If you don’t know that Sedevacantists are the only Catholics left, or don’t know what Sedevacantists are, you are obviously new here and I would suggest you use the search function on the right and read several posts on this blog.
For the rest of you, you may think this is the “usual” zealous Bible thumping.
Except I’ve never Bible thumped. Or been any kind of usual in my zealotry. So I hope you will take note of a few things, because they continually surprise me too.
Living in a Catholic manner certainly does not mean one does so perfectly. I certainly never meet anything close to that standard.
I tend to be a big picture guy with attention to detail, rather than a detail guy with a big picture idea.
Catholic thought is divided essentially into three parts:
Divine, immutable laws
Church rules
Lay people rules
The first are immutable and eternal. They will never change, because such is the nature of absolute truth, justice, beauty and love. Such is the nature of God insofar as we are able to comprehend it.
Church rules are in essence common sense rules of logic that have and can and do change from time to time. In the past usually as a result of the growth of the Church and thus needing a structure to manage it and serve the laity best. More recently, in light of the last six decades and change without a Pope, the rules of the Church are in many cases not even applicable and hence naturally revert back to those of previous eras when the Church was much smaller, as it once again is today, since only Sedevacantists are Catholics today.
The last are the rules for the laity, for you and me, and again, these are generally good, solid, common sense rules that when followed create the best society humanity has ever had to date.
The rules that apply to laity are confusing to some, because not all are divine and not all are immutable. The portion of rules for laity that comes from divine laws, are, of course, immutable, and others in fact do have even official exceptions for certain situations.
Yet others are treated as if there are no exceptions, and indeed are written as such, yet, the clergy know, some can be “broken” under certain situations and doing so in these cases might not even be a sin.
One example, and one I heartily counsel you to never, ever, ever break, is exorcism.
The rules are that only a priest who has been trained as an exorcist —-and rather extensively at that—- and who also has specific permission from his Bishop is ever to even attempt an exorcism. And then only if supported by a small but also highly trained people alongside him.
And yet, at times, priests and even lay people had to deal with demonic infestations of one kind or another, and some even managed to do so successfully. The rules strictly forbid it for good reason. Which is the preservation of your soul, because dealing directly with demonic spirits is really almost inevitably damaging and dangerously so. A layman trying to deal with a demonic possession is something like a layman trying to land the space shuttle manually with no training.
You wouldn’t let an untrained person do heart surgery. No one sane would. But it does not mean that the first heart surgery was done by a trained doctor. In fact, I have been told by a person that worked with him, that Barnhard himself admitted the guy who did the first one was a black man that Barnhard had allowed to do surgery on cadavers. So he was trained, but he was the hospital’s gardener, and black, under apartheid. So he certainly wasn’t a doctor.
Life is often stranger than fiction. Look at the Saint Joan of Arc. I mean, ok, it was Frenchmen after all, but still, a little girl did for France what all her noblemen and their armies could not.
Yet, if you look at the devout believers, whatever their class, and the realities and communities they create, Catholic rules produce incomparably orderly, pleasant, beautiful, just communities. The problem are not the rules, but how far we have fallen from them.
And the most important rules are the ones relating to family, because as Pope Pius XII wrote in his Mystici Corporis, ultimately, the Catholic family is the bedrock on which Catholicism is founded.
And that bedrock is founded first of all on the relationship of the man and woman that go on to create that family.
The rules of relation between husband and wife in Catholicism are unique to it. The Protestants have perverted it, as they did everything. The Pagans never had any rules worth saving, in the main, with the only possible exception being the Japanese.
Who today even knows what those rules are? Or even just what the mainstays, the pillars on which the other rules may depend and build upon? Do you, anonymous reader?
Leaving this pinned for a bit as people are enjoying them. New posts are below.
The below is the fiction titles of all time I recall and have enjoyed the most. No doubt some escape me, but overall, if you are looking for a good read, these are it. Where they are available for purchase online somewhere I have added a link.
The Sub-Genre column needs a little explanation. For Example, my book 2 in the Overlords of Mars series says “film” because the events in it are written more as you would expect them to appear in a film. And the Hyperion series is sort of, kinda, about Christianity, in a way, but a very cool, sci-fi way. Anyway, I hope you enjoy them.
And of course, I did forget some in the table there, so they are here:
The continuation of the Bladerunner (the original film) but in book format (and bury that foulness from the pit that was the film Bladerunner 2049) by KW Jeter. He actually has 3 more out, I didn’t even know as I had only read the second one. Which was brilliant.
