Solemnity of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel

Who is she that comes forth

as the morning rising,

beautiful like the moon,

bright as the sun,

formidable as an army

in battle array?

Thanks be to God.

What do you possess that you have not received? - 1 Corinthians 4:7

Thanks be to God.

Consecrated Virgins

Sorry - get your own association.

In the news again.

I didn't realize they had an 'Association', since the consecration takes place individually - the woman is not a nun or a religious sister, and usually lives alone.

It must seem weird to non-Catholics, almost like Vestal virgins from Roman times.  To learn more about them, go here.

Fr. Z mentions there is an uptick in vocations.  On one level it's kind of sad because vocations to the religious life might benefit - but whatever God wills.

Speaking of God's will, as in Canonical legislation, new guidelines suggest a woman may not have to have her virginity intact to make be admitted to the Order of Consecrated Virgins.  The Association of Consecrated Virgins are disturbed by that.

US Association of Consecrated Virgins condemns ‘shocking’ new rules... 

The US Association of Consecrated Virgins has said it is “deeply disappointed” at new rules issued by the Vatican that appear to say consecrated virgins need not be virgins. - Fr. Z

As Dr. Forunati might say, "and that little display of pride" may be why they are not nuns or bound to a religious community in the first place.

Whatever, their disappointment is being picked up by news agencies - good fodder for the angry ones who condemn every announcement from the Holy See.  Poor Steve Skojec no longer knows who or what or where the Church is.  He asks: "where is the Church? What does it consist of when 95% of parishes and bishops and priests and laity are actually not, in any substantive sense, Catholic?"

Some of these people seem to think they are holier than the Church.

Clearly I don't know a lot about Consecrated Virgins, but the complaint from the Association just sounds strange to me, which might be exactly why there is an adjustment in the rules.  When St. Rita sought acceptance by the Augustinian virgins, she was refused entrance to the monastery because she had been married.  Our Lord arranged for her miraculous entrance, and she was finally accepted.  On the other hand, Catherine of Siena was at first refused by the III Order Dominicans because of her youth and virginity - they were widows.  She was eventually accepted.

So you see, these things are not set in stone.  God's will is indicated by the Church.  The Christian follows Christ in obedience to the Father.

St. Kateri Tekakwitha

"St. Kateri Tekakwitha" by Mary Katsilometes, 

Anastasis Studio of Iconography, Portland, OR 97202.

This is the best image of St. Kateri I have come across.  Very well done.

Back to this ... back to black ...

Was everyone molested as a kid?

Henry Scott Tuke

How common is it?

Yesterday I was talking to one of my relatives and found out he and a couple of his sibling had been sexually abused by neighbors.  Different perpetrators at different times.  The same happened in my family, different perpetrators at different ages.

A couple of my siblings repressed memories of what happened to them.  Two knew something happened but had no recollection of who or what.  I knew for sure my younger brother had been molested by a neighbor, because my mother told me and because there was a court case.  It's a complicated story but the court case was dropped because my parents blamed my brother for 'cooperating' with the perpetrator, and they in turn felt sorry for the perpetrator.  My dad beat my brother as a punishment.  Evidently my brother suppressed the memory and it only came out many years later when he was undergoing therapy.  He wrote to ask me if I knew anything about what happened to him.

Long story short, I told him what I knew, shared my abuse stories with him, and told him all that our mother told me.  I also shared a story of a guy who wanted my brother and I to come to his house.  I knew what the man wanted and I wanted to protect my brother.  So I scurried him away and we escaped the man.  I explained to my brother that I did everything I could to always protect him from anything like that.  I told him how I had taken him to church when he was a toddler and consecrated him to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.  He never knew that.

Denial is a powerful thing.  

My sister still has never recalled what happened to her.  I knew about it because my dad told me what he had done.  I also heard her screams in the room next to mine.  We all came through these things and to my knowledge, not one of us engaged in or repeated that behavior.  None of us have any sexual attraction to kids or teenagers.  Quite the opposite.  Thus molested kids don't always turn into molesters.  Maybe some do, but in my experience, victims would go out of their way to protect others from that kind of soul-destroying abuse.

Kids often believe they invited the abuse because they experience sexual pleasure or excitement for the very first time.  Little boys experience erections.  It is a great crime, a tremendous evil to awaken or arouse sexual excitement in a child.

