Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Back in the saddle

I'm sure my five loyal readers have missed me. My new job has kept me occupied for the last several weeks but now my schedule is more or less set in stone: I work overnight shifts, 11 pm to 7 am. Your body adjusts quickly once you've done it for a few nights in a row. I keep myself fueled with Earl Grey tea, hot wings, energy drinks, and cigarettes. Therefore, manosphere denizens who stumble upon this blog should not take fitness tips from me. You shouldn't be taking them from a man with the handle "Beefy Levinson," anyway.

My job forces me into close quarters with the lower classes. Often enough they're decent people who have allowed meth or alcohol to destroy their health. It's only confirmed my belief that modern people are desperately wanting for some higher purpose. Whether you're a king or a little street sweeper, sooner or later you dance with the reaper. In the mean time, people need a sense of belonging to a higher order, of a hierarchy in which they recognize their place in the cosmos. Otherwise, life becomes a drudge with binge drinking and drugs to relieve the existential tedium.

One morning a customer and I shared a smoke together. Somehow our conversation moved to my personal background, and I told him I was in the seminary for two years.

"Oh yeah? I was an alter boy."

As he was in his sixties, I replied, "Oh yeah? Et introibo ad altare Dei..."

"Uh... ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam... Christ, I can't believe I still remember that."

"It's like the Hotel California man. You check in but you never check out."

For those who found me via Return of Kings, I should resume my normal publishing schedule this week. I've got a backlog of articles built up so you'll get your fix of hot doses of truth soon enough.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Book Review: The Five Beasts of St. Hildegarde, by Reid Turner

Apocalyptic predictions have always been with us. Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like more and more people sense that something has gone astray in the world. To those with even a modicum of historical knowledge, civilization has been going downhill for a long time. Families are dissolving, the mass migration of Third World peoples is creating strains on the resources of the First World countries they are mass invading, and trust in political leaders and institutions is at an all time low. Author Reid Turner graciously sent me a complimentary copy of his book, The Five Beasts of St. Hildegard: Prophetic Symbols of Modern Society, in which he examines the prophecies of the eponymous saint, elevated to the rank of Doctor of the Church by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012.

Hildegarde's date of birth is unknown, but she wrote one of the largest bodies of letters to survive the Middle Ages. Blessed with mystical visions since childhood, Pope Eugenius III believed they came from the Holy Spirit and gave her his blessing to record them for posterity. Turner focuses on her visions of the end times as told in Part III, Chapter 11 of her work Scivias. By their very nature, mystical visions can be difficult to explain, but Turner's sobering commentary explains how well this one matches to the last 140 years or so of Western history.

Hildegarde speaks of five "ferocious epochs of temporal rule," that presage the coming of the Anti-Christ. Each epoch was symbolized by a beast. The first is the fiery dog, corresponding roughly with the period from 1870 to 1914. This time was characterized by people with biting temperaments, that burned with passions for their personal causes but not for God's justice. The second period is that of the yellow lion, from 1914 to 1945. The countries of the West would be eager for combat but the long drawn out conflict would weaken and tire them as the color yellow began to show.

The time of the pale horse, from 1945 to 1991, was a time when the people, tired of war, began to drown themselves in lust and licentiousness. This was, of course, the era of the Sexual Revolution and all of its destructive consequences for the hardiness of the West and the health of the Church. The fourth era is that of the black pig, from 1991 to the present. It's characterized by leaders who wallow in the filth of corruption and impurity. The pale horse represented fatigue after the cultural and sexual excesses of the times, but with the black pig, the hippies of the 60's have grown up and control the Establishment now. They happily diverge from the commandments of God and the natural law in their public positions.

The final era is that of the grey wolf. We have not reached it yet, but Hildegarde describes it as a time of even greater social unrest before the coming of the error of errors: the anti-Christ. She said that the people will "rob and plunder" each other, neither black nor white but grey in their cunning, dividing and conquering the rulers of the realms. Each animal is portrayed as having a black rope in its mouth, symbolizing the people's attachments to that era's particular sin. The grey wolf is different however: it's rope has strands of black and white. The white strands symbolize that there is hope in this era; some people will still hold to the true faith and resist the evils of their time through ardent wonders.

This book, like most Catholic apocalyptic works, makes for a sobering read. When we think of the end times, we imagine it mostly in Protestant terms. Not even most Catholics know about the rich theology and mystical works concerning the end times that are part of our heritage. Turner's book whets the appetite for those who would like to know more. I recommend it.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

"A government of laws and not men"

As much as I like John Adams, he was only half right when he portrayed a government of laws and not men as the ideal. Laws are written, interpreted, and enforced by men. For example, there is ample evidence that the authors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to enable chain migration and birthright tourism. The Founding Fathers surely did not intend for the federal government to become the gargantuan monster it is today, and yet here we are.

I alluded to it in my previous entry, and I will expand upon it here. Modernity presents us with a choice: either enforce the laws exactly as they are written, or else we will descend into barbarism and anarchy as everyone ignores whatever laws they dislike. In practice, everyone knows that doing the right thing sometimes means defying the law, whether it's the Fugitive Slave Act, Jim Crow, or Roe v. Wade. Liberals cheered for Gavin Newsom when he ordered San Francisco county clerks to issue marriage licenses to sodomites in defiance of Proposition 8. At Nuremberg, the West decided that "I was just following orders," is not a license to do evil.

Civilized society rests on the bedrock of natural law. It's well and good to enforce the laws exactly as they are written, but even then they will not and cannot be equally enforced. Laws against trespassing do not equally apply to us both if you are the homeowner at 1 Elm Street and I am not. Government simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of one alternative instead of others. Our representative republican form of government discriminates against those who would prefer a Catholic monarchy. Liberalism discriminates against those men who would be happier living like vikings: looting, pillaging, and raping.

Don't misunderstand: other things being equal, I believe laws should be enforced as they are written. But in the everyday messiness of human life, our rulers have to make authoritative discriminations at the level of particulars. With apologies to the prophet Chesterton, a man who doesn't believe in the natural law doesn't believe in no law, but he will believe in any law.

Since laws are enforced by men, it behooves us to ensure that we are ruled by good men.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

No sir, that is an unlawful order and I will not obey

Kim Davis is the first of what will be many I hope. Not that I hope more Christians go to jail because I think they should uphold laws enforcing sodomite "marriage," but that they go to jail because they refuse to compromise their convictions. You know how sick American Christianity truly is when even self-professed Christians demand that Davis carry out an unlawful order.

