Ted Cruz suspended his campaign after a severe defeat in Indiana last night. It appears, barring highly unlikely events, that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, facing Hilary Clinton. This leaves essentially no one in the major parties for faithful Catholics to support, to my mind, though I know that some disagree with that assessment. I will have to see what beliefs the Libertarian candidate holds with regard to moral issues, and whether the Constitution party will be on the ballot in most states. At this time, the latter seems an open question.
More broadly speaking, some observers are now concluding that the virtual certitude of Trump being the Republican nominee means that the social conservative movement is dead, or at least so moribund as to no longer matter. That was the opinion voiced by David Frum yesterday in a piece in The Atlantic. Now, it must be noted that David Frum is not an unbiased observer. He has long been a liberal Republican, especially on social issues, and has long taken a very critical, one might even say hostile, stand towards making traditional moral beliefs an important part of a party platform. So when he declares the social conservative movement to be dead, he’s not simply stating an observation, but a deeply held wish.
Nevertheless, his analysis is worth considering, even though I think much of it is wrong, or self-serving:
[H]ere’s something that traditional ideological conservatives will want to consider: Trump rose by shoving them aside. Trump’s rise exposed the weakness of social conservatives in particular. For a third of a century, social conservatives imposed a pro-life litmus test on Republican nominees for both presidency and vice presidency. They pulled the party into confrontations over sexuality and religion that many Republican elected leaders would have preferred to avoid. And then, abruptly, poof: The social conservative veto has vanished. New York values have prevailed, with a mighty assist from Jerry Falwell Jr. and other evangelical leaders. It seems unlikely the religious right will return in anything like its awesome previous form. A visibly conscientious objector to the culture wars easily defeated candidates who elevated the defunding of Planned Parenthood to the top of their agenda. That lesson, once demonstrated, won’t soon be forgotten….
The big internal conservative struggle of 2017 will be the fight to write the narrative of how Trump emerged and why he lost. Anti-Trump conservatives will want to say that Trump lost because he wasn’t a “true conservative.” But 2016 to date is proposing that “true conservatives” constitute only a pitiful minority of the Republican Party, never mind the country as a whole. Why should any practical politician care about them ever again?
Several things. First, this is a very strange year. This is a year when a sizable portion of the public has determined they will teach the establishment a lesson, once and for all. Ted Cruz thought he was the most anti-establishment candidate around, having fought a brutal battle against the Texas Republican Party to get elected to the Senate in 2012 and then standing out as the most reliably conservative Senator, but Donald Trump was able to project an image of being even more of an outsider, and really harm Cruz for his associations with Wall Street bankers (which, you think Trump doesn’t have even MORE association with them, being a New York financier?!?).
This is an election cycle where emotion has ruled the day and logic has not applied. This is a cycle where a very large number of people have determined they would only support a perceived outsider, even when that perceived outsider is as inside as they come. Trump has also made a lot of hay attacking political correctness/cultural Marxism, which I think is a major factor in his rise. I think people are just about sick of having leftist values shoved down their throat.
Don’t discount the impact of open primary states, either. Trump has done best in open primary states, where many democrats may be crossing over to vote for him in the assumption he’ll get killed in a general election.
Another factor is this: I know a fair number of extremely committed pro-lifers/social conservatives who are willing to ignore the past and believe Trump’s present claims that he is strongly against abortion and other social ills. They are willing to ignore his extremely immoral personal life. They are willing to do this, because they see that decades of supporting the mainstream Republican party has gotten us very little in return.
Millions are fed up with the political establishment and are willing to support a dark horse candidate who tells them very much what they want to hear, even against all the evidence that the rhetoric does not match the real belief. I know several folks who openly acknowledge that Trump is probably selling them a line, but at this point, they simply don’t care. They are willing to chance that this supposed outsider really has changed, because they feel this country is just about gone, anyway, so why not take a gamble?
Frum, in his analysis, seems to totally discount that voters could be willing to take a chance that the lifetime-liberal Trump could have suddenly changed his beliefs. He seems to assume that the vast, vast majority of voters, including former social conservatives, simply don’t value these issues that much anymore, otherwise, they wouldn’t support Trump. I think that’s a major flaw in his analysis.
Even more, the number one factor still driving Trump’s popularity is his early very strong rhetoric about stopping the torrent of unrestrained illegal immigration into this country. That is the top issue for a good 35-40% of Americans and his primary selling point. I don’t think you can understand the Trump phenomenon, and the willingness of many of his supporters to ignore how his present rhetoric contradicts a lifetime of belief, without taking into account his immigration stand. To me, it seems Frum practically discounts all of the above, and more.
Having said all that, I fear that Frum is correct in his primary conclusion: that there has been a sudden and severe drop off in the number of committed social conservatives, or at least in the degree of conviction conservatives assign to social/moral matters. I think this can be seen in numerous areas: the way the entire conservative movement has more or less caved to pseudo-sodo-marriage now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the institutionalization of the pro-life movement and its subsequent ineffectiveness, the increasing tolerance for grave immorality within the Church and many of the protestant sects, the lack of outrage over incidents like the persecution of Aaron and Melissa Klein and the poor Indiana pizza shop. Far too many Christians are willing to simply go along to get along, meekly changing their beliefs to whatever the cultural Marxists dictate, much more concerned about the state of their career and 401k than they are the state of their souls.
I’m interested to know what you think. Does Trump’s rise signal a temporary, or final, collapse of the strongly social conservative movement, or is it driven more by other things? Even if Trump’s rise is not specifically fueled by the collapse of cultural conservatism, do you see cultural conservatism in the decline? Polls show that Trump is pulling a pretty hefty portion of the cultural conservative vote. Does that probably temporary support mean those conservatives have forever given up on their primary moral concerns?
