“Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot

Catholic…. What?

Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.

Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.

Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.

Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.

In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.

The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.

What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.

For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.

Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.

Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.

This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.

I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.

I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.

I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.

Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.

I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…

I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.

Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.

They live far happier lives, too.


Posted on April 21, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 24 Comments.

  1. Mund, don’t be surprised at what you saw at the Catholic Answers website. They went off the track years ago. They allow for theistic evolution, and have morons like Mark Shea in their speaker’s bureau. I subscribed to their magazine when I first became a Catholic years ago, but I quit because I felt the articles in it were recycling the same old stuff over and over again. Michael Voris is doing the job CA should be doing, and in my opinion, at a lower cost, since he doesn’t pay himself a big salary like Karl Keating does.

  2. To be fair to Mr. Mark Shea, he is, pound for pound, the biggest CPA (Convert from Protestantism Apologist) out there.

    • Oh, plenty of those, and infinitely better.
      Father Z is a convert, for example. The author of Ars Orandi is a convert, too. Going a bit back in time, Ronald Knox is stellar.
      But if you like him, your problem… 😉


  3. BTW – what would you say about a trad priest – not a counselor – counseling a couple? Still no go?

    As an American who has grown up with exactly the attitude shown in this post and realizing more & more as I study traditional Catholicism, that there is another way to do things, are there any resources you could recommend to help me in learning a more Catholic & feminine attitude?

    • Hello Brenda, and welcome!
      Personally, I would never suggest a priest for a simple matter like that. Just imagine which husband would want a wife saying “father, father!” every time her husband grates her in a matter of domestic policy…

      If the problem were to be a serious one, like a drunkard and violent husband, or a gambler burning away the money, I’d say the wife should go and talk to the priest to draw strength and encouragement at the very least, and perhaps the priest might even be able to help in other wAys and let the husband see reason if he can. Still, in matter of domestic policy neither the priest, nor the mother-in-law, nor the wife’s best friend, and least of them all the hysteric “apologist” or the flippin’ “counsellor” have one single word to say. The only one who can legitimately, if she disagrees, say so is, in fact, the wife.

      I commend your intelligent attitude, and progressive detoxification from the feminist – alas, rather mainstream – mentality so common nowadays. As in my culture such problems do not really exist (perhaps the mother in law, but she must be a rather bad one) I wouldn’t know what to suggest. You will find on this blog some short booklets of the “Catholic Truth Society”: their pre-Vatican II booklets are stellar and there might be the one or other that goes rather near the topic. If you use the search function you’ll find a handful of them, all of them in my eyes very good readings regardless.

      The Internet Catholic site “Lux Occulta” has a vast collection of them, you will have much better chances there, too.

      Otherwise, perhaps some of my Anglo-Saxon readers will have some suggestion with adequate resources. The problem is that the “modern family” bollocks has so infiltrated the way of thinking that mainstream publishing houses are unlikely to have anything acceptable.

      Besides “Lux Occulta”, if you search Amazon for rigorously pre-Vatican II sources I think you’ll fare best.

      Again, congratulations, and good luck in your search.


  4. Dear Mundabor. My comment was intended to be sarcasm. As for CPAs, there are great ones – such as Mr. Werling and then there are the popular CPAs – like Shea and the Patheos Posse – who are sappers of Tradition.

    As for Fr. Z., while there are many positive things he does, they are all undermined by his Pope Benedict worship.

    • ah, my apologies! I had a “German moment”… 😉

      As I did not recollect having read any other comment of yours, I assumed you were a “fan” attracted to this blog by Google…

      On reflection, I should have known better… 😉


  5. I was wondering if the Catholic Answers material was as lame as some of the answers I’ve heard during the “Ask your Father” segment on Relevant Radio (still hate that name), when I’ve tuned in. Not long ago, I heard a caller ask about Pope Pius XI’s _Mortalium Animos_, and the priest fielding the questions was obviously uncomfortable answering the question but responded with an assertion that that particular document was talking about the pan-religious assemblies that happened in that bygone era; it certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the ones we have now. When the caller insisted that the encyclical was pretty clear, the priest interrupted with a reference to Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism and his confidence that this decree is really more relevant for today . . .By that time, I was ready to pull my hair out. I had three of my kids in the car, and I was parking at the grocery store when I blurted out, “Vatican II was WRONG about that!” So I spent the next few minutes explaining my outburst and what they might have overheard of the priest’s answer. Honestly, it’s been a while since I’ve read the Vatican II documents, but I remember wanting to pull my hair out while reading them, too. Correct me if I’m wrong (because I’ve been wrong a lot), but at the very least the documents of Vatican II are fatally flawed, even if they don’t clearly advocate religious indifferentism. I get mixed signals whenever I read them, and it’s enough to drive me to drink (if we could afford it, which we can’t).

