness, and just how brutal the Church’s passion must be. Since the Church is our Lord’s Body on earth, we can discern her passion will be every bit as terrible as His.
I have considered whether my initial post on this matter was scandalous or over the top. I did get some guidance that I might pull back my strong hints regarding Francis’ lack of faithfulness to the belief and practice of the Church.
But considering the matter more coolly, now that the initial shock and anger have subsided, I would have a hard time issuing a retraction. Subsequent analysis, contra the claims of Cardinal Burke, has indicated that Amoris Laetitia (the “Joy of Sex?”) constitutes a clear addition to the Church’s Magisterium*. Yet it contains scores of statements which are scandalous, dangerous, possessed of a grave tendency to spread error and undermine the Faith, or out and out erroneous. Millions have already concluded that the Church has somehow changed her Doctrine on solemn matters such as the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those persisting in openly adulterous unions.
This document represents not only a radical departure from the Church’s perennial belief and practice on numerous moral matters, it contains not only grave misrepresentations (to the point of prevarication) of previous magisterial statements, but it, to me, represents a direct assault on some of the most critical moral doctrines of the Faith. Declaring pseudo-sodo-marriage to be out of bounds while gravely wounding marriage by helping to normalize divorce, remarriage, and de-sacralizing the Blessed Sacrament is not just unwise, it self-contradictory. How did we get to the point where the culture is so insane that most Catholics now believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is not only possible, it is full equivalent to true marriage and should be recognized as such by law? Precisely through the mass normalization of divorce, remarriage, abuse of the Blessed Sacrament (and the self-denial of the torrents of Grace that should flow from it), etc. It is contradictory to gravely weaken the Church’s condemnation of fornication, while at the same time declare abortion to be impermissible.
That is to say, what we are confronted with in Amoris Laetitia is very different from, say, Honorius signing a document endorsing Arianism at the point of a sword. This is a concerted, deliberate, pre-meditated act. What is more, it touches not on just one point of Doctrine but many of them.
The solemn Doctrine of the Faith is a tightly woven cohesive whole. One thread cannot be pulled without unraveling the entirety. The protestant revolutionaries proved this irrefutably with the founding of their false sects. Many started with just one particular point of deviation (such as the rejection of indulgences), but in virtually no time that “one thing” expanded into a radically different, and implacably hostile, set of beliefs. If this course of synodal- and, it must be said, papal-induced chaos continues for even a few years, there will be nothing left.
Taken as a whole, I am forced to conclude that, from an earthly perspective, Francis lacks the Faith. However, I also believe that he remains the Bishop of Rome seated in the Chair of Peter and head of the universal Church. I do not know how to reconcile these beliefs. I can only conclude that this is a mystery far beyond me, a mystery which may well continue to torment the Church for decades should he be followed by like-minded individuals as the Church continues her inevitable passion. I am not saying, even remotely, that the Church has fallen, that Christ’s promise is false. I am not saying that the heretical sects are somehow right. I am not saying that the Church is reduced to an invisible element.
I am only saying that based on all the mass of evidence we have before us (and it is copious), Francis holds views which cannot be reconciled with the perennial belief and practice of the Church. Since holding those beliefs in their entirety has always been taken to be the sine qua non of being Catholic, the conclusion is inescapable.
I know Jesus Christ will prevail in the end. I strongly suspect all these events are being directed by His positive will. I have not the faintest doubt that Christ will come in glory, the dead will rise, and there will be a final judgment of the good and evil. I pray I have the faith to stand fast in these difficult times, but nothing any pope says or does is going to cause me to fall away. Nor should you. But I’m not going to bury my head in the sand, pretend this is not huge significant, or go along as if nothing has happened. Something has happened, and we all have to come to terms with it while striving with all our might to remain faithful.
I strongly feel what we are seeing now from many quarters, seeking to explain away this exhortation or diminish its significance, is an exact replay of how the modernists were able to remake the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If you wondered how people raised in the Faith with the Mass of Ages to sustain them could meekly accept, with precious little opposition, the radical changes foisted on the Church, look around you. In fact, the process never stopped, but today the similarities are too striking to ignore.
I hope and pray I may be some tiny bit of assistance to you all in that effort. But if you’re looking for apologias for this pontificate, you’re probably going to be better off visiting other sites.
