Stabbed in the back again: House GOPes pass Obama Bathroom Order into Law in Late Night Session May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
This is why Trump exists. This is why he has a shot to be the next president. I am so sick of these liars and knaves. There aren’t 50 true conservatives on Capitol Hill. I am just about totally disgusted with the political process in this country. There is essentially one party, the insider socially progressive party of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite. The only thing they disagree on are tax breaks for the very rich:
Many are asking what Republicans plan to do to stop Obama’s executive war on culture and religious liberty in pursuit of cultural Marxism. Now we know that not only will this party do nothing to stop Obama, it will use its control of Congress to codify Obama’s agenda into law.
Late Wednesday night, Republicans allowed a vote on an amendment from Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., which codified Obama’s executive order 13672 making transgenderism the law of the land. Obama’s executive order, promulgated in July 2014, instructed bureaucrats to sever contracts with companies that don’t follow the Obama-mandated sexual identity agenda. This could include companies that don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms in their private corporate offices. The Maloney amendment to the $37.4 billion FY 2017 Energy & Water Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5055) codified that unilateral act into law.
The amendment passed 223-195 with 43 Republicans supporting it. The GOP House just supported arguably the most radical Democrat agenda item in the dead of night……..
………Once the Maloney amendment passed with GOP votes, Republicans proceeded to do what they always do so well. They offered side-by-side amendments in an attempt to cover up the damage. [So they are not just radically progressive themselves, they do not fail to vote in the way they were elected to do so by the people they claim to serve (while really serving only themselves), they practice deceit on a grand scale to try to keep the voters fooled] They passed the “Pitts amendment” as a second-degree by voice vote to affirm the constitutional importance of religious liberty. Then they passed the Byrne Amendments to reaffirm that RFRA is still in place and the government cannot discriminate against religious individuals. Well, as we all know, the Constitution and RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) have been in place for the entire Obama administration, yet he is still able to get away with religious bigotry edicts by claiming they don’t interfere with religious beliefs. Enshrining Obama’s specific edict into law and then passing vanity language reaffirming the general importance of religious liberty is like doing CPR on a dead body.
So, in the period 2009-early 2011, we were told Obama’s agenda simply had to pass because the GOP had no majority in the Congress and just couldn’t do anything to stop it. Give them a majority, they said, and you’d see all kinds of obstruction of Obama’s radicalism and even a rollback of some of his major “victories.” Here we are, 5 years later, with historic majorities for the GOPE ropers in both Houses, and they are STILL passing Obama’s budget, Obama’s expensive, onerous, and freedom-killing regulations, and his radical cultural marxist agenda. Democrats with minorities in both houses continue to block any real conservative legislation (with the willing connivance of the GOP leadership, which has kept numerous pro-religious liberty bills, for instance, from coming to a vote).
The GOP no longer serves any purpose, other than arguing for marginally lower tax rates on corporations and a small slice of the population. They are not for defending out borders. They are not strong on national defense in any way that makes sense. They do not oppose the destruction of Western Civilization through cultural marxism. In fact, the vast majority of GOP pols are fervent acolytes of the religion of sexular paganism.
At this point, I’ve reached the conclusion the GOP needs to die, and something else emerge in its place. I hate to be so negative, but how many examples of lies, treachery, and deceit do we need before we realize they will never, ever support our agenda, and would rather see the party gone (and themselves defected to the democrat party, where they belong) than do so?
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell Wholeheartedly Endorses Highly Problematic, Scripture Denying “Always Our Children” for “Gay” Ministry May 26, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, Restoration, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
It has been reported to me via disparate sources that at the most recent convocation of priests for the Diocese of Dallas, Bishop Kevin Farrell gave strong support to the ministry “Always Our Children,” and encouraged its spread throughout the Diocese. “Always Our Children” is a group which purports to be a support entity for the families of individuals who act out in profound ways on their same sex attraction. Always our Children is a renaming of the group’s previous title, “Outstretched Hands,” and according to some has links to the heterodox New Ways Ministry and Dignity “gay” lobby front groups.
Before I get into the details, I’ll simply state I’m not talking about intent. The intent behind this may be pure as the driven snow, but the effect I fear will be quite the opposite. In fact, the evidence already demonstrates that is already the case.
Some history: 6 years ago, I became aware of what was then called Outstretched Hands at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Plano. I wrote several blog posts on this subject, the two most principal of which are here and here. As I stated, the problems with “Outstretched Hands/Always Our Children” are manifold, including:
- Undermining or attempting to refute the plain condemnations of both the inclination towards, and especially the commission of, sexual acts committed between people of the same sex as outlined repeatedly in Sacred Scripture. In doing so, they adopt the language and diabolically erroneous interpretations of Scripture emanating from false, pro-gay sects like the Metropolitan “church.”