    • You are absolutely right, and your sons are blessed in having you as their mother.

      All important V II documents are exercises in doublespeak, containing the orthodox, the heterodox and the invitation to one heresy.

      When your children are a bit older, they’ll profit a lot from reading “100 years of Modernism”, available in Kindle and paperback. I have written a blog post about the book. You might like both.

      Congratulations again for being a mother so attentive to the spiritual welfare of her offspring. Doesn’t happen a lot.


  6. I’m a convert!

    My thought when reading the “bitchy apologist’s” answer was that it’s going to be a miracle if a divorce doesn’t result from this. I don’t know why, that woman who wrote struck me as a sheltered, blessedly traditional Catholic, who if she follows the advice of that apologist is going to get exposed to an entire world of ravening wolves she won’t be prepared to deal with. I hope – I pray – she was shocked and offended by the advice and sought a good, traditional priest to advise her. What she should really be is thankful she has a husband so willing to defend her and their home – not that the situation won’t be incredibly painful, but that is the fault of her immoral sister.

    I needed no confirmation that Catholic Answers is a disaster in terms of orthodox catachesis. Their forums are a nightmare, where one can learn that even Teilhard de Chardin was a great Catholic, if just a bit misunderstood. Please, if de Chardin is Catholic, then Martin Luther should have been Pope.

    • Excellently said, Tantamergo! (how does it go on? “sacramentam”? 😉 )

      The wife is certainly blessed in Her life and husband, but might be too naive to understand where it will end if she only so much as hints at the “solution” with her husband. I actually think the man should be as “authoritarian” as to forbid her the frequentation of such Internet places, too…

      As to the “apologist”, if we were among men I’d have some fitting comment to make, but as we are read by a number of good Christian ladies, perhaps better not…


    • I know my moniker is misspelled, I made a mistake when I created my blog long ago, but I’ve kept it as a token of my ignorance and error……..:p

    • I thought it was ironic…
      You may want to try to salvage the situation that way… 😉


    • Of course a divorce is going to result, if her husband thinks she is a possession to be controlled and ordered around instead of a person with thoughts of her own. Setting aside the question of what he’s ordering her to do, women are not lesser beings to be ordered around under the control of men. They are fully responsible adults and are entitled to take responsibility for their own lives. Men who want to control and command their wives without dissent or discussion deserve the divorce papers they get.

    • I am so glad I am not your husband. This post is published merely in order to show what rabid feminism does to people.


    • Obeying someone who has legitimate (because God-given) authority over you does not make you a lesser being. A man worthy of the name knows that he must exercise his authority over his wife in the same way Christ exercises His over His Church–for her good. A woman worthy of the name submits to that authority out of love for God. Both are merely acting in accordance with natural law. It sounds as though the husband in question is using his God-given authority for the good of his wife and their children (if they have any). If she flouts his authority to “stand up for herself” and her own inclinations (as no doubt the devil would encourage her to do), she will do no one any favours and may end up destroying a marriage with a man who obviously puts the spiritual well-being of his family above being “nice” (and spineless). I hope she has some sense of how rare that is! God bless him, and may God help them both.

    • Very well said.

      One can accept that God has given things a natural order, and that this order is the best for the happiness of all involved and best corresponds to their natural inclinations, playing on the special vocation of each sex.

      Or one can be a rabid feminist.

      I blame also their mothers, but everyone has the duty to think.


  7. I knew Catholic Answers was staffed by cranks when I learned there that tattoos of crucifixes, the Virgin, etc…are a good way to spread the faith.

  8. Mundabor, where do I find your posting on the book “100 Years of Modernism”? My apologies if I’m just not seeing the way to search it out!:)

    • The search is the line on the right hand side of the blog, between the “tag cloud” and the “email subscription”, scrolling down the site.

      It has “go” on the right hand side.

      It does not look only for “tags”, but for all words in any post of mine. Therefore, you can use it for whatever search, not only for the words I have “tagged”.

      It is a rather smart tool. I have tipped “100 years” (numbers) and the post “one hundred years of modernism” came out even if it is written in letters!



    • 🙂 Thanks. Found it.

    • Enjoy the search function! after having published thousands of posts I use it more and more myself. “Hhmmm… Bergoglio…. Have I written anything about this chap?…. Ah, yes, here!”…. 😉


%d bloggers like this: