jump to navigation

Strong Sermon Denouncing Contraception from Tyler Bishop Strickland June 27, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, fightback, General Catholic, Glory, Immigration, Restoration, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I’ve been seeing more and more good catechesis from His Excellency Bishop Strickland.  He’s no hardcore Trad, but his catechesis on many doctrinal subjects, especially those related to the marital act and continence, is about as solid as one will see in the Novus Ordo environment and far better than virtually any active bishop I can think of.  He does endorse NFP without a concomitant warning that it should only be used in grave situations, but other than that this is generally quite solid.  He states that couples who contracept are committing a serious sin and should not receive the Blessed Sacrament.  As Bishop Gracida noted, virtually no other US bishop is willing to call souls to account on the matter of contraception, with Bishop Gracida claiming this the most stirring defense of Catholic Doctrine on the marital act given by any bishop in living memory.  I’m not sure if that is true, but it is certain that virtually no bishop, or priest outside traditional parishes, is willing to touch this subject even slightly.

In addition, Bishop Strickland directed all of his priests to have this sermon read in their parishes on the Feast of St. John the Baptist, just as he preached it in the cathedral.

The sermon in its closing 2 minutes does sadly go off the rails with Bishop Strickland endorsing the conventional USCCB viewpoint regarding unrestrained illegal immigration, lamenting ostensible separation of children from their criminal parents, as if that hasn’t been the case throughout human history.  Of course, in the vast majority of these cases, the very act of immigrating itself constitutes a separation from one parent.  The solution to the immigration problem is not to encourage further law-breaking and suffering at the hands of unscrupulous smugglers who rape fully 80% of the women and female children who try to cross the US border illegally.  The solution is to reform the broken Church and governments of the countries from which these people desire to emigrate.  Unfortunately, in the Church of today, bishops are more or less expected and required to at least throw a bone to the “other side” whenever they take a strong stand upholding the Doctrine of the Faith.  They can’t be seen to be too overtly political, not with all that wonderful tax money on the line.  It’s a shame, but pretty much par for the course for the bureaucratized post-conciliar Church.

Still, overall, it’s a very good and welcome effort.

I would also add that while couples practicing NFP due to dire circumstances may indeed experience a sense of sacrifice in not being able to bring more children into the world, a word could perhaps also be spared for those couples who, in spite of financial hardship and general material poverty, go ahead and embrace God’s gift of more children in spite of the material, spiritual, and other costs.  I feel this should always be promoted as the default position, so to speak, for all married Catholic couples.

I did like Bishop Strickland’s brief exhortation for older people whose children are grown, or who never had children, to assist younger couples with many children as much as possible.  This is something my wife has expressed many times, how in bygone years such used to be quite common, but is today rather rare.  There are some older people, especially ladies, who do make such offers from time to time, and God bless them for it.

And while marriage is sometimes difficult and constitutes a cross to bear, it is also a wonderful experience and blessing and the way God calls most all of us to live.  Far too often in our sick culture, marriage is presented as a drag, as nothing more than a convention or tax break, as a source of frustration and little more than a killjoy.  Often single or divorced life, with attendant incontinence and wantonness, is promoted as the chic, fun, rewarding way to be.  They never show those people in their 70s, alone and forgotten, living with their 17 cats and zero children or grandchildren.  It is in marriage that, as God ordains, true happiness, fulfillment, contentment, and solace can be found.

Nevertheless, great applause for Bishop Strickland for giving this sermon and being willing to touch the supposed third rail of the Church, contraception.  May his example inspire far more bishops and priests to emulate him.

Advertisements

Archbishop Sample’s Sermon Praising TLM, Criticizing Novus Ordo May 7, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Everyone else has done a post on this, I guess I may as well, too.

Actually, given the superlatives I’ve seen lauded on this sermon, I was a trifle disappointed.  It was very good, especially from a prelate in this age of the Church, and something that is very much appreciated, but I guess my expectations had been built up to the point that I thought I was going to get a Wolfe-ian or Rodriguezesque full throated takedown of the Novus Ordo, but that’s not quite what this was.  Still, it was very good.  We’ve known Archbishop Sample has been a strong supporter of the TLM for years, but he makes clear here that he sees the liturgical revolution – or the revolution against the authentic Liturgy – as a serious mistake and something from which the Church must pull back and, in essence, recover.  He also vociferously argues that the TLM is not the domain of an aging, nostalgic remnant but is strongly, one might even say overwhelmingly, the province of the young.  Which, good to note, the revolutionaries love their pat responses and easy misrepresentations, so the truth has to be repeated over and over to counter those.

Nevertheless, I still get a bit nervous when I hear talk of “mutual enrichment” – to me, the only enriching is the slow replacement of the Novus Ordo by the Mass of the Ages (which term I was very glad to see Archbishop Sample use).  +Sample did not indicate much at all how he felt the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM, but I still feel the concept itself is flawed.  The liturgical reform to me was a mistake, a mistake in conception and, at best, horribly botched in execution (though I would also argue that the preponderance of the evidence makes clear that the revolutionaries got just about exactly what they wanted in the Novus Ordo, and that what they wanted was to protestantize the Mass as a first, giant step towards humanizing the Church – that is to say, turning the Church into a humanist construct, a religion more of man, than of God).  Yes there was some pushback and modification at the 11th hour, but later developments removed even much of that, at least in the form of some truly deplorable products such as Bugnini’s “children’s Mass.”

I also see basically no ways in which the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM – I know this might be a harsh or extreme view, but having read a fair amount about how the propers have been butchered and even corrupted and the 3 year cycle of readings almost totally divorced from the ancient (and one might say, inspired) flow of the liturgical year, I don’t think it an unsupportable assertion.  That’s not to say that the Novus Ordo is always a disaster or a danger to one’s faith – there are Greenville’s and Hanceville’s and other locales where the Novus Ordo is offered in ways vastly superior to the standard offering in 99% of parishes, but those are all cases where the Novus Ordo was “enriched” by the traditional Mass, rather confirming the fact that “mutual enrichment” is a dead letter, a red herring, and quite likely a grave danger to be avoided.  The enrichment must run in one direction only.

It’s still a nice sermon in a lovely setting with a properly vested prelate, which is still far too rare a sight.  I am very glad Archbishop Sample offered this Mass and I pray he will continue drawing nearer and nearer to the traditional practice of the Faith and its authentic presentation in the Liturgy:

Cardinal Marx Praises Man Responsible for 150 Million Deaths or More May 3, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Cardinal Marx is the primate of Germany and longtime head of the German episcopal conference.  He is also one of Francis’ closest allies and the man responsible for numerous heresies and errors emanating from Germany, including the recent sin-nod that gave Francis cover for extending reception of Communion to adulterers.  He is also a driving force behind the upcoming sin-nod to extend sacramental roles to women, including the probable creation of women deacons and women cardinals, all setting the stage for the ultimate goal, priestesses (just as our good protestant leaders and guides have done for years).

