Daily Archives: July 13, 2011
There is an excellent blog post about male priesthood from Jennifer Fulwiler on the National Catholic Register. The blog post is the more interesting, because the now-converted (Deo gratias…) author remembers her reasoning about the male priesthood when an atheist and – as she herself admits – a feminist.
Mrs. Fulwiler brilliantly puts it as follows (emphases always mine):
At the time I had recently become a mother, and there’s nothing like pregnancy and childbirth to hit home the fact that men and women are really, really different. Even outside of the Catholic perspective, there’s no denying that whoever created us—whether you call it God or Nature or Allah or whatever—created men and women with complementary yet entirely separate capabilities. Women can carry new human life within their wombs, men can’t. Women can breastfeed, men can’t. Men are generally stronger; the strongest man in the world is always going to be the stronger than the strongest woman in the world. The list of the innate differences between the genders goes on and on. Assuming that the entire human race was not born into an inherently unfair situation, it would seem that our Creator does not believe that you need to be able to do all the same stuff in order to be equal.
This injection of common sense would do a lot of good to a lot of feminist – be they atheist, or wannabe Christian – out there. But such an injection would require them to sacrifice some holy cows, which is why they choose to remain impervious to logic, and allergic to truth. One of these cows is described by the blog post author as follows:
[…] I had begun to question this pervasive modern idea that what you do is your value. […]. One of the results of this idea is that we, as a society, decided that if women are not invited to do every single thing that men are invited to do, the only possible explanation could be that they are valued less — and being barred from doing certain activities means that their options for reaching complete fulfillment as human beings are limited. The more I considered it, the more this worldview struck me as sadly utilitarian. I started to think that it’s possible to believe that men don’t make good lactation consultants, women don’t make good guerrilla warfare combatants, etc. without it being a commentary about the inherent worth of one gender over another.
I generally explain this concept with my persuasion that feminists want to be men, and therefore feel as a deminutio every instance in which it becomes clear to them – or, alternatively, to the thinking part of the human race – that they cannot. Strangely, you never hear feminists fighting for the abolition of one of the last, blatant bastion of sexual discrimination: the separation of men and women in sport competitions. No need for equality there. Differences must be taken into account. There are structural specificities that would be impossible to ignore.
The next injection of common sense comes regarding the male priesthood itself:
When God took on human flesh, he did so as a man. He could have come down as a woman, as a brother and sister team, or as a genderless being. But he didn’t. If you want to reject Christianity as untrue, that’s one thing; but if you accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate, it seems like you must also accept that God sees the male gender as having a special role to play in the world.
Yes, brilliantly and amusingly true. Once again, the contradiction of accepting Jesus as God Incarnate and refusing what choices this God Incarnate made is clearly absurd. The fact that 100% of the Apostles were men (no female quota there, in a clear show of political incorrectness) actually closes the question.
The best part is for the end: the Blessed Virgin.
Once I discovered Catholicism, one of the many things that rang true about its teachings was the emphasis on Mary. It made perfect sense that God would give a woman a critical role in his plan, someone who could serve as an example of perfect feminine holiness—and it made sense that his true Church would understand and celebrate this fact.
I add to these beautiful words a fact that to me seems extremely relevant: that in the heavenly hierarchy (yes! There is a heavenly hierarchy!) the Blessed Virgin is above every saint, above every Apostle, even above Peter and Paul and St. John the Evangelist and St. John The Baptist; even above every Angel, every one of them! Only the Trinity is higher in glory than the Blessed Virgin!
So let me reassume the brilliant feminist theory: a bunch of chauvinistic traitors manage to utterly ruin the clearly feminist, emancipated message of Jesus; they isolate Mary Magdalen and succeed in cancelling from history every trace of her apostolate; they proceed to create a rigidly man-dominated system, clearly showing which one is the qualitatively better sex………then they proceed to put a woman in the highest place conceivable for a human being, and this in a society that had come to consider women as little more than reproduction instruments.
Explain this, angry feminists….
It is beautiful to see that, when one is ready to apply some elementary logic rather than senseless slogans, a lot of things start to appear very clear, and to make a lot of sense.
Even for an atheist.
Very interesting blog post of Archbishop Chaput (one of the best of the new generation of orthodox, vocal bishops in the United States).
The blog post focuses on the fundamental choice given to anyone of us to choose whether we want to follow Christ, or the world. But what I think makes this article particularly interesting is the frank admission that in some Muslim countries, the time devoted to their sacred texts is vastly superior to the time devoted to the same purpose by us.
This relates, of course, to the usual problem of the missing instruction of the Catholics from the part of those who should care for them in the first place: the priests; but at the same time, it stresses the fact that in the Muslim countries, this instruction effort becomes mind- and world-shaping:
They read and discuss the Koran every day, for hours each day, every day of the week until they know it by heart. Many of them can recite whole sections of the Koran without thinking. Little by little, like water dripping on a stone, it shapes their whole view of the world—what’s right and what’s wrong; what’s important and what’s not.
Now don’t get me wrong: what they do is wrong in the sense that they spend their time on the wrong texts, believing a lie. But what they do is certainly admirable in the zeal they show, in their desire to have their lives shaped by their religious convictions, instead of doing the contrary as many mickey mouse-Christians in the West try to do. In the end, my being a Christian must lead me toward seeing my entire existence and the world around me in the light of Christ’s teaching. It cannot be that Christianity becomes just something we put in a corner of our consciousness, to be used only when it doesn’t conflict with the rest of our lives.
