Freedom is the Hijab April 6, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, pr stunts, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, suicide.
As a believing Catholic, I am all for modesty in dress on the part of everyone. Not just women, but everyone. I am so convinced of the necessity of modesty, that I am even in favor of certain societal norms and social pressures that would encourage people to dress (and behave) modestly, casting out of polite society egregious offenders against this norm, as was the case throughout Christendom for, oh, about 17-1900 years (I hedge a bit, not knowing what standards of dress were like in the period of the early Church).
But I stop short at people being physically coerced to dress with decorum and modesty. I do not think women should be beaten if they show 2″ too much leg, or don’t wear a full, stinking burqa. I do not think there should be religious police wandering around able to dish out corporal punishment on the spot, with no trial, no appeal.
Practice of virtue is a great source of salvific Grace. But virtue that is coerced is not such a source. We can argue at length about where to draw the line, or whether societal pressures would constitute coercion, but I think it not unreasonable to conclude that threatening severe corporal punishment or death for a violation against modesty is not only a bad thing in general, but something that is prone to abuse and capricious application (as we see from the video below).
But we have come to the point in this country, where the muslim infiltration/invasion has been allowed to go unchecked for two decades or more, that the nation’s “newspaper of record” is running op-eds from muslim women opining that the essence of freedom is found in being forced to cover themselves head to foot under threat of force from the men around them:
A great point I wish I had more time to flesh out today, but will hopefully get to tomorrow: why are the Left and islam such easy bedfellows, in spite of holding radically contrary beliefs on almost every subject imaginable? Well, aside from islam being the perfect tool to crush the Left’s highest priority target for destruction – Christianity – neither recognizes any authority but its own. They don’t recognize the value of (true) liberal democracy, they don’t recognize the value of Christianity, they don’t recognize the value of peaceful coexistence, all they recognize is power and the urgent command to obey their ideological dictates. Islam, through the practice of deliberate deceit known as taqqiyah, will make allies wherever it finds them, no matter how noxious they find their beliefs, so long as it serves the interests of the unholy “ummah.” The Left uses islam as almost their armed wing to attack the instituttions of Western Civilization and to serve as a battering ram against Christianity (in which they are far too often – almost always – aided by the Quislings within the Christian community).
Thus it actually makes a great deal of sense that they collaborate so much, so that the wholly vulgar vagina-fest known as the “Women’s March on Washington” was principally led and organized by a hijab-wearing muslim woman, a woman literally sporting a symbol of her submission to men. And yet that woman was portrayed as a feminist icon.
Pure Politics: Cardinal-Elect Farrell Continues Singing Whatever Tune Francis Calls November 17, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
An interview with CNS of former Dallas Bishop and now Cardinal-elect Farrell raised quite a bit of well-earned ire with quotes like “perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess” and “focus on Jesus, not rules.” First of all, the Church isn’t obsessed with “rules and regulations,” but with teaching the Truth that is required of souls in order to be saved. If you want rules and regulations for their own sake, go work for a Roman dicastery, they have tons of them. When prelates like Farrell reduce the Sacred Truth Jesus Christ has revealed through His Church to “rules and regulations,” they are revealing that they are fundamentally disconnected with the Church and Her role as the vehicle of salvation for all men, and are subordinated the Sacred Deposit of Faith for the preferences of fallen men and a sick, dying culture.
There’s a lot in here to unpack, I’ll only pick a few gems:
Right from the get-go, Farrell announces that “My training for this job was pastoral work. Forget all the administrative part, that’s the least important.” Really, Bishop Farrell? When was that? You only ever served in a parish for about 18 months. You’ve held administrative positions for the last 30 years solid. Yes, a bishop should certainly have a major pastoral role, but you were known throughout this diocese as an unreachable man who was rarely in town and who viewed duties like visiting parishes a hassle to be endured. You were generally escorted in and out of parish events as quickly as possible. But apparently you said all the right things in your interview, you’re now “a man of the people.”
In using the parable of the prodigal son to make his point about the Church embracing sinners without question or call to conversion – one must assume, because that’s what we’ve heard from Francis since Day 1 – Farrell completely misconstrues the parable, which conversion and embrace by the Father was based on the son’s contrition and conversion. But that is not what Francis wants to do in handing out the Sacred Species of Our Blessed Lord in the Flesh without any visible sign of avoiding mortal sin, repentance, and conversion.
Doctrinal indifference has never attracted souls to the Church. The last 50 years is hideous testimony to that fact. The Church has grown and been most vibrant when Doctrine has been preached with clearly and with fervor, and when the corruption and laxity in the priesthood and other areas of the Church has been at a minimum. That’s exactly what the Counter-Reformation was about. And, no, Francis is not drawing crowds larger or more fervent than his predecessors. In fact, in many cases, they are far smaller than they have been in the past.
“We need a more loving, a more caring Church.” Consigning souls to hell because of doctrinal laxity and even the promotion of heresy is the complete, total inversion of love. It is a diabolical inversion of that, to be frank.
“We keep pushing rules and regulations all the time. Well, none of us are good at following rules. And perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess.” I think the Cardinal-elect may have revealed a great deal more than he intended.
I’m out of time, but I covered most of what Farrell said. He certainly knows exactly what to say to achieve his career objectives. I grow less and less convinced, however, that those objectives have much at all to do with the good of souls. Being charitable, perhaps he thinks he is willing the good of the Church as a material, worldly construct, but it’s not an approach to ecclesiology I think any of the Apostles would have recognized, or shared. What comes through to me throughout – and this is a view shared by most prelates, that large majority heavily influenced by neo-modernism – is that the eternal destiny of souls is hardly considered, or, to the extent it is, Farrell believes virtually all souls are saved, and thus Doctrine really shouldn’t matter much. Unfortunately, 2000 years of belief and practice, not to mention the clear guidance of Sacred Scripture, say he, and those many, many like him, are not just wrong, but damnably so.