I can’t say my own thoughts on this are fully developed. I’m still of two minds. I’m interested to see how things play out in the general. I am afraid Trump will get absolutely pummeled by Dems quoting some of his noxious statements, dealings, and past moral failings. But he’s proven unusually resistant in the past.
Believing in the Doctrine of the Faith Will Get You Fired, and Investigated by Police, at “Catholic” colleges May 3, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, horror, martyrdom, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
At Loyola Marymount in Los Angeles – a university in the 20th century Jesuit tradition of modernism, immorality, lies, and obfuscation – a lay employee was fired for having the temerity to very gently explain Catholic doctrine to militant students afflicted with perverse inclinations and general confusion over gender identity, which every 4 year old generally figures out quite clearly, unless they attend public schools and most colleges and universities. In which case, they lose their minds and no longer know up from down, and particularly right from wrong.
Although the students initially acted politely and seemed to appreciate the back and forth of the conversation, you just knew this being a leftist dominated institution in the Year of Our Lord 2016, they would just have to file a complaint. Complain they did, and now the employee is not only fired from their job at Loyola, but they are under investigation by the Orwellian-named “Bias Incident Response Team,” and the Los Angeles Police. Which just goes to show that not much has changed since the days of L.A. Confidential:
It’s uncommon at Jesuit universities these days for someone to openly share a traditional Catholic viewpoint. [How’s that for understatement of the decade?]
When it happened at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, the school was so spooked it called the Los Angeles Police Department. [Was it spooked, was it really afraid, or is this simply part of the process of the radical Left attempting to ratchet up the open persecution of Christians in this country to an entirely more threatening level?]
Both the police and the university’s Bias Incident Response Team are investigating the stated belief that only two genders exist, male and female, as a hate crime.
A Loyola alumni office employee discussed her views on sexual orientation, which align with the Roman Catholic Church, with three students who were hanging up posters on the subject on April 14.
Cosette Carleo, one of the students involved, told The College Fix in a phone interview that the hate crime under investigation is “denying transgenderism.”….
…..The employee told Carleo, who identifies as gender-neutral, that only two genders exist, male and female, according to the student. Carleo told The Fix that statement was the hate crime.
Carleo responded that “you can have your opinion” as long as it doesn’t “deny my existence.”
Let me rephrase that for honesty: “You can have your opinion, so long as it corresponds to mine, which just happens to be a violent competing religion that will brook no compromise, least of all with you, Christofascist. Furthermore, I’m insane, and you must not simply share my insanity, but rejoice in it, and call it normality and saneness.”
OK, got a bit windy and harsh there. But how many marginal people of unhappy unbringings are falling into this mental illness because they perceive not only that it brings them great power and attention (as this example brilliantly illustrates), but it also conveys on them unassailable moral authority and victimhood status that elevates them to veritable superhuman status? Just whom has the power of the university and police-like state at their back? It sure ain’t the Catholic. So forgive me if I scoff at your self-serving claim that my refusal to accept your mental illness as a gender somehow denies your existence. Give me a break.
Naturally, it turns out that two very different accounts of the exchange have surfaced. But the supposedly Catholic university has chosen to side entirely with the aggrieved radical, even though there are serious holes in their story. In fact, the university immediately shamed and castigated the employee, refusing to hear her side of events.
The amount of space being given to Catholics to not just “operate” or evangelize, but simply exist, is shrinking at an alarming pace. I do not think Michael Matt and some others are wrong to fear that before long, the state will find reasons, related to “hate” and “bias,” to refuse to allow us to homeschool our children. What shall we do then? If we let our kids be brainwashed by the state, everything we have worked and suffered and struggled for will be for naught. Much will depend on the specific circumstances, of course, but our options will be limited by deliberate choice.
How long will God allow a culture – and a Church – filled to the gills with such evils to stand? And where in the heck is Cardinal Gomez in defending this persecuted woman?
The thing is, bowing and scraping to the culture a la Amoris Laetitia isn’t going to buy the Church acceptance or wiggle room. It’s going to cause the flashing knives of the Left to grow longer and to strike harder. Hard experience with the world caused the bastions to be built in the first place. But modernists just had to know better, didn’t they?
Christ or Chaos: Rejecting Christ does not result in cool rationalist enlightenment, it results in barbarism April 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, history, horror, Liturgical Year, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sickness, silliness, The End.
Sorry I haven’t posted much of late. It’s been an interesting week. I’m doubly sorry for not posting much from The Liturgical Year, such a treasure of Catholic thought. Rectifying both, here is a bit from Gueranger’s writing on Pope St. Gregory VII, the great Hildebrand who rescued the Church from the grip of barbarism and the tyranny of the secularizing state. Gregory VII, more than anyone else, set the stage for the exaltation of Christendom which occurred in the 12th and 13th centuries. Now, 800 years later, the West – the creation of Christendom – has grown old and tired, and seeks to die. What comes in its place will not be happy, it will be hell, which is exactly what you get when you reject Christianity en masse. Even though written 150 years ago, the excerpt below paints a grim and prophetic vision of the future, one playing out before our eyes.
From pp. 386-7 of The Liturgical Year Vol. 8:
…….Governments have rebelled against the spiritual power; they have thrown off obedience to the Vicar of Christ; they have refused to acknowledge the control of any authority over earth. The people, on their part, have revolted against their governments, that is, against a power which has ceased to have any visible and sacred connection with God; and this twofold revolt is now hurrying society on to destruction.
