There are few good Christians, darkly enlightened, neoreactionary: Among them are Dalrock and Sunshine Mary. I really am not aware of many others that blog, or used to blog.
If a Christian is to the left of Saint Paul on female subordination or slavery, he is holier than Saint Paul. If holier than Saint Paul, no friends to the right, no enemies to the left.
An atheist reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.
A orthodox Jewish reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.
But if a Christian right winger has a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves, then chances are he has no friends to the right and no enemies to the left, which means all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends.
And if no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, can be relied upon to throw his friends to the crocodile in the hope of being last to be eaten.
It is not so much entryism, as that if he disowns Saint Paul, he will disown you also.
Suppose a neoreactionary becomes a Roman Catholic. Trouble is that the Pope is to the left of Pol Pot. So he can disown the pope, and keep the New Testament, which is kind of protestant of him, or disown the New Testament and keep the pope, which is kind of commie of him.
He wants to be a throne and altar conservative, but all the thrones are empty, and all the altars desecrated, so he winds up worshiping desecration, which is one step away from the New Age worship of demons and the evil dead.
If you are a neoreactionary and the monarch is a progressive, do you disown the monarch and keep neoreactionary ideas, or do you disown neoreactionary ideas and keep the monarch? Or do you just wait until this guy dies?
There is the problem: Alexander the liberator did not liberate the serfs, but rather gave them to the left wing intellectuals, starting the left singularity that culminated in Stalin.
Instead of freeing them to become agricultural laborers, or freeing them and giving them land individually, he in 1861 gave them land collectively. They were not all that well suited to own land individually. Collective action is hard. It is a lot harder to own land collectively. So the state proceeded to endlessly generate governance structures for the peasants to make collective decisions about collectively owned land, none of which worked very well, creating endless jobs for the left.
Forced collectivization started with Alexander the Liberator, not Stalin.
I would assume that you treat the Monarch the same as you would treat a hypothetical businessman who put Progress before Profit. Consider him stupid, and don’t join his soon-to-fail enterprise.
The problem is, that it’s hard to just pack up, and leave a Progressive country. So I think you complain, loudly. But leave the Monarch in control.
It’s hardly unusual to see religious minorities sticking up for each other against the majority. Big yawn.
A progressive monarch is an idiot who compromise with people that will never accept a compromise, he is just digging his own grave.
Catholicism is not now nor has ever been the personal whims or public statements of the current Pope. You can be a Catholic and think Francis is a horse’s ass who is embarrassing the faithful. That doesn’t make you a Protestant.
Considering the history of bad popes the Church has survived over the ages, the current pontiff holding political opinions that many of us find asinine seems a tempest in a teacup. A pope accommodating worldly politics is hardly something new, though it is arguable that Francis could be more scandalous than a Boniface VIII. A mildly perverted good is far more dangerous than an outright violation of the good.
Bad popes? What bad popes. Some of them kept mistresses and were succeeded by their sons, an excellent system, and one I strongly recommend.
For their mistresses and their sons were Christian and Catholic.
The corruption of the Catholic church fueled Protestantism, and a bunch of less successful heresies.
There are a bunch of other divisions of the pre-schism Christian Church – Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Assyrian, et cetera. Have any of them set off a left singularity in religion? The Protestant approach to theology is just Catholicism, with individual judgement in place of Papal judgement.
Adultery is a mortal sin. Unless the mistresses and Popes repented, Catholic theology indicates they were cut off from God and the Catholic Church.
Adultery is intercourse with a married woman.
It’s a modern progressivism to expand the word adultery to cover a man having a mistress.
I’m going to say the feminization of the Roman Catholic Church, which Leon Podles in “The Church Impotent” dates to about 1200, caused Protestantism. There were other breakaways before the Reformation, but they didn’t stick.
The Orthodox Church is quite leftist. The are very proud of not having been involved in the Crusades, and their pacifism in general.
@Steve: No, unlike it’s predecessor, Christianity has always regarded male infidelity as adultery. From the Church Fathers to the Middle ages, and beyond. Male adultery was generally regarded as less serious than female adultery, though.
Makes very little sense if male infidelity is not adultery.
It is not obvious that a Pope who makes his son Pope is unfaithful to his mistress.
Paul uses the phrase “husband of only one wife”, as if husbands of more than one wife, while regrettable, were a significant fraction of the congregation. Clearly Christianity disapproves of marrying more than one wife, but not obvious that it constitutes adultery.
@Thrasymachus: I haven’t read Podles
Well, yeah. They were a target of one Crusades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
What do you mean by pacifism? Most people are opposed to violence and war, but consider them necessary. That’s the Orthodox position.
If you want to see how they approach total non-violence as moral teaching:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You#Reasoning
In Montenegro, and perhaps other places in the Orthodox world, the Orthodox monastic clergy were not hypocrites, and kept their vows rather than mistresses. The ruling bishop was typically succeeded by his eldest nephew, with whatever benefits Jim posits, yet without the corrupting hypocrisy.
And pace Thrasymachus, the Orthodox Church’s disdain to join the West’s crusades hardly makes it leftist or pacifist. St. Mark of Ephesus knew better than to compromise the faith for a temporal military alliance, and taking a look at the West today sure vindicates him. It took about two seconds to google up a counterexample, in this case the blessing of a Russian nuke sub. (Side note: could you imagine the blessing of an American nuke sub? There would be protests because the lesbian wiccan chaplain wasn’t sufficiently trans-friendly.)
The church recognizes war as an evil that is sometimes necessary, which surely satisfies neither warmongers nor pacifists but does nicely reflect common sense.
@Bub
“Significantly, the penalty does not extend to sex by an unmarried woman and irrespective of the marital status of the man.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Biblical_sources
Adultery being a man sleeping with an unmarried non virgin women is a modern concept coming from the protestant reformation. Early church fathers thought that men screwing around wasn’t ideal, but nor was it a sin. The only time the bible references a man committing adultery against a women is if he divorces her without cause.
As I said before, pre-Christian Judaism agrees with you. Your citation is from the OT.
I’d appreciate a source. It’s clearly considered a sin, but my internet searching might indicate it isn’t “adultery” (moicheuo?) but “fornication” (pornia).
The Eastern Orthodox set off all kinds of heresies, from the Staroobryadtsy to the Molokane to Skoptsy to the Zhidovstvuyush’ie. I don’t know anything about the other ones, but suspect that they had their own crazy heresies, which fizzled due to lack of a good substrate and political opportunity, just like the above ones and the Cathars and Hussites.
I meant heresies that took over the entire church. The modern Catholic church is not just Protestant, but post-Protestant. It’s accepted a bunch of smaller heresies too.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus had a pretty clear meaning before 1800. Schism is a mortal sin, and people with unrepentant mortal sin go to hell, and the Orthodox/Protestants/Whatever have all committed the sin of schism…
Every Catholic church would have been regarded as heretical by the same church from 300 years ago, due to addition of new, technically heretical teachings. The New Testament includes a passage where Peter teaches heresy, and Paul calls him out. Gives a whole new meaning to sedevacantism!
The other way to look at it, is that since Catholicism is the solid trunk of the Christian faith, it is no surprise if history shows groups constantly falling away from her. I was an Orthodox monk for ten years. Once I learned Greek and got to read the correspondence of the Popes, Patriarchs and Emperors, the Greek Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, and the writings of the Greek Fathers who constantly appealed to Rome in the various Eastern heresies, I realized that yes, the Petrine Primacy of Authority (not merely honor) was around from very early on, along with the belief that Rome would not defect from the Faith officially. That changed my perspective from my Protestant/Orthodox past – where Catholicism was but the first “dead branch” of Western Apostasy – into a new vision, where each heresy broke from her in an increasingly calamitous way.
About every 500 years, large crises wrack the Church, which increase in severity each time. In the times around 500 AD, the great Christological heresies were confronted and the Western Empire collapsed. Small schisms emerged in Near-Eastern communities. In the times around 1000 AD, the Greek Schism broke out, taking the rest of the Near East and most of the Slavs. In the times around 1500 AD, the principle of private judgment and relativism broke out, leading to the Reformation. This devastated Catholic culture in the heart of the Roman lands, with many falling away, laying also the seeds for liberalism and the Great Apostasy (as developments of the private judgment and relativism of Protestantism). In the times nearing 2000 AD, the modernism which had been percolating and developing since the Protestant defection burst forth in the Great Apostasy, where the vast majority of Western civilization did not simply lose Catholic Faith, but faith altogether.
Each of these periods (with the exception of the last, which is still recent and will be the hardest to answer) also produced a Catholic reaction, which, in the end, wound up strengthening the Catholic Church immensely, deeply enriching her reserves of theology and culture. But all of them have come only with suffering. The left-singularity is not a result of “Catholic corruption,” but of that same spirit of apostasy that has existed at all times. The better a thing is, the worse is the apostasy from that thing. A “bad cow” is not particularly bad. A “bad dog” can be worse. A bad man, worse still. A fallen angel? An apostate saint? The worst. Even so, as the clarity and precision of the Christian Tradition has developed and unfolded over time in the Catholic Church, infidelity to that Tradition produces increasingly wicked results, increasingly ferocious schisms and increasingly devastating apostasies. Welcome to the modern world.
So the lack of any version of Protestantism in the Orthodox church is evidence against it’s validity? The lack of heresy indicates that it’s not the true church?
Also, note how the Protestant/Enlightenment/Modernist heresy is different than the other ones. The Nestorian and non-Chalcedonian schisms were physically distant churches, whose teachings had developed away from Apostolic Sees. The Arian heresy survived mostly on the physical frontiers of the Roman Empire – Germany, Spain, et cetera. These areas were not Christian prior to Arianism, and had been converted to a false version of the faith.
But the Protestant/Enlightenment/Modernist heresy took the Church itself. It took Northern Europe from the Catholic church. Later, it took France. And then took Rome itself.
The fact that Martin Luther, Robespierre, and the Modernists succeeded in splitting off a huge part of the Catholic Church indicates something quite bad about the pre-Luther, pre-Robespierre, and pre-1962 church. At the very least, it was vulnerable to heresy.
The fact that the Roman church is overwhelmingly modernist, while the Russian church is not, indicates something bad about the Roman church. And the difference is obviously not because of an exceptional amount of virtue and fidelity in the Russian church.
Your criticism would seem to really be of just Christians in general, most of whom are adrift on the ebb and flow of pop culture, and you view Catholics as more vulnerable to this progressive infection because of the Pope, right?
Well, I can see your point, but let us suppose a Catholic rejects the church’s teaching post-‘name your council’? Perhaps you are a Catholic who would overthrow most of the cardinal leadership including the pope in exchange for a neo-reactionary elite?
Christianity has been the religion of the western peoples post-ancient, pre-modernity. It retains vast and growing influence of the more traditionalist bent in Africa and Asia, and I would say as a Christian and former atheist that its theological case is stronger than most. Remember that religion holds its power because it is not primarily a political sector of thought, it is a philosophical sector of thought used in the search for absolute truth. If you need evidence of religion’s potential for mobilization, just look at Iraq today.
I am not a Catholic, however I appreciate many neoreactionary Catholics and their insight on the Orthosphere. I lean toward Orthodoxy, which has remained largely unchanged for generations despite some corruption in areas. This would be the easiest form of Christianity to essentially distribute to the masses (as in Russia today), integrate with government functions in proscribed areas, and foster fanaticism for anti-decadence, opposing most social agendas post-sexual revolution that the neoreactionary seeks to reverse.
You can make criticisms of the Christian right in America. They’re political fecklessness is certainly warranting, but they still are a powerful political force and very fertile ground for our neoreactionary line of thinking. You wont convince the transsexual Mexican at the Democrat Convention that patriarchy is justifiable and virtuous, but with the pissed off white Evangelical at the Republican Convention, you might earn a convert.
Michael B. Dougherty’s piece was among the best on this topic. (And I’m hoping Jim has seen it.)
That comment section…
LOL
He bets on divine intervention to remedy the fact that the Church has become another left wing political party.
u mad
[…] Source: Jim […]
<achem>
What do you want, ya hippy pinko commie?
I’d like to think that a)I was Darkly Enlightened; b)publicly known to be Christian; and c)known to Jim.
Whoya callin hippy?
You’re not the only one. Either Jim is forgetful, or this is some kind of admonishment, but I’m not seeing the point of it.
Neither of you focus primarily on religion, or specifically religious issues (i.e. marriage). Ergo, non-Christian bloggers. Semantics, eh?
Also, it’s pretty clear from Nick’s recent writings that he’s a half-way (if not quite full-on) supporter (victim?) of the sexual revolution. I’m getting tired of people calling themselves “Christian” “reactionaries” while endorsing all manner of perversion.
I forgot
You can’t speak the shibboleth “he” without flinching, and resort to mewling babytalk like “Tunneyself.” If your aim was to drag NRx to the left of NRO (far to the left of Paul), well done.
Sorry about that – I sort of knew you were Christian, but since you don’t make a big deal out of it, it did not come to mind.
“The Evil Dead” – yeah, I’m stealing that from you.
You should steal his wife too, while you’re at it, and try to say the affair is biblical because her sexual needs weren’t being met. You’re better at that.
I’ve just been too busy to start a blog. There are plenty of Christian Reactionaries for what it’s worth, just not active in the Dark Enlightenment blogosphere.
While most reactionaries I know are atheist/agnostic, the ones who are particularly concerned with traditional gender roles and the family unit are Christian. I remember noticing the divide between reactionaries in a TRS poll on marital rape; the non-Christians were mostly in favor of keeping marital rape illegal, while the Christians were mostly in favor of abolishing marital rape legislation.
There are still small pockets of traditional culture in the south and midwest. And the Mormons, who still rock high birth rates via male authority over the household and a culture that encourages marrying young.
Mormons do however have scripture condemning slavery.
D&C 101 “78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”
That’s a very 19th century Protestant way of thought, don’t you think?
Christianity has always seemed to discourage slavery, it wasn’t uniquely a protestant position. Mormonism reinstituted some old positions, very un-19th century, including temples, polygamy, and baptisms for the dead, as well as some ahead of their time, such as Deification and the doctrine that God has created worlds without number.
And Mormons are more similar on doctrinal issues with Catholics and Orthodox than most Protestants.
Paul was sort of against slavery: Christians are encouraged, but not required, to free their own slaves. Christians are forbidden to free other people’s slaves. Slaves are forbidden to run away. Christians are forbidden to encourage other people’s slaves to run away, but if someone else’s slave runs away, need not be overly efficient in returning him.
Well there’s slavery, and then there’s slavery. Slavery in the ancient world was something very different from the African slave trade, developed by heathen Africans and their first foreign enslavers, the Moslems, without the benefit of a Christian and rational view of natural morality.
“Slavery,” in the sense that the Old Testament and St. Paul meant it (i.e., the reduction of poor persons or conquered peoples to a state of servitude, directed by the demands of morality towards the mutual benefit of all parties within the realities of that situation), or the sense in which St. Thomas Aquinas meant it (having in mind feudalism and a relationship of mutually beneficial service/provision), is very different from the African slave trade and the often barbarically exploitative treatment of the Africans by modern-era slaveholders. Christianity has always moderately tolerated the former view(s), but not the latter.
From Europe’s first contact with the African slave trade, when some Catholics also tried to do something similar to the American Indians, Papal Encyclicals from 1425 on condemned that form of slavery. There were some limited exceptions to this, mostly squeezed out under pressure (for Portugal and for people living in Rome), but even then the slavery was tightly limited – only already sworn “enemies of Christ” (i.e., Moslems) could be reduced to servitude in just conquest, or Moslem slaves purchased in order to work towards their conversion, all the while with many laws regulating how slaves had to be treated, and what rights they had in spite of their status. And, like St. Paul, the Fathers had always seen freedom as the better path by far, whenever possible. St. Gregory Nyssa expressed a common sentiment amongst pious Christians, that man in the image of God should generally not be enslaved. It is no coincidence that the institution of slavery basically ceased to be, after the Christianization of the Classical world.
The Catholic tradition seems to have stricken a balance in essential continuity with St. Paul’s view. I don’t doubt that St. Paul would have spoken differently if slavery in ancient Roman society had looked like a Georgia plantation in 1840. But there’s no denying that he did not find the abolition of the ancient world’s institution of slavery, to be a matter of essential, moral importance.
I would attribute the decline of slavery to the appearance of the horse collar. Slavery reappeared when whites attempted to settle warmer climes, found whites not good for physical labor in the hotter climate, but blacks useless as employed labor because of a disinclination to honor contract.
Roman slavery was more barbaric, just less institutionalized. Slave masters could legally prostitute, rape, and starve their slaves. Not so in America, although enforcement might have been weak.
Mormon theology is tied to their church. That church is moving further and further left. I’ll give them 60 years before they start performing gay marriages.
And the pockets of traditional culture are mostly built on subcultures separated from the mainstream. Rural areas, small towns and homeschoolers, for example.
The Mormon church is about 10 years away from gay marriage. They’ve been moving hard left for 10 years now and the pace is only increasing.
I guarantee it will be more than 20, and less than 80. They’ve got a lot of hurdles to get over first, before Sodomy is superior to heterosexuality.
First, it has to be morally acceptable. That is, no longer a sin. Secondly, it has to be equal. That is, viewing homosexuality as a sin, is itself a sin. Gay marriage is third.
I’ll give them 30-40 years until it’s no longer a sin, 10 more until it’s equal, and 10 more for Gay marriage.
The church has already hosted gay pride parades in salt lake city.
Source? All Google can find is a bunch of Mormons (not the church itself) who marched in the parade.
haha, 60 years?
I bet you tenbux Mormons cave on gaymarriage before Catholics. I expect that it will be at least ten years before either cave, and before then, we will both be outed, so I can send you the cash if you win c/o violent communists. In case we are in jail, tenbux worth of cigarettes.
I’ll bet you that the Catholic Church won’t officially cave on gay marriage for 100 years. Maybe never. The Church will officially endorse homosexual civil unions, like Pope Francis has, and later declare those relationships equal to marriage.
The Catholic Church avoids direct contradiction with it’s previous theology. They’ll find a way to endorse gay marriage in practice, without technically endorsing gay marriage.
How are they moving hard left?
And when the federal courts ordered Utah to allow gay marriage, Utah’s governor responded by ordering county clerks not to listen to the ruling because they were going to seek a stay until it was appealed to a higher level.
I don’t see the Mormon Church moving leftward at all, and unlike the Catholic Church, I’ve never heard of a person in a position of authority support allowing gay marriage. Church leaders foresaw the whole gay and trans movement coming in the 90s, and released the Proclamation to the World in response.
