Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, Endless Corruption, error, horror, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
While it may seem like a tempest in a teacup, or perhaps the well-earned and inevitable downfall of someone who created a name for himself by flaunting social (or elite) convention constantly and brazenly, I do have grave concerns over the rapid and seemingly near-total destruction of Milo Yiannopolous over the past two days. He just announced his “resignation” from Brietbart a little while ago, but from what I have heard and read the resignation was forced and eagerly desired by some Brietbart staffers who had grown annoyed at Milo’s popularity and antics. His lucrative book deal has been cancelled. He claims he has many new projects in the works, but his name has probably been permanently sullied by this “high tech lynching,” to quote Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
For those unaware of what I am discussing, videos were published, first on sites very closely linked to several high-power establishment Repubniks, containing highly edited statements from Milo Yiannopolous – videos recorded many months to a year+ ago – that gave the appearance that he either supported, apologized for, or had some sympathy for pedophilia. When it was shown that his words were being completely twisted, slightly less edited versions were released that made it appear that Milo was at least of questionable judgment on this matter. Milo maintains he was speaking of personal experience and that he is a bitter opponent of pedophiles.
I have had many thoughts and been rather conflicted about all this. First of all, this is obviously a carefully engineered takedown of someone who was a rising threat to the dominant uniparty elites. The offending comments were made long ago and were the “juiciest” things that hundreds of thousands of dollars of oppo research could find. And they were definitely not good. I think it’s confirmed now that Milo’s perversion is not an act and that it seriously affects aspects of his judgments, and not in a good way.
Amazingly, as all this has developed, it seems the Novus Ordo church played a significant role in Milo’s downfall, and I don’t mean just this week’s developments. Assuming he is being truthful, Milo was first exposed to the sodomite lifestyle by an English Catholic priest. That was his first “experience,” when he was 13. What a tragedy. What a scandal. Even more incredibly, very few people have even batted an eye at this revelation. “Oh yes another priest raped and morally ruined a young boy, yawn……” I mean, that’s’ been the overall reaction. That the Church has been involved in the moral corruption of a young boy yet again, something which not only ruined him but likely his entire family……..it makes me want to throw up. And yes I know this went on before VII, but VII did not materialize from a vacuum. The very fact there were perverts of this type corrupting the priesthood was a significant factor in the phenomenon we call Vatican II even coming into being.
But this revelation brings two very important points to the fore: one, those who suffer childhood sex abuse are never quite right again. Their ability to judge certain moral matters, especially those related to their own sexuality, are almost always forever compromised by the violent taking of their innocence. Secondly, a great many sodomites are sodomites because they were abused by men at a very young age. Thus, this entire sequence of sorry events is not entirely surprising.
That is to say, I agree quite a bit with Sargon’s analysis below, which, while generally apologizing for Milo, admits that he probably had to turn his abuse into a “good thing” to mentally and emotionally deal with such unimaginably deep and hurtful wounds (LANGUAGE WARNING):
I’ll add a few more thoughts, sort of randomly. First of all, the various ages of consent in differing nations are more or less arbitrary. It’s 16 in England, 14 in Germany, generally 17 or 18 in the US, etc. Of course there is no such thing in muslim countries, where young boys are systematically abused with societal and religious approval and girls as young as 8 or 9 are sold as “brides.”
Is the US with relatively high ages of consent more moral? But wasn’t Saint Elizabeth of Hungary married at age 14? In fact, throughout the Age of Faith, the great and high Middle Ages, marriage at such ages was routine. Of course, people generally died much younger, too, but I don’t think 13th century Spain or 11th century Italy was less Christian or less moral than these United States, or anywhere in the world today. Not that I think such is appropriate today, nor would I want that for my 6 daughters. I am merely stating that all these things are really just conventions and are almost wholly arbitrary.
The other things is, Milo is right, those who are carrying out this attempted destruction are not doing so out of moral outrage. They are doing it to take out a target they don’t like. The real target is not Yiannopolous. It’s Steve Bannon, and more importantly, Donald Trump. Milo was, whatever one may think of him, energizing an entirely new generation towards conservative/libertarian/populist beliefs, and there was a very strong cross-over between the thousands of kids who braved insult and injury to hear Milo speak on college campuses and support for Trump. He was also, like Trump, extremely effective at bulldozing into oblivion the cultural marxist structures in the academia, media, heck, in the very language, which are such powerful tools of the Left. He had been almost immune to criticism, with his “high on the victim pyramid” lifestyle and devil may care nature. Until now.
My concern is that if the elite media complex/entrenched political powers can do this to a Milo Yiannopolous or a Mike Flynn, they can do it to any of us. There has been a recent spate of what seem like vengeful attacks from the old media on the new, with targeted takedowns of rising new media personalities. For some analysis of how and why this is happening, I think this is spot on (again, language warning). And, of course, we have seen the media-government complex deign to destroy average Joes and Janes for exceedingly trivial sins against the sexular pagan orthodoxy on a number of occasions, from cake bakers in Oregon to photographers in New Mexico to bed and breakfast owners in Vermont to florists in Washington. This is about power, and maintaining a narrow, undeserving oligarchy in the power and riches which it has arrogated to itself. To me, it’s all part of a broader reaction against the little people who got a little too uppity and actually exercised their rights in a way the elites find annoying.
Having said all that, Milo largely did this to himself. I’d hate to have every off-hand or “boozy” (his words) comment I’ve ever made microscopically analyzed and held up for all the world to see, but that’s also what goes with the territory. The old media and entrenched political powers are not nice people and have no scruples in destroying anyone they perceive as being in their way, or simply annoying. Heck, it’s practically a sport to these people. Milo should have known, having already experienced several attempted “lynchings” for his blasphemies against the state religion of sexular pagan cultural marxism. I’m sure he’ll be back in some fashion, but he’s been permanently damaged by this, which takes away another important defender and ally from Trump.
I expect this to become far more cruel and ugly as we go along. They want to destroy all those who publicly support Trump and ultimately go after him.
Posted by Tantumblogo in General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, mortification, persecution, priests, reading, Revolution, sadness, secularism, Society.
Ever read The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene? What did you think of it? Apparently, it was criticized by the pre-conciliar Holy Office, but I am not certain whether it ever appeared on the Index of Forbidden Books. I am not certain I found anything in the book that was sufficient to merit being banned by the Holy Office, but I do agree that the book was in some respects “paradoxical.” It was not a typical Saint’s story.
For those who are not familiar, The Power and the Glory tells the semi-fictional story of a hunted, persecuted Mexican priest in the state of Tabasco during the darkest days of the Cristiada. This priest is the last functioning priest left in the entire state. In fact, since the book was set in 1940, he has been the only priest in the state for nearly a decade. All other priests fled, were shot, or apostatized, married, and given government pensions to live on. He has lived deep in the jungles, always hiding, always hunted and hounded by the law. This horrid persecution had persisted, by the time the book was set, for nearly two full decades.
This lead character around which the story revolves is morally ambiguous, in a sense. He frequently in the book performs acts of practically heroic virtue, while at the same time being a near alcoholic with a strong desire for drink and having fathered a child in a one-time fall into lust while lonely, depressed, and drunk. At times I felt the priest too hard on himself, as he judged that he had done little worthwhile even as he served as the only priest an entire region of Mexico knew for nearly a decade. He was terrified of his salvation over his sins and his inability to go to confession. There is a sort of priest remaining in the state, in the capital of Villahermosa, a man who renounced his priestly mission, “married” a woman at government behest (even though the marriage was never consummated), and lives on a government pension, growing steadily more obese as he has nothing to do all day except eat, loathe himself, and be tormented by neighborhood children who constantly belittle him. At the climax of the book, the moral cowardice of this bad former priest is plainly revealed.
Nevertheless, regarding the main character, he has several opportunities to escape, but is prevented from doing so for a long time (I won’t ruin the story by telling you whether he finally escapes in the end, or not) by the untimely, or timely, intervention of someone needing his sacramental services. Even though it likely means his death, in every instance the priest chooses to remain and serve the people calling out to him, but with an often begrudging heart which steals away some of the virtue of his choosing to stay. But who save for great Saints would not be somewhat conflicted over choosing to stay or go under such oppressive circumstances. There is an ugly Judas character also involved in this priest’s sufferings. He shadows the priest through half or more of the book and is hideous in his ability to constantly justify his black heart.
I don’t want to share any more of the plot as I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t read it, but I am very interested to know if any blog commenters have read the book and what they thought of it. My
The book was made into a 1947 movie called “The Fugitive”
conclusions were two-fold: I’ve read several books on the state persecution of the Church in Mexico, books that were full of statistics and tales of cruelty and suffering, but never one that made me feel as if I could really understand what living under such conditions on a day to day basis would have really been like. This book did that in spades. For that, I strongly recommend the book. But, on the other hand, there is some unfortunate moral ambiguity surrounding the main character of the unnamed priest – I don’t know if author Greene was trying to be “realistic” by not giving a “sanitized” version of a man’s character, or if he was trying to get people to think about what really constitutes holiness, and whether this priest’s destiny was a happy or unhappy one.
Because of that ambiguity, I can only recommend this book for those well formed and committed to the Faith, which naturally includes most readers of this blog. It is not suitable, for several reasons, for children or for those who are struggling to hold onto their Faith or who are very new to the Church (perhaps). In many ways, it’s a beautiful story and a very sober appraisal of how people conduct themselves under extremely difficult circumstances. I don’t read much fiction because it frequently bores me, but The Power and the Glory is very well written and really grabbed my attention. But there are certain scenes I wish were not present in the book, where the author perhaps let his personal bias against certain types of pious souls tell too much. On the other hand, there are some really cutting scenes dealing with protestants and their love of comfort. The priest does rather adroitly defend the Faith against his most cruel persecutor, too.
One thing the book is great for: informing readers of the hellish reality of life under that kind of severe, state-sponsored persecution. There are myriad small ways people are forced to surrender their beliefs, to modify their behaviors……..it reveals how horrid an empty, soulless, secularist existence is. Definite food for thought as we see our own culture and Church, Trump and Brexit, et. al., notwithstanding, heading in a similar direction.
Anyway, I’m interested to know what you guys think, if you’ve read the book. I’m kind of on the fence. Would the book be as effective if it had a different ending? Could it have been more so? Was it realistic, or unnecessarily harsh? I’m really on the fence, and very interested to hear what you think. Hopefully some of you have read it, and are willing to take some time to share your thoughts.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, huh?, manhood, sadness, silliness, Society, Tradition.
The post title is a bit tongue in cheek, Sensus Fidelium on Youtube posted the video below yesterday, an upload from a recent episode of the Crusade program of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire. The topic is voluntary male circumcision, which is done to the large majority of males (Jewish or otherwise) in infancy, generally at the hospital within a day or so of birth. I’ve always thought circumcision was mostly a question of taste with perhaps some overtones of cleanliness and moderation, but it appears at least one Catholic philosopher/ethicist has determined circumcision to be a barbaric practice that causes a huge gamut of (potential) deleterious health effects. None of which any of the males on either side of my family has ever experienced going back at least 4 generations, and all of which were circumcised.
I’m posting this not because I really care either way, this is a very personal decision. There are pros and cons on both sides and you can decide where you line up. It’s quite possible the medical benefits of circumcision have been overstated, but I think the dire claims made in the program of negative effects are also being dramatically overblown. Love, and do what you will, and all that.
