jump to navigation

Some stinging rebukes of Laudato Si and the Vatican climate conference July 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Christendom, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.

Via Pertinacious Papist, a very harsh analysis of Laudato Si by Maureen Mullarkey, who normally writes at First Things (but given the rebuke First Things received for daring to ask critical questions of the April Climate Conference from Vatican officials, perhaps they were gun shy to print this?), along with some videos of those awful, horrible, science-hating, utterly unreasonable “deniers” from the Heartland Institute, who everyone knows is just totally in the pocket of Koch Brothers and Chesapeake Energy (not).  First up, Mullarkey, who, I would say, pulls no punches (my emphasis and comments):

Subversion of Christianity by the spirit of the age has been a hazard down the centuries. The significance of “Laudato Si” lies beyond its stated concern for the climate. Discount obfuscating religious language. The encyclical lays ground to legitimize global government and makes the church an instrument of propaganda—a herald for the upcoming United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference in Paris…….

…..The document’s catalogue of distortions and factual errors are those of the climate-change establishment swallowed whole. There is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, no consensus on the role of human activity in any of the environmental phenomena cited. [All true. But do you notice how much the rhetoric and actions of the “climate change” activists mirrors that of the “same-sex marriage” activists?  Of course, they are both part of the left which has always used brutal rhetorical tactics, but even by that standard they are both amazingly excessive in their attempts to utterly discredit ALL opposition as completely unfounded and simply bigoted or possessed of evil ulterior motives. Thus the reaction of the Vatican apparatus to mild questions raised over the climate change conference were very troubling for what it revealed: a thoroughgoing leftist mindset blinded by ideology to the point that there could be no other possible legitimate viewpoint, and any who don’t immediately jump completely on board could be nothing less than pretty much pure evil.  That’s very disconcerting to see from curial officials, even by post-conciliar standards] 

……Enter Jorge Bergolio. Informed objection to the pope’s roster of pending disasters is widely available—but also, at this point, moot. Reducing greenhouse gases has just been deemed a religious obligation. What should concern us now is the ecclesial climate that yielded this extravagant rant.

There is nothing to admire in its assault on market economies, technological progress, and—worse—on rationality itself. Bergolio, whom we know now as Pope Francis, is a limited man. His grasp of economics is straitjacketed by the Peronist culture in which he was raised. “Laudato Si” descends to garish, left-wing boilerplate. The pope is neither a public intellectual, theologian, nor a man of science. Yet he impersonates all three. [Wow. I can see why First Things shied away. Please try not to fly off the handle too much in response to this piece, but I do think the bit concerning Peronist provincialism is spot on.]

…….The document is steeped in Third Worldism. The imagined plight of the planet is the work of a rapacious West. Ignoring the role of corruption, mismanagement, and counter-productive ideology in failed or deteriorating states, it gives a ruinous pass to Third World oligarchs and despots. [And also to the far worse environmental record of virtually every communist state, including China up to this very day!  The Soviet Union possessed thousands of square miles of landscape completely devoid of life, due to the communist’s indifference towards the environment, an indifference which led to whole regions being polluted to levels where nothing still grows to this day. And yet Cardinal Maradiaga proclaimed capitalism as the sole source of environmental degradation.  This is nothing but ideology]

Bergolio’s resentment of First World prosperity is of a piece with his simplistic understanding of the “financial interests” and “financial resources” he condemns. He nurses a Luddite yen to roll back the Industrial Revolution for a fantasy of pre-industrial harmony between man and a virginal Mother Earth. He demonizes the very means that have raised millions out of poverty, and that remain crucial in continuing to raise standards of living among the poor.

Take no comfort from “Laudato Si’s” restatements of the Catholic Church’s traditional positions on the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, and rejection of abortion. In this context, orthodoxy and pious expression serve a rancid purpose. They are a Trojan horse, a vehicle for insinuating surrender to pseudo-science and the eco-fascism that requires it. [A very harsh assessment. Do you think it fair?]

………Papal suspicion of private property and infatuation with a “theology of poverty” lend sanctimony to the class antagonism hibernating in the church’s “preferential option for the poor,” a problematic concept derived from Liberation Theology. (Problematic because the promise of the resurrection, the ineradicable core of Christianity, is not directed to a class, but to individuals.) [Now that’s a very interesting point, and could easily deserve a post or more to analyze and discuss on its own, but while the Church has always had enormous concern for the poor, I do think an ideology has developed in the Church over the past few decades that takes that concern in problematic directions.  I don’t want to get too much into that side issue now, though] 

It is reasonable to think that Bergolio is a greater friend to poverty than to the poor. [ouch]

A strain of inadvertent comedy runs through “Laudato Si.” Il Papa [double ouch, a reference to Mussolini, Il Duce] assumes the posture of governess to the world—Mary Poppins on the Throne of Peter. Who else could align the magisterium of the Catholic Church with exhortation to turn off the air conditioner, shut the lights, and be sure to recycle? For this Christ died: to atone for petroleum products. And for carbon emissions from private cars carrying only one or two people. [I guess I shall be damned for all eternity for my 30 mile commute to work each day.  And all so that we could live very near our TLM parish.  What a horrible Catholic I am, when I used to be 30 miles from the TLM and only 4 miles from work!]

While Christians in the birthplaces of Christianity are crucified and beheaded for their faith, young girls are kidnapped and sold for the price of a pack of cigarettes, our encyclical whines: “In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.” [Yeah, I’d call that a whine]

There is more in that letter-to-the-editor vein: “Neighbourhoods, even those recently built, are congested, chaotic and lacking in sufficient green space. We were not meant to be inundated by cement, asphalt, glass and metal, and deprived of physical contact with nature.” [this is actually a point where Pope Francis may oppose most American leftist urban planners, who want every city to be like New York with hundreds of thousands crammed into high rise apartments with no personal lawns or terrible, horrible single family homes.]

Gospel quotations are bent to serve. In the chapter “The Gaze of Jesus,” we read this: “98. Jesus lived in full harmony with creation, and others were amazed: ‘What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?’ (Mt 8:27).” [Douay Reims has the 8:26-7 as: “And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, of ye of little faith?  Then rising up, he commanded the winds and the sea, and there came a great calm.  But the men wondered, saying: What manner of man is this, for the winds and sea obey Him?”  This has nothing to do with the Christ as a kumbayah tree hugging nature communer]

That passage from Matthew has not a thing to do with harmony. Rather, it tells of Jesus’dominion over nature. It is a statement of authority, of lordship over the natural order. The verse complements one from John: “He that cometh from above is above all.” By abolishing the scriptural intuition of power and might, the truncated quotation makes Jesus a screen on which to project a chimera of cosmic equality…….

