Tolerance

Classic and Extreme!

This is a Mosin-Nagant 91-30 rifle.  Bolt action, 5 round internal magazine.  It was the most advanced rifle of it's time when introduced in 1891.  The Mausers, the Enfields, the Springfields--the Thirty caliber bolt action rifles of WWI and WWII and into the 50s all came after it.

The Mosin-Nagant soldiered into the 50s and 60s, in some parts of the world, and is still seeing service as a police weapon in eastern Russia and with insurgents and Taliban in the middle east and South Asia as a snipers rifle.  These are serious warhorses, and practically indestructible.

It's chambered in the 7.62X54R caliber--the "R" stands for "rimmed".  This is in the same ball park as the 30-06, .303 British, 7.92 Mauser cartridges, except with one difference--it is still in active service world wide, the oldest military cartridge still in production.

I own one of these rifles, produced in 1932 at teh Tula Arsenal, with the classic "Hex" receiver.  It is 90% on the bluing,the wood is good condition, and --rarely for a Mosin-Nagant of it's generation and type--has all matching serial numbers.  It will print a group of about 1.5 inches at 100 yards--with me shooting it.  Some one competent might get it much smaller.

That's the gun-candy for today.

Dazed and Confused....

Remember that movie?  About high school in the 70s?  Well, I am now dazed and confused again, just like I was in Catholic High School in the 70s.  Except this time, I didn't even get to smoke any Mexican Weed or oogle a whole new class of pretty girls!

With the ascension of Francis to the Papal throne, in just a few months, the Faith has become the confusing morass of contradiction and disrespect for tradition and Tradition in was in the 70s.  It's happened so fast that it makes me  consider the possibility, that Bergoglio might be an Anti-Pope, elevated to damage the Church in the End Times, to undo the reform of the renewal that the last two pontiffs have so manfully struggled to engender and implement.

We Northern Hemisphere Catholics--at least we Catholics who are still Catholic, still holding to the whole of Catholic Teaching --have known since the 70s that we cannot count on our Bishops to lead us.  They're too busy playing progressive politics and sucking up to objectionable ideas and persons--like the Lavender Mafia and the Feminists who seek to re-write the gospel and redefine the sacraments.   We know we can't trust our National Conferences of Bishops.  We have the examples of the 21st century, when the African Bishops appealed to Rome because European Bishops, notably the German Bishops, refused to give them aid for proselytization and sacramental ministry, but offered, at times demanded they take, aid designed to implement a European style moral relativism and social services system.   We saw it when the bishops of Chile appealed to the Canadian Bishops Conference to get them to stop funding groups that opposed Catholic teaching on Sexuality and human life--funds that saw their fruits explicitly this month when Feminists stormed a Cathedral during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass  because a girl chose NOT to have an abortion.  We see it now when we have the example of the USCCB's outreaches like Catholic Relief Services  distributing abortificients, and the well documented funding by the Corrupt Campaign for Humanist Deception,  Catholic Campaign for Human Development,  CCHD  of various secular political groups that work for goals diametrically opposed to Catholic Social and Moral teaching, some of which wok for the silencing of the Church.

Really, suddenly we have thing like the Catholic Health Services coming out in favor of public funding--with our money--of the ongoing mass murder of infants by an industry staffed by serial killers and their accomplices. Yeah, I'm talking about Abortion.  Just a few months ago they had been smacked down, in the person of one of their leaders for doing so.  Now they feel free to to do so en mass, because neither the bishops nor, apparently the Pope, will do anything about it.  After, it's a piece of "progressive legislation".  And we have so called "Catholic"  publications not only defending them, but attacking those who oppose the quisling nun's and false faithful.  (Interestingly, I had noticed this particular fish-wrap disappearing from various parish magazine and publications racks, and now I notice it's coming back--heresy is beginning to flourish once again.)

In a few short months, it seems to me that Bergoglio has done what the Modernists accused John-Paul and Benedict of doing for years:  he has turned back the clock.  He is resetting it to those halcyon days of the 70s, where praying before the Blessed Sacrament or Holy Hours were  considered not only passe, but perhaps even sinful and a waste of time.

So, why would I think this of our new Supreme Bridge Builder?  Perhaps because in his own Diocese, before he was Pope, he greatly restricted the rights of the clergy to celebrate the Extraordinary Form--in contravention of Summorum Pontificum.   Now he has arbitrarily interfered with the internal affairs of a Religious Community and stripped them of a right supposedly enjoyed by all Roman Clergy .   

