Charlemagne,
My dear son, return ye unto your loving father’s religion and be reconciled to our most generous father – The Bishop of Rome. You mention the Magisterium of our most gracious mother – then pay her homage by being obedient unto it. The sect that you belong to at present, has far greater issues than the lacking of its lectionary. To make a start: the pretense of its orders, the confusion of its pseudo sacraments. (I find it queer that you call yourself an “anglo catholic” yet you do rather make a lot of noise about the lectionary. A rather evangelical perspective – do you not think so? I rather say that a real Anglo Catholic would make more fuss about the sacraments.) It has lost its very mind, and cannot posses the mind of Him at whose name – every knee shouldst bow.
Remember, that during this Lenten season – thou art dust; and that one day you shall have to give an account of what ye did with thine dust and the example thou set to those who would seek and need your guidance in these most serious matters which pertain to yours and theirs salvation.
With all assurances, be convinced that if ye seek, you shall find the door to your father’s house wide open as Our Lord could only want. But, I caution you. A man in your present state could only make those steps forward if he were willing to sacrifice, and perhaps greatly.
Perform a test: always call yourself nothing but Christian, and only if absolutely necessary – Katholic. Further descriptors should be most unnecessary unless you are proud in something that supposes itself to be greater than one, holy and apostolic. If you succeed, then you may have all ease of mind as to what ye ought to do without further delay.
Say your prayers with all fervor and be not strange.
On the octave of the feast of our friend & counselor, the father of your grandchildren. Our Angilbert.
I am remain your father,
Pepin
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: King Pepin
Posted in: Catholicism |
Okay, I admit it: there’s actually quite little I can think to say in regard to the scandal surrounding the US high school that installed backdoor programs on laptops issued to students which allowed school faculty to monitor students at random in their own homes. (Indeed, the scandal apparently broke because a student was disciplined, in school, for “inapproptiate behaviour in the home.”)
Though I suppose it would serve to note that it would be a safe bet indeed that a goodly number of the affected students probably kept their laptops in their bedrooms, which means it’s quite possible that watching faculty members probably, on occasion, chanced to see a student in some state of undress. I am not convinced that they would have, in that circumstance, immediately terminated the connection. Perhaps in most cases, but not in all. Somewhere out there, I am sure that screenshots of an entirely inapproptiate nature exist.
Now, to be fair, catechetical classes are not yet to the point where they require students to be issued laptops. But suppose for a moment that for some ostensibly education-related reason, a priest had installed similar software on the laptops of several of his young charges. Now…imagine the uproar. Imagine these events had transpired at a Catholic private school…and again, imagine the uproar. Firings (or ecclesial disnissals and defrockings, as the case may be) would ensue almost immediately! And criminal prosecutions would soon follow, not to mention lawsuits. These things would happen even if it could be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no untoward or sexually-driven motive had been behind the installation or use of the software.
Game over. Done.
Yet none of that seems, at present, to be happening in this particular scandal. About the most grave thing that has yet transpired is that an injunction has been issued barring school faculty from spying on students. To my knowledge, there have been no firings or criminal charges.
A double standard? Probably. Especially when one considers that, according to some statistics, American teachers are as much as 100 times more likely to abuse minors in their charge than are Catholic priests.
Just saying.
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: American News - Catholicism - Education - The Interwebs | Tags: Catholicism, Education, laptopgate, laptopquiddick, private school, sexual abuse, US, webcam
Of course, as human beings, we’re all forced to make the best of a bad situation, sooner or later. For me, that bad situation would be the hotel room.
But, really it’s not all that bad, is it?
There you are, alone and in a strange city having been greeted by the local trolls at Customs, then treated to a ride from the airport in a taxi that – and I might ask at this point why it is that city planners feel the need to place airports as far from the city centre as possible? I mean, have they worked out some sort of deal with the local transit commission? – can be described rather generously as a delightfully nauseating experience as the driver hurls four thin pieces of rubber at breakneck speed – while barely in control, mind you – down darkened city streets that threaten at any moment to place large metals objects occupied by people who appear equally shocked and frightened as you in your way in a sort of express introduction to this strange city.
Add to that the fact that – with the exception of the splendid taxi drivers in London – this person doesn’t seem to understand your less-than-stifled whimpers for mercy, on account of not understanding the Queen’s English, or not caring, or enjoying your unexpected experience of 
incontinence, or perhaps a combination of all of the above, and you’ve got yourself an exciting (insofar as falling 20 stories to your certain death from a building might be exciting) conclusion to your days travel.
