Just Another Day in the Church…… September 23, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
……..silent support for sodomy and transgenderism, Church official praises pseudo-sodo-union, Jesuit James Martin awarded for his role in attacking the Faith, meanwhile, protestants make major inroads in Iran in spite of horrific persecution:
My doctor is an evangelical pastor and he has been to Iran and made a lot of converts. The lady who used to cut my hair is one of them. Her entire family is now Christian. This is a growing, silent threat to the mullah’s satanic regime, but they have been unable to do much to stop it.
Of course, the Church leadership would never want to do anything so crass as proselytize an infidel country. They’d rather pretend their false religion is equal to or superior to our own. Interestingly, left-wingers feel the same way generally, that exotic third world “others” are purer, better, more noble people than anyone in the benighted, Christian-based West. It’s almost as if most Church leaders are far more convicted left-wingers than they are Catholics.
h/t reader TT
Liberalism as Child Abuse…… September 23, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.
……..is it a growing phenomenon?
A few days ago in the Washington Post, a rabidly feminist mom of two teen sons declared her antipathy for her sons for insufficiently hating their nature (as men) and buying into radfem rhetoric. It was subsequently revealed that one of the sons of the thrice-divorced mother, who has also, hardly incidentally, had a history of tormented relationships and gives strong evidence of a borderline spectrum personality disorder, has struggled with suicidal ideation.
Thus, mommie dearest exposes a suicidal son to national humiliation. But I think we can rest assured there won’t be visits from the CPS to her in the near future, because some destructive beliefs and actions are approved, while others are most sharply disapproved:
On September 14, The Washington Post published what can only be described as a public display of child abuse. feminist writer Jody Allard chastises her sons for questioning the propaganda she feeds them.
“They’ve been listening to me talk about consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens. They listened to me then, but they are 16 and 18 now, and they roll their eyes and argue when talk to them about sexism and misogyny.” [And atheists declare teaching kids Christianity constitutes child abuse. Reprobate sense, anyone?]
That Allard’s boys won’t take up their mother’s fight makes them “part of the problem,” writes Allard. They’ve “dipped their toes into toxic masculinity,” she adds. Toxic masculinity is a favorite feminist term. It means the more masculine a man is, the more vile he is. Nice, huh?
Fortunately for Allard’s sons, their mother’s efforts to indoctrinate them has failed. [Well, we can hope. It’s far from a sure thing] Unfortunately, her response was to publically shame them.
Yes, you read that right. One of Allard’s sons, the 16-year-old, is a known suicide risk—known to Allard and known to The Washington Post editors. And still they publically shamed him. [It’s called solipsism, and it is rife on the Left. It’s an inability to see anyone else as being really real, really human, really possessed of their own worth and dignity equal to one’s own. It’s a kind of narcissism run wild, and it is becoming more and more common as day care and participation awards turn young people into self-obsessed creatures]
……..She has been married and divorced three times—her exes, of course, were the problem; her biological father abandoned her; she has “divorced” her mother, who she says is “incapable of mothering anyone”; and she’s a victim of sexual abuse. [A huge number of feminists claim this. Being higher on the victimhood pyramid conveys greater moral authority, to them, so who knows] Oh, and she was born with one hand, not two; and her adopted sister, who liked to kill animals, tried to kill her. The list goes on.
How many of Allard’s stories are true (save for the physical impairment) as opposed to ploys for attention is anyone’s guess. What is clear is that Jody Allard is unwell.
What is also clear is that somewhere along the line, feminism became her lifeline.That’s typically how it happens: a childhood goes terribly wrong. As adults, , one that promises to heal the wounds of the past. [Or, perhaps, avenge the wounds of the past. Real or imagined] Rather than deal with problems on their own, they ban together with others who’ve been hurt and blame men and marriage for all things evil.
Jody Allard is one of these women. Upon having sons, she writes that she “had no idea how to raise a boy into a man who wasn’t an asshole.”
Speaking of child abuse, how about encouraging, even forcing kids into this nightmare “transgender” menagerie. It’s also a growing fad among a certain type of parent these days, though, tragically, it’s not only parents of left wing views who are falling into this rape of innocence and identity:
Socially indoctrinating young children toward accepting transgenderism is rampant today in public schools. In Washington state, public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners in fall 2017, under newly approved health education learning standards. The gay advocacy network GLSEN received a grant from the federal Centers for Disease Control in 2011 for $1.425 million over five years to promote the LGBT agenda in public schools at taxpayers’ expense.
By infiltrating the curriculum in our nation’s public schools, LGBT activists can groom the next generation of participants. Young people are questioning their gender identity at an alarming rate that seems to be increasing, and are encouraged by educators and medical professionals to experiment with gender transition. Unfortunately, experimentation can cause even more confusion.
Then an interlude discussing adults who have attempted to change sex through the use of dangerous drugs and bodily mutilation, who later greatly regret it.
