jump to navigation

Frigid repressed neo-Victorian left now wants to push ludicrous new “affirmative consent” legal standard for all marital relations…… July 6, 2015

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

Remember when it was the Right that was ostensibly all hung up with sexual peccadilloes and the Left that counseled that they should just relax and get out of other people’s bedrooms?  If we ever needed an example that the Left values no belief or opinion but only power, this has to be one of the best.  Two very far left legal scholars are now pushing for a new nationwide form of “affirmative consent” in rape laws that would turn millions of Americans into felons overnight and be one of the best arguments ever for chastity.  Talk about taking all the fun out of something God gave us to enjoy in the proper context, how about “may I touch your hand, may I touch your shoulder, may I…….” on and on ad infinitum, with failure to do so ipso facto making one guilty of RAPE!

This was one of the big selling points for the liberals. Conservatives were scary religious zealots who wanted to tell you what music you should listen to, censor your movies and television shows, and worst of all, invade your bedroom and tell you who could sleep with and what you could do with them.
It was all a bit overblown and it wasn’t as simplistic a partisan narrative as you might remember. (The campaign against rock music lyrics, for example, was spearheaded by Tipper Gore, wife of then-Senator Al Gore.) But there’s little doubt that things have changed, and now it’s the left that is pushing a neo-Victorian code of sexual conduct.

I remember during Bill Clinton’s impeachment, when Ken Starr released a report poring over the details of Clinton’s sordid encounters with Monica Lewinsky, how creepy all the liberals thought it was for a prosecutor to examine every detail of other people’s sexual encounters, like some kind of peeping Tom. Yet this is now the exact system set up on every college campus, which is prepared to produce a Starr Report for every drunken hook-up.

And the crazy ideas that start on campus have a tendency to escape from the asylum. Thus, the Washington Examiner‘s Ashe Schow reports that the campus system of “yes means yes,” in which lovers must receive express permission for every minor stage of a sexual act or risk being prosecuted by a regretful partner after the fact, is now being proposed as the legal model for criminal prosecution nationwide. As Schow puts it, this is a standard “so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight,” and is “part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.” [Will it apply to sodomites?  Or do they get a free pass?  Is this nothing but one more effort to totally confuse and emasculate men?  Note that there is ZERO exemption for properly married people. So you better consult with that lawyer fast, or it’s going to be a loooong summer.]

And it’s not just what goes on behind closed doors. Every statement about sex, every public depiction of anything that remotely connotes sex—from movies to music to video games—has to be loaded up with social and political significance and policed for evidence of forbidden sexual attitudes.

The left sold promiscuous sex to destroy the family, one of the foundational limits to their desire for uninhibited Orwellian levels of power over people’s lives.  Before, it was crazy free love that got their foot in the door, convincing many people to trade away massive areas of influence over their lives by the government so long as they could get their thing on.  Now it’s time to go to the next level, now that the family is all but ruined, and start criminalizing even the act which is suitable for the procreation of children as “rape.”  Note that aggrieved partners could make a totally unsubstantiated claim years after the fact that consent had not been given, and whammo!  you’ve got a felony rape charge to defend against.  And how can their be any evidence without videotaping every encounter, or documenting every step with signed affidavits of consent?  This is beyond ludicrous – but it is also very similar to how the Soviet and Chinese communist states behaved.

Only a leftist could come up with something so asinine.  As for whether Catholics are stricken with all manner of hangups regarding intimacy, have you ever seen our families?  That doesn’t just happen.  It takes lots of practice, and we are very, very good at it.

There was a fairly bad sci-fi movie from the 80s called Cherry 2000.  Set in 2017, the American economy is destitute, and male-female relationships have broken down to the point that many men prefer robots made for the purpose of relieving their lust (rather akin to internet pornography).  The “Cherry” models are seen as by far the best, but they are no longer made and very rare.  After the hero “Sam” accidentally destroys his Cherry model, in frustration he goes out to a single’s bar to try to meet with an actual woman. The scene below is eerily similar to what the radical left would try to make relations into (marriage will be so much easier), with haggling and legal contracts worked out in advance and female selling of their prowess through descriptions of their numerous tawdry encounters (not shown, fortunately).  Hero Sam leaves unimpressed:

Seemed like silly sci-fi imaginings in the wayback, but not so much anymore.  And this is the predictable result of abandoning chastity, decency, and virtue generally.