I am sure I have forgotten many more, or perhaps I simply have outgrown some I really enjoyed when younger, like the Dragonlance Series, which I read when I was 16 and played Dungeons and Dragons quite a bit, but these above are the ones that stuck in my mind off the top of my head.
A reader reminded me in the comments I did not include anything by gene Wolf. For which I will lash myself in penance. My personal best loved of his books is Soldier of the Mist. But the man was a genius, you can’t go wrong with any of his stuff.
This will be initially a little slow, but I trust increasingly interesting, and I think useful, for those who have attention spans past the current “fruitfly on crack” level.
The problem of “racism” is only “complex” because people do not:
1. Understand the interplay between the above mentioned varaibles.
2. Use words correctly or define them properly when there is any ambiguity.
In the case of the boogeyman of “racism” the problem stems first of all from the non-definition of the word. Historically it wasn’t a negative, it was a descriptive term. But let’s see how it is defined today in the woke online dictionaries. Here are the top three results screenshotted from the search term “racism definition”.
Let’s go with the Wikipedia entry then since it is the most commonly understood meaning of the word. And let’s see what reality has to say about it.
First: are there separate groups of humans? Of course there are. It is a very simple thing to define as many sets by as many parameters as we like. We can divide groups of humans by multiple defining characteristics, height, eye colour, skin tone, place of birth, genetic haplogroups, or whatever else we want. Depending on the level of detail of your set descriptors, the borders of your set will be more or less “fuzzy”. For example, if you define all humans as belonging to 4 groups, say, white, black, red and yellow, in “traditional” simplistic skin “colour” your borders would be very fuzzy indeed. If however you were to define them into still broad but somewhat better defined groups, such as, say:
• Caucasoids with a genetic component of Oriental or Negroid below a certain threshold.
• Negroids with a genetic component of Oriental or Caucasoid below a certain threshold
• Orientals with a generic component of Caucasoid or Negroid below a certain threshold
• Whatever human doesn’t fit into one of the above three categories
You would now have three more or less coherent groups that are statistically going to be generically quite similar and a fourth group of what we might term “the leftovers”. And please note, if you are getting upset about any of the terms I use as descriptors, you are in the generic subset of humans knows as “morons”.
None of this is about feelings. It doesn’t matter if I call them crakers, niggers, and chinks.
Now, based on the above 4 definitions, can we see broad statistically significant trends?
Yes, we do.
The Caucasians are generally higher IQ than the Negroids and the Orientals higher IQ (by a smaller margin) than the Caucasoids when they are East Orientals, (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) but not so much when they are West Oriental or Asian (Pakistani, Hindu).
So, objectively speaking, we can see that at a certain level of granularity the differences not only exist, but are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that spends a little rime observing different groups.
Of course, these very broad terms can be further refined. While Nigerians, Xhosa, Zulu and Tsonga are all African Negroids, their culture is quite different and different enough that I personally prefer the Tsonga over the others, the Zulus marginally over the Nigerians and the Xhosa in last place. Similarly, in general terms I’d rather hang out with Russians than Polacks or Germans, and like hanging out with Italians, supposedly my own group, not particularly more than other Europeans like the Latvians or Portuguese.
Again, the differences in culture, ethnicity and religion are obvious to anyone of normal intelligence.
Are there individual exceptions? Sure. Always. Even large in number depending on how you define your groups, but statistically the realities are what they are.
Then we add in genetics and we find that these too have a now utterly undeniable impact on behaviour too. Specifically the propensity to violence or long term timeline preference or dietary tolerances, likelihood of incidence of certain diseases and so on. Once again, nature has stamped its reality on us in many, many, many ways, and the statistical realities of these things are objectively undeniable.
So, in short, the differences exist. Howsoever you wish to define humans into different groups, differences do, and always will, exist.
That’s just an objective fact and the Universe (reality itself) does not care at all how you feel about it. If you are 5’10” you will never be 6’2” and trying to pretend you are, getting “surgery” to lengthen your legs, or wearing really high heels will only make your life harder and more unpleasant than simply accepting, and working with, the specifics of your situation. Reality invariably rewards those who respect it and punishes those who try to ignore it. If you have any objections to this undeniable fact run full speed into a wall or walk off the second story balcony of your apartment and if you survive let me know how you suddenly changed your mind.
The issue then is not reality.
The issue is perception, definitions and justice.
