A Reflection On the Claims of the “Community”

                                                 
Many claims and demands are founded on this non-descript group. The X community needs this, the community must protect Y, this is the responsibility of the community to do Z. The main problem with this idea is that it is regularly used by politically interested and invested in the outcome (Z) to emotionally shame and brow beat large and divers groups with competing and conflicting interests into the idea that there is a cohesive group that is “the community”. In small cases, parishes and villages, this may be possible. However, in large polities this works out in practice to mean government coercion through FORCE of law. Thus those that are do not agree with X,Y, or Z are portrayed as outside the community. The fact that this community is an artificial construct is lost on most politically indifferent people. Moreover, it is irrelevant if the suddenly “outside” group is the majority or not; let alone if they are right. For the community is always fluid. It may be steel workers, children, homosexuals etc. The point is that the community, and inclusion in it, are what is really important. Certainly not individual

thought, critical thinking, debate or tolerance. Ironically, Diversity is the opposite of tolerance as it is a movement onto itself. Although Diversity would suggest tolerance, and is the main battle cry of these tactics, yet they always seem to push laws that suppress the individual authority, sovereignty and free speech of others. “Others” being those they disagree with and not ensconced in the “community”.  And all the while this group is always more and more subtly oppressed and needs more “community” action in it’s defence. This is because the “community is being created by a group that has a financial interest in the creation, propagation and execution of the very government programs that are to be instituted to address these issues. Issues that may or may not have been issues to begin with.

Thus the “community” is code for special interest groups seeking financial gain. But this is always obscured and justified by pictures of battered women, drug addicted teens, pregnant rape victims and impoverished children. For only Monsters are critical of groups promoting the redress of such ills. Therefore individuals are discouraged from pointing out legitimate moral issues regarding the financially interested groups political agenda and ideology. What is most dangerous is that this cycle ends and festers in government control and legislation. Most honest people can only practice political activism part time because they have to work in

the private sector and raise families. But the Group described above creates for itself the ability to be politically active all the time and paid by the political system for the pleasure at the same time. Thus honest families are pushed out of the political process by sheer economic pressure. Therefore a claim for “community” action is really a call for publicly funded political activists, unaccountable to that very public, to institutionalize it’s ideology.  A call for “community” is therefore a call for the destruction of any pretence of community at all.

What's the difference? Catholics Don't Count

 On the left are things that are repellent and condemned as hateful and completely inappropriate.

On the right are the apparel and activities I see at school and resteraunts and have to see the confused hurt and fear in the eyes of my children. But that's OK, the Human Rights Tribunal in Canada said Christians aren't a threatened group so we're safe from hatred...

Would you be allowed to wear this patch to school? Jut add a cross and its "freedom of expression". Only irrational superstitious people can't handle a little criticism...

Defacing this sign is clearly hateful and terrorizing. But if they're Christians with a sign saying "Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" you can feel free to deface it with impunity. It's OK, they don't live or act like you do...


Just remember, CATHOLICS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP; THEY DO NOT HAVE COMMON CULTURAL PRACTICES, TRADITIONS, MORALS AND RELIGION THAT MAKES THEM NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT AS A SEGMENT OF THE REST OF THE POPULATION... LIKE JEWS!

This Is What Goes For Religious "Tolerance" In A "Pluralistic" Society?

 “UCC should be at the forefront of promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society. Those in charge of UCC should reconsider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view.”


http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/controversial-exhibit-to-open-in-ucc-tomorrow-21261

The saying "noting is sacred" really does apply. Whereas reasonable people say this as a lament, cultural revolutionaries see it as a badge of honour justifying any action as "progressive". We Catholics are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, radical feminists and pornographers; yet this is what we are to tolerate and accept as expressions of diversity.

You see, we are not to express our deep and fundamental objections to the immoral and counter-cultural activities and beliefs of the above mentioned with sarcasm or disgust. Those values and activities are considered sacrosanct and too deeply personal to offend. However, our most sacred and deeply held beliefs are to be "deconstructed", "reinvisioned" and "subverted" in the name of diversity and sexual "equity". Which basically means social degeneracy. These are all things we know already. But I just figured I'd share what I feel is a relevant, extended, quote from Joseph Addison's contribution to the 18th century 'Spectator'.

"No. 23
Tuesday, March 27 (1711)

There is nothing that more betrays a base ungenerous Spirit than the giving of secret Stabs to a Man's Reputation. Lampoons and Satyrs, that are written with Wit and Spirit, are like poisoned Darts, which not only inflict a Wound, but but make it incurable. For this reason I am very much troubled when I see Talents of Humour and Ridicule in the Possession of an ill-natured Man. There cannot be a greater Gratification to a barbarous and inhuman Wit, than to stir up Sorrow in the Heart of a private Person, to raise Uneasiness among near Relations, and to expose whole Families to Derision, at the same time that he remains unseen and undiscovered. If, besides being witty and ill-natured, a Man is vicious into the bargain, he is one of the most mischievous Creatures that can enter Civil Society. His Satyr will then chiefly fall upon those who ought to be the most exempt from it. Virtue, Merit, and every thing that is Praiseworthy, will be made the Subject of Ridicule and Buffoonry. It is impossible to enumerate the Evils which arise from these Arrows that fly in the dark, and I know no other Excuse that is or can be made for them, than the Wounds they give are only imaginary, and produce nothing more than a secret Shame or Sorrow in the Mind of the Suffering Person. It must indeed be confess'd, that a Lampoon or Satyr do not carry in them Robbery or Murder; but at the same time, how many are there that would not rather lose a considerable Sum of Mony, or even Life it self, than be set up as a Mark of Infamy and Derision? And in this Case a Man should consider, that an Injury is not to be measured by the Notions of him that gives, but him that receives it." (the Spectator reprinted 1964, p. 69-70)

Granted, he was decrying the theatre of his day, but I feel the sentiment can be applied to all derogatory art that is expressed to insult rather than inspire.What more and apt commentary is needed. The contribution of this image is supposedly considered "promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society" and "an alternative and balanced point of view"? Does anyone of good will really see this image as a genuinely reasonable reflection of those words over those of Mr. Addison above?

The image of the Immaculate Mother of Christ, known as our Lady of Guadeloupe, is the model of Chastity, Modesty and Virginity is here maliciously turned into an image of perversity, licentiousness and lust that is designed to illicit a sexual response from any man who looks upon it. In any other instance this would be decried as unacceptable and mean-spirited. This can only be seen as an attack upon another's deeply held religious and cultural beliefs; AKA the OPPOSITE of religious tolerance and BALANCE! But as with all Ethnic Cleansing, the victims are deemed unfit for the dignity of public respect for their cherished cultural beliefs.
Yet if one even respectfully criticizes the actions of the very people that make this kind of cultural terrorism, there is a visceral outcry. I submit the following video commentary upon the immediate action taken by such victimized cultural vanguard. The question is... Why is our Catholic outrage completely dismissed under the same regime of pluralism and tolerance? To simply ask the question is to answer it...

http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33#p/u/1/zD_R9sFmfc8

Feminist Lunacy on the Sexulization of Children and a Christian Response

I have finally seen a rational and obvious assessment of the sexualization of Children on public television by Peter Hitchens. It follows a fantasy riddled, post modern, anti male Feminist interpretation of the issue. What is more likely, a father kissing his daughter goodnight is a sexual act that creates the psychological necrosis of Girls wanting to be found sexually desirable and interacted with during their childhood; or the institutional sex "education" and media (film, t.v. music etc.) constantly and incessantly promoting a girls value and power through sexuality alone? I always find it amusing how feminists will one moment say everything is behavioral and due to social pressure, then suddenly when it's an issue of their revolution causing the exploitation of children, children suddenly have the superior moral intellect to understand and decide being sexually exploited isn't "cool" anymore. The response of the mob, there is no other word for a mindless mass of irrational rabble, is reminiscent of the response I get when I challenge Homosexualists based on data. No response to evidence, just boos and hisses because it makes one feel morally superior.

Ethnic Cleansing: Catholics Are Radical Subversives

On my last blog I made, what sounds to many, as a ludicrous claim that Catholics are undergoing a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing in North America. http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-coren-blind-to-to-ethnic-cleansing.html

I asked the serious question, "what would ethnic cleansing look like?" Up until several years ago, I would have said it would look like the United states in the mid 1800’s, the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990’s or 1930’ - 40’s Germany and Ukraine. But those are the climactic ends of Ethnic Cleansing, not the slow build and process of Ethnic Cleansing.

What do I mean by that? What I mean is that in order to have a population act out in such violent and inhumane fashions toward their neighbours and fellow man, they have to alienate and dehumanize them first. They must create fear and suspicion of this population; and in the case of an indigenous or assimilated population, make them appear subversive and foreign.

If a group or Government were to do such a thing, what would they do? How would they go about demonizing an established people? Like in Germany and the rest of the lot, it will happen through legislative and institutional fashion. You make laws that cannot be followed. And if they are broken, you have a "subversive" group that refuses to obey the law of the land. You will perhaps see this more clearly in the article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/analysis-how-christian-militants-might-b

It is worth quoting at length,

“Rep. Lee then said, “As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?”

Dunleavy answered:  “I don’t know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing.”

Lee then said, “I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is whether or not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation. And I think it is clear that that is the case. So it’s not -- your distinction is not answering the question.””

What group of Christians could be construed as 1) having foreign backing 2) “militantly” organized and 3) wish to undermine the laws of the land?  I don’t think it takes much thought to see the answer. Catholics are

1) supported in spirit if not by influence by the City state of the Vatican. This is an old American prejudice with pedigree. That is the accusation that “Catholics have no real loyalty to their native land but to their pope in Rome.” If only it were true…

2) “militant” in that we are openly catechized as being the Church Militant and are highly organized to act upon our informed consciences through the hierarchical authority of the Church; that as you recall is headed in Rome. We have highly organized and motivated groups like the Knights of Columbus, Society of St. George, the Catholic Womens League, TFP, and others that actively, publicly and vocally lobby and protest against immoral laws and activities imposed by the State. Clearly these can be construed as “radical organisations” given the dominant Culture of Death.

3) And as Catholics we do wish to undermine laws that allow abortion, Euthanasia, undermine the sacrament of Marriage, subvert the dignity and integrity of the Family and utilize the State to impose ideology rather than good governance upon it’s people. Basically any political action that has it’s source in the Gospel as guarded and guided by the Catholic Church is seditious activity based on this definition.

But what is most chilling is that this is not Jack Chick and his hooky comic strips, this is a Congressional Hearing that forms Government policy. I’m not even going to touch the “Human Rights” Tribunals in Canada that have defined Christians as “as an unthreatened group” when it launched a suit against a punk band that released a song called ‘Kill all Christians’ but crushed (through litigation) a Catholic Priest that published innocuous magazine articles against homosexuality.

Now based on this discussion, how does Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s pious and orthodox statements look as sympathetically reported by Life Site News?  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/america-or-north-korea-new-york-archbishop-issues-stinging-gay-marriage-reb

Fits the criteria above quite comfortably doesn’t it?

Is Coren Blind to the Ethnic Cleansing of Catholics?

I’ve been reading, and enjoying, Michael Coren’s book Why Catholics Are Right. Thus far it is very approachable, accurate and erudite as is his stated intention. I heartily recommend it.

However, the problem I have with Michael Coren’s portrait of Anti-Catholicism is that he sets Catholicism up as an ideology in his introduction. Many may not see this as an issue, but I think it’s important to know what words actually mean and thus get upset when the wrong ones are used. In fact, it will completely change the view and understanding of the real nature of the bigotry against us Catholics in the latter text, as well as in our day to day lives, as it’s in the introduction; and introductions are intended to guide readers as to how to understand the body of the work.

Sadly Michael Coren falls off the rails in artificially putting a barrier between anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism,

"Anti-Catholicism is fundamentally different from anti-Semitism. It's not racial or ethnic and, outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles and Islamic extremists, not even especially religious. Very few people dislike Catholicism because of its theology but many oppose it because of the moral and ethical consequences of its teachings.” ( Why Catholics Are Right, p.4)

Now let’s look at the dictionary definition of Catholic,

World English Dictionary

ethnic or ethnical  (ˈɛθnɪk)

— adj
1. relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common
2. relating to the classification of mankind into groups, esp on the basis of racial characteristics
3. denoting or deriving from the cultural traditions of a group of people: the ethnic dances of Slovakia
4. characteristic of another culture: the ethnic look ; ethnic food

— n
5. chiefly  ( US ), ( Austral ) a member of an ethnic group, esp a minority (emphasis mine)

Catholics are a common group bound by a common trait of their religious background and cultural traditions (included are those shared morals and their shared ethical consequences) therefore, by definition they are an ethnic group… just like Jews. The fact that many are not especially religious is irrelevant as many Jews are not religious, yet they are still considered Jews. I fail to see the distinction. Especially as the Church is the New Israel that enfolds all nations under it’s tent as it were. Why are we not an ethnicity? Because many of us in North America are Caucasian? Because we don’t look different from the other non-Catholics around us? Again, these same claims can be said of Jews and yet we Catholics are not given the same standard... Even by our own like Michael Coren. But why? Because we are Catholics we have suffered mass murder, persecution and alienation by dominant groups throughout history and the world just like the Jew and yet, we are somehow treated as completely different. Coren acknowledges clear a double standard, but not this most significant one.

Coren himself seems to be quasi aware of the artificial nature of his distinction when he basically outlines members of the Catholic Church as an ethnic group.

“In North America some of the Anglo-Celtic prejudice still exists - the Catholic Church is, in popular and sometimes even cultural circles, regarded as the “denomination of foreigners, immigrants, the poor, and undesirables” - but the bulk of modern contemporary disdain comes more often from the secular liberal who feels intellectually and aesthetically superior but would never dare feel such contempt for a member of a more fashionable minority group.” (p. 6)

This is the problem that I think most Catholics have with the issue of anti-Catholicism. And indeed I sincerely believes it castrates any ability for real resistance and cohesion in the Church to unite and address what is not really bigotry, but as E. Michael Jones points out, the ethnic cleansing of Catholics from North America.

I have to admit, I have not read Dr. Jones book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing, but I have listened to several of his lectures based off his research on CD and DVD and am convinced that there is substantial weight to his argument. Especially compelling is his research on how the Ford Foundation covertly and systematically broke up and displaced Catholic neighbourhoods so as to dilute the Catholic vote and undermine Catholic identity and strength.

It makes sense if as a Catholic I simply change the subject of my experiences from “my  faith” to my ethnicity. As a thought experiment try listing all the negative things you as a Catholic experience, and the Church, then insert Gypsy or Jew instead of Catholic. Indeed, there are Catholics that are Irish, Italian, Mexican, German etc. But the pan cultural and religious bond is their collective ethnic identity as Catholics. That is the bond that is aggressively trying to be broken. This is the bond Pope Benedict XV tried so desperately to point out and renew in his pleas for peace and reconciliation before and after World War I.

I think Michael Coren is a pious and orthodox Catholic striving for holiness. Like I said, I think his book is exceptional. Yet I think he is in denial. I know what it’s like to try and merge ones Catholic Faith and the Secularism around oneself in order to survive and be accepted. I think this is why Coren unconsciously buys into this artificial separation by making the Catholic Faith a discriminated religious persuasion rather than a persecuted ethnic population in the heart of the West.

Can’t we see it happening? The exclusion from public discourse regarding abortion, homosexuality, patriarchal hierarchy, the necessity of the Male clergy; these are all outlined in Coren’s book exceptionally. The only problem is that Coren, and therefore his readers, don’t realize he is describing the manner and ripe environment for the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Catholic population from the entire Culture.

Man bashing as a "Catholic" Mainstay

The poison of feminist activist "research" has spread through the Catholic post-feminist bog world already. But it is an interesting comparison to see the fundamental differences between the portrayal of men as a group and women as a group. Before going on I suggest reading my very brief critique of the "study" here: http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/men-really-do-see-half-naked-women-as.html

Now before I tear these lists apart I want to strenuously point out I believe Chastity and practicing Custody of the Eyes are valid and incredibly important and holy acts. I believe the people involved are not malicious and are quite sincere in their efforts. What I am pointing out is how anti-male sentiment has infected the Church to make it an inhospitable and demeaning environment for men to occupy.

Let us first start with Top 10 Reasons Men Should Practice Custody of the Eyes: http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-reasons-men-should-practice.html

10 and 9 are neutral pious and orthodox advice, but then keep in mind that is the bottom of the list! 8 to 3 are downright offensive and demeaning.

"8 - Custody of the eyes builds up chastity.
Chastity helps us to properly order our sexuality. If we do not have custody of the eyes, it means our sexuality is dis-ordered toward objectification - not love - and needs to be healed."

Big problem here is the idea that male sexuality is inherently "dis-ordered." that is to say, corrupt. Homosexuality is also a dis-ordered sexual state but the difference is that one heterosexual visual arousal is natural, homosexuality offends nature and Natural Law. Biologists have conclusively shown that males are visually stimulated. The visual stimuli that attract men are young, attractive, flat stomached, hour glass figured women is in fact the markers of the optimal parameters in a mate to create a healthy child with the lowest probability of defect. This is on all levels a positive good, and indicator of the brilliance of the divine creator in formulating our natural impulses to the greatest good. Finding women attractive to look at is not the same as making them objects; that is a feminist myth with no scientific support. Now to lust after a woman and to look at a woman with attraction are two different actions. It's as my Priest quoted of his spiritual director in seminary, "the first look is free." That is a positive acknowledgement of healthy male sexuality and the difference of which I am speaking.

"7 - It is what every gentleman should do.
No woman who respects herself wants to be lusted after or looked up and down. No real gentleman would dishonour a woman by doing so."

Ah it’s the old feminist “A Real Man” shame tactic; because if you don’t agree with them you clearly not “A Real Man”. Catholics can try and cover this up by saying “A Real Gentleman” instead, but the fact remains it’s a shame tactic rather than a rational argument. It’s designed to shame men into agreement rather than have to actually demonstrate your point. Clearly the author can’t support the point above so they have to use shame instead.

