"The Danish Girl"

Thanks to "For Your Consideration" dvds, I have watched a number of newish movies with Himself, of late, movies which I would have probably seen later when they were free, or never. (I don't think I'm violating an terms of their possession if I watch them with him.)
Generally, after I view or read a piece of work like this, I go back to see what reviews, "experts," etc., had to say about it.

I've read that it is a piece of transgender activist "propaganda," that some involved in its creation see themselves now as adding their voices to the acceptance of transgenderism....

Frankly, I was surprised by the refreshingly un-PC pov of The Danish Girl.

To me, it seems to present, in very sympathetic terms, the life of a delusional man, and they way his life was constricted, and ultimately ended by the mental illness from whihc he suffered.

What the intentions of its creators' were, I can not say, but that is what I "got" from it.

Eddie Redmayne gave a very detailed, but more technically proficient than moving portrait of Einar Wegener. (I should say up front that I go in to this with a bit of hostility to Redmayne, because I think he has an Oscar that belonged to Michael Keaton. Not his fault, so I'm sure I'll forgive him eventually, as I will Tom Hanks for having the Oscar that by all rights was Anthony Hopkins' for Remains of the Day.)

On the other hand, that may have been intentional, and appropriate, because except in rare cases of congenital sexual ambiguity, men suffering from such delusions can, at best, aspire to a kind of "technical proficiency" in their pretense, rather than anything real. Overacting is always easier than being, hence, the caricatures of femininity presented by so many drag queens and trans-gender "women."

Alicia Vikander is the soul of the movie.
It is a love story, and her character is the one who provides actual love, (though even she fails at the real test of the lover - wishing, and acting for, the good of the beloved. Much harder than enabling, perhaps?)
Regardless of the truth of the story, in this film of an apparently highly fictionalized novelization of a truish story of an attractive madman, her portrayal of the wife who loved him through and despite his descant into insanity was wonderful.
Her husband's delusion, his betrayal, his pitiful learning to play a part, (as if ones gender is a matter of gesture and posture!) his lies, his truly insulting - to an actual woman - notion of womanhood, and finally, his absurd attempt to have organs implanted in order to bear children at an age when pregnancy and childbirth would have been improbably for an actual woman - the clear-eyed love she exuded was tragic, beautiful and riveting. (I understand that actual Gerda, for all that gender idealogues want her to be a lesbian icon, finally gave up and married another man while her damaged husband was still alive.)

"Jesus Betrays His People"

(I know this is grossly out of date, blame Facebook's algorithms, which somehow decided this should be linked to something current I was reading today.)

As the Lord concludes his meeting with His apostles this week, He reveals Himself as grossly out of touch with both grassroots Judaism and with the Sanhedrin. While there were certainly some who objected, He set forth an agenda that has little to do with the Huffington Post's wishes, and is opposed by the majority of Huffington Pot's readers.

I realize poor Miss Duddy-Burke supports certain sins, perhaps because she herself is unable to resist their temptation, or from mistaken notions of mercy toward others who are drawn to them.
And it is undoubtedly true that many sins are almost universally committed.
But where would anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of what Jesus and His Bride teach get the idea that the morality or immorality of an act or attitude,  of, yes, its fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, is determined by majority vote?
Most people lie, for instance - is that evidence that it isn't wrong?

What about that survey, (probably deeply flawed and inaccurate,) that purported to show that one third of college men would commit rape given a consequence-free opportunity?
HAD the number been higher - would that have somehow made rape a morally permissible choice, and signal a "betrayal" by those who were still ag'n' it?

Use your brains, people, if you won't use your souls, at least use your brains!

On-the-Job Gender and Sexuality Discrimination?

Why yes, since you asked...
Oh, wait, you didn't really.

An organization to which I belong emailed a link to a survey it was asking all its members to complete, presumably to get a comprehensive picture of the way LGBT members were treated.

It certainly wasn't to find out if there were employers who discriminated against members on the basis of sexuality or gender generally, since it was entirely multiple choice, no option for "other" or space for commentary.

The only answers it wanted to get were if one had experienced or one had witnessed discrimination against LGBT members.
Straight women? we don't care.
Straight guys? we don't care.

