Manly Marian Militance

On Saturday I conducted a day of recollection for the Knights of Lepanto. The question as to whether there is such a thing as Catholic masculinity was one of the main topics.

In the course of my presentation I brought up the controversy between Cardinal John Henry Newman and Charles Kingsley. Kingsley accused the recent convert to Romanism, Newman, and the Catholic clergy generally, of dishonesty. The polemical exchange between the two thinkers generated Newman’s masterful defense of his conversion and of the Catholic faith, Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

In the debate, much more was at stake than just the honor of the the Catholic clergy. Kingsley was an advocate of “Muscular Christianity,” a kind of manly expression of Christian faith, which emphasized physical exercise and sport as a necessary balance to a more bookish approach to Christian spirituality. While much can be said for a distinctly manly expression of Christian faith (as is often advocated here), Kingsley went further, by blaming Catholic Marian devotion and asceticism for the emasculation of the Church, and especially Catholic men.

Newman refuted Kingsley soundly, but the assertion that Catholic spirituality produces effeminate men is an idea that remains. Leon Podles in The Church Impotent: The Femininization of Christianity traces the current of bridal spirituality throughout the history of the Church, and even notes the Marian character of western chivalry as a contributing factor to the development of feminine spirituality. He also points out that while St. Bernard was one of the foremost influences on the development of bridal spirituality, he was also the great promoter of the Knights Templar, that is, of militant spirituality. While Podles critiques much of the ascetical and marian dimension of the western Church, he does admit that bridal spirituality is a part of the scriptural data.

Bridal spirituality cannot be jettisoned. Marriage is the fundamental metaphor for the spiritual life. It is the great sacrament as St. Paul says in Ephesians 5. It is the sacrament of nature; man is created male and female, and as such is the image and likeness of God. Christ is, in fact the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride. These realities are too fundamental to minimize.

If we adopt the language of Benedict XVI which he uses in the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate, Deus Caritas Est, and speak about the necessary balancing of eros (possessive love) by agape (oblative love), indeed if we assert the primacy of agape over eros, I think we have the answer to what sometimes might legitimately be perceived a feminizing tendency of bridal spirituality. Asceticism or perhaps better, spiritual discipline need not appear exclusively contemplative and oriented to religious experience. It is also part of the training of the whole man to confront the World, the Flesh and the Devil, our cosmic enemies. Likewise, Marian devotion is not merely the imitation of Our Lady’s virtues, particularly Her feminine virtues, but a commitment to defend all that is true, good and beautiful. Our Captain, Christ the Lord, enters into battle for the sake of His Bride and defeats the Dragon, but only at the oblative cost of His life. Yes, in the end oblation is a manner of submissiveness to the provident will of God. It is obedience. But it is also an undaunted militance. It is warrior spirituality. It seems that the real argument here is about the right balance.

On Saturday, one of the guys asked if I could give a practical example where the critique of Muscular Christianity against Catholic spirituality has shown itself false. After a little thought, I replied that perhaps the best example is the almost universal compromise of Protestantism with contraception. Wayward eroticism not only produces effete men who are more occupied with words and feelings than actions and principles, it also produces, as we know, men who brutally subordinate women to their own desire for sexual gratification. Only in the Church where the Virginity of Our Lady, and the ideals of consecrated chastity have been retained has the full doctrine on the sanctity of matrimony and chaste love survived.

Contraception is a plague upon our world which must be fought to the death, and those who choose to do so face humanly insurmountable odds. Even in nations where the demographics are radically changing and birthrates are well below the replacement rates, governments are finding that their efforts to encourage large families with entitlements are ineffective. The sort of self-indulgence which is involved in contracepting the future has certainly not produced a manly culture.  On the other hand, facing the monster and fighting against it, no matter how difficult or lonely the quest might be, is exactly the militant and evangelical spirit necessary to restore manliness to religious experience.

It seems to me that it is only chivalry, specifically Marian Chivarly, that guarantees for men, both prayer and action, chastity and strength, obedience and authority.  I will fully admit, though, that if Our Lady remains only and ideal and not the living and acting Queen Mother in the order of grace and prayer, then the extremes are not likely to be avoided.

Where were the Catholic Knights?

It is easy to criticize, I know, but look at all the people and no one grabbed him by his belt loops and threw him out. Amazing!

There is certainly time for prayer, but that kind of sacrilege requires direct action.

Hat tip to The Black Cordelias. BTW, for the name check out the about page–a scene from Brideshead Revisited. I always loved Cordelia.

Noble Behavior in Holy Week

The following is an account of the Holy Week piety of St. Elizabeth of Hungary. Try this on for size, ladies:

Nothing can express the fervor, love, and pious veneration, with which she celebrated those holy days, on which the Church, by ceremonies so touching, and so expressive, recalls to the mind of the faithful, the sorrowful and unspeakable mystery your redemption. On Holy Thursday, imitating the King of Kings, who, on this day, rising from table, laid aside his garments, the daughter of the king of Hungary, putting off whatever could remind her of worldly pomps, dressed herself in poor clothes, and, with only sandals on her feet, went to visit different churches. On this day, she washed the feet of twelve poor men, sometimes lepers, and gave to each twelve pieces, a white dress, and a loaf.

All the next night she passed in prayer and meditation upon our Lord’s passion. In the morning, it being the day on which the divine sacrifice was accomplished, she said to her attendants, “This day is a day humiliation for all: I desire that none of you do show me any mark of respect.” Then she would put on the same dress as before, and go barefoot to the churches, taking with her certain little packets of linen, incense, and small tapers; and, kneeling before one altar, would place thereon of these, and, prostrating herself would pray awhile most devoutly, and so pass to another altar, till she had visited all. At the door of the church she gave large alms, but was pushed about by the crowd, who did not know her. Some courtiers reproached her for the meanness of her gifts as unworthy of a sovereign. But though, at other times, her alms-deeds were most abundant, so that few ever were more splendidly liberal to the poor, yet a certain divine instinct in her heart taught her, how, in such days, she should not play the queen, but the poor sinner, for whom Christ died.

Thomistic Chivalry

Great post from Alive and Young on the burning question as to whether chivalry is really dead or not. The format of the treatment is styled after that of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, which is arranged according to a number of questions and subquestions (articles), which he answers by first setting forth the common objections, then the answer to the question, then the replies to the objections.

Paul Cat has done a great job mimicking St. Thomas. More importantly he should be commended for his defense of chivalry:

Is Chivalry Dead?

Objection 1: It would seem that chivalry is dead today. For there is no need for chivalry in an age with no knights and ladies.

Objection 2: Further, in our current culture, men and women are considered equals. Because men and women are equals it would seem that a code such as chivalry is no longer needed.

Objection 3: Further, the object of chivalry seems to be the oppression of women. Christ came to liberate all from all kind of oppression and therefore chivalry is not in actuality a good, but a tool for the enslavement of women.

On the Contrary, it is written “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39).

Sad Goddess

Sorry folks. No fiddling with the formula for Baptism. Still the old patriarchical “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” What will the poor feminists do? No more “Mother, Redeemer and Sanctifier.”

“Variations to the baptismal formula — using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons — as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology,” being an attempt “to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names,” the note clarified. “Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity.”

Not that the feminists will listen to the nasty patriarchy anyway. What a horrible thing for a father to be a father. What a horrible thing for the Holy Father to make sure that people are validly baptized, that they actually receive sanctifying grace and become members of the Church, and not go through life thinking they had received God’s grace when they really hadn’t.

Let the pagans have their earth worship and leave us Catholics alone.

The Betrayal of Chivalry

The murder of pregnant Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach and her unborn child, brings to the surface both the unfortunate phenomenon of the murder of pregnant women and the societal complacence that makes such tragedies commonplace. I was shocked to learn that the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States is murder. Horrifying.

A study published in the March 2005 edition of the American Journal of Public Health found that homicide was a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States between 1991 and 1999. Data taken from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the pregnancy-associated homicide ratio was 1.7 per 100,000 live births.

A 2001 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association said 20 percent of Maryland women who died during pregnancy were murdered. Researchers found the same trend in New York from 1987-1991 and in the Chicago area from 1986-1989. According to the CDC, approximately 324,000 pregnant women are hurt by an intimate partner or former partner each year.

In this particular case, the suspect, whom Lance Cpl. Lauterbach had accused recently of raping her, is another Marine, a man of honor presumably. Semper Fi is what we expect. Not here.

In law the man is presumed innocent. In any event, it is ironic that in this case the military, sworn to protect the our country and especially the vulnerable, is in the predicament of explaining how a woman who cried for help is now dead. I don’t suppose this will raise the issue of the way in which women have been integrated into all facets of public life, as if they were men, has, indeed, made the modern woman just “one of the boys.”

Even the National Organization of Women has acknowledged the statistics concerning the rate of death by murder relative to pregnant women. Of course, the vulnerability of pregnant women is best addressed, in their view, by the availability of abortion. I have not seen a breakdown of the statistics, but I would be interested. The article linked to above, suggests that pregnant women might die just as often at the hands of other women as at the hands of men, but I don’t think so. Would it be so unreasonable to follow the hunch that they and their child are murdered most often because the pregnancy is unwanted by the man?

We have ourselves one big problem, and our arrogant social engineers are still not likely to see the obvious.

Even Lefty Feminists Have Had Enough of Disney

No more Disney Princesses. Off with their heads!

I am blogged down with catching up and with Christmas. Ho, Ho, Ho.

Its official: not only right wings nuts see the hyper-sexualization of girls in the Disney marketing strategy.

Women - Know Your Limits!

I found this video on Gloria.tv

I haven’t laughed so much in years!

Update: We make every chivalrous attempt to satisfy our readers’ requests. You are welcome.

Bloody Feminist Pirates!

Here’s one for Mr. Gibbs.

I only saw the first Pirates Movie on a flight to somewhere. I have heard it was all downhill from there, what with a blooming goddess and the rest. Par for the course, no?

Here is Wikipedia on Elizabeth Swann (emphasis mine):

Unlike most young women in her time, Elizabeth is independent and spirited. Throughout the films, she transforms from a graceful, mild-mannered lady to a true and courageous pirate. Elizabeth has always been fascinated by pirates, but she is often revolted by their aggressive and wild nature, especially Jack Sparrow. Even after becoming a pirate, she retains her sense of propriety, as well as her loyalty and compassion for loved ones (namely William Turner).

Elizabeth adapted well to pirate life, although she had previously learned how to handle a sword from her (at the time) fiancee, Will Turner. She is able to defend herself against multiple opponents and can fight using two swords. Elizabeth has natural leadership abilities, quickly learned seamanship, and displays a talent for battle strategy, devising many defensive and offensive maneuvers against her opponents. It should be noted that she is the only character in the film to use a chinese Jian as her weapon of choice, which is ironical considering the setting it was used in: The Jian, known as the most civilized and elegant of all chinese weapons, ended up being a pirate’s weapon.

I guess every other woman of her time, with rare exception, was a servile dolt who could do nothing for herself. Thank God, for Elizabeth, who was independently minded enough to become a pirate! Of course, Hollywood creates the absurd illusion that a woman can be feminine and at the same time win at a man’s game by his own rules. At the beginning of the first movie, the young and ladylike Elizabeth sings the pirate song:

We pillage, we plunder, we rifle and loot. Drink up me ‘earties yo ho! We kidnap and ravage and don’t give a hoot. Drink up me ‘earties yo ho! Yo ho, yo ho a pirate’s life for me. We extort, we pilfer, we filch and sack. Drink up . . .

Of course, there’s no mention of ravishing and raping. But hey, Elizabeth will just cut to pieces anyone who gets in her way. Right? The great feminist illusion.

I know its just fantasy, so I am not about to wax philosophical about Pirates of the Caribbean. Even so, it is typical of the absurd feminist propaganda we have to endure everywhere.

I fondly remember growing up with the original ride at Disneyland in California. It was a blast and nothing to be taken seriously. Of course, the movies are fun too and no more to be taken seriously than the ride. As long as one knows that the fun is absurd, fine by me. What concerns me is the predictable presentation of the modern heroine, an icon of the notion that no woman but a feminist can be “independent and spirited” (read intelligent and influential). Bloody feminist rubish.