jump to navigation

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter Continues with its Inexplicable Personnel Policies April 9, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Dallas Diocese, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, sadness, scandals, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

We’ve gone to Mater Dei in Irving since 2010.  Just about 9 years.  In that time, we have had 10 different priests pass through, and 7 departures.  It was just announced over the weekend that our pastor of that entire time will be leaving, just as the capital campaign to construct a new church he led to the point of buying property is coming to fruition.  I really don’t get it.  It is also probable that some or all of the 3 other priests at the parish will be reassigned.  Come this summer, the parish of well over 1000 souls may have an entirely new set of priests.

It’s not just Mater Dei.  One very good priest has been moved 3 times in the past 4 years. Fr. Romanowski built up the apostolate in Guadalajara from scratch and became an integral and much loved part of the community, but was transferred to Naples, Fl last year.  We’ve had an increasing number of priests assigned to Mater Dei for just one or two years – just when they get to know many of the people and can start to supply that kind of rare spiritual care so badly needed, they are transferred.  I know there are certain reasons for this, a lack of priests, the desire to prevent the priest from developing a cult of personality around him, and the need to match up available personnel with the needs of many disparate parishes/communities.  Nevertheless, I think this post-conciliar trend of constantly transferring priests is, overall, more destructive than beneficial and it needs to stop.

In the “bad old days” before the Council, priests were often assigned to a parish for life.  The local parish priest became an integral part of the community he served, he knew the families and their idiosyncrasies, the needs of particular individuals, the trouble spots and the souls to rely on.  Fr. A. A. Gitter was pastor of St. Anthony in Harper, TX for nearly 50 years.  People grew to know and trust their priests, to love them for their strengths as well as their faults. That’s all entirely out the window now, either the parishes are so big even a longtime priest hasn’t a prayer of meeting more than a handful of his flock, or, in the rare cases of smaller parishes, priests are rotated in and out every few years.  There had been an idea that while the vicars and assistant pastors at Mater Dei might be changeable, the pastor was going to stay the same for an extended duration. In fact, such had been clearly communicated as being “the plan,” at least as our priests understood it. Well, so much for that idea.

While this kind of thing might be accepted practice at Novus Ordo parishes, they are very destructive at traditional ones.  While the lay bureaucracy may more or less run day to day affairs with the priest as sacramental administrator and CEO of St. Temporary’s Inc., that is not the case at traditional parishes.  It had better not become the case.  Traditional parishes are run much more like pre-conciliar ones, where the priests are intimately involved in the day to day administration of the parish as much as they are in the spiritual lives of the souls in their charge.  Thus when the pastor is transferred away in the middle of a major capital campaign and building project, there is no chance there won’t be significant disruption.  It’s also more than a bit unnerving, to the point certain skeptical souls might wonder just what they are buying into with such transience in leadership at such a key time.

I don’t know about the politics involved in this announcement of departure, and really don’t want to know.  I know there are some who are dissatisfied with the current pastor, but they’ve been dissatisfied with EVERY pastor.  For some people, the stereotypical bad-trads I’ve been dismayed to learn do exist, and in our own parish, no one is ever good enough.  And some of those people have loud voices.

I believe this is the 5th year in a row where we’ve had a priest change at Mater Dei. Last year all assistant priests were replaced, this year we’re losing the pastor.  This kind of turnover can increase the distance between priests and their people.  Some souls take a long time to get comfortable and come to trust someone with their inmost secrets, even in the privacy of the confessional.  Some souls require more intimate care.  Both and much more are badly disturbed by this kind of constant turnover.

This might seem like carping and whining to those who lack a permanent, regular TLM, or a TLM-specific parish.  And perhaps it is.  But I also know these changes are not “required.”  There are alternatives.  There are other parishes that haven’t had close to the priestly turnover we have.  Mater Dei has been blessed with phenomenal growth and great spiritual blessings, and much of this, I believe, can be attributed to the quality of priests we’ve been blessed to have.  Perhaps it’s time for other people, in other places, to benefit from their ministrations.  Then again, people are not just cogs that can be picked up from one locale and dropped into another with exactly the same results.  Communities have personalities and needs and ambitions just as individuals do.  Most, but not all, of the priests assigned to Mater Dei have been good fits for the community, but that doesn’t mean they’ll fit in as well elsewhere.