This world belongs to Christ, for He is the King of kings, the Lord of lords (I Tim vi:15), and to Him hath been given all power in heaven and in earth (St. Matt xxviii:18). It matters not who they may be that rebel against Him – be they kings or be they people, they must inevitably be chastised, just as were the Jewish people who said in their pride: “We will not have this Man to reign over us!” (St. Luke xix:14). Pray, O Gregory, for this world which thou didst rescue from barbarism, and which is now striving to relapse into degradation. The men of this generation are ever talking of liberty; it is in the name of this pretended liberty that they have unchristianized society; and the only means now left for maintaining order is outward violence and force. Thou didst triumph over brute force by making the laws of right acknowledged and loved; thou gavest the world what it had lost – the liberty of the sons of God, the liberty of doing one’s duty – and it lasted for ages. O come, noble-hearted pontiff! and aid this time of ours! Beseech our Lord Jesus Christ to forgive the wickedness of them that have driven Him form the world, and scoff at His threat of returning on the day of His triumph and His justice.
Yes, pray to Him to have mercy on the thousands among us who call themselves Christians, and perhaps are so, yet who are led astray by the absurd sophistry of the times, by blind prejudice, by a godless education, by high-sounding and vague words, and who call by the name of progress the system of keeping men as far as possible form the end for which God has created them.
I don’t think that last paragraph can be stressed too much. We live in times awash in absurd sophistry, guided by a false science that assumed – by deliberate, malicious intent, starting 300 years ago – that anything that could not be inspected, weighed, and measured, did not exist*. Thus, the new scientists, who nowadays conduct themselves like the high priests of a diabolic religion, determined from the outset that God was dubious and distant, at best, and it was no time before they concluded He is non-existent. They discounted all miracles and the incredible testimony of millions of faithful souls going back centuries. They cut the beating heart out of Europe, in favor of the new religion they envisioned themselves – or their heirs – leading.
This new religion of sciencism was married to a new political force – progressivism or leftism. In fact, the two have always existed in symbiotic relationship. As one “advances,” so does the other. As science began its long descent from noble profession founded on reason, with theology as her queen, it constantly provided new bases upon which to attack the old, existing order of Christendom. Rationalism, materialism, deism, enlightenment philosophism, evolutionism, modernism……the more radical the claims of science became, the more radical their political allies in the progressive wing became. Their attacks were always always always first and foremost directed against Christianity, that is, the Church. Yes they have had many other targets but the prize has always been Rome.
As more and more of the old order was overthrown and replaced with a radical, new, and largely godless one (with various paeans given to “freedom of religion” or “freedom of worship” from time to time, to calm the fears of the masses), it was declared more and more loudly that progress was finally being achieved, that man was finally and irrevocably on the ascent, that the religion that had kept him held down for so long was finally being crushed, or at least put in its place. But the claims of success are solipsisms, and the crushing of religion must become ever more severe in order for the next great “advance” to take place. Thus, religion must be driven from the schools, to better indoctrinate the children in godlessness, then it must be driven from public square, then the marriage bed, and finally, driven out entirely.
That just about brings us up to the present day. And now that religion – I should say, Christianity, because false religions are just peachy with the Left – has been all but driven from the public square, now that sciencism is everywhere ascendant, is the world the great paradise of peaceful, cool, kind, rational individuals we’ve always been promised, if God could only be killed?
Hardly. The entire premise was false, as it was inspired by evil and founded in error. Reject God, and you don’t get peaceful coexistence, you get a new barbarism. Or you get overrun by islam. Christ or Chaos – the world can have one, or the other. The choice the world has made has been obvious. Instead of Christ, we get this:
It’s staggering there was actually a time when this commercial would have been anything but wretch inducing.
But I guess I’ve said this about 400 times already. Boring, much?
Francis: “Obstinate Christians are rebels and idolators” April 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
And what makes you obstinate? Apparently, adhering to the constant belief and practice of the Faith. Put more harshly, but I think it can be fairly argued, more honestly: opposing Francis’ program to radically remake the Church is, to his mind, being sinful. But whom, precisely, is being idolatrous here? Those who cling to the very Word of Jesus Christ about something like marriage, wherein He plainly declared that having more than one living spouse at the same time (“divorce” or no) was adultery, or the new doctrine of Francis?
How similar is this “new wine” we’re being sold to the vinegar of a Robert Tilton?
The Pope’s words: “Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,’ this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God….This is the message the Church gives us today. This is what Jesus says so forcefully: ‘New wine in new wineskins.’ Habits must be renewed in the newness of the Spirit, in the surprises of God…” READ REPORT HERE
Note the language: this is what “the Church” gives us. That’s a slick bit of sleight of hand.
Note also the stark dichotomy: adhering to the constant Magisterial belief of the Church is false divination, but going around”discerning the Spirit” willy-nilly is not. How the Spirit is to be discerned from the false spirit of the world, and the wiles of satan, absent the guidance of the Doctrine of the Faith, is not mentioned, obviously, because it would obliterate the argument. One might be tempted to keep in mind the dictum that leftists always project, as in project their own psychoses, faults, and biases, onto others, especially their perceived enemies.
And once again we see Francis seemingly pitting the Holy Ghost against Himself. On its face – and let’s be truthful, this is far from the first time – he is either proclaiming that God can radically change His mind and contradict Himself – in which case He would no longer be God – or He is setting forth a dangerous new, deconstructive (but thoroughly modernist) approach to Doctrine and its definition, which posits that there basically have been no dogmatic definitions (this would be similar to the arguments of the atrocious American theologian Dr. Rick Gaillardetz (that’s just one post – search his name and find three dozen more)), so popes can simply make things up as they go along. Either will have the effect of spreading mass confusion, scandal, and defections from the Faith. This kind of stuff is the most powerful corrosive imaginable with regard to the doctrinal integrity of the Church.