What happened to the blog over the last couple of days? You get hacked, or what?
Host moved, idiocy ensued. Human error.
I find this a good example of the idiocy vs. malice thing.
Idiocy gets fixed. Malice gets worse. Second example: windows 98.
For non-PC Christians try Wheeler MacPherson- http://yonderfield.wordpress.com/
Or Nathanael Strickland- http://faithandheritage.com/
I have a Christianity blog also- http://acryinthedarkblog.wordpress.com/
I think we agree that progressivism is a form of Christianity, a heresy I would say. The essence of leftism is holier than thou, which Jesus explicitly denied many times, making Jesus the first reactionary.
The trouble is you can take what Jesus said and get Pharisaical with it. This is what I call a “Sermon on the Mount Pharisee”. The important thing about Jesus is not what he said but who he was and what he did. If he was who he said he was, and did what is said he did, all else is out the window.
No church that has a building is able to resist social and political pressure. So any church with a building will be PC.
Why?
If you’re referring to the ability of governments and individuals to steal/destroy the building, I remind you that people can have their careers destroyed, and be beaten or killed.
@Thrasymachus
What Christ said is indeed the important part, perhaps not the most important. And, if you would qualify your statement with that additional word, we could agree.
“Jim”
I’ll also throw in some Kinist and Christian links. One that I look forward to everyweek is “Cambria Will Not Yield” and some more blogs run by Millennials are Free Northerner and “Shotgun Barrel Straight”. The last one is from a Southern perspective, but deals with a lot of theonomy and Christian apologetics too. But, all of the links have special and redeeming qualities of their own. Hope you enjoy the links, “Jim”.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
If what Jesus *said* was the important part, you just take the Sermon on the Mount literally, and you get liberation theology, which gives you communist terrorism.
Sermon on the mount tells us the poor shall receive compensation in heaven, not in this world. Equality, like the Muslim’s booze, is forbidden in this world, but the religion makes up for it by guaranteeing it in the next.
It doesn’t promise equality. Heaven and Hell are as anti-egalitarian as you can get, but they depend on spiritual choices, not economic status.
If you want an egalitarian spirituality, you need to leave Abrahamic religions. Or add doctrines to them.
Not hardly; Jesus expects a certain moral code from the individual perspective. But He saw that civil and religious authority had a vested interest in preserving society/doctrine/mores, that did not necessitate societal surrender to sinful bullies. The Incarnate Word was advocating a moral view that placed your personal interest in all matters not involving sin, below the personal interest of others.
Most importantly, the Sermon on the Mount is about detachment from worldly care and avoiding hypocrisy in religion. Only the soul free from vain concerns, and from vanity in spiritual life, can rise to God unimpeded. But “liberation theology,” Communism, leftism, etc., is all about greed and self-righteousness. I.e., the exact embodiment of everything the Sermon on the Mount opposed. The Sermon on the Mount is the Anti-Communist manifesto; it rejected all manner of greed, jockeying and posturing.
My Father is/was an difficult guy. He holds to Saint Paul’s teaching on women and slaves, but shows a remarkable tolerance for antithetical teachings.
He said things about sympathizing with the Confederacy because “Slavery wasn’t a Christian issue”. And fully expects wives to obey their husbands.
But the (evangelical) church he goes to has a Progressive pastor. I haven’t gone there much, but have heard both slavery and submission condemned as sinful. Which makes me think they are taught a lot more than just occasionally.
I asked the pastor why slavery was a sin, and he responded: “because God made us free”. I asked where he found that in the Bible, and he avoided the question.
I brought the subject up with my Father, and he seemed apathetic about the entire subject. Thought he still agreed slavery wasn’t a sin.
[…] a mysterious blog crash, Jim is back with a concise barn-burner. Â The conclusion gives a sense of the […]
He joins the dark side and becomes Eastern Orthodox.
To the contrary: Robert Filmer & Jesus
Also, I was wondering about your statement
At first glance, this seems untrue. Pol Pot used more extreme methods, and advocated more extreme economic and foreign policy. The only issues where the Pope might be more leftist are social issues like women, homosexuals, et cetera.
The Catholic Church is active advocating and helping the replacement of white Americans with Latin and South Americans. To do this they’ve stopped render to Caesars what is Caesars and instead render progressive ethic cleansing on middle and lower class whites.
Genocide by the killing fields or genocide via the voting box, the outcome is still genocide.
I think the second is preferable. And just about everyone agrees with me.
Death =/= Inter-ethnic breeding
Would you rather die, or fuck a Mexican?
I’d rather have enemies to openly fight than snakes stabbing me in the back.
Then you have stupid priorities.
But more importantly, you didn’t answer the question.
In 1944 Stalin deported the entire Chechen nation to Siberia in the middle of winter. Approximately 50% of all Chechens died during this incident. There were about 400,000 of them before all this started.
Today there are 2 million Chechens. Turns out that a people can come back from losing half their population quite rapidly.
On the other hand, there is no coming back from Brazilization. A group that is mixed out of existence cannot be “bred back” into existence. Brazil is now so mixed that the correlation between genetics and certain obvious phenotypic traits like skin color is breaking down; people with light skin often have significant amounts of African ancestry, in some regions the African component of Brazilian “whites” approaches 25%. This will significantly complicate any attempts at eugenic breeding (or avoiding dysgenic breeding) in a nation where the average IQ is only 87.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040205/
On the other hand, Pol Pot only killed 25% of the Cambodian population, he never planned to exterminate them all. They could recover from that in a generation or two, it’s on par with a bad famine or something. Just look at a graph of the Cambodian population, the impact of the Khmer Rouge is just a tiny dip the graph that is recovered from very quickly.
No, we’d be MUCH better off if in terms of our chances of surviving as a people if the Left / Catholic church just planned to deport us to Siberia without protective clothing in unheated train cars in the middle of winter with insufficient rations.
If the present rulers had full power, they would use both killing fields and Brazilization. In fact, they probably would go further than Brazilization. Light-skinned blacks are oppressive to dark-skinned blacks apparently, so a eugenics program to eliminate White DNA would be expected. Make America a country of pure-blooded Africans.
Pol Pot’s effect was much lesser, no doubt. But Pol Pot couldn’t continue using the killing fields until everybody was dead. His leftism was blocked. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Pol Pot was more radical, and only ran the country for 34 years. The Pope is less radical, and people like him have run the West for centuries. If Pol Pot had run the West for centuries, we’d all be dead, and Europe would be empty.
Legal and social tolerance of White-Black mixing started in the US before 1776. Look at New England’s laws on interracial marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States
Pol Pot selectively killed anyone with brains or the appearance of brains, and their families. In a mixed nation, people tend to mate assortatively by intelligence and class. Hence, Brazil makes Embraer jets and tanks, for instance. These are not the products of a nation of tards through and through.
“Source? All Google can find is a bunch of Mormons (not the church itself) who marched in the parade.”
The church didn’t condemn the group that did it and most of the Mormons comments I read reacted as though the church was behind it (which it probably was). The church also has an openly gay official in San Fran.
Is the church expected to actively supervise every media story, and issue condemnations? That seems unreasonable.
Forgive me if I don’t believe the secondhand word of a bunch of anonymous gay activists.
Sexually active, or not? Because Christianity (and I think Mormonism) has no moral problem with orientation specifically, only the action of Sodomy. Orientation is obviously associated with Sodomy, but a self-controlled person can sever that association.
Bub, you’re missing the point. A Pol Pot gives you something to openly fight against that can be used to foment rebellion. The mass migration with a declining civilized class of people gives you collapse and a dark age or a bloody civil war where the natives or the people being imported are killed to the last man, women, and child.
“Sexually active, or not? Because Christianity (and I think Mormonism) has no moral problem with orientation specifically, only the action of Sodomy. Orientation is obviously associated with Sodomy, but a self-controlled person can sever that association.”
I’m sure a gay official in San Francisco is going to fuck around no mater what’s claimed publicly. Nor does it mater if he’s fucking around or not. It’s the type of person who corrupt institutions, not where they stick their penises.
“Is the church expected to actively supervise every media story, and issue condemnations? That seems unreasonable.”
When the event happens 3 blocks from your primary temple? Come on, don’t be stupid.
The person, or his principles can be fought against? If principles, then we are set against those now, and can fight them. If the person…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#Purpose
And a long-term Pol Pot give you collapse, depopulation, and no dark age, because there aren’t any people left.
Many will flee the country, and live somewhere else. If the West collapses, Whites will flee to Hong Kong, Singapore, Russia, Oman, et cetera.
Representing virtue, while practicing vice, still affirms the moral correctness of virtue.
Celibate gays are likely a cut above the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
Pretend you were the Mormon guy who issues that kind of statement…
Do you know the details of the story? Not really, all you get is a bunch of slanted media coverage. You are hesitant to condemn something you don’t fully understand. For all you know, the protestors were holding signs protesting “Hate Crimes”. You’re scared of the media picking up a story about the Mormon church supporting hate crimes.
You also figure that anyone genuinely curious about the church’s stance on homosexuality, can find it online (or in a book). So the statement would merely serve as an attempt to put pressure on some Mormons, not to clarify the faith.
And the statement would bring your church a lot of criticism. And the church has been looking to lay off the talk about gays, so it can convert people without focus on that.
…
So you just don’t issue any statement. Again, do people really expect you to issue a statement on everything?
