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.
The radical left hasn’t answered, yet, but this is more or less what I expected to happen: the radical left and islam would eventually come together to work to crush their most dread enemy, Christendom. Or what remains of Christendom.
Lord, have mercy on all of us:
The Islamist terrorist group ISIS is instructing Muslim sympathizers in Europe (and presumably the United States) to seek out leftist activists to form an “armed combat” alliance.
The armed alliance against European governments will further ISIS’s goal to conquer Rome by 2020.
The call to recruit leftists is in an eBook entitled Black Flags from Rome. The eBook is the subject of a two part report by Bridget Johnson at PJ Media. (Excellent reporting in bothpart one and part two.)
Leftist terrorism in the West of late has been largely about the environment and animal rights. There were some attacks planned by leftists allied with the Occupy movement that were mostly ineffective or were disrupted by law enforcement. The anarchist Black Bloc groups have mainly attacked property and mostly used non-lethal weapons in protests.
……ISIS writes that a good place to recruit leftists is at anti-Israel protests. [Well they’re nothing if not practical. Pretty astute tactic]
ISIS is counting on frustration among some leftists at their inability to change the system combined with admiration for the strength of Islamists “to fight against the injustices of the world” to prove fertile in recruiting them to form a terror alliance against the West………
I had an offline discussion a while back with a reader who thought that eventually the Left would rise up in opposition to islam and fight it, because islam is so repressive of so many cherished Leftist shibboleths. I thought that wrong, the political Left, and especially its extreme wing, is based on self-loathing and a visceral hatred for the established order of Western culture, based on the Catholic Faith, reason, the rights of the individual, and ownership of private property. Their hatred is stronger than their love. And, deep down, even committed leftists know the worldly, materialist, sexualist lifestyle they promote is unfulfilling and bereft of meaning. Fundamentally, the left’s greatest enemy, going back to well before the French Revolution, is the Catholic Church/Christianity. It is thus a diabolical movement at least to some degree, and many on the left, I believe, will willingly submit to islam when it comes down to it. In fact, many are already doing so today, it is not young men (and women) of the right who are joining ISIS in large numbers from Europe, but mostly those on the left and the disaffected.
Yes, there will be committed leftists of a more libertarian stripe who will be violently opposed to an encroaching islam, but many will eagerly hop on what they perceive as the “strong horse” either out of conviction or convenience. We may even get to see in our lifetime former libertines who used to advance the grossest immoralities calling for women to wear the hijab (or burqa) and barbaric repression of sodomites.
Anyway…….I think that a greater likelihood than some great left wing resistance to the advance of islam. What resistance there is will come from Christians, because only a competing religious conviction can stand against another.
May the blood of all the Catholic martyrs of islamic atrocities, and their prayers, lead to the restoration of our Church!
Obama Administration demands Catholic charities provide abortion for immigrant children February 26, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
I am sorry to say, before getting into the latest act of barbarity enacted by Obama against the Church (and believing Christians generally – and compare this to his approach to muslims, with the kid gloves on ISIS and constant apologias and “fabric of the country” and all that – I still cannot believe that most mainstream conservative commentators view calling Obama a marxist muslim Manchurian candidate out of bounds), I should say this: do we not know how this will play out? Even with public demonstrations of opposition and most likely court challenges, do we not know that Amchurch, and especially the charitable organizations associated with the USCCB, already cooperate with the federal agenda of evangelizing for the sexular pagan religion and already cooperate with abortion providers and distributors of contraception (including abortifacients) on a wide basis? Is that not what the continual scandals coming out of Catholic Relief Services tell us? Even more, have not CRS and other organs basically said they have to cooperate with the sexular pagan agenda (in the form of these wicked collaborating organizations) in order to maintain that oh-so-wonderful federal funding?
Maybe I’m getting jaded, but while I’m sure the USCCB and other Church authorities and others pray hope the courts may provide some relief, if push comes to shove, I am pretty skeptical that Catholic organs will stand on sacred Doctrine and take the admittedly huge hit of losing federal funding should it actually come to that. I think Obama knows this, which is why he continues to press and press and press.
The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.
The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. [Obama is fast-tracking everything in his bid to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a muslim communist kleptocracy] The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” [Meaning, contrary to his political interest] The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.
The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.
