Stabbed in the back again: House GOPes pass Obama Bathroom Order into Law in Late Night Session May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
This is why Trump exists. This is why he has a shot to be the next president. I am so sick of these liars and knaves. There aren’t 50 true conservatives on Capitol Hill. I am just about totally disgusted with the political process in this country. There is essentially one party, the insider socially progressive party of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite. The only thing they disagree on are tax breaks for the very rich:
Many are asking what Republicans plan to do to stop Obama’s executive war on culture and religious liberty in pursuit of cultural Marxism. Now we know that not only will this party do nothing to stop Obama, it will use its control of Congress to codify Obama’s agenda into law.
Late Wednesday night, Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment from Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., which codified Obama’s executive order 13672 making transgenderism the law of the land. Obama’s executive order, promulgated in July 2014, instructed bureaucrats to sever contracts with companies that don’t follow the Obama-mandated sexual identity agenda. This could include companies that don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms in their private corporate offices. The Maloney amendment to the $37.4 billion FY 2017 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5055) codified that unilateral act into law.
The amendment passed 223-195 with 43 Republicans supporting it. The GOP House just supported arguably the most radical Democrat agenda item in the dead of night……..
………Once the Maloney amendment passed with GOP votes, Republicans proceeded to do what they always do so well. They offered side-by-side amendments in an attempt to cover up the damage. [So they are not just radically progressive themselves, they do not fail to vote in the way they were elected to do so by the people they claim to serve (while really serving only themselves), they practice deceit on a grand scale to try to keep the voters fooled] They passed the “Pitts amendment” as a second-degree by voice vote to affirm the constitutional importance of religious liberty. Then they passed the Byrne Amendments to reaffirm that RFRA is still in place and the government cannot discriminate against religious individuals. Well, as we all know, the Constitution and RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) have been in place for the entire Obama administration, yet he is still able to get away with religious bigotry edicts by claiming they don’t interfere with religious beliefs. Enshrining Obama’s specific edict into law and then passing vanity language reaffirming the general importance of religious liberty is like doing CPR on a dead body.
So, in the period 2009-early 2011, we were told Obama’s agenda simply had to pass because the GOP had no majority in the Congress and just couldn’t do anything to stop it. Give them a majority, they said, and you’d see all kinds of obstruction of Obama’s radicalism and even a rollback of some of his major “victories.” Here we are, 5 years later, with historic majorities for the GOPE ropers in both Houses, and they are STILL passing Obama’s budget, Obama’s expensive, onerous, and freedom-killing regulations, and his radical cultural marxist agenda. Democrats with minorities in both houses continue to block any real conservative legislation (with the willing connivance of the GOP leadership, which has kept numerous pro-religious liberty bills, for instance, from coming to a vote).
The GOP no longer serves any purpose, other than arguing for marginally lower tax rates on corporations and a small slice of the population. They are not for defending out borders. They are not strong on national defense in any way that makes sense. They do not oppose the destruction of Western Civilization through cultural marxism. In fact, the vast majority of GOP pols are fervent acolytes of the religion of sexular paganism.
At this point, I’ve reached the conclusion the GOP needs to die, and something else emerge in its place. I hate to be so negative, but how many examples of lies, treachery, and deceit do we need before we realize they will never, ever support our agenda, and would rather see the party gone (and themselves defected to the democrat party, where they belong) than do so?
There has long been a debate within the pro-life community whether graphic displays of the reality of abortion are powerful tools to make people realize the awful reality of “a woman’s right to choose,” or excessive displays that turn off more people than they attract. I’ve long leaned towards the former, having seen a handful of people change their stance on abortion after being shown just what a baby at, say, 12 weeks gestation looks like (a tiny baby, instead of a blob of cells), and just what abortion does to their perfect, tiny bodies. But I know a good number of people who disagree, mostly because they feel these displays just turn too many people off.
Live Action has shown what might amount to a third way. They have produced some videos that use animation to demonstrate the reality of abortion. By using animation, the reality can be conveyed, while the horrifying reality of abortion can be somewhat sanitized through the unreality of animation.
The video below is one of those. It shows a typical “D&E” abortion on a 2nd trimester child. The baby is literally ripped limb from limb, before being pulled apart through the birth canal. The video is graphic and will be disturbing for some, but the reality is so important I think it should be shared:
I guess Live Action produced a whole series of these videos during the time I was away from the blog. They can all be found on their Youtube channel.
The interesting aspect to me was the reaction of a number of pro-aborts when shown the reality of abortion. Live Action maintains that 1/3 of the pro-aborts who witnessed the video above changed their position on abortion on the spot. Who knows how many may change their position later? I pray these “conversions,” so to speak, are permanent, at any rate:
Unfortunately, these “conversions” may not be lasting. These folks were on the spot, with people coming from an obvious pro-life viewpoint asking them to justify the unjustifiable. I pray they don’t revert to their previous blithe support for this horror later.