Every time some case like this comes along, the legal positivism bandwagon clatters through town. Goodthinkers argue that clerks and other public officials must - they absolutely must - uphold the laws exactly as they are written no matter their "personal feelings." The personal feelings line is actually meant to discourage us from doing any hard thinking on whether there is a conflict between the positive law and the natural law.

Ironically, there is nothing in the United States Constitution or any statute anywhere in the English speaking world that states we must embrace legal positivism. It's actually a fairly recent innovation in Anglo-American judicial philosophy, and not one that is without critics besides religious wacko extremists like me.

The natural law is the necessary basis of positive law:
1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
Other things being equal, we have a moral obligation to obey civil laws even if our rulers are wicked. We may elect the cryogenically frozen brain of Hitler president, but we still have to drive on the right side of the road. However, that obligation ceases and we gain a moral obligation to disobey any civil law that purports to contradict the natural law. "I was just following orders," is not a valid excuse to do evil.

The choice that is presented to Christian public officials - either enforce the law or resign - is a false dilemma that begs the question. There is no problem if you do not presuppose legal positivism. The left-liberal option of jumping out of the positivist frying pan and into the emanating post-modern penumbral fire is also false. Both represent attempts to push the natural law outside of the Overton Window and replace it with the Nietzschean will to power.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Only Nixon could go to China

Pope Francis unilaterally grants the SSPX faculties for the Year of Mercy:
The Society of St. Pius X learned, through the press, of the provisions taken by Pope Francis on the occasion of the upcoming Holy Year. In the last paragraph of his letter addressed September 1, 2015, to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, the Holy Father writes:

«I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Society of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.»

The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extrdaordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.

During this year of conversion, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will have at heart to exercise with renewed generosity their ministry in the confessional, following the example of tireless dedication which the holy Curé of Ars gave to all priests.
Since Vatican II, Catholics have taken great pains to speak of Protestants and the Orthodox as our separated brethren, whereas before we called them heretics and schismatics. It's been mostly a one sided love affair, but ecumenism is a huge industry within the Church so it's not going away any time soon, alas. However, when it came to the SSPX, even the most liberal Catholic ecumaniacs became the second coming of Pope Innocent III, hurling thunderous anathemas and interdictions from on high and loudly demanding that the SSPX submit to the pope's authority and repent in sack cloth and ashes. Would that they were so eager for obedience to the papacy in other matters.

It's obvious by now that Pope Francis is a liberal who doesn't care to get into the finer points of doctrine. Time and again, conservative Catholics have wound up with egg on their faces when they denounced a liturgical abuse - such as washing women's feet on Maundy Thursday - only for Pope Francis to do it himself. Ironically, because he doesn't care all that much about doctrine or canon law, Pope Francis has pretty much brought the SSPX back into the Church's good graces. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to revoke their faculties once the Year of Mercy is over barring any major transgressions by the SSPX.

Whether he did this with full knowledge beforehand or unwittingly, Pope Francis has done a good thing here. Here's hoping the SSPX is fully integrated into the mainstream Church; she desperately needs a homeopathic injection of that old time Tradition.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Aristocrats of the soul

One of my six loyal readers, Mark Citadel, has a new column up at Return of Kings entitled Why Modern Men Must Become Aristocrats of the Soul:
If one were to compare the men of the traditional world to those of the modern world, certain differences in constitution would become readily apparent. While institutions and environment will alter the spiritual constitution of men if allowed to become influential enough, in the grand sense, a people’s men will actually find more influence going in the opposite direction.
If a society succeeds, it is likely due to the character of its men. If a society fails, so too is this likely due to the character of its men. For this reason, those differences between men of two time periods before and during an epoch such as that which we find ourselves in cannot be ignored, for rather than products, they find themselves more as integral causal factors.
Read the rest there. I'm impressed at how Mark is able to speak about transcendent things without bludgeoning the reader with a specific creed. In my own columns at RoK, I try to write in a way that will spark the reader's curiosity enough to study these things on their own. I don't claim to be a disinterested observer; I want everyone on earth to enter the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. My own conversion was in many ways a case of self-study. I was curious about the faith and studied it until I was compelled to enter. You never know how much you truly influence someone on this side of the veil.

Friday, August 28, 2015

My new column at Return of Kings

In this week's column, I briefly talk about my time in the seminary and recount my field trip with our diocesan exorcist:
The one time my writing has ever gotten me in trouble in real life was when I was a seminarian. I wrote to a priest friend back home about my experiences, describing both the good and the bad. Something I said pissed him off because by the end of that year the rector expressed “concerns” about me and wanted a meeting with my vocation director and me. That was the beginning of the end of my time as a seminarian.
The vocation director at the time also served as the diocesan exorcist. On the morning of our meeting with the rector, he said, “I need to make a stop along the way. You’re welcome to assist if you want.”
“Assist with what?” I asked.
“I need to bless and cleanse an infested house,” he replied.
“Oh. Uh… what do I need to do?”
“Well, first we both need to go to confession.”
Read the rest there. The exorcist is currently serving as a parish pastor. During a spell of unemployment, I did volunteer work at his parish as a way to keep the resume updated. He's a good man and a good priest, but I wish he had a more forceful personality when dealing with parishioners, heh.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Mass hysteria

Sometimes Catholics tell me, "The Novus Ordo can be quite beautiful when it's celebrated like the Traditional Latin Mass." Yes, it can be. However, if you're going to Trad up the Novus Ordo by adding Latin, chant, incense, bells, organs and all the rest then why not just go ahead and celebrate the TLM? For what specific reasons do you prefer the NO to the TLM?

If you compare the two missals side by side, you see that they are significantly different in more ways than language and music. They have different assumptions about God, Jesus Christ, the Church, and man's relationship with them. That's why so many bishops and seminary faculty are violently allergic to anything that smacks of pre-Vatican II Catholicism: the old Mass is incompatible with their liberalism. That's why it wasn't so long ago that expressing an interest in the old Mass or wearing a cassock to class could get a man expelled from seminary on the spot. These days they'll just have you sit down in their office and ask you if you're still insane.

In my early days as a convert, I always found Sunday Mass to be something of a let down. I'd spend the week reading apologetics, the writings of the saints and Doctors and popes, and Sacred Scripture. I'd get myself all pumped up on how I was going to kick ass and take names for the Lord after the Eucharist strengthened my soul for the week. I'd be eager to witness the sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar. Then I'd go to Mass and be surrounded by soccer dads in cargo shorts and polo shirts, old ladies with sensible hair-dos and a taste for gossiping before Mass, children who played with their phones, empty spaces where unmarried young adults should be, and a priest who assured us that Jesus is our boyfriend and the real point of Christianity is to be nice to everyone.