Problem is that Pol Pot killed al the intellectuals. He did not consciously intend to, but that was the way it worked out. Thus, massive dysgenesis.
Pol Pot killed all the smart people, once. Cambodia’s average IQ hasn’t been affected as much as France’s.
Genocide does not imply the killing of persons. It denotes the killing of a people. Towards this end not one person need be killed.
It depends on the context. The term is used both ways.
There is a world beyond language. Forget terms; think acts. The killing of a people (aka “genocideâ€) does not imply the killing of persons.
Sure. Although the genocide-without-killing-individuals has happened many times in world history. And happens even in isolation.
The people living in Germany 20,000 years ago were very different from modern Germans. And the old Germans are now extinct, due to admixture with other groups, genetic drift, and Darwinian selection.
“bub”
Genocide is a criminal charge, it is not a theoretical debate.
So is holocaust denial.
Indeed so, but the family is under attack from above. The man who commits to his family is apt to find himself facing a restraining order keeping him away from his children and his assets. Plus, for any American man that earns sixty thousand dollars a year or less, Uncle Sam the big pimp outbids him.
Pol Pot was in a position to use more extreme methods.
Only if his wife leaves him. In other words, if you marry a good woman, you’ll probably be fine. But marry the wrong woman, and you probably won’t.
I get the impression that the Pope wouldn’t endorse the killing of millions, even if given the opportunity. He does occasionally say bad things about abortion and contraception, so I gather he retains significant amounts of Catholicism. Plus he’s opposed to the death penalty.
Is the Pope really a far-left figure? I can think of plenty of religious leaders who more openly support Liberation Theology, and it’s siblings.
Pol Pot did not endorse the killing of millions – but, when he became aware his regime was killing millions, took no effectual action to stop. They kind of drifted into mass murder while in complete denial about what they were doing. We have numerous anecdotes about the saintly character of Pol Pot. He perceived himself, and was perceived by others, as gentle and saintly. Of course this perception was delusional, but he did not openly and consciously wear horns and tail.
Speaking of which. Were the progressives openly confiscating private property of racists before this year? Donald Sterling, and some irrelevant nationalist group in Canada that was willed some amount of money by some guy.
World wide increasing repression. This is implemented by bureaucracies world wide, the permanent unelected government, in lock step, without regard for election results.
Do you have some sources for this assertion? I always thought the mass murder was a matter of conscious policy on the Khmer Rouge part.
If Pol Pot didn’t openly and consciously wear horns and a tail, who did? Stalin? Trotsky? Hitler?
No successful mass murderers openly wear horns and tail. One man cannot kill a bunch of people, he needs a team. For the team to stick together, must believe itself righteous, indeed heroic.
As several historians have told us, most infamously David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
Pol Pot, and Stalin, really were nice people, Everyone liked them. Everyone that knew Pol Pot personally, knew him to be a saint – not most, all, regardless of whether they met him when he was in power, or met him when a child, or a student.
Brother Number One: A Political Biography by David P. Chandler
Page 5
Page 4:
It is clear that Pol Pot was indeed a saint, and that is precisely the reason that Cambodia was such an appalling hell hole. By and large, the more saintly the rulers, the greater the horror – the more a government conforms to Kant’s ideal, the worse the outcome.
Conversely, when a government is motivated directly by profit, like Raffles Company, and largely unconcerned with lives and welfare of those it rules, the result is pretty good. Compare Singapore with Cambodia, compare Rhodesia before “liberation” with Zimbabwe after
“liberation”.
Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food coming from land that is regularly under water. Thus if the central planners were wise and good, centrally planned agriculture could produce much more food, much more efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant acts without regard for the effects on those downstream of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream of him are doing.
The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very rapid economic development, development by command. Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come first.
To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited peasants from obtaining food from sources that were independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing, fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of water being applied at the correct time. They also issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches and dykes to control the flow of water, so that the correct water would be applied to the rice at the correct time.
Of course since the central planners issuing these commands were far away from the water that was flowing, the mud that had to be moved, and the people that had to move it, these commands were mostly nonsense. The unfortunates receiving these commands from the
center found it very difficult to tell the center that they were screwing up. The high command correctly and reasonably believed that there were numerous conspiracies, both internal and foreign sponsored, seeking to overthrow the high command, and incorrectly and unreasonably believed that any failure or problem was a result of the malevolent activities of these conspiracies.
Thus when someone in the provinces, in command of a few thousand slaves received a disastrous command the safest course was to attempt to obey it, no matter what the likely cost in human lives.
The high command would from time to time shift large numbers of slaves from one task to another, without keeping track of how many people were assigned to what, so they never realized that the number of captives was diminishing at a disturbing rate.
Because no one dared tell them what was really happening, they honestly believed that the sacrifices they commanded were successful and popular, and rapidly building a new and prosperous Cambodia, when in fact huge numbers of people were dying, and Cambodia was collapsing to the stone age.
They intended to do good to people, and honestly believed they were highly successful in doing so. Like most similarly saintly do gooders, they intended to do good to people by confiscating their property, by enslaving them, and by torturing and killing anyone so
benighted, selfish, and wicked as to stand in the way of all the good that they intended to do.
When all the good that they intended to do failed to eventuate, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to execute most of the Khmer Rouge.
Not everyone liked Stalin. Until he captured power, people thought he was an asshole and a boor. I’m specifically referring to Zeki Togan Velidi’s memoirs, but believe you can find lots of this stuff. He was never saintly. Of course, once he took power, he became the Sun of Nations, etc.
I am certain that there were also lots of people who thought Hitler was an asshole before he came to power. He just gives off that vibe, you know? Not much saintly there.
Incidentally, Tito was a Communist leader who didn’t kill tons of his own people, and his guys adored him but didn’t worship him as a saint, at least from what I recall of Fitzroy Maclean’s memoirs of being the Brits’ liaison to the guy.
I suspect the creepy moon-faced saint in charge of mass murders is a mid-20th century throwback to charismatic Protestant leadership of the Reformation and its subsequent wars. But maybe not.
But neither Stalin nor Hitler wore horns and carried a pitchfork. And even less did Pol Pot. They believed themselves good guys, and persuaded others that they were good guys.
– Pol Pot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Put it another way. If given the ability, would Francis endorse Pol Pot himself? Or equivalent leaders more suited to his leftist faction? I suspect not, although he would be remarkably tolerant of them.
Before 1979, everyone of Pope Saint Francis’ beliefs endorsed Pol Pot, even though his crimes were well known. After 1979, no one endorsed Pol Pot, a change as abrupt, universal, and cynical as the three reversals on Adolf Hitler. The cause of this abrupt change was not his crimes against his people, but the Soviet sponsored invasion. The Soviet Union being Good, Pol Pot then had to be evil.
Actually, the Pope has been pretty tough on women. He forcefully reiterated that only men could ever be priests; he decried “female machismo” and speaks fairly often of marriage and sexuality in very traditional terms; he has actively supported the continuing work of the Apostolic Visitation of the LCWR (the groups of crazy lesbo-nuns), allowing it to bring the hammer down on doctrine and discipline. He doesn’t believe in personally disrespecting an homosexual simply because of the attraction, but he has been quite open about the problem of the “gay lobby,” and has spoken about why homosexual behaviour is wrong. He defrocked an Australian archbishop that advocated for gay “marriage” publicly.
The media, of course, always finds an odd comment here or there to isolate, polarize and universalize. The whole picture is more complex.
The only reason he used that phrase was because “male machismo” is a well-mocked and derided concept. He is telling women not to act like masculine men, because masculinity is stupid, arrogant, and cruel (the implication of the term “machismo” used in this context).
Does he regard them as a problem? He seems to agree with them. He more or less said that homosexual civil unions are morally acceptable. And some (not unreliable) reports have him lobbying for them while in Argentina.
Neither of these indicate conservatism. They simply indicate Catholicism. The Pope would also excommunicate a priest who advocates sacrificing bulls to Zeus, and he’ll tell people why sacrificing to Zeus is wrong.
Actual Catholicism is so rare, you see any examples of it as indicative of Traditionalism.
In context, his remarks were clearly aimed at female chauvinism and hysteria (he was speaking of groups of women religious who reduce everything to gender in the Church).
I wasn’t saying that the Pope was conservative; I was simply disagreeing with the idea that he was an hard-core leftist on gender and sexuality. His discourses on family life have been eminently traditional. There is a lot of overlap between “traditional Catholic” and “conservative” on social issues. I mean, who is “conservative,” socially, if not a believing Catholic? By historical standards, American conservatism is radically left-wing. Even to the extent that Catholicism does see the state as having obligations to care for the poor, putting her “fiscal conservatism” into question, it places this in the context of natural law and acknowledges that there are many matters of prudential judgment. Catholicism’s authentic magisterium would never give carte-blanche to a social-welfare democracy.
“I’d appreciate a source. It’s clearly considered a sin, but my internet searching might indicate it isn’t “adultery†(moicheuo?) but “fornication†(pornia).”
Pornia only translate to fornication when it comes to deflowering a virgin. Nothing else in the word indicates that male sex with unmarried women is illegal.
“During the Middle Ages, prostitution was commonly found in urban contexts. Although all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage were regarded as sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation (McCall, 1979). Augustine of Hippo held that: “If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts”. The general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_prostitution#Middle_Ages
Not making it illegal, but treating it as unsightly strongly indicates it was a halfway sin. It’s not good for you, but it’s not a big deal either. Female chastity is the pillar that civilization live or die on. The church fathers got this and didn’t spend that much time worrying about less than open displays of men fooling around.