Mind you, I don’t suppose that incontinence is ever something that one anticipates. Though, perhaps you could argue that merely purchasing adult undergarments satisfies the criterion for anticipation in this case. In any event, if you are travelling to a strange city (particularly in Eastern Europe, or China, or Winnipeg), it may be a good idea to exercise a little urinary forethought yourself. Can you ask for better advice? I certainly don’t think so.
However, the moistening inconvenience of your taxi ride pales in comparison to what you are about to face. Have you ever noticed that it seems like the entire world has been specially designed to appear convenient, though failed spectacularly? This was really brought home to me on my latest jaunt into the United States. Now, I’m the first person to stand up and applaud the American fondness for their air conditioning, but it seems to me that a little more ingenuity could go into its full integration into the hotel room experience.
Mrs. Magnus will tell you that I am anything but an engineer, having seen the number of times I have attempted complex electrical repairs with a pair of pliers and electrical tape, but I c
ould teach budding hoteliers a few things about climate control. First of all, in any hotel room you walk into in the United States, there is almost always a large rectangular window, directly beneath which is a large air conditioning unit that spans the entire width of the window. Being the thoughtful and generally swell guys that they are, these engineers place curtains in the windows, with which one can enjoy a little privacy when dressing, watching telly or playing hotel room Olympics.
Unfortunately, particularly in the warmer climes of the southern states, said accoutrements are located, naturally, above the air conditioner, which we have just learned is directly beneath the window. Now, try to imagine for a moment, 98 degree heat outside, dashing from your shower to the window to close the blinds before anyone catches you through said window in your beedleebees. You sprint across the room, tripping on luggage and other items you jettisoned upon the floor as you arrived, make it to the window following an Indiana Jones like crossing, violently pull the shades closed and exhale, walking more gingerly back toward your suitcase where your clothes await you. The moment you turn your back, of course, the air conditioner activates and with one loud whoosh the curtains fly up in the air exposing the hapless observers outside to a rather voyeuristic exhibition of things only your wife alleges are remotely attractive (at least, for your age).
Popularity: 2%
Posted by: Charlemagne
Posted in: Adventures in Transit - Humour - Stray Thoughts |
Awwwwwww....(barf)
Let’s be honest; the Internet is not a nice place. It’s not even an indifferent place. It’s a bloody awful place that seems to attract the attention and time investment of an abnormally large number of people suffering from all manner of anti-social (if not outright sociopathic) personality disorders. A large number of these folks seem to be of an atheistic bent, though one can also find any number of irate Calvinists and maladjusted Islamists to bump up the religious diversity of the online asshat population.
And then there’s 4chan. If you were looking for the dark underbelly of the Internet, the online Mos Eisley Cantina as it were…look no further.
But for all its cruelty, the Internet is also a useful place. It was thanks to the Internet that Climategate/Climaquiddick broke, for example; the Internet has for years now been the principal medium of organized and unorganized dissent against climate change alarmism. In Canada, the fight against the CHRC is principally fought in online engagements, and news about that government office’s excesses are principally broken on blogs rather than in what could once have been called “mainstream” news outlets. And indeed, the side of the political spectrum that tends to benefit from this is the Right…which means it’s also not hard to find hardcore Lefties whining about how gosh-darned uppity the Righty peasants get in comments threads.
Some take it a bit further, though. It’s been proposed, for example, that licenses be required in order to access the Internet or contribute to online events and discussions. There are all kinds of efforts, some of which are actually worthwhile and others which are misguided and stupid, to reduce incidences of cyberbullying, trolling, electronic vandalism, and all the rest.
Which has led some to ask: Is snark dead?
Attention trolls, lurkers, flamers, and irreverent jerks: seek haven elsewhere. Apparently the Net — and its horde of online, overly sensitive crybabies — just doesn’t want your universal disdain any longer. A troubling trend has arisen, troubling at least for snarky bloggers (ahem), and it involves a terrifying movement toward a kinder, gentler Web. And this new Web for weaklings, where apologies, kudos, and effusive praise are replacing cynical attacks and baseless complaints, will undoubtedly be incredibly boring.
According to the New York Observer, this brown-nosing progression (or regression?) toward civility and butt-kissing can be attributed to a growing swell of kindness on social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr. Gifting, poking, liking, and sharing virtual gifts has evidently inspired people to treat others with genuine respect and kindness.