As it happens, discrimination against ... well, what the heteronormative thinks of as "men," and some of my former employers referred to as "breeders," (sometimes friendly ribbing, sometimes contemptuously,) was rampant in many, (and even at one time, most,)x of the places in which I worked.

As a "heifer," and therefore a spectator, I think I had a pretty clear view of the playing field. (I never did determine if "heifer" was ever meant as friendly ribbing...)

Surveys, I find, are often like advocacy journalists, they've already determined the answers they seek, and find them they will.

So We're Watching Some Guy Pontificating...

No, I'm not being disrespectful to His Holiness.

The TV is on one the 24/7 infotainment channels, (I can't dignify them by callings them purveyors of news anymore, because even though they present some of that from time to time, that sure as hellenization isn't what's on them most of the 24/7,) and some talking head is, er, talking, (name changed to protect the inane,) and Himself says, I didn't know that.
I haven't been listening, so he fills me in.
Commentator has just said, apparently, well that's just a discipline, so Pope Francis can change it is he want, there could be women priests.
(So, yeah, you can tell from said commentator knowing the term, "discipline," he's at least Catholish, if not Catholic.)
That's not right.
Are you sure?
Yeah, it's wrong. Celibacy is just a discipline, you know, a practice that can be changed, but reserving the priesthood to men is'nt like that.
He said it wasn't a dogma, so it could be changed -- he's wrong?
No, I think he's right about it about it not being dogmatic, I think it is what is called "doctrinal."
Oh....
I'm thinking, great, now I gotta go lookup stuff, I'm going to have to point him toward something like this, or this, or this, but he goes on,
I didn't know that, but now that I do, (I am touched by his trust in me,) why doesn't he just shut up? why the heck do people like him keep bringing it up, and going on and on about it? It's settled, they should just stop. It's very misleading for them to do that.
Um... yeah.

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

"Happy Reproduction!" wishes from those wacky Norwegians

I dunno, with all the angst about human sexuality of late, and fretting about synods and motu propio letters, and human relationships, and the virtue of some of them -- I don't think this slightly risque story is too much.
Apologies if any of my 3.7 readers find it so.

Passengers were left stunned after a Norwegian Air Shuttle flight attendant ... used the aircraft’s loudspeaker to 'congratulate' the lovebirds who were ‘reproducing’ on the two-hour flight from Paris to Stockholm.
... passengers cheered and burst into fits of laughter when they learned two of their fellow travellers were joining the mile high club....police were not contacted as flight safety wasn't compromised.
While it may seem humorous, sky-high sexual trysts on board commercial jets have been no laughing matter in past incidents.
A number of couples have been charged in recent years for engaging in sex acts in the lavatory and in their seats.

No doubt there are some who will proclaim the victimhood of the couple, or at least of the female half of the duo.
Because, "slut-shaming."
You know what I blame this on?
Wi-fi.
Those Interwebs.
Expectations of ubiquitous entertainment, 24/7.
The digital age.

They probably forgot their iPads, and the poor things couldn't imagine not having something... fun to do for a whole TWO HOURS.

See?
It wasn't their fault, they ARE victims.
In fact, it's kind of retro, a wholesome back-to-basics approach to living.

 

"In my day we made our own fun!"

Men and Stacking Stuff

I accept that there may be innate differences between men and women, between the way their brains work, between their likely physical skills or attributes, between their preferences.

Hairiness, laughing at the 3 Stooges?

And I also get that norms can never be assumed to obtain in specific instances.

Just because "men are larger than women" doesn't mean this man is larger than this woman.

And I'm a sexual deviant, I know, because I too believe throw pillows on beds to be stupid.

But generally, aren't men supposed to have the edge over us in spatial awareness or something?

So why do so few andro-Americans fail to see that you can't nest bowls in the cupboard when you put them away with the big ones on the top?

      

Is it a game?

Quoting St Paul For His Own Purposes?

No, not the devil.

Himself.
Himself just told me that in one of his epistles, St Paul says, Women, remember - your husband is the boss o' you.

And that, boys and girls, is how domestic violence occurs.

"And by everyone, I mean ME"

A sitcom a while back contained this dialogue, between a married couple, supporting characters, (I think I've pretty well approximated it):

Man: Oh, Kitty, no one cares.

Woman: By "no one" I suppose you mean YOU? Well let me tell you, Edward,  EVERYONE cares. And by "everyone" I mean ME.