One of the urgent problems in the Church is the Grand Canyon sized chasm that exists between praxis and doctrine in most dioceses. If we really believe this stuff, then it ought to be reflected in the way we worship.

Friday, August 21, 2015

You fairy, you company man

Donald Trump is the only candidate who gets it:


"Are you aware that the term 'anchor baby,' that's an offensive term. People find that hurtful..."

That smarmy little bastard may as well have asked if Trump still eats puppies. The question was designed to trap him in one of two ways. He expected Trump to either say he was not aware of that in which case he'd be portrayed as an insensitive, out of touch plutocrat, or to apologize for backpedal in some way in which case he'd confirm his racism.

Trump refuses to concede the frame. "You mean it's not politically correct?" The low-t manlet was clearly surprised by a Republican who didn't immediately back down. Look it up in the dictionary indeed. Perhaps he meant the urban dictionary?

"The American born children of undocumented immigrants?" The reporter unwittingly confirmed the truth behind the term anchor baby. The Donald delivered the coup de grace with a dismissive, "I'll use anchor baby." Message to the reporter: I don't give a shit about your feelings, thank you, fuck you, good bye.

If Trump keeps this up - and he doesn't strike me as the type to bow to media pressure - then he'll win every Republican primary by a landslide.

"But his stands on the issues!"

The Right loves Trump because they're starving for someone, anyone who is willing to speak realtalk, no matter how tentatively. Hell, I might even go to the polls here in California if he makes it that far.

My new post at Return of Kings

This week I urge the reader to be of sound mind as well as sound body:
The existence of the soul is of utmost importance for both philosophy and theology. It is the animating principle of our bodies by which we think, feel, imagine, and remember. Spirituality takes for granted the distinction between soul and body, and belief in an afterlife necessarily implies that the soul can exist outside of the body.
Almost every culture and religion on earth has some idea of the soul. We infer its existence from the inevitable facts of life: birth, death, dreams, ideas, and abstractions all suggest the reality of something beyond the visible and material organism. The soul is internal to us, but to some extent it is independent of us, hence the term “my mind was wandering.”
To my knowledge, science has not devised a way of quantifying or measuring the soul, which means unreflective men will dismiss the question of its existence out of hand. Consider this though: our host Roosh displayed considerable willpower and fortitude in the recent battle of Montreal. We cannot use a machine to declare that Jones has 34 units of willpower and Smith has 50, yet we still speak of willpower as an objective reality.
We will briefly examine the history of the soul in Western thought, for it offers important lessons for all men.
Read the rest there.

The way my new gig is working out is that I work a lot of nights. I have the place mostly to myself so I turn it into my own personal roadhouse with the Beefy Levinson Awesome Mix (BLAM) on the play list. Folks who come in tell me I have good taste which is immensely gratifying. When you're up all night you need something to keep you motivated.


Saturday, August 15, 2015

Book Review: Bombs Away, by Harry Turtledove

In real life, Harry Truman refused Douglas MacArthur's request to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War. The premise of Harry Turtledove's latest alternate history novel is that Truman gives that permission. This is the early 1950's which means no ICBMs. Atom bombs are delivered the old fashioned way via B-29 superfortress and Tupolev Tu-4.

It's difficult to get into all the details without spoilers, but suffice it to say the Soviet Union does not appreciate the use of nuclear weapons against its ally China, so Stalin takes advantage of the situation to not only retaliate against America's allies but eventually launch a full scale invasion of Western Europe. Before the novel is even one hundred pages finished, the Soviets and Americans have nuked each other a dozen times over.

It's a Turtledove novel. If you're at all familiar with his work, this novel contains the usual stilted dialogue. Thankfully, Turtledove seems have given up writing sex scenes. Two things he does very well is portray the effects of atom bombs on cities and radiation sickness in civilians, and every day life in Stalinist Russia. He emphasizes how Soviet citizens teach themselves crimestop: they know what is true but they know better than to say so out loud. Here in the United States, speaking the truth can get you fired or socially ostracized. In Soviet Russia, it gets you sent to the gulag or killed. Two characters are listening to the radio after a major Western European city gets nuked. One of them says, "They make 300,000 deaths sound like such a big number. That's a slow day for Comrade Stalin." Turtledove is also great at communist propaganda-speak: "Forward, progressives of the world! Forward to victory against the reactionary imperialist dogs!"

The story is pretty depressing even by Turtledove standards. As per usual, there are dozens of viewpoint characters which makes it difficult to keep track of the entire cast. Stalin makes several appearances but we never get inside his mind. Truman is one of the viewpoint characters and you get to see how the use of several dozen atom bombs begins to weigh deeply on his conscience. I give it 4 out of 5 stars. Would nuke again.

Any blog entry about the Soviet Union makes Hell March mandatory:


Tuesday, August 11, 2015

My new post at Return of Kings

In this column I show how Pope Paul VI, weak though he was in many ways, was right all along when it came to his predictions in Humanae Vitae.
Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, are portrayed as puritanical and anti-sex. This raises a question: if Catholics hate sex so much, then why did they historically tend to have so many children? As recently as 100 years ago, child rearing was considered the proper object of marriage and sex. The blue pill script – go to college, get a good salaried job, marry young and for life, have two or three kids – retains its staying power because it used to be sound advice. The manosphere exists in part because it is sound advice no longer.
Read the rest there.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Never, ever back down

Online lynch mobs would disappear almost overnight if people would simply stop apologizing. For example, if I had shot Cecil the lion, I'd have tweeted a picture of myself with his head mounted above my fireplace and the caption, "U mad bro?" Roosh understands that, and he won. I admire his fortitude, and I'm not just saying that because he's my publisher. We haven't had much opportunity to talk outside a professional level, so I don't claim to know him well. I think the Church would bring in many more converts if she focused on those who are as disgusted by liberalism as orthodox Catholics.

If any of my five loyal readers are curious, the usual RoK schedule was shifted around to focus on the Battle of Montreal. My next column should appear as usual, and I'm confident it will have something to piss off everyone.

It's common among the kids to claim they don't believe in stereotypes and to righteously denounce those who make generalizations. For example, if I say that men are generally taller than women, some white kid who's been waiting his whole life to be offended will reply, "Oh yeah? Well I know a girl who's 6'4" and plays basketball! So haha, what now Beefy?"