How is it that modernism came back so forcefully from St. Pius X’s crushing of it? July 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, Liturgical Year, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Another long-time query I’ve had, is how is it that modernism, which a good number of very solid historians and current-day commenters (for that time) were convinced had been completely shattered by the intervention of Pope Saint Pius X, came roaring back to be basically ascendant in all non-episcopal levers of power by the mid-1940s (heads of religious orders, secretariats of numerous dicasteries, a lot of ordained diocesan and other bureaucratic staff, etc, and of course almost all of academia, lay or ordained)?  Interestingly, Dom Prosper Gueranger, who died before modernism really broke out, may have the answer.  From his brief biography of Pope Saint Leo II, how is it that heresy formally condemned and even extirpated, seemingly, from the Church’s body can somehow resurrect itself, and often quite quickly?

The answer, in short, is lack of vigilance on the part of subsequent priests, bishops, and popes:

How was it that Saint Leo’s clear and complete exposition of the dogmas and the anathemas of Chalcedon did not succeed in silencing the arguments of that heresy which refused to our nature its noblest title, by denying that it had been assumed in its integrity by the Divine Word?  Because for truth to win the day it suffices not merely to expose the lie uttered by error.  More than once, history gives instances of the most solemn anathemas ending in nothing but lulling the vigilance of the guardians of the holy city.  The struggle seemed ended, the need of repose was making itself felt amidst the combatants, a thousand other matters called for the attention of the Church’s rulers; and so while feigning utmost deference, nay, ardor even, if needful, for the new enactments, error went on noiselessly, making profit of the silence which ensued after its defeat.  Then did its progress become all the more redoubtable at the very time it was pretending to have disappeared without leaving a trace behind.

————-End Quote————

I think that description of the constant rise of heresy in the early Church, even after its repeated “defeat” in being declared heretical, sums up what happened to the Church after Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of modernism.  It simply went underground, for a short while, and depended on lethargy in the hierarchy to easily resume it’s attack on the Church.

Coupled with a long but extremely interesting post at Rorate, wherein the highly problematic Fr. Louis Bouyer analyzes the “Lefebvre affair” from the point of view of 1978, and I think the answer – perhaps it’s been obvious to you for years, it hasn’t been totally clear to me – becomes apparent.

There were two essential and related factors in the resurrection of modernism.  One was lethargy, coupled with the constant temptation of our natures to reject God and His revealed Truth, seeking for a more “human” approach to divinity, but the other aspect was perhaps to be found in the very structure of the Church in that period. St. Pius X crushed modernism – it certainly seemed – decisively and thoroughly. But once that great shepherd was called to his well-earned reward, there was no one else of equal vigilance in the Church to insure the heresy remained crushed.  If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, then an orthodox Faith requires even more.

Bouyer’s analysis of the spread of the revolution in the Church – which I certainly disagree with in detail, and which reeks of Gallicanism – is I think correct in the fact that Vatican I and the definition of papal infallibility had perhaps resulted in an imbalance in the Church, with excessive obeisance towards the Holy See and, even more, a sort of deference that saw the Holy See as the only possible solution to all problems facing the Church.  As such, bishops and even priests began to lapse in their roles as guardians of the Truth, always expecting Rome to be that guardian.  Already by the 1940s bishops and heads of religious orders were tolerating a great deal of “dissent” and abuse (if not encouraging or taking part in it themselves, especially in Europe), sure in their minds that so long as Rome did not condemn whatever was going on, it must be OK.  Unfortunately for the Church and billions of souls, there has not been a pontiff of the vigilance and doctrinal certainty of a Pius X or Gregory XVI for a century or so now.