And in a rare case, it’s actually turned on a woman to which I also disagree. It’s perfectly natural for a woman to want to be looked up and down. That is the reverse aspect of the point made above. If men naturally look for certain physical features it would naturally follow that women would naturally want to emphasize and display these. There is nothing evil or demeaning here. It is HOW these are emphasized and displayed that is ordered or disordered not the behaviour itself as is being suggested here. So you’re not “A Real Man’ if you look; and you’re not a “Real Woman” if you like being looked at. Let us Catholics just adopt the Burka and be done with it then?

"6 - It helps a man to see the whole woman, not just parts of her body.
When most men see an immodestly-dressed woman, their brains automatically start to objectify her. Thus, men need to be able to see the truth about who a woman is - not just to break her down into objects he can use for his selfish pleasure."

This pseudo science is addressed above in my previous blog

"5 - It avoids scandal.
Think of King David. If he would have practiced custody of the eyes he might have been able to avoid much worse sins - adultery and murder. Now think of what happens when a man is caught in a lustful look toward a woman."

And the misadristic perceived  fruition of positive male sexuality is demonstrated here: Rape, Adultery and Murder! What a load of garbage! “Don’t look at the girl walking down the street Tommy, it may lead to you murdering her family and raping her in the blood of her butchered family members.” The clear message here is men are inherently evil and if we allow a slight crack in our defences, we’ll turn into the monsters we really are. Think of how a young boy entering puberty or a man attempting to experience the Faith fully feels being told this is how he is seen. Or the girls and women that are supposed to want to marry and submit to these “monsters”.  Positive no doubt.

So much for Men being made in the image and likeness of God. The God who looked upon His creation and said it was GOOD! We are not Calvinists. We do not believe in the Total Depravity of Man from the Fall.

“4 - It helps fight off temptation.

Men suffer from sexual temptation frequently. To have custody of the eyes helps a man to fight off an even stronger temptation of lusting after a woman after he ogles her."

Now we get to decide if even the natural look is akin to fondling with ogling. True, men do suffer from sexual temptation frequently, but the answer here is that all looks and natural male sexuality is deviant, sinful, behaviour. And mortal sin deadens the will and intellect to resist further sin that is true. But based on the list thus far, basically just being a Man is an Occasion of Sin so I fail to see how he could stop it if he tried.


“3 - It helps our sisters not feel objectified.
If for no other reason, we should witness to the dignity of a woman by controlling our passions.”

Help our sisters not feel objectified? I’d say it’s difficult to make them not totally terrified after seeing the portrait of men in this List!  To “feel objectified”? What does that mean? How can anyone reasonable guard against how an indoctrinated post-feminist victim monger would “feel” after reading this anti-male tract? Clearly Men need to walk on pins and needles around women lest they offend their delicate emotional states by just looking at them with our “sexually dis-ordered” attraction!


Now let us contrast that with the same blog’s list for women: Top 10 Reasons Why Women Should Dress Modestly. http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-reasons-women-should-dress.html

Now I don’t even have to address the list directly as I actually like it in most ways. Women are treated generally in a positive way, if not angelic that is problematic when compared to the previous list. Why is it problematic? I’m glad you asked. The difference is that males are bad and girls are good. Girls are angels, Boys are devils in disguise. Women are victims men are victimizers. This is the diametrically opposed views of the sexes when comparing these two lists.

People wonder why boys and men are not participating or drawn to the Church? Here’s why! Who wants to be subliminally told they are evil, potential murders who’s every glance at the opposite sex is an adulterous affair that metaphysically ravishes and victimizes some poor girl.  What the Catholic Church needs is to give TRULY POSITIVE portrayals and examples of manhood that respect their dignity and value as human beings, fathers, boys and MEN. Until this happens, I don’t see any reason why a man would want to become a practicing Catholic.

Let's look at the difference of the portrayal of men by a Church Father on the subject. Observe how he assumes the strength and dignity of Catholic men. He assumes they're acting in such a way and by this way he is admonishing and exhorting them to the higher ideals and grandeur of Manhood. Catholics today can take a page out of this random quote from my notebook.

"Christians have the commandments [of God] engraved upon their hearts and observe them in the expectant hope of the world to come... Their men keep themselves from any illicit union and from any manner of uncleanness. They observe the commandments of their Christ with great care and live chaste and holy lives as the Lord their God commanded them." (Apologia, 15)

Aristides, in his apology [explanation] to Antonius Pius