Thus, I find it rather incredible that a pastor who has seen about 400% growth in parish membership and an equal increase in income would be transferred away, but there it is.  I don’t want to sound ungrateful, the Fraternity has been a tremendous blessing for our family, the diocese and the entire region, but I think Mater Dei deserves some stability in the priest department for some years now.  In fact, given its tremendous, almost unprecedented growth, steadiness in leadership is especially needed.  There are dangers of the parish community losing what makes it so special, what attracts so many souls in the first place.  Over the Triduum, I was shocked both at the number of people I’d never seen before, and the number wearing shorts, T-shirts, and flip flops – or similar.  Mini-skirts –  on Good Friday.  I’ve seen an oddball or two every now and then do similar, but this time there were quite a few people dressed very, very casually.  Inappropriately.  Whether that is a sign of a community beginning to lose it cohesion or a sign that a whole new class of people is being attracted to the traditional practice of the Faith and its incredible ability to convert hearts, I don’t know.  I guess one could also say that such signs point to a need to a change in leadership. I suppose we’ll see.

All I can say is, no matter who the new pastor is, he had better speak Spanish.  This continues to be a pressing, unmet need.  Too bad Father Michael Rodriguez is unavailable.

I say all of the above entirely on my own.  None of this comes from the pastor, Fr. Longua.  I wish him well and will pray for him.  He did an extremely good job in an exceedingly difficult role.  I’m sure he’d rather I write nothing on this matter, but I’ve got a big mouth.

 

Advertisements

Some Wonderful Bits of Catholic Culture April 4, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, Latin Mass, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I’ve found a “new” channel on  Youtube called Holy Faith TV.  It’s not that new, it’s been around almost a  year, but it’s new to me.

They’ve got a lot of great traditional Catholic content and some really outstanding history.  How about this incredible color video of Venerable Pius XII:

And here is a video from what was then a mainstream educational film company on the jubilee year of 1950.  Can you imagine Scholastic doing a reverential and respectful video on the Church today?  How much, and how much for the worse, our society has changed since then.

“…….here lies a spiritual power that no godless philosophy may hope to vanquish.”  Take it to heart, leftists!

If an audience featuring Pius XII wasn’t good enough, how about Mass from 1948, offered in St. Peter’s. Sadly it is in black and white:

And here you go, marking the end of glory and the beginning of the auto-demolition of the Faith, a film on the death of Pius XII and coronation of John XXIII, before the fanon and sede gestatoria were scrapped by John’s successor:

 

It’s not all from the 50s.  There is content dating at least back to Saint Pius X. And some of it is more modern commentary, from a wide diversity of sources, from people known well to this blog like Fr. Michael Rodriguez and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, to more esoteric sources.  I can’t say I’ve watched much of the commentary, but as for the historical stuff, I love it.  So much more like that!

Apparently Youtube contains just part of the content, there is a website that ostensibly has more but I haven’t really had time to check it out.  Perhaps you will, and if you do, feel free to share anything of interest you may find!

As always, of course my happiness at finding this channel is not necessarily an endorsement of everything on it.  But I think there is quite a bit good to find there.

And it’s not all strictly Catholic.  There’s actually quite a bit from the Orthodox Church on the channel.  For an example, here is Patriarch Kirill, primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, taking on the cultural masters in a way the last six popes have generally failed to do, with occasional exceptions from John Paul II and Benedict.  In fact, he proclaims a truth that is readily apparent to most believing Christians of any Church, sect, or stripe: godless elites want to destroy Christianity:

The Awesome Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea at Our Lady’s Army of Advocates DFW March 30, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, religious, Restoration, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I haven’t the time to give much of a recap of the talk below, but I’ll wager this – once you start watching/listening, you won’t be able to stop.  I’d never seen Fr. Relyea give a talk below, but he was absolutely fabulous. It’s just crack cocaine for traditional homeschooling Catholics.  Give it two minutes and he’ll take you an hour-plus.