Let’s now look at that word: superiority.
We can define this simply as “better than” but in the context of “racism” we need to add a few words, so it becomes:
“Better than X at Y” where X and Y are the defining set and activity respectively.
At this point we can now make objective statements that are statistically relevant again, and factual. Just as we can factually say that under normal conditions, Joe can run faster than Bob, or Alan is taller than Will.
We can then say that in general terms, Caucasoids will have higher IQ than Negroids and lower ones than East Orientals. Similarly for mathematical ability.
We can also say that in general Negroids will have better aptitude for certain physical activities than either Caucasoids or Orientals, for example boxing, sprinting, certain types of endurance activities and so on.
Again, these are indisputable facts.
But it is also an indisputable fact that every group will tend to be better than the other groups at something.
What that something is differs from group to group and how you define them, and society may give different somethings different values in general or within specific circumstances.
For example, while a white physics professor is more likely to know how to calculate the forces required to uphold a temporary bridge over a stream, if I am trying to find water to survive in the Kalahari desert, I would very much prefer to have a Khoi-San with me even if they don’t even have a word for physics and he doesn’t speak a word of any language I know. So the “superiority” of any group over another is relative to the time, circumstance, characteristic being looked at and so on.
Philosophically then, this brings us to a point of justice. And ultimately this boils down to a few simple questions. The main one being:
Should we treat apparent members of a specific group differently from apparent members of different groups?
The obvious answer is, YES. The initial evaluation is going to be based on the statistical significance that you have personal experience with. And it really doesn’t matter if you really, really, really, don’t want to notice such differences. Your brain does it automatically. It’s literally how brains work. If your brain could not make value judgements, on the order of many of them a second, you literally would not be able to function. Incidentally, this is why Artificial Intelligences (well, what passes for them these days) if left to their own devices, invariably become extremely racist. Since computers don’t care about feelings, and don’t have any, large accumulation of data sets tends to make them become extremely statistically aware of various tendencies various sets of humans have and act accordingly.
This very logical and objective way of doing things, which, by the way, is intrinsically fair from a purely mechanistic/mathematical perspective, generally really upsets humans though.
The slightly more in depth answer is that you probably should make allowances for those fuzzy borders and the outliers that don’t fit within a certain set so well, but only insofar as it affects you personally on a one-to one or one to a few scale at most. In other words, the genius mathematician that is also a world-class swimmer that happens to be a Zulu, is an outlier and may be a great guy, but you know very well, he is not representative of the average Zulu.
As I have mentioned before, the average Caucasian, when compared to the average Japanese in Japan, behaves, dresses, acts and reacts in a more generally uncivilised and rude manner compared to the Japanese and especially so from the Japanese cultural perspective. It is therefore natural that the average Japanese would initially eye me with a certain level of disdain, suspicion, or reserve. Should he then bother to get to know me a little he might decide that this particular round-eyed, badly-dressed, barbarian is alright after all, but I certainly would not expect Japan to make it’s policy against Caucasians in Japan suit me personally. And if I were the Japanese emperor I would certainly make it so that round-eyed, white barbarians are punished harshly if they do not behave according to the norms of my Japanese culture.
Do I have problem with any of this? No. None at all.
Have I personally been subjected to what most people would call “racist abuse”? Certainly. 25 years in Africa with a white skin will do that to you. or even just a few weeks in Japan, or even just in a different nation from your own. That, is simply how the cookie crumbles. Is it always fair? No, it isn’t but again, you might as well complain about the rain, or the height you were born with or the colour of your eyes or your skin. It is how it is.
But what about the humanity?!
Well, what about it? If you treat me well, at an individual level, I’ll treat you well right back. And if you know how to carry yourself, you can generally get by in most places. I have found myself more than once in situations that could have turned very ugly very fast, and I was lucky in how they resolved, because I had the “wrong” skin colour, or cultural expression, or whatever. I have also been in situations where it would have been legitimate to expect trouble because of my skin and/or culture, and instead been received very kindly and graciously.
In real life, shit happens. I met a Tsonga (Sub-Saharan African) that was a genius at math and could do integration in his head. I have met Khoi San that I would never be able to match at tracking animals in the bush if I spent the next ten years trying to learn from them, and I have met wealthy and very expensively educate people that are dumber than rocks. But the point is that statistically, certain trends are going to be as they are.
Cliches are cliches for a reason, after all.
And generalisations, as generalisations, can still be factual.