Stereotypes and generalizations are essentially pattern recognition. People who score low in pattern recognition are not MENSA material, to put it charitably. In this case, Dalrock shows us again that women initiate two thirds of all divorces, and they are most likely to blow up their families in their early 20s when their SMV value is at its peak. The likelihood of divorce decreases as her age increases. I'll leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Players gonna play

I see articles like these with increasing frequency: young women sort of fret about the decline of marriage but then double down on how totally awesome it is to have so many hawt guys to choose from. That is up until they hit the Wall, when they scramble to lock down a provider who's willing to overlook her high N count.

The average man's attitude toward marriage hasn't changed much: "I'll do it if that's what it takes to keep her. Otherwise, no rush." As recently as 30 years ago, any man could easily find a wife if he wasn't actively avoiding marriage. It's women who are pushing the average age of first time marriage into the late twenties or early thirties. It's women who run for the hills if their guy gets too serious (i.e. is marriage minded) too soon. 30 years ago, a never married man of my age would be considered an odd duck, at best. Today, many of my friends have been through the divorce grinder and they say I'm fortunate to have avoided that.

Today the marriage minded man has to actively seek out a marriage minded woman, which is more difficult than it sounds even within a traditional religious community. Regular Mass going Catholic parents often encourage their daughters to pursue college and career in their 20's, which is a de facto putting off of marriage. It used to be commonplace for Catholic grandmas to play matchmaker for the single Catholic man in the pews. If he went to Mass every Sunday and had a steady job, he'd never lack for choices. That is no longer the case.

Players and sluts ye shall always have with you, but the world incentivizes young people to be that way. Catholics unwittingly reinforce the spirit of the world by embracing feminism and modernism. Catholics famously ignore the Church's teaching about the sinfulness of artificial contraception, which has contributed to the devolution of marriage from an institution devoted to rearing children to a public declaration of fuzzy feels. It's difficult enough to live the faith when you have a strong community to fall back on. It's harder still when you don't.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Life among the proles

Compared to the other major cities of California, Sacramento is low-key and conservative; think the 1950's era Democrats, as opposed to San Francisco where politics is a mix of ruthless tribal competition between the gays and the Asians, and Comintern hair-splitting on points of doctrine. Highway 50's western terminus is nearby:


As you drive east toward South Lake Tahoe, the big cities become small towns, and the towns become more monochromatic and working class. Think men with copstaches and women who are 30 but look 40. The day is done, the night is come, and all they want is their cheap beer, cigarettes, and scratchers. They'll crash at home, maybe watch TV for three or four hours, and then begin again tomorrow morning when they drop in to get more cigarettes, a 24 oz. coffee loaded with cream and sugar, maybe an energy drink, and a few candy bars.

Sandwiched between Sacramento and Placerville are the cities of El Dorado Hills and Folsom. They've got their substrata of poor and working class, but they are both significantly wealthier than the suburbs of Citrus Heights and Orangevale on the one side, Cameron Park and Shingle Springs on the other. In EDH and Folsom we have upper middle to upper class professionals who pull in six figures a year as lawyers, doctors, bankers, real estate brokers. They're the sort of people whose children prefer coke and heroin to the trashy meth and marijuana of the proles.

Although I'm more articulate than the average bear, I've always gotten along better with the proles than our wealthy, supposed betters. Yes, the people in the lower classes have often made and continue making bad decisions, but there's an honesty and unpretentiousness I've always appreciated. One of them said to be one day, "You don't talk much, do you Andrew?" I replied, "Talking? You mean that thing women and gays like?" She laughed and said, "I bet a lot of people don't pick up on that dry sense of humor of yours."

Your social life suffers a bit when you work nights, but it's enjoyable in the sense that people can be more easy going at that hour, and you can joke and laugh with them more as they're probably a little drunk or high or both.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Medieval Game

Cardinal Lothario of Segni, who went on to be elected Pope Innocent III in 1198, explains to Medieval men why they should avoid marriage:
1. "A wife competes to have the most expensive dresses and accoutrements, so that the upkeep of the wife always exceeds her husband's fortune..."

2. "In general, she sighs and cries, day and night, and gossips and grumbles."

3. She'll say [of another woman], "She is better dressed and can go out in public, and is honored there by everyone; while I am the most miserable, the only one to be looked down upon in the gathering of women, and am disparaged by all." 

4. "Only she wishes to be loved, only she to be praised; praise of another is treated suspiciously as a disgrace to herself."

5. "Everything she loves is to be loved, everything she rejects is to be hated." 

6. "She wishes to win, but her victory is worthless."

7. "She cannot bear to serve, but strives to dominate." 

8. "She wants to be allowed to do anything and not be prohibited from anything."

9. "If she is beautiful, it is easy to fall in love with her, and if she is ugly she will willingly do her best; but it is difficult to keep hold of what is loved by many, and troublesome to possess what not wishes to have."

10. "You can try it out before you buy a horse, an ass, an ox or a dog, clothes or a bed, even a cup or a jug; but a wife is only glimpsed with difficulty, so that she might displease before she is taken; whatever might come about in the end, she must be kept by necessity, even if she is fat, stinky, ill, idiotic, or even proud or irascible, or if she has any corrupted blemish."
Godless heathens and other Christians often wonder why celibacy is mandatory for Catholic clergy. Wouldn't they offer better advice to married couples if priests had firsthand knowledge of the joys and difficulties of marriage? Over a thousand years worth of discipline and theological work has gone into clerical celibacy so it's not going to change any time soon. Strictly speaking, the early Church never allowed priests to marry, but rather ordained married men. In other words, if an an unmarried man was ordained a priest, he could not marry later. Why would they need to anyway? Priests are already living in poverty, celibacy and obedience, ha.

Seriously though, the celibate Catholic priest often has keener insights into the nature of marriage by nature of his being an impartial outside observer. They've seen and heard it all within a few years of their ordinations. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop many of them from embracing the lies of feminism or progressivism. In the 21st century, the vast majority of lay people who work side by side with priests every day are women. In the United States, something like 80+ percent of all lay volunteers and employees at the parish and diocesan levels are women. Father has to tread carefully lest he be called onto the carpet at the chancery and scolded for not being paaaaastoral.

But as Pope Innocent III shows us, humans may invent new technologies and toys to amuse themselves but human nature never changes.

Music break

There's just something about 80's hair metal that really makes me believe in myself and that I can achieve great things.


Saturday, August 1, 2015

Rest in peace Hot Rod

61 may as well be 200 in professional wrestling years, but "Rowdy" Roddy Piper left us too soon. Truly one of the great wrestling villains of all time.


