jump to navigation

An Open Letter to Michael Knowles        December 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, unadulterated evil.
4 comments

Not that he’ll ever read it, this post is more for my own benefit, and possibly yours.

Before I begin, I will note that I am taking Knowles straight up on his own declarations.  If he is practicing some weird and really obscure  form of “humor,” that would be a problem (and scandal) in and of itself, but a different one from what I identify below.

Who is Michael Knowles, and why should committed Catholics care?  He is the host of an internet podcast under Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire umbrella.  He hosts several episodes a week.  He is a proud, at times even militant, Catholic.  Much of his program is dedicated to answering protestant “questions” regarding Catholicism, which means, in reality, refuting arrogant, ignorant charges from American evangelicals against the Church Jesus Christ – not Martin Luther, not John Calvin, not Henry VIII, not Mary Baker Eddy – founded.

And he does a good job.  In fact, he has at times given me to wonder whether he is a Trad, such is his strong grasp of catechesis, theology, etc.  He certainly presents liturgical sentiments which align quite well with the TLM and against the Novus Ordo.  He is well read in Church teaching and especially Church history. He’s pointed out on several occasions the way Francis, Bishop of Rome is at odds with Catholic Dogma. He provides such an interesting perspective I was really starting to wonder if we had the second (but better??) coming of Mike Church.

And then there was that moment……you know the one, the one where the needle goes from playing a lovely melody to sliding all the way across the record……yeah, that one.

That moment came when Knowles, in a spoken word commercial he gave for a mattress company during one of his podcasts, mentioned that he and his fiancée just love sharing a bed made of these wonderful mattresses.

That’s………..that’s a problem. That’s a very big problem.

I don’t ever like to peer into consciences and convict others of sin, but Knowles has done so himself.  He has declared that he is committing ongoing, grievous sin, at the very least by continuing to expose himself to incredible temptation by sharing a bed with a woman other than his wife, but more likely by advertising the fact that he and she are ongoing fornicators.  Even if they both sleep in PVC bodysuits that cover them head to foot, even if they’ve never so much as kissed, this situation would be sinful alone for the scandal it gives.  You are basically advertising for fornication, and proudly proclaiming yourself a Catholic while doing so.

I’m sorry, Mr. Knowles, but you are not the solution, but the problem.  This is the very crisis the Church has faced since the 60s, where public spokesman, whether they at one time had a formal mission from the Church  such as Fr. Charles Curran, or self-appointed ones like yourself (and me), publicly deviating from the Faith, even attacking and undermining it.  I have not so far heard you directly verbally challenge or undermine a Dogma or Doctrine……..at least until that mattress ad.  And then I heard several other mentions of your fiancée wherein you made clear your relationship is fundamentally indifferent from all the pagans of the world these days, lost in sin.

Which brings up an interesting point – while Knowles clearly acknowledges the evils Francis is visiting on the Church, is he at the same time positioning himself to be the beneficiary of some of this doctrinal reformulation, especially regarding reception of Communion while in a manifest state of grievous, probably mortal, sin?  Seems quite possible.

Are you receiving the Blessed Sacrament, Mr. Knowles, while persisting in this relationship with your fiancée?  Your podcast statements would seem to indicate so.  Thus, you have added sacrilege to fornication and scandal.  Don’t read I Cor xi:25-29 much?

I am really at a loss how a man so obviously well-formed can be openly and proudly persisting in a relationship that is grievously scandalous at best (and which he makes pains to announce in most episodes of late).  He seems to have a nearly Traditional level of formation, to the extent that I would almost wonder if he hasn’t received regular trad catechesis, and, one would tend to assume, Confession?  Has this never come up?  My experience of multiple FSSP/SSPX confessors would lead me to believe that any and all of them would instantly point out this massive moral problem, were they aware of it.

So, I won’t be listening to him anymore.  Until he recognizes the huge scandal he has given and indicates some public contrition, he is actually a very dangerous man, all the more so due to his talents and gifts of formation. He sounds like the real deal.  He sounds like a really authentic Catholic, and he is reaching out to tens of thousands of protestants and giving them a very bad idea of what the Catholic Church is all about.  I haven’t listened to many of his shows – maybe 7 or 8 – but I’ve never heard him called out for his scandal, even from hostile protestants (which probably shows how virtually all of them are so morally confused in this age of error that they see nothing wrong with a little pre-marital fornication).

I would advise readers to stay far away from this charlatan. He certainly had me fooled.  Once one is confronted with a figure mixing truth and error, consuming their product becomes risky, at best.  Given the other excellent sources available, there is no reason to expose oneself to this risk.

I will pray for him, and especially pray that some really good traditional priest reaches out to him and shakes him from his morally damnable situation, and convinces him to make some public act of contrition for the scandal he is causing on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Knowles, if you read this, reach out to me and I will get you in touch with multiple very solid priests who will make abundantly clear the grave danger to which you are exposing your soul, and that of your fiancee. It’s all well and good to declare ourselves committed Catholics so long as that commitment costs us little – it is when it costs us dear is where the rubber meets the road. Take up your cross and follow Christ.  Deus Vult.

For the declaration upon which this post is based, see the below, if you must, at 8:28:

Advertisements

Planned Butcherhood “in deep trouble?” “Could be a turning point?” December 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, cultural marxism, family, fightback, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
2 comments

I like Marjorie Dannenfelser and the Susan B. Anthony List.  They do a lot of good work. But perhaps I’ve gotten a bit jaded over the past decade-plus of pro-life activism.  Leaders of pro-life institutions like the Susan B. Anthony List have had a history, one might even say made a bit of a career, out of blowing a lot of happy gas.  We are frequently told abortion is just about to be defeated.  This next major (really minor) legislative victory will have a huge impact and just about end legalized abortion.  Etcetera,  etcetera.  Of course, interest groups like the SBA List feel they have to do this, to keep supporters energized and donations flowing in. And certainly, it’s hard to keep a movement organized and involved after 50 years of a legislative and judicial status quo that keeps abortion on demand at any time throughout pregnancy (and frequently at taxpayer expense) basically the law of the land. Whether they really believe all their PR, I don’t know.