I mentioned in another post that Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been conducting a tour of US college campuses seeking to challenge the leftist repression of free speech and anti-left viewpoints so prevalent in American academia, had a rough ride at DePaul last night. I don’t think I’ll have a chance to get into the details of how he was assaulted and interrupted (as were many of his supporters), you can check out his channel for that, but I did find this interview below meaningful, as it demonstrates how an admittedly powerful personality can completely cow and over-awe a committed baby murder supporter through command of the facts and relentless argumentation. The relevant part is from 16:15 – 17:45, but the entire thing is worth listening to, if you can excuse the occasional foul language:
Perhaps overawe was the wrong term. Complete crushing, from the standpoint of argumentation and totally silencing the opponent, is perhaps more apt. Not sure her mind was changed, but at least the silence that resulted was blissful.
The point being, don’t be afraid to argue with these people face to face. Another rather unquestioned tenet of the pro-life movement of the past several decades is that confrontation is bad, that we should be kind and courteous and accepting and stay far away from judgment. I’m not sure that tactic has served the pro-life movement well. Yes, there have been many (mostly small) pro-life successes on the state and local level in terms of limitations opposed on abortion, but at the end of the day, abortion is just as legal as it ever was and just about as many abortions are being performed today as were being performed 30 years ago. We haven’t got a great deal to show for our niceness.
I’m not advocating that we stand there screaming insults at prospective baby murderers, but I do think we can be more aggressive in our use of facts and communication of the hideous reality of abortion to pro-aborts everywhere, be they outside a mill or not. I’d like to think there is room for both approaches, but many sidewalk counselors have been trained by various CLPCs and other pro-life groups that confrontation is very, very bad. I’m not certain I believe that, as I believe I’ve seen about as many positive results (walkaways, saves) from confrontation as I have from the more passive, supportive approach. I think it depends a great deal on the individual you’re dealing with.
There’s just no end with these people. Everything must be bent to serve the agenda or narrative, no matter how preposterous, no matter how blasphemous. There is no limit to the depths to which they will stoop in order to justify their depraved views and endless diabolical narcissism. Amazingly, these are the people who are utterly convinced they are the “good guys,” and we, who observe the moral creed that build Western civilization, the bad.
So, with total inevitability, we are now treated to screeds (safe link) arguing that the Christ is “transgender,” so look how wrong you are with your outdated morality and your hate-filled bigotry, Christofascist. Even more inevitably, the author of this demonic bile is a professor of “theological ethics” at the, ahem, Catholic university of Villanova:
Since Jesus had no human biological father, and since God, his heavenly Father, lacks a body, then Jesus was a man who likely had no Y chromosome. Would this not make Jesus more like a transgender person than a cis-gender one? We could grant Jesus a Y chromosome, but then we would have to assign his virgin mother Mary one as well. Either way, the miracle of sex-less conception suggests that Jesus can qualify as a “real man” only if Mary qualifies as something less than a “real woman.” (And I hope you can tell I that I am using quotation marks in order to signal extreme sarcasm).
I think the professor needs to go back to class. As if we needed another damning indictment of the Catholic colleges in this country. Wait till you see how Milo Yiannopolous was treated at “Catholic” DePaul yesterday.
As writer David French at NRO notes, this is probably less a serious effort to advocate some ludicrously insupportable new claim, than it is a part of that favorite left-wing pastime of virtue signalling and insulting the faithful:
None of this is intellectually or theologically serious, of course. It’s trolling for the sophisticated and deception for the simple. For elitist readers, it’s the kind of “ha ha look what we can do to Christian teachings” piece they love to share amongst themselves as “proof” that you can make any kind of argument from the Bible. For the vulnerable, it’s a quick Google search away from basic assurance that Christ is cool with their transition. [In other words, it’s all about serving the agenda, which is really about giving leftists their “sacred” good feelz, no matter how many have to get hurt in the process]
Oh, and it’s also blasphemous. But no big deal – it’s not like the authors were arguing that Mohammed was transgender. That would be disrespectful. Everyone knows that Mohammed was a revered religious figure, and it’s just wrong to hurt or anger his followers.
Great point. We can be assured this author would never DARE to insult the leader of a great religion like islam. But all progressives know, Christianity is not a great religion, it’s the deadly enemy of their substitute religion, leftism. And it must be destroyed at all costs. That has been the objective of leftism since its inception, and I continue to maintain that leftists will happily don the hijab and see their daughters (the few they allow to be born) in harems when the time comes.
Another blithering idiot is trying to claim that Eve was a trans woman, because she was born from Adam’s side, and thus must have had a Y chromosome. As if the Lord and Creator of the universe could not – and does not – raise up new life from dust. Can you imagine the insufferable pride that causes a person to limit God’s power to the present, inherently faulty state of human knowledge? Preposterous doesn’t begin to describe it. Only diabolical disorientation could result in such willful blindness and catastrophic illogic.