As fate would have it, this was his last interview:


You can choose whatever you like, so long as it's liberalism

Left- and right-liberals (also known as cuckservatives) both accept the premise that the highest principle of politics is freedom. They believe that we have transcended the petty religious, racial, and tribal squabbles of bygone eras and that history has culminated in liberalism, with right-liberals generally preferring liberalism as it was forty to fifty years ago. Liberalism sees itself as metaphysically neutral, an impartial umpire that ensures none of the tribes within its loving embrace oppresses the others. It's not a coincidence that the State has grown ever larger and more intrusive along with the vibrant diversity of the United States.

Freedom means we are able to choose what we wish to choose. Making freedom our highest principle is therefore contradictory as politics essentially means resolving disputes. Freedom as such makes no distinctions between good and evil. If Jones wants to sell the organs of murdered babies from a Planned Parenthood clinic and Smith thinks Jones should swing from a lamppost for doing so, they cannot both have what they want. If freedom is treated as the highest good, then discrimination between good and evil becomes impossible. All choices must be treated as equal and valid. Politics simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of a particular worldview. A metaphysically "neutral" politics is incoherent and naturally results in wickedness flourishing.

The other guiding principle of liberalism is equality. Equality means reconstructing society as though certain facts were not true such as men and women are different, or that there are intractable differences between races. The alt-right does a lot of good work exposing the follies of equalism, and more power to them. If you wish to permanently escape the mind trap of liberalism though, it's not enough to reject equality. That's only a half-way measure. You must also reject liberalism's idea of freedom.

Seven years later

In August 2008, I resigned from my job to enter the seminary and study to become a Catholic priest. I thought that by August 2015, I'd be in some small rural parish somewhere, celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reconciling sinners to God, and preaching the true doctrine which the people had been deprived of for so long. In reality, I'm almost right back where I started, a good deal more embittered and cynical about the Church but pleased with both my new day job and my writing gig with Return of Kings.

The one time my writing has ever gotten me in trouble was in the seminary, heh. As recently as 20 years ago, most American seminaries were hellholes of heresy and homosexuality. It's not nearly that bad anymore. They really have improved. But the scars of those dark days remain and it shows in what the seminary administration chooses to focus on and what not to focus on. I said so in a letter to the priest who was my godparent at my baptism. He complained to the vocation director who didn't think it was a big deal because I was, in fact, right about what I said. That year I was the cross bearer at my diocese's priestly ordinations. That same priest saw me still there in good standing so he complained directly to the seminary.

The rector used all of the usual Church flavored psychobabble: "Andrew seems like a deeply angry young man…" I could see where the meeting was going, and I was thinking, "I wasn't before but I'm getting that way now." Three years later, he himself was fired by the Archbishop. Schadenfreude is not a Christian sentiment, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel it just a little.

It does make me cynical about the diocese's constant pleas to pray for vocations. Why should I when you are turning away men who are both willing and able to be priests? Strictly speaking, there is never a shortage of vocations, for who would dare suggest God does not call enough men to be priests and provide for the spiritual needs of the people? Rather there is a shortage of the kind of men bishops and seminaries like who are both able and willing to be priests. The key word is "formation." They want to mold you into their own image and likeness, and if you already have firm Traditionalist and reactionary convictions they're going to make life difficult for you. They sugarcoat it by saying you have to meet people where they're at to accompany them on their spiritual journey and all that other Vatican II hippie nonsense. By their fruits ye shall know them; the declining participation in the sacraments over the last fifty years speaks for itself.

I rather enjoy having the greater freedom of the layperson and I'm glad I don't have progressive chancery apparatchiks breathing down my neck all the time. Even my buddy the youth minister, as a full time employee of a parish, has to deal with that bureaucratic bullshit and I don't envy him that, no matter how much I enjoy working with the teens. It's God's Church, so it's future is in his hands, just as my own life is in his hands.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

What if I told you that you took the purple pill?

Last week's article garnered many more comments than I was expecting for one that focused so much on classical theology and philosophy. The Right is mostly white men with a true diversity of viewpoints, in contrast to the Left which is a Coalition of the Fringes that marches in ideological lockstep when it comes to sticking it cishet white male shitlords. I'm a firm believer in no enemies to the Right. The Church would have much more success at bringing in converts if she focused on those who are as disgusted with liberalism as we are.

Given the nature of discussions about God's existence, lots of flat earth atheists showed up to vent their spleens about how religion is fairy tales, superstition, bronze age myths (I hear that term "bronze age" come up a lot; did it become a meme a few years back or something?) and of no use for the Nietzschean superman who has liberated himself from the shackles which bound his stupid benighted ancestors.

Men who reject progressivism but also angrily reject God have taken the purple pill. Rather disconnecting, they've pulled up stakes and relocated to another corner of the Matrix. If the red pill means seeing reality as it truly is, then that necessarily entails acknowledging that some truths transcend man or our ability to know it through the scientific method (the most ardent proponents of science on the internet are generally the ones who understand the least.) You'd think that a man who realizes that gender equality and feminism are manifest lies would be open to considering that maybe other things he's been raised with - positivism, post-modernism, materialism - are also lies.

For example, fat acceptance will never sink in among the general population, no matter what they may say to the pollsters. Attraction cannot be negotiated. A 400 pound woman in a wheelchair will not get the same attention from men as an HB10. The fat woman may be a perfectly kind hearted individual with a beautiful soul in the eyes of God, but the great majority of men simply won't find her sexually attractive. Beauty is objective. Men can reasonably disagree on whether Mozart's or Shostakovich's music is more beautiful, but they are both, in fact, beautiful. A man who interjected that he thinks Miley Cyrus's music is more beautiful would be considered having poor taste or ignorant of music.

But if we're simply meat robots, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to speak of the objectivity of truth, goodness, and beauty. If materialism is true and metaphysics is nothing but mystical mumbo-jumbo, then we've nowhere else to turn. Reality is whatever the powerful say it is because they have the most guns. Against Islam in particular, secular liberalism stands no chance. You can only fight an evil and false religion with the true and good religion.

My new post at Return of Kings

This week we examine The Four Cardinal Virtues:
Traditional Christian theology names faith, hope, and charity as the theological virtues. They are directly imparted to the believing Christian by the grace of God and are not attainable through the natural order. They are called theological because they have God for their immediate and proper object; because they are divinely infused; and because they are only known through divine revelation.
Grace perfects nature and the three theological virtues are the flowers of the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. The word cardinal comes the Latin cardo, translated as “hinge.” Whether you’re a lifelong Christian or a Godless heathen, the cardinal virtues are part of the natural moral order and can be cultivated through self-discipline and hard work. We must cultivate them if we expect to live a happy life in this world.
Read the rest there. I rather enjoy quoting myself at length.

Friday, July 24, 2015

March of the cuckservatives

Conservakin is a clever inside joke. Right-liberal sounds like a dispassionate political science term. Cuckservative is a visceral insult and it's blowing up on social media from what I hear. Good.

The cuckservative is someone who publicly identifies as conservative but buys into every major liberal premise. You can easily spot the cuckservative by their willingness to snipe at their own side. They will immediately condemn realtalk that their left-liberal paymasters deem to be racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. That the realtalk is true is no defense. Indeed, voicing hatefacts is even worse than outright lies because it risks the common people figuring out the system, that cuckservatives are controlled opposition.

You can always tell a cuckservative when he says something like, "YOU LIBERALS are the real racists!" or "WE CONSERVATIVES are the true feminists!" He believes we should be willing to spill blood for an ethnic/tribal state like Israel but is horrified at the idea that core Americans should think of themselves as a tribe. He quickly backs down when confronted by left-liberals but he'll go to the mat against his putative allies on the right. They like to talk about marginal tax rates and making life easier for their globo-corporate masters which includes importing lots of cheap foreign labor to improve their bottom line. About our borders, language, and culture they care not a fig so long as their personal status is secure. That's what makes the cuckservative so loathsome. They want to be popular.

If nothing else, we should thank Donald Trump for bringing the concept, if not the word cuckservative, into the public consciousness.

My latest article at Return of Kings

This week we briefly examine some of the classical arguments for God's existence:
Atheist polemicists portray religious faith as an irrational belief that has no supporting evidence at all. Theists reply that of course there is evidence for the existence of God, the atheists respond that it’s not real evidence, and round and round they go. It’s not my purpose here to convert you to Christianity, although I’d be gratified if my writings played a part in that, however small. I suspect most RoK readers already have strong, settled opinions on the question of God’s existence.
My aim is to briefly outline the classical arguments for the existence of God. Some of these arguments are incomprehensible to the secular modern, as they assume a classical background in philosophy and theology, but that says more about the secular modern education system than it does about the arguments.
Christianity is integral to Western tradition over the past 2,000 years and all men should have a basic knowledge of why our ancestors believed what they did.
Read the rest there.

It's a big subject which is difficult to do the proper justice in the space of one column. I expect the comments will be along the lines of, "You don't truly understand X," and, "On the contrary, it is you who doesn't truly understand X or Y."

Very few Catholics are aware that we are doctrinally bound to believe that the existence of God can be proven with certainty with unaided human reason. From her canons:
1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
Of course this does not mean we are capable of attaining perfect knowledge of God on our own power:
If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.
Faith is above reason but there can never be any true contradiction between faith and reason.

You can read the entirety of Vatican I's published documents in one day. They're a model of precision, clarity, and force unlike another council of more recent vintage.

 

Thursday, July 23, 2015

You've got no chance! No chance in hell!

Donald Trump speaks for the base on immigration which is why the Republican establishment will actively work to destroy him like they did with Ron Paul. They'll say that Trump is a clown who will self-destruct just fine without their help, but he doesn't strike me as the type to drop out because the media said mean things about him for a weekend or two. He understands one thing about modern politics that the other candidates don't: nobody actually wants or cares about apologies. They want a public confession they can use to beat you over the head.

Of course that doesn't mean we should get too emotionally invested in a Trump campaign. Even if he won every state primary in a landslide, the Republicans would make it a brokered convention to keep him off the ballot. That has one silver lining: it would demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that modern democracy is a sham that is not designed to give the people a choice in how they are actually governed, but is a public liturgy meant to affirm our allegiance to liberalism. To those true believers who still believe they can work within the system to make changes for the better, well, I've got a song that seems written especially for you:



I support Trump purely for the lulz. He may be a right-liberal, but he's got the talent for making left-liberals point and sputter. That alone makes me like him. Go Donald Go.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

TedDibiaseLaugh.gif

Gay Pride event bans drag queens because it might offend the trannies:
An LGBT pride march in Scotland has banned “cis” drag queens from marching out of the fear that it could offend transgender people.
Free Pride Glasgow is scheduled to take place in August, and bills itself as an alternative to the city’s main Pride event, which has allegedly become too commercialized.
“It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke,” organizers said in a statement.
There comes a point where reason fails and the only appropriate response is laughter.

The German Church continues to plummet:
In the year 2015, more Catholics than ever have left the Church. As the Catholic Bishops' Conference reported on Friday, the number of people having left the Church has risen 22 percent within the last year to now 218,000. The number of baptisms has remained nearly the same, however, when compared to the previous year: 165,000. The number of new members whom the Church has received either by entrance or by a re-entrance, has further sunken. Taken together, this number – for the first time – is less than 10,000.
The Bishops' Conference did not say anything about the deeper causes for such developments. Its president, Archbishop Marx of Munich, was quoted as saying that these new statistics show “that Church is multi-faceted and has still had a missionary force, even though the high number of exits from the Church makes us painfully aware that we do not reach people with our message.” Archbishop Burger, of Freiburg, spoke of the “irritations caused by the new way of gathering the Church taxes by referring to the capital incomes – which was erroneously then interpreted by many as an 'increase of taxes.'” Originally, the Church tax [Kirchensteuer] was only gathered together with the other taxes, when the tax payer formally requested it. Now, since 1 January 2015, it happens automatically. When, at the end of 2014, the banks started to inform their members about this new procedure, the number of exits considerably increased in the Catholic Church as well as in the Protestant churches.
It's worth noting how much money is driving the German Church to push for changing Church teachings on divorce and remarriage at the upcoming Synod.

And finally, yesterday was the anniversary of the First Battle of Bull Run:


Historically accurate songs are often the best songs. I've been neglecting the blog recently due to my work with Return of Kings and my new day job which is in addition to my side hustles with Amazon. I'm tired but it's a good kind of tired. I feel like I have the strength of five gorillas.