I’m out of time, or I’d say more. I don’t know who will replace Farrell in Dallas, I think we’ll be waiting for quite some time to come, but he’d have to be quite liberal indeed to surpass where Farrell is at right now.
h/t reader Richard Malcolm. Thanks.
Francis Had Himself a Busy Week November 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Goodness, it just never stops. And almost always towards the end of the week.
In a presser for the release of a new Vatican-sponsored book containing many of Jorge Bergoglio’s homilies as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the subject of the Sacred Liturgy came up, and Francis opined very negatively on those younger folks who have an attachment for the TLM:
Asked about the liturgy, Pope Francis insisted the Mass reformed after the Second Vatican Council is here to stay and “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.”
In authorizing regular use of the older Mass, now referred to as the “extraordinary form,” now-retired Pope Benedict XVI was “magnanimous” toward those attached to the old liturgy, he said. “But it is an exception.”
Pope Francis told Father Spadaro he wonders why some young people, who were not raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless prefer it.
“And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.”
There is so much to unpack here, so many errors, both of logic and with regard to the Sacred Deposit of Faith. One must ask, was the entire pre-conciliar Church similarly rigid and defective, in the Bishop of Rome’s mind? I think the answer to that is clear, Francis has always, always reserved his most feverish invective towards those in the Church who hold to a different, more traditional practice of the Faith than him.
But that wasn’t all. In another strange, one might even say scandalously disastrous interview with the noted Italian communist Eugenio Scalfari, Francis let go this whopper:
You told me some time ago that the precept, “Love your neighbour as thyself” had to change, given the dark times that we are going through, and become “more than thyself.” So you yearn for a society where equality dominates. This, as you know, is the programme of Marxist socialism and then of communism. Are you therefore thinking of a Marxist type of society?
“It it has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians. Christ spoke of a society where the poor, the weak and the marginalized have the right to decide. Not demagogues, not Barabbas, but the people, the poor, whether they have faith in a transcendent God or not. It is they who must help to achieve equality and freedom”. [emphasis added]
Apparently, being a Christian is now about being a control freak totalitarian mass-murderer. How many tens of millions have died as a direct result of communism around the world, and continue to do so to this day? At least one hundred million, and that is quite frankly a conservative estimate. If one takes communism as simply leftism taken to its logical, inevitable conclusion, and notes that leftism has been the driving force behind the legalization of abortion worldwide and the mass use of contraception, the total number of deaths attributable to communism must run way into the billions. Leftism cannot exist anywhere as a ruling force/ideology without inflicting mass suffering on the populations under its rule. This has been the case from the French Revolution straight through to today, where thousands are starving in Venezuela and North Korea and are mired in abject poverty in Cuba -among other places.
But to Jorge Bergoglio cum Francis the Ideologue, who as a young man waited expectantly for the arrival of communist broadsheets in 50s Argentina and has always been a fervent Peronist, communists think like Christians. This is very close to saying that communism is the apotheosis of Christianity. Can anyone imagine both a more perverse, and a more materalist, conception of the Faith?
I know these catalogs I make from time to time of Francis’ derangement from the Faith, and his, it must be said, incessant attacks upon both Faith and faithful, are disturbing to some. But this stuff is incredibly important, and deserves at least a cursory review and rebuttal. Burying our heads in the sand will not make Francis go away, as much as we might like that (and as much, at times, as it may even feel necessary to maintain our own faith, which I completely understand).
Inadvertently, however, Francis himself has identified the source that drives so many to seek out the TLM, at least in major part. Just as the extremes of the Left in the United States played a huge role in Trump’s election as a reaction against and rejection of those extremes, it is the extreme errors of the left wing of the Church -of which Francis is most certainly a part – and the extreme destruction they have wrought both on souls and on the Church at large that is a driving factor in leading people to search out and find often not terribly convenient TLMs. And once they do, these souls find, almost always (though a few do not), that not only is the TLM and the entire traditional liturgical/sacramental practice of the Faith infinitely more efficacious for them in helping them grow in the Faith, it is almost always associated with far more rigorous and traditional (orthodox/faithful/just plain Catholic) catechesis that is equally of enormous benefit to souls. THAT, and not some secret psychological deficiency, are some of the major reasons why young people like me and my children adore the TLM and find so much fruit therein, both because of its innate goodness, and as an escape from the “communists make the best Christians” garbage (among many, many other errors) the permeates so much of the Novus Ordo establishment Church.
I know for my family, fleeing error was at least as big an attraction in seeking out the ONE parish that makes the TLM available in this Diocese as was our desire for sound catechesis and beautiful, God-given Liturgy (God-given because of the inspiration so many Saints acted under in guiding the organic development of the Mass over centuries). What Franky George Bergoglio really means by “rigidity or something else” is he finds these people – us – antagonistic ideologically. Much the same as the Left in this country is now calling everyone – even blacks, hispanics, and women – who voted for Trump racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. – every dirty name they can think of – what they are really saying is “enemy.”
Bearing in mind that projection is an inseparable part of being left-wing, Francis is saying much more about himself than he is those “young” people who “inexplicably” find great solace and sustenance in the TLM. He is such a child of the 60s and so provincial he is incapable -again, the parallels to the behavior of factions in this country are amazing – of imagining anyone with true humanity (and not some sad, pathetic holdover from the time of the Council who simply never got on board) that could believe differently.
There are a thousand ways to pic these two latest egregious statements apart. I have only chosen to focus on a couple of criticisms for brevity’s sake. I’m sure you can come up with many more.
A final note: Francis’ attitude towards the TLM being simply a magnanimous gesture to those old enough to have been around prior to VII to still have an attachment to the TLM implies an expiration date for Summorum Pontificum, does it not, since eventually those folks will die off?
This is a post on American politics, not the status of the Church, just to be clear from the start. I really appreciated a post at Ace of Spades yesterday, that harped on a subject he’s been paying a great deal of attention to for many months: the revelations of just who is and who ain’t a real, believing conservative as this most bloody election season has run its course.