So it is probably little surprise that a man so morally lost and so abjectly destructive would praise the author and founder of the most deadly system of errors of modern times – the always anti-Christian leftist utopian fantasy called communism (h/t occasional reader JB):

On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx’ birth, Cardinal Reinhard Marx gave an interview in Germany in which he claimed that Marx unmistakably influenced Catholic social doctrine, adding that he was “impressed” by the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx has often been referred to as the father of Communism, a political theory linked to the deaths of millions.  [I respect the author of this piece, Maike Hickson, very much, but communism is not “linked” to the death of millions, but is the direct, unavoidable cause of their deaths.  It is a system that requires mass death and suffering in order to survive.  I cannot stress enough, to understand the purblind evil of communism, the infinite depths to which it always causes humans to sink, being founded on that most destructive of sins, envy, to read The Gulag Archipelago by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.  Even if you already hate and loathe communism, if you have not read The Gulag Archipelago, you still do not have a proper appreciation for its endless cruelty and cause of human suffering.]

Cardinal Marx, one of the council of nine cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to advise him, is at the forefront of pushing what is being hailed as a “new paradigm” in the Church that departs from previous Church teaching on sexual morality (herehere, and here) and marriage.

As the news website of the German bishops Katholisch.de reports on 30 April, Cardinal Marx, the archbishop of Munich-Freising and president of the German bishops’ conference, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that the Communist Manifesto “quite impressed” him. That declaratory document had been written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and promulgated in 1848. [Fifty million corpses lie dead in the Soviet tundra]

In another recent interview, Cardinal Marx admitted to finding the writings of Karl Marx “fascinating,” adding that the Communist Manifesto has “an energy” and “a great language.” “One only has to read Karl Marx without prejudice, then his power will surprise,” the prelate explained. “There is an inspiration, a revolutionary impetus,” he stated. [And a hundred million corpses molder in Chinese soil]

According to Vatican News, Marx also said in his interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that Karl Marx “can be very helpful” in light of the current conflicts, revolutions and wars which very well might have their roots in economic injustice. “Human rights without material participation remain incomplete,” the cardinal said. Cardinal Marx – who himself was once a professor of social ethics – also called Karl Marx “the first serious sociologist.” [But it is capitalism – as many problems as it has, and as much as it may aggrieve many traditional Catholics – that has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.  Indeed, according to some sources, an astounding 300 million people have escaped poverty in the last 10 years alone,and that didn’t happen in “socialist” states.

Quoting yet another news source about the same interview, Marx also said about Karl Marx: “Without him, there would not be any Catholic social doctrine.” [Well this is simply an outright lie, and reveals the papolotry at the heart of the Church today. There is an extensive Catholic social doctrine extending back to the earliest Church.  Indeed, many Church Fathers, and even the Apostles, wrote about Catholic social doctrine.  That is the, or a, primary point of the Catholic Epistle of Saint James. What he means is that popes started writing encyclicals about socio-economic matters in response to the threat posed by communism.  But that is not at all the same thing as saying no Catholic social doctrine existed prior to the advent of communism.  What a fuol error that is] Moreover, he made it clear that Karl Marx is not responsible for the crimes of Stalinism, even though the cardinal admitted that “there is to be found [in Marx’s writings] here or there a totalitarian thought,” such as the collectivism which disrespects the individual person. However, added the cardinal, one may not put Karl Marx into a “direct connection” with the later political Marxism-Leninism, nor even the soviet prison system and work camps.

Cardinal Marx related the little story that Pope John Paul II used to call him playfully “nostro marxista” – “our Marxist.” [In spite of JPII’s appellation of “our little marxist” upon Marx, Pope Benedict saw fit, for some inexplicable reason, to elevate him to the cardinalate in 2010.  Indeed, he was the youngest man so elevated up to that time.  The better, I suppose, to provide him with more time with which to remake the Church in Germany?]

Marx has espoused so many errors and heresies, promoted so many abuses, that he is truly properly named. He has supported sodomy, supported legal recognition of same-sex unions, argued that the Church has no reason to oppose such legislation, and has implied that the Church in Germany will be “blessing” such unions soon.  He of course was the major driver, after Cardinal Kasper, behind the drive to permit adulterers to receive Communion.  He has opposed Church moral doctrine on virtually every major issue outside abortion, and even there, he is reported to have permitted Catholic hospitals in Germany to dole out the baby-killing “morning after” pill.

Cardinal Marx has been such a huge fan of Karl Marx that he even wrote a book critiquing capitalism, in a tired and unoriginal fashion, called – wait for it – Das Kapital.  Apparently, JPII was quite correct in calling him our little marxist.  He may as well get a hammer and sickle cross just like Francis has.  And this is the man that is the leader of Francis’ group of advisers. I suppose we should not be surprised in the least.  Birds of a feather, and all that.

A Bit of Good News: Bishop of Tyler Learning TLM, to Assist at TLM on Corpus Christi April 26, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, North Deanery, Restoration, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

From a reader in Tyler, we are informed that Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas is “learning” the Traditional Latin Mass and will assist (it is believed, in choir) at a TLM to be offered by diocesan priests at the Chapel of Saints Peter and Paul on the Feast of Corpus Christi (Thursday, May 31).

It is always a happy development when a bishop indicates interest in, and appreciation for, the unadulterated, un-modernized Mass.  It means that the bishop has a sense of the importance of reverence for God and recognizes the undeniable centrality of Jesus Christ, and His Sacrifice on our behalf, in the ancient form of the Mass.  It also usually means that bishop is of a predominately orthodox outlook in matters beyond the liturgy, as well.  It’s not a guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy on all matters, but it’s a darn good sign.

Tyler, a remote and small diocese, most of which could easily be considered mission territory due to the paucity of Catholics (even after decades of hispanic immigration into Texas), has been blessed with some relatively orthodox bishops for years.  Good on them.  Perhaps one of those bishops might be promoted to head the Diocese of Dallas someday?

On that front, some well placed birdies who would know have strongly hinted there will probably be a TLM in the northern deanery of the Dallas Diocese in the not too distant future.  Nothing is confirmed, yet, but there is a pastor or two who are willing and there are no impediments from the chancery, which is a big change from the previous administration.

So there is likely to be at least a weekday TLM alternative for all those folks in Collin County before too long.  Don’t take that to the bank, but it’s more likely than not, from what I am told.  Timing and location still TBD at this point.

Thanks to reader JB for sending in the bit about Bishop Strickland.

Texas, US Bishops See Threat to Tax Exempt Status in Wake of Texas Right to Life Gaffe March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

There are several players in the articles below from Church Militant, all increasingly isolated and bereft of public support from their colleagues and peers.  There’s Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, the man who decided against all good reason to attack the state’s largest and most effective pro-life group (Texas Right to Life – TRL), demanding even that a statement from him to all the Catholics of his diocese refusing them “permission” – on a matter of prudential judgment, as if it were even within his purview – to support TRL and desiring souls from each parish report to him as to whether or not his unnecessary and inflammatory statement was read.  As a matter of record, so far as I know – and I know regarding at least 7 other dioceses in this state – Fort Worth is the only diocese where such a statement, issued on Texas Catholic Conference (TCC – the bishop’s conference for the state) letterhead, was created and forcibly read. In fact, other bishops have run for cover, either trying to ignore the firestorm entirely, or outright repudiating the move against TRL.