Friday, July 17, 2015

My new article at Return of Kings

This week I briefly examine the life and work of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and how he exemplified the virtues of courage and fortitude when the Church was riven with heresy. "If the world is against me, then it's me against the world." Check it out there.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

As an evil slave holding white man once said

The tree of diversity must be watered with the blood of core Americans and Marines from time to time. The shooter, Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez, is apparently Kuwaiti by birth. An ISIS Twitter account gloated over the violence (fortunately the badthinkers Heartiste and Mike Cernovich are suspended.) In the days and weeks to come, the left will wring its hands about one of those anti-Muslim backlashes that never actually happen. We will continue to invite those from the religion of pieces (lies, intimidation, assault, tyranny, and murder) to our shores and the core Americans who are the targets will be lambasted as the real villains, because I'm certain Abdulazeez never would have done this if we weren't racistly, sexistly, and Islamophobically oppressing him so we need to add yet another sin to the long list of white evil. No one except pseudonymous bloggers will question the conventional wisdom about diversity and immigration because too many careers and reputations hinge on perpetuating the policies which get innocent people murdered.

Pray for God to have mercy on their souls.

A man of many hats

One of my first jobs when I came home from the Army was a staff writer for my local newspaper. I had no experience or academic education in journalism, but I was hired because the staff was impressed with my letters to the editor. I covered the 2002 election cycle which proved to be boring. My district is so overwhelmingly Republican that there's no real competition in the general election. The action was in the primaries. My then Congressman faced an unknown challenger who was brand new to politics and it showed. He gave straight answers to questions and made no secret of how he disliked the Congressman personally. The mainstream candidates stuck closely to their talking points, though off the record they managed to come across as human beings. I had the most fun visiting the third parties, the Libertarians and the Greens. Those guys know how to party, no pun intended.

I secured a second job today to supplement my writing income. The manager said I pretty much had the job the moment I walked in and handed them a physical copy of my resume. She was almost apologetic when she said I still had to painstakingly fill out an online application with the same information. But when they spend most of the interview selling the company to you instead of you selling yourself to them, it's always a good sign. I told them right away that I consider my true career to be writing and that I applied in order to make more money. Supposedly that's a big no-no, but the District Manager said he appreciated my honesty and looks forward to working with me.

I suppose it's possible in the future that some crusading SJW will try to get me fired for the badthink I publish online. If you're dying of curiosity and you frame the Google search correctly, anyone can learn my real name in a few minutes. I publish under a pen name more out of long habit than any need to protect my career, although ironically the one time my writing got me in trouble was in the seminary, heh. "Beefy Levinson" is not the first nom de blog I've used. In fact, many years ago one of my pen names appeared in the Los Angeles Times, cited as an example of Catholic pro-life extremism after the California Legislature passed a particularly bad bill. That was back before Livejourna was conquered by its Russian overlords.

I've been a soldier, a journalist, a retail zombie, a seminarian, a secretary, a catechist, a LifeTeen volunteer, and now my latest gig. The one constant has been I've always kept up with my writing. One of my greatest regrets is deleting the old Livejournal blog, and if I could take it back I would. Not because it was particularly great writing or thinking, but because it showed several years worth of growth. I wrote about my conversion to Catholicism as I was going through RCIA. I started it in 2002 as a bog standard neo-con right-liberal, but my beliefs markedly changed as the years when by. Now I'm a Catholic reactionary who thinks mainstream politics is enormously depressing when it's not uproariously farcical.

Monday, July 13, 2015

I want loyalty, you son of a bitch

It sounds counter-intuitive given the nature of my writings on this blog, but in real life I often get along better with Protestants and Godless heathens than I do my fellow Catholics. Protestants and Godless heathens for the most part operate according to their stated principles. I'll ruthlessly skewer their falsehoods and errors, but in person I'll treat them the way they treat me. In fact, they're often interested to hear that I was in the seminary for a time and they'll ask me lots of questions about why Catholics do this or that. I enjoy these teaching moments. You never know on this side of the veil how deeply you may affect someone by laying down the truth.

It's disloyal Catholics who make me see red. As Boniface put it so well, compromise is planning to fail:
Since the infamous gay marriage ruling of June 26th, 2015, I have noticed a very troubling trend in the Catholic world. I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but I think I will say it is a sort of "tactical accommodation." What is this tactical accommodation? It is a degree of measured accommodation to homosexuality that, while stopping short of actually affirming it, allows a certain amount of legitimacy of some of the points of the homo-fascist crowd, thus giving the appearance of compromise to one side while maintaining fidelity to Catholic teaching on the other. I believe the purpose of this accommodation is to save some face with the other side.

In practice, this looks something like, "I believe in traditional marriage, but I also believe that conservative Catholics have generally failed at loving homosexual adequately." 

Or perhaps, "I know we should not encourage people to define themselves by their sins, but Christians should not be so dismissive of the concept of homosexual identity."

Or another favorite, "The Church's teaching has not changed; but at the same time, I think the Church needs to more fully utilize the unique gifts and that homosexuals can bring."

And so on.
It's as if the Supreme Court ruling is being used as an occasion for self-reflection; not a reflection on the corrupt morals of the world or the need for a stronger defense of Church teaching, mind you, but an occasion to reflect on how we can be more accommodating to homosexuality. 
Another good post from Bonald continues the point: 
This blog does more preliminary work than that.  While the great theologians have been thinking about how to raise people to the heights of charity and mystical illumination, they haven’t noticed that the masses have lost even the basic natural attitudes that make for a mediocre Catholic.  I have in mind three preliminaries in particular.  The first is a sense of the sacred, the spirit of reverence, coupled to a sense of God’s revelation in the given meanings of the world.  The second is a horror of nihilism, so that a man fears meaninglessness more than he craves license.  The last is basic tribal loyalty to the Church and her members throughout the ages.  The theologians scorn these attitudes because they are after all natural; one finds analogous or even identical things in any vital religion.  But without them, any spiritual quest is bound to begin in pride and end in apostasy.  Time and again, I’ve seen men of much greater virtue and much greater love of Jesus fall into error for lack of a visceral repulsion to blasphemy and disloyalty.
Heresy implies a degree of faith and knowledge about the faith. You cannot be a formal heretic unless you obstinately persist in rejecting the known truth (it doesn't matter if you disagree that the truth is, in fact, true.) Many Catholics do not rise to the level of formal heresy because they lack even the most basic knowledge of what the Church teaches. Muslims are willing to die for their false religion, whereas most American Catholics are reluctant to suffer mild unpopularity or minor inconveniences.

Our Blessed Lord said that the chaff will grow alongside the wheat until the harvest time. That doesn't mean we should entrust known chaff with responsibilities in teaching the faith or having the charge of souls. I've no doubt that as the years go by, many baptized Catholics will happily get their brothers and sisters socially ostracized or fired from their jobs for opposing same-sex marriage. All the while, other Catholics will plead that the bad worldlings will leave us alone if only we're more sweet and winsome and lovable.