[And that’s not all!…..] The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.” [And, if that “transgender” 10 year old demands hormone treatment, under rules approved by the Obama administration recently, the aid agency would be required to provide those, too. This is beyond incredible, and, with abortion on demand for underage youth and even gender mutilation being provided gratis per the American taxpayer (my God this Obama hates this country with white hot passion), what enormous new avenues will be available to the child sex trade! Not only will the Obama administration make it incredibly easy to sneak children into this country and allow them to stay permanently, but with no parental involvement slave traders can get them abortions when pregnant, get boys turned into more lucrative girls, etc. Has anyone even remotely thought of the potential for the gravest evils in all this? Or is that bug actually a feature? How many times has Bill Clinton been to “pedophile island?”]
I hate this sick world more and more and more. I’m sure the USCCB will go to court, and may even win. But if they somehow don’t…….don’t you imagine a papered over face saving non-change “change” and then continuation with business as usual?
The manifest modernism of Cardinal Walter Kasper February 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Joe Sparks at the Catholic Household site has done a great service in reviewing a number of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s early works. Never repudiated, excerpts from the works of the “Pope’s theologian” reveal a man steeped in leftist-modernist “higher criticism” and gravely detached from a Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture and the Tradition that informs it. In fact, he is at many points in direct contradiction to solemn points of Dogma, the import of which I don’t think I have to tell you. And yet this is the man, more than any other, guiding the direction of the Church under Pope Francis, and especially the attack on the moral Doctrine of the Faith.
Some select quotes below, it is useful to read the whole article, which I encourage:
A number of miracle stories turn out in the light of form criticism to be projections of the experiences of Easter back into the earthly life of Jesus, or anticipatory representations of the exalted Christ. Among these epiphany stories we should probably include the stilling of the storm, the transfiguration, Jesus’ walking on the lake, the feeding of the four (or five) thousand and the miraculous draught of fishes. The clear purpose of the stories of the raising from the dead of Jairus’s daughter, the widow’s son at Naim and Lazarus is to present Jesus as Lord over life and death. It is the nature miracles which turn out to be secondary accretions to the original tradition.
“The result of all this is that we must describe many of the gospel miracle stories as legendary…….The probability is that we need not take the so-called ‘nature miracles’ as historical.
This is nothing more than straight-up modernism. The very concept that Christ’s Life and miracles could be “theologically true,” or “true in a sense of faith,” but historically false, as if they never occurred, is a heresy condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
Furthermore, it is highly convincing circumstantial proof of Arianism, meaning Kasper views the real living Jesus Christ as just a man, separate from God and the “Jesus Christ of faith.” And yet we more traditional Catholics are the Pelagians now.
[Mark 16] begins with a definite improbability. The wish to anoint a dead body, which has already been put in its shroud in the tomb, three days later, is not given any explanation, such as being a custom of the time, and is unintelligible in the climatic conditions of Palestine. The fact that the women do not realize until they are already on the way that they would need help to roll back the stone and enter the tomb betrays a degree of thoughtlessness which is not easy to explain. We must assume therefore that we are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening….
In addition to the repetition and amplification of the heresies noted above, Cardinal Kasper -mind, he has never publicly changed his stance on these writings – also reveals the sneering contempt of the modernist left for anyone but themselves. Everyone else is dumb, everyone else is silly, everyone else needs wild eyed tales and imagined miracles to convince them of the reality of Jesus Christ as God Incarnate. This especially applies to those of earlier historic periods, who are almost always presented by modernists as bumbling simpletons wowed by fantastic stories. But isn’t it odd how the modernist contradicts himself – while the early Church allegedly made up these fables to win converts, we are told by these same modernists that the earliest Mass was the purest, and thus we must emulate it in the Novus Ordo (even if many if not most all the claims regarding the conduct of the earliest Mass either do not apply to the Church today, or were complete fabrications). Which is it….was the early Church closest to the Truth revealed by Jesus Christ or was it filled with lying fabulists who told tall tales in order to sway the slobbering, stupid ancient masses? We see here as evidenced in so many other areas the double dealing of the modernist-leftist academia. BTW, the historical evidence contradicts this view, Christianity appealed at least as much, if not more, to the well-educated and very sober, even cynical elites of the Roman Empire as much as it did to the “peasants” of the day. I would argue that in many respects, the elites of that time were probably better educated that their contemporaries today.
The final quote does not concern Scripture. It is quite long, so bear with me, but it is incredibly important. By now it should be clear that Cardinal Kasper – how on earth such a man was even ordained, let alone made a prince of the Church, is only for God to know – is an intellectual heir and ally of the extreme end of the modernist-leftist cabal that dominated Vatican II, Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx, Cardinal Alfrings, and all the rest. But in the below, he directly states that the Council did not achieve the full flowering of modernist dreams due to a reaction from “antimodernist” elements and thus remains an imperfect realization of the progressive left’s vision for the Church (which is becoming completely irrelevant episcopals). Yes Cardinal Kasper is a modernist, yes he holds views that I cannot describe other than heresy, and yes he has a dog in the fight, but given that he is such a scion of the extreme progressive wing of the Church (if they can be called “of the Church), and given that he was so close to such major players, should not his description of the Council as being one oriented towards departure from the Church’s 2000 year belief and practice seriously?
An influential minority [of Council Fathers]…remained captive to the structure of neoscholasticism and defended the post-Tridentine tradition in a one-sided manner. [Gee……you mean they were Catholic? And the progressives didn’t defend their novelties “in a one sided manner!?”] Pope John XXIII’s successor, Pope Paul VI—unjustly a too much forgotten pope—was in principle inclined toward the concerns of the majority but also sought (in accordance with the ancient conciliar tradition) to achieve, if at all possible, a united consensus on the passing of the council documents. He succeeded: all sixteen documents were passed almost unanimously. But that came at a cost. In many places, as in previous councils, there were found compromise formulations in which the position of the majority often stands directly side by side with the position of the minority with their concern for demarcation. [Well that latter half is just BS. Certainly, there was division in early councils and theological formulations were not always as precise as they could be in the very early Church, but there were always as clear a definition of orthodoxy and error as humanly possible (in cooperation with Grace). This is a self-serving and doubtful, at best, claim. Later councils, in particular, were exceedingly clear in their formulations and condemnations, especially Trent]
So the council’s texts contain enormous conflict potential; they open the door for a selective reception in one or the other direction… So the question arises: In which direction does the compass of Vatican II point, and where is the church heading in this still young third millennium? Will it maintain the confident trust of John XXIII [hyper-montanism, exalting a pope over Dogma and Tradition. the image presented of John XXIII as the scion of progressive dreams is highly doubtful, as well.] and the renewal from the sources or take the path back to defensive antireform and antimodernist attitudes? That is the question facing post-conciliar reception. (Address at the University of Notre Dame, April 24, 2013)
So Cardinal Kasper plainly admits he is on the side of modernism, does he not?
How many serious figures from Vatican II, on both sides of the theological divide that has riven the Church, do we have to read before serious consideration can be given to the possibility that they may be right, and that Vatican II is, or was intended by the dominant faction to be, a radical rupture with the preceding Magisterium? I am not the one to answer that question. No blogger is. I have my personal beliefs, but they count for nothing. However, I agree with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, and many others, that the time is very long since past for a critical examination of the documents of Vatican II in the light of Tradition, and their clear explication purely in that light. Anyone with a brain can see a huge tension between a number of statements of Vatican II and the pre-conciliar Magisterium. Just wrapping them in the warm blanket of denial and saying “continuity” over and over is not cutting it. Those statements – and I have no idea how many there are – are a source of huge amounts of tension in the Church, and the obvious “restatement of doctine BUT some novelty” or vice versa formula of so many statements of Vatican II, which Kasper describes above (one thing he gets right) is an enormous temptation to abuse.
The way Vatican II is written, especially in its novel parts (which is the distinct minority), progressives and faithful Catholics can argue literally forever on their correct interpretation and implementation. That was what it took to get the cherished “unanimity” in the conciliar votes (otherwise, a number of the documents would not have passed with the requisite majority). But the damage this see-saw formula of many conciliar statements is plain to see. I do pray we may finally get a Pope firmly grounded in the traditional practice of the Faith to either pass over (which I don’t think is possible), or re-examine Vatican II on the basis of the Church’s perennial belief.
But I shan’t hold my breath. “Serene theology,” and all that.
Sorry for such a long post!
Mark Steyn has an article about the incredible duplicity of the Obama administration in its approach to worldwide muslim extremism and acts of barbarity, which they blithely call “violent extremism.” To Mr. Steyn, this moral cowardice is simply indicative of a much broader cultural trend (I agree), in which post-Christian elites lack the moral conviction to stand against this existential threat. While he doesn’t make the point explicitly, my firm belief is that without Christianity (re: Catholicism), the former Christendom will be defenseless against an increasingly militant (and ignorant) islam.