Then there’s Jennifer Carr-Allmon –  former PR staffer for TCC and now its executive director – who has had a habit of lining TCC up on the wrong side of many sanctity-of-life related issues.  In 2014 TCC waged war against TRL and many individual pro-lifers over a disastrous bill on end-of-life care that would have substantially worsened the already bad laws in effect.  TCC  played a major role in supporting that bill and the RINO stealth liberals in the legislature that were pushing it.  Only heroic efforts by TRL, attorney Kassi Marks, individual committed pro-lifers, and a few good priests, bishops, and especially Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida finally managed to raise enough fuss to have the proposed bill changed and improved to the point that it did, in fact, wind up making a positive difference on end of life issues facing Texans.

In all of this, like the USCCB, the bishops are most often led by their lay staff bureaucrats within the respective conferences.  That is to say, the bishops are in many cases relying on the lay staff to “stay informed” and give them guidance on many of the various issues, being too busy with golf, exotic travel, and other activities to do so themselves.  Thus what often happens is that the Catholic bishops are advocating for the viewpoint of lay staffers of  unknown provenance, and certainly without any grace of office, to set Catholic public policy at the state, national, and even local level.

So just bear all that in mind as you read through the highlights of the two reports below, the first reporting that Bishop Olson and TCC may have violated the Johnson Amendment provisions of their tax exempt status in this fight with TRL.  Now, I don’t believe there is even a slight genuine threat to their status, but the fact that a complaint has been publicized is a bit unusual.  Now, if someone actually files a lawsuit against TCC and Olson with the IRS, then that would be serious. But mere complaints tend to go in the dustbin.  This article also ties the support of Olson and TCC to the RINOs to their love – and positive need – for continued unconstrained mass, illegal Hispanic immigration.

The second article adds a bit more detail to the coverage.  I’ll start with the tax exemption article via the good Bishop Gracida:

Here in Texas, the RINO Establishment has held power for a long time, and this establishment has been largely backed by the Catholic bishops of the state, casting their votes in ways generally approved of by the bishops and their agenda, particularly in regards to illegal immigration issues. Texas is of course greatly impacted by the question of illegals since it shares the longest border of any state with Mexico where most illegals come from………

……….Last week, in what many are viewing as an attempt to directly influence the outcome of tomorrow’s midterm elections, the bishops issued an unheard-of, unprecedented rebuke of Texas Right to Life, essentially claiming teaching authority over the group in matters political. The statement consisted of three major points, but the most troublesome point is the third point where they publicly decry the Texas Right To Life Voter Guide, which supports the young and upcoming anti-Establishment Republican candidates primed to upset the old-time GOP Establishment politicians favored by the bishops. [Not all of these anti-establishment candidates were so young. And in the case of Senate District 8, I think pro-lifers can be practically equally satisfied with either Ray Huffines or Angela Paxton.  Paxton won the primary, and it was a nasty, expensive race, but which candidate was actually the more pro-life actually figured quite substantially into that race.  At any rate, many voters in Collin County were turned off by Huffines extremely negative campaign and perceived carpetbagger relo to Richardson just to run for this seat]

And here is where the bishops may have actually have run afoul of IRS regulations forbidding Church involvement in politics, a rule known as the Johnson Rule, which actually originated under the administration of Texan President Lyndon B. Johnson back in the 1960s. To have injected themselves into statewide political races just a week before the elections and essentially condemned a political activist group by name, a group that publicly backs certain candidates over others, crosses the line and puts the bishops’ conference in a position where it could thereby lose its tax-exempt status.

Church Militant has learned exclusively that plans are being drawn up and formulated to file a petition with the IRS to have the tax-exempt status of the Church in Texas completely stripped. It that were to happen, the dollar cost to the dioceses of Texas would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and bankrupt many dioceses. Additionally, experts observe that since the head of the Texas Catholic Conference, Galveston-Houston Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, is also president of the U.S. bishops’ national conference, this could actually extend beyond Texas and impact the tax-exempt status of the entire Church across the country.

If that scenario were to play out which observers tell Church Militant is certainly a possibility, the Church across America would become financially insolvent as the 194 dioceses across the country would have to scramble to sell tens of billions of dollars of assets to pay the exorbitant tax bill that would surely come their way in the absence of their tax-exempt status — billions and billions of dollars presently and moving forward that the federal government would dearly love to get its hands on. [As I said, it is extremely unlikely that any serious threat to the Church’s tax exempt status will come from this. But what may well happen is that Olson will get some hard questions behind the scenes at the next USCCB meeting of bishops.  Or maybe not.  They may all be in perfect agreement. Hard to say with this crew raised in the post-conciliar Church]

How did this happen? How is it that the bishops of Texas would collectively sign on to an agreement that could potentially bankrupt the Church in the United States? The answer, insiders say, lies with one woman, Jennifer Carr Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Bishops’ Conference, the first woman to ever hold that position.

A little background is in order here. The most vocal bishop in support of the attacks against Texas Right to Life has been Fort Worth Bp. Michael Olson who launched a blistering accusatory social media campaign on his Twitter feed, actually telling parishioners to let him know if his orders to his diocesan priests to read the statement of condemnation out loud at Masses from the pulpit were being followed. Olson is the same bishop who ordered Catholic pro-life groups in his diocese not to protest in front of abortion chambers with banners of Our Lady of Guadalupe because the image of Our Lady was offensive to Protestants who might also be protesting.

The behind the scenes of this is that very wealthy supporters of the Church in Fort Worth, who also support the status-quo RINOs, became very concerned that the young Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life were close to capturing the state legislature, according to internal polls. So they reached out to Olson and Jennifer Carr Allmon and said something needed to be done and done quickly before the elections.

One such establishment figure in the Texas legislature the rich want to protect because he is seen as “their man” is Charlie Geren, who barely hung on to his seat in the last election, almost losing to a Texas Right to Life challenger Bo French. That same race is again coming down to the wire and a loss in that race for the GOP-RINO establishment would signal a massive defeat for the status quo, including the bishops who are wedded to that same status quo.

The bishops are interested in maintaining the current political environment because the up and comer Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life are not friendly to the cause of illegal immigration which is the cause fueling the engine of the bishops’ political agenda in Texas. If the state of Texas suddenly turns anti-illegal immigration, the Texas bishops stand to lose a great deal, so they are willing to settle for weak pro-life support from RINOs in order to hold on to large sums of money going to what they see as the most important issue — illegal immigration……. [Well I would say Texas already is majority anti-illegal immigration, as many Texans see quite rightly that if mass illegal immigration is allowed to continue much longer, Texas will go purple if not blue, and this entire nation will be finished, if it isn’t already.  But there is not much Texas can do to secure the border, unless the governor wants to activate the Guard and start patrolling the border en masse, which may not be a bad idea but would instantly result in a flood of lawsuits and probable instant court injunctions by activist leftist judges to desist.]