*- I have seen Cardinal Burke’s claim that Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document. I believe the case Cardinal Burke puts forth is flawed. As other sites have noted, declaring Amoris Laetitia to be non-magisterial would be to throw out numerous other similar apostolic exhortations of the post-conciliar period, such as Familiaris Consortio, generally seen as being a much more orthodox document. But perhaps throwing out all these apostolic exhortations from the post-conciliar period, novel as they are in consisting of “conclusions” ostensibly drawn from a meeting of a limited sub-set of bishops (I say ostensibly, as it is very apparent this pope had a conclusion in mind from well before the idea of a series of synods was even floated), might not be such a bad thing? Perhaps Cardinal Burke is on to something, after all? Or perhaps the argument could be framed that any document, from whatever source, that contradicts the Faith is immediately inadmissible? But how to reconcile this with the magisterial definition of the Office of the Papacy that has emerged, particularly over the past 150 years?
I am not the one to answer these questions. I have a feeling, however, that should the Church and this earth survive for another few hundred years, future saintly theologians will be struggling with these questions, and might arrive at surprising conclusions.
Enough! Have a blessed weekend.
A perfect lamentation for our time from Dom Gueranger April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Liturgical Year, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, The End, Tradition, Virtue.
A perfect lamentation for our time in the long history of the Church from The Liturgical Year of Dom Prosper Gueranger. This comes from the reading from the Friday of the Third Week of Easter, which just happens to be today! Go figure. Pretty strong stuff below, but so very apropos for the mounting nightmare surrounding episcopal authority:
How much they are to be pitied, O Church, who do not know thee!…..how much they are to be pitied who once knew thee, and afterwards in their pride and ingratitude, denied thee! And yet no one ever fell into such misery, unless he first voluntarily shut his eyes against the light that was within him. [This is truly key, and must never be forgotten. There is always a positive act of the will in the descent into error] How much they are to be pitied who know thee, and still live enjoying what thou givest thy children, and who yet take side with thine enemies in insulting and betraying thee! They are men whose character is shallowness of mind; they speak their opinions as though they were oracles; they have contracted the flippant effrontery of our age; and to hear them speak of thee, one would suppose that they look on thee as a human institution, which they may approve or blame according to their own humor. [AHEM! I can’t possible imagine just who such a condemnation might apply to in the Church today!]
Instead of revering whatsoever thou hast taught regarding thyself and thy rights, instead of revering what thou hast ordained, regulated, and practiced; these “Catholics,” whose sympathies are all with thine enemies, would have thee conform thy teachings to the so-called progress of the times. The whole world is given to thee as thine inheritance; and yet those insolent children would have thee be content with what they think proper to assign to thee. Thou, the Mother of mankind, must be under their wise care! It is from them that thou must henceforth learn how best to fulfill thy mission! Godless men, adorers of what they called the rights of man, dared, a century back, to expel thee from political life, which up till then thou hadst kept in harmony with its Divine Master. These men have left disciples who would have thee withdraw from everything that regards the outward world, and look on as a mere stranger. Thou must no longer exercise the rights given thee by the Son of God over both soul and body; this royalty of thine is out of date, and thou must be satisfied to enjoy the liberty which, in virtue of the law of Progress, is granted alike to error and to truth. The wise and powerful ones of this world have dethroned thy Spouse after two thousand year’s reign; and instead of resenting such a project with holy indignation, as tending to the destruction of the last bulwark of Christendom, there are many among us who approve of it, and this on principles which are, it is true, in favor with rationalistic politicians and leaders, but which are formally condemned by thy teachings, thy acts, nay, by thy very existence. How short-sighted are such Catholics as these, who hope to make thee acceptable to the world by giving thee the semblance of a human institution! The world is too shrewd; it knows thee to be essentially supernatural, and this is what it can never tolerate.
And so the effort to make the Church acceptable to the world by raping her of her sacred beliefs and cherished practices (a rape all the more horrific as it constitutes incest, a rape committed by son against mother) is doomed to failure, as the world, informed as it is to such a very great extent by satan, knows that the Church is the supernatural entity of God and so can only be destroyed, not transformed into some acceptable human institution. Not that there is ever a want of people to make the attempt.
