Great to see below, even if this number represents only about 10% of all priests in England and Wales. Sooo……where are the American priests, who are generally viewed as being, on average, a bit more orthodox than those of England and Wales? And what of the priests of all the traditional religious orders? Is there opposition to any changes just taken as a given? But if they don’t speak out, who could know? The Fraternity, Society, IBP, ICRSS, and others could number three times as many as in the case of England. Via Tancred:
Almost 500 priests in Britain have signed a letter urging those attending this year’s family synod to issue a “clear and firm proclamation” upholding Church teaching on marriage.
In the letter, published in this week’s Catholic Herald, the priests write: “We wish, as Catholic priests, to re-state our unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality, founded on the Word of God and taught by the Church’s Magisterium for two millennia.”
Last year’s extraordinary synod provoked heated debate on the question of whether remarried Catholics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion – a proposal presented by retired German Cardinal Walter Kasper……
……Notable signatories to the letter include theologians Fr Aidan Nichols and Fr John Saward, and Oxford physicist Fr Andrew Pinsent. Fr Robert Billing, spokesman for the Diocese of Lancaster, Fr Tim Finigan, blogger and Catholic Herald columnist, and Fr Julian Large, provost of the London Oratory, have also signed the letter. [Frs. Blake and Hunwicke also signed]
You can read more here, including the text of the letter.
Tancred does allude to the fact that it is possible more priests could be found to endorse the anti-Catholic novelty being heavily pushed by Cardinal Kasper and his allies. Could an effort like this then backfire, in a sense?
Actually, this is just the kind of effort that could build rapport between the various traditional groups. This could be an issue to bring those kinds of priests together. That would be a great initiative along the lines of building up a cohesive traditional response to the crisis in the Faith. Someone should make an online petition for orthodox priests across all the various groups – diocesan, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, religious – to get on board with support for traditional marriage.
None of which would be to say or imply that the Church is somehow a democracy. Of course, we all know better, but it would be beneficial in many regards, for instance: establishing the existence of broad-based opposition, providing a very good example of leadership, confirming souls in the Faith, opposing error, and inspiring many faithful who may have grown cynical and de-energized in expecting the worst. In terms of “resistance,” the laity can do a lot, but priests could do much more. I think this could be a great vehicle for the start of a general orthodox priestly response.
Tancred also notes that Cardinal Nichols (primate of England) has “admonished” priests not to discuss the Synod, which to me seems silly (especially given that Nichols himself has weighed in on the matter, and quite decisively on the side of Kasper – perhaps he fears too many priests would support the constant belief and practice of the Faith, and undermine the novelties being pushed). I know that many traditional priests in the US have spoken out on this matter, and I pray they continue to do so.
What are you willing to do? March 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, persecution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
My dear departed friend Vicki Middleton, God rest her soul, was quite a hoot. She was a woman of conviction, and much more. She was willing to put herself on the line on things that she felt important. When her husband Jim was still President of ARCO Oil and Gas Vicki started protesting outside the office in Plano regarding ARCO’s investments in Myanmar/Burma. Since Burma had a very repressive government and was jailing dissidents, Vicki thought ARCO should not be doing business there, so she protested outside. If I remember right, her actions eventually led the board of directors to divest of their operations there.
Years later, Vicki converted to Catholicism. She was the same rabble-rouser she always was. Longtime readers may remember the radio show Vicki invited me on a number of times. Vicki and Jim spent a pretty penny buying air time on 660 AM KSKY to bring an authentic Catholic voice to the area. You may ask, “what about the local EWTN radio station, isn’t that authentically Catholic?” Well, Vicki was on the local EWTN station for a while but was removed for being too critical of the leadership of the Church both locally and globally, although she only asked things like “when are our priests going to really stand up and oppose abortion, or porn, etc”.
But Vicki did more than that. She and Jim were well off, and had been very generous with the Diocese. But when they found out about many scandalous activities ongoing, such as support for Alinskyite organizations at many parishes and lack of preaching the Faith whole and entire, she went so far as to demand her donations be returned and protested outside the cathedral, sandwich-board and all, calling out the ongoing scandals.