The reason I’m posting this is the fascination I had with the responses on Youtube. People who had almost certainly never heard such a detailed (and one might even say, extremely opinionated) presentation on this subject before were suddenly lining up declaring circumcision to be a barbaric practice that must be stopped NOW. Which is odd, because, this is just one presentation, which may or may not be accurate. Why are folks getting so exercised over something they may have never heard a cogent argument on before? Are those expressing instant shock and outrage really in a position to judge whether or not this guy is really telling the truth, or maybe has gone a bit around the bend?
There was another aspect to that drew my attention – some pretty hardcore comments regarding Judaism. Certainly circumcision and Judaism have a long connection, but some of the direct commentary – leaving alone snide implications – regarding filthy Jews, et. al., was a bit extreme. I found that unfortunate.
As I said there are arguments on both sides, some people say circumcision negatively effects a man’s ability to feel certain pleasures, some say being uncircumcised can lead to accumulation of dirt and disease. I’ve never known anything different, so I have no way of knowing if these claims are right or not. I do think maybe we should tone down the instant outrage generation on every single little issue that comes along. If one wants to argue that circumcision is a bad practice that has outlived its usefulness, fine. He’s probably right. But for folks to turn it into a giant conspiracy and start to allude that you’re somehow less Catholic if you’ve been involved in this very optional, tangential practice, I think that’s where the circular firing squad and the shrinking of the membership of the True Remnant Church (TM) down to one (me!) starts to get a little extreme.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
So the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute has put out its annual compendium of abortion statistics and reported that fewer than 1 million surgical abortions were performed in the US in 2014, for the first time since 1975. This would normally be a cause for rejoicing (while lamenting the fact that there are still mountains of dead babies every year even still), but there are certain caveats that make this report less than heartening. First, at least part of the reduction in surgical abortion can be explained away by the continuing implosion of the conception rate, especially among native born American women. Another factor is the rise of chemical/pharmaceutical abortion, the “morning after pill” and such like, which are not “counted” as abortions in the statistics. Many deeply involved in the pro-life movement report that these chemical abortions are increasing at an alarming rate, so that the total abortion rate may indeed by higher than it was a few years ago. Chemical abortion is often preferred as it can be done at home and doesn’t involve much of the trauma and medical risk of surgical abortion.
The final negative factor on the abortion rate is an increase in the use of long term contraception, which is very nearly self-sterilization in the form of IUDs. Use of long-term contraceptives exploded over the past several years and is probably also driving the abortion rate down.
At any rate, here’s the report from a non pro-abort source:
Great news, if not surprising news. As contraceptive technology has improved, as the taboo against using it has shrunk, and as new restrictions on abortion have passed in various red states, it’d be odd if the rate weren’t declining.
The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, which conducted the survey, says there were fewer than a million abortions performed last year for the first time since 1975. Which is also good news, once you get past the whole “a million children aborted every year for 40 years” thing.
Some really bad news:
By the way, according to two polls taken last year, approval of birth control as either morally justified or not a moral issue is virtually unanimous among Americans. Gallup found 89 percent willing to call contraception “morally acceptable.” When Pew asked a similar question, just four percent overall (and eight percent of Catholics) deemed it morally wrong.
Thanks, bishops and priests of Amchurch! Mission accomplished.
Know this, and without the slightest doubt – the progressive/modernist faction in the Church intends to do the same with divorce and sodomy as they have done with contraception, turn them into moral non-issues for the vast, vast majority of Catholics. That includes, naturally, making the Blessed Sacrament available to those who have been civilly remarried with no annulment of their first marriage – as what’s the point of being Catholic if you can’t line up to get your “reward” every week like everyone else?
Think how many priests should have at least strongly suspected that the vast majority of their married couples with two or one or zero kids never once challenged them on the exceedingly strong likelihood that they were receiving the Blessed Sacrament while actively practicing contraception. That’s a massive failure of moral duty and a very large part of the reason why the Church continues to implode in a self-inflicted crisis.
Even writing this feels like whistling past the graveyard. Outside a handful of isolated traditional communities and even rarer Novus Ordo parishes with solid priests, no one in the Church cares in the slightest. Everyone continues to believe their happy fantasies that God is just a good guy in the sky that never holds anyone even slightly accountable for the moral evils they commit. He’s the cosmic Pez dispenser handing out eternal life to all who come calling. That this is utterly contrary to both Scripture and Tradition is, of course, conveniently forgotten.
Enjoy your newchurch while it lasts, boys. It won’t be around for very long. People can get their empty, meaningless, happy-clappy emotional/spiritual kumbayah experience just as well at home as they can in your parish. It won’t be long before the vast majority of the few remaining active Catholics start to figure that out.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Four Last Things, General Catholic, history, manhood, sadness, Society, technology, Victory.
The old Apollo guys are going to their reward one by one. Who is left at this point that walked on the moon? Buzz Aldrin, Al Bean, Dave Scott, John Young, Charlie Duke, and Jack Schmitt. All are in their 80s.
But today the last man to walk on the moon died. Gene Cernan, who lived outside Kerrville, was 82:
Gene Cernan, an early NASA astronaut who was the last man to set foot on the moon, died Monday, NASA announced in a tweet. He was 82.
Cernan was the commander of Apollo 17 in December 1972 – the last lunar mission and one of the final Apollo flights. When Cernan stepped out from lunar module “Challenger” he became the 11th person to walk on the moon. His lunar module pilot, Jack Schmitt, was the 12th. But as commander, Cernan was the last to re-enter the module, making him the last person to walk on the lunar surface.
Cernan had previously served as the lunar module pilot on Apollo 10 and was a pilot on the Gemini IX mission.
