The satanists believe abortion is a “religious” sacrament.
On Wednesday the Satanic Temple announced they will open a “religious medical services clinic” in New Mexico. The clinic will provide free religious medication abortion care to women in the state.
The Satanic Temple hopes to expand operations into other states, including those that do not allow clinicians to perform abortions. “TST is proud to expand reproductive options for our members. This is just the beginning,” said Erin Helian, Executive Director of Campaigns. “We will remain steadfast as we continue the fight to uphold reproductive justice in the United States.” The Satanic Temple has argued in its lawsuits against Texas that under the First Amendment, and federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, its abortion ritual is exempt from restrictions and bans because the procedure is an essential part of religious practice.
Finally, truth in advertising: let us pray these devil worshippers display their name writ large and proud above the door so passers by may see precisely what sort believe killing the unborn is just ducky. Maybe, just maybe, it may persuade potential users of their facilities to seek the plentiful alternatives. Just maybe.
President Joe Biden said Sunday he has asked his staff to see if he “has the authority” to declare a public health emergency to address abortion access, a move that could release additional funding and give federal health officials more power to respond to state-level abortion restrictions, following calls from progressive Democrats to take sweeping action to protect abortion rights after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Only in 21st-Century America would putatively enlightened Democrat leaders consider too many unborn babies coming to term a “public health emergency.” 1984 was long ago but doublethink not only thrives but prospers.
One fine day, when there is a real pope in the Vatican (please, no accusations of sedevacantism–yet, anyway), he will stand up to the likes of our president and Congresswoman Pelosi, who speak out of both sides of their mouths when they simultaneously proclaim their Catholicism and their enthusiastic support of unrestricted abortion. If a supreme pontiff were simply to call out these hypocrites by name, sharply addressing them for their promotion of a monstrous sin (it wouldn’t hurt to excommunicate them too, but we’re trying to be realistic), this crank at least believes it would provide a huge boost to Catholics and non-Catholics alike striving to end the slaughter of the innocents in the womb.
No such bourgeois silliness as having God in her life or believing in sin, but only that of being white, and by golly she feels just terrible about it. What to do, what to do? How to express requisite meae maximae culpae?
Mortification of the flesh is out–it hurts!–but some form of punishment to self is in order, a sort of self-flagellation-lite. And behold! The dame has found oh-so-easy penance by holding up a poster in the public square proclaiming not only does she as a white person suck, but, in the spirit of collectivism, all white people suck.
A thought crosses the mind though. Do whites claiming victim status, e.g., those who identify as LGBTQI+, suck as well?Perhaps do they suck less? Does there exist a proportional measure of victimhood to suckness? Or is it more complicated, with sufficient variables requiring calculus to determine the exact degree how much, say, a white, but BIPOC pederast sucks in contrast with a straight white Catholic Marine, married with children? Or could it even be a blond, blue-eyed male Skowegian is free from the stain of whiteness so long as there’s a strain of victimhood in his mix?
All food for thought the above, but for the nonce let us empathize with the lady above as she acknowledges and bewails her manifold sins and wickedness of being white. May she at last find peace, at least until tomorrow and she’s out there again.
Via PJ Media comes word liberal éminence grise,Jonathan Alter, writing in the New York Times, has thrown President Biden to the wolves; the slew of secret documents that keep popping up all over the place, he writes, ” torpedoes the faux president’s chances of reelection and that these events have damaged his (get ready for this) “core political brand of honor and decency.”
Disregarding the second claim of Alter’s, he also omits the real reason why dopey Joe’s reelection bid has been scuttled by his actions. By committing the same offense for which Donald Trump is being hammered (in fact it’s worse, unlike Trump he wasn’t president at the time), a powerful campaign issue has been snatched away from the Democrats.
It would have been much to Biden’s advantage had his administration not made such a royal stink over Trump’s doings, i. e., siccing the Justice Department, from the Attorney General on down, on the former president. If they had been reasonably sane dealing with Trump, when reports were first coming out Biden had done something similar, his administration, with the assistance of a compliant media, could easily have “disappeared’ the matter and it would have been forgotten in a short time. Now though Republicans have a splendid tu quoque defense to throw right back at Trump’s accusers every time the matter is raised.
Logicians will insist, and Democrats will loudly parrot them, tu quoque is a logical fallacy and not a legitimate form of argument. To which the only logical response is, tell that to the voters.
To assure variety for the whiny poor dear, the organizers of this event should vary the cuisine: not just beef, but lamb, goat, oxen, pork, poultry, and if she’s a seafood hater, lobster.
On the other hand, perhaps a taste of her own medicine might prove beneficial. In addition to real food, throw on the barbie quinoa, sorghum, teff, and anything else those people like to eat (with a generous chaser of self-righteousness). Make sure there are plenty of fans to aim the fumes from the friendly fire, as it were, right back at her.
Priests should grant absolution in the confessional even when the penitent has no intention to repent, the Pope has said in a speech which has shocked seminarians…
In his address, he ordered students for the priesthood ‘not to be clerical, to forgive everything,’ adding that ‘if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all…’
Priests who deny penitents absolution are ‘delinquents,’ the Pontiff said, according to the Church Militant website…
If accurate, the Pope’s remarks appear to put him at odds with the moral theology expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which emphasises that contrition occupies the ‘first place’ of any act of a penitent and that it involves ‘the resolution not to sin again.’
Here the story gets downright bizarre.
According to reports, Francis also used his speech to rant against “f***ing careerists who f*** up the lives of others”.
The Pope also criticised “those who climb to show their a**”, the Italian media outlet Daily Compass reported.
Canon 335 of the present Code of Canon Law directs that special laws are to be followed if the Apostolic See becomes vacant or impeded. Although John Paul II issued new rules in 1996 for dealing with a vacancy, there are still no special laws governing what to do if the Apostolic See becomes impeded. This is a rather serious vacuum in the church’s constitutional law.
No kidding. Who knows how much damage Francis will inflict upon the Holy Catholic Church before he is called to his maker? He has already harshly disparaged observant Catholics preferring traditional worship, accusing them of promoting disunity and making it clear by the language he uses he despises them. He has also made it vastly more difficult for the traditional Latin mass to be celebrated. What additional damage he manages to effect is anyone’s guess, but this writer does not intend to be around to see it.
The Synod on Synodality: the Catholic Church heading down a well-worn and familiar path.
Read below the words of Hugh Hunter, a former Anglican, now a Catholic, who in the pages of Crisis Magazine writes about the late Cardinal Pell’s attack on Pope Francis’s Synod on Synodality, drawing some appalling parallels between the Synod and the sad history of the Anglican Church.
Hunter posts a link to a Vatican-issued document summarizing what has transpired thus far in the Synod. He suggests the late Cardinal Pell’s scathing critique of the Synod, which he called a “toxic nightmare,” published in The Spectator just after his death, was his last gift to the Catholic Church. Perhaps so, and though this writer believes it is likely too little, too late, it’s well worth reading both the Cardinal’s and Hunter’s critiques in their entirety.
Before considering Hunter’s going over of the depressing content of the Pope’s summary, let’s have a look at the way the its presented. It begins thus, with scripture.
Crayon, digital crayon, as if it were a children’s book. The Pope’s recurring theme is the “big tent.” (there are digital crayon rendering of tents throughout, for example, this one.
Francis’s point is the Church is a tent that should be greatly enlarged so as include people of all walks of life, the unbaptized, atheists, heterodox, you name it, without the Church making any efforts to bring them and their beliefs into accord with Catholic teachings. Essentially, it’s: “Whatever you think is okay, no demands from us, perish the thought. No one is excluded.”
Hunter writes:
This idea for filling the pews will be familiar, Pell wrote, to ex-Anglicans. As a convert from Anglicanism myself, I can tell you that he’s right. I remember it growing up, because I watched it play out in almost every church I attended. We were going to show everyone that they would be accepted at church. No longer would we be gatekeepers! And so we threw open the doors…and no one came.
Of course, they didn’t, why should they have? If zero demands were made of them, what were these potentials possibly to gain?
Hunter continues.
And then we started second guessing. Maybe we were gatekeepers after all. Was the music too old-fashioned? Was the language of the liturgy too hard? Were the homilies too serious? Were teachings on suicide or divorce or abortion or homosexuality putting people off? Were we leaving out popular victim groups that we could shoehorn into the faith?
The mere fact that someone could identify a potential hindrance became a reason to abolish the thing or leave it, to quote Pell, “parked in a pluralist limbo where some choose to redefine sins downwards and most agree to differ respectfully.” Soon the churches of my youth would find they had compromised on so many things that they had changed beyond recognition, except in one respect: they were still empty.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.
Hunter continues.
We’re trying to build a tent big enough to accommodate everybody. But the pluralist says you don’t need to pick a tent. No matter what tent you pick, we all end up at the same place. Come and go between tents as much as you like. Sample Wicca, try astrology, it really doesn’t matter. You don’t even need a tent. You are fine where you are.
Hugh Hunter witnessed the all-but-demise of the Episcopal Church. So did I. Pope Francis is leading the Holy Catholic Church to the same dismal fate, but I refuse to witness the rerun. I have had enough. I am off–East.
An eerily prescient novel well worthy of our attention today.
With the continual barrage of dark and depressing news issuing from Rome, Washington, D. C., and elsewhere these days, it is difficult to avoid making comparisons of the present state of things and where we are headed, in this country and much of the west, with the dystopian realm of the Antichrist in Robert Hugh Benson’s masterpiece, The Lord of the World.
Benson, an Anglican priest who was received into the Catholic Church and later ordained, wrote this work in reaction to H. G. Wells’s strong support and belief that atheism, Marxism, and eugenics were the keys to paradise on earth. A century later, we can see who called it correctly, though our sages in government, academe, and lately in commerce, don’t seem to have learned a thing.
On the flyleaf of the edition this writer owns, it mentions The Lord of the World was a favorite of the late Pope Benedict XVI, which comes as no surprise. What is surprising is the novel is also claimed to be a favorite of Pope Francis. Perhaps so, but it seems to this writer he regards it less as a novel and more as a how-to guide.
THE TAOS TATLER. 