The point is, Vicki was willing to do anything, say almost anything, to do what she felt was the best for souls – both her own, and those of others. She loved people tremendously and wanted what was best for them. She was willing to risk being attacked and vilified to make her stand – and she was, often quite vociferously.
I bring this up, because in light of recent posts regarding division among orthodox (or faithful or traditional or conservative – all of which simply serve to distinguish from the great Mass of self-styled Catholics who reject core aspects of the Faith or hold heretical views), some commenters have brought up a point that has been on my mind for quite some time, as well: what are we willing to do to respond to the crisis and effect change in the Church?
I can think of a number of responses, and have suggested some on this blog. One is to really carefully consider the degree to which we support the entire parish-diocese-national conference monetarily, if at all. And, there are examples from Catholics in other areas. Catholics in El Paso conducted prayer vigils outside the chancery for months in the wake of the dismissal of the former priest of San Juan Bautista parish, and with regard to the long interregnum between Bishop Ochoa’s departure and Bishop Seitz’ consecration.
I’ve spoken with Catholics near and abroad about this matter many times. There always seems to be a consensus that something should be done, but no one seems to be ready and willing to take the lead on some concrete action. For the most part, efforts seem to fall apart over disagreement on which issue is paramount to address, what action should be taken, and, even more, who should lead it.
But, just to throw out some ideas, I could see a series of efforts calling attention to the “ghettoization” of the TLM in Dallas. Or, regarding the lack of preaching on the evil of contraception. Or on the abysmal standard of catechesis in parish formation programs. Or on the continuing support of left-wing “social justice” groups. Take your pick. There are dozens if not hundreds of such issues to choose from.
As for me, I am going to commit to finally kicking off an effort I proposed some months back – to start praying outside some of the many falsely named gentleman’s clubs in this area. So here is the plan: I will pray across the street from The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on April 8, Easter Wednesday, at 8 pm. There is a post office directly across the street. I will park there and stand near the road and just pray. No confrontation or picketing with signs at this point, just prayer. I’ll stay for about an hour. Any local Catholic men are welcome to join me.
No, that won’t do much for the crisis in the Faith, and I don’t expect any miraculous reaction on the strip joint front, either, but it’s a start. We’ll see how the first attempt goes and proceed from there.
Look, I’m just one guy, and I don’t know that I’m a natural born leader. The broader point of this post is, what are we willing to do as faithful Catholics to really start opposing the crisis in the Church and the general decline and advancing perversion in the culture? Are we just going to continue to complain on blogs (which have their place, obviously!), or do we start to take concrete action? If so, what action could you take, either here in Dallas, or wherever you live? What are you willing to do?
I think it would be fantastic if readers could make their own suggestions and efforts. The militant left in this country makes up a tiny percentage of the population, but because they are motivated and willing to spend much of their time in support of their diabolical cause, they have managed to radically re-shape all of the former Christendom over the past 150 years or so. They have bullied people into accepting all kinds of evil because their commitment and tirelessness gradually wore down opposition – including us. Goodness, they have even managed to get a rough majority of people to accept a definition of marriage both completely unnatural and utterly hostile to its many-thousand year history!
Are we just going to let them continue to steamroll us? Yes, prayer is the foundation of everything, but if now is not the time to make a stand (it may already be far too late), then no time will ever be. I pray my good readers consider how they can respond, individually and collectively. I pray we start to see a lot more Vicki Middleton’s out there obeying the Pope’s command to mix things up and make a mess. The modernists count on us doing nothing. In fact, it is precisely the fact that good men have done nothing that has allowed the modernist/progressive revolution in the Church to advance as far as it has.
I ask again……what are you willing to do?
Help a very good apostolate in need March 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
I don’t know about you, but I have found Sensus Fidelium – formerly known as Video Sancto – one of my top resources for edification in the Faith. The sermons are just fantastic, including the one I post below.
