Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, rank stupidity, religious, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
……..or any other instance of the marital act, which is not accompanied by evidence that determines that one (almost certainly, the male) had “affirmative consent” to each increasing step of intimacy. That is to say, the militant lesbian feminist effort to have all heterosexual intercourse defined as rape – which they have declared to be the case for decades – is about to achieve fruition, thanks to a friendly administration and a world that has lost its mind:
Adults may soon find their sex lives regulated to the point where nearly every sexual encounter is defined as rape unless neither party reports the activity.
The American Law Institute will vote in May on whether to adopt a model penal code that would make “affirmative consent” the official position of the organization. Affirmative consent — or “yes means yes” — policies have already been adopted by many colleges and universities, and have been passed as law in California and New York.
A source within ALI has confirmed to the Washington Examiner that the model penal code on sexual assault that was discussed at last year’s meeting will be voted on at their annual meeting this coming May…….
……..Should the code be adopted, it will be the official position of ALI that sex assault laws should be updated, and the group’s influence may persuade federal and state legislatures to foist affirmative consent onto the general population.
The policies only apply at this time to college students, and require those students to engage in a question-and-answer session each time they engage in any kind of sexual activity. Those policies are already branding students as rapists due to the fact that the policies have been used to shift the burden of proof onto accused students. This means an accused student has to prove a crime didn’t occur rather than an accuser proving a crime did occur, as is the norm in civilized society. [You call a society that has murdered millions of inconvenient infants civilized? We haven’t been civilized in a hundred years or more]
Under affirmative consent policies, there is no way to actually prove such consent was obtained. [Unless one has a lawyer-written consent form with check boxes for each act engaged in. Or videotapes the entire encounter, which ought to lead to a field day for the porn sites, once those tapes inevitably find their way to the internet] Students are required under the policies to ask permission for each level of sexual activity. So a typical sexual encounter would cease to be a passionate act and instead become a contractual, question-and-answer session. From the moment any physical contact is about to be made, one person must begin asking for permission.
“May I touch you here?” “May I kiss you?” “May I kiss you here?” and the like would all be required questions under such policies……..
…….Besides turning every sexually active person in America into a rapist (and a rape victim) overnight, the affirmative consent policy would be a disaster in divorce court. Accusations of child abuse already fly in bitter divorces, and giving angry spouses a cudgel like this would do major damage (but would be a boon to divorce and trial attorneys, like many of the members of ALI).
Because that’s what this is really about, right? Lining the pockets of lawyers who apparently have no concern for the presumption of innocence, due process or commonsense.
I’ve argued for years that the Left has engaged in a largely silent, but very effective bargain, with an increasing swath of the populace. The bargain has been, to this point, essentially this: you give us power over every other aspect of your lives, and we’ll create a world where you can engage in your every sexual whim, no matter how perverse or harmful.
But now we see, as with everything else the Left promises, that was all a lie. Now that they have just about achieved their total control over the economy, academia, the schools, the media, the entertainment industry, the military, and just about everything else, they are yanking back at least some of the sexual license they promised. At least, that’s one way to read this exchange, which I believe was inevitable, given the competing demands of the leftist coalition.
Oh, they’re still totally in favor of complete license for the most extremely perverse members of their base, but those people don’t make up nearly enough numbers to achieve reliable political/electoral dominance. The bait and switch, then, is not being pulled on the sodomites or the mentally ill “transgenders,” but on the millions of “straight” people who have leaned hard left in order to garner more liberal divorce laws, freedom to fornicate, contraception, abortion, and all the rest. And don’t think those inducements have been incidental to the left-wing ascendance. I believe they have been central to it.
Eventually, they’ll come for the perverts as well, but they are presently too useful to the Left in their drive to destroy marriage and the family to act against them. So they’ll start by so encumbering marital relations as to make them at least fraught with dangers, if not impossible. This will put more pressure on failing marriages, lead to more men being imprisoned over dubious divorce claims, and strike ever harder at the father-led family. Win win, as they say.
Meh, these thoughts aren’t terribly cogent, but I’m out of time. Finally get to assist at Friday Mass, for the first time in almost a month. Have a blessed weekend.
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
If you’ve been following the ongoing (and increasingly unhinged) leftist campaign against the state of North Carolina for having the audacity to say that men pretending to be women cannot legally use women’s restrooms, you know the SJWs (social justice warriors) have been displaying all their core characteristics to the max. Thus we have seen leftist agitators, many of them self-proclaimed feminists, jettisoning all their previous concern about protecting women from male depredation (all the while encouraging women to behave in ways that opened them up to same) and now demanding that all restrooms in the world be opened up to a tiny percentage of dreadfully mentally-ill individuals who believe they are somehow the “wrong sex.”
Since the vast majority of these trannies are males pretending to be female (and no matter how much you cut off or have added on, BOYS, you’ll never be rid of that pesky Y chromosome), what this effort has meant, in practice, is opening up women’s restrooms to mentally ill and/or predatory men. Not a very good combination. Of course, there have already been scores of incidents from around the country where this lunacy has already been enacted in law, of obviously predatory men assaulting women and even young girls in their most vulnerable moments, with the assaults ranging from actual rape to “mere” intimidation, groping, self-abuse, indecent exposure, illegal photography, etc.
Such is the insanity of our times, however, that when a state tries to protect 50+% of its citizenry from such a grave threat, the effort is labeled as being motivated by nothing but hate for transgenders – who make up perhaps 0.05 – 0.10% of the population (a few hundred thousand, at most) – and has become the latest poster child of the endless war by the sexually deranged left against everyone else.
All the more sickening, however, has been the key role corporations have played in the attempt to have this legislation overturned. Corporate pressure was the principle reason for the dramatic watering-down of similar legislation in Georgia, it might still work in North Carolina, though I am proud to see how much tar is still in those heels. To top it all is the stinking hypocrisy of these corporations, many of whom happily do business with the most thuggish, repressive regimes in the world, but who now publicly chastise and attempt to punish fellow Americans for holding beliefs different from their own (which beliefs just happened to have been shared by almost all those now doing the persecuting themselves as recently as a year or so ago):
Whether it’s Apple opening stores in Saudi Arabia or American Airlines looking to dominate the Cuban travel market, many of the companies that have threatened to cut business ties to North Carolina over its bathroom bill are eager to do business in countries with regimes far more repressive of gays (and everyone else).
PayPal’s international headquarters are located in Singapore, where sexual contact between males is punishable by up to two years in prison, and even littering can be punished by flogging. The company has a software development center in Chennai, India, where same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Matt Sharp, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said PayPal’s actions internationally speak louder than its words at home.
“They’ve got a political agenda that they’re trying to push in the U.S. But it definitely does not line up with what their actions are saying around the world in places like Malaysia and others,” Mr. Sharp said. [Why do corporations push an overwhelmingly leftist agenda? Because personnel is policy, and most corporations are staffed, to a nearly uniform degree, by highly trained but unthinking monkeys from the same far-left universities. The left managed to co-opt corporations during the 80s and 90s through the politically correct effort, and it is now paying huge dividends. Virtually all elites, be they corporate, academic, or government, adhere to the same left-wing social views. The only difference is that some of them want lower taxes than others, and so call themselves Republicans]
Apple is among the other major corporations that have taken to the pulpit to lecture North Carolina for its sins despite doing business with anti-gay foreign regimes. CEO Tim Cook was one of several high-profile tech CEOs who signed a letter to Republican Gov. Pat McCrory calling on him to repeal the legislation……..
…….But, as Mr. Sharp points out, that has not stopped Apple from opening stores in Saudi Arabia, where gay people are regularly executed in public and cross-dressing is also a criminal offense. Pro-gay and trans advocacy are illegal, as is every religion except Islam.
……..Corporate America is only as tolerant as it can afford to be without losing money. All this talk about “corporate values” is blather. If those “values” interfere with the company making money, the company will drop them.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for us few left who retain some degree of sanity. I know it gets exhausting to boycott this company or that because they are involved in immoral activities, if we boycotted every organization that is involved in some immoral activity we’d have to live in a cave, but there are leaders who can be chosen to make an example of, by refusing to do business with them because of their strident support for immorality. Like Apple.
But then, I haven’t been an Apple guy for a long time. I outgrew that after college. Not that Google is any better. I do sicken of Apple’s constant, reflexive, and hypocritical leftist agitating, however.
I pray to God people, especially women, could learn the object lesson of this latest shift in the great aggrieved class pyramid. 170 million odd American women have been demoted on this pyramid yet again, replaced on a higher step by 200,000 men who pretend to be women. Virtually every aggrieved gets demoted by the latest preferred group from time to time. And yet women, as a group, continue to lean left and endorse much of this cultural suicide pact called leftism. Present company excepted, of course.
The point being, it’s a fools game, and the benefits you think you are getting from being near the top today may not only evaporate tomorrow, but you may well be hoisted on your own social justice petard.
Well, eventually all this will come to an end, once islam overruns the remains of the comatose West. That is, barring some radical and completely unforeseeable change of heart.
Enjoy your time in the Camp of the Saints while it lasts.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide.
The numbers presented below square with what a commenter from Europe has said in the past. Practicing muslims make up a greater percentage of the population of the city/region of Brussels than do Catholics. More fruit from Vatican II. I’m sure Cardinal Daneels, he of the “St. Gallen Group” who helped elect Francis, and a man deeply involved in the cover-up of the pedophile activities of some very close to him, is very pleased:
Considering what European Union policies have done to Europe, it seems all too apt for its capital to be a hive of Islamic terror and on the road to becoming a majority Muslim city.
Then turn to Brussels, some parts of which host large communities of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, mostly from religiously conservative regions of those countries. Among respondents in the city, practising Catholics amounted to 12% and non-practising ones to 28%. Some 19% were active Muslims and another 4% were of Muslim identity without practising the faith. The atheist/agnostic camp came to 30%. [Let’s just accept these numbers at face value. How many will continue in this practice when being Catholic begins to carry a marked social cost, be it from militant atheists or militant muslims?]
Among people who actually practice a religion, Muslims are a majority. And as usual, with Islamic indoctrination and birth rates, the news becomes more troubling in the lower age groups.
Thus among respondents aged 55 and over, practising Catholics amounted to 30% and practising Muslims to less than 1%; but among those aged between 18 and 34, active adherence to Islam (14%) exceeded the practice of Catholicism (12%). Admittedly the sample (600 people in all) is small. But if this trend continues, practitioners of Islam may soon comfortably exceed devout Catholics not just in cosmopolitan Brussels, as is the case already, but across the whole of Belgium’s southern half.
The southern half being the predominately Catholic region. Forgive me for doubting that even 12% of Brusselites (?) are “practicing” Catholics. I’d certainly appreciate any input from those familiar with the Church in Belgium. In France and other countries, it’s more like 3-4%, and almost all of them quite elderly. Of course, “practicing” the Faith has been reduced in the minds of millions to showing up occasionally on Easter and Christmas, so perhaps 12% do still do that. This is not a practice of the Faith our Church Fathers would recognize.
And all this is why Brussels has become a hub for terror in Europe:
……..The greater Brussels area has long been considered to be a hotbed for radical Islamists. Troubled neighborhoods like Molenbeek and Anderlecht are known as being homes to secluded communities of immigrants in which radicals can easily go underground. So has Belgium become the center of terror in Europe and a security risk for the entire Continent?
These people who are firing their weapons and blowing themselves up don’t appear out of nowhere,” respected Belgian sociologist Felice Dassetto wrote on his blog after the Paris attacks……
…….There isn’t going to be a Brussels in 50 years. There’s going to be an Islamic State. It’s much too late to start pleading with the Jihadi invaders to play nice. It’s time to decide if there is going to be an Islamic State in Belgium or not.
And all this, in the capital of post-modern, post-Christian Europe. As to the remaking of Europe into a balkanized construct of self-loathing atheistic sexular pagans and Western-loathing radical jihadists, for most of Europe’s governing elite, this appears all part of the plan. People are easy to control when they are terrified. Attachment to freedom goes out the window when one is in doubt of one’s life. The native populace is almost entirely disarmed.
It’s almost as if someone had a plan………and do note the Church “elites” (hierarchy) are almost universally in favor of this unprecedented project in social engineering.
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, martyrdom, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society.
I thought Saudi had been covertly funneling money and even arms to ISIS? Has not the House of Saud been implicated in helping foment many of the islamist revolutions that have occurred, from Tunisia to Iraq? Or is that more the Gulf States like Bahrain and the UAE?
Russians and Saudis fighting side by side (figuratively) against a common enemy? Who would have thunk it? And what huge carrot (I can’t believe it would be a stick) has the administration dangled in front of the Saudis in order to get them to commit to sending land forces if the Obama Admin desires it? I can’t believe that was cheap. Has to be more than the 86 F-15s we recently agreed to sell them.
Saudi Arabia’s military spokesman Brig. Gen. Ahmed Al-Assiri said on Thursday, according to Al Arabiya English, that Riyadh’s decision to send troops into Syria is “final” and “irreversible” and that they are “ready” to deploy them against Islamic State (ISIS) there as part of U.S.-led efforts against that group.
However he stressed that he is conveying “Saudi’s [decision] only” implying that Riyadh will follow Washington’s lead when it comes to any potential ground operation against ISIS in Syria.
Washington has refused to rule out the prospect of Saudi Arabia sending soldiers to Syria. However it pointed out that it was just one of the available options. [Saudi’s as US-funded mercenaries? Historically, the performance of the Saudi army in land combat has been quite unimpressive. Many of the soldiers would have strong sympathies with ISIS, I would suspect. Not a good situation]
“There are lots of ways that Saudi Arabia and Bahrain can contribute. One of them is on the ground – and we’ll definitely be discussing that – but there are lots of other ways as well,” U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told reporters on Wednesday in Brussels according to The Guardian.
Assiri also said that if Riyadh’s main regional rival, Iran, is serious about combating terrorism in the region it must stop supporting “terrorism” in both Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Iran are backing opposing sides in the wars raging in both Yemen (where Saudi Arabia is bombing the Iranian backed Houthis) and Syria (where Saudi Arabia is supporting various armed groups opposed to Iran’s ally, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad). [Supporting Al Nusra and the remnants of the “Free Syrian Army?” But haven’t they also given a wink and a nod to ISIS? Given how much Saudi has exported radical islam around the world, their criticisms of Iran are obviously self-serving and hypocritica. What this is really about is the great conflict between Sunni and Shia islam, and which will emerge dominant.]
What tangled webs we weave.
Is it a matter requiring assent of faith that Armageddon is really located in Israel? Could it be in Syria, I say with tongue only slightly in cheek?
As this conflict continues to ramp up, the ones truly caught in the middle are Syria’s dwindling Christian policy. I imagine almost all sides in the conflict – Shia, secularists, Sunni – see that as a feature rather than a bug. And once again the US government executes policies that have the effect of leading to Christian genocide. At least I have this to fall back on:
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Well, at least our sexular pagan betters are becoming more and more open in their Christophobia. The word “Jesus” is to be excluded from the day to day operation of the federal government. And that will just be the start. Federal practice sets a legal precedent that then filters down to all levels of government and, before long, private enterprise. When people say they fear Christianity may be driven from the public square, perhaps what they should really fear is whether we’ll be able to breathe the name of Jesus, or wear a crucifix, publicly.
Johnson Space Center officials have apparently banned the word even from internal communications advertising for a Christian-affiliated group of center employees who meet after hours:
The name of Jesus is not welcome in the Johnson Space Center newsletter, according to a complaint filed on behalf of a group of Christians who work for NASA.
The JSC Praise & Worship Club was directed by NASA attorneys to refrain from using the name ‘Jesus’ in club announcements that appeared in a Space Center newsletter…….. [Are there muslim groups? Can they use the name “allah?” Could this group openly ID as Christian? Can the muslims/hindus/Jews?]
……..Since 2001, employees had gathered during their lunch hour to pray and sing and read the Bible. There had been no censorship issues until last year…….. [Seems like they met for about half an hour weekly or even monthly]
Soon after that, the legal department called the organizers and told them they could not use the name Jesus in their announcements,” Dys told me. “They said, no Jesus.” [The Holy Name has great power. It inspires and gives great comfort to the faithful. It repels and terrifies the unfaithful. You can literally see visceral reactions against “Jesus” from some folks]
The club’s leadership was told that “NASA would be censoring all future club announcements that featured the name, ‘Jesus’,” Liberty Institute alleged in its complaint letter.
NASA’s legal department explained that including the name ‘Jesus’ within the club’s announcement made that announcement “sectarian” or “denominational.” [Oh BS. I guarantee a huge double standard applies. I would bet money other religions are not treated as if the name of their god/founder/lodestar is some kind of despicable unmentionable.]
They also alleged such announcements would cause NASA to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Just incredible. Just allowing the Name in print now establishes a religion. Again, I would be shocked if other religions received such strict treatment. Some a-hole Obama-appointee is enjoying his ability to show who’s boss and engage in some tribal virtue signalling]
Dys said the club organizers offered to provide a disclaimer, notifying readers that the announcement was private speech and was not endorsed by NASA or any other government agency. However, that offer was rejected as “insufficient.”
“The club members knew right away that NASA was censoring them and they were not comfortable with that,” Dys told me.
And so began a long process to resolve the matter.
“The bottom line is that NASA should not be censoring this club just because they use the name ‘Jesus’ in an employee advertisement,” Dys told me. “That is blatant religious discrimination.”
So, remember when the satanists wanted to blaspheme by destroying a statue of the Blessed Virgin, or have a black mass? And we were told the government could do nothing, because it would violate their free speech to do so? And remember how they said if they were to do anything to stop this evil, they’d be taken to court? And that would waste the taxpayer’s money, cuz they’d just lose out of hand?
But Christians have no free speech, right? Because you can’t even use the word Jesus in a government e-mail anymore. But notice here, government (admittedly, a different entity) is VERY willing to go to court to block this form of free speech. Apparently they don’t think this squashing of free speech is a sure loser. Apparently saying Jesus would just cause a giant St. Peter’s to suddenly form right along NASA Parkway. I mean, it would just suddenly “establish” a religion with a pope blasting out commands, nuns and monks everywhere, priests running around incensing the
Space Shuttle Constellation Orion nothing, scads of faithful…….right? No?
Ever get the impression it’s really just about shutting Christians up?
Yeah, me too. It’s almost like sexular paganism is a competing religion that will brook no competition from its hated rival, or something.
Ah, well, they’re protestants, so can we expect an urgent intervention by Francis on their behalf?
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
A local Catholic has started a petition asking for the “30.06” and “30.07” signs posted on all diocesan property by order of Bishop Kevin Farrell to be removed. These signs serve as a legal declaration by a private entity that concealed (06) and open carry (07) of firearms is not permitted on the premises. By posting the signs, the entity declares their refusal to permit firearms on premises by lawfully licensed individuals.
The local Catholic feels a crisis in conscience in that they now face the choice of either being able to protect their family, or assist at Mass. They also note that Bishop Farrell’s recent action dramatically restricted gun rights on diocesan property – before this very emotional response to the passage of an open carry law in Texas, virtually no diocesan properties posted 30.06 signs, meaning concealed carry had been permitted by the diocese for many years.
Some argumentation from the petition, which I largely agree with:
This past Sunday I was faced with a major decision upon entering a Church. I had to choose between my First Amendment right and my Second Amendment right. For the first time in 20 years in the State of Texas, these two issues are at an impasse. I had to choose between practicing my religion and protecting my family. The choice was either commit a Class A misdemeanor or, in my religion, a mortal sin. Why after 20 years am I (and many others) placed in this conundrum?
The answer is Bishop Farrell made the decision to “keep me safe” by mandating across the board in the Diocese that Texas Penal Code 30.06 signs be posted on all Diocesan properties. The Bishop will say it is the law. On the contrary, the Bishop has the legal option to give effective consent for concealed carry by not posting 30.06 signs. He may also choose to only post 30.07 signs (or none at all). Yet, he chose to have both 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted at all Diocesan locations. [Thereby banning all carriage of handguns. However, the 30.06 and 07 laws have nothing to do with long arms. Just sayin’. I mean, if a group of Catholics were to protest this draconian restriction of their lawful rights on diocesan property by showing up, en masse, at Mass carrying ARs, AKs, etc., who would I be to judge?]
Most people would compromise and accept the restrictions (30.07) on open carry in a place of worship while retaining the right to conceal carry as has been the case for 20 years (No posted 30.06). [So there is a compromise many would find reasonable. But that wouldn’t give Bishop Farrell the progressive virtue signalling feelz]
This dilemma only occurs at my place of worship. When presented with 30.06 in other locations I have the option to take my business elsewhere. Alternative options exist for movie theaters, shopping malls, restaurants, and so on. I doubt the Bishop would recommend I attend the First Baptist Church of Dallas (where no 30.06 signs exist). I am a Catholic; I am a Texan. I should not be forced to choose between the two.
I am asking for my previous freedom to protect my family in the event of eminent danger to be restored by removing all Texas Penal Code 30.06 signs from all Diocesan churches. Let us remain a Universal Church. Otherwise, my only recourse is to drive to Tyler to fulfill my Sunday obligation. I neither want to commit a Class A Misdemeanor nor a mortal sin. Something must change. [If Mrs. Halisky, the author of the petition, were to see this post, she might contact me. Leave a comment. I might be able to suggest a way forward short of driving to another diocese.]
For those who say they will conceal carry regardless of the posted sign, I ask, what will you do when metal detectors are installed as in schools, airports, and the like? [If that day comes, I expect quite an uproar]
Sanger and North Richland Hills are a lot closer than Tyler for most. Can. Worms. Opened.
I think more persuasive than a petition would be a drive to convince local state legislators to submit a bill permitting liability suits against private entities with such bans in the case of some kind of armed attack, while simultaneously indemnifying them from lawsuits for accidental discharge or said attacks if they permit concealed/open carry. There is a bill underway to that effect in Tennessee, as I noted in a previous post. This would upend the liability calculations that serve as the practical rationale for this kind of ban. Instead of all the liability benefit being towards denying people their rights, it would instead encourage entities like the local diocese to permit lawful carry.
Nevertheless, I signed the petition. I have been a little surprised at the degree of vehemence expressed against this anti-2nd Amendment policy. I expected opposition, but not to the degree I’ve seen here and there. It gets back to that post I did a week or so ago asking why the gun rights movement has been so much more successful in defending and expanding gun rights in this country, while almost every other conservative cause has met with results ranging from much more limited success to abject failure. If only as many people would get as exercised about abuses in the Mass and the teaching of heresy/error/progressivism from the pulpit!
Again, you can sign the petition here. And you don’t have to be in the Diocese of Dallas to do so, I’m sure.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
I was interested to learn that the Harris County prosecutor who filed charges against David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) for, get this, using a fake ID (and pushed for the maximum felony charge carrying a 20 year sentence) has been very eager to try to get Daleiden to take a plea deal. The intent from the start on the prosecutor/Planned Barrenhood side seems to have been intimidation, the sending of a clear message that if you embarrass Planned Butcherhood you’ll have to contend with the full force of the law.
But the prosecution and Planned Parenthood seem to have missed a salient point. That may be exactly what Daleiden/CMP want. By going to trial, they can subpoena Planned Barrenhood’s internal records, and they can put PB officials on record, in a court of law, testifying as to their baby-butchering and parts-selling practices:
Harris County prosecutors offered David Daleiden a plea deal. He didn’t take it. Bravo.
You see, now that felony charges were brought against Daleiden for altering government records*, and a misdemeanor involving the purchase of human body parts, the death merchants have realized that it’s not a good idea to put the Center for Medical Progress investigator in front of a jury.
So they threw him a plea deal for a misdemeanor after Daleiden posted bail today. For his part, Daleiden stuck to his guns, asking prosecutors for an apology instead of a deal.
“I think we all know that every day that goes by that the Texas authorities do not prosecute Planned Parenthood for their illegal trade in baby parts, they are sending a message to the entire country,” Daleiden told supporters outside the courthouse. “The state of Texas right now is open for business in baby body parts.”
If Daleiden were to go to trial, the videos he made along with Sandra Merritt and the Center for Medical Progress exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts operation would certainly enter into evidence. And they’d be found to be truthful. And Planned Parenthood officials would be subpoenaed to testify at the trial. And they’d be found to be lying.
And oh, BTW, about that prosecutor:
With her top campaign contributor representing a prominent abortion practitioner and a Planned Parenthood board member working in her office, the attorney for pro-lifer investigator Susan Merritt said it’s no wonder that Devon Anderson indicted the pro-life investigators as opposed to Planned Parenthood.
I’m shocked, shocked to find evidence of collusion – or at least strong bias – involving a supposedly Republican DA and a radical promoter of abortion. That’s never, ever happened before.
The response from the prosecutor and PB will likely now be to draw out the pre-trial proceedings for as long as possible, in the hope of exhausting CMP’s financial resources. It will be interesting to see how this develops. This case has several aspects. Planned Barrenhood and their allies in the Harris County prosecutor’s office obviously intended to persecute CMP for embarrassing them. Even if CMP escapes these charges, the left-wing media will forever paint them as “accused felons” in future. The goal is to destroy their credibility, and all it required was an accomplice to their baby-killing agenda in a prosecutor’s office. This kind of thing is happening more and more, and has caused many to fear that conservatives are now more or less defenseless before the progressive minions abusing their positions of power at all levels of government.
There’s another interesting point raised below: how long are we going to silently, meekly allow the powers that be to exercise that power in such a biased and plainly unjust manner:
I should also note that David Daleiden is apparently prepared to go to jail over this. If that bothers you – if you don’t like the fact that a jury could put a man in jail for twenty years because he used a fake ID in one of the few ways that society finds acceptable and even moral* – then, well, that’s why people do civil disobedience. REAL civil disobedience, not the petulant, look-at-me garbage that the Activist Left revels in.
Anyone know if there have been any protests outside the Harris County courthouse or DA’s office? I guess there were a a number of people there when he turned himself in. But how about some old school civil disobedience like the pro-life movement used in its early days? I am told that was found to be counterproductive? Or was it just uncomfortable?
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Liturgy, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, self-serving.
…..concerning a possible Dallas connection regarding the demand he apparently faces to not only offer the Novus Ordo, but, lacking any justification in the rubrics of the Mass or canon law, to offer it strictly versus poplum, facing the people. I remind readers of an excerpt from a directive of El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz to Fr. Rodriguez, as related by Father in his recent public update on his situation:
I enjoin you to celebrate the Mass and Sacraments according to the Novus Ordo in the Mission of Shafter. The Mass and the Sacraments must be celebrated in the vernacular of the people (English or Spanish) and not Ad Orientem.
I was reminded that this demand was similar to a situation that played out here in the Diocese of Dallas a few years ago. Then, a priest announced that he would start offering Mass Ad Orientem at his Sunday Masses, and that folks had better get used to the idea because he wasn’t changing his mind. At that time, we were not yet assisting at TLMs, but we did assist at the very reverent Latin Novus Ordo Masses this particular priest offered. We, and a number of other souls under who attended this parish, were elated at this development.