Cernan logged 566 hours and 15 minutes in space, of which 73 hours were spent on the surface of the moon, according to NASA.
Cernan was one of only three men to travel to the moon twice. The other two were Jim Lovell (still alive) and John Young.
There was a big row in NASA in the first half of 1970 when Nixon foolishly decided to gut the Apollo program (although, in his defense, most all of NASA management wanted it gutted, too). After it was announced that Apollos 18-20 would be cancelled, even though the hardware was already almost entirely built (everything but the LMs for Apollo 19 and 20), the scientific community got all fired up because the then-current crew rotation would mean that no scientist would fly to the moon if Apollo 17 was the last mission. The first scientist scheduled to go was Jack Schmitt to the Tycho Crater on Apollo 18 with Commander Dick Gordon. No Apollo 18 meant no scientist on the moon.
But not so fast. The science guys raised a big enough ruckus that NASA management was “encouraged” to change the crew rotation. Gordon and Schmitt had been training together for 6 months at that point so Gordon hoped the entire crew for 18 would just replace Gene Cernan’s crew for 17. That would have left Cernan out in the cold. But instead, the awesomely skilled former X-15 pilot Joe Engle was bumped as LMP from Apollo 17 in favor of Schmitt, and Dick Gordon had to watch his chance to be the somewhat famous last man on the moon go up in smoke.
Gene Cernan was a bit of an anomaly among early Apollo astronauts in not being a test pilot. He was an attack aviation guy in the Navy, flying Skyhawks, when he found out he had been accepted into the third round of astronaut selectees. Cernan was generally viewed as a competent straight shooter who perhaps had the flaw of being a bit aggressive in his self-promotion. There was quite a bit of that among the Apollo astronauts, of course. After his time in NASA and almost de rigeuer collapse of his first marriage, Cernan became a bit of a sad creature, a sort of a caricature of his salad days version of himself, always Captain Cernan, always the former astronaut, not Geno or Gene anymore.
Still, they rarely make men like this anymore. We’re much too soft to produce such steely eyed missile men as those who flew to the moon in a delicate, lowest-cost government-run contraption. Engineering was done on slide rules back then, with no 3-D solid modeling and with less computing power in the entire NASA basement than one smart phone today. And yet they did it, and the engineers of back then were probably far, far better than those of today, man for man.
Gene Cernan was at least a nominal Catholic most of his life. Not sure if he died one. I pray for the repose of his soul.
Few know Cernans’s most dangerous mission was not Apollo 17, was not on Apollo at all, but was on Gemini 9A. During the mission he was to perform only America’s second spacewalk, the first since Ed White briefly flew outside Gemini 4. What most people did not know at that time, is that White barely made it back inside the spacecraft. His inflated pressure suit did not want to fit in the cramped capsule and he and commander Jim McDivitt struggled mightily to get it closed. As a result, White got quite severely overheated.
Well, White’s walk lasted perhaps 20 minutes, whereas Cernan’s was scheduled to last several hours. However, he also ran into problems with inadequate cooling in his spacesuit, especially when in the 250 degree temperatures on the sunny side of the world. Physical exertion, of which there was plenty, made him sweat profusely. Then, when the capsule went around the night side of the earth, all that moisture inside his suit froze. His visor was almost completely frosted over and Cernan was blind. He barely managed to make it back inside the ship, and probably had a heat stroke trying to get the hatch shut.
Cernan and Stafford repeated their two-man team on Apollo 10, when another accident could have killed them both. An incorrect setting on a guidance computer caused their Lunar Module to tumble out of control while practicing the landing maneuvers that Apollo 11 would perform on the first lunar landing. The telemetry showed the LM “Snoopy” doing three 360s before Stafford flipped the switch to go from backup abort guidance to the Apollo Guidance Computer. That fixed it.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, priests, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
That’s what Damian Thompson says, anyway. Some interesting observations below – some revelations as to Francis’ character. It might even be considered a bit psycho-analytical. I was not aware of Francis’ scandal in reinstating a scandalous progressive boy-raping priest that Benedict had previously defrocked. That’s a damning indictment that Francis’ mercy extends only to perceived ideological allies, and not those whom he is most charged to shepherd and defend:
On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.
In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.
Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted…….. [I doubt he was guilty only of “groping,” and I hate how the media continues to soft-pedal these men’s crimes. They, painfully and cruelly, rape young boys, destroying their irreplaceable innocence and scarring them for life. Those who suffer childhood sex abuse are never quite right again. Reducing that to “groping” is yet another example of why so many of us have no respect for the media. As for Francis, his “zero-tolerance” depends entirely on whether one is seen as an ally or not. Leftism is always about power – those perceived as aiding that pursuit of power can never do any wrong, those who oppose it can never do any right.]
……A man who, when he took office, seemed endearingly informal — paying his own bill at his hotel, refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace, making surprise phone calls to members of the public — now cuts a less sympathetic figure.
He has broken with a far more significant papal tradition than living in the papal apartments or travelling in limousines. He has defied the convention that a pope, once elected, ceases to play nasty curial politics. [I’m shocked, shocked that a convicted Peronist would behave like a…..convicted Peronist]
Pope Benedict respected this convention. [Probably too much. It undermined his ability to effect any change – if he even wanted to.] Liberals who were worried that the ‘Rottweiler’ would harbour ancient grudges watched in amazement — and relief — as he turned into a virtual hermit. This created the factional chaos that led to his resignation — but right up until the end, Benedict was always ‘the Holy Father’.
That title has almost dropped out of use inside the Vatican under Francis, at least in everyday conversation. And, when you hear it, there is an edge of sarcasm. For example: ‘As the Holy Father so wisely says, we all have a natural tendency to eat shit.’