This article contains some material from a letter Mark Steyn received from a reader, asking how other religions might react if they saw Western culture cowering before their demands and making all kinds of special provisions for them. There is no reason, at present, for muslims to stop making demands and stop their campaign of violent conquest, so long as the West’s leaders behave as neutered ninnies more beholden to cultural marxism than they are to defending their own people and the work of millenia they inherited. What I found most interesting in the letter was the litany of accommodations already made to islam, and the portents for the future:
- No shopping laws on muslim holy days are being introduced in some European regions
- Public schools allow the offering of muslim prayers but not Christian
- Offensive comments about the “prophet” are condemned, even excoriated
- Other religions are persecuted or driven from the public life as islam is extolled as part of “the fabric of the nation.”
- Cultural leaders, including academia, media, politicians, etc., are driving to support insitution of islamic customs in the culture while Christian customs are often summarily blocked from public practice
- Muslims should be allowed to offer prayer to allah during citizenship ceremonies, when other religions are not permitted to do so
- Sharia is being de facto enforced in increasing swaths of Europe, including much of England, including requirements for women to wear the hijab and generally cover themselves from head to foot
- There are rampant cases of muslim child rape that go on with government compliance and rarely any criminal charges. Grooming of young non-muslim girls to be targets of male muslim lust are increasing rapidly.
- Governments constantly apologize to their muslim citizens for attacking radical muslim sects in the Mideast and other locales
- Governments (like our own) seem far more concerned about muslims being victims of some kind of prejudice than they are about the attacks muslims perpetrate
That’s only a very partial list. In fact, even that partial list reveals that the sway Catholicism held for centuries in terms of being recognized as the One True Faith and being deserving of special treatment is now being accorded islam.
More and more, islam is becoming the de facto official religion of the West, or at least, that which receives deference and approbation from its political and cultural elites. Meanwhile, belief in Christianity is basically non-existent in most of Europe, and is often weak and ineffectual even in the Western Hemisphere, at least as regards understanding religion as being the sole moral force capable of motivating the decaying remains of Christendom to stand in opposition to the muslim threat. This fact is simply never discussed. Liberalism is a belief set, and becomes a false religion in many (especially on the left, but also on the “right”), but it is not a sufficient grounds to resist the kind of moral firepower religious belief – no matter how erroneous – can inspire. That is the prime reason behind why tens of thousands of youth, even non-muslims, have flocked to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS. They see in islam, more than in the weak, limp-wristed Christianity to which most have been exposed (if they have been exposed at all), something real and cohesive to believe in. Liberalism is, at root, the exaltation of the self, but God did not create us to be endlessly selfish creatures, and the natural law written on our hearts causes many, probably even most souls awash in sexular pagan materialism to feel empty and devoid of meaning. A muscular islam offers these disaffected souls what they are looking for, which is an answer for their longing for something larger than themselves, faith in god (however deformed), and something more than just acquiring more and more things.
But islam is especially well disposed to be attractive to materialist Westerners. Islam is a far more materialist religion than Christianity (especially Orthodoxy or Catholicism), and promises the kinds of earthly rewards (virgins, feasts, cold, clear fountains of water, etc) that appeal to people lost in a materialist mindset.
What doesn’t appeal to many people (especially young men of fighting age) is the watered down, worldly, very nearly equally materialist, and feminized version of Christianity to which most Westerners have been exposed. And in this sense, the revolution that has afflicted the Church in the past several decades plays a huge part in seeing souls walk away from a Catholic Christianity that does not move them, and seek something more “real” to them in libertine or muslim materialism. It is absolutely incredible, but at the same time perfectly true, that millions of Catholics have walked away from the bland, unfulfilling post-conciliar practice of the Faith for something as empty as atheistic materialism or as deranged as islam. Certainly, the adoption of the latter is in its nascent stages and many other Catholics do seek out a more meaningful practice of Christianity in the evangelical sects (and, it must be said, from the point of view of horribly catechized former Catholics, the more robust evangelical-type sects are more meaningful in their practice of Christianity than most “large, suburban parishes” they have experienced), but to one who knows what the Church is, and what She alone can provide, seeing any souls fall away is simply incredible. And yet the badly disordered if not outright faulty practice of the Faith over the past several decades has led to tens, if not hundreds, of millions doing just that.