These are endlessly wicked, sick, and hate-filled people. The joy they experience in blaspheming Christ and constantly attacking His religion is palpable in their works. There’s a term for that – the reprobate sense. It is a terrible, terrible place to be (I’ve been there), a place where right and wrong are literally inverted, where lies become truth and Truth a lie. It is a sign of demonic oppression and it is mind-blowing that Catholic universities would employ individuals who give such obvious signs of hatred for God and His Church.
Mind-blowing, that is, if one operates from the assumption that those charged with overseeing Catholic universities – the bishops – possess the Faith themselves. An assumption that is all but inoperable in these dark days.
Cover-up of perversion and sexual abuse in Hollywood goes back decades: why are we watching their product? May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
I read today that the man who was once America’s Favorite Dad, Bill Cosby, is going to face a criminal trial over the mass of evidence that he drugged, abused, and raped women for decades. Another revelation came out recently, from his own testimony in a previous civil trial, that he had “scouts” bring him a bevy of very young teen models for his perusal every day, and that he would select one or two to use for his sick pleasures. Hardly surprising, given the other evidence, but since this practice was self-admitted, and that there is evidence that some of the models may have been underage, this admission by Cosby could cause him even further well-deserved legal trouble.
But the truth is, Hollywood has known about Cosby’s sicko lusts for decades. I believe I have mentioned before that one of my best friend’s sisters was a Playboy Playmate. There’s a whole sordid tale about how that came to pass, but that’s not the point of this post. The point is, as a former Playboy Playmate, aspiring (but never successful) actress, and denizen of Hollywood, she had access to the Playboy Mansion owned by Hugh Hefner. This was a frequent gathering spot for former Playmates looking to party in a drug-soaked atmosphere with both major movie stars and the perennial Hollywood hangers-on. One of the most frequent guests at the Playboy Mansion during the 70s and 80s was one Bill Cosby.
So there I was at my best friend’s house one evening in 1991 or 1992, when his sister happened to be in town with her then-fiancée Miklos “Mickey” Hargitay, Jr. I don’t know how we got on the subject, maybe his show was on TV, but both mentioned how often they saw Bill Cosby at the Playboy Mansion back in the day. Even more, Mickey Jr., who I ran into several times, and who was a really cynical sort (I was told he was messed up from seeing his mother Jayne Mansfield decapitated right before his eyes in a terrible 1967 automobile accident), made a number of very disparaging comments about Cosby’s moral hypocrisy, how he “guessed he loves his wife Camille, now, because he sure didn’t seem to back when he was <using> 15 year olds three at a time in the mid-80s,” among other things.
Anyway, this was no big secret they had stumbled onto. Everybody who even occasionally attended the Playboy Mansion knew of Cosby’s habits, so notorious were they, and because virtually anyone who was anyone in Hollywood in that period (says, 60s-early 90s, at least) visited the Mansion at least occasionally, pretty much all of Hollywood knew what was up. They probably considered it no big deal, because many others had similar habits, whether criminal or not. Secrets like this are considered de rigueur in Hollyweird, I suppose.
For a bit more evidence of that, a number of child stars from the 60s through the 90s have alleged that child molestation is also extremely widespread, that the “casting couch” applies as much to children as it does to young adults seeking to “make it big.” Just recently, Lord of the Rings star Elijah Woods stated that child sex abuse was common in Hollywood (though he subsequently backtracked), only confirming previous claims from former child stars like Corey Haim and Corey Feldman, two youths who claim their train-wreck adult lives of addiction and worse were fostered by the abuse they suffered.
And it continues to this day. X-Men director/producer Bryan Singer may or may not have raped underage boys, but that he has a strong attraction for “barely legals” is beyond dispute. When allegations first surfaced, the Hollywood press reacted to the effect that everyone already knew this, and who cares?
Of course, these are only a few recent scandals. Hollywood has long played a pivotal role in the decline of moral standards in this country. Hollywood has been associated with moral depravity from its earliest days, whether through the perversion of major stars or “prosaic” serial divorce/adultery, the standard Hollywood set, through its massive cultural influence, provided a highly influential, highly negative example to tens of millions of Americans going back decades. Hollywood has helped normalize vice, perversion, and sin of all kinds. Even “good guys” like John Wayne, Ward Bond, or Clint Eastwood have led personal lives of highly dubious moral character.
Which leads me to my close: why the heck are we giving these sickos a dime of our money? I ask this question as much of myself as of anyone, because my kids like to have some of the recent kids movies and I have a few things I like to watch, too. If I watch anything these days, it’s mostly old westerns, but I do break down from time to time and see something “modern,” which I usually regret afterwards. Like skeinster has said in the comments, if we eschewed everything with a taint of immorality we’d have to live in a cave somewhere with no contact with the outside world. But watching movies and TV comes with an exceedingly high cultural, moral price.