So color me a little bit doubtful when Dannenfelser reports that a POSSIBLE FBI investigation and a possible court victory could finally turn the tide against the Moloch-worshiping, baby-murdering corporate interest.  But we Christians trade on hope, so I hope she is right:

On Nov. 13, The Hill reported that the FBI may [may. As in MAY] be investigating Planned Parenthood and its associates for the sale of aborted babies’ body parts for profit. It’s the latest development yet in a scandal that began in 2015 with the release of explosive undercover videos………

………The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives spent almost one-and-a-half years conducting a national investigation, reviewing 30,000 pages of documents, and hearing hours of testimony.

They found enough evidence to refer several Planned Parenthood affiliates and tissue procurement companies for potential prosecution. Attorney General Jeff Sessions suggested that if the FBI concurs, charges might be filed. [But then, we see that the FBI and Justice Department (what the heck is Deputy Dawg Sessions doing?) lied repeatedly to Congress and kept secret for months the fact that the principle investigator of both the Clinton e-mail scandal and the now seemingly open-ended (as in endless) attempt to frame Trump for “obstruction of justice” (which is what got Nixon impeached) in the non-existent Russian collusion information op was not only an adulterer, not only a huge Clinton supporter, but also a vehement hater of Trump.  That is, he was completely invested in one side and completely biased. And we’re supposed to think THIS FBI is going to honestly or effectively investigate the one of the prime bulwarks of the sexular leftist deep state apparatus, Planned Barrenhood?!?  Where else will all these post-Christian pagan elitists send their daughters, or themselves, when they have an inconvenient or embarrassing pregnancy?]

Then came the second punch.

Just as news of the FBI inquiry broke, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to revisit its ruling that the state of Arkansas can redirect Medicaid funds away from abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which the state is completely justified in doing considering the ongoing baby parts scandal.

These two major breakthroughs would have been inconceivable under the Obama administration, which repeatedly abused federal power to prop up the abortion industry. [Which is entirely true.  It would be similarly inconceivable under a notional President Hillary.  Thus, another reason why I voted for Trump, and why his election was a good thing (given the alternative).]

………But there’s a new sheriff in Washington now, and a palpable sense of terror is gripping Planned Parenthood and its camp. Without their defender-in-chief or the courts to bail them out, they are finally being held accountable. [Yes and no.  Trump does have an unprecedented opportunity to remake the courts, with something like 25% of federal district court slots vacant, and nearly 17% of appellate court slots similarly open.  That’s just right now.  Over the course of his presidency, Trump may be able to name nearly 40% of district court justices and over 1/3 of Court of Appeals.  That, coupled with many holdovers from Bush and even Reagan, may allow a solid conservative majority in the judiciary at all levels for the first time in decades, IF the Repubniks can hold onto Congress and especially the Senate. Thus, vote for Roy Moore, Alabamans]

Trump has busily set about undoing his predecessor’s destructive pro-abortion legacy. He has filled his Cabinet with pro-life officials, and has filled court vacancies with outstanding judges like Neil Gorsuch who faithfully interpret the Constitution.

Right away, Trump signed legislation (H.J. Res. 43) rolling back Obama’s parting gift to the abortion industry—something that, on a personal note, I was proud to witness in the Oval Office.

Trump’s strong commitment to pro-life policies has helped embolden state governors and legislatures. Texas has now applied to reclaim the federal funding it was denied under the last administration. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster in August successfully defunded Planned Parenthood and requested a waiver from the Trump administration so that the state can do the same with Medicaid, which is where the abortion business gets most of its taxpayer funding. [Yep, because abortions cost way more than contraception, and it is laughably easy to get a doctor, especially a Planned Butcherhood doctor, to assert that an abortion is “medically necessary,” and thus covered by Medicaid.  I have personally spoken with scores, maybe hundreds of abortion-seekers who have stated paying for the murder of their child is no problem, as you and I are paying for it.]

The next step is for the Trump administration to issue new guidance to the states restoring their freedom to prioritize Medicaid funds the way they believe will best serve their citizens. The administration must be prepared to defend that policy vigorously should the case go to the Supreme Court.

The pro-life majorities in both houses of Congress should also fulfill their promise to redirect half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood……

I won’t hold my breath on that last bit.

Yes, there’s a lot of good news, but Planned Murderhood has shown itself uniquely – practically diabolically – resistant to bad PR, incredibly damning undercover revelations, and even proof of wanton law-breaking in the past.  As I said, PP is one of the Leftist coalition’s most critical members.  They would jettison almost anything else before losing the right to murder inconvenient children.  While these are happy developments, I would not go prognosticating that Planned Parenthood is about to meet it’s demise, or is even coming under heavy threat.  It’s all mostly speculation at this point, and that group seems to have a particularly powerful set of demons watching over it.

The kind that only come out by prayer and fasting.