……..The activists who push this agenda in public school studies ignore the science regarding innate sex. An August 2016 review of the scientific literature finds no definitive evidence in research to suggest that transgender people are born that way. This 143-page report from two distinguished doctors from Johns Hopkins University finds there is not enough definitive scientific evidence to suggest gay, lesbian, and transgender people are born as such. More importantly, they affirmed that innate biological sex is fixed and unchangeable. Only gender persona—appearance and behavior—can be changed. [A huge and none too subtle distinction, apparently lost on all those gender-bending activists out there today, pushing people into shattered lives and unrecoverable misery all in the name of gaining a bit of a political advantage]
I was a kid who started cross-dressing with my grandmother at the age of four. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that cross-dressing is a psychological indoctrination. It is sadistic to use the public school system, which holds a captive audience, to engage in a social gender identity experiment with the nation’s young people. [To which essentially no one, in the public, has given any kind of consent]
………Today, people write to me about their gender-change experiences. They consistently share how at the time of their transition they were told gender change was the only treatment for their condition. Parents write to me concerned about their adult children pursuing transition because they know no one is considering that trauma from the person’s childhood could be leading to this unusual desire. Parents report that gender therapists don’t want to know about childhood events. The therapist says if an adult wants transition, he or she can have it.
Here is one of those communiques the author received:
Help, my daughter is trying to live as a man and desperately wants gender re-assignment surgery.
Her father was a male to male pedophile. He abused our son. Years later my son became homosexual and is married to a man.
My daughter on the other hand was rejected by her dad. She spent her teen years hating men. She began to engorge herself so that guys would be repulsed by her. She developed obsessive disorders and made sure she looked unattractive to men. She accomplished being unattractive and men turned away from her. She decided to be a lesbian. She decided that wasn’t for her after a bad break-up. Now she wants to become a transgender.
And a closing note on the out-of-control narcissism that drives this kind of behavior, paradoxically self-loving and self-loathing at the same time:
She sees transgenderism as the fix to all this rejection. As a transgender, she can fall in love with herself and avoid rejection. Yes, it is psychologically unhealthy behavior, but it will provide a temporary reprieve from the rejection she has experienced so far in her life.
I’ve long suspected that early trauma and early addiction to porn and self-abuse serve as the psychological motivation behind most of those who purport a desire to become the other sex. Especially in men, the changes in brain chemistry that occur through long-term use of porn and self-abuse can develop a desire to literally become the “other,” the object of desire/emulation, permitting one to literally turn themselves into the real object of gratification they feel denied in real life. There is no possibility of rejection when one does so, adding to the attraction.
Whether I’m right or wrong, it’s a twisted, wicked stew. Whether parents agree or not, more and more of their kids are being propagandized into either accepting this unbelievably destructive lifestyle for themselves, or at least finding it absolutely natural and normal. As the author noted at the top, what this is really about is grooming the next generation of souls lost to perversion and self-degradation. From that comes more power, which is the ultimate motivation behind the Left’s support for this perversion.
Of course, after supporting all manner of perversions and attacks on natural, moral behavior in order to break down society according as they saw fit, the communists in Russia later turned savagely on their creation.
Perhaps that provides all the more reason for the Left’s support for unlimited muslim immigration to this country and so many others. A useful tool when it comes time to cull the herd.
The Wonders of Socialism: Oil-Rich Venezuela Importing US Crude September 23, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, silliness, Society, unbelievable BS.
1 comment so far
It is true that Venezuela has some of the world’s largest proven reserves. However, almost all of that oil is very heavy, sour (sulfur-laden) crude, that either has to be extensively (and expensively) refined, or blended with much lighter crudes to be acceptable on the market.
Crude oil in the US, in contrast, has tended to be largely light and “sweet,” the most desirable kind. It varies, of course – the US benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, is just that, sort of between light and heavy – but much of the oil coming from fracking is of this highly desirable kind.
Unfortunately, to prop up their failed socialist state, the Venezuelan government under Chavez and Maduro have raided “profits” from the state oil company to the extent that the organization has lacked money to conduct normal repairs and maintenance and much of their infrastructure has become very badly run down. As a result, production has plummeted, and the ability to refine the heavy sour crude has evaporated to a marked extent. At this point, Venezuela is now having to import US crude both to serve its own national needs, and to make what product it can sell acceptable on the international oil market:
To add insult to injury, the Venezuelan government has been forced to turn to its nemesis, the United States, for help.
“You call them the empire,” said Luis Centeno, a union leader for the oil workers, referring to what government officials call the United States, “and yet you’re buying their oil.”
The declining oil industry is perhaps the most urgent chapter ofVenezuela’s economic crisis. Oil accounts for half of the Venezuelan government’s revenues, what former President Hugo Chávez once called an “instrument of national development.” The state oil company poured its profits, more than $250 billion in all from 2001 to 2015, into the country’s social programs, including food imports……..
………Venezuela can’t even produce enough oil to meet their own demands, needing to import light crude so they can mix it with their own heavy crude for export.
Oil workers, due to inflation, are making about $1 per day, which is about enough to buy two loaves of bread.
“Oh, socialism will work, but we just haven’t seen it with the right people in charge yet,” someone will argue. [People that, after a century-plus of disastrous attempts, have never been found to exist. But this is not about evidence or fact, it’s about religious belief. It’s the temptation for men to pretend they can be god, deciding the fates of tens of millions, while heaping scorn and derision on the real God]
………..What will it take for the rest of the world’s power-hungry morons to comprehend that prices can’t possibly be assigned by bureaucrats without waste?