……Resurgent Islam and the spread of Sharia are the church’s enemies, not oil, coal, and gas. None are poorer than those who live, despised, in the path of ISIS. Where, then, is the encyclical calling for the conversion of Islam away from its murderous climate of hatred? Instead, the Vicar of Christ calls all the world—intending primarily the West—to “ecological conversion.” [Which conversion has, in fact, already happened. As the founder of Greenpeace noted on leaving the organization in 1986, all the reasonable things – ending nuclear testing, dramatically improving real air quality, not made up “carbon dioxide” problems, safe disposal of toxic waste, etc., etc. have already been done, or are at least constantly attended to.  He also noted that to justify their existence and their patent hatred of capitalism (and, not coincidentally, Christianity), the radical environmental left has to go to more and more extreme lengths.  Thus carbon dioxide becomes the world’s greatest threat, even though it is a totally natural product produced far, far more by the earth and normal life than it is by man. There is always room for improvement, but basically castigating an entire economic system and mode of life as fundamentally evil – on an environmental basis! – is much less Catholic than it is a political ideology]

Intellectual and moral confusion of such magnitude is a judgment on the ecclesial culture that produced it and the popular culture that consents to it.

———-End Quote———–

If you think some of the above was over the top, don’t go read the whole thing.  I would say Mullarkey got a pretty good head of steam going.

Now, real quick, because this post is already very long, the presentation made by Elizabeth Yore at the Heartland Institute’s colloquy in Rome, held at the same time as the Vatican climate change PR event conference:

I’ll close with this: one of the most damaging trends in Catholic catechesis/theological study over the past 50 years has been the tendency to radically mix up the prudential and the dogmatic.  Issuing an encyclical on a subject that by definition is largely outside the special charism of the Pope is only a furtherance of this very destructive trend.  I have long lamented how no one pays any attention to what the USCCB says because they issue 50 press releases every day on prudential subjects far outside the bishop’s competency – farm bills, telecommunications regulations, all manner of economic policies, etc, while they very, very rarely pronunciate on those matters that ARE their competency and in fact their duty as shepherds: moral matters and the Doctrine of the Faith.  For the most part the papacy, with some glaring exceptions, had avoided this tendency but it seems it has now adopted it with abandon.  Making prudential matters out to be somehow dogmatic is only going to turn some people off, and, far worse, massively confuse people as to what is actually required belief to be Catholic, and what is not.  We now have leftists attacking orthodox Catholics for not being on board the great climate change hoax, which is simply ludicrous but we instantly saw how this encyclical gave much more ammunition to those who want to turn the Church into just one more secularist, left-wing NGO.  More on that later, God willing.

And this was so exceptional I went with it though I am trying to avoid any non-synodal related coverage of this Papacy for the rest of the summer.

The plural of anecdote may be anecdotes, but this is one heckuva revealing one July 1, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Society, scandals, foolishness, sadness, sickness, disaster, persecution, error, sexual depravity, secularism, catachesis, self-serving, paganism.

Enough anecdotes……hundreds, maybe thousands……..do eventually become that most sacrosanct of terms in our science-beguiled society: “data.”  But for now this is just one anecdote that confirms what a whole bunch of DATA reveals, which data only reinforces what we already know from the natural law, Scripture, and Tradition: perverse couplings are inherently unstable, immoral, and prone to bad endings.  That one in fifty lasts more than a few years is far more anecdotal than the reality of how the vast, vast majority of these relationships go.

So what is one great new benefit of the Supreme Court imposed state recognition of pseudo-sodomarriage?  When their relationships almost inevitably fail, the divorce is now much, much easier:

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. – While many were celebrating Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that now allows same-sex couples to marry in Tennessee, a smaller group was breathing a quiet sigh of relief for what it means for them — the right to divorce a same-sex spouse.

A former Clarksville woman filed what is believed to be the first paperwork in the state seeking a divorce from a same-sex partner. Her Complaint for Divorce was filed in Montgomery County Chancery Court just before the courthouse closed Friday afternoon.

The couple married in Shelbyville, Indiana, on June 4, 2014, but before Friday’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Tennessee, they could not seek a divorce here. To terminate their marriage, one or the other would have had to move to a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and establish residency — a process that usually takes at least six months, said Nashville Attorney Ryan Johnson of Turner Law Offices.

He and Robert J. Turner are representing Taramarie Gulledge, who now lives in Kingston Springs but lived with her wife and their almost 3-year-old daughter in Clarksville until the couple split up in May.

My goodness!  They were “married” for a whole 11 months!  What a great witness of heroic virtue and joyfully willed sacrifice!

But wait, there’s more!  The complaint hints at promiscuity in one of the partners and possible domestic violence!  Short duration, promiscuity, and violence……it’s a trifecta of core characteristics of these kinds of immoral couplings!  The only thing missing is substance abuse/unresolved mental health problems.

And naturally, there’s a child in the mix!  For the sake of the child, this “divorce” could actually be quite a good thing, provided whoever gains custody doesn’t further descend into this lifestyle.

Yes, I’m possibly being a bit over the top and taking a harsh view of this sordid affair, but statistics from European countries where this kind of “marriage” has been recognized by the state for years indicates that these relationships rarely last.  The data shows that the average duration of a “marriage” between two women in the Low Countries and Scandanavia is just under 3 years.  It’s almost as if the “marriage” is really about the wedding, a great big party and a desperately craved affirmation that never quite stills that deep ache in their heart that comes from living an unnatural, perverse lifestyle.

State-recognition won’t solve anything, it will not make these people feel any better about themselves, and once that realization dawns en masse, then they’ll really start looking for a scapegoat, and the goats will be me and you.  As Reilly notes, unable to face their own immorality, they will cast about looking for others to blame, seeing in the few remaining opponents to their immorality the source of their inability to ever be not just happy, but even at peace. This will be a totally false attribution, but we’ve already seen it in operation many times.

Of course, even should they be totally successful in not only driving believing Christians from the public square, or, by some calamity, even manage to convert everyone to their irrational, immoral ethos, it won’t make the slightest bit of difference in how they feel.  Oh yes there will be parties and some may even have a somewhat lasting sense of triumph, but ultimately, they will end up exactly where they are now and have always been, mired in a lifestyle that is unnatural, immoral, and undignified, and that small still voice, which never quite goes away no matter how many partners you have or how many drugs you take, will still confront them with the reality of the evil of what they do.  It is that voice they flee from, and in that flight they seek to tear down all the possible reminders of their sin.  But you can’t overcome nature and you can’t kill God, so the voice will remain, the only question is how much damage will be done in the interim, both to themselves and to everyone else.

It’s a Greek tragedy playing out on a culture-wide scale, with the “hero’s” great flaw preventing them from seeing that their Odyssean work will only destroy themselves and those around them.  The more I contemplate this matter, I tend not to become angrier, though there is enough of that, but I get sad.  Each one of these people was created as a soul of infinite worth and dignity, and yet they have mired themselves in the worst filth, and with their power and hubris, they have convinced many, many people to pretend along with them that they are in fact good and even holy!  It is the lies that make me angry, the lies that have the stench of death and the sulfur of hell.  But in the individual souls I only feel great sadness, as for the women above and especially their poor child, who never had a say in the matter and will likely grow up badly damaged as a result, as a good number of children raised in such disordered environments have already attested.

Such a shame.  And it will get much, much worse before it gets better.

In the US today, lies trump truth June 30, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.

One of the inevitable, almost certainly pre-written pieces that came out in the wake of last week’s disastrous decision to force legal recognition of pseudo-sodomarriage on all 50 states – directly contradicting the express will of 31 states and almost as many state constitutional amendments – was one having to do with the alleged superiority of such immoral “unions.”  That someone could make such a claim with a straight face is a sure indication of the unprecedented depths to which the morals of this nation have descended.  Unfortunately, we will likely face such ludicrous claims frequently, so we must be armed with reasoned analysis to refute them totally and forcefully.  I will fisk some of the claims below for  your reference:

it’s worth keeping in mind the findings of psychologists John and Julie Gottman … gay couples have an edge[.] … [G]ay couples have a healthier fighting style than straight couples. [Perhaps that’s because they have so much practice.  Milo Yiannopoulos, an open sodomite, reports that nearly half of all lesbians have been assaulted at least once by their partners.  These rates are stratospheric compared to the general population. Perhaps that is why lesbian partnerships almost never last more than 3 years]

……The Gottmans give an example from a workshop they held with gay and lesbian couples. They gave couples some exercises to complete and the men went through the exercises much more quickly than the women. While the lesbians felt that there was not enough time to complete the exercise properly—they wanted more time sharing answers among one another and with the group—the men wanted the exact opposite.  [All the claims in this piece come from one pair of researchers who use non-statistically valid methods and self-reporting schemes.  It is worthless analytically, even as it assaults reason violently]

About 60 percent of gay men, one study found, have had sex outside of their marriage and 44 percent of them said that they had done so with the blessing of their partner. By comparison, about 14 percent of straight men and women reported having sex outside of marriage… [The numbers are actually a lot higher than that, with nearly 90% of male couples requiring an “open relationship” to last more than a couple of years.  The median number of lifetime partners for a sodomite of 20 years experience is in the hundreds, with many in the thousands]

… given how strong the male sex drive is, it’s unrealistic to expect men to remain monogamous for life. [This is just utter balderdash, billions of men over the course of history have managed it, this is nothing but special pleading for base behavior] Having occasional trysts outside of marriage helps gay men keep the marriage together. [A relationship founded on promiscuity is no marriage] The problem is that when individuals have an orgasm, they release a hormone called oxytocin, which makes people emotionally attached and bonded to another person. “So there is attachment taking place through sex,” he said. [My goodness, incredibly they admit there even could be a downside.  But I would hazard, based on the behavior of my next door neighbor, there is little attachment going on, but a whole lot of drug and alcohol fueled screaming and yelling at 3 and 4 in the morning.  His house is the sole source of police responses on our street, and they happen with some regularly.  His charming response to complaints (not mine)? Go —- yourself.]

Lesbians suffer from the opposite problem. Rather than having too much sex, they seem to be having too little. The term “lesbian bed death,” coined by the sociologist Pepper Schwartz, is a now-famous descriptor for how little sex lesbian women report having.

Indeed, the vast majority of lesbian relationships become completely platonic after the first 3-6 months.  That’s another point that Yiannopoulos included.  These highly disordered relationships tend to feature a great deal of obsessive-compulsive behavior that tends towards the violence seen above.  In order to get a new thrill and re-initiate their perverse behaviors, gomorrists tend to seek out new partners.  So again, we see how the behavior of these morally lost soul has been sanitized and re-cast in terms to make them palatable to the majority, by completely misrepresenting how they actually conduct their lives.

Which gets back to a point I raised two weeks ago, which is that gomorrists admit of having far more male partners!!! than women unafflicted with this perverse lust do.  I personally find in this fact very strong evidence that this lifestyle is far more about conscious choice than it is anything else.  All this data has been carefully buried, of course, in service of this most demonic of social revolutions.

I should remind readers that the Talmud, one of the major sources of Jewish belief, states that God unleashed the Flood that destroyed almost all life on earth when the people became so deranged they began to “marry” people of the same sex.  I don’t want readers to feel I am being overly negative, but I am trying to impress on folks the unbelievably dire situation that faces us.

I do strongly recommend reading books like Mexican Martyrdom and The Autobiography of a Hunted Priest if you want some idea of what is coming our way.  Books on more recent persecutions are probably superior to older ones since they incorporate some of the invidious advances that have been made in the persecutor’s arsenal.  The Last Crusade is another good source.

I will try to do a post on recommendations for sources like this at another time.

The problem of the modern papal encyclical June 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Great piece by Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam, as usual.  I have to heartily second his sentiments……problematic papal encyclicals did not start with Laudato Si.  Encyclicals have grown increasingly long-winded and off-topic for decades.  The problem really exploded after the Second Vatican Council, when the clarity of the prior Magisterium was replaced by a nebulous hopefulness and a subliminal sense of doubt.  Encyclicals no longer simply declare the Faith as they used to, they seem to beg the world permission to be Catholic while hoping to possibly convince a few to come along.

That’s the gist of Boniface’s point, and I think it’s a very important one (my emphasis and comments):

Modern encyclicals are a curious thing. The encyclical developed from the papal bull. The bull was a primarily juridical instrument used as a means of promulgating an authoritative judgment of the Holy See, either in matters of doctrine or governance. These could often be very short; we marvel today at reading something like Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam (1302) – which famously declared that submission to the Roman pontiff was necessary for salvation – and is only a page long! Papal bulls in the old days knew what they wanted to say and they said it. [Dang right.  And they did that, because they had the confidence of their convictions, and it showed in so much of what the Church did for centuries]
The modern encyclical developed out of the Enlightenment period as the popes realized that broader literacy and intellectual challenges to Christian revelation necessitated using the papal bull as a means of educating the flock on Catholic teaching, and hence by the time of the French Revolution the bull had begun to transform into the encyclical, the teaching letters of the modern pontiffs.
The encyclicals of the 19th and early 20th century are lucid and clear. Their purpose is to expound Catholic doctrine and defend it against modern errors, which they do very admirably. A friend recently commented to me that in thinking back on great documents like Pascendi, Quas Primas, Casti Conubii and so forth, one can immediately recall the substance of of them and the force of their arguments……….. who can easily summarize what Redemptor Hominis or Populorum Progressio are about except in the vaguest terms? [Quite.]
…….When we get to Vatican II, a noticeable change comes about. I personally attribute this to John XXIII’s famous principle from the opening of the Second Vatican Council:

“Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”

This principle has effected the manner in which the post-1965 ecclesia docens functions. Essentially, the post-Conciliar encyclical doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up. The popes have still utilized them as a means of teaching, but rather than teaching what Catholic doctrine consists of, they have increasingly become occasions for popes to explain why Catholic doctrine is what it is. [In a sort of desperate, if I make this clear enough won’t you accept it kind of way, instead of just laying down the law]

That’s not entirely a bad thing; fides quaerens intellectum, right? But somewhere along the way the popes seemed to have dropped the declarative aspect of the encyclical in the overly optimistic hope that if we could just explain our teaching to the world – just walk them through our thinking step by step – then maybe the world would accept the Church’s message. Maybe if we simply “proposed” our rationale for belief humbly instead of declaring that we “had” the truth, the world would reciprocate and enter into a “fruitful dialogue” with Christianity that would mutually enrich everybody?……
Seriously though, the problem with this approach is fourfold: (a) The world does not reject the Gospel because it has not been adequately explained. They reject it “because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil” (John 3:19). [Exactly, and that is something the Church knew for almost her entire existence with great clarity.  It knew that men are so tempted to fall, and, even more, to twist even clear beliefs into nefarious ends.  So the Church spoke with great clarity and force, and in that clarity was great charity for souls, souls who might otherwise be lost by taking a more “pastoral” approach.  How many have fallen away in the past 50 years, anyway?]

(b) Even when its has opted for explaining rather than declaring the Church’s teaching, the Church has done a poor job of it because it has chosen to explain its teachings in terms of humanist phenomenology rather than having recourse to the Church’s traditional pedagogy. [Another great point.  And more and more true, with rare exceptions, as time has gone on. Now we have two whole generations of priests who have been formed thoroughly in this humanist phenomenology, and it has affected their thinking to a great degree. Not just these priests, but almost all of us have to be very nearly de-programmed from the toxic modernist/humanist filth in which we stew in order to come to an appreciation for the Faith That Was (and shall be again).]

(c) By focusing so much on the explanation and presentation over the declaration, the Church has unwittingly given the false impression that the validity of its teachings are bound up with the force of her argumentation, a kind of false intellectualism. [That is a HUGE point.  I think it plays a very large role in much of the progressive attempts to subvert doctrine.  They think if they can come up with a better argument, the Doctrine must fall by the wayside.  We’ve seen that in so many respects when they attack the accuracy of Scripture, when they try to insinuate that the early Church somehow believed differently, etc.  Great, great point]  She feels shaky and inadequate simply saying, “Such is the voice of the Church; such is the teaching of our Faith”; she feels she must offer a humanistic centered explanation for everything – an explanation that will “suit” the needs of “contemporary man” – with the effect that her message has become completely man-centered.  [and watered down] “He taught as one who had authority” (Matt. 7:29) said the people of old about Christ; but when the Church forgets the supernatural force that stands behind her teaching and opts instead for an anthropomorphized message, she no longer “speaks with authority”, in the sense that her words lose their force. Hence people shrug at the latest papal document and move on.  [Which is only exacerbated by their length and the numerous segues into side topics, like so-called climate change]

(d) Finally, because the popes have sought for novel means to propose their teachings, encyclicals lose their strenght as teaching documents and become instead opportunities for the popes to foist their own theological or literary tastes on the Catholic people. [Ahem, Laudato Si, but also others]

———End Quote———

As is so often the case, I’ve taken most of Boniface’s post, but I left the conclusion and some additional details.  Please do go to his site once if not several times and see the rest of his post.

I’ll conclude with this: some of my best posts have been my shortest ones.  Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that.  Who besides a few specialists and hardcore believers is really going to struggle through 187 pages (nearly 100,000 words) of carping text?  I think it utterly brilliant that Unam Sanctam was one page long.  That’s the stuff of Catholic greatness, and Boniface VIII was a great pope.

Here’s a question – how many post-conciliar encyclicals aside from Humanae Vitae, have  you read cover to cover?  I’ve read a number of the pre-conciliar encyclicals but I have to admit I have never made it through one post-conciliar encyclical all the way (I may have finished Caritas in Veritate, but I’m not sure). I just get too exhausted by the effort.  Mind, I’m a guy who reads the Bible cover to cover over and over and is typically reading at least a dozen books on Saints and catechisms and general Catholicism simultaneously.  I have fought through a lot of so-so and more than a few bad books, but I simply cannot muster the strength to fight through many of these encyclicals, and I doubt I am much alone.

Pray like mad: working document for upcoming Synod pushes Kasper proposal, “gifts” of sodomy June 23, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, episcopate, error, Eucharist, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Noted fire-breathing, knuckle-dragging raddest of trad sites Whispers in the Loggia (I kid) has announced the release of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, for the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family and the Destruction of Marriage (I’m sorry, getting a bit jaded).  The text, in spite of having significant portions fail to gain the requisite approval at the Extraordinary Synod, includes the full Kasperite proposal (and goes even further in some respects), as well as the ground-laying language on sodomy which is sure to lead to an eventual push to declare sodomy no longer a sin and some kind of recognition of pretended sodo-marriages.

If you haven’t been praying like mad, now would be a very good time to do so (my emphasis and comments):

And after a second round of global consultation, it has arrived – at Roman Noon, the instrumentum laboris (baseline text) for October’s climactic Synod on the Family was released… for now, however – much like last year’s first volume – the full sequel is only available in Italian.….

……..Among other highlights, the final portion of the framework deals with the proposed changes of practice cited by their supporters as necessary for the church to better respond to families in challenging situations amid current pastoral practice.

On the assembly’s most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentum speaks of a “common accord” among the world’s bishops toward “eventual access” to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following “an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop,” and only “in situations of irreversible cohabitation.”  [No there was not “common accord.”  These texts were highly divisive.] The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned “in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions,” citing the interest of children born in a second union. On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a “decentralization” of the annulment courts and the floating of the “relevance of the personal faith” of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage. [I’ll just say it: BS.  Just as contraception was put forth by people like Charles Curran as a recourse for well-formed Catholic married couples capable of discerning fine moral points, in practice, the Church has all but abandoned preaching the evil of contraception on a regular basis, and it is used by the large majority of self-described Catholics. The same will happen with divorce, the “precise conditions” (also a feature of the initial Anglican embrace of divorce AND contraception) will disappear overnight and we’ll have mass distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to those in adulterous unions – not that such does not already occur in this country, but the point is, these bishops are tired of fighting the culture, they’re disinclined to accept perennial Church Doctrine and practice, and they are looking for an easy way out.  Period, end of sentence.]

In particular, the latter point echoes a longstanding line of the Pope’s – having quoted the impression of his predecessor in Buenos Aires, the late Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, that “half” of failed Catholic marriages there “are null” solely on the grounds of unformed faith, a papal commission formed quietly by Francis last summer is studying possible changes to the annulment process independent of the Synod itself. No timeline is set for its work. [But this is not how the Church traditionally viewed matters. The only grounds for annulments prior to the US circa 1970 were grave incapacity, failure to consummate, or evidence of marriage against one’s will.  Now in the American context, excuses are sought after the fact to annul a marriage that has, by the bishop’s demand, already failed (the bishops demand a civil divorce before an annulment can be pursued).  And of course the vast majority of the few US annulments appealed to the Roman Rota are rejected.  So something is amiss.  But it seems the desire is to apply the quite scandalous US practice to the universal Church.]

Elsewhere, three paragraphs were devoted to pastoral ministry to families “having within them a person of homosexual orientation.” While reaffirming the 2003 CDF declaration that “there exists no foundation whatsoever to integrate or compare, not even remotely, homosexual unions and the design of God for the family,” the text urges that “independent of their sexual tendency,” gays “be respected in their dignity and welcomed with sensibility and delicateness, whether in the church or society.” [While being clearly apprised of the depravity of their acts and their exclusion from the Blessed Sacrament until they repent of them, right?]

Perhaps most boldly – reflecting a key emphasis of one of the gathering’s three presidents, Cardinal Chito Tagle of Manila – the text emphasizes that “The Christian message must be announced in a language that sustains hope.

“It is necessary to adopt a clear and inviting communication [style],” the instrumentum reads, one that is “open, which doesn’t moralize, judge, nor [aim to] control, and bears witness to the moral teaching of the church, while at the same time remaining sensible to the situations of each person.” [In spite of the lip service to Doctrine, who really believes this will not mean in practice the complete abandonment of the moral doctrine of the Faith, at least as it relates to the groinal issues so sacred to the left?]

Along the same lines, the theme of “mercy” – the core of the extraordinary Holy Year conceived by Francis and opening in December  [including non-ordained ministers of mercy empowered to somehow, I know not how, remit all sins and even the temporal punishment stemming therefrom, to, more or less, “re-baptize” people]  – runs pointedly throughout the document, with the term cited over 30 times. Arguably in a hand-showing of the Pope’s intent, the Synod’s conclusions will be entrusted to the pontiff for him to decide upon, with the results likely to emerge sometime in mid-2016, squarely in the midst of the Jubilee Year he’s chartered.

All that said, especially given the topic’s place at the core of the church’s long polarization on family issues, one word was especially conspicuous by its absence: “contraception.”  [The Japanese term is mokosatsu – to kill with silence]

———-End Quote———–

All I can say is to again exhort readers to as much prayer and penance as possible.  The writing is clearly on the wall.  As Rollo Tomasi Rocco Palmo at Whispers intimates, it is more that slightly significant that the final papal interpretation and enactment of the Synod’s efforts will be introduced at the high point of the Holy Year of Mercy.  All the pieces point in a direction quite opposite to a Humanae Vitae moment, where Pope Paul VI, contrary to the recommendations he had received and his own inclinations, was compelled to repeat the perennial Church judgment of all  contraceptive-use as inherently immoral.

But the indications at that time similarly pointed to a change in Church Doctrine, and that somehow did not happen, much to the consternation of the progressives of the world.  We can only pray the Holy Ghost will intervene again if necessary and insure the doctrinal cohesiveness of the Faith.  Speaking from a human point of view, things don’t look too hopeful right now.  Who knows, maybe the bishops will surprise us again and not approve the more problematic aspects.  Our God is a God of surprises, we’re told, right?

Whither heresy? Pope begs forgiveness of Waldensian sect June 22, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

If one judged by the actions of two of the three most recent popes, one would have to conclude that opposing heresy even to the point of violence is always wrong, and that the Church has almost always erred in “doing so,” or supporting the secular power in doing so.  So was it wrong to repress a noxious heresy that posited only two Sacraments and led hundreds of thousands if not millions astray?  Or was it wrong to excommunicate prelates who explicitly rejected the Primacy of Peter, or who embraced any of a number of errors in protestantism?

Eliot Bougis claims this is a sterling example of everything wrong with Dignitatis Humanae.  I would have a hard time arguing with that:

Pope Francis met on Monday with members of the Waldensian movement, an ecclesial community which suffered persecution from Catholic authorities from the 12th to 17th centuries. He apologized for the Church’s “non-Christian attitudes and behavior” towards the Waldensians during that period.

“Reflecting on the history of our relations, we can only grieve in the face of strife and violence committed in the name of faith, and ask the Lord to give us us the grace to recognize we are all sinners, and to know how to forgive one another,” the Pope said June 22 at a Waldensian temple in Turin. [But such a view can only be posited if one believes in universal salvation, can it not?  Or nearly universal?  Otherwise, allowing souls to remain in errors that deny them salvation would be an evil even greater, far greater, than whatever violence committed in the name of the Church the Pope has in mind?]

“I ask forgiveness for the non-Christian – even inhuman – attitudes and behaviors which, through history, we have had against you. In Jesus Christ’s name, forgive us!” [This is incredibly dangerous.  So Pope Francis has now, rhetorically, at least, “excommunicated” popes, bishops, and Saints of the past for their part in repressing this heresy, among others.  So popes (and others) are allowed to excoriate previous popes, but we can’t critically examine the actions of the current one?  What is the time limit on the embargo of papal criticism?  Is it simply when the “old beliefs” fall out of fashion, then it’s open season?]

Monday’s encounter marks the first meeting between a Pope and the Waldensian community. Founded in Lyon in the late twelfth century, it is currently centered in Italy’s Piedmont region, which Pope Francis visited June 21-22.

The movement was founded by Peter Waldo, and embraced evangelical poverty and lay preaching, and believed there were only two sacraments. The movement’s ideas were condemned as early as the Third Lateran Council, in 1179. Beginning in the early 1200s, many Waldensians were executed on account of heresy. [By the secular authority, not the Church, do note.  The Church desires not the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. But when some persist in formal heresy for a protracted period of time, and do grave damage to souls, it is not entirely surprising that the secular authority would take this step in a rightly ordered concern for souls and to maintain the public order]

…….Pope Francis told the community, “On behalf of the Catholic Church, I ask for your forgiveness.” [I just cannot stand all these apologias.  They are meaningless PR events and I have a very difficult time not seeing them as simply self-serving grandstanding]

During the meeting, the Roman Pontiff praised  ecumenical advancements which have been made among those united in baptism and belief in Christ. [I wonder just how united in belief in Christ we really are, and is that not the core of the problem?]

“This tie is not based on simple human criteria, but on the radical sharing of founding experience of Christian life: the encounter with the love of God who reveals to us Jesus, and the transformative action of the Holy Spirit who helps us on life’s journey.” [But Holy Father, did you not also say that muslims have no need to convert and have their own path to salvation, separate from that through Jesus Christ?]

Pope Francis noted that this communion “is still on a journey, which, with prayer, with continual personal and communal conversion, and with the help of the theologians, [ominous?]  we hope, trusting in the action of the Holy Spirit, can become full and visible communion in truth and charity.”

He added that unity, as a fruit of the Holy Spirit, is not the same as uniformity. [Yes, but “unity” is also a heckuva lot more than shared baptism, isn’t it?  What happens when the first mortal sin is committed by a non-Catholic who has no conception of perfect contrition and no recourse to sacramental Confession?  Are they still “united?”]

“In fact, our brethren are united by a common origin but are not identical to one another.”

The Holy Father cited the scriptures, which speak of different charisms and gifts.

However, wars often break out when these do not accept these differences of others, he said. [They break out because words and beliefs MEAN THINGS, and wrong belief, the Church has known for 2000 years, in matters of Dogma is a matter affecting SALVATION.]

Pope Francis thanked God that the relationship between Catholics and Waldensians continue today to be ever more rooted in “mutual respect and fraternal charity.”……..

………There are various areas where the Church and the Waldensians could work together, he said, one being evangelization. [So how does that work…..when the Church and Waldensians hold mutually exclusive beliefs?  And why are we exerting so much effort over a tiny sect when millions fall away from the Church every year?]

………Pope Francis concluded by saying a“new way of unity begins with seeing the “grandeur of our shared faith and life in Christ and the Holy Spirit,” before taking into account the differences which exist.

How long, and to what extent, do we bask in this grandeur before we can take into account the differences? And how many souls get lost in the interim.  The Waldensians are a small sect.  In the grand scheme of things they don’t amount to much. But there are other, far larger sects that gobble up millions of souls a year -the longer we bask, the more souls fall away.

There is a horrible conceit that troubles our times, one that is rooted in modernism and libertine ideas inherited from the endarkenment.  That conceit is that we are oh-so-much smarter and more sensitive than our forebears.  I don’t think that is true at all.  I think in fact we are a lot dumber than our forebears.

In all these apologias – and Pope Francis is not the first pope to make them, though they were unheard of prior to 1980 – this conceit is, I think, operative.  Also operative is a kind of indifference that is really appalling.  What is being implied is that people in the way back were just really awful, bloodthirsty, war-mongering people, people who just wanted to kill others more or less for sport, or for power, or whatever base reason.  Of course, we are so much above that, we just have to condemn our lamentable forerunners in the Faith, including some notable popes and Saints (Saint Dominic was very involved in the crushing of the Albigensian heresy, including its more martial aspects).

But what if there really are – as the Church infallibly believes – errors that are so severe and noxious they literally cut you off from salvation if you knowingly profess them?  What if these errors are clever and pernicious and become widely accepted?  What if millions of people put their eternal souls in danger through these errors?  And if you really do, as the Church used to, at least until ~1958, believe that this life is short, and that eternity is forever, and that God really does condemn people to hell, and not just a few, but a whole bunch of them (the Exodus from Egypt being the type for our sojourn on earth, with only 2 out of 600,000 Israeli men making it to the Promised Land)…….what lengths would  you not go to prevent souls from falling into hell?  Given fervent belief in the danger of heresy and the reality of damnation (just as real a fact today as it was in 1179), could you not even reasonably conclude that in some situations, in order to prevent souls from suffering in hell for all eternity, it might even be preferable to put to death a relatively few, as St. Ephraem said earlier today, incorrigibly corrupted, heretical people to death in order to keep many more from falling into errors that will lead to their eternal destruction?

Well, that is exactly how the Church always thought and reasoned, until the last few years, anyways, before gaining the approval of the world trumped the good of souls in the post-conciliar Church.  Would anyone like to argue that point, that to a marked degree, the approval of the world is the guiding concern for most leadership in the Church over the past several decades, the good of souls be damned, so to speak?  And isn’t universal salvation, then, quite a handy little thing to trot out when explaining the dichotomy that exists between the behavior of the Church that was, and the Church that is?

In comparison to the belief and practice to the Church as it existed for over 1900 years, the modern ecumenical approach is so divorced from true charity for souls that it would have scandalized to their core so many pious souls, good priests, dutiful bishops, and great Saints of the past. Is the modern ecumenical movement really grounded in love for souls, or in love for the world?

I really should send a letter to Pope Francis asking him if I made a mistake in becoming Catholic.

But you know what, I don’t think I need to……..I’m quite sure I know what answer he would give, if he would respond.  Much more importantly, however, I know I did NOT make a mistake, it was the best thing I could have ever done, and I pray I shall never waver in that belief.


Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, Dallas Diocese, family, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Holy suffering, sadness, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Next week is the first of the month.  Even though it is a holiday week I still plan on doing the vigil.  I am also committing to going twice this next month (July), on the first and third weeks.  I have gotten more notice of interest but some people cannot come on the first week.  Plus, I think a bigger presence is called for.  So, I’ll try twice next month and see how that goes.

More announcements as we get closer to the date.

Please pray for Doug Pearson.  Doug is well known to many listeners of local Catholic (EWTN) radio for his position at the Guadalupe Radio affiliate here in Dallas. He is also a father of nine and a grandfather of 10.  Doug has always been a big, strapping guy and I was always impressed by his vigorous appearance. Tragically Doug has been afflicted with cancer for quite some time.  He was in hospital at the beginning of the month but was released and seemed to be improving, but last week apparently took a turn for the worse and is now in very critical condition.  The family is asking for prayers.  They do hold out hope for a miraculous recovery, but by natural means, his prognosis is not positive.

Please also pray for SL who has been afflicted with a painful injury but is recovering.  If you would, in your charity, pray that his recovery may continue.  He told me not to do this but I’m not such a good listener.  Hopefully with God’s help he will forgive me.

May God reward you abundantly for your charity in these spiritual works of mercy.


Co-Presenter of climate change encyclical believes 6 billion humans need to die June 17, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

He said so during a presentation to the last major global climate conference in 2009 in Copenhagen.  Another conference is to be held in Paris later this year.  Note that the literally thousands of those who make their quite comfortable livings off the global warming hoax all FLY to these conferences, most often first class, and they stay in the very finest hotels and eat rich foods.  In other words, like Al Gore, they most certainly do not practice what they preach.  And in calling for the establishment of a new transnational one world government to dictate economic policy in order to “combat global warming,” they see themselves as the indispensable new aristocracy, enjoying all the riches the world has to offer while we starve and shiver in the cold.

Yeah, that’s going to work:

One of the speakers slated for the Vatican rollout of the long-awaited Papal document on climate change once said the earth is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people.

The teaching document, called an encyclical, is scheduled for release on June 18 at Vatican City. Perhaps with the exception of the 1968 encyclical on contraception, no Vatican document has been greeted with such anticipation. [I have to say, this is probably right. I plan on reviewing some of the coverage later, even though the thing isn’t officially released, yet.]

The choice of Professor John Schnellnhuber, founding director of the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, as one of three presenters may be giving the left added hope and giving giving skeptics severe heartburn. He has been described as one of the more aggressive scientists on the question of man-made global warming.

In a talk given to what’s described as the “failed” 2009 Copenhagen climate conference,reported in the New York Times, Schnellnhuber, who has advised German President Angela Merkel and is a visiting professor at Oxford, said of global warming: “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” [Oh BS.  Anyone who advocates such is a seething misanthrope.  And yet he now is being touted by the VATICAN as someone souls should trust implicitly for guidance on matters related to what passes for climate science anymore]

Schnellnhuber is also author of what’s called the “two-degree target” that says governments must not allow the temperature to rise more than 2 degrees higher than at the start of the industrial revolution. Any higher, the theory holds, and much life on earth would either perish or be gravely harmed. [Another baseless assertion.]

[As with so much of “science” today, it is the politics that drive the scientific conclusion…..]To deal with climate issues, he has also called for an “Earth Constitution that would transcend the UN Charter” along with the creation of a “Global Council…elected by all the people on Earth”

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, to which Pope Francis just promoted this Schnellnhuber character, is also on record as calling for “population control.”  Sounds like this guy will fit right in.

I’m seeing gobs of coverage on the encyclical, but I don’t plan on joining that fray just yet.  I imagine what is out there is at least extremely close to what will be revealed tomorrow, but I am really coming to the point where I think what the encyclical “really says” is less important than its significance as an event a la Vatican II.  Thus, it’s quite possible its purpose has been achieved already, which is to signal to the world again that the Church has taken yet another decisive step in its direction.  In which case, we shall all be the poorer for it.

Justifying myself a bit: look at the optics. There are few issues, short of straight up endorsement of pseudo-sodo-marriage, which I think is still impossible even for this Pope, that could get the left huffing and puffing more than an embrace of the progressive approach to “climate change.” We saw that in the silly video yesterday.  They’re already spiking the ball in the endzone, and maybe that was the point -to signal yet again that this Pope is one of them, one of the “good guys,” and to stir up just a bit more excitement about the Church finally and fully embracing the worldly zeitgeist.

Just my opinion. It’s worth what it cost you.

New Brazilian Bishop Commands Faithful to receive Communion in the Hand at Consecration June 17, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Liturgy, persecution, sadness, scandals, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Yet another one of those little dramas that play out so often in the Church.  For those who endure them, these experiences can be very painful.  Newly appointed Bishop Wilson Filho of Brazil demanded that the souls kneeling to receive the Blessed Sacrament at his Consecration Mass instead receive in the hand.  It is not known how many complied (this Catholic would have either gone ahead and received kneeling and on the tongue, or abstained):

Do Luis Angotti Wilson Filho made the worst start possible start as he takes over his diocese.  During Communion he asked kneeling faithful to stand up. Fratres in Unum criticized the behavior of the new bishop as “outrageous behavior”.