It’s also a wonderful palate cleanser from the post below.  If you could imagine Christopher Walken having a twin brother as a traditional Catholic priest, that would be Fr. Relyea.  Too bad he couldn’t come over to share some cigars with Dismas and me (that was another tremendous pleasure from the conference, meeting longtime reader and commenter Dismas).

We need more like this, captivating, motivating, exhilarating traditional Catholic priest-speakers.

More from the conference later.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Disney stuff.  I’m not a big fan of Disney and we’ve generally disowned all that, but I do think demonic infiltration by underwear might – might – be a bit of a pious exaggeration. Perhaps pious exaggeration is a bit too strong, but it does strain credulity.  It could be totally legit but it might come across to the uninitiated as a bit extreme.  The Lord does work in mysterious ways, however, so who knows.

For the rest though I really enjoyed his talk.  He’s a fun and gregarious guy, just a prototypical Queens/Brooklyn type.

Our Lady’s Advocates Conference Was Awesome, Crowder Tonight @ SMU, More Randomness March 22, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Father Rodriguez, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Restoration, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I realized I haven’t posted in almost 2 weeks.  Sorry for that, @##%^! work again, my boss was out last week and then we moved offices over the weekend so that caused further chaos – long story short I’ve had no time to post.

I have been meaning to post a summary of The Fatima Center/Our Lady’s Army of Advocates conference at DFW March 9-11.  In short, it was absolutely fantastic, both for the content provided by Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea (never seen him speak before, he was INCREDIBLE!), Fr. Michael Rodriguez, Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, Elizabeth Yore, and others, but also for the warm camaraderie among faithful souls doing their best in this time of trial and division in Holy Mother Church.  It was a great treat to meet so many longtime readers of this blog and other supporters.  I had a great privilege in spending a good amount of time with a longtime reader from El Paso who stayed at our house.  T, you are welcome any time.

It was a fantastic conference.  Perhaps a bit cramped for room, but really excellent all the same.  All the speakers were top notch and touched on topics of vital importance. All the souls in attendance were kind and generous. I really hope and pray there was enough attendance for this to become a regular conference in the DFW area.  This one was put on at quite short notice, I think with more planning attendance could easily have been double or more – I ran into a lot of people who had no idea the conference was occurring until it was already over or too late to attend.

I didn’t take many pictures myself, but I was in a bunch of pictures with various readers and Fr. Rodriguez……..please send me those pics!  I’ll do a new post when I receive them.

Anyway here is Michael Matt speaking.  His talk was also really excellent:

Here is a video from the Fatima Center of Fr, Rodriguez’ welcome speech from Friday night, which I missed:

And then here is Brendan Young’s talk from Saturday morning:

I’ll post more videos as The Fatima Center uploads them.

So I know it’s late notice but conservative evangelical commentator Steven Crowder is speaking at SMU McFarlin Auditorium tonight March 22 at 7pm.   Man I’d love to go but I have a life to live.  Anyway it is being livecast on Youtube.  I imagine the protest/counter-protest could be pretty intense.  I know I have a future as a bigger and badder Based Stickman, but the time is not quite right, yet.

Finally, via reader ADG, a Christian was kicked out of a class on Christianity at a tiny and rather pointless liberal arts college in Pennsylvania inexplicably named Indiana University of Pennsylvania for violating the sacred progressive shibboleths regarding severe mental disorders/transgenderism:

A religious studies major was barred from Christianity class at Indiana University of Pennsylvania for saying during class that there are only two genders. Lake Ingle, a senior at the university, said he was silenced and punished by IUP Professor Alison Downie for questioning her during a Feb. 28 “Christianity 481: Self, Sin, and Salvation” lecture.