Nothing, because they don’t want to plan and direct the economy because they think they are so smart (though, that’s part of it), but because it’s the means to the end they want: absolute, unlimited power.
Of course, one only has to look at the fates of thousands of apparatchiks, “Old Bolsheviks,” early Maoists, leaders of the Khmer Rouge, or idealistic Sandinistas to see how well that works out for most. While a few utterly ruthless men, largely drawn from the criminal ranks (like Stalin) might “enjoy” power on a scale unprecedented in human history, for most, it’s a bullet in the back of the head in a dank dungeon.
Useful idiots, Lenin called them. They are legion today.
Pretty much just a link and a copy paste job, but look how he uses the very disconcerting new sex-ed standards Francis pushed last summer to justify his assault on the innocence of the children in his charge. Innocence is infinitely precious – once lost, it can never be regained. Anything that shatters the innocence of a child is gravely offensive to the moral order and should be fought tooth and nail. Parents have objected vociferously, but the bad bishop has basically told them to stuff it.
Look folks, while a bare handful of exceptions exist, if you want your child to keep the Faith for their entire life, Catholic schools are the last place you want to send them. Even 40 years ago Bishop Sheen declared that Catholic schools were the worst places to send your kids if you wanted them to grow up to be pious, devout, observant souls. I mean, if you’re going to instill a different religion, you kind of have to seize control of the education system at the start, haven’t you? And nothing insures indifference in religion than deep attachment to the sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments, which are what prompted Luther’s original revolt, after all. If you want someone to have a lifelong attachment to vice, it’s best to get at them when they’re young, no?
Bishop Choby has always been a disastrously liberal prelate. Misery loves company. Capiche?
A U.S. Catholic bishop has explicitly refused to allow parents to opt their kids out of a diocesan-run school’s sex-ed program deemed by parents to be “erotic” and “salacious,” calling the program a “legitimate requirement” for graduation.
Instead of listening to the parents’ concerns, the bishop has cited the Vatican’s newly minted and problematic sex-ed curriculum as a way to evaluate the school’s program.
In a letter dated September 2, Bishop David Choby of the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, Tennessee, told parents opposing the sex-ed program that while he “wholeheartedly support[s]” their right as “primary educator,” nevertheless, when they send their children to school, they no longer exercise that right when it comes to school “requirements.”………..
……….The “Human Sexuality” course taught as part of the Father Ryan High School’s theology course offers graphic images and erotic sexual details concerning male and female body parts, including highlighting the pleasure points of the male and female reproductive organs and describing the lengths of an “aroused” clitoris and penis. Students learn 10 different forms of contraception. An outline of the course’s problematic content as well as a link to the program can be found in LifeSiteNews’ previous coverage here. [On the basis of the promotion of contraception use alone, the course is contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith. There is no need to discuss different types of contraception unless there is a desire for people to avail themselves of them. To oppose contraception, you don’t need to discuss the different types, especially not in a class taught to teens who are still children]
Parents say the course could be spiritually harmful to their children, calling it a “near occasion of sin.” [Could be? It sounds like a certainty to me] James Bowman, whose stepdaughter [umm…] attends the school, has joined a coalition of parents opposing the program, telling LifeSiteNews that some of the material present in the sex-ed gives too much detail for so young an audience……….
………..Canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray told LifeSiteNews in an earlier report on the matter that “any sex education program that is not in accord with the convictions of a child’s parents cannot be made mandatory without violating ‘the right and duty’ of the parents to control what their children are taught in this delicate and sensitive matter.”
Canon lawyer Philip Gray, president of the St. Joseph Foundation, also told LifeSiteNews in a previous report on the matter that competent authorities are “not in line with Church teaching” when they refuse to allow parents to opt their kids out of school programs that parents find objectionable.
Rather than listening to the serious objections to the sex-ed course raised by the parents, Bishop Choby in his letter instead pointed to the Vatican’s recently released sex-ed program, telling parents that it shall be used as an “instrument to evaluate” the school’s own course.
Hichborn noticed the implications of the bishop’s reference to the Vatican sex-ed in relation to parental rights.
“It seems that the publication of the Vatican’s new sex education is emboldening a radical departure from traditional means of educating children where parents played the part of primary educator. It appears that the Vatican sex ed is now being used to trump those rights,” he said. [Different religion, anyone?]
The Vatican sex ed, released in July during World Youth day in Poland, has been criticized by international life and family organizations and leaders for being contrary to previous Church teaching, for subverting parents, and for corrupting children…….
……….Bishop Choby concluded his letter by chastising the parents for raising their concerns and gaining “notoriety,” stating that it puts their children attending the school in an “awkward position.”
“Students, I am sure, will or have already seen news stories on television and the Internet about all of this. They will undoubtedly make the connection and conclude who among them is at the heart of this controversy. That will be unfortunate,” he wrote. [What is he, a mafioso? He’s pretty much saying, it’ll be a shame if something happens to the children of you rabble-rousing parents. Sheesh.]
The bishop suggested that parents standing up for their rights could have the “unintended consequences” of compromising the “spiritual, academic, and social formation” of their children in the school. He also suggested that if parents could not agree to let their children take the sex-ed course that they could choose to opt out of the school. [SAVE YOUR MONEY. Homeschool. If 100 kids dropped out over this policy tomorrow, I can guarantee there would be major panic and he would fold. But few, it seems, have the gumption for such bold action in today’s Church.]
Hichborn called the bishop’s closing words to the parents “disturbing.”
“He suggests that the parents will be to blame for causing difficulties for their children by fighting against the school’s mandatory sex-ed program when, in fact, it is quite the opposite: It is the school backed by the bishop which is forcing parents to either violate their consciences or to leave the school. The parents are not being the bullies here.”
The revolutionaries in the Church have always been the bullies, since they seized power in a bloodless coup 50 years ago. No one is more enamored of his power, more willing to use it, nor more annoyed at having in questioned, than a progressive churchman. Having encountered more than a few of these guys, they are all the same: bullies. But like a lot of bullies they are not nearly so strong or powerful as they like to pretend. They’re rather like cheap Chinese vases, one good blow will cause them to shatter.
Well, I guess I’ll go home and look forward to another evening’s entertainment of rioting and looting.
How much do you want to bet that both the Black Lives Matter’s movement, and all these riots and uprisings, will come to a screeching halt the day after the election. Like the “war on women” in 2012, this has always had the smell of a demonrat electoral tactic.
Most Convincing Ad For Trump I’ve Seen Yet September 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, disaster, foolishness, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, Society.
I guess we can write off all those “Robert Downey Jr. is a secret Catholic/conservative” memes now:
Of course, Hollywood has never, ever before pretended that failure to vote for their preferred left-wing candidate would result in national disaster:
So couple the first few seconds of this one (don’t recommend going beyond about 20 seconds, because gratuitous, lazy use of vulgar language ensues):
And basically the same message was conveyed in 2008. Vote for Obama or America dies.
I think more and more people, however, have had more than enough of being told what to do by high school drop outs with beautiful faces who can read a teleprompter (marginally well). A lot of Trump’s rise, for good or ill, has to do with telling off this segment of the population, which is why their endorsement this time is all the more desperate and apocalyptic-sounding. If Trump wins, it’s a massive shot at their credibility. They are not the only ones, however.
For someone like me, who choked on Hollywood’s smug superiority and sneering condescension about age 19, the more they freak out, the more the BLM types and all the other leftist’s, genuine and otherwise, lose their minds over Trump’s rise, the more I think…….maybe there is something to this guy. I am far from alone.
Or, if brevity is the soul of wit, I could simply say to Downey Jr and the others……….your ad is your failure. There’s no better ad for Trump than these sorts of messages.
Liberals Clutch Pearls at Thought of “Super-Gun Owners” September 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, family, firearms, fun, General Catholic, manhood, secularism, silliness, Society.
I’d like to own a super gun. Isn’t that what got Dr. Gerald Bull killed by the Mossad, building the Baghdad Gun for Saddam Hussein?
Seriously, gun control advocates are now collectively hyperventilating – we are supposed to believe – over the fact that, it turns out, a relatively few people own an awful lot of guns. Even more shockingly, a fair number of those are women. Don’t these women know it’s their job to be helpless victims, after which they can be “empowered” by raging feminists demanding vengeance for their brutal rape-murders by getting federally-mandated child care?
Americans own an estimated 265m guns [I had read several places it was more like 350 million?], more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each. [Oh goodness, how terrible, head for the hills, we must have a federal gun ban! Actually, any serious hunter could easily run into that number of guns and not have anything but bolt actions and pump or single-action shotguns. 4 or 5 bird guns, maybe a turkey gun, one or two each for deer, varmints, elk, bear/moose, a revolver or two, and you’re at 17 quickly with just a hunting hobby. These numbers are meant to scare, but don’t mean anything. Also, I’m again saddened to learn I’m way, way below average. If only I had the money to buy another 5 guns and come up to spec……hint hint]
The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.[Do you think fewer Americans own guns now than before? The biggest decrease seems to be among young men, fewer than ever seem interested in owning guns. Of course, fewer than ever also seem interested in having a job, getting a married, raising a family, or doing anything other than playing video games, watching porn, and wasting time on 4Chan in mom and dad’s basement. Kidding aside (or was I?), the steady transition of populations from rural to urban tends to explain a lot of the overarching firearms ownership trends]
While there are an estimated 55 million American gun owners, most own an average of just three firearms, and nearly half own just one or two, according to the survey results. [Truth be told, before Obama came along, I only owned 3 guns. Now I have lots more]
Then there are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns. [Yay, I’m a super-owner!]
This kind of concentrated ownership isn’t unique to guns, firearms researchers noted. Marketing experts suggest that the most devoted 20% consumers will typically account for 80% of a product’s sales.
You know what they really wanted to say…….You filthy mouth breathing bitter clingers. Don’t you know NO ONE needs 8 or 11 or 27 or 55 of 112 guns?!? How dear you invade nice liberal dreams at night with the knowledge that people like you, people different from us, exist! Just crawl under a rock and die, Trumpistas.
Turning the snark around, perhaps they could fix this horrible awful gun inequality by getting the federal government to “even the playing field” by distributing a hundred million or so firearms to the “underserved” public?
Can you spot the reasons this guy is my (secular) hero of the week?
All real men……..all. real. men.