Unfortunately, the man who posts all these videos and takes the time and effort to add all the pictures and whatnot is in need of financial assistance. He has had a hard time of late and as such may have to give up producing the videos. He is asking his Catholic audience to help him out to the extent feasible for them.
He has a fundraising site. He has a short term goal of $5000 and is already over $3000. Given how much value I’ve found in Video Sancto/Sensus Fidelium, I had to help him out. Perhaps you may feel similarly moved. God bless you and thank you.
As for the video – if you are at all like me, you may have habitual sins you have struggled to overcome. By the Grace of God and prayers of others, I have managed – at present – to overcome some really long term sins. But I have a couple of others that still like to hang around. So I really appreciated the guidance of this video, relying on compunction to overcome these kinds of lifelong/habitual sins:
Summary from Video Sancto on the video below:
Many of us suffer from habitual sin, which must be overcome with God’s gift of compunction (definition: ‘piercing of the heart with habitual contrition’). Compunction makes mortal sin and deliberate venial sin very rare. This habitual hatred for sin also preserves us and fortifies us against temptation. This is because sin and compunction are mutually exclusive. St. Teresa of Avila became a mystic through compunction. In order to receive this gift one ought to (1) pray for it, (2) meditate upon the Passion of our Lord while considering his own lowliness and ingratitude, (3) remember his future death, and (4) persevere in all this – pray for it every day.
It is always good to pray for the priests in these sermons. 3 Aves are recommended.
I’m certain virtually every reader has by now heard about or read the latest claims of the geriatric Italian militant atheist Eugenio Scalfari, reporting in the Italian daily La Repubblica ~10 days ago the results of a recent interview he conducted with the Pope. As per his normal habit, Scalfari took no notes and used no recording device, so his reconstruction of events is based totally on memory. Bear in mind, this man is 90 years old, and he has a severe ax to grind as a militant atheist.
Having said that, his reported comments have not been rebutted or rationalized in any way by the Vatican. They have been allowed to stand as is, causing untold scandal and confusion. As reported by Rorate and other sites, Scalfari reports the Pope as saying this:
What about those with no faith? The answer is that if one has loved others at least as much as himself, (possibly a little more than self) the Father will welcome him. Faith is of help but that is not the element of the one who judges – it’s life itself. Sin and repentance are part of life [and include]: remorse, a sense of guilt, a desire for redemption and the abandonment of egoism.
Those who have had the fortune of meeting Pope Francis, know that egoism is the most dangerous enemy of our species. Animals are egoistic because they are prey to their own instincts, the main one being their own survival. On the other hand, man is moved also by conviviality and so feels love for others, and for the survival of the species to which he belongs. If egoism overpowers and suffocates his love for others, it darkens the divine spark within him and he is self-condemned.
What happens to that lifeless soul? Will it be punished? How?
Francis’ answer is very clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the bliss of living in the presence of the Father. The annihilated souls will not be part of that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is ended and this is the basis for the missionary work in the Church: to save the lost souls. And this is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the core.
What to make of this? That Scalfari is communicating the grossest errors and condemned heresies should be obvious. What to make of the fact that the Vatican has, to date, made no correction or explanation?
As for the errors, Dallas-based theology Professor Christopher Malloy shares the following (Malloy is what you could call a Thomist):
First, “If one has loved others at least as much as himself… the Father will welcome him.” Well the statement is totally ambiguous. The condition of salvation is to die in grace. No one who dies without sanctifying grace in his soul is saved. Period. This grace entails, as its proper effect, a habitual orientation to love God out of charity for his own sake, and in consequence to love the self and the neighbor in God. Now, love is always oriented to a good……. In short, loving my neighbor “more” than myself or “at least as much” does not identify the proper condition of salvation. In fact, outstanding doctors of theology state that I have a duty to love myself more than my neighbor. That is right, more. They say the order of love is as follows: Love God first of all, your own soul next, your neighbor’s soul next, your neighbor’s body next, and your own body last. That would be the proper order of a loving mother for her children. And why self love in terms of spiritual goods first? Because I do not will my neighbor to have a good unless I appreciate, love, that good too. Moreover, unless I love God and love my loving God, I would not consider it a value to will for my neighbor. Hence, good love of neighbor requires good love of self. In sum, Unless I love my neighbor in God, and because of God, I cannot get into heaven.
Second, charity cannot exist without faith. So, if I am not a believer, I cannot have the charity I need to have be saved. I must be converted to the one true God in faith in order to have charity so as to please him. Heb 11. [I would describe this, in my clumsy, amateur way, as the difference between natural love and supernatural love flowing from Grace. Sure those with no faith in Jesus Christ can love, but their love is a natural love and not connected to sanctifying Grace. Their love also has the propensity to be highly disordered and prurient, because it does not flow from a love of God]
……Fourth, “There is no punishment but only annihilation”. This is heresy. Everyone who dies without sanctifying grace goes straight to hell. And the soul cannot be punished in hell if it doesn’t exist. Whoever says the opposite states heresy. [Dang skippy. I pray Scalfari completely butchered what the Pope said in that regard. Otherwise, it would make the Pope’s many references to satan and demons farcical.]
Scalfari is leading people away from the truth of Catholic faith. It is lamentable that he carries on like this without being rebuked.
I saved a bit there at the link. Go check it out.
I, for one, am thrilled to find a blog from a traditional Thomist and co-parishioner who is a formally trained theologian. That’ll be going in the blogroll.
If you want still another take, check out Pat Archbold’s column here.
Pope Francis named Juan Barros as Bishop of the Diocese of Osorno in Chile earlier this year. Just this past weekend was the consecration Mass. There has been scandal attached to this man for years, with repeated and well-documented claims he covered up years of sexual abuse of three men, one of whom currently resides in the United States. At the consecration Mass, it is reported that hundreds of protesters disrupted the proceedings:
Despite protests that ended with three people arrested, as well as a campaign asking the Vatican to revisit the decision, a Chilean bishop mentored by the country’s most notorious sex abuser priest took possession of his new diocese on Saturday.
The appointment by Pope Francis has led many observers to question the pontiff’s commitment to tackling the scandals of clerical sex abuse and hold those who stood by accountable for their inaction.
An estimated 4,000 people dressed in black as a sign of mourning gathered in front of the cathedral of the diocese of Osorno, Chile, to demand that Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, former military chaplain, not take possession.
A video of the event posted online shows the crowd throwing objects at the prelate, pushing him, and trying to stop him from entering St. Mathew’s Cathedral, despite strong security measures……
…….Requesting to remain unnamed because he has ties with the diocese, the person said that while Barros was celebrating the Mass, many kept screaming “Pedophile!” and “Get out!” The situation escalated to the point that the celebration had to be cut short, skipping the homily, Communion, and other parts of the liturgy.[Wow. So was it valid? That’s so totally unfortunate]
[The root of the protests]……Since Barros’s appointment was announced last January, it has been criticized by elements of the local community because of ties Barros had with the Rev. Fernando Karadima, a priest the Vatican condemned in 2011 to a life of “solitude and prayer” after being found guilty of sexually abusing several devoted followers during the 1980s and the 1990s.
Three of Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, James Hamilton, and José Andrés Murillo, have accused four Chilean prelates, including Barros, of covering up for Karadima and of being present while he abused them.
I am far from clear that the protesters are necessarily faithful Catholics. They may be, in part, but they may also be secular opponents of the Church seeking to stir up mess.
Having said that, Vox Cantoris has followed the reports more than I have and he is clear that this episcopal appointment is disgraceful, and quite contrary to the rhetoric we hear about being close to the sheep and all that:
Only days after stripping the disgraced pervert Cardinal, Keith O’Brien of his title and power and sending him to retire quietly in a £200,000 cottage, Pope Francis; amidst the outrage of the people of the Diocese of Osorno in Chile has permitted another bishop to take his Cathedra – a man implicated in the scandal of sodomy and perversion and the abuse of three men from the time they were boys. Is this to be considered another “who am I to judge” episode as with Msgr. Ricca appointed to a high position within the Vatican Bank? If so, then the definition of scandal has been forgotten along with a real understanding of mercy for those victimized by the evil and perverted pederasts who performed abominable acts upon young boys of teenaged years…….