I want to make some things clear up front, and my time is very short so I’ll have to rush through it. I am not taking the line that a failure to support Trump is a betrayal of the conservative cause. I am not criticizing those who, out of conviction and adherence to conservative principle, refuse to vote for Trump. That is their right, and I shall never condemn that. What I am talking about is the many in the “conservative” media who have, due to Trump’s rise, shown themselves to be either far more liberal or far more attached to this ethereal “elite” we are confronted with to hold to their purported conservative beliefs in this time of stress. Even more, many of these folks are now endorsing the devil herself, Hillary Clinton, in order to demonstrate their opposition to Trump, or, if they are not going to that extreme, are vehemently attacking the populist wave that drove Trump to victory in the primary (that is, attacking the beliefs of those who drove Trump, such as opposition to open borders, or to disastrous free trade policies), and are sucking up to the liberal state media with a disconcerting enthusiasm. In doing so many are dumping ostensibly long-held conservative bona-fides in their transition into an open political hack.
Ace’s case in point is a good one – Glenn Beck. I’ve never been a fan of Beck. Back in 2011/12, when I was on a local radio show with Vicki (RIP) and Jim Middleton, Vicki was a huge fan, but I was alway somewhat suspicious of his mormonism (I’ll admit it) and, even more, his sudden embrace of a whole array of very strong conservative criticisms not only of Obama but of the entire social justice/leftist academia/infotainment media complex. It just seemed like he was glomming on to a popular movement that was rising in reaction to Obama’s election (the TEA party, etc). Well, here we are in 2016, and it seems Beck has “evolved:”
Struggling radio, video and internet entrepreneur Glenn Beck, who has styled himself as a conservative firebrand and sworn enemy of the liberal media, seems to have done an about-face and is now ardently courting the journalistic outlets he previously had little use for.
“I think a lot of people are going to be turning to him after the election to ask what role he can play in the reconciliation within the Republican party and between the parties,” said one of Beck’s business associates, explaining why the right-wing radio jock and former Fox News rabble-rouser has been plying his trade in hostile territory, cooperating with profiles for Rolling Stone and Vice News.
Beck has also started showing up on MSNBC and at The New York Times, where he recently contributed an Op-Ed essay urging }empathy” for Black Lives Matter protesters, whom he described as “decent, hardworking, patriotic Americans.”
I really appreciate Ace’s commentary, which was directed not only at Beck, but also Washington Free Beacon turncoat writer Matthew Continetti:
There are very few conservative commentators, it turns out, who actually believed the things they’ve been saying for 15 years……..
……….Yes, the “New Right” — actually the Garbage People Base of the GOP — provided the dollars and manpower to give the elite class the power to do things the base never asked them to do, and, in fact, were often explicitly promised they would not do.
Like attempting to pass amnesty three or four times………
Now that people have gotten hip to that particular shuck and jive ace, and won’t have their anger stoked over specific issues only to see the GOP drop those issues like a dead rat the day after the election, populism has revealed itself as a racist, repulsive cancer that must be excised………
……….Anyway, a lot of people just seem to be admitting they flat-out never believed the bullshit they’ve been saying for most of their lives.
I guess I’m one of the saps.
Meanwhile, two Roman Dynasties seem to have formed an alliance — George P. Bush reveals, unsurprisingly, that his Connecticut-born-and-bred uncle George W. Bush may in fact be voting for dear family friend Hillary Clinton.
Let this be our last Bush in high elected office — ever. At least elected on the “conservative” side.
There’s an Obamaesque plaintiveness to all this whining. One can hear the very pronounced theme, These noisome, repulsive ingrates just aren’t educated enough to understand all the Wonders we have accomplished for them (and our corporate patrons).
As I’ve asked, rhetorically, a hundred times: How many times did you expect run-on-border-security-propose-amnesty-three-months-after-the-election play would work? Even the stupidest people on earth eventually get wise to the same con the fifth election cycle in a row it’s run on them.
I guess the GOP base disappoints the party “intellectuals” as the American public disappoints Obama. They’re not quite smart enough to believe these people’s apparent failures are actually Beautiful Victories in Disguise, but have gotten a little too smart to keep believing the same con every two to four years.
Such is the unhappy, middle-to-low-brow lot of a GOP commoner: Too stupid to truly understand like the elites do, but not quite stupid enough to happily go along with the ruse any longer.
Good times. Honestly. The truth is always a good thing, and we seem to be getting the truth is very large doses this year.
It goes down bitter, but like medicine, it’ll do you good.
There are two likely explanations on the harsh side (putting aside any arguments that these people really are conservative, they’re just being misinterpreted or judged unfairly or whatever) of this: either these folks were always libs all along, and were just singing a conservative song to earn $$$ while secretly remaining liberal, or these are maybe folks who don’t believe in anything, really, other than their own aggrandizement, and since they see no real future for themselves in a conservative movement dominated by Trump-types and their supporters, they are suddenly appearing much more liberal in order to find future sinecures for themselves. Some of the swings have been so extreme and nasty that it’s difficult to swallow a more charitable explanation.
Again, I am not criticizing those who simply cannot support Trump for any of his many, many failings, both personally and policy-wise, so long as that inability does not translate into supporting Hillary. If you feel compelled to vote third party, that’s your right. I’ve come to conclude that such a protest is both ineffectual and quite likely counterproductive, but you may reason differently. But I don’t think this post even remotely relates to any regular readers of this blog. This has to do with the media complex, and the fact that conservatives have been afflicted with sham conservative-in-name-only media figures, writers, and thinkers, at least as much if not more than we have been with CINO politicians. That growing realization, that we have been played for saps for decades by an inbred, self-serving elite, is probably the single factor most driving Trump’s securing the nomination and his (at present?) competitive stand in the polls. Now, Trump may be playing his own con, I know some fervently believe he is, but many ardent Trump supporters I’ve interacted with are willing to take a flyer on a relative unknown/outsider than continue to support an elite that has betrayed them over, and over, and over again.
