+Schneider Likens Church to Soviet Regime December 7, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, Restoration, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
Well, one leftist cohort tends to resemble another. They are all predicated on the exaltation of man above God and the state (or institution) above all, to the extent that humans are crushed for the “greater good,” which really means the good of the tiny cabal that actually holds the reigns of power.
Before a packed room in Rome’s Centro Lepanto on Monday, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan urged the faithful to ardently hold on to the Church’s Magisterium on the indissolubility of marriage within the current state of ongoing ambiguities.
“When Christ preached 2,000 years ago, the culture and reigning spirit were radically opposed to Him. Concretely religious syncretism ruled, also Gnosticism among the intelligent leaders, as well as permissibilism among the masses — especially regarding the institution of matrimony. […] The sole purpose of the Son of God was to reveal the truth to the world.”……
……..“The formulation of dubia, as the Cardinals here have expressed in their own terms, has been a common practice in the Church,” he explained. “We need to be able to ask questions openly without being afraid of repressions.” [Progressives are all about “dialogue” and “debate” when they perceive themselves out of power, but when they believe they have power, such quaint notions go out the window. It’s all about whatever serves their perceived interests, that’s all.]
Bishop Schneider referred to the numerous attacks that the four Princes of the Church have suffered after their dubia was published. The questions still remain unanswered by Pope Francis.
“The reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now,” Bishop Schneider said. “We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group.”
Schneider went to say that “dialogue seems to be accepted only if you think like everyone else – that is practically like a regime.” [Leftists be leftists, wherever they are. Power is the only end they care about, and will use any means to gain it. Once they have it, they have few scruples in using it in cruel and unjust ways]
Schneider brought up his experience in Russia, where he was born in the time of the Soviet Union. His parents were sent by Stalin to work camps, or “Gulags,” after the Second World War. “If you didn’t follow the line of the party, or you questioned it, you couldn’t even ask. That is for me a very clear parallel to what is happening now in the reactions to the dubia — questions — of the Cardinals.”
“This is a very sad experience especially since everybody is speaking about a ‘culture of dialogue’ after the Second Vatican Council. While bishops openly teach heresies and nothing happens to them, that is truly a grave injustice and very sad,” Bishop Schneider added. [Sure. “Dialogue” for the progressives, which really means promotion of the worst errors, and persecution for everyone else]
“If the Pope does not answer, the next step will be recourse to prayer, to supernatural means,” Schneider said, “to pray for the enlightenment of the Pope and that he will gain courage.” [Prayer is the basis of everything. It’s a foregone conclusion. But I hope Burke and his allies are prepared to do more in the material realm, if need be. As in starting formal proceedings of inquiry into the orthodoxy of Francis’ beliefs.]
Schneider speculated about what might happen in the near future. “In Church history, we say that in an extreme case in which the bonum commune of the faith is threatened, then the bishops as members of the college of bishops, and in a truly collegial relation to the Pope with a brotherly obedience to him, must ask him publicly to renounce the misdeed of giving Communion to remarried divorced Catholics, as it is already being done in many dioceses.” [That’s very specific. But in a general council, Burke and those like him would be in the distinct minority, would they not? What then?]
Rebutting the attacks of various persons against the Cardinals, he defended the four. “This situation has already had precedences in saints — not in schismatics or heretics. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Catherine of Siena, and I think this should be possible in the Church without the person being called a schismatic.” [Absolutely. As I say, leftists always project. When they call someone schismatic, it’s because they themselves have schismatic intent. Thus the recent article in L’Osservatore Romano by the Patriarch of Constantinople, certainly the most liberal patriarch of the Orthodox Church.]
Cardinal Burke has said a “formal correction” might be in order to resolve the situation of uncertainty. “In the language of moral theology, fraternal correction is an act of love — if it is given in obedience and with reason,” Schneider commented. “We have to return to this familiar way of dealing with it.”
Absolutely true. I pray that not only does Cardinal Burke have the wherewithal to continue pursuing this matter – he is increasingly becoming the obvious leader of the opposition to Francis’ Reign of Error – but that he can be sufficiently persuasive to get at least 30% or so of prelates on his side. He may not ever be able to convince a majority of spineless, careerist prelates to join him in condemning Francis’ promotion of error, but even a good 25-30% would be an enormous rebuke and a sign of pending schism. It would gravely undermine Francis’ ability to govern the Church, and, more importantly, pursue his agenda.
Schneider is correct, however, in assessing that prayer is the basis for whatever strength Burke and his allies will have. Please devote Novenas, Rosaries, and many other prayers to him and all like him who are willing to oppose this most egregiously destructive of popes.
As an addendum, Cardinal Turkson has been, for the most part, firmly in the Franciscan camp (which is how he got a plum new assignment), but one wonders if he is wavering, given his recent statements seemingly supportive of the pointed questioning of the dubia? Turkson is a wholly political animal, a man who plastered Rome with images of himself during the conclave of 2013, so if he is shifting, even a bit, it might be revealing of general trends within the episcopate. Or he could simply be playing both sides of the fence.
France Squashes Speech of Pro-Lifers December 7, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Well well well. A socialist government, on its way out of power, has taken repeated steps in recent months to block the ability to pro-lifers to speak against abortion, and has now proposed a drastic step to more or less make pro-life speech illegal in France, or at least very sharply curtailed.
This is so very revealing of the true nature of Leftism. Their inveterate hatred of Christianity, and especially Christian morals, causes them to upend even supposed rights sacrosanct to the left-liberal ideology, like free speech. Eventually, far enough down the road (and we’re not very far from that point in this nation, even with the election of 2016), the Left will shift to full-on totalitarian tactics to crush their perceived opponents. We’ve really only started to see that in this country; France is a little further down the road. Now, one reason the socialists are doing this is to put the coming, more conservative government (how conservative will be decided at the polls – I hope it is National Front) in a political bind, requiring them to potentially fracture their own coalition to amend an egregious affront against a portion of it. But overall, this is definitely the direction all leftist movements worldwide are heading towards, with a more and more open disdain for traditional morality and the religion that inspired it:
France’s socialist government is attempting to crack down on pro-life activists by criminalizing online advocacy at odds with the nation’s abortion regime.