…….Since this appointment was announced in January, Chileans have been outraged. Crux further reports that “The Archbishop of Concepción, Fernando Chomalí, met with the Pope a few weeks ago and warned him that the Barros appointment was causing consternation in Chile, not only in the community of Osorno, but throughout the country. Pope Francis admitted to knowing the suffering of the victims of Karadima and the damage to the Chilean church. However — despite everything — the Pope, through the Nuncio in Chile, Ivo Scapolo, reconfirmed Barros without considering the facts and warnings of so many people, including priests and bishops. With pain we see that the faithful will have to accept and deal with Pope Francis’ decision. A pain and fear we know too well.”
Yet, Pope Francis still proceeded in spite of the warning. This is a scandal to the people of Osorno; it is a scandal and an insult to the three victims assaulted by a homosexual pederast priest whilst the then Fr. Juan Barros, watched. [And, it is claimed, did nothing to stop it]
……The Pope must be accountable for this; not just to Almighty God, but to the smelly sheep in the periphery.
As I stated in an interview with “From Rome” – Let us not, as Catholics, give an exaggerated status to any pope along the lines of what our protestant friends think – an infallibility without respect for the Gospel, which he does not possess. The First Vatican Council defined it very clearly.
All the talk of mercy, thumbs up photographs and the washing of feet and the daily media spin from the manipulators in the Vatican Press Office won’t fix this. The Pope himself is responsible for this and there is no spinning out of it.
It is a disgrace to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
In their dictatorship of mercy and condemnation of the Law and those who try to live by it some appear to have forgotten who is in charge.
Sheesh, truly a mess. At the very least, the pronouncement sounds quite tone deaf. Surely there were other candidates for the position? Reading between the lines a bit, it seems the papal nuncio to Chile made this a hill he was willing to die on. He really insisted upon this appointment. I really have no idea why.
This Diocese, by the way, is tiny. It has 35 priests! Shoot, Clear Creek may have that many in a few years. I have seen some contradictory reports that the bishop was either opposed by over half the priests in the Diocese, or supported by them, but it seems clear there is division among the priests there, too.
I guess the broader question is……given the scandals that have so afflicted the Church with regard to perverse, abusive priests, and given that we know there are still many of these priests (perverse, possibly not abusers of children) in circulation……..should not the Vatican err decisively on the side of caution and insure that no priest with even a hint of this kind of scandal is ever promoted to the episcopate?
Do you think this appointment represents a backing away from Pope Benedict’s very strong, unyielding stand against priest sex abusers? It’s hard for me to discern at this point, it could be a one off anomaly, or I suppose this Barros could be innocent, but is not discretion the better part of valor? Was this really a necessary appointment to make, given the wound and scandal it is causing? Should we see more mass action of this kind by faithful Catholics to scandal in the Church?
I pray this is not a return to the really bad old days of episcopal appointments.
I’ve got to agree with most everything said in the video below. The only question it left me with was whether asking for our Church back is the right response, or is it simply to take it back, without “asking?” No, I’m not entirely sure what that means, either.
The video below came out on Saturday, but I didn’t get around to watching it until last night. So, to some it may have seemed that posts yesterday were just singing this same tune, but I was ignorant of the similarities in argument. Having said that, I’m very glad to see the similarity in opinion displayed below. I also feel the bit of exasperation with trying to appease all the different factions among faithful/orthodox/traditional Catholics, an impossible and frustrating task. You can’t do it, the only approach to take is a big tent, inviting in all people of good will who are willing to take part in the fight to restore the Faith. Excluding this group because they are not of my tribe or that person because, well, they aren’t on board with all my dogmatic prudential judgments…….as has been passionately argued in the comments of recent posts, good luck with that. I guess some folks would prefer their doctrinal purity to an improved shot at really aiding in the restoration of the Church:
You know, one thought that crosses my mind from time to time – I try to keep it out, but it likes to return – is whether some of these folks who seem to have a bit of addiction to rageohol and the excoriation of foreign tribes don’t really rather prefer the Remnant, whatever that means to them, to be small, and for there to be essentially no earthly chance to restore the Faith. I pray that’s never the case with anyone, but sometimes I see such closed mindedness it really seems hard to just explain as adherence to some ideological position. Then again, ideology is an incredibly powerful thing, as Pope Francis frequently reminds us.
Video is probably old for most folks so I won’t load it up with a bunch of commentary, other than to say it’s very, very good and I am gratified that there are very good, dedicated souls out there who seem to agree with my overarching point of view.
Yes, in other words, it’s all about yay me! But that’s what you come here for, no?
My old blogging pal Dr. Jay Boyd took a break from her sabbatical (ummm………..) to post about a project to significantly improve the Cathedral of the
Diocese of Santa Rosa, CA. Santa Rosa is Bishop Vasa’s see, and Vasa used to be in Baker, OR, which is where Jay is located (in case you were wondering at the connection).
Already a beautiful marble high altar and baldacchino have been acquired. There is an accompanying altar rail. These were acquired from a Philadelphia parish in the process of demolition (surprise!). What are needed now are funds to pay for alterations to St. Eugene’s Cathedral in Santa Rosa and the installation of these new pieces, as Jay tells below:
St. Eugene’s, the Cathedral parish in the Diocese of Santa Rosa, is trying to raise funds for a renovation of the sanctuary of the cathedral. A “go-fund-me” page has been set up for that purpose. Go here for more information and/or to make a donation. The Bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa is Bishop Robert F. Vasa, who seems to be making some strides into the tradition-minded sphere. (I am happy about that!) The contact who gave me this information also informs me that Santa Rosa has at least one solidly tradition-minded seminarian.
Apparently, a high altar, baldachino, and altar rail have been purchased from a church that was scheduled for demolition in Philadelphia, PA. The pieces have been brought to Santa Rosa and await installation. They are perfect for offering the Traditional Latin Mass – which is offered each Sunday at St. Eugene’s in addition to Mass in the Ordinary Form.
The current cathedral is far from inspiring. These are the “best” pics I could find in a 30 sec search:
The new high altar acquired, however, is something quite different:
And with proper statues of angels in adoration on the sides! That is quite beautiful!
It seems like Bishop Vasa is trying to improve the liturgical standards in Santa Rosa, at least at the cathedral. This looks like a significant step in the right direction. From the gofundme site, it is plain the intent is to return to a much more authentic and traditional form of liturgy:
Would you like to be a part of this ongoing effort to recover this “mystical element” within the liturgy and architecture? The Church has been returning to such venerable practices as the use of Latin, chant and incense during the Holy Mass. Establishing a sense of awe through such tangible means has also helped to restore a sense of the sacred within our church.
We want to give our best to God. We want to uplift the minds and hearts of those who worship here; for this is where heaven touches earth. Please help us make this a reality! Thank you and may the Lord bless you for your prayers and generosity.
I think this is a worthy effort. I am glad to support it. If you would like to support it, perhaps as a sort of Lenten alms, again, there is a gofundme site for the project. You can make your donations there. If we want to see a return to truly Catholic liturgical art and beauty, well…..someone’s going to have to pay for it. I know that’s not often a popular topic, but there it is nonetheless.
Good on Bishop Vasa for undertaking/approving this effort.
Yes, Austin has much more than its share of crazies. It is a quite liberal town, and not just by Texas standards. There are a lot of good conservatives there, too, of course, but they are outnumbered by the leftists. We saw that a year and a half ago in the diabolical displays surrounding the passage of House Bill 2, which imposed many sensical (if far from sufficient) limitations on baby murder.
I guess that diabolical spirit is still in the air, as a crazed individual threw a Molotov cocktail gasoline bomb at some souls praying outside the local Planned Barrenhood mill. No one was hurt, thankfully, and the perpetrator has been taken into custody:
Last night at an Austin Planned Parenthood abortion facility, a woman threw a Molotov cocktail (a type of homemade bomb) at a group of Central Texas Coalition for Life prayer volunteers. One of the volunteers was able to quickly stomp out the flame and save the group from any danger. The group was able to record the woman’s license plate number and turn that information over to the police. Police did arrest the woman who threw the bomb directly at the prayer volunteers.
