jump to navigation

Understanding the “gay” lifestyle from a man who has lived it October 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, horror, Interior Life, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Virtue.

I stumbled across Joseph Sciambra’s site via Ann Barnhardt Hilary White and I’ve been very impressed by his presentations on the “gay lifestyle”.  Before I go any further, if Mr. Sciambra should come to my blog, understand I take a very combative stand against what I perceive as militant proselytization for this lifestyle and its use by progressives as a mascot to advance their anti-Christian agenda.  So if you peruse some of my writings and find them uncharitable, understand they are directed not against individuals but against the broader, more amorphous movement that is presently persecuting Christians and wreaking havoc in our culture.

I should also warn readers that the material at his site and that I copy below is of course of an adult nature.  Those with sensitive consciences or easily scandalized may want to move on to the next post.

I really like what Mr. Sciambra has to say.  I would say it correlates very well with my own observations and a fair amount of study of this subject.  He makes plain several salient facts I have tried to convey on my blog repeatedly:

  1. becoming “gay,” or active in a sexually perverse (in the classic meaning of the term) lifestyle, is a choice, more or less conscious
  2. there are no “gay” people, as in really born that way and just so biologically determinant they had no other choice
  3. those drawn to acts of sodomy with other men universally have some grave trauma early in life that causes them to seek out affirmation from other men.  Robert Reilly describes this almost as a desire to consume their essence, to somehow through the act of sodomy to become the other man, to absorb his perceived “maleness” through the act.  This explains why there are frequently wide age differences in “gay” couples, with a father-son type dynamic at play
  4. the “gay lifestyle” is a fantasy lifestyle disconnected from reality

There is much more below. I am posting two of his most recent videos and an excerpt from a written post.  Again, the material is of its nature somewhat explicit and certainly not for anyone under 21. The first video contains some images of disturbing kinks and perverse behavior, do be careful, but I think they are necessary to illustrate his points:

Even more revealing of the psychological aspects of sodomy, with the false, never-quite-fulfilling “affirmation” taken from another man via the act of sodomy.  Not to be too gross, but I have to wonder if this is more the perspective of the “receiver” rather than the, uh…..thrower, IYKWIM.  This one does, towards the end, also start to delve into some advanced subjects.  But I think the perspective shared is very valuable to understand how to potentially approach individuals lost in this lifestyle (though, I do have a few qualms about some of what is presented):

I think this sums up his analysis of the error at the root of this lifestyle:

Although I spent over a decade in the homosexual enclaves of San Francisco and Los Angeles, I never met a “gay” man…the people I did meet were mostly battered and wounded souls that somehow wound up in either the Castro District or West Hollywood, because they thought happiness awaited them in the arms of another man. Of these men, backgrounds were diverse, but there always remained a common denominator: an almost unquenchable need to be loved, but not just any love – it had to come from a man. Most of us thought we were just born that way; as we could never recall a time when we didn’t have such feelings. We once felt different, odd, but “coming out” and “accepting” ourselves as “gay” had changed all of that. But what had it changed?

Accepting that I was “gay” meant that I no longer denied my feelings – for other men. It also meant that I would no longer harbor any shame about those emotions, or, even about openly expressing them. Lastly, it meant that in order to be happy, in order to be fulfilled as a human being, I needed to be “gay;” that I was not complete without that; denying my “gayness” would be like denying myself. Only, it never quite worked that way. For, the more I got lost in “gay” the more I just got lost. Because, here I was: I was “gay,” I was with other men, getting and giving love to other men, but, something wasn’t right. It wasn’t working. I wasn’t fulfilled and I wasn’t complete. A piece was still missing. I thought to myself: “I must be doing something wrong.” [Is this realization a major factor in the shockingly high rates of drug addiction and suicide among the practitioners of this lifestyle.]

After that, like everyone who invests time, energy, and suffering into a failing project – you tend not to pull back and reexamine, but you get desperate and try forcing things into place. I did this by getting more “gay;” I tried it all: more one-hour stands; a few “exclusive” partnerships; and then, a final slide into “gay” overdose – pulling in as much manliness and masculinity as I could handle, hoping beyond hope that some of it would stick. It didn’t. Then, at that point, there was nothing left to do – I had truly tried it all. “Gay” was turning out to be a bust; but, I am “gay;” does that mean there is something wrong with me as well? I looked back, and saw the faces of those who had died: perhaps none of us were meant to be here; I came to believe we had all been destined for death.

But I didn’t die. God found me. I was a heap of flesh: soiled and covered in filth. He washed me; when everyone passed by, He took me to His home. There, I was bathed in His Blood. Everything was stripped from my skin – it was a strange sort of acid immersion that hurt but soothed. The first thing to rinse away into the gutter was “gay.” For, it was at the center of all my confusion and pain. “Gay” was not who I ever was: “gay” was an explanation, a false hope, a stinking balm like rancid butter – it covered my wounds, but they never healed. And, all of us, we were that way – we were sick and we were doing that best we could, but we weren’t gay. We were lost boys still looking for our fathers, for a place on the team, for a man to simply say that: “Yes, we mattered.” Are those exclusively “gay” desires? No…they are the simple joys that every child needs in order to grow. Yet, we didn’t get them when it most mattered. Does that make us gay? No…but it makes us in need of healing; true healing. The kind that can only come from Our Lord Jesus Christ: the God made Man. When he embraces us, we are no longer “gay,” but His child – and, in that we are recreated in His image.

I have reported in the past the strong parallels I see between this perverse lifestyle and addiction.  As Mr. Sciambra notes, an addiction to porn and self-abuse paved the way for his acting out with men.  Many people may have a hereditary/genetic component to their addiction – there is certainly far more evidence for that than there is for any “gay gene.”  But in the end, the decision to use or not remains just that, a decision.  It’s a terribly hard one at times, one that causes many to die before they make the right decision not to use, but it is always a choice.  This lifestyle, in spite of all the rhetoric, in spite of all the victories gained, in spite of having the media in their pocket as their cheerleaders, will always remain a choice, as is the case with each and every sin.

I think that even more the case with regard to women.  Some will even admit that their descent into that lifestyle was the result of a conscious decision, because they had been burned by men in the past (giving themselves away too easily) or wound up in a place where they felt no man was interested in them or would take them seriously.  Obesity is rife among women in this lifestyle, which contributes to low self-esteem and a feeling of being rejected by men.  What is frightening is that the hook up culture among young people today is causing many very young women (who already have had dozens/scores of partners) to look to this lifestyle after feeling used and abused by men.  The whole thing is a swirling cauldron of evil that only seems to get worse as time goes on.

One more thing – I have tremendous respect for men like Joseph Sciambra and Laurence England who have left this lifestyle.  I cannot imagine the confusion and anguish this pontificate and especially the Synod are causing them.

The crisis has been a long time coming – an excoriation of the policies of Pope Paul VI from 1977 October 8, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, history, horror, Papa, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.

History, dear readers, is my first love.  I pray it always remains so.  I love history, because by studying it, one learns very quickly that there is little new under the sun.  In almost every contemporary situation, one can find examples from the past that provide very good guidance on pitfalls to avoid and safer ways to proceed.  Certainly, history does not repeat itself, contra George Santanaya, but historical situations do recur.

Rorate Caeli has helpfully posted some material that makes clear that the present peak of crisis in the Church has been a long time coming.  Contrary to what many conservative neo-Catholics have tried to tell us for years, the papacy has not always been a sure rock of unquestionable adherence to truth, virtue, and surety of purpose.  There have been, in history, a great many bad popes.  We were very blessed to have a nearly 200 year run of very good popes from Pius VIII to Pius XII, but since then, we have not been so fortunate.  And so the crisis we see today is simply an extension of the crisis that began at Vatican II under, primarily, Paul VI.  Even more, as the below makes clear, Paul VI’s policies and actions in the years following the closure of the Council helped enshrine the more revolutionary elements/interpretations of the Council deeply into Church administration and practice.  As Rorate notes, many of the things we see from the pontificate of Pope Francis that so exasperate us, were just as present in the pontificate of Paul VI.

The piece below was published by John McCaffrey in 1977.  He examines the dread error of papalotry and the rising traditional critique of the Council and the post-conciliar papacies.  It is stunning just how strong the parallels are between the declining years of the Pauline pontificate and the opening years of the Franciscan one.  I excerpt some of the passages I found more meaningful below, do read the whole thing (if you already haven’t) and note my emphasis and comments:

For some years after the Council, the conventional line had been: the Pope is isolated/misled/uninformed/captive/what-haveyou. This position always depended on a vast innocence of Church and human affairs, and moreover needed occasional tokens that the Pope was really on their side. [Just as we see many, I hope, well meaning Catholics today clinging to occasional orthodox statements from Francis, even while his great revolutionary wheel acquires unbreakable momentum] The pressure of catastrophe had to eat away at that position—particularly when the Pope was at pains to show that he does indeed know what is going on, that he is indeed the author of these policies, that he is no fool, and that he is not at all pleased with Catholics who oppose him. [Familiar?]
When these facts began to hit home, less balanced Catholics reached for new explanations, and came up with kookery: the Pope is a Communist/Freemason/imposter…or was invalidly elected…or is drugged; and so on. Sensible Catholics, rejecting all this nonsense but still confronting the cruel fact of a pope hostile to much of what they hold sacred, had to enter upon what may be called, at least analogously, their dark night of the soul.
But if God is there, dark nights of the soul can be illuminating. Troubled Catholics began to consider seriously what had once been mere abstractions to them. Not every papal or conciliar statement is infallible, or even wise. Not every papal policy is prudent, or in the best interests of the Faith. No pope, St. Peter himself knows, is beyond error, and no humble pope refuses to correct his error. And, as Dante and St. John Chrysostom once told us, some popes do go to Hell. [I dare anyone to read Pastor’s History of the Popes and conclude differently]
These truths had almost to force themselves on many a conscientious Catholic. But once they did, these Catholics made a wondrous discovery: the truth had to set them free. They found to their delight that they had at last joined the Catholic mainstream of centuries. Now the traditions they revered meant so much more to them as they became more deeply a part of those traditions. They drew strength from those traditions. To be specific, they found in Catholic tradition almost universal respect, even reverence, for the pope as St. Peter’s successor—but nothing of the pope-can-do-no-wrong aberration. They found some courtier flattery of popes, but none from Catholics who had a decent respect for the pope, and for themselves. They found among real Catholics a widespread love for the pope as father, and almost no papolatry. (A good son loves and respects his father—but he doesn’t praise him for coming home drunk. Refuting Stephen Decatur’s “My country, right or wrong,” Chesterton once remarked that it was like saying, “My mother, drunk or sober.”)
….[T]he derelictions of the present papacy have forced thoughtful Catholics to reconsider the papolatry some had succumbed to in recent decades: a corrective badly needed in many quarters—just as, in the opposite direction, the Councils of Florence and Vatican I helped to right the balance after the Council of Constance had heaped indignities on the papacy. (Incidentally, I wonder how many edicts of Constance those council buffs among today’s conservatives would subscribe to. Or is the most recent Council the only one that counts?[I think we  know the answer to that, because it appears nigh impossible, without violating the principle of non-contradiction, to reconcile aspects of that most recent Council with the dogmatic statements of certain preceding ones]
………My disagreement with some in the conservative Catholic media is twofold: they distort our present crisis, and are not even true to their own murky principles. They distort by suppressing news about the Pope–which is to say, they fail as Catholic journalists. They never report when the Pope receives a Communist leader, or Women’s Lib pioneer Betty Friedan, or mass murderer Idi Amin. They do not tell us that he refused to meet with an international pilgrimage of traditional Catholics even though they kept an all-night prayer vigil in St. Peter’s Square—though at the same time he was receiving three Portuguese revolutionaries. We could never have learned from them that the Pope joined with the international Left to condemn the Franco government for executing the Spanish terrorists. In papers that proclaim admiration for the Pope, why is news of so many of his key activities carefully excluded?………
……….Not surprisingly, Pope Paul VI understands his Council far better than his conservative admirers.[And I’d wager my house (you can take over the note) that Pope Francis understands his Synod better than conservative apologists] He has never disguised his conviction that the Council was the gateway to change in the Church, and was meant to be. And he has underscored this, pointing out that Gaudium et Spes was a break with the old Catholic view of the world held by many of the saints. (He could with greater accuracy have said all of the saints—not to mention the authors of the Epistles, and our Lord Himself.) [And the broader tragedy is, every subsequent post-conciliar Pope, even Benedict XVI, has believed the same – that Guadium Et Spes was a “counter-syllabus,” that it pointed up a radically different understanding of the world and the role of the Church than that held by the Saints and Fathers, etc.  At least PBXVI was honest enough to discern that the Revolution had not brought the “new pentecost” expected (what hubris!), but had in fact all but destroyed the Church.]

As for the conciliar documents themselves, they require an exegesis that could fill a bookshelf. But they do breathe a spirit, especially where they deal with temporal problems, that clashes with the strictures of earlier popes on liberalism and humanism. [Again, I do not think anyone could honestly oppose this view]
It is no accident that liberals the world over sang hymns to the Council. Were they all wrong? The children of this world are wise in their generation. The liberals know their own. In particular, they know that the Council moved their way on religious liberty—whereas they despised the views of earlier popes (who, in turn, were simply repeating what had been the unvarying attitude of the Church since the Apostolic Age). If the Council did not offer a wholly novel view of religious liberty (novel, that is, for the Church; it is old hat for liberals), then words have lost all meaning. This, I suspect, is one reason why Archbishop Lefebvre is denied his hearing. The Vatican is loathe to defend a hopeless case, even in its own court. [Oh, but schism…….]
But the Pope himself has given us the final refutation of the conservative position, in condemning Archbishop Lefebvre. Among other things the Pope demands that the Archbishop accept the post-conciliar “orientations” of the Church—which are, by definition new, or else the Pope, the Archbishop, and the rest of us would be arguing over—nothing. [QED.  Pope Benedict changed the terms of debate slightly, but still insisted on that “acceptance of Vatican II,” which is so nebulous as to mean anything.  How does one accept a pastoral vision dogmatically?]
Which leads to my point that the conservative axis is here again betraying its own position. Why do they decline to follow the post-conciliar orientations? The Pope has endorsed them. Why do they resist the pentecostal wave? The Pope smiles on it. Why do they shy away from the revolutionary activities of papal appointees in the Third World? Why do they quarrel with theological ideas that are taught in Rome’s pontifical seminaries? Why do they argue with catechisms imposed by nearly all the bishops of the world? These bishops, after all, are answerable to the Pope; most are appointees; and the caliber of the appointments has remained constant over fourteen years. [Make that 50 years]
I think I know why. Scratch a conservative—and more often than not you’ll find a traditionalist. [Do you agree?  Maybe back in 1977, but today?  I think more often than not today, scratch a conservative and find a liberal. Especially among those who make their living off the Church, and especially episcopal approbation] But a traditionalist who shrinks from resolving the ambiguity of his own position. This is not surprising. It hurts to change.
Which is just what we’ve been telling our father, the Pope. Who isn’t listening, and doesn’t care.
Ouch.  This post is long enough, it was a long article.  Let me know what you think.

Local Catholic art and a new movie gives another side of the Vietnam War October 7, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, history, persecution, Revolution, sadness, scandals, Society.
add a comment

Well, it’s a newish movie, it premiered in California last March, but it’s finally coming to the Metroplex October 30 – November 5 in a roadshow format.  The movie is Ride The Thunder, and it tells the tale of US Marine Colonel John Ripley South Vietnamese Marine Colonel Le Ba Binh.  It is based on a book of the same name.


A devout Catholic South Vietnamese friend of mine apprised me of the movie.  It is in English with Vietnamese subtitles.  It will be showing, and not accidentally, in Irving, Grand Prairie, and other locales Oct. 30 –  Nov. 5.  This movie is different in that it concentrates less on the battles, less on the American side, but more on the impact of the war on South Vietnamese patriots and the horrendous suffering many underwent for years following the US betrayal and communist triumph.  My friend’s father was a colonel in the South Vietnamese intelligence and was incarcerated in communist “re-education camp” for 7 or 8 years.  My friend managed to escape during the boat lift and made it to Malaysia after everyone on the boat was robbed of every cent they had by pirates (they were very lucky it was only their possessions that was taken, many suffered much worse fates than that).

No matter what one thinks of the US involvement in Vietnam and the US conduct of that war (and I certainly have grave problems, especially with the latter), the South Vietnamese fall to communism was an unmitigated disaster for that forlorn nation.  The Church has had much to suffer in Vietnam, north and south, from the communist regime.  Persecution continues to this day.  And now, Vietnam, fiercely independent for 1000 years, is little more than a Chinese puppet state.

Anyway, local readers may consider checking this movie out when it comes to town in a few weeks.  You’ll have to check the individual theaters for show times.

BTW, local readers might also find my friend in the most recent edition of Texas Catholic (the Dallas diocesan newspaper), in a pull-out spread of certain Dallas area Catholics views on the Faith in commemoration of the Diocese’s 125th anniversary.  My friend’s comments on Tradition and Truth stand out from the rest.

Another local reader sent me some artwork he’s been doing and would like to share.  The first is sort of a Catholic superhero called Marian Knight.  The second is a pastel of an angel inspired by Renaissance works.



Archbold: It was the Pope what done it October 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.

Patrick Archbold has a piece at notorious ecclesiastical porn site The Remnant regarding the construction of the Synod and how that was achieved.  As is obvious from the evidence, if the Synod arrives at some unprecedented conclusion, or if some incredible document/statement/speech follows, it will be because that’s what Pope Francis wanted to achieve all along:

So let’s look at some basic facts. It was Pope Francis who called for the Synod on the Family. It is the Pope who is the President of the Synod. It was Pope Francis who selected Cardinal Kasper to deliver the preparatory speech in February of last year, the speech that put the question of communion for the divorced and remarried front and center. [It was Pope Francis who extolled the “Kasper proposal” from his very first Angelus address the 2nd week of his pontificate!]

The Pope saw and approved the contents of that speech in advance, according to Cardinal Kasper.

It was Pope Francis who appointed Italian Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary of the Synod of Bishops, the Cardinal who later publicly bragged about how he would manipulate the Synod to nefarious ends.

It was Pope Francis who appointed the rest of the Synod leadership, the leadership that produced the disastrous and un-Catholic Instrumentem Laboris of 2014.

It was Pope Francis who approved that disastrous Instrumentem Laboris.

It was Pope Francis who reviewed and approved the disgusting and heretical Relatio Post Disceptationem, a document rightly called by the group Voice of the Family “one of the worst official documents drafted in Church history”.

It was the Pope, who allowed the initial attempt by Cardinal Baldisseri to prevent the reaction to that document by the Synod Fathers from publication, before being shouted down by them and relenting.

It was the Pope, who by his sole authority, ordered the publication of troubling non-Catholic paragraphs stricken by the Synod Fathers in the final document of the 2014 Synod.

It was Pope Francis who approved the equally troubling Instrumentem Laboris for the 2015 Synod. [Which goes beyond divorce, remarriage, homosexuality, and includes contraception and other elements]

It was Pope Francis who just this past month ordered changes to the annulment process, changes opposed by many Synod Fathers, which will undoubtedly lead to widespread abuse and the continued weakening of marriage.