On Thursday, the French National Assembly passed a bill that makes it a crime to post information online that challenges abortion. Pro-life activists who continue to operate online face up to two years in prison and a fine of more than $30,000.[This is truly an extreme measure. France has laws enshrining “freedom of speech” as a fundamental right, too. Don’t look for the Constitution to protect you or your speech. We’re going to have to fight for it.] The bill is an expansion of a 1993 law that penalized giving out “false information” or physically blocking those seeking abortion from entering clinics. The bill passed by French lawmakers will punish web operators who post material considered “deliberately misleading, intimidating and/or exerting psychological or moral pressure.”
The French legislation follows a controversy that erupted after the French government blocked an advertisement featuring smiling children with Down syndrome because it could dredge up feelings of guilt from woman who decided to abort babies diagnosed with the genetic condition in-utero. [How much more revealing can you be?!? Oh, we don’t want women who wantonly murder their babies, often for the most prurient reasons, to ever feel a shred of guilt or self-doubt! That might undermine further abortions! Does anything better testify to the satanic nature of the modern Left, and its use of abortion as a literal demonic sacrifice?] About 96 percent of all babies diagnosed with the condition are aborted in France. The two-minute ad featured testimony from Down syndrome children and adults, as well as their parents explaining that they were capable of living full and happy lives. In November a French court upheld the ban, saying the video would “‘disturb the conscience of women who, in accordance with the law, have made personal life choices.’”
French pro-life group Droit de Naître (Right to Be Born) told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement that the socialist government is trying to ram through pro-abortion legislation because of its dismal prospects in the upcoming French elections……..
……….Pro-life activists in the United States have dealt with similar attacks on their operations. In May, Illinois Democrats passed legislation backed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups that would force pro-life pregnancy clinics and doctors to provide information or references to abortion clinics, regardless of their beliefs. In August, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed the bill into law despite the fact that no Republican in the House of Representatives or state Senate voted for the bill.
Illinois is the second state to crackdown on pregnancy centers in the past 12 months. In December 2015, California adopted a similar measure. The Los Angeles City Attorney served up the state’s first violations to three crisis pregnancy centers in July. [Are abortion mills required to provide information on non-abortion alternatives. Of course not. That shows these governments aren’t pro-choice, but pro-abort, as in, pro-murder of babies.]
Even with Trump – should nothing untoward happen to somehow derail his installation in office – these same pressures will only continue to rise in the United States. He will be no pro-life hero, and the Left will continue to chip away at our rights wherever and however they can.
Gets ready to fight.
Francis Fave Spadaro: Adultery Is a Moral Duty! December 7, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
That’s plainly what his reasoning in an interview given in the amateur liberal Catholic website Crux points to. Asked whether those persisting in extramarital unions would have to refrain from sex in order to receive the Blessed Sacrament, possibly Francis’ closest confidant and advisor Antonio Spadaro said, in some cases, they may be permitted to continue in adulterous acts and still receive the Blessed Sacrament, if they thought a “worse evil”would result. In answering thus, Spadaro has elevated adultery to a moral duty, if some “worse evil” is to be avoided.
This is precisely the kind of anti-Christ illogic that flows from Amoris Laetitia’s direct assault on Church Doctrine, attempting to overturn Christ’s direct command with flawed, diabolically-inspired reasoning:
…..Fr Spadaro was asked whether he thought the divorced and remarried could receive Communion if still in a sexual relationship. Fr Spadaro’s answer was startling – partly because he seemed to think the answer was yes, and partly because of his reasoning.
He explained that sometimes the remarried could “be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence”. This is, of course, the only path to the Eucharist which Catholic doctrine allows. But Fr Spadaro asserted that “this option may not be practicable”. And he then said that someone might “believe they would fall into a worse error”. That is, not sleeping with one’s new partner would be worse than sleeping with them. Hence, it could be a moral obligation to sleep with them. [Folks, he HAS to say this, because Communion for adulterers is untenable unless they are allowed to continue the adultery. I’ve said before, this is exactly like the contraception ploy of the late 60s, they present it as an rare exception accompanied by spiritual intervention, but know in the back of their minds this will be naught but a 100% removal of adultery from the list of practical mortal sins. They won’t declare such, but that will be the effect. And that is promotion of heresy without the slightest doubt.]
In short, a papal adviser has said that extramarital sex could be a moral duty.
This is more interesting, and more worrying, than any number of anonymous accounts and Tolkien-themed screenshots. The Church teachesthat God always gives us enough grace to follow His will. She also teaches that some acts – extramarital sex among them – are never justified, whatever the situation.
I don’t see how Fr Spadaro’s words can be reconciled with these well-established truths. (Unless he means to say “believes erroneously“, but nothing in his words indicates that.)
If Spadaro is saying this, if he believes this, then it is a virtual certitude that Franky George Bergoglio does, as well. These two have been peas in a pod going back years, well into Francis’ Argentinian days, and there are few closer to the Bishop of Rome.
