jump to navigation

Gueranger: the duty of submission imposed on women by Eve’s role in the fall February 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

I mentioned this at a men’s meeting last night – heh – and said that when I posted this, I thought it might get a hot response.  I have sensed that even among traditional Catholics, the idea of feminine submission is not always fully understood or embraced.

In his series on Septuagesima Week, Dom Prosper Gueranger focuses in on the Fall of Man and how it plays such a central role in our Faith.  The dread results of the Fall form the very drama of our lives, the struggle against our sinful natures and the opposite practice of virtue. But for women, the fall had a further effect, due to what Gueranger describes as her lead role in the Fall (something which even some traditional priests today either reject, or are uncertain about).  That effect was the lost of the full equality possessed by Eve as partner for Adam, and a change in the nature of woman into something calling for submission. I thought the argument below very interesting. I also found it beautiful in some respects.  I won’t really elaborate on it, and Gueranger does not really describe how his conclusion was to play out in the lives of souls after our first parents. Perhaps follow along, and see if you agree with his conclusion:

Forgiveness is promised; but atonement must be made.  Divine Justice must be satisfied, and future generations be taught that sin can never pass unpunished. [This ought to be tattooed on the head of every bishop at the coming Synod] Eve is the guiltier of the two [I have heard from traddy priests the opposite, that Adam was the more guilty, as it was his duty to protect.  Gueranger doesn’t really flesh out his argument, he just sort of makes an assertion. Do you agree?], and her sentence follows that of the serpent. Destined by God to aid man in peopling the earth with happy and faithful children, formed by this God out of man’s own substance ‘flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones,’ woman was to be on an equality with man.  But sin has subverted this order, and God’s sentence is this: conjugal union, notwithstanding the humiliation of concupiscence now brought upon it, is to be, as before, holy and sacred; but it is to be inferior, in dignity, before both God and man, to the state of virginity, which disdains the ambitions of the flesh.

Secondly, woman shall be mother still, as she would have been in the state of innocence; but her honor shall be a burden.  Moreover, she shall give birth to her children amidst cruel pains, and sometimes even death must be the consequence of her infant’s coming into the world. The sin of Eve shall thus be memorialized at every birth, and nature shall violently resist the first claims of him, whom sin has made her unwelcome lord.

Lastly, she who was at first created to enjoy equality of honor with man, is now to forfeit her independence.  Man is to be her superior, and she must obey him.  For long ages, this obedience will be no better than slavery; and this degradation shall continue till that Virgin [the Blessed Virgin] comes, whom the world shall have expected for four thousand years, and whose humility shall crush the serpent’s head.  She shall restore her sex to its rightful position, and give to Christian woman that influence of gentle persuasiveness, which is compatible with the duty imposed upon her by Divine Justice, and which can never be remitted: the duty of submission. [So the Blessed Virgin, by her Fiat, by her submission, restored woman to a much greater level of equality and honor, if still a position of formal submission, as St. Paul says in Ephesians.]

———–End Quote———–

So what do you make of that?  I found it not just edifying, but inspiring.

Or is all this just male chauvinist balderdash, and  you are departing forthwith after you tell me off?

Take the endless, painful, and frustrating survey for the 2015 Synod February 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the return.
comments closed

So, the Diocese of Dallas (ht MJD) has on their website a Survey for the 2015 session of the Synod on the Family.  46 questions, all worthy of a multi-paragraph it not a multi-page response. I did not go that far, but I bet I just spend 5000 words on that thing if I spent one.  What a nightmare.  My spleen feels well vented, I can tell you that.

So, I guess this thing is the “official” survey.  Many probably saw some of the questions from last year when this thing was first trotted out. They are every bit as bad and misleading as I feared.  The diocesan website, upon completing the survey, doesn’t say “your results will be forwarded to Rome,” but something like “we’ll look over what you had to say, and then decide whether to include much or any of it.”  So, I probably am only going to bore some flunky at the chancery for a few minutes, until they hit delete, but I feel I did my ecclesiastical duty.

Man are those questions bad, though. I agree with Cardinal Burke and others, the questions really drive towards a conclusion as the survey goes on.  Much of it is in stilted, obtuse, academic language, but you can tell a point is being subtly driven home: “wouldn’t it be merciful to grant the Blessed Sacrament to those in disordered/sinful/abusive relationships?”  I had copied down some of the questions to share, but then I lost them!  But, the problems with the survey questions, and their leading/disordered nature, was discussed a great deal already last year.  They did not appear to be any different in this case.