………Reports are that some of the Texas bishops are now backpedaling from the statement, some even privately denying any advance knowledge of it. Some of this backpedaling appeared to be the case in a Friday afternoon interview on EWTN where San Angelo Bp. Michael Sis downplayed the statement and offered that everyone just needs to find common ground and work together — a radical departure from the aggressive tone of the earlier condemnation.

That the entire tax-exempt status of the Church, certainly in Texas and possibly in the entire country, owing to the connection between both Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, could come down to a hastily compiled statement by one woman, Carr Allmon, in charge of the Texas Bishops’ Conference and backed by one hot-tempered bishop wanting to do the bidding of some rich donors with political interests, it’s simply mind-boggling. But given the current temperature of the culture with regard to Catholic matters, a financial tsunami could certainly be in the cards for the nation’s bishops. [He does seem to be hot-tempered. It’s also funny how times change. When Farrell was here, Olson was definitely the more orthodox of the two DFW bishops.  Now with Bishop Burns, the situation seems to have reversed.  Bishop Burns is generally keeping a low profile and doing the hard work of trying to reconstitute both the badly depleted priesthood (which Bishop Farrell did revive from practical total death of vocations) and the aging and far too progressive lay administration of the Diocese.  He doesn’t seek after publicity as Farrell very obviously did.  But those cardinal hats don’t fall from trees!  You gotta get out there and make a name for yourself!]

This post is getting really long but here’s a bit more on Olson:

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth is currently steeped in controversy over his attack on Texas Right to Life, a pro-life group focused on electing authentic pro-life leaders in the Texas legislature. Yet in August 2016, Bp. Olson allowed a pro-abortion Democrat to speak on parish property. This is despite recent tweets to the Catholic faithful about his “apostolic duty” to “guard authentic doctrine in the parishes.”

In August 2016, Congressman Marc Veasey (D-Texas) was allowed to speak on the property of All Saints Catholic Church in Fort Worth. Veasey voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act when it came in front of the House for a vote. He supports abortion through all nine months, and has attended Planned Parenthood rallies. [I sadly live in Veasey’s district, one so gerrymandered that there is virtually no chance he will ever face a serious challenge, let alone lose his seat.  You should see how ridiculously the boundary lines are drawn in Irving, literally looping around apartment complexes and avoiding single-family homes.  Good job legislature!  Veasey is a true extremist who supports all the most extreme fashions of the Left – transgenderism for youth, taxpayer funded abortion on demand and any time, restrictions on homeschooling, etc]

Church Militant reached out to the diocese of Fort Worth for comment. A spokesman claimed the reason Veasey was allowed to speak on diocesan property was that the event in question was a town hall and not a stump speech.

When Church Militant asked whether the town hall included a speech from Veasey, the official angrily interrupted, reasserting that the event at the town hall wasn’t a speech. He said he was present at the event and that attendees did ask Veasey about his position on abortion, which Veasey answered by restating his support for abortion.

The diocese claimed that Veasey listened carefully to the pro-lifers in attendance at the event. An article in the North Texas Catholic quoted Bp. Olson on the subject: “My point is, we’ve gotten to the point of our civil discourse — to our understanding of our responsibility as citizens — that the only way we are able to participate in our society politically and to contribute to the common good is in a partisan way.”

In the wake of the Texas bishops’ parish advisory on Texas Right to Life, which Congressman Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) has called “factually inaccurate,” Bp. Olson tweeted out an order for Catholics attending Mass to spy on priests and report to his office if the Texas bishops’ advisory was not read from the pulpit.

Bishop Olson went so far as to imply that those who don’t read the advisory at Mass are not “true Catholics” and that the advisory is an act of his “authentic teaching office.”

I am told that most parishes did read the statement.  Whether it is really an act of his authentic teaching office is another question, there is no question Texas Right to Life supports the entirety of the Church’s Doctrine on the sanctity of life -in fact, it seems to support it better than the bishops often do. Whether one can be commanded to not support an organization that commits no sin and endorses no error – and is in fact totally wedded to the truth – seems dubious, at best.  I would argue in fact that it is TRL that is upholding Catholic Doctrine in its truest, fullest sense, and that, prudentially, the more accommodationist position of the TCC and Olson may be accepted for particular matters but is morally inferior to the more hardline stand.

Once again, as we see so often in the post-conciliar institutional edifice, the bishops make dogma of prudential matters and treat dogmatic ones as matters of judgment.

I would add in closing that TRL is the only pro-life group in the state, and one of the few in the country, that correctly ties together the issue of contraception with that of abortion.  Texas Alliance for Life, the group Olson and TCC apparently prefer, and which is widely seen as being much, much less reliable on these weighty matters, won’t touch contraception with a 10 ft pole.

Sorry, apparently this is book length post week.

The Unbelievable Evil of Luther’s Ideology – Sin Much Better than Good Works March 7, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the enemy, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I am reading a truly amazing book on Martin Luther and his beliefs, called The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare LLD. This book isn’t full of Catholic opinion regarding Luther’s belief; no, it is a book literally chock full of direct, in-context quotations from the diabolical heresiarch and his twisted ideology.

Luther is a case study of the lengths to which one can fall when given over to endless pride, overarching pomposity, and intractable stubbornness. Luther was in essence a Pelagian, or wanted to be a Pelagian – someone who wanted to be so very good on his own merits, even without God’s help or Grace, which he constantly refused, that he could attain Heaven on his own efforts.  For nearly a decade prior to his final break into full blown heresy in 1517, he had been warned by religious superiors and others that he was on a path towards destruction with his way, way over-the-top fastings, mortifications, penitential exercises, etc.  When he finally became exhausted from this superhuman effort and realized he couldn’t attain Heaven on his own efforts, did he pause and find some humility and beg God for his aid?  Of course not.  From a family known for its volcanic temperament and unyielding stubbornness for many generations, he instead found blame with first God, and then the Church. It was the whole economy of salvation and system of Grace that was wrong, not Martin Luther!  Of course!  And so he invented the most noxious single error in the history of Christendom – justification by “faith*” alone.

Naturally, if one was saved by “faith” alone, and works were useless, then the whole system of the Law, the commission of good works and avoidance of sin, must be not just rotten but sinful and destructive of souls, as well.  Thus Luther inverted the Faith and invented his own diabolical doctrine.

And of course, being one of history’s most unhinged temperaments, he compulsively attacked not just the Church, not just popes and Saints and Fathers, but even much of the Bible itself upon which he supposedly based his entire conception of the Faith!  He had a special hatred for the 10 Commandments and its human transcriber, Moses.

Below I will place a number of quotes from Luther illustrating the perversity of his beliefs and, thus, the entire protestant project (which was significantly, majorly revamped during the Catholic Counter-Reformation, when great Jesuits and others like Charles Borremeo, Peter Canisius, and Francis Borgia utterly decimated Luther and Calvin’s noxious doctrine, showing how unscriptural and contrary to the early Faith it was, so that later protestants had to substantially re-Catholicize their sects in order to keep them intact).

