plusultramontanecardinal-blog

[plusultramontanecardinal-blog]

Harangue 1.c: on Feminism

I am often asked to give my own Christian answer to and or for feminism. That ‘to and or for’ pertains to the demeanor of the one whose asking; unsure if I am a Christian feminist or a sexist chauvinist. To most people, there seem to be no middle ground. I do not wish to represent the views of the Holy Catholic church nor do I wish to assert them as authoritative. My goal is to simply provide my Christian answer, to and or for, feminism.

In an attempt to answering this, I often imagine a nun in a rally; what she would say, what she would do, and how she would respond if a variety of people, and in this case, those of all different flavors and sects of feminism- and especially what she would answer if they were to ask her a variety of questions from the different flavors and sects of feminism.

The nun would simply answer them all with: “God granted feminism so that women could bear the weight of their own dignity, respect, duty, and responsibility; should they find themselves in the temporary or complete absence of men. The devil however, would soon promote licentious acts and deeds of degeneracy, furthering male attempts of her objectification, and reducing her to the primal state of nature and animal-like vice under the guise of a ‘free feminism.”

In caution, I say this; that I am and am not anti-radical feminist. I am anti-radical-feminist qua ideology. I am not anti-radical-feminist qua the individual. I make this distinction so to make my view clear; that I attack the ideology and wish its submission to the truth, but not that I would deliver any dehumanization and inhuman insult to its proponents. Though to those who cannot understand and or refuse to see this difference, might as well. Fair warning on ideology, however: when one attempts to fuse the individual and his ideology together, eventually, the immortal ideology will seem far more attractive than its erring and compassionate individual host. In its name, the individual proponents to it may be nothing but a welcome cost at its expense.

It is not a very popular opinion, especially leading unto the end. But it is both mine and my fictional nun’s Christian answer to feminism. To those who would have the gall to tell the good sister to ‘mind her own business’, especially if the answer seems to leak out of the lips of such woman who is guilty of the last sentence, the good nun and I would simply turn our cheeks. We both know that such unsavory rudeness and incongruent behavior in answering such question comes from a self-awareness of a trait within the person, that the person themself does not welcome in themselves. Would it be perfectly reasonable for a man to be angry when one points out his ugly scars? What does one think to be the reason behind the man’s anger when the ugly scar he bears is pointed out? Usually, the proper and logical response is because he is ashamed of it. It is indeed an ugly scar, something he does not wish upon himself, but yet there it is- upon him and visible.

This is the psychology of shame. From when the line between man and beast was still obscured by change, in the earlier eras immemorial- one would be especially defensive, especially aggressive, and especially angry- with one hand grasped around the pole of his spear and arms akimbo, jabbing at the empty air in front of him, wounded and weak. I believe that shame is not only an emotion, but a metaphysical entity. It is a large, dark, and brooding figure who stands before you or behind you, wherever you go, for as long as the scent of a trait within you unwelcomed lingers on your breath. When early man, wounded and hurt, jabbed his spear and held it up high as if he were ambushed, he did not do so in response to immediate enemies and circling vultures waiting for his demise, but towards the unknown ambushes beyond his sight. He jabbed his spear at this large, dark, and brooding figure who in reality is merely a shadow cast by the even bigger and more grotesque giant- that is, the fear of his own weakness.

Am I inferring that an opinionated feminist is weak and ashamed by principle? Certainly not! But just like how you can smell if viand is still edible or has gone rancid, you can sense that a feminist is either truly erudite or hurt. When your emotions bleed unto your argument, the blood rots quickly and it reeks. When one is truly ashamed of unfeminine and immoral behavior, it reeks, and when people comment of the smell, one either argues on behalf of the wrong or justify it as right. For when relativism is taken as doctrine and the wrongs are seen as merely an alternative right, that in itself is nothing more than just a childish excuse for not doing what is right and a pious defense for continuing to do so.

In this, my definition of ‘right’ in the feminist context of what a good feminist is, I turn to the muse of my fictional nun at the rally: St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (formerly, Dr. Edith Stein).

"Matter serves form, not the reverse. That strongly suggests that the difference in the psyche is the primary one." Stein, in the 1996 translation of her ‘Essays on Woman’ takes an Aristotelian-Thomistic idea in which the body’s form takes after that of the soul, and that if a body where female, therefore the soul in which that body’s form corresponds to, must be female. To simply say that one’s womanhood is defined only by biology is false, but not as false as the belief that it can be anything else other than what it is and has been ever since. For as said beforehand, the body takes after the soul, matter serves form. A woman by body, is therefore woman by soul. Should thereby a rejection of the body, there is disconnect between it and the soul. The soul is incorruptible and immortal, and therefore does not err. The body however, does. And any deviation from femininity or a grotesque attraction to become it is not a stirring within the soul, but a stirring within the body.