So, if you want, take the survey.  They do ask for your address, but I suspect it wouldn’t be impossible to spoof if you live outside the Diocese. I frankly doubt to many kasual katholycs are going to bother sitting through 46 interminable questions.  But then again, given how many of those same folks work for parishes and probably the chancery, who knows?  So, it might be a good thing to balance out the rah-rah for the revolution crowd, if they’re present.  It would be pretty funny to have some cardinal scratching his head about why Dallas is such a bunch of radical neo-pelagian promethean rabbits.

Yeah, so that’s what I’ve been doing for the last 3 hours with no posts.

Bad news: Canadian Supreme Court approves murder of old people February 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

The Supreme Court of Canadia, in a decision that will have ramifications around the world and most certainly in this country, today decided it should be legal to kill old people who may or may not want to die (evidence from Holland and Belgium indicates a rapidly growing percentage of those who are assisted to their death (formerly known as murder) are assisted unwillingly) but who are certainly inconvenient to the state and often their own families.  Yes, there are some poor suffering deluded souls who do think death will bring them peace, but suicide is still a grave/mortal sin and I fear they won’t find the peace they seek, but only make their suffering eternal.  Remember! Slippery slope arguments are fallacies!  Abortion won’t lead to the murder of other undesirables, and government run health care schemes don’t result in rationed care and heavy pressure to off the old and sick!

In a momentous ruling this morning, Canada’s highest court unanimously ruled to open the door to a doctor helping kill someone nearing the end-of-life stage, a ruling comparable to the sweeping Morgentaler ruling 27 years ago that allowed a doctor to kill someone at the earliest pre-born stage of life.

In Carter v. Canada, the Court overturned a previous law prohibiting assisted suicide, in effect reversing the previous 1993 Rodriguez decision in which it said the state’s obligation to “protect the vulnerable” outweighed the rights of the individual to self-determination. The ruling makes Canada join the ranks of Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, as well as Oregon and Washington, in allowing assisted suicide. [Canadia (if they’re Canadians, isn’t the country Canadia, then?) has long been one of the most extreme progressive countries in the world, right up there with the European countries rapidly committing suicide.  It wasn’t always such, prior to the mid-50s Canadian culture and governance was more conservative, but Trudeau truly ushered in a revolution that completely changed the country’s political and cultural landscape]

…….”People say that ‘safeguards’ and strict eligibility for death will offer protections,” said Hughes. “You can see just how unsuccessful this idea proved in Belgium where the categories of the killable have now expanded to include children. There’s even a booming suicide tourism now happening there. Mark my words, the same slippery slope will occur here in Canada. It’s been said before and it’s as true now as it was then: ‘Once you start looking at killing as a means to solve problems, suddenly you’ll find more and more problems where killing is the only solution.‘” [Dang right. And the most radical fringe of the pro-abort sickos are now openly calling for giving mothers the right to kill their children up to some arbitrary age, like 5 years!  This is coming, and immoral decisions like this only hasten the day when we will see mass killing for convenience sake.  Normally, when I hear people almost wish for the destruction of Western civilization, I am turned off, but when I see things like this, I am more open to the concept.]

“Some people say there’s no such thing as a ‘slippery slope.’ Once a line has been crossed that allows one person to kill another in some instances, the qualifying criteria will just keep on expanding in the name of ‘equal rights.’ Pretty soon anybody who wants to die for any reason will be able to do so.”

In Belgium, people are being euthanized without requesting it and the list of those eligible for death has expanded to now include children[Isn’t killing someone who hasn’t stated a request to die just murder?  For that matter, how easy is it to manipulate some old, sick, and confused person into “wanting” to die?  Evidence from other countries shows it is very, very easy.  This is just satanic.]

……“Giving doctors the right to cause the death of their patients could never be safe. There will always be people who will abuse the power to cause death and there will always be more reasons to cause death,” he said, adding that the court is “naïve to think that assisted suicide will not be abused, when abuse already occurs.”

