Desmond Tutu - Pray That He Repented Before He Died

Non serviam!

Desmond Tutu, a prominent South African who first won acclaim by fighting apartheid in South Africa, passed away Sunday December 26 at the age of 90.  While some hold him to be a bishop, I will not concede to that designation, as he was Anglican and their so-called "bishops" do not claim apostolic succession.  In fact, he was, in many ways, the antithesis of a true bishop.  While this AP article lauds him as "South Africa's moral conscience", one must wonder just what kind of "conscience" would dare utter what you see to the right.

Think about what he said.  He quite literally said that he'd rather go to hell than honor God and his laws regarding sexuality and marriage.  He echoed Lucifer's "non serviam"!  We can only pray that he repented of these words before he died lest that wicked desire of his was granted.  None too surprisingly, he was also pro-abortion and pro-contraception.  

Therefore, in light of all this, we deplore the conduct of the Archbishop of Baltimore as he gushes and slobbers the dubious praises of Tutu the pretend-bishop.  I haven't seen anything similar yet from the Archdiocese of Washington or the USCCB, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before they too sing the praises of this man who voiced preference for hell over heaven.  Should we pray for him?  Of course!  But that doesn't mean we lionize him.

Vatican Will Try To Silence Faithful Catholics As It Stifles Traditional Latin Mass

Canon 1373 that Mr. Stine quotes is found at this Vatican link.  Yes, an operative word here is "just" but so is "incites animosity or hatred".  There motive is ascribed to the person(s) facing interdicts.  Aside from the pope's famous "who am I to judge" quip, any progressive thug in the Vatican would soon find himself skating thin ice to bring about any such action against faithful Catholics (Your Truly included) who are merely calling a spade a spade.

Mr. Stine rightly reminds us that we are in fact obliged, under pain of sin, to refuse compliance with unjust and/or immoral dictates from Church hierarchy - including those who are vindictively trying to throttle the Traditional Latin Mass.  Speaking of "inciting hatred or animosity", are Vatican officials willing to place themselves under said interdicts for thumbing their noses at Pope St Pius V and what he proclaimed in Quo Primum?  By the way - in case some might think that Traditionis Custodes now overrides Quo Primum, not so.  TC is a moto propitio while QP is an Apostolic Constitution in the form of a papal bull.  The latter is the more solemn and binding document by far, thus Traditionis Custodes does not override it.

So, my fellow bloggers, what do we do now?  Simple.  Continue to shine the light on the cockroaches infesting Holy Mother Church.  We do not blink, we do not cower.  We know very well that we speak ot uphold the Church.  It is the progressives in the Vatican and chanceries that are "inciting hatred and animosity" against Sacred Tradition and Jesus' teachings.  We stand firm.  Should any such decree come our way, we shine the light on that and give it the treatment that it deserves, as Mr. Stine mentioned in his clip.  This will be a struggle but we cannot flinch.

Attack On The Latin Mass Becomes More Vindictive

In addition to the Traitorous Custodian document from hell, the pope has put out even more restrictions on the Mass of the Ages.  The Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders cannot be done in the older rites and the Traditional Mass, when permission is granted to celebrate it in a parish, must not be announced in that parish's bulletin.  There are many other such nonsensical restrictions.

The restrictions were just promulgated this past Saturday (of Advent week 3).  That happened by fake "dubias".   Eleven dubia were presented - and already answered in a document called "responsa ad dubai".  My!  Such speedy turnaround!  Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller still await answers to their five dubia from years ago, but never mind!  Let's cut to the chase, shall we?  These "dubia" were contrived by the Vatican, not collected from the faithful at large for answer!  How stupid do they think we are?  Maybe they don't, and these "dubias" are meant to be a mockery of the dubia submitted years ago by the aforementioned cardinals regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  But I digress.

Below the jump break I will post some videos with some excellent commentary.  One correct theme running through them is that this current pope and his pals are afraid that their plots to undermine the church are fizzling badly, so they are lashing out in fury driven by hatred and panic.