We can see in the above, however, that the modernist-progressive effort to bring the Church low has been around for 150 years and more, and has always been working against a concerted plan. The bastions served incredibly well for a over a century against this particular threat, till they were pulled down by the defenders themselves, who had absorbed far too much of the lying propaganda they had heard blasted over the Church’s walls. 50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destro50 years ago, all those intricate defenses pious minds and the work of Grace could produce were destroyed, and the Church was left nearly defenseless against her constant enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even worse, whole generations of men were ordained priests thoroughly infected with diabolical error, and they have now risen to the highest levels of authority. I don’t despair for the Church – She is the Body of Christ, completely indestructible and beyond taint in her mystical element – but I do have enormous fears for the souls of millions who will fall into error and even damnation as the shadow of the diabolical spreads ever deeper into the Church.
That’s why I’ve been praying with such fervor these past 20 months or more, but I fear the Church has entered Her passion and what must come will come. That makes prayer and penance all the more necessary, that we may have the Grace to remain faithful in the terrible days already well underway.
God bless you. I pray for you all.
Francis to extend SSPX faculties for Confession? April 13, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Interior Life, Sacraments, Spiritual Warfare, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
Beats me. Nothing would surprise me anymore. It has long been said of Cardinal Mahony that while he is crazy liberal, he operated his diocese in a kind of “do what feels good” manner that also permitted some freedom of action even to orthodox Catholics. Perhaps Pope Francis is the same. While the below does not come from an unbiased source – it comes from the leader of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay – it is now reported that Francis intends to extend the faculties of the SSPX for Confession beyond the scarifying Year of Mercy:
Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, celebrated the Mass for Good Shepherd Sunday with his two Assistants General.A few days earlier he had met with Pope Francis during a very positive meeting which strengthened ties between the Holy See and the Society founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Despite the publication of the Post-Synodal Exhortation, which “makes us cry,” he revealed some “happiness” from the interview
The Pope confirmed that the SSPX was Catholic in his eyesHe confirmed that he never would condemn it
He confided that he wishes to expand the faculties of the SSPX, starting with the authorization of its priests to validly hear confession.
Finally, during the talks in Rome, Bishop Fellay was encouraged to establish a seminary in Italy.
Are heads exploding among the SSPX-SO? I have no idea. If Francis is succeeded by a similarly progressive pontiff, will he be as inclined to a go-go mentality? The concern of the SSPX-SO has always been that any “deal” with “modernist Rome” would inevitably lead to an undermining of the SSPX’s mission and immediate attempts at co-opting by the forces of modernism. Given the experience of Campos, that’s not a totally unfounded fear, but we’re still miles away from that. I have heard from a number of folks, however, who wonder if it might not paradoxically take a very liberal pope, one not “hung up” on doctrinal definitions and issues of authority and mission, to bring about a reconciliation with the SSPX.
Wonders never cease, I suppose. Or weird stuff happens. h/t reader Tim
There are a lot of local wags and cultural observers who have noted for decades that there are many influential elements in Dallas who would really, really like to see this city be another Los Angeles. I think Cactus Pryor and Becky Patterson Crouch both noted this, and I’ve heard it many other places besides.
In that spirit, perhaps, it’s not terribly surprising that several years ago the Diocese of Dallas started a “ministry conference” that emulated the infamous religious education conferences sponsored by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles every year. Heretofore, this conference had been run formally in conjunction with the still somewhat orthodox University of Dallas and also in conjunction with the Diocese of Fort Worth, but this year the conference was renamed just the Dallas Ministry Conference (instead of the UD ministry conference), and perhaps more significantly, the Diocese of Fort Worth also terminated their association with this annual event. Of the two separations, the latter is probably more telling.
Folks I know in the Diocese of Fort Worth, who would be well placed to know, have long had problems with the Dallas Ministry Conference. Every year, apparently, it was something of a fight to get good speakers/lecturers brought in, and keep bad ones out. As an example, the very problematic – I would say heretical – Fr. Ron Rolheiser spoke at the conference in 2011. And this year, the arch-liberal Archbishop Blase Cupich has been brought in to give the keynote speech. I’m not certain whether it was the Cupich invite, or just general frustration (again, as I have been told) that caused Fort Worth to back out of their monetary support for the conference, but I doubt it helped. It’s a bit telling, perhaps, that Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson, who was previously rector of the Dallas seminary, would make this decision, however. One can imagine the tenor of the discussion which may have preceded this decision.