Central Texas Coalition for Life Executive Director Heather Gardner responded last night. “We are so thankful that none of our courageous volunteers were injured during the incident. Because of their quick actions, the woman responsible was apprehended and will be held accountable.”
So here’s the photo of the bomb:
Pro-tip for use of Molotov cocktails: use a glass, not plastic, bottle. Poor execution helped insure no one was injured.
But wait! We all KNOW, because the media always tells US, that it is only pro-lifers who are crazed, violent terrorists, whereas abortionists and their acolytes in darkness are only peaceful, loving people……..who happen to commit and support murder all day long.
What is really surprising is that things like this don’t occur much more frequently. But a culture increasingly hostile towards Christianity may provide a fertile ground for a great increase in attacks like these in the future.
And then there are probably a good number that go unreported, such as the frequent incidents of near vehicular manslaughter committed on a daily basis by one of the former “nurses” at the Routh Street mill. She used to take great pleasure in tearing down the alley that serves as the main entrance to that mill at 40 mph, swerving side to side and frequently forcing opponents of abortion, including children, to scramble out of the way.
For about the tenth time in recent months, the Obama Administration has dropped the mask and revealed itself to be the authoritarian, doctrinaire leftists we’ve always taken them to be. Apparently, without the prospect of another election, there is no longer any point in hiding his true identity and now the truly radical agenda is being revealed. A few cases in point: the recent attempt to ban virtually all firearm ammunition by declaring all non-lead ammo “armor piercing” and all ammo containing lead a deadly pollutant (shot down by virulent opposition). Then there is the activity to enforce carbon dioxide as a “deadly pollutant” associated with gerbal worming with absolutely no law passed giving the EPA such power. We have seen conservatives harrassed, audited, bullied, and threatened by this government for over 5 years with the whole IRS scandal.
Now there is a nakedly political effort by FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to deny disaster preparedness funds paid for by the taxpayers of various states to those states whose governors refuse to openly advocate for massive socialization of the entire economy to ward off the scam of anthropocentric global warming. While the funds are only in the 8 figures, which is chicken feed even to most state governments (Texas willingly gave up about $45 million in federal aid in order to stop funding Planned Barrenhood contraception programs), the naked lawlessness and left-wing authoritarianism on display is breathtaking:
FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers [note the toxic lede. You are a damnable “denier,” a heretic to sacred leftist beliefs.]
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. [Was this how evolution gained mass acceptance 80-100 years ago? Was it shoved down people’s throats like this, as in “believe it or else?” Same with fake sodo-marriage.] Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change. [This has a 90+% chance of dying in court. At the district level, for crying out loud. They have to know that.]
This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters. [So we’re talking $20 million per state, on average. This is peanuts. But the message is not. It is totalitarian]
“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs. [In the entire article, there is not a single rebuttal of this radical, unsupported position. Not only is there no evidence that mankind has caused the earth to warm, there is no evidence that the earth is warming at all (except for the fevered imaginations of climate-humper advocates, who actually go so far as to doctor temperature measurements worldwide to “prove” their sacred religious conviction true). Even more, there is no evidence that warming would be clearly harmful, even if it were to occur.]
…..”This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors,” said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. “We aren’t just talking about coastal states.” [He said as he gleefully rubbed his hands together.]
Climate change affects droughts, rainfall, and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. “This could affect state leaders across the country.” [B as in B, S as in S. All virtually totally without any substance.]
[And now we get to the point……]……..Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying. [But it’s only those evil warming denier conservatives who are partisan. The radical left never politicizes anything, like humdrum federal programs funded by the states themselves. See how they assume our money is their’s to hand out to whom they please?]
…….The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to “raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards,” FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.
No, it was included to score points with Obama’s radical base, which is all he has ever cared about. “Reward your friends and punish your enemies” was not a throwaway line to him, it’s his fundamental philosophy.