These come from pp. 108-130 cut and paste to try to form an understandable whole.

As I said, Luther came to positively hate God when he found he could not maintain his Pelagian system of salvation by works alone: “the moral duties [the Law] enjoined were impossible of fulfillment and incited not love, but hatred of God” [speak for yourself, heresiarch]

To claim that the fulfillment of the Law is impossible is as impious as it is blasphemous, inasmuch as it imputes to God the injustice of commanding us to do something not just above our strength, but positively contrary to our eternal good.  It is also contrary to Christ – “What shall I do to be saved? If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments” (St. Matt xix:17).

Luther further remarked regarding the 10 Commandments: “If we allow them [the Ten Commandments] any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies, and blasphemies.” Further – “That shall serve you as a true rule, that wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works.” “If you should not sin against the Gospel, then be on your guard against good works; avoid them as one avoids a pest.” [Thus, Christ is a liar and Scripture is full of impossible to penetrate, contrary meanings, and yet should be the sole rule of faith and open to the interpretation of all, and not subject to the understanding of the Church.  What a crock.]

Under what circumstances is it allowable for a “man of God” and a “Reformer” to say of Moses, God’s chosen servant, that he should be looked upon “with suspicion as the worst heretic, as a damned and excommunicated person; yea, worse than the Pope and the devil?” [Such unspeakable blasphemy and boundless effrontery]

Luther again – “A pure heart enlightened by God must not dirty, soil itself with the Law. Thus let the Christian understand that it matters not whether he keeps it or not; yea, he may do what is forbidden and leave undone what is commanded, for neither is a sin.” [Counseling avoidance of virtue and welcoming of sin? – Believe me, it gets much, much worse]

“To the gallows with Moses.”

“I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ….we must put away thoughts and disputes about the Law, whenever the conscience becomes terrified and fells God’s anger against sin. Instead of that, it will be better to sing, to eat, to drink, to sleep, to be merry in spite of the devil.” [Luther constantly conflated the pangs of his conscience with the promptings of the devil. In fact, as we shall see later, Luther was very aware that he was doing satan’s work and did so without compunction]

“Poor soul, you have temptations, they must be overcome. When the devil comes to tempt and harass you with thoughts of the kind you allude to, have recourse at once to conversation, drink more freely, be jocose and playful and even indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit………If the “devil” [by which he really means his conscience] says to you,’Will you not stop drinking, answer him: I will drink all the more because you forbid it; I will drink great draughts in the name and to the honor of Jesus Christ.’ Imitate me.  I never drink so well, I never eat so much, I never enjoy myself so well at table as when vexing the “devil” who is prepared to mock and harass me. Oh, that I could paint sin in a fair light, so as to mock the devil and make him see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any!  I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the “devil” tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind.  If the devil upbraids us with our sins and declares us to be deserving of death and Hell, then we must say: ‘I confess that I have merited death and hell,’ but what then?  Are you for that reason to be damned eternally?……..” [Quite possibly, yes, if you do not repent and confess your sins]

“How often,” Luther said, “have I taken with my “wife” [a rebel nun who, like Luther, violated her sacred vows and simulated marriage outside the Church] those liberties which nature permits, merely in order to get rid of Satan’s temptations [that’s a pretty cold commentary on his concubine].  Yet all to no purpose, for he refused to depart; for Satan, as the author of death, has depraved our nature to such an extent that we will not admit any consolation. [I did not know satan had such power over us, at least those of us who do not give ourselves over to him. I would say, once again, Luther is speaking of his own conscience, his own guardian angel, calling him back to sanity and repentance] Hence I advise everyone who is able to drive away these Satanic thoughts by diverting his mind to do so, for instance, by thinking of a pretty girl, of money-making, or of drink, or, in fine, by means of some other vivid emotion.”

“Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but “believe” more boldly still……We must sin as long as we are what we are…..sin shall not drag us away from Him even should we commit fornication, or murder, thousands and thousands of times a day provided we only believe.”  We must take Luther’s words to mean, as they manifestly indicate, a recommendation, an exhortation and an injunction to mutiny, rebellion, and disobedience to the Supreme Lawgiver, who directed all to observe and not disrespect His Commandments.

Luther counsels that sin is better than good works – “The way to Heaven is narrow; if you wish to pas through it, throw away your good works. Those pious souls, who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven, not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” Thus good works, the practice of piety, and the observance of the divine Commandments – the only way, according to Jesus Christ, which leads to eternal life – are in his estimation troublesome superfluities, of which Christian liberty must rid us. Rather, according to this false teacher, they are invincible obstacles to salvation if one places the least reliance upon them. “Faith alone,” said he, “is necessary for justification: nothing else is commanded or forbidden.” [but remember, it’s a false conception of faith]

Luther knew that his doctrine had led to collapse of morals among protestants and that sin, crime, social upheaval, and moral degradation had spread like wildfire in the wake of his teachings.  He admitted this plainly, that is counsel to sin had been taken up, and that indeed it was primarily the license his false religion gave that was its prime selling point: “Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They care no longer for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God………I would wish, if it were possible, to leave these men without preacher and pastor and let them live like swine. [such noble concern for souls]  There is no longer any fear or love of God among them. After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases.” [Isn’t that exactly what you counseled them to do?]

So notorious was the debauchery of the followers of Luther that it became a common saying when persons proposed to engage in drunkenness and revelry: “We will spend the day like Lutherans.”

The new Gospel did not make Luther himself better.  He said: “I confess…….that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel as was formerly seen among monks and priests.” “If God,” he says, “had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.”[Luther was horribly inconsistent – he counseled men to sin but then lamented its effects.  Basically he wanted everyone to follow him, to be proved to be always right and greater than the pope, for himself to be able to sin freely, but for everyone else to remain as holy or better than they were as Catholics.  An impossible double standard.]

Finally, Luther had frequent encounters with satan, which he freely admitted, and he found that satan very much approved of his new doctrine, and somehow did not find that troubling –

Faith and good works are the only terms on which men can purchase happiness here and hereafter; every other scheme is a deceit of Lucifer to draw souls away from the love and service of God.

This statement is not made without foundation. Read Luther’s work against “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the “father of lies” who accosted him at “midnight” and spoke to him with “a deep, powerful voice,” causing “the sweat to break forth” from his brow and his “heart to tremble and palpitate.” In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptionable witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that “the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints” and that, moreover, Satan gave him “the most unqualified approval of his doctrine on justification by faith alone.”  Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare? [And who sold his false religion by creating a giant strawman of the Catholic Faith, so that his twisted notions would make some sense by comparison]

———End Quote———

I would just add in conclusion – this is the man the horrid conciliar father Yves Congar knelt before in fealty, and wished to erect a statue to his wonderful works within St. Peter’s.  This is the man Francis of Rome has repeatedly lionized.  This is the man, and the tens of thousands of sects he has fathered, the ecumaniacs can’t wait to suborn Catholic Truth for in order to flatter.  This is the man the revolutionaries within the Church have constantly lionized and sought to emulate in every possible way, probably because they are as lost in their own sins as he was, for the past several decades.  The smoke of satan has entered the Church, indeed – and the man who made that statement did as much or more than anyone to allow those filthy sulfurous fumes to enter.

