Is a pattern emerging already?
I wonder if McCain’s thinking goes like this: “By choosing Palin I have energized the base without having to bother anymore with social conservatism. Now that I finally have the conservative base locked up, Palin can concentrate on winning the Clinton Democrats.”
If that’s the McCain-Palin plan, it’s a big mistake. A liberal campaign will lose the election for the Republicans – Palin or no Palin.
“Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” – 1 Tim 2:11-15
“As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them.” - Isaiah 3:12
In a discussion on Steve Skojec’s blog I mentioned that, in general, I am not in favor of women exercising authority over men. And because the exercise of authority extends to the ballot box in our country, I think the 19th amendment was a bad idea. Some expressed shock at the very thought, and one lady even stormed angrily out of the “room”.
I think Scripture and Christian tradition are clear on this point. God is a patriarchalist. He wants men to rule and to lead. This is not mere cultural conditioning, but is rooted in human nature, as St. Paul emphasizes when he says “For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.” Women are, by nature, more easily swayed by flattery and more readily led by their emotions. To be ruled by women is unnatural and humiliating to men. That is why God used it as a chastisement for the men of Israel. We may reasonably conclude that the men of our time are being similarly chastised. Feminism is a chastisement.
Having said that, there have always been exceptions, and there is no inviolable moral law against women exercising authority over men in any particular case. God raises up women from time-to-time to rule, and it isn’t always a chastisement. Deborah was a judge. Anna was a prophetess. All through Christian history we have the examples of Christian queens, empresses, and even a warrior like St. Joan of Arc (though she never drew blood) exercising authority in the secular realm. Hilda of Whitby was an abbess who ruled over monks.
So, while I don’t like the idea of a female VP, it is not intrinsically wrong and may, in fact, be an act of divine providence. Although feminists view something like this as an historic precedent that will usher in the Golden Age of Womyn-Power, Christians must take a different view.
I find much to admire about Sarah Palin, and her selection has me re-thinking my decision to sit out this election. At present I’m back on the fence. This campaign will certainly test her mettle. There will be tremendous pressure for her to appear “moderate”, especially on the social issues. Will she capitulate? Will she issue a “clarifying” statement on abortion that is more palatable to Hilary Clinton supporters? Time will tell. She’s shown great courage and conviction in the past, but now she will be tempted with national fame, the adulation of millions, and more power than any human being should be allowed to have. Come to think of it, Sarah Palin and her beautiful family probably need our prayers more than our votes.
A few thoughts:
The interviewer is an insufferable moron (update: please see apology), but she handles him kindly and gracefully.
She thinks on her feet.
She has a real command of the subject matter.
She’s articulate and intelligent.
She’s passionate about her state.
She’s not afraid to stand up to the “big boys”.
She’s a “doer”.
She gives direct answers to direct questions.
She has a pleasant, honest personality.
AFAIK Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin were the best possible pro-life picks for VP. Jindal refused, and this morning McCain has announced that it’s Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. Some are saying that she’s Catholic; others say that she is an Evangelical Protestant. In any case she’s an admirable woman: mother of five, a strong pro-life record given her short political career, and she’s real easy on the eyes (quite a bonus there).
The FSSP parish in Maple Hill, Kansas, has printed a set of Catholic voting principles that would rule out a vote for McCain. Zippy and Lydia would undoubtedly concur. In light of the Palin selection, however, I’m going to be thinking it over …
I believe this represents the attitude of most women today.
In another discussion thread, TSO disagreed with my opinion that there are too many books in the world, even suggesting that such an opinion was un-Catholic. However, I am sure that my view of books and literature is more liberal than that of the Church, since I do have some formerly banned books lining the shelves in the my living room, and I think these are worthwhile for various reasons. Catholics may disagree about which books to censor and where to draw the line, but I don’t believe a Catholic can assent to the “anything goes” literary anarchy that characterizes modern times. Here’s a great and saintly pope on the subject:
It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings of Modernists, or whatever savors of Modernism or promotes it, from being read when they have been published, and to hinder their publication when they have not. No books or papers or periodicals whatever of this kind are to be permitted to seminarists or university students. The injury to them would be not less than that which is caused by immoral reading — nay, it would be greater, for such writings poison Christian life at its very fount. The same decision is to be taken concerning the writings of some Catholics, who, though not evilly disposed themselves, are ill-instructed in theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, and strive to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the profit of the faith. The name and reputation of these authors cause them to be read without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in gradually preparing the way for Modernism.
51. To add some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a matter of such moment, We order that you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to remove writings of this kind, but their number has now grown to such an extent that it is hardly possible to subject them all to censure. Hence it happens sometimes that the remedy arrives too late, for the disease has taken root during the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops putting aside all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the clamor of evil men, shall, gently, by all means, but firmly, do each his own part in this work, remembering the injunctions of Leo XIII in the Apostolic Constitution Officiorum: “Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to proscribe and to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books or other writings printed or circulated in their dioceses.” In this passage the Bishops, it is true, receive an authorization, but they have also a charge laid upon them. Let no Bishop think that he fulfills his duty by denouncing to Us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained elsewhere the permission which is commonly called the Imprimatur, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or too much indulgence or excessive trust placed in the author, which last has perhaps sometimes happened in the religious orders. Besides, just as the same food does not agree with everyone, it may happen that a book, harmless in one place, may, on account of the different circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop, therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons, deem it right to condemn any of such books in his diocese, We give him ample faculty for the purpose and We lay upon him the obligation of doing so. Let all this be done in a fitting manner, and in certain cases it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the clergy; but in all cases it will be obligatory on Catholic booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And while We are treating of this subject, We wish the Bishops to see to it that booksellers do not, through desire for gain, engage in evil trade. It is certain that in the catalogs of some of them the books of the Modernists are not infrequently announced with no small praise. If they refuse obedience, let the Bishops, after due admonition, have no hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers. This applies, and with still more reason, to those who have the title of Episcopal booksellers. If they have that of Pontifical booksellers, let them be denounced to the Apostolic See. Finally, We remind all of Article XXVI of the above-mentioned Constitution Officiorum: “All those who have obtained an apostolic faculty to read and keep forbidden books, are not thereby authorized to read and keep books and periodicals forbidden by the local Ordinaries unless the apostolic faculty expressly concedes permission to read and keep books condemned by anyone whomsoever.”
52. It is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad books — it is also necessary to prevent them from being published. Hence, let the Bishops use the utmost strictness in granting permission to print. Under the rules of the Constitution Officiorum, many publications require the authorization of the Ordinary, and in certain dioceses (since the Bishop cannot personally make himself acquainted with them all) it has been the custom to have a suitable number of official censors for the examination of writings. We have the highest esteem for this institution of censors, and We not only exhort, but We order that it be extended to all dioceses. In all episcopal Curias, therefore, let censors be appointed for the revision of works intended for publication, and let the censors be chosen from both ranks of the clergy — secular and regular — men whose age, knowledge, and prudence will enable them to follow the safe and golden means in their judgments. It shall be their office to examine everything which requires permission for publication according to Articles XLI and XLII of the above-mentioned Constitution. The censor shall give his verdict in writing. If it be favorable, the Bishop will give the permission for publication by the word Imprimatur, which must be preceded by the Nihil obstat and the name of the censor. In the Roman Curia official censors shall be appointed in the same way as elsewhere, and the duty of nominating them shall appertain to the Master of the Sacred Palace, after they have been proposed to the Cardinal Vicar and have been approved and accepted by the Sovereign Pontiff. It will also be the office of the Master of the Sacred Palace to select the censor for each writing. Permission for publication will be granted by him as well as by the Cardinal Vicar or his Vicegerent, and this permission, as above prescribed, must he preceded by the Nihil obstat and the name of the censor. Only on a very rare and exceptional occasion, and on the prudent decision of the Bishop, shall it be possible to omit mention of the censor. The name of the censor shall never be made known to the authors until he shall have given a favorable decision, so that he may not have to suffer inconvenience either while he is engaged in the examination of a writing or in case he should withhold his approval. Censors shall never be chosen from the religious orders until the opinion of the Provincial, or in Rome, of the General, has been privately obtained, and the Provincial or the General must give a conscientious account of the character, knowledge, and orthodoxy of the candidate. We admonish religious superiors of their most solemn duty never to allow anything to be published by any of their subjects without permission from themselves and from the Ordinary. Finally, We affirm and declare that the title of censor with which a person may be honored has no value whatever, and can never be adduced to give credit to the private opinions of him who holds it.
53. Having said this much in general, We now ordain in particular a more careful observance of Article XLII of the above-mentioned Constitution Officiorum, according to which “it is forbidden to secular priests, without the previous consent of the Ordinary, to undertake the editorship of papers or periodicals.” This permission shall be withdrawn from any priest who makes a wrong use of it after having received an admonition thereupon. With regard to priests who are correspondents or collaborators of periodicals, as it happens not infrequently that they contribute matter infected with Modernism to their papers or periodicals, let the Bishops see to it that they do not offend in this manner; and if they do, let them warn the offenders and prevent them from writing. We solemnly charge in like manner the superiors of religious orders that they fulfill the same duty, and should they fail in it, let the Bishops make due provision with authority from the Supreme Pontiff. Let there be, as far as this is possible, a special censor for newspapers and periodicals written by Catholics. It shall be his office to read in due time each number after it has been published, and if he find anything dangerous in it let him order that it be corrected as soon as possible. The Bishop shall have the same right even when the censor has seen nothing objectionable in a publication.
The famous fight scene from “The Quiet Man”.
John Wayne and Dean Martin in “Rio Bravo”.
John Wayne tells Dean Martin what he wants for his daughter.
John Wayne, as many of you know, converted to the Catholic Faith two days before his death.
For Steve, Hilary, B. Nicolosi, et al: some sheltered Catholic families “engaging the culture”.
Dr. Anthony Esolen on “finding the masculine genius”.
Quotidian Online: an amusing site in a class by itself.
I meant to mention this a long time ago, but Saint Cecelia Classical Productions needs a volunteer coordinator for the West Coast. Please contact them if you know someone who might be interested!
Isn’t that in the Baltimore Catechism somewhere?