jump to navigation

Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas Gives Awesome Defense of Firearms Rights, Destroys Leftist Shibboleths March 9, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, firearms, General Catholic, Revolution, Society, technology, Victory.

No real comment here, just one of the best speeches on the matter of “gun control” I’ve ever heard.  Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas effectively destroys all the Left’s main talking points to try to disarm the populace, and also gores a great number of their other sacred cows (like their attacks on the family, the correlation of fatherless young men and these kinds of insane attacks, etc).  It’s about as good a 7 minute speech on the topic as I’ve ever heard.  Enjoy and have a blessed weekend!


“Shaming Prayer” – Just What You’d Expect from Those Indoctrinated to Hate Christianity? March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, error, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

Here’s a quick post via reader ADG regarding the recent phenomenon of leftist outrage at those who respond on Twitter or other social media by stating they will pray for the victims of a shooting or in response to some other calamity.  This has been a steadily growing phenomenon over the past several years, as the Left becomes increasingly militant, increasingly atheist, and increasingly open in its hatred of the deadly enemy that must be crushed before we all become muslims – Christianity.

The recent shooting in Florida by an obviously mentally deranged boy with a long history of violent acts and every possible warning sign of impending calamity has revealed this anti-prayer attitude to its fullest.  Not only has the Parkland shooting revealed both the intense hatred of the Left for any not on board with its agenda and the overall desire of democrat supporters to totally revoke the 2nd Amendment, denying all guns to all citizens, but it has shown how decades of careful anti-Christian propagandizing in the media, academia, government, and most of all schools has produced tens of millions of people who are not just left-wing or inclined towards atheism but outwardly, militantly anti-Christian and possessed of little but disdain for those who give any evidence of belonging to the religion of Jesus Christ.

This is one of many reasons I totally avoid social media. Blogs are bad enough, but the compression of thought and total lack of nuance required to fit an idea into 140 characters drives people to foolish extremes.  What once was a sad lack of faith or dislike for organized religion now gets squeezed down to foaming hatred of (and envy for?) those who have the infinite comfort of faith and the beautiful organization that stems from striving to be a faithful member of the Church.

It’s going to get much worse, I fear:


A new front has opened in the Culture War. Now they are targeting prayer. The controversy was triggered by the fact that political leaders traditionally sent messages of condolences offering their “thoughts and prayers” to victims and their families.

Such innocent expressions of comfort have enraged liberals who claim the idea of prayer especially in times of a shooting is meaningless. Even prayer can be politicized as some protesters have resorted to “shaming prayer.” [It’s difficult for me not to find those who have nothing contempt for prayer and believing souls to be quite sick.]

They do this by becoming indignant with prayers, which they ridicule as ineffectual and infantile. Enough of your prayers, they cry, let us see legislative action! The more radical protesters go one step further by raging and blaspheming against God who allows such tragedies to happen. [And that’s really the crux of the matter – leftists, in a strangely contradictory sense, believe that people are basically good, and thus that society is perfectable.  Indeed, that society is only imperfect because of bad people who prevent its perfecting.  That this belief is totally contradictory doesn’t seem to sink in.  Christians understand that man is fallen and seriously deranged, that this earth is a place of trials and suffering, and thus can never be perfected.  Indeed, the attempt has historically brought much more hell than any “heaven.”  But it’s a article of the leftist faith that we could live in utopia if we could just get rid of the damn Christians and their sky-entity.  At root, as I have explained at length, they loathe God and Christians and seek their destruction as the ultimate obstacle to their hellish dystopia.]

Indeed, it is tragic that there are those who shame prayer. They refuse the very means by which every suffering and problem might be overcome. Although they would be enraged at the suggestion, the prayer shamers need prayers.

Their problem is that they do not have Faith in God. Therefore, they do not understand the nature of prayer. For them, prayer is a kind of therapeutic exercise of weak individuals who cannot face reality. Such weaklings resort to appealing to an imaginary being from whom they imagine they receive favors. Such an opinion is not new, for Saint Thomas Aquinas says that even among the ancients “some held that human affairs are not ruled by Divine providence; whence it would follow that it is useless to pray and to worship God at all” (II-II: 83).

Hence, the prayer shamers’ mentality is sadly limited and narrow-minded. They recognize no reality or power beyond the physical world. They rely only upon themselves to realize their goals. And when they fail in life, as all eventually will do, they do not understand the meaning of suffering and become resentful………..

………Thus, those who shame prayer do not know prayer. They do not have recourse to God and shame those who do. They have recourse instead to government solutions that often make matters worse. Tragically, God has been banished from the public square, and people are surprised when disasters happen.

However, Christians also share in the ignorance of the power of prayer. The political figures that send thoughts and prayers, often do so as a matter of social convention without praying. [That’s a good point] The faithful also neglect to avail themselves of the good that can be obtained through prayer. [Also generally true]

How much more effective these figures would be if they really prayed and asked for God’s aid to console those who suffer tragedy. How much more could be done if all the faithful would approach God with humble and contrite hearts asking that the nation be spared from certain tragedies. How many blessings could be expected if everyone would gather and pray in the public square to call upon God’s aid with perseverance.

Indeed, prayer shamers would be less effective if Christians had less shame in praying.

Well, at least we no longer have a bishop who makes a point of being very publicly anti-gun.  Yes Bishop Burns said that guns are not permitted on parish grounds but he had the 30.06 and 30.07 signs removed, which are the only legally actionable means for someone to be prosecuted for concealed or open carry in a location which doesn’t want such.  So legally speaking, guns are permitted.

I am unaware of any being hassled over carrying on parish grounds in this diocese since the signs were removed last November, but I don’t get out much anymore.

Youth “Transgenderism” The Latest of Many Destructive Psychological Fads March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Psychology/psychiatry are often the butt of jokes, and I think rightly so.  It is far from obvious that in the vast majority of psychological treatment the cure has been worse than the disease.  Tens of millions of Americans are prescribed anti-depressants, and yet more people than ever are depressed, and a disturbing percentage of those on anti-depressants will have a psychotic episode.  26 of the last 27 mass shooters in this country were on anti-depressants.

So-called split personalities received massive media attention in the 80s and 90s and resulted in a huge increase in the number of people reporting this affliction.  After decades of study, however, most science has concluded that the vast majority of those reporting split personalities were faking it.

There have been many other such examples – the mass psychosis of the 60s was “anxiety neurosis” and millions of Americans were placed on tranquilizers.  We have tens of millions of little boys in this country being drugged out of their minds to make them behave more like little girls and make teacher’s jobs easier.  I’m sure you can supply your own examples.

