1 comment so far
I have been following the efforts of a fairly sizable number of children of same-sex couples to give a more representative view of the downside of the often idyllic picture painted of same-sex “parents.” With the culture praising same-sex couples (or groups, as it often turns out) to the skies, sometimes even going to the excess of pretending these perverse pairings are superior to a natural mother and father, these children are an important contrary voice to the dominant cultural narrative. It is still quite unbelievable to me that we have sunk so far so fast, and yet here we are, in the year of our Lord 2015, having to state what has been obvious throughout human history: children having a married mother and father is the natural, normative family construct ordained by God and proven by thousands of years of experience. Such is the insanity, the selfishness, and the disregard for children today that at least a bare majority of people have seemingly forgotten this fact.
In our rush to arrogate diabolical “rights” to adults, from divorce on demand to contraception to abortion to pretensions regarding the perverse, it is the children we have most often left holding the bag. Pray God may sanity be restored before it is too late.
Some commentary below from a woman raised by multiple (yes, that’s right) “moms:”
When you emphasized how important the voices of children with gay parents are, you probably anticipated a different response. You might have expected that the children of same-sex unions would have nothing but glowing things to say about how their family is “just like everyone else’s.” Perhaps you expected them to tell you that the only scar on their otherwise idyllic life is that their two moms or two dads could not be legally married. If the children of these unions were all happy and well-adjusted, it would make it easier for you to deliver the feel-good ruling that would be so popular. [And I think that is exactly right. Kennedy, on these key cultural questions, has almost always sided with the popular elite opinion. It just won’t do to be removed from the Georgetown cocktail party set!]
My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all seem to have over our eyes.
Kids want their mother and father to love them, and to love each other…….
……. I see how important the role of their father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right. [Or, that God created us male and female, and ordained by Divine decree the proper orientation of human relations for the best outcome of our natural and supernatural lives. Anything contrary to that ordering is disordered at least, and diabolically sinful at worst]
…….Talk to any child with gay parents, especially those old enough to reflect on their experiences. If you ask a child raised by a lesbian couple if they love their two moms, you’ll probably get a resounding “yes!” Ask about their father, and you are in for either painful silence, a confession of gut-wrenching longing, or the recognition that they have a father that they wish they could see more often. The one thing that you will not hear is indifference.
What is your experience with children who have divorced parents, or are the offspring of third-party reproduction, or the victims of abandonment? Do they not care about their missing parent? Do those children claim to have never had a sleepless night wondering why their parents left, what they look like, or if they love their child? Of course not. We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound. [My experience with children of divorce, even in the case where they were already adult when the divorce occurred, has been one of utter shock and trauma for the children involved. It was absolutely devastating. My college roommate and close friend had his parents divorce at the end of our freshman year. It was a total shock, as was the revelation of his father’s very long term infidelity. It shattered him. He descended into alcoholism for a solid year, has a very twisted view twisted (and selfish) view of women, and still bears the scars. Younger children often bear the wounds less outwardly, but even more deeply. I absolutely hate divorce. I see how it affects adult lifelong friends to this day. All of them have scars. I pray to God more parents would think of their children rather than of themselves in these situations.]
…..If it is undisputed social science that children suffer greatly when they are abandoned by their biological parents, when their parents divorce, when one parent dies, or when they are donor-conceived, then how can it be possible that they are miraculously turning out “even better!” when raised in same-sex-headed households? Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods. Does being raised under the rainbow miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents? [When its associated with a massively well-funded and incredibly powerful political clique, apparently so] The more likely explanation is that researchers are feeling the same pressure as the rest of us feel to prove that they love their gay friends. [Or simply don’t want their lives and careers ruined for arriving at the “wrong” conclusion]
There is much more at the link. Check it out.
The first casualty of the leftist cultural-political agenda is the truth. They have to batter the truth either to death or at least abject silence in order to advance so many of their cherished agenda items. Thus, the truth about abortion, divorce, contraception, perverse relations, serial fornication, on and on, has to be flushed down the memory hole and consigned to an ever growing list of unmentionables. But the extreme left has always had to do this to mask their true agenda. Communists, fascists, and all the other many manifestations of leftism have always had to brutalize the truth and keep it carefully hidden away, so that they can get that cherished 50%+1 of people to endorse their next atrocity.
It is amazing how disconnected from its ostensible Christian heritage/founding this nation has become. We are a culture of lies, lies bearing the stench of death and misery.
And yet we all know, marriage between those lost in the sins of sodom and gomorrah will be recognized as “valid” and “equal” in all 50 states by this summer. There are no words to convey the tragedy of the former Christendom in its present state.
1 comment so far
Some very interesting Scriptural exegesis below from Dom Prosper Gueranger. Yesterday, in the Traditional Mass, the Epistle for the Monday of the Second Week of Lent was from Daniel IX, as below. The exegesis below applies to the Jews, certainly, but also to the Church, in Her perfection of Judaism. The quote from Daniel is a lamentation after sin, a begging of forgiveness for unfaithfulness:
In those days, Daniel prayed to the Lord, saying: O Lord our God, who hast brought forth thy people out of the land of Egypt with a strong hand, and hast made thee a name as at this day: we have sinned, we have committed iniquity, O Lord, against all thy justice. Let thy wrath and thy indignation be turned away, I beseech thee, from thy city Jerusalem, and from thy holy mountain. For, by reason of our sins, and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are a reproach to all that are round about us. Now, therefore, O God, hear thy supplication of thy servant, and his prayers: and show thy face up on thy sanctuary which is desolate, for thy own sake. Incline, O my God, thy ear and hear; open thine eyes and see our desolation, and the city upon which thy name is called: for it is not for our justifications that we present our prayers before thy face, but for the multitude of thy tender mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, be appeased; hearken, and do; delay not for thy own sake, O my God; because thy name is invocated upon thy city, and upon thy people, O Lord our God.
Now Dom Prosper places the above in a Catholic context:
Such was the prayer and lamentation of Daniel, during the captivity in Babylon. His prayer was heard; and, after seventy years of exile, the Jews returned to their country, rebuilt the temple, and were once more received by the Lord as His chosen people. But what are the Israelites now? What has been their history for the last
1800 2000 years? The words of Daniel’s lamentation but faintly represent the sad reality of their present long chastisement. God’s anger lies heavily upon Jerusalem; the very ruins of the temple have perished; the children of Israel are dispersed over the whole earth, a reproach to all nations. A curse hangs over this people; like Cain, it is a wanderer and a fugitive; and God watches over it, that it become not extinct.
The rationalist is at a loss how to explain this problem; whereas the Christian sees in it the punishment of the greatest of crimes. But what is the explanation of this phenomenon? The light shone in darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it! If the darkness had received the light, it would not be darkness now; but it was not so; Israel, therefore, deserved to be abandoned. Several of its children did, indeed, acknowledged the Messias, and they became children of the light; nay, it is through them that the light was made known to the whole world. When will the rest of Israel open its eyes? When will this people address to God the prayer of Daniel? They have it; they frequently read it; and yet, if finds no response in their proud hearts. Let us, the Gentiles, pray for the Jews – the younger for the elder. Every year there are some who are converted, and seek admission into the new Israel of the Church of Christ. Right welcome are they! May God in his mercy, add to their number; that thus all men may adore the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, together with Jesus Christ, His Son, whom He sent into this world.
While the above stands as an interesting if quite contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy form of exegesis (it was not contrary at all when written, nor for quite some time after that), I think it is also very relevant to the Church today. “The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it!” Does anything better describe our world today? But what is far more troubling, is that the searing billion candle-watt beacon of the past that was the Church has been dimmed down to a wimpy 40W bulb. It is so much harder for souls to find the light, as the light itself, in its human element, has been greatly dimmed. We have, for some reason, put bushel baskets over our candlesticks, and they no longer cast light for all to see.
And, I think we can glean from the above how God may respond if the Church continues to hide the Light she has been divinely commissioned to hold aloft to the world. No, there will never be a “replacement” for the Church, there will be no “new new covenant,” but we can read in The Apocalypse and some of the Old Testament prophets what happens when the Church shirks her duty towards the end of the world. Are we in that time? It is really difficult to tell, Our Lord did tell us to watch for signs and wonders, but He also said we would know not the day nor the hour. Not that it really matters – we will all be called to our own judgment in God’s good time, regardless.
Irrespective, as I said, it is interesting to contrast the very traditional view of the Jews presented by Gueranger above, and modern approaches to Judaism these past several decades. They are almost night and day in their differences. And, of course, we have seen even more outreach to Jews and statements of fraternity, equality, and liberty of late. Certainly, another quite substantive break with the past.
But we’ve had plenty of those. So what’s one more piled on all the others?
A handy resource on the TLM that raises provocative questions regarding the Novus Ordo March 3, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, Tradition.
A reader sent me a link to a very handy site that lists many of the reasons to support the Traditional Latin Mass. I would say it goes even farther than that, arguing for a return exclusively to the TLM, but having been on the receiving end of liturgical bans and persecution, I think the Church should have done with top-down impositions and abrogations of Rites of the Mass at least for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean I don’t have grave concerns over the Novus Ordo. I do. We don’t assist at anything but the TLM and arrange our vacation schedules to insure that will remain the case! But I recognize most souls bearing the name Catholic are far from being ready to accept the TLM and some sudden command from on high to restore the Traditional Mass as the only acceptable form of the Roman Rite – as unlikely as that is today – would cause mass resentment, confusion, and chaos, of which I would hope traditional Catholics have had quite enough, already.