No such thing. There are smaller and lesser sins, however. And I think most Christians (including modern evangelical Protestants) would regard rape and (probably) homosexuality as worse than prostitution.
Well, yeah. Everybody focuses more on female cheating than male cheating. Even the average person today.
Again, what is your source? The literal translation for “Pornia” is “Harlotry” or “Whoredom”. I don’t see a clear implication that it only applies to virgins.
“Again, what is your source? The literal translation for “Pornia†is “Harlotry†or “Whoredomâ€. I don’t see a clear implication that it only applies to virgins.”
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/is-fornication-really-a-sin/
It applies to virgins(women) because that’s the only form of fornication that was illegal. Seducing the virgin daughter of another man is a very serous crime generally treated on the same level as rape in a patriarchal society.
I’m rallying very strongly against the idea that fornication is sin because it’s used as a club to alternatively bash young christian men who do what’s natural to sluts and to justify why they can’t have sex once they’re old enough to marry and have a family. It’s a tool used to fuck up young mens lives and so called Christians who use it as such instead of working to find mates for young men so it’s not much of an issue.
I understand your motivation. But it’s not one that leads to intellectual honesty. The idea that male fornication is just as bad as female fornication is an egalitarian idea forced on Christianity.
But the tool is not the problem. Sola Scriptura is.
Are you accepting of polygamy as well? That was legal, and not explicitly condemned in the NT, except perhaps under the banner of a few words (including pornia).
Also, why does “unsanctioned sexual intercourse” necessarily refer to the Mosaic Law? Why doesn’t it refer to the social norms in 1st century Palestine?
Also, that article concludes with the idea that a condemnation of male fornication is implied, though not directly stated.
It seems perfectly clear to me that by sexual immorality, the bible forbids all behavior likely to result in children having no father, or which will create uncertain paternity. So a woman should sleep with only one man, and stick around with that man, but a man can have sex with as many women as he can, provided that they stick around and he looks after them. If you sleep with a woman, and she moves on, she has done wrong. If you sleep with a woman, and you move on, you have done wrong.
Technically, you are perhaps correct (opinions vary-Maimonides says there is a Torah prohibition against all extramarital sexual relations for men, where marriage includes formalized concubinage.)
However, when you take a larger view, male sexual incontinence is viewed as a very negative personal behavior in the Torah.
See: the story of Tamar and Judah, where Tamar’s behavior was considered understandable and Judah admitted that he was wrong.
Overall, much of the time we see polygamy in the Torah, it is associated with disastrous consequences. See: Hagar and Ishmael, the terrible story of Joseph’s sale, the kings who took many wives which led to idolatry and national tragedy, etc. If polygamy, which was legal, was so dangerous, obviously promiscuity is more so.
Children raised with no father were a fact of life, as was their occasional volatile behavior in adulthood-see Yiftah. In general, life was harsh and there were often orphans. The main worry was mamzerut (bastardry resulting from relations between two Jews absolutely forbidden to each other, like a married woman and a man not her husband, or a mother and a son,) and uncertain paternity leading to unwitting mamzerut.
@B
It’s not a particularly ambitious claim. I’m pretty sure there is no Torah prohibition on lesbianism, but I be surprised if any pre-modern Jew tried to legitimize it. The Torah is a set of laws, not a complete morality.
Nobody with a brain would think Catholic Canon Law is the total Catholic religion.
>I’m pretty sure there is no Torah prohibition on lesbianism
There is-it’s one of the things that falls under “you shall not follow in their ways.” Apparently, the Egyptians were into that kind of thing.
>The Torah is a set of laws, not a complete morality.
Depends on what you mean by “the Torah.”
I think we all know that lesbianism was just an omission, because there were virtually none of them around. And the few inclined to lesbian sex were not permitted by their husbands or fathers. The laws of most civilizations reflect this attitude, too. Lesbianism is legal in Singapore, but not Male Homosexuality. You never see the reverse.
Right. Funny how Moses encapsulated dozens of commands in a general phrase, rather than just stating them explicitly.
The text of the Scriptures in Christianity is incomplete without Tradition. Same meaning.
However, when you take a larger view, male sexual incontinence is viewed as a very negative personal behavior in the Torah.
Right – “viewed as a negative”; “what is the overall impression or message conveyed by the text”; that’s the correct way to look at scripture. I’ve seen this claim, that male fornication is somehow A-OK, a few times in the manosphere in the past few years. Invariably, the claimant is engaging in sheer legalism – that is to say, evading the actual *meaning* and *intent* of the law through lawyerly nitpicking about technicalities.
>I think we all know that lesbianism was just an omission, because there were virtually none of them around. And the few inclined to lesbian sex were not permitted by their husbands or fathers.
I know of no such thing. What, you think the mechanics of the act are so complex they were only invented in the 19th century? Note that there was an explicit prohibition on women having intercourse with livestock-how come the husbands and fathers didn’t prevent that, if they could prevent lesbianism?
For whatever reason, lesbianism is not prohibited as explicitly as homosexuality, or intercourse between women and livestock, nor is the punishment as severe, but I am certain they knew what it was.
>Funny how Moses encapsulated dozens of commands in a general phrase, rather than just stating them explicitly.
There are many things in the Written Torah which are encapsulated in a laconic way, yet the consequence for violating them is very severe. If you assume the Torah is written in good faith, it’s obvious that somehow it was known what was being talked about in this abbreviated manner. The Torah also doesn’t go describing the details of various shameful things explicitly.
>The text of the Scriptures in Christianity is incomplete without Tradition.
Tradition received how and from whom? I don’t see anything like an organized tradition in Christianity-everyone does whatever they feel like in every generation and calls that the true Christianity.
I think the act almost didn’t exist before the 19th century. Queen Victoria once said she didn’t believe it existed. Notice the length of this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism
Now this one (especially notice the pre-1900 section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lesbianism_in_the_United_States
The first mention of sexual congress between women was Sappho, about 2600 years ago. If the Torah had mentioned it, it would have been the very thing written about it.
Wasn’t animal-human sexuality a component of pagan rituals during that period?
Not to mention, a women can’t exactly deflower another woman, while an animal can. So even if it happened, I doubt it would be taken seriously. A 3 year old male having sex with an adult woman wouldn’t have been taken seriously either. Only liberated women can stay with other women.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a prohibition of bestiality weren’t included. Is there a Torah prohibition of sex with objects? I don’t doubt some people did it, but it was (and is?) exceptionally rare, and not taken seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality
It would have been morally prohibited by the attitude the Torah took toward sexuality, if nothing else. Physical copies of books were expensive, and you can’t teach about every single perversion. Perhaps they just assumed the reader wasn’t both amoral and moronic.
Apostolic Tradition, which should have a lot to do with Jewish Tradition c. 30 AD. Probably the best source of Apostolic Tradition is Patristic writings, especially early ones.
Sola Scriptura is the explicit rejection of all tradition. The Papacy is the implicit submission of tradition to the Pope’s theological conclusions. Non-Western branches depend on Patristic consensus on theology.
It also depends on what you mean by “Tradition”. Jewish Tradition is more expansive than Christian tradition, because it dictates details like feasts. Christian Tradition is limited to theology, and a few basic practices. It was designed as a cross-cultural religion.
>I think the act almost didn’t exist before the 19th century.
You are wrong-it is explicitly mentioned as a prohibited activity in Sifrei, written down in the beginning of the first millennium CE, and Maimonides describes it.
>The first mention of sexual congress between women was Sappho, about 2600 years ago. If the Torah had mentioned it, it would have been the very thing written about it.
I don’t follow the logic here.
>Wasn’t animal-human sexuality a component of pagan rituals during that period?
Perhaps, as was cross-grafting tree species (also forbidden,) and probably mixing meat and dairy/boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. Nontheless, it’s irrelevant-there are prohibitions which exist because the prohibited activity was key to an idolatrous cult, and prohibitions which exist for other reasons, and they are all binding.
>Not to mention, a women can’t exactly deflower another woman, while an animal can. So even if it happened, I doubt it would be taken seriously.
The punishment for women publicly engaging in lesbianism is stripes, while the punishment for zoophilia is death. So you are correct that the first is not as serious, but it is still a serious prohibition.
>I wouldn’t be surprised if a prohibition of bestiality weren’t included.
It is explicitly prohibited, both for men and women, and punishable by death (the animal is also put to death.) Objects I don’t know about, but assume that public activities would result in stripes for lewdness. Private, victimless conduct is not punishable by halakhic courts, and is considered to bring a punishment from G-d, in this life or the next, if not repented for.
>It would have been morally prohibited by the attitude the Torah took toward sexuality, if nothing else. Physical copies of books were expensive, and you can’t teach about every single perversion. Perhaps they just assumed the reader wasn’t both amoral and moronic.
Right. In general, just like the laws on the books are much more compressed than the SOP the cops use, the implementation of the Written Torah is much longer.
>Apostolic Tradition, which should have a lot to do with Jewish Tradition c. 30 AD. Probably the best source of Apostolic Tradition is Patristic writings, especially early ones.
Judging by their obscurity, I suspect this tradition did not play a major role in Christianity’s practical implementation over the last millennium at least. Once you reject your predecessors’ tradition, you open whatever tradition you build to continual rejection.