After showing a 15-minute TED Talk by transgender ex-pastor Paula Stone Williams discussing the “reality” of “mansplaining,” “sexism from men,” and “male privilege,” the professor asked the women in the class to share their thoughts. When no women in the class said anything, Ingle spoke up, challenging the professor on biology and the gender wage gap. 

He told the class that the official view of biologists is that there are only two genders. The feminist professor booted him from class and asked him not to come back. She referred him to the public university’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB). Ingle needs to complete the class to graduate at the end of the semester. “You are barred from attending this class in accordance with the Classroom Disruption policy,” IUP Provost Timothy Moerland told Ingle in a March 2 letter.

There are a few important things to note here. First of all—these were topics for a class on Christianity? Gender ideology and the gender wage gap? Even further, the professor accused Ingle of “angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism” in addition to “disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience” in justifying her decision to kick Ingle out of her class and demanding a written apology from him listing and repenting for all the different sins he committed in her classroom.

Exactly.  He committed the unpardonable sin of sinning against the always changing but nevertheless constantly required tenets of the sexular pagan religion.  Note that a sexular pagan was teaching a high-level course on Christianity.  This is not accidental. It is designed to shatter whatever faith young Christians entered the university with, and it’s a game the Left has been playing extremely well for a century or so now.  Don’t let them play it with  your children.

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.

Coulombe: Attendance at SSPX not Grave Disobedience……. February 28, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Restoration, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
comments closed

……….or necessarily sinful, because even if one grants that the SSPX “rejects” certain parts of Vatican II, according to Benedict XVI, any novel declarations made at Vatican II were not dogmatic and thus not binding on conscience.  Thus, the SSPX has been and remains free to disagree with Guadium Et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae, and Nostra Aetate to their heart’s content, in so far as those parts they disagree with present novel but non-dogmatic explanations.

Now, of course, many partisans of the revolution in the Church will argue that every single last jot and tittle of Vatican II represent THE most dogmatic things ever produced by the Church, especially the most novel or revolutionary parts.  But I think Benedict is correct here, and has the support of both Paul VI and John XXIII in these respects – both of them declared the intent of the Council was not to define any new dogmas, but simply to explicate Church “teaching in a modern light.”  The revolutionaries must make every utterance of Vatican II dogmatic in order to try to compel souls to adhere to the revolutionary program.

Now there are other matters surrounding the SSPX, as to whether they somehow disobeyed papal directives under Paul  VI or John Paul II, but those matters really dealt with specific individuals and the individual excommunications have either been lifted, or the individuals in question have long since passed to their reward.  I read some claim that all SSPX priests were suspended a divinis in 1976 and that those suspensions remain in effect and this serves as the basis for SSPX Masses being “valid but not licit,” according to many.

As to the actual question, however – whether attendance at an SSPX Mass constitutes “grave disobedience” or not – I think it very much depends on the spirit of the person who attends the Mass, does it not?  One can attend a Novus Ordo offered by their bishop in a spirit of grave disobedience.  I can think of a variety of reasons why one might feel compelled to attend SSPX Masses regularly without doing so from a standpoint of disobedience or bad faith.  Perhaps all local Novus Ordos are so filled with abuse, error, and heresy that they represent a positive danger to one’s faith (and that of their children), perhaps one is just blown away with the beauty, reverence, and majesty of the TLM and no other option is available, perhaps the SSPX just happens to be close by, the Mass is beautiful and the soul in question isn’t hung up on which side in this debate might be right or wrong (IOW oblivious to the political situation), etc., etc.