Even in the Big Apple, home of the original “Pfffftttt!!” Bronx cheer, online personalities are defending each other from random attacks, and are actually praising each other’s work. (Seriously, what is going on here?) The Observer also points out that during his coup de grace, Conan O’Bryan even implored people, “Please don’t be cynical.” (Umm, Coco? That Triumph character wasn’t exactly a bastion of sunny gentility.)
Someone gag me with something, please.
Please take note of what I’m not saying here: I am not saying that websites and social networking services which foster community growth and “friendship” (though we should keep in mind that a number in your Facebook sidebar is not in any way a reflection of how many actual friends you have in reality, of the sort that would help you move a couch…or a body…) should just up and go away, or that they serve no purpose.
But there is a disturbing trend afoot, of late, to try and tame the “tone” of what transpires online, which is just wrong-headed and, in a sense, dangerous. It’s the first few pebbles in what could become an avalanche of censorship. For, as we have learned the hard way in Canada, once you allow hurt feelings to be a legitimate cause for corrective action or deletive moderation of comments…there’s pretty much nothing you can say ever again that won’t get you in trouble if someone wants to get you in trouble for it. And that’s a hell of a lot of power to hand over to someone else, especially some faceless person at the other end of the Internet.
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Censorship - Featured - Freespeechery - The Interwebs | Tags: 4chan, Atheism, Calvinism, Canada, Censorship, CHRC, Climaquiddick, climate change, Climategate, Conan O'Bryan, cyberbullying, Facebook, global warming, Internet, iPhone, Islam, media, New York, New York Observer, news, social networking, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, trolling, Tumblr, twitter
…oh. Right. Yes. Hi. Sorry, I was a bit distracted, just then.
I’m a new writer here, just brought on board to St. Angilbert Press. Definitely not my first time blogging about things religious, and many of you already know me – dare I say, have met me? – but alas, as this blog’s (can I put an apostrophe there? Good heavens, long-time-no-blog) authors – myself included – write under pseudonyms, you will be forever guessing. So, get to your local bookie and place your bets, or do whatever is socially acceptable in your particular Christian subcultural context.
I’ll be providing content from the perspective of an Anglo-Catholic (*shudder*) on a regular basis, with a little commentary thrown in for good measure. I make no apologies and wish to warn you in advance that my writing is heavily editorial. Sort of like Touchstone Magazine, but without the money or skill. So, without further delay, we’re off.
Did You Know?
The Anglican Church of Canada is facing Extinction™!
Michael Valpy, from the Globe & Mail, writes:
The Anglican Church in Canada – once as powerful in the nation’s secular life as it was in its soul – may be only a generation away from extinction, says a just-published assessment of the church’s future.
…
The report, prepared for the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, calls Canada a post-Christian society in which Anglicanism is declining faster than any other denomination. It says the church has been “moved to the far margins of public life.”
Well, not really, Michael. The Anglican Church of Canada – and thank heavens I no longer live in that jurisdiction – has been pushed to the far margins of relevance by public life. For the past couple of decades, the ACC has been quite happy to become more and more post-Christian, with the Episcopate being led not by our Lord, but by society itself. I think this is one reason so many bishops are happy to sign on to a Covenant. While far from what is really needed – the Catholic Magisterium – it does hold bishops cross-jurisdictionally accountable for their actions, to a certain extent. And, ultimately, the responsibility for this mess lies with them, n’est-ce pas?
Don’t get me wrong, though. They may not have seen it coming. For, this situation in which we find ourselves – in the Anglican Communion – has crept up slowly, methodically over the past few generations. It started with the Lectionary, as The Bob™ writes:
…the Eucharistic lectionary offers, instead, a systematic, doctrinal, moral and spiritual teaching, by way of Biblical texts; and none of the many recent alternative lectionaries even begin to serve that purpose. It is an important, and really a basic, part of our Christian heritage, ancient and ecumenical, which it seems to me we must receive thankfully, cherish devoutly, and ponder in our minds and hearts week by week.
When the baggage and constrictions of the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary were cast off, the whole wibbly-wobbly sphere that is Anglicanism started to unravel. It’s a bit like changing the gravitational pull of the Sun. If you make it weaker – even just slightly – the planets in orbit begin to fly away from it at an alarming speed. In the case of Anglicanism, the Lectionary was that which held us in check and prevented us both from being consumed by the Sun or freezing to death by flying away from it. It is what grounded us and held us there.