You will hear these good Catholic men urging us to resist the pope's commands to do away with the Latin Mass.  Note the verb "resist" as opposed to "rebel".  True rebellion can only occur against legitimate authority.  The pope is not acting with legitimate authority when he himself is disobeying Quo Primum and over a thousand years of Church tradition, pronouncements of his predecessors, etc.  Both Scripture and Tradition are replete with exhortations to resist Satan and evil.

Resist evil we must.  We sin if we don't.  We simply continue to attend the Latin Mass and support those priests and bishops who make it possible.  We also resist by bringing these matters, and the underlying issues to light by discussing them and exposing them for what they are.  We may have to face some blowback for doing that, and that will be the topic of another post.

And now the videos (after the jump break) that I urge you to watch in their entireties.  Everything said in there is very relevant for you, your families and friends and the eternal salvation of all.

Dobbs - What It Means For Pro-Life Activists

Note: Although I wrote the below article for a local Maryland publication, the same ideas are applicable for many areas of the United States.

(begin article)

On January 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions that paved the way for the slaughter of millions of babies in the US alone: Roe v Wade and Doe v Balton.  Roe v Wade basically rendered unenforceable all state laws that either limited or banned abortion.  Roe removed all limits during the first trimester of pregnancy and Doe removed them in later parts of the pregnancy “to protect the health of the mother”.  However, Doe’s definition of “health of the mother” included all factors such as “emotional, familial” etc.  This definition therefore included any factors desired by the mother.  Both of these combined amounted to abortion on demand with no restriction whatsoever.  

The premises of Roe were acknowledged by both sides of the abortion controversy to be constitutionally flawed.  First, there is the false premise of “privacy”.  It is based on a faulty reading of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that barred “unreasonable search and seizure”.  The operative word there is “unreasonable”, for the usage of that word admits the existence of reasonable searches and seizures.  The false premise was utilized in the 1965 case known as Griswold v Connecticut; that ruling allowed for the usage of contraceptives.  It’s interesting that even here we see how the usage of contraceptives paved the way for baby-slaughter, but I digress. 

Built into the Roe decision was the acknowledgement that if the fetus were indeed a person, all abortion bans would be constitutional as the unborn child would enjoy all constitutional protections per the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution.  Since 1973, medical advances have been made that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn child is as fully human as any adult.  We have the sonogram, for instance, that shows a very human face on the unborn child in his/her mother’s uterus.  We also have seen many advances that have decreased the age at which the unborn child can survive outside of the womb, resulting in the arbitrary benchmark of “viability” being decreased. 

With the acknowledgement of Roe’s eventual demise, both pro-abortion and pro-life advocates have been struggling to enact legislation that would either codify Roe v Wade on state books or reinforce protections for unborn children.  On the federal level, pro-abortion activists were successful in having enacted the Freedom of Choice Act after Bill Clinton took office.  Many of us in Maryland will recall the epic battle over SB162 that was enacted to liberalize abortion laws in Maryland, going even beyond the federal Freedom of Choice Act.  Not too surprisingly, that passed, making Maryland a veritable abortion bonanza – more on Maryland later. 

A few abortion regulation cases over the years made it to the Supreme Court, only to have the cases decided for the pro-abortion positions owing to the make-up of the Supreme Court.  However, after Donald Trump took office, he replaced Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Rita Ginsberg with Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey-Barrett respectively, giving a different tilt to the Court. 

On Dec 1, the Supreme Court heard arguments for the Mississippi case called Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  Jackson Women’s Health Organization is Mississippi’s lone abortion mill.  They bristled at the 2018 legislation called the Gestational Age Act that limited their baby-slaughter to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.  Note that this law directly contradicts Roe v Wade; the latter stated that abortion in the first trimester could not be limited.  I want to reiterate that Roe is a court ruling, not enacted law. 

I won’t go into any particulars of the discussions during that Supreme Court hearing.  Suffice it to say that the Trump appointees gave indications that they were seriously considering the scientific and constitutional issues underlying the Dobbs case while some Obama appointees displayed quite the opposite.  There is hope that the Mississippi law will stand, meaning the overthrow of Roe v Wade. 

The demise of Roe would mean that the anti-abortion laws that several states have would now be enforceable.  In other words, babies would enjoy some safety depending on their location.  Therefore, in some states they would be safe, while still threatened in other states. 

Maryland is among that latter group.  Some of us will remember the big abortion battle in Maryland during the 1992 elections, where we fought against SB 162 that legalized abortion in Maryland for any reason and any stage of gestation.  We lost that battle and as a result, Maryland is seen by abortionists as a mecca for baby-slaughter.  Hence we have the likes of Leroy Carhart setting up shop in Montgomery County, a locale that is particularly friendly to abortionists. 

We can glean some lessons from this scenario.  As noted earlier in this article, President Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who are now hearing this case.  Had Hillary Clinton won that election, we know for a fact that she would have appointed pro-abortion justices; she loudly proclaimed that herself.  Under her court, this case would never have been allowed to see the light of day. 

Another lesion we can learn is the importance of local-level elections.  If Roe is scuttled, the abortion conflict descends to state levels.  Therefore we now see that we must elect pro-life candidates in all levels of government.  

I will now take a moment to address a regrettable tendency among pro-life people that was on display during the 2016 presidential elections.  Then we were presented with two candidates.  Neither one could have been held as a paragon of virtue.  However, one candidate made very clear her intent to promote baby-killing, the normalization of sexual perversion and a host of other evils.  The other, with his admittedly chequered past, promised the opposite.  Misguided pro-lifers trumpeted their disdain in voting for the “lesser of two evils” and decided not to vote at all.  Well, since Our Lord is never a candidate for election, it will be safe to assume that only flawed human beings will seek election.  Such are our options.  To not vote is itself a dereliction of duty to at least mitigate any harm to be done to civic life.  Again, had Trump not won, we would not be presented with this opportunity at all. 

There have always been hopes of passing a human life amendment to the US Constitution, guaranteeing constitutional protections to unborn people.  In order for that to happen, the amendment must receive 2/3 votes from both houses of the US Congress and be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.  This will require much political activism on our parts.  To those who claim that the abortion matter will not be solved by politics, I reply that they are correct in saying that politics itself will not be sufficient.  However, politics will be necessary as we strive for protection of the unborn child. 

For Maryland, an immediate consequence of Roe’s demise would be an uptick in the numbers of abortions committed here.  The bordering states of Virginia and Pennsylvania do have abortion restrictions on their books that would become enforceable.  Once that happens, abortion-bound persons would be crossing into Maryland to murder their children.  Therefore, pro-life people, more than ever, will be needed in front of the abortion centers to pray and to offer assistance to abortion-bound women. 

Will you accept the opportunities and challenges that a Roe reversal would bring to Maryland?

Golly! I'm Getting Inspired To Take The Cootie Jab!

Just kidding!

But (to quote Prez Plugz) "c'mon, man!"  How can anyone resist such a siren call such as the one that the retiring NIH Director, Francis Collins, just serenaded for us?  Just give this song a listening and by golly, I'm sure you'll all be beating a path to your nearest human sacrifice cootie-jab location! 

On the other hand, seeing that Advent is a penitential season, perhaps sitting through this little ditty might be an act of mortification.  Here's hoping your ears don't bleed after this!

PS - Hat tip to Canon 212

Michael Matt On Failure Of Great Reset

It Really Is A Sin-Nod In The Worst Way

Some took umbrage with me for calling those papal gabfest sessions "sin-nods" as opposed to synods.  Well, let's just say there are some occasions where I wished I was in error, for that is literally what happened a few days ago with this "synod of bishops".  