The Church, and the West, will not be able to stand against islam long-term until traditional Catholicism is once again the predominant practice of the Faith. I am not overly optimistic at the prospects of this at present, and am much less optimistic than I was a little over two years ago. This modernist resurgence ongoing since March 2013 is only going to delay the absolutely vital return to traditional Catholicism for more long years, if not decades. And the Church increasingly faces grave threats from militant sexular paganism, so the future does not seem to bold well for us, in a worldly sense. God is obviously displeased (gee…..I can’t imagine why, what with child sacrifice in the billions, exaltation of the grossest perversion, materialism and lust for power run amok, etc), and His Church is going to be made to suffer for a good, long while. I am skeptical anything resembling the pre-conciliar Church on a mass basis will return in my lifetime, and so we can continue to expect islam to continue its long advance into the historic Christian areas. I would say there is at least a 1 in 3 chance that even Rome may be, if not conquered, subsumed in a majority muslim population. It will probably take a century or more, from now, to recover from the great modernist revolution of the mid-20th century.
I really don’t think I can stress enough the absolutely vital need for prayer in circumstances such as these. Without a very strong prayer life, we shall not stand the storms that will buffet the Church for the rest of our lives. One key area for prayer, is to pray that the blood of the many Catholic martyrs in the Mideast, Nigeria, and elsewhere will lead to this great flowering, this great restoration the Church so desperately needs. We have great experience that the blood of martyrs will water the Vine of Christ and make it grow and bloom anew. There have been so many martyrs……may their sacrifice redound to God’s glory!
And, I know much of the above is obvious to many long-time readers, but there are always new ones, some folks are just starting to figure this out, etc.
Exorcist claims women preferred targets for demonic infiltration February 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, catachesis, contraception, Domestic Church, General Catholic, horror, Our Lady, paganism, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
My wife saw this and sent it to me. A prominent Italian exorcist has claimed that women are special targets for satan and his minions when it comes to demonic possession. This is not due to any particular fault in women, but due to satan’s special hatred for them as being of the same sex as Our Blessed Mother, who we know has, does, and will continue to crush satan under her foot. See what you think of this:
There really is something about Mary – and all other women – and the devil does not like it.
“I am quite familiar with Satan’s hatred toward Mary and therefore, toward women in general on account of Mary,” said Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi, a Rome-based theologian and exorcist who has assisted the legendary Fr. Gabriel Amorth, former chief exorcist of Rome.
Fr. Iannuzzi explained how Satan is humiliated by the Blessed Virgin because she – someone so humble and pure — is the one assigned by God to defeat him.
Quoting Fr. Amorth, he said, women are more “easily exposed to the danger of the devil” and that statistics show, more women are possessed by evil spirits than men. [I think this statistic is correct. But what do you think of the explanation?]
Fr. Iannuzzi testified to personally encountering numerous cases where women were forced to prostitute themselves because of demonic possession.
He said, the devil particularly likes preying on women who are “young and pleasing in appearance.” [Unfortunately for all involved, Fr. Euteneur may have run afoul of that tendency, if it be one]
Other seemingly progressive developments like supposed women’s rights seem to trace their roots to something hardly human.
Since it is the devil’s plan to “ape God, to mock God,” according to Fr. Iannuzzi, he also “employs the woman in the destruction, the breakdown of the family nucleus.” [An interesting claim, and I can see some reason behind it]
According to Filipinos for Life president AJ Perez, abortion, for example, is the antithesis of the Eucharist.
“In the Eucharist, God said, ‘This is my body, which will be given up for the salvation of all.’ [Well, He actually said for many, because will refuse the Gift, but……..] In abortion, it’s opposite. The woman says, ‘This is my body, I alone have the right to it, I will not make that sacrifice, therefore someone has to die,” Perez explained. [I certainly believe abortion is a demonic inversion of both the act of creation and of the Eucharist. I think women are specially targeted due to that aspect alone]
While explaining that he is not putting the blame fair and square on women because of some intrinsic flaw, Fr. Iannuzzi said, these findings point to a diabolical loathing by substitution.
[Satan] is like a mad man. He can’t get to Mary; she’s confirmed in grace, she defeated him. So he looks for other women,” said the priest, who was talking to more than a thousand at the Marian auditorium in Miriam College last Saturday.
Fr. Iannuzzi described demonic possessions of women as Satan “avenging himself” because of Mary’s role as described in the Protoevangelium or the first announcement of the Gospel.
As I said, it’s an intriguing claim. And I believe the statistics are right, both anecdotal and formal data does point to women being more likely to fall into demonic obsession/oppression/possession than men. I think that has many causes, including psychological, but I think it quite possible satan does have a special ire for women and a special desire to avenge his humiliation on them. And, satan likely knows that in many cases, by corrupting a woman, many other souls can be led into sin or at least have their faith lives made weak and deficient, in other words, perfect targets for him.