The only real question that remains in my mind is, feature or bug? Not that it matters, the effect is the same.
I questioned whether to post this or not, as I am trying to avoid pounding on Francis when formal teaching is not in play, but this was so clear, so revealing, and so egregious, I thought it merited posting. It is revealing in what it says about his intent, and how he views the Doctrine of the Faith. I don’t mean to be repetitive, nor stir up scandal. I know many of us have been forced to draw difficult and uncomfortable conclusions. While I try to keep my head down regarding this pontificate as much as possible (to the extent that I read virtually zero Catholic blogs anymore), I can’t just bury my head in the sand ever deeper as this pontificate reveals itself more and more. Some things need to be examined. This is one of them.
One of the infinite number of tragedies surrounding Francis is his Trump-like tendency to cause even very small divisions in belief to stand out like mountainous divides. People of good will fall on different sides of whether, and to what extent, to point out the rank novelties and grave dangers emanating from Rome since March 2013. It’s been painful for me to endure some splits with folks over the things I say and write. I’ve got to do what I feel called to do. That’s about all I can say on that.
A bit of juxtaposition. For the second time in three years, the city government of Oklahoma City, OK – a city long dominated by a narrow cohort of white evangelical protestants – is going to permit the ultimate blasphemy against the universal Church, a black mass, on city property. OKC’s mayor, council members, and staff steadfastly maintain this is simply a First Amendment matter, that since satanists have “free speech” under our Constitution and Supreme Court rulings to blaspheme God, the city simply has no choice but to rent city property to these satanists allowing them to do so. To block them, they said, would be to invite a lawsuit OKC would lose with 100% certainty.
Meanwhile, 200 miles to the south, the City of Dallas has blocked a repeat performance of the diabolically lewd “Exxxotica Expo” at the Dallas Convention Center. Amazingly, when the producers of the Expo sued on First Amendment grounds, the City of Dallas won, at least at the district court level (no word yet on whether the Expo producers plan to appeal), but I have it on good authority the judge’s decision was worded in such a way that makes appeal quite difficult.
I would note in passing that Dallas proper is probably close to 50% nominal Catholic, with perhaps 10% actually practicing the Faith to some dimly recognizable degree. OKC’s Catholic population is far lower, less than 10% in general terms and probably in low single digits when it comes to faithful practice. However, to describe Dallas as a Catholic city would be ludicrous. Dallas has its own white protestant cohort who tend to run things their own way, even as the city has become increasingly Hispanic and Catholic.
So, on the one hand, we have a city that has permitted (and, by happily renting city property, I would say encouraged) direct assaults on the Catholic Faith and the commission of the gravest, most offensive blasphemy imaginable (and not only that, but acts constantly associated with depravity of a criminal degree in the past); and on the other you have one that was not only willing to go to court to prevent a much lower level of evil (sins directly against God in His majesty being the gravest possible), they proceeded to win.
I had no idea there was a second black mass planned in Oklahoma City, and already approved by the City, for the Feast of the Assumption August 15 2016, until about an hour ago. Even before learning this blood-boiling fact, I had already decided that Oklahoma City was, at least in its elected leadership and bureaucracy, a virulently, despicably anti-Catholic town. This latest revelation only further confirms that fact, just as it confirms that the arguments I heard all last year from OKC officials in my extensive correspondence with them in the run up to the desecration of Our Lady were as false as they were self-serving. Individuals claim First Amendment protections all the time, for all manner of nefarious activities. Cities and other government bodies, for myriad reasons, choose to oppose those claims, legally, for numerous reasons. Those bodies tend to win about as many First Amendment-related lawsuits as they win. The idea that because someone said “religious freedom” meant the city had to positively cooperate in the commission of grave moral evil was always tenuous, at best. Recent events in Dallas have proven it is verifiably false.
Which gets me to the conclusion I have been forced to reach: OKC would only roll over for these satanists, again and again, and even positively cooperate with their atrocities, out of reasons of bias, bias against Catholics. Now one could argue that bias stems from mundane worldly motives (such as, there not being many politically involved Catholics in the area, Catholics not representing a big enough voting bloc to act in favor of), but those are unlikely. City elections frequently draw only a few thousand voters and aggravating even several hundred could have a huge impact on an election. Since it is obvious even in this day and age that Catholics far outnumber satanists, even in OKC, it seems odd that a city councilman or mayor would not go to bat in favor of even 1-2% or so of their constituents. They routinely act on behalf of far, far fewer than that.
I’ll add to that reasoning my personal experience. If you know where I live and where my farm is (and all my family from), you will realize I’ve been through Oklahoma City scores of times. At least 50. We used to stop there all the time. Since I’ve become a more convicted Catholic, I’ve had some interaction with the local populace. Bear in mind, this is the city that likes to pride itself as being the brass clasp on the buckle of the Bible belt. It is evangelical central, and often aggressively so. I’ve had some encounters with the locals on religious matters, a few of them quite nasty. I’ve never felt much warmth of Christian brotherhood form the locals.
So, yeah, it’s not a lock solid proof, but I’m personally convinced the reason OKC is allowing all this to happen without even lifting a finger of opposition, nor showing even the slightest solidarity (by, say, participating in some of the protests or things to that effect) with Catholics is due to a widespread and quite deep anti-Catholic bias. We’re also safe targets, unlike muslims or even Jews. The former might kill you, while the media would go nuts should somebody draw a swastika on a synagogue.