- Basing much of their outlook, and even their name, on an erroneous document produced by a sub-committee of the USCCB in 1997 and never approved by the full body of bishops: “Always Our Children.” This document was so full of error and false moral equivalence, the CDF under then Cardinal Ratzinger demanded it being rewritten and recast under a new title, which document was approved by the USCCB in full in 2006. The “Always Our Children” website makes no mention of this later, much more faithful document, which condemned the acts of Sodom and Gomorrah in much clearer terms, nor the fact that since the “Always Our Children” document was never approved by the full body of US bishops, it has essentially zero doctrinal or moral authority. The bias of the Always Our Children website is readily apparent from the short list of documents they use for reference, all of which were problematic to one degree or another and all of which are distinguished by their unusual degree of acceptance/support for the arguments of the “gay” lobby.
- Referencing the problematic 1990/94 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which erred towards softness on the subject of sodomy and its associated sins. One has to dig far down to find any mention of the revisions made to the 1997 Catechism on the same subject, correcting what many felt was a far too tolerant approach to these sins which cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The 1997 version of the Catechism is the only “authoritative” version at present, having superseded the earlier versions.
- Routinely serving as an advocacy group for the LGBT agenda
- Violently attacking anyone who shows up at an “Always Our Children” group meeting who speaks of chastity, self-denial, living in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. I have received numerous reports to this effect, and can attest to this truth by personal experience. In fact, those who present a faithful Catholic perspective at local Always Our Children meetings are routinely told to leave
A bit more history: when I first reported on this matter in 2010, there was a bit of a flap and a number of complaints sent to the Diocese. Bishop Farrell’s response was not to investigate the problems with the offending group with an eye towards removing them from local parishes, not to counteract their potentially (likely?) harmful influence by supporting the only Vatican-approved outreach ministry for same sex attracted individuals and their families, Courage/Encourage, but to order the deletion of the offending (contrary to doctrine) materials on the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton website! In other words, a cover up of sorts. And yet now those same materials have returned!
But that’s not even the half of it. I can also report to you that this isn’t the case of a bad memory. Numerous attempts have been made in recent weeks/months by well meaning souls to explain to the Diocese/Bishop Farrell the continuing problems with Always Our Children. There have also been a number of attempts to garner support for the far more faithful and morally satisfactory Courage group. Those efforts have met with the usual stonewalling and delay tactics.
It is also reported that most diocesan priests are strongly hostile towards Courage, to the extent that for nearly 3 years, from the departure of former auxiliary Bishop Seitz until very recently, the local Courage ministry could find no priest to serve as spiritual advisor/mentor in either the Dallas or Fort Worth dioceses (that sad situation has now, to my knowledge, been rectified). I’m sure you can imagine why so many priests might be hostile towards a faithful Catholic ministry that teaches chastity, the denial of sinful urges, and living in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith.
The truly devastating part is that Bishop Farrell’s support has now caused Always Our Children to spread throughout the Diocese. From being based at only St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in 2010, it is now in four parishes in the north deanery alone: Seton, St. Mark, St. Francis of Assisi (Frisco), and Prince of Peace. Three of the four are of course in Plano.
It does seem that some “Always Our Children” groups are better than others, but the information I have garnered informs me that the groups in the Diocese of Dallas are quite strongly on the liberal/unquestioning acceptance side of this matter. Again, I have some experience of this myself, though it is several years old, but I have recent testimony of folks who tried to represent an orthodox Catholic viewpoint in the local Always Our Children groups who met with a distinctly hostile reaction. This is not surprising to me, given the long time and overwhelmingly left-liberal influence of the lay ministers who oversee the operation of AOC at the local parishes in question. The family and adult ministries at three of the four parishes above have long been dominated by women who hold quite heterodox views regarding the Doctrine of the Faith, and whose advice in practical situation is highly questionable.
But at root, what is most upsetting to me, and others, is Bishop Farrell’s choice to so strongly endorse Always Our Children, when an alternative of much more robust orthodoxy, and a far more successful pastoral approach, exists in Courage/Encourage (Courage being the ministry for those with SSA, Encoruage for the families/loved ones of those with SSA). There are priests in the Diocese of Dallas who would like to see Courage get more support, but they are unfortunately in the distinct minority. As I mentioned above, many priests, quite possibly the majority, are reported to be quite hostile towards Courage and its approach. I would not be surprised in the least if this hostility did not influence Bishop Farrell’s decision. Again, I do not think ignorance can be cited as a defense, as I know problems with the current “gay outreach ministries” and the alternative of Courage have been presented to the chancery for years.
I’m not terribly surprised at all this, though I do find it disappointing. While the Bishop Farrell may be acting with the best of intentions, given the history and the criticism I know these groups have received, it’s pretty upsetting that he decided to go this route.
I’ve inveighed on people to contact the Diocese in the past on such matters, but having been through that process several times I can’t say it makes much difference (save, perhaps, to remove the public embarrassment by taking down a webpage or two). But, if you feel motivated to contact the Diocese of Dallas, by all means, knock yourself out, though I ask that you be respectful and to the point, eschewing words like evil or hell (not because I disagree, but because I don’t think they’re very effective).
Contact info below. Bishop Kelly is really the man to contact, since getting to Bishop Farrell is all but impossible unless you leave a trail of gold coins behind you when you walk:
Mary Edlund Chancellor, Dallas Diocese firstname.lastname@example.org 214-379-2819
Bishop Greg Kelly Auxiliary Bishop / Vicar of Clergy
Elsa Espinoza: Executive Assistant to the Bishop
Would someone kindly link this to Pewsitter? God bless you.
There has long been a debate within the pro-life community whether graphic displays of the reality of abortion are powerful tools to make people realize the awful reality of “a woman’s right to choose,” or excessive displays that turn off more people than they attract. I’ve long leaned towards the former, having seen a handful of people change their stance on abortion after being shown just what a baby at, say, 12 weeks gestation looks like (a tiny baby, instead of a blob of cells), and just what abortion does to their perfect, tiny bodies. But I know a good number of people who disagree, mostly because they feel these displays just turn too many people off.
Live Action has shown what might amount to a third way. They have produced some videos that use animation to demonstrate the reality of abortion. By using animation, the reality can be conveyed, while the horrifying reality of abortion can be somewhat sanitized through the unreality of animation.
The video below is one of those. It shows a typical “D&E” abortion on a 2nd trimester child. The baby is literally ripped limb from limb, before being pulled apart through the birth canal. The video is graphic and will be disturbing for some, but the reality is so important I think it should be shared:
I guess Live Action produced a whole series of these videos during the time I was away from the blog. They can all be found on their Youtube channel.
The interesting aspect to me was the reaction of a number of pro-aborts when shown the reality of abortion. Live Action maintains that 1/3 of the pro-aborts who witnessed the video above changed their position on abortion on the spot. Who knows how many may change their position later? I pray these “conversions,” so to speak, are permanent, at any rate:
Unfortunately, these “conversions” may not be lasting. These folks were on the spot, with people coming from an obvious pro-life viewpoint asking them to justify the unjustifiable. I pray they don’t revert to their previous blithe support for this horror later.
I mentioned in another post that Milo Yiannopoulos, who has been conducting a tour of US college campuses seeking to challenge the leftist repression of free speech and anti-left viewpoints so prevalent in American academia, had a rough ride at DePaul last night. I don’t think I’ll have a chance to get into the details of how he was assaulted and interrupted (as were many of his supporters), you can check out his channel for that, but I did find this interview below meaningful, as it demonstrates how an admittedly powerful personality can completely cow and over-awe a committed baby murder supporter through command of the facts and relentless argumentation. The relevant part is from 16:15 – 17:45, but the entire thing is worth listening to, if you can excuse the occasional foul language:
Perhaps overawe was the wrong term. Complete crushing, from the standpoint of argumentation and totally silencing the opponent, is perhaps more apt. Not sure her mind was changed, but at least the silence that resulted was blissful.
The point being, don’t be afraid to argue with these people face to face. Another rather unquestioned tenet of the pro-life movement of the past several decades is that confrontation is bad, that we should be kind and courteous and accepting and stay far away from judgment. I’m not sure that tactic has served the pro-life movement well. Yes, there have been many (mostly small) pro-life successes on the state and local level in terms of limitations opposed on abortion, but at the end of the day, abortion is just as legal as it ever was and just about as many abortions are being performed today as were being performed 30 years ago. We haven’t got a great deal to show for our niceness.
I’m not advocating that we stand there screaming insults at prospective baby murderers, but I do think we can be more aggressive in our use of facts and communication of the hideous reality of abortion to pro-aborts everywhere, be they outside a mill or not. I’d like to think there is room for both approaches, but many sidewalk counselors have been trained by various CLPCs and other pro-life groups that confrontation is very, very bad. I’m not certain I believe that, as I believe I’ve seen about as many positive results (walkaways, saves) from confrontation as I have from the more passive, supportive approach. I think it depends a great deal on the individual you’re dealing with.
There’s just no end with these people. Everything must be bent to serve the agenda or narrative, no matter how preposterous, no matter how blasphemous. There is no limit to the depths to which they will stoop in order to justify their depraved views and endless diabolical narcissism. Amazingly, these are the people who are utterly convinced they are the “good guys,” and we, who observe the moral creed that build Western civilization, the bad.
So, with total inevitability, we are now treated to screeds (safe link) arguing that the Christ is “transgender,” so look how wrong you are with your outdated morality and your hate-filled bigotry, Christofascist. Even more inevitably, the author of this demonic bile is a professor of “theological ethics” at the, ahem, Catholic university of Villanova:
Since Jesus had no human biological father, and since God, his heavenly Father, lacks a body, then Jesus was a man who likely had no Y chromosome. Would this not make Jesus more like a transgender person than a cis-gender one? We could grant Jesus a Y chromosome, but then we would have to assign his virgin mother Mary one as well. Either way, the miracle of sex-less conception suggests that Jesus can qualify as a “real man” only if Mary qualifies as something less than a “real woman.” (And I hope you can tell I that I am using quotation marks in order to signal extreme sarcasm).
I think the professor needs to go back to class. As if we needed another damning indictment of the Catholic colleges in this country. Wait till you see how Milo Yiannopolous was treated at “Catholic” DePaul yesterday.