But this is the kind of topic that I enjoy hearing from others on, so fire away. Do you think this claim makes much sense, or is it just another episode of the hideous misogyny that runs rampant through the burly Bunyon-esque male-dominated (hah!) Catholic Church?
The professional perverts running public schools February 19, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.
Reason number 8,987,999,999,805 for homeschooling:
The former Ontario deputy education minister who oversaw the development of a controversial sex-ed program before facing child sex charges will plead guilty to a number of those charges.
Benjamin Levin, born 1952, was arrested in 2013 in the wake of an international child porn sting that led to his North York doorstep. He was not only accused of making and distributing child pornography, but also of arranging for a sexual offense with a child, and with possessing and accessing child pornography. [So he was actually raping children to make child porn. Male children.]
Levin’s lawyer Clayton Ruby confirmed Friday in court that his client will plead guilty to some of the seven charges, without clarifying which ones, reported the Toronto Star. Ruby also indicated that a guilty plea means there will be no trial. Levin will be sentenced in March
Under his watch as Ontario’s top education official from 2004 to 2009, Levin oversaw the development of an update to the provincial sex-education curriculum. Critics immediately slammed the proposal for encouraging the early sexualization of children and promoting a homosexual agenda. [Ummm……hello! Is this a big surprise? Is this also not the same program that the Canadian bishops knuckled under to accept, allowing clubs for those with perverse inclinations in their Catholic schools and also the teaching and normalization of this kind of behavior?
Under the umbrella of “sexual diversity,” the curriculum teaches children to question whether they are a boy or a girl, about masturbation, oral sex, and ‘diverse’ family structures. After strong backlash from outraged parents the curriculum was shelved by then-Premier Dalton McGuinty in 2010
After Levin’s arrest, Premier Kathleen Wynne, herself an open lesbian, tried to distance Levin from the sex-ed curriculum, saying at the time he had no direct role in writing it. [Horse crap. Do you see what they are trying to do with the schools, constantly putting these kinds of people in charge?]
Critics expect the latest sex-ed curriculum proposed by Wynne to largely resemble its shelved predecessor. [Go figure] Wynne has stated that the curriculum, slated for all publicly funded schools next fall, will teach children about giving “sexual consent” and what she calls “healthy relationships.” . . .
How many examples like the above do we have to see before we can say “grooming” is a reality? And if it is, what are the implications for giving people like this levers of power to impose their twisted desires on millions of youth?
When I see examples like the above, I have to agree that placing kids in public schools (or Catholic schools, for that matter) poses an incredibly grave moral risk and can even be seen as a dereliction of parental duty. Obviously some localities are better than others, some schools are better than others, and I know I’ve ranked public schools ahead of Catholic schools in terms of the danger they pose to the faith of the children that matriculate therein, but the difference is slight, and local realities can make public schools a deadly danger to the Faith. I think as we move forward (barring some incredible miracle, like the restoration of Catholic schools en masse), that danger is only going to grow, and homeschooling is going to increasingly be the only real option for Catholic parents. I’m very proud of families I know that have undergone tremendous suffering and self-denial in order to homeschool their children. I know some folks just can’t do it, or feel it’s beyond them, but we really need to have eyes to see what is going on around us and do the very best we can by our children.
To do otherwise is to expose them to the ministrations of the Levin’s and Wynne’s of the world.
Vatican spokesman Fr. Tom Rosica calls Cardinal Burke a “dissenter” February 19, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
I mentioned in my previous post that it was possible some recent activities by the progressive faction in the Church might be coordinated. The bit below, also via Vox Cantoris (yes, I am trying to support them as much as possible), I think dramatically increases the likelihood of a coordinated response.
Fr. Rosica re-tweeted Cardinal Wuerl’s blog post denouncing Cardinal Burke, and straight up called Burke a “dissenter,” which is rich, coming from him:
Some commentary from Vox Cantoris:
Father Tom Rosica is a spokesman for the Vatican. One would presume that someone in such an important and sensitive and influential position would be prudent with his personal opinions and the use of social media. It leaves one to ask an honest question; Is this his own opinion? Is it that of Father Lombardi’s and the Office of Social Communication? Is it the Holy Father’s? Or is it an attempt to smear and obfuscate the truth. I’ve written elsewhere that the tactics of Saul Alinsky are not unknown to this cleric.