That, and at this point, the “anybody but Hillary” motivation also looms quite large. Castle, Mullins, and the rest simply have no chance to stop her, thus the logic behind voting for Trump, even with all his deplorable personal morality and his track record of radically changing his beliefs.
I’ll preface my broad, sweeping attacks again by noting that there are so-called millenials (folks 16-35, roughly) who are not idiots, not whiners, and who are in fact very good, hard-working, creditable people. Having said that, this Madison Ave. defined “generation” continues to cover itself in ignominy. So thoroughly indoctrinated by leftist propaganda in the school systems (public and private)they are utterly unable to think for themselves, left with a totally distorted view of themselves as the greatest, bestest, smarterest generation ever by the disastrous self-esteem participation trophy movement, these kids are ripe for any demagogue or slick-sounding hustler to come along and sell them on some sexular pagan paradise, which these kids will learn to their great cost will be nothing of the sort.
I am amazed at how well the leftist indoctrination in the schools has played out. These kids are completely ignorant of the evils of leftism/socialism/communism and are so pumped full of media lies they actually believe George W. Bush was responsible for more deaths than Josef Stalin. Of course, the kids have to admit they have no idea who Josef Stalin was. Oh, and communism is totes great, get on board the free stuff gravy train!:
More than one in five U.S. millennials would be open to backing a communist candidate, and a third believe George W. Bush killed more people than Joseph Stalin, according to a new poll released Monday. [In their defense, what do these kids know? Virtually nothing outside what idiot box sites like Twitter, Vox, Slate, and Buzzfeed have told them. They grew up seeing Bush ’43 described as the devil himself, compared constantly to Hitler, but have probably only the foggiest notion of Josef Stalin, and have heard none of his mass murdering crimes. It is obvious kids are being intentionally dumbed down by federally funded schools far more concerned with political indoctrination than they are with giving young people a broad based education which will teach them how to think. After all, the powers that be want good, docile worker bees, not independent thinkers. The pathetic part is, these kids think they have arrived at their leftist leanings on their own, when all they are doing is parroting what they have been very carefully propagandized to say]
The poll, commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and carried out by YouGov, surveyed Americans of all ages about their attitudes towards communism, socialism, and the American economic system in general.
Overall, the poll found, Americans remain broadly hostile to socialism and communism, even though 67 percent of the populace believes rich people don’t pay “their fair share” and 52 percent believe America’s economic system works against them. [And they may be right. After all, the vast preponderance of the most wealthy in this country hold leftist opinions, and I don’t see any of them volunteering to overpay their taxes by several hundred percent. But the cultural assumption is that the rich is made up of right-wingers. That hasn’t been the case for 20 years or more as the same cultural forces that are producing a whole generation well disposed towards leftism first moved through the elite levels of society, who all attend the same prep schools, Ivy league colleges, and have developed into a terrifyingly monolithic block of opinion totally disdainful of traditional values and especially Christianity]
But American millennials are more sympathetic towards communism, the survey found. While 57 percent of respondents overall had a “very unfavorable” view of communism, only 38 percent of millennials felt the same way. Close to 20 percent said they were likely to vote for a self-described communist, while barely 50 percent said they were likely to vote for a self-described capitalist.
Millennials were also more likely to take a favorable view of communist leaders. Twenty-five percent view Soviet revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin positively. Eighteen percent were favorable towards Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, despite a body count in the tens of millions. Thirty-four percent were favorable to Karl Marx, and 37 percent were favorable to revolutionary and T-shirt fixture Che Guevara. [Didja know Che was the scion of a guilt-ridden wealthy heretical leftist Spanish Catholic family that fled Spain when Franco quite rightly won the Spanish Civil War? Another person who never learned to think beyond his programming. He wanted to help the poor by……..miring them in even more grinding communist poverty! Or maybe he just wanted power for himself and all his high-minded rhetoric was just a means to that end]
A full third of millennials believe U.S. president George W. Bush is is responsible for more deaths than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin…….[This has to be the most offensively stupid thing I’ve read this year that didn’t come from Francis or one of his flunkies]
……..Notably, despite his infamous purges, Stalin enjoys a 12 percent approval rating with millennials.
Useful idiots. That’s all they are.
And oh gee giant surprise the whole BLM movement and the violence outside Trump rallies is just political theater organized and carried out by a tiny group of paid demonrat revolutionaries. But you knew that already.
Explosive Question: Should Women’s Suffrage Be Abolished? October 17, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Domestic Church, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, Tradition, Virtue.
Reader TT sent me a recommendation to a short book that contains two lectures given by the Catholic Bishop of Denver, CO, J.P. Machebeuf, in 1877. In those lectures, basing his reasoning almost entirely on the Epistles of Saint Paul – that is, inspired and inerrant Scripture – Bishop Machebeuf argues passionately against women’s suffrage – then a growing cause celebre among the nascent progressive faction in this country. I read this book months ago, and have been meaning to blog on it for some time, but never took the time to sit down and try to frame the matter in a way I thought would provide a reasonable discussion, as opposed to instant recourse to emotion.
Machebeuf relies principally on the following quotes from Scripture in his argument:
I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man and the head of Christ is God; the woman is the glory of the man, for the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man (I Cor xi:13).
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the women be to their husbands in all things. (Eph v:22).
I will therefore, that men pray in every place……..In like manner the women also, in decent apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety…..as it becometh a woman professing Godliness with good works. Let the women learn in silence, with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not seduced, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression; yet she shall be saved through child bearing, if she continue in faith andlove and sanctification in sobriety (I Tim ii: 6- 8)
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’ s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Gen iii:16)
From these scriptural quotes – which are not being relayed outside modifying context, I would judge – and a few others, Bishop Machebeuf argues against allowing women the vote. He also uses his assessments of the peculiarities of female nature as arguments against women’s suffrage, finding women perhaps more inclined to emotionalism, less inclined to the broader, long-range common good (as opposed to their own perceived, individual good), and perhaps less well disposed for making such decisions. He also feels women’s involvement in politics, even simply as an involved voter, would detract time from women’s primary duty in providing for the household and rearing the (hopefully many) children. Primarily, however, the bishop finds women’s suffrage an affront to what he understands as God’s divinely revealed order, an order which places women, in such matters as the public trust, if not subordinate to men, at least in no position to dictate to men, through their vote, how public affairs should be conducted.