This is why I find the discussions about what do so-called homo-marriages take away from (the only) marriage so useless: the problem with so-called homosexual marriage is not that homos will, after having been “married”, try to kill as many husbands and wives as they can. The problem is that so-called homo marriages are the contrary of what Christianity teaches and must therefore be refused by every Christian not only as a private choice, but in their very existence.
Coming back to our eagerly reading Pakistanis, the observation can be easily made that such a zeal can degenerate into fanaticism, and it rather often does. But my answer to this is that such ardent zeal can become fanaticism because they follow the wrong religion, not because it be wrong to be zealous in the first place. You just can’t be too Christian.
We live in a world which looks with mistrust at sound knowledge; a world more ready to rely on the often misguided “common feelings” – those things that everyone in one’s social group believes – than on sound knowledge recognised as truth. As a consequence, our countries are full of people sincerely claiming to believe in Christ, but who never made the effort to understand the implications of this. Muslims seem to have less of a problem with that.
Bishop Chaput puts the Christian alternative as follows:
American Catholics have the one true Word of God in the Bible. If we took just one hour of the time we waste on television every day and used it to study and pray over the Gospels, we’d be fundamentally different people, and our country and our world would be transformed.
Bishop Chaput is here referring himself to the American Christians as a whole, the majority of whom are (for the time being…) Protestants; but we integrate the encouragement with the reading of sound books of Catholic doctrine it certainly applies to Catholics, too.
To conclude, let me express once again my deep gratitude for the work of those rare determined, orthodox and vocal bishops who, like bishop Chaput, are not afraid of saying it as it is irrespective of the “hurt” it may cause in those, well, permanently hurt. If in Western Countries we would have had more bishops like him in the past twenty or thirty years, I doubt that we would be discussing euthanasia and homo so-called “marriages” now.
We are not yet at the “marriage” with animals, but this novel concept that marriage (and actually: everything) is simply not what it is, but how one decides to define it is already bearing its first poisoned fruits.
As you can read here, a strange collection of people claiming to be a sort of, oh well, “extended family” (and in fact, “Mormon traditionalists” as it would appear) has now challenged the Utah bigamy law.
The author of the blog post, Tom Crowe, says it right:
…. if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.
Or, I venture to add, between all the above mentioned and Fido; or between (among?) all the abovementioned where Steve and Betty (or Patty, or Jane, or Suzy; or all of them) are relatives; like siblings, say, or daughters of the same father.
Tom Crowe also notes that:
the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto
and in fact, I am at a loss to understand how those unspeakable people (like our streetworker, Mark Grisanti) who dare to be in favour of “not discriminating” against sodomites will justify in front of their electors their refusal (if any) to allow all other sort of abominations. Hey, are you not “discriminating” against them, then?
An evil genie has been let out of the bottle. The fight to get it back again starts now.
Read here on the National Catholic Register about the vote of the US Congress regarding the ban of the celebration of so-called same-sex marriages in naval bases on the ground that it violate the federal Defence of Marriage Act.
This amendment removes (for the time being) the possibility that a military chaplain may find himself threatened in his religious liberty (because, say, obliged to either perform the “ceremony” or find a substitute for its celebration) and the resulting predictable exodus of military chaplains (Catholics, but not only) from the US Navy. In addition, it reinforces the federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The US Congress has now a republican majority of course, but this vote is said to have been bipartisan.
The battle against the modern parody of reality called “same-sex marriage” has just begun; if the Christians in the US wake up and smell the coffee, it can have only one outcome.
For the moment though, and at least in the US Navy, “Loretta” will have to wait.
Being Italian, I could write a blog post or two about shameless politicians. Still, I must say that the behaviour and declarations of Mr. Mark Grisanti are rather indigestible fare even for an Italian politician.
Mr. Grisanti first says, as recently as 2009, that he is “unalterably opposed to same-sex marriage”; then says that he is still opposed to same-sex marriage, but “if he takes the Catholic out of him”, which is “hard to do”, then he should actually be in favour; then he proceeds to decide that to get the Catholic out of him is not hard to do at all, and prostitutes his vote against, no doubt, a lot of money for his campaign comes election time. His astonishing explanation for his behaviour is that he could not “deny anyone in my district and across New York the same rights I have with my wife”.
And why is that, Mr. Mark Jezebel? What is your marriage to do with what perverts want to have legalised? You are a Catholic, right? “Oh no, I have taken that out of me, you know”. You are a harlot, Sir.
At this point the criticism evidently becomes ferocious, and Mr Grisanti must explain whether his prostitution phase was the one before, or the one after the vote, being clear that here prostitution has been at play at some time. At this point, our lady of pleasure chooses to say that hey, he never prostituted himself, he just happened to take the Catholic out of him! Let us hear him:
“in the past what I was telling you, and what I believed at that time, was the truth.”
This is fantastic: he believed that “it was the truth” when his Democratic opponent was pro-homos and it was convenient to “keep the Catholic in”, but at the first opportunity of currying favor and money the Catholic was promptly kicked out, obviously “believing” that it be right to do so.
But this is not enough, as the barrage in front of such astonishing, Berlusconi-shaming hypocrisy forces him to change his mind again after just a couple of days and to declare that his past “unalterable” position
“was probably more political than actually conscience.”
What an unspeakable, dirty little rat, and what a triple-faced Jezebel. In comparison to this man, Berlusconi and Craxi are shining beacons of political integrity. I hope that Mr. Grisanti – and the other little prostitutes like him – will be annihilated at the next opportunity, money or no money. Let him receive – metaphorically speaking – the same treatment he so approves in the sodomites, and we’ll see how he likes it. It is important that it be so in order to send a clear message that such behaviour carries consequences, and it’s the end of one’s political career.
Seriously: what a w&@re.