……..How disingenuous is it of Cardinal Wuerl to suggest that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter, which would include your writer and probably you as well. There was a time when the word meant someone that dissented from the truth of the faith. Now it seems to mean that it is someone who upholds it.
Well isn’t that the very point of it all? Is that not the traditionalist critique, boiled down to a nutshell? The critique is this: at and after Vatican II, a modernist cabal aided (or permitted) by the popes in charge conducted a literal coup against the Church, turning doctrine and practice inside out, elevating error and novelty to Doctrine, and rendering the 2000 year old Doctrine down to maligned heresy, or at least “out of date” practice. No, this was not really codified by “changes” to Doctrine (although there are plenty of problems with the documents of VII themselves), but in practice, emphasis, promotions, demotions, ordinations made and ordinations blocked a new order was installed in a frighteningly short period of time. The media played an immeasurably important role in this process, which is why former Pope Benedict XVI alluded to “a council of the media.”
These guys are just telling us the way things are, to them. After a long interregnum of 35 years when they had to be somewhat cagey about their ambitions to remake the Church into a church of man, for man, worshiping man (I’m not saying the pontiffs of 1978-2013 were totally hostile to that vision, but they toned some excesses down while encasing others in the stone of long, approved practice), they have apparently felt liberated like no time since the mid-70s. They are telling us who they are, who they think we are, and what they think they have accomplished, or very nearly have. And Vox is right, in this new paradigm, faithful Catholics are the dissenters. They seek to put us outside the Church, while installing their errors, heresies, novelties, abuses, etc., as the normative, required belief and practice of the Church.
Anyone who lived through that trial of 1965-1980 or so knows that is exactly how things were portrayed back then. Back then, to be a faithful Catholic who desired the Traditional Latin Mass and doctrinal cohesiveness (with the past) was to open oneself up to harsh rebukes and claims of even being a “heretic” or unfaithful.
Are we not hearing some things like that today? No, the trend is not nearly so advanced as it became in, say, the 70s, but it is still around, and it seems that the likes of Fr. Rosica and Cardinal Wuerl want to resurrect it in full force. I’m sure readers have been told they are “disobedient” for refusing to put their kids in parish CCD for Confirmation or for using the Baltimore Catechism for First Communion. Or that they are just trying to call attention to themselves by wearing a chapel veil.
The fact that we’re building towards the second session of the Synod on the Family adds meaning and emphasis to rhetoric like “Cardinal Burke is a dissenter.” I have a hard time seeing this denunciation as incidental, I think it almost certainly part of a broader plan.
If I am right, rhetoric of this kind will be repeated and amplified in the months to come.
One more point – as Vox notes, Fr. Rosica is a man with a high profile office at the Vatican. He is the English-language spokesman for the Vatican. When he says something, it is generally taken as speaking for the Vatican and even the Pope. Is that what he meant to do here, imply the Vatican and Pope Francis view Cardinal Burke as a “dissenter” from the new progressive orthodoxy? Or was he implying nothing, is that the “Vatican’s” (and even Pope Francis’) view of Cardinal Burke? Said another way, is this an underhanded way to attack a faithful prelate’s credibility?
The progressive Church Empire is striking Back? February 19, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Events over the past week have raised in my mind the specter that the progressive elements which dominate the levers of power in the Church may be signalling they have had enough
pestering “input” from troublesome laity and even their own brother bishops, and are not going to let some piddling concerns over attacking perennial Dogmas or the causing of immense confusion and scandal derail their plans.
I know I’m late to the game (I have a life at times, too) on some of these matters, but to me it was interesting that both Cardinal Wuerl’s blatant attack on Cardinal Burke (and Archbishop Lenga?), as well as the incredible threat of lawsuit by the really scurrilous Fr. Thomas Rosica (the very epitome of post-conciliar clericalists) against a Catholic blogger came out in such close proximity to each other. Probably coincidence, but knowing how well organized the modernist-leftist cabal in the Church is, I don’t think we can discount the possibility of a correlation.
For the few who don’t know, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, a long time dissenter from Church Doctrine in matters like the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to pro-abort politicians, even going so far as to disobey and misconstrue Pope Saint John Paul II’s order on the matter, wrote a blog post in which he excoriated those bishops he views as dissenting from the “new order” ushered in that fateful conclave of March 2013:
As I was watching the Holy Father on TV, my inbox was filling with a number of email including an interview and an article by brother bishops who are less than enthusiastic about Pope Francis. Those emails reminded me of a much, much earlier time in my life when I first experienced dissent from the teaching and practice of a pope.