Another factor concerning the Dallas Ministry Conference is that it has become very much an insider event. The large minority, if not clear majority, of attendees are either employed as teachers/catechists at regional parishes, or individuals who have significant volunteer roles involving same. That is to say, this is essentially a glitzy teacher’s conference for the schools of the Diocese of Dallas. That’s being a bit reductive, but is another complaint regarding the conference from diocesan insiders themselves. Many people attend simply because their parish, under diocesan impetus, buys a block of tickets, and then hands the tickets out to teachers and catechists. They get in free, and are supposedly receiving solid formation at diocesan expense. While the quality of speakers varies wildly, one thing is certain: the orthodox Faith of the Ages is rarely taught in its completeness or with the clarity and force it both deserves and requires. This is a conference mired in the post-conciliar ethos, with all that entails, little of it, from my perspective, good. Thus, the big grey machine just keeps stammering along, its motion propelled less by its own energy but more by the momentum it inherited from the “bad old Church.” Events like this are inherently problematic from my point of view, being, by their nature, “of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy, and for the bureaucracy.”
I don’t think I need to go on at length regarding the myriad problems of inviting a man like Blase Cupich to keynote a conference on religious education. He is the darling of the most progressive, I would even say left-wing, elements in the Church. He has already given scandal on numerous occasions, belittling if not directly contradicting Church Doctrine on subjects ranging from the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament to the sanctity of marriage. His presence gravely undermines whatever good more orthodox conference speakers – almost entirely lay people whose moral authority is thus greatly limited – manage to communicate. I don’t know if there will be any pre-review or approval of his intended speech text, but I think it poses a threat to communicate beliefs potentially hazardous to many if not all listeners. Faith comes by hearing (Rom x:17), but so does error and beliefs tending towards loss of faith. I fear what this speech portends, since it seems part of a series of decisions by Bishop Farrell of late that indicate a turn towards the progressive.
It seems an eon ago since Bishop Farrell, in conjunction with then Bishop Kevin Vann, issued their strong pastoral document in the run-up to the 2008 election making it clear that Catholics could never, under any circumstances, vote for a pro-abort politician. Now, instead of that, we get massive overreactions to legitimate firearms legislation and blanket bans on firearms possession in diocesan facilities. Interesting, as they say. Revealing? I think so. Bishop Farrell has long had the reputation of being very attuned to internal Church politics and he can easily see which way the wind is blowing.
And so can Bishop Olson. Just sayin’.
On a personal note, starting a new job has of course been a very busy time. Things are starting to settle just a bit, so I hope to do a post or two every day or so at least for a while. Some days there will be none. It won’t be like it was for the foreseeable future. I’ll do what I can. Thank you for your patience.
Is Francis Catholic? April 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
To ask…….to be forced to ask……the question is to answer it. I know I have missed a great deal in the past several weeks, including Francis’ frankly embarrassing statements linking the Brussels jihadi attacks to “arms manufacturers” – when all the bombs were homemade! – and while I’ve very little time right now, I could not let this latest assault on the Church of Jesus Christ, our Holy Faith, go by without saying something.
But what is there to say at this point? How many examples must there be? This latest document is far from the first time that Francis has undermined, belittled, weakened, or attacked the Faith. The evidence is overwhelming, He is the most heterodox pope of at least the last 900 years, if not ever. One can argue the degree to which this new apostolic exhortation constitutes formal teaching of error, but the direction of this pontificate is clear: the longer it goes on, the bolder Francis becomes in the errors he proclaims and the degree of formality with which they are proclaimed. I don’t propose any course of action aside from prayer (as there have already been scores of interventions with Francis imploring him to stop, from elements in the Church of far higher authority than lowly lay people), but I tremble for the future. Just this week I had the experience of trying to convince a protestant of what the Church actually believes, a man well disposed to the Church but now hopelessly confused as to what the Church believes. Naturally, most of his confusion comes directly from the man who should be the most trustworthy in the entire world when it comes to matters of faith. Instead, we have a leader who appears, by all evidence, far more attached to leftist secularism than he is to the Faith. Given the enormous Grace associated with his supremely important office, that attachment must be mighty strong. Other men have been moved by that Grace of office to a more orthodox approach, but, in spite of all the prayers offered, Francis has seemed to only redouble his preconceived notion.
As I said, I haven’t much time, and this is not a sede vacantist screed, but I think all we can do at this point is to try limit the damage this man is doing as much as possible and beg God to have mercy on His Church. I really have strived to ignore Francis as much as possible these past several weeks and I can say the break was really pleasant. But unfortunately, I don’t think we can just bury our heads in the sand and ignore this disaster forever. We just have to do what we can to keep our faith as whole as possible, reach as many souls as possible with the real beliefs of the Church, and beg God to forgive the collective sins of the Church and free us from this man as soon as possible. I note that even some of the unyielding apologists have started to budge a bit as a result of this latest affront, so perhaps God will bring some good out of this by breaking the spell of papalotry and the cult of the most recent Council.