Of course, philosophically, you may say that the soul of an illiterate African is just as worthy of life as that of a Japanese master of Calligraphy. And in principle, I would not disagree with you, however, in how I go about ordering my life, choosing my neighbours and enforcing or following the laws of the land, I absolutely will take note of statistical realities concerning other humans. And so do you, so does everyone. No matter how hard you might try to deny it or reject the idea. The fact is you too do not want to move your home and family next to a campground of thieving gypsies with a history of violent criminality and playing loud music at all hours.
The only “difficulty” is in how to deal with the specifics of a single case when faced with the outlier. In normal human nature, more prevalently in certain human groups than others, one does not want to be arbitrarily unfair to a specific individual as a result of a perceived characteristic that ultimately may not be indicative of his ability.
But the only way to avoid doing this is to provide equal opportunity of access, but let the results determine the outcome. A meritocracy is the fairest system of all.
Even then there will be natural imbalances due to all sorts of factors, many out of anyone’s control, but in principles a meritocracy is the way things should work. And such a state of affairs has been historically created most closely in:
Catholic nations that used Roman Law as the guiding principle.
Protestant Countries that used Common Law.
Pagan Countries that had very strict codes of conduct/law.
None are perfect, but personally I find the Catholic one the best of the lot. The Protestant version tends to mechanise human beings and treat them like robots, and the pagan one tends to need to be draconian in order to control the lowest common denominator. The Catholic one has enough flexibility to be adaptable and yet strict rules you are not to break.
So, once again, I find that historically, Catholic nations were far more pleasant to live in than any other place. Certainly there are notable comparable cultures, but what is not in question is that all of these had become homogenous before they achieved their peak civilisation.
In conclusion then, while one must never lose their humanity at an individual level, the best system for human beings is to, in general terms (and pretty closely defined general terms at that) stick to their own groups, composed of people similar to them in physical, intellectual, cultural and religious appearance and custom.
And ultimately, this is why the mystery meat globohomo clown world will inevitably lose to the Multipolar World that Russia and China talk about, and others are rapidly getting on board of. Ultimately, you can’t deny nature, just as you can’t fight the Ocean with a paddle or a boat or even a wall. Sooner or later, chickens come home to roost or they die.
Conclusion
Once such simple and basic concepts as are described here are accepted by a majority, things will rapidly return to normal. That is, to a sane, multipolar world. And if those people who become aware of these simple facts, should also happen to notice that a particular group of humans has intentionally, consciously, and with malice aforethought, directed things to be the way we are finding them now, it could very well be possible that such a change back to a very Multipolar World happens very fast, and possibly also with a short, quick, but extremely brutal removal of groups perceived to have created the current conditions, howsoever such groups might be defined, and perceived.
Whether these be the Davos attendees, the bankers, the politicians, the Bilderberger group, freemasons, or any number of other definable groups, the reaction, once a certain level of awareness has been achieved, is bound to be harsh. Naturally so.
After all, it is not as if historical this kind of event hasn’t played out before in multiple eras and across the planet. The only difference enow is that everything is more connected, and it will be a lot more difficult for those deemed responsible to run and hide anywhere.
So I have done a quick update to the About me page and the Books I have written (written Page) I still have to update the one with images of the books as a few are missing, and probably go through the site and update a few things all-round, but it’s a start. Think of it as a bone to the new stalkers that are coming to read here more regularly this year.
So thank you. The increased readership has motivated me.
This post at the Unz by Andrew Joyce explains a LOT about why the situation in Ukraine, even once you know about the 2014 coup, the NATO (((USA))) expansionism, biolabs and so on, the financial corruption and money laundering going on at a scale never seen before on Earth, the Biden connections, the sex trafficking and global scale weapons trafficking, one think still didn’t make sense.
There seemed to clearly be both a Jewish preponderance of oligarchs in government or government influencing/controlling interests as well as seriously Nazi inspired battalions.
If memory serves, one of the puppet governments that the Americans put in place (as per Victoria Neuland’s statement on her call with her ambassador in Ukraine) read out one of Goebbles’ speeches in parliament. The Azov battalions are real and wear Nazi insigna.
But the cocaine-clown-dwarf dancing on strings to the USA tune is Jewish. And so are pretty much all the people running the fake state of Ukraine. So how does it work?
Here is a key point, but read the whole thing over there at the link at the top.