On June 13, the inauguration of the new Bishop of Taubaté in Brazil took place. Pope Francis had appointed  Dom Luís Angotti Wilson Filho last April 15th  as the new bishop of the southern Brazilian diocese……

……..As for the faithful who knelt for Communion at the inauguration last Saturday, they were “shamelessly” asked by their new bishop, said Fratres in Unum , to stand up and receive Hand Communion. “Excellency, are you not ashamed to begin your episcopal ministry in this historic diocese by such an embarrassing disregard of the law of the Church, which assures the faithful that right?” The Canon Law explicitly provides oral communion as the full and actual form of the reception of Communion while Communion in the hand had been authorized only in the post-conciliar period as an exception…… [And yet in most places this practice, which started as an abuse and was then “regularized” under threat of schism by Pope Paul VI, is not only normative, but widely insisted upon.  The US bishops have declared, I would say erroneously, that Communion in the hand is the normative manner of receiving in the US.  How can something instituted as a rare exception be “normative?”]

……The Spanish church historian and well-known Catholic blogger Francisco Fernandez de la Cigoña described the new bishop for his handling of the believers, in direct and colorful language, as “Chulo de mierda”. [Umm……that’s certainly colorful. It’s a bit beyond the kind of language I would personally use] “If the bishop does not respect the faithful, why should the faithful respect their bishop? I am not subject fortunately, to this idiot and therefore am without fear of his shepherd’s crook to say what I think,” said de la Cigoña.

The appointment of Dom Luís Angotti Wilson Filho as auxiliary bishop of Belo Horizonte took place when Msgr. Lorenzo Baldisseri was Apostolic Nuncio in Brazil. Pope Francis named Baldisseri in September 2013, Secretary-General of the Synod of Bishops and raised him in February 2014 to the cardinal state. At the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops last October, he played an inglorious role.

And has continued to do so since.  It was Archbishop Baldisseri who insisted that the faithful had no right to question the direction of the Synod, stated that the Synod documents included scandalous statements at Pope Francis’ insistence, blocked the distribution of a book of orthodox theology on marriage from distribution to the Synod Fathers, and proclaimed that Doctrine can “evolve.”  He’s an all around champion of orthodoxy, I tell ya.

So perhaps it is little wonder his creature would take such a dim view of reverent reception of the Blessed Sacrament.

Move along, nothing to see here. Just a revolution in action.

Why the sexular pagan agenda must crush all opposition, especially the Church June 16, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

The core of Robert Reilly’s analysis of what I term the “sexular pagan agenda” reveals why it must be totalitarian in nature and crush all opposition.  Because this agenda, whether it be in promoting the evil of contraception, or in its new guise under the so called “gay rights campaign,” is not only fundamentally divorced from upright morality, but in constant opposition to the same, it exists solely as an exercise of the will. The sexular pagan agenda cannot be argued from the point of view of morality or the natural law, but strictly from the point of view of personal will masquerading as illusory “rights.”

In the case of pseudo-sodomarriage, we have the will of a few million severely sick and lost individuals trumping the will of the great mass of people, even if most have already rolled over and played dead.  Grounded solely in personal will, or whim, this effort is necessarily authoritarian and cannot brook any serious scrutiny.  As such, all opposition, and especially morally grounded opposition, must be crushed.  That is why the sodomites must eventually come for the Church, as Reilly explains in some detail below:

Since the necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture, holdouts cannot be tolerated, because they are potential rebukes.  The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy) or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization. [And we see this across the board in leftist behavior. College girls who regret drunken hook ups with boys who then ignore them blame an “evil patriarchy” for their self-caused misfortune.  Ne’er do wells blame supposed evils of capitalism for their inability to provide for themselves.  And on and on it goes] These latter are labeled homophobes, though it is they who become the objects of hatred.  They are blamed for the misfortunes in homosexual life, which are not longer ascribable to the behavior that produces them, but to those who do not accept the behavior as moral, thus discomfiting its practitioners. [Thus the mass rationalization, or really self-hypnosis, inverts reality.  That is why so many things see in this culture seem upside down and inside out.]

Coercion is the solution to this dilemma. Those who do not accept homosexual behavior as normative must be legally forced to embrace the rationalization or be silent in the face of it.  In the same way we once learned of the inherent goodness of married life, we must not be taught – and compelled to accept – the “new morality” of homosexuality.  The instruments of coercion are first cultural and then political.  The homosexual campaign marches through the institutions of society – the press, the entertainment media, medical associations (particularly psychiatric and psychological ones), religious bodies and the clergy, civic societies, business and corporate executives……..- transforming them one by one to its cause.  After the long march, it is ready for the political assault – to gain the levers of government through either the courts or legislatures to enforce compliance.

……..”the paradise of sexual liberation was only plausible only insofar as it aspired to universality.  It could only calm the troubled conscience in an effective manner when it was legitimized by the regime in power.  In this regard, what better conscience machine could there be than one which confidently banned God and His Law from public life and then went on in the name of high moral purpose to make this vision normative for the entire world?“……

“We [sodomites] are not longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right – as heterosexuals have already – to see government and society affirm our lives.”  Homosexual author Urvashi Vaid declared: “We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item.” …….”Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family……transforming the very fabric of society…….We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”

Since only the act of sodomy (along with other peculiarly perverse sexual practices) differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act.

———End Quote———-

Always keep that last bit in mind.  In fact, Reilly in that conclusion does not go far enough, because the real agenda-makers among the radical sodomites have openly declared they want to see marriage destroyed, and even more, “a radical reordering of society’s view of reality.”

People grounded in the natural law and the God-given moral order know that dystopian schemes to “reorder society’s view of reality” will always end in massive bloodshed and equally massive failure.  But the destruction that occurs in the painful process of learning that you can only defy reality and our God-given natures for so long will be beyond immense. We can also see how a movement grounded in the triumph of the will over reality will be ripe for brutally repressive tactics.  It is no coincidence that many leading early Nazis were sodomites (at least until Hitler purged them).

We can also see that this diabolical movement is unabashed in its hatred for God, revealed Truth, and the moral order. Do not let those incredibly false and disordered protestant sects that pretend to be “houses of god” for the perverse (like the so-called Metropolitan Community Church) fool you.  They have to constantly attack Sacred Scripture to try to prove it does not say what it so plainly says, and in well over a dozen places (it’s actually closer to two dozen).  Key “gay” activists have made clear that eventually their movement will come down to a struggle between their perversion (very similar to the satanic, perverse Canaanite sects that the ancient Israelis fell into) and the Church of God.  This is a fight for our very existence.  We will of course prevail in the end, God always does, but the question is how much devastation will be wrought in the interim.

Judging by the way things are going now, that devastation is likely to be immense.  We better get prayed and mortified up, because many of us will likely be put to the test.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 534 other followers