The priest in question is no fan of Francis. But the fact is that the Pope did say it — in public. Last month, he told the media to stop spreading fake stories because ‘people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia’. Which means eating excrement.
Why did he say it? The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli suggested that ‘ageing or an underlying medical issue’ was responsible for his ‘persistent anger, rancour, vituperation, use of uncouth words (which is known to be increasingly frequent in private)’. [Nah. It’s just who he is. It’s who he’s always been. This is a severely intemperate man. This is a man who is not in control of his appetites. Humility is what gives us the moral strength (and grace) to practice penance and limit our appetites. Francis may or may not limit his physical, material appetite, but his appetite for more ethereal things like obeisance and the gathering of power appears voracious.]
Again, this is an opponent speaking. There is no evidence that the Pope is mentally ill. However, plenty of Vatican employees will testify to his outbursts of temper, rudeness towards subordinates and vulgar language. [Again, intemperance. Intemperance also speaks to a lack of solid interior life driven by humility and devotion to prayer.]
He can also be genial, funny and compassionate. But this side of his personality is increasingly reserved for his inner circle and his allies.
All popes have inner circles, it goes without saying. What distinguishes Francis from his recent predecessors is the nature of the alliances he forms. He is far more brutal in the exercise of his power than, say, Pope John Paul II, who certainly had an authoritarian streak in him. [Indeed. Some say Francis is even more authoritarian than Pius XII, the supposed epitome of the “bad old Church.”]
‘Bergoglio divides the church into those who are with him and those who are against him — and if he thinks you’re in the latter camp then he’ll come after you,’ says a priest who works in the curia. [Think that had much impact on the Franciscans of the Immaculate?]
‘Bergoglio’, note: he doesn’t even call him ‘Francis’. Tellingly, this priest used to be a fervent supporter of some of the Pope’s administrative reforms and he doesn’t look back nostalgically at the reign of Benedict, whom he blames for neglecting his papal duties.
But, like so many Vatican employees, he’s sick of Francis’s habit of telling the entire Roman curia that they are modern-day Pharisees — an analogy that casts the Argentinian pontiff in the role of Jesus. [Convenient, that.]
Clearly Francis believes that relaxing the rules on communion for Catholics in irregular marriages is an act of Christlike compassion. [Could there be more to it than that? As a point of attack against the entire moral edifice of the Church, a more insidious one could hardly have been chosen. I don’t think that’s accidental in the slightest.] This is also the view of the venerable liberal cardinals who campaigned to elect him. It is often said that he is enacting their agenda — and it’s true that Francis is well disposed to liberal demands for women deacons and married priests. [Thus the upcoming terror of Synod 2018. Lord, please prevent this from taking place.]
He is not, however, their instrument. In the words of a Vatican observer who held an important position in Rome for many years, ‘He hasn’t taken on the old progressive mantle so much as created his own personality cult.’ Theological niceties bore him. Personal loyalty obsesses him — ‘and if the cardinal electors had done due diligence they would have discovered that he was an extraordinarily divisive figure among the Argentinian Jesuits’.
It’s not hard to detect a Latin American flavour to the deal-making and settling of scores that has become blatant over the past year. Most Catholic bishops had thought Francis was a plain-spoken and perhaps touchingly naive reformer. Instead, they are confronted by a pope who is simultaneously combative, charming, bad-tempered, idealistic and vengeful……..
Oh, I think the naivete is an act. I think he – as the scion of those who elected him – knows exactly what he is doing and the impact it will have. This is a man bent on remaking the Church in his own ideological image. Niceties mean nothing to him, all that matters is the end result.
He’s a leftist Borgia, minus the appetites against the 6th and 9th Commandments.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, reading, sadness, Tradition, Virtue.
A couple of “housekeeping” items, if you will – please pray for A, wife of longtime reader “ADG,” who gave birth to their 9th child a couple of months ago and shortly after developed some serious medical conditions. She is still recovering and her health remains under 100%. If you could please add her to your prayers, I know it would be greatly appreciated.
The thanks comes from me, to those who sent me items from my Amazon wishlist and/or a gift certificate. I thank you very much and feel quite humbled by your generosity. I have just come across some really good new sources of Catholic catechesis and have added a number of items to my wishlist. If any feel called to buy something on there for me, all will be greatly appreciated. Pretty much everything on the list is directly blog related, and if you do send me something, you can rest assured any good material I draw from it will show up on this blog at one time or other.
One of those new items of catechesis is The Catechism in Examples, a five volume set produced by Fr. D. Chisholm and published over 100 years ago in Britain. Reader SL sent me a link to this massive tome (over 2000 pages!) and it looks really powerful. Many find the 1990s Catechism painfully dry, and sometimes questionable doctrinally. I tend to imagine the doctrine in this 100 year old set of volumes will be unimpeachable, while its format is easier to read since it gives concrete examples for each point of doctrine discussed, rather than relaying them in a purely theological way. The Catechism in Examples is also available at The Internet Archive for free if you happen to read books online.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
We’ve heard it before. Voters gave the GOPe party unprecedented majorities in both the House and Senate in recent years, and yet we were told they could do essentially nothing on the pro-life front because they didn’t have the presidency. Now they have that, too, though a reduced majority in the Senate, so the PR is now that the GOP will now, finally, try to de-fund Planned Barrenhood. I’ll believe it when I see it. With Collins and other libs remaining among the Repubnik Senate Caucus, and with dems always possessing what seems to be far greater moral fervor for their cause than the R’s have for any socially conservative cause, I remain firmly skeptical. We’ve been lied to far too many times for me to trust just about anything these cats say:
“The entire movement is poised for a victory,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an advocacy group that opposes abortion. “We have every assurance [from congressional leaders] that it’s going to happen. Nobody is saying ‘whether,’ the question is ‘when.’”…
Eliminating Planned Parenthood’s approximately $550 million in federal funding — most of it through Medicaid — would be abortion opponent’s most tangible victory since 2007, when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on so-called partial birth abortions.