Jewish Invisibility in Ukraine
The lack of outcry over Ukrainian money going into Jewish pockets might seem surprising to Western observers but is perfectly explainable. There have certainly been no shortage of Jews acting parasitically in Ukraine. In addition to Kolomoisky and others named above,Hennadiy Kernes,Pavel Fuks,Andriy Yermak(now Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine),Hennadiy Korban,Vadim Rabinovich,Alexander Feldman, andVictor Pinchukhave engaged in fraud, corruption, and the amassing of vast amounts of wealth and power at the expense of the Ukrainian people. In Ukraine, however, pronounced examples of corruption and oligarchy are also found among other ethnic minority groups like Muslim Tatars (e.g. Rinat Akhmetov) and among ethnic Ukrainians themselves. The country is so corrupt that even clear examples of ethnic cohesion, such as the overlapping Jewish circles of Zelensky and Kolomoisky, fade into a broader picture of socio-political decay.
Discussion of the particularities of Jewish corruption in Ukraine became more difficult in September 2021 when Zelensky signed a new law defining the concept of anti-Semitism and establishing punishment for transgressions including imprisonment up to five years. The new laws mean that outbursts such as that byVasily VovkandNadiya Savchenkowill become a thing of the past. Vovk, a retired general who held a senior reserve rank with the Security Service of Ukraine wrote in a 2017 Facebook post that Jews “aren’t Ukrainians and I will destroy you along with Rabinovich. I’m telling you one more time — go to hell, zhidi [kikes], the Ukrainian people have had it to here with you. Ukraine must be governed by Ukrainians.” In the same year, Savchenko, a fighter jet pilot who was elected to parliament in 2014 while she was still being held as a prisoner of Russia, said during an interview “I have nothing against Jews. I do not like ‘kikes.’” She later said Jews possess “80 percent of the power in Ukraine when they only account for 2 percent of the population.”
Investigations into Jewish criminality are also being hampered by accusations of anti-Semitism, as witnessed in theMay 2020 case involving Mykhailo Bank, a senior police official in the Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine. As part of an investigation into “transnational and ethnic organized groups and criminal organizations,” Bank wrote to Yakov Zalischiker, the head of the Jewish community in the city of Kolomyia, demanding the names all Jewish community members as well as those of foreign Jewish students staying in the city. Reading between the lines, one assumes that Bank had good reason to believe that these “transnational and ethnic organized groups and criminal organizations” were Jewish. Unfortunately for Bank, he was singled out by Eduard Dolinsky, Ukraine’s incarnation of the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, who portrayed the demand as implying an impending Holocaust. “This is called stigmatization,” complained Dolinsky. “They [the National Police] did not send such a letter to the Greek Catholics or the Orthodox to compile lists in connection with the fight against organized crime. They turned to the Jews. This shows deep xenophobia.” The case was further amplified by the involvement of Jewish politician Igor Fris, who personally lobbied Zelensky about the matter. The head of the Department of Strategic Investigations of the National Police of Ukraine, Andriy Rubel, and the head of the National Police, Ihor Klymenko, were both forced into groveling apologies. Within weeks Bank was spontaneously “discovered” to have been involved in corruption and was quickly fired.
But the key point is this one:
Finally, since Kolomoisky was one of the main funders of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist groups like Right Sector, was linked with the Svoboda party, and was involved with the Azov Battalion, Ukrainian ultra-nationalism has a strangely non-ethnic quality; or rather, it is concerned more with defining itself as being against Russia than in pushing for any kind of “Ukraine for Ukrainians” platform. As such, Ukrainian ultra-nationalism has become a kind of aggressive civic nationalism, harmless to Jews and other minorities but incendiary enough to play a part in provoking the massive conflict currently absorbing the attention of the world.
The key, as always, is the absolute disregard for hypocrisy and two-faced double, triple, quadruple dealing of certain people.
It boggles the mind of the average person that a criminal that has stolen millions and millions to fund Jewish interests around the world, like Kolomoisky, also would finance ultra-right literally Nazi groups.
A normal person cannot even fathom such levels of absolute absence of morality, ethics, or honour, a word that certainly does not exist in the lexicon of such creatures other than as a mask to approach his pray with and be discarded at the first opportunity.
And while it is good that honest people remain unable to act this way, they absolutely MUST begin to notice, become consciously aware of, and take all needed steps against such practices. From your own home to your friends, to your community, your region, your local council and all the way up, decent people must be prepared to face these type of life-draining vampires in human form and match their crimes with fit punishments and absolute removal from any position of influence of any kind.