Dr. Jordan Peterson believes we are in one of the most destructive psychological fads ever pushed (@~35:00 language warning for Owen Benjamin, so no embed in the post but the whole middle of the interview is very good) by the media, people desiring to be seen as part of a highly lionized movement given near total moral authority, and probably some parents who want their child to be “special” in the latest culturally approved way – that of pushing kids, almost exclusively little boys, into supposed “transgenderism.”  He believes we as a culture will have hell to pay with the adult product of the kids being experimented on today in one of the most horrific social experiments ever conducted, all for the benefit of the leftist social justice political organizing machine.

Historically, people experiencing genuine gender dysphoria, almost universally as the result of some terrible childhood trauma (generally of a sexual nature), have numbered about 0.01-0.03% of the population.  That is to say, 99.97-99.99% of the population did not experience this.  Now the fad is pushing the number up to where there are more people claiming to be transgender than inclined to the sins of sodom and gomorrah – upwards of 3% of the population:

Many more teenagers than previously thought may identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, a new study in the journal Pediatrics suggested. Only about 0.6 percent of U.S. adults identify with a gender opposite their birth sex, and previous studies showed about 0.7 percent of U.S. teens do so as well. The study published Monday suggested that the percentage might be closer to 3 percent, however. [Several things – I would be very careful with reading too much into these numbers (this post obviously aside!). Everything I have read, and it’s not an inconsiderable amount, on this subject suggests the number of transgenders historically averages are what I stated above – in the hundredths of a percent.  I am very dubious that the current number is 0.7%, which would translate into 2.4 million people!, or that 3% is really even in the realm of possibility – 10 million people!  It’s like the scam they pulled when advocating sodomy was the agenda – 10% of the population is “gay!”  No, it’s not, it’s not even close, first of all, many people drift in and out of the sins of sodom and gomorrah over their life – perhaps over half those who at one time self-identify as “gay” do so – and secondly the number is more like 2%, tops.  So my guess is that these numbers here have been exaggerated at least by a factor of 10, and possibly much higher. Nevertheless, it is not the raw numbers but the trends that this post is about.]

To put that in perspective, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were 41.7 million Americans between the ages of 10 and 19. If 0.7 percent of them identify as a gender different from their birth sex, then approximately 292,000 U.S. teens are transgender. If the share is 2.7 percent, however, that would mean 1.13 million U.S. teens are transgender — an increase of 0.86 million.

……….This week, Pediatrics released a study of Minnesota teenagers in grades 9 and 11. The study surveyed 80,929 students, and found that 2,168 (2.7 percent) identified with a gender opposite or different from their birth sex. The study referred to them as “Transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC),” and labeled the other 78,761 (97.3 percent) “cisgender.” [First of all, Pediatrics, along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which like many other supposedly medical organizations/journals has been co-opted by the hard left.  Secondly, how was the question phrased, and have its results been duplicated (for instance, was the question broadly worded, calling “transgender” those who ever have ANY, even the slightest, confusion over their gender)?  Third, ages 14-16 are the very ages when people are most likely to experience confusion over gender as they experience the onrush of hormones, the often horrid peer environment of the school systems, and most of all, the beginnings of the transition from childhood to adulthood.  In this hyper-sexualized culture, in fact, children such as these are forced to grow up much too fast and are exposed to horrible influence like pornography that can warp their development and push them into the very kinks this study is supposed to be analyzing?  Here’s an interesting idea for research – how about correlating the frequent use of pornography and self-abuse with tendencies towards perversion?  There is a huge body of evidence that points to “transgenders,” like those inclined towards the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, being not born, but made.  What are the increasingly demonic schools doing to propagate this?]

These results represented a stunning increase from previous estimates. According to government estimates, about 0.6 percent of U.S. adults (1.4 million) identify as transgender. A UCLA study released last year estimated that 0.7 percent of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 are transgender, about 150,000 kids, CBS News reported.

“With growing trans visibility in the United States, some youth might find it safer to come out and talk about gender exploration,” Nic Rider, a University of Minnesota postdoctoral fellow studying transgender health, told CBS News. “Diverse gender identities are more prevalent than people would expect.”

Well I’m more than a bit dubious of this data, but coupled with other revelations, it does seem that the constant, wall-to-wall, glowing media coverage of transgenders and the great moral authority the Left instantly grants them in the cultural space is having an impact.  The number of very young children, even as young as 4, whose parents seek treatment to transform them, outwardly at least, from one gender to another when they can barely go to the bathroom on their own has risen very sharply in the past few years.  There is absolutely zero chance this is a natural phenomenon.  Can no one see the massive possibility for corruption and the most base self-interest in this? And as Dr. Peterson notes, we’re going to have to deal with some extremely ugly repercussions from traumatized adults who, I’m quite certain, will relate tale after tale of how their parents, or their trauma, induced them into drastic changes that literally destroyed their bodies physically and will prevent them from ever leading normal, happy lives.  Who knows the cancers and other ailments that will result from the hormone treatments alone, let alone the prevention of puberty and probable permanent sterility.  But the damage to their souls will, I fear, be much, much worse.

Oh yeah, it’s going to be oh so much fun.  In fact, it’s going to be a cultural disaster of massive proportions, for which the media-industrial complex will call for government intervention, of course, which is the point of it all.  Anything to weaken the family and church and empower the state, they are foursquare for.  And it’s exactly what all those uptight prudish no-fun-at-all Christians were warning about way back in the 70s and 80s when this descent into amoral madness started really getting rolling.



Texas, US Bishops See Threat to Tax Exempt Status in Wake of Texas Right to Life Gaffe March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

There are several players in the articles below from Church Militant, all increasingly isolated and bereft of public support from their colleagues and peers.  There’s Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, the man who decided against all good reason to attack the state’s largest and most effective pro-life group (Texas Right to Life – TRL), demanding even that a statement from him to all the Catholics of his diocese refusing them “permission” – on a matter of prudential judgment, as if it were even within his purview – to support TRL and desiring souls from each parish report to him as to whether or not his unnecessary and inflammatory statement was read.  As a matter of record, so far as I know – and I know regarding at least 7 other dioceses in this state – Fort Worth is the only diocese where such a statement, issued on Texas Catholic Conference (TCC – the bishop’s conference for the state) letterhead, was created and forcibly read. In fact, other bishops have run for cover, either trying to ignore the firestorm entirely, or outright repudiating the move against TRL.

Then there’s Jennifer Carr-Allmon –  former PR staffer for TCC and now its executive director – who has had a habit of lining TCC up on the wrong side of many sanctity-of-life related issues.  In 2014 TCC waged war against TRL and many individual pro-lifers over a disastrous bill on end-of-life care that would have substantially worsened the already bad laws in effect.  TCC  played a major role in supporting that bill and the RINO stealth liberals in the legislature that were pushing it.  Only heroic efforts by TRL, attorney Kassi Marks, individual committed pro-lifers, and a few good priests, bishops, and especially Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida finally managed to raise enough fuss to have the proposed bill changed and improved to the point that it did, in fact, wind up making a positive difference on end of life issues facing Texans.

In all of this, like the USCCB, the bishops are most often led by their lay staff bureaucrats within the respective conferences.  That is to say, the bishops are in many cases relying on the lay staff to “stay informed” and give them guidance on many of the various issues, being too busy with golf, exotic travel, and other activities to do so themselves.  Thus what often happens is that the Catholic bishops are advocating for the viewpoint of lay staffers of  unknown provenance, and certainly without any grace of office, to set Catholic public policy at the state, national, and even local level.

So just bear all that in mind as you read through the highlights of the two reports below, the first reporting that Bishop Olson and TCC may have violated the Johnson Amendment provisions of their tax exempt status in this fight with TRL.  Now, I don’t believe there is even a slight genuine threat to their status, but the fact that a complaint has been publicized is a bit unusual.  Now, if someone actually files a lawsuit against TCC and Olson with the IRS, then that would be serious. But mere complaints tend to go in the dustbin.  This article also ties the support of Olson and TCC to the RINOs to their love – and positive need – for continued unconstrained mass, illegal Hispanic immigration.

The second article adds a bit more detail to the coverage.  I’ll start with the tax exemption article via the good Bishop Gracida:

Here in Texas, the RINO Establishment has held power for a long time, and this establishment has been largely backed by the Catholic bishops of the state, casting their votes in ways generally approved of by the bishops and their agenda, particularly in regards to illegal immigration issues. Texas is of course greatly impacted by the question of illegals since it shares the longest border of any state with Mexico where most illegals come from………

……….Last week, in what many are viewing as an attempt to directly influence the outcome of tomorrow’s midterm elections, the bishops issued an unheard-of, unprecedented rebuke of Texas Right to Life, essentially claiming teaching authority over the group in matters political. The statement consisted of three major points, but the most troublesome point is the third point where they publicly decry the Texas Right To Life Voter Guide, which supports the young and upcoming anti-Establishment Republican candidates primed to upset the old-time GOP Establishment politicians favored by the bishops. [Not all of these anti-establishment candidates were so young. And in the case of Senate District 8, I think pro-lifers can be practically equally satisfied with either Ray Huffines or Angela Paxton.  Paxton won the primary, and it was a nasty, expensive race, but which candidate was actually the more pro-life actually figured quite substantially into that race.  At any rate, many voters in Collin County were turned off by Huffines extremely negative campaign and perceived carpetbagger relo to Richardson just to run for this seat]

And here is where the bishops may have actually have run afoul of IRS regulations forbidding Church involvement in politics, a rule known as the Johnson Rule, which actually originated under the administration of Texan President Lyndon B. Johnson back in the 1960s. To have injected themselves into statewide political races just a week before the elections and essentially condemned a political activist group by name, a group that publicly backs certain candidates over others, crosses the line and puts the bishops’ conference in a position where it could thereby lose its tax-exempt status.

Church Militant has learned exclusively that plans are being drawn up and formulated to file a petition with the IRS to have the tax-exempt status of the Church in Texas completely stripped. It that were to happen, the dollar cost to the dioceses of Texas would run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and bankrupt many dioceses. Additionally, experts observe that since the head of the Texas Catholic Conference, Galveston-Houston Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, is also president of the U.S. bishops’ national conference, this could actually extend beyond Texas and impact the tax-exempt status of the entire Church across the country.

If that scenario were to play out which observers tell Church Militant is certainly a possibility, the Church across America would become financially insolvent as the 194 dioceses across the country would have to scramble to sell tens of billions of dollars of assets to pay the exorbitant tax bill that would surely come their way in the absence of their tax-exempt status — billions and billions of dollars presently and moving forward that the federal government would dearly love to get its hands on. [As I said, it is extremely unlikely that any serious threat to the Church’s tax exempt status will come from this. But what may well happen is that Olson will get some hard questions behind the scenes at the next USCCB meeting of bishops.  Or maybe not.  They may all be in perfect agreement. Hard to say with this crew raised in the post-conciliar Church]

How did this happen? How is it that the bishops of Texas would collectively sign on to an agreement that could potentially bankrupt the Church in the United States? The answer, insiders say, lies with one woman, Jennifer Carr Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Bishops’ Conference, the first woman to ever hold that position.

A little background is in order here. The most vocal bishop in support of the attacks against Texas Right to Life has been Fort Worth Bp. Michael Olson who launched a blistering accusatory social media campaign on his Twitter feed, actually telling parishioners to let him know if his orders to his diocesan priests to read the statement of condemnation out loud at Masses from the pulpit were being followed. Olson is the same bishop who ordered Catholic pro-life groups in his diocese not to protest in front of abortion chambers with banners of Our Lady of Guadalupe because the image of Our Lady was offensive to Protestants who might also be protesting.

The behind the scenes of this is that very wealthy supporters of the Church in Fort Worth, who also support the status-quo RINOs, became very concerned that the young Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life were close to capturing the state legislature, according to internal polls. So they reached out to Olson and Jennifer Carr Allmon and said something needed to be done and done quickly before the elections.

One such establishment figure in the Texas legislature the rich want to protect because he is seen as “their man” is Charlie Geren, who barely hung on to his seat in the last election, almost losing to a Texas Right to Life challenger Bo French. That same race is again coming down to the wire and a loss in that race for the GOP-RINO establishment would signal a massive defeat for the status quo, including the bishops who are wedded to that same status quo.

The bishops are interested in maintaining the current political environment because the up and comer Republicans backed by Texas Right to Life are not friendly to the cause of illegal immigration which is the cause fueling the engine of the bishops’ political agenda in Texas. If the state of Texas suddenly turns anti-illegal immigration, the Texas bishops stand to lose a great deal, so they are willing to settle for weak pro-life support from RINOs in order to hold on to large sums of money going to what they see as the most important issue — illegal immigration……. [Well I would say Texas already is majority anti-illegal immigration, as many Texans see quite rightly that if mass illegal immigration is allowed to continue much longer, Texas will go purple if not blue, and this entire nation will be finished, if it isn’t already.  But there is not much Texas can do to secure the border, unless the governor wants to activate the Guard and start patrolling the border en masse, which may not be a bad idea but would instantly result in a flood of lawsuits and probable instant court injunctions by activist leftist judges to desist.]

………Reports are that some of the Texas bishops are now backpedaling from the statement, some even privately denying any advance knowledge of it. Some of this backpedaling appeared to be the case in a Friday afternoon interview on EWTN where San Angelo Bp. Michael Sis downplayed the statement and offered that everyone just needs to find common ground and work together — a radical departure from the aggressive tone of the earlier condemnation.

That the entire tax-exempt status of the Church, certainly in Texas and possibly in the entire country, owing to the connection between both Cdl. Daniel DiNardo, could come down to a hastily compiled statement by one woman, Carr Allmon, in charge of the Texas Bishops’ Conference and backed by one hot-tempered bishop wanting to do the bidding of some rich donors with political interests, it’s simply mind-boggling. But given the current temperature of the culture with regard to Catholic matters, a financial tsunami could certainly be in the cards for the nation’s bishops. [He does seem to be hot-tempered. It’s also funny how times change. When Farrell was here, Olson was definitely the more orthodox of the two DFW bishops.  Now with Bishop Burns, the situation seems to have reversed.  Bishop Burns is generally keeping a low profile and doing the hard work of trying to reconstitute both the badly depleted priesthood (which Bishop Farrell did revive from practical total death of vocations) and the aging and far too progressive lay administration of the Diocese.  He doesn’t seek after publicity as Farrell very obviously did.  But those cardinal hats don’t fall from trees!  You gotta get out there and make a name for yourself!]

This post is getting really long but here’s a bit more on Olson:

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth is currently steeped in controversy over his attack on Texas Right to Life, a pro-life group focused on electing authentic pro-life leaders in the Texas legislature. Yet in August 2016, Bp. Olson allowed a pro-abortion Democrat to speak on parish property. This is despite recent tweets to the Catholic faithful about his “apostolic duty” to “guard authentic doctrine in the parishes.”

In August 2016, Congressman Marc Veasey (D-Texas) was allowed to speak on the property of All Saints Catholic Church in Fort Worth. Veasey voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act when it came in front of the House for a vote. He supports abortion through all nine months, and has attended Planned Parenthood rallies. [I sadly live in Veasey’s district, one so gerrymandered that there is virtually no chance he will ever face a serious challenge, let alone lose his seat.  You should see how ridiculously the boundary lines are drawn in Irving, literally looping around apartment complexes and avoiding single-family homes.  Good job legislature!  Veasey is a true extremist who supports all the most extreme fashions of the Left – transgenderism for youth, taxpayer funded abortion on demand and any time, restrictions on homeschooling, etc]

Church Militant reached out to the diocese of Fort Worth for comment. A spokesman claimed the reason Veasey was allowed to speak on diocesan property was that the event in question was a town hall and not a stump speech.

When Church Militant asked whether the town hall included a speech from Veasey, the official angrily interrupted, reasserting that the event at the town hall wasn’t a speech. He said he was present at the event and that attendees did ask Veasey about his position on abortion, which Veasey answered by restating his support for abortion.

The diocese claimed that Veasey listened carefully to the pro-lifers in attendance at the event. An article in the North Texas Catholic quoted Bp. Olson on the subject: “My point is, we’ve gotten to the point of our civil discourse — to our understanding of our responsibility as citizens — that the only way we are able to participate in our society politically and to contribute to the common good is in a partisan way.”

In the wake of the Texas bishops’ parish advisory on Texas Right to Life, which Congressman Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) has called “factually inaccurate,” Bp. Olson tweeted out an order for Catholics attending Mass to spy on priests and report to his office if the Texas bishops’ advisory was not read from the pulpit.

Bishop Olson went so far as to imply that those who don’t read the advisory at Mass are not “true Catholics” and that the advisory is an act of his “authentic teaching office.”

I am told that most parishes did read the statement.  Whether it is really an act of his authentic teaching office is another question, there is no question Texas Right to Life supports the entirety of the Church’s Doctrine on the sanctity of life -in fact, it seems to support it better than the bishops often do. Whether one can be commanded to not support an organization that commits no sin and endorses no error – and is in fact totally wedded to the truth – seems dubious, at best.  I would argue in fact that it is TRL that is upholding Catholic Doctrine in its truest, fullest sense, and that, prudentially, the more accommodationist position of the TCC and Olson may be accepted for particular matters but is morally inferior to the more hardline stand.

Once again, as we see so often in the post-conciliar institutional edifice, the bishops make dogma of prudential matters and treat dogmatic ones as matters of judgment.

I would add in closing that TRL is the only pro-life group in the state, and one of the few in the country, that correctly ties together the issue of contraception with that of abortion.  Texas Alliance for Life, the group Olson and TCC apparently prefer, and which is widely seen as being much, much less reliable on these weighty matters, won’t touch contraception with a 10 ft pole.

Sorry, apparently this is book length post week.


The Unbelievable Evil of Luther’s Ideology – Sin Much Better than Good Works March 7, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the enemy, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

I am reading a truly amazing book on Martin Luther and his beliefs, called The Facts About Luther by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare LLD. This book isn’t full of Catholic opinion regarding Luther’s belief; no, it is a book literally chock full of direct, in-context quotations from the diabolical heresiarch and his twisted ideology.

Luther is a case study of the lengths to which one can fall when given over to endless pride, overarching pomposity, and intractable stubbornness. Luther was in essence a Pelagian, or wanted to be a Pelagian – someone who wanted to be so very good on his own merits, even without God’s help or Grace, which he constantly refused, that he could attain Heaven on his own efforts.  For nearly a decade prior to his final break into full blown heresy in 1517, he had been warned by religious superiors and others that he was on a path towards destruction with his way, way over-the-top fastings, mortifications, penitential exercises, etc.  When he finally became exhausted from this superhuman effort and realized he couldn’t attain Heaven on his own efforts, did he pause and find some humility and beg God for his aid?  Of course not.  From a family known for its volcanic temperament and unyielding stubbornness for many generations, he instead found blame with first God, and then the Church. It was the whole economy of salvation and system of Grace that was wrong, not Martin Luther!  Of course!  And so he invented the most noxious single error in the history of Christendom – justification by “faith*” alone.

Naturally, if one was saved by “faith” alone, and works were useless, then the whole system of the Law, the commission of good works and avoidance of sin, must be not just rotten but sinful and destructive of souls, as well.  Thus Luther inverted the Faith and invented his own diabolical doctrine.

And of course, being one of history’s most unhinged temperaments, he compulsively attacked not just the Church, not just popes and Saints and Fathers, but even much of the Bible itself upon which he supposedly based his entire conception of the Faith!  He had a special hatred for the 10 Commandments and its human transcriber, Moses.

Below I will place a number of quotes from Luther illustrating the perversity of his beliefs and, thus, the entire protestant project (which was significantly, majorly revamped during the Catholic Counter-Reformation, when great Jesuits and others like Charles Borremeo, Peter Canisius, and Francis Borgia utterly decimated Luther and Calvin’s noxious doctrine, showing how unscriptural and contrary to the early Faith it was, so that later protestants had to substantially re-Catholicize their sects in order to keep them intact).

These come from pp. 108-130 cut and paste to try to form an understandable whole.