New Book Blasts Francis and His Wholesale Inappropriateness for the Chair of Peter December 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, fightback, Francis, General Catholic, horror, reading, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
4 comments

Via Steve Skojec at One Peter Five comes a review of a short (141 pp) book on Francis, his seedy and troubling past life, his outlook, his philosophical and psychological shortcomings, and his disastrous agenda.  The review is quite long, about 4000 words, so I’ll only hit some high points.  In summation, however, the author of this book, who is anonymous (and has apparently caused a furious response in Rome and a search for his identity) but who goes by the deliciously Catholic name of Marcantonio Collona (the leader of the fleet of the Papal States at Lepanto), ties together much already known about Francis and his hard left agenda, while at the same time delving into his past and revealing a very great deal about Francis’ apparently nasty personality, his carefully crafted image as a great humble man (note the contradiction), and the mysterious twists and turns that led a man who was lambasted by his superiors in the post-conciliar Jesuit order as wholly unfit for high office (think about that) to become Pope. This naturally includes a great deal about the deceased Cardinal Martini, long-time leader of the leftist/anti-Catholic “Bologna School” of misfits and miscreants in the Church otherwise known as the “St. Gallen Mafia.”

The name of this new book is The Dictator Pope, and it is available for purchase online, but only in Kindle and similar e-formats.  I look forward to purchasing the book once it is available in print, if a publisher can be found (and believe me, with this pontificate, that will not be an easy task).

Taking up with some excerpts from Skojec’s review:

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.” [Indeed.  Whatever happened to the reform of the Vatican Bank (IOR), or the advancing of even stiffer penalties and interdictions against abusive priests, or men unsuited to the priesthood due to their addiction to perversion, or the financial reform of numerous corrupt Roman ministries, especially those associated with the disgustingly corrupt Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the entire group of high prelates and curial officials who were given enormous graft from Maciel Maciel to cover up his hideous abuses and double life?  And these barely scratch the surface.  In point of fact, after battling mightily to undo the tremendous power Sodano had accumulated under Pope JPII, Benedict has had to live to see this wholly corrupt and heterodox creature not just restored to his former power and influence, but perhaps more influential than ever.  These are the kinds of creatures Francis has chosen to surround himself with, since they will OK any ideological agenda so long as their nests continue to be feathered.]

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”

OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this unusual pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.

The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. His author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle. The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear. Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and delusion” in Francis’ Vatican.

Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter. The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.

If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:

Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary: “Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”  [Gee, a hardcore leftist ideologue who is also an out and out tyrant.  Who would have known?  I thought these Vaticanistas and high cardinals were political sharpshooters?  How could they be so naïve?  Maybe they are not so sharp as they like to think.]

Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland [notice how leftists, supposed friends of the common/downtrodden man, always seem to ensconce themselves in luxury when given the chance], the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the infamous late archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical accomplishments that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)[Yep.  Look, the Leftists in the Church thought they were electing a fellow-traveler, at least, in naming a relatively unknown from Poland – a product of the sainted “Ostpolitik “ of Paul VI – as pope in 1978.  But he turned out to be much more conservative (relatively) than they wished.  So they began an illicit, illegal (in Church law) conspiracy, basically, to make sure a pope to their liking would be elected after JPII.  They didn’t quite succeed in 2005, but managed to send Benedict XVI running for fear of the wolves (under threat of the financial ruination of the Church?) and finally got their man in 2013.  The fact that any such collusion prior to an enclave automatically invalidates that enclave AND results in the excommunication of the participants didn’t bother them a whit. Why would it?  They’d have the power if their man got in, and the media would always have their back if they didn’t.  It was low-risk for them.  And since when has a pontiff had the stones to cast out large swaths of the episcopate for being heretics/schismatics, anyway?  The last time was 1908-10, wasn’t it?]

The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne. After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight. The so-called “Kasper proposal” launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.” [What kind of creature would frame anything like that, let alone the election of a pope, and most of all, this pope?  Oh, right, the same kind of man that would at least cover up, if not directly participate in, mass boy rape for decades]

And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group?

Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger. Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde in saying that it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four “dubia” cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.

———-End Excerpt————-

There is much more at the link, but I’ve taken too much already. Skojec will take a tire iron to my shooting hand if I take anymore.

But he goes into quite a bit about Francis’ emulation of his youthful political paramour, Juan Perón, and how, aside from a sort of reflexive populist leftism, little informed that man’s career save for his own lust for power.  Readers should take from this a cold shot of reality against any hopes that Franky George Bergoglio will follow his predecessor into abdication.  Quite the contrary, having access to power will probably lengthen his life by 5-10 years.  That’s how these things seem to go.  Look at finally deposed 94 year old Robert Mugabe.

Also reviewed are the synods, which I would argue were doctrinally meaningless, and the subsequent deconstruction of the Church’s moral edifice through Amoris Laetitia.

Sounds like an excellent book. I look forward to reading it, even as I wonder, just what, if anything, of the human element of the Church will be left if Francis lives another 10 years?  I fear the Franciscans of the Immaculate are our guide for the future of the Church under Francis.

Let the Colleges Die December 1, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Generally speaking, a sentiment I certainly agree with. There are some exceptions, of course.  A handful of still respectably Catholic colleges, for one.  But overall, as the article below states (and as Professor Jordan Peterson now makes a regular part of his talks), college as a whole, as an institution, has become an ideologically stultified, racist, misandric, destructive influence on the souls who matriculate therein and the culture at large.

College attendance is plummeting due to high costs, poor product, and such extreme levels of leftist radicalism and anti-white/anti-male prejudice as to be unbelievable.  So, for the most part, I agree………let ’em die:

At a symposium in May, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen predicted that “50 percent of the 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. will be bankrupt in 10 to 15 years.”

Christensen appears to be onto something. The number of students enrolled in American colleges and universities has dropped every year for the past five years. In 2016, the majority of private and public American colleges failed to meet their enrollment and tuition targets.

This is possibly the best news I’ve heard all year. And not because I’m against learning or education—it’s because American colleges no longer teach people how to think; they command people what to think, with the constant looming Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of anyone foolish enough to express a dissident thought.

American colleges are no longer institutions of higher learning. It would be more apt to refer to them as state-sanctioned seminaries for the secular religion of Cultural Marxism. Instead of strolling out of college with nimbler minds, students now stumble out into the real world with their brains scrubbed clean of the ability to hatch a single independent thought.

And as they enter a hostile job market with their useless Master’s Degrees in Postmodern Gender Modalities Among Hamsters, your average hapless college grad is saddled with a life-crippling average debt of nearly $40K to banksters who finance all this brainwashing. Student debt in America is currently close to $1.5 trillion—nearly twice as much as all credit-card debt combined………

………Rather than being instructed in crucial matters—such as how to detect logical fallacies and distinguish between what’s objective and subjective [or 3-D solid modeling/beam theory!]—modern students indenture themselves to the loan-peddlers for the dubious honor of taking inane courses such as “Kanye Versus Everbody! [sic],” “Sci-Fi Queered,” “What If Harry Potter Is Real?,” and “How to Watch Television.”

While piously posing as staunchly anti-racist—whatever the hell that means, because it can’t be quantified—students are instead encouraged to channel all of their latent racial hatred toward the very idea of white people. [Dang right.  College campuses today are the most endemically racist, bigoted enclaves in the nation.  Largely white children are taught to hate themselves, and that the only way to demonstrate they have overcome their innate “white deviltry” is by refusing to reproduce and offing themselves]

This is why a Hispanic college professor received no reprimands for expressing this gleefully genocidal sentiment:

We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population. [Not through reproduction.  Only through immigration invasion.  Hispanic birth rates are only slightly above replacement rate.  And some of us evil whiteys have had 6 or 8 or 18 kids. So suck on that, racist.]

Neither was an Indian female professor at the University of Michigan given even a mild slap on the wrist for writing an essay about “White Moral Blindness.”

It’s why no faculty members were disciplined in 2015 when a white student at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst was denied entry from a “Stop White People” luncheon on campus.

It’s why a black sociology professor at Trinity College was not fired for writing on Facebook that it’s time to “confront” white people:

I’m fed up with self-identified ‘white’s’ daily violence[“violence” = holding beliefs I find offensive. That’s “violence.” And what does a population do when it convinces itself it is constantly under physically violent attack, which these delusional leftists do constantly?  They feel wholly justified in their hatred of their persecutors, and lashing out violently at them.  But they’ve received no actual violence.] directed at immigrants, Muslims, and sexually and racially opressed [sic] people. The time is now to confront these inhuman assholes and end this now.

It’s why a black female sociologist became a professor at Boston University after tagging white college males as “a problem population”:

white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges. 

why is white america so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?

Bigotry is ugly no matter the color of the person saying it.  But get this, this professor would surely absolve herself of being “racist,” because the white-hating Left has defined “racism” as being strictly the province of whites.  That’s right, only the devil white man can ever be “racist.”  This is supposedly because only the white devil man has “institutional power,” which critique I find rather ironic coming from college professors, students, and administrative hierarchies increasingly dominated by non-whites.

As the author of the above noted in a portion I did not excerpt, the percentage of white men on campus has fallen drastically over the past 25 years.  In fact, the disappearance of young white men from the campuses on which they are so manifestly made to feel unwelcome is probably THE dominant factor in the collapse in college attendance nationwide.

Thus it would be quite ironic if these hateful racist professors and administrators lost their (largely) useless but oh-so-cozy sinecures as a direct result of their own radically racist leftism.

A final thought – see the hatred endemic in Leftism, which is endemic in rejection of God.  Rejection of Jesus Christ in the West largely started in, and has been sustained by, the academy.  The whole rotten structure needs to die.

 

Sermon on The Evil of Religious Liberty November 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Reader MFG sent the following link, and a very helpful summary, on the following sermon regarding the grave error of so-called religious liberty.  The sermon generally follows the logic of Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God That Failed.  It is especially harsh on the founding and ordering of the US government, wherein endarkenment deists established a government built upon Lockean principles, with the state stepping into the place of God as the supreme arbiter and ultimate object of allegiance.

But I thought MFGs summary was as concise and as good (or better) than anything I can write, so here it is, along with the sermon.  I add a few thoughts onto his.:

Wow – this is a quick but incisive sermon on religious liberty’s dangers. It’s from a slightly different angle than what’s covered in the past. We could unpackage it for weeks…Here are a few takeways.

  • Founding Fathers thought they needed to set limits on Christ’s reign [Informed by endarkenment philosophy, especially that of Locke and Hobbes, that was indeed the case]
  • They undid time and founded a government that was pre-Christian in its governing philosophy. [a return to paganism, undoing 1700 years of Christian civilization]
  • They founded a government which relied on man’s own reasoning unaided by revelation or sanctifying grace (i.e. based on darkness/blindness).
  • It was worse than the governments of the pre-Christian Jews who at least had revelation to guide [And had the excuse of ignorance]
  • The US Govt is like the Roman Pantheon – people can have their own gods as long as these gods are not exclusive or hostile to government (religious freedom) [But what matters most to the US gov’t, or where its cultural loyalties lie, can change radically over time. For the first 150 years, the US gov’t was more or less a mainline protestant gov’t, because that was the dominant culture.  But the seeds of that culture’s destruction were sewn in the US founding, so that 60 years or so ago sexular leftism became culturally dominant, and now the US gov’t serves to advance THAT culture, which is intrinsically hostile to Christianity.  Of course, it took decades of unprecedented, dedicated mass infiltration and undermining of existing cultural bulwarks to achieve that switch, but here we are, and I do not think there is any going back, not with this present form of gov’t.]
  • By keeping all religions equal, there needs to be a referee to manage or balance these religions – hence the government steps in.
  • To permit the govt. to be a referee, the people elevated government above religion
  • State becomes the supreme god. [yep]

My thoughts [MFG’s thoughts]: This accurately and deeply describes our situation – governing in blindness. It also explains why liberalism and to some extent conservativism (or GOP Republicanism) becomes its own orthodoxy and religion. When someone opposes a political policy that contradicts church’s teaching (unjust/unlimited wars for example), the person is treated like a heretic or apostate (whether on the left or right).

Shreds post-conciliar notions of ecumenism, don’t it?

I really liked MFG’s summary and hope it turns into a basis for discussion. As he noted, this is a very complex subject and could take many hours of argument to fully analyze, but even as it stands, I think the sermon very much worth listening to (it’s only about 15 minutes) and considering.  Another great upload from Sensus Fidelium.  At core, it reveals we get the society we make.  If we turn away from God and try to create a secular humanist paradise, human “paradise” (as in not) is what we will get.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion that the US as founded was disordered at best and a diabolical inversion of right government at worst, the key point to take away, I think, is that any government, any human society, not oriented with Jesus Christ as its visible Head and King is doomed to failure.  All human creations fail.  Only the Church, wounded though she presently is (and has been at a few times in the past), has survived, because the Church is not a human construct.  It has a human element, prone to failure and corruption, but it will always retain its supernatural, perfect, indestructible element.

If we wish to create human societies that will endure, we shall have to do the same. But it’s been often said, our fallen natures make us prey to self-destruction.

 

 

 

 

Amazon: “Mohammad a Wise Prophet,” but “Jesus Christ a Fictional Character” November 29, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Restoration, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Steven Crowder ran a little impromptu experiment using Amazon’s in-home phishing/hack box Alexa (why people would put one of these things in their house is beyond me) over the Thanksgiving holiday, after noting that Alexa’s answer to many questions seemed to carry more than a little bit of bias.  So Crowder started asking Alexa numerous questions on the fly, and got some amazing responses.  You have to see the video for all of loaded answers, but the most significant to me and you is that Alexa finds in Mohammad “a wise prophet,” and a caring provider for his child-rape bride Aisha, while Jesus Christ is dismissed as “a fictional character:”

Now, obviously, Alexa is just a bot programmed by human beings, human beings who by and large work on the Left Coast and have powerful biases themselves.  It also draws many of its “encyclopedia” type answers from Wikipedia, which in virtually any socially significant subject is unbelievably biased towards the Left (go read the Wikipedia article on North Korea, for an example).

Nevertheless, this is more than slightly revealing.  Many leftists are trying to accuse Crowder of somehow staging this event or concocting this as a put-on, but he swears it’s on the up and up and released the raw footage  yesterday to confirm that.  From my standpoint, I’m not surprised in the slightest. In fact, I’d expect little else.  To a leftist, Mohammad is a wise prophet (yet another demonstration of how the Left will happily adopt islam should Christianity ever be definitively crushed), and Jesus Christ is just a sky fairy, about as real to them as the communist slaughter of millions or the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  The confirmation bias inherent in all this is more than just a little troubling, however.  How can people who repeat such mantras day in and day out (Mohammad great, Jesus fake) ever be converted?  It would appear beyond human means, anyway.

Having said that, per the actual historical record, there is far, far, FAR more disinterested, 3rd party evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for the existence of Mohammad.  Some students of islam, like Steve Kellmeyer and Robert Spencer, are very doubtful that a single individual named Mohammad ever existed. There is essentially ZERO evidence, independent of the Koran, that there was a man named Mohammad, and that he single-handedly founded his strange new cult.  What probably happened is that he was invented ex post facto to serve as the instigator of that hellish melange of Jewish Zealotry and Arian (not) Christianity that became islam.  With the Christ, there are both direct testimonies of His existence (Josephus) and numerous contemporaneous, or nearly so, records from the dominant power (Rome) that He existed and that He founded a powerful religious movement that rapidly swept over the entire eastern Levant and beyond.  In fact, in the secular scholarly community, all but the most dedicated modernists/leftists/atheists have come to the conclusion that the vast preponderance of evidence supports the existence of an individual man (-God) Jesus Christ.

But as we saw in the previous post, leftists never let facts get in the way of a politically helpful narrative.

Seriously, why someone would get easily hacked “smart” appliances, or one of these Alexa or Google thingess in their houses, is beyond me.  Even our “smart” phones are insidious evil things, with the mike on all the time and quite possibly the camera, as well.  The scary thing is not so much how they affect old farts like me, but the younger generation who seem utterly unable to live without these devices 6 inches from their face 23 hours a day.  All this could be taken away from me and I’d be annoyed at times but otherwise just fine.  But from these kids who have never known anything different, and who no longer know how to relate to other people without the filter of their electronic opiate?

Down high horse, down.  Still, the known hacking potentials alone in these devices is more than enough reason for me to say no thanks.  I wonder how long I’ll still have the privilege of setting my own analog thermostat, or buying a dishwasher that isn’t connected to the internet/NSA?

“Millennial Democrats” Have Never Heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the entire Cold War, or the modern states of Russia and China November 29, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in attachments, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Apparently, they believe North Korea’s nascent ICBMs (still appears they have no workable reentry vehicle, and it’s no mean task to get them to work, we spent years and billions on that alone) represent the first time the US has ever been threatened by nuclear-tipped ICBMs.  I would have thought they would have at least heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, foolishly caused by the incompetence of John Fitzgerald Kennedy the proudest moment of the God-Emperor JFKs administration, but apparently not.

Then there was that 40+ year unpleasantness known as the Cold War, with thousands of hair-trigger warheads, some stationed only 5 minutes flight time away from the US coast in submarines, ready and able to go off at a moment’s notice.