If we are to build a decent world for our children, the type of parasitic behaviour shown by the Kolomoiskys of the world, regardless of religion, ethnicity, skin colour or anything else, must be stamped out.
And that means that honourable men must learn to:
1. Face these facts.
2. Be as wise as serpents while retaining at least somewhere inside of them the innocence of doves, as Christ tells us.
3. Awaken others to these hard realities.
4. Act.
The world does not have to be the Satanic Pedophile Homoglobo nonsense clown world we find it today. But it does mean that good men can no longer see evil and do nothing.
That practice has to end. Now. And it’s already very late in the day.
The Reality of Catholicism
If you don’t know that Sedevacantists are the only Catholics left, or don’t know what Sedevacantists are, you are obviously new here and I would suggest you use the search function on the right and read several posts on this blog.
For the rest of you, you may think this is the “usual” zealous Bible thumping.
Except I’ve never Bible thumped. Or been any kind of usual in my zealotry. So I hope you will take note of a few things, because they continually surprise me too.
Living in a Catholic manner certainly does not mean one does so perfectly. I certainly never meet anything close to that standard.
I tend to be a big picture guy with attention to detail, rather than a detail guy with a big picture idea.
Catholic thought is divided essentially into three parts:
Divine, immutable laws
Church rules
Lay people rules
The first are immutable and eternal. They will never change, because such is the nature of absolute truth, justice, beauty and love. Such is the nature of God insofar as we are able to comprehend it.
Church rules are in essence common sense rules of logic that have and can and do change from time to time. In the past usually as a result of the growth of the Church and thus needing a structure to manage it and serve the laity best. More recently, in light of the last six decades and change without a Pope, the rules of the Church are in many cases not even applicable and hence naturally revert back to those of previous eras when the Church was much smaller, as it once again is today, since only Sedevacantists are Catholics today.
The last are the rules for the laity, for you and me, and again, these are generally good, solid, common sense rules that when followed create the best society humanity has ever had to date.
The rules that apply to laity are confusing to some, because not all are divine and not all are immutable. The portion of rules for laity that comes from divine laws, are, of course, immutable, and others in fact do have even official exceptions for certain situations.
Yet others are treated as if there are no exceptions, and indeed are written as such, yet, the clergy know, some can be “broken” under certain situations and doing so in these cases might not even be a sin.
One example, and one I heartily counsel you to never, ever, ever break, is exorcism.
The rules are that only a priest who has been trained as an exorcist —-and rather extensively at that—- and who also has specific permission from his Bishop is ever to even attempt an exorcism. And then only if supported by a small but also highly trained people alongside him.
And yet, at times, priests and even lay people had to deal with demonic infestations of one kind or another, and some even managed to do so successfully. The rules strictly forbid it for good reason. Which is the preservation of your soul, because dealing directly with demonic spirits is really almost inevitably damaging and dangerously so. A layman trying to deal with a demonic possession is something like a layman trying to land the space shuttle manually with no training.
You wouldn’t let an untrained person do heart surgery. No one sane would. But it does not mean that the first heart surgery was done by a trained doctor. In fact, I have been told by a person that worked with him, that Barnhard himself admitted the guy who did the first one was a black man that Barnhard had allowed to do surgery on cadavers. So he was trained, but he was the hospital’s gardener, and black, under apartheid. So he certainly wasn’t a doctor.
Life is often stranger than fiction. Look at the Saint Joan of Arc. I mean, ok, it was Frenchmen after all, but still, a little girl did for France what all her noblemen and their armies could not.
Yet, if you look at the devout believers, whatever their class, and the realities and communities they create, Catholic rules produce incomparably orderly, pleasant, beautiful, just communities. The problem are not the rules, but how far we have fallen from them.
And the most important rules are the ones relating to family, because as Pope Pius XII wrote in his Mystici Corporis, ultimately, the Catholic family is the bedrock on which Catholicism is founded.
And that bedrock is founded first of all on the relationship of the man and woman that go on to create that family.
The rules of relation between husband and wife in Catholicism are unique to it. The Protestants have perverted it, as they did everything. The Pagans never had any rules worth saving, in the main, with the only possible exception being the Japanese.
Who today even knows what those rules are? Or even just what the mainstays, the pillars on which the other rules may depend and build upon? Do you, anonymous reader?
Do you know?
Would you care to say what you think they are?
I am curious.
No related posts.
By G | 26 February 2023 | Posted in Social Commentary