In the meantime, may God have mercy on us all, and sustain us through this terrible time of trial.
Hero or knave? Man destroys secular, pagan art in cathedral March 13, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Glory, manhood, secularism, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
A disgruntled custodian at the Omaha cathedral destroyed secular displays installed in the nave and side chapels of the cathedral for an upcoming flower show. Why a cathedral would have a flower show is beyond me, but the displays were worse. Now, this man has a bit of troubled history – he has served time in federal prisons for trespassing into secure facilities where nuclear weapons are stored – but he seems to be one of those rare creatures, a relatively orthodox Catholic who happens to be on what many might call the liberal side of things.
I wonder what you think? Is he a hero for fighting the ongoing secularization and indifferentism in the Church, or is he a wrong for going much too far and physically destroying ostensibly valuable property? I’ll let you know what I think at the end (my emphasis and comments):
Mark Kenney, 59, who grew up in the parish, had worked at St. Cecilia Cathedral for three years. Around 8 a.m. on Jan. 29, he went to a work shed, picked up a pair of heavy-duty bolt cutters and ascended to a catwalk high above the mostly empty nave, or main sanctuary.
He looked through a peephole, he said, to make sure he wouldn’t hurt any people. And then he cut a steel cable, which sent a suspended, umbrella-carrying, hat-wearing Mary Poppins figure crashing to the floor.
Kenney then went downstairs and removed a cardboard Buddha figure [so this wasn’t just offensive from the sexular pagan perspective, it was indifferent, as well, giving at least tacit support or endorsement for a foreign religion created by devils (Ps xcv:5)] from the Nash Chapel, which also featured costumed mannequins from “The King and I.” He threw the Buddha out one door and proceeded to toss costumed mannequins out two other doors.
Someone alerted the pastor, the Rev. Michael Gutgsell, who ran from the rectory next door to the church and saw Kenney.
“Mark,” he called out, “did you see who did this?”
“Father, it was me. You need to call the police.” [He’s willing to own up to his crime, such as it was]
Gutgsell had known that his custodian had misgivings about secular displays in the church but says he was dumbfounded and didn’t understand why Kenney would take such drastic action. [Because like a lot of orthodox Catholics, he’s tired of dialogue being a one way liberal harangue and always being expected to just take whatever travesty is visited upon themselves or their parish time after time after time?] In a brief meeting that week, the pastor said, he had asked for Kenney’s promise not to be disruptive.
Now the priest was shocked, saying, “You promised!”
In response, Kenney said, he lashed out. “I started screaming, ‘Father, this is bullshit! We can’t have this in the church. This isn’t culture, it’s Disney crap!’ ” [Maybe this guy’s a nut. Maybe he’s not really all that faithful. Maybe he has a bunch of bad ideas. But I have a hard time not liking him from afar, and somewhat admiring him for his willingness to put his faith into action]
……….Damaging items at the flower festival was wrong, and Kenney said in an interview this week that he will make restitution. But he says secular items such as movie characters are inappropriate in the sacred space of the cathedral and amount to sacrilege and idolatry. [I agree]
Gutgsell, a former chancellor of the Omaha Archdiocese and a Catholic University-licensed “canon lawyer,” an expert in church laws and rules, disagrees.
“Obviously, context is everything,” the priest said, noting that the cathedral also is home to about six concerts a year. No sacrilege or disrespect is conveyed, he said, in the concerts or the dozens of exhibits at the flower festival. [Well, a concert is very different from a display of the buddha in a Catholic Church. As is having Mary Poppins soaring above the nave. Disrespect may not be deliberate, but that doesn’t make it any less real. I, for one, believe very strongly that sacred spaces should be reserved for sacred things, entirely. But we all know that the Mass has been deliberately denuded of sacrality in a very deliberate effort to fundamentally change the Church, and this is just one more example of that overweening desacralization]
“Cathedrals,” he said, “are kind of the epicenter for culture presentation and development.” [Well, I have a little bit different definition, I’d say cathedrals are the locus of Catholicism in a diocese and the vital center from which the faith emanates to all surrounding regions. It should be THE most sacred and have THE strongest sense of the Faith – sensus fidei – in the entire diocese. We can see that this post-conciliar educated canon lawyer obviously has a very different view, that cathedrals are much more about the horizontal, the local “culture,” rather than about the vertical, a focal point of worship of God and a stronghold of His Church]
Eileen Burke-Sullivan [I like how you render so much honor to your father’s name, even equating it with your husband’s even though “man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife,” and “the two should become one flesh.” Obviously that’s only for men], a theologian and vice provost for mission and ministry at [Catholic in name only] Creighton University, said she sees no problem. The cathedral and the archdiocese, she said, have supported the arts in Omaha for many years. [As they have bled souls, priests, money, and influence. Meet the problem, right here]
“In mixing thematic popular culture with the beauty of God’s creation in flowers,” she said, “I don’t think there’s any inherent idolatry.” [Note how she changed the subject, as libs are wont to do, from the banal Disney “art” to flowers and God’s creation.]