That’s truly rich, coming from Cardinal Wuerl, as John Henry Weston at LifeSiteNews notes:
Cardinal Wuerl is here on new ground. For years he was, by his own definition, the “dissenter” under Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The issue also revolved around Holy Communion. However, rather than giving Communion to divorced and remarried, the previous popes were asking that Communion be denied to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
In 2004, Pope John Paul II had the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervene in the US Bishops deliberation over the question of Communion for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion,” that a Catholic politician who would vote for “permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion…….
…….Archbishop Wuerl repeatedly refused to comply with that directive. In fact, he was open in his dissent. Asked by various media since the mid-1990s, he said it was not his pastoral style, and also claimed that denying Communion is tantamount to wielding the sacrament as a weapon.
But for the Washington archbishop it wasn’t only a matter of words – he backed up his rhetoric against the pope’s wishes with action. In March 2012, he stripped a priest of his faculties to publicly celebrate Mass for refusing Communion to a woman who was known to have been living in a homosexual relationship. [I’m sure readers recall this event. So Cardial Wuerl has taken concrete action to impose his will, so contrary to canon law, in this matter.]
…….In 2012, when asked about refusing notorious pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi Communion, Wuerl opined, “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.” [And once again we see the American bishops, along with most around the world, twisting Canon Law, Tradition, and Sacred Scripture to their own end. Canon 915 didn’t just fall from the sky, an odd-duck Doctrine that has no visible support. It comes straight from Scripture. But perhaps Cardinal Wuerl has forgotten this bit of Scripture, since it was carefully excised from the Novus Ordo readings (all of them). I refer to 1 Corinthians XI:27-29, wherein St. Paul makes clear that those who receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves, committing the gravest of sacrileges.]
At that time the head of the Catholic Church’s highest court dealing with canon law was none other than Cardinal Raymond Burke. Burke told LifeSiteNews unequivocally at the time: “The Church’s law is very clear.”
“The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [canon law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.”
So perhaps Cardinal Wuerl is savouring a little revenge with his dissenter remark. But, the hypocrisy is so very blatant. [If you think our prelates are above things like petty revenge, you’re wrong]
Speaking of petty revenge, Vatican spokesthug Fr. Thomas Rosica has threated a lawsuit against the owner of the good blog Vox Cantoris, one David Domet. The lawsuit demands Mr. Domet remove about 10 posts mentioning Fr. Rosica, all of which, mind you, contain nothing but Rosica’s own public statements and some brief commentary on them. Domet is a Canadian, and I know free speech law there is not nearly so open and liberal (or sacrosanct, if you will) as it is in the United States, but I would say that, in the US, this would be nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit and a form of harassment that would have little chance of a finding in Rosica’s favor. But that’s not the point, the point is to bully and threaten a Catholic lay person who has pointed out numerous problematic statements by Rosica over the past 2 years into silence. Most laypeople do not have the resources to retain attorneys and pay hundreds of dollars an hour to respond to a lawsuit. Rosica, by contrast, apparently does. I have to wonder if this funding comes from his own pocket, or if he is able to use Church money – our money – to fund it. Even a threatening letter like that probably cost $4-800.
You can see the cease and desist order, in all its fury, here ——>>>>> spec-2015-02-19
Since Fr. Rosica is official English language spokesman for the Vatican under Pope Francis (and given his modernist-progressive sensibilities, what a revealing choice that was), and works directly under the questionably competent Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, one must wonder just how high up approval for this action went. Is it limited to Fr. Rosica alone? I doubt it. Did his boss approve? Quite likely. What about his boss’s boss, Pope Francis? I tend to doubt a Pope would bother with such a trifling matter, but then again, we have been told that this is the most detail-oriented, authoritarian pope in decades, so who knows?
One thing is certain, David Domet now faces a poisonous moral choice. I pray he gets some pro bono legal assistance, and quick.
On the positive side, Fr. Rosica would not have taken this step if Mr. Domet were not scoring some pretty significant hits. And I say that not just of Fr. Rosica, but of the entire agenda we see unfolding before us. There’s an old saying “if you’re receiving fire, it means you’re over the target.” That is why I think this may be part of a broader campaign to vilify and fluster the growing opposition.
Saul Alinsky would be proud.