Before reading this book, I knew Luther was incredibly bad, that he wrought endless destruction of souls (and the material world), that he was the ultimate author of most everything wrong in the world today economically, socially, intellectually, philosophically, and morally, but I still did not know the depths of his depravity.  He was quite literally, and happily, the spawn of satan.  He is a tremendous warning to me of what unyielding pride and self-pity must lead to.  The thing is, he knew better, he constantly kept at least a shred of his Catholic conscience, which he drowned in drink, gluttony, prurient lusts, and every other means he could think of.  But still, he knew, he knew what he was doing, and sought company in eternal perdition for himself by trying to convince as many others as possible to join him.

Well that’s all I’m going to have time for today.  Hope to post tomorrow on the hole the Texas bishops, and possibly even the USCCB, have dug for themselves in that Texas Right to Life mess.  Such a tragedy, once again the bishops allow themselves to become the political pawns of paid bureaucrats in this nightmare bureaucracy they have unnecessarily set up, and which Pope Leo XIII explicitly warned against.

*- Even Luther’s understanding of faith was corrupt. He substituted “fiduciary faith” – a false confidence that one is saved by Christ’s merits in spite of all sin and lack of virtue –  for the dogmatic faith in the saving Doctrine of Jesus Christ of the Church.

Texas Catholic Conference Conducts Ugly, Unprecedented Attack on Texas Right to Life February 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’ve written on this subject before, though it’s been some time – basically, there has long existed a marked division among the Texas pro-life movement, the uncompromising, total ban on abortion and other forms of murder position represented by Texas Right to Life, and the much more accommodating stand taken by Texas Alliance for Life.  There are many reasons to view Texas Alliance as weak on key issues, and indeed, most of the most dedicated, most successful pro-life advocates tend to support Texas Right to Life.  During the 2014 legislative session, some acrimonious division developed between Texas Right to Life and the Texas Catholic Conference (TCC), which is the bureaucratic arm of the state’s bishops (like a mini-USCCB).  Dominated by its lay staff and their preferences, including their relations with several prominent Texas lawmakers, TCC at various points supported end-of-life legislation that a number of pro-life advocates believed – I should say proved –  actually worsened the status quo in Texas, and put elderly, the sick, and their families even more at the mercy of doctors and hospitals in making end of life decisions.

So why has Texas Catholic Conference taken the very  unusual step of disavowing, or telling all Catholics in the state to disavow, this most effective pro-life group now?  In a word, politics.  Texas Right to Life, along with a number of other hardcore grass-roots conservatives groups like the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, Texas homeschoolers, and others, have managed to fund a number of “insurgent” campaigns by true, hardcore conservatives against establishment candidates like Angela Paxton.  Early voting is underway for the party primaries, so feeling their establishment buddies under threat, major Texas politicians like Joe Straus – the Speaker of the House, who has done more than anyone to block effective pro-life legislation in this state and who saw Texas’ pro-life ranking drop from #4 to #12 in his 10 year tenure as speaker – are pulling out the stops to try to break the backs of the conservative groups supporting the insurgent candidacies.

We’ve seen this before in this state, where the establishment always favors its own, but not to this degree, and not with a public disavowal of a group whose only “sin”, even by Texas Catholic Conference’s own admission, is to be “too pro-life.”  In point of fact, the very minor pro-life “gains” we have seen in Texas are out of all proportion to the citizenry’s general abhorrence of abortion.  In one of the most conservative states of the union, Texas’ pro-life legislation falls further and further behind, because of the super slow boil establishment approach.

Many Texas Catholics are incensed by what they see as a betrayal of THE most effective, most dedicated pro-life group in the state (which also happens to have the support of the best bishop this state has seen in 50+ years, Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi, who now offers the TLM more or less exclusively).

If you want more on the inside baseball of Texas politics and how this very sad abandonment of a great pro-life group9 came to pass, read the below from Church Militant, which……..yeah, I know, but just roll with it:

The bishops’ denouncement of Texas Right to Life comes in the wake of a split looming inside the Texas Republican Party — a winnowing of the conservative wheat from the Establishment chaff. Internal polling indicates Lone Star State RINOs are facing extinction in the upcoming elections, and political insiders believe the bishops’ “advisory” is a ploy to save their political hides. By demonizing Texas Right to Life, they suggest, the bishops hope to preserve their political allies in office.

According to their “advisory,” the bishops are spurning Texas Right to Life for three reasons:

  1. Conflicts on pro-life reform. The bishops complained the group “often opposes the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and has implied that the bishops do not faithfully represent Church teaching.” Texas Right to Life rejects the bishops’ “incrementalism” as a halting, soft approach.
  2. Conflicts on end-of-life reform. The bishops slammed Texas Right to Life’s messaging on end-of-life care and advance directives as “misstatements.”
  3. Texas Right to Life’s voter guide. The group publishes an annual voter guide scoring Texas lawmakers according to their pro-life record. The bishops have denounced the guide as built on unfair analysis, and they maintain “a number of legislators who have consistently voted for pro-life and end of life legislation have been opposed by Texas Right to Life.”

This isn’t the first time Texas Right to Life has run afoul of the Church Establishment. In 2013, Jeffrey Patterson, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference, wrote to state Representative Dan Huberty on behalf of the bishops, blasting Texas Right to Life’s voter guide as “unconventional,” “subjective” and producing “perplexing results.” He complained that the voter guide assigned low scores to “pro-life lawmakers who have worked long and hard to protect and preserve life.”

But Republican lawmakers like Byron Cook and Joseph Straus, key leaders of the Texas GOP Establishment, have been criticized by Texas Right to Life for obstructing pro-life laws.

As Church Militant reported in October 2017, “Cook, as the chairman of the Texas House State Affairs Committee, has worked overtime to block pro-life legislation from being passed in the Texas legislature despite claiming to be pro-life.” For example, he killed HB1113, the Pro-Life Health Insurance Reform, which would prohibit insurance companies from paying for elective abortions.

The pro-life bills Cook did support were considered “weak” and “fake” by Texas Right to Life — “ineffective or non-priority” measures that were actually “detrimental to the pro-life movement.”

Straus, meanwhile, as Speaker of the House, “put a sudden end to a special legislative session” that Gov. Greg Abbott had called in order to address important bills Establishment Republicans ignored during the 2016–17 regular session.

Just because, fearing losing a primary election, Straus and Cook are no longer seeking another term, does not mean that the establishment is broken or disorganized. As we see, they are still plenty powerful.

I do wonder the degree to which the 13 bishops who ostensibly make up TCC are involved in this, and the degree to which it comes from the lay bureaucrats who run TCC on a day to day basis?

If you want to read the TCC declaration, here it is—>>>02-2018_TRTL_parish_advisory

Some folks are planning to walk out if the announcement is read in their parish during Mass this Sunday. I don’t think I’m going to have to worry about that.