Therefore, I’m boycotting OKC. In fact, I’m boycotting everything from Paul’s Valley to Guthrie. I’ll never stop there again. I might try to avoid stopping in the entire state when I’m passing through. It’s easy enough for me to do.
Another response: sign the TFP petition. Over 100,000 sigs so far, TFP are gunning for 200,000 and I bet they make it. Apparently even 100,000 people scandalized and broken-hearted by this horrid blasphemy aren’t enough to move the rock-hard hearts of the Oklahoma City leadership. That’s some pretty intense anti-Catholicism right there. Rather what one would expect from people who made the likes of Robert Tilton and Oral Roberts filthy rich:
No different from Kenneth Copeland, whom Francis has received and feted several times. Francis finds this kind of devilish, money-loving chicanery just fine, but traditional Catholics, well, they’re the real sinners.
Quick Hits – Boycott Target, Perverts for Equality, the Millenial Divorce Paradox
Cleaning out the inbox, a few quick hits for this Thursday arvonoon. First up, Target has decided to let mentally unstable men into women’s rest rooms at all of their stores. Time for a boycott:
The American Family Association is calling for a boycott of Target after the retail giant said it would allow men to use the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms in their stores.
On its web site this week, Target announced, “[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. …Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”
This means a man can simply say he “feels like a woman today” and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there. [This has occurred far too many times already]
Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. And with Target publicly boasting that men can enter women’s bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?
Clearly, Target’s dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters. We think many customers will agree. And we think the average Target customer is willing to pledge to boycott Target stores until it makes protecting women and children a priority. Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex bathroom option should be provided. [Why? This is precisely the problem. The longer we continue to reinforce these people’s grave mental problems and call them not just acceptable, but perfectly normal, the longer they will remain mired in a misery that will claim 30-40% of their lives through suicide, STD, or drug overdose. This is not charity, it is the cowardice masquerading as thoughtful concern.]
Sign the pledge to boycott Target now! Target should not allow men to enter the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms.
After you sign the pledge, contact Target and let them know you’ve signed the Pledge. Call Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680.
Next up, it seems one of the major figures pushing for dramatically increasing the risk of rape of women and children through his opposition to North Carolina’s sensible public restroom policy is himself a convicted boy rapist:
In late 2015, the Washington State Human Rights Commission quietly put forward a new rule requiring all public establishments to grant locker room, shower, and bathroom access to any individual, at any time, regardless of that individual’s biological realities.
The rule, which also curbed concerned citizens’ legal ability to ask “unwelcome questions” of an individual if they felt uncomfortable, has since been attempted in various forms and fashions in cities and states across the country.
When the Charlotte, N.C. City Council passed their version of the open-facilities ordinance earlier this year, the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce led the charge to make it happen.
And leading the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce was convicted sex offender Chad Sevearance-Turner.
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal reported that Chad Sevearance-Turner had been a youth minister at a church in Gaffney, South Carolina. Sevearance-Turner was charged and convicted for “committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child under 16,” after taking advantage of a teenage church member while the child slept. [That’s what we’ve devolved to in this country – a moral climate where the perverse and sick dictate to the rest what is acceptable, and who are given the power by government to punish those who resist. Satan, and Vladimir Lenin, couldn’t be prouder.]
He recently resigned from the LGBT Chamber of Commerce after his record as a sex-offender surfaced.
Meanwhile, it seems millenials think divorce is bad, even though they are marrying less than any generation in American history. Pundits can comprehend the dichotomy, but it’s very clear to me:
Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems.” In 2002, about half of Americans disagreed. Within a decade, the share had risen to more than 60 percent. In the most recent data, younger Americans — a cohort with the lowest marriage rates on record, mind you — were especially likely to perceive divorce as an unacceptable response to marital strain.
Several hypotheses were floated to try to explain the seeming dichotomy between millenials “famous” liberalism, their low marriage rates, and their disdain for divorce.
It’s no mystery to me, and it has little to do with liberalism. Millenials are children of rampant divorce. That drives them to have a whole host of psychoses, ranging from fear of commitment (low marriage rates) to a tendency to low-rent promiscuity. But it also probably makes them find divorce abhorrent, as they have suffered its effects. That doesn’t mean they won’t divorce with abandon themselves, once they finally start getting married, if ever. Children raised in broken homes are far more likely to have unstable marriages and later divorce, for a whole host of reasons.
But hypothetically speaking, they know the devastation divorce causes children (i.e., themselves), and they have seen that many of the reasons adults offer to children to justify their divorce are hollow and self-serving. They rightly feel that there is really no justification for divorce in most cases. Too bad they are likely too emotionally scarred to have the wherewithal to put their generic belief into specific practice.
If you’ve been following the ongoing (and increasingly unhinged) leftist campaign against the state of North Carolina for having the audacity to say that men pretending to be women cannot legally use women’s restrooms, you know the SJWs (social justice warriors) have been displaying all their core characteristics to the max. Thus we have seen leftist agitators, many of them self-proclaimed feminists, jettisoning all their previous concern about protecting women from male depredation (all the while encouraging women to behave in ways that opened them up to same) and now demanding that all restrooms in the world be opened up to a tiny percentage of dreadfully mentally-ill individuals who believe they are somehow the “wrong sex.”
Since the vast majority of these trannies are males pretending to be female (and no matter how much you cut off or have added on, BOYS, you’ll never be rid of that pesky Y chromosome), what this effort has meant, in practice, is opening up women’s restrooms to mentally ill and/or predatory men. Not a very good combination. Of course, there have already been scores of incidents from around the country where this lunacy has already been enacted in law, of obviously predatory men assaulting women and even young girls in their most vulnerable moments, with the assaults ranging from actual rape to “mere” intimidation, groping, self-abuse, indecent exposure, illegal photography, etc.