As I said, Luther came to positively hate God when he found he could not maintain his Pelagian system of salvation by works alone: “the moral duties [the Law] enjoined were impossible of fulfillment and incited not love, but hatred of God” [speak for yourself, heresiarch]

To claim that the fulfillment of the Law is impossible is as impious as it is blasphemous, inasmuch as it imputes to God the injustice of commanding us to do something not just above our strength, but positively contrary to our eternal good.  It is also contrary to Christ – “What shall I do to be saved? If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments” (St. Matt xix:17).

Luther further remarked regarding the 10 Commandments: “If we allow them [the Ten Commandments] any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies, and blasphemies.” Further – “That shall serve you as a true rule, that wherever the Scriptures order and command to do good works, you must so understand it that the Scriptures forbid good works.” “If you should not sin against the Gospel, then be on your guard against good works; avoid them as one avoids a pest.” [Thus, Christ is a liar and Scripture is full of impossible to penetrate, contrary meanings, and yet should be the sole rule of faith and open to the interpretation of all, and not subject to the understanding of the Church.  What a crock.]

Under what circumstances is it allowable for a “man of God” and a “Reformer” to say of Moses, God’s chosen servant, that he should be looked upon “with suspicion as the worst heretic, as a damned and excommunicated person; yea, worse than the Pope and the devil?” [Such unspeakable blasphemy and boundless effrontery]

Luther again – “A pure heart enlightened by God must not dirty, soil itself with the Law. Thus let the Christian understand that it matters not whether he keeps it or not; yea, he may do what is forbidden and leave undone what is commanded, for neither is a sin.” [Counseling avoidance of virtue and welcoming of sin? – Believe me, it gets much, much worse]

“To the gallows with Moses.”

“I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ….we must put away thoughts and disputes about the Law, whenever the conscience becomes terrified and fells God’s anger against sin. Instead of that, it will be better to sing, to eat, to drink, to sleep, to be merry in spite of the devil.” [Luther constantly conflated the pangs of his conscience with the promptings of the devil. In fact, as we shall see later, Luther was very aware that he was doing satan’s work and did so without compunction]

“Poor soul, you have temptations, they must be overcome. When the devil comes to tempt and harass you with thoughts of the kind you allude to, have recourse at once to conversation, drink more freely, be jocose and playful and even indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit………If the “devil” [by which he really means his conscience] says to you,’Will you not stop drinking, answer him: I will drink all the more because you forbid it; I will drink great draughts in the name and to the honor of Jesus Christ.’ Imitate me.  I never drink so well, I never eat so much, I never enjoy myself so well at table as when vexing the “devil” who is prepared to mock and harass me. Oh, that I could paint sin in a fair light, so as to mock the devil and make him see that I acknowledge no sin and am not conscious of having committed any!  I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the “devil” tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind.  If the devil upbraids us with our sins and declares us to be deserving of death and Hell, then we must say: ‘I confess that I have merited death and hell,’ but what then?  Are you for that reason to be damned eternally?……..” [Quite possibly, yes, if you do not repent and confess your sins]

“How often,” Luther said, “have I taken with my “wife” [a rebel nun who, like Luther, violated her sacred vows and simulated marriage outside the Church] those liberties which nature permits, merely in order to get rid of Satan’s temptations [that’s a pretty cold commentary on his concubine].  Yet all to no purpose, for he refused to depart; for Satan, as the author of death, has depraved our nature to such an extent that we will not admit any consolation. [I did not know satan had such power over us, at least those of us who do not give ourselves over to him. I would say, once again, Luther is speaking of his own conscience, his own guardian angel, calling him back to sanity and repentance] Hence I advise everyone who is able to drive away these Satanic thoughts by diverting his mind to do so, for instance, by thinking of a pretty girl, of money-making, or of drink, or, in fine, by means of some other vivid emotion.”

“Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but “believe” more boldly still……We must sin as long as we are what we are…..sin shall not drag us away from Him even should we commit fornication, or murder, thousands and thousands of times a day provided we only believe.”  We must take Luther’s words to mean, as they manifestly indicate, a recommendation, an exhortation and an injunction to mutiny, rebellion, and disobedience to the Supreme Lawgiver, who directed all to observe and not disrespect His Commandments.

Luther counsels that sin is better than good works – “The way to Heaven is narrow; if you wish to pas through it, throw away your good works. Those pious souls, who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven, not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” Thus good works, the practice of piety, and the observance of the divine Commandments – the only way, according to Jesus Christ, which leads to eternal life – are in his estimation troublesome superfluities, of which Christian liberty must rid us. Rather, according to this false teacher, they are invincible obstacles to salvation if one places the least reliance upon them. “Faith alone,” said he, “is necessary for justification: nothing else is commanded or forbidden.” [but remember, it’s a false conception of faith]

Luther knew that his doctrine had led to collapse of morals among protestants and that sin, crime, social upheaval, and moral degradation had spread like wildfire in the wake of his teachings.  He admitted this plainly, that is counsel to sin had been taken up, and that indeed it was primarily the license his false religion gave that was its prime selling point: “Since the downfall of Popery and the cessation of excommunications and spiritual penalties, the people have learned to despise the word of God. They care no longer for the churches; they have ceased to fear and honor God………I would wish, if it were possible, to leave these men without preacher and pastor and let them live like swine. [such noble concern for souls]  There is no longer any fear or love of God among them. After throwing off the yoke of the Pope, everyone wishes to live as he pleases.” [Isn’t that exactly what you counseled them to do?]

So notorious was the debauchery of the followers of Luther that it became a common saying when persons proposed to engage in drunkenness and revelry: “We will spend the day like Lutherans.”

The new Gospel did not make Luther himself better.  He said: “I confess…….that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel as was formerly seen among monks and priests.” “If God,” he says, “had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.”[Luther was horribly inconsistent – he counseled men to sin but then lamented its effects.  Basically he wanted everyone to follow him, to be proved to be always right and greater than the pope, for himself to be able to sin freely, but for everyone else to remain as holy or better than they were as Catholics.  An impossible double standard.]

Finally, Luther had frequent encounters with satan, which he freely admitted, and he found that satan very much approved of his new doctrine, and somehow did not find that troubling –

Faith and good works are the only terms on which men can purchase happiness here and hereafter; every other scheme is a deceit of Lucifer to draw souls away from the love and service of God.

This statement is not made without foundation. Read Luther’s work against “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the “father of lies” who accosted him at “midnight” and spoke to him with “a deep, powerful voice,” causing “the sweat to break forth” from his brow and his “heart to tremble and palpitate.” In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptionable witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that “the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints” and that, moreover, Satan gave him “the most unqualified approval of his doctrine on justification by faith alone.”  Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare? [And who sold his false religion by creating a giant strawman of the Catholic Faith, so that his twisted notions would make some sense by comparison]

———End Quote———

I would just add in conclusion – this is the man the horrid conciliar father Yves Congar knelt before in fealty, and wished to erect a statue to his wonderful works within St. Peter’s.  This is the man Francis of Rome has repeatedly lionized.  This is the man, and the tens of thousands of sects he has fathered, the ecumaniacs can’t wait to suborn Catholic Truth for in order to flatter.  This is the man the revolutionaries within the Church have constantly lionized and sought to emulate in every possible way, probably because they are as lost in their own sins as he was, for the past several decades.  The smoke of satan has entered the Church, indeed – and the man who made that statement did as much or more than anyone to allow those filthy sulfurous fumes to enter.