[It was Pope Francis who waived the age limitation requirement for participation in the Synod and appointed the disastrously heterodox and manipulative Cardinal Daneels. It was Pope Francis who appointed a who’s who of Church liberals and politicians to the final committee]

And now, if recent reports are to be believed, these very same Synod leaders who did all of the above, have entirely changed the rules of the 2015 Synod, eliminating entirely documents and discussions of the Synod being published. Instead, there will be no interim document published (the document which caused all the controversy in 2014). There will be no discussions published; in fact there will not even be any general discussion, but only small groups that cannot communicate with each other. There will not even be a final document voted upon and published by the Synod Fathers. No, instead, there will only be a closing address by the Holy Father. [Pope Francis confirmed the above today and stated to Synod fathers that all these highly controversial things were his bidding]

And that’s it. And then the Pope can do whatever he wants following the Synod.

Why the changes? Why would the very same people with the very same goals as 2014 now change the rules of the 2015 Synod so dramatically and invest all results in the will of the Pope if they did not have at least some confidence that the Pope desires the same ends?

With all respect to Mr. Keating, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that Pope Francis wants the heretical innovators to prevail. There is also good reason to suspect that the innovators have that same expectation.

None of this suggests that I know what the Pope will do. I don’t even know if the Pope knows what he will do.

Further, there is always the possibility of a Holy Spirit moment from out of the blue, for which I pray daily. But there are very good reasons to be suspect about the upcoming Synod and what the Pope wishes to prevail.

Let us keep praying for that! I suppose the rest is out of our hands.


If this is what it takes to be a modern man, no wonder Bruce Jenner wanted out October 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, Society, foolishness, asshatery, silliness, sadness, blogfoolery, family, rank stupidity, huh?, It's all about the $$$.
comments closed

So a liberal NYT writer (I repeat) has authored a piece on what it is to be a “modern man.”  The result is about what you would expect, a whimpering metrosexual ninny who knows more about nail files than he does about gaping spark plugs.

I agree with Ace.  This is pure click-bait, a deliberately obtuse effort designed to spark outrage and attract the maximum number of hits.  But I imagine their are elements of truth in it, like the author’s obsession with footwear or his inadvertant revelations of his ladylike attention to other people’s feelings.  It also reveals a man who probably spends very little time outside his precious city.

Since I strongly suspect this is at least a somewhat disingenuous effort only put forth to attract hits, I won’t link to it.  You can find it through Ace’s post if you want.  Ace took a lot of it anyway, which I’ll copy and comment on:

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small. [My wife would probably want to go meet with the priest if I started buying shoes for her]

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch. [Fillet’s are not known for their fat.  You mean strip or sirloin?]

6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night. [Rock on, superdad!]

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door. [WTF?!??  Who is obsessive enough to care? I’m sure they’re Coke Zero, anyway]

8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.  [Well, aren’t we a dandy?  Can you see all us little people from up there, perched on your lofty heights?]

9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day. [Yeah, well, I try to teach my kids something every day, too.  I gave my second oldest daughter (try having 6) a lecture on the GULAG system yesterday.]

10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away. [You show ’em, tiger. I pray you never have a son]

11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will. [Well we agree on one thing]

12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out. [I’m sitting here, mouth agape.  Did I just read that, as a DEFINITION OF MANHOOD?!?!?]

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords. [Get you a pair of Red Wings and maybe you’ll put a little peach fuzz on]

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away. [Yeah, well, I lie closer to the door but I also have two guns within arm’s length.  I win.]

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped? [These are not the balls you’re looking for]

18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry. [How about the decent man?]

20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield. [Well, we now know who the “man” in the family is]

23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time). [I prefer John Wayne. Just watched The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance again. What a film!  Talk about men!  Lee Marvin was a MAN]

24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it. [I am astonished at this man’s bravery.  How he shames the men who fought and won WWII]

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will. [Better pray he never runs across an un-modern criminal who carries one.  Me, I think a man ought to own 5 or 10]

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

Oh I give up.  Definitely click bait, but sheesh, how pathetic can you be?

If this is a man, Bruce Jenner didn’t lose much by pretending to be a woman, does he?

US undertaking unprecedented influx of immigration October 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, demographics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

It’s always a bit of a fallacy to extend present trends far into the future, because there are many reasons why things could change, but given that the United States continues to ride an unprecedented 45 year wave of extraordinary levels of illegal immigration, there is not much reason to conclude that the trend will suddenly reverse, unless there the mass public dissatisfaction with this ongoing trend should finally move the political, cultural, and economic leadership of this country to act.  Nevertheless, if trends hold, the United States will, in 7-8 years, surpass the highest percentage of immigrants in the country in its entire (by then) 250 year history:

The United States is taking in more immigrants than at any time in our history, while at the same time making little or no effort to assimilate them. No one can know what the consequences of this experiment will be. This chart, created by the Center for Immigration Studies from Census Bureau data, plots the number of immigrants living in the U.S. and their share of the population, from 1900 to 2014 and projected through 2060. As of last year, the U.S. was home to a record 42.4 million immigrants, legal and illegal, representing 13.3% of the nation’s population.


* In addition to immigrants, there were 16.2 million U.S.-born minor (<18) children with at least one immigrant parent in 2014, for a total of 58.6 million immigrants and their children. Immigrants and their minor children now account for more than one in six U.S. residents.

* Mexico had by far the largest immigrant population in the country, with 11.7 million legal and illegal Mexican immigrants living in the United States in 2014.

Indeed, at present, 1 in 8 Mexican nationals now resides in the United States.  Talk about unprecedented.

This nation is being radically changed.  If trends do hold, any idea of the Republicans or any other conservative party holding power (Presidency + at least one House of Congress) come 2030 or so is literal insanity.  Hispanics and all other immigrants vote democrat/left wing about 4:1.  Their children do the same, the pattern does not begin to change until the 3rd or 4th generation, and even that is somewhat doubtful.  Add another 10-15 million voters of that bent and you have the makings of a permanent democrat majority.

In a sense, there is a delicious irony playing out, if you have some knowledge of the history of the United States treatment of Mexico and much of Latin America.  We had things totally our way for about 200 years, but no longer.  This can be traced directly back to the collapse in US birth rates, which has created at least some justification for the influx of illegal worker bees to replace those never born here.  The US quite frankly has royally screwed over Mexico on numerous occasions, from the invasion of 1848-9 that took away almost half of Mexico’s former land area, to the deliberate, purposeful infiltration of the Mexican political and cultural system by US interests, planting masonry and liberalism in a deeply traditional country and instigating most of the dire persecutions the Church has experienced there.  In a sense, we’ve sown the wind, and are in the process of reaping the whirlwind.  If these Hispanics would somehow remain devout Catholics and work to instill a Catholic culture in this country, I’d be much more supportive of this literal human flood, but most fall away, or are already extremely weak, worldly Catholics formed by the disastrously bad Church in Latin America, when they come here.

Completely, totally related – the average full-time male employee in the United States makes less today than he did in 1970:

he typical man with a full-time job–the one at the statistical middle of the middle–earned $50,383 last year, the Census Bureau reported this week.

The typical man with a full-time job in 1973 earned $53,294, measured in 2014 dollars to adjust for inflation.

You read that right: The median male worker who was employed year-round and full time earned less in 2014 than a similarly situated worker earned four decades ago. And those are the ones who had jobs.

Would you like fries with that?

Two videos – everything wrong with modern art, Abby Johnson destroys Cecile Richards October 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Abortion, Society, scandals, foolishness, sadness, sickness, Art and Architecture, horror, error, contraception.
comments closed

I like this video on all the problems with modern (and post-modern) art.  The abandonment of artistic standards has led to the near total collapse of the production of quality, timeless art.  I think it also emblematic of the decadence and moral corruption of the West, that tacky, cheap, boring, unskillful, offensive, and just plain crap that my 3rd grader could better is now promoted as “fine art.”  Give me a break:

A couple of things – do you remember the movie “Dead Poet’s Society?”  There is a pivotal scene that repeats itself, having to do with a textbook that teaches a means of “rating” the relative merits of different poems.  The new liberal teacher, played by Robin Williams, is horribly offended at this notion, believing that poetry is so sublime it is beyond any kind of ratings or metrics.  He teaches his students to rip that section of the textbook out.  Later on, this becomes sort of his triumph.

But is that really right? Are there not means by which various poets and poems could be rated against each other?  Is writing in a very technical meter, and pulling it off with rhyme, rhythm, and deep meaning, a greater achievement than a few lines scrawled in a haiku?  Is the Illiad greater than some of EE Cummings later trash?  Does Shakespeare not trump the contemporary schlock called poetry we are dished up?  Or Blake or Wordsworth or Coleridge, for that matter?

The same applies to the visual arts.  It is perhaps true that the governing academies of the late 19th century had become a bit too rigid and stale, but throwing off ALL restraint and ANY founding principles has led art down the garbage drain of boring, thoughtless, derivative trash.  And I think it right to cast a bit of blame at the Impressionists on this, because they started the revolution, even though their own works were great achievements in their own right.

Second video, kind of boring but a for-the-record type entry, Abby Johnson obliterates Cecile Richards.  I’m quite certain my sophomore daughter could do so even more thoroughly, but she’ll never have the cache of having worked at Planned Butcherhood:

Meh: Cecile Richards, head of an organization responsible for tens of millions of murders (for profit), lies.  Shocking, I know.

A couple of what the heck videos.  There is so little footage of the incredibly charismatic Gram Parsons.  Here is one of the better bits.  Groovy man.  Somebody please pin Chris Hillman to the ground and shave his head, sheesh.

From the same shoot in support of the first Flying Burrito Brother album.  Such a shame Gram couldn’t put together more than about 6 consecutive clean months the last 10 years of his life.  When he did wow was he prodigiously talented. [FAIR WARNING – GRAM TOOK THE IDEA OF A “NUDIE SUIT” A BIT TOO FAR]:

Heckuva song:


Is the report that the world financial system force PBXVI’s abdication real, or hyperbole? October 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I instantly saw the report come out on Tuesday from a French source alleging that the evil American globalist financial power had somehow forced Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication by freezing assets at the Vatican bank.  Here is the report below, translated by Google:

“Few know what SWIFT (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is: in theory, is a global “clearing house”, uniting 10,500 banks in 215 countries. In fact, is the most occult and sole center of American-globalist financial power, a bastion of blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of political and economic espionage (to the detriment especially for us Europeans) and the means by which the most feared global finance breaks the legs of states that do not obey. …

“‘When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.

“‘There was a blackmail come from who knows where, through SWIFT, exercised on Benedict XVI. The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church.’

This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have been able to exchange for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state ‘terrorist’, but worse — because note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ‘are not excluded from SWIFT’ and continue to be able to make international transactions — and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions — in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had been blocked.

The Church of Benedict could not ‘neither sell nor buy’; its own economic life was counted in hours.”


So my initial inclination was to think this was all a bit histrionic, especially the typically European hyperbole over (often European-dominated) international institutions like SWIFT and of course the cruel hand of the American Dollar.

HOWEVER, I started looking through some dates on these matters, and things lined up shockingly well.  The Vatican Bank lost access to all electronic monetary transfers on Jan. 1, 2013, ostensibly due to failure to implement Euro-mandated reforms regarding protections against money laundering.  For years, PBXVI had been trying to reform the Vatican Bank, or “IOR,” without total success.  As 2012 melted into 2013, his reform process came to a standstill with the forcing out of IOR head Gotto Tedeschi, the man hand-picked by Benedict to reform the bank.  Tedeschi seems to have been nothing but a fall guy, facing a number of false allegations after his dismissal and beating them all in court (even Italian court, which is really saying something).  It appears his force out was part of the broader struggle to undermine and foil every attempt PBXVI made at reform at every level.  Tedeschi was simply an early casualty in the war against Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone.

SO, the day after Pope Benedict announces his abdication, voila!, the ban on electronic monetary transfers/credit card transactions is suddenly lifted!  That seems an enormous coincidence, but who am I to judge?

Anyway, I see Louie Verrecchio has written a long piece on this subject with far more detail than I can give, so if you really want to dig deep into it, you can read his post.  I really tend to think the Vatileaks scandal, the 300 page dossier on sodomite clergy in the Diocese of Rome/Vatican (how quickly that has been forgotten), and the constant machinations of the modernist cardinals like Daneels, Kasper, McCarrick, et. al., were probably more significant factors, but this may have been the icing on the cake to convince Pope Benedict to realize that his pontificate was being ground to a halt, with ongoing damage to the Church (though not so much damage as since!).  I still think there is a missing link, which Rorate Caeli has referred to, regarding a certain turncoat cardinal, ostensibly an ally/protege of Benedict, who convinced him that abdication was a safe course as a friendly, like-minded successor was assured.

I do think the many revelations we’ve seen in the past 12-18 months do make clear (to this writer, anyway) that Pope Benedict abdicated under duress. That is to say, the stated reason (health) was perhaps only one part of a very complex picture, featuring attacks on his pontificate from every possible angle.

President of Ghana’s Bishop’s Conference: “Homosexuals go to hell” September 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, manhood, paganism, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Well, we’re seeing a few examples of Christians willing to call a spade a spade today. First it was the Russian Orthodox Church calling the war against ISIS a holy war, and now the President of the Ghanian Catholic Bishop’s Conference says that practicing, unrepentant sodomites will go to hell:

Bishop Joseph Osei Bonsu of Konongo-Mampong in Ghana disagreed with the notion that aberrosexuals [German site Katholisches’ term for sodomites/those of perverse inclinations] could go to heaven. The President of the Ghanaian Bishops’ Conference, who is descended from the ancient royal family of the Ashanti, is of a quite different opinion.

Homosexuality, said Bishop Osei Bonsu  was “not natural.”  The assertion  that some could already be born as homosexuals, was placed  by the Ghanaian prelate in the realm of “political myth-making”. They had been invented to agitate for “gay rights” and to justify one’s actions. [Absolutely correct. To date, there is absolutely zero evidence for a genetic component to perverse proclivities, but the lie has been repeated often enough that the vast majority of the soft-headed people today accept it unquestioningly, as an article of faith.  In fact, there is actually much more evidence that these inclinations stem almost entirely from environment, with poor relationships with their fathers being almost the constant factor in these afflicted souls]

“The Bible tells us in the Letter to the Romans, chapter one, clearly, that those who practice homosexuality and those who  support gay marriage political, religious or not, will be guilty before God.” 

“Gays, lesbians, liars and child molesters and others do not get into heaven, and the Bible says that very clearly. There is not a man who says, and not a bishop, that they do not go to heaven, but the Bible. It is the Holy Scriptures that says that they do not go to heaven,” said Msgr. Osei-Bonsu [Thus, the authority of this determination does not rest with men, but with God, who through inspired and inerrant Scripture hath revealed this unto us]

Just what does Romans 1 have to say about sodomy?  It could hardly be more clear, and even more, seems to forecast a day when men, rejecting God’s law, would pretend that this perversion was actually normal and acceptable:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, or give thanks: but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened:

22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

23 *And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.

24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, *to uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

27 And, in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [St. Paul is referring directly to the Canaanites and their perverse practices in support of their satanic religion, but he is also speaking of all of those who give themselves over to such unnatural lusts]

28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge; God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient,

29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.

It is frightening the degree to which St. Paul describes our culture today.  “They liked not to have God in their knowledge; [so] God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient [or natural]”……..”They, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.”

There’s a lot of folks in a lot of trouble, spiritually, and the truly frightening thing is, there is almost no one to tell them what danger their souls are in.

I just want to say one more brief thing: good for Bishop Bonsu for teaching the Truth with charity.  But really, that’s not heroic virtue, that’s his minimum duty as a prelate in Holy Mother Church.  The only reason it seems heroic is because so very few of his brother bishops are willing to stick their necks out and proclaim the truth in that manner. That is, so many other manifestly fail in their duties, it seems heroic when a bishop actually fulfills it. So pray like mad for our bishops, which I know so many of you already do.  But apparently there is still much to be done.

IT’S V-G DAY! Pope Francis proclaims it’s ok for government employees to say no to pseudo-sodo-marriages! September 29, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, silliness, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

A little late, one might think.  While he had numerous golden opportunities and the most high-profile platforms available, Pope Francis said little or nothing about pseudo-sodo-marriage or the rising persecution in this country, save for some bland, nebulous statements regarding religious liberty (which could have been the erroneous secular understanding of same, for all we know).  But on the flight back from North America to Rome sweet Rome, Pope Francis finally gave a sterling, powerful, full-throated defense of those who, in conscience, simply cannot go along with the sexular pagan agenda and specifically, perform government functions that require them to pretend that two people of the same sex can be married.  Hallelujah!  We’re saved:

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said…..

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

“And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right,” he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.'”

WOW!  Couldn’t be clearer, could it?!?  In fact, I’m quite certain this is the first whopping step that will see the steady roll back – nay, complete crushing – of the forces of sodomy in the world at large!  I mean what possible rejoinder could there be to “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure” and “And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”  I understand ARCUS and New Ways Ministry are considering shutting down after this clear, unequivocal condemnation of sodomy and bold assertion of the Truth and rights of the Church as revealed by God Almighty.  Heck, they’ve probably closed up shop already.

The Pope just utterly blew away the moral relativism of the satanic left by pointing it out to them in the last sentence. I’m sure they are even now in sackcloth and ashes, bewailing the fact that their “might makes right” modus operandi has now been exposed for all the world to see.

OK……I’m being a bit smart.  But sorry, this is way too little and way too late.  Instead of pointing to conscientious objection, Pope Francis could have just as easily, and much more powerfully, said that objection to pseudo-sodo-marriage and all the rest is an absolute right because it is founded in the Truth, while this fake marriage and all the other atrocities are evil and morally wrong.  But instead he basically begged permission for some to be excused from the sexular pagan zeitgeist.  It is rather nice that he at least recognizes that what the sexular left proposes is a structure entirely based on marxist power dynamics (power = right/morality), but his language is again so nebulous and weak that a) the point evades most people and b) it fails to condemn it in the stark terms demanded by the severity of the situation.

Context also comes into play.  The same words said in front of Congress would have had a lot more impact than on the flight home to Rome, almost while running away, as it were.  Throughout the 10 day visit to both the US and Cuba, Pope Francis had any number of golden opportunities to really strike blows in favor of the Church, the Truth, and the good of souls, but, a few relatively innocuous exceptions aside, singularly failed to do so.  He seemed much more interested in stressing his political program (which happens to align with the desires of the self-anointed, false* elite in both countries) and in not making any serious waves against the global powers that be.  It was  quite the opposite of visits from PBXVI and PSJPII, both of whom, at least periodically, would afflict the powerful of the world.  But I don’t think too many are surprised by this at this point.

And, if you really didn’t get it V-G = Victory over Gay, like V-J for Victory over Japan

* – I have no animus against an elite in any society, properly understood and construed.  I wouldn’t say I’m a monarchist or a devotee of an aristocratic system, per se’, but I do believe there is a proper role for an elite in any society, be it the Church, a locality, a nation, or the world. But such elites must be dedicated, and this is critical, to the assertion of the common good, which can only be rightly done in concert with revealed Truth, that is, the Doctrine of the Faith.  The vast majority of self-anointed elites today – and they do anoint themselves, whether it be by riches, media presence, media stardom, or academic credentials – not only do very little for the common good (their self-promoting PR stunts aside), but work for the positive derangement of the moral order and the promotion of what is best for souls. They are, by and large, thoroughgoing promoters of the lies of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and are not at all deserving of our respect or admiration, nor their self-anointed roles as society’s “betters” and arbiters of cultural standards.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 541 other followers