The flower festival is produced by the nonprofit Cathedral Arts Project. Its founder and director, Brother William Woeger, each year informs the archbishop of the theme.
Archbishop George Lucas was out of town this week [Of course he was! I can’t remember the last time a bishop was actually in town to deal with one of these little flaps. If he wasn’t on his way out of town before, as soon as news broke he was high-tailing to the airport! I’m not certain if it’s true or not, but it seems the vast majority of bishops spend far less time in their dioceses than they do abroad. Do you know what Thomas a Kempis says about that.] and unavailable for comment. But spokesman Tim McNeil, the current chancellor, said the archdiocese will review the festival to make sure it is staying within bounds.
He said he sees nothing in “the broad language” of the catechism that would preclude such displays as Mary Poppins being suspended from the ceiling of the cathedral. But he said it would be good to know more specifics in advance. [The catechism is just a handy reference guide. It is not dogmatic, nor all-inclusive. It’s authors could not foresee every potential abuse even if they wanted to. But I think many Catholics would be gravely offended to see Mary Poppins or Donald Duck or anything similar hanging over their altar, dominating, as it were]
………In a letter of termination two days after the festival incident, Gutgsell wrote to Kenney: “None of the florists and none of the volunteers, any number of whom took time off their work or traveled some distance, had the slightest intention or reason to dishonor the Cathedral. You assigned the word ‘desecration’ to the entire project and as a result slandered anyone associated with it.” [This is specious reasoning. Desecration can occur in absence of deliberate intent, as can scandal. But note the blame-shifting, the real source of problem is with the rector and others who OK’d this production and the “art” displays. Kenney did not attack the “artists,” per se’, he took a stand against the decisions of the cathedral rector Gutgsell]
………Kenney, who said he confessed his sin to a priest at another Catholic church, feels “closer to God than ever.”[The author of this piece went to some length to paint Kenney as nuts. This is a continuation of this theme, here he uses left-wing code speak to portray this guy as hearing voices in his head, or nearly so, just as Diane Sawyer tried to do to Bush ’43] He could have handled things differently, he said, and recalls walking through the cathedral in the immediate aftermath and thinking, “What did I do now?”
But he says he is at peace with it, and in a letter to the archbishop objected to “pop art” and “absurd, secular cultural icons” in the cathedral. [+99. Good on him for the letter]
Kenney hopes that people who agree with him will speak up and that the incident sparks “conversation” about what is appropriate in a church. [Goal achieved]
I’m a bit torn on this. Destroying property is a form of violence, which I think may have been a bit extreme in this case, but I also am increasingly convinced that the usual faithful Catholic tack of verbal complaint is not going to result in change. If some future custodians (or anyone else) found ways to destroy objectionable “art” in the cathedral for a few years running, it’s very possible either the art, or the entire festival, would be done away with as too much hassle. A festival of this kind is just one tiny, relatively innocuous example of the overwhelming tendency in the Church towards secularization and desacralization. How long will we continue to stand seeing our Church turned into areligious, amoral Amchurch Corp NGO? What if running away to the TLM isn’t an option at some future date? What if Amchurch NGO decides to impose the post-conciliar ethos on the TLM/Ecclesia Dei communities? Is prayer and sacrifice always the only answer? Did the Church of say, 800 – 1800 always behave in such a pacifist manner? Did not souls carry torches around the 1st Council of Ephesus and threaten to harm the council fathers if they did not name Mary the Mother of God? Were they wrong to do so? What about St. Juan de Capistrano and the Crusade in the Balkans, or even St. Francis accompanying the crusade of St. Louis?