But a very strange and unfortunate thing happened. Just a couple of weeks after this announcement, the priest went back to Mass facing the people. He didn’t explain why, in fact, to my knowledge, he still has never given a justification for this volte face. I wound up finding out through another source, months later, that someone at the parish had complained to the Diocese, and a very firm decree had some down that the practice of Ad Orientem was barred for this priest and this parish. Even more, no priest was to offer Novus Ordo Mass facing the Lord in the tabernacle in any parish at any time.
At the time this all came down, Bishop Seitz was still Father Seitz, pastor of All Saints with the gay pornish processional crucifix (which, in fairness, I guess, did predate his time there). But it seems highly likely that whatever directive was issued in this diocese, however unjustifiable, it continues to inform Bishop Seitz’ thinking regarding how the Mass not just should, but must be offered. That is, in the closed off circle of self-worship, in Pope Emeritus’ Benedict’s words, of the versus poplum orientation.
I guess given his history, it’s not entirely surprising that Bishop Seitz would hold this view, unsupportable as it appears to be. That doesn’t make it any more right, of course.
I thought this small historical tie would be of interest to readers. Like Communion in the hand and the abandonment of chapel veils, this massive novelty rests on nothing at all other than progressive whim and the will of a large number of bishops. There is nothing in any formal Church document that demands Mass facing the people. A sort of vague permission to offer Mass facing the people sneaked into the post-conciliar documents produced by the revolutionaries of the liturgical “renewal” led by Anibale Bugnini, but there was even in these never a clear demand to change the orientation of the priest at Mass. At most, it implies the possibility of such.
I remind, as well, that declarations from national conferences are non-dogmatic and have questionable binding authority, at best. We were told for a long time that lay people were to be refused Communion received kneeling and on the tongue, until that turned out to no longer be the case. We’ve also been told that the TLM was abrogated, until that, too, turned out to be totally false.
In sum, this demand for versus poplum rests on the flimsiest of premises, and raises grave questions regarding those who insist upon it.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, manhood, martyrdom, persecution, scandals, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
This blog has long had a great love for Fr. Michael Rodriguez. I was very gratified when reader skeinster sent me a link to this interview Father gave to Louie Verrecchio. Father gives some updates on his situation viz a viz El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz in this interview. Since it’s out there in the wide open internet, I guess I can cover it, and comment on it.
Below, the entire excerpt involving the impasse between Fr. Rodriguez and Bishop Seitz (emphasis in original, I add comments). I need to make very clear all commentary below is mine alone and is not based on any input from Fr. Rodriguez whatsoever:
Fr. Rodriguez: At present, January 2016, I am a priest in good standing of the Diocese of El Paso, TX, with no pastoral assignment.
My Bishop, Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz, had appointed me as the Administrator of Sacred Heart Mission in Shafter, Texas (a small mission in one of the most remote parts of the diocese), effective July 11, 2014, for a term of three years. However, as a sine qua non condition of the assignment, he insisted that I offer the Novus Ordo Missæ. At the time, I had already been offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively for almost three years!
On July 24, 2014, my Bishop issued a Personal Precept which included the order, “I enjoin you to celebrate the Mass and Sacraments according to the Novus Ordo in the Mission of Shafter. The Mass and the Sacraments must be celebrated in the vernacular of the people (English or Spanish) and not Ad Orientem.” [I know of no possible justification in the Canon Law or rubrics by which a priest could be forced to offer Mass facing the people. Versus populum has NEVER been codified as a default or required position for the priest in any authoritative Church document above national council level. And the decisions of national councils are NOT authoritative.]
Throughout my nineteen years as a priest, I have always done my best to practice the virtue of obedience, but now I was put in an impossible situation. St. John of the Cross teaches, “Obedience is a penance of the intellect and therefore a more acceptable sacrifice than all corporal penances. Hence God loves your tiniest act of obedience more than all other homages you might think of offering Him.” What was I to do? Never before had the opening words of the prayer from the Divine Office struck a deeper chord in my soul, “Deus in adiutórium meum inténde. Dómine, ad adiuvándum me festína.” “O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me.” The decision I had to make was my most difficult one yet as a priest. Holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God, intercede for me, a poor sinner.
I wrote many letters to my Bishop. The following is a sample of this correspondence; it is an excerpt from a letter which I wrote to him on September 8, 2014, the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
I am 100% committed to my priestly promise of obedience. You are my bishop, and thus, I have promised obedience to you. It is my firm and sincere intention to be obedient to you. Unfortunately for me (and my conscience), your July 24, 2014, Precept contains an order which is “problematic,” to say the least.
[This is really very important……] The order you are giving contradicts Pope St. Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, Canon IX (a dogmatic canon) of Session XXII of the Holy Council of Trent, Pope Pius VI’s ConstitutionAuctorem Fidei (see the 33rd of 85 propositions which are condemned, Denzinger 1533), Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical LetterMediator Dei 59, and the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 and 54. Moreover, your order appears to be irreconcilable with the Decree of the Council of Nicea II regarding ecclesiastical tradition (Denzinger 308), and Canon XIII (a dogmatic canon) of Session VII of the Holy Council of Trent.
In addition, the order contained in your Precept appears to (a) deny the Catholic priest’s legitimate right to offer the Extraordinary Formof the Roman Rite (presumably, exclusively) as expressed in Summorum Pontificum Art. 1, and (b) dismiss Summorum PontificumArt. 1, “the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V . . . must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage.” Finally, from the pastoral perspective, your order appears to disregard the expressed needs and good of the faithful of Presidio/Shafter, who are specifically requesting parish life based on the Traditional Latin Mass.
As I wrote to you in my July 1, 2014, letter, as a priest of the Diocese of El Paso, I am committed to do my very best to spiritually nourish, teach, and serve the souls placed under my care. However, I cannot do this apart from what has always been the lex orandi, lex credendiof Holy Mother Church. Thus, with respect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the celebration of the Sacraments, it is not a matter of “preference” or my “unwillingness” to obey; rather, there are all-important ecclesial, theological, liturgical, spiritual, ascetical, and pastoral reasons which compel me, in conscience, to offer the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively.
[Unfortunately, Pope Benedict XVI never addressed this situation, of a former NO priest exclusively offering the TLM, directly in Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. As such, many bishops continue to pretend that the TLM was abrogated in 1970 by Paul VI and requires special permission, or conditions, to be offered. This is plainly against the spirit of Benedict XVI’s documents, and against his clear statement that the TLM was not, nor ever could be, abrogated. As a valid Rite, the priest should have the option, based on his pastoral reality, to offer the TLM exclusively, even if not a member of an Ecclesia Dei community. But because that point was never specifically addressed, it is viewed as a matter of opinion, at this time, since virtually the entire hierarchy has chosen to jettison the entirety of the pre-conciliar Magisterium as a practical reality in the day to day operation of the Church. Thus, Father’s very well supported arguments from pre-conciliar sources are simply rejected out of hand.]
In the end, I had to follow what Holy Mother Church has always taught. Out of fidelity to God and to the Church’s immemorial lex orandi, lex credendi, and for the good of the souls entrusted to my care, I could not, in conscience, follow the specific liturgical directive given by my Bishop. [I have very strong sympathy for the conclusion Father has reached. He feels in conscience he cannot offer the Novus Ordo any more. Some may feel that he is failing in obedience. That’s not my take, but I understand it. I see in this action by Bishop Seitz, especially with regard to the demand not to offer Mass Ad Orientem, as unjust and an abuse of power. The situation regarding the TLM is perhaps arguable (though I strongly side with Father on this), but insisting that a priest MUST face the people at Mass is totally unjustifiable, to my knowledge.]
Effective November 10, 2014, my Bishop revoked my appointment as Administrator of Sacred Heart Mission. I was unable to hold back my tears during the final Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which I offered in Shafter, TX, on Sunday, November 9, 2014. With a sorrowful heart and plenteous tears, I prayed the words of blessed Job, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, as it hath pleased the Lord so it is done. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21)
I begged my Bishop for a minimum one-year sabbatical, in order to have ample time to pray, study, reflect, go on an extended retreat, and discern God’s will for my future. He refused, and instead gave me only six months, and restricted the use of my priestly faculties. Eventually, he extended my sabbatical to August 31, 2015.
At the beginning of October 2015, my Bishop initiated a canonical process to determine whether or not I have committed a Delict against Ecclesiastical Authority (i.e. disobedience). Currently, I await whatever decision he may make. If necessary, I am prepared to appeal to Rome. I am under no illusion that Rome will intervene to do what is right and just, but at least by appealing, I will know, in conscience, that I went to heroic lengths in the practice of obedience by following the juridical process instituted by the Church for recourse against the abuse of power.
At present, I continue to discern God’s will for the future of my priesthood. What is Thy will, O Lord? What wilt Thou have me to do? (Acts 9:6) In spite of some very difficult trials over the past four years, I am in awe of God’s goodness, mercy, and mysterious ways.
Father then goes on to address how he’s like this situation resolved. The answers are obvious, but Father is very realistic about where he stands.
Please pray for him. He’s a very good priest who found himself in a nigh impossible situation. It is such a tragedy that this has occurred. I don’t want to pontificate too much on his situation, he just really needs prayers at this point. The future will take care of itself.