Totalitarianism, at least in the modern context, is primarily a creation of the left. It is only the left who feels they are so invincibly right about everything, and so demonizes any opponents as not just wrong but evil, that it can rationalize the modern totalitarian state into being as a “necessary evil” they greatly enjoy inflicting on others.. Yes there have been juntas and dictators characterized as right wing, often incorrectly, (and generally in less than well-developed states), but the scale of evil and repression in these examples pales in comparison to the scope and perniciousness of left-wing totalitarian states. And it seems more and more, those of a leftward bent in this country are tired of the messy, time-consuming push and take of democracy, and want their dictatorship of the proletarian now. The degree of Obama’s radicalism is truly breathtaking, and yet the large majority of citizens in this country either don’t know enough to care, or are fully on board with it (and would in fact prefer more). Things are going south at an incredible pace.
A reader sent me a link to another article earlier today demonstrating the wedge questions the left-loving media loves so much. He was wondering why the media would be making big hay of Ted Cruz’ stand on evolution. They do it because the left/media (one and the same) believe they can paint anyone who questions evolution – about which the vast majority of these reporters know absolutely NOTHING – as an ignorant, uneducated, “anti-science” rube, totally unfit for any public office. They have succeeded brilliantly at this gambit for years, not always using evolution but some other meaningless wedge issue, to disqualify the vast majority of conservative candidates and insure the Republican party nominates no one but liberal types like George Bush, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney.
I really think the right play – not that I believe the Republican party is good for anything other than lining the pockets of their big budget donors, almost all of whom are radical liberals on social issues – is to bone up on these subjects enough to turn the questions around on the reporters to make them look like the fools. So if you get asked about evolution, you answer “micro or macro?,” “punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?” Or ask the reporter to describe how many universes are necessary in order to make random gradualism a scientifically viable theory? Even if you as the politician have no real idea of the answers, the point is, they will show up the journalist’s ignorance and immediately reveal his ignoble intent. They will move on ASAP to save face.
But conservatives aren’t cursed with the stupid party for no reason. It’s all part of the plan.
Is this what passes for the “New Evangelization” March 23, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, Basics, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, scandals, secularism, silliness.
If it does, forgive me for preferring the old one:
So the Youtube video says the song was written by a guy from College Station. As such, it’s likely he has some association with St. Mary’s and the big student group they have down there, which while relatively orthodox, is also not what one would call overtly traditional.
I’m sorry, speaking strictly of the song……I do not think this kind of aping of evangelical type poppy music with a sort of overlay of Catholicism on top really works. It is derivative as all get out, first of all, but even more……I find the execution lacking. And I am being charitable. Uff da is really all I can say on this family blog.
I’ve said it before, but I am not one of those traditional-leaning Catholics who thinks classical is the only acceptable form of music. I still like my Texas/outlaw country. I do listen to classical a lot more nowadays, mostly because my wife and kids listen to it a lot (and especially when my oldest daughter plays piano, she is really getting quite good, Deo Gratias!). So it’s not that I’m put off by the base form of musical style. But this just……I would use a certain word, but I’ll just say it’s not very good. It’s cloying and insipid. And no, Youtube commenter, this is not “the prettiest parish ever,” it’s not even close. It’s quite nice, certainly the sanctuary is far better than most we see these days, but hopefully we haven’t lost a complete sense of what incredible heights Catholic liturgical beauty can achieve. Sainte-Chapelle, now that’s beautiful, in an otherworldly, “did human hands really make this?” sense. The parish where this was filmed has a table altar (with some appalling bas-relief of saints in front) and the tabernacle way off to the side, for two things right off the top.
I’m sure the song meant a great deal to its writer and some folks obviously went to a lot of effort to make the video, but this just does not work for me. I tend to doubt it works for very many people at all.
So is this what the “new evangelization” is all about? If so, it’s as dead as the previous other eleven iterations of that seemingly doomed effort.
Maybe we should give the old evangelization a try for a while, to see how that works?
h/t reader D