After Vatican II, when obedience shifted from the greatest virtue to a sad joke, the floodgates were open and generations of inactivity from the episcopate laid the groundwork for their – it must be said – pathetic response to the revolution in their midst (Bouyer does make another valid point – after VII the Church saw the spectacle of numerous pontiffs who had been the most stringently orthodox suddenly, faced with what I guess they thought was a real change in orientation in the Church, become fervent progressives. They did that because that’s the signal they picked up from Rome, rightly or wrongly, so that the imbalance in the Church of hypermontanism is double).  I have long thought that an excessive hyper-montanism played a role in the sudden and shocking collapse of every possible measure of Church life after Vatican II – when “collegiality” attempted to return some authority to the bishops, they were conditioned by the previous decades of relative inactivity to be quite unable to handle their responsibility.  Matters spun out of control in a matter of months, with the near total breakdown of ecclesiastical authority (only, it seems, exercised on those rare faithful victims whom that authority knows will respond), and that authority hasn’t even really begun a right restoration even to this day.

I hope this is not all obvious and a frightful bore.  It has always seemed somewhat inexplicable to me that men who professed such orthodoxy when they saw that as the reigning paradigm in the Church could, almost overnight, suddenly profess something radically different.  I’m sure many of these were perhaps charlatans during the “orthodox period” but I can’t believe that was most or all. They were obviously creatures of convenience chosen more for their administrative and fundraising capabilities than their stalwart orthodoxy, but I’ve always thought there had to be more to it than politicians in Roman collar bending with the wind. Why did so few rise up to defend the Faith?  Why did so many quite willingly sell their birthright for a mess of progressive pottage?  Why did so few take up the torch for the 2000 year old Faith that had been entrusted to them as the world’s most precious treasure?

Lack of vigilance.  Lack of faith. Convenience.  Conditioning.  And a firm belief that the Holy See, even in a “prudential Council,” could do no wrong?

Chair of katholyc Fordham U theology department fake marries another man….. July 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Papa, persecution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

……Cardinal Dolan yawns, does nothing, university praises his actions.  He was “wed” in an episcopal church, which church just contradicted their long-promised stand of never actually “sacramentally marrying” people of the same-sex, while holding out some similar ceremony of “union.”  That stand didn’t even persist for a week after the apparently all-knowing, all-powerful Supreme Court decision.  More on that in a bit, including my prediction for the future of the Episcopal Church, USA.  But first, the sodomite theology chair:

The chairman of the theology department at Fordham University has gotten married—to another man.

The New York Times, which up until a few years ago, declined running wedding announcements involving same-sex couples, reported that J. Patrick Hornbeck II “married” Patrick Anthony Bergquist Saturday at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan. The ceremony took place June 27, just a day after the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage” nationwide. That would not have been necessary legally, since New York State has allowed gay “marriage” since 2011. But the ceremony was conducted before the Episcopal Church in America voted this week to allow same-sex “marriage” rites in its churches.

When asked whether Fordham was concerned about having a professor of theology whose lifestyle choice is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage, a spokesman for the university said Hornbeck has the right to get married. [That does not answer the question.  Fordham is in NYC. Cardinal Dolan reported he was positively giddy over the marriage, and couldn’t wait to clap Hornbeck on the back with his bear paw and say “good for you!”]

“While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications. “Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.” [First of all, getting “married” outside the Church used to be grounds for excommunication, removal of which was reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff.  Secondly, he’s double-excommunicate by publicly declaring his support for the evil of sodomy.  But the hard-hearted PR man ignored the real question and gave public scandal for the 50,000th time by playing up this grave offense against God and nature.]

Howe emphasized that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.” [As I said, they will never tire of throwing this in our faces, as if a national law somehow has any bearing on the solemn Doctrine of the Faith.]

…….In 2014, Hornbeck participated in a symposium at Fordham titled “Who Am I to Judge? How Pope Francis Is Changing the Church.”…….