A woman is part of a common human nature, which is differentiated into two expressions- male and female, and in this, shows the two ways of being human, according to Stein. On the discussion of the soul, the spirit is the inner core of the being, surpassing the emotional layer over it, the mental layer over that, and the physical layer over all of it. Therefore, since the spirit is central to being, its needs hold primacy over the other needs- be they emotional, mental, and physical. Therefore, should the spirit be healthy, that of the emotional, mental, and physical follow in suit the trend of health which radiates from within. Therefore, since spiritual needs is central to the needs of the being, and hold primacy over the other needs, to cater to it first is to cater to all as per the law of transitivity in the metaphysical sense of the use.

A generation of each layer happens simultaneously as with birth, but since the soul is a thing present before the body, when generation of the biological body starts- the soul I already present. Therefore, generation of the body takes the form of that as the soul, in which serves as a blueprint of the body which is generated from it. After this generation, what happens to the body harms the soul, and what happens to the soul as a result of that harm ripples across the body. In this therefore a good woman takes care of the soul that makes her a woman. Staying traditional to the original definition of feminism, a goof feminist is therefore a good woman, who takes care of her soul in which her womanhood emanates from. In this, she is confident for the soul within her plays in tune, melodically and harmonically, with the body she wields. In this she becomes the good Christian feminist, who through her female talents and roles, walks her own soul and that of others, by her example, towards Christ- whom all our souls belong and long to be with.

[plusultramontanecardinal-blog]

Harangue 1.b: on Abortion

Har. 1.b

A Reflection on a video presentation on the process of an abortion

While weeping in despair for how depraved the world has become, I doubt you have never pondered for yourself upon seeing these very same women online, be they your friend or some random netizen, a mere supporter of child murder or a hell-bound practitioner nad or receiver of abortions, and how much they adore, care, and obsess over their pets.

It at first seems heart-wrenching to see these people value the lives of amoral creatures of mortal souls which rationalities over the life of a child- of whose soul immortal, of whose being important, and whose very presence within the womb paves a path to a future of uncertain failure or success, with the promise either which of being able to experience life in itself. Do not sympathize with them, for their attitude and opinion towards their approval of abortion is that of fear. It is a fear of responsibility, a fear that is human and imperfect and pushes one towards sin, regret, hedonism, and normalization of cruelty and the celebration of the inhumane.

a mother and her child pose for their first photo (1920′s)

But referring to my original point; it is not the freedom to do what one pleases with one's body. That freedom to do with one's body is in all actuality a form of demented control over it. When raised libertine and whorish, anyone who continues to live that way strays from the path of morality and derails themselves from the safeguard of responsibility, and chooses to continue to do so. Your body is, therefore, a symbol of your being, as it has always been, and that is why those who are libertine and whorish mistaken throwing their bodies off the rails of morality and responsibility, to tear it away from things, people, and places that represent the constricting but inevitably freeing values and virtues of a natural good, is freedom.

At the dusk of one's wit, one finds out that it neither freedom or youth, but control over ebb and flow of an experience that slowly and reasonably flies from us, despite it being natural for all living things to go through, that we truly want. When the living jests and jokes known as inspirational speakers go up on stage and tell the thousand or so adolescents in front of them to follow their dreams and be free, they are merely sugar-coating the age-old sickness of the human nature- to control a destiny that was never his own to begin with.

And such, though our souls are never free unless we die, our bodies become surrogates for it and control, the surrogate for its freedom. It is this that the evil of Modernism arises- where the gratification of the body through control of things temporal and material around it challenges the primacy of the soul's mission for freedom with God and achievement of His beatific vision. That is why when raised libertine and whorish, leading a life of nothing but bodily pleasure and control, one seems trapped robbed of control that is perceived as freedom when another's body lay control over theirs. Pregnancy has always allocated a woman's attention away from her own body and has aways allocated control from that of her own desires, such as family and work has always allocated a man's attention away from his own body and has always taken away control from that of his own desires.

a mother and her child reading (1902)

When raised as a proper Christian, both men and women understand that the body is merely a catalyst for moral action to feed the soul and that control over things is not important when one puts his or her faith and trust in Christ. When raised libertine and whorish, these values are non-existent, and when the freedom, rights, and value of another life allocates less of your own body and control over it from oneself, it is very easy for the immoral tramp to mistaken it being taken away from her, and the only way to retrieve it is to eliminate the cause of this allocation.

With pets, however, control is lorded over them. With children, control is merely allocated. They control you to an extent that you control them back for the very best. Animals have no responsibilities, futures, and duties towards humanity. Children however not only have all of these but are each unique, each special, and each equally difficult to control and raise. The reason why the Modernist world would punish cruelty on an irrational, amoral animal with a mortal soul and legalize abortion is not that that order is moral- if that were the case it would be an oxymoron. But rather because the hedonism of the Western world has infiltrated the fiber of their morality, and control is now more important than values, virtue, and morality. You can control animals into loving and worshipping you, not children. Children are human and difficult- if children are not an investment, they're a burden.

Our love of animals is not a love of animals, but a love of control over something that will genuinely love you back regardless. You can guarantee this from animals, but you cannot guarantee this from humans, moreover children. This sickness of the soul and obsession with worldly control is going to reduce humanity to a basic and starved mere manipulation of affection and false-love to feed and gratify the poisoned body and mind in exchange for a painful, yet fulfillingly human and fulfillingly wholesome relationship between a mother and her child.

[plusultramontanecardinal-blog]

Harangue 1.a: On Sex Education

Har. 1.a

In response to the Huffington Post Article:  Schools Must Start Teaching Girls About Sexual Pleasure

This article on the education of young girls about sexual pleasure is nothing more than the consequence of a failure of mothers to educate their children on the topic, and instead advocating for the education of such delicate sand sensual matters in educational institutions. This, as I have observed many times in the people and similar situations around me, shows nothing but laziness and/or fear of speaking on such matters, which stem from an early-on emotional detachment and atrophy between the parent and child. this leads to public discussion about sex, and not sexuality as the politics around it suggests, but a vulgar and shameful discussion about sex- as the article makes so obvious- in around the presence of adolescents, administered by adults in the teaching profession. in this, I see nothing more than a political pervert's excuse to infect academia with innuendo and depravity.

In St. John Bosco's 1877, "The Preventive System in the Education of the Young", he speaks of a loving-kindness in teaching that a pedagogue of the preventive system tradition should aim to achieve between himself and his protegee. this loving-kindness, however, is strictly professional just as it is parent-like. There is that term- 'parent-like'; of that like a parent, but cannot and can never surmount to or even compare to that of a parent's.

Education, for as long as its tradition has stayed with mankind, was primarily the responsibility of parents towards their children. Historically, it started out as informal, simple, and demonstrative and topics were that of simple survival. The mode of education was that of observation and imitation. Soon, specialties in need, and then in luxury, bore the need for specialists to cater to them. When specialists grew old and their skill started to dull, this, in turn, bore the need for apprentices. It is in this time in history were in the responsibility of education was split between parents and another, secondary party. The secondary party, however, was only ever concerned about the education of the specialty in question.

And thus, such has been the tradition of education for most of civilized history, with the only difference in institutionalized education later on being that of class size and the introduction of the informal, then formal curriculum. other than that, not much has changed in terms of the structure. The responsibility of the education of essential values, virtues, and life-skills should always be that of parents. This is preferred and even important to ensure, for the only pedagogues on this earth that have seen you grow, know your nuances, and are accustomed to your subtleties, are your parents. The only reason that a portion of the responsibility of educating be taken away from parents is the case wherein the other topics essential are beyond their knowledge and expertise and require a second party. Educational Institutions merely enforce, or at least it should, values already taught by parents along with other specialty topics.

My main concerns with this radical education on sex are:

1.) It diminishes the role of parents in educating their children on such topics, weakening emotional relations between them. If sex education is to be implemented, its target should not be students, but rather their parents. A systematic learning program on discussing sexuality should be given to parents with the intent of effective education about sexuality to their children. This way, parents are more professional in their handling of such questions around their children.

2.) When essential values and an awareness of each individual child's nuances and personality are not present, education on sexuality is blunt and impersonal, reducing it to nothing but academic perversity and robbing it of the finesse and preventive caution that can only be achieved through the holistic education of such topic by an informed parent.

3.) Such a topic that is so connected to modern and inflammatory issues of gender and gender identity, where essential values are often ignored and void, is a component to a curriculum that is open and vulnerable to political interference. The modernist pedagogue, who by default lacks a parent-like loving-kindness as prescribed by the preventive system, carries agenda in teaching that is often political in nature and ignores its effect on the child- the focus being on the message. With sound-minded Christian parents, the loving-kindness aspect is intrinsic (given there is no emotional atrophy between them and the child so characteristic of modernistic family structures), and therefore it is second nature for them to consider the effects of what their children learn. Therefore, an effort towards holistic development, and not a political agenda, takes primacy- especially on a topic such as sex and sexuality.

In institutionalized education, subjects that are essential and are usually outside the expertise of parental education are hard to politicize- science, mathematics, languages, and arts are difficult mediums wherein any political message can travel through. Social studies, humanities, values education, and sex. ed. are subjects that require constant supervision, for they re easily politicized. The content of their curriculum should ideally be limited to bare basics- their initial purpose only being to enforce what should be taught to the child by their parents. Envision the responsibility of the education of sexual pleasure be given to a regressive or radical. All the students would ever learn is a political message- an excuse for whether to avoid or chase sexual gratification.

To conclude, sexual education is the responsibility of the parents, and if ever it is to be implemented, it should be implemented like a qualification test for those fittest and most ideal to speak about it- the parents of the very children who need to learn about it.

Ref;

"The Preventive System in the Education of the Young". Don Bosco Khmer, Phnom Penh. Retrieved 27 January 2015

Society of Saint Francis of Sales (1877). Regolamento per le case della Società di S. Francesco di Sales. Tipografia Salesiana, OE XXIX. pp. 3–13

Vial Jean, «L'éducation « primitive » », Histoire de l'éducation, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France , «Que sais-je ?», 2009.