No doubt you can see now where I am headed with this. Once the “systematic, logically ordered, biblical moral and spiritual theology” of the Lectionary was removed, the Anglican Church of Canada was free to move to the outer margins of existence.
But, who’s right?
There is a penchant for the language of Bridge in North American Anglicanism. There is the “We” and there is the “They.” These nom de plumes, whilst convenient – no doubt – for either side to use, reveal something very important to us that it almost seems that everyone else has missed. In the Church, there is no “We” or “They”, there is only the Church.
So, in answer to the question of “who’s right?” one might say neither side of the debate is. For, to even make use of these terms is to reveal just how drastically both sides have misunderstood the nature of the Church. From you Romans, we could learn a thing or two. Such a shame some of us aren’t willing to, though, don’t you think?
In Conclusion
The Anglican Church of Canada’s problem – its disease – is not an alarming decline in membership. That is just a symptom. The problem lies much deeper than Michael Valpy can – or bishops wish to – go. The problem, as I see it, lies in the complete lack of Catholicity. Without the gravity of the Lectionary, as we have seen, North American Anglicanism’s undoing is its own responsibility, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
- CM
Popularity: 2%
Posted by: Charlemagne
Posted in: Catholicism - Christianity - Religion - Site News - Stray Thoughts |
To be fair, Bernier’s comments against climate alarmism would not have been articulated as little as a year ago; no Canadial politician would have dared throw himself, and his party by association, into the path of the alarmism bus.
So we should probably hesitate to applaud his courage in speaking out now.
That said…you know what they say about gift horses’ dental work.
Pity the sitting government is being spineless about Maxime Bernier’s remarks, though:
The federal government distanced itself Wednesday from statements in a Quebec newspaper by a former Conservative cabinet minister who questioned the science of climate change.
But Quebec Tory MP Maxime Bernier, onetime foreign affairs minister, says he was only praising his government’s position on the file.
In an opinion article in La Presse, Bernier wrote there is no consensus among scientists on climate change. He also referred to “many errors” made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently apologized for making an error in one of its reports.
“One finds out that it is possible to be ‘skeptical,’ or at any rate to keep an open mind, on almost all the crucial aspects of the global warming thesis,” Bernier wrote.
Forgive me if I don’t see what is so worthy of keeping at a distance in those remarks. There’s been ample reason for skepticism in regard to climate science for years.
Popularity: 2%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Asides - Canadian Politics - Environmentalism | Tags: climate change, Conservative Party of Canada, global warming, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, La Presse, Maxime Bernier, Quebec, science, UN
Chastek — still the most brilliant Thomist blogger on the Internet — nails what is glaringly wrong with so much of Biblical “scholarship” these days.
I mean, besides the Jesus Seminar.
And John Shelby Spong:
When we read Scripture with faith in Christ, it is principally the unified text of a single author, composed secondarily by diverse authors. Without faith, it is only a library of texts from diverse authors. This makes for two very different hermeneutics. For example, consider reading John’s claim at the beginning of his gospel that “No one has ever seen God”, and then reading Paul’s claim at the beginning of Romans that the eternal power and divinity of God has been clearly seen since the foundation of the world. For any reader, there is a tension here that needs to be resolved, but it is a completely different tension for someone with faith and someone without it. For the one with faith, the tension is how do I read these texts as the complementary texts expressing a single mind? We might look to the distinction between God known by revelation, and God known by reason; or God known in beatitude and God known in this life. When read without faith, this need for a single unified teaching vanishes, or at least is no longer necessary. The two texts are, prima facie, expressing different theologies and diverse doctrines. Any unity they have need not be the unity of doctrine.
For the faithless reader’s benefit, and to preclude any gainsaying comments, let me see if I can compose an adequate analog.
Imagine, if you will, a committed Maoist reading a treatise on Austrian economics and then reporting on its topic, themes, and content. Would there be any real understanding there? Probably not…and the same kinds of misunderstandings and flaws that would be apparent in our hypothetical Maoist’s reportage would also be present in the conclusions of any non-believer attempting to study Scripture.
The first debate that has to happen, then, is not over the veracity of Scripture…but over whether the biases of all parties to the debate, and especially the hermeneutical flaws arising therefrom, have been taken into account, and whether there is a need to make corrections to them.