He has also appointed persons from other orders to interfere with their governance.  Odd, this was one of the most flourishing  new communities of men, women and lay people in the Church,   But hey were quite traditional.  Part of the problem, supposedly, is that they were un-accepting of their members who didn't want to use the Extraordinary Form.  But here were no rules or guidelines forbidding their members from celebrating the Ordinary Form., and the use of the Extraordinary Form was not universal in the Congregation.    This was simply a blow against a traditional community, because it's a traditional community.

Odd, people can do all sorts of liturgical abuse, and he does nothing.  Let them celebrate with reverence and a sense of tradition, and he's all over it.  Look to his home diocese--about the only intervention to protect liturgy and tradition was the time when he made his priests use wheat bread instead of sweet potatoes to celebrate the Eucharist. 

Then there are his remarks about Sodomites in the priesthood, and in general. This is tremendously galling, because it's not supported by tradition at all.  The Catechism says that persons experiencing same sex attraction are not to be subjected to undue discrimination.  Undue.  Considering that the Anglo-sphere has been afflicted by a hugely damaging scandal--damaging not just financially, or in terms of  public perception, but a true scandal, a scandal that has led the faithful to abandon the faith, and into sin--at the hands of sodomitic priests.  One can find synods and councils in the Church--synods and councils who have had their legislation validated by the Pope, and extended to the Church at large--calling for Sodomites to be dis-enrolled from the clergy, permanently.  They even go so far as to say that "defilers of boys" are to be excluded from communion and the sacraments, even at death.  But Bergoglio has decided that he cannot judge "gay" priests.  OK--but think of all the young boys raped by sodomites hiding in the Church, a problem that was addressed over and over again in it's history, and that in 1960 caused a document to be issued saying that homosexuals were not eligible for ordination.  A document that was subverted by Cardinal Bernardin in the US, and elsewhere.  Then think of this--80% of the victims of priestly sexual misconduct were boys past the age of puberty--they were preyed upon by faggots. (Yes, I used a hateful term on purpose.)  only about 1.5%-3% of the priests did these things. But the rest covered for them, because in many cases they didn't want outed as sodomites themselves, or punished for exposing this by the gay mafia (and there are cases where precisely this happened).

But Bergoglio can't "judge" them?  Oh, I though he was Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth, with the power to bind and loose.    I have read that he wasn't speaking English, so he probably didn't use the word "Gay".  Turns out, he did.  Think about the implications.  Gay isn't about attraction, it's about lifestyle and choices.  A Gay choose to believe--contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law--that sexual attraction between members of the same sex is fine, positive allowable and should be acted upon,  tolerated, accepted and applauded.

Perhaps I misread him, and he is unaware how his remarks will be received.  Perhaps, but a man as political as he--and he is very political and has been for years is unlikely to be so naive.

Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?  I don't know.  How could he be, if he was elected by a valid conclave?  If the abdication of Benedict XVI was forced, or manipulated, by a clique in the Vatican intent on the triumph of Modernism and the  ascendency of Sodomites and Feminists as the definitors of "truth".  I hope he is an Anti-Pope, because if he isn't, I don't believe in Catholicism, and might go to hell for it.

POLITICAL STATEMENT

OK--I've had it with the Republicans--period.  I've never been fond of them.  In fact, I've never even liked them.  But with the fascistic developments in the Democratic party, it's self purging of the so called "Blue-Dogs",  I fell to the Republicans.

But Congress has failed to rein in the NSA, by a very few votes.  And the Republicans were much more interested in letting them ignore the 4th Amendment than the Democrats.

Therefore, I will not support the Republican Party in any way, any longer.  I might vote to a TEA Party candidate running on the Republican Ticket--but for the most part, nada.  Nothing important to me have they supported, and John Boener is a jackal who will devour the children of the future just as surely as Obama or Pelosi.  Neither party gives a rat's posterior about us.

What I Want to Know is---What Am I Gonna Do About It?

OK--so now we know.  Francis isn't going to reform the Curia, and the US Bishops don't give a rats bottom about freedom of religion, the sanctity of life or basic honesty.

For years, faithful Catholics have been bilked into giving money for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  It's quite simply a rip off where Catholics are told it's for the poor, when it's for politics.  In fact, it's founding documents prohibit it from engaging in poor relief--all it's money is for political ends.  Left wing political ends.