The other matter – could this be something said accidentally, because of a problem speaking English as a second language? It’s a possibility, but what Spadaro puts forth is EXACTLY the point Francis has been driving at all along with his doctrine of false mercy, pitting Catholic Truth against a conception of mercy very appealing to the world, but extremely disconnected from the constant belief and practice of the Faith. Logically speaking, given Francis’ obvious push to permit manifest adulterers, whether civilly remarried or not, to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and since abstaining from the marital act would almost certainly cause many of these second relationships to shatter, it is logically consistent for Spadaro to advance the notion that continued adultery would be a “moral duty” to avoid the “worse” evil of another divorce or breakup. This is a total inversion of the Truth, of course, but also very revealing. It reveals the intent is not merely to permit, out of some misguided sense of mercy (a “mercy” which would have the effect of putting millions of souls at the gravest risk of eternal hellfire), civilly remarried Catholics to receive the Blessed Sacrament, but it is to upend, or, more accurately, invert, the entire moral Doctrine of the Faith.
Some people have had the honesty and audacity to point this out for years. Some are only just coming around to this realization. But as the evidence accumulates, this veneer of “mercy” wears increasingly thin, and more and more people are realizing the consequences of what Francis is driving at. And with another synod in the offing for the coming year, we can expect the assault on the Faith ton continue.
Please pray for Cardinal Burke and his allies, that they will have the strength to drive the examination of Francis’ errors (can they be doubted as such any more?) to the conclusion God desires. May God have mercy on our Church, and on us all. We are in circumstances that are just unbelievable.
Good post on preparation for the coming spiritual war here at Non Veni Pacem. I am gratified to see that Cardinal Burke is claiming that refusal to ask the dubia is being taken as admission of error. I also agree with the thrust of the post, that the time is coming that those who reject the errors being promoted by the Bishop of Rome will be castigated by ostensible Catholics and that this schism will break out into the open, probably in the coming year. We need to be getting ready for some real suffering NOW, because it is coming in a hurry.
Disney Is Evil December 6, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
As if you needed me to tell you that, but a recent post I found highlights the degree to which formerly family-oriented Disney now leads the cultural charge against the family and all moral decency. I add some additional anecdotes based on recent experience below the quote, to which I add a few comments:
…..Consider television’s portrayal of children and family relationships. While the twentieth century offered up families like Leave it to Beaver (where kids learned valuable moral lessons from their parents) as well as the Brady Bunch, the Partridges, and the Huxtables (all of which emphasized respect for each other and the compromises necessary to make a family work), today the family is too often a celebration of ridicule and dysfunction.
Today’s TV families have gone from being respectful and supportive to being snarky, hostile, and rude. Perhaps it was the success of the crass Married… with Children that marked the beginning of this trend, but it’s impossible to turn on the television now and see children that are truly role-models—even from supposedly family-friendly companies like Disney. [This trend was not accidental. It was deliberate, part of the Left’s war on decency but especially Catholic morals going back several centuries. TV was a great prize for them in that respect, bringing incredibly powerful, influential images into people’s homes for hours at a time, images and stories which could be, and have been, used to radically change people’s beliefs and detach them from God-given truth.]
In fact, according to the latest research from the Parent Television Council, Disney-owned ABC and Fox are the two worst offenders for vulgarity with TV shows that regularly feature children using profanity and sexual dialogue. The worst of all shows is the ABC “family” sitcom The Real O’Neals, which “contains more sexual dialog involving teen and child characters than any other primetime program on broadcast TV.” [Conceived by the deplorable (heh) Dan Savage, obviously seeking to normalize perversion in others to make his stand out a bit less while also carrying out his diabolical jihad against the Church he left as a young man. I have found all Disney-related channels, but especially anything carrying the ABC label, to be the most morally offensive of any broadcast (airborne) network around. Even their ads for their own programs are absolutely atrocious, featuring same-sex making out/groping involving teens, among other things. And these appeared on so-called “ABC Family,” seen while stuck in a hotel room one night while traveling. You can’t even watch a college football game without having to send the kids out of the room, for fear of the network ads]
Even cartoons aren’t free of obscenities and sexual situations—and we’re not talking about Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. Yes, innuendo has always been popular in children’s programming (watch the original Batman TV series as an adult and you will see what I mean) but the situations and comments broadcast today aren’t subtle—they’re explicit.
Another example. We don’t watch much TV, save for the aforementioned college football which is now essentially over (since I don’t have ESPN and that’s where virtually all the bowls are). But I do have a computer, I have Amazon Prime, and they have a ton of “free” content. I have availed myself of that just a little until recently, when I got sucked into watching a show from about a decade ago on HBO that was called “The Wire.”
This program demonstrates how pernicious and how concerted the effort to redefine morals has been. The program is in many ways excellent, though riddled with violence and gratuitous sexuality including full on nude scenes. The writing, storylines, locations, and acting are all very good. The character development is extremely strong. That’s what sucks you in.
But I’ve turned my back on it, as I’m not entirely certain the program wasn’t created simply, and primarily, as a vehicle to advance the sexular pagan agenda, and specifically, that which was leftist holy grail at the time it was created (2002), pseudo-sodo-marriage. Now, seeing as it involves the drug trade in the Baltimore projects, and all the associated police and civil activity, it seems passing strange to me that two very prime characters in the program, one cop and one hood, would be cast as being “homosexual.” The street hood character is especially egregious, as they really go over the top trying to normalize his perversion. Of course they chose an extremely charismatic actor for the role, and gave him a choice role as a “Robin Hood” of the ghetto, stealing from drug dealers and handing out the proceeds to needy families. Then there is the cop, a female, who happens to be the only non-morally compromised cop on the show.
Furthermore, all the married people commit adultery, they drink to excess, they steal, they do all kinds of nefarious things, but not the two gay characters. In all their actions in and out of their personal relationships, they are routinely set up as the most savvy, the most honest, the most committed, and the most moral of all the program’s characters.