I’m going to try like heck to no longer pay it. So no Captain America: Civil War for the kids, thanks to Disney leaning on Georgia to overturn their ban on men in women’s restrooms, which they unfortunately did.
So the Filipinos have elected a new president, it seems, a man who has made numerous virulently anti-Catholic statements, and who promises to institute a “3 child policy” (I don’t believe he has specified what penalties will occur if families “violate” the policy), divorce on demand and government-funded contraception.
Apparently, his hostility to the Faith did not prevent a plurality of nominally Catholic Filipinos (where roughly 80% of the population today claims the name Catholic, down from over 95% about 20 years ago) from voting for him. As in so many countries, so-called Catholics vote in their own persecutors – assuming, of course, these self-described Catholics even view these anti-Catholic policies and tirades as being opposed to the Faith, which, of course, they don’t (my emphasis and comments):
Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte said he will defy the Roman Catholic Church and seek to impose a three-child policy, putting him on a new collision course with the bishops a day after he called them “sons of whores”……..
……..Duterte’s often outrageous comments have won him huge support and his tirades about killing criminals and a joke about a murdered rape victim do not appear to have dented his popularity in the largely Catholic country.
“I only want three children for every family,” Duterte said on Sunday in Davao City. “I’m a Christian, but I’m a realist so we have to do something with our overpopulation. I will defy the opinion or the belief of the Church.”……[Not clear on if this “Christian” Duterte claims to be a Catholic or protestant. Indications are that it is the latter, which, surprise! A protestant advocating for draconian governmental interference into the most intimate of spheres, the size of family and relations between husband and wife]
…….On Saturday, he criticized the Church as the “most hypocritical institution”, meddling in government policies and said some bishops were enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. [So, opposition to your evil policies = “meddling in government policies?” How many other tyrants have said similarly over the years?]
“You sons of whores, aren’t you ashamed? You ask so many favors, even from me,” Duterte said in an interview broadcast by TV station GMA.
Monsignor Oliver Mendoza, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Lingayen, whose head is the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said the Church respected Duterte’s opinion [is that how you respond when someone calls your mother a whore? You “respect their opinion?” That’s not an opinion but an insult, and unworthy of respect. This is a major problem, an indication of leadership far too willing to bow to the secular authority, and its certainly not limited to the Philippines] but that it would continue to speak against government policies that are contrary to Church teaching. [But even after you have done your duty, say, we are unprofitable servants, for we have only done what was required of us]
…..Political analysts said they were not surprised at Duterte’s statements because some bishops spoke out against him during the election campaign. [Only some. Shocking, I know. And thus his successful election? So where does uber-progressive and Francis confidante Cardinal Tagle stand on this?]
“Like most liberal, secular politicians, Duterte is a deist,” said Joselito Zulueta of the University of Santo Tomas. “This in itself is a self-serving position conceived out of human conceit. He will do as he pleases except when he’s stopped by public criticism.” [Well, someone knows the truth! And a Catholic university professor, of all people! I need my fainting couch!]
He said Duterte’s government was expected to clash more with the Catholic Church not only on population issues, but on the restoration of death penalty, legalization of divorce and planned distribution of contraceptives. [Which, if it occurs, means legalizing abortion within a few years, to deal with the “problem” of contraceptive failure (which failures are guaranteed and frequent). Legalized abortion is also necessary to insure a “3 child policy.” You can see where this diabolical plot is headed]
And once again we see bishops expending their limited and dwindling political capital on matters like the death penalty, on which the Church has spoken clearly until the last 40 years or so. The state has always had the right of the sword, according to the Church, and while there may be prudential reasons to oppose the application of the death penalty in a given country either generally or on specific occasions, proclaiming it to be an intrinsic evil, as is generally done by Church leadership today, is simply not reconcilable with the Doctrine of the Faith.
That may sound like picking nits, but it’s not. For as many people as a particular bishop, or even Francis, may turn on by making prudential matters into dogmatic ones, or elevating the progressive political platform into a pretended doctrine, they turn at least that many more off. Even more, the confusion this causes undermines the Church’s moral authority in ALL spheres and can be a precipitating factor in souls falling away.
Which gets down to the root question: is this a feature or bug of the post-conciliar paradigm?
He began the week by pretending to see deep inside the heart of every business person who fails to provide health insurance, and finding mortal sin (not a safe link, goes to Distorter). He finished by implying that Christ actually gave His blessing to divorce, rather than castigating it in the harshest terms. Before I get to the quotes, can I just say, someone capable of turning Scripture and Tradition this upside down and placing it at war with itself, is capable of literally anything.