I think a better solution would be to reestablish the culture of mediocre Catholicism. Not that we should aim for mediocrity, but as Bonald says we lack the basic attitudes that make it possible. It's going to be hard work - we have to undo 50 years of Vatican II happy talk - but we must reintroduce men to that visceral hatred of blasphemy and disloyalty.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Levinson Contra Mundum

Nine lessons from the Obergefell decision:
Second, the true losers in Obergefell are the same as in Windsor: those experiencing same-sex attraction. The blessing is that, post Obergefell, there is no more political frenzy to cover over sadness of soul. Those in homosexual relationships will have to face the hard facts of their lifestyle. Many have already suffered under the normative lie that homosexuality can bring happiness, and many more will suffer now that this lie has been quite literally wedded to state power. Those now given the imprimatur of the federal government on the dead-end slavery of sin—and the children who are condemned to witness this slow-motion destruction of human dignity firsthand—are the true sacrificial victims in this war. If we were not praying for them before, let us start doing so today.
The wages of sin is death but even in this life the pursuit of hedonism leaves one unfilled, anxious, depressed, and prone to substance abuse to dull the ennui. Gays can now "marry," but only 45% of their relationships are monogamous. #LoveWince
Fifth, Obergefell is a chance for repenting of the greatest sexual failure of our generation: not homosexuality, but fornication. For every lost soul searching fruitlessly for love in a gay bar, how many hundreds more are de facto polygamists or polyandrists, shuttling from one wrecked relationship to the next, and increasingly numb to the lies that he or she is telling with body, words, and heart? If there is any moral high ground in the debate over sexual ethics, I for one am utterly unworthy of approaching it. I will stand, instead, beside the gutter from which God’s Grace rescued me, the better to remember, at the very least, who is holy in all of this, and who is made holy thereby. In a very real way, those with same-sex attraction have been fighting, at least in part, for the right to be as flamboyantly promiscuous as all the rest of us. Let us see who among us will dare to cast the first stone.
A lot of my TradCon friends have asked why I associate at all with Return of Kings when it's filled with lots of crimethink that inflicts badfeels. I've encountered a few souls in the manosphere who seem content with embracing a lifestyle of constant fornication. For many of them it was a phase. Even Heartiste reveals a deeply conservative, if not outright traditional, streak once in a while. The pursuit of higher notch counts is in many ways the rational response of the pagan to a feminist world. But a careful reading of the comments reveals that many men yearn for the days of Marriage 1.0. They dream about meeting that 21 year old virgin who will marry them and love them just the way they are. The world being what it is though, they do what they have to do to get sex. It's men like that we Catholics have failed. And I think Holy Mother Church would bring in much more converts if she focused on people who are as disgusted with liberalism as we are rather than the liberal worldlings who always have and always will hate everything we believe in.
Sixth, the majority opinion in Obergefell was a stunning admission of the intellectual poverty of late-stage liberalism. Proceeding by breezy judicial fiat was the only recourse open to the United States Supreme Court, for in seeking to legitimate the paradox of homosexual marriage they could make no honest appeal to reason, truth, Scripture, tradition, common sense, biology, or the natural law. They simply had to harden their hearts and wave their magic wands. Obergefell makes shockingly apparent the impossibility of forming any sort of community based on what is, at the very best, finely-tuned mutual antagonism. Justice Anthony Kennedy therefore has the distinction of having written, not the most insidious or disingenuous opinion in the history of the court (Roger Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Harry Blackmun, and Henry Billings Brown must all outdo Kennedy in this regard), but the silliest. The linty non-sense of the Obergefell decision is a tremendous boon for a United States now coming to the extremities of an unsustainable philosophy. By dint of sheer hokeyness, the Obergefellmajority opinion should be enough to wake whole battalions from their intellectual torpor.
Liberals assure us that we can't turn back the clock. On the contrary, if the clock is telling the wrong time, it can and will be turned back. I accept gay "marriage" in the same sense that previous generations of Catholics accepted Soviet communism: it exists and must be dealt with for now, but it's an irrational and evil perversion of human nature that all Catholics have a moral obligation to publicly oppose and which is doomed to fail if good men are willing to call a spade a spade. This issue is over in the sense that abortion is over: it's going to become even more explosive and divisive as years pass.

Seeing through a glass darkly

Our dedication to Tradition must be total, we cannot settle for anything less:
Will anything change in the Church? Will we see the end of the modernist crisis? Will we see the Church return to Tradition? Humanely speaking, we have to say no. This crisis has been going on far too long for a probable rebirth on the human level. Catholics with a taste for the things of the world are so widespread now and Tradition so scant that it is discouraging from a human point of view. So, we may well say that we’ll not see a return to Tradition according to human predictions. 
Yet, we pray and work every day for Tradition to return as the universal patrimony of the Church. We ‘do’ Tradition for this reason, we ‘do’ it so that everyone will return to it and that the Church will be rid of the modernist poison in Her doctrine and pastoral work.

Would there be any logic in embracing Tradition and passing over to the Old Mass just out of personal taste? What sense is there in “doing” Tradition if there is no desire for its return and total reign in the universal Church? This would be a senseless game to play! And we won’t play it!
I fall into this trap myself. Humanly speaking, the Church is a hopeless mess. She's infected with Modernism, feminism, and liberalism. A great number of the bishops are practical atheists or Kasperite heretics. Many of our priests are social workers who can't have sex. And us lay people go along to get along.

Atheist polemicists often describe faith as being an irrational belief in something despite a complete lack of evidence. This is, of course, wrong. Christianity is based on the historical birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Catholics must hold it as an article of faith that the existence of God can be proven through human reason alone. Faith is more like trust and confidence. Faith means believing in something solely based on the authority of God who revealed it.

That means believing that the decline of the Church and the fall of Western civilization is part of God's plan. It means Catholics must hold fast to the faith handed down by the Apostles no matter how lax the Church herself may have become or how wanting is episcopal leadership. We won't know with any great certainty the exact steps of God's plan in this life but he has given us everything we need to know about attaining salvation during our time on earth.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Gettysburg: The third day


“It's all now you see. Yesterday won't be over until tomorrow and tomorrow began ten thousand years ago. For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago; or to anyone who ever sailed a skiff under a quilt sail, the moment in 1492 when somebody thought This is it: the absolute edge of no return, to turn back now and make home or sail irrevocably on and either find land or plunge over the world's roaring rim.” 
― William FaulknerIntruder in the Dust