As writer David French at NRO notes, this is probably less a serious effort to advocate some ludicrously insupportable new claim, than it is a part of that favorite left-wing pastime of virtue signalling and insulting the faithful:
None of this is intellectually or theologically serious, of course. It’s trolling for the sophisticated and deception for the simple. For elitist readers, it’s the kind of “ha ha look what we can do to Christian teachings” piece they love to share amongst themselves as “proof” that you can make any kind of argument from the Bible. For the vulnerable, it’s a quick Google search away from basic assurance that Christ is cool with their transition. [In other words, it’s all about serving the agenda, which is really about giving leftists their “sacred” good feelz, no matter how many have to get hurt in the process]
Oh, and it’s also blasphemous. But no big deal – it’s not like the authors were arguing that Mohammed was transgender. That would be disrespectful. Everyone knows that Mohammed was a revered religious figure, and it’s just wrong to hurt or anger his followers.
Great point. We can be assured this author would never DARE to insult the leader of a great religion like islam. But all progressives know, Christianity is not a great religion, it’s the deadly enemy of their substitute religion, leftism. And it must be destroyed at all costs. That has been the objective of leftism since its inception, and I continue to maintain that leftists will happily don the hijab and see their daughters (the few they allow to be born) in harems when the time comes.
Another blithering idiot is trying to claim that Eve was a trans woman, because she was born from Adam’s side, and thus must have had a Y chromosome. As if the Lord and Creator of the universe could not – and does not – raise up new life from dust. Can you imagine the insufferable pride that causes a person to limit God’s power to the present, inherently faulty state of human knowledge? Preposterous doesn’t begin to describe it. Only diabolical disorientation could result in such willful blindness and catastrophic illogic.
These are endlessly wicked, sick, and hate-filled people. The joy they experience in blaspheming Christ and constantly attacking His religion is palpable in their works. There’s a term for that – the reprobate sense. It is a terrible, terrible place to be (I’ve been there), a place where right and wrong are literally inverted, where lies become truth and Truth a lie. It is a sign of demonic oppression and it is mind-blowing that Catholic universities would employ individuals who give such obvious signs of hatred for God and His Church.
Mind-blowing, that is, if one operates from the assumption that those charged with overseeing Catholic universities – the bishops – possess the Faith themselves. An assumption that is all but inoperable in these dark days.
Cover-up of perversion and sexual abuse in Hollywood goes back decades: why are we watching their product? May 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
I read today that the man who was once America’s Favorite Dad, Bill Cosby, is going to face a criminal trial over the mass of evidence that he drugged, abused, and raped women for decades. Another revelation came out recently, from his own testimony in a previous civil trial, that he had “scouts” bring him a bevy of very young teen models for his perusal every day, and that he would select one or two to use for his sick pleasures. Hardly surprising, given the other evidence, but since this practice was self-admitted, and that there is evidence that some of the models may have been underage, this admission by Cosby could cause him even further well-deserved legal trouble.
But the truth is, Hollywood has known about Cosby’s sicko lusts for decades. I believe I have mentioned before that one of my best friend’s sisters was a Playboy Playmate. There’s a whole sordid tale about how that came to pass, but that’s not the point of this post. The point is, as a former Playboy Playmate, aspiring (but never successful) actress, and denizen of Hollywood, she had access to the Playboy Mansion owned by Hugh Hefner. This was a frequent gathering spot for former Playmates looking to party in a drug-soaked atmosphere with both major movie stars and the perennial Hollywood hangers-on. One of the most frequent guests at the Playboy Mansion during the 70s and 80s was one Bill Cosby.
So there I was at my best friend’s house one evening in 1991 or 1992, when his sister happened to be in town with her then-fiancée Miklos “Mickey” Hargitay, Jr. I don’t know how we got on the subject, maybe his show was on TV, but both mentioned how often they saw Bill Cosby at the Playboy Mansion back in the day. Even more, Mickey Jr., who I ran into several times, and who was a really cynical sort (I was told he was messed up from seeing his mother Jayne Mansfield decapitated right before his eyes in a terrible 1967 automobile accident), made a number of very disparaging comments about Cosby’s moral hypocrisy, how he “guessed he loves his wife Camille, now, because he sure didn’t seem to back when he was <using> 15 year olds three at a time in the mid-80s,” among other things.
Anyway, this was no big secret they had stumbled onto. Everybody who even occasionally attended the Playboy Mansion knew of Cosby’s habits, so notorious were they, and because virtually anyone who was anyone in Hollywood in that period (says, 60s-early 90s, at least) visited the Mansion at least occasionally, pretty much all of Hollywood knew what was up. They probably considered it no big deal, because many others had similar habits, whether criminal or not. Secrets like this are considered de rigueur in Hollyweird, I suppose.
For a bit more evidence of that, a number of child stars from the 60s through the 90s have alleged that child molestation is also extremely widespread, that the “casting couch” applies as much to children as it does to young adults seeking to “make it big.” Just recently, Lord of the Rings star Elijah Woods stated that child sex abuse was common in Hollywood (though he subsequently backtracked), only confirming previous claims from former child stars like Corey Haim and Corey Feldman, two youths who claim their train-wreck adult lives of addiction and worse were fostered by the abuse they suffered.
And it continues to this day. X-Men director/producer Bryan Singer may or may not have raped underage boys, but that he has a strong attraction for “barely legals” is beyond dispute. When allegations first surfaced, the Hollywood press reacted to the effect that everyone already knew this, and who cares?
Of course, these are only a few recent scandals. Hollywood has long played a pivotal role in the decline of moral standards in this country. Hollywood has been associated with moral depravity from its earliest days, whether through the perversion of major stars or “prosaic” serial divorce/adultery, the standard Hollywood set, through its massive cultural influence, provided a highly influential, highly negative example to tens of millions of Americans going back decades. Hollywood has helped normalize vice, perversion, and sin of all kinds. Even “good guys” like John Wayne, Ward Bond, or Clint Eastwood have led personal lives of highly dubious moral character.
Which leads me to my close: why the heck are we giving these sickos a dime of our money? I ask this question as much of myself as of anyone, because my kids like to have some of the recent kids movies and I have a few things I like to watch, too. If I watch anything these days, it’s mostly old westerns, but I do break down from time to time and see something “modern,” which I usually regret afterwards. Like skeinster has said in the comments, if we eschewed everything with a taint of immorality we’d have to live in a cave somewhere with no contact with the outside world. But watching movies and TV comes with an exceedingly high cultural, moral price.
I’m going to try like heck to no longer pay it. So no Captain America: Civil War for the kids, thanks to Disney leaning on Georgia to overturn their ban on men in women’s restrooms, which they unfortunately did.
So the Filipinos have elected a new president, it seems, a man who has made numerous virulently anti-Catholic statements, and who promises to institute a “3 child policy” (I don’t believe he has specified what penalties will occur if families “violate” the policy), divorce on demand and government-funded contraception.
Apparently, his hostility to the Faith did not prevent a plurality of nominally Catholic Filipinos (where roughly 80% of the population today claims the name Catholic, down from over 95% about 20 years ago) from voting for him. As in so many countries, so-called Catholics vote in their own persecutors – assuming, of course, these self-described Catholics even view these anti-Catholic policies and tirades as being opposed to the Faith, which, of course, they don’t (my emphasis and comments):
Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte said he will defy the Roman Catholic Church and seek to impose a three-child policy, putting him on a new collision course with the bishops a day after he called them “sons of whores”……..
……..Duterte’s often outrageous comments have won him huge support and his tirades about killing criminals and a joke about a murdered rape victim do not appear to have dented his popularity in the largely Catholic country.
“I only want three children for every family,” Duterte said on Sunday in Davao City. “I’m a Christian, but I’m a realist so we have to do something with our overpopulation. I will defy the opinion or the belief of the Church.”……[Not clear on if this “Christian” Duterte claims to be a Catholic or protestant. Indications are that it is the latter, which, surprise! A protestant advocating for draconian governmental interference into the most intimate of spheres, the size of family and relations between husband and wife]
…….On Saturday, he criticized the Church as the “most hypocritical institution”, meddling in government policies and said some bishops were enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. [So, opposition to your evil policies = “meddling in government policies?” How many other tyrants have said similarly over the years?]
“You sons of whores, aren’t you ashamed? You ask so many favors, even from me,” Duterte said in an interview broadcast by TV station GMA.
Monsignor Oliver Mendoza, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Lingayen, whose head is the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said the Church respected Duterte’s opinion [is that how you respond when someone calls your mother a whore? You “respect their opinion?” That’s not an opinion but an insult, and unworthy of respect. This is a major problem, an indication of leadership far too willing to bow to the secular authority, and its certainly not limited to the Philippines] but that it would continue to speak against government policies that are contrary to Church teaching. [But even after you have done your duty, say, we are unprofitable servants, for we have only done what was required of us]
…..Political analysts said they were not surprised at Duterte’s statements because some bishops spoke out against him during the election campaign. [Only some. Shocking, I know. And thus his successful election? So where does uber-progressive and Francis confidante Cardinal Tagle stand on this?]
“Like most liberal, secular politicians, Duterte is a deist,” said Joselito Zulueta of the University of Santo Tomas. “This in itself is a self-serving position conceived out of human conceit. He will do as he pleases except when he’s stopped by public criticism.” [Well, someone knows the truth! And a Catholic university professor, of all people! I need my fainting couch!]
He said Duterte’s government was expected to clash more with the Catholic Church not only on population issues, but on the restoration of death penalty, legalization of divorce and planned distribution of contraceptives. [Which, if it occurs, means legalizing abortion within a few years, to deal with the “problem” of contraceptive failure (which failures are guaranteed and frequent). Legalized abortion is also necessary to insure a “3 child policy.” You can see where this diabolical plot is headed]
And once again we see bishops expending their limited and dwindling political capital on matters like the death penalty, on which the Church has spoken clearly until the last 40 years or so. The state has always had the right of the sword, according to the Church, and while there may be prudential reasons to oppose the application of the death penalty in a given country either generally or on specific occasions, proclaiming it to be an intrinsic evil, as is generally done by Church leadership today, is simply not reconcilable with the Doctrine of the Faith.