Of course, when you start giving money to leftist political groups, you only go about a millimeter before some of that money goes to those who not only are not in sympathy with the Church, but hate it.  And then another millimeter and you end up giving money to people who like the murdering of babies in the privacy and convenience of their mothers womb.  When this happens, the word gets out, and changes get made, and as soon as we're not looking the same old same old happens. 

But there is Catholic Relief Services, started in the 1940s to succor those whose lives and homes were devastated by war.  It's been very well respected as a charity, with a very high proportion of funds collected going for poor relief.  I believe over 90%, at or near the top.

Except this outreach of the US Catholic Bishops proves to be no better than the CCHD at not giving money to baby killers .  In fact, giving 2.7 million to Population Services International an organization whose main thing is providing training to perform and promoting the use of Abortions.  PSI is largely funded through pornography sales by the company Adam & Eve, which was set up to generate cash to fund population control measures--Contraception, Abortion and such sundry murderously evil actions--at brown people, I will add.  We've given 2.7 million of our dollars, to a pornography funded death program that kills people of color.  How on Earth is this Catholic?    It get's worse.  CRS has been working with this group for a decade or so.

Last year they gave 13 million dollars to the pro-abortion group CARE.    I ask you--how is CARE a catholic ministry to the poor?  Where is our identifiable ministry with all this money?  Why are we giving it to groups, and not to people?  Why aren't we using the funds for the poor to support our missionaries running programs in areas we're trying to help?

As a Catholic I wanted to know the answer to that.  Now I do.

It's so "Catholic" Relief Services can pass out contraceptives in our name. 

Our Bishops are supposed to be leading us in a fight for our religious freedom, occasioned by the government enforcing us to pay for abortions and contraceptives through their health care law.  It's bad enough that one of our major universities is now providing insurance that pays for these things (Georgetown).  It's even worse that the Archdiocese of New York does as well.  It will make it harder to argue when this gets to court that we can't do that as a Church when parts of us already are.  But when the Bishops official outreaches so blythly spread murder through the world by abortion and contraception, we haven't a leg to stand on--all the Government needs to do is show that we already support such things.

All I need to know now is what I"m going to do about it, personally.

Race and Violence In America

Racial strife is a fact in America--a gruesome, shameful fact, but a fact.  But America s changing.  up through the 50s, "Race Riot" had a specific connotation of European Americans--Oh screw politcal correctness White People--engaging in mob violence directed against Black, Asian and Hispanic people.  (Even the Zoot Suit Riots, billed as draftees being upset by those not in uniform, were largely whites against Hispanics.)  Then in the 60s, the connotation changed, to Blacks giving vent to range int the streets.

Black rage. Black rage because of systematic denial of civil rights, Black rage because of lynchings. Black rage because of rape and oppression.  Rage because of pervasive, almost systemic racial violence.

Racial violence persists. A 13 year old Boy was set on fire.  A man beaten by a mob,   a 12 year old girl lured into a house and strangled for having too nice a bike. A young couple, taken brutally beaten, both raped and killed.

NBC commentator Al Sharpton is planning 100 protests in different cities. 

The problem is, he is not protesting the crimes above, or hundreds like them.  He is protesting a man being found innocent of a crime.  Sharpton isn't a commentator--he's a race baiting opportunistic parasite, who sees influence to be gained and money to be made.  He doesn't care about the crimes above--because they were committed by black people against whites. 

Let me put it this way:  Antonio Santiago is dead.  He was shot in his stroller while walking with his mother, because she had no money to give to a pan handler.  Who then shot her baby.  But we can't talk abut this sort of crime.    Because the narrative we are offered is that whites are the racists, that whites are the violent group.  Unfortunately the facts do not support his.  The new racism is America is against whites.  And it's enabled, and most prevalent among whites of a certain scial class--the upper middle class and their liberal arts degreed spawn.  Thes people cannot say othat there is even such a thing as black racism, or criticize blacks.

Let me give you an example:  I don't like Zoe Saldana.  I don't think she's attractive.  I find her to be overly made up, and way to skinny, as well as trying to hard to look like she's in her early 20s and being a mediocre actress.  A liberal, PhD having ex-friend , when I said I didn't think she was hot, and was so skinny she loked like a refugee went of on me.  Why?  Because Ms. Saldana was black, and had been in a Latin American Country.  So any criticism I used must be race based.  Saying she was  as skinny as a refugee simply showed that I thought that "women of color" were unable to manage a life and needed white males to do it for them, etc. When I pointed out that she was judging based on color and nation of origin, and that was racist and bigoted, she never spoke to me again.  I'm glad.

If Sharpton was really concerned about the safety of black men, he would work on this statistic: 93% of all black murdered are murdered by blacks.  That's about 7440 of the 8000 blacks murdered in the US in an average year.  Lets make that a little clearer--in a decade + of war, 6,400 Americans were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.  Perhaps Rev.Sharpton should work on that.

 Consider this--the 500 to 550 blacks killed by whites in America per year isn't even 50% the number of whites killed by blacks.    Perhaps we should be the ones in the streets protesting racial violence, because we are the most frequent victims of it.  Of course there is the Hispanic dimension too, and ethnic tension between Balcks and Hispanics is high--check buried news stories in LA, where wars over which ethnic group is going to take over which neighborhood are ongoing.  Or even stuff like this now--Baltimore beating,   

Not being a fan of  Martin Luther, I shall quote him anyway:  "Humanity is like a drunken peasant trying to ride a horse.  We mount, fall off, climb back up, and fall off the other side"

The narrative is so deeply ingrained in the Liberal American Mind, that if I say this on my blog, I will be branded a hater, I may well get death threats, and all I've done is cite fact. No matter that the Black community is often violent, that black men go to prison in disparate numbers, not because they are black, but because they are found guilty because they are guilty of crime in numbers all out of proportion to their numbers in society.  No matter that they are more likely to act out violently againstthe Liberal Narratives other favored victims, gays.

Justice for Trayvon?  How about Justice for Zimmerman?  How about a just enough society that I don't need to check for ethnic identity before I can defend myself from an attack, or a thuggish boy who just hasn't got clue?

How about we finally confront the cancer of racism, and clear it out of our society, even when the racists aren't white?  Oh--that's right, we are a racist society, that teaches our young people, and tells our adults that ONLY white people can be racists.

It's Tuesday, so I'll Write About Sunday.

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said,

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law?
How do you read it?"
He said in reply,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your being,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind,
and your neighbor as yourself."
He replied to him, "You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live."

Luke 10: 25-28

Well, Ok then.  Straight forward, isn't it?

Ummm  No.

Lisa Grass, over at Catholic Bandita had some interesting things to say about the Theological Virtue of Charity (love) a week or two ago.  I'm not going to go into it, because one, I couldn't re-locate her article to quote directly from, and two, it's kind of tightly reasoned--not a lot of wiggle room.  But it does mean one thing that needs to be put out there:  Charity is the kind of supernatural love for us that God has, and that we are supposed to have for Him.  We are, however, incapable of this, unless we are to receive this through grace (which can be had for the asking).  Thi s supernatural love will then spill over into our relationships with others.

This is not romantic or fraternal love, is is supernatural.

Well, yesterday while I was saying the Novene to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (I am nothing, if not the king of the smooth transition!) something hit me in the Lords Prayer --"Forgive us Our Trespasses, as we Forgive those who trespass against us."   Well now, here's a conundrum--does this mean "at the same time" or "to the same extent"?  Either way, I'm in trouble.    I'm in trouble because Jesus is Lord, and we are called to love the Lord, and he told us "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". (Jn 14:15)

Well gee, he's taught me to pray that I'll be forgiven to the extent I forgive--and I have both a redneck temper and the ability to stay angry for years.  So right off the bat I'm in trouble.  I"m also in trouble in another way, through my own simple sinfulness. But there is a third source of trouble:

Catechesis int eh Church isn't very good.  I study a lot, but I will never be sure what I'm studying is sound.  Too many with degrees in Theology contradict one another, and what has been said before, and I can get distressingly confused over what exactly is commanded.   When I study read and follow a strict line, I get told that that is in itself and error and perhaps sinful, and when I read and study and take a more "merciful and forgiving" interpretation I'm told that that's an error and perhaps sinful.

Not to mention all the "nuances" I hear and read about, and the whole "for the poor" thing, etc.  And then, there is that  " with all your heart,with all your being,with all your strength,and with all your mind" clause, which doesn't leave me a whole lot of room for reservations.

Which leave me with the necessity of working things out "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) .

(For the record, yes, I do wish i was a Carmelite)