Sunday, July 5, 2015

Madame Elisabeth on the Scaffold

A needlepoint representation. Share

Why Satan Hates the Family

From The Catholic Gentleman:
The final war between Satan and the Lord God is over the family. Why? Because the family is an icon of the Most Holy Trinity. The communion of love between the three Divine Persons is the original family. This Divine communion is fruitful, that is, it brings forth life. It cannot help but do so. Life bursts forth from the love of the Holy Trinity.

The family is the earthly image and icon of Trinitarian love. The communion of love between husband and wife is designed to be fruitful, to bring forth life. In a very real sense, married love creates. This is why marriage carries the dignity of a sacrament—because it is a holy image of the Trinity.

Only God can truly create. Satan cannot. And Satan hates this fact. He is sterile in every sense of the word. He hates the Trinity because he envies its life giving and creative power, and he hates the family because it mirrors the Trinity.

And what better way to mock and warp the life-giving love of the Holy Trinity than to attempt to redefine marriage as something that cannot bring forth life? To redefine it as something inverted and sterile, like Satan himself? This is what homosexual “marriage” really is: Satan’s mockery of the family, and thus of the Trinity.

The good news is, Our Lord, through the Immaculate Virgin, will crush Satan’s head. Just when his victory seems sure, he will meet with a sudden defeat. Count on it.

Finally, stay strong. Be at peace. Be courageous. Never, ever lose heart. (Read more.)
Share

The Protohomosexual

This article has many interesting points. I would not agree that the culture of Courtly Love was all bad since it did inspire a climate of courtesy towards women as well as the code of chivalry, both of which benefited society as a whole. However, there are some scholars who believe that Courtly Love was connected to the Cathar heresy, which exalted same-sex relationships above Christian marriage because the former were infertile; the Cathars believed that bringing new life into the world was a sin. My novel The Night's Dark Shade explores such themes. From Crisis:
Ovid’s tale serves as a warning: Narcissus falls in love with his own image in the water, declines the affection of Echo, and finally dies because love without an-other is sterile and hopeless. Because sexual love is naturally creative, it would be a mistake to expect, like Narcissus, that a lover should reflect oneself. Lovers are bound not by feelings (as the troubadour poets thought) but by the marital bond, to be open to life and to be responsible for one another. Marriage is the social correlate to the biological fact of human fecundity.

The traditional definition of marriage is not rooted in religion and homophobia, but in biology and human nature. Gay “marriage” might work for private ideology, but it does not work for society. Marriage was not established because humans are romantic and enjoy intimacy but because humans reproduce sexually and children need both a father and a mother—to be conceived and reared. (Read more.)
Share

Saturday, July 4, 2015

The History of Social Programs

Here is a fascinating and thought-provoking blog post from Diary of an Accidental Hermit:
When the pilgrims came to America, they brought with them these harsh and judgmental attitudes toward the poor.  Only those deemed “worthy” of assistance would receive it, and the local town elders would be the ones to decide who was worthy and in what kind and manner the charity would be distributed to them.  Poverty was a grisly, dehumanizing experience.  Some people were deemed unworthy to receive charity and were reduced to begging in the streets.

The provision of charity was made as unpleasant as possible, with the idea that this would discourage dependency.  If you were receiving relief, you could lose all your personal property, the right to vote or move, and you were often made to wear a large “P” on your clothing! (Read more.)
Share

Colonial Americans and Intemperance

From The Atlantic:
Why did this 18th-century doctor care so much about moral consequences of drinking? “It was a pretty common belief among the founders [regarding] America’s experiment with republicanism, that the only way that we were going to keep it was through the virtue of our citizens,” said Bruce Bustard, the curator of a National Archives exhibit on American alcohol consumption. As Rush observed the effects of alcohol consumption, he had the young nation’s future in mind: People experiencing what he saw as the “Melancholy,” “Madness,” and “Despair” of intemperance surely wouldn’t make for very good participants in democracy.

Early America was also a much, much wetter place than it is now, modern frat culture notwithstanding. Instead of binge-drinking in short bursts, Americans often imbibed all day long. “Right after the Constitution is ratified, you could see the alcoholic consumption starting to go up,” said Bustard. Over the next four decades, Americans kept drinking steadily more, hitting a peak of 7.1 gallons of pure alcohol per person per year in 1830. By comparison, in 2013, Americans older than 14 each drank an average of 2.34 gallons of pure alcohol—an estimate which measures how much ethanol people consumed, regardless of how strong or weak their drinks were. Although some colonial-era beers might have been even weaker than today's light beers, people drank a lot more of them. 

In part, heavy alcohol consumption was a way to stay hydrated: Often, clean water wasn’t always accessible. Hard liquor, on the other hand, was readily available, Bustard said; farmers frequently distilled their grain into alcohol. Rush “may have been observing what's going on on the frontier,” Bustard said, “thinking, you know: What's the country going to come to?” (Read more.)
Share

Rednecks

The origin of the word. To quote:
While there are differing versions of the term’s origin, the first use of “redneck” appears to refer to the Scottish Covenanters of the 17th century, an independence movement created in response to England’s King Charles I, who took steps to bring Scotland’s Presbyterian church under his control. In 1638, Scottish Presbyterians signed the National Covenant, declaring their allegiance to their religion over the King of England. The Covenanters signed in blood, and to symbolize this oath, wore blood-red bandannas around their necks. Under English persecution, many Covenanters joined the Scottish migration to Ireland that began in the early 1600s.

Scottish Presbyterians lived in Ireland for several generations. However, the 1704 Test Act required that all government officials and civil servants pass a test of allegiance to the Anglican church. Within about a decade, thousands of Scots-Irish migrated to the American colonies. Landing mostly in New England, they made their way south in search of open land. Eventually, the Scots-Irish spread throughout what today are the Southern states and many Southerners today trace their ancestry back to these migrants who brought not only their culture of rugged individualism and religious devotion, but also the term “redneck.” (Read more.)
Share

Friday, July 3, 2015

The Stage at Marie-Antoinette's Theater

From Anna Gibson. Share

A Statement from the American College of Pediatricians

From Breitbart:
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family. Just as it did in the joint Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions, the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.
The College, which has members in 44 states and in several countries outside the U.S., joined in an amici brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the nation.
In the brief, the amici stated what is often the case when sound research is ignored by the left when it fails to support their causes:
Despite being certified by almost all major social science scholarly associations—indeed, in part because of this—the alleged scientific consensus that having two parents of the same sex is innocuous for child well-being is almost wholly without basis. All but a handful of the studies cited in support draw on small, non-random samples which cannot be extrapolated to the same-sex population at large. This limitation is repeatedly acknowledged in scientific meetings and journals, but ignored when asserted as settled findings in public or judicial advocacy.
The College itself has maintained that a significant body of research has demonstrated that “same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore harmful.” (Read more.)
Share