The point is, the Church has not always been so pacifist. Many Saints did not always turn the other cheek when the faith of others was threatened. The Church has been thoroughly feminized over the past 50+ years (a religious brother coming up with a flower festival? Why not a gun show – heh?). Perhaps this little act of rebellion could also start a conversation on the reassertion of manly virtues in the Church. Yes, you may attract more flies with honey than vinegar, but in the Church today, it’s not real honey, but a false secular saccharine concoction bad for health and worse for the faith. And sometimes one becomes so overwhelmed with destructive sexularist flies they have to be fought with a strong pesticide.
Personally, I say good on Mark Kenney. He took his stand, went to confession, and is ready to face the consequences. Maybe he’s goofy in some other regards, but I don’t categorically repudiate this kind of “extreme” action. I think if we had seen more of such over the past 50 years, much of the crisis in the Church could have been averted. Ecclesiastical liberals, like all liberals, are bullies but particularly cowardly bullies. Maybe there’s a broader lesson here for all of us.
I bet the cathedral does not have secular pop art for next year’s festival.
Practicing muslims reputed to outnumber Catholics in Brussels February 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide.
The numbers presented below square with what a commenter from Europe has said in the past. Practicing muslims make up a greater percentage of the population of the city/region of Brussels than do Catholics. More fruit from Vatican II. I’m sure Cardinal Daneels, he of the “St. Gallen Group” who helped elect Francis, and a man deeply involved in the cover-up of the pedophile activities of some very close to him, is very pleased:
Considering what European Union policies have done to Europe, it seems all too apt for its capital to be a hive of Islamic terror and on the road to becoming a majority Muslim city.
Then turn to Brussels, some parts of which host large communities of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, mostly from religiously conservative regions of those countries. Among respondents in the city, practising Catholics amounted to 12% and non-practising ones to 28%. Some 19% were active Muslims and another 4% were of Muslim identity without practising the faith. The atheist/agnostic camp came to 30%. [Let’s just accept these numbers at face value. How many will continue in this practice when being Catholic begins to carry a marked social cost, be it from militant atheists or militant muslims?]
Among people who actually practice a religion, Muslims are a majority. And as usual, with Islamic indoctrination and birth rates, the news becomes more troubling in the lower age groups.
Thus among respondents aged 55 and over, practising Catholics amounted to 30% and practising Muslims to less than 1%; but among those aged between 18 and 34, active adherence to Islam (14%) exceeded the practice of Catholicism (12%). Admittedly the sample (600 people in all) is small. But if this trend continues, practitioners of Islam may soon comfortably exceed devout Catholics not just in cosmopolitan Brussels, as is the case already, but across the whole of Belgium’s southern half.
The southern half being the predominately Catholic region. Forgive me for doubting that even 12% of Brusselites (?) are “practicing” Catholics. I’d certainly appreciate any input from those familiar with the Church in Belgium. In France and other countries, it’s more like 3-4%, and almost all of them quite elderly. Of course, “practicing” the Faith has been reduced in the minds of millions to showing up occasionally on Easter and Christmas, so perhaps 12% do still do that. This is not a practice of the Faith our Church Fathers would recognize.
And all this is why Brussels has become a hub for terror in Europe:
……..The greater Brussels area has long been considered to be a hotbed for radical Islamists. Troubled neighborhoods like Molenbeek and Anderlecht are known as being homes to secluded communities of immigrants in which radicals can easily go underground. So has Belgium become the center of terror in Europe and a security risk for the entire Continent?
These people who are firing their weapons and blowing themselves up don’t appear out of nowhere,” respected Belgian sociologist Felice Dassetto wrote on his blog after the Paris attacks……
…….There isn’t going to be a Brussels in 50 years. There’s going to be an Islamic State. It’s much too late to start pleading with the Jihadi invaders to play nice. It’s time to decide if there is going to be an Islamic State in Belgium or not.
And all this, in the capital of post-modern, post-Christian Europe. As to the remaking of Europe into a balkanized construct of self-loathing atheistic sexular pagans and Western-loathing radical jihadists, for most of Europe’s governing elite, this appears all part of the plan. People are easy to control when they are terrified. Attachment to freedom goes out the window when one is in doubt of one’s life. The native populace is almost entirely disarmed.
It’s almost as if someone had a plan………and do note the Church “elites” (hierarchy) are almost universally in favor of this unprecedented project in social engineering.