Thursday, March 29, 2018

It's Not an Intellectual Problem But a Moral One

Some interesting historical points in the essay but it is otherwise incorrect in its assessment of the problem and proposed solution.

Rigor in Place of Rancor by José Maria J. Yulo

Yankees, Ancestors of the SJW: Julia Ward

His Truth is Marching On by Dissident Mama

Rigged to Be a Failure?

Or a success in the eyes of its proponents, if they have a leftist agenda.

The Youth Synod: The next step in the Francis papacy by Thomas R. Ascik
The just-issued document for the upcoming youth synod emphasizes social justice, the empowerment of women, and changing the Church’s moral teachings.

Related:
The Big Lie and a Generation Abandoned
“The first order of business for the Church,” says Peter D. Beaulieu, the author of a new book on the effect of the past half century on youth, “is to be what it is—the sacramental and mystical Body of Christ…”

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Opting Out of the Benedict Option? by T. Renee Kozinski

I am talking more about a new locus of identity, an attitude, I sense among Catholics. This time round, though, it is less like Benedict and more like the Maccabees: Lay people, not monks, who aspire to build walls around what is true, good, and beautiful in order to preserve these transcendentals along with themselves and their children. You see this in the micro-educational institutions that create a community of learning and faith, without hope of any largesse or approval-stamp from the culture at large; you see this in small church communities centered around a liturgy that “brings beauty flowing into the realm of the senses.”

She is inclined to rejecting the Benediction option because lay Christians do not seem to have the calling to be neo-monastics.

But I wonder if the experience of other creatures, for the laity, must on some level include the Other—a person who challenges us by the very fact that they have a very different experience. This kind of interaction, I have found, helps us see not only the gaps in our own empathy and sensitivity to what any issue includes, but also helps us deepen our ability to think abstractly, with principles becoming living things and not dry museum pieces to worship. We can, in being confronted by real people who think very differently from us, become deeper and of more real value to others.

You can have a conversation with people of different cultures. But you cannot form a community with them. So where is the grappling with the real question: how to deal with outsiders or people not of your group?

Combat Grip





Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Donald Devine Reviews Why Liberalism Failed

Imaginative Conservative

Dr. Deneen is too good a political scientist not to acknowledge that the disruptive, self-interested individualism he finds to be the cause of liberal failure actually long preceded Locke. He notes that “pre-liberal Christianity” was the first to undermine the traditional family by individualizing marriage as an agreement between spouses, rather than being controlled by patriarch or state. In fact, Jesus went much further, saying that choosing family over Him was not worthy of Him. Jesus even made salvation itself individual, and analogized love of neighbor to love of oneself.

Christianity is the same as individualism? First I've read this claim...

Headship

Some may make the argument that a woman should submit or obey a husband only with respect to what pertains to the good of the family -- that his authority is only for leading the family as a whole, and providing instruction to his wife as to what is to be done for the good of the family. To tell his wife what to do with respect to his private benefit does not fall under the Apostles' injunction and is tantamount to treating his wife as a servant or a slave(!).

But the Apostle Paul does say she should submit "in everything" (Ephesians 5:24 -- I need to double-check with the Greek). This may go against the contemporary egalitarian notion of relationships. Perhaps the male egalitarians who believe in soulmates and such imagine that their wives are just like men in their thinking, even if their bodies are very different. But if men and women are not equals and do not act or think in the same ways with respect to the one another, but the women expects to be led and the man to take the initiative in their "relationship" or marital friendship, then the man must lead her with respect to their own friendship and not only with respect to the family good. Otherwise she will be dissatisfied with the quality of the relationship and with her man. The sort of equality that marriage egalitarians think is possible is actually possible only with respect to intermale friendship (and probably to a lesser extent with interfemale friendships), in which men come come to a consensus about what they are going to do rather than have one man "lead" -- that is what reciprocity would seem to require, that men take turns in having the initiative for activities (e.g. hosting) and be allowed to take the initiative, rather than have one man doing everything.

Ao, men should tell their wives to make them a sandwich; a woman who is not willing to do this for her man has issues with men that need to be corrected or healed before she can have a healthy relationship with a man.

There are a few women who are the boss in the family; do they really respect their compliant, nice husbands? Are they really satisfied with their relationship? How often do they engage in marital relations? Or are they comfortable with how things are because they are neither willing to change themselves or to deal with their excessive self-love/pride?

Dalrock: She’s the boss, you’re a guest.


Steve Sailer: Female Solidarity in Action