Anyway Mr. Coulombe:

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Latest Atrocities Regarding Francis of Rome – Corrupt Donation, Seeking to Sack Raymond Arroyo February 21, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, different religion, disaster, Endless Corruption, error, Francis, horror, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

A couple of recent items regarding the man inexplicably elected pope in 2013, Jorge Bergoglio.  One involves a massive and unusual donation from a US source to a corrupt Italian hospital apparently made at the pope’s direct request, and the other is the working out of a personal vendetta by one of the closest of Francis’ advisers (Anthony Spadaro, SJ) against an unlikely target – Raymond Arroyo of EWTN News, who has, it must be said, been quite willing to air negative opinions regarding Francis and his pontificate over the past several years, and especially the disastrous papal document Amoris Laetitia, apparently ghost-written by Spadaro himself.  Spadaro has been waging a PR campaign to have Arroyo fired, and now wants EWTN anathematized, an action which would surely scandalize and anger millions of the few remaining faithful American Catholics (not to mention being incredibly hypocritical, seeing how much heresy and error is tolerated and even promoted by this pontificate).

First on the donation, from LifeSiteNews and with additional commentary by Bishop Gracida:

Leaked documents obtained by LifeSiteNews connect the Pope himself to a new Vatican financial scandal and raise serious questions about his global reputation as the “pope for the poor.”

LifeSiteNews has obtained internal documents of the U.S.-based Papal Foundation, a charity with a stellar history of assisting the world’s poor, showing that last summer the Pope personally requested, and obtained in part, a $25 million grant to a corruption-plagued, Church-owned dermatological hospital in Rome accused of money laundering. Records from the financial police indicate the hospital has liabilities over one billion USD – an amount larger than the national debt of some 20 nations.

The grant has lay members of the Papal Foundation up in arms, and some tendering resignations. Responding to questions from LifeSiteNews, Papal Foundation staff sent a statement saying that it is not their practice to comment on individual requests………

………However, the majority of the board is composed of U.S. bishops, including every U.S. Cardinal living in America. The foundation customarily gives grants of $200,000 or less to organizations in the developing world (see a grant list for 2017 here) via the Holy See.

According to the internal documents, the Pope made the request for the massive grant, which is 100 times larger than its normal grants, through Papal Foundation board chairman Cardinal Donald Wuerl in the summer of 2017.

Despite opposition from the lay “stewards,” the bishops on the board voted in December to send an $8 million payment to the Holy See. In January, the documents reveal, lay members raised alarm about what they consider a gross misuse of their funds, but despite their protests another $5 million was sent with Cardinal Wuerl brooking no dissent. [Clouds of intrigue and immorality have swirled around Cardinal Wuerl for decades]……..

…………The lay members of the board have good reason to be concerned about the supposed recipient of their generosity. Pope Francis asked for the funds to be directed to the Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata (IDI), a dermatological hospital in Rome that has been plagued with corruption and financial scandal for years.

On May 15, 2013, ANSA, the leading news wire in Italy, reported “police confiscated over six million euros worth of property and bank accounts as part of investigations into alleged corruption at the Italian hospital group Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata (IDI).”

The news of Vatican financial corruption connected to the IDI hit international headlines in 2015 with a June 20 Reuters article showing the Italian magistrates suspected Vatican Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi diverted 30 million euros destined for a Church-owned children’s hospital to the Church-owned IDI.

Another ANSA piece from 2016 reported, “Finance police discovered IDI was 845 million euros in the red and 450 million euros in tax evasion while 82 million euros had been diverted and six million euros in public funds embezzled.”

In May 2017, La Repubblica – the only newspaper Pope Francis says he reads – reported on court rulings revolving around the IDI detailing twenty-four indictments, leading to a dozen convictions, some of which carried over three years in prison. The court recognized the evidence from the financial police including “about 845 million euros in balance sheet liabilities and over 82 million in diverted funds, plus the undue use of another 6 million public funds.”………

So it seems a typically corrupt Italian enterprise.  Why would the pope demand a $25 million donation from an unusual source, one that typically gives donations orders of magnitude smaller and typically only in third world countries mired in extreme poverty?  It seems the cardinals on the board – which does not include Raymond Burke, since he does not reside in the US – pushed this donation through over the objections of the lay people who both fund and partially direct it (with final determinations being made by the cardinals, when they see fit to exercise their authority).