I am saddened and shocked at this turn of events.  There was no need for such an absolutist position from TCC against TRL – the two have worked together at many points in the past.  Why now, of all times, this matter had to be brought to the fore is incomprehensible for reasons of doctrine or importance to souls.  It very much appears to be doing what their political allies in Austin want the TCC to do, which is to try to remove a troublesome thorn from the establishcrats side.  To Bishop Olson – dude, I’ve defended you in the past, but you got to get a hold of your temper.   There are fights that are optional, and fights that are mandatory, and fights that one should never get in, and this is one of those.

 

Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga – Poverty for Thee, but Not for Me (or my boyfriends) January 17, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

This news is almost a month old, but I think the implications are plain – once again, a leftist ecclesiastic demanding a “poorer church,” a “church of accompaniment” – has been found personally enriching himself at Church expense.  Or, at least, there is substantial evidence of such.  Even more, this enrichment seems to be directly tied to personal immorality of the type practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, and seems to make plain why these leftist cardinals and other apparatchiks in the Church seek to implode the current moral edifice of the Faith, and replace it with one that is conducive to progressive mores.

There is a long article below, but the implications are damning, both for Rodriguez-Maradiaga, and for Francis, who has apparently sat on this information for over 6 months while deciding how to treat with one of his closest advisers and allies (my emphasis and comments):

When he finished reading the inquiry drafted by the apostolic envoy he himself had sent to Honduras last May, Pope Francis’ hands went up to his skullcap. He had just found out that his friend and main councilor — powerful cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, a staunch supporter of a poor and pauperist Church and coordinator of the Council of Cardinals after he appointed him in 2013 — had received over the years from the Catholic University of Tegucigalpa around 41,600 US dollars a month, with an additional 64,200 dollars bonus in December.Bergoglio had yet to learn that several witnesses, both ecclesiastical and secular, were accusing Maradiaga of investments in some companies in London topping a 1,2 million dollars that later vanished into thin air, or that the Court of Auditors of the small Central American nation was investigating a flow of large sums of money from the Honduran government to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication and to the Suyapa Foundation, both foundations of the local Church and therefore depending on Maradiaga himself.

“The Pope is sad and saddened, but also very determined at discovering the truth,” people of his entourage at Santa Marta, his residency, explain. [Uh huh. Is that why this was not made public for over 6 months, and in fact required investigative journalism (as in, not a Vatican press release) to uncover?  Can you imagine the hue and cry if this had occurred under Benedict, with one of his closest advisers and supporters?] He wants to know every item of the investigation Argentine bishop Jorge Pedro Casaretto conducted in Honduras, on top, of course, of the final destination of the jaw-dropping sums of money obtained by the cardinal. Just in one year, 2015, as shown in an internal university report L’Espresso obtained, the cardinal received almost 600,000 dollars, a sum that according to some sources he collected for a decade in his capacity as “Grand Chancellor” of the university. However, some other rather unpleasant items account for the rest of the sums he received according to Bishop Casaretto’s report. The pope’s trustworthy person put down on paper the serious accusations many witnesses brought forward (the audits totaled around fifty witnesses and included administrative staff of the diocese and of the university, priests, seminarians and the cardinal’s driver and secretary) also against the Auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa, Juan José Pineda, among the most loyal in Maradiaga’s inner circle and de facto his deputy in Central America. [We will learn just how close Rodriguez and Pineda are later on]

After studying the dossier he received directly six months ago, Pope Francis assigned to himself all final decisions to be made. [Because of course he did.  Makes it easier to bury the unpleasant news.  As Rorate has noted, Rodriguez Maradiaga was absolutely key in securing Francis’ election in 2013, and may well have used copious distribution of funds from his leadership of Caritas International to do so – at least, that is the implication, which no one in the media seems interested in investigating]

……..The accusations are many: “Some expenses go to close friends of Pineda, like a Mexican who calls himself ‘Father Erick’, but who never took his vows,” said a missionary. “The real name of the man is Erick Cravioto Fajardo. He lived for years in an apartment adjacent to that of the cardinal at Villa Iris. Pineda, who lived with him under the same roof, recently bought him a downtown apartment and a car. The money, we fear, came from university funds or from the diocese. We denounced this close and unseemly relationship also to the Vatican………[“Close and unseemly.”  I think we can understand just what that means in this disastrous era of sodomitical penetration deep into the bowels of the Church – so to speak. So at least some of this pilfered money is going to the lover and buddy of Maradiaga’s protege and closest supporter, who just happens to live next door to the Cardinal.  But we don’t need any investigation of a “gay mafia” in the Church, right Francis?  Unbelievable.]

The witnesses envoy Casaretto audited talked also about investments to the tune of millions gone catastrophically sour: Maradiaga supposedly transferred large amounts of the diocese’s funds to some financial companies in London, like Leman Wealth Management (whose owner is one Youssry Henien, as the registers of the Company House of England and Wales show). Now part of the money entrusted (and deposited in accounts in German banks) seem to have vanished.

There is more to the story. Casaretto’s report also hints to likely huge flows of money from the media empire the archbishopric set up and Suyapa Foundation, which manages the newspapers and televisions of the diocese, controls. As to Bishop Pineda, local newspapers pinpointed him recently as being the man who orchestrated reckless financial operations and the recipient of public funds (for as much as 1,2 million dollars) allegedly destined to obscure projects aimed at “training of the faithful to the values ​​and understanding laws and social life”. According to the accusers, these expenses were never supported by valid documentation. [Which tends to be the way these guys operate, especially when they need to pay off aggrieved former lovers or the outraged families of violated children.  This would hardly be the first time vast resources intended for the good of souls have been misdirected by unworthy men to enable their corrupt and immoral lifestyles.]

The Vatican is worried also about the Court of Auditors of Honduras’ launching of an accounting probe on the Catholic diocese there between 2012 and 2014. The prosecutors at the Tribunal Superior de Cuentas want to see clear about the lawfulness of the projects for which the government transferred every year tens of millions of lempiras to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication, whose official representative is still Maradiaga. As of the time of writing — so in a letter from the prosecutors L’Espresso obtained — the church did not produce the records on assets and liabilities and expenditure documentations. [Stonewalling from post-Vatican II Church bureaucrats?  Unthinkable!]

Leftism is religion for immoral people.  As Saint Thomas Aquinas and many other great Saints and Fathers of the Church have warned us, heresy, especially from ecclesiastics, is always a cover for personal immorality, almost always involving sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments.  Once a man convinces himself that Church Doctrine is false and his error is truth, that God has lied or the Church radically misunderstood, there is no end to the depths to which he will stoop.  I am not at all surprised that a major progressive Church operator is facing accusations of corruption and immorality – I only sense that there are far, far more such instances of which we are unaware, due to deliberate complicity by a media intent on protecting its co-religionists and ideological allies.

What a catastrophe for souls.  How terribly, terribly sad. Whether AA-1025 be true or not in all its details, I think it unmistakable that communists/leftists did undertake a deliberate program to penetrate the priesthood and fill it with ravening wolves.  I think that effort is dying out, at least in North America, but we shall be stuck with the products of it for decades to come, and with its effects for even longer.

What a fireball nightmare.

With 6 Bishops and One Cardinal, is it Really “Schism Rising?” January 17, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Restoration, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I certainly admire Michael Matt very much, and almost always agree with him, but I think he may have gotten a bit ahead of himself when he advances, at least to a degree, the idea that the fact that 3 bishops and one cardinal (including some emeriti), as of about 10 days ago, had signed onto the statement of the 3 bishops of Kazakhstan, led by the redoubtable Bishop Athanasius Schneider, which asserted their rejection of Francis’ attempt to gut Catholic moral belief by permitting constant, regularized sacrilege through reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the divorced and civilly remarried.

Whew……..that was a run on.  Anyway, I’m all for Schneider’s statement, I’m all for the reaction, but what I am is doubtful that this will be even the beginning of some kind of generalized reaction among the hierarchy, or even the priesthood, against the apparent errors of the Franciscan porntificate (see what I did there?).

This is not the first such reaction. We’ve had the statement by priests that they would continue to teach the Church’s constant belief regarding marriage. That topped out at under 1000 priests, last time I looked, in spite of the over 400,000 active priests in ministry today.  So, about 0.25% of priests took even this minimal stand.  Likewise, the few hundred priests and theologians who signed the statement led by Dr. Joseph Shaw similarly accusing Francis of promoting heresy, probably constituting much less than one tenth of one percent of all the priests and theologians in the world today.  And there was the Dubia, which only 4 Cardinals out of well nearly 200 endorsed.

There are over 4000 active bishops in the Church today.  The fact that 7 have endorsed this effort, again, indicates a support of less than 0.2% of the hierarchy for this very necessary rebuttal toward the Bishop of Rome.

Look, once again, I personally endorse and support all these efforts, but I have been discouraged by the lack of support they receive from those with formal roles within the ecclesiastical structure.  Just as the entire traditional movement is purported to consist of perhaps 1-1.5 million people worldwide, and thus constitutes barely a tenth of one percent of the supposed 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today (but since the number of actual, active, believing Catholics might be 1/10th that number, we do make up a much larger percentage of the “practical Church”), and the hierarchy has managed to, at most, successfully pigeonhole us off, I think they can just as easily keep ignoring that 0.1% or 0.2% of bishops, priests, theologians, or whatever as troublemakers, miscreants, neo-Pelagians, or whatever.  Our numbers are simply too small, on the human level, to have any kind of impact.  I think it would take something more like 60 or 70,  maybe even 150-200, bishops signing onto the Kazakhstan statement before it would start to really make waves.  Even 200 would not constitute even 5% of the episcopate, and note that this ratio does not include the number of emerati that are around today.

Realistically, traditional Catholics are about the same in number, and about as relevant, humanly speaking, as the “Old Catholics” were at the time of Vatican I.  How much influence did the Old Catholics have on the Church at Vatican I, and how much have they had since (as they have fallen into neo-liberal, pseudo-protestant heresy and even blasphemy, aping the worst of the most extreme progressive sects)?  God forbid the same should happen to traditional Catholics. I don’t believe it will.

I bring all this up not to be a pessimist but to inject some realism into the discussion.  I have promoted every one of these actions – the priest’s statement of adherence to the Church’s moral doctrine, the filial correction, the dubia, and now this statement from Kazakhstan.  I am happy to do so.  Indeed, nothing would make me happier – in a sense – than to wake up tomorrow and read that 500 bishops had signed onto this new “Athanasian Creed.”  At the same time, however, I think we need to be realistic, and not develop unfounded hopes.  In addition, while the Truth and justice, I think, demand such firm correction from bishops and cardinals against any error taught in the Church from any source, I also recognize that the process of exposing the error and excising it from the Church could be incredibly painful – though surely, in every respect, the right, just, and necessary thing to do (like a painful and difficult operation, necessary to save a life, but something no one looks forward to).

I also know we need things to talk about, and that folks need encouragement from time to time.  So I don’t take too much issue with the argument forwarded by Matt, I just wouldn’t stake a great deal of hope on it.

On Those Weirdo Trad Parishes January 17, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, Restoration, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Cliches exist because they often serve as a sort of shorthand for truth, an often glib but also uncannily accurate description of a place, an event, a tendency, etc.  Now, cliches can serve to represent and advance unfair bias, and often do, and they can badly misrepresent and miss vital nuance.  But having said that, the cliche of the mean ‘ol trad Catholic is probably the dominant, knee jerk reaction we trads have to contend with.  And, not entirely unfairly, it must probably be said.

How has this come about?  Likewise, what about the trad cliche of the silly, far from groovy, get over the 60s hippy dippy happy clappy define your own truth Novus Ordo type?  How true are these descriptions, and from where might they stem?

My new sole source for blogging material, Tumblar House, has some answers below, which I found pretty insightful.  In this case, I thought Charles Coulombe’s confrere made perhaps the most insightful contribution – we trads/faithful Catholics are the product of long years of avoiding and overcoming constant deadly threats, both to ourselves and to our children – you think a few years of that might make someone a little reserved in charity and prone to pounce on perceived threats with maybe a bit more relish than absolutely necessary?  And how about the rank failure of the hierarchy to define and defend Truth, so that laity have, by default, often had to step into this role?  Think that might also have had some less than perfect fruit?

This short segment also provides a keen insight into that strange entity, the former devout pre-conciliar Catholic who now so loved the old Mass and all the old devotions, and now, as a septuagenarian or octogenarian finds them repellent.  This person may or may not be a hippy casualty leftist, they may be quite orthodox in their Novus Ordo way, but they just viscerally hate the old Mass.  How could that person, on an objective level, exist, when the TLM is so manifestly superior on practically every level possible?  Well, they went through the incredibly jarring experience of being told by the Church, their Mother, that all they loved and held dear was not just far from ideal, but positively harmful/dangerous, and would be replaced by something “better.”  I can’t imagine how painful that must have been, nor the depth of Faith those folks had, and have, to have seen them through that experience.  That’s not to say their reactions, then or now, were always the right ones or even virtuous (mass contraceptive use, anyone?), but it does help to explain how these people came about.  I think it hard for someone like me, who converted on the cusp of the 21st century, to comprehend just how obedient Catholics were in the 1960s, and the entire expectation of obedience that was woven into the fabric of Catholic lives at that time.  That ethos, once such a cornerstone of the Faith (to an extent that m may have been excessive and even unhealthy, as natural as it was given the external attacks the Church faced from 1789-1958, say) has been one of the biggest casualties of the collapse of hierarchical authority since the “new springtime” of Vatican Il Duce.

Basically the Church is badly broken, probably in worse shape than she’s ever been, and that has left the sheep largely fending for themselves.  We should not be surprised that under such circumstances, the laity would be left confused and even divided into hostile camps.  This will persist, in my surmise, until the revolution that afflicted the Church in the 60s/70s (and today) is definitively rolled back, either by overt act or by slow submersion beneath a renewed authentic Catholicism.