To whom does she belong?

A belated Happy Easter to all.

I wish I could say I was absent from the blog because I wanted to concentrate on Lent, bla bla bla.
:-)

But that wouldn't be true. In fact I could say that unusually for me this year, my spiritual approach to Lent was far from ideal. But, and I think my Guardian angel must have had something to do with this (thank you, Guardian Angel!) it was a Grace-filled end to the Lenten season for me.

Isn't it interesting that when we need it the most, we get Grace?

Speaking of Guardian angels, I was at a wedding recently, and the celebrant priest made this joke:

A man was walking through his neighbourhood when he came to a bridge over a river. Suddenly, a voice said to him: 'Stop! Don't step onto the bridge!' He looked around - no-one was there. But he stopped.  All of a sudden, the bridge collapsed. He breathed a sigh of relief as he realised his life had just been saved.
He carried on walking. When he got to the foot of a mountain still with snow on it, again a voice said to him, 'Stop! Don't take another step!' He stood still. Then a mighty avalanche came crashing down just ahead of him. Again he breathed a sigh of relief as he realised that once again, his life had been saved. He carried on walking through the woods. Again the voice warned him just as he was walking under a particular tree. Seconds later, the tree fell down missing him by inches.

At this point, he wondered who was talking to him and saving his life. He said out loud, 'who are you? Identify yourself!'

The voice replied, 'I am your Guardian angel. I am always here for you.'

The man replied, 'You are my Guardian angel? Always here for me? Where were you when I got married?'

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Very drole :-)

Not quite sure why men feel that marriage/relationship is such a  trial for them only. Where did they get that idea?
:)

Just heard this morning that Percy Sledge died. May he rest in peace.

Percy Sledge is of course famous for this song - all about how men suffer when in love:
:)

Aw, poor Darlings/lovable rogues :-)



Today's post is about a curious phenomenon I have been thinking about for a while. The impetus for this come from two separate incidents. The first is a commenter on another blog who linked to a Heartiste post about a black man (this is relevant) who when confronted and indeed inappropriately and unjustifiably assaulted by a woman (she happened to be white - not relevant), exclaimed, 'Who bitch dis is?!'

Translation into normal English: Whose woman is this?

Now, for many modern women, this display of 'territorialism' may be unpalatable, but I have to say that I am very familiar with this phenomenon - more than is usual for a woman of my era and location.

The notion that every woman belongs to a man is something I have been immersed in from childhood, and I very much took it for granted. But I am surprised to learn that it is not necessarily a positive concept in our western culture.

This is undoubtedly a problem when it comes to male-female interaction.

It is significant that the man in question in this scenario is black. I have many links to West Africa, and I know that this is very much the mindset there. Actually, this is the mindset any where in the world other than Caucasian America. Even in Europe - especially in Europe.

A girl belongs to her father until she marries, at which point she belongs to her husband.

But in our present culture where a father is not around/has been removed from the household, this sense of belonging is not imprinted in a girl's mind from birth. What a shame!
For she will seek this, by hook or by crook, in much the same way some boys seek a father-figure through gang culture.

All sorts of psychological complications ensue when a girl does not get her fair share of this 'sense of belonging', I have discovered. This leads to potential mayhem in her life. Not only is this sequence of events well documented, but also more and more of us are witnessing this in front of our very eyes, are we not?

And yet, Africans and other 'backward people', including southern Europeans have had this covered, for literally ages.

I have seen this play out in hilarious encounters when I have witnessed old African women try to work out who a stranger female is by linking her to some man that they themselves know. This is how they compute that this stranger female is 'welcome' into the herd. :-)

I live in the mountains of Eastern Switzerland. Where I live is a mainly German-speaking area, but there are many old Italian mountain families here too.

Their customs are delightful to behold, especially when seen 'in the wild', untainted by feminism. It is wonderful to see.

I was hanging out with a friend of mine when we bumped into an old lady she knows from her village in another mountainous region of Switzerland which is exclusively Italian-speaking. The old lady was curious about me, as I am relatively newly-established here.

She regarded my friend with a curious look, and regarding me sideways, she asked my friend who I was.
My friend answered with my first name, stating I was a friend.

The old lady was far from satisfied with the answer my friend had given. In a move reminiscent of similarly aged women in any african country, she asked the heavily-loaded question:
To whom does she belong?
Meaning, to which man does she belong? My first name on its own was meaningless to this woman.
:-)

I silently stood there as my friend gave the necessary genealogy to finally satisfy this old lady. In a hilarious five minutes where I felt like I was in a court for some wrong-doing, my friend first tried giving my surname.
Nope, this woman did not know the particular family to which I belonged, although she knew several other families with the same surname, which happens to be a common surname round here.

She didn't know my husband, although she came from his village.

With the skills of someone used to this sort of interrogation, my friend name-dropped my brother-in-law , who is a generally well-known figure.

Nope, didn't know him either.

My chances of acceptance into the 'clan' were looking bleak.

My friend, in an expert move normally associated with Russian chess players, finally made the link that gave the winning strike.

It turns out that Old Lady was friends with the wife of the brother of the wife of  the brother of my husband.

Hallelujah, I was IN!!!
It took many links to finally 'place' me, but finally, I was IN!!!
;-)

Now she had a 'box' in her mind in which to categorise me. I was now officially 'recognised'.
:)

It was an interesting experience for me, in that I felt like I had come through some sort of 'initiation' ceremony.
I (I regret this, lol) relayed this story to a friend, who doesn't hold the rigidly traditional values I hold, and she was absolutely horrified.

I did not and do not understand her horror. She saw this incident as 'oppression' for me (for had I been a man, I wouldn't have been scrutinised so much. My surname would have been enough, for a man is valued on his own name only), but I disagree with her.

What my friend fails to realise is that a man must make his name (read: reputation) on which he and his family rely, to advance in society. A woman need only associate herself with a good family, and she is safe. Her own reputation is judged differently, and in a traditional society like this, a woman is mainly judged on her sexual reputation.
If 'so-and-so' was caught in a compromising position with a man to whom she was not married, the gossip alone would drive her out of town and three generations later, they would still be talking about her - that sort of thing.

The relevance of all this for me, is that fatherhood (and therefore this 'sense of belonging' felt by young unmarried women) is indeed sacred. And the relevance specifically to the SMP is that indeed it is impossible to 'belong' to a husband when one never experienced the 'belonging' to a father. The latter is 'practice' for the former.
In many such traditional entities, it is said that a father is the source of the soul of his child, and the mother is the source of the heart.

A fatherless child is therefore akin to a soul-less person.

Harsh? Oh yes. Which is why deliberately denying fatherhood to a child, by his own mother is indeed a cruel thing. A man who also denies his child access to his mother is also creating a child who is missing his heart. That can't be good either.

It is also why I think in these same traditional societies, the 'taking on of the name of the father' (in the event of a child's parents not being married) is so important. It is a great insult to the child if his father does not give him his name in many african cultures, for example.

Similarly, the taking on of the name of a husband is fundamental to marriage, in my opinion. This is why I am dead against wives not taking on their husband's surname. It screams 'division' as opposed to 'harmony' from the get-go and is a signal this will not be a fulfilled/constructive union. It also signifies an absence of 'belonging'. In the example above with the old lady, my maiden name would have been just as useless to Old Lady as my first name. A woman's maiden name is no longer relevant, except in rare circumstances where it needs to be 'dug' out for a specific purpose, eg. a paternal legacy that wasn't dealt with pre-marriage.

What an eye-opening experience for me. Old Lady taught me a big lesson which I think is getting lost more and more in our modern culture. A shame, because it is quite a beautiful lesson.
I think those who adhere to these general principles are more 'settled' in their skins than those who choose to reinvent the wheel at every opportunity.

I have said many times before. I am not fussy from whence cometh my lessons. 'To whom does she belong?' is so much more refined than 'Who bitch dis is?' but to me, the lesson is more important than the grammar.

Interesting that shortly after I came across that blog post by Heartiste, I actually came face -to-face with the phenomenon he described. Art imitating life, or the other way round. :-)
Interesting indeed.

Ich bin bereit! Ich bin bereit! Ich bin bereit!

Having lived in a Jewish quarter of London for many years (but I am  not Jewish myself), I got to learn a few of the Jewish customs.


I got used to being 'waylaid', for example, on Friday evenings by a Jewish man or woman standing on the porch of their home and asking me to come in and turn on or off a light because it is not allowed for them to do any 'work' on the Sabbath (which begins on Friday evening).


I also got to know that if a non-Jew wants to convert to Judaism, they must be turned away three times by the Rabbi before they are finally allowed to start the process of conversion.


It seems we have our own version of this in Christianity :-)


As mentioned in the previous post, exciting times have hit the Swiss mountains!


We had a big event.
An ordination, or 'Priesterweihe' in German.
This one was special, because we hadn't had one in this parish for over a decade.


We the choir have been working on putting on a spectacular show for our brand new Father A_______ at his 'prima messa' or 'Primiz', his inaugural Mass, the day after his ordination.


But we weren't going to stop at just belting out high notes (or low notes as the case may be :-) for Father A_______ at his Primiz.


Heavens no.


We were all going to take the trip to the Big City to watch him take the (big) step from mere Deacon to esteemed Priest. (Hm, my hypergamy is showing, lol).


Why am I blogging about a priestly ordination on a website dedicated to the SMP?


Well, there are several reasons. The most important reason is that, an ordination is actually awfully similar to a wedding. It really is! In the former case, a man makes a commitment directly to God. In the latter, a man and a woman make a commitment to each other, with God as the chief witness, and they are actually also making a commitment to Him.




Come with me on a journey through an ordination....




I have been to an ordination or two before. When I was a child, it was customary in my parish for catechism to be taught by trainee priests. I went to their ordinations. One of these priests is now a Bishop.


As an adult, I have also been to at least one ordination before. I have also witnessed the profession of vows by nuns.


But all pale in comparison to the event I witnessed on Saturday.


It was a 2 hour bus-ride on a rainy/snowy morning to the Big City. Friends and family of A_________ dressed in our finest attire :-)


The cathedral in the Big City seemed grander than our little church in the mountains, of course. The ceremony itself was a very grand affair.


Other than our Father A__________, there were 2 other young men to be ordained. Here lies the first similarity with a wedding: at the apéro (light aperitif) afterwards, as all the guests mingled, a common question was, 'who are you here for'? invoking memories of wedding guests asking each other, 'are you here for the bride or groom'?


Second, I notice these three young men were aged 31-35. Our Father A_________ is 32.


I wondered, on hearing their life-stories read out by their chief 'trainers', is the age at ordination rising in much the same way as the age at marriage?
These guys had had careers before turning to the priesthood. Our regular priest, for example, had been a banker for many years before becoming a priest...
When I was a child, it was normal to see priests in their early twenties...


The entrance procession alone lasted about twenty minutes. With 70 priests and 3 Bishops in attendance (I counted them), we certainly weren't short of celebrants at that Mass, lol.


And the organist was suitably trigger-happy, to say the least. His (aherm) enthusiastic organ-playing certainly made this old Catholic Church joke spring sharply to mind:


From one bewildered church-goer to another: "Church is a dangerous place to be, you know...there was a canon in the pulpit, the choir murdered the hymns and the organist drowned the choir!"


LOL.




I had met the Bishop once before. Two years ago he had officiated at the confirmation of my then 12 year old future niece-in-law, but in Italian.
Now, the same Bishop was celebrating the ordination Mass in German.


Switzerland is a funny old country, lol.




His speech to the 3 soon-to-be priests before him was very moving. He spoke to them like a father would speak to his sons. He looked at them with pride, as though to say, 'my boys done good'.


I kind of liken it to a father who has been training his child to ride a bike for weeks, and it is finally time to take off the 'training wheels' and the child can now 'two-wheel' with confidence for the first time, similar to this:
(I am sure we can all imagine just how proud 'Goose's' father feels in this moment).

In this case, this Bishop had good reason to be proud of 'his boys': (I was told later by a guest of one of the other two priests), there were originally ten men who registered at the seminary 7 years ago, and only 3 of them emerged as priests.


So the pre-ceremony failure rate is high.
But the post-ceremony failure rate?
What is this percentage? How many priests (and nuns and monks) 'drop out' after taking their vows?


Is it anywhere near 50%?
I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know?


The Bishop laid his fatherly hands on the 3 young men shortly after they were instructed, no, commanded, military style! to 'step before the Bishop!' (I suppose it sounded like a command because it was said in German, lol).


These men knelt down as they were 'taken through their paces'. Kneeling, heads bowed, eyes closed, they were read a sort of litany, and at regular intervals, were asked, 'Are you ready?' several times. I counted six, but it could have been more times.


To each of these questions, they would reply out loud, 'Ich bin bereit!' ('I am ready!')


I thought long and hard about this.


At a (Catholic) wedding, you also say 'I do' six times, if proper protocol is followed. Every Easter, we also 'profess our faith' and say 'I do' six times.


God gives us free will when we are born. It seems that whatever path we choose in life, He really wants to make sure we mean it. Are we as committed as we say we are?
At one point in the Bible, Jesus asks Peter 'do you love me?' three times before he accepts that he does.


Is this aspect of God a sign of His beta neediness or is this a sign of His supreme Alphaness where he wants to establish that we mean what we say and say what we mean?
What do you all think?


All 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops in attendance laid their hands on the deacons one by one, each praying silently over them, as they knelt, eyes remaining closed. It was very moving to watch.


Once the deed was done, and these men had become priests, their clothes were instantly changed. They were brought 'priest clothes', by their trainers, and were dressed in their new clothes right there and then, whilst we all clapped proudly.


And then all 70 priests and the other 2 Bishops, again, one by one all came to the new priests to greet them in a manner I have now come to recognise as a 'priestly greeting'. I alluded to it in this post where I was greeted in this fashion by a priest, and I just thought it was because I was a woman which is why he avoided hugging me (because even though I see him as my 'brother', I am still a woman, and not his sister - and I understand his need to literally keep his distance from me and all other women, except his actual mother and sisters).


But it seems this is how priests greet each other too! I was wrong to perceive it as a kind of 'b*tch shield' for priests. Turns out I was projecting :-)


Fascinating to see this greeting done 72 times by each new priest.


They touch the sides of each other's heads with each other's heads or cheeks, starting on each other's right side. Sometimes they simply touch the other's shoulder with their forehead.
It kind of reminded me of this other way men greet each other, lol.

Not quite the same solemnity as one would expect in an ordination associated with this way of greeting, but still.... it's the 'brotherliness' of it all that counts...
:-)
In this case below, it went awry, but you get the picture...

Some of the priests ignored 'protocol' and went for a full-on hug and pat on the back when it was their turn to congratulate the new priests. I guess this is true 'brotherly' and 'fatherly' love being expressed right here. Quite emotional when one of the priests hugged one of the new priests so long, the next priest in line started looking at his watch and the audience burst out laughing.


:-)


As a sign that these men were now accepted into the 'club', they were transferred from the front row of the pews onto the altar to be with the other priests as the rest of the Mass was celebrated by the Bishop


At one point, ALL the Bishops and priests left the altar, leaving the 3 to say the final blessing. I thought that was lovely. It was as if they were saying: 'Now you are priests. We entrust the salvation of the flock to you. Go on and bless them. You will be doing this everyday for the rest of your lives so you might as well start now.' :-)






At the apéro, I bumped into the mother of our current regular priest. She is British :-) so let's just say she and I have a certain bond.


I asked her: 'So how did you feel watching the ordination?'
I could tell it would have been an emotional experience for her. Fifteen years ago, she had watched her own son take this step.


She told me that as she had 15 years ago, she had felt (with a pang of guilt) that it was 'such a waste' to see these handsome, wonderful young men take this step.


As she had felt about her own son, she was somewhat saddened by the realisation that their mothers and fathers would never get grandchildren from these sons (in her case, she had other children, so she does have grandchildren :-), that they would never know what it is like to have a wife, have a (secular) home, live a 'normal' life.


Interestingly, I had had those thoughts pass through my own mind, and I am not even related to any of these guys. I asked the father if he had had similar thoughts.
'Nope' was his reply :-)


Is this a woman thing?


Interestingly, I feel the same way when I see a nun take her vows. She will never be the wife of some man, bear his children, keep his home. I am at least fair to both sexes on this issue.
But am I wrong to think this way? Afterall, if a handsome young man or a beautiful young woman has been 'taken' by God, should I lament that an earthly woman or man is missing out? Is it not good that God takes the best of humanity for himself, so to speak?




I asked the mother if it was wrong of us to think this way. She said 'no, we are only human', but maybe that's just her hamster talking :-)




Each of the new priests had his 'Primiz' lined up for the next day (Sunday).
I discovered that 14 of those 70 priests had accompanied Father A_________ to the mountains in order to be at his Primiz. Again, very touching. Throughout this whole process, I got this strong impression of 'brotherhood' among these priests.
It is a truly mesmerising process for a woman to experience.
Are you men aware of this 'feature' or 'bug' of womanhood, I wonder?




Needless to say, Father A__________'s Primiz was the celestial highlight it was billed to be. Let's just say we the choir exceeded our own expectations and gave him the concert of his life. Hey, these are not my words, that's what he himself said in his 'thank you' speech at the end. No we didn't pay him to say that, lol.


We are so very proud of him and wish him immense success and all the Graces of our Heavenly Father in his life and mission as priest.




I would like to leave you with some of the music we sang for him at this very special of occasions.




Just to mention, we may be a Swiss mountain parish choir, but our choirmaster has a bit of a penchant for British composers, I have to say :-) Nothing to do with me :P


We had previously performed Karl Jenkins' 'Mass for Peace'.


This time, he picked Karl Jenkins' 'Te Deum' as our introduction for the very first Mass of Father A_____________.


Here is a taster:


http://www.boosey.com/cr/sample_detail/Karl-Jenkins-Te-Deum-2008/12968












I only vaguely knew of John Rutter prior to this choral preparation. But I had certainly never heard of his so very beautiful 'Für die Schönheit dieser Welt' before we started practising it.
It is simply stunning.


Here I have it in English and German: (We, of course, sang it in German).

At the very end, we sang the 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Handel:
We brought the roof down, if I may say so myself :-) !!!

Servant Queen or Mistress Slave?

It's been a long time...
But nothing really changes here at The Sanctuary.


One day it is 'a chat with a saint', another day, it is 'reflections with a Pope'.
:-)



This is perhaps one of the hardest posts I have come up with so far on this blog.


Mac, thank you for this 'mission impossible' :-)
I always learn something from your 'missions impossibles'...








Full disclosure: I am an avid fan of marriage. (No surprise there, as I am a woman and women are more wont to indulge in this sort of nonsense than men :-)
But... just so that my position is clear, no, I don't mean what is commonly known as 'Marriage 2.0' or even 'Marriage 3.0'.


I am a fan of marriage as God intended it. This means, the coming together of a man and woman, each sccessfully weaned from Mother's breast and Father's shelter, to form a new union...permanently...with the intention of being open to new life, and striving together to not just coexist with said new life, but to actively shape this/these new life(ves) into the image of God.


It sounds like a mouthful, doesn't it, this biblical marriage lark?






But the principles behind what makes a marriage good are what makes us truly human, I have decided. Married or not, we all have the starter blocks within us to make good marriage partners, to other human beings, or to God himself.




As part of the local choir, my vocal cords are worn out practising for one of the biggest Masses in our parish calendar. The Deacon in our parish is getting ordained in 2 weeks, and we are going to sing our hearts out for him when he returns from the Big City to celebrate his First Mass here and we can all finally call him Father A_______.


We respect that he is going to say 'I do' to God. What a commitment!




Like Matrimony, 'Holy Orders' is a sacrament. A channel of Grace.
Just a thought: why isn't the 'divorce' rate of priests and nuns anything like the divorce rate of marriage? Anyone know what this rate is? I am pretty sure it is not 50%. More like 0.5%.
Why is this?
Is God a better marriage-partner than us mere mortals?
If so, why don't we just all marry God instead of another human being?






Silly thoughts aside, I remember hearing the following statement sometime in my teens, and it has stayed with me all my life:


"All mothers will go to Heaven."




On the surface of it, it seems like a very noble statement, doesn't it?




It wasn't until my adulthood that I realised how dangerous a saying this is...


For a start, can you guess that it was coined by a feminist? I am guessing you already did :-)
Forgive me: at 17, I didn't know what a feminist was.
Now I know.


This person didn't claim that all parents would go to Heaven.
Oh no.


In addition, (and here comes the dangerous part if you are a young, impressionable woman): no need for marriage prior to becoming a mother.
Motherhood is noble by virtue of its very being.
Not so, fatherhood, by the way, chaps. So sorry...




I remember having a niggling feeling over the years that something didn't quite add up.
Then one day, it came to me, clear as day.


If the above statement were correct, Motherhood would be one of the Catholic Church's seven sacraments. Motherhood would be a specific channel of Grace.


Um...let's see...




Holy Orders. Check.
Holy Matrimony. Check.
Baptism. Check.
The Eucharist. Check.
Confirmation. Check.
Penance. Check.
Anointing of the sick. Check.


Well...




Then I figured it out.


Feminist single mother making herself feel good about what she had done, and as Dalrock would put it, 'reframing' things to appease the hamster.
This was all it was.


Another rationalisation successfully debunked.
More to follow in the course of this blogging journey.






Why is all this important to me?




As the natural end-point of 'The Dating Game', or if one prefers, 'The SMP', marriage must be an important destination for most people (fair enough, not all people are called to marriage, I accept this), in order for the cohesive forces of society to function correctly.
Not the watered-down version we have today. Real marriage.
I think we all have some idea what that looks like. We see glimpses of it from time to time.
Sometimes in familiar circumstances. Our parents...grandparents, a cousin, an uncle, the neighbours.
Sometimes we find it in a feel-good film from 1976. :-)
Sometimes we find it in unexpected places.
But it exists. And it used to be commonplace.




*




When Mac asked me to read Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, I didn't know anything about this Papa Pius or his works.
But now that I do, I think I can feel another papal crush coming on :-)
By all accounts, Papa Pius lived up to his name alright.


He was apparently a 'no-nonsense' kind of man. After my own heart, it seems.


See, I think this quality is actually necessary in a Pope. The Pope must be the most fatherly man on Earth. he represents God the Father.
Reading through the lengthy Casti Connubii, Pope Pius certainly doesn't disappoint.
You can feel the patriach in him coming out in every word.
Which somehow leaves me with a sense of ....security.
Is this a feminine response to a Pope crush?
Am I idisyncratic in this regard?
Dunno...






Anyway, about Pope Pius, one fact about him stands out for me. It was he, who established the feast of Christ The King. In related news, his papal motto was "Pax Christi in Regno Christi" meaning"The Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ."




This Pope is into the idea of Christ as King.


For some reason known only to my subconscious, I like this very much.


Perhaps a kind psychologist amongst you would like to elucidate as to why this appeals to me so much. :-) Or maybe I shall work it out for myself later on in my life.




Back on topic, Mac's wish was that I have a conversation with Pope Pius, much like I did with St. Jerome.
Your wish is my command, Mac :-)




Unlike my tête-à-tête with St. Jérôme, though, my reflection with Pope Pius is far easier. Pope Pius I already am in tune with. His encyclical's concepts I am already familiar with, even though I was never able to attribute them to him, until now, thanks to Mac.




I can already relate to Pope Pius as a friendly, approachable, grandfatherly figure. I already know he likes to be patriarchal. Which fits in nicely with me because I like patriarchal (older) men, and in little boys and young men, I already see 'patriachs in the making'.




So this one will be pleasant. :-)






Considering that where I am, it is snowing heavily now and it is starting to get dark, I am in appropriately sombre mood. Solemn enough for a conversation with the Venerable Pope Pius.










ST: Good evening, Pope Pius! Il Signore sia con te.
(Hey, he was Italian. Doesn't hurt to address him in his native tongue).




PP: E con il tuo spirito.
(I was a bit cheeky, but The Patriarch doesn't seem to mind my informal form of address. I think I'm in). :-)




ST: Papa Pius, I am about 84 years too late to discuss your Casti Connubii with you. Neither of  my parents was born when you wrote it. Indeed all my grandparents were children at that time.




PP: Better late than never, my child. How can I help you?




ST: May I take this opportunity to say that having read it in full, it is packed full of wisdom that I wish I had been aware of earlier.




PP: Good to know. I was entrusted by Our Lord, as successor to his right-hand man, St. Peter of Rome, to instruct His flock. I hope all of my writings were successful in this task, as guided by the Holy Spirit.




ST: Yes, Your Holiness. And I hope I understand its meaning correctly. I pray that the Holy Spirit will also guide me in deepening my understanding of your words.




(Pause)




ST: I see that you had good reason to write Casti Connubii at the time you did.




PP: I would say it was timely, yes.




ST: Interesting that it was my home country that caused all the bother.




PP: (Sigh). The Seventh Lambeth conference in 1930, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury along with the other Anglican bishops approved the use of contraception did indeed give me a headache, which was only relieved when I had finished the Casti Connubii. It was my duty to show the world, and in particular, my Christian brethren, indeed my Catholic protégés, a better alternative to what my Anglican friends were proposing. I had to show them 'of chaste wedlock'.




ST:  Casti Connubii, 'of chaste wedlock'. Do you believe, Papa Pius, that 'chaste wedlock' is the answer to our modern problems?




PP: That is not the right question to ask me. I shall answer the right question: We are all called to do what the Lord asks of us...




ST: And the rest takes care of itself...




PP: Exactly.




ST: I see. Casti Connubii is divided into four main sections: Sanctity of marriage, eugenics opposition, birth control and the purpose of sexuality and the evils of abortion.




PP: True.


ST: All of these topics are linked, of course. For example, 'failure' of birth control may lead to abortion, and one of the strategies of eugenics is abortion.




(Pause)






ST: May I ask you a specific question?






PP: Proceed, my child.


ST: You say in paragraph 3:




"Yet not only do We, looking with paternal eye on the universal world from this Apostolic See as from a watch-tower, but you, also, Venerable Brethren, see, and seeing deeply grieve with Us that a great number of men, forgetful of that divine work of redemption, either entirely ignore or shamelessly deny the great sanctity of Christian wedlock, or relying on the false principles of a new and utterly perverse morality, too often trample it under foot. And since these most pernicious errors and depraved morals have begun to spread even amongst the faithful and are gradually gaining ground, in Our office as Christ's Vicar upon earth and Supreme Shepherd and Teacher We consider it Our duty to raise Our voice to keep the flock committed to Our care from poisoned pastures and, as far as in Us lies, to preserve it from harm."




This is so true, that we the flock are confused, and The Church sometimes seems confused too. Heartening and depressing at the same time to realise that this was the case in 1930 too, not just in 2014.




PP: Every age has its unique problems. No era is free of bother. What was your question?




ST: My question relates to paragraphs 6 and 7 where you talk of the indissoluble bond of marriage:




"6. Yet although matrimony is of its very nature of divine institution, the human will, too, enters into it and performs a most noble part. For each individual marriage, inasmuch as it is a conjugal union of a particular man and woman, arises only from the free consent of each of the spouses; and this free act of the will, by which each party hands over and accepts those rights proper to the state of marriage,[4] is so necessary to constitute true marriage that it cannot be supplied by any human power.[5] This freedom, however, regards only the question whether the contracting parties really wish to enter upon matrimony or to marry this particular person; but the nature of matrimony is entirely independent of the free will of man, so that if one has once contracted matrimony he is thereby subject to its divinely made laws and its essential properties. For the Angelic Doctor, writing on conjugal honor and on the offspring which is the fruit of marriage, says: "These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage.

7. By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God's decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life."

But the door is left open for 'but the marriage was not valid because of issues with consent!' by this one line:


 "These things are so contained in matrimony by the marriage pact itself that, if anything to the contrary were expressed in the consent which makes the marriage, it would not be a true marriage."




This very week, Papa Francesco considered reducing charges for annulments. This is confusing for the rest of us trying to understand the importance of the indissolubility of marriage. I know annulments are not the same as divorce, but should they be easy or hard?




PP: The Lord makes his laws very clear. Everything else is 'but for the hardness of their hearts'.


(Pause)




ST: Paragraphs 26-28 interest me, a woman, greatly. I feel like you are talking directly to my heart here:




"26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]

27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

I like these paragraphs.


Paragraph 29 is a nice summary. I think the reason it is difficult to live out is that modern women have a sense of self-importance never-before-seen. We pray for humility to live out this instruction:


With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."






ST: Papa Pius, I note that you call liken divorce to 'a contagious disease or a river bursting its banks and flooding the land.'




PP: What analogy would you use for divorce?


(Pause)




ST: You stress the importance of selecting the right Partner for marriage, Papa Pius. Would you advocate Game for men looking for a wife?




PP: What kind of game do you mean?




ST (smile): Nevermind, Your Holiness.
To follow on from paragraphs 26-29, I once again note your specific instructions to women as to how we may conduct ourselves in marriage, in paragraphs 74 and 75. The bolded sentence is fundamentally striking to me, in both its directness and its simplicity.In many ways, I find it tragic that it is striking. But bear with me, Papa Pius, for I was born in the century after yours. Nothing you find 'normal' is 'normal' to me. I have to disengage from my reality to find 'normality'.




"74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man."

PP: I sympathise with you, my daughter. You are right, the words in bold are simple. Ask yourself this, and ask your fellow sisters to ask themselves this simple question:


Would you rather be a Servant Queen to your husband (as Christ was a Servant King to his Church), or would you rather be a Mistress Slave to everyone else?


Would you rather inherit a throne or buy a footstool?


The choice is yours. Free will is an intentional gift from God. Use it wisely, with discernment.


Read and internalise paragraphs 74 ad 75 again and again until you have memorised them. They are the building stones of your palace.




I bid you Farewell and the Peace of Christ The King.






ST: Goodnight, Papa Pius.








I had a lot more questions for Papa Pius. But I must do as he instructed. So whilst I focus on what is relevant to me, you may wish to find what is relevant to you, in this a most instructive encyclical.




Again, thank you Mac.
















In case anyone is interested, more on Pope Pius XI here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI

The SMP Classical repertoire

 

Take your seats, Ladies and Gentlemen!


(Or if you prefer 'the gods', secure your standing spot!)


For you are about to be treated to a classical concert here at The Sanctuary :-)
Welcome to the SMP Classics :-)


Down Under recently reminded me just how much I love classical music. And The SMP being the main topic of this blog, why not combine classical music with my favourite all-time topic?
:-)


Without any further ado, let the show begin!


I bring you...The Top Twenty SMP classics...

Note: In this concert, it really is the music that counts, NOT the musicians or the video images...remember this is an auditory exercise, not visual. Work with me here, gentlemen. The ladies already get me :-)


Bearing in mind my name, there could only be one introduction to tonight's concert...


Welcome to Planet SMP :-)
At least that's what Zarathustra says :-)

Take it away, Richard Strauss!

Men are from Mars...

Women are from Venus...

Representing the alpha male types...
Whoa, can you feel the awesome power?

And the sweet, feminine gals...
How lovely!  How charming! How utterly feminine!

Mr. Cool is in town. He doesn't understand why he can't move for girls throwing themselves at him...
Confidence, perhaps? Oh, I don't know...! Why does this piece remind me of The King of Siam?

This lady scores highly (on both counts) on the hot-crazy scale. She should be avoided, but there's no stopping her admirers...of which there are legion :-)
They just can't help themselves :-)

This man is off  'on the town' with his wingman...aw, love the bromance!
Hm...pearl fishing...
Is this a new PUA term??
:-)

 

 

 

 

The good girls are praying for husbands...

 

 



 

 

The bad girls are smoking dope in the nearest bar...

The PUAs are getting busy...

 

 

A little something nocturnal for our party boys and girls? Keep it klein clean, Herr Mozart, this is a family show blog! :-)

 

Show me your dance moves ! (male edition)

Work it, girl! :-)
Can you too picture the Turkish belly dancer?

It's a date!
But...'first date' nerves rule :-(
Oooooh, the nail-biting is almost palpable here (shudder)...

 

How romantic!

She said yes!!!

But this is how he really feels about marriage :-)

She is already planning the big day...

And somewhere in a far away Celestial Galaxy, St. Jerome is shaking his head...
It's a tragedy! Another young man falls to his death! Get the funeral cortege ready!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks for the inspiration, Down Under.
I really enjoyed compiling this :-)




Any suggestions to add to this list, folks? If it's classical, it's in :-)
All entries will be enthusiastically considered :-)





Addendum:

As to the future of the SMP, I would be failing if I didn't end on a positive note.
I shall let Karl Jenkins have the last word.
Indeed, he is right: When it comes to the war of the sexes, better is peace than always war.

Ring out the old, bring in the new!

Take it away, Karl...

 

The hunt for the patron saint of MGTOW is over: Meet St. Jerome!

Apparently, there is no limit to the depths of insanity to which I will sink :-)

Mea culpas aside, I must however keep to the 'feminine imperative' narrative and blame a man :-)

*Someone put me up to this. He set me a task I had never sought to undertake before, but which I relish because it is precisely the sort of daytime reverie I like to indulge in in my own personal time and space.

So, ahoy, descent into utter Madness we go (with a capital M)!



But first, a confession of sorts...

At Mass on 'Christi Himmelfahrt' or 'Auffahrt' as 'Ascension' is now known to me, the priest asked what I took at first to be a rhetorical question: 'Which period in The Church's calendar is the holiest of all?'
I smugly sat there thinking, 'but of course, 'Easter', when else?'

Turns out I was wrong. Apparently, the correct answer is....the ten days between Ascension and Pentecost!
Who'dda thunk? The holiest period in the Christian 'timetable' is now...
And here I am, a Christian woman, about to take a saint, a Doctor of the Church no less(!) to task about what he wrote 1700 years ago which offends my feminine sensibilities. :P

I feel a 'forgive me Father for I have sinned' coming on shortly...



With respect to the task at hand, I had been racking my brains for a few weeks now as to how to tackle my 'mission impossible'.
My brief was simply... a conversation with St. Jerome on his views on MGTOW.

Yes, St. Jerome, a saint of The Church thought 1700 years ago that men should not marry. That women were nothing but trouble.

And here I was thinking this was a modern problem :-)

I didn't get anywhere with this project until a plaque (of a poem by Christophe Plantin) hanging above my old piano startled me a few weeks ago. I have had this plaque ever since an old french-speaking relative of mine gave it to me around 15 years ago. Years of piano practice, and I never even so much as glanced at it. Now that I no longer live in my childhood home, I saw it as though for the first time, with fresh eyes, so to speak.


I provide the french version, because I think it is beautiful: I highlight the part which gripped me the most:

 Le bonheur de ce monde

 

Avoir une maison commode, propre et belle,
Un jardin tapissé d'espaliers odorans,
Des fruits, d'excellent vin, peu de train, peu d'enfans,
Posseder seul sans bruit une femme fidèle,

N'avoir dettes, amour, ni procès, ni querelle,
Ni de partage à faire avecque ses parens,
Se contenter de peu, n'espérer rien des Grands,
Régler tous ses desseins sur un juste modèle,

Vivre avecque franchise et sans ambition,
S'adonner sans scrupule à la dévotion,
Dompter ses passions, les rendre obéissantes,

Conserver l'esprit libre, et le jugement fort,
Dire son chapelet en cultivant ses entes,
C'est attendre chez soi bien doucement la mort.



And in English:

The happiness of this world

To have a comfortable house, clean and fair;
A walled garden lined with fragrant trees;
Fruit and fine wine, few servants and few children;
The only lover of a faithful wife;

No debts, no love-affairs, lawsuits nor feuds,
No wills to haggle out with relatives,
Simply content, dependent on no magnate,
And by a righteous rule to rule one's life;

To live in frankness, from ambition far;
With conscience clear devoted to devotion,
To tame one's passions until they obey,

To keep the spirit free and judgement strong,
Saying one's prayers while looking to one's pear-trees:
A kindly way at home to wait for Death.


I keep finding 'rules for a happy man to live by' everywhere I look these days...I even found one in Beethoven's music a while back, but this one seems to be the best blueprint of all.
So who was this Christophe Plantin?

According to Wikipedia, he was a french printer, a Catholic with humanistic tendencies (go figure). Significantly, he was intrumental in printing a lot of The Church's works, notably, those of St. Jerome.

I started to get excited when I noticed this.

After having read St. Jerome's 'Anti-Marriage rant' known as Adversus Jovinianus, Chapter 48, I suddenly got a sense of déjà vu on seeing Christophe Plantin's  words again after so many years.

And I think the reason the words in bold struck me so much was the very real sense that they seemed 'out of place' in a 'Manosphere' anthem such as this seemed to be. It seemed to me that Christophe Plantin (born in 1520), had taken these words out of the mouth of St. Jerome, but had added his own little twist. Afterall, Plantin was a married man with six kids!



So what could I possibly say to The Venerable St. Jerome?

Here is a transcript of our conversation, which admitttedly took place only in my head.



ST: St. Jerome, I come before you with a sincere request.

SJ: (Polishes halo, strokes beard, squints at me).

ST: I would like to understand your work 'Against Jovinianus', especially Chapter 48. There is plenty in there that I do not understand. I wish to understand more.

SJ: (Picks up feather pen, adjusts robe): What I wrote in 'Against Jovinianus' is not meant to be understood by mere mortals of the female kind. It is what it is.

ST: (Retains composure, frantically fishing for an alternaive approach): It is by listening to what the elders of The Church teach that the rest of God's flock may be saved. I have no-one to turn to but you on this specialist matter. No other saint, it seems to me, understands this particular issue more than you. Hear me! Engage with me!

SJ: (Picks nose and flicks residue in direction of a dove, who dodges): I am hearing you. Speak, my child.

ST: I thank you, Your Holiness.

SJ: Call me Jerome. Or Jerry.

ST: (smiles). Jerome. Nice to meet you. (Shakes hand. Surprisingly warm hands for someone who has been dead a few hundred years).

SJ: Speak!

ST: Why do you wish to deprive your fellow man of a companion 'in this vale of tears' in the manner in which God ordained? Why do you only see women as evil, unclean, unworthy?

SJ: (Irritated): I do not!

ST: This is what you say, Jerome. Right here - 'We read of a certain Roman noble who, when his friends found fault with him for having divorced a wife, beautiful, chaste, and rich, put out his foot and said to them, "And the shoe before you looks new and elegant, yet no one but myself knows where it pinches." '

Another example: 'Whole tragedies of Euripides are censures on women. Hence Hermione says, "The counsels of evil women have beguiled me." '

Yet another: 'In all the bombast of tragedy and the overthrow of houses, cities, and kingdoms, it is the wives and concubines who stir up strife. Parents take up arms against their children; unspeakable banquets are served; and on account of the rape of one wretched woman Europe and Asia are involved in a ten years' war.'

Why do you only see the bad in women?


SJ: I only report what I see, ST.

ST: Yes, fair is thine word. But were there no better examples than the ones you chronicle in this book of yours? Were there no good women around you?

SJ: (Shakes head, sighs): You miss the point of my book!

ST: (Incredulous): But how? I quote back to you what you yourself say!

SJ: Yes, and what you quote back to me is taken out of context!

ST: (Inhales): So, explain me...this is precisely why I come to you.

SJ: There is a reason I wrote this book for men. A man would have understood what I wrote. Chapter 48 is merely a prelude to Chapter 49, in which I outline the rules for both men and women, in which can be found marital happiness if indeed a man must marry. In the instruction of a man, he must understand the risks of this undertaking that marriage is. The language I use is severe, yes. But it is the language that a man understands. For it is he who takes on the burden of a wife and family. I soften not my words for him, for in so doing, I fail him. I tell him what he needs to know. If after everything he hears from me he chooses to marry, be it on his head the consequences of his actions. A man must be responsible for the decisions of his own self and his household. This is  not something I expect a woman however intelligent to understand.

ST: Forgive me, Jerome. I do not intend to belittle your advice to men. If it is not contrary to your principles, I still seek to understand. Is it bad for me to try to understand you?

SJ: Not at all. But you tread on dangerous ground. This path is not flowery. It is not pretty. It may not be safe for a woman. Do you wish to proceed nonetheless?

ST: By all means if it is not sinful so to do!

SJ: (Laughs): No, not sinful, no. Foolhardy, yes.

ST: Then so be it. I shall be a fool in the quest for knowledge!

SJ: So be it, then. Your wish is my command.

ST: Thank you. May we shake hands on that again?

SJ: (Waves a way my hand): No more handskaes. Once was enough.

ST: (Sharp intake of breath, mournful look): OK. I get it. This won't be pretty.

SJ: Exactly. Let's keep to the script. A man must get over his petty joys and pleasures and see the world as it is, before he takes on the responsibility of wife and child(ren). It is the essence of masculinity. Even with faith, this is a pre-requisite, for to do otherwise is a recipe for failure. From whence I get my various examples outlined in Chapter 48. Capisci?

ST: You are Italian-speaking, St. Jerome!

SJ: (Shakes head): Did you not know I lived in Rome, ST?

ST: (Smiles, then lightbulb moment): Ah! I see! So you are giving examples of where men can go wrong!

SJ: Exactly! See? You can be intelligent when you want to be.

ST: I see your line of thinking now. But I have to admit, it wasn't so clear reading Chapter 48.

SJ: You were never meant to read Chapter 48 in isolation.

ST: True.

SJ: In Chapter 49, I give advice to young women to be chaste. This is the best way to persuade men to marry them. Do you know what chastity in a young woman leads to for a man who marries, ST?

ST: (Pause, pause, pause, another lightbulb moment): Une femme fidèle!

SJ: (Mock bow): Exactement! Well done, ST. This is the point your married friend Christophe Plantin was making when he lists the characteristics of a happy life for a man. Christophe found a femme fidèle. If he hadn't, he would have written his own 'Against Jovinianus'.

ST: (Mock surprise): How did you know about Plantin?

SJ: Come on now...I am a saint. I am immortal. Honestly, you mortals!

ST: (Laughs).

SJ: I am not against marriage, ST. I am very much for holy marriages. It is precisely because I see that many men are not yet ready for marriage, and indeed many women are chronically unsuitable for marriage that I give the next best advice: do not marry: seek an alternative path to salvation. The next generation is dependent on the sanctity of marriage. Done wrong, an unholy marriage is a breeding ground for devil's troops. I say it clearly in the first paragraph of Chapter 48: 'And shall he desire children and delight himself in a long line of descendants, who will perhaps fall into the clutches of Antichrist, when we read that Moses and Samuel preferred other men to their own sons, and did not count as their children those whom they saw to be displeasing to God?'
A good marriage produces 'soldiers for christ'.

ST: (Nodding): Because a holy marriage is a sacrament. An unholy marriage is just another path to hell...

SJ: Well, put that way, it seems harsh, but yes. You are beginning to get the hang of this.

ST: You are a good teacher.

SJ: They didn't elect me 'Doctor of The Church' for nothing, you know!

ST: True dat!

SJ: So, now do you understand? I teach what is right, for men. You women can also learn something from me. The details you can learn from the virtuous women of The Church. Of which there are many.

ST: Yes, like Our Lady.

SJ: Well, she is the best. But there are others. Saintly women dead or alive are everywhere.

ST: I know...

SJ: Good. Follow them. Listen to them. Watch what they do. You can't go wrong by doing that.

ST: Thank you Jerome.

SJ: (Yawns): Anytime. Now I must get some shut-eye. Not a bed of roses being a saint you know. Everyday, I get some mortal upstart calling me up to interrogate me about one of my books...

ST: (Downcast): But I already apologised....I didn't mean to...!

SJ: Relax, ST. Just teasing. You need to toughen up. (Winks).

ST: (Smiles, puts hands up in air): Ok, Ok, I get it.

SJ: Over and out, ST. Go in peace. Have faith.

ST: Thank you, Jerome. Greetings to your fellow saints.

SJ: Thumbs up.


End of conversation.



So there we have it. My conversation with the patron saint of MGTOW.

Turns out he may not be as misogynistic as I first thought. He is an alright dude, really. Maybe he could have made a great husband for some chick back in 370 AD?

Who knows?










*Someone may or may not choose to identify himself in the comments.

Spacetraveller's law

Aherm!

The above is by no means akin to Newton's laws of motion or anything :-)

Just an observation that I have never seen broken, yet, although I expect there are exceptions that prove the rule...

About rules/laws/mandates, I find I quite like them. They are general 'guidelines' by which, when lived out, simplify life, rather than complicate it, which is what we do best as human beings. But I accept that there are limitations beyond which even the most useful rule does not help. Such is life.

I go off at a tangent again, but I think it is a good time to remind myself that sometimes, what we don't know, we mustn't fret about... because God knows. And somehow, He imparts the necessary detail to us should he choose to, and at the right time when we are most likely to be receptive to it.

This is my 'lesson of the day', LOL.

I just got back home from a walk. I came across a park which is also a cemetery for lost soldiers from the Second World War.

All the soldiers buried here are 'unknown'.
But what a great way this is expressed:

'Known to God'.

I was blown over by that description. On every single gravestone, there is a distinct absence of a name, rank, birthdate and deathdate. But all of these men (I presume they were men but of course it is just possible a few may have been women?) are 'known to God'.

'Unknown' to us, 'known to God'.
How lovely...

I somehow got the message that although it would have been lovely for us (and especially their grieving families and friends) to know who exactly these men were, somehow it is not crucial anymore - God knows their identities. That's enough. Case closed.




I have been back and forth to the UK in the last few months. I did promise John Lord B3 a post about a personal encounter regarding MGTOW, but as usual, my thoughts were derailed by something else I would like to share, and possibly discuss ad nauseum :-)

A new dating show in the UK, by the title 'Take me out' has been a source of great insights into todays' SMP for me. In many ways, it directly replicates a longstanding older one known as 'Blind date' presented by a lovely elderly lady known as Cilla Black.

I think the spirit of 'Take me out' is very different from 'Blind date' however, just by removing the element of 'parental presence' in the form of a woman who could jolly well be your mother :-). The presenter of 'Take me out' is a young man. Different and interesting vibe, but interesting all the same.

Yesterday, the 'old school' were temporarily back in town. A young Scottish man came on 'Take me out' not just with his Mum, but his ex-nursery school teacher (Mrs. H)! Why, you may ask...

His Mum thought his ex-nursery school teacher had the wisest opinion on girls, so each time it was time to 'vet' a girlfriend, he not only brought her to his Mum, he also took her to meet Mrs. H.

Hahahahahaha!
I think it's sweet, but I get why some may be annoyed that not just one woman but two women are meddling in this young man's business.
It should be mentioned that this man was complicit in Mum and Mrs. H's meddling though, just so you are aware :-).

Early on in the show, Mrs. H was asked which of the 30 girls she thought would be good for the young man. She picked a girl. He ended up picking that girl. And she made herself available to be picked by him.

I immediately got why Mrs. H picked the girl. She is the kind of girl that is perfect. Beautiful, little make-up (not 'glaring' like some of the other girls), nicely dressed, and very nice in personality. She was very likeable, and I hope she and the guy hit it off.

The whole episode reminded me of a saying I have mentioned here before.
Mrs. H may or may not be right about this girl. I really hope she is right, of course.

But choosing a wife is very much a man's business. And usually requires a male opinion, preferably an older male's, but also a contemporary, or even a younger man's would do. But of course, I now know that many men do not seek advice from anyone at all in matters that are private. I get that. I think women are much more 'help-seeking' than men in this regard. Fair enough - we are different creatures afterall...

But...if an opinion is welcome from a woman...
I have seen how a woman that the man trusts and respects can help a lot in this process. A mother, sister, aunt, grandmother, even a female friend.

This is what I am about to hijack as 'Spacetraveller's law': (um, excuse my delusions of grandeur...what I meant to write was 'an observation ST seems to make over and over again :-)

Where a trusted female who has a man's best interest at heart repeatedly declares that a woman he is romantically interested in is bad for him, she is almost always right.'

The collorary is, that where she says a woman is good for him, there is a 50/50 chance of her being right.

The importance of my observation is where she says she is bad for him.

Women seem to be really good at smelling out bad women where their sons/brothers/friends are concerned.
But perhaps not as accurate when deciding about a good woman.

In statistical terms, I think this is best expressed as 'negative predictive value'.
:-)

Has anyone come across instances where a mother says to her son: this woman is bad for you, son!' and she turns out to be the opposite?

(Note: I am not talking about a nasty mother - I mean a mother who really does love her son and wants the best for him - of which there are many more than not...).




As an aside, here is a little gem from a film: I am keeping up with a previous assignment of watching as many of the old films as I can get my hands on, and I enjoyed this one very much:

Here is an MGTOW from 1951's thoughts on marriage:

Marriage is slavery for the woman and prison for the man.

Hahahahahahahaha!

Where have I heard this before, especially the second part?
;-P

Interestingly, in this film, it was the father of the girl deciding that the man she was interested in was bad for her.
Girls should of course always listen to Daddy...
He is always right - about everything! That's ST's second law...

Awww, how beautiful...

For those who are dying to know, last Sunday was the feast of Corpus Christi.

Beautiful enough...for afterall, the body of Christ saved us all from eternal damnation (if you believe in that sort of thing :-)

But, this feast is also bang in the middle of First Holy Communion season around these parts.

So I walk into Mass, and it looks like there is a wedding in Lilliput :-)

Why are the brides and grooms so small? I wonder to myself.
LOL.

No, not brides and grooms, silly Spacetraveller.
Boys and girls aged 8 and over receiving the Body and Blood of Christ for the first time.

Something like this:

 

 

 

 



Now, the Church has changed the rules regarding First Holy Communion, I hear.

I did this at age 7, and a year later I was confirmed.
Now I hear you can't do FHC until you are 8 at least, and you can't be confirmed until age 11 or 12.

I think this is good.
The Church is making progress.

Why?

In my opinion, these sacraments are the start to the whole process of building up a person (who in this case is Catholic).

These kids haven't dressed up in their finest clothes for nothing.
They need to be at an age where the symbolism of the ceremony can be grasped by them.

Starting with the girls, (and I remember this distinctly aged 7), it is drummed into you that you dress up in the same white clothes you were dressed in to be baptised (usually) as a baby, to be confirmed, to be married and to be buried. There is a certain continuity to these ceremonies they keep enforcing on you :-)

You go through rigorous preparation for each sacrament (except in baptism where your parents do it for you).

You maintain the same virtue you had at FHC and Confirmation through till the next sacrament in your life journey whether it be the sacrament of Matrimony, Holy Orders (or Consecrated Single life).
The colour white is significant in all these sacraments.

For the boys, the colour white is of course not mandatory, but I notice that a lot of the boys in last week's ceremony were wearing white.
Is this 'projection'?
:-)

But the message is clear for the boys too.
Your moral responsibilty begins at this age. You (and your female counterparts) are the future of your families, your communities and society at large. You have a great responsibility as the men of the future - the protectors of civilisation, the husbands, fathers and mentors of the future.

The Church will support you. Your parents will support you. The community at large will support you. Until we can't.
Because we died.

And then it's over to you.


I love symbolic ceremonies of this sort.
Because they fulfil an important role in a young person's life.

I recently talked  about 'giving a positive', in this case to a young girl.
First Holy Communion is a classic representation of that.

These children have worked hard to get to their FHC day. Some parishes even have exams for these kids to take!

The pretty dress is nice, yes. But you MUST understand the meaning of why you are wearing the dress.

So you must also for any other ceremony where you stand before God wearing a white dress :-)
Do you understand why you are standing there in front of people you know reciting words?

The good of humanity depends on the answer to this question.

*

 

 



My mother was one of those preparing the kids of our parish for their big day.
So guess who was roped in to help with the party for the kids?

Let's keep this one rhetorical, shall we?

:-)


I pray for all the young persons all over the world going through this big step in their lives.

Sacraments are afterall, a channel of grace.

May they receive graciously, the beautiful channel of Grace that is First Holy Communion, Amen.
The same sentiment to the participants of other 'coming of age' ceremonies of this type - Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah, Traditional Initiation rights, etc.





This was played at our ceremony.
Ave Verum Corpus is a favourite of mine anyway. But in the context of the feast of Corpus Christi and a beautiful First Holy Communion Mass, emotional Spacetraveller was choking up :-)

I know....



Gay.


:-)




Take it away, chaps:

And a grand 'Exultate Justi' from John Williams by way of congratulations to the citizens of the future.
Alleluia!