Such is the insanity of our times, however, that when a state tries to protect 50+% of its citizenry from such a grave threat, the effort is labeled as being motivated by nothing but hate for transgenders – who make up perhaps 0.05 – 0.10% of the population (a few hundred thousand, at most) – and has become the latest poster child of the endless war by the sexually deranged left against everyone else.
All the more sickening, however, has been the key role corporations have played in the attempt to have this legislation overturned. Corporate pressure was the principle reason for the dramatic watering-down of similar legislation in Georgia, it might still work in North Carolina, though I am proud to see how much tar is still in those heels. To top it all is the stinking hypocrisy of these corporations, many of whom happily do business with the most thuggish, repressive regimes in the world, but who now publicly chastise and attempt to punish fellow Americans for holding beliefs different from their own (which beliefs just happened to have been shared by almost all those now doing the persecuting themselves as recently as a year or so ago):
Whether it’s Apple opening stores in Saudi Arabia or American Airlines looking to dominate the Cuban travel market, many of the companies that have threatened to cut business ties to North Carolina over its bathroom bill are eager to do business in countries with regimes far more repressive of gays (and everyone else).
PayPal’s international headquarters are located in Singapore, where sexual contact between males is punishable by up to two years in prison, and even littering can be punished by flogging. The company has a software development center in Chennai, India, where same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Matt Sharp, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said PayPal’s actions internationally speak louder than its words at home.
“They’ve got a political agenda that they’re trying to push in the U.S. But it definitely does not line up with what their actions are saying around the world in places like Malaysia and others,” Mr. Sharp said. [Why do corporations push an overwhelmingly leftist agenda? Because personnel is policy, and most corporations are staffed, to a nearly uniform degree, by highly trained but unthinking monkeys from the same far-left universities. The left managed to co-opt corporations during the 80s and 90s through the politically correct effort, and it is now paying huge dividends. Virtually all elites, be they corporate, academic, or government, adhere to the same left-wing social views. The only difference is that some of them want lower taxes than others, and so call themselves Republicans]
Apple is among the other major corporations that have taken to the pulpit to lecture North Carolina for its sins despite doing business with anti-gay foreign regimes. CEO Tim Cook was one of several high-profile tech CEOs who signed a letter to Republican Gov. Pat McCrory calling on him to repeal the legislation……..
…….But, as Mr. Sharp points out, that has not stopped Apple from opening stores in Saudi Arabia, where gay people are regularly executed in public and cross-dressing is also a criminal offense. Pro-gay and trans advocacy are illegal, as is every religion except Islam.
……..Corporate America is only as tolerant as it can afford to be without losing money. All this talk about “corporate values” is blather. If those “values” interfere with the company making money, the company will drop them.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for us few left who retain some degree of sanity. I know it gets exhausting to boycott this company or that because they are involved in immoral activities, if we boycotted every organization that is involved in some immoral activity we’d have to live in a cave, but there are leaders who can be chosen to make an example of, by refusing to do business with them because of their strident support for immorality. Like Apple.
But then, I haven’t been an Apple guy for a long time. I outgrew that after college. Not that Google is any better. I do sicken of Apple’s constant, reflexive, and hypocritical leftist agitating, however.
I pray to God people, especially women, could learn the object lesson of this latest shift in the great aggrieved class pyramid. 170 million odd American women have been demoted on this pyramid yet again, replaced on a higher step by 200,000 men who pretend to be women. Virtually every aggrieved gets demoted by the latest preferred group from time to time. And yet women, as a group, continue to lean left and endorse much of this cultural suicide pact called leftism. Present company excepted, of course.
The point being, it’s a fools game, and the benefits you think you are getting from being near the top today may not only evaporate tomorrow, but you may well be hoisted on your own social justice petard.
Well, eventually all this will come to an end, once islam overruns the remains of the comatose West. That is, barring some radical and completely unforeseeable change of heart.
Enjoy your time in the Camp of the Saints while it lasts.
A few more thoughts on Amoris Laetitia April 15, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A rare late Friday afternoon blog post for you. I haven’t thought this post through very well, I only have a few minutes……we’ll see what emerges.
I saw some commentary on the post to the effect that we shouldn’t panic, the Church still stands, a pope cannot destroy the Church, etc. I do not panic for the Church. I panic for the millions of souls who will, with absolute certainty, fall into error and lose their faith. I panic over the irreparable (in human terms) harm being done to the Church and souls. I have great fear over the future, and further chaos. I fear the gathering darkness, and just how brutal the Church’s passion must be. Since the Church is our Lord’s Body on earth, we can discern her passion will be every bit as terrible as His.
I have considered whether my initial post on this matter was scandalous or over the top. I did get some guidance that I might pull back my strong hints regarding Francis’ lack of faithfulness to the belief and practice of the Church.
But considering the matter more coolly, now that the initial shock and anger have subsided, I would have a hard time issuing a retraction. Subsequent analysis, contra the claims of Cardinal Burke, has indicated that Amoris Laetitia (the “Joy of Sex?”) constitutes a clear addition to the Church’s Magisterium*. Yet it contains scores of statements which are scandalous, dangerous, possessed of a grave tendency to spread error and undermine the Faith, or out and out erroneous. Millions have already concluded that the Church has somehow changed her Doctrine on solemn matters such as the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by those persisting in openly adulterous unions.
This document represents not only a radical departure from the Church’s perennial belief and practice on numerous moral matters, it contains not only grave misrepresentations (to the point of prevarication) of previous magisterial statements, but it, to me, represents a direct assault on some of the most critical moral doctrines of the Faith. Declaring pseudo-sodo-marriage to be out of bounds while gravely wounding marriage by helping to normalize divorce, remarriage, and de-sacralizing the Blessed Sacrament is not just unwise, it self-contradictory. How did we get to the point where the culture is so insane that most Catholics now believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is not only possible, it is full equivalent to true marriage and should be recognized as such by law? Precisely through the mass normalization of divorce, remarriage, abuse of the Blessed Sacrament (and the self-denial of the torrents of Grace that should flow from it), etc. It is contradictory to gravely weaken the Church’s condemnation of fornication, while at the same time declare abortion to be impermissible.
That is to say, what we are confronted with in Amoris Laetitia is very different from, say, Honorius signing a document endorsing Arianism at the point of a sword. This is a concerted, deliberate, pre-meditated act. What is more, it touches not on just one point of Doctrine but many of them.
The solemn Doctrine of the Faith is a tightly woven cohesive whole. One thread cannot be pulled without unraveling the entirety. The protestant revolutionaries proved this irrefutably with the founding of their false sects. Many started with just one particular point of deviation (such as the rejection of indulgences), but in virtually no time that “one thing” expanded into a radically different, and implacably hostile, set of beliefs. If this course of synodal- and, it must be said, papal-induced chaos continues for even a few years, there will be nothing left.
Taken as a whole, I am forced to conclude that, from an earthly perspective, Francis lacks the Faith. However, I also believe that he remains the Bishop of Rome seated in the Chair of Peter and head of the universal Church. I do not know how to reconcile these beliefs. I can only conclude that this is a mystery far beyond me, a mystery which may well continue to torment the Church for decades should he be followed by like-minded individuals as the Church continues her inevitable passion. I am not saying, even remotely, that the Church has fallen, that Christ’s promise is false. I am not saying that the heretical sects are somehow right. I am not saying that the Church is reduced to an invisible element.
I am only saying that based on all the mass of evidence we have before us (and it is copious), Francis holds views which cannot be reconciled with the perennial belief and practice of the Church. Since holding those beliefs in their entirety has always been taken to be the sine qua non of being Catholic, the conclusion is inescapable.
I know Jesus Christ will prevail in the end. I strongly suspect all these events are being directed by His positive will. I have not the faintest doubt that Christ will come in glory, the dead will rise, and there will be a final judgment of the good and evil. I pray I have the faith to stand fast in these difficult times, but nothing any pope says or does is going to cause me to fall away. Nor should you. But I’m not going to bury my head in the sand, pretend this is not huge significant, or go along as if nothing has happened. Something has happened, and we all have to come to terms with it while striving with all our might to remain faithful.
I strongly feel what we are seeing now from many quarters, seeking to explain away this exhortation or diminish its significance, is an exact replay of how the modernists were able to remake the Church in the wake of Vatican II. If you wondered how people raised in the Faith with the Mass of Ages to sustain them could meekly accept, with precious little opposition, the radical changes foisted on the Church, look around you. In fact, the process never stopped, but today the similarities are too striking to ignore.
I hope and pray I may be some tiny bit of assistance to you all in that effort. But if you’re looking for apologias for this pontificate, you’re probably going to be better off visiting other sites.
*- I have seen Cardinal Burke’s claim that Amoris Laetitia is not a magisterial document. I believe the case Cardinal Burke puts forth is flawed. As other sites have noted, declaring Amoris Laetitia to be non-magisterial would be to throw out numerous other similar apostolic exhortations of the post-conciliar period, such as Familiaris Consortio, generally seen as being a much more orthodox document. But perhaps throwing out all these apostolic exhortations from the post-conciliar period, novel as they are in consisting of “conclusions” ostensibly drawn from a meeting of a limited sub-set of bishops (I say ostensibly, as it is very apparent this pope had a conclusion in mind from well before the idea of a series of synods was even floated), might not be such a bad thing? Perhaps Cardinal Burke is on to something, after all? Or perhaps the argument could be framed that any document, from whatever source, that contradicts the Faith is immediately inadmissible? But how to reconcile this with the magisterial definition of the Office of the Papacy that has emerged, particularly over the past 150 years?
I am not the one to answer these questions. I have a feeling, however, that should the Church and this earth survive for another few hundred years, future saintly theologians will be struggling with these questions, and might arrive at surprising conclusions.
Enough! Have a blessed weekend.
There are a lot of local wags and cultural observers who have noted for decades that there are many influential elements in Dallas who would really, really like to see this city be another Los Angeles. I think Cactus Pryor and Becky Patterson Crouch both noted this, and I’ve heard it many other places besides.
In that spirit, perhaps, it’s not terribly surprising that several years ago the Diocese of Dallas started a “ministry conference” that emulated the infamous religious education conferences sponsored by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles every year. Heretofore, this conference had been run formally in conjunction with the still somewhat orthodox University of Dallas and also in conjunction with the Diocese of Fort Worth, but this year the conference was renamed just the Dallas Ministry Conference (instead of the UD ministry conference), and perhaps more significantly, the Diocese of Fort Worth also terminated their association with this annual event. Of the two separations, the latter is probably more telling.