First, today’s debacle, Franky George Bergoglio making Christ a liar in order to further his modernist-progressive deconstruction of the Church:
This morning Pope Francis gave a homily at Casa Santa Marta where he appeared to claim that Jesus approved of the Mosaic Law on divorce on the grounds of mercy. Or, as Francis put it, Jesus enunciated the “official” truth while then going above it or beyond it in order to engage in accompaniment, integration and discernment.
This is of course the very opposite of what is described in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. It is the Pharisees who attempt to use the Mosaic Law to justify divorce. And it is Jesus who rebukes them for it.
The Pope is fond of accusing his enemies of “casuistry” but it is he who consistently engages in it. This twisting of one of the most famous exchanges in the New Testament is striking in its attempt to mislead.
That would be to prevaricate, to obfuscate the Truth with deliberate intent to mislead. Is that what Francis is doing?
I am of two minds, kind of. My rational, evidentiary side says: absolutely! These 60s Jesuits are not dumb. They know precisely what they are doing, and they do it for very specific reasons, to force the Church to fit into their ideological preferences. They have been at this game for a long time, and the consistency of their arguments and willingness to make both themselves and Christ liars from one moment to the next – whichever they perceive as aiding their progressive cause the most – shows them to be agendized ideologues in single-minded pursuit of a goal.
But the other part – the merciful part – of me says, well, maybe he’s imbibed such hideous, nonsensical, contrarian nonsense for so long, Francis is not only incapable of consistent reasoning, he doesn’t even realize when he’s turning logic and the plain meaning of Scripture on its head.
I have a very hard time believing that, however. The twists and turns of Francis’ logic are simply too consistent, and too aligned with a particular goal in mind, to be honest mistakes of zeal and bad formation. That is to say, it’s well past time my doubts have been taken out behind the woodshed, and put down.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, the pontiff made the comments while delivering a homily at Casa Santa Marta on Thursday evening. He reportedly outlined a hypothetical situation in which a business employs someone from September to June but denies them health care coverage during their tenure. Francis observed that when the job ends, the worker “must eat air.”
“Exploitation of people today is a true slavery,” the pope said, referring to the suffering of workers who aren’t treated fairly. “We thought that slaves do not exist anymore. They exist. It’s true, people don’t go to Africa to take them and then sell them in America, no. But it’s in our cities.”
“Living off the blood of the people: This is a mortal sin,” he added. “And it takes much patience, much restitution to convert ourselves from this sin.”
As usual, Francis fails to make a direct point. He strongly implies, however, that failing to pay what he feels are sufficient wages (whatever that means), or only employing people on a seasonal, need-based basis (so teachers are mistreated?), or failing to provide health insurance, constitute a mortal sin.
Note the dichotomy, and note the perfect correlation with progressive (Leftist) thought: sins of the flesh are infinitely excusable, if they are even sins at all (and not occasions for “accompaniment” and “mercy”), while prudential matters that may or may not be sinful, being entirely dependent on circumstance, are not just sins, but mortal sins. Whatever happened to “who am I to judge?”
Anyway, I don’t want to beat this horse too much. As I said at the top, every stinkin’ week it’s the same thing, some new outrage, some new attack. I don’t think it any coincidence that the despicable Fr. Thomas Rosica went on the offensive this week against Catholic blogs, either, castigating them/us for everything from being a “cesspool of hatred, venom, and vitriol,” to being “very disturbed, broken, and angry individuals who never found a pulpit in real life.” Once again, where is the mercy, where is the accompaniment, where the endless apologias? The truth is, those are reserved for those who serve, or advance, the ideological agenda. Opponents will be crushed.
Talk to the Franciscans of the Immaculate about that. They weren’t even given the chance to be opponents of the new authoritarian regime, they were cdestroyed in advance as warning to all others.
It’s all about power with these people. Power, and ideology.
The semi-official publication of the French episcopal conference, the magazine La Croix, conducted an interview with Francis recently. There have been two portions of that interview that have caused a good deal of comment. The first contains some conciliatory, if non-committal, words from Francis regarding the SSPX. He claims they are working towards full communion. That’s not exactly explosive to me, but it is a far cry from the cries of “protestant” and “schismatic” directed towards the Society by some in the hierarchy over the past 40 years.
What has caused far more controversy is this statement below, following a question from La Croix regarding islam (I’m sure there will be some argument over translation):
La Croix: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
Who, of any substance, has ever interpreted the Great Commission in such a tawdry manner? Who has ever drawn comparisons between the almost entirely peaceful spread of Christianity through Europe and much of the world (I know there have been exceptions), with the almost entirely violent spread of islam? Islam is a religion that has only and ever been spread by conquest. It has made very few converts, historically, save with the threat of physical violence and other means of repression. Only very recently, in Europe and other parts of the West, has islam begun to attract more than a handful of disaffected, disillusioned souls, souls who have never known the Truth of Jesus Christ?