I find it difficult to imagine any of this was an accident. This was a deliberate bit of socio-political agitprop, part of that massive wave of charismatic homosexual characters that came bursting on the scene as the 90s gave way to the 00s and which was tied in, quite carefully and deliberately, with the overarching “gay agenda.” Shows like this, with top-notch writing and talent, helped convinced millions of people that sodomy is perfectly natural and normal (interestingly, in the many prison scenes, there has never been a rape committed, even though such rape is epidemic), and that it would of course, as a matter of natural reason, to deny such caring, virtuous people of their “rights” to enjoy “happiness” as they can find it.
Of course, this is a complete inversion of the truth, and entirely extraneous to the program’s storyline. There was absolutely no need in the program’s story arc for these characters to be aficionados of these sins. This was simply an egregious bit of agitprop foisted on unwary souls seeking a little bit of entertainment (and also, surely, serving in that most vital of roles for the leftist, virtue signaling to all the other little leftists out there that the shows creators, writers, directors, producers, etc., are members of the good and holy tribe of leftists). It’s also the number one reason why I unplugged from TV in the first place, and helps remind me why I find my enthusiasm for college football always waning by the latter parts of the season, beat down as I am by the inescapable by-product of exposing myself to this corrupted medium.
Father Wolfe was always right. Get a shotgun, and blow several holes through your TV screen. It’s just not worth it.
As for Disney, we bought all their old movies years ago, but we almost never watch them anymore. Some of my older girls went through Disney princess stage when they were younger, as my wife and I hadn’t quite figured things out by that time, but our younger kids (and my wife and I) have largely been spared that. The kids have very little interest in watching anything Disney anymore, not that my wife and I would be opposed, in principle to their viewing some of their classic animated movies from the 40s and 50s.
Catholic Charities of Dallas Helped Settle OSU Jihadist Attacker December 5, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Oh, the post-conciliar Church is nothing if not completely mesmerized by cultural marxism. Of course Church authorities in this country would be making a major play to help bring hundreds of thousands of almost entirely un-screened muslims into this country, both for the virtue it would signal to those they so desperately want to be recognized a part of (the leftist social-political elite) and for the government funds that are in it. And naturally Dallas would also have to somehow be involved, in this case, Catholic Charities of Dallas, which helped bring Abdul Razak Ali Artan into this country along with SEVEN other members of his family.
It’s all so entirely predictable:
The Somali-born man suspected of plowing his car into a group of pedestrians on the Ohio State University campus Monday and stabbing people with butcher knife had ties to Dallas.
Abdul Razak Ali Artan, his mother and six siblings got help from Catholic Charities after they arrived in Dallas on June 5, 2014, KXAS-TV (NBC5) reported.
“We gave them aid and comfort and some shelter as part of the government resettlement program,” Catholic Charities C.E.O. Dave Woodyard told the station.
Artan and his family “arrived at DFW Airport by way of JFK International Airport, and stayed in temporary housing in Dallas for 23 days,” according to NBC5.
A spokesperson for the State Department tells Breitbart News that 98 Somali refugees arrived in Texas in June of 2014, according to the U.S. Department of State’s Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System database.
Twenty-six were resettled in Dallas, 47 in Fort Worth, 19 in Houston, and 6 in Austin.NBC News reported earlier that Artan was born in Somalia, then moved to Pakistan with his family in 2007. [Given that few countries are more embroiled in islamic extremism than Pakistan, and given how many jihadis have already hailed from that broken, backward nation, should not every single emigre from there receive extreme scrutiny, if emigration from that nation is to be allowed at all?]
Presumably, Artan and his family were processed by the UNHCR while in Pakistan, where they completed the current security vetting process and overseas medical screening. At some point, they were approved to enter the United States as participants in the federal refugee resettlement program by an officer of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security………..
…….After determining the “head count” of arriving refugees for a particular city and state, the local authorized resettlement agency (the affiliate of one of nine major voluntary agencies, or “VOLAGs,” who are paid more than $1 billion per year by the federal government to resettle refugees), is paid to resettle the refugees. Those payments include allocations for housing, food, education, and other financial benefits.[Oh, it’s just all a great game. Everyone gets theirs off the taxpayer’s teat. The Church in this nation has become so utterly addicted to federal money, both because it’s easy and because the local “product” is so enervating few are moved to donate more than a pittance (which, why bother, when the agencies are so corrupt and compromsed, and when they receive 90% or more of their funding from the US taxpayer), that there would hardly be Catholic charitable works in many regards without that federal money]
Local resettlement agencies typically submit annual resettlement plans, which identify the number of refugees they intend to resettled, and the countries of origin of those refugees.
In the case of Artan, his mother, and six siblings, all eight were made the responsibility of Catholic Charities of Dallas, which “began resettling refugees operating under the auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) contract with the federal government. . . in the late 1970s,” according to its website……..
…….“Catholic Charities of Dallas works with the United States government to shelter refugees and victims of circumstance. The Resettlement Program makes arrangements for the refugee to be met at the airport and begins the process of helping the refugee resettle in their new community,” the website says. [How were these people “refugees?” They voluntarily left Somalia, perhaps to simply claim they were refugees in order to come here? Perhaps the intent of at least this one man was jihad mayhem all along? How many others are there like him?]
Some major US cities are rapidly becoming enclaves of inveterately hostile, unassimilable religious minorities:
Newberry’s dissertation included a case study of the Somali community in Columbus, Ohio, which is a magnet of secondary migration for Somali refugees. The city has the second largest Somali community in the United States, surpassed in size only by that of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Catholic Charities of Dallas adherence to the already far-too-lax law in this one particular case is also open to question:
Breitbart News asked Woodyard if Artan and his family completed the initial domestic medical screening recommended for all refugees within 90 days of their arrival during their brief stay in Dallas, but the voice mail message was not returned.
Breitbart News also asked Woodyard if Artan and his family repaid the promissory note for their air travel from Pakistan to Texas, and asked who paid for the family’s travel and subsequent stay in Ohio. Breitbart received no response to those questions.