Earlier this month, the sin-nod removed a link to New Ways Ministries from its website.  How it got there in the first place will remain a mystery for now.  Anyway, the bishops restored the link earlier this week and APOLOGIZED to the sodomite-enabling cabal.  It's very reminiscent of a very similar "apology" that happened in the Archdiocese of Washington over nine years ago.  Anyway, these bishops have things precisely ass-backwards.  They should be demanding repentance from this bunch that pretends to be Catholic.  Instead they confirm the deviants in their mortal sin and perhaps their eternal damnation.

So, when will be seeing a link on that sin-nod page to "Catholics for Choice" or any other pro-abortion group?  Will NAMBLA make an appearance?  Why not?  Let's have a complete free-for-all debacle at this sin-nod.  Yes, it is a sin-nod.

This is not to say that we shouldn't make our own voices heard.  Indeed we must for the sake of Holy Mother Church.  Participate in your local sessions.  Demand that they stop strangling the Traditional Mass, that they stop honoring pro-aborts and pro-perversion people.  Demand that they restore reverence, true Catholic teaching.  Let them know that if they don't, your donations will cease.

Without The Conquistadors, There Would Have Been No Apparition Of Our Lady Of Guadalupe

So often in the past I heard that Our Lady of Guadalupe converted more Indians to Christianity than did the oh-so-violent conquistadors.  It seems so holy and of course, so politically correct from a Catholic stance.  A little thought, though, reveals that line of thinking to be more than a tad shallow and simplistic.

Let's think about what actually happened, shall we?  Recall that when Our Lady of Guadalupe first appeared to Juan Diego, the latter was on his way to Mass  I emphasized that last part to point out that Juan Diego was already Catholic when Our Lady approached him.  She instructed him to go to the bishop to have a cathedral built at that site.  Again, let's consider that there was already a diocese, with bishop, established at that locale and most likely, nearby areas had their own diocesan structures.  

So quite a bit of Catholic groundwork was already laid by the time of Our Lady's appearance.  Who laid that groundwork?  Why, it was those big bad conquistadors!  They played a large, and overlooked, part in ending human sacrifice in Mexico.  They paved the way for missionaries to come and proclaim the Faith to natives such as Juan Diego and his family.  They paved the way for the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

French Catholic Laypeople Defend Their Church Against Sacrilege

French Catholic laypeople have stepped up to the plate and protected a Catholic church from being used as a venue for a secular concert.  Indeed, the "singer" in question has been known to sing songs that overtly do homage to Satan.  God bless these laypeople for their willingness to stand for Our Lord and God bring the church personnel to repentance, and punishment if need be, for giving their permission for that planned sacrilege.  Here is a report, with some video of the protest.  I note with happiness that there appears to be at least one Roman collar amidst the faithful Catholics.

Eight years ago, a similar situation happened in Argentina, where Catholics banded together to protect their cathedral from being vandalized by a gaggle of feminists and perverts.  Here is a report.

Just last week in Washington DC, a statue of Mary was vandalized at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.  The days are swiftly approaching when we will have to put our bodies on the line to defend our churches against godless vandals and even godless clergy.  Who will be ready to do so?

Spirit Of Vatican II Neutered The Papacy

Here's some food for thought.  This rings true.

From Young Catholics To Pope Francis

A few weeks ago the pope wrote a message to young people on the occasion of World Youth Day.  In that letter, he exhorted them to "arise, testify".  Well, that is precisely what the young people in the following clip are doing.  Now will the pope listen?

Father Meeks On The Vaccine Mandates

On the Feast of Christ the King, Father Edward Meeks of Christ the King parish in Towson MD preached a sermon regarding the allegiance that we owe to Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, he stated that we must not pay that same allegiance to the tyrants who would dare to tell us what we must inject into our bodies.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore was quite quick to point out that because Father Meeks is of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, they have no authority over him.  Frankly, I'm sure that if they did, they'd be all too prompt to silence him.