What To Do About Bad Bishops

Some more ideas on how the faithful can respond to the scandal can be found in: When Bishops Lose Their Authority.  Read the whole thing here.

While on the scaffold awaiting his execution, St. Thomas More famously declared, “I die the king’s faithful servant, but God’s first.” Throughout the controversy surrounding King Henry’s divorce and remarriage, More was adamant about one thing: he was a servant of the king, and accepted the king’s authority over the land. Although he could not consent to Henry’s rejection of the Church, More still acknowledged that he was the rightful king, and that as such, Henry had authority given to him by God.

That was the genius of More: he was able to distinguish the office of the king from the personal failings of the man who held that office. He didn’t call for the abolishment of royal rule; instead, he refused to support the sinful actions of the current king.

While we don’t live under kings anymore, Catholics today are faced with a similar dilemma. Some who exercise spiritual authority over us—our bishops—have shown themselves to be unworthy of this authority. As Catholics, how are we to respond? Do we simply ignore their egregious sins and say nothing, fearful that any criticism might be disrespectful of the episcopal office? Do we see the profound failings of these men and decide that the office itself is flawed and should be jettisoned? Or is there a third path for Catholics in this time of crisis?

***

The Church’s hierarchy is in crisis. What has only been hinted in the shadows in previous years is now coming to the light of day. The Cardinal McCarrick scandal is likely only the tip of the iceberg. This crisis has led to a loss of the human authority of the bishops as a whole. Who, after all, takes them seriously anymore when they opine on political or economic matters? The USCCB belches forth document after document, grasping at relevance, while no one is listening. All the while too many bishops are keeping their heads in the sand about the rising indignation directed at them from the laity.

I would say that we’re in danger of another Protestant-style revolution happening, but the truth is that it’s already happened. The vast numbers of Catholics who have stopped practicing the faith in recent decades make the Reformation look like a warm-up act. All those fleeing Catholics didn’t leave simply because many bishops failed to live up to their office, but, if nothing else, they essentially put a doorstop in place to keep the exit doors open.

Opposing Bishops Without Undermining Their Office
So what can Catholics who want to remain in the Church do? Should we mentally reject the authority of bishops, yet attend Mass and receive the sacraments while keeping our distance from the hierarchy? I don’t think that’s the answer, for that way eventually leads to schism. It makes us no different than Henry VIII.

No, Catholics need to doggedly uphold the divine authority of the bishops. Yes, a Catholic can safely ignore the bureaucratic abomination known as the USCCB, for it has no divine authority. But we must always acknowledge—and submit to—a bishop’s legitimate authority in his diocese. While acknowledging this divine authority, we mustcall bishops to account for abusing their authority. Monsters like Cardinal McCarrick—as well as those who have enabled and promoted him over the years—must be exposed and removed from office. Although painful, the laity must continue to push to expose all the deep pink secrets the bishops have been hiding for so long. Only through shining the light of truth into these nasty crevices can the bishops hope to regain any semblance of credibility.

Ultimately, our goal is to replace the men, not the office. Cardinal McCarrick does no more to invalidate the divine authority of the hierarchy than any of the Borgia popes. Yet, in both cases, the scandal of their reigns must be opposed and brought to an end as quickly as possible, before countless souls are lost.

One practical way to do this is via the pocketbook. One of the primary concerns of a bishop is keeping the lights on in his diocese. He doesn’t want to be the bishop who had to declare bankruptcy. This underlying priority is behind many—if not most—of the decisions a bishop makes. Why do you think most bishops will assign liberal pastors to “liberal” parishes (and conservative pastors to conservative parishes)? Because to do otherwise would lighten the collection plate. This is not to accuse bishops of personal greed. It’s simply to state the obvious: it’s their responsibility to pay the considerable bills of the diocese, and to do so, they need a steady flow of donations.

So perhaps it’s time to dry up those donations. If bishops begin losing money, perhaps they will hear the cries of the laity to clean up their act. This doesn’t mean Catholics stop being charitable, of course. It means redirecting our contributions to non-diocesan apostolates. And it means we increase those donations to make those non-diocesan apostolates even stronger. So if you currently put $20 in the collection basket, consider giving $30 to the local pro-life pregnancy center or a solid religious order. Doing this has a two-fold impact: it lessons the power of the bishops to protect themselves from their misdeeds, and helps with the renewal of the Church going forward.

 

Advertisements

Detachment

“Detachment is an overwhelming attachment to God” – Mother Angelica

How does one appreciate and love the people and things of this world without becoming attached?  Detachment is sometimes described as “rightly ordered desires,” that is desiring God first and then other things in proper proportion, being willing to give them up if that is what God asks of us.  But what of having to give them up just because that is the way this world works? What if rather than clearly needing to forgo some worldly good for the better good God is calling you to, there doesn’t seem to be any “benefit” in losing something or someone?  Perhaps this is where redemptive suffering comes in (but that is a topic for another day) or it just illustrates the how fallen the world is.

God created for us a world full of goodness and beauty and urged us in his Word to contemplate all that is good, true, and beautiful (Philippians 4:8).  In this broken world, perhaps only Truth in its transcendent absolute form has a chance at permanence, but even those who love and seek it are sometimes deceived or have difficulty discerning it.  We are designed to appreciate and be drawn to that which is good and beautiful, but those things are often destroyed.  Every lovely thing in this world eventually ends, and despite our desires to the contrary, nothing lasts forever.

We are designed to seek community and to love other people, but other people let us down, they aren’t there for us when we most need them, even those who do love us often fail to love us well.  Friendships fail.  People die.  Truly we are alone.  And it hurts because it should not be so.  We were not created for isolation, sorrow, pain.

The natural beauty of God’s creation can inspire wonder and awe in us, both in its wilder and more cultivated forms.  When we encounter a beautiful place, we do not want it to change, not ever.  We feel this even more strongly when the place has a special hold on our affections because of its association with fond memories.  Alas, Nature often destroys her own wonders, sometimes suddenly, sometimes gradually over the years.  It seems especially bitter when people wantonly ruin her beauty.

Those who seek beauty, truth and goodness are often drawn to things that contain a hint of permanence.  We appreciate enduring literature, stories that seem to retain some of this truth, beauty and goodness.  We can always go back and read that lovely book again.  So too we are drawn to fine architecture, works of art, things that seem to last, that which is old and so appears almost permanent.

We long for permanence.  We do not want all things to pass away.  God created this world to be good and beautiful, and we are meant to appreciate these glimpses of goodness and beauty that can still be seen in this now fatally-wounded world.  When we see the beautiful come to an end it is painful, it is sad: the ancient oak cut down for no good reason, the pastoral loveliness of a childhood home marred by an ill-conceived development, the fine old house ruined by “remodeling,” another neglected then torn down.

Even the things that we think of as permanent have only just been lucky to survive a little longer than most.  Visiting Rome people marvel over its grandeur and beauty.  It seems almost eternal, but barbarians may burn it to the ground again sooner than we think.

Deliberate destruction of beautiful things is tragic, but how much sadder is the loss of people we love?  It is sometimes said that to love is to risk loss, but it would be truer said that with love, loss is guaranteed .

How do so many people not notice the tragedy we are living?  They numb themselves to it, never noticing the goodness and beauty in the first place so neither do they mourn its loss.  Their lives are poorer for it, but are they less painful?  It can be tempting to stop caring, to stop loving in an attempt to steel one’s heart against the pain of loss.

How does one peacefully surrender all that is good in one’s life without slipping into apathy or despair?  How does one love and yet be willing to let go?  How do we live in a temporary world, we who are made for a permanent one?

We are meant to care for and love the people in our lives.  We are meant to be good stewards of God’s creation.  We are meant to love what God gives us in this world, but we are meant to love God more.

Beloved people, fond places, beautiful things: they are gifts, but not possessions; they are, every one, only on loan.  Even we who have faith must mourn their passing, for this is not as it should be.  Even Jesus wept (John 11:35).

“Because God did not make death and he does not delight in the death of the living.  For he created all things that they might exist” – Wisdom 1:13-14

Piety and Patriotism

Archbishop Charles Chaput has these reflections for Independence Day:

The question arises:  Can the piety of an authentic Christian life and patriotism for a secular state coexist in such a conflicted time?

Scripture tells us to respect and pray for our civic leaders, even when we dislike them; even when they persecute us.  Jesus himself said that Caesar has a realm of legitimate authority.  That realm is limited in scope, but we have a duty to obey civil authority so long as it does not demand a kind of practical idolatry.  Christians were martyred not because they hated Roman power, but because they wouldn’t burn incense to the emperor’s “genius” or sacred spirit – in other words, they wouldn’t treat him as divine.

It’s true that in the first three centuries after Jesus, Early Church scholars like Tertullian, Hippolytus and Tatian all rejected military and even civil service for believers.  But that changed as the empire gradually became Christian, and changed radically after the Emperor Constantine converted from paganism.  From the late Fourth Century on, St. Augustine’s “just war” teaching on the legitimate use of force in situations related to self-defense came to dominate Christian thought.

Augustine also taught that Christian political engagement and public service can be morally worthy, so long as our expectations of remaking reality are modest.  All human structures are flawed by sin.  The City of Man can never be the City of God.

And that’s a wisdom we need to remember.  Christianity is not finally about our place in this world.  It’s about our place in the next.  We have duty to make the material world, and especially the people around us, better for our passing.  We can’t and shouldn’t try to escape from the challenges and responsibilities of the place where God plants us.  We need to be a leaven for goodness, here and now.  But our real citizenship, our real goal, is heaven.  We belong to heaven first.

So it’s worth unpacking those two words, patriotism and piety.

The word “patriotism” comes from the Latin pater (father) and patria (homeland, native soil).  As with any human father, the nation-state is not a little godling.  It can never require our worship.  It can never demand that we violate our religious identity and beliefs.  But properly understood, patriotism is a virtue and a form of filial love.  We’re sons and daughters of the land of our birth.  It’s natural and deeply human to love our home and be faithful to the best qualities in our native land.

The word “piety” comes from the Latin pietas, meaning humility and a devotion to the gods.  Pietas was the highest Roman virtue and a powerful force in shaping early Roman life.  It’s no accident that Rome’s ancient poet Virgil, in his epic work The Aeneid, described Aeneas, the legendary founder of Rome, as pious Aeneas repeatedly.

Aeneas and his piety are pertinent for this reason.  One of the great scholars of the last century, the British Catholic historian Christopher Dawson, demonstrated that all great human civilizations have started from some form of a religious founding.  And as the essence of that founding is lost, illness of the soul sets in.

Humans are addicts for meaning.  We’re also inescapably mortal, which means we instinctively look for purpose outside and higher than ourselves.  The “God question” matters because God made us.  Thus in our own country, from the very start, biblical language, belief and thought have provided our moral meaning.  The more we discard these precious things, the more alien we become to ourselves and to the nation we were meant to be.

Another War Few Even See

In addition to the culture war being fought, often ineffectively, there is also an often unacknowledged clash of cultures that is parallel and strangely aligned with the liberal side, despite the incompatibility of the two ideologies: Progressivism and Islam.  It is impossible that both can win and exist side by side.  I suspect that if the liberals “win,” their success will be in destroying our culture (if in fact they have not fully done so already) so that the West will be so rootless and weak that Islam and all its oppression will triumph.  If that comes to pass, it will be a very dark day for the West.  Remember how long it took Spain to kick out the Muslims?

Time for choosing in the struggle between Islam and the West

I dare say that most people who have read history would like to think that if they had been present at some pivotal point in history, they would have chosen the right side – with the Allies and against the Axis, with Wilberforce and against the slave traders, with the Romans and against the child-sacrificing Carthaginians.

If I had lived back then, we tell ourselves, I would have fought with the right side, no matter the odds.

Well, now’s your chance. Because it looks very much as though we are at one of those pivotal moments – possibly at one of the major turning points in history, and probably one of the most dangerous. We tend to think that historical turning points generally involve a breakthrough to a higher plane – a turn for the better rather than a turn for the worse. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes, the pendulum of history swings backward and slices off centuries of progress. The turning point at which we now stand threatens to cast us back more than a thousand years to some of history’s darkest days. We may soon be fighting for things we thought had been secured for all time – basics such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and even freedom from enslavement.

The turning point I refer to is the civilizational struggle between Islam and the West (acknowledging, of course, that much of the Western tradition has been adopted by people who live outside the traditional geographic boundaries of the West). On a larger view, the struggle can more accurately be described as a conflict between Christianity and Islam, because if the West loses its Christian soul, it will also lose the ability and the will to defend its freedoms.

Of course, some people deny that there is any “clash of civilizations.” All religions and all cultures want the same thing, they say, and they assure us that the tiny handful of trouble-makers in the Muslim world do not represent the vast majority.

But time and again, polls have shown that at least a majority of Muslims want to be ruled by sharia law – a throwback to the harsh legal system that developed in seventh-century Arabia. Contrary to “enlightened” expectations, it turns out that a great many Muslims in a great many places favor cruel and unusual punishments for theft, adultery, blasphemy, and apostasy.

That’s what they want for fellow Muslims who go astray. But if you’re a non-Muslim you don’t have to go astray in order to be punished. The mere existence of Jews, Christians, and other minorities is considered an affront by many Muslims. As a result, discrimination against non-Muslims is endemic in the Muslim world. It can’t be blamed on a tiny minority of bigots, because just about everyone – including police, government officials, employers, and next-door neighbors – expects unbelievers to know their place.

Jews and Christians got the message a long time ago. That’s why there are so few of them left in places that used to be their homelands – in the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey. For those who don’t leave voluntarily, the daily low-level persecution sometimes breaks out into organized violence. That was the case in the 1914-1923 genocide against Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek Christians living in the Ottoman Empire, in the 1933 massacre of Assyrian Christians in Simele, Iraq, and in the 1941 Farhud (pogrom) against the Jewish population of Baghdad. In more recent years we’ve witnessed the slaughter of Christians and Yazidis by ISIS in Syria and Northern Iraq, the numerous massacres of Christians carried out by Boko Haran in Northern Nigeria and by al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya, and the frequent attacks on Coptic Christian churches in Egypt.

“Witnessed” may be too strong a word. Many in the West simply noted these atrocities, and then continued to go about their business as though nothing had happened. But, to paraphrase Trotsky, “You may not be interested in the clash of civilizations, but the clash of civilizations is interested in you.” For a long time, people in the U.S. and Europe were able to ignore the barbarities in Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere. But then the clash of civilization moved north and into Europe. When the “clash” made its appearance in the streets of Paris, in Christmas markets in Germany, and in a concert hall in Manchester, only the willfully blind could fail to notice.

But, apparently, there are a lot of those. In Europe, America, and Canada, the elites in government, media, academia, and even the Church continue to insist that there is no clash. That’s true in a sense. You can’t have a clash if only one side is fighting. And thus far the pushback against jihad – both of the armed variety and the stealth variety – has been feeble. The elites won’t even contemplate the obvious first step – tight restrictions on Muslim immigration.

Moreover, they do everything they can to cover up the clash. Police aren’t allowed to report on the extent of immigrant crime, news media won’t carry stories about the crimes unless they are exceptionally violent, outspoken critics of Islam or immigration are brought before magistrates, and ordinary citizens who post “Islamophobic” remarks on Facebook are visited by police.

The West’s self-imposed blindness to what is happening forces us to another observation about the historical turning point that is now developing. The battle is not simply a civilizational struggle between Islam and the West; it also involves a war within Western civilization itself. Many of our Western institutions now reject the Western heritage, and many of them have effectively taken the side of Islam.

On almost any issue involving a conflict between Islam and traditional Western values, the schools, the media, the courts, and many of the churches stand with Islam. They may not look at it that way. They may rationalize their actions as nothing more than a defense of the civil rights of Muslims. Many of them are likely unfamiliar with the concept of stealth jihad. But they are facilitating it just the same. The main form this facilitation takes is the suppression of any bad news about Islam. Thus, in 2012, Congress refused to investigate Muslim Brotherhood penetration of government agencies, and in the same year the FBI, the Pentagon, and other security agencies bowed to Muslim pressure and purged their training materials of any suggestion that Islamic terrorists were motivated by Islamic ideology. More recently, media giants such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have taken to stifling the voices of those who speak out against Islamic oppression.

One could cite numerous other instances of this near-suicidal impulse to side with our ideological enemies: the judges who block restrictions on Muslim immigration, the bishops who sign up with the deceptive anti-“Islamophobia” campaign, and the Obama administration’s gift of billions of dollars to Iran.

With a few exception, such as the bishops, these enablers of cultural jihad are secular progressives. Despite their moniker, however, progressives can be decidedly regressive. They champion abortion at every stage of pregnancy – a practice which suggests that the distance between us and the child-sacrificing Carthaginians is not as great as we may think. Progressives promise to pull us into the future, yet they often act to drag us into the past. Several progressive voices now want severe restrictions on freedom of speech. This has already happened on college campuses where hate speech codes effectively stifle free expression. The average college student today has no more freedom of speech than a serving woman in the court of Cleopatra. The “enlightened” progressives who run Google, YouTube, and Facebook don’t have much use for freedom of expression either. Critics of Islam are particularly liable to be restricted, suspended or banned by these Internet monopolies.

Here is the situation in brief. We stand at one of the major turning points of history. Two powerful forces for regression threaten to drag us into a dark past. On the one hand, Islamists want to bring back the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, sex slavery, beheadings, and dhimmitude for non-believers. On the other hand, their hi-tech progressive enablers are decimating non-Muslim populations by promoting contraception and abortion, while simultaneously controlling the flow of information about Islam using speech-suppressing strategies that no absolute monarch could ever have imagined.

***

Although the means of obfuscating the truth are far more sophisticated now than they were in the 1940s, we still have a marked advantage over our counterparts in that era. We have far more historical perspective than was available to them. For example, when the Nazis were building up their military machine in the 1930s, there was no thousand-year history of Nazi aggression to serve as a warning. The Nazi party was little more than a decade old, and Hitler had not come to power until 1933. There was some excuse for those who naively gave the Nazis the benefit of the doubt.

We, on the other hand, have very little excuse for ignoring the signs of the time. For those who study history, they are very familiar signs. That’s because Islam has a 1,400-year history of aggression. And the battle plan has been remarkably consistent over time – even including migration as a means of invasion. The latest installment of that 1,400-year-old plan for world conquest in the name of Allah has already begun. We are witnessing a remarkable expansion of Islam into every corner of the world – Africa, Australia, the Philippines, China, Russia, Europe, and North and South America.

***

Committed leftists and committed Islamists: it’s a hard combination to beat. Both believe very firmly in what they believe. Unless Christians believe very firmly that they must be stopped, both will continue to expand. We stand at a decisive point in history. Choosing to stay on the sidelines only serves to increase the odds that these regressive forces will triumph.

The War We’re Not Really Fighting

Brian Niemeier addresses the fact that Catholics are not doing so hot in the culture wars:

The problem isn’t that Catholics haven’t been using our profound intellectual tradition. The problem is that our thought leaders keep deploying tactics that lead with dialectic informed by that tradition when the public at large a) is not equipped to understand that tradition, b) has no desire to understand that tradition, and c) have been conditioned into both of those predispositions by the media and academia, including many Catholic schools.

As for why God has allowed Christian influence to wane, it’s because we have free will, He lets us have the consequences of our bad decisions, and Christians have been making a fuck ton of bad decisions over the past several decades. (See divorce and contraception rates, degradation of the liturgy, and Democrat party voting rates among Christians.)

Marshall ends with this lament:

Where are the Christians? We need to spend the next decade prayerfully cultivating sharp and relevant Christian minds to engage the culture and social media.

To reiterate, Milo and Gavin are two Christians who’ve been extraordinarily successful on social media. John C. Wright is a prolific and gifted Catholic author and blogger. Vox Day is making inroads in publishing and tech. Even I’m making my own modest contribution. But Guys like Taylor Marshall won’t support or acknowledge any of us because we’re not engaging in Thomistic disputations on Facebook.

While one might argue about exactly how Christian or how effective any of the people Niemeier mentions are, the fact is they have done more than the average writer who shows up on New Advent on a regular basis. Thomistic disputations at this point in time only work for preaching to the choir.

This really goes to show, in a way, why the idea of withdrawing from society is bad. On one hand, we have to back up enough to be able to preserve ourselves and children and so on from being corrupted. On the other, it’s clear that current Catholic pundits are already so removed from regular society that they don’t understand how to speak to normal people.

There may be a bit of the IQ gap problem here too. Catholics have a great and wonderfully long intellectual tradition. But people are stupid. 2000 years of theology and philosophy mean nothing to a moron. I once failed a quiz on the Summa after reading the required section five times. But somebody who can read it, who can understand it, maybe can’t understand how to dumb it down enough for the intellectually challenged to grasp. When your brain functions solely on a dialectical level can you even comprehend a brain that functions only on the rhetorical? It’s certainly going to be harder to do if you live in a Catholic bubble or an academic ivory tower and aren’t surrounded by people like that every day.

Trying to get these people to comprehend that they don’t comprehend is as difficult and frustrating as trying to get an average person to understand that maybe his problems might be coming from sleeping around and, no, a vasectomy won’t help. The man standing on moral bedrock can’t tell the man drowning in quicksand to just stand on bedrock. There isn’t any bedrock over there but the man standing on it doesn’t see the quicksand.

The difference between dialect and rhetoric is imperative for people to understand.  Understand it and know when it use it.  Sometimes that’s going to mean being mean.  We have to let go of the intellectual pride and the self congratulatory, defeatist moral high ground and try to win for a change.

A Brave Woman

Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this bookThe Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”)I do not think I have the stomach to read the book.  Reading about the book is hard enough.  LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)

This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).

LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?

Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.

Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.

Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.

Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far.  As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.

After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity.  Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography.  Why is this the actual reality?  In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer.  This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male.  They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit.  Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.

This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.

Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

How can they persuade those they persuade?  Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age.  Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target.  Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.

This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.

In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times.  Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.

Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men.  But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this.  When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press.  Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.

It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that!  You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”

 

 

The Skin Carcass

From SJWs Always Double Down:

The Skin Carcass: Identify a respected institution.  Kill it.  Gut it.  Wear its carcass as a skin suit, demanding respect….

Speaking of The Skin Carcass, a reader sent in an anecdote from a friend who, while on a recent pilgrimage, had a conversation with someone who is very close to some of the liberal religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church.  His acquaintance told him, in no uncertain terms, that many members of the religious orders in serious decline are actually happy that their orders are dying out because they hate the Church and their own orders because they believe them to be unjust.  These aging SJW infiltrators not only do not lament that their orders have few individuals with vocations to replace them, but they actively, consciously, drive away any young people who come inquiring, because they consider joining a religious order of any kind to be a waste of time.  They literally want the Roman Catholic Church to die with them.

That won’t be much of a surprise for any orthodox or traditionally minded Catholic.  The old fashioned, habit wearing orders are more likely to be growing and the “spirit of Vatican II” types are slowly getting grayer and grayer.

A young woman once told me about a well intentioned, old busybody who was pestering her with the “you don’t have boyfriend; maybe you’ve got a vocation to be a nun” line.  The busybody even had a particular convent picked out.  She’d been on retreat there so she knew it was great.  The nuns didn’t wear habits and they could do this pseudo-cloister thing but it wasn’t permanent so they could still come out and so on.  The busybody admitted that there really weren’t any young women there and the convent was getting kind of old demographically but she’d thought it was so nice there.

I wonder what happens when the last couple nuns turn 80 and can’t take care of each other.

It’s been completely and totally obvious for a very long time that the changes made to religious orders in the 60s were a disaster.  If any of these orders cared or wanted to survive, they’d go back to how it used to be.

The Church is in the unfortunate position that its structures make it hard to converge but once converged make it hard to unconverge.  The younger generations have to wait and wait for everybody to croak and then have to go about fixing the shambles left behind.  The Church will survive; it’s just annoying waiting for the point when she can be restored.