It Shouldn’t Be Up to the Laity to Try to Save the Church…….. September 21, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
……but, apparently – at least publicly, which is really what matters – it is.
The Remnant and Catholic Family News have published what promises to be the first installment in a lengthy accusation and denunciation of Francis and his pontificate. It was published Monday, but unfortunately I only saw it today. I am also about out of time, but may cover this more tomorrow.
As Steve Skojec noted, when one starts to catalog Francis’ apparently heterodox statements, dubious pronouncements, grave prudential errors, and general assault against the Faith all in one place, it quickly becomes stupefying. Even with a first installment of 2300 words, so much more could have been said, which is all the more terrifying. On almost a daily basis, Francis says or does something to cause grave scandal and undermine the Faith as practiced for centuries. In terms of undermining of Doctrine and giving scandal to millions, Francis is, most likely, the single most damaging pope in the history of the Church.
One particularly revealing portion of the accusation, which may be its most important part, was the noting of the manifest failure of the Catholic episcopacy to publicly challenge some of the more egregious actions of this pontificate and the effect they are having on Holy Mother Church. We seem sheep without shepherds, a crew adrift in a raging hurricane with all the officers not only distracted and incompetent, but with many in a deranged lunacy deep in the bowels of the ship pulling out the scuttlecocks! I excerpt a few bits from the introduction to the accusation below, but the whole thing is worth reading. If you’ve do read it, or already have, bear in mind so very much more could have been included. That fact alone gives us a very clear idea of just what we are dealing with.
The following narrative, written in our desperation as lowly members of the laity, is what we must call an accusation concerning your pontificate, which has been a calamity for the Church in proportion to which it delights the powers of this world. The culminating event that impelled us to take this step was the revelation of your “confidential” letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires authorizing them, solely on the basis of your own views as expressed in Amoris Laetitia, to admit certain public adulterers in “second marriages” to the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion without any firm purpose of amending their lives by ceasing their adulterous sexual relations.
You have thus defied the very words of Our Lord Himself condemning divorce and “remarriage” as adultery per se without exception, the admonition of Saint Paul on the divine penalty for unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament, the teaching of your two immediate predecessors in line with the bimillennial moral doctrine and Eucharistic discipline of the Church rooted in divine revelation, the Code of Canon Law and all of Tradition.
You have already provoked a fracturing of the Church’s universal discipline, with some bishops maintaining it despite Amoris Laetitia while others, including those in Buenos Aires, are announcing a change based solely on the authority of your scandalous “apostolic exhortation.” Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the Church. [Not even the protestant revolt cum heresy or the Arian heresy were this severe. Never before in the 2000 year history of the Church has a reigning pontiff so publicly, so repeatedly attacked and undermined the Sacred Deposit of Faith in anything remotely like so comprehensive and relentless a manner]
……….Yet, almost without exception, the conservative members of the hierarchy observe a politic silence while the liberals exult publicly over their triumph thanks to you. Almost no one in the hierarchy stands in opposition to your reckless disregard of sound doctrine and practice, even though many murmur privately against your depredations. Thus, as it was during the Arian crisis, it falls to the laity to defend the Faith in the midst of a near-universal defection from duty on the part of the hierarchs.
Of course we are nothing in the scheme of things, and yet as baptized lay members of the Mystical Body we are endowed with the God-given right and the correlative duty, enshrined in Church law (cf. CIC can. 212), to communicate with you and with our fellow Catholics concerning the acute crisis your governance of the Church has provoked amidst an already chronic state of ecclesial crisis following the Second Vatican Council.
Private entreaties having proven utterly useless, as we note below, we have published this document to discharge our burden of conscience in the face of the grave harm you have inflicted, and threaten to inflict, upon souls and the ecclesial commonwealth, and to exhort our fellow Catholics to stand in principled opposition to your continuing abuse of the papal office, particularly where it concerns the Church’s infallible teaching against adultery and profanation of the Holy Eucharist.
This cry of the heart has raised great umbrage in certain quarters (the typical ones). Whether there have been interventions from the episcopate against Francis privately, with more and more scandals developing weekly, and especially the “interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia that was leaked, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs that virtually the only condemnations – or challenges – to the direction of this pontificate being made public are coming from laity and a few, mostly anonymous, priests. Yes there have been some scattered statements from individual bishops but they have been few and far between, and nothing the kind of categorical “reply” that the situation so desperately merits. Even if – and it’s not an if I think can be fairly granted – but even if, somehow, everyone of Francis’ scandalous actions, statements, and pronouncements could be reconciled with the Deposit of Faith, could somehow be shown to be within the bounds of prudence, there is still the issue of the mass confusion and pain he is causing. Should not that, at least, merit more public response from those given the great grace, and terrible duty, to shepherd the souls in their charge?
What do you think of this accusation? Is it the laity’s place to lay such charges? If the laity doesn’t do it, who will? Should we simply pray and do penance, imploring God to free us from this man?
I do believe people of good will and solid observance of the Faith can come down differently on these questions. I tend to support such interventions due to the desperation in which we are mired,as I think someone has to call a spade a spade, and if the bishops are failing in their duty, then it is up to the laity to stand forth and do their best. I can, however, comprehend how some could disagree
I am truly out of time. We’ll see what, if any, discussion this sparks.
Academic Lays out the Left-Wing Plan: First Your Guns, Then Your Cash September 21, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, Society, unbelievable BS.
1 comment so far
Then the day long bread line for you, comrade! Death to the kulaks! Imagine the glorious socialist GULAG archipelago that could be constructed in Alaska and the Northwest Territories!
The article below might be a bit more exercised over the threat of this statist professor’s call to ban the accumulation or use of large amounts of cash than I might be, on the face of it, but how many major leftist assaults on individual liberty have started just as small and grown into terrifying significant and intrusive phenomenon? Why on earth ban cash and bills beyond $10 unless one desires to control people and curtail their freedom of action? The gains from such a draconian act would be trivial, if they even exist. But recall that the original gun control legislation passed in this country was all sold as being directed solely against criminals like the inner-city gangsters of the Al Capone and Lucky Luciano type, but very quickly expanded into something quite different indeed.
I’d say this definitely bears watching:
Russian philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky in the 1800s said, “Money is coined liberty.”
Ken Rogoff, economics professor at Harvard (and previously an economist at the IMF and at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), wants to take that liberty away. He has a new book out on the wickedness of cash, calling out the usual suspects – tax evaders and other criminals – to justify doing something about it. I’m surprised he didn’t claim that Ben Franklins have been known to kill small children or poison the water in Flint, Michigan. His solution is to eliminate all denominations of currency above ten dollars.
This sounds suspiciously like the argument for taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens to keep criminals from using guns. It makes no sense unless your ultimate goal is to disarm the population – or, in this case, take one more step to tracing, taxing, and then controlling the spending habits of law-abiding citizens.
The plan is quite devious. It is probably backed by credit card companies. Rogoff’s answer is to create state-run banks that provide the services of a Citibank for free or a small fee.
First government got control of the health care industry. Now this economist wants to give it control of the banking industry as well?
Rogoff generously recognizes that there is something to be said for cash as a guarantor of privacy and by extension liberty, as Dostoevsky proposed so eloquently in just four words, although he is more enamored of the possibility of the Federal Reserve implementing negative interest rates as a way to “stimulate” the economy. He even matter-of-factly suggests the possibility of rates as low as negative two or three percent. Consider that as long as citizens hold cash, they can hedge against the government charging for the privilege of controlling our earnings and savings in the form of negative interest rates.
The Progressive endgame proposed by Mr. Rogoff follows the Communist plan: take away the guns. Gain control of health care. Indoctrinate the next generation through control of education curricula. Demonize Judeo-Christian beliefs. And then take away currency from the people, thus allowing government control of the flow of funds.
What Professor Rogoff isn’t mentioning in his argument is that this is the same control the Castro brothers have over Cuban currency and how the Kim regime of the DPRK manipulates its citizenry with its currency policies. It is also the ultimate dream of the Federal Reserve.
In Cuba, they have two separate currencies. There is one for the government and foreigners and one for the citizens. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to hold and trade in the much more valuable convertible pesos, or Cuban dollars. They must use only the virtually useless peso for their everyday needs.
I think we can safely assume that the hundreds of millions of dollars the Castro brothers have accumulated – all in the name of socialist fraternity and equality, no doubt! – is not in worthless Cuban internal currency. No, it’s in American dollars, British pounds, or other currencies that, at least as far as the international money market is concerned – carry a real value.
It is the same in China and other socialist paradises, as well, of course. North Koreans may starve and be killed off in their millions, but the Kim family lives very well, indeed. In the old Soviet Union, party apparatchiks had Zil limousines, private shops with well-stocked shelves including the latest Western wares, personal dachas in the countryside paid for at state expense, and many other perquisites. They didn’t stand in line for hours to browse almost barren shops. The left always takes care of its own, that is, those that don’t become inconvenient and don’t fall into the category of useful idiots (almost all), which they kill off without a second thought.
In reality, Leftism, and the transnational global one world government movement, is all about the ascendance of a new, and thoroughly amoral, aristocracy. The aristocracy of old, tied to the land, at least somewhat Catholic, and bound by tradition and custom to have something of a concern for those landless peasants under their care (that was by and large the case, there were, of course, exceptions) was a far cry from the new one that is being stood up by self-anointed elites. They don’t care a whit for anyone but themselves. Ideology is all to them, but they see no contradiction in maintaining all the wealth and comforts of advanced 21st civilization for themselves, while denying them to everyone else, all in the name of whatever leftist ideology they care to cite.
But communism/leftism has always been riddled with far more “internal contradictions” such as these than the capitalist system communists like to deplore. In truth, leftism is really more of a religion for deeply disordered and aggrieved individuals than it is a real economic or governmental philosophy. It’s really the perfect self-justifying philosophy. All the founders of the modern Left were deeply disturbed men, Marx among the worst. A total failure at life all he could do was abuse those around him and rail against the world for not recognizing his “greatness.” I sense a lot of the same sentiment abroad in our country today – Bernie Sanders has been in his life, and was in his campaign, almost the perfect personification of this.
Well, Orwell said that oligarchical collectivism was simply the revolt of a bureaucratic/technocratic class against a previous highest class and its institution of itself as the ever-ruling oligarchy. He was just a bit early in prognosticating when it would come about.
Has the In$titutionalized Pro-Life Been a Manifest Failure Through Steadfast Repubnik Loyalty? September 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disconcerting, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, self-serving, Society.
So says Leon H. Wolf in a piece at RedState, which, it must be said, tries to tie what I agree is a general trend towards failure by the institutionalized pro-life movement into an anti-Trump screed. I’ve read few sites that have been more reliably Never Trump, so keep that in mind.
I’ll cut and paste a bit of the article below, but while I think the author has a major point, I think he also errs substantially in 1) trying to parlay the “Republicans have always abused you” argument into “You’re a sucker if you vote for Trump” and 2) his general bashing of the pro-life movement for being steadfast Republican homers. For instance, was the same author just as exercised against pro-life orgs support for Mitt Romney, who had just as inconsistent record on abortion as Trump? If not, why not? Secondly, where else were pro-lifers supposed to go over the past 40 years, even as the Repubniks did, admittedly, repeatedly screw them over?
Ergo, I think this piece is a lot more about hating on Trump than really having something to say regarding the pro-life movement. YMMV.
Having said that, if you want to bash the in$$titutionalized pro-life movement for being ineffective and probably more concerned with keeping fundraising going than really ending abortion, you’ll get little argument from me. As for the rest, see what you think:
Personally, I have reached the point that I am fed up with these organizations. They have been, by and large, total failures in holding politicians accountable. When is the last time you can recall that a pro-life group claimed the scalp of any of the dozens if not hundreds of Republicans who have betrayed the pro-life cause over the years? It has not happened and it does not happen. [Well, is that the point of being a pro-life group, to claim Republican scalps? They’ve claimed a number of democrats, which is not unimportant. I agree most pro-life groups far too slavishly tote the mainstream Republican line, but what mainstream conservative commentators have ever called for a mass pro-life turning against Republican politicians who have somehow betrayed the cause? That is, until the Republican nominee somehow threatened the interests of these same mainstream commentators. I follow pro-life events quite closely, and I can’t remember more than a handful of such calls, all at the state or local level, never national.Why now?]
………These orgs are all carrot, no stick. They are happy to go out and encourage people to elect more Republicans, elect more Republicans, vote Republican for President in particular. Meanwhile, 7 of the 9 judges who decided Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republicans. Roe v. Wade would not have survived throughout all these years without Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter – all nominated by Republicans and confirmed with the unanimous consent of Senate Republicans. At no point has anyone ever paid a political price for this. So pro-life orgs set their sights on a series of incremental legislative changes to the abortion regime at the state level, which have systematically been thrown out by judges who were appointed and confirmed by Republicans – and again, no one has paid a political price for any of this. You could hardly ask for a more useful set of stooges for the RNC. [Again, who has been advocating for this? I think it’s a good idea, and if this is to be a start of a movement to get the pro-life movement to hold Republicans far more accountable for their lack of support for pro-life matters, I’m all for it, but as an argument simply to not support Trump, because now’s the time to start punishing R’s for lack of pro-life commitment? I don’t get it. Why not start with some of the most egregious House and Senate members, and go from there? How about we try to get a turncoat like Lindsay Graham driven from office, rather than start at the highest office? Or was this all just about self-justification? Which, if so, fine, but say so, don’t try to cloak it in some supposed larger-than-self virtue]
………I don’t know what it is about these groups that makes them totally unable to state the obvious: that pro-lifers are being played for suckers by the GOP, which has no intention of ever allowing Roe v. Wade to be overturned. [I thought Trump was an insurrection against the establishment GOP and largely despised by people like the author? So how does supporting him make people suckers for the GOPe?] After all, if it were, how would they scare the evangelicals into voting for the Donald Trumps of the future? [Well, I do wonder if there still isn’t some massive play going on, where, just as conservative were lured to vote for the non-conservative Romney in 2012 (after which many said never again), they are somehow being lured to vote for the non-conservative Trump in 2016. That all depends, I suppose, on how much sincerity one think Trump has.] The professional pro-life orgs are too scared to say this, and to admit that everything they have done for the last 40 years to this point has been an abject failure, because doing so might cause their donor money to dry up. So they continue to play the willing sucker again and again and at no point has it been more evident than their embrace of Trump this year. [I think this guy is getting a bit carried away in fervor to make his point. I don’t think the pro-life movement has been an abject, meaning total, failure over the past 40 years. Successes have been small, and too rare, but they have occurred. What awesome, unique cultural forces has the pro-life movement faced, that, say, someone supporting tighter immigration controls hasn’t faced, like, virtually all Americans defining their lives around the use of contraception? Have those had an effect?]
………If you believe that Trump has actual pro-life principles or that he will honor any sort of pledge to only appoint pro-life justices, then you have to be one of the most monumental suckers who has ever lived…… [Again, this is really inconsistent. Somehow he is tarring Trump the outsider as being part of the GOPe that has so failed pro-lifers. But Trump could actually be perceived as the very reaction this guy seeks, though not in the way he seeks it, agreeing with his preferences. That is to say, many pro-lifers, agreeing that the GOPe has used and abused them for decades, are now willing to take a flyer on the extremely dubious Trump, who is at least better than the same old same old that has betrayed them over and over. Again, did this guy advocate the pro-lifers finally punish the GOPe who gave us the pro-abort Romney in 2012? If not, then it’s not serious, it’s more NeverTrumpism]
………..Will there ever come a point – and I do mean, literally ever, where the professional pro-life orgs throw up their hands and say, “You know what? We are sick of being played for fools by the Republican Party. They must be actually opposed until they change their ways.” And if that day is ever supposed to come, why not now? If the Trump Farce isn’t enough to make them say “no mas,” then what will be?
The more I read this piece, the more unnerved I became. At the end, I no longer took it seriously as cri d’couer to the pro-life movement, but just another NeverTrumper seeking to justify his refusal to vote for Trump, and using some pretty ugly psychology on pro-lifers to try to sway them away from Trump, basically ending with calling pro-lifers stupid inbred mouth-breathing flyover dolts who don’t know what’s good for them when we tell them!
Which kind of smug superiority explains at least half of Trump’s support among conservatives in a nutshell. They are sick of being betrayed, they are sick of being lied to, they feel they have nothing to lose at this point, and so, why not give a total outsider, even one like Trump, a shot? At least he kneecaps cultural marxism on an almost daily basis, and seems to have a near Reaganesque quality to deflect all the media’s attempts to destroy him. Historically, how would the pro-life movement been better off if it had abandoned Republicans for…..what? What alternative was there? Even the examples he cites in his piece for successful “punishments” of Republican politicians who fell afoul of this special interest in the conservative base or that were only individual House members, never the presidential candidate, let alone an abandonment of an entire party! I think the author may have tipped his hand as to what he plans to do should Trump win……..
Telling these folks what stupid idiots they are for supporting Trump smells a lot more like sour grapes and deep fear of diminishing influence than it does anything else.
Look, I never have liked Trump. But I have no alternative but to vote for him at this point, because he is the best of a damnably weak field (at least in my state). I see no point in attacking him. He’s the nominee, he’s not going to give us an out by dropping out of the race (it was never going to happen), and it looks like he’s going to be quite competitive. I cannot understand, then, what purpose attacking him or those who support him serves, at this point, at least outside individual self-interest.
Which is a shame, because I think the original point of the piece, that the institutional pro-life movement, especially at the national level, has sold out, is dead on.
What do you think?
h/t reader good ‘ol MFG, who sends so many thought-provoking pieces
PS – At this point, I find any “pro-lifer” who isn’t also completely, totally anti-contraception to be unworthy of the name.
New Movie EWTN Affiliate Focuses on Alinskyite Influence in the Church September 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
I guess it’s throwback Tuesday on the blog, I’m hitting a lot of subjects I covered in depth in the past but sort of moved on from.
Probably many of you know about Saul Alinsky and his influence on the current president, the Catholic Church (especially the Archdiocese of Chicago), and the advance of cultural marxism in the US generally. True to his paramour, satan, he has been a one man wrecking crew. Coupled with the Frankfurt School penetration of the federalized education industrial complex, Alinskyite “social justice” warriors have probably done more to advance the creeping socialization of the United States than any other group.
Someone at EWTN apparently recently figured this out, because there is a new movie coming out on 09/22 that features much EWTN talent, like Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Andrew Apostoli, etc., discussing the baleful influence of Saul Alinsky and his Rules of Radicals. I’m sure it’s a well done production and a great message to get out, but, ummm………where were you in 2008?
Well, the reason is, there is always a steady stream of folks who have advanced to a point where a message like what I expect from this movie will have a significant impact on them. So while perhaps quite a bit late to stop the fundamental transformation of our nation, perhaps it will help prepare a few souls for the future that awaits us:
Summary from the website:
From the producers of the Gabriel Award winning television series “SAINTS ALIVE!” on EWTN, comes “A WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING”, a new feature docudrama on Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing and author of “Rules for Radicals”. The film is a lens into America’s cultural Marxism euphemistically called ‘progressivism.’
With all the radical transformations of America and its religious freedoms, politics, economy, education, healthcare, courts, media, cinema, music, art, architecture; the film will help Catholics and all Christians understand “how we’ve gotten to where we are today” and “what’s behind” the amorality, sexual revolution, political correctness, gender confusion that is destroying our families and culture.
This is no conspiracy theory! It’s the real story of Alinsky and his movement. It’s the classic teachings of the Church with insights from philosopher Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. (who as a Jesuit scholastic was trained in Alinskyian organizing), Fathers Glenn Sudano & Andrew Apostoli (co-founders with Fr. Benedict Groeschel of Franciscan Friars of the Renewal), Stephanie Block (who wrote the definitive 4 volume study of Alinskyian organizing) [Stephanie’s great. She’s always worth a listen]. Actors play Alinsky, Popes St. John Paul II & Leo XIII, Blessed Jerzy Popieluszko & others.
Most interesting to contemplate is the degree to which leftists and left-leaners within the Church were eager to provide the Alinskyite movement with its first big success at penetrating a church for the much sought after money and moral credibility. It’s been no stopping for them ever since, which is also how we have gotten such poisonous doctrines as the “seamless garment.”
But perhaps most interesting of all is the correlation between the present pontificate and the beliefs, methods, and techniques of personal destruction honed and Saul Alinsky. I’m sure that won’t be part of this movie, but you can ruminate on that as an extra credit assignment to work on at home.
Remember to show your work.