الألعاب

January 24, 2014 § 101 Comments

“Islam is a toolbox, Zippy” he told me. “You don’t understand how badly liberalism has emasculated modern young men.”

“It was the Mohammedans who taught me how to reject liberalism and discover my masculinity. They don’t have to be right about everything. I can take what is right and good in the Holy Koran, and ignore the things which are not good.”

§ 101 Responses to الألعاب

  • […] 4. And on an entirely related note from Zippy Catholic: الألعاب […]

  • sunshinemary says:

    It’s good news, though, if it turns out you are allowed to take your toolbox to Hell with you where it will no doubt be totally useful.

  • G S says:

    What is “traditionalist Catholicism”

  • Peter Blood says:

    I think your interlocutor is more suited to Islam than he realizes.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    That left a mark.

    GS,
    Huh?

  • Ceer says:

    As a Christian, I was told to be myself, stick to sexual morality, and work hard.

    All of the girls rejected me while young, I married a single mother just like my preacher said, she divorced me and took most of my money in alimony and child support, and I died abandoned after the ex used the rumor mill against me. All advised as the life path of Christian success. There is a word for this: betrayal.

    Think about this…does betrayal come from God?

  • Zippy says:

    40 virgins await you in Paradise.

    Does anyone else notice a problem with the phrase “the life path of Christian success?”

  • Bob says:

    I knew guy growing up that was dumb as rocks, never in charge of any group he was part of and not all that good looking. He’s had 7 kids with 5 different girls now and has been unemployed for 12 years. No guy I know has ever thought of him as anything other than a looser. But clearly the women thought differently.

  • Zippy says:

    Bob:
    Sounds like a real sociopath.

  • earl says:

    “Does anyone else notice a problem with the phrase “the life path of Christian success?”

    The problem I noticed is that they sell it as a path to get chicks.

    Then again what is the difference between Christians telling their members to use this game to get chicks and the heathens telling their members to use this game to get chicks.

    Whatever happened to using this game to please God and better yourself?

  • earl says:

    1 Thessalonians 4: 1-8

    Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

  • jf12 says:

    Clearly we all cross-culturally agree that 40 and 72 are the same number for guys who have difficulty even getting 1. And thus the problem is bounded, and so therefore the solution set is bounded too.

  • johnmcg says:

    Ceer,

    That’s nothing compared to what happened to Christ Himself.

  • Zippy says:

    He only gets 40 virgins because of the parts he left out.

  • earl says:

    “Think about this…does betrayal come from God?”

    Ask Judas.

  • peppermint says:

    Zippy, if you had been Pope 50 years ago, today’s young men would not be listening to garbage collectors.

    Take the mote out of your eye first.

  • Bonald says:

    Some time ago, I was speculating about the advantage Leftism has because from having won over so many pretty girls. “Communist sex appeal”, I called it (http://bonald.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/communist-sex-appeal/), but I never explained it. Thanks to you guys, I now see that I had it backwards. Right-wingers are not low status because chicks don’t like us; chicks don’t like us because Christianity is low status. It’s all very simple, really. If I had realized that women were attracted by social cues (a bizarre thought for me as a man: I certainly don’t feel attracted to women based on their status over other women), there would have been no mystery at all.

  • It’s low status among non-Christians, certainly. As a Protestant, I am probably not allowed to get to into the weeds of Who’s A Real Christian, but most people in church aren’t Christian, and most outside of church aren’t either.

    More to the point, a lot of men are utterly desperate to be led, and will follow any master, and this is a big, big problem, because a lot of “masters” these days lead without taking responsibility for their charges.

  • Zippy says:

    Bonald:
    Women are also more apt to buy into the idea that reality is socially constructed. That’s because for them reality actually is socially constructed to a greater extent than it is for men.

    Men worry about how to defend the village from the bear. Women worry about how to encourage and help the men defend the village from the bear.

    In the manosphere this elementary bit of complementarity of the sexes is referred to as “the feminine imperative,” frequently with a nice helping of self-congratulatory disdain.

  • Well, some women also worry about how to defend the village from the bear too, but that may be wandering into NAWALT weeds beyond the scope of the example.

  • Bonald says:

    Thus, Ceer’s hypothetical Christian really has no cause to blame anything the Church told him. While it’s true that most churches are infected with feminism, and one will get some encouragement from the pulpit to become an unattractive sissy, if this fellow had become a communist instead, he would have gotten an even larger helping of sissifying feminism, but the girls would have still been throwing themselves at him. Christianity is a lower class/low status marker; this is what frustrates “the life path of Christian success”.

  • earl says:

    If you read about the rewards you get from following Jesus and living a Christian life…you notice He never said anything about getting as many women as you want.

    Which sounds like a better reward…eternal life or a wife (harem)? Your answer tells a lot about where your heart is.

  • Mike T says:

    In the manosphere this elementary bit of complementarity of the sexes is referred to as “the feminine imperative,” frequently with a nice helping of self-congratulatory disdain.

    Uh no. Most of what is referred to as the “feminine imperative” is a sense of entitlement without any sense of reciprocity. It doesn’t help that there is no shortage of men, particularly “good Catholic men,” who fall all over themselves to defend this arrangement. Often it goes along the lines of Real Men(tm) would make the sacrifice without expecting anything in return. In your example, it would be a case of the women trying to convince and encourage the men to attack the bear without any intention of honoring and deferring to the leadership of the men who put their lives on the line to defend the village.

  • Mike T says:

    That is to say that in modern times the Feminine Imperative says “I may expect you to lay down your life for me and my children, but I am totally a Free And Equal Superwoman who is at no time obligated to submit to you and your leadership irrespective of how closely you realize the highest ideals of masculinity.”

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    The “feminine imperative” I’ve seen explained has supposedly existed for All Time [tm], so it can’t mean the dysfunction of modern liberalism you describe.

  • jf12 says:

    @Mike Re: “Real Men(tm) would make the sacrifice without expecting anything in return.” You don’t go far enough. Let me help.
    “No True Man expects women to do anything in return, because his Oozing Masculine Goodness already caused women to fall all over themselves to serve him. Just Get It and be one of the few alphas already, wouldja?”

  • earl says:

    “Most of what is referred to as the “feminine imperative” is a sense of entitlement without any sense of reciprocity.”

    Another wonderful side effect of birth control.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    …and who is addressing Zippy’s actual point?
    Evil is evil even if dressed in ribbons and wearing roses in its hair.

  • johnmcg says:

    @jfl12: I’m curious what you think your rewordings are adding to the conversation.

    The writers have written what they have written. You can disagree with them, and attempt to rebut them with argument or data.

    But the value of simply asserting something different than what the writers expressed is lost on me.

  • Joseph Papiez says:

    J.R.R. Tolkien’s argument against game.

    “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the enemy, for good or for ill”

    quoting Elrond concerning Saruman at the council of Rivendell

  • jf12 says:

    Re: what’s in a name. Apparently I could be a male hoor. Supposedly the key characteristics of the ideal heavenly masculinities that will entertain the Muslim women that make it there are
    1) The dudes have big lustrous eyes.
    2) The infinitely satisfying dudes are not at all physically like the men the women lusted after on Earth.
    Remember pie in the sky when you die? I’m gonna be somebody’ plum!

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    while I believe your analogy is false, let’s play a devil’s advocate for a moment – in hinduist vedas were founded some basics of mathematics (or so I heard, but lets assume it’s true for a sake of argument) – does it mean that we shouldn’t use the mathematics or does it make mathematcis any less correct? And if we can take some good from Hinduism, can’t we take something good also from Islam and even from, gasp, the Game?

  • Zippy says:

    It is certainly possible to learn things from enemies who are actively working to destroy you.

  • jf12 says:

    1 Corinthians 9:21 The utilitarianism of Paul, gaming folks, being an “outlaw”.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Your scriptural reference might even start to orbit the vicinity of relevance if the point was to evangelize PUAs.

  • Samson J. says:

    It was the Mohammedans who taught me how to reject liberalism and discover my masculinity. They don’t have to be right about everything. I can take what is right and good in the Holy Koran, and ignore the things which are not good.

    Pretty much. There’s a lot to admire in Islam.

    Evil is evil even if dressed in ribbons and wearing roses in its hair.

    And truth is truth even if hasn’t showered in fifteen days. I don’t see your point, or Zippy’s, although I haven’t really been paying attention.

  • Mike T says:

    The “feminine imperative” I’ve seen explained has supposedly existed for All Time [tm], so it can’t mean the dysfunction of modern liberalism you describe.

    It sure can when you consider the likelihood that most of the people describing it are doing so with little to no appreciation for how modern society is so different from what came before even in the West just a few hundred years ago. Most of the people I know cannot even imagine how society might have functioned except through the lens of liberalism (everything was Dark, Evil and Oppressive until modern times).

    Now, I do think the Feminine Imperative has always existed, but never to the degree it does today. It’s basically a sense of one-way entitlement run amok. Women are not essentially different from the way they were at the dawn of civilization. What has changed is the culture and the complete loss of restraint on female behavior. There are no restraints on hypergamy, women’s self-esteem, etc. Even the average conservative will not countenance a legal regime like something even mildly like coverture to ensure the legal and political dominance of the husband over the wife. So yes, I think a reasonable case can be made that what was once a nuisance is now an epidemic.

  • As someone who really does believe in studying other religions and philosophies and trying to extract the good, I feel like your example cuts the opposite way you intended. The Church did the same thing with Aristotle.

    “Test everything; hold onto what is good” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21

  • Zippy says:

    The Jaskologist:
    How do you know what I intend?

  • jf12 says:

    Discerning intent. Wasn’t the purpose of bringing up the toolbox example was so it could be seen as a “clear” counter-example to the same sort of blatant utilitarian arguments of monogamous Gamers?

  • Zippy says:

    Christian chumminess with Game and its prophets reminds me of Jurassic Protestantism’s chumminess with Islam:

    “From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies — and, I might almost say, in customs — than ours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplicity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, prayers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seen among us — or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Furthermore, which of our monks, be it a Carthusian (they who wish to appear the best) or a Benedictine, is not put to shame by the miraculous and wondrous abstinence and discipline among their religious? Our religious are mere shadows when compared to them, and our people clearly profane when compared to theirs. Not even true Christians, not Christ himself, not the apostles or prophets ever exhibited so great a display. This is the reason why many persons so easily depart from faith in Christ for Muhammadanism and adhere to it so tenaciously. I sincerely believe that no papist, monk, or cleric or their equal in faith would be able to remain in their faith if they should spend three days among the Turks. Here I mean those who seriously desire the faith of the pope and who are the best among them.” — Martin Luther, preface to the Tract on the Religions and Customs of the Turks, 1530.

  • Alte says:

    “No guy I know has ever thought of him as anything other than a looser. But clearly the women thought differently.”

    The women were also losers.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    @Zippy:
    well, it was clearly quite easy to sympathize with Muslims in time when the God’s forgiveness was for sale, priesthood to be bought for younger sons by nobility and it was common even for popes to fornicate… I’m not denying he took it way too far though…

  • slumlord says:

    @Bonald

    Welcome to the Red Pill.

  • Zippy says:

    Pilgrim:
    I rest my case.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    You have to admit that the Catholic Church has long had a problem with dealing with corruption forthrightly. Even today, how many conservative Catholics justify the invasion of homosexuals into the priesthood by saying that a homosexual temptation is not the same thing as the sin, as though that has any bearing on the fact that homosexuality is a seriously disordered sexual sin and those inclined to it typically cannot handle such an office? A lot.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    That’s more or less right.

  • Mike T says:

    One of the things that Catholics don’t appreciate is that many serious Protestants won’t consider conversion in no small part because of the lack of church discipline despite the fact that the Catholic Church has the very best chances of all churches in imposing it. The best example is the Catholic Church’s abject refusal to start systematically imposing excommunication on left-wing politicians and judges who aid and abet abortion.

    If I had to guess as an outsider, I would say that the seemingly singular obsession with poverty is the biggest problem. Taking care of the poor is very important, but it has reached such a level of concern among many Catholics (including the hierarchy) that they’ll side with a left-wing abortionist because he or she has the “right views” on poverty over someone from the right who is far less willing to throw money at them but is strongly anti-abortion.

  • Zippy says:

    I get it that Protestantism rebelled and gave up succession and valid sacraments because the church is composed of human beings. Liberalism in general rebels because those in authority are human beings.

    How has that worked out for everyone?

  • Mike T says:

    Your response is a good example of the Catholic mentality that has lead to so much corruption going unanswered. Rather than admit that Catholic bishops who allow these people to go unpunished should be rhetorically flogged in the street for their antichrist cowardice, you turn it into an attack on Protestantism.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I’m all in favor of pillories and gibbets for child molesters and their enablers, doled out by competent authority.

    What I am pointing out in this post – part of what I am pointing out – is that liberal Christians frequently make common cause with the enemies of Christ against the Church, because of (real or perceived, but often enough real) deficiencies in legitimate authorities. (By its nature this observation will highlight Protestantism, formally, although materially a lot of modern Catholics are Protestant). Christians making common cause with PUAs (because sex) is just the latest chapter in a long, sad saga. Microscopically, the wife rebelling against her (probably legitimately deficient in many ways, because human) husband is part of the same fractal.

  • Elspeth says:

    Christians making common cause with PUAs (because sex) is just the latest chapter in a long, sad saga. Microscopically, the wife rebelling against her (probably legitimately deficient in many ways, because human) husband is part of the same fractal.

    I read once that we’ve reached a place where the church is only moderately less secular and marginally more moral that the world at large. Just enough to have something to preach against, but not more than that.

    The worse the world gets, the worse the church gets simply sliding at a slower pace as to keep itself marginally more moral that the world so it can have something left to preach against.

    This is just the latest chapter in a long, sad, saga.

  • Alte says:

    It’s hard for me to abandon the Catholic Church because of the corruption in the leadership, when one out of twelve apostles killed Jesus.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    Yes, and all but one abandoned him.

  • Alte says:

    “I read once that we’ve reached a place where the church is only moderately less secular and marginally more moral that the world at large.”

    But isn’t that the way it’s always been? Weren’t people in the church more morally upright before (if they actually were, which is up for debate) because everyone in society was more morally upright? And isn’t this slowly turning around, as secularization and democratization starts to go the way of the dodo?

  • Alte says:

    Amazing how much good God can do with such broken priests, isn’t it? There’s apparently still hope for the rest of us. Even Catholic bishops who refuse to misuse the powers of excommunication to quell popular discontent.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    I think it goes well beyond the issue of homosexuals and pederasts in the hierarchy. As I said, there is a near obsession with poverty relief. They don’t care how it’s done, so long as it’s done. They will side with someone who is an enthusiastic butcher of unborn children because said butcher has “the right views” on welfare programs over someone whose first reaction is “get a job!” to most of America’s poor, but is a staunch defender of the unborn. The usual defense of this is that they’d just be picking their poison since the latter would be alleged to be some sort of rich oppressor of the poor when in fact there is no Christian tradition of requiring support for welfare programs (and in modern terms would be rightly often called subsidizing sin).

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    The obsession with poverty relief comes in part from direct contact with the poor. Navel-gazing narcissistic political theorizing by Droid-toting first worlders isn’t going to feed that child right there; and while the former are children of God too, their opinions on why that child should starve in service to theory don’t carry much weight.

    There are lots of things I can fault the institutional Church for — including making common cause with those who intend with every fiber of their being to destroy her. But too much concrete concern for the poor, as those real suffering human beings right there, isn’t on the list.

  • Elspeth says:

    But isn’t that the way it’s always been?

    Well yes and no, V.

    Man, being human, has always struggled with sin and vice. That is nothing new. But throughout most of church history I’ve read, and even experienced as late as the 70’s when I was a child, these things were labeled as such: sin and vice.

    It is only quite recent that things my father’s generation and prior considered very blatantly sinful (fornication, divorce, etc.) have come to be viewed as shades of gray; conditional based on one’s situation.

    In defense of the catholic church, you guys have held fast doctrinally. Of course, the reality on the ground is quite different in practice.

  • Alte says:

    “The obsession with poverty relief comes in part from direct contact with the poor.”

    It’s also a habit we’ve picked up from Jesus. He was totally preoccupied with the subject.

  • Mike T says:

    The obsession I am referring to is that which is directed within developed countries. There is little comparison between most of America’s lower class and the poor of the developing world and it is an insult to the latter to treat the former like them. Show me a Pope willing to tell the lower class to stop engaging in self-destructive behavior as fervently as he calls upon the middle class to pay taxes to support them, and I’ll listen. If I have a duty to pay into a welfare state, fine. They also have a duty to try to avoid behavior that puts them in place to need it in the first place.

    The middle and upper classes are very much treated like milk cows by these people. I still remember one comment by Maximos on W4 (I know he’s Orthodox) where he basically said that if Obamacare taxes would make me unable to support my family on just my income then maybe I didn’t deserve to have a stay at home wife for my family. This attitude is, sadly not uncommon in the least even among “conservatives.”

  • Alte says:

    “It is only quite recent that things my father’s generation and prior considered very blatantly sinful (fornication, divorce, etc.) have come to be viewed as shades of gray; conditional based on one’s situation.”

    Yes, but that was the near-past. If you just go a bit further back, it starts to look pretty bad again. Go a bit further back, and it starts to get better again. And repeat. And even in the “good times” there were things going on that would take our breath away today, such as slavery, widespread infanticide, battles in which millions of people just slaughtered each other to death until the rivers ran red. How many people attended church during the late Victorian Era? How many people spent the day at a séance or just got drunk or high?

    The more I history I study, the more hopeful I get about the direction our own era is moving, and the less I think, “Everything used to be so much better…” I don’t believe in human progress, but I no longer see history as one long road of human decline. People don’t actually seem to change much, they just get more creative.

  • Mike T says:

    It’s also a habit we’ve picked up from Jesus. He was totally preoccupied with the subject.

    That’s why Jesus called upon the Roman elite to redouble their support for the dole, rather than merely telling His followers to look after them in their private capacity, right?

  • Zippy says:

    There is plenty of real suffering in developed countries too.

  • Alte says:

    “The middle and upper classes are very much treated like milk cows by these people.”

    The middle and upper classes (who make up the bulk of voters, by the way) have consistently supported the very inflationary policies that are impoverishing the poor. The bulk of income transfer is from the bottom to the top, not the other way around. Otherwise, the poor would be getting richer, and the rich would be getting poorer, and this is obviously not the case.

    And, no, trickle down economics does not actually work.

  • Alte says:

    “That’s why Jesus called upon the Roman elite to redouble their support for the dole, rather than merely telling His followers to look after them in their private capacity, right?”

    He also didn’t tell the Romans to stop handing out the dole, or the Jews to stop paying the taxes that supported the dole. What the Early Church did was build a welfare system for it’s own members that was more generous than the Roman one, which is something we still do today.

  • Alte says:

    Let us all also please note that most people receiving welfare have a job, are senior citizens, or are children. So yelling, “Get a job!” at them isn’t going to change much.

  • Elspeth says:

    Let us all also please note that most people receiving welfare have a job

    I think this very thing almost every time I read tirades against the poor, lazy people sitting at home collecting welfare. Clearly the people who say these thing are far removed from the reality of the thing.

    Most of these people have jobs, and jobs that are as much as they are able to do given their education and skill level. Many work full time at one job or by way of two part time jobs.

    I don’t know all the answers, but the “get a job!” part? They’ve done that.

    Stopping the destructive behaviors of single parenthood and/or divorce would be a great start though. These two alone contribute significantly to one’s chances of living in poverty.

  • Alte says:

    Yes, increased marriage rates and a living wage for working men (which are really just the two sides of the same issue) are the key. I don’t really know how we could do that, though, without starting a war.

  • Alte says:

    “Most of these people have jobs, and jobs that are as much as they are able to do given their education and skill level.”

    Exactly. I have one of these types of jobs, and I can’t even imagine trying to feed a family on my hourly wage, even working nine hours a day, six days a week. Which is a lot of hours for physical labor. If I were in that situation, and collecting welfare, and someone were to say to me, “Get a job!” I’d probably react badly.

  • Mike T says:

    Alte,

    You’ve been missing the point badly. The point is that the RCC in many respects shows signs it would literally align itself with Satan if he ran for public office on a “support the poor platform.” Whatever the fault of the “get a job!” politician or voter who is staunchly pro-life, it’s an objective truth that actively aiding and abetting abortion is one of the worst criminal acts a person can commit. There is literally no good that Joe Biden can ever do in office that will make up for what he did to keep Bork out of the SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade in effect. Even if he ended poverty in America, the total elimination of poverty is a good that is inferior to the good of ensuring the protection of the unborn. Unfortunately, many Catholics don’t seem to grok that a man who would feed starving children while enthusiastically supporting the right of women to murder children in utero is objectively… a monster, morally speaking.

    As it stands, I am actually not against welfare per se. What I am against is the implementation which more often than not is intended to ensure that the (as Zippy calls them) Free and Equal Superman never faces the full consequences of his decisions. It would be unconscionable to force a drug addict, unwed mom, etc. to have to go to a church and actually ask for help because that would be done in a position of weakness not equality. Liberals hate that. That offends their concept of equality and human dignity. It is undignified to have to say “I f#$%ed up and need help” because that’s judgmental and the person might get told to leave the building if they want a handout AND to not have to change their ways.

  • Alte says:

    I tend to lean toward the idea that we should be seeking out the people who need our aid and assistance, rather than waiting for them to ask for it. People wouldn’t be turning to the .gov if we were rushing over to help them. I like the idea of tying communities together with helper lists, so that we can all help each other proactively. Lots of good activity in that direction, especially with the increase in trading services and goods.

    “Unfortunately, many Catholics don’t seem to grok that a man who would feed starving children while enthusiastically supporting the right of women to murder children in utero is objectively… a monster, morally speaking.”

    For the record, I’ve been hard-pressed lately to find a candidate I could vote for in good conscience. I’m not promoting pro-choice politicians, but the rampant war-mongering and money-printing also completely turns my stomach. I’m not excusing voting for these people, as I think it is a grave error in judgment, but I do know people who vote for them and I understand why they do it. There are so many mortal sins being promoted on both sides of the political fence, and each group thinks the other group is going to be inhabiting a lower circle of Hell.

  • Mike T says:

    Alte/Zippy,

    Just so we’re clear, my gripe here is simply that Catholics often seem to place such a premium on relief of the poor that it blinds them to even serious, grave evil done by those proposing said relief. In fact, it often seems to me that most Catholic bishops in the US that make the headlines think abortion is less evil than failing to maintain welfare subsidies.

    It seems to me that Catholic leaders will not excommunicate politicians like Joe Biden because that would require the Catholic Church to risk losing a significant amount of people. I cannot entirely fault them for this because most Protestant churches are absolutely no better in their own right, but for a Church that claims the pedigree it claims to act so often with the same weakness of single, isolated Protestant churches is just inexcusable when the time comes for action.

  • Alte says:

    In other words, we should be beggars for the poor, rather than expecting the poor to beg. Perhaps we should resurrect the tradition of asking the poor to pray for us, in return for alms.

  • Mike T says:

    each group thinks the other group is going to be inhabiting a lower circle of Hell.

    True, but the reason I used that dichotomy of the two political groups (the abortionists and the “get a jerb!”) is that even in these situations you often find that one evil is less evil than the next. Objectively speaking, being hard to the poor is less evil than murdering the poor. That is especially true when you are talking about children. In fact, it is more likely that the “get a jerb” voter/politician is in fact still capable of and doing charity at their local church, whereas an abortion supporter’s support for abortion can never be even partially mitigated by any amount of good they do for children.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: Ye shall know them by their fruitcakes.

    In accord with Zippy’s intent, guilt by association is good Biblical doctrine. But *especially* for Catholics, incorporating aspects of pagan and evil culture, e.g. redeeming holiday observances, is a fait accompli.

  • Alte says:

    As I mentioned earlier, that’s not really what excommunication is for. Especially not the public variety. I don’t think the canon law allows for that sort of thing, and it doesn’t strike me as a particularly palliative measure.

  • Alte says:

    Most of the jerbers are also war-mongers, so it’s hard to make that sort of distinction.

    More about excommunication: I actually get a lot of Protestants asking me about this, but I can’t help but feel a little incredulous. The public excommunication (and interdict) habit was one of the things the Reformers complained about, and now that you find it convenient, it’s all supposed to be okay again. Maybe we took some of your criticisms to heart. Maybe we’re trying to turn over a new leaf. LOL

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    You left a comment on 1/24 that I just now found in the Spam bin. That has been rectified.

    [Thanks. No idea what it was about, hah! – Z]

  • Zippy says:

    There may be less disagreement than there appears to be. Stepping back to see the forest, it is unanimously agreed that the Apostles and their successors are fallen human beings. Ten in twelve will abandon Christ for worldly concerns or out of cowardice; one in twelve will betray Him unto death to His enemies; and only one in twelve will stand at the foot of the cross with His mother.

    That’s a given.

    How we respond to that given reality is what I am discussing. One idea is to grasp the One Ring, ally ourselves with the enemies of the Church, and anoint ourselves the Most Holy Chastisers of those rotten worldly cowardly Apostles. Clearly Apostolic authority is just abuse.

    I’m suggesting (among other things) that that route has been tried; and indeed is just what got us where we are today. Meet the new Revolution; same as the old Revolution.

  • johnmcg says:

    To whom shall we go; they have the words that Them Bitches Be Crazy!

  • Mike T says:

    As you said,

    Even Catholic bishops who refuse to misuse the powers of excommunication to quell popular discontent.

    The Catholic Church seems to have no problem on occasion excommunicating a woman who gets an abortion or a medical professional who provides one, but so far to my knowledge not a single politician who has directly facilitated the legality of abortion services has been censured at least that badly.

  • Mike T,

    The problem isn’t Church leaders focusing too much on poverty relief, but poverty relief disconnected from Catholic teaching. As the old Latin American joke goes, when the Church opted for the poor, the poor opted for the Pentecostals. If being Catholic only means being a nice guy who volunteers at the soup kitchen once in a while, then it won’t take the people long to figure out that you don’t need to be Catholic or even to believe in God at all to be a nice guy who volunteers at the soup kitchen once in a while. Some of the Church Fathers, i.e. Chrystostom and Basil the Great, really knew how to preach about serving the poor. I’d be okay with it if modern priests just read one of their old sermons aloud off of their iPhones for the Sunday homily.

    Alte,

    Don’t vote. It only encourages them.

  • Alte says:

    LOL, Beefy.

    Yes, Mike, that’s what I’m saying. The canon law is more clear on the first case than on the second. In the second case, it’s much more likely that they’d just withhold communion, if anything.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “the poor opted for the Pentecostals”. Yes they did. A prime example was the contrast between the poor in Calcutta crowding in to the Assemblies of God missions in Calcutta, fleeing the austere untender mercies of the Sisters of Charity. My brother had some amusing tales, like the legless beggar he met who was happy he had made enough that day to pay a porter to carry him away from Teresa’s place.

    You may have meant something else, though.

  • Zippy says:

    Probably one bishop in twelve have publicly banned specific notorious pro-abortion politicians (e.g. Sebelius) from Communion.

    But I’m just guessing at the ratio.

  • Mike T says:

    Alte,

    Your argument is confusing. How is it that someone who passes a law with the intention of enabling millions of people to commit a mortal sin is somehow less culpable than any one person who commits that sin? Given the grave ministerial responsibilities placed on government officials (Romans 13) it would seem rather obvious that such a wicked abuse of that position would be beyond the pale.

  • Mike T says:

    Bad wording. Obviously the woman who has an abortion is more culpable for her personal act, but the point is that it should be obvious that the political enablers bear a high degree of culpability via their own roles in the process. The Bible is filled with warnings about those who declare evil good and good evil. Imagine how much worse it is for those government officials who officially make the secular law state that evil is good?

    I have to say that your argument strikes me as similar to the arguments used (with good reason) against sola scriptura (that it is a positivist doctrine).

  • jf12 says:

    Tying together some themes, the Newsboys’ album Restart has the song Live With Abandon overplayed on Christian radio. Which when it plays in our car, as you could guess if you’ve read more than a couple of my comments, I sing along enthusiastically (but well) to my wife as “I wanna live with a bandit”. It probably took a dozen times of giving me dirty looks for her to complain “I don’t know why they have to play that song about bandits all the time. Just because a song mentions Jesus doesn’t make it Christian.”

  • Elspeth says:

    LOL. My little daughter thought they were saying “I want to live with a band-aid.”

  • jf12 says:

    LOL! Actually, my criterion for rating a Christian song IS whether they bother to mention Jesus. So many nowadays could be construed as “Christian” as the Beatles’ “I wanna hold your hand”.

  • Alte says:

    “But I’m just guessing at the ratio.”

    LOL

  • Alte says:

    “Your argument is confusing.”

    It’s not really my argument, it’s canon law. The problem with the second case, as I understand it (and I’m obviously no legal expert), is that it’s harder to prove intent and culpability.

  • Mike T says:

    is that it’s harder to prove intent and culpability

    It’s probably a good thing I wasn’t drinking my coffee when I read that because it’d be all over my keyboard right now. Harder to prove intent when the politician deliberately passes a law whose sole purpose is to facilitate an intrinsically wicked action against the most vulnerable? Look, I think think this is just running into the ground of philosophic legalism (ie splitting hairs with the most advanced cutting devices our engineers can produce). You cannot pass a law or uphold a right to abortion in court and say “I did not intend to make that abortion possible where it would otherwise be legally impossible.”

  • Mike T says:

    Alte,

    Let’s cut to the chase here. Do you really think the bishops would have any problem here assuming intent if Congress passed a law authorizing citizens to form mobs to brutally murder illegal immigrants on sight?

  • Alte says:

    Politicians doing horrible things generally don’t get publicly excommunicated, as a general rule, but they often excommunicate themselves. (Most excommunicates, like most saints, are never publicly announced.) The ecclesiastical court have to go with a charge of heresy for promoting abortion as a part of the Catholic faith (which I’ve never heard any of them claim, and which therefore doesn’t apply), rather than under Canon 1398 for procuring a particular abortion.

    From the same link:

    Canon 915, which some claim applies to Catholic legislators who make abortion legal, does not impose excommunication, but instead imposes on the minister of Holy Communion the obligation to refuse the sacrament to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”.

    Whether Canon 915 applies in a particular case, is up to that particular bishop. But, as you can see, canon law declares these to be two distinct situations, with two distinct measures for handling them.

  • Alte says:

    “Do you really think the bishops would have any problem here assuming intent if Congress passed a law authorizing citizens to form mobs to brutally murder illegal immigrants on sight?”

    Actually, I seriously doubt that they’d publicly excommunicate those politicians. That’s just not what it is for. Even if they’re excommunicated, they’re still Catholic. They still have to show up to Mass on Sunday and can truthfully call themselves Catholic in television interviews, which is what all of the excommunicated politicians tend to do. They just stay seated (along with half the attendees at Mass, so nobody even notices) during the communion walk, and that’s that. There’s no way to “un-baptize” somebody, after all.

    Public excommunications are announced in order to clarify heresies which might be confusing the laity, through an act of censure. If everyone knows that what the person is doing is wrong, and the church knows that the person won’t care if they’re excommunicated, then they usually don’t bother. That’s why Hitler and Mussolini were never excommunicated, for instance. What would be the point?

    In other words, this isn’t the excommunication you’re looking for.

  • Mike T says:

    Perhaps, but I think you get my point. There is little apparent sanction for the men to whom much power is given, but plenty to whom little power is given. This is part and parcel of why our society is falling apart.

  • Alte says:

    I do understand your frustration, for sure. A lot of Catholics are frustrated, too, but the laws are the way that they are for good reason. I just try to remember that vengeance isn’t mine.

  • […] In the thread, Bonald left this comment: […]

  • […] Some time ago, I was speculating about the advantage Leftism has because from having won over so many pretty girls. “Communist sex appeal”, I called it , but I never explained it. Thanks to you guys, I now see that I had it backwards. Right-wingers are not low status because chicks don’t like us; chicks don’t like us because Christianity is low status. It’s all very simple, really. If I had realized that women were attracted by social cues (a bizarre thought for me as a man: I certainly don’t feel attracted to women based on their status over other women), there would have been no mystery at all. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading الألعاب at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: