Monday, June 29, 2009

Thoughts While Shaving: Michael Jackson…Finding it Tough to Comment on this Blog?…House Republican Leader a Man of Color…Kirk Votes for Cap & Trade…Fr. Ernie’s Old Fashioned Sex Ed: 101.


Michael Jackson.

If we had been nuclear-bombed Thursday and Friday by maddened North Korean president Kim Jong (as he has threatened to do) we would never known it until we were melted by the radiation…so deluged have we been with TV, radio and newspaper coverage of Michael Jackson’s death. The “Tribune” said simply that he was “the best known person in the world”—bar-none. That’s pandering to the kids. Jesus Christ is better known to the world, but then how do His numbers between ages 24 and 52, the key spending demographic, pull?

I never saw Jackson perform aside from some TV clips but what I saw was an electric dancer with a voice that sounded like a high-pitched whinny, weird girlish-appearing man-child transformed by too many facial surgeries into a garish cartoon of a human being: lipstick-covered mouth, nose badly remodeled like putty, stringy hair…as well as a provocative thrust of his hips and disconcerting stroking of his crotch—which could confirm the general view that with two serious allegations of child abuse, parents of young boys were wise to steer clear of him. A valid question is this: given what Jackson was, was it not for pecuniary reasons that some parents wanted to make a big financial haul in settlements for molestation charges? Nauseating.

My point is this: The furor over the “talent” and stardom of this poor little creep really with the masturbatory actions on stage tells the world what we are, doesn’t it? Is the debasement of our culture so complete that no one has guts to say that the strutting little emperor wore no clothes? Well, let it be me.

Having Posting Difficulty?

A great number of readers have complained that they have experienced extreme difficulty registering their opinions on this blog. I took them up with my webmaster who tells me this: “The comment system works fine. The comments don’t show up right away. People think they don’t work but they DO. It’s user error.” As I know absolutely nothing about the technical side of this business…lucky to simply write my stuff and email it to my webmaster…I’ll take his word for it. But your observations are important to me. Try to see if this works…wait a little while. He’s always right: really is.

The George Hamilton Look-Alike.

With the Republican party woefully short on racial minorities, why doesn’t the House GOP claim credit for Leader John Boehner and declare him a light-skinned African American, a mixed race aka mulatto (politically incorrect usage) or an exotic half-caste? Announce he’s anything but what he is, a whitey who has been sitting under a sun lamp? Check his complexion tone and you’ll be hard to allege that he’s akin to Barack Obama. As a House staffer I used to office next door to Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) who was lighter than Boehner.

As the GOP stresses anew it is the party of hardworking Americans living on fixed incomes, how does it look to have as spokesman a Dean Martin Bahamas-refugee look-alike? One of these days when he’s doing his sound-bytes we’re likely to see Boehner…a 2-pack-a-day smoker… gasp into a paroxysm of coughs, emitting a disgusting lunger into his kerchief. What ever happened to the apparently healthy other Republican leaders: the old ex-athlete Jerry Ford, chalky white, fleshy arthritic old men who used to lead the caucus, like John Rhoades and Joe Martin? I think Boehner looks decadent, one of those country-club creatures hanging around the training room too long. Two items will cut his service short: 2-packs-a-day and malignant melanoma which will indubitably come from his exposure to the ultra-violet high intensity lamps.

Why does he go with sun-lamps? Why not use the tanning spray that college girls use? Maybe he’s afflicted with SAD (Sunlight Affective Disorder) that causes depression to some people when sunlight is sparse. If he’s a victim of SAD I can understand—with eight Republicans skipping out, amounting to the difference with which Ms.Pelosi passed the Cap and Trade bill 219-212.

Kirk the Republican Defector.

Rep. Mark Kirk (D-IL) was one of eight Republican defectors who enabled Mme. Pelosi to pass the 1,200-page (300 pages added at the last minute) Cap and Trade energy bill in the House 219-212. One more reason why I can’t vote for him if he runs for the U. S. Senate.

Fr. Ernie’s Old Fashioned Sex Ed 101.

Note: Having taken four straight years of philosophy and theology from Fr. Ernie [Fr. Ernest Kilzer OSB] at the old Saint John’s pre-Vatican II from 1946 to 1950 I think I can contrive from his past lectures his own special traditional Catholic Sex Ed 101. I’m taking a try at it. Ernie’s lesson can be applied to all past and recent political sex sins: Gov. Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina), Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada), John Edwards former Democratic vice presidential candidate and North Carolina senator, former Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer (New York), Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana), former Democratic Gov. James McGreevey (N. J.) and former Democratic President Bill Clinton. Here goes:

Fr. Ernest. Gentlemen, the liberal mainstream media have, as I predicted, taken to mocking the value of all who exhort the return of traditional family values because some lawmakers…most recently Gov. Sanford and Sen. Ensign…have departed from rectitude. To these commentators the hypocrisy of these political individuals negates the values—meaning if one were to apply this to other virtues, telling the truth should be discarded since many men lie. But consider the folly: truth is the basis of all law in the court chamber, business contracts, bank loans—in short every agreement we make in society. Should truth be invalidated because of this? Of course not. Should marital fidelity be dismissed because hypocrites have preached it and have fallen away? Of course not.

However it has come to my attention that since I have gone beyond, a whole generation may have grown up without the proper understanding of humanity and its sexual roles that have under-girded morality for the past 5,000 years. Hence I shall endeavor to re-train. So much liberal nonsense has been generated via the `60s sexual revolution and Gloria Steinem feminism that it is essential to review the fundamentals of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, sex education.

First, humanity. Man (I use the traditional form for both genders) has been sinful, duplicitous and self-serving since Adam and Eve. The first couple’s falling from grace was caused by disobedience through sly lying by Satan. No other man is perfect or has been perfect; one woman has been sinless…I do not say perfect, mind you but sinless: Mary the mother of Christ. The only perfect human was Jesus Christ who also had a divine as well as human nature. No other human has been perfect—no saint, hero or heroine --and never will be. Therefore, human failing in the area of sexual morality is never to be taken as a repudiation of the moral law—when the lessons of derelict immorality in this 21st century are present for all to see.

Second, sexual differences. Men and women have different sexual natures. These natures have existed for long millennia and will not be changed by whim or liberal wishing it were so. Men were destined as the warriors, the hunters, engaged in hunting and defense—venturing forth from the cave to conquer enemies, kill animals and drag their carcasses back for their women to be fed along with their children. Women were destined since time immemorial as the nurturers—supporting the health of the family, even countermanding the order of the male if the family’s well-being depends on it. From the dawn of prehistoric times, these roles have survived, triumphing over attempts to re-think them, do away with them, trans-gender them and foment same-sex “marriage” beginning in the latter 20th century.

Third, sexual roles. Important: gentlemen, as you understand all men come equipped with penises. The penis is used for an excretory function also for generation of seed for preservation of the race. Women come equipped with uteruses, the major sex organ which is often referred to by the original German “womb.” This is for encapsulation of an unborn baby. Women also come equipped with breasts into which are concealed mammary glands with which to secrete milk to nourish infants.

Fourth: Penis excitation. Excitation of the penis is required to make possible the eventual ejection of semen –known as sperm or spermatozoa—into the vagina and thereafter to the womb to make possible conception of the unborn baby.

Fifth: Men by their nature are prone to excitation over some females, their breasts, legs, bodies. Undue concentration of this fact involves the sin of lust, the fascination of the possibility however remote of future concupiscence with a female outside the marriage bond. Lust is one of the seven capital sins. Since from the dawn of time, men—particularly adolescents--have brimmed with aggression and sexual desire, tempered by fear of ridicule from both male fellows and women. In their early stages, unless by religion they are enabled to master their drives—and not infrequently despite such training—men are zoos of countervailing desires and emotions: masturbatory sieges, pornographic curiosities—all entwined in the predicament of male sexual character. The prudent man who has mastered the impulses of his body has by formation of strong habit of virtue forbids lust since Christ condemns the practice in Matthew 5:27-28, declaring “whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” We in the Religious Order have learned to dismiss improper visitations of incipient carnality by prayer. Be assured the visitations themselves are not sinful unless they are entertained. They come from the Devil who in the epistle of Peter “stalks through the world as a hungry lion seeking whom he may devour.”

Sixth: Learning to dominate his thoughts and drives is the most important thing a young man must learn. Note: here is where Catholic doctrine enters, to-wit: (a) sexual organs are good and beautiful since they have been given to humans by God for the sole, most noble purpose: continuation of the human race…(b) sex in marriage is also good and beautiful because God has provided it for generation of children and expression of mutual love between the married spouses…(c) when sex is not used for mutual spousal purposes, between spouses but for non-spousal pleasure, to prevent conception, it is sinful…(d) homosexuality and masturbation are contrary to the will of God. These moral strictures are needed for man to attain everlasting happiness in heaven with God.

Seventh: Thus man by his excitable sexual nature must control his sexual urges. Women by their nature are not equipped as are men with hair-trigger sexual responses. Remember women are by nature the nurturers. They exist to attract the right man—the hunter, the protector. Thus their nature is to attract which means devote attention to their appearance…also by ways that have become indentured to species femalia…shy, come-hither, all the clichés with which we assume the roles of the courted and the courtier.

Eighth: Make no mistake, the male is the one who conquers the wild beast, skins it and drags it to the cave to feed his wife and children—but he is the weaker gender in many ways psychologically. For one, his relations with a woman is the chief way he asserts his sexual identity. To her he offers his success in the world to attract her from others. All civilization is based on this age-old formula: His sex drive (the most powerful compulsion in his life) is harnessed by the woman who forces him to make a long-term commitment. His struggle with his own drives must be sublimated, not just by his allegiance to wife and family but for maximum effect to their spiritual goals.

Ninth: Just as men are not naturally monogamous but must use their will and moral determination to be so for the good of their marriages and progeny, prayer, penance and heroic chastity (at such time when women are not able nor willing to perform intercourse) are sacrifices which strengthen the soul. The absolute rot, nonsense that sex is necessity for completion of life is spread by world secularists in the company of the Evil One. But where the Catholic clergy is concerned, whenever a young man comes to me to inquire about joining the Benedictine Order I ask him if he is struggling to attain chastity. A popular answer is, “no Father. My mind is not on this struggle at all. I do not have temptations concerning women.” At that point I will rule that he be denied of participation in religious and monastic life. If a man has no feeling so that he is impervious to the struggle that should engage all normal men, there is something wrong with him: maybe he is not drawn to women but preternaturally drawn to men, in which case by all means he should be disqualified for the religious life.

Tenth: For millennia the major concern of society has been this: how to respond to the un-harnessed power of male sexual energy. That is the source of 90% of the troubles of the world, wars, insurrections, the rise and fall of kingdoms. Hunting and defensive combat takes only a relative short amount of time in the cycle of intense rhythms of compulsions of male sexuality. Understand, then, that man is often helpless prey to aggressive, attractive women on the prowl. Women, most often those un-anchored with husband and family …on the prowl as I say… for males…can be as duplicitous and dangerous beings as human nature can devise. When let us say a married male encounters a female of this type he may well be influenced by flirtatious but which I call seductive ways. The only way to fight this is not just with prayer but by your hat: grab it and run. Excessive female-encouraged familiarity extended to a man not qualified for marriage, either by being married or in the religious life can trigger the aeon-old process of male excitation. I note Gov. Sanford engaged this woman from Argentina in prolonged visitation about purported ways to save her floundering marriage. She was most probably dangling her problem to him as an excitement and inducement. This is not to exonerate him in the slightest for he yielded to what we theologians call the “occasions of sin” —but the wiles of women directed to men they wish to conquer…and I use that word advisably…are evil and directed by the Prince of this World.

Beyond his weakness, you must know that Gov. Sanford is quite emotionally unbalanced. One who falls into the spell of a woman not his wife is vulnerable. An elected governor who forsakes his duty to his wife and children, then forsakes his duty to constituents and neglects to inform his lieutenant governor that he will be gone…who then leaves the country to see the lady, comes back and says in public that he spent five days in Argentina weeping…he is in need of serious psychiatric help. It is immaterial to say he has fallen into the spell of lust: he has lapsed from rationality. He is an ill, potentially very sick man emotionally. He should resign and failing that should be removed—for his own good and the good of his polity, else suicide may well be his last desperate move.

Reviewing these fundamentals you can see how…barring consideration of Gov. Sanford’s obvious mental illness… disruption came to the life of the Republicans and Democratic leaders…and truly can come to all who let up their guard or dally with occasions of sin. It’s no time for nyaaa, nyaa, nyaa or to say as liberals do that it’s hypocritical to support morality since in its practice some, perhaps many, fail. That’s cynical nonsense. Just as truth is the ideal in a time of lying, morality is the ideal in this time of moral relativism. For that reason, hypocrisy is, in a sense, sin’s tribute to virtue. So gentlemen, let us not titter at the Victorians whose patriarchs trumpeted virtue but may well have fallen off the boat themselves. Hypocrisy is not the worst thing to practice at that time because it protects the young from scandal. The worst practice is to drop pretense and advocate libertinism for that advocacy…supposedly without hypocritical pretense…is the one that loses souls.

1 comment:

  1. I cannot imagine anyone studying music or the popular cultural fifty to a hundred years from now takin Wacko Jacko seriously. None of his pop recordings are going to become standards that will continue to be played in future decades when Sinatra will still be listened to.