“Annually in the Resettlement and Placement proposals, VOLAGs report out migration and refugees move for welfare, family and other community connections, jobs, etc,” the attorney familiar with the refugee resettlement program says.
“Could they have had a clan issue in Dallas? Why temporary shelter? That would not be in compliance with the Cooperative Agreement that Catholic Charities signs, unless they knew upon the arrival of Artan and his family that they were going to move on to another city,” the attorney says.
“Technically, Catholic Charities in Dallas would have received the R&P grant, so did they refund the unused portion of that to the government once the family left? Supposedly the R&P money does not follow the family but the VOLAG in Columbus could still choose to assist the family,” the attorney adds. [So is this how it works – receive in a family you know will quickly relocate to an area with a like-ethnic enclave, but collect extra funds which are provided because it is assumed the family will remain in the originally assigned area for at least some period of time? Why were none of these questions answered?]
After building the wall, whether literal or figurative (but of similar effectiveness), or right along with it, is seriously reducing if not eliminating immigration from muslim countries. We have the experience of Europe to guide us, allowing this immigration to continue en masse unchecked is simply a recipe of disaster on every level. This nation’s identity is being erased and remade by a narrow, self-interested elite with sufficient resources to effectively shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. They get all the “benefits,” be it cheap labor, government money, or that all important leftist virtue signaling, while we, the people, get stuck having to deal with the consequences of their supposedly high-minded policies. There is simply no reason to flood this country with muslim immigrants when this nation – along with so many others – has repeatedly been the target of religiously motivated attack by these same people, including the worst single-day attack on civilians this nation has ever experienced.
It is insane that our political leaders would consider mass muslim immigration a good thing. It is a testament to the moral and doctrinal bankruptcy of today’s Amchurch that they would happily glom on. How many other islamists settled/sponsored by Amchurch will go on to perform religiously motivated terror attacks?
UPDATE: It has been confirmed, as if we needed more evidence, that this was nothing but a hit piece intended to create an internet mob that would destroy this couple’s program and livelihood, all because they are Christians. The authorette wrote a nasty tweet about them three days before her hit piece was posted, basically revealing she reviled the hosts over their beliefs.
Leftists always lie. Leftists always project. Leftists always double down.
Interestingly, my mom told me about this at lunch today. I don’t have cable, don’t follow Twitter, find HGTV overrun with sodomites, and in general prefer to actually……you know, fix things up…….rather than spend many hours watching others do so on TV. Having said that, this show “Fixer Uppers” featuring an evangelical Christian couple with a happy marriage, largish family, and successful home-renovation business has been a popular fixture for years. They are up front about their Christianity and their joyfulness is apparently infectious.
Well, the Left hates two things the most in the whole wide universe, Christianity and success, so this obviously could not be permitted to stand. So, click-whoring site Buzzfeed stepped into the breech with an article even many left-wingers are finding atrocious in trying to harm, possibly even destroy this couple by impugning them for attending a church (sect house) whose pastor opposes pseudo-sodo-marriage. This is obviously little but an attempt to both attract hits (the cheapest way) and gin up a progressive outrage mob to try to steal away a little bit of this couple’s happiness and success. Rather what one would expect from the vile, reprehensible, self-loathing creatures who inhabit sites like Gawker, Jezebel, and, yes, BuzzFeed.
Fortunately, there has been a massive backlash, rather like what happened when the Left over-reached and tried to take down the “Duck Dynasty” family. I’m glad there is still some pushback, but it’s not nearly frequent enough, nor on the right things (my emphasis and comments):
So Buzzfeed reporter Kate Aurthur wrote a post about popular HGTV hosts Chip and Joanne Gaines which informed the world that the Gaineses’ have a pastor who is opposed to same-sex marriage. This post had one purpose and one purpose alone: to harm the couple. The post served no news purpose—even Aurthur concedes she never learned the Gaines’ view of same-sex marriage. The post cannot be termed “activism” since it fails at every level to persuade readers of the rightness of the same-sex marriage cause. Even the most generous alternate topic of Aurthur’s post, “Texas pastor opposes same-sex marriage,” is as dog-bites-chew-toy as a news item can be. The only conceivable purpose of targeting the popular television couple in this manner was to cost them viewers and, perhaps, their jobs. [Of course. You will be made to care, and brought to heel. Christianity as a religion with a counter-cultural moral code must be destroyed. I think, however, this kind of over-reach, and the reaction it engenders, actually demonstrates the extreme tenuousness of the Left’s many “successes” in recent years in appearing to radically shift accepted morality. I think that’s why they HAVE to try to gin up outrage mobs and punish innocent people like this, both because it’s who they are, but also to keep people on message and to try to block any counter-revolutionary efforts. I think they know should any serious opposition start to develop, the likelihood for a preference cascade against some of their most recent, egregious revolutionary gains is massive, and growing in the wake of Trump. My parents were absolutely incensed over this attempt at an Alinskyite destruction through “find the target, freeze it, frame it, destroy it.”]
To forestall the protestations, there can be no serious doubt that Aurthur specifically targeted the Gaineses as the object of her post. The headline, subhead, and first, second, third, and fourth paragraphs were solely about the Gaineses, their popular HGTV show “Fixer Upper,” and the fact that they are (gasp!) openly Christian. Only in the fifth paragraph does Aurthur wander into the question of whether gay people will appear on their television show (like with other HGTV programming), and the rest of the piece is about the Gainses’ pastor’s views. [So maybe there aren’t just a whole lot of open devotees of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in Waco?]