Before reading this book, I knew Luther was incredibly bad, that he wrought endless destruction of souls (and the material world), that he was the ultimate author of most everything wrong in the world today economically, socially, intellectually, philosophically, and morally, but I still did not know the depths of his depravity.  He was quite literally, and happily, the spawn of satan.  He is a tremendous warning to me of what unyielding pride and self-pity must lead to.  The thing is, he knew better, he constantly kept at least a shred of his Catholic conscience, which he drowned in drink, gluttony, prurient lusts, and every other means he could think of.  But still, he knew, he knew what he was doing, and sought company in eternal perdition for himself by trying to convince as many others as possible to join him.

Well that’s all I’m going to have time for today.  Hope to post tomorrow on the hole the Texas bishops, and possibly even the USCCB, have dug for themselves in that Texas Right to Life mess.  Such a tragedy, once again the bishops allow themselves to become the political pawns of paid bureaucrats in this nightmare bureaucracy they have unnecessarily set up, and which Pope Leo XIII explicitly warned against.

*- Even Luther’s understanding of faith was corrupt. He substituted “fiduciary faith” – a false confidence that one is saved by Christ’s merits in spite of all sin and lack of virtue –  for the dogmatic faith in the saving Doctrine of Jesus Christ of the Church.


Lady Lex and Planes in Remarkable Shape after 76 Years at the Cold, Dark Bottom of the Coral Sea March 6, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, foolishness, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, Society.
comments closed

Billionaire Paul Allen, one of the founders of Microsoft, has spent some of his remarkable fortune on deep sea expeditions, finding old wrecks of historical value. Last year his crew found the USS Indianapolis, sunk after delivering the atomic bomb components to Tinian with most of her crew killed by sharks waiting for rescue.  He has also found the massive IJN battleship Musashi.

Just a few days ago, his research team found USS Lexington, CV-2, sunk during the Battle of Coral Sea by the US after she suffered catastrophic explosions from gasoline leaks after being hit by Japanese bombs.  The ship, and especially the aircraft, were in remarkably good shape.  Even the squadron emblems from “Fighting Three” (VF-3) were still plain as day, as were the dark grey/light grey finish, national markings (including the quickly dropped “meatball” in the star that it was feared would be confused with a similar meatball used on Japanese planes as their rising sun motif), kill markings, etc.  Structurally the planes don’t look as bad as one might think after three quarters of a century in the muck and gloom of the deep, deep ocean. In fact they look almost good enough to try to raise and refurbish for museum display.  What a historical coup that would be.

Lexington was part of the “first team” of pre-war, often career sailors and airmen who first held the line, and then very quickly turned the tables on the Japanese before massive American production of men and material made the War in the Pacific all but a foregone conclusion.

Totally non sequitur to this blog but ho boy I hope they post a lot more video and pics of this:

Wrecked Douglas TBD Devastator of Torpedo Three (VT-3)

That Felix the Cat symbol is famous and dates back to the 1920s in naval aviation.  It is still used today by VFA-31 “Tomcatters”


Obama’s No Fool: Blocking Non-Existent “School to Prison Pipeline” Paved Way for Parkland Shooting March 2, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Endless Corruption, error, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Obama may have been lazy, corrupt, and incompetent, but he was no fool.  Quite the contrary, he knew exactly the effect his policies would have, and a high-profile shooting or two may well have been seen as desirable for achieving one of his highest policy objectives – denying those backward hicks any guns to cling to.

The Obama administration posited a belief that schools referring children under their care to local law enforcement for crimes committed in their schools somehow constituted a “pipeline” from the schools to prison.  They were most concerned about locales with a huge number of incarcerated men – inner cities and other communities with “disproportionate” numbers of residents in prison. Rather than understanding this phenomenon from its root cause in, it must be said, generally leftist social policies, but from some invisible incipient racism still lurking in American society, the administration decided to try to encourage school districts to change their disciplinary practices to make it all but impossible to expel or suspend a student, or to bring law enforcement into truly egregious acts that broke the law.

Well, facing at least a tacit threat to their sacred federal funding, numerous American school districts immediately changed their disciplinary policies to fall in line with the Obamanation’s wishes.  And lo and behold, it turns out that very heavily left-wing Broward County, Florida, was one of the first to fall into line.  Thus, even though he committed numerous violent acts that should have resulted in his being charged with and probably convicted of several crimes, Nikolas Cruz never once was charged and thus was able to lawfully purchase the firearm he used to commit his insane atrocity.

Yes it may be a bit conspiracy oriented to think Obama saw that far ahead and actually desired this kind of outcome, to whip up such a frenzy of anti-gun sentiment as we see now (in at least a portion of the American populace, but I sense the majority is still strongly supportive of the 2nd Amendment), but he certainly desired chaos and destruction, all of which serve leftist ends of ever-growing statism.

At any rate, it’s amazing that inanimate black objects are being blamed for the sins of many, many failed bureaucrats and deranged policies:

Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient.

Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence. The aim was to slow the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the [NCIS] system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement.”

Disclosures about the strategy add a central new element to the Parkland shooting story: It’s not just one of official failings at many levels and of America’s deep divide over guns, but also one of deliberate federal policy gone awry.

In 2013, the year before Cruz entered high school, the Broward County school system scrapped and rewrote its discipline policy to make it much more difficult for administrators to suspend or expel problem students, or for campus police to arrest them for misdemeanors– including some of the crimes Cruz allegedly committed in the years and months leading up to the deadly Feb. 14 shooting at his Fort Lauderdale-area school.

To keep students in school and improve racial outcomes [meaning raising the minority graduation rate], Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie — a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department — signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Instead of the criminal justice system, students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, were referred to counseling, which included participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises. [Because if there is one thing we all know millennials desperately need, it’s to think even more highly of themselves]

Asserting that minority students, in particular, were treated unfairly by traditional approaches to school discipline, Runcie’s goal was to slash arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.

Instead of howling to burn Dana Loesch to death, or murder Marco Rubio, maybe those devastated beings of Broward County should turn their attention to their incompetent sheriff, department of human services, and school superintendent.


Texas Catholic Conference Conducts Ugly, Unprecedented Attack on Texas Right to Life February 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’ve written on this subject before, though it’s been some time – basically, there has long existed a marked division among the Texas pro-life movement, the uncompromising, total ban on abortion and other forms of murder position represented by Texas Right to Life, and the much more accommodating stand taken by Texas Alliance for Life.  There are many reasons to view Texas Alliance as weak on key issues, and indeed, most of the most dedicated, most successful pro-life advocates tend to support Texas Right to Life.  During the 2014 legislative session, some acrimonious division developed between Texas Right to Life and the Texas Catholic Conference (TCC), which is the bureaucratic arm of the state’s bishops (like a mini-USCCB).  Dominated by its lay staff and their preferences, including their relations with several prominent Texas lawmakers, TCC at various points supported end-of-life legislation that a number of pro-life advocates believed – I should say proved –  actually worsened the status quo in Texas, and put elderly, the sick, and their families even more at the mercy of doctors and hospitals in making end of life decisions.

So why has Texas Catholic Conference taken the very  unusual step of disavowing, or telling all Catholics in the state to disavow, this most effective pro-life group now?  In a word, politics.  Texas Right to Life, along with a number of other hardcore grass-roots conservatives groups like the Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, Texas homeschoolers, and others, have managed to fund a number of “insurgent” campaigns by true, hardcore conservatives against establishment candidates like Angela Paxton.  Early voting is underway for the party primaries, so feeling their establishment buddies under threat, major Texas politicians like Joe Straus – the Speaker of the House, who has done more than anyone to block effective pro-life legislation in this state and who saw Texas’ pro-life ranking drop from #4 to #12 in his 10 year tenure as speaker – are pulling out the stops to try to break the backs of the conservative groups supporting the insurgent candidacies.

We’ve seen this before in this state, where the establishment always favors its own, but not to this degree, and not with a public disavowal of a group whose only “sin”, even by Texas Catholic Conference’s own admission, is to be “too pro-life.”  In point of fact, the very minor pro-life “gains” we have seen in Texas are out of all proportion to the citizenry’s general abhorrence of abortion.  In one of the most conservative states of the union, Texas’ pro-life legislation falls further and further behind, because of the super slow boil establishment approach.

Many Texas Catholics are incensed by what they see as a betrayal of THE most effective, most dedicated pro-life group in the state (which also happens to have the support of the best bishop this state has seen in 50+ years, Bishop Emeritus Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi, who now offers the TLM more or less exclusively).

If you want more on the inside baseball of Texas politics and how this very sad abandonment of a great pro-life group9 came to pass, read the below from Church Militant, which……..yeah, I know, but just roll with it:

The bishops’ denouncement of Texas Right to Life comes in the wake of a split looming inside the Texas Republican Party — a winnowing of the conservative wheat from the Establishment chaff. Internal polling indicates Lone Star State RINOs are facing extinction in the upcoming elections, and political insiders believe the bishops’ “advisory” is a ploy to save their political hides. By demonizing Texas Right to Life, they suggest, the bishops hope to preserve their political allies in office.

According to their “advisory,” the bishops are spurning Texas Right to Life for three reasons:

  1. Conflicts on pro-life reform. The bishops complained the group “often opposes the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops and has implied that the bishops do not faithfully represent Church teaching.” Texas Right to Life rejects the bishops’ “incrementalism” as a halting, soft approach.
  2. Conflicts on end-of-life reform. The bishops slammed Texas Right to Life’s messaging on end-of-life care and advance directives as “misstatements.”
  3. Texas Right to Life’s voter guide. The group publishes an annual voter guide scoring Texas lawmakers according to their pro-life record. The bishops have denounced the guide as built on unfair analysis, and they maintain “a number of legislators who have consistently voted for pro-life and end of life legislation have been opposed by Texas Right to Life.”

This isn’t the first time Texas Right to Life has run afoul of the Church Establishment. In 2013, Jeffrey Patterson, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference, wrote to state Representative Dan Huberty on behalf of the bishops, blasting Texas Right to Life’s voter guide as “unconventional,” “subjective” and producing “perplexing results.” He complained that the voter guide assigned low scores to “pro-life lawmakers who have worked long and hard to protect and preserve life.”

But Republican lawmakers like Byron Cook and Joseph Straus, key leaders of the Texas GOP Establishment, have been criticized by Texas Right to Life for obstructing pro-life laws.

As Church Militant reported in October 2017, “Cook, as the chairman of the Texas House State Affairs Committee, has worked overtime to block pro-life legislation from being passed in the Texas legislature despite claiming to be pro-life.” For example, he killed HB1113, the Pro-Life Health Insurance Reform, which would prohibit insurance companies from paying for elective abortions.

The pro-life bills Cook did support were considered “weak” and “fake” by Texas Right to Life — “ineffective or non-priority” measures that were actually “detrimental to the pro-life movement.”

Straus, meanwhile, as Speaker of the House, “put a sudden end to a special legislative session” that Gov. Greg Abbott had called in order to address important bills Establishment Republicans ignored during the 2016–17 regular session.

Just because, fearing losing a primary election, Straus and Cook are no longer seeking another term, does not mean that the establishment is broken or disorganized. As we see, they are still plenty powerful.

I do wonder the degree to which the 13 bishops who ostensibly make up TCC are involved in this, and the degree to which it comes from the lay bureaucrats who run TCC on a day to day basis?

If you want to read the TCC declaration, here it is—>>>02-2018_TRTL_parish_advisory

Some folks are planning to walk out if the announcement is read in their parish during Mass this Sunday. I don’t think I’m going to have to worry about that.

I am saddened and shocked at this turn of events.  There was no need for such an absolutist position from TCC against TRL – the two have worked together at many points in the past.  Why now, of all times, this matter had to be brought to the fore is incomprehensible for reasons of doctrine or importance to souls.  It very much appears to be doing what their political allies in Austin want the TCC to do, which is to try to remove a troublesome thorn from the establishcrats side.  To Bishop Olson – dude, I’ve defended you in the past, but you got to get a hold of your temper.   There are fights that are optional, and fights that are mandatory, and fights that one should never get in, and this is one of those.



This Nation Is Headed for a Most Unhappy Breakup February 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, cultural marxism, different religion, firearms, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’m not a big fan of David French or National Review – or T. Codrington Van Vorhies IV of the National Topsider, as Iowahawk calls them – but he does raise an important point in a recent post on how the Left is driving increasing political, social, and moral polarization in this country, to the extent now that we have two very large segments of this country who can no longer agree on even such basic things as what constitutes a male or female human, and whether bakers should be forced by government gun to bake a cake for a non-wedding of two people of the same sex.

What is developing is a situation where each side is so alienated from the other – a process driven by the Left’s relentless demands for always more revolutionary change – that it finds being governed by representatives of the other side intolerable.  Furthermore, the internet has encouraged and enabled the formation of ideological bubbles where most of us screen our sources of information to those which not only tend to comfortably reinforce our views, but even have a tendency to make them more extreme in confirming them.