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Atheism - Christianity - Theology | Tags: Christ, faith, God, James Chastek, Jesus Seminar, John Shelby Spong, life, reason, revelation, St. Paul, the Bible, Thomism
(Note: I’m stuck waiting on a car repair, which means there’s no time like the present for some iPhone-based blogging. I’d like to wrap up some pending comment responses, but the WordPress iPhone app is not yet sophisticated enough to let me do that in the way I want to. So GeoffB will have to wait a bit longer.)
After noting that it is NOT a season to be used as a means of dieting, David Warren offers a reflection for the beginning of Lent:
Traditionally, Lent was (and thus remains) the primary season in which persons wishing to be received into the Christian fold made their approach and preparations. It was (and remains) the opportunity to get into the rhythm of religious life, by setting aside habits acquired outside it. The effort to hear that “still small voice” of conscience, which puts us in communication with the divine, requires a conscious effort to reduce the background hum of appetite and distraction.
And for those long since received into the life of the Church, visible and invisible, Lent is the annual opportunity to “renew one’s vows.”
We live today in an intensely “secular” society, in an environment from which hints and reminders of the great religious truths have been, for the most part, removed. We no longer live in a world in which the steeples of the churches dominated the skyline of every town. It is hard for us to observe the religious seasons, even to remember them.
Therefore we must pinch ourselves, keep reminding ourselves, of life beyond the trough.
If the good reader is not particularly disposed to overt religiosity, but can’t quite bring himself to go “full agnostic” (is that an oxymoron?), he might try an exercise this season, which ends mid-March, that requires very little initial effort bit may prove quite enriching.
That effort is: say “thank you.” Not to other tangible people (though that is also good), but to what seems at first to be empty air. Say “thank you” at every good fortune between now and Easter; say “thank you” for every hard lesson learned in misfortune.
And in a few weeks time…see how you feel about God. What have you got to lose?
Unrelatedly, this little bit of information, from the same Warren column, was also interesting:
…the instruction to the Christian who unexpectedly finds himself presented, as someone’s guest, with meat and wine during his Lenten observance, is to eat and drink.
And to do this “out of charity” to one’s host, rather than insulting him. A fast in its nature is done quietly, in the sight of God.
I did not know that, to be honest. I see I owe a co-worker an apology.
(And no…apart from just now tipping off that I am abstaining from meat on Fridays, I am not going to talk about what I’m giving up — or taking on — for Lent.)
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Asides - Catholicism - Christianity - Materialism | Tags: abstinence, blogging, Christianity, conscience, David Warren, dieting, God, iPhone, Lent, meat, Religion, secularism, the Church, Wordpress
This time, it’s about hot dogs, because some busybodied idiots — who evidently either cannot accept the fact of their own sub-par parenting skills or else cannot accept the fact that their single, “we had him at age 39 after we both finished our PhDs in Nigerian Literature” designer child might not be the brightest light on the tree — are now lobbying for a “redesign” of the shape of the hot dog:
Hot dogs need to be redesigned so they aren’t potentially lethal to small children, American pediatricians said Monday in a new policy statement.
…
“If you were to design the perfect plug for a child’s airway, you couldn’t do much better than a hot dog,” [Dr. Gary Smith of Nationwide Children’s Hospital] told the Star. And unlike other risk foods such as grapes and popcorn, however, hot dogs are man-made and manufacturers can easily change their shape, he said.
…
“No parents can watch all of their kids 100 per cent of the time,” Smith says. “The best way to protect kids is to design these risks out of existence. There is nothing to stop you from redesigning the hot dog. Safety sells. Someone can create a safety dog that isn’t round and airways-sized.”
To which, I think, there are two responses. First, mine: no, the best way to protect kids is to keep the risks right where they damnwell are and let kids run smack-dab into them. (Yes, I realize that in some small percentage of cases, this might mean a child dies.) Teaching children early on that they need someone — the state, corporations, whoever — to mitigate and remove every risk and obstacle from their path will only teach them to become feckless, dependent, “perpetually adolescent” adults who will sue the manufacturer of their environmentally friendly stove because they made the elements too hot, and the trans-fat-free, calorie reduced, sunflower and safflower oil-based margarine caught on fire when it touched one, which caused a superficial skin burn to their partner/common law spouse.
Or maybe they’ll sue the margarine manufacturer. Who might also be the stove manufacturer. Who knows anymore?