The word for Buzzfeed publishing this garbage is “harassment.” Even as Aurthur (and her boss) hide behind a pretense of journalistic standards, there is no journalistic content in the piece. The Gainses cannot be blamed for declining to volunteer themselves as victims for Aurthur’s bullying. After years of contemptuous boycotts and Twitter outrage storms directed at individuals and companies over their views on same-sex marriage, harassers like Aurthur have taught many of their victims — reasonably! — to hunker down and say nothing. [Which is also part of the point. Make Christians and others so terrified of the reaction they may engender for publicly espousing what essentially everyone believed even 6-8 years ago is all part of the Leftist game, which shows both its power and its weakness, as there must be an ever-increasing reign of terror for each advance, while resentment against that reign grows and grows]
Worse, harassment will never be a good tool of persuasion. Aurthur presumably supports same-sex marriage and would like more people to join her side of that cultural split. [I don’t think she cares a whit about convincing people to join her side. She thinks because there is supposedly a narrow majority in favor of pseudo-sodo-marriage that her side has won, and only seeks to punish her tribe’s enemies and reinforce her allies] But by targeting the Gaines’ livelihood this way, without even knowing the couple’s views of marriage, Aurthur has made her own cause appear mean and and her publisher petty. Bystanders, watching this little drama can learn but one thing: a perfect stranger with a media platform can try to ruin your livelihood because of religious beliefs she imputes to you, and there isn’t a darn thing you can do about it.
No, Leftists are mean and petty by nature, and since the vast majority of the media is made up of left-wingers, the media is also, of course, filled with similar little jealously vindictive individuals.
Around our little lunch table today, the consensus was that we’re absolutely sick of being called racist, “homophobic,” sexist, and “islamophobic” for absolutely no reason. We concluded the terms have lost all meaning through overuse, and that the Left uses these terms because it is intellectually and morally bankrupt. We were hardly a diverse group, but my mom used to be kinda feminist, and now essentially rejects that label, as the feminism she used to embrace (equality of education and economic opportunity for women) has ceased to need to exist, and has been replaced by a radical man-hating baby-killing Leftism she finds abhorrent.
Ace – who had a fantastic post on the Left’s projection of their collective bigoted hatred when it comes to racism, sexism, and all the other -isms onto their ideological opponents – is recommending #War with organizations that seek to destroy individuals based on nothing more than their not being part of the leftist coalition:
If it’s #War, then let it be #War for all sides; this stupid game of restraint by conservatives where we try to convince people to follow our example by acting “better” than they do is pure foolishness, for a simple reason: They are arrogant and think they need to learn nothing more than they knew in kindergarten, and furthermore, they literally believe you to be subhuman.
In what world does someone who thinks you’re literally subhuman learn “lessons” from you by observing your behavior and then imitating it?
Most of us want the Peace State. I know I do.
But it is foolish in the extreme — foolish to the point of delusion — to continue insisting that a tactic that has a long, long track record of simply not working at all — acting as if one is in the Peace State when one’s enemies have decided to attack you — will lead to the Peace State.
No. Continuing to unilaterally disarm ourselves will lead to further attacks.
If you want to be in the social-war Peace State — as most do — then one must, as one must do in real life, temporarily go into the War State to punish one’s enemies until they are willing to discuss terms and themselves move to the Peace State.
Weakness in the face of aggression is provocative.
Weakness in the face of unceasing harassment is volunteering for this treatment.
To treat kindly those who treat you cruelly is to make oneself an accomplice in one’s own debasement, denigration, and subjugation.
Si vis pacem, para bellum — if you wish peace, prepare for #War.
Of course, this would be a war where, pray God, no one dies, simply a war of ideas, of economics, of rhetoric, and of cultural muscle. It’s always been fought at a marked disadvantage by us on the “right,” as we have productive jobs and families and don’t generally spend 10 years working as paid agitators for some group or other.
But if we want to survive as a nation and as Catholics, we had probably start getting prepared to go to war to retake cultural space in all areas of endeavor, rather than simply run off and try to find some enclave where we can hide and be left in peace to practice our beliefs and possibly be allowed to live rather freely. Because the Left won’t let that happen. They will come after you and me and everyone who disagrees, eventually. War is pretty much the only choice at this point, because the other side demands it, knowing nothing else. It’ s been coming for a long time – had earlier generations of Christians, especially Catholics, done their duty, perhaps this could have been avoided, but it’s too late, now. Having the institutional Church fall to co-option by the Left in the 60s certainly has made resistance difficult, but institutional Church-backing or no, we need to get a lot more serious about how we are going to oppose the Left and even fight them, where necessary, on their own terms. We can see they have absolutely no compunction about destroying the lives of those they perceive as being – even passively, peacefully – their ideological opponents. We are going to have to acquire something like the same willingness, though without the overt vindictiveness and pettiness.
Our best tool is economic. Refuse to do business with left-wingers to the greatest extent possible. Kellogg’s, for instance, is off my list. I won’t go to Sonic because they support Planned Butcherhood. The list is long, but we really need to start amping up who and how much we boycott.
Open to your suggestions.
A muslim Attacks Again – CNN’s Response? “Wear the Hijab.” November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
I’ve argued for years, that once the Left finally feels it has crushed Christianity sufficiently, and is left with no effective rhetorical, ideological, or physical defense against islam, leftists will happily don the hijab (or force their women to – aren’t a lot of “liberated” women in for a shock) and take up the mantle of this false religion. Leftism has always been primarily a force created to oppose Christianity. That is its primary purpose as an ideology. Were its reason for existence to go away, leftism would rapidly whither (there would be exceptions, to be sure) while its devotees cast about for an alternative set of religious beliefs. With a militant islam at the doorstep demanding obeisance, most will submit.