And, of course, persisting to this day, Russia and China have ICBMs targeted on the US.  Both have continued to develop new warheads, new ICBM and SLBM delivery systems, and new defensive technologies even while the US has stood entirely pat with a now 25  year moratorium on the research, development, testing, and production of new (or existing) nuclear weapons save for some modest rebuilds in the increasingly unlikely hope that the current arsenal would work if called upon (it’s not that unlikely, yet, but each year makes the problems of so-called “stockpile maintenance and reliability” that much greater).

A more general question – has there ever been a tweet that actually increased a tweeter’s stature in the world?

Deliberate, weaponized idiocy is the primary recruiting tool of the democrat party.  It’s also a perfect demonstration of leftist projection – it was Obama’s policy of appeasement, including gifting North Korea with billions of dollars in aid, that likely funded their weapon’s development programs.  That, and turning loose $150 billion in Iranian assets in a the biggest giveaway since Munich 1938.  How much of that unfrozen Iranian money has ended up atop North Korean ICBMs is unknown at this time, but given how these two nation’s missile and nuke development programs are run basically as one big bi-national effort, probably more than a little bit.

So far from being the Shield of Faith they’d like to claim, insulating the American people from a dangerously unhinged North Korean regime, Obama was actually a primary instigator of whatever terror these democrats now feel.  But they could never admit that, it be like me denying Jesus Christ, though they have every reason to make their denial, and I have none.

I guess this would just be totally lost on them:

Vast Majority of college-educated democrats think sex not determined at birth November 16, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, huh?, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

A recent survey shows that 77% of self-declared college educated democrats do not believe sex is determined at birth, or, for that matter, conception.

Not really a surprise at all.  The core base of the democrat party has shifted from minorities and lower-income whites to brainwashed products of the liberal arts and social science departments of so-called “elite” institutions.  Income matters much less than it used to in political alignment, what is going on in this nation is a culture, not an economic, conflict.  Of course, the super-rich, maybe guilt-ridden, maybe just classist and tribalist cadre makes up a vital part of the democrat base.  But aside from that it’s really much more down to class aspirations and moral turpitude.  Not just lack of faith in, but sneering hostility towards believing Christianity is also key.

Anyway, to the results:

Three out of four college-educated Democrats seem to believe that a man can be a woman if he just says so, regardless of his biology, genetics, and genitalia, according to a skewed survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

The main question in the August-to-September survey of 4,573 people is built on the phrase: “sex assigned at birth.” But that phrase was invented by transgender activists to help them claim that every person’s sex is independent of their biology and that a newborn’s sex should not be unfairly “assigned” by the doctors and parents who examine the newborns’ biology and visible genitalia. The Pew survey asked:

Which statement comes closer to your views, even if neither is exactly right?

Whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth [more on the very loaded phraseology below]

Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth

According to Pew’s write-up:

The survey … finds that Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely than other Democrats to say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. About three-quarters (77%) of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more say this, compared with 60% of Democrats with some college and 57% of those with a high school diploma or less. No such [education] divide exists among Republicans.

OK, so democrats, especially college uneducated ones, are crazy.  But what is terrifying is that nearly half the country, at least according to this one survey (skewed as it surely is), think the same:

Now, the survey question that produced the responses below was itself incredibly biased.  It was designed both to confuse and to elicit a biased response.  Some people declaring they do not think sex is determined biologically may have been tripped up on the use of the trans-activist phrase “assigned sex,” which may have caused some people to think of the exceedingly rare situations (one in a million, or less) where some infants are born with malformed genitalia, having some characteristics of both male and female organs.  A DNA test will instantly reveal what sex they are – if there by Y chromosomes, you have a boy, matey.

But at any rate, goodness gracious, 44% of American adults think that whether one is a man or a woman is independent of…..whether they are a man or a woman?!?  Even taking into account the loaded nature of the survey question, anything beyond 15% or so is a travesty.  We are beyond lost.  And amazingly, age is actually only a slight variable in this belief set. It all comes down to cultural-political affiliation, by which we might also infer, possession or lack of orthodox religious beliefs.  Or we can just conclude that 44% of Americans are stark, raving mad.

God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity – These are reality.  Rejection of reality in favor of some fantasy is a rough description of madness. So, in a sense, rejection of Jesus Christ and His Church is tantamount to madness, especially in a culture which was built upon such belief.  Now, the vast majority of people in this country today, even those who call themselves Catholic, have never experienced, nor been taught, real, believing Catholicism.  The reasons for this can be laid directly at the feet of the council fathers and Church leadership who have manifestly failed in their duty to preach the Faith not only to those inside the Church, but to those outside, as well.  Cultures do not fall to this level of madness without first having undergone total moral innervation.  The crisis in the Church is one of the prime – probably THE prime – source of this moral decay.

And so now we have scores of millions of Americans who believe things that simply are not – that two men can be “married,” that killing babies is about “choice,” that individual liberty is the font of fascism, and that a man is not a man simply because he says so.

These are all indicators of extremely late stage moral decadence, of the type that have been universal harbingers of civilizational collapse in the past.  And, it must be said, the Church, in the failures of her leadership particularly but also across the board, has had a huge role in creating the environment ripe for a collapse.

Lord, have mercy on us.

 

Francis – “Denying” Climate Change “Perverse” November 16, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, Interior Life, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Sodomy – who am I to judge?  Adulterers committing the gravest of sacrilege in sacrilegiously receiving the Blessed Sacrament – no problem.  But denying the sacred doctrine of anthropocentric global cooling warming climate change – such perversion, such heresy!, has no place in the Church.

Rorate nailed it on the day after his election – welcome to the pontificate of Paul VI, redux:

Pope Francis on Thursday rebuked those who deny the science behind global warming and urged negotiators at climate talks in Germany to avoid falling prey to such “perverse attitudes” and instead accelerate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. [no major industrialized nation has reduced carbon emissions more over the past 10 years than has the United States. This was just reported a day or two ago.  Even if the United States went back to a 17th century economy with the attendant death of 90+% of the population, carbon emissions worldwide would still grow rapidly due to the unabated output of India, China, and similar nations.  The entire project, then, is just a joke.]

Francis issued a message to the Bonn meeting, which is working to implement the 2015 Paris accord aimed at capping global emissions. [And how many kilotons of carbon were spewed into the atmosphere by thousands of activists, plutocrats, and bureaucrats jetting into Bonn from around the world?] In it, Francis called climate change “one of the most worrisome phenomena that humanity is facing.” He urged negotiators to take action free of special interests and political or economic pressures, and to instead engage in an honest dialogue about the future of the planet. [For the leftist, “dialogue”=doing what I want. By “special interests,” Francis means those with very justifiable concerns not only about the faulty theory of human-caused climate change, but the murderous, impoverishing impact of sudden and draconian limits on emissions of what is an entirely natural substance]

Francis didn’t cite any countries by name, but the United States has announced it is withdrawing from the Paris accord, and President Donald Trump has nominated several people in his administration who question scientists’ conclusions that human activity is behind the global rise in temperatures. At the same time, the U.S. administration has promoted the use of fossil fuels like coal for U.S. energy needs.

In his landmark 2015 environmental encyclical, Francis said global warming is “mainly” due to human activity and he called for fossil fuels to be progressively phased out without delay. [Thus we have a Bishop of Rome, heir of St. Peter, endorsing, in a doctrinal document, a dubious and highly contentious scientific theorem.  This will only turn out badly, and should global warming be decisively refuted by a mass return to sanity and de-funding of government-directed scientific propaganda “research,” it will be used by enemies of the Church forever anon.]

In his message, the Argentine pope denounced that efforts to combat climate change are often frustrated by those who deny the science behind it or are indifferent to it, those who are resigned to it or think it can be solved by technical solutions, which he termed “inadequate.” [Said the doctrinaire liberal with absolutely no scientific training or credibility]

“We must avoid falling into these four perverse attitudes, which certainly don’t help honest research and sincere, productive dialogue,” he said.

Well there you go, you perverts.  You get the sense Francis is building towards something, a great and thorough rebuke of the Church That Was.  I mean, the Vatican is issuing stamps celebrating the worst, most destructive heresy in the history of the Church.  It seems more and more plausible this man wants a decisive, open break with the Church and the Tradition upon which it is founded. I mean much, much further than the things he’s already done.  Something like nailing his own figurative 99 theses on the door of the Vatican, an open, unmistakable embrace of Protestantism and call for the Church to repent of its “errors.”

I don’t mean to become overwrought over this latest, relatively minor upturned middle phalanges at the dwindling number of faithful.  It’s more the whole sweep of this pontificate, nearly 5 years old now, that I’m talking about.

h/t reader TT

USCCB Bishops – Immigration Not a Matter of Prudential Judgment       November 15, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Immigration, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

At least, maybe, when it comes to the canard of instant mass deportation.

But in reality, in their recent confab discussing the hot-button topic of immigration, what was presented an attempt to basically refute lay complaints that the US bishops – reverting to unfortunate, damaging, hurtful stands they took in the 70s and 80s – are infringing upon lay rights by insisting upon specific policy prescriptions as being the only doctrinally acceptable approach.  This echoes the dark days of the “Bernadin”-dominated US episcopate, when supposed paeans to “peace” and “justice” were in reality little more than far left talking points and anti-Reagan, anti-US defense rhetoric.

Well, personnel is policy, and Francis has been busy remaking the US episcopate in his own image and likeness.  With men like Blaise Cupich in positions of great influence, and the sidelining of more (relatively) conservative forces like Conley and  Chaput, this is hardly surprising.  Francis’ influence will likely be felt in the US episcopate for a decade or more to come, depending on how long he reigns, and how replaces him.

At any rate, here’s what the bishops, including the liturgical aesthete Cordileone, had to say about the laity and their uppity opinions regarding prudential judgment. I’ll provide a little color commentary along the way:

As the conclusion of a lengthy discussion on migration, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops decided Monday to draft a statement from their president expressing the need for humane and just immigration reform.

The Nov. 13 proposal was first floated by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, Archbishop Emeritus of Santa Fe. After debating how to go about preparing a statement, it was agreed by oral assent that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the conference, would issue a statement with the assistance of the Committee on Migration, chaired by Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, assisted by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles.

The discussion followed brief presentations from Archbishop Gomez and Bishop Vasquez. The Los Angeles archbishop outlined the principles which guide the US bishops’ work on migration, which come from Strangers No Longer, a 2003 pastoral letter issued jointly by the US and Mexican bishops’ conferences……… [That is a poor, and in many ways politically extremist, document.  It is on a par with “Always Our Children,” which tacitly or openly endorsed most of the sodomite agenda, for bad documents written by bishops in the past 20 years.  It insists upon basically a free right for Mexican and other Latin American nationals to have free access, on demand, to US jobs, welfare benefits, and services, with nothing more than lip service, and even that slight, to the extremely negative impact mass immigration of low-skill, benefits-seeking, poorly-educated has on native workers in a post-industrial economy.  This is not 1890.  We don’t have millions of manufacturing jobs suitable for a 3rd grade intellect anymore. The bishops are living in a fantasy land, constructed from their near total disconnect with the flock they lead and their needs.  The robust economy and abundant riches they refer to constantly as the driving moral imperative in favor of ceaseless mass immigration with virtually no limit or control no longer exists.  Trump was elected precisely because millions of Americans, more and more of them formerly solidly middle class, can no longer find work.  Their wages are horribly depressed by competition from illegal and other foreign workers imported into this country specifically for the purpose of driving down the cost of wages. Thus the bishops, contrary to their rhetoric, are not really so concerned about the little man – there are millions of Americans suffering gravely from the immigration pandemic – they are actually carrying water for the transnational globalist elite, who want a large and ignorant labor force that makes little more than $5 an hour. This is an environment in which everyone suffers, including the immigrants, the vast majority of which lose their faith, and generally also their moral compass, in crossing the Rio Grande. I am being harsh, the bishops may simply be naïve and myopic, but a very solid argument can be constructed that they are deliberately acting in behest of powerful interests, all the while clothing themselves in the garment of “friend of the little guy” (so long as he is not a native-born American)].

……..Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces raised the question of how to counter charges that immigration policy is a matter of prudential judgement, and that the faithful may therefore in good conscience come to a judgement which differs from that of the bishops.

Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami responded that “we’re making our prudential judgement, too … in the light of Catholic teaching.” He emphasized that “immigrants are not problems, but brothers and sisters; strangers, but strangers who should be embraced as brothers and sisters. We’re offering what we think is best, not only for the immigrants, but for our society as a whole. We can make America great, but you don’t make America great by making America mean.”

Immigration reform, he maintained, must “include the common good of everyone: Americans and those who wish to be Americans.” [OK, that’s your opinion, but many Catholic laity believe it is not only wrong, it is destructive and harmful and in many ways achieves the opposite of its intent (i.e., worse outcomes for Americans AND illegal immigrants).  We can certainly disagree in prudence.]

Bishop Soto responded that deportations do not fall under the category of prudential judgement, but rather were included by St. John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical [sic] Evangelium vitae among the sins which cry out to heaven, and so is not merely “consistent with Church teaching,” but “to discard it as a prudential judgement doesn’t reflect our tradition.” [First of all, this is a red herring. No one is seriously advocating, or seriously expects, mass deportations to begin this year, or next, or the year after that.  I for one am single-minded – build the dang wall, worry about what to do with those here after that.  We must control the situation, the inflow, before we try to reverse it.  Once the crisis is passed, we can talk sensibly about how to deal with those here.  Secondly, there are four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.  An encyclical is an important document but not the place for novel de fide definitions.  Thirdly, Evangelium Vitae, which focused primarily on abortion and contraception as evils against human life, mentions deportation once, in quoting Guadium Et Spes, the 3rd worst document of Vatican II, for a list of evils which are “infamies.”  Whether an “infamy” equals one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for justice is quite unclear.  If so, Vatican II added about 30 other sins to that list, because Guadium Et Spes 27 condemned, equally, and without distinction, everything from genocide and abortion to “living conditions” and “where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons.”  That is to say, while GeS 27 sounds impressive, it’s theological import and meaning are muddled, at best.  Naturally, then, it would be a favorite of a progressive bishop.]

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco recommended the five principles from Strangers No Longer as a sine qua non, on which “there can be no disagreement” among Catholics. “While there’s room for prudential judgement, it’s not something that can be taken lightly” because it “involves such basic considerations of justice.” [But justice to whom?  Aquinas and Augustine would indicate that justice begins with those closest to home.  When there are periods of abundance, or when economic and cultural circumstances permit, there can be quite liberal approaches to immigration. With prolonged economic depression and cultural disassociation growing to the level of near open conflict, however, prudence would indicate, even demand, a much more conservative approach.  This has been the situation in the US for over 200 years, with periods of mass immigration leading to problems followed by periods of restricted immigration allowing for cultural and economic assimilation.]

———-End Quote————

But let’s be honest, this issue of mass immigration in the present context, is at least as much – and I mean this from the bishop’s perspective, as well – about insuring permanent ascendance for progressive/leftist politics in this country as it is about any purported concern for the huddled masses yearning to breathe free (and is in fact probably much, much more about the former than the latter).

Correspondent MFG sent me this link, and he notes – quite intelligently – that this seems an attempt by the bishops to up their rhetoric and try to squash lay arguments against the bishop’s very liberal pro-immigration stance.  The prudential judgment argument has been a powerful one, and they seem to be trying to take that away.  As MFG notes, the way to combat this attempt is by returning to first sources and principles, going back to Aquinas, Augustine, Peter Canisius, and others to demonstrate the proper Catholic understanding of the role of government, of citizens of a land’s duties to one another and to those of other countries, of Catholic moral principles (in a hierarchical sense), and all such related topics.

Doing this in a systematic fashion will show that Catholics of any stripe, lay, clergy, whatever, are fully  within their rights to advocate for much more limited immigration than the status quo of the past 50 years, and to preserve the culture and heritage of the land they love, which they see slipping away faster and faster all the time.  This latest bit of rhetorical weaponry from the bishops is frankly very ugly, very manipulative and smacks of desperation.

UPDATE: Commenter CMatt makes a great point that I failed to address (in my defense, I covered quite a bit, anyway) – these are bishops talking, yes, but not necessarily YOUR bishop, and their authority over you as a soul is basically non-existent.  It only exists to the extent that the bishops unanimously approve documents or actions of the Conference, and even in that situation it is more of a tacit authority, something novel in the history of the Church and of dubious significance for souls.  That is the huge problem with episcopal conferences, and why Pope Leo XIII found them far from his liking – they muddy the lines of authority greatly and cause tremendous confusion when their actions are contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.  Much of Testem Benovolentae, Leo XIIIs encyclical denouncing the heresy of Americanism (which the US bishops have never faithfully implemented) has to do with these manifest problems that emerge from such conferences – bureaucratization, secularization, inordinate focus on money/funding, an excessive interest in the material works of mercy vice the spiritual works, etc.