Bishop Machebeuf also presciently notes that the matter of women’s suffrage was simply the tip of the spear for a much broader move towards “women’s rights,” or the general trend towards feminism we have seen wreak such havoc on the family and culture over the past several decades. He had the foresight to see that the then very small women’s movement would metamorphose into a mass movement dedicated to the destruction of the moral order ordained by God. A couple of quotes on this matter suffice to reveal the whole:
[The woman] cannot perform the duties of both man and woman at the same time, which makes it impossible for a woman to be a faithful wife and mother, attend to her household duties, and hold a public office – which seems to be the main object of the friends of women’s rights [Demonstrating that the Bishop foresaw, quite rightly, that the women’s suffrage movement was not just about giving women “equality” with men in terms of voting, but even putting them in positions of authority over men in the temporal realm by seeing women elected to public office. Now we stand on the precipice of seeing perhaps the most amoral character in American political history elected to the highest office of the land. And that character is a woman]
You know, beloved brethren, what some of those discontented women want; they want to shake off the authority of men, they want to turn upside down the order established by a just God, they want to rule over man.
What are we to make of this? Is this just some uncomfortable relic from a bygone, far less enlightened age, or could the bishop perhaps be onto something? Obviously, his thinking is entirely absent from the public mind of the Church today, at least outside maybe a few isolated individuals (who are treated as crackpots), but we also know the “public mind” of the Church, as expressed by the large majority of bishops, priests, cardinals, and lay people, is at divergence with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith on a vast panoply of subjects. That is to say, simply because his belief seems very much at odds with the beliefs posited by the vast majority of those who claim the name Catholic today, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong because of it.
One way to look at this subject, perhaps, is to look at the course of history in the many nations that have adopted practically universal suffrage, including women, over the past century or so. Has that trend not been overwhelmingly towards the left, towards self-seeking, and towards the undermining of the moral and religious order and its replacement with an entirely new and hostile order oriented towards paganism, immorality, totalitarian government, and selfishness? Polls in this and most every Western country reveal that women are far more likely to vote for the left-wing candidate than men. They have played a vital part of the left-wing coalition in this and many other countries. The rise of the Left has been a disaster for the Church and for the moral order, generally.
Interestingly, Bishop Machebeuf predicted that this would happen, that as women diverted attention from the home and rearing of children, towards what they were told would be the greener pastures of political and economic “empowerment,” that the rearing of children would necessarily suffer, and that neglect and the relaxation of familial and societal moral discipline would soon lead to a general, and grave, moral decay.
Bishop Machebeuf does not say in so many words, but what he is arguing in favor of, and what he reveals to be divinely ordained by God through Scripture, is that virtual curse-word today, a patriarchal society. It is very clear today, and has been for some decades, that the radical feminist movement, which was given birth (apropos turn of phrase, no?) by the women’s suffrage movement (and has continued to use many of the same methods), has developed into a movement oriented towards the destruction of the traditional patriarchal society and its replacement with something different and far more destructive. Since patriarchy is so clearly endorsed by Scripture, feminists have both waged war, and sought to co-opt, Christian leaders into their movement, even though in so doing, those leaders have helped hasten the destruction of their religion and the entire moral order. It is little wonder that it was only ten years from the institution of women’s suffrage in the United States, and the approval of contraceptive use by a major non-Catholic ecclesial body (Lambeth Conference, 1930). The decline of the moral order has unalterably advanced since then.
Am I calling for the abolishing of women’s suffrage? Perhaps in theory, though not very strongly even there. I think the bishop basically right in his assessment, but I do wonder why there are not more texts of this type that have come down to us. Was Bishop Machebeuf an outlier, even 140 years ago? Or is his rare “hardness” or orthodoxy in this matter simply an early indication of the grave problems inherent in the American episcopate all along, but which would not reveal themselves en masse until about a century later?
Either way, we are about 500 billion miles from this being even a remotely viable issue or something to push for, publicly. The vast majority of people, even – or, especially – those who call themselves Christian and/or Catholic, are so totally convinced that women voting is such a natural good, such an inviolable right, that even broaching the subject (outside a specialty audience like those who tend to read this blog) would be, at present, simply to instantly discredit oneself, or have oneself labeled as a member of the lunatic fringe. Then again, Catholics – true Catholics – have always been perceived as such by the society at large.
Having said that, another thing TT sent me, a link to a post by Mundabor, contains relevant argumentation that is probably better than I could make. It’s said a bit more strongly than I would phrase things (as you know, I am always so milquetoast and diplomatic), and overlooks one reality – that the female readers of my blog and probably his, too, are far better informed and make far better choices than the vast majority of men out there in the general populace – but he does provide a helpful condensation of the arguments it would take me many hours to frame. So take this for what you will, and I look forward to the discussion that will follow (emphasis in original):
It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.
Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.
In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place……..[I don’t think this goes nearly far enough. If there had never been women’s suffrage, I don’t think there would have ever been a Trump, or a nation fallen far enough to give us two such unworthy candidates.]
…….Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men…….
………It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.
Two thousand words is very long for a blog post, so I’ll end here, but I’ve really only scratched the surface of a very complex, and important, topic. I may err above where I say debating this will confine one to a lunatic fringe; not that I’m wrong about how people would receive such an argument, but as to whether that matters or not. That is to say, the truth must be revealed no matter how it is received.
So, perhaps we’ll have more on this topic in the future.
I found a really good piece by Angelo M. Codevilla examining the background to the election in 2016 and the dire portents for the future of the American Republic. Codevilla goes to significant lengths to prove the nightmarish, evil influence the self-anointed elites have had on this country, and how their self-serving beliefs portend only widening hatred of Christians, increasing persecution, and growing national malaise followed by ultimate collapse.
Codevilla quite rightly notes that the rise of Donald Trump is much more an expression of exasperation by a broad swath of the populace with the ruling elite who have all but destroyed this nation than it is an indication of a clearly defined set of policies. Certainly, there are aspects of Trump’s popularity that have to do with policy – his claims to reduce or eliminate muslim immigration, build a wall to contain illegal immigration from south of the border, and his erstwhile support for some kind of return to an actual rule of law in this country – but most of all, he is supported for being perceived as an outsider, even an enemy, to the ruling class that has insulted and persecuted millions of Americans for decades, and which millions see as driving this nation off a cliff.
But Codevilla notes a danger here, on two fronts: one, even Trump, and many of his most fervent supporters, seem enamored of the same kind of rule by decree, punish your enemies philosophy that has been the primary tool of the leftist elite in this country for decades. Secondly, Trump may well fail to “Make America Great Again,” leaving tens of millions even more aggrieved, more antagonized, more disenchanted with the political process in this country, and potentially open to revolution, or really, what might be a violent counter-revolution against the slow-moving revolution of the Left we have endured these past 50 years or so.
Thus, the prospects that Trump will return the US to some kind of pre-revolutionary Constitutional footing, the America That Was, seem slight, at best. Having spoken with a number of ardent Trump supporters, however, many seem cognizant of this “long shot” aspect to Trump’s candidacy, but given the choices in 2016, many were willing to role the dice on a perceived outsider, hoping against hope that he might somehow find a formula to roll back the entrenched attitudes of the leftist elite, or even, even more miraculously, somehow displace that elite with a new elite, much more in line with traditional American values and support for the Constitution.
And there are glimmers of hope for this. Trump has displayed an uncanny ability to both survive virtually unscathed the usual left-wing attacks that leave other politicians gravely wounded (or at least severely cowed), and to squash the fatal conceits and internal contradictions of cultural marxism. Cultural marxism/political correctness has been the primary vehicle by which the ruling elite – which Codevilla repeatedly notes, includes both demonrats and Republicans, all sharing the same assumptions and hideous errors – has imposed its will on the American people. It is one of the aspects of Trump’s rise I find most attractive. But will Trump simply be a “reactionary” version of the same thing we have been enduring for decades, with rule by decree, executive action, secret handshakes, and all the other contra-Constitutional behaviors that have defined the ruling elite, only turned around and directed at those who have held sway for the best part of 56 years?
Codevilla’s work is long, but very much worth reading from beginning to end. It’s also quite dense, and not easy to excerpt, so I’ll only provide his conclusion below.
His overall takeaway, however, is that whatever Trump is, and whatever good he might do, it is probably too late to preserve this Republic. The toxic ideas of the marxist-inspired Left in this country have sunk in too deep, done too much damage, and influenced the thinking of far too many LIVs and other useful idiots to be checked by a single politician, even an exceptional one (which is far from certain, to my mind). This is precisely my view, and has been for some time. America has fallen beyond the realm of a political savior. Politics is downstream of culture, the leftist pseudo-religion has definitively won the culture war (in terms of getting a large majority of people to accept their false precepts and diabolical doctrines), and only a religious renewal on a massive scale can possibly turn this country around.
I see little evidence of that, however. What I fear will happen is just more of the same, but with limitless boundaries, as Codevilla notes, as this country transmogrifies into some kind of socialist pseudo-dictatorship of the oligarchy, with endless repression of Christians and traditional beliefs, generally.
Trump’s slogan—“make America great again”—is the broadest, most unspecific, common denominator of non-ruling-class Americans’ diverse dissatisfaction with what has happened to the country. He talks about reasserting America’s identity, at least by controlling the borders; governing in America’s own interest rather than in pursuit of objectives of which the American people have not approved; stopping the export of jobs and removing barriers to business; and banishing political correctness’s insults and injuries. But all that together does not amount to making America great again. Nor does Trump begin to explain what it was that had made this country great to millions who have known only an America much diminished.
In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.
Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, [how could such even be accomplished? Shut down all Ivy League and most other colleges, most public schools, where the indoctrination is so firmly entrenched rocing a change seems essentially impossible?] much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.
We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.
Two last things: first, I don’t take this piece as anti-Trump. I think it realist. I have become increasingly anyone-but-Hillary in the past 2-3 months, but I am highly skeptical that Trump will really turn things around in this country. I am skeptical that any man, especially a politician, could do so. We’re in the hands of God at this point.
Secondly, I am increasingly doubtful there will be some kind of revolutionary or counter-revolutionary reaction against the entrenched elites. I mean, given the insults, persecutions, and unjust treatments we’ve already swallowed, what will we not swallow? The elites are absolutely banking that we’re far too spoiled, comfortable, and afraid of losing what we have to do anything radical. I see little evidence they are not right.
But should they begin to truly impoverish Americans en masse via things like carbon taxes, banning of fossil fuel production/use, implementation of hard-socialist policies a la Venezuela or Bolivia, then………maybe. Note, however, that even in Venezuela, strident protest and violent reaction against the country-destroying socialist regime has been really quite limited, and the government is not experiencing an existential crisis just yet.
The Real Goal of H-1B Visas is Driving Down STEM Field Salaries August 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Domestic Church, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, sadness, scandals, Society, suicide.
Many readers will recall that I was laid off from my job of 8 years (12, actually, but in two different stints) earlier this year. I have described my not only finding a new job, but one that actually allowed me to get a little uptick in pay, as miraculous. Not only did I find that job in record time (5 weeks), but the fact that I didn’t have to take a pay cut after leaving an unusually high paying employer (Fujitsu) was beyond amazing. Your prayers, I am convinced, made all the difference. I shall forever pray for you – I pray.