(Like many television shows, this one was built around a charming, easy on the eyes performer,, an actor with minimal skills at, erm.... acting. But the rest of the cast, particularly the older character actors, were sharp, even, at least in the case of the woman in the exchange I have reproduced to the best of my recollection above, sublime.)
(And I want to be fair, the ingenue did eventually acquire skills, and timing to go with the quirk.)

I often remember this when someone speaks or writes in sweeping generalizaions, presuming to speak for his entire race, religion, sex, whatever.

This blogger has rather strong opinions on what ALL guys want in a woman, or find attractive; and what NO guys want.
And by "all guys" he means himself?

Such a lack of imagination. No "IMHO"s for this blogger, he simply cannot conceive of the fact that some men are aroused/charmed/attracted by women who do not so for him, that all men are not alike in their tastes and desires.

Sad, really.

I understand that the whole warrior babes genre is a sort of unspoken agreement between young men and feminists, in which men get to watch revealingly dressed pretty girls but must pretend to be impressed with them as warriors.  But for this show, the masks were off.  Just calling it “Sexiest sci fi girls” is admitting that we’re judging them as objects of lust.  Why bother reintroducing bits of the pretense?

Even obvious truths deserve to be stated.  Physical toughness is not attractive in women.  No guy was ever aroused at the thought of a girl who could beat the crap out of him.  Of the ladies on that show, only Xena Warrior Princess looked like she might be able to beat me up, and I was not remotely attracted to her.  She looked too manly, as would any woman who was really “strong” and “tough” in the way these guys claimed to like.  The rest of the girls were soft, slender, and curvy in the ways normal men like.  For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is supposed to be able to clobber preternatural demons, but the actress who plays her doesn’t look like she could overpower ordinary men.

Men are attracted to vulnerability and cuteness, not warrior toughness.  This is true for personality as well as looks.  To be sure, an attractively sensitive and feminine personality is compatible with great courage and sacrifice, but even in such cases its style is very different from manly toughness.

And here, all along I thought I was making JOKES about Jesuit education...

Jokes have become necessary, (along with reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical tool.)
Deacon Greg Kendra reports on the,  (gee, hope I don't run out of quotation marks!) "marriage" of the head of the "theology" department, at a "Catholic" university here.

More about the festive occasion and how it fits in with the Fordham community at Aleteia.

The [male] chairman of the theology department at Fordham University has gotten married—to another man... at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan. The ceremony took place June 27, just a day after the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage” nationwide. That would not have been necessary legally, since New York State has allowed gay "marriage" since 2011. But the ceremony was conducted before the Episcopal Church in America voted this week to allow same-sex "marriage" rites in its churches.

When asked whether Fordham was concerned about having a professor of theology whose lifestyle choice is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage, a spokesman for the university said [the "Catholic" "theologian] has the right to get married.

“While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish [him] and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham's senior director of communications. “[the "Catholic" "theologian] is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”

Howe emphasized that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and [the Catholic" "theologian] has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.”

"We NEED to recruit more....!!!!"

... what?
That's not actually the question, the question is "why?"

In the recent past my liturgy committee was always on about Eucharistic Extraordinary Ministers for the 7:00 Mass. Aside from never understanding why the same people couldn't do it most every weekend, (aren't they going to go to Mass every weekend?) I never understood why anyone who volunteered for the task wasn't, as a rule, only asked to perform it at the Mass he usually attended anyway.
If it seemed there were fewer willing to step up on a regular basis at a given Mass, wouldn't that indicate that those attending it preferred to receive from a Ordinary ministers? or weren't in much of a hurry?
So what if at that Mass there were only 3 + the priest, instead of 7 +? so what if it took another five minutes?
Anyone have a date?
It didn't put much more of a burden on the priest, since he was standing in one place, not working a rail.

But no, no, no, we need more women, we need more teenagers, we need more Latinos -- no, wait, now we need more men, we need.... (I'm not even getting into what signal is sent at Mass by making efficiency the very highest value. Bow to the derriere of the person in front of you so you don't slow down that communion procession by waiting to actually reverence the Body and Blood of Christ!)

But put my liturgical hobby horses in the stable for now -- sometimes the chattering classes claim it is so, so I'd like to understand, why do we necessarily need more of a certain subset of those eligible to perform some task presuming we have sufficient over all?
Some times, yes, yes we do need affirmative recruitment of a minority, or an under-represented majority, because it will bring a perspective the absence of which is clearly damaging not just those who are under-represented but the entire community.

Blacks in policing and municipal administration, for instance.
Women in medical research and automotive safety design.

(And other areas of design - a friend tells me of his grandmother getting a new-fangled, i.e. with built in cabinets, kitchen, the first one in their neighborhood. The designer/carpenter and her husband were very precise, and since they were average height men, settled on a counter that was "just right." Who in the world do you men suppose is going to be doing the cooking in here? Grandma J demanded. She was tall for her sex and generation, but still as tall as an average man. The contractor rectified their error. I suspect hers was not an uncommon experience, but fortunately she never obeyed when told, don't you worry your pretty little head about it.)

But why do we need more women in the, to use a completely inapt metaphor, nuts and bolts end of computer science?

Is there something in particular that the female brain brings to coding?

And odd that anyone should think it, and feel safe in proclaiming it at the precise moment when we are being told that gender is just an artificial construct...

(This morning on my way home from church I saw, for the very first time ever, that a landscaping crew, which are entirely Guatemalan in this area, had a woman on it. Does lawn work "need" more women in it? I wonder.)

She Must Be So Proud of Her Name Sake University....

On the other hand, what Catholic can't be pleased to know that Notre Dame is in touch with at least some sort of  tradition?

 Soon a questionable tradition called the “Bun Run” will be upon us again. For those who don’t know, this is an event that usually takes place on Sunday night before finals week where a handful of male students hide behind masks and run naked through campus buildings, disrupting students and staff.
As a Notre Dame Food Services manager at The Huddle for 25 years, I work with 200 employees. On behalf of my employees, I respectfully ask you to consider a few things before participating in or supporting this event. We have been dealing with the negative effects of this for years, and we’ve received numerous complaints from staff.
Our employees are here to help and serve the students and should not to be subjected to harassment and offensive behavior at their daily jobs. My female staff often request schedule changes or hide in the kitchen or elsewhere in the building when this event takes place. They work extremely hard and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. This creates a hostile work environment for them. How would you feel if your mother or grandmother were working here and someone did this to them?

What does it say about Catholic college life that the, (probably under-compensated,) food service workers have a greater sense of decorum than frat boys those pursuing  higher education?

 

What would your Mother say?

Discrimination? How un-PC!

A situation on a situation comedy, Modern Family, set me to wondering.

Jay (Ed O'Neill) agrees to sub in on Cam’s bowling team for the finals but Cam (Eric Stonestreet) was not fully upfront about it being an all gay league, which puts Jay in a precarious position.

Wouldn't it be "brave" to tackle the discrimination issue,  for the producers to build on that episode by having Cam and Jay, who put winning above all, bully lawyer Mitch into trying to get their trophy back by suing the homosexuals who organize and comprise the league for discriminating against heterosexuals? (Most of whom are, um... born that way.)

Why Not Present Oneself for Communion?

A blogger to which I will not link, for even when I agree with his basic point, his langage, invective, and animus for his fellow sinners is beyond the pale,) rightly, I think, sometimes decries the flouting of litrugical law that implies a flouting of doctrine.
But he's really worked himself up over the idea of "“trannii probati”" having their feet washed during the Holy Thursday mandatum in a Roman prison.

Jails do not gather the most beautiful flowers of humanity....

Okay, stipulated.

The Church certainly belongs in a jail, but the Church belongs there in order to convert or reform the sinners, not to encourage them in their sins....

Again, agreed.

[Which] is, most certainly, what has happened with this disgraceful episode.

Huh?
What "sin" is encouraged?
How is gender dysphoria a sin?
It is either mental illness or acting out, and done because one is in denial about ones sex, or to enjoy the frisson of drag, but if the former, which surely must be the case when one is allowed to cross-dress in a prison, absent an intention to deceive others, (because one has already deceived oneself,) where is the sin?

There is no possible universe in which a Trannie can present himself for communion dressed like a woman – and therefore fully embracing, for everyone to see, his own perversion – and receive worthily. Her very attitude, clothes, walk, talk, in short: all her person will scream: “I am in mortal sin!”

If we can accept a world in which that is not mortal sin, then nothing must be a mortal sin.Since gender-specific clothes, shoes, make-up, hairstyle, etc., are societal constructs, I really can't see how someone suffering from a disordered gender identity is in mortal sin for wearing make-up, a gown, "done" hair - I just can't.
A delusional man dressing up as a woman is not sinful, it's pitiable.

Why should I go to the theater for sex and violence, when I can get that at home?

Odd article in the New York Times about the problem of sexual harassment in the theater.
It is slanted slightly in the direction of The Actor's Union Doesn't Do Enough About It And Needs New Rules.
And it rightly notes that stage managers, (besides one they referenced as hitting on a complainant himself,) are members of Equity yet also a part of management, and that the main objective is almost always going to be letting the Show Go On, so maybe not the best person address a problem reported by a young(er) less connected victim?
Well, yeah.

But how could a journalist tackle this subject and not even mention, perhaps, not even know about, the existence of The Deputy? AEA always has a deputy or two in every union production.
Confidential, usually experienced in and knowledgeable about, and often actually IN, the vulnerable performer's very condition, and required to represent the POV of no one but the performers and their union.

So for all the interviews he may have conducted, I don't think Patrick Healey really researched his subject with much care.

But I am more bothered that the story that opens the article is... well, it doesn't really illustrate the problem they're trying to present, at least to this reader.
A woman slaps her boyfriend.
The man later slaps her.
She goes to rehearsal with a black eye and finds out that he is more valuable to the production than she is.
As someone who's gotten my share of black eyes, and given and received unfortunate stage bruises, (including mistimed hits that really connected,) I have never known a slap to cause a black eye.
And in the article, indeed, it seems not to have been the slap per se that had visible results, but that his slap had sufficient force to knock her down.
At the end of the anecdote, what I take away is that the woman did not feel that what had happened rose to the level of meriting the attention of law enforcement.
She did seem to feel the incident was worth the man losing his job over, or something....
You see, she didn't want to leave the production, but she didn't want to be forced to be around him, and well... he was in the production, they were portraying lovers. So, absent a serious re-thinking of Shakespeare's intent, and a re-staging, I guess she wanted him fired.

But she also, apparently, in a Things That Make You Go Huh????? detail, didn't even think the blow and the injury was sufficient to cause a break-up, at least not for a while, since several months later, the production is changing venues, by which I mean GOING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, and their relationship is "all but over."
"All but over?"

It is gravely wrong for a man to strike a woman, I'm not defending that. From the details given I think the shmuck should have at least spent the night in a cell. But it does not seem that he intended to do any more damage to her than she had intended to do to him. So I'm not certain the woman shouldn't have spent some time in the hoosegow a few nights earlier.
And I'm damned sure, unless she is emotionally or mentally damaged in some way that precludes her being let out without a keeper, she should have left his sorry carcass with a little more dispatch.

Like, that night.

Is she not capable of caring for herself? of making rational life decision?
It seems she is.
So why... Omiwerd, i can't believe I am about to stick up for a producer!!!!!.... why, in her mind, is it up to the producer to do for her in her professional life, what she did not even bother to do in her private life?
Man up, woman!

And I know I shouldn't extrapolate overarching sociological principles and predictions from one situation, ("the plural of anecdote is not 'data',") but I fear these sorts of problems are going to become more and more common and more and more unsolvable as the notions of license and privacy and consent and restraint become ever more tangled in our society's collective mind and psyche.

Look at the idiotic notion of teaching children in sex education about consent, that an elementary schoolchild should say "no" to "unwanted touch." (so if the kid's okay with it, full speed ahead?)
Or the main-streaming of violent, deviant practices masquerading as romance?
Or the granting of adult autonomy, (with concomitant money and opportunity,)  to people who are simultaneously encouraged to prolong their adolescence.
People, young people especially, are consistently told that all is acceptable, all is permitted, everything is morally neutral, and nothing is anyone elses concern - and they are shamed, (or even prosecuted,) if they disagree. And yet time after time, consequences seem to give evidence that all that old-fashioned conventional wisdom and morality was, uhm.... right?
A link on the front page of the Times tells us that a college is "trying to balance student safety with open-mindedness after 12 were hospitalized last month," from overdoses.
How's that working out for ya?

"Troubling Consequences"

The possibility of sex – selective abortion in the UK was exposed in a Daily Telegraph investigation in which two doctors were filmed agreeing to carry out terminations because the unborn babies were girls. Police investigated, but the Crown Prosecution Service later refused to bring charges against them, saying that it was not in the public interest.

 

I know, I know, how could it be, really?

Because, um, consequences.

MPs are likely to vote against attempts to outlaw abortion on grounds of gender after Labour warned that it will have "troubling consequences". ..

She said that the move could inadvertently outlaw abortion in cases where there are "gender specific abnormalities".

In a letter to MPs, she also warned that the amendment has the potential to undermine Britain's abortion laws

You know, like reminding people that there are some reasons to kill a baby that even WE  think are, you know.... not good.
You see it's ALREADY  illegal. So we don't need to say it again. And we won't prosecuate anyone because, it's ALREADY  illega --  wait, that reasoning doesn't work. Let's see, how can we make sense of this....?

And we'd better, because I where the UK treads, there tread we....
Because sometimes, you simply MUST have a boy.

What else can you do if the estate's entailed?

"The Last Altar Boy"

Fr Z's commentators are certainly getting into the spirit of things, enjoying the satire from Eye of the Tiber.

There are the usual tangents, and one poster  uses the occasion to rag on Extraordinary Ministers of Communion of the female persuasion.
(Ooh, talk about tangents - but I just realized, when we were kids, in mockery of someones, can't recall whose, way with words and wont to specify another person's religious beliefs by saying "he was of the Lutheran persuasion," or some such, we would often describe someone, referencing a trait that was presumably inborn,  as "of the Asian persuasion," or "of the gay persuasion" or "of the Black persuasion" and then it was the job of anyone else in the conversation to say, "nobody had to persuade him." Well, now, we couldn't do our routine in respect to sex or gender, could we? because the received opinion is that it's such a fluid concept that being female MIGHT BE open to persuasion, right? I digress.)

Anyway, said poster seems to feel that it is the congregation which is urging expedience, but IME it is the clergy who are in dread of Communion taking a nanosecond longer than usual.

So it will take a little longer if only the priest or priests give Communion? Big deal. Who has a hot date right after Sunday mass?

We used to mutter amongst ourselves at one parish, as the Liturgy seemed to be being given the bum's rush, what? Father got a date or something?

And the poster's suggestion?

Get a decent organist or choir to give people a sort of musical background while they wait, and they might actually have a moment of reflection.

He seems not to be aware of the typical  Liturgy Committee Fiat - the PEOPLE must sing during the Communion Procession!

(Because it's such a natural thing to walk and eat and sing all at the same time......)

Bright Light of Celibacy as a Sign That Sex is Not Inevitable

Father Hunwicke has a deeply thought post on the value of both the married, (as in the Anglican, and Eastern Catholic,) and celibate, (as in the Latin) priesthood, (all this is in reference to another, NTM, blog, in to which I shall delve.)
Fr Hunwicke, who spins phrases with a dazzling, rumpelstiltskinesque skill, writes of:

the centrality of the Priest's Wife and Family to the ethos of what we Anglicans built up in our centuries of isolation from Catholic Unity. Clerical Marriage, as we have known it, is not a rather pathetic Lesser Good than the normative Celibacy of Latin Christianity; some sort of concession to weakness. It is in itself a demanding and sacrificial model of sacerdotal life; a beautiful flower which the Lord tended in our part of the garde.

I have long thought that that, (forgive me, you to whom such ideas are anathema,) it would not be impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to admit of a "tiered" priesthood, only celibates eligible to ascend to certain positions and stations, but also only celibates subject to superiors absolute authority as to transferred "postings", moves, etc., (such obedience would wreak havoc on the lives of most families.)

But he is also, wisely, cautious that the admission of married men to the priesthood not be seen as a potential battering ram against the present structures:

few of us would want the tradition we have inherited to be used as, or in some way become, an engine for the demolition of the Western norm. In this sexually obsessed world, there has never been a greater need for the bright light of Celibacy as a Sign that Sex is not inevitable.

This caught my attention.
I have discovered, in more than one conversation about homosexuality and the Church, and about the sexualization of  sexual license that some think ought to be granted to those who are not yet grown-up, that some people simply cannot wrap their minds around the idea that sexual impulses need not be acted upon.

 I watched a television drama recently set in the '50s, about the homophobia inherent in the laws that then obtained, (the white hats in the story had notions of equality that struck me as anachronistic, but who knows?)
But there was no attention paid to the fact that the behavior that was being condemned would have been almost equally censured had it been committed by heterosexual couples, (which is dishonestly handled by most currently created fictional accounts of life in the "old days" as well.)
Of course, one might have thought, (I certainly did when I was younger,) that the infidelity, the promiscuity,  the sordid anonymous and/or purchased couplings were in a sense forced on homosexuals by the necessity to hide their true natures.
I think we can all see how true that is or is not, now that celebration has replaced suppression...

But to suggest chastity?
To acknowledge that SEX IS NOT INEVITABLE?
What, are you MAD??!??!?????

Likewise, there is a serious cognitive dissonance in some purportedly feminist circles, with the demand that "women" barely into puberty must be considered free agents of their own sexuality; alongside an equally forceful insistence that so much of the dance of courtship is inherently patriarchal oppression of women, that any congress of two drunken idiot adolescents, (oh... I repeat myself, don't I?) which occasions later regret on the part of the female idiot can be used in toting up evidence of rape culture on campus.

Any suggestion that abstinence from either the booze or the boys might be a wise course is victim-blaming and slut-shaming, doncha know....

Rebecca Hamilton Says Gay Men Are The Problem?

Rebecca Hamilton says that Cardinal Burke is wrong, women aren't to blame for chasing potential priests out of the sanctuary, homosexuals are.

At least, I think that's what she says, it's not very coherent:

As most Catholics over the age of 12 have probably observed, a good many of our priests are gay. Homosexuals are a much smaller pool of potential applicants than straight men. Also — get ready for this Cardinal Burke — straight adolescent boys don’t really want to spend their time with gay men. They just don’t.

Me, I think it would be a cryin' shame if she had her way and celibate, manly priests who suffer with same-sex-attraction were forced out.

Look, I don't like taking issue with Hamilton, this country needs all the pro-life Democrats it can get, but she seems a little shaky on some things:

Let’s consider, for a moment, why we have altar girls in the first place. The reason we have them is because the Church allows them.
Let me repeat that: The Catholic Church has altar girls because the Catholic Church allows altar girls.

Um.... no.

There's no logic there.

Because, (and I say this as someone who grew up a girl wanting and expecting to be a Roman Catholic priest so I was paying pretty close attention,) the Catholic Church "had" altar girls before the Catholic Church "allowed" altar girls.

(Maybe the scare quotes are around the wrong words - the "Catholic Church" had altar girls before the "Catholic Church" allowed altar girls?)

We had girls serving at the altar long before it was allowed, so their existence simply doesn't depend on their being allowed, (which, just to be clear, they of course are now.)
As a late-in-life convert, she may not have been aware of this.

But Hamilton also speaks much good common sense for whihc she should be applauded:

I believe that the reason we haven’t had as many vocations as we’d like — and I include vocations in front of the altar to family and childrearing as well as vocations to stand behind it [emphasis happily and gratefully supplied] — is that we haven’t been following the mission that Jesus Christ gave us, and our Church is wasting far too much of its energy dithering over itself instead of getting out there and bringing people to Christ.

The Catholic Church is a highway to heaven. It was not created for priests. Priests were created for it. And the purpose of both the Church and the priesthood is to be a certain, readily accessible conduit of healing grace and faithful teaching that will convert the world.

Yes. Just yes.

But:

[The Church] is hiding its light under the bushel of concerns about such things as ...is the liturgy just so...

No. Just no.

Because, um... Source and Summit.

The liturgy IS HOW She shines Her light, it is where it can shine its brightest.. And from whence She derives the strength to go out into the world to bring that Light to it.

Fertility is Better Than Sterility...

... and to be fecund and productive is better than to be barren.

There, I said it.

And I say it as someone who is BARREN.

Who was unquestionably a SPINSTER, an OLD MAID by almost anybody's measure.

Someone named David Gibson, (a man? one presumes,) took it upon himself to claim, well, to be fair, it may have been a HuffPo or NCR headline writer that made the claim, that the Holy Father has said a few too many things that "make women wince."

I didn't wince reading any of them, or, not any more than I often do at Pope Francis' folksie and careless way of putting things, (not that I can claim to speak for womanhood, either, although I do at least have a complete set of chromosomes, instead of missing a section like those poor XY creatures we live with...)

I remember, while the class was considering, a teacher saying how perfectly, despite being a man, Chamisso, in Frauenliebe und -leben had captured the feminine soul, "just as Flaubert was able to do."
"How do you know," I asked.
Pardon?
"How do you know? You're a man." (I didn't add, "who has never had a relationship with a woman," but I could have.)
He acknowledged that that was true, laughed and we moved on to Schumann's phrasing.
And were this not thirty years ago, I would acknowledge to him that he was correct.
I digress.

Gibson does quote some women for support of this opinion, but the Notre Dame professor has such an ax to grind about her Church, in general, that she's a kind of Professional Umbrage Taker ("PUT"); and the Washington Post writer, as someone capable of the weasel words "right or wrong, there’s a widespread impression.....",  -- a mighty oily way of broadcasting a falsehood, of making a baseless claim that even the claimant knows is likely untrue, while mainting a plausible deniability -- is not someone whose middling dudgeon on behalf of nuns and sisters carries much weight.

But let's examine some of these offenses.
“I am wary of ‘masculinity in a skirt.’“
Masculinity in a skirt?

 

Clearly, Francis experiences the yeesh factor that many of us do in the presance of cross-dressers. Not PC by the standards of PUTs, (see above,) but surely no surprise to anyone. Whaddya expect, he's an old hispanic guy?
“Pastors often wind up under the authority of their housekeeper!”
Well, yeah. Does anyone dispute this? And the parish secretary, and the DRE, and his Mother....

Okay, okay, like the Pope, I kid.

The real problem, in some peoples' eyes, seems to be the man's use of the metaphors of fertility, and of motherhood.

Seriously? "Fertile" has long been used to mean creative, and if scripture uses motherhood to describe the care and nurturing not just of the Lord's people's leaders, but of Himself, who are we to deny a call to spiritual motherhood, to reject it as insulting, or insensitive?

Hear me, O house of Jacob,
all the remnant of the house of Israel,
My burden from the womb,
whom I have carried since birth -

Even to your old age I am He,
even when your hair is gray I will carry you;
I have done this, and I will lift you up,
I will carry you to safety.

I am God, there is no other;
I am God, there is none like Me.

No, there is none like You. But we can must try to be, whether our motherhood is literal or metaphorical.

(Guess what, "blindness" is a good metaphor, too. And when is PETA gonna join forces with the disabled to kvetch about the term "lame duck"? Don't get me started.)

"As Anyone Who’s Paying Attention Knows, All Men Are Capable Of Rape ..."

In the past few days I have read a great deal about rape, what people believe to be true about rape.

Because a number of close friends and immediate family members of mine belong to groups/professions/races/genders/communities that seem to have a party line to toe on the subject I have heard a great amount of contradictory opinion expressed as "fact" in the past few days.

Let me assure you, no one with whom I am in contact has any first hand knowledge whatever of the actual facts of a number of cases that have been in the news, but that has not put any damper on twit. face, cocktail chatter...

So I was just curious as to what if anything could be definitively said of certain news stories, and I have fallen down a rabbit hole.

And I came across several accounts of a false allegation of rape made against a singer..celebrity? I had never heard of him, but I don't listen to that kind of music.

Anyway, said singer is apparently gentle and awkward and sensitive, (not to mention, mightily forgiving.)

Okay, fine.
But this:

Awkward and sensitive is all well and good, but as anyone who’s paying attention knows, all men are capable of rape.

What????
Let me rephrase.
WHAT???!???#???$???%???&????*???!!!????
ALL men?
Can you imagine in the wake of recent events someone saying, "All Muslims are capable of terrorism and hostage taking"?
Or, "All Blacks are capable of rioting and looting"?
"All  Republicans are capable of torture'?
"All Catholic are capable of child abuse"?

Or, to keep it in the realm under discussion, "All women are capable of falsely accusing a man of rape."

Yeah, how about that?

Would all right-thinking people jump up and down and scream about tarring the innocent with such a broad brush?
I surely hope so.

So how can anyone say something so stupid as that all men are capable  o such a heinous act?
All types, perhaps, all personalities, men from all walks of life...
But "all men?"

Not just no, but HELL no.