“American Catholics and their church have not been on the same page for some time,” said Hornbeck. “But now the pope is opening up space for dialogue.”…….[Enjoy your dialogue while it lasts.  I pray for your conversion, you can dialogue until your last breath but then you will face He Who will have no care for your self-serving sophistries, save for how they wounded His Body, the Church.]

As to the Episcopalians, via LifeSiteNews, the folly of collegiality and “democratic governance” revealed:

The bishops of the U.S. Episcopal Church gave the green light last week for clergy to perform same-sex “weddings,” in a heavily-debated fundamental change set to come in the door incrementally.

As of November 1 of this year homosexual couples will have the right to be “married” in the church, the result of new liturgies for same-sex couples approved Wednesday at the denomination’s General Convention in Salt Lake City. [Well we can see from the above some just couldn’t even wait that further 4 months]

The bishops also accepted changing the church’s canons (rules) governing marriage, to make them gender neutral, thus replacing the terms “man and woman” with “couple.” [You hate filled bigots, you make me sense!  Who are you to deny marriage to a thruple, or quadruple, or any random group of people who exchange bodily fluids in a soiree that has even the demons blushing?]

Episcopal clergy however, will be allowed to refuse to perform a homosexual “marriage” with the promise they would not be penalized, and individual bishops were also given the right to refuse to allow same-sex ceremonies to take place in their diocese. [This won’t last 3 years]

The compromise is angering Episcopalians on both sides of the issue, with liberal factions potentially trying to block the plan and insist on the immediate introduction of same-sex “marriage” with no way for dioceses to opt out, and conservatives likely to reach out to overseas leaders in the wider Anglican Communion for help in getting the church to stop.

My prediction: the sect that calls itself the Episcopal Church USA will split and resplit and cease to exist, for all practical purposes, within the next 10 years or so.  It already barely exists, with the median Sunday attendance less than 100 in its churches, but the older liberal membership is rapidly dying off, or simply losing interest, while the relatively few conservatives who remain are finally facing the reality that whatever hopes they held that the Episcopal Church might come back to its senses are increasingly forlorn.  In trying to please everyone and always be right at the cutting edge of the leftist zeitgeist, they’re losing everyone.

However, if you recall, Pope Francis, while still Cardinal Jorge, deplored Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Ordinariate, complaining to the local Anglican (ahem) bishop in Buenos Aires how wrong-headed it was to try to bring souls into the Church Christ founded.  Soooo…….we’ve got that going for us.

As good an explanation for the collapse of religious life as I’ve read July 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, paganism, Papa, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me why consecrated religious proved so susceptible to the revolution that swept through the Church in the mid-20th century.  From rapid growth and solid orthodoxy to embrace of all manner of heresy, childish mythology, bitter hatred of authority and finally, total collapse…….it is such a remarkable devolution that it beggars the imagination.  Of all the segments of the Church, it is quite likely that no segment has experienced a more thorough and radical change than religious life.  Collectively, religious have gone from being one of the greatest bulwarks of the Church to one of its gravest liabilities.

Of course there are exceptions.  But how was it that hundreds of thousands of souls who had felt this great call from God, and cooperated sufficiently with it to pledge their entire lives to serving God in His Church (as it once was), over a period of a few years came to reject not just that call but the entire rationale behind it, going from lovers of traditional piety and devotion to radical leftist apparatchiks?  Yes embrace of heresy and the wiles of the devil were key elements, but why did religious (and, to nearly the same degree, priests) prove so such easy prey to these age old temptations?

Donna Steichen offers some compelling reasons in her book Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism.  I think much of the below correlates with what faithful Catholics already know, but she does posit that the rot set in earlier than some may have thought, and she also offers evidence of why religious proved unusually susceptible to the revolution in Church and culture.  All quotes below from Chapter 5 The Domino Effect (my emphasis and comments):

During the first half of the twentieth century, nuns were almost universally esteemed as living signs of Christian contradiction to the world.  Though most women’s religious communities now seem to be in terminal decline, reverential awe toward nuns still lingers among lay Catholics, so indelible is their old image and so recent their transformation into religious revolutionaries.  How did they get from there to here?  [I can attest that I have long had a great admiration – I think “reverential awe” sums it up nicely – for orthodox, habited women religious.  There is something amazing for me as a man to see women set their natural charms aside, not to mention their calling towards being a spouse and mother, and live a life of such enormous self-denial and offering of herself to Christ and the Church.  I think we can have no idea in this life what an enormous gift such women make of themselves (and become), and how much the loss of each individual vocation is such an enormous wound to the Church and world.  I pray fervently for more holy vocations to religious life, especially faithful, traditional nuns]

The feminism that is devouring them is an opportunistic disease, insinuated into congregations reeling in pain and confusion from encounters with “new theology.”  And while their disintegration reached crisis proportions only after the Second Vatican Council, the original infection was contracted in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when the Sister Formation movement began urging that American nuns earn the same academic qualifications as their secular peers. [It must be remembered, this initiative was strongly pushed by Pope Pius XII, as well]  That plausible idea floundered in practice because American higher education, Catholic and non-Catholic, was increasingly contaminated with error, especially int he disciplines nuns usually pursued: education, psychology, catechetics and theology.  John Dewey’s secularist theories, generic skepticism and a succession of popular psychological notions held sway at teacher’s colleges, while neo-modernism was sweeping into Catholic universities from Europe.  First exposed to neo-modernist theology in college classes, nuns proved highly susceptible…….

……..When the sisters went back to school, qualities that had been among their virtues contributed to their undoing.  They proved to be the same submissive, uncritical, naive, and assiduous students at State U – and, alas, at Catholic U – that they had been in the days of orthodoxy back at dear old Mount St. Swithin’s.  But what they were taught was notably different, and few had the sophistication to strain out the camels.  Along with educational theory and remedial teaching methods, many swallowed the neo-modernist reinterpretation of Scripture and catechetics, the new morality and new psychology, already prevailing among avant-garde professors.  The result was a rapid group conversion in worldview, quickly translated back home into a new vocabulary, new policies and the new excuses that eventually became cliches in the deconstruction.  Even before the death of Pope Pius XII, many Catholic grammar schools had ceased to require student attendance at daily Mass, explaining that routine is deadly; if the children attended less often, the Mass would “mean more to them.”  [What a crock.  It’s at least as likely they would come to think the Mass not very important, since their day no longer revolved around it.  But silly, bald assertions like this were extraordinarily commonplace during that time, and the obedience that had – for many good reasons, and some not so good – been drilled into Catholics as pretty near the prime virtue left entire generations completely unprepared to fight for the Faith they have received.  If some radical change came from someone they perceived as being in authority, the vast majority went along, no questions asked – lay or religious. I would say unquestioning obedience to human authority, rather than to the Doctrine of the Faith, played as big a part in the revolution’s spread as any other single factor. But in a hierarchical Church, and especially one that had been under siege to schismatic and heretical sects for centuries, unthinking, uncritical obedience was hardly surprising.  It also points to the moral quandaries we are increasingly faced with as the revolution seems to determined to advance to a new level right now.] During the late 1950s, nuns in classes I attended were already beginning to refer to Scripture as “mythology,” explaining to questioners that “calling it ‘myth’ doesn’t mean it isn’t true, because a myth is a story that communicates a kind of truth.”  [Again, what a crock.  And something even a 5th grader could walk away from concluding: Church = myth, myth = fake, ergo Church = fake. Fulton Sheen noted nearly 50 years ago that Catholic schools and universities were where faith goes to die.]The Second Vatican Council was not the cause, but the precipitating occasion, for a revolution already under way.  [I think that’s right, to a degree.  But Vatican II codified, in many respects, revolutionary ideals, while also providing an awesome novelty: formal Church documents seeming at war with themselves, with nebulous, easily abused statements following statements of relative orthodoxy.  As even many Cardinals have noted, various documents of Vatican II can be read in an orthodox or revolutionary manner, depending on one’s disposition. And when you have princes of the Church contradicting one another on the meaning of conciliar documents, what are the laity to do? This is an unprecedented characteristic of Vatican II compared to any of the preceding Church Councils, in that no Dogmas or anathemas were proclaimed and everything is left open to interpretation. The Council ultimately followed a Hegelian “thesis-antithesis” approach, with the “synthesis” to be worked out later.  Cardinal Kasper is very clear that his own proposals attacking the moral edifice of the Church are an attempt at that “synthesis.”]

……..Collapsing orders have tended to follow a standard sequence.  First, exposure to neo-modernist theology produced a counter-conversion, away from religious conviction (the belief that God is absolute Truth, that the Roman Catholic Church is His agent to reveal that Truth), to acceptance of secular values (autonomy and self-definition, freedom, commitment to secular issues, affirmation of themselves as “change agents” [which, Steichen shows, really means worship of the self] ).  Laxity in community prayer, especially Eucharistic prayer, soon followed.  Next came permissive new rules and refusal to obey ecclesiastical authorities. [On those few occasions when ecclesiastical authority has intervened, instead of trumpeting and championing the revolution]  Finally, feminism flowed in to fill the void where faith had lived.  “I will not serve” has become their common message.  Examples can be cited in a wide range of communities.  

———-End Quote———-

As I said, I think that’s about as good an explanation as I have read, and could apply equally well to male as female religious, though in reality, most of the men’s orders never really overcame the original infection of modernism and were generally (Jesuits) the leaders in the revolution.

Readers are probably aware of St. Alphonsus’ old adage (perhaps borrowed from Aquinas): “one bad book can ruin a monastery.”  In the pre-conciliar period, Church authorities were encouraging, and in some cases even demanding, religious be exposed not just to one bad book but to entire libraries full of them.  It must be said that Pius XII, who many view as the “last good Pope” (simply because he had nothing to do with the Council, I reckon), was a prime promoter of women religious’ exposure to Catholic and secular wolves.  He certainly did so with good intentions in mind, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Vatican II could not have happened without the steady erosion of orthodoxy (especially in academia) and increasing tolerance of abuse that occurred on his watch (in his defense, he did have a number of other pressing matters to occupy his attention, such as WWII and opposing communism, the latter of which became virtually the sole concern of the last 10 years of his papacy).  History has shown that the women’s religious education initiative was a catastrophic experience for most of the religious concerned and for the Church at large.  Good and obedient students always, these former nuns obeyed their modernist instructors and became quite willing disciples of this “synthesis of all heresies.”  It will take generations for Catholic religious life to recover.

It’s probable, however, that the general trends in society would have gradually infected some of the religious communities eventually, especially those with active apostolates, even without the forming of nuns in modernism.  But I doubt the rot would have set in so quickly and deeply in that case. Most of the women religious sent for the highest education, and thus exposure to the most revolutionary, anti-Catholic ideals, were leaders in their communities.  Obedience being what it is, they then turned entire orders over to neo-modernist paganism.

So here’s a question: was education turned into a form of idol, and the destruction of so many religious orders (and their baleful influence on so many souls) a form of punishment from God for that idolization?  What need does a contemplative nun have for a master’s or PhD, especially when virtually the entire higher education apparatus in the Western world is implacably hostile to God and any form of orthodox Christianity?

I could go full-provocative mode, and ask if women really possess the critical-thinking skills and ability to stand out from the herd to merit college education?  Why is radical feminism experiencing a huge resurgence in recent years, as young millenial women, who make up 60% of the college student body at present, are radicalized on campus in their fluffy soft majors?  I should add that I feel quite strongly that college has become not the realm of a relatively few truly bright individuals, but just one more hoop everyone is supposed to jump through. As such, it has become watered down, both in terms of the education received and the value of the degree.  I would rather see the ranks of the college educated in general shrink tremendously in size – I think we would be amazed the degree to which leftist influence in society waned if such were to occur.  I see little point in going $200k in debt for a degree in queer theory or English.

Put another way: is it possible that God really does intend primarily for women to be wives, mothers, and homemakers, and any large scale deviation from that plan will only bring pain and suffering?  In response to these last hypotheticals, I hope some ladies respond.