However, as French notes, it is the Left that always, always leads in both of the phenomenons above.  The right was concerned and a bit panicked about the election of Obama, but we didn’t have public breakdowns and still-ongoing (more than a year after the event) screaming hissy fits about the election of someone other than our preferred candidate.  And it is the Left that is much more typically broadly ignorant of policy, and especially the viewpoints of the Right, than it is the other way around. The Left has virtually always forced the issues that divide us, and always always always presses for ever more radical developments, especially moral/cultural ones, but the right is also becoming radicalized as a process of both natural reaction to the constant antagonism of the Left, and as part of a process of coming to recognize its core principles more and more through media dedicated to that purpose.  The end result of this process appears to be such polarization that a Civil War type breakdown seems increasingly likely.

I don’t see much hope of the polarization decreasing in the future. In fact, I look forward to it continually increasing.  I also think the two sides will grow less and less able to live together.  However many believing Christians (and orthodox Jews) there are, there are tens of millions of people who continue to live with a fundamentally Christian moral framework.  Coexistence with the always more radical left is becoming increasingly difficult, and for more and more, impossible.  This cannot lead anywhere good.  I expect the national breakup with be short, sharp, ugly, and bloody.

Anyway here is French’s spiel:

 In most states, the Overton window moved to the right, and it’s still moving right.

We can do this issue by issue, but an issue-based focus obscures a larger and far more significant reality. We’re no longer fighting about “the” Overton window. Our differences have grown so profound that “the” window has broken. We’ve got two windows now. One for red. One for blue.

Since 1994 the Pew Research Center has been studying political polarization in the United States, and you can watch the two windows form right in front of your eyes. Here are two images that show the difference between the political positions of the “median Republican” and “median Democrat” in the “general public” in 1994 and in 2017:

And this brings us back to the three stories that started this piece. There is a difference, I believe, between progressives and conservatives. Given their control of the academy, legacy media, and Hollywood — along with their intense geographical concentration in large, urban enclaves — progressives are not only racing further to the left, they’re also deceiving themselves about their cultural strength.

They think they’re “winning” when they’ve really moved mainly themselves. The other window either remains unmoved or moves right in response. Arguments on the far-left side of the blue Overton window (like campus temper tantrums) are greeted with complete incredulity and open mockery on the right.

In fact, even progressive conventional wisdom (such as the notion that a man can become a woman) is at best on the far-left edge of the Republican Overton window. At best. Similarly, I’d challenge a Republican to walk into a Brooklyn coffee shop and find a single person who didn’t think you were a violent bigot for believing that Caitlyn Jenner is still a man and that the Second Amendment alone grants you the right to carry a weapon.

We may have exhausted all the “why Trump won” arguments, so I won’t go there. But I will say that the notion that one Overton community will govern the other is increasingly infuriating and even terrifying to the losers of national political contests.

None of this is exactly new.  It’s been apparent to many for decades.  But the process of dissolution of common interest and increasing animosity only continues to accelerate.  The Founders set up a system that could take surprising amounts of strain, but every system has its limit.  When we cross that limit is anyone’s guess, but I am thinking we’re getting closer than anytime in the past 150 years, with the possible exception of the late 60s.


Francis to Canonize Paul VI, and Thus, Try to Canonize Vatican II February 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Michael Matt is severely critical of this move below, and asks the question on many Catholics minds – certainly, given the former rigor of the pre-1983 canonization process, when the role of devil’s advocate was taken away, canonizations were always viewed as an infallible act of the Church’s Magisterium.  But that very dogmatic definition depended greatly on the former process of canonization, and the office of devil’s advocate was an instrumental part of that process.  Since John Paul II had that office abolished, the process has been massively changed, and so does the same doctrinal authority still hold?  It’s not an unreasonable question, and it is addressed by Charles Coulombe in the 2nd video below:

These are two well formed, learned men, and they arrive at somewhat different conclusions, I think – Matt seems much more doubtful of the post-1983 canonization process and especially the canonization of Paul VI (what happened to the damning documentation the Cure of Nantes had when we died?), whereas Coulombe seems skeptical and leaves room open for doubting the infallibility of the new process, but seems to lean towards it still being infallible.

Once again, the faithful, in this time of unprecedented doctrinal chaos in the highest echelons of the Church, where high authorities literally contradict one another on matters of grave import, the faithful are left to largely fend for themselves and make their way as best they can in this new revolutionary post-conciliar situation we’re in.  Because of that, I’m fairly agnostic on where one winds up on either side of these kinds of difficult to resolve issues.

That’s speaking generally, but as for me, as Rorate notes, it is very difficult for a faithful soul who loves the Church, or tries to love the Church while being  uncertain just what that massively important word means anymore, to see the destruction wrought by Paul VI and think “now there’s a man worthy of canonization.”  I’m fairly reticent to get enthusiastic about John Paul II’s canonization, as well, not least of which because I think it more than a bit unseemly for the man who radically changed the process of canonization to directly benefit from that process, but much more so because he appointed thousands of modernist bishops and basically had the ability to reverse many of the worst aspects of at least the “spirit of Vatican II,” but chose not to, and in many fundamental ways helped cement that spirit much more firmly into place.

But Paul VI is infinitely more concerning than John Paul II – not only was he the pope that gave the whip hand to the modernists at Vatican II, not only did he impose the new Mass in the most draconian and uncharitable manner possible, and not only did he attempt to abrogate the TLM without justification or, as Benedict XVI proclaimed, even an ability to do so, but the very persistent allegations regarding an amoral personal life and his being blackmailed by modernist/sodomite actors in the Church have been disturbingly numerous, persistent, and detailed for my taste.  These latter may be false, but if there is even a chance that they be true, how much (more) damage will be done should evidence emerge that the recently canonized “Saint Paul VI” in fact carried on a number of sodomitical acts over his life?

Then there is this final factor – what if the critics are right, and the process changed by John Paul II is no longer infallible?  What if these men are not saints? By being declared so, that terminates all prayers on their behalf.  This is all so politicized and wrapped up in what one thinks of the Council, for or against, and the canonizations are coming with such urgency, so much faster than they used to in the past (and involve so much hype and hoopla) that it is very hard to analyze the matter dispassionately.  I really think the best course would be to put an informal ad hoc ban on canonization of popes for at least a century after their death – which is something the Church used to practice just as a matter of course, on almost all Saints, the thinking being that to really determine whether one was a Saint or not, a lot of time had to pass, as did most everyone who was alive during the Saint’s time, and analyze the matter dispassionately and with fairness and rigor.  That is not at all what is occurring here, and represents, again, another major change to the process that could affect its infallibility.

It’s all a bit too much for me to figure out.  Francis can do what he wants, but so can I.  I won’t be directing many requests for intercession towards Paul VI.  I’ll stick to the more established and less controversial Saints.