One of the most disturbing qualities of Francis is his tendency to believe things which are not. Yes, many in Europe (and elsewhere) are extremely concerned over the spread of islam, and not just ISIS. No, there is no reasonable equivocation between Catholic evangelizing and muslim conquest. No, it is not possible to reconcile those who persist in manifest grave sin with reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, protestants absolutely should and indeed must convert to the Catholic Faith. And so on…….
What we are witnessing in so many aspects of this pontificate (including numerous statements in his official, magisterial works) is a fundamental failure of rational thought. Much of what is posited is not simply contrary to the Faith but an attack on reason itself. Such thinking is very prevalent among progressives, who at the same time tell us that sexuality is absolutely fixed at birth and utterly immutable (in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary), while sex (as in “gender”) is as fluid as can be, subject to change on a whim, including the whim to watch women undress. One can see a certain analogy in claiming that what has always been a sin now somehow isn’t, or at least isn’t an impediment to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Or that the peaceful spread of Christianity somehow mirrors the spread of islam.
I read at One Peter Five a statement by Steve Skojec that Francis is the most authoritarian pope the Church has seen in decades, but that he is using all that papal authority to destroy it, long term, in a sort of kamikaze fashion. That is to say, Francis is using, or intends to use, a sort of papal absolutism to drive fundamental change in the Church, in the process, transferring (it hasn’t happened quite yet?) authority from the papacy to new dicasteries (headed by women?) and especially national conferences. His successor will then be hobbled with an office denuded of much of its authority and unable to change what he hath wrought. An interesting theory, which I pray does not come to pass.
I’m out of time. Let me know what you think.
How far a leap is it from “permitting” the murder of the sick and the old, and requiring it? The slippery slope is a legitimate fallacy in logic, but some slopes are indeed slippery, especially when it comes to the amoral shibboleths of the Left.
At any rate, from using ostensibly incurable cancer and other painful diseases as permissible justifications for murder, the Netherlands has now advanced to using mental illness or lasting reaction to trauma. Will it be long before being simply yet another bored soul in our infinitely-sated culture will provide sufficient merit for state-sanctioned murder? I ask only half in jest:
…..The latest figures show that last year 5,516 Dutch people — including children — were legally killed by lethal injection administered by doctors trained to do the task with rapid efficiency……[which is over 100 times the number of state executions annually in the US, which executions are entirely consistent with Catholic moral doctrine, in general terms. But where is the hue and cry for the abolition of this form of state-sanctioned death?]
…….Jackie wants to die by euthanasia, too. This follows a traumatic childhood experience when she was sexually abused at five years old and developed depression as a result……[My personal experience is that those subject to sex abuse as children never fully recover. They are never quite “right.” But in spite of this woman’s suffering, choosing to die is false release and gravely offensive to God.]
Details of the controversial case were released by the Dutch authorities this week in an effort to prove to critics of the country’s liberal euthanasia laws that doctors only carry it out under strict guidelines.
The process involves a patient submitting a request to die to a doctor who, in turn, must agree they are in a medically hopeless condition, suffering ‘unbearably’, either physically or — contentiously — mentally. Above all, they must have no hope of improvement.
The request then goes to an ethics committee which makes a decision, normally within a week. [So, find one crooked doctor and get his recommendation rubber-stamped by a favorable committee……that’s sufficient review for the taking of a human life? Using the death penalty analogy again, there are always numerous reviews, appeals, and interventions, to the extent that the process takes years. And here, find a quack and a week later you’re approved to die?!? Wow……..what a robust process.]
……..Currently, 4 per cent of the 140,000 or so deaths a year in Holland are the result of doctor-assisted suicide and the tally is rising. [Put another way, Holland’s death rate is 4% higher than it need be. You could say that over 5000 people were allowed/encouraged to kill themselves or have themselves killed. And just how unbiased are the advocacy groups that often perform the killings themselves? Can no one see that people with likely treatable illnesses are being killed by the macabre, demonic advocates of “euthanasia?”]
In particular, increasing numbers of Dutch people with mental illness demand euthanasia. In 2010, two people with such conditions had their lives ended with the figure increasing to 56 last year.
Of those deaths, 36 were conducted by doctors from Amsterdam’s End Of Life clinic which has a lengthy waiting list and sends mobile euthanasia teams across Holland to help patients die in their own homes……. [As I mentioned, biased advocacy groups, who can also, by their own admission (not excerpted), assign friendly physicians to recommend suicide-murder for the poor lost souls]
……..Ms Stärcke showed a film featuring the family of a Dutch woman with post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic depression and a personality disorder, who — aged just 34 — chose euthanasia even though her own daughter was a toddler aged only three. She explained that the little girl was living with her father, whom her mother had divorced.After the woman’s euthanasia, her toddler daughter attended her mother’s funeral. [And the cycle of horrific childhood trauma yielding gravely wounded souls, souls disposed perhaps even to this total rejection of God and the gift of life, continues. Poor little girl. THIS IS WHAT COMES FROM A SOCIETY THAT HAS TOTALLY REJECTED GOD. Without belief in God, existence is pointless. I can find no
betterworse example of the diabolical narcissism that permeates our culture than this]
Ms Stärcke says that she was sure that the woman ‘would commit suicide if I didn’t help her to die’……. [The article also notes that many of these people have “numerous” past failed suicide attempts. But why were they failed? Were they failed because the attempt was more a cry for help than a real attempt at ending one’s life? Here we have yet more evidence that the presence of euthanasia advocacy and an environment that encourages suicide/murder is creating a culturally acceptable means for disturbed people to die. That is to say, it’s a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy]
……..Research shows that 70 per cent of those with psychiatric problems which the Dutch clinic helps to die are women. A quarter of them are under 50.
Many of the clinic’s mentally-ill patients — male ones, too — have already tried to commit suicide on numerous occasions, and more than 30 per cent have been refused help to die by doctors in the past, often because that desire may be linked to their psychiatric disorder.
Earlier this week, alarm bells sounded in Britain when the Mail revealed details of the young Dutch sex abuse victim’s decision to die in her 20s. [And you can see the degree to absurdity to which this will reach. How can it be declared that someone in their 20s is incurable?!?]
As I said above, this vast murder racket is directly related to the death of faith in the Christian God. Even more, it is an unavoidable outcome of the kind of pointless, materialist, Godless existence the modern sexular pagan progressive state posits.
The Netherlands has long been a cultural bellwether for Europe and most of the West. What cultural atrocities they permit or encourage eventually spread to many other nations. This is simply one of many forms of the cultural suicide the leftist-inspired diabolical narcissism overtaking our culture has brought to the fore. The Netherlands leads in this series of cultural degradations due to its being one of the most thoroughly secularized countries in the world. Sad to say, the Church in Holland has done very little to stop, or even strongly oppose, this process. To some degree, the Dutch Church, thoroughly radicalized and infested with modernism, has helped bring about these seemingly unstoppable tendencies towards collapse.
Lord have mercy on these poor lost souls. It is very easy to say “suck it up” from afar when one is dealing with unending, nightmarish pain, but that is what many Saints have done, and that is who we are called to emulate. It is the death of the day-to-day, lived Catholic Faith that has caused the redemptive value of suffering to be entirely forgotten in the West today. People who regard Jesus Christ as an ancient fairy tale find nothing in this world that can sustain them through their trial.
It’s monstrously sad, but this is just one particular example of where the death of faith leads. The endarkened new paganism many elites want to visit on the former Christendom will not bring a post-Christian rationalist nirvana into existence, but a horrific new barbarism made far worse by the technology available.
Lord, have mercy on all of us.
Unless the Lord plans to call me very soon, I would say, you can count on it:
Pope Francis told the heads of women’s religious orders from around the world that he would set up a commission to study the New Testament deaconesses and he also insisted more can and should be done to involve lay and consecrated women in church decision-making at every level.
Asked if he would establish “an official commission to study the question” of whether women could be admitted to the diaconate, Pope Francis responded: “I accept. It would be useful for the church to clarify this question. I agree.” [The question has been studied 50 times in as many years. Yes there were “deaconesses” who performed very limited roles, mostly involving baptism to prevent scandal from women being dunked fully immersed in water wearing thin cotton gowns. There is essentially nothing in the New Testament concerning these women, save for an obscure reference in the Gospel of Matthew to women “ministering” to Jesus, which could mean anything. But amidst a thoroughly radicalized, secularized world, to even broach the subject as something that can be discussed is to create unending pressure for it. Francis is the great hope of the liberals to get something they’ve always wanted, and soon. Women deaconesses are nothing but an opening to women priests, the destruction of which through its de-sacralization has been a constant goal of the enemies of the Faith since the Church’s inception.]
The pope spent more than an hour May 12 responding to questions posed by members of the International Union of Superiors General, repeatedly asking if they wanted further clarification and making funny asides or rephrasing his responses when it was clear they were not hitting the mark. [Judging from the questions (you can see more at the link, this is a thoroughly radicalized group, obsessed with marxian power dynamics and feminist ideology]
“I like hearing your questions because they make me think,” the pope told close to 900 superiors general, representing almost 500,000 sisters around the world. “I feel like a goalie, who is standing there waiting for the ball and not knowing where it’s going to come from.”
Asked about deaconesses in the New Testament and the possibility of the modern church admitting women to the permanent diaconate, Pope Francis had said his understanding was that the women described as deaconesses in the Bible were not ordained like permanent deacons are. Mainly, he said, it appeared that they assisted with the baptism by immersion of other women and with the anointing of women.