One possible approach is to attach the defunding of Planned Parenthood to a repeal of Obamacare and pass both items using reconciliation. That would only require a simple majority, though there is disagreement even among GOP Senators about whether a full repeal of Obamacare is possible using this maneuver. No one seems ready to commit to a plan of action yet which is probably wise given the level of push-back it will generate.
Republicans say no final decision has been made about what they’ll do next year, although one GOP congressional aide said that among conservatives “there is an expectation that it will be included in any reconciliation bill.” But if the Obamacare repeal legislation runs into any roadblocks because it includes defunding Planned Parenthood, the provision could be cut.
Naturally, Democrats are prepared to make sure any such effort runs into every possible roadblock. And with the GOP’s narrow advantage in the Senate, it will matter if some GOP Senators refuse to back the plan:
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) opposed using the reconciliation tactic to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare in 2015. Another moderate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), supported it. But she also introduced an amendment with Collins to strike the Planned Parenthood provision, indicating that she had reservations about cutting off funding. [Of course they would. Both are strident pro-aborts]
As for President-elect Trump, he made clear during the primaries that he is committed to defunding PP because his position on abortion (which he said had evolved over time), but he was also the only Republican who defended the group saying, “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood.”
You can see why I am underwhelmed. It smells to me like more kabuki-theater, deliberate failure, “well, we tried, but those darned democrats with their tiny minority just foiled us again,” etc. In other words, a set up. Good for the pro-life groups, though. Great pitch angle for donations – “donate to us and we’ll de-fund Planned Parenthood!”
Perhaps I’ve become a bit jaded, but as I said, I’ll believe it when I see it. I think the GOP could foul up de-funding Planned Barrenhood, let alone repealing Obamacare, with a 72-seat majority, let alone a 52-seat one. That’s because most Republican senators don’t want it repealed. Think of all the graft they can skim off federal control of 20% of the economy? Cha-ching.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
And not just any STD, but one of the worst, most impossible to recover from, and most insidiously contagious: herpes simplex 2.
I don’t think the phrase popularized, if not coined, by Anne Barnhardt, diabolical narcissism, could have a better definition than being so morally lost – heck, amoral – as to be able to convince oneself that not only was one’s catting around not something to be ashamed of, but something to be boldly extolled as a badge of honor, something to be admired and emulated. That is what the culture, the media, and the sicko feminist fringe have convinced millions of women to believe – that selling themselves cheap to the lowest, most momentary bidder is “empowerment,” that murdering babies that come from this activity is “women’s health,” and that what could easily be conceived of as God’s wrath against wanton behavior is just something that happens to people accidentally, like contracting an allergy or some congenital disease. The complete divorce of action and consequence, the constant self-justification and self-exaltation, and the absolute lack of any kind of even remote attachment to moral standards has been a deliberate goal of the cultural-political left for two centuries or more, and it has produced what was always desired: people so divorced from any conception of dignity, let alone their unspeakable worth as unique children of God, that they – rather desperately, one might add – proclaim the evil they have wrought to be good, and the only evil to be to shame or judge them for their hedonistic behavior, that hurts not only themselves but who knows how many others. I would not believe the world in which we live, if I were not confronted with the evidence of its wickedness every day.
And, naturally, this self-described “slut” got a letter of congratulations from Hillary Clinton, during her campaign for the presidency, applauding this young woman for her………for what I have no idea. Because promiscuity is a vital part of the Left’s war on religion, and thus always and everywhere to be praised? Because the evil religion of feminism, which has taught women that giving themselves away to any dude who happens along for a night is empowering, and must always be praised? Because diabolical narcissism demands it?
Anyway, to the article, which is old, but worth your attention (emphasis in original, my comments):
“I’m a slut, and I have herpes. I still am a person who deserves respect,” blogger Ella Dawson tweeted as part of her campaign to remove the “cultural stigma” surrounding sexually transmitted diseases. The Wesleyan grad gained notoriety and celebrity online after writing an article in Women’s Health titled “Why I Love Telling People I Have Herpes.” A follow-up article at Medium defended her position. [But she doesn’t mean respect in the sense that no one should be treated with undue cruelty or as less than anyone else. What she means, in the lexicon of the modern left, is to be never questioned, called to account, or Robespierre forbid, shamed for having engaged in extremely risky and self-destructive behavior and now being afflicted with the almost inevitable natural consequence of such behavior. This becomes obvious as her “logic” unfolds. She wants to be lionized as a sublime and pure princess, while having all the “benefits” of behaving like a slattern – the constant feminist double standard]
Some — like Hillary Clinton — praised Dawson for being “brave and insightful,” while others condemned her for being “stupid.”……
………Hillary Clinton certainly agrees with House. She even sent Dawson a thank you note praising her for speaking out against the “stigma” and for standing up to her critics. [I continue to thank God that, no matter what Donald Trump may be, Hillary Clinton will never be president. Thank you, Lord]
Dawson was thrilled to receive the letter, of course, because it elevated, at least in the minds of some, her campaign to make contracting oozing sores on your genitalia “cool.”
In other words, and like other “sex-positive” feminists and liberals who want to legitimize every social deviancy while stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with them, the 24-year-old Dawson is using social media platforms and a hashtag campaign (#ShoutYourStatus) to justify her behavior and to ease her feelings of guilt. [As you will see, however, Dawson’s end was perfectly predictable, and was, in fact, made virtually inevitable by the flawed ideology she holds. Who listens to a 24 year old anyway?!? I at least had the decency to wait till my mid-30s to afflict the world with my opinions]
Instead of simply making the common-sense case for respecting people who are hurting and not stigmatizing them because they made a mistake — you know, the Golden Rule — Dawson goes much further.
She denies the moral context of how an STD is contracted. She refuses to take responsibility for her bad behavior. She perpetuates misinformation about the seriousness of the disease.
And, she plays the victim. Isn’t feminism glorious?
I wasn’t the sort of person STDs happened to. I was a Planned Parenthood volunteer, a sexuality studies major, and everyone’s go-to friend when they had questions about losing their virginity. How could I have caught something when I had always been so careful? [As I said, her ideology almost guaranteed this outcome, indoctrinated in the baby-murdering sex cult of Planned Murderhood for who knows how long. She has been steeped in demonic lies regarding the gift of sexuality, only to be made use of within the confines of sacramental marriage, for years. She even worked at the whore of Babylon itself, Planned Butcherhood. That she has had numerous partners, and eventually contracted an STD, is entirely predictable, based on her embrace of the errors preached by Margaret Sanger’s satanic spawn. But she is so lost in this ideology, and, one fears, her sins, she still, even when afflicted with a cursed, incurable disease, refuses to question her assumptions and the ideology she has been very carefully brainwashed to fervently accept and even proselytize for.]
First of all, being a feminist isn’t a full-body condom. Second, there is no such thing as 100-percent certified safe sex when you’re doing it with strangers or just having casual sex with multiple partners………
……….Dawson also, nonsensically, believes that contracting herpes has nothing to do with her behavior.
On a logical level. I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character. [You keep telling yourself that, sweetheart.]
On a logical level? Really? She repeats this brilliant display of logic in a TED Talk: [As if I didn’t have a low enough opinion of “Ted talks”]
An STI, especially herpes, is not a reflection of your character or a consequence of a bad decision.
Neither is it, as she writes at Medium, “a consequence of personal choices.”
Sorry to break this to you, but an STD is the direct result of a personal choice. And if you’re a slut — as she claims — that is, by definition, a reflection of your character.
Fact: if she had never had casual sex, she would have never contracted genital herpes. [And this is where we see the ultimate evil that is diabolical narcissism revealed. This woman – and she is far from alone – has turned logic, reason, and even decency on its head in her constant attempts at self-justification. There is hardly anything that could be MORE a consequence of one’s actions that contracting an STD, unless one happened to be a spouse to a partner who was adulterating and contracted it through them. Contracting an STD may involve bad luck, it may involve incredible naivete, but it always – in the practical sense – involves promiscuity, that is, deliberate sex outside marriage for pleasure’s sake alone. I have had some female commenters in the past who tried to argue that there is “good” and “bad” feminism, but that’s bullocks. THIS WOMAN’S FAILED LINE OF THINKING IS AN EXACT REPRODUCTION OF THE IDEOLOGY AT THE HEART OF FEMINISM!!]
Instead of taking responsibility for her own bad choices, Dawson wants to throw logic — and morality — to the wind and justify her behavior by recasting the entire narrative about STDs into something positive: It’s just something that magically happens to you. You’re a passive victim, and there’s nothing you could have done to stop it. So you’re not guilty of anything. And most of all, you don’t have to feel ashamed. [Do you think this woman is driven by guilt, perhaps on some fundamental level? Or is it something else?]
This might come as a shock to Dawson and other moral relativists, but shame isn’t always a bad thing.
The personal shame you feel when you’ve done something wrong is healthy, because it leads you (or should) to conviction that will help you change your behavior. [But when you’ve killed God in the minds of millions, and carefully indoctrinated them to believe that this life is the only one they’ll ever have and so they better get in all the possible pleasure they can, because after this there’s nothing, such reasoning is generally lost on them in their headlong pursuit of pleasure]
……..She goes so far as to sayherpes is “harmless,” and that’s dangerous misinformation.
In an interview with Salon, Dawson said the disease has actually made her sex life better:
Herpes is such a great way to weed out jerks. It’s like the metal detector of douchebags because if somebody is scared of something so harmless, they’re just not worth your time. I have a really high bar for the people I date. [I’m sorry my dear, but you can’t have both a “high bar” and be a self-described slut. Not sure what the idiot college was where you majored in bedding losers, but you need some remedial English and logic] Most people have risen to it amazingly. That’s not to say I’ve only had committed relationships; I’ve had casual sex since getting diagnosed, it’s just always with the conversation of: This is a reality, how do we want to handle this? Do you want to use condoms? What are you most comfortable with? What makes sense for you? [I am willing to bet a substantial sum she has engaged in casual sex without that conversation.]
Herpes is not harmless.
According to the Mayo Clinic, genital herpes is highly contagious with many health risks, including brain damage, blindness or death in a newborn, bladder problems requiring a catheter, meningitis, rectal inflammation, damage to the nervous system, and an increased risk of “transmitting or contracting other STDs.” [We’ve fallen so far, this even needs to be said? That says everything.]
And there’s always a risk of contracting it if you have sex with someone who has the disease, even if they’re not experiencing a breakout.
So if you’re a guy who doesn’t want to risk, say, brain damage? Dawson thinks you’re a jerk. A douchebag.
If you want to remain healthy and not get painful pustules on your lower regions? Dawson says you’re a terrible human being.
I’m sure it does make her feel bad when someone doesn’t want to have sex with her because he’s afraid of getting herpes — but that’s not stigma. If Dawson would take responsibility for her own actions and stop playing the victim, she might understand that, and respect that other people’s decisions can’t cater to her feelings.
If anyone is being a douchebag when it comes to STDs, it’s Dawson.