>Jewish Tradition is more expansive than Christian tradition, because it dictates details like feasts. Christian Tradition is limited to theology, and a few basic practices. It was designed as a cross-cultural religion.
Which, from our perspective, was its strength, marketing-wise, and the source of its ultimate discussion.
If you are an exile religion remembering your distant past as a nation state religion, it is irrelevant.
If you were a nation state religion once again, would have to worry about real entryism and real holier-than-thou disease, whereupon it becomes highly relevant.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it was common. We’re aware of cannibalism, but that barely exists in the US/Europe/civilized areas.
It was a rarely mentioned activity. If I’m right, the Torah simply didn’t buck that trend. But I suppose it really doesn’t matter much if I’m right.
The Church Fathers are not obscure in the Orthodox church. Check out some of their forums – frequent references and citations. But then again, Orthodox Christianity has changed relatively little over the past millennium.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,3.0.html
Of their “Faith Issues” subforum, four of the eight stickies are about the church fathers.
“… because [prostitution] was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation.”
I had to puzzle over that one a bit. Why was masturbation seen as a greater evil than prostitution? It doesn’t exploit another person, nor does it expose the sinner to any infectious diseases.
I suppose prostitution is like paying a board-certified psychiatrist to inject me with a carefully measured dose of some drug, whereas masturbation is like me buying a gallon of that same drug for five dollars and retiring to my room.
With a prostitute, you perform the real sex act, as naturally ordained, you just do it with someone you shouldn’t. (You should do it to your wife). The act itself is morally unproblematic.
In masturbation, you do not perform the sex act, but an imitation of it, which intrinsically frustrates the telos of the sex organs (which is why, in the classical terminology, it is called an “unnatural” act).
To make things worse, you substitute the the lover you should have with yourself, so masturbation also involves pride, the worst of sins. Man’s nature places him between animals and angels; of the seven deadly sins, six are sins in which the animalistic element gets the better of us, and pride is the only one which comes from a higher element, angelic – the problem is, the Angel in question is Satan.
This is the Cliff’s Notes of the subject, which can get very lengthy if you get to the “objections and answers” part. If you’d like that, get any treatise on the virtues or on sexual ethics published before the late nineteenth century or so.
This is also the framework for the “contraception is worse than fornication or adultery” argument of the Catholic moral tradition. The best way to get this is to google for Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Contraception and chastity”, an essay published in 1972 and easy to find in the Interwebs.
“Pol Pot selectively killed anyone with brains or the appearance of brains, and their families. In a mixed nation, people tend to mate assortatively by intelligence and class. Hence, Brazil makes Embraer jets and tanks, for instance. These are not the products of a nation of tards through and through.”
The upper class are not producing enough children to keep it going.
Nobody’s upper classes are. The reason is not miscegenation but a civilizational loss of religion and reason for existence and the triumph of chartism and pig-philosophy (gotta give it to Carlyle, although I hope he is spinning in his grave watching how the ‘au clothes turned out!)
Miscegenation makes the crash much deeper and harder to recover from. Civilizations pay a very high price for the worthless underclass that they carry and the larger the under class, the longer it takes to recover from the collapse.
The worthless underclass is something that every civilization generates internally during its golden age, no miscegenation required. Most people, given the opportunity, tend to worthlessness as time goes on. I would like a source for the correlation between size of the underclass and recovery time from a collapse.
In general, the sign of a great civilization is not how well it keeps its precious bodily fluids pristine but how well it can unify its upper, middle and lower classes with asabiyya, and how well it can get them to function together to everyone’s benefit. Upward mobility is always good-it keeps people motivated. Downward mobility, too.
^ Please delete. Gah.
Specifically, the cause is feminism. Women pursue careers, education, consumerism and other things. So they can’t pursue babies. So they delay birth, and decrease the number of children they want.
Men can pursue almost whatever they want, and still be a decent father of eight.
Whatever can combat feminism can combat the elite’s low birth rates.
Actually, no. Feminism (the idea that women should be equal to men in all regards, and vice versa) is an epiphenomenon of the cause.
I see plenty of women in my community with education and careers and lots of kids. Conversely, I see plenty of Western women whose education and career path provide plenty of opportunities for children, but who do not want them (many of them refer to their pets as their children.)
It’s the Rat Heaven experiment. Were the rats radfems? Were they studying critical gender theory?
I suspect there are some biological/spiritual mechanisms that kick in with an existence of comfort and freedom from stress and want, and the only way to avoid being destroyed by them is to find a spiritual struggle (well, that, or go the full Kaczynski.) You can see something similar in Carlyle when he talks about the beautiful Jamaicans using their chompers to masticate sweet squashes they did not grow, and how they have no right to do so because man is put on this earth to work.
No, but they were also cannibals. Unless we’re experiencing a very, very mild version, we haven’t hit the rat heaven experiment yet.
Exceptions. Women absorb the values of the surrounding culture.
A career woman in a family-values culture will try to have children, and will, though probably fewer than an identical woman who rejects a career for homemaking. But a woman who is raised in a non-family-values culture will avoid having children, even though she may be able to.
So what determines whether your values are family-oriented? Unsurprisingly, it’s whether your earlier life is built around family. Spend your childhood playing Xbox with friends, and you want to spend your adulthood with friends and games. Spend your childhood caring for younger siblings, and you want babies.
Just about the highest birth-rate of any group in the US is the Amish, with about 6 births per woman. And their more conservative communities average 8-10 births per woman. The Amish order is specifically designed to be family-oriented. They pick and choose technologies, removing anything they thing could make a less family-oriented society. I read one of their books once, where it disagreed with technology that heats the entire house. Because if you did that, the family would go off to their rooms, rather than collect around the fire place. The more conservative communities are agriculture-only, and reject things like birth control.
Want to ruin a family-oriented culture? Do the opposite of what the Amish do.
1.Separate children from family and community while they are under 18, instead, make their social circles entirely composed of friends (or nobody). The Public Schools are excellent at this (and people make most of their friends in school).
2.Have them be promiscuous, and do all sorts of things that are destructive to their future marriages. So they are less likely to get married, and if they manage to get married, it ends quickly.
3.Convince Mom and Dad to work, and spend time with their own friends, rather than spend time with the kids.
4.Once over 18, convince them that they should delay marriage, until they’re too old to get a decent spouse, and have a lot of children. Career and education are ways.
5.Make children more expensive, and more of a hassle.
6.Get rid of extended family, especially grandparents.
All of these are encapsulated in feminism, except perhaps 6.
>No, but they were also cannibals. Unless we’re experiencing a very, very mild version, we haven’t hit the rat heaven experiment yet.
The Talmud says that the world continues to exist in light of the fact that non-Jews continue to observe three of the Noahide Commandments, namely, respect for the Torah, not selling human flesh by the pound in the market and not writing marriage contracts between men. Apparently, we’re 2/3rds of the way to Rat Heaven.
The rest of it-valid points, but the larger context is that feminism did not emerge in a vacuum and does not stand on its own two feet, and none of that stuff is unique to feminism-most of it predated feminism.
You’re mixing the Talmud, with scientific studies. Probably an interesting approach, but not a reliable one. We don’t share most of the characteristics of the rat heaven, although we share some.
Certainly. For one thing it only became possible with widespread prosperity. Progressives think they can turn poor countries into Progressive countries, and it never works out.
Sure. But feminists are entirely aware that things like the French Revolution had a kind of proto-Feminism inside it. If you want to cut feminism off at the root, strike there.
As the Amish demonstrate, the industrial revolution was the first big move away from a family-oriented society. Puritanism had tried for a couple centuries, and only achieved widespread success in the Victorian era. Although he wasn’t labeled it, William Wilberforce was among the first feminists.
Exposure to western television causes dramatic drops in fertility.
Western television shows women getting away with immoral behavor, and then happily ever aftering when quite old. When women put it out, raises their status (since every male hopes he will get some) Women indulge their hypergamy while they are young, hot, and fertile, instead of getting married and having children.
If women, when young and hot, decide that the way to get sex is to get married and have babies, babies ensue. If, instead, they figure they get away with screwing males much higher in status than themselves, that is what they do, and babies either do not ensue, or are fatherless.
@Jim
I don’t doubt it, but it’s not the primary cause. Check the North Korean fertility rate and urbanization:
Wartime
Postwar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_North_Korea#Vital_statistics
Unless the Koreans are feminists, I’d think the primary cause of their lowered fertility is urbanization.
North Korea is feminist, to the extent that communists are feminists, which is substantial.
Substantial, but minimal compared to the West. Yet their fertility rate is only slightly above Sweden’s fertility rate.
I don’t think communist feminism is minimal compared to the west. That is the narcissism of small differences.
Huh. The problem is, we have no example of an urban area not exposed to Western media.
Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have (relative to the US and Europe) less feminism, but their fertility is far, far lower. In fact, they have the lowest fertility in the world. This fits my explaination quite well.
If you were correct, I’d expect Scandinavia, and the US to have the lowest fertility. But they don’t, by a substantial amount.
I think we should compare Singapore and Japan with highly urban areas of America, not America as a whole. My perception of Silicon valley is that reproduction rates are extremely low. Where the smart people are living in San Francisco, the smart people have reproduction rates insignificantly different from zero.
I would add to this that the degree that Russia is still feminised is evident from her extremely high abortion rates, indicating that Christianity there is still mostly superficial. But, we can still pray for them.
A.J.P.