[This is a key point…..] The Court’s ruling casts a pall over life-affirming doctors who now have no legal framework on which to defend themselves from not partaking in killing their patients. In a foreshadowing of the Court’s decision, the Canadian Medical Association stated earlier this week that there are “occasions” where doctors helping to kill certain patients may be the most “appropriate” option. Ontario and Saskatchewan have already drafted policy that would force doctors to offer procedures to their patients despite their own religious or moral objections.  [Already it is almost impossible for faithful Catholics to find a field of medicine to work in that will not cause them to be exposed to hideous immoralities or terribly moral quandaries.   Decisions like this will only serve to drive more and more faithful Christians and moral people of any stripe from the practice of medicine.  And that is how a stealth persecution works.  It creates an environment where it is impossible to function as a faithful individual.  Our culture is just about utterly satanic.]

I wonder how many of those 9 Supreme Court justices are “Catholic?”

Some non-regular readers may wonder why I am so violently opposed to the political and cultural left.  Well, this is why.  It is always the left that advances hideous, murderous things like this.  It is always the left that is looking for new avenues to obliterate any semblance of decency and morality.  It is always the left that causes these evils to multiply and become inextricably bound up in the legal and political framework of our culture.  But the difficulty is, even the ostensible “conservative” party in almost all Western countries is populated by people, especially in its elites, that believe almost exactly the same thing as the left.  That is to say, they are cultural if not often also political leftists, just of a slightly different or more conservative stripe. The problem this creates for faithful souls as we try to fight the rapidly advancing satanic culture is that we have nowhere to turn, at least at the national level, as we saw in the Republican-dominated House’s refusal to even vote on a bill banning late-term abortion.  And this with overwhelming popular support for such a measure.

So as someone trying to be a faithful Catholic, incredibly concerned and involved in pro-life issues, and seeking to at least oppose the ongoing decay in the culture to the degree I can, I feel that the Republican party is really no longer an option.  At least at the national level.  At the state level, things are different, we have a large number of true conservatives – both socially/culturally and politically – who are willing to enact truly meaningful laws in opposition to the dominant cultural trends.  But at the national level, at this point (and especially with Jeb Bush looking to be the frontrunner for 2016), I have just about come to the conclusion that the Republicans are indistinguishable from the left and, because they pose as “conservatives” and opponents of the left’s agenda, are in many respects even more dangerous and destructive than the open and avowed leftists!  I am very discouraged at the federal level, and see no real viable alternative for the near-term.

That is why I am more open to the concept of Texas Independence than I have ever been, even if I see a number of grave practical difficulties in carrying such a goal to fruition.  I am also increasingly convinced that political measures, court decisions, the passage of laws, and the like, will make little difference in the big picture until souls are converted.  As a for instance, I really like HB2 here in Texas, which has resulted in the closure of many mills, and I think it will result in a lot of lives being saved, but I doubt the demand for abortion on a mass level and the perverse thinking that engenders that demand will go away until souls come to understand the totality of the contraceptive mentality (and related evils of pleasure-seeking, fornication, adultery, etc) and the evil that stems from it.  So I guess I will keep on keepin’ on with my paltry efforts to date, blogging and whining and raising my family in a (hopefully) moral manner and praying for a better day.  I don’t see much alternative to that right now.

Flightline Friday: The almost A-10 February 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, Flightline Friday, fun, non squitur, silliness, Society, technology.
comments closed

Vietnam was a shock to the US military in many respects.  Especially for the Air Force and the Navy’s air arms.  Having focused almost exclusively on the A-1H_602SOS_Jun1970idea of fighting a nuclear war against the Soviet Union for the preceding 20 years, the Air Force found that many of its aircraft, doctrine, and armaments were not suited to a conventional counterinsurgency campaign.  Humiliatingly, the Air Force had to acquire A-1 Skyraiders from the Navy to perform the low level close air support role for troops in contact and during RESCAPs of downed pilots.  The Sandy performed very well, but was an aging type long of of production that couldn’t last forever.

The mighty A-10

The mighty A-10

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the Soviets were building up massive conventional armies.  The United States had lost that vast strategic and tactical nuclear superiority that it had enjoyed at the beginning of the 60s (another fruit of democrat administrations and the damnable war in Vietnam), and so the idea that we could use nukes to stop the huge Soviet formations was not nearly so tenable as it had been a few years before.  More and more, both civil and military leaders realized that they might have to slug it out in a conventional fight with the vastly numerically superior Soviets.

Northrop YA-9

Northrop YA-9

So as the 60s drew to a close, the Air Force found itself needing both a low and slow close air support machine for a relatively low-threat environment, and a highly effective killing machine to break up the Soviet hordes, especially their tanks. But the air defense environment over the Central Front in Europe would be anything but low-threat, so the new aircraft needed a good suite of passive and active defenses and, most importantly, to be tough enough to take battle damage and survive to fight another day.

So a program was initiated called A-X, or Attack-Experimental, and bids were sought from various companies.  Eventually, Northrop and Fairchild-Republic were chosen to produce two prototypes for a flyoff competition to be held in late 1972.  Northrop build the YA-9, and Fairchild-Republic (from now on, just Republic) the YA-10A.  These aircraft were less prototypes than development aircraft that would serve as the basis for the quick introduction of whichever type was chosen.  As such, they had to be quite advanced in terms of development completion.General Electric GAU-8/A

General Electric GAU-8/ABoth aircraft were to carry an incredible new weapon, the General Electric GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm cannon.  Firing nearly 1 lb projectiles at the rate of 4000 per minute, and at an incredibly high muzzle velocity, the Avenger would be the prime armament of the new A-X and its primary weapon against tanks.  The Avenger was to be capable to penetrate the horizontal armor of any known Soviet tank at ranges of 2-3000 meters.  And it succeeded.  This gun, and its huge ammunition bay, was so large the aircraft literally had to be designed around it.

However, by the time of the flyoff, the gun was not yet ready, so the two prototypes flew with the older and established M61 Vulcan 20 mm cannon




The Air Force project tender emphasized the following traits: long range/loiter capability, heavy load carrying capability, extreme survivability especially against the “golden BBs,” small caliber shots that just happened to hit a vital spot and brought far too many aircraft in the Vietnam era down.  Other emphases were simplicity, relatively austere avionics fit, ability to operate from remote/improvised airstrips, etc.  Low-level maneuverability was also important, but speed was not: the aircraft only had to manage about 360 kts at cruise, and 400 kts top speed.  This was a radical change in emphasis from any previous Air Force development project of the preceding 20 years or so.

Carrying 16 1000 lb bombs and 2 500 lb

Carrying 16 1000 lb bombs and 2 500 lb

Both competing aircraft rolled out at about the same time, and the flyoff began in October of 1972.  The A-9 was the much more conventional of the two designs.  It had a traditional fuselage/empennage with engines mounted on the sides of the fuselage.  With a straight, unswept wing, it looked like a throwback to the earliest jet fighters.  There was much redundancy built in and abundant use of armor, but the radical A-10 design was judged to be much, much more survivable.  By the conclusion of the flyoff, it was a foregone conclusion that Republic had hit a home run and the A-10 had won.  The A-10 was judged to be much superior in terms of survivability/resistance to battle damage, had 20% more thrust, a longer range, and better maneuverability at low level.  The A-a9-59 was marginally faster, could carry a heavier total load (but not as far), easier in some respects to operate and maintain, but also less maneuverable and much less survivable.  The A-10 won going away.

However……..another Air Force was much more impressed with the A-9 design than was the USAF.  That other Air Force was the Soviet Air Force, more specifically, VVS, Soviet Frontal Aviation.  By hook or crook, the Soviets, who quite often seemed to produce aircraft types in a-10-thunderbolt-ii_011response to USAF programs, started a competition of their own shortly after A-X began to produce a similar type aircraft.  The type that won – the Sukhoi Su-25 (NATO reporting name: Frogfoot) – looked more than a little bit like the A-9.  For a long time, it was thought Soviet aircraft that just magically wound up looking almost exactly like their Western counterparts was just the result of similar mission requirements leading to similar results. It became known after the end of the Cold War that there was often more to it than that.  But I’ll let you be the judge of how similar the Su-25 (first flight: 1975) looks compared to the A-9:












Incredibly, given how little known it is, I found a bit of video of the A-9, which was a worthy if not particularly inspired competitor for the A-X program. Northrop did not show a lot of imagination in the project, as they did in the also then-ongoing LWF competition, they more or less made a jet powered A-1.

First up, a brief video from the Air Force Flight Test Center showing both aircraft. The music is unforgivably bad:

This is a longer one.  From back in the day, an Air Force briefing on the then ongoing flight test program.  A lot of good A-9 footage in this one:

And that’s it, as far as I know.  USAF was at the top of its game – even if it didn’t know it at the time! – in the early 70s.  You had the F-15, F-16, F-17 (which became the Navy’s F-18), the A-10, and B-1 all in development and test at the same time.  There hasn’t been a time like it since.  Good stuff.