Indeed. A douchebag that is almost guaranteed to be a divorcee, and highly likely a multiple-divorcee, should she ever decide to marry. The data is incontrovertible on that score. Women who have a high number of lifetime partners are a statistical lock to divorce. Barring, I suppose, a true conversion, but since she worships at the altar of Moloch/Planned Parenthood, that would require a substantial miracle.
Whether it’s shame or not that serves as motivation, this entire line of thinking is just reeks of the victimhood mentality that has apparently gone from small segments of the population to infecting most of an entire generation. But the only person this particular “victim” has to blame, is herself, and that’s the one realization diabolical narcissism absolutely prevents.
Of course, she wouldn’t have to make such a hideous public spectacle of herself, and her shame, driving away any man of quality permanently, if she would find that salve her conscience needs through Jesus Christ. He is the only One that can take away the pain of our past sins – which we all have, some, fortunately, not quite so spectacularly public – not this further descent into endless rationalization and self-justification which this poor creature is demonstrating, showing absolutely no ability to learn from her past mistakes. The shame of it is, in refusing the Grace of Jesus Christ, freely offered, she is damning herself to a lifetime of endless pain and self-induced suffering, no matter how many brave words she uses to try to talk herself off the ledge.
It’s not the sins that damn the diabolical narcissist. It’s the refusal to countenance that they have sinned, that they must repent, and experience conversion in trying to live a life of virtue in concert with the Truth Christ has revealed to us all. We see in the above the tragedy of a soul who manifestly refuses to acknowledge she is capable of grievously sinning, and so continues in that hellish form of living. Her Cure awaits her, patiently, infinitely patiently, but pride prevents her from seeing how easy it is to admit to sin and seek forgiveness.
Poor lost soul. One of so very many. She needs many prayers. She, and those she afflicts with her lies and false propaganda.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Christendom, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Liturgical Year, paganism, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society.
Our house is one of “those” houses. The one with the Christmas lights up until February 2nd. Because that’s when the season ends, people! We also don’t put them out on Thanksgiving, but generally just a few days before Christmas itself. It varies, depending on the amount of time we have, because we put up quite a bit, usually, though the kids have thankfully taken over much of the task in recent years. We certainly don’t put them up the day after Thanksgiving and rip ’em down the day after Christmas, or even New Years.
Apparently this topic was worthy of a news story, and, interestingly, not only do most people believe Christmas lights should come down very quickly, a growing number of municipalities are instituting laws to that effect:
When we see the first twinkle of the lights in early December, it is amazing, even magical. But eighteen days after the holiday? So, when is the right time to take down Christmas decorations?…….
………“Today while I shoveled, somebody honked at me, I waved. He slowed down and said ‘Christmas is over’ and with an expletive,” he said.
It’s not like with political campaign signs. It’s Minnesota law those have to be down 10 days after the election. But in San Diego, California, you can get a $250 fine if your lights are still up after Feb. 2. [Well at least it’s till the 2nd. But a fine? C’mon.]
The Urban Dictionary even has a term for these people: Nerkles. It’s a combination of nerd and sparkle.
In Minneapolis, Brad Sutton admitted his giant wreath probably should be unplugged.
“I’ll be honest, we’re past that point. A week past the New Years, that’s enough,” said Sutton, as he sheepishly walked to the second story of his house and pulled the power cord.
Lisa Scherber said the end of January is her drop-dead point for leaving the lights on.
“It starts to look a little pathetic when the snow is melting, so we do turn them off,” she said.
Todd Zimmerman proposed a staggered system of light deadlines: “Christmas Lights stay on until the day after Christmas then they are off period. I actually don’t take down the outside Christmas lights until is is warm enough (like March, April, June, whatever) and the snow is off the roof. Inside Christmas lights and decorations come day New Years Day.”
But as Nancy Aleshire wrote on my blog, “Keeping lights up is a matter of personal preference. There are no laws against it. If people don’t like it they should get a life.”
This is a small thing, in the grand scheme, but indicative of a culture that has completely lost the meaning and spirit of Christmas. Christmas isn’t a day, a build up to a much longed for greed fest that ends
the day hours after the presents start getting unwrapped, it’s a season that STARTS on the 25th, extends through a glorious Octave, and continues on until Candlemas on February 2nd. We see the continuing commercialization and diminution of all the great holidays, both secular and religious. I was disgusted to see “Black Friday” commercials advertising stores opening at 6pm, 3pm, even noon on Thanksgiving day. And we’ll be inundated with “after Christmas sales” and all the rest – starting almost certainly on the holy day itself. I remember when the whole world was pretty much shut down on Christmas day. It was a big thing when a few convenience stores started staying open on Christmas in the mid-80s. Now it’s just another freaking day to shop. The religious nature of the holiday has been almost completely turned upside down, with the commercialization subsuming the sacred character of the season, as it has virtually everything else. ‘
But it’s happened, because people have wanted it to happen. If stores and businesses received a very cold shoulder, and, more importantly, absolutely no customers, then they wouldn’t be opening on these holy days. They do it because people want it, they want to exchange their not quite perfect gift for a more perfect one, which will be old and forgotten hours – days at best – after being bought.
I have tried in the past few years to be off work the entire 12 days of Christmas, from the 25th to the 6th. That probably won’t work this year because of my new job but I hope to return to the practice next year (inability to transfer vacation from one year to the next can be frustrating). Something else my wife and I try to do is to only allow the kids to open some presents on Christmas day and keep some for following days, allowing them to open one each day for a while. We usually haven’t enough for the full twelve days, and to be honest our attempts at spreading the joy haven’t always completely worked out. We’ll try again this year, and as the kids get older, it tends to get a bit easier.
But the lights are staying up until the 2nd, period. I really miss it when they come down. It’s very sad and contributes – as it should – to the sense of termination of a festive season and the start (nominally) of Septuagint, which often follows closely on Candlemas when it does not preempt it.