That may sound like picking nits, but it’s not. For as many people as a particular bishop, or even Francis, may turn on by making prudential matters into dogmatic ones, or elevating the progressive political platform into a pretended doctrine, they turn at least that many more off. Even more, the confusion this causes undermines the Church’s moral authority in ALL spheres and can be a precipitating factor in souls falling away.
Which gets down to the root question: is this a feature or bug of the post-conciliar paradigm?
In the light of Pope Francis’ incredible statements made last week, seeming to attribute mortal sin to “bloodsucking” employers who fail to provide what he feels are adequate wages and, more specifically, health insurance, it is reported (link to Crux) that the average Vatican employee makes $22,000 a year, and this in Rome, one of the more expensive places in the world to live. If you assume a 40 hour work week (indications below are that many work much more than that) and 52 weeks work a year (the article also claims most receive no paid vacation), that works out to just over $10.50 an hour, about what a moderately experienced grocery store clerk makes. However, this income is supposed to be tax free, the impact of which is unclear to me in real terms. In the US, people who make under $45k a year rarely pay any income tax, anyway, but I’m not certain of the situation in Italy.
Some additional details:
…..The Vatican has a working force of roughly 4,600 employees, three quarters of which are lay people. The overall annual budget is around $300 million, with salaries and benefits being the largest single expense. [We don’t know, from the data presented here, just how much of that $300 mil goes to salary. If we can assume 2/3 of the total Vatican annual budget goes to personnel costs, and that would probably be a bit high given many other expenses, the “average” salary+benefits cost per employee would equal ~$43500 a year – pretty durned low, especially in Rome]
……The net result is that the average Vatican employee makes around $22,000 a year, tax free.
That may seem shockingly low by American standards, but for those already in the system it’s at least a secure source of employment: Odds are, the Vatican is never going out of business. [Does it seem shockingly low to you? Seems pretty low to me]
Under the Vatican’s labor law, it’s also virtually impossible to get fired……….
……..Those working with a full-time contract get a pension and health care, though anyone living in Italy for more than three months and who registers with the National Health Services is eligible for free or low-cost health care along with their families, university students and retirees.
Things have gotten considerably more difficult for many lay Vatican employees since February 2014, when the Vatican announced an immediate end to new hires and imposed a freeze on wage-increases and overtime in an effort to cut costs and offset budget shortfalls.
Pope Francis, with input from the Vatican’s central accounting office, also determined that volunteers could be used to help provide the labor needed to make up for the hiring freeze and eventual attrition.
According to four Vatican lay employees, all of whom asked to remain unnamed, the freeze has created new ways in which laity face exploitation.
In truth, new lay people are still being hired to work in the Vatican, but under what are known as “religious contracts.” These contracts are supposed to be for religious men and women coming to Rome to fulfill a specific task, for a period ranging from 10 months to a year. [Which would seem dubious to start with. Also a sad sign of the continued collapse of religious life?]
Since religious communities normally provide health insurance, pension and benefits, the Vatican doesn’t have to cover them, and doesn’t do so for a lay employee hired under these contracts. [So that notional $22,000 salary does not even include the single largest additional cost to employers – health insurance?]
This is the case of many people working today at Vatican Radio, for instance, or the Vatican Museums.
In most cases, the employees add, people under these contracts end up working for many years, with no benefits, no guaranteed vacation days or no health insurance, hoping to eventually see their situation regularized. [My goodness. If true, wow. Hypocrisy much?]
Now, this is one report, not exactly the gold standard for reliability, but nevertheless, if even somewhat true, this would reveal a huge dichotomy between the rhetoric we are treated to, and the reality of how Francis runs the Vatican administration as a sort of religious CEO. It would mean, in essence, that Francis has condemned himself with his words. And not for the first time, I might add.
There could of course be true mitigating circumstances, a perceived need to balance the Vatican books, the collapse in religious fervor leading a general decrease in donations to Peter’s Pence (for which, it can be said, Francis shares a growing responsibility), perhaps some dire and unseen funding/debt difficulties – all of which apply to private “bloodsuckers” just as much as they do to the Vatican. Meaning, that while the seemingly low pay of Vatican employees, and using less than perfectly just means to keep employee costs down, can perhaps be excused or explained away, they cannot be squared with the rhetoric declaring others who do exactly the same things for perhaps even better reasons to be mortally sinful.
A skeptic might add that such behavior, however, would be thoroughly in line with the Peronist oligarchical populists of Argentina, who loved to condemn the rich as evil and show themselves to be the friend of the poor common working man, even while obscenely enriching themselves, often at the expense of the poor.
Thankfully, I am not a skeptic.
h/t reader “ediegrey”
He began the week by pretending to see deep inside the heart of every business person who fails to provide health insurance, and finding mortal sin (not a safe link, goes to Distorter). He finished by implying that Christ actually gave His blessing to divorce, rather than castigating it in the harshest terms. Before I get to the quotes, can I just say, someone capable of turning Scripture and Tradition this upside down and placing it at war with itself, is capable of literally anything.
First, today’s debacle, Franky George Bergoglio making Christ a liar in order to further his modernist-progressive deconstruction of the Church:
This morning Pope Francis gave a homily at Casa Santa Marta where he appeared to claim that Jesus approved of the Mosaic Law on divorce on the grounds of mercy. Or, as Francis put it, Jesus enunciated the “official” truth while then going above it or beyond it in order to engage in accompaniment, integration and discernment.
This is of course the very opposite of what is described in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. It is the Pharisees who attempt to use the Mosaic Law to justify divorce. And it is Jesus who rebukes them for it.
The Pope is fond of accusing his enemies of “casuistry” but it is he who consistently engages in it. This twisting of one of the most famous exchanges in the New Testament is striking in its attempt to mislead.
That would be to prevaricate, to obfuscate the Truth with deliberate intent to mislead. Is that what Francis is doing?
I am of two minds, kind of. My rational, evidentiary side says: absolutely! These 60s Jesuits are not dumb. They know precisely what they are doing, and they do it for very specific reasons, to force the Church to fit into their ideological preferences. They have been at this game for a long time, and the consistency of their arguments and willingness to make both themselves and Christ liars from one moment to the next – whichever they perceive as aiding their progressive cause the most – shows them to be agendized ideologues in single-minded pursuit of a goal.
But the other part – the merciful part – of me says, well, maybe he’s imbibed such hideous, nonsensical, contrarian nonsense for so long, Francis is not only incapable of consistent reasoning, he doesn’t even realize when he’s turning logic and the plain meaning of Scripture on its head.
I have a very hard time believing that, however. The twists and turns of Francis’ logic are simply too consistent, and too aligned with a particular goal in mind, to be honest mistakes of zeal and bad formation. That is to say, it’s well past time my doubts have been taken out behind the woodshed, and put down.
According to the National Catholic Reporter, the pontiff made the comments while delivering a homily at Casa Santa Marta on Thursday evening. He reportedly outlined a hypothetical situation in which a business employs someone from September to June but denies them health care coverage during their tenure. Francis observed that when the job ends, the worker “must eat air.”
“Exploitation of people today is a true slavery,” the pope said, referring to the suffering of workers who aren’t treated fairly. “We thought that slaves do not exist anymore. They exist. It’s true, people don’t go to Africa to take them and then sell them in America, no. But it’s in our cities.”
“Living off the blood of the people: This is a mortal sin,” he added. “And it takes much patience, much restitution to convert ourselves from this sin.”
As usual, Francis fails to make a direct point. He strongly implies, however, that failing to pay what he feels are sufficient wages (whatever that means), or only employing people on a seasonal, need-based basis (so teachers are mistreated?), or failing to provide health insurance, constitute a mortal sin.
Note the dichotomy, and note the perfect correlation with progressive (Leftist) thought: sins of the flesh are infinitely excusable, if they are even sins at all (and not occasions for “accompaniment” and “mercy”), while prudential matters that may or may not be sinful, being entirely dependent on circumstance, are not just sins, but mortal sins. Whatever happened to “who am I to judge?”
Anyway, I don’t want to beat this horse too much. As I said at the top, every stinkin’ week it’s the same thing, some new outrage, some new attack. I don’t think it any coincidence that the despicable Fr. Thomas Rosica went on the offensive this week against Catholic blogs, either, castigating them/us for everything from being a “cesspool of hatred, venom, and vitriol,” to being “very disturbed, broken, and angry individuals who never found a pulpit in real life.” Once again, where is the mercy, where is the accompaniment, where the endless apologias? The truth is, those are reserved for those who serve, or advance, the ideological agenda. Opponents will be crushed.
Talk to the Franciscans of the Immaculate about that. They weren’t even given the chance to be opponents of the new authoritarian regime, they were cdestroyed in advance as warning to all others.
It’s all about power with these people. Power, and ideology.
I agree: quit all social media May 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Domestic Church, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Interior Life, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Responding to the latest revelations of marked bias against conservative viewpoints at Facebook (after previous revelations regarding not just bias, but outright persecution of conservative viewpoints on Twitter), one of the two blogs I still have time to read, is calling for a total conservative pullout of all social media. I say here here, I’m glad I deleted my Facebook long ago and don’t plan to ever return. I’ve never been on Twitter.
Note the link does contain some coarse language, I copy some of the clean bits below:
FaceBook characterizes [conservative/pro-life actress] Patricia Heaton’s endorsement of an organization that does nothing but care for unwanted children as “anti-abortion.”
Blow Up Your FaceBook Account. Quit With Extreme Prejudice.
It’s time to rattle ten million sabers and begin destroying rotten institutions one by one. Make them fear us.
Brave men and women do not continue along in their passive acceptance of a meritless enterprise. Brave men and women resign.
They don’t just stay on board merely because a bad habit has become a habit.
Take control of your lives by ending your dependency on progressive institutions and time-wasting media indulgences. [IOW, destroy your TV]
I’m a proud Twitter Quitter and my life has improved since I cut the progressive IV drip.
What do I always hear about why people stay on FaceBook? “Oh, it’s a way to keep in touch with my friends.”
Hey, remember the old days when keeping in touch with your friends meant actually keeping in touch with your friends — getting together, having a phone chat, even going old school and dropping a letter?
In what sense is it “keeping in touch” with people when your “keeping in touch” is automated and consists of looking at someone’s wall for two seconds?
And hey — if there are people in your life so ancillary to your existence that “keeping in touch” consists of publishing “news items” about yourself every few days, maybe they’re not really you “friends” at all, but very shallow zombie relationships you’re maintaining the fiction of in order to feel a social connectedness, the real version of which you’re denying yourselves by pretending at it on FaceBook.
Destroy FaceBook. Destroy Twitter. Destroy ABC/Disney/Marvel/ESPN. Destroy NBC…….
So, it costs me nothing to say this. I’ve never been big on social media, and only got sucked into Facebook to access some items not available elsewhere. A
fter Facebook started persecuting pro-lifers a couple of years ago, blocking their viewpoints or labeling them “extremist,” I quit. I got sucked back in briefly once, again to see something I couldn’t find elsewhere (which is a bad habit in and of itself, putting important Church-related content only on Facebook), but killed the account again several months ago. Of course, they still have, and sell, all the personal preference data they gleaned from me during my membership.
More than a few Catholics I know have a bit of a Facebook addiction. They spend hours on it most days. This especially affects younger people (<30) and, surprisingly, Catholic moms. A lot of Catholic stay at home moms use Facebook as a social outlet. I can understand that. And there are a lot of good Catholic resources on FB.
My views on that aren’t quite as harsh as Ace’s above, but I do think, generally, Facebook and Twitter are massive time wasters. Yeah it can be a convenient way to “stay in touch,” but how much time is spent just idly scrolling through the feed looking at a whole bunch of stuff of very questionable merit? Do you really need to post that photo of the Vietnamese vermicelli you had for lunch, or see your ex-high school crush’s new girlfriend? Etc.
People sometimes ask me how I have time to read as much as I do, blog, etc. Well, watching maybe 1 hour of TV a week, and that almost entirely movies (or pre-1970 Westerns) is one way. You’d be amazed how much more productive you can be when you cut the cord.
Make a statement. Just quit. Or at least, find a conservative alternative, like Full 30 is a gun-centric conservative alternative to Youtube. Stop giving money to your progressive overlords, the very people trying to crush the Christian religion, choke the life out of the Faith, and turn your children into progressive zombies.
The semi-official publication of the French episcopal conference, the magazine La Croix, conducted an interview with Francis recently. There have been two portions of that interview that have caused a good deal of comment. The first contains some conciliatory, if non-committal, words from Francis regarding the SSPX. He claims they are working towards full communion. That’s not exactly explosive to me, but it is a far cry from the cries of “protestant” and “schismatic” directed towards the Society by some in the hierarchy over the past 40 years.
What has caused far more controversy is this statement below, following a question from La Croix regarding islam (I’m sure there will be some argument over translation):
La Croix: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
Who, of any substance, has ever interpreted the Great Commission in such a tawdry manner? Who has ever drawn comparisons between the almost entirely peaceful spread of Christianity through Europe and much of the world (I know there have been exceptions), with the almost entirely violent spread of islam? Islam is a religion that has only and ever been spread by conquest. It has made very few converts, historically, save with the threat of physical violence and other means of repression. Only very recently, in Europe and other parts of the West, has islam begun to attract more than a handful of disaffected, disillusioned souls, souls who have never known the Truth of Jesus Christ?
One of the most disturbing qualities of Francis is his tendency to believe things which are not. Yes, many in Europe (and elsewhere) are extremely concerned over the spread of islam, and not just ISIS. No, there is no reasonable equivocation between Catholic evangelizing and muslim conquest. No, it is not possible to reconcile those who persist in manifest grave sin with reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Yes, protestants absolutely should and indeed must convert to the Catholic Faith. And so on…….
What we are witnessing in so many aspects of this pontificate (including numerous statements in his official, magisterial works) is a fundamental failure of rational thought. Much of what is posited is not simply contrary to the Faith but an attack on reason itself. Such thinking is very prevalent among progressives, who at the same time tell us that sexuality is absolutely fixed at birth and utterly immutable (in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary), while sex (as in “gender”) is as fluid as can be, subject to change on a whim, including the whim to watch women undress. One can see a certain analogy in claiming that what has always been a sin now somehow isn’t, or at least isn’t an impediment to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Or that the peaceful spread of Christianity somehow mirrors the spread of islam.
I read at One Peter Five a statement by Steve Skojec that Francis is the most authoritarian pope the Church has seen in decades, but that he is using all that papal authority to destroy it, long term, in a sort of kamikaze fashion. That is to say, Francis is using, or intends to use, a sort of papal absolutism to drive fundamental change in the Church, in the process, transferring (it hasn’t happened quite yet?) authority from the papacy to new dicasteries (headed by women?) and especially national conferences. His successor will then be hobbled with an office denuded of much of its authority and unable to change what he hath wrought. An interesting theory, which I pray does not come to pass.
I’m out of time. Let me know what you think.