@Jim
Japan and South Korea are entire countries, whereas urban living is self-segregated. It’s frequently mentioned how people move to the suburbs, small towns, or rural areas when they have kids.
Regardless, what data would you consider a good indicator of female status? Perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage
Children today are far more expensive than they were in agricultural times. It stands to reason that people (especially low-income ones) would delay marriage, use birth control, et cetera.
If you are the average person, you cannot have more than two kids without major financial sacrifices. Having six (the Amish average) is a financial impracticability, without cutting your standard of living in half.
>Having six (the Amish average) is a financial impracticability, without cutting your standard of living in half.
It depends on how you value your standard of living. If you think a condo in Manhattan is a much improved living situation from a farmhouse in Ohio, this is true. If you think opposite, not true.
Most people think that. The number of people who want to live in farmhouses is not large.
Only because of social status/work proximity issues. You’ll notice a lot of wealthy and powerful people retire to country estates. See: Eisenhower. Having neighbors walking on your head, breathing car fumes and bum piss and stepping in dogshit is not any objective improvement of a living standard. And it’s like that with most stuff-a cell phone is great, until you realize it’s a tether. Etc.
Retirement estates would matter if people decided to have children during retirement. But they don’t.
Generally, people seek to raise their objective living standard when they retire. If living in a farmhouse objectively sucked, they would not retire to live in farmhouses.
What I mean is that a high standard of living is incompatible with six children insofar as the standard is arbitrarily set by Western culture. In exactly the same way as eco-friendliness is incompatible with six children insofar as it is arbitrarily determined by Western culture. Well, we might as well cut out the middleman and say that Western culture is incompatible with having many children.
“If you were correct, I’d expect Scandinavia, and the US to have the lowest fertility. But they don’t, by a substantial amount.”
Its because of the significant 3rd world immigrant population that is contributing to such statistics. How do you know they are births to native white scandinavians and Americans?
I don’t think so.
The reason is women’s liberation, high female status. I don’t think Timor Leste has any very pressing reason for existence, and they are reproducing just great.
The reason orthodox Jews are reproducing is that they have high status activities where women are completely excluded, and social activities where women are forbidden to fully participate, and have a substantially lesser role.
This is the trick recommended by Paul – I suspect you guys stole it from him, but who can tell.
When you have an environment of scarcity, it produces a constant motivation in terms of competition for resources, which motivation spills over to things like reproduction.
The reason we are reproducing is that we have a great social emphasis on reproducing, and treat it as a religious commandment. In the larger sense, the reason we are reproducing is that we have something to live for. The Timoreans also have something to live for, i.e., not dying of hunger or being murdered. The West has nothing to live for.
Timor Leste has about the same GDP per capita as Greece, Poland and Portugal, and a considerably higher GDP per capita than Russia. They have had a high level of violence, but substantially less violence than most of the countries of the former Yugoslavia.
What makes it different from those other countries is the status of women.
@Jim
CIA factbook on Timor-Leste
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print/country/countrypdf_tt.pdf
@Jim
I was homeschooled, and got the chance to observe a variety of families, including a number of high-fertility ones. Low female status seemed to be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. If family is a priority, babies seem to follow. There are a lot of females raised who are fine being celibate and low-status. These examples are representative.
One family spent their lives working at a (non-denominational) Christian camp. He and his wife got married at the age of 22 and 21. They later had two daughters, because too many children would have interfered with their ministry. The daughters take issues like chastity and obedience to husbands quite seriously, even to the point of absurdity. The first (24 years old) got a degree in Latin, and now teaches school. The second (22 years old) got a nursing degree, and intends on being a missionary.
Neither daughter makes much money. And the only government funding of their lifestyle has been college, which the family would have paid for anyway.
On the other hand, one family had 9 kids. The Mom never worked, they homeschool, live in the country, and they have no TV. Neither parent has hobbies outside the home, except for church. Their oldest is only 22, and they already have 3 grandchildren.
Timor Leste has an average life expectancy of 60, which suggests an environment of scarcity.
Burma and Nepal also have environments of scarcity, and have the usual modern rural fertility rate – slightly above replacement.
Nepal is as poor and war torn as any place you will find outside black Africa, yet among females that have had a middle school education, even four years short of a school leaving certificate, fertility is as low as anywhere in the first world.
If war and poverty encourage fertility, they do so by preventing western educators from getting at the girls. Something that happens to girls in grade six in Nepal massively and radically reduces fertility.
I’m not sure, but looking back at my old friends and acquaintances who were secular or non-Jewish and had 0-3 kids, the husband seemed not to want more kids any more than the wife did.
I don’t think Western educators have been particularly active in Burma over the last 40 years, during which the population doubled.
Living standard in Burma has not changed much, while the rest of the world became more prosperous and peaceful, Burma is poor and war torn. Fertility, however has fallen from extremely high levels, to modern western levels.
So it is not prosperity and safety making the difference.
In Timor Leste, high fertility Christian, women have limited rights to property, divorce must be for cause, where cause is defined in accordance with the new testament duties (you can divorce your wife for disrespect.)
In the Philippines, high fertility Christian, divorce in accordance with new testament rules, which pretty much means you cannot divorce even if your partner is not playing by the new testament rules. The wife is socially and legally required to live with the husband, and the husband with the wife, and if, as often happens, there are problems with this, the Church mediates – which means that the severely patriarchal New Testament marriage roles get social and legal enforcement by the Church.
Philippine urban birthrate is at 3 per woman, having fallen from 3.5 over the last 15 years.
That is more than double the Nepalese birth rate for girls who received at least a sixth grade western education (a sixth grade education being four years short of what is required for a school leaving certificate.) The only reason Nepal is above replacement is because some Muslims refuse to send their girls to western education, for obvious reasons.
That is more than double the German rate.
That is double the EU rate.
William Jennings Bryan
Was openly leftist.
The Pope is to the left of Pol Pot? Are you kidding me?
Jim you should study the material in this website:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1/videos
I agree that modern Christianity is a generally leftist institution. The Pope is walking proof of Conquest’s Second Law. Some denominations or variants of the religion may not so subject these forces, but the zeal with which the supporters if one of these branches defend those other branches that are basically just progressive churches washes out any positive force, in my opinion.
However, I would not pick Sunshine Mary and Dalrock as good reactionary religious bloggers. My top 2 would be Nick B. Steves and GBFM (who’s been just abusing Dalrock lately).
I like Nick and Zippy because they’re thoughtful and say interesting things. The 2000 year tradition is attractive. They make a good point that Western civilization needs its Church as well as its children to exist.
The pope and the magesterium of the church like illegal aleins and gypsies and mourn every abortion, especially of Black babies, and want to stop condom use, especially among Black Africans. I suppose it is particularly easy to reply to the threat of dysgenics that Providence will provide when there’s a consensus that there’s just one race, the human race.
Also since God doesnt exist we need to find a way to teach ppls to be moral without telling them to receive these sacraments and seek redemption in the sacrifice of the Lamb. Telling people that a rowdy mob, pharisees, and Jews killed Jesus doesn’t seem to help prevent people from turning into a pharisaical rowdy mob.
@Samson
“I’ve seen this claim, that male fornication is somehow A-OK, a few times in the manosphere in the past few years. Invariably, the claimant is engaging in sheer legalism – that is to say, evading the actual *meaning* and *intent* of the law through lawyerly nitpicking about technicalities.â€
The burden of proof is on you Samson. If Christians are going to go around insisting that the bible is their guide, then you don’t have a single line that outlaws fornication with unmarried non virginal women. If God had meant to outlaw it, it would have been there in black and white, not some half assed well the general principle and using 15 bible verses to try to muscle it in.
There’s lots of things that the modern christian church has promoted from bad for you and that if you do it, keep it under warps, to OMG the worst sin ever. While at the same time Christian in mass turn a blind eye to explicitly outlawed behavior of christian women acting like whores and destroying their families.
I’ve got a good Christian friend who desperately wants a wife and family of his own. He can’t obtain one through his church. He’s not alpha enough to attract the attention of the Christians girls. They shrug him off and the church frankly couldn’t give a fuck. So the man fucks whatever women make themselves available him and he tends drives them away with his desire to get married. Condemn him if you like. But that’s well like condemning a man dying of thirst for drinking from dirty pools full of pond scum.
BTW, I appreciate the correction on the term “adultery”. I always wondered why the NT writers used the Greek term for adultery, when that term didn’t include male infidelity.
Only Protestants do that. Catholics and Orthodox consider the Bible to be one of their guides. And their Tradition clearly condemns male infidelity and premarital sex.
If Polygamy is wrong, then God did exactly that. Yet virtually all Christians have taught that it’s wrong.
Also, what’s with the term “outlaw”? It’s not a law, you’re supposed to keep in the spirit of the teaching, not just it’s letter.
They generally turn a blind eye to the men, too. Unless you are dealing with a particularly feminized church (and there are many of those).
Paul addressed something similar. Problem is, I bet your church has no developed practice of celibacy for people who cannot get married.
New Testament encourages monogamy, but the frequent use of the phrase “husband of only one wife”, indicates a signficantly polygamist congregation.
The Church Fathers understood that to prohibit men who remarried after the death or divorce of one spouse. The first remarriage after the death of a spouse was called digamy, the second trigamy, and those after that, polygamy. Some churches did not permit digamy, some did. All viewed it unfavorably, especially for women.
The Orthodox do not let remarried men become Priests, though single men, widowers and married men may become Priests. They will not permit a fourth marriage (polygamy) under any circumstances, even if your first three wives died.
