jump to navigation

Gutted: wife of protestant friend walks out after 17 years November 17, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, disconcerting, error, family, General Catholic, manhood, paganism, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

I just spent a most agonizing hour listening to a friend and co-worker bewail the seeming destruction of his marriage.  His wife has filed for divorce, and given the absolute lack of legal recourse abandoned spouses have under the present “no fault” environment, there is very little he can do to stop it.  He claims he has been blindsided by a sudden and radical change in his wife’s disposition since this year began, which culminated in her filing divorce in July.  She had secretly been making arrangements to abandon her husband for months prior to that – getting a PO box, setting up a separate bank account, retaining a lawyer, etc., etc.  From the way my friend tells it, there problems have been trivial and routine – disagreements over share of housecleaning, little hurts from misunderstandings, etc.  The way he tells it, she’s just tired of being married, and she’s done.  The impact this will have on her children, which is almost universally negative save in rare instances of severe abuse and neglect, seems not to bother her a whit.  She’s been sold a divorce fantasy, and she has turned into an eager buyer.

These are not your average sexular pagans.  They are – or at least, he is – a very committed and active evangelical protestant.  Yes, that is an incredibly disordered environment from a Catholic perspective but there is a basis for a rightly ordered and successful marriage within that milieu.  His soon-to-be ex wife feels that the peace and contentment she now feels indicates this divorce must be God’s will.  My friend is flabbergasted at this, since his wife had previously always maintained an acceptance of literal-traditional interpretations of Scripture on things like the adulterous nature of post-divorce “marriage.”  They come from the kind of extremely conservative protestant environment that purports to teach such things.

Ah, but there’s a rub.  Oh yes, they teach such things in theory.  But when push comes to shove and the woman wants to leave, my friend has noticed that his small church community suddenly isn’t applying the standards in practice they purport to hold in theory.  Instead, there is not acceptance and even affirmation of his wife’s “empowering choice.”  This is a frequent lament of many in these kinds of conservative protestant environments……not that our practical situation in the Church is any better. In many respects, it’s worse.

Divorce fantasy is the many movies, books, TV shows, talk programs, websites, etc. (an entire industry, really), that sell divorce to women as something noble, necessary, and vital for their future growth and happiness in life.  They show women like Julia Roberts in Eat, Pray, Love abandoning her family and leading an exciting life bedding exotic men in exotic locales.  But for large numbers of divorced, male or female, the reality is far different: they are middle aged, well past their prime, and generally wind up much lonelier, must less happy, and much more materially poor than before.  Like all things satanically inspired, the fantasy is swank and sexy, the reality is frequently miserable.

We are still sold an image of the divorced woman as having been abandoned by her husband.  But women now instigate divorce 80% of the time in the United States.  No fault divorce laws make it impossible for many distressed and abandoned fathers to stop the process.  And of course the children are the ones who pay the ultimate price for this process of female marriage abandonment.  Of course there are men who step out, it happens all the time, but the statistics do not lie – over the past 35 years, women have filed the overwhelming number of divorce claims in this country.  Many of those have been filed for frivolous or entirely self-serving reasons.

I will say this of my friend, however: in spite his relatively orthodox Christian beliefs, being a protestant, he had the usual areas of departure from traditional Christian practice.  That includes using contraception, focusing inordinately on money, and having a quite blase’ attitude regarding fornication.  There were surely bases for dysfunction in the marriage. Beliefs like these, shared with his spouse, provided a fertile seed bed for future divorce.  But I still have an enormous problem with the modern divorce industry and millions of women’s free-wheeling and giddy use of it.

Arrgh, I’ve got a huge headache now.  This guy is really a stand up guy.  He’s a very good engineer.  I’ve known him since 2001 at two different companies. He’s a native Texan, an avid outdoorsman and hunter. Even though he’s an Aggie, I hate to see this happen to him. He is very broken up.  He does not want the marriage to end. He says he now realizes his past beliefs and abuse of Christian moral standards played a role in his marriage ending. He says he plans on remaining faithful to his wife and fighting for their marriage even as he has had to distance himself from her due to her quick descent into manic immorality.  That’s easy to say now while emotions are riding high, the divorce not yet final, and the years of loneliness have not drug on, but I will be praying that he does so.  If more abandoned spouses did not jump on the remarriage bandwagon it would go a very long way towards undermining the cultural exaltation of divorce.