Folks I know in the Diocese of Fort Worth, who would be well placed to know, have long had problems with the Dallas Ministry Conference. Every year, apparently, it was something of a fight to get good speakers/lecturers brought in, and keep bad ones out. As an example, the very problematic – I would say heretical – Fr. Ron Rolheiser spoke at the conference in 2011. And this year, the arch-liberal Archbishop Blase Cupich has been brought in to give the keynote speech. I’m not certain whether it was the Cupich invite, or just general frustration (again, as I have been told) that caused Fort Worth to back out of their monetary support for the conference, but I doubt it helped. It’s a bit telling, perhaps, that Fort Worth Bishop Michael Olson, who was previously rector of the Dallas seminary, would make this decision, however. One can imagine the tenor of the discussion which may have preceded this decision.
Another factor concerning the Dallas Ministry Conference is that it has become very much an insider event. The large minority, if not clear majority, of attendees are either employed as teachers/catechists at regional parishes, or individuals who have significant volunteer roles involving same. That is to say, this is essentially a glitzy teacher’s conference for the schools of the Diocese of Dallas. That’s being a bit reductive, but is another complaint regarding the conference from diocesan insiders themselves. Many people attend simply because their parish, under diocesan impetus, buys a block of tickets, and then hands the tickets out to teachers and catechists. They get in free, and are supposedly receiving solid formation at diocesan expense. While the quality of speakers varies wildly, one thing is certain: the orthodox Faith of the Ages is rarely taught in its completeness or with the clarity and force it both deserves and requires. This is a conference mired in the post-conciliar ethos, with all that entails, little of it, from my perspective, good. Thus, the big grey machine just keeps stammering along, its motion propelled less by its own energy but more by the momentum it inherited from the “bad old Church.” Events like this are inherently problematic from my point of view, being, by their nature, “of the bureaucracy, by the bureaucracy, and for the bureaucracy.”
I don’t think I need to go on at length regarding the myriad problems of inviting a man like Blase Cupich to keynote a conference on religious education. He is the darling of the most progressive, I would even say left-wing, elements in the Church. He has already given scandal on numerous occasions, belittling if not directly contradicting Church Doctrine on subjects ranging from the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament to the sanctity of marriage. His presence gravely undermines whatever good more orthodox conference speakers – almost entirely lay people whose moral authority is thus greatly limited – manage to communicate. I don’t know if there will be any pre-review or approval of his intended speech text, but I think it poses a threat to communicate beliefs potentially hazardous to many if not all listeners. Faith comes by hearing (Rom x:17), but so does error and beliefs tending towards loss of faith. I fear what this speech portends, since it seems part of a series of decisions by Bishop Farrell of late that indicate a turn towards the progressive.
It seems an eon ago since Bishop Farrell, in conjunction with then Bishop Kevin Vann, issued their strong pastoral document in the run-up to the 2008 election making it clear that Catholics could never, under any circumstances, vote for a pro-abort politician. Now, instead of that, we get massive overreactions to legitimate firearms legislation and blanket bans on firearms possession in diocesan facilities. Interesting, as they say. Revealing? I think so. Bishop Farrell has long had the reputation of being very attuned to internal Church politics and he can easily see which way the wind is blowing.
And so can Bishop Olson. Just sayin’.
On a personal note, starting a new job has of course been a very busy time. Things are starting to settle just a bit, so I hope to do a post or two every day or so at least for a while. Some days there will be none. It won’t be like it was for the foreseeable future. I’ll do what I can. Thank you for your patience.
Is Francis Catholic? April 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
To ask…….to be forced to ask……the question is to answer it. I know I have missed a great deal in the past several weeks, including Francis’ frankly embarrassing statements linking the Brussels jihadi attacks to “arms manufacturers” – when all the bombs were homemade! – and while I’ve very little time right now, I could not let this latest assault on the Church of Jesus Christ, our Holy Faith, go by without saying something.
But what is there to say at this point? How many examples must there be? This latest document is far from the first time that Francis has undermined, belittled, weakened, or attacked the Faith. The evidence is overwhelming, He is the most heterodox pope of at least the last 900 years, if not ever. One can argue the degree to which this new apostolic exhortation constitutes formal teaching of error, but the direction of this pontificate is clear: the longer it goes on, the bolder Francis becomes in the errors he proclaims and the degree of formality with which they are proclaimed. I don’t propose any course of action aside from prayer (as there have already been scores of interventions with Francis imploring him to stop, from elements in the Church of far higher authority than lowly lay people), but I tremble for the future. Just this week I had the experience of trying to convince a protestant of what the Church actually believes, a man well disposed to the Church but now hopelessly confused as to what the Church believes. Naturally, most of his confusion comes directly from the man who should be the most trustworthy in the entire world when it comes to matters of faith. Instead, we have a leader who appears, by all evidence, far more attached to leftist secularism than he is to the Faith. Given the enormous Grace associated with his supremely important office, that attachment must be mighty strong. Other men have been moved by that Grace of office to a more orthodox approach, but, in spite of all the prayers offered, Francis has seemed to only redouble his preconceived notion.
As I said, I haven’t much time, and this is not a sede vacantist screed, but I think all we can do at this point is to try limit the damage this man is doing as much as possible and beg God to have mercy on His Church. I really have strived to ignore Francis as much as possible these past several weeks and I can say the break was really pleasant. But unfortunately, I don’t think we can just bury our heads in the sand and ignore this disaster forever. We just have to do what we can to keep our faith as whole as possible, reach as many souls as possible with the real beliefs of the Church, and beg God to forgive the collective sins of the Church and free us from this man as soon as possible. I note that even some of the unyielding apologists have started to budge a bit as a result of this latest affront, so perhaps God will bring some good out of this by breaking the spell of papalotry and the cult of the most recent Council.
In the meantime, may God have mercy on us all, and sustain us through this terrible time of trial.