Thursday, October 23, 2014

Molon Labe

I'm admittedly impatient with people who are always speaking of nuance and shades of gray. Gray is the devil's favorite color. I'm impatient with nice Catholics who wring their hands and ask whatever shall they do about stuff like this:
Spurred by faculty and staff outrage over the refusal by two Catholic universities to pay for elective abortions, Gov. Jerry Brown's administration on Friday announced that health insurance companies in the state can no longer deny coverage for these procedures.
California's Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees HMOs, issued letters to seven insurance companies saying refusing to pay for any abortion, whether medically necessary or not, violates the state constitution and a 1975 state law.
"All health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally,'' department director Michelle Rouillard wrote in the two-page letter that also noted the decision becomes effective immediately.
Catholic organizations should calmly inform the governor, "You and your damned laws can go straight back to the bowels of hell from which you both came. We will not comply with this law under any circumstances. We will literally be damned if we help pay for the murder of infants. We will not pay any fines, nor will we respond to any court summons. If you don't like it, send your goons to come and get us. Go on Jerry. Make us all famous."

Catholic universities and hospitals need to decide which is more important, God or Mammon.

Chivalry is dead because women want it to be dead

Poor bastard is getting heat from both red pillers and manjawed harridans:
Dating is done. Seriously, who goes on dates anymore? It’s all about hooking up, getting a number, grabbing a drink and getting down. I think I’m the only single guy I know that actually takes a girl out to a restaurant on a first date. There’s a reason for this.
I know what that reason is, though I suspect he doesn't.
 If you take a girl out and show her you’re more than some douche looking to just get in her pants, odds are, you’re going to get a second date, at least. Call me old fashioned, but a nice dinner is worth the money to get to know someone to some extent.
For me, it’s not about the money, and I get why people are stingy when it comes to going out with people they don’t know. Look, I get it. Sh*t costs money. But really, what’s the difference? Treat yourself to a good meal, and if the company is good, why the hell wouldn’t you take a girl out to a nice dinner?
I've never found dinner to be a good venue for a first date. You spend a lot of the time chewing food. A better way to get to know her on a first date is take her out for either coffee or adult beverages.
All I know is, the more I look around, the less I see men treating women the way that we’re raised to. What happened to paying for dinners and drinks? What happened to pulling out chairs and holding doors? What happened to walking on the outside, closest to the street and all that sh*t?
Articles like these always presuppose that men just spontaneously decided to stop being chivalrous out of the clear blue sky. The more reasonable, and more accurate, explanation is that most men are responding to how women behave in the 21st century.
The real problem here is that women, for one reason or another, have become complacent and allowed men to get away with adhering to the bare minimum.
We no longer have to put in the effort of flowers, chocolates, dates, etc., and if we do, we come off as stage-five clingers. I’m not looking for a girlfriend, nor am I looking for a wife.
Women are "allowing" men to get away with this. As if they're our mothers instead of women in whom we are romantically and sexually interested. If you're looking for neither a girlfriend nor a wife, and you're not a cad looking to get into her pants, then you're just another one of her beta orbiters, one of her court eunuchs.
Eventually, I feel that women will wise up and start asking for the things that they deserve, the things used to be automatic and expected of men, like holding a door, pulling out a chair, and paying for dinners.
Until then, men are going to get away with putting in the bare minimum and receiving what we ultimately want anyway – sex. It’s pretty obvious that women own the cards, and when they start acting like it, they’ll finally start getting dinner from places that don’t deliver.
If men can get sex just by doing the bare minimum, then why the hell would they put in more effort? It used to be simple: if men wanted sex, they had to get married. If men can get sex without marrying, then they won't marry. People respond to incentives.

Chivalry presupposes that 1) men and women are different, and 2) women are the weaker (fairer if you prefer) sex. Those are not popular attitudes in a 21st century feminized society. Chivalry is also a two way street: if men are expected to be gentlemen, then women are expected to be ladies. If you expect me to treat you like a lady, then you had damn well better act like a lady. If some manjawed ballbreaker presumes to be my equal in every way, and she still expects me to pay for everything, then she's just asking like an entitled princess, putting the lie to her presumption to equality.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The first feast day of St. John Paul II

Pope St. John Paul II passed on to his eternal reward one week after I was received into the Catholic Church. Sometimes I wonder if that was what pushed him over the edge.

I credit JPII with starting me on the road to being the Traditionalist crank that I am today. Like many converts, I was high on papal encyclicals when I was studying the faith on my own. It must have been the second or third confession I ever made, but I got into an argument with the priest over moral theology. He told me that it's virtually impossible to commit a mortal sin unless you consciously and willfully intend to reject God forever when you perform the sinful act. I retorted, "Excuse me Father, but JPII condemned that idea." Which he did, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. The short version is that some actions are objectively evil and no intentions or circumstances can possibly make an objectively evil act into a good act, although they can lessen the acting subject's culpability before God.

The priest got huffy over my citing JPII but still gave me absolution. Even before I became Catholic, I knew that progressives and heretics tended to bemoan the reactionary tyranny of JPII and how he was obstructing the Spirit of Vatican II with his Polish obstinacy and outdated theology. I always sigh and say, "If only, if only..."

The incident got me wondering what else priests and bishops were either getting wrong or actively concealing. I was already dismayed over how Protestantized the Novus Ordo appeared compared to what I was expecting. That was when I decided to learn more about Vatican II. I knew of it, of course, but I didn't realize it's watershed status until later. Nine years later and I'm the lovable Trad grump I am today.

Ideally we shouldn't need to use labels like Traditionalist because all Catholics are Traditionalists to some degree. Even the most wacked out liberal priest puts on vestments for Mass that have existed in one form or another since Antiquity. Labels have become necessary these days. How else are we to distinguish between heretics like Kasper and good men like Burke? So I accept the label of Traditionalist when others use it to describe me, and I use it as a shorthand way of describing the kind of Catholicism I signed up for and expected to find in every parish. It's not in every parish, to put it mildly.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Wooden ships and iron men

Happy Trafalgar Day. We didn't fight in the Napoleonic wars, but I'm always happy to toast a French military defeat.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Wooo, getting some cold cuts baby

The good guys won this time.
An additional point concerns Cardinal Burke, this exemplary servant of the Church. He has been nothing if not humble, accepting all humiliations patiently. The way he has been treated by Francis is embarrassing for the pope, not for him. Consider how different John Paul II and Benedict XVI were with outright dissenters, such as the anti-African German cardinal Walter Kasper, and many others of a similar vein, who were never humiliated and threatened of demotion and exile, despite their position -- quite the opposite. This was not because these popes were "soft", but because they fought for the unity of the Church. 

Francis, on the other hand, played with fire and brought the Church to the brink of the precipice, her most serious division in five centuries, in order to implement what even his nominee Cardinal Pell called "the secular agenda"; not even in a Synod whose members were chosen by him and steered by Cardinal Baldisseri under his command was he able to achieve even 2/3 of the votes on the issues close to his heart, even after they had been considerably watered down. Compare and contrast this to both Vatican I and Vatican II where not even the most controversial issues reached this level of disagreement from the clear will of the Pope -- and even when there was a much smaller proportion of "non placet" votes (even fewer than 10%), the texts were changed to achieve agreements as close to unanimity as possible. 
If it wasn't already painfully clear, the problem is Francis. He's never outright said so, but anyone with eyes in his head can see that he wanted the change in pastoral discipline. The heretic Kasper was a convenient front man, but the Synod was Francis's baby. Francis has enough political sense to not publicly break with the other bishops, but everyone can see the price Burke paid for heroically defending the orthodox faith.

So what's a Catholic to do when we have a disastrous pope like Francis? Choose your blogs carefully indeed. I'm not as tough a critic as Mundabor, but it's amusing (in a painful sense) to see the mental gymnastics the New Advent and Patheos type bloggers put themselves through to assure us it's business as usual. I'm sorry, but it's not. The buck stops with the pope. He very nearly caused the Church to blow up, but the Holy Spirit intervened at the last second to prevent a major compromise in doctrine.

A Catholic's faith should be in Jesus, not the pope. The pope is not an omnipotent tyrant who can change doctrine at will. If you are an orthodox Catholic you have a duty to rebuke your superiors when they say or do wrong. Like St. Thomas More said in another stormy debate over marriage, silence means consent. I haven't watched Voris as much lately, but maybe this will move him to break his self-imposed silence about Pope Francis. Ideally we shouldn't criticize the pope because there'd be no need to. But as any barely historically literate ankle-biter can tell you, we've had plenty of bad popes in history. God has inflicted another bad pope upon us. We should take that as a well earned rebuke. The Holy Spirit does not choose the pope but he has a way of making sure we get the popes we deserve.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

I'll be damned if they get the better of us again without a fight

Many thanks to the good men and women at Rorate Caeli for keeping the Kasperite heretics' feet to the fire.

You don't have to take their word for it though. Even non-Trad mainstream conservative sources like the National Catholic Register and Father Z are acknowledging that the fix may be in.

I wasn't even alive during the 1960s, but it seems like Vatican II all over again. The progressives bum rushed the poor bewildered Trads before they could even get their boots on back then. It looks as though the liberals and heretics are about to do so again. Thanks to the internet, they can no longer do so in secret at least.

If nothing else, this debacle should teach lay Catholics to stop being so docile. There's a long ingrained reluctance to ever criticize clerics about anything, ever. That can be a good thing when we're presenting a united front against the world. But we've taken it to ridiculous extremes. One of the problems is that the average Catholic knows so little about the faith. Sometimes a little knowledge can be dangerous though. Catholics trust their priests and bishops to be orthodox at the very least, but we can't take this for granted anymore. We haven't been able to take it for granted for decades.

We have a duty to know our faith well enough to recognize the wolves in sheep's clothing our Lord warned us about. And very often those wolves will be wearing Roman collars. Some people have thrown up their hands in despair saying that even if we're aware of what the heretics are up to, there's nothing we can do to stop them. Maybe not from a worldly perspective. We can always pray. Prayer is even more important when we can't take direct action. Pray that the good and orthodox bishops may have the courage to say no to the Kasperite heretics and even Pope Francis if necessary. And pray that God have mercy on our souls, because it's a sign that he's very angry with us when he allows his Church to fall into the hands of worldly heretics like Kasper.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

The crisis of the Church is a crisis of bishops indeed

We should keep praying of course, but I admit it's a bit discouraging that the leaks are telling us that the fix is in:
A 6,000-word document, made available in the original Italian, and excellent English, French, German, Spanish translations immediately on early Monday Morning "summarizing" the views of the first week of the Synod that had ended on Friday evening, with details published on Saturday morning? So in one full day, Sunday (or in 2 days, 48 hours, if all hours of Saturday are included, with no time for meals or sleep), the rapporteur and his secretaries gathered the views of all the Fathers, identified and separated those portions that had more widespread support and thus represented a truly Synodical opinion, wrote, and translated this 6,000-word report? Has the Vatican suddenly become the most efficient bureaucracy in the history of the universe?

Or was it all simply prepared and translated beforehand, to create "facts on the ground" that could not be reversed and created pressure on the Synod Fathers during this second week
Ideally, it should be the bishops who guide, cajole, and when necessary kick lay people in the ass to keep them away from rank heresy. In the 21st century Catholic Church, it's usually the other way around.