One thing I was frustrated by during my job search – and I’ve kept looking around just a tiny bit since – is how little salaries in my profession had gone up since the last time I was on the market in 2006. They had remained totally flat, if not decreased a bit. I found many companies unwilling to pay a senior, highly skilled mechanical engineer, with very strong CAD and analysis skills, more than the same amount a year they were offering 10 or 15 years ago. I had a lot of contacts with HR people or hiring managers that got positively peeved when I told them my salary requirements, and I fired back more than once that they were basically paying under $50k a year in 2006 dollars for that $75k salary they were so proud of (when you factor in inflation).
So I was fairly interested to see this news report, and especially the attached graph, that shows how salaries among computer programmers and IT types have actually FALLEN since 2002 in constant dollars, and I can say that software engineers and IT folks have it better than more “old school” engineers like mechanicals.
Meanwhile, barely 2/3 of those with STEM degrees are actually using their degree in their present employment, and the unemployment rate of STEM types has nudged upwards over the years.
All of which proves that the much vaunted STEM shortage is really a fabrication. Or, they never quite finish the sentence…….many corporations, including ones headed by astonishing wealthy individuals (Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc), do have a shortage of STEM workers…..at the very low salaries they want to pay.
That is why, as the article below notes, H-1B visas tend to go to very young, inexperienced workers, making them cheaper still.
Leaching off last week’s DNC Convention, tech industry-behemoths Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon hosted a mini-conference amidst the gathering elite aimed at building awareness of the supposed lack of tech-education among America’s youth. The policy-push comes off Microsoft’s ‘National Talent Strategy’ hatched a few years back; an initiative which the company’s own general counsel apparently admitted was nothing but a ‘manufactured crisis’ really geared to serve the industry’s H-1B immigration agenda. Indeed, if America really did have an ‘education crisis’ in the STEM-fields, why do so many of the hundreds of thousands of H-1B professionals imported here every year come from places that do far worse educationally than we do?
The H-1B program was created in 1990 following claims from the then-brand new tech lobby that American professionals with sufficient tech-skills were in short supply. Twenty-five years on, that labor market-shortage has apparently still not been corrected with the industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year lobbying Congress to import more and more tech-professionals from abroad. …….
……..Recently, the Immigration Reform Law Institute obtained government records showing that between FY2013 and May of this year, almost one million H-1B petitions for imported white collar-workers were approved by DHS officials. And of all those successful petitions, a whopping 70 percent went to white collar-workers from India. This isn’t exactly surprising. BigTech loves Indian workers; not only because English is India’s national language, but because the workforce there is young (and therefore cheap). Unsurprisingly then, according to DHS-data almost three-quarters of petitions awarded to professionals in 2011 went to those aged between 25 and 34—Gender discrimination’s also likely. Although DHS says it doesn’t track gender-data, one labor association’s estimated that at least 80 percent of H-1B petitions go to men.
For a very long time, I shied away from believing that corporate titans and captains of industry were really as greedy as they are often portrayed as being. But that reticence is becoming harder and harder to maintain.
I don’t mean to sound like a grousing populist man of the people, but I have recent and direct experience of seeing how wages in my profession, the one I was promised by parents, teachers, professors, and counselors alike would always be in high demand and was a “sure bet,” have stagnated if not retreated in constant dollars. I have seen how many long time professionals of eminent capabilities have not been as blessed as I have been, and are still desperately searching for engineering employement 6, 12, 18, even 24+ months after being laid off. Or if they do find employment, it is most often contract-based with no benefits and at a significant cut in pay. And I have seen far too many companies gut their R&D investment, placing short term profits over long-term viability.
Once again, it is little wonder Trump is as popular as he is. It’s not only the blue collar types that are being crushed, it’s a great many white collar professional types, too.
Trump Brings Out Shocking Classism of Republican “Elite” August 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, Society, suicide.
Via Rorate, a really interesting post by Dalrock, examining how conservative elites (well, two prominent ones, anyway) now chastise blue-collar whites for falling into the moral morass the self-anointed elites of both parties themselves created. From serial divorce and concubinage to casual drug use (leading to addiction) to contrabortion and now redefining marriage, wealthy elites have by and large been able to escape the painful economic and social effects of the immoral culture they have created. Meanwhile, they castigate blue collar folks “failure” to uphold the very standards the elites themselves have successfully destroyed. Trump’s success is a sign of the peons revolting against those who view themselves as masters:
Love him or hate him, Trump has managed to bring the Republican elite’s seething contempt for the working class to the surface. Back in March, Kevin D. Williamson at National Review wrote that white working class communities deserve to die:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog—you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that…
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible…[I have liked a great deal of what Williamson writes, but never saw this before. As someone who visits these kinds of locales regularly, several times a year, and has family scattered throughout them, I find this gravely offensive and about as backwards as one can get. What is the greatest predictor of economic disadvantage, tendency towards crime, and drug addiction? Growing up in a single parent (mom only) household. But it wasn’t the working class whites of Muleshoe or Watertown or Harlan County that clamored for divorce on demand, it was the white upper and upper middle classes. The working class have embraced the false freedoms imposed by the sexular pagan elite, to their shame and great self-injury, but they didn’t create this mess, in fact, in many cases they were some of the most stalwart opponents of the agenda the elites insisted on imposing, and yet now they are being blamed for it as is it were their own. Surely there is enormous blame to go around, I’m not giving those folks a pass, but I will say that, even to this day in the small towns I visit regularly, there is far less divorce, concubinage, and drug addiction than there is in the “sainted” big city.]
Trump’s focus has been on the elite’s policy of driving down the wages of the working class through lopsided trade deals and flooding our economy with cheap foreign labor. Williamson ironically disregards the economic crisis faced by the working class by accurately noting that our elites have done even more damage by creating a new family model that only works for the upper middle class. [It doesn’t even work for them, the children are devastated and eventually enough will be brought low by this that whole families will sink from “upper-whatever” to “lower-whatever” class. But the upper classes generally have the financial wherewithal, the reserves, to weather the devastation of frivorce and other ails better than the lower classes]
The callousness on display here is breathtaking, yet it is commonplace amongst Republican elites. [Is it? My gut says yes, certainly, Republican elites have always been disdainful of social conservatives and our concerns, preferring to please the donor class. Not sure how much more evidence there is, however, of a bias specifically against icky lower middle class blue collar types] Much of the contempt for Trump stems from the contempt the elite have for the segment of society that he is reaching out to, a segment the Republican elites have done their best to ignore for decades. This shines through even when members of the elite try to learn from Trump’s example…….
[Now another damning quote from another conservative writer]………They will have to go to the Fishtowns of America, to the forgotten and shuttered places, and by word and deed show the people there, however backward they might be, that they can rebuild their lives and their communities, and that they aren’t alone anymore…..[Wow]
………This attempt by the Republican elites to minimize the plight of the white working class is not only foolish politically, but is also built on moral quicksand. It is true that the dysfunction we observe typically involves poor choices by all involved. But it is also true that these same elites have reworked marriage to a model that only works for the elite.
That is, one not built around the father-provider and mother-nurturer, but basically eliminating the father from the family and replacing him with Uncle Sugar, the surrogate provider of the state. That method denies an increasing number of children, tens of millions of them, a father, almost insuring future poverty, joblessness, poor education, and a profound tendency towards crime. It gravely wounds society from a moral standpoint, of course, but also produces young people of weak moral fiber and with little work-ethic, helping insure the economic malaise Williamson, et. al., claim to find so damning.
I’m still not terribly down with Trump, but I have zero problem understanding why so many are. I’m far from certain he’s the right answer to the
problems crises so many face, but I can understand why folks would be willing to take a shot on the perceived outsider, no matter how dubious that perception may be.
It’s amazing how far we’ve fallen. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan, or William Safire, arguing to just write off all the small towns and rural districts of America? THEY ARE YOUR NUMBER ONE BASE!!!!!! No group votes more consistently “(R) than rural whites. What kind of idiot would think something like that, let alone write it?! What an amazingly tribalistic, classist notion.
But that’s where we’re at. I really fear this country is way beyond any political savior at this point, the moral rot is too deep, the evil too widespread. The center cannot hold, the best lack all conviction, and all that. Perhaps I’ll be surprised, however. We’ll see.
Best Analysis I’ve Read on the “Deaconess Commission” August 9, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
I finally took the time to stop down by Unam Sanctam Catholicam, and was rewarded as usual. Some have argued strenuously that merely creating a committee to study the issue of “female deacons” doesn’t imply an endorsement of such or any kind of move towards making deaconesses a reality, and could even be an ingenious method to bury the issue! Of course, there have been preceding commissions, preceding studies, and they failed to do so.
Anyone who knows how politics work, however, knows that nothing is more important to a fringe issue than keeping it alive. Nothing is more vital than getting the seeming acceptance of the powers that be by having them create some committee to study your nutty fringe issue. Suddenly, it’s not so fringe, it’s become mainstream, it’s part of the process! It has momentum. And allowing highly contentious politicized issues to gain momentum in the official sphere can often have enormous unintended consequences, even those quite contrary to those who may have intended to kill a matter by consigning it to committee in the first place.
So opines Boniface at USC, and I am strongly inclined to agree (my emphasis and comments):
……But the thing to realize is the mere fact of opening a subject to discussion makes it appear that its open for discussion. Even if there’s no money for the project and it literally cannot happen, the fact it is being discussed makes people think it can. [Absolutely]
[The most important part…..] And the impossibility of the project coming to fruition does not stop its partisans. They use the commission as a means of propagating their ideas and refining their arguments – of networking with the right people and putting the right mechanisms in place to further their agenda. Of putting out whatever message to the public they wish. Of building public support and leveraging pressure on those in charge to bend to their wishes.
In other words, they might know they are not going to get what they want, but they create a momentum towards it.[!!!]
Why create momentum when they know it literally can’t happen? Well, in politics nothing is ever ultimately impossible. But in the Church, literally women can never be ordained to the diaconate. It simply cannot happen any more than a woman could be ordained to the priesthood. But that does not mean its proponents – who think it is possible – will not try to create the momentum. And the momentum is what is so dangerous, because even if we never have women deacons, the momentum is like a huge net that will drag all sorts of souls into error on this point, create dissension, false expectations, schisms, scandal, confusion and chaos. And the chaos itself is detrimental, whether or not we ever get women deacons. [And so, Francis committees, and the ones that have come before, rehashing an issue already settled centuries ago, are, at best, huge prudential mistakes, if not at times worse than that]
People who think this is “no biggie” just because it “won’t happen” don’t understand the way people hijack parliamentary procedure and the commission-committee system to foment chaos to create momentum towards their goals. It is all destabilizing, and ultimately destabilization of the traditional Church structure is what the progressives are after. [And you have to keep in mind, though you or I may know deaconesses in the modern sense to be impossible, the supporters of women’s ordination do not know that. They think it not only possible, but inevitable. They’re on the “right side of history,” and all that. Even more, many of their allies in the hierarchy also think it quite possible. From that, all kinds of dire outcomes are possible]The pope ought to have said, “There is no point in a commission to study. This can never happen, and if so, there’s no point in studying it. I don’t want to give Catholics the impression something could change when it can’t.” But by allowing a commission to “study” the question, Pope Francis is opening the door for partisans of women deacons [no, women “priests,” that’s always been the goal] to start building that momentum towards a female diaconate; whether they get it or not it irrelevant. The fact is, the traditional exclusion of women from Holy Orders is now open for discussion, and that fact alone – regardless of what conclusion they come to – is dangerous.
With the Left, whether secular or ecclesiastical, it’s always about moving the ball forward. Once moved, it’s like a new point of departure,; there is no going back. Anything that serves to move their agenda forward, they will take with great cheer. Even synods that don’t go nearly as far as some might have liked. And they can be very patient in pursuit of their agenda.
I’ll admit – there are times when committees are used to kill certain issues. But rarely do they succeed with regard to sacred shibboleths of the Left that involve cultural hot-button issues.
Boniface has been in politics. It shows.