However, he said, “I will ask the (Congregation for the) Doctrine of the Faith to tell me if there are studies on this.” [Sheesh. Like I said, it’s been studied to death, as he well knows. But we all know, the Church was born on December 4, 1965, and then again on March 13, 2013.]
………The main part of the question was about the lack of influence women religious are given in church decision-making processes. Pope Francis said the obligation to listen to women in the parish, diocese and at the Vatican “is not a matter of feminism, but of right.” [Where is this place where women are just totally shunted aside and ignored? In every single parish I’ve been in, women dominate the staff and teaching positions at a rate of at least 9:1. Yet they have no voice? How many dioceses are run by women chancellors? Obviously, then, these are not honest questions or complaints, but code-speak for further deconstruction of the Church along feminist lines.]
……“Our desire is that the church talk with us — like is happening now — and not about us,” one of the sisters told him……
In other words, do as we say, give us what we want. Or else our congregations will wither and die! Oh………
It is sad to see that the penetration of false – really, demonic – feminist ideologies has spread beyond the West and into even most “third world” religious.
I also note that, at least in the articles I’ve seen (two), the discussion of cloistered, contemplative life was totally ignored. Only the active virtues were given any emphasis.
And the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate continue their long martyrdom.
Related, and very important. Young does not equal orthodox or traditional
Media elites suggest it is wrong for young men to reject “transgenders” interested in them May 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil, unbelievable BS.
You know the old saw some people will say: “I’m okay with homosexuality, so long as they don’t make it mandatory?” Yeah, about that. The media elites driving the “gender is a construct” revolution in Western society have spoken, and they have decided it is bad, very bad, for males to reject men pretending to be women on the basis of their being, uh…..not women. That is to say, the fantasy play we are all to be forced to enact will extend into the most intimate areas, making one a bigot if one decides simply slapping on some makeup and shaving the legs isn’t enough to make one a woman:
Transgender teens Claire, Devon, Arin and Katie have set out to expose the harsh reality of modern, teen relationships. [Do notice, the “harsh” reality revolves entirely around the disastrous choices these men have made]
Appearing in a new BBC Three documentary, Young, Trans and Looking for Love, they let viewers see a glimpse of their lives as they struggle to find love. [Not a whiff of indoctrination here]
The doc shows the moment Claire, from Virginia, meets a guy that she likes, only to be rejected by him as soon as he finds out she was born a boy….. [#$@%^&!! What do you expect! This is infinite solipsism. Trans-boy gets to be picky about who HE chooses, but it is so wrong for others to have criteria in their dating (which is very disordered, anyway). Does trans-boy go after girls? No. But this creature expects men to shuck all their preferences and fundamental inclinations and go along with her mental illness-inspired fantasy reality?]
…….She says: “In a lot of ways, I don’t like telling a guy. Once I tell him all respect goes out of the window. [I’ve mentioned I’ve had some interaction with trannies. I deliberately use the term they find offensive. One of my biggest complaints about them is you will never meet a group of more offensively narcissistic individuals in your life. Brittle, unstable, and pathologically narcissistic, which we see here, this individual deciding it no problem to found a relationship on a lie.]
“Straight guys just can’t get over you having the male parts. [I simply don’t know what to say. But you can see the depths to which we will be forced to comply with the deranged fantasies of desperately sick individuals]
“Once I’ve had or get the surgery, I think it will change a lot for me because right now if I meet a straight guy and he doesn’t know – we can’t get physical if I don’t tell him. [So Mr. Infinite Solipsism decides it best to found all future relationships on a lie. Like the fact that he is a male, and always will be, no matter how many people cooperate in his fantasies.]
“And then if he finds out, things just get so complicated, I can’t even begin to explain.” [Gee, you mean the fact that you’re a man who’s had all kinds of unnecessary surgeries and dangerous chemical treatments to appear more like a woman? Basically, your entire existence is a lie, you are (or will become) incapable of reproducing, you will always, no matter what, have a Y chromosome and will be biologically male? Yeah, just a few “complications.”]
There are some heart-breaking pics at the original story, which I did not link to. Fairly safe link above. I cannot imagine what trauma caused normal, healthy-looking little boys to so despise themselves they seek to obliterate their God-given existence. Three almost certain factors: poor father image/absence of male role model, the constant cultural attacks on manhood and masculinity, and chronic self-abuse. Self-abuse and porn use drastically alter the brain, leading to all manner of perversions of thought and being. Note that something like 80% of so-called transgenders are male.
It will be mandatory, at some point. It is not at all preposterous to claim that at some point in the relative near future, it will be considered a hate crime to reject same-sex advances. Look at how far we’ve fallen just in the last 10-20 years alone. But then again, sometimes, dramatic turn arounds do occur. Who would have predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in 1984? And yet 5 years later, it was gone.