Hastening the day, in response to yet another jihadist attack in the United States (in a safe space, gun-free university, to boot!), a CNN newsreader has decided that this jihadist was somehow justified in feeling put upon in the country which welcomed him and showered him with material largesse totally unknown in his totally dysfunctional, decrepit home-nation, and that American women should don the hijab to show their solidarity with the horrible suffering muslims are enduring, to the extent that 3 million or more have moved here in the last 10 years alone:
Americans should wear hijabs to show solidarity with Muslim women who fear being attacked for wearing the religious head covering, CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota suggested on Monday, just hours before an Islamic radical stabbed students at Ohio State University. [Oh, excuse me. She said this BEFORE the attack? That makes my point all the more forcefully. Part of them longs for this kind of domination, as the Leftist ideology has always been riddled with souls working out “daddy issues” well into adulthood, or even into the grave]
“Maybe there will be a movement where people wear the head scarf in solidarity. You know, even if you’re not Muslim,” Camerota said during an early-morning broadcast on CNN’s “New Day.”
“Maybe it’s the way people shave their heads, you know, sometimes in solidarity with somebody who is going through something,” she added.
Camerota was responding to a CNN segment about Muslim women who say they live in fear of being verbally or physically attacked for wearing head scarves. [Once again the Left conflates disagreement with something akin to a physical attack. I fully endorse women dressing modestly, but I do have a problem when the men in their lives more or less force them to do so. And things like the burqa are just grotesque, ludicrous, a commentary far more on the muslim man’s total inability to practice self-control than it is the “wanton” nature of woman]
The segment tied a spate of alleged incidents in which Muslim women have been targeted for wearing hijabs to Donald Trump’s presidential win. [BS]
“The Trump Transition: Fearful Muslim women take steps to be safe,” read the chyron that CNN chose for the segment.
“I hope I can wear it one day again. I hope I can feel safe enough to do so,” Marwa Abdelghani, a Muslim-American woman, told the network.
The piece did not note that some of the alleged hate incidents in the aftermath of Trump’s win have been found to be hoaxes. An 18-year-old University of Louisana-Lafayette student was charged with filing a false report after she claimed that a group of white Trump supporters hurled racial slurs at her and stole her hijab several days after the election.
Ummm, as far as is known, every single one of these claims has either been a hoax, or completely unsubstantiated. There may be a handful of real instances – there are boneheads everywhere – but this is hardly a mass movement. Once again, the Left turns the aggressor into the victim and creates bigotry where there is none, or is in actuality not prejudice at all but rational concern based on a mountain of evidence.
Islam and Leftism are two sides of the same coin, forged in hell and flipped by satan.
Scorcese Flick “Silence” Looks Like Another Assault on the Faith November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, damnable blasphemy, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Martin Scorsese is a man capable of bringing prodigious gifts to bear, though he has used them most often toward prurient interests and the denigration, as opposed to the uplifting, of the human spirit. Almost all of his films are charnel-houses of violence, hedonism, unbounded lusts of all kinds, and the glorification of extremely seedy characters on the silver screen. Of course, his “Last Temptation of Christ,”rumored for years to have been at least partially financed by the Mafia, is blasphemous from beginning to end. It’s a shame, as he has such talents as to make even the most gruesome acts strangely mesmerizing, even beautiful in a way, but he has manifestly refused to use the gifts he has been given for more virtuous purposes.
So it should come as no surprise that Scorsese would be willing to produce a new movie based on a 1966 Japanese fiction book that depicted the supposed apostasy of numerous Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan. And, equally unsurprising is the fact that the film has already been lauded by many worldlings who have seen advance showings, and has tragically even been embraced by the Bishop of Rome himself. In fact, the Vatican hosted the glitzy world premiere, and there has been effusive praise for this work from many Vatican officials already.
Now, the book on which the movie is based supposedly has a good deal of merit until it veers wildly off course at the end, showing collapse of faith and total despondency, and it is unknown how faithfully Scorsese has followed the book in his movie, but given the fact that the arch-progressive James Martin, SJ, was principle advisor, I don’t think we can expect a ringing endorsement of the virtues of faith, patience, joyfully accepted suffering, and steadfastness in this upcoming epic. Rorate provides further details, while noting the extreme differences between this new movie, and the wonderful A Man for All Seasons, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its original release:
In 1966 the movie “A Man for All Seasons” was released in the U.S., the same year Japanese author Shūsaku Endō wrote the historical fiction novel “Silence.”Last night, the Vatican hosted the world premiere of the movie version of “Silence,” which will be released next month. Shown at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, administered by the Jesuits, approximately 400 priests and others attended. Rorate’s invitation to the screening may have been lost in the mail, so we have not seen the movie. But based on the novel, the endings for the two 1966 works could not be more opposite. One concludes with heroism and martyrdom, the other with indifference and apostasy.The adaption of “Silence” for the big screen was done by Mr. Martin Scorsese, a former seminarian (Cathedral College minor seminary in New York) who is now a self-proclaimed “lapsed Catholic.” One may remember his scandalous and sacrilegious 1988 movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ.” [Saw bits of it way back in the way back when I was a blase’ protestant teen, and even then I thought it contrived, sacrilegious, and deliberately conceived to offend as many Christians as possible. I also thought it chicken-s–t, as Scorsese would never have the cajones to make a similar film about buddhism, let alone islam.]To make “Silence,” Scorsese chose James Martin, S.J., as a consultant for the movie…….[Which almost certainly tells us all we need to know about this production]Before last night’s Vatican screening, Scorsese and Mexican producer Gaston Pavlovich met with Pope Francis. According to a Variety reporter in attendance: “The private papal audience, held in the Apostolic Palace, was announced by the Vatican press office Tuesday in a clear show of support for ‘Silence,’ Scorsese’s passion project.” [“Last Temptation” was another “passion project,” which few studios were willing to release, let alone fund, due to its deliberately hateful content. Thus, the recourse to unconventional sources of funding. Consider which movie he made next]Now, perhaps the ending to the movie “Silence” is completely different from the ending to the novel “Silence.” We sure hope so. If not, the world will soon witness a $50 million renouncement of the Catholic Church by members of the Society of Jesus, as tacitly endorsed by the current (Jesuit) pope. The novel, which was absolutely terrific up until the end, has a clear message to leave with readers — the opposite of Saint Thomas More’s example to England and the world.Apostasy should not be celebrated by the Vatican. These Jesuits are men for no seasons.
Indeed, and have been for decades. At this point, sad though it may be, I wait for their hastening extinction while they refuse conversion and reform. Though with this pontiff, they appear committed to hastening headlong along the same road they have been on since the arch-heretics Tyrell and Loisy corrupted their ranks.
As for the movie, there is no chance I will ever see it. The book’s ending is very provocative and the choice the “protagonist” makes will thrill worldlings, who will now have a powerful new weapon (a whole new mythology, powered by indelible images) with which to attack Christians who hold that adherence to the Doctrine of the Faith is the sine qua non of being a Christian, in spite of all suffering and persecution. Literally hundreds of glorious, edifying movies based on lives of real martyrs could have been made, but they would not stroke the world’s ego as this book does, telling the world, pretty much, what it wants to hear from “God.”
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.
Burke, et. al., Threatened With Loss of Cardinalate Over Dubia November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
The reasoning, as always with FrancisChurch, is absolutely atrocious. Coming as it does from the Dean of the Roman Rota – the very man Francis sacked Cardinal Burke to replace with – is all the more disheartening. Via LifeSiteNews:
While the dubia of four Cardinals concerning clarification of Amoris Laetitia spreads wider and wider ripples in the Vatican and worldwide, the dean of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the highest appeals court of the Church, says that they might lose their Cardinalate.
“The action of the Holy Spirit cannot be doubted,” he says. “[The Cardinals] question not one synod but two! The ordinary and the extraordinary,” Mons. Vito Pinto explained during a conference in the Ecclesiastical University of San Dámaso in Madrid, Spain. [OK. Whether or not the exhortation following the Synods – Amoris Laetitia – is Magisterial (normally it would be, but how can it be where it plainly intends – via Francis’ own implementation/interpretation – to contradict the Sacred Deposit of Faith!), the Synods WERE NOT. Tiny subsets of bishops do not equate to an ecumenical council, whether they meet one time or forty times. Not even 5% of the world’s bishops were invited to attend, and the deck was stacked with as many friendly to revolution as possible, particularly in the second synod. This is specious, circular reasoning at its lowest]
The four Cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner, asked Pope Francis for clarification on September 19, and then went public with their concerns earlier this month when Francis failed to answer.
“Which Church do these Cardinals defend?” Pinto reproaches. “The Pope is faithful to the doctrine of Christ.” [The boundless effrontery of it all is simply amazing. So now that they have a progressive pope, the Left in the Church decrees that the Faith = whatever the pope says it is today. They weren’t quite so ultramontanist when Benedict was in the Chair of Peter!]
“What they have done is a very serious scandal that could lead the Holy Father to remove them from the Cardinalate, as it has sometimes happened in Church history,” Pinto expounds. [I think if Francis did that, he would both be making a very big mistake, and also telling us a very great deal about his conception of mercy. These men, after all, only asked questions, questions which permitted no wiggle room, no diabolical “shades of grey,” which Francis, apparently, has either preferred – or is unable – to answer. Who is introducing the novel doctrines here? It is not the four cardinals, and their numerous allies. It is Jesuit Francis.]
The Cardinalate – unlike the deaconate, priestly, or bishop’s ordination – does not entail an ontological change in the individual, but is an office conferred by the Pope. Therefore the Church speaks of “creating” Cardinals who join the College of Cardinals. They serve principally as helpers – in Latin, “hinges” (cardines) – to the Pope in ruling the Church. Therefore, they could theoretically be removed from their positions and return to being “simple” bishops or archbishops.
Mons. Vito Pinto affirms that the Pope has not directly answered their dubia but “indirectly he has told them that they only see in white or black, when in the Church there are shades of colors.” Pinto referred to multiple instances in which Pope Francis stated that life is not black and white but grey.
In the same conference, Mons. Pinto recalls, referring to Catholic “remarried” divorcees, how the center of Francis’ message is that the Church needs to accept the injured and fallen: “A nun told me that there are people divorced or living together who are communicating. And what should the Church do, say ‘yes, you may’ and ‘no, you may not’? Pope Francis wants a Church that is very close to the people.” [Which, if you note, does not address the supposed nun’s supposed concern at all. It’s meaningless blather. In reality, the message is being conveyed, but in the typical passive-aggressive, cowardly leftist way. They won’t straight up publicly proclaim heresy, but they hint at it, give it a wink and a nod, and basically encourage people to go that way, while in private communiques, the clear message is sent: give Communion to adulterers. I guess Christ, then, was not up to Francis’ exceedingly high standards of closeness to the people, when he said that manifest sinners who refuse the intervention of the Church should be anathematized?]
For Mons. Pinto the only solution – and the key to Francis’ pontificate – is acceptance, what he calls “mercy.” “In our time the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy and not wield the weapons of severity. The Catholic Church wishes to show herself to be a kind mother to all, patient and full of mercy to the children separated from her.”
Even while they fall into hell? So did Our Blessed Lord tell the Truth, or not? Is remarrying after a civil divorce adultery? Is adultery not a grievous sin? Did not St. Paul inform us that those who receive unworthily eat and drink condemnation on themselves? And what did St. Peter tell us about false prophets and blind guides who try to soothe the itching ears of the world by telling them happy lies, lies that smell of sulfur and brimstone? St. Paul told us that anyone who tries to bring a Gospel other than the one Christ preached must be anathematized. Does Vio Pinto represent Christ, or Francis?
I am willing to bet Cardinal Burke will be willing to lose much more than a red hat than to fold on this matter of permitting this radical change – this insidious attack – on the Church’s moral Doctrine.