Having said that, there are many arguments to be made in favor of the TLM. Some of those are positive – look how reverent the TLM is – and others are negative. Those are ones that say “look at all these problems with the Novus Ordo, look at how it undermines faith in the Blessed Sacrament, etc.” And that’s what the link above focuses on.
I’ll pull out a few quotes from the link and add some comments of my own below. Just a warning, some of the below is pretty strong stuff, but I don’t think that should exclude it from consideration. YMMV:
Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy. [This point has been argued quite extensively by Michael Davies, Dr. Peter Kwazneiski, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and others. But there are nuances to the argument. Certainly, Popes have directed changes to the Mass in the past. But never was a new Rite created out of whole cloth until the Novus Ordo] The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it. [As expressed by the will of the majority at VII, that’s about correct. Until VII, the idea of the Magisterium had been to protect, uphold, propagate, and extol the Faith as they had received it. But in the latter half of the 20th century, a radical new view became dominant, which was that the Faith as it had always been understood and practiced was badly deficient, somehow unsuited to “new times,” and that it had to change for the good of souls. I would argue that the disastrous crisis afflicting the Church since the introduction of those new ideas has conclusively demonstrated that this assumption was severely erroneous, and, far from ushering in a new springtime of growth, has led to an unprecedented to decay, destruction, and death.]
St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers……[I had not seen that quote from Pope Benedict before. I’m quite certain he made it well before he was pontiff. However, I have seen similar quotes. Which point only goes to underscore that when we speak of Church leaders today (and for the past half century or more), we have to speak in terms of relatively orthodoxy, relative adherence to Tradition, etc., because it is very difficult to find any that have not made statements somewhat akin to the above. I do not know how these men came to reconcile in their minds their sometime orthodoxy with radical views such as the above. To me, there was a crisis of faith, more than anything else, which has kind of been my theme for the day. Men in the Church, even in the highest echelons of authority, simply lost faith that what had been handed onto them was good enough, would “work” for the world today. There have certainly been out and out radicals, bad men acting under bad influences, who have probably acted out this revolution in an effort to reduce the Church from what She must be into something more worldly and utterly disordered from Her true purpose. But I cannot see Pope Benedict in that light, I think he, and many others, honestly thought they were doing what was right. Benedict visibly recoiled from his more radical younger views as he saw the destruction they wrought. But even still, the attachment to the idea that some radical change was necessary and vital remained. I have a friend, very much traditional, who feels strongly that VII was absolutely needed because the pre-conciliar Church was cold, legalistic, and bereft of love (almost Jansenist), but that the changes went way too far. I am much less inclined to see that, because the pre-conciliar Church was too vibrant, had too many priestly and religious vocations, and made too many converts, to be as described.]
The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.” The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. [That’s right! And not the reverse! Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. But since VII in particular, the argument has been made that we must shape and twist the Liturgy to bend to our beliefs, and not the other way around. That is to say, a mechanistic and manipulative understanding of the Liturgy has become dominant, where the Liturgy is not a work primarily of God given to men to use and adore, but an entirely human construct, a work of human hands we can tinker with and manipulate according to the vagaries of the times] The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).” [Scary. I do so trust and love St. Alphonsus.]
The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.” [And another dozen or so cardinals would have signed onto the “Ottaviani Intervention” as well, had it not been prematurely leaked to the press. So, then, at least a sizable number of the most orthodox prelates saw in the Novus Ordo a marked departure from a Liturgy that taught the Faith as it had been practiced for 16-1900 years.] Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.“
Well. Strong stuff, I know. But simply because it says things some may find discomfiting, it should not be dismissed. There are numerous other statements from Church Fathers and great Saints regarding the unchangeable nature of the Faith and the key repository of it, the Mass. Yes, there have been periodic adjustments to the Mass in terms of organic growth and also some prunings from time to time by Popes in order to establish a more consistently universal Rite (for the Western Church), but, again, never has there been an entirely new rite, with new prayers, a new calendar of Saints, radically altered Scripture readings, and – this is key – changes to the sacred Canon of the Mass. Never, until 1969, that is.
I know this is relatively late coverage of this matter, this story has been ongoing for weeks, but Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco – one of the most TLM friendly bishops in the US – has come under incredibly intense criticism from all the usual suspects as a result of his effort to start restoring some sensus fidei to the Catholic schools in his archdiocese. The effort was really minimal and basic: requiring all high school teachers to sign a form indicating they assented to the Doctrine of the Faith as part of their contracts. Protestant schools require these kinds of forms all the time, as do some other religious and even some secular schools. These forms basically say I won’t promote things contrary to the Faith as part of my job as teacher.
One would think, in a sane world, this would not be a controversial act. But we do not live in a sane world. And, as insanity goes, San Francisco and its environs are probably among the worst examples in the world. San Fran is so bad, it’s not insane, it’s unsane, like, the complete, diametric opposite of sanity.
So, people and politicians have gone absolutely nuts. Politicians of a left-wing bent (which is pretty much all of them) have demanded Archbishop Cordileone cave and threatened use of state power to break the archdiocese if he does not. The media has been all over him. And now parents are threatening lawsuits (how dare you expect teachers in Catholic schools to teach the Catholic Faith! But then again, how many non-Catholics have been admitted to these schools? What a dumb policy) and have even hired a powerful PR firm to attack +Cordileone and the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Of course, Cordileone has also long earned the ire of uber-leftist Bay Area residents due to his opposition to sodomite fake marriage. Several newspaper columns have accused him of “hatred” and “exclusion” (hey, guess what……non-Catholics excluded from the Catholic Church, and water is wet!).
Another side note is that this campaign also involves rage and invective directed against some of San Francisco’s orthodox priests. So this seems to be a general backlash against the nascent resurgence of Catholicism in one of the most wickedly materialist sexular pagan regions of the country.
Thus far, Archbishop Cordileone has stood firm, remaining far stronger than Bishop Vasa did when he tried to implement similar measures in Santa Rosa. And while he certainly has the support of the small number of faithful Catholics who populate every diocese, he would likely appreciate more support. It’s a small gesture, but there is a petition available to sign that communicates your support for Archbishop Cordileone here. But petitions aside, this will come down to +Cordileone’s will – it is entirely his decision, he can either ignore the loud but ultimately powerless ragings of the world, or he can cave to ephemeral “public pressure.”
Above all, however, prayers are most needed. I have praying for him for some time. It is interesting to me that Cordileone has grown in orthodoxy and love of Tradition since he has had the prayers of the traditional Carmelites that he brought to Oakland. The prayers of some holy nuns have achieved truly amazing things in the past, such as putting the infamous Reign of Terror to an end.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I truly pray Archbishop Cordileone remains strong – it would be so heartening to see at least some small assertion of standards for the conduct of the Faith in the very belly of the beast, as it were. We never know how small things like this can snowball into something much more significant. As I said in an early post, God has been looking for signs of willingness to do things the world finds incomprehensible and highly annoying as a leap of faith for centuries from the Church, only to be disappointed. That may be a prime reason why the Church is in the straits she finds herself these past many years.
Now, if he would only excommunicate Pelosi and her husband……..that would really make the lefties lose their minds and give aid and comfort to pious souls.
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell has a recent blog post in which he stresses a pretty strong opposition towards proposals to permit open carry of firearms in Texas. I don’t have a real strong preference, provided some form of carry (open or concealed) be allowed, but I have experienced and can imagine a few scenarios when being allowed to demonstrate (open carry) a firearm in public would be at least more convenient, if not vitally necessary for security. This blog post attracted a rare comment on Bishop Farrell’s blog, and I’ll include some of it because I’m 90% certain I know the author quite well. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with most of His Excellency’s suppositions below, which, I remind, are personal reflections on a matter of prudential judgment and not binding on conscience:
People who are outspoken in defending their own rights for the most part are not equally interested in protecting the rights of others…particularly if they conflict with the right they are defending. Such is the case with the advocates of the open carrying of handguns and the concealed carrying of handguns on college campuses bills now on the floor of the Texas Senate. This narrow-minded advocacy reached a new level with the claim that open carrying of arms was a “right granted by God.” [Well……is not the safety and liberty of our persons not a right granted by God? And since crime rates have dropped faster in right to carry states than those without such laws, it would seem that being able to carry a firearm legally – openly or not – is a way to secure a right granted by God. The rhetoric may be a bit over the top, but it is not fundamentally false.]
Regardless of what other reasons are offered, open carrying of weapons is meant to intimidate, which violates the rights of other citizens to not be subjected to such behavior when going about their normal affairs. Guns are intended to kill or wound and their presence other than in hands of authorities are always intimidating to most of us. [Why does their presence in the hands of lawful citizens cause such fear and consternation, as opposed to being in the hands of the “authorities?” There are a lot of presumptions in that statement, including: authorities are almost always better trained (false), authorities rarely abuse their power by being the sole openly armed individuals in a locality (false), authorities (LEOs) are obligated to respond when made aware of violent criminal acts in progress (false). I would also argue against the idea that the sole intent of open carry is to intimidate. For me, seeing someone obviously calm and well disposed carrying a firearm openly tends to put me more at ease, and not freak me out]
At best, the right to openly carry any weapon, especially side arms, is a distortion of the constitutional right to bear arms and, at worst, it is legalized bullying, designed to intimidate fellow citizens. [IOW, guns are really icky and scary and I don’t like them? I think there is more than a small bit of that sentiment here. Is a small .380 in a holster more intimidating than an AR strapped across the back? There are many strong arguments, with far more supporting evidence (rather than the bald assertions made here), that all forms of carry (open, concealed) are the fulfillment of the right to bear arms, and not a “distortion” of same. Again, with all due respect and bearing in mind he comes from a country without as much a tradition of firearms ownership, I think the “icky and scary” factor is definitely at play here.]
We have law enforcement bodies and a military establishment charged with the protection of all citizens. [Again, this is something of a chimera. Police are not obligated to respond. More often than not, they are there to pick up the pieces and conduct an investigation after a violent crime occurs. It’s an old but true cliche': when seconds count, the police are only minutes away – if they bother to come at all. Talk to my friends in South Dallas about how fast police respond to calls for assistance there] We no longer live in the Wild West where such established law and order bodies did not always exist. [This has nothing to do with the “Wild West,” which was actually far more peaceful and law abiding overall than our nation is today. This has to do with personal safety and the rights of the individual to secure his person by all reasonable means. Arguing it is not reasonable is one thing, pretending the right no longer applies is something else entirely] Open carry laws do not increase public safety; they diminish it and trample on the rights of peace-loving citizens who want law and order, not vigilante justice. [Bald, unsupported assertions, with a fair bit of calumny thrown in for good measure, associating lawful citizens exercise their a right with “vigilante justice.”]
As for the comment that was left:
In some regards I have to disagree with His Excellency’s opinion on this matter. While the carrying of arms openly in public is a means of intimidation, it’s intent is not to intimidate everyone only those who have evil intentions. This is the same reason why the authorities carry openly on their side as well…..As far as the Constitution is concerned, the right is to “bear” arms, which in its simplest explanation would be to carry them on one’s person, so the amendment is pretty simple that one can bear arms on their person which would also grant that person the right of ownership as well. To say that the existence of police negates the need for this ability due to civilizations progress from the old west, is naïve. One only has to turn to the news to see the murders and evil perpetuated on our streets on a daily basis to know that we haven’t progressed so much. This evil is a consequence of our fall from grace and while spreading the Gospel and praying for the poor souls is a sure way to bring remedy one should have the ability to protect one’s life at any given time from those who would do harm.
Many of the same points are expressed as I made above. As to the point regarding intimidation, again, I don’t fully agree that’s the point, or I don’t think that is the reason why people want to carry a firearm openly, in public. I surely don’t find a holstered sidearm intimidating. A lot of guys (and some gals) walk around with knives all the time, and I don’t find that intimidating. Nor is that the reason I always carry one. I use my knife every day. It’s a tool. As a gun is a tool.
Anyway, now we know a little bit more about our bishop’s social and political dispositions.
You might find some other posts on Bishop Farrell’s blog revealing, as well.
Many faithful Catholics feel – for many reasons, and it’s certainly a strong point of contention – that Our Lady’s command to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart has never been properly fulfilled. Yes, there have been consecrations, but they did not follow the formula or include all the elements Our Lady expressed at Fatima.
I use that comment as an introduction to another, strikingly similar situation, which is Our Lord’s communication to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque that the sovereign of France – at that time, Louis XIV – must explicitly consecrate France to His Sacred Heart and take other certain steps as evidence of that consecration (such as building a national basilica explicitly dedicated to the Sacred Heart, seeking permission for a national Feast to the Sacred Heart, etc). Saint Margaret Mary inveighed upon her superiors in the Order of the Visitation to contact Louis XIV to inform him of this command, and the evidence strongly suggests this contact was made, repeatedly. But Louis XIV never acted. For whatever reason, whether want of faith, concern over the prudence of the matter, belief that the time was not yet “ripe” since the apparitions had at that point not been formally endorsed by the Church…….the consecration never occurred. It never occurred during Louis XV’s time, either.
So, over 100 years passed, and the fearful vengeance of Our Blessed Lord then fell upon France and the monarchy in the form of the French Revolution. The Church was persecuted as never before in a Catholic country. Satanic acts were everywhere, the faithful suffered horribly, and the plight endured by priests and religious was unspeakable. Our Lord had informed Saint Margaret Mary that things would not go well for France if His command was not obeyed. There was a special inference to the destruction of the monarchy, should those given such awesome power and privilege by the Hand of God would not be obedient to His demand. And even on a strictly human level, the fact that the Faith had grown so distorted under generations of Gallicanism and the baleful influence of Jansenism, where a cold, sterile, and crushing legalism sucked the lifeblood of the Church (charity) away, without a visible commitment to re-center the Church in the living seat of Our Lord’s loving Heart, the mass practice of the Faith in France was in a perilous state, anyway. More and more souls developed a resentment towards the hard, unyielding demands of Jansenist priests and bishops, and in their ardor, turned away from the very Church Herself. All that was needed was a spark to start a conflagration that would threaten to consume the entire Church in France, and very nearly did.
The third heir of this command from Our Lord, King Louis XVI, was of course swept along by events. Far from a great king, he was also far from a bad man. Languishing in prison awaiting his inevitable execution, Louis XVI poured out his heart to Our Lord in the form of a promissory note, wherein Louis took the solemn vow to finally consecrate France to Our Lord’s Sacred Heart should he be restored as sovereign of France. This note promised satisfaction of all Our Lord’s demands, including the formal consecration in union with bishops and Pope, the establishment of a national feast to the Sacred Heart on the First Friday after the Octave of the Blessed Sacrament, public processions imploring forgiveness of the Sacred Heart, the repudiation and removal of all the terribly repressive acts taken against the Church by the revolutionary government, annual renewal of the consecration, the construction of a basilica to the Sacred Heart, etc. In short, every detail of Our Lord’s revelation to St. Margaret Mary was to be satisfied.
Sadly, it was too late. 100 years to the day had been given to satisfy this “request,” and it had not occurred. On June 17, 1789, the all-powerful monarchy ruling France was terminated, forever. Louis XVI promised to make a consecration in 1791 while imprisoned, but he had no power to put that promise into effect. So he died, as did so many others, and the Revolution continued on its course until it consumed its own and was replaced with a tyranny – a tyranny that then not only afflicted France, but almost all of Europe, and spread France’s errors around the world.
Since that time, Saint Margaret Mary has been canonized, a national basilica to the Sacred Heart constructed, but still, there has been – to my knowledge – no consecration. Of course, there is no longer to perform such an act, but even the various democratic (and not) governments which have ruled France since the Revolution have not taken such an act in the name of the people. The closest this came to occurring was when a small subset of the National Assembly informally embraced the Sacred Heart at a major pilgrimage to Paray, the location of the convent where St. Margaret Mary Alacoque lived and where her relics remain today. That act seems to have been incomplete.
It struck me when reading about this in The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque that this failure to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart represents, in microcosm (as a quite literal type), the situation surrounding Our Lady’s command that Russian be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. In both cases, in spite of continuing arguments, it seems that this direct command has not been obeyed, or not observed in all its critical details, and that the disasters promised to come in the wake of a failure to obey have indeed happened. The Church in France, after enjoying a brief resurgence in the 1800s, is as secularized and moribund as any in the world today, especially in its institutions. A pretty strong argument could be constructed that what happened to France is now occurring to the Church throughout the world, as the “errors of Russia” (shorthand for leftism generally) spread and even inculcate themselves in the Church, as we see the Church suffering more and more egregious persecutions and as more and more souls grow cold, disinterested, and even fall away from the Faith. Our Lady has repeatedly warned of a diabolical disorientation in the Church’s hierarchy and grave disasters that will afflict the world if the Church does not take some great leap of Faith, if Her leadership does not turn away from worldly considerations and plainly, simply obey Her command.
The price of failure in both consecrations was prophesied to be mass suffering on a natural and supernatural level, suffering unprecedented in the life of the Church.
Such has already occurred in France. Must it occur in the world at large, as well?
Some fascinating (and frightening) details on the above:
At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Popes and the Catholic bishops failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia. He said:
Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.
The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:
On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.
So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.
In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lords request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.
German bishops threaten schism February 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, pr stunts, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I imagine most readers have already seen the report on Rorate, coming out of the German bishop’s annual conference, that they are basically threatening schism over the matter of Communion for divorced and remarried but unanulled Catholics (those who persist in a state of adultery/fornication).
It may be my hopeful side, but I see this as perhaps a tactic to try to manipulate the Synod into accepting the German position. Post-conciliar history shows that threats of schism are extremely effective. The Dutch bishops threatened to go into schism over Communion in the hand, and an ostensibly reluctant Pope Paul VI yielded. There are other examples, as well. In fact, it is reported that threats of schism rendered neuter a goodly number of attempts during the JPII/Benedict era to re-instill doctrinal discipline.
Having said that, the rhetoric below is pretty heated. It may be just that, but, reading carefully, it is obvious the German bishops are already in schism, at least in terms of professed belief. My Lord how they have deluded themselves in believing that permitting this mass sin and sacrilege will keep them in their billions of euros of Church tax money. As a commenter said recently, money is the root of all evil. Amazing:
.. Reinhard Cardinal Marx underlined in view of the family synod in autumn the bishops’ attempt to “go down new paths” and to “help that doors be opened”. In the universal church there were “certain expectations” of Germany. [for repeated manifest heresy, the systematic murder of millions, and just about every disastrous, anti-Christian philosophy to emerge in the last 500 years?] He hoped that some questions could already be tackled before the synod, Marx told journalists in Hildesheim on Tuesday [Feb 24].The synod would have to find a text that would “further encourage” discussion and find a common position in fundamental questions. Doctrinally, one would remain within the community of the [Universal]Church, but in detailed questions of pastoral care “the synod cannot prescribe in detail what we must do in Germany”. Therefore, the bishops wanted to publish their own pastoral letter on marriage and family after the synod. It was not the duty of the bishops to wait for permissions. [And Luther did not wait for approval from Rome to begin his “reforms,” either]“We are no subsidiaries of Rome. [Wow. FU universal Church] Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”. [And thus we see the grave disorder – one might even say evil – of the post-conciliar system of national episcopal conferences made manifest]
According to the German bishops’ position, the reality of life constitutes an important factor for the doctrine of the Church.[Luther said just about exactly the same, did he not?] “We also learn from life in doctrine,” underlined Cardinal Marx. Franz-Josef Bode, Bishop of Osnabrück, called in this context the synod “historically important.” According to his view the participants do not only debate questions of marriage and family, but the possibility of a paradigm shift.The basic question was, are only Scripture or Tradition sources for theological understanding, or are [such sources] also “the reality of men and of the world.”[That question has been answered definitively over 2000 years. I would say even asking the question implies heresy, if it is not manifest evidence of such] [Bode,] The chairman of the pastoral commission of the bishops’ conference reminded his audience of the “dialogical structure” of reality, which had already been mentioned in the pastoral constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II, and quotes this conciliar document: “there is nothing truly human, that has no resonance in their hearts.” Thus Bode concludes: “Not only does the Christian message have to find resonance with men, but also men must find resonance with us.” Bode stated that it was important for him that the Sacrament [of the Eucharist] was not only a sign of unity, but also a means to unity, and could contribute to healing.Cardinal Marx announced a bishops’ statement on the synod that should be published within the upcoming weeks.
Coptic Christians march on White House February 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, unadulterated evil.
Wearing orange jump suits, a group of Coptic Christians marched on the White House calling on President Obama to protect Christians in the area. Doing so across 1500 miles of open desert would be a neat trick, but I understand their sentiment. Unfortunately, this nation has twice decided to elect an islam-protecting narcissist as president, who has repeatedly shown his attitude towards Christians…….disdain, comes to mind.
Naturally, the mainstream media consigned this non-event to the memory hole, and the omnipresent intelligence machine probably marked every name and face for possible reprisal, later. Non-events and unpersons, that the United States these days (and yes, I’m being negative, but I think I have every reason to be):
A group of Coptic Christians marched to the White House on Tuesday, demanding that President Obama protect Christians from the genocide that is taking place in the Middle East.
“Obama, Obama, did you see? Christian blood in the sea,” they repeated as they marched in D.C.
As U.S. allies push back against ISIS, [half-heartedly and ineffectually] the Islamist militants take every opportunity to inflict acts of barbarism across Iraq and Syria. Even in retreat, they’ve taken over small villages, kidnapping Christians, and separating the men from woman and children.
No one can be certain of their fate, [unfortunately, I think we can….] but if recent history is any indication, the men will be paraded out, tortured and murdered. And the Christian women and children will be sold as sex slaves. [Ah, the pleasures of jihad…..murder, barbarity, theft, rapine, and endless quenching of bloodlust. Of course islam is the “religion of peace!”]
………“These women were sobbing, saying, ‘What is our fault? Why is the West silent? Why is the Church not talking about our persecution?” Taimoorazy said.
“And they’re asking, they’re questioning the foreign policy of America and also other world powers and Europe, saying, ‘Why is it that there’s nothing; there’s no agenda.’ There’s really nothing being done to help the persecuted in the Middle East,” she said.
Without starting a debate on how broke this country is or anything else, first and foremost, little is done to protect Christians because the West’s elites have absolutely no interest in doing so. Their multi-culti sensibilities and latent (or openly avowed) disdain for Christianity (and especially the Church) mean they have no interest in protecting Christians terrorized by muslims. The effort against ISIS – such as it is, and it isn’t much – is about geopolitics, not saving persecuted religious minorities. We only do that for muslims, as we did in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya.
These Christians, monophysites or not, have my prayers, and a little bit of money, but that’s probably all they can expect from us at this point.
If we Christians want to be defended – and I mean that as much in this country as any around the world – we are going to have to do the defending ourselves.
On a side note, perhaps we’ll see the first Egyptian Coptic “doctor of the Church” soon?
Sorry, it was just hanging there, waiting for me to bat it out of the park. But instead I hit a dribbler down the third base line, but the third baseman errored out and I got on base, anyway.
A large part of me would still like to be a rah-rah yay America we’re always on the side of good kind of guy. But the America I would like to root for exists only in my memory now, and it may be a false memory, at that. As for now……..while I still love my country, I am increasingly ashamed of it. Especially when it openly uses its enormous wealth, influence, and naked power to advance all manner of the gravest immoralities possible, from abortion to contraception to usury to defrauding workmen wages to, now, the radical sodomite agenda.
Yes, the United States, under muslim communist god-emperor Barack Obama has announced its first international envoy for the promotion of the sodomite lifestyle, with open plans to advocate for sodomy in dozens of unwilling countries around the world (and with likely punishments to be meted out to those who resist).
The United States is naming its first international envoy for homosexual rights. This is a historic event, because no nation, even the United Nations, has ever appointed a homosexual ambassador for global homosexual rights.
Every single major news outlet in the U.S. is covering this historic event.
In a press release, the U.S. State Department said Randy Berry, an openly homosexual diplomat, will be its special envoy to promote homosexual rights. State Department Secretary John Kerry said, “We’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.” [The US is the new sodom. I don’t think there can be any question. From “shining city on a hill” to the filthy whore found dead in a gutter with a needle in her arm…….that’s us.]
The U.S. government’s concern is not only the more than 75 countries that criminalize homosexual activity, but also to target nations trying to resist the onslaught of homosexual groups from United States and Europe, especially because of several pro-family laws that have taken effect around the world in recent years. The Washington Post gave some examples, “Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation in 2013 banning ‘homosexual propaganda,’ and Nigeria banned same-sex marriage and restricted homosexual behavior, including public displays of affection between gays.”
Putin was named by The Advocate, the largest homosexual magazine in the U.S., as the most prominent opponent of the gay agenda. [Putin is no moral paragon, but on this at least, he is right]
……..The appointment of an openly homosexual diplomat as a LGBT envoy sends a message that the United States will remain on the forefront and leadership of promoting the gay agenda around the world. It shows also its determination of pushing back Russia, Nigeria and other nations.
Now the United States will make the world freer to adherents of homosexual acts and ideology and less free for Christians and others who do not accept homosexual depravity, including Russia and Nigeria that are trying to protect their children from homosexual propaganda.
Every single homosexual activist around the world is benefited by the U.S. move.
Every single practicing Christian is threatened by it…….
Thus, the view of a Brazilian evangelical, who a friend describes as “more Catholic than the bishops of that country.” And I think it’s exactly right. It is heartbreaking to watch the country I have always loved sink rapidly into the morass of the worst possible evil. Literally, this country has been turned upside down. The communist-inspired left is culturally and (for the most part) politically ascendant in this nation. How on earth did this country manage to win the Cold War but lose the peace? I guess Catholic convert Whitaker Chambers was right to be depressed……..he thought he was on the losing side, too.
How many of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is this government openly committed to supporting? Let’s see……sodomy, check. Defraud workmen his wages – oh check check. Murder? Absolutely. Oppressing the poor? I think this would be a yes.
How long will God’s hand be stayed on a nation that is so openly defiant to His Law? In point of fact…….His hand is already well in motion, and has been since this nation (at least in its governing elites) became a hideous purveyor of every moral evil possible.
She is the very model of the modern Catholic school product February 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, sickness, Society.
……..has no information animal but spouts gender the-o-ry.
I won’t spoil the surprise. You have to watch and see for yourself – especially from 1:10 on – what are probably pretty close to the median views of the median graduate of the Catholic school system in North America today:
As Stacy McCain said, “You had me at pansexual.”
I swear I have seen this girl 100 times before, up close and in person. It’s like they come out of a factory: the same shrill, smug superiority, the same aping of all the most trendy leftist shibboleths of the moment, the same superciliousness, even the same voice and the same appearance. And always, always the stupid chants (a long time far-left tactic to prevent too much thought, and to prevent uncomfortable questions from being asked) and the omnipresent bullhorn.
As if you needed another reason to homeschool.
Catholic schools in Ontario for much of the 00’s taught a deeply disordered and highly perverse perversion indoctrination curriculum at the behest of the Ontario government. It was briefly overturned (covered here), but is coming roaring back under the very liberal, very lesbian new premiere of Ontario. The curriculum includes such disgusting topics as the below:
Did you know that Grade 8s will have to “demonstrate a full understanding” of terms like “two-spirited,” and the difference between “transsexual” and “transgendered”?
From “anal fluid” to the “nine genders,” it’s obvious that this curriculum is pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one.
And that’s really just the beginning. There is a lot more below:
I’m sorry, I cannot see this as being anything but grooming and indoctrination, with a minimal goal of insuring all children grow up with a thorough acceptance of perversion as normal and fully equal in the eyes of God and everyone else to normal marital relations, and to turn as many young people as possible onto these “alternative lifestyles.” And the best part is, YOU (in Canada) are paying for this.
Man have leftists managed to cobble together one heckuva of a social revolution machine, formed by them, administered by them, advertised in the media by them, and paid for………by you.
PS – I should have added, it seemed to me a lot of the group protesting this new sexual indoctrination curriculum were probably not Catholic. There were quite a few muslims and a good number of eastern Europeans (Russians?) in the mix. Hard to tell, but I didn’t get the impression of a heavy Catholic presence with Rosaries, crucifixes, etc.