Please pray for my friend P.A.  Thank you.

Secular conservatives figuring it out: progressivism is a religious cult November 5, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Even more, it’s a suicidal death cult, but not just for individuals – for entire nations and civilizations.  Want to know how civilizations collapse? Watch TV.

Nevertheless, I’ve been interested to see more and more secular conservative commentators figure out the fact that leftism is another form of religion.  And even more, some are even noting that the religious nature of leftism is inevitable.  It is so because God created us as deeply religious, spiritual beings. We have a built-in need for the understanding and practice of things far beyond us.  That need is of course to be filled by God, but since leftism rejects God (and is in fact a system deliberately contrived to oppose God and, most especially, His Church), those needs tend to get filled by all kinds of things.  Primarily, leftism itself becomes the substitute religion, but since leftism is not spiritually fulfilling and is bound by earthly parameters (containing no real elements of transcendence, aside from its false promise of an earthly “paradise”), it leaves a void that those drawn towards progressive beliefs fill with all kinds of nonsense: belief in space aliens, astrology, tarot, false eastern religions, new ageism, power crystals, and even the deliberately diabolical.

One reason the left is so hard to combat from a secular conservative standpoint, is that it is not just a political movement but a religious one, as well. Thus leftists are filled with a consuming fervor that often goes far beyond what mere political conviction can muster. That is one of many reasons why leftism must be opposed from a religious – a Christian, a Catholic – basis.  Cultural power leads to political power, and conservatives have erred greatly for the past century looking for political solutions to retard or stop the advancing leftist revolution, when in reality what is needed is a powerful cultural basis to create the political will necessary to roll leftism back.  That basis can only be filled by religious belief, and in particular, Catholic culture.

A few interesting comments from PJ media:

There is a sort of orthodoxy required among liberals. Do you believe in climate change? What about the gender pay gap? Those who do not toe the line often find themselves exiled — not just from the fold, but from the conversation.

To some extent, these views are merely what we mean when we say the word “liberal” — they describe a political program roughly supported by one major party. But at some point, these views have become prescriptive; they have morphed into a moral structure to provide meaning and guidance in place of religion. When political beliefs start to explain why bad things happen to good people, they may be crystallizing into something closer to faith. [I disagree. Leftism has always, from its inception in post-protestant revolution rationalism (and a direct result of that revolution), been a profoundly religious construct. It inspires the kind of faith and zeal the only religious conviction engenders.  It is not “starting to crystallize as a religious movement, it always has been, but as leftism gains more and more ascendance, and Christianity retreats, the religious overtones become more and more apparent.]

…….These are not some cheap shots aimed at liberalism merely to discredit the ideas, but current trends in the movement which illustrate how a political ideology can answer human needs usually satisfied by religion. The ability to explain why bad things happen to good people, the need to confess your sins and find absolution, and the desire to attack opposing views as heretical — these traditionally religious activities are increasingly being taken up by a political movement. [But it has been doing this for centuries.  Jacobins first cast Girondists out of their clubs, then went to war against them politically, then cut their heads off as heretics against their new demonic faith.  For two centuries leftism has held sacred dogmas, railed against “heretics,” provided definitions of sin and grants of absolution, and, most of all, promised a new, earthly “paradise” of materialism in competition to the real, eternal paradise of Heaven.  All this did not happen by happenstance.]

……The accusations are endless. If you don’t believe in liberal positions about climate change, the minimum wage or social justice programs, you must have been bought off — there simply is no other possible explanation. How could you hate the poor so much? How could you doubt established facts? How could you hate yourself?…….

…….This move to silence the debate does not end with Twitter. Last month, 20 climate scientists petitioned President Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) – a law intended to fight organized crime — against people who “denied” climate change.

When Brookings scholar Robert Litan dared to analyze the downsides of a new federal regulation backed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Warren essentially forced him to resign, despite the scholar’s more than 40 years at the organization.

When retired neurosurgeon and presidential candidate Ben Carson said that the Nazis confiscated the firearms of Jews prior to the Holocaust, prominent liberals didn’t rebut his arguments. They didn’t even call him a liar. Instead, they wrote “f**k off” and accused him of “blaming the victims.” Carson was right, by the way, even though his comments were politically unwise and a bit oversimplified.

This tendency to shut down debate — through name-calling, accusing critics of ulterior motives or diagnosing their social pathologies — is unworthy even of a religion, but most closely resembles the religious practice of declaring certain views “anathema.”……..[The comparison here is strained, especially with reference to the Church, but the general point is quite right – if you reject leftist shibboleths, you are not just incorrect, you are evil.  With leftism gaining increasingly cultural and political ascendance, how long will they continue to tolerate “heretical” beliefs?  I fear, not long.  If you think the Constitution will protect you, you’ve got another think coming.]

There’s a lot more at the link, if you need more examples of illiberal, frankly coercive, and trending strongly towards totalitarian left-wing actions.

For an example of how supposedly areligious, scientifically-minded, and oh-so-rational left-leaning (or outright leftist) folks very frequently buy into all kinds of nutty beliefs, well…….here’s one:

Like many Europeans, Marianne Haaland Bogdanoff, a travel agency manager in this southern Norwegian town, does not go to church, except maybe at Christmas, and is doubtful about the existence of God.

But when “weird things” — inexplicable computer breakdowns, strange smells and noises and complaints from staff members of constant headaches — started happening at the ground-floor travel office, she slowly began to put aside her deep skepticism about life beyond the here and now. After computer experts, electricians and a plumber all failed to find the cause of her office’s troubles, she finally got help from a clairvoyantwho claimed powers to communicate with the dead. The headaches and other problems all vanished.

People who think themselves too rational for religious belief end up believing in “astral forces”, ghosts and other phenomena. Sometimes these superstitions take the deadly form of political ideologies that fanatical believers take up with religious fervor—communist atheists murdered tens of millions of people in the 20th century in the irrational grip of an ugly ideology. They scoffed at the credulity of religious believers even as they worshipped the infallible insights of Stalin. Similarly, the Nazis presented their faith as an alternative to the “outgrown superstitions” of historic Christianity.

It’s something very much worth remembering: a world without faith in God wouldn’t be a more rational or more humane place.

Wasn’t it Chesterton who said of those who refuse to believe in God, that it’s not that they don’t believe in Him, it’s that they’ll believe anything?  Surveys show that those with a progressive outlook are much, much more likely to believe in things like ESP, space aliens, Bigfoot, haunted houses, and other such “paranormal” phenomenon.  The most tragic thing, however, is that “Catholics” believe in this garbage at almost the same rates as progressives!  Which aligns with most other surveys and cultural behavior, in which Catholics generally vary from middle of the road, at best, to having strongly left-leaning beliefs.  Thus my belief that fewer than 5% of those who answer surveys as “Catholic” actually are.

Thanks Vatican II and all your Church leaders infected with its destructive spirit!

We gots a long road to hoe.  Don’t worry about them, so much, get yourself, and your family, to Heaven.

+Muller’s collapse led to the Kasper faction victory at Synod? October 28, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

All the progressives are crowing. Some are positively beside themselves.  That ought to tell you something.  Even Cardinal Kasper is very pleased.

Just how did this come about?  Surely by many factors – not the least of which included having the overwhelming and heavy-handed support of the Bishop of Rome – but another factor may have been the little-noticed collapse of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller.

LifeSiteNews tienen mas.  Mind, the article is long, I reduce it down to what I consider is the nub (note first paragraph was written while Synod was still in progress, thus the use of future tense):

A decisive role could now be played by the German-Language group [at the Synod]. The participants of the Synod are consulting together in language groups – and the German group contains the highest custodian of the Doctrine of the Faith, Müller; and the spearhead of the reformists, the former Curial Cardinal Walter Kasper. Both are renowned theologians worldwide. “If the group around these two [cardinals] comes to an agreement about the reform proposals, it would be close to squaring the circle, because everything would then have the [approving] stamp of the Prefect of Doctrine himself,” according to an Insider. [Wow, a capital “I” Insider! Maybe it was ol’ Frankie himself.  But I think that argument makes a good deal of sense] 

The claim, namely that, finally, it all depends upon an attained agreement between the spearhead of the reform – Cardinal Walter Kasper – and the spearhead of the resistance – Cardinal Müller, was indeed true. Some concerned Catholics have been praying for Cardinal Müller all along, since he had to face in his own language-group five strong German “Kasperites,” namely: Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop Heiner Koch and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, all of whom had shown, during their own preparations for the Synod – in one way or another – some notable sympathy not only for homosexual couples, but also for the admittance of “remarried” couples to Holy Communion. [Ever been in an argument against several people at once.  It ain’t easy, especially as the arguments stretch over weeks.  It takes great cooperation with Grace to be sustained in such an environment. Perhaps Cardinal Muller was lacking in some way. Maybe he lacks a proper reverence for the Mediatrix of All Grace, the Blessed Mother]

It was in the last of the three reports of the language-groups, as Edward Pentin reports, that the German-language group floated the idea of a resort to the internal forum “which critics say is a slightly modified version of the ‘Cardinal Kasper thesis’ that would admit remarried divorcees to Communion after a period of penance […].”

Significantly, when this German-language group report was presented on October 21, it was Cardinal Marx himself who, speaking at a Synod press conference, insisted upon the fact that this report was written with the unanimous support of all the members of the group. More than once, he said: “Every text of the German-speaking group, every relatio, is unanimous. No vote against it. That is very important, I think.”[Dangit. It sure sounds like Muller did cave.] He seemingly repeated this fact so that everybody in the room would realize that this meant that Cardinal Müller also supported the report. And Marx explicitly said that the idea of the “internal forum” was intended to be a means to help some “remarried” divorcees “to come to a full reconciliation with the Church,” which would include the access to the Sacraments.Cardinal Marx explicitly mentions at the press conference that there was a kind of agreement between Cardinals Kasper and Müller over the weekend, after they had each studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as to how, with prudence, to “look at the different situations.” [There is no possible way to twist Aquinas to support Communion for manifest adulterers.  Even if you translate it into Cyrillic and read it upside down and backwards, NO WAY.  This is simply a very pathetic form of cover.]

As the Austrian website, kath.net, reports, it was due to the persuasive influence of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that a compromise was found. It said: “Without the diplomatic and linguistic capabilities of the Viennese Archbishop an agreement between the positions of Cardinals Walter Kasper and Gerhard Ludwig Müller would probably not have taken place.” Kath.net received this clarifying insight from one participant of the German-language group – “who prefers not to be mentioned by name” – and who also privately commented that, at times, the discussions in the German group were “controversial, but to the point.”

Another German-speaking participant, the Swiss Cardinal Kurt Koch, describes in an interview with the Swiss Radio station SRF on October 25 the implied meaning of the paragraphs 85-86 of the final report as a path of differentiation. Kath.ch, the official website of the Swiss bishops, sums up Koch’s nuanced statement:

With reference to the care for remarried divorcees, Koch calls the result of the Synod a differentiation: “The situations of the remarried divorcees are very different,” and these different situations are to be “taken into account in the realm of the pastoral care.” The text does not say that Communion is to be made possible for these faithful. “But it is also not excluded,” says Koch in the interview.

And there you have it, the most likely vehicle by which the most atrocious portions of the Synod’s final document were arrived at, by compromise total collapse on the part of the man charged, by God and Holy Mother Church, with keeping the deposit of Faith whole and sound, Cardinal Gerhard Muller.  A man many expressed grave reservations over when first appointed by Pope Benedict in 2012, both for his toxic statements regarding the Blessed Mother, and for his affinity for liberation theology.

So perhaps it’s not very surprising that he would be one to cave.  It has long been related by many Saints that in time so tribulation we must run to the foot of the Cross and there remain with our Blessed Mother.  She is the only one who can sustain us through times like these. The only Apostle who stood by Our Blessed Lord during His Crucifixion did so because he stood there with the Mother of God.  A cardinal who made perverse conjectures regarding the nature of the Blessed Mother in her earthly life is not well equipped to have the kind of recourse to Our Lady so needed when satan in all his might rails against us.

Our Lady, pray for us!  Defend us in this hour of darkness!  Through your intercession, keep us always faithful, by always remaining near to you.  And through your mighty intercession, restore our Holy Mother Church, O Hammer of Heretics!


So in the most critical period of the Catholic blogging year…… October 26, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, SOD, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

……..I totally let you down.  I was away from the blog almost all Thursday (just a few low-time posts out) because of a major problem at work and all Fri-Sun.  I did read other people’s stuff a bit over the weekend but I had no time to blog. I had to work from home on Friday because my truck transmission went out.  Terrible design by GM – the HD trucks have a separate trans cooler in front of the radiator, but the boneheads routed the brazed copper pipes THROUGH the radiator.  They are thus subject to horrendous swings in temp as the coolant heats up, and they are notorious for failing over time.  Then you have the wonderful effect of getting trans oil in the coolant – and even worse, coolant in the trans.  I had to get a new radiator (for the second time) installed about 2 weeks ago because I had oil in the coolant again, but I did not check to make sure the transmission didn’t have water in it.  Guess what?  It did.   So over the course of last week my trans started acting worse and worse, until it finally crapped out completely on Thursday afternoon.

So, after two complete drains and refills with oil, at least some of the water is out.  It’s acting better.   The problem is, once you get water in the torque converter, it’s almost impossible to get rid of it all without taking the thing apart, and for that price you may as well get a new one.  I haven’t, yet, but I know there is still some water in the trans and even though it’s acting better with mostly oil now, it’s still probably going to be a problem.

That, and satan seems to be going after me hammer and tongs lately, I’ve had all manner of health problems that have caused my focus to be elsewhere. You know about my head injury – that came to naught, thank God – but my heart arrhythmia has been acting up quite a bit, too, and I had a nasty cold last week that is still lingering.  So, I did not mean to leave you in the lurch, I find when I’m at home I just have too many things going on to ever blog much.  I have to go to work to have some peace and quiet.

I hope to get a post out on the Synod today with various reactions.  It seems the neo-Catholics – a term I’ve always avoided using, for a variety of reasons, though I’m coming to see the distinction more and more – are bending over backwards to find the good in the final document, while those who bend more traditional are seeing very little good in it, and much that is horrendous.  It seems a replay of Vatican II in miniature, with a severe weakening in terms of discipline and application of Doctrine, which will likely lead to an even further wholesale collapse in the practical, lived experience of the Church’s moral doctrine by the vast majority of souls.  IOW, very, very bad news.

More on that in a bit, God willing.

Leftist choir replaces Jesus with “Hilary” in hymn October 16, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, damnable blasphemy, disaster, foolishness, rank stupidity, Revolution, sadness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

Tell me again how the Left is not a system of fervent religious belief:

Religious, and implacably hostile to Christianity.

Also, just really, really stupid.  So, we not even in 2016,  yet, and already the freakish, cultish behavior of the Left is getting ramped up.

Compare with the previous post……people hunt around for pathetic worldly saviors when they don’t believe in Jesus Christ.


USCCB calls for admitting 100,000 Syrian refugees to US this year…..BUT NOT CHRISTIANS?!? October 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, Immigration, martyrdom, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

OK……I want to be clear.  The fact that the USCCB is calling for the settling of 100,000 Syrian refugees in the US this year is very clear.  There is a claim that they have said that they do not what Christians being persecuted out of existence included in that refugee resettlement, but I have not found a clear statement from the USCCB or a member bishop to attest to that fact.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of interest from Robert Spencer below, even if the criticism might be a tad strong even for my taste, and you’ll be interested to see that our own Bishop Kevin Farrell is mentioned, but not very favorably (my emphasis and comments):

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling for the U.S. to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees this year alone……

…….Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is, as Ann Corcoran points out below, “NOT advocating to save the persecuted Christians of Syria through this program.” Instead, bishops such as Robert McManus, Kevin Farrell and Jaime Soto and others move actively to silence those who speak about the Muslim persecution of Christians and the Islamic doctrines mandating warfare against and the subjugation of Christians. After years of tolerating open dissent from core Church teachings, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops moves like a Stalinist regime to silence and ostracize those who dare whisper a hint of dissent from their new and ironclad dogma that Islam is a religion of peace. [Soto is a big lib.  McManus has been friendly to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Still River, or at least cordial.  I don’t know much more about him. Bishop Farrell has been pretty strident in his support for muslim immigration to this country, and has lambasted opposition to that immigration (or, really, most all opposition to mass immigration) at times]

To take just one of many sorry examples of how energetically they move to crush dissent on this point, on August 13, 2015, I was the keynote speaker at the annual convocation of the North American Lutheran Church in Dallas, Texas. I spoke about the global Muslim persecution of Christians. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sends a representative to the North American Lutheran Church convocation every year. [Because, the idol of ecumenism must be worshiped?] However, this year, when the USCCB found out I was the keynote speaker, they pulled their rep from the Lutheran convocation, lest anyone get the idea that the Catholic Church endorsed a truthful and accurate analysis of the plight of Middle Eastern Christians. No worries, gentlemen: no one will ever mistake you for people who are interested in telling uncomfortable truths. Watch the video of my talk here and consider that this talk was too hot for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops enforces absolute obedience to their spurious and self-defeating new dogma of Islam being peaceful in pursuit of their chimerical “dialogue”: the all-important Muslim-Christian dialogue that hasn’t saved a single Christian from Muslim persecution, or turned one jihadi into a peaceful man, but has abandoned untold numbers of Christians to their fate at the hands of those jihadis, abandoned by those who should have been appealing to the conscience of the global community on their behalf. [Is this unfair?  By and large, I think not.  There has been repeated and thorough apologias for islam from the USCCB and many bishops for many, many years, seeking to downplay muslim atrocities and unspeakable cruelty towards Christians, with only occasional, and far weaker, criticisms of muslims/islam for their ongoing atrocities around the world but especially in the Mideast.]

And now we learn what this craven behavior by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is all about. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone — that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund. And this constitutes 97% of the budget of this corrupt and authoritarian fraternity. [Well now. Yet again, I must deplore the fact that another USCCB bureaucracy is virtually totally funded by the government, and thus we see a very good reason for the behavior of US bishops in this matter.  He who pays the piper calls the tune, which fact has led to the (in my opinion, but I do not think I am alone) severe corruption of most USCCB charitable arms in terms of morals and mission.  This is why CRS cooperates with grave moral evil on a continual basis – because their federal funders demand it.  CRS, Catholic Charities, this migration fund…..all receive over 90% of their annual budgets from US taxpayers via the federal government, which amounts to BILLIONS of dollars per year.  Money corrupts, especially when that money comes from an increasingly amoral and anti-Christian federal government.]

Stories like this should bring down the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, but Catholics are reluctant in the extreme to criticize bishops, no matter what they do, and tend to shun those who dare to speak out anyway. But that attitude is what led to the priest sex scandals. Bishops are neither impeccable nor infallible, and it does no one any good to stay silent when they are doing actual wrong that harms the Church and society as a whole. Catholics seem to have lost sight of that. But acquiescing to evil because a bishop is acquiescing to evil is neither genuine charity nor genuine obedience.

I would surely like to find evidence that the bishops do not desire to relocate Syrian Catholics/Christians to the US.  To me, that is a moral imperative, given that it is US policy over the past 15 years that has led to this genocide against Catholics in the Mideast.  But given what we know of the muslim exodus out of Syria (or wherever, most are not from Syria), that 80% are young men of military age, that many have abandoned families and job to get on the welfare rolls of the Eurozone or the US, and that the vast majority are not even from conflict-affected areas of Syria, and that rather changes the moral calculus regarding this unprecedented migration.  To many, it looks more like a slow motion invasion than a genuine humanitarian crisis.  But that is the kind of thinking that is expressly verboten among the self-anointed elites who arrogate to themselves the privilege of deciding what is acceptable thought or not.

You damnable doubleplusungood-thinkers, you.

Below is the video of the speech Mr. Spencer gave to the Lutheran conference.  I find nothing objectionable, and much that is edifying, in this talk.  Of course, the USCCB probably pulled their rep not for the content of this particular speech but due to Spencer’s many years of pointed (and generally extremely well placed) criticism of islam.  Full disclosure, I have been on the radio with Mr. Spencer and generally accord with his views:

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.
comments closed

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.
comments closed

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.
comments closed

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.
comments closed

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.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 547 other followers