That phrase occurs in two letters that were addressed to Greeks, where Polygamy would have been considered unusual and barbaric.
The proposition that Christians ever banned or discouraged widows and widowers from remarriage is absurd.
I’m actually rather surprised you hadn’t heard of it.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Marriage
The Orthodox Church teaches that a second union can never be the same as the first. In the service for a second marriage, some of the joyful ceremonies are omitted and replaced by penitential prayers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church
Remarriage is a sin, which the church permits under economia. That is, a concession to human weakness. You know Paul: “it is better to marry than to burn”.
https://sites.google.com/site/canonsoc/home/-canons-of-the-particular-councils/neo-caesaria-council-315
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2013/03/prohibited-marriages-in-orthodox-church.html
Oh, also, the phrase is not quite “husband of one wife”, literally translated, it means “one woman man”.
The female equivalent stated in 1 Timothy 5:9
To clarify, the female equivalent is “one man woman”.
Free Northerner has had some very good christian posts of late. His thoughts about cult of purity within the church is quite profound.
Thanks for not mentioning the late unlamented Larry, who was as closed-mindedly and impotently tradcon as one could possibly expect.
Although a man can not cuckold his wife there are still some problems of sleeping with sluts, such as STDs for both you and your wife, and for society such as single mums. If you only deflower virgins then you dont get the STDs, and if you take your mistress into your household you are not creating a single Mum. But mistress and concubine are just fancy words Polygamous marriage, and create the same bride shortage leading to a surplus of single men causing all the crime and instability you see in the Muslim world.
There’s lots of things that the modern christian church has promoted from bad for you and that if you do it, keep it under warps, to OMG the worst sin ever.
Indeed. In fact, I’m surprised no one has brought up the age issue in addition to the fornication issue. St. Monica found a nice 12 year old for St. Augustine to wed. Mary, Mother of God, was likely around 14 or 15 when she gave birth.
Find me a mainstream Protestant or Catholic organization that will say it’s a-ok for men to date and marry 12-15 year old girls.
Catholic canon law requires men to be 16, and women to be 14 before marriage. I’m surprised nobody has pointed out how sexist this is. There is actually one US state (NH) that allows marriage at 13 (for women, and only women) under very special circumstances,
I’m beginning to wonder what Catholic Africans do. Presumably, they don’t all wait till 14.
How is it sexist? What other prudential factors may have inspired this judgment?
Is the age requirement for validity, or for licitly contracting for the Sacrament? It is highly possible that localized exceptions exist for regional cultures with approbation of the Holy See.
Different cultures have different circumstances. In the modern West, your average 30 year old may be completely immature and ill-suited for contracting a marriage, whereas in Africa your average 13-year old is of childbearing age and has a greater depth of maturity and life-experience than an American thrice her age; an hundred years ago you wouldn’t think anything of handing a nine-year-old your rifle, but today you’d think twice about handing it to most grown men you know. People living the hard life in 4th century North Africa were probably prepared for marriage at an earlier age than people living in Orange County today. I don’t see why there should be any controversy about all that. The fact that a 13-year old African girl could be ready for marriage, doesn’t mean there’s something arbitrary or irrational about prohibiting sex with an American 15 year old. Differing circumstances lead to rational grounds for differing, prudential judgments.
Because permitting women to marry young might incline them toward hierarchical relationships. The entire idea of marriage is sexist, especially if it doesn’t have a period of whoring around prior to marriage.
You seem to be assuming that sexism is undesirable. Why?
If wikipedia is to be believed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage
Pregnancy for a woman below 16 years of age can lead to permanent damage of her reproductive organs and such as fistula. It is a grey area a woman can get away with pregnancy at 14 but it is safer to wait until 16, and best to wait till the pelvis is fully grown at about 18. But once she reaches 18 it is best for a woman to seek a husband and start her reproductive life as soon as possible.
Childbirth is stressful and dangerous, and is best done with a full sized pelvis. Pelvis continues growing slowly until menopause, but generally reaches close to its full size a couple of years after menarche. Used to be menarche was around fourteen, in which case, best to give birth around sixteen. These days menarche is often around twelve, in which case fourteen is biologically a good age to start having children. If a girl is put on the pill before menarche, as a very large proportion of girls are these days, her pelvis will never reach full normal size, or not reach full normal size until very late.
The 14 year old rule will prevent nearly all births prior to 16 years old. Nine months of pregnancy, plus however long it takes to get pregnant, plus however long she waited after her 14th birthday to get married. Unless they’re trying to get her pregnant as soon as possible, she’ll be 16 or 17 before she gives birth.
And 16-17 years old is about the optimal time for the health of the child. Lots of diseases (i.e. autism) become more and more likely as a woman ages. A woman’s peak fertility occurs when it is most healthy to have a child.
“Pregnancy for a woman below 16 years of age can lead to permanent damage of her reproductive organs and such as fistula. ”
How do you know about that?
That’s it? That’s hardly different from modern Progressivism, with its 16-centered AoC fanaticism.
The evidence that Catholicism is grossly incompatible with NRx keeps piling up. Moldbug should never have gotten cozy and fuzzy with Catholic entryists such as Nick B. Steves and the rest of them. I’m super glad that Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, and Mormons are outbreeding them.
If Mormons keep sending more and more of their daughters to colleges, they soon won’t be outbreeding them.
Also, since the age change on girls/women seving “missions” was lowered, more of them going on these 1.5 year missions. which might not seem like a lot of years (and would only be about 1 baby on average) but it is VERY effective at disrupting highschool sweetheart marriages, one of the big helpers in there high birth rates. (and by disrupt I don’t mean delay, but prevent from ever happening.)
From a neo-reactionary, darkly-enlightened Catholic… i.e., a normal, traditional Catholic who holds the faith without cavil:
If the Boss holds materially heretical views, you do what any good reactionary does. You do your part to remain faithful, you try to advance the good in prudent ways, and you respect the tradition.
For a Christian, the same Tradition that tells us St. Paul’s writings are Scripture, tells us that a material heretic – most of all, a materially heretical Pope – cannot be considered a formal heretic until the proper ecclesiastical procedure has been concluded for declaring him to be such. Until that time, you forbear.
The Popes have not yet, and will never, define heresy on the full authority of the Apostolic See. They have personally made mistakes, they have issued authoritative-ish documents that contain errors, but they have not committed the full authority of the Petrine Office to heresy.
The Great Doctors, at a different time in the Church, believed it was very unlikely that a Pope would ever routinely advance error from the Apostolic See. But if he did so, they agreed that he could be deposed for open and manifest heresy by a council. I.e., it would not be possible to depose a Pope for expressing an opinion that was debated or debatable, but it would be possible to depose a Pope for flatly and obviously apostatizing from the Tradition. I actually think it would have been possible to depose two of the more recent Popes on these grounds. Paul VI and JPII both did official things that were outrageously modernist, and modernism has been as solidly anathematized as anything in Church history ever has been. But we live in a time like the Arian crisis, when a huge preponderance of bishops, and some of the faithful, are also parties to the error. So the ecclesiastical processes were never initiated. Francis may also disappoint us in an official capacity, but as yet he has done little of an official nature (his gaffs are all in a basically private capacity). The times are what they are, and this crisis has been the worst in the history of the Church.
That said, there is nothing traditionalist or neo-reactionary, about flying off the handle and rejecting your tradition just because some important person in the hierarchy is not doing his part well enough. Anybody paying attention to the Catholic Church, can see that large amounts of new vocations are emerging from the ranks of young men, often of a very neo-reactionary bent (such as myself). The Catholic Church will be a very different place in twenty or thirty years. I imagine that the sudden recrudescence of the Catholic hard-line in the mainstream of Catholic life, will be one of the provocations that finally induces the leftists to drop all pretense of tolerance or peaceable intent.
Doesn’t the sin of heresy automatically place a person outside the Catholic church?
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
And the formal trial is not necessary – heresy brings excommunication by itself.
Canon 2314, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
If the Pope is excommunicated, he is no longer the Pope, correct? So … Sedevacantism?
No law enforces itself. No law is automatic. For a law to be a law an authority must notice when it is transgressed and act. Written law so frequently differs from actual law because judges and juries are human.
That seems directly contradictory to Pius VI’s statement, and the Canon Law I cited.
The fact that the authority hasn’t noticed, is simply their mistake. Or a conspiracy, because they themselves are heretics.
[…] The Christian right is left. […]
Here is why we call ourselves Traditionalist Catholic, is like saying we believe in the old immutable truths.
Unfortunately if the modernist degeneration in the church continues and surpass the red line (changing dogmas) we may be forced to be sedevacantists or join the orthodox church.
And about the communion for the divorced, it is like any other progressive battle ever: an ideological scalp.
We were the first to fight all the progressives errors since the beginning; we fought calvinists, jacobins, liberals, socialists, communists, modernists, sincretists. We fought all of them SINCE THE BEGINNING and that’s what we get: being called leftists.
So, what is your position on slavery, racism, and female emancipation?
Notice that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the father of the bride give away the bride, and pretty much excludes the families from any direct role in the wedding.
Bravo. The blog title is fact. Will be reading later for sheer pleasure.
Sunshine Mary bailed, correct?
Sometimes, I question the process that leads one person or another to their commentary, “beliefs” or ideology.
Some people believe the correct things by accident. Others carefully reason themselves there.