Though I think the comment Kathy relates is still better:
…if you go the route of banning the shape of hotdogs, you know some jerk will be suing a school picnic organization or harassing street-meat vendors.
Here is an idea: if you are that concerned about children’s health, perhaps you shouldn’t be feeding them processed rat assholes (or whatever hotdogs are made of) in the first place.
Hey, once he’s been completely disgraced at the CHRC, there’s a new career path for Richard Warman; filing health and safety complaints against Fat Franks vendors.
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Asides | Tags: children, choking, CHRC, Gary Smith, Health, hot dogs, Kathy Shaidle, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Richard Warman
Okay, maybe I’ll find time for one quick summary.
Like this one, from David Warren, concerning Valentine’s Day and what it has come to mean, versus what it should mean. We see that distinction in many holidays — Christmas & Easter are easy targets, though Thanksgiving also ranks high on the list — and it generally sets Protestants, especially, in a tizzy when such things transpire. Suddenly, once-much-enjoyed celebrations of the Lord’s providence become dark sigils, pagan rituals in a Christian mask that are, in the main, much to be avoided.
But I digress. (Nithard has been reading Protestant blogs again.)
To return to the point (and the article)…let’s talk of where it starts. For in true Warren fashion, it begins…elsewhere:
In the past week I wrote twice about the extremely painful subject of abortion. I received in my inbox a selection of the usual remarks. Perhaps the commonest and shallowest is the assertion of feminists (both female and male) that, “A woman must have the right to decide whether she is going to carry a baby.” Whom do these people think they are fooling?
A woman, who is not the victim of a rape, has always had that right; and even my Catholic Church recognizes a method of contraception that is quite infallible. Gentle reader may guess what that is. And while it is only a rule of thumb, “no sex without babies, and no babies without sex” does in fact provide adequate guidance for any conceivable life issue.
This moral injunction is dismissed as “too simple.” Yet merely by trying to draw some alternative line, say between contraception and abortion, we have already found the means to become irretrievably lost. All moral injunctions are simple, and the sinful heart has always cried out for a little complexity.
He’s quite right of course. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is pretty straightforward in nature, but it is a very human (and, since humans are concupiscent, very sinful) response to then ask: “But is adultery only possible if one is married? What if one is not yet married? Is, then, pre-marital sex morally licit?” Such a legalistic meandering ignores that though one is not currently possessed of a spouse, one nevertheless owes one’s fidelity to a potential spouse…but then, all legalistic meanderings must ignore some consideration in order to remain internally consistent.
As to the subject of Valentine’s Day proper, Warren writes:
If the writer of the Valentine truly loves the recipient, he will carry her best interests in his heart. “Love is patient and kind, does not envy, does not puff itself up; is not perverse, nor self-serving, nor irascible, nor delusory; does not rejoice in iniquity,” etc. I am paraphrasing St. Paul to the Corinthians, but surely everyone knows this is true.
And that it is the only answer to the dark gods: “I will not propitiate. Instead I will defy you.” Try as I will, I do not see how the human lover can say better than this.
I am speaking for men, because I am a man. Men, traditionally, were the “aggressors” in affairs of the heart, but should a woman wish to aggress she could play by the same rule, recalling that a love that does not compass the best interests of the beloved is impatient, unkind, envious, puffed-up, perverse, self-serving, irascible, and delusory.
Which, for some reason, reminded me of John Zmirak’s excellent advice for those men whose thoughts, on a day like Valentine’s Day, tend to gravitate toward the base and carnal:
Time to zip up your libido, and quick. Read up on the connection between promiscuity, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion — and remember that every “unplanned” pregnancy started out as a raunchy thought just like . . . yours. It might also help to go home and Google some images — only this time, instead of “barely legal,” try “herpes lesion.”
Warren calls these tendencies “dark gods,” noting that: “To say one does not believe in dark pagan gods, on a bright sunny day, is like saying one does not believe in hurricanes. We might call the gods personifications of the forces in nature, and leave it at that — “myths” — except that modern man does not begin to understand what myths are. Nor is he generally prepared for a hurricane.“
Popularity: 1%
Posted by: Saint Angilbert
Posted in: Aberrant Sexuality - Catholicism - Christianity - Diseases - Holidays - Men and Women - Reproduction - Sex | Tags: abortion, adultery, David Warren, Google, herpes, John Zmirak, love, lust, men, pregnancy, St. Paul, Valentine's Day, women