Bishop Gracida adds more, reminding us of other financial scandals:

First, what happened to the $140,000,000 left to the Knights of Malta which led Francis to fire Cardinal Burke as the Cardinal Protector of the Knights and to fire the Supreme Knight and to replace him with one of the Friends of Francis.

Second, was Francis involved in the ‘loan’ of $400,000 to Cardinal Sodano for the ‘remodeling’ of his apartment.  A loan made by the Bambino Children’s Hospital in Rome.  Was the money passed through the Hospital in a money laundering operation?  The Italian Government thinks it was and has launched an investigation,   the results of which will probably never be made public.

Cardinal Sodano is Borgia-esque in his personal corruption and immorality.  Benedict XVI spent years trying to drive him from the Vatican and finally succeeded, only to have Sodano – probably – play a role in his downfall through the manipulation of Vatican accounts and the Italian government.  Rorate Caeli has hinted for years there is much to be found in investigating the St. Gallen group, the Vatican bank “scandal,” and Benedict’s abdication and Francis’ subsequent election, but has remained mum on the details.  Apparently there is some connection between Sodano, money laundering, the St. Gallen group, and Francis.  Thus, the Leftist Catholic, the self-mortifying friend of the little man, always concerned about the poor and always living a penniless ascetic existence.  Not.

Onto Spadaro’s patent vendetta, as I said above, he seeks to have Arroyo fired, for criticizing himself, Francis, and Amoris Laetitia – if they do not, he calls for them to be interdicted and shut down:

 Papal confidante Father Antonio Spadaro retweeted a call for EWTN to be severely censured “until they get rid of Raymond Arroyo.”

The call for an “interdict” to be imposed on the Catholic media empire started by Mother Angelica came from Anthony Annett, Assistant to the Director at the International Monetary Fund’s Communications Department[This is a rather odd matter for a major figure at the IMF to comment on, is it not?  Notice the connection to the worldwide financial network, however, along with the revelations above]

An interdict is essentially one step short of excommunication. It bans a person or people from accessing most Church Sacraments.

Annett called for an interdict to be imposed on EWTN because of a February 15 World Over segment.

“Make no mistake,” tweeted Annett, the show’s discussion of a recent Spadaro speech and ultra-liberal Cardinal Blase Cupich “represent ‘total war’ on the papacy of Pope Francis.”……..

………..Spadaro, a Jesuit who is often called the pope’s “mouthpiece,” frequently criticizes critics of Amoris Laetitia’s ambiguity or the Francis pontificate. He is the editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica[Well, he would lash out at critics of Amoris Laetitia, since he wrote it.]

Here is the world over segment, which discussed Francis’ plan to support Leftism worldwide and give a massive rebuke and infinite wound to the faithful souls of China’s underground Church, who have labored under the most severe persecution for decades, by sacking all the faithfully consecrated bishops and priests and substituting them with those approved by the communist government in Beijing (segment starts at 6:47):

The Vatican’s “diplomacy” regarding the Church in China is something I hope to write about soon.  It is an unspeakable betrayal and something that is unjustifiable and frankly even rises to the level of sin, I would argue.  I have long been a supporter and advocate for the Cardinal Kung Foundation, which helps the true Church in China survive by financial and other means.  They have been covering this seductive dance between the Chicoms and Francis’ pontificate for  years, and have rightly prognosticated that Francis seeks to sell out the Church in China.

This betrayal involves no concrete reward to the Church or souls, but only an ideological victory for Francis and his allies in removing a thorn from the side of fellow Leftists around the world, in this case, China.  Unbelievable, but hardly surprising.

Spadaro is essentially Francis’ mouthpiece, so when he exalts Francis as being “light years ahead” of basically every non-communist-appeasing person on the planet, we know what the Pope of Humility thinks of himself.  He’s so far above us peons that we don’t even register on his radar.

And this is the Vatican that has Cardinal Secretaries hosting cocaine-fueled sodomite orgies directly adjacent to St. Peters.  This is their vision for the Church.  It is always sin that drives heresy, and generally sins of the flesh, though those of love of money also often figure in.  These things are all tied together.