How and why has this happened to so many kids?

My dad told me his dad did things to him that he could never talk about.  Is it generational?  My grandfather came over on the boat from Sweden.  Was he molested on the boat?  Did he see things in steerage kids shouldn't see?  Or was this part of his heritage as a farm boy in Sweden?

My cousin didn't mention any details about what happened to him, he just said it probably has happened to more people than we know.  Probably.

I was of course molested by neighbors, beginning at a very early age.  I kept it secret, except to confess it in confession.  Once or twice I got yelled at about it by the confessor, but I did my penance, and of course I accepted responsibility for it.  Intellectually I know kids aren't responsible, but emotionally and spiritually I experience the guilt differently.  The sense of mortal sin - the fear of it - influenced me since my first confession, hence my concern to protect my siblings from any such harm.  Once in Junior High my sister came home, followed by a man - I saw her running towards the house and when the guy saw me, he turned and walked away.  I followed him as my mother called the police.  Followed him downtown, and he was arrested after going into a women's restroom.  I'm not sure what I could have or would have done if I cornered him, but I was determined to somehow protect my sister.

You are not what happened to you.

Some kids who were molested turn out to be gay, but not all of them.  My mother told me when my dad was beating my brother he kept shouting, 'you're not going to turn out like Terry!'  (And they wonder why I left home and never went back.)

Joe Sciambra writes about how many men he knows who were sexually abused as kids, a fact which coincides with my experience.  Most every gay person I have ever known had an experience of  sexual abused - but mostly as teen boys.  Authorities and activists now regard that as paedophilia, but it's not.  It is technically called ephebophilia.  When it is male on male, it is gay.  Frequently boys who were victims were made more vulnerable because they needed a 'father' figure, or sought the affection/approval of an older, more virile male.  If they remain homosexual, the attraction to older men usually remains constant.  That would eliminate any attraction for younger boys or men as an adult.

So what is wrong that these things happen, over and over?

What happened to you?  That's a question that we might ask ourselves.

No one knows. 

Song for this post here.

Remembering Tab Hunter

1931-2018

Joe Sciambra wrote a piece about him on his FB page:  "RIP - Tab Hunter. A life-long Catholic, his autobiography is very good; and I think unintentionally instructive concerning the origins of homosexuality. "

Tab Hunter kept it secret - but even then it didn't help his career.  I'm happy to know he was Catholic and I believe he was a practicing Catholic.  I believe his death was unexpected, so I hope he frequented the sacraments, and I hope he has a Catholic funeral. 

It was not until 50 years after “Battle Cry,” when he wrote his autobiography, that he publicly discussed his homosexuality; his love affair with the actor Anthony Perkins; the rage and wrath of his parish priest when, as a 14-year-old boy, he haltingly confessed what had happened in the dark of a movie theater; and years of being “painfully isolated, stranded between the casual homophobia of most ‘normal’ people and the flagrantly gay Hollywood subculture — where I was even less comfortable and less accepted.” - NYTimes

I obviously do not know very much about him, except that he was a gay actor from the '50's-'60's.  Robert Redford played a character seemingly based on him in a film with Natalie Wood, titled Inside Daisy Clover.

I'm not aware of Tab Hunter being active in gay rights.  His description of feeling painfully isolated from normal people, as well as uncomfortable and less acceptable by gay people, resonates with many, I think.  I have always said that as a group, or 'subculture' I do not like gay people - so I understand Mr. Hunter in that respect.  His experience of isolation from 'normal' people is related to my discussion in "The dishonesty is too much" post.

May he rest in peace.

The dishonesty is too much.

The boys in the choir.

I just read a post on another site about hidden homos in traditionalist camps - Church Militant evidently ran a story on it.

A comment from a male choir director alerted subscribers to CM that choirs and TLM celebrations frequently involve homosexuals as directors - and sodomites in the choir!  Another comment revealed that a former SSPX man told a fellow that he was gay and didn't fit in with the group (SSPX pilgrims).  The gay man later became an FSSP priest.  That set the other commenter's teeth on edge - sodomites in traditionalist orders and groups?!  Oh my!  Who would have thunk it?

Like that is somehow a surprise?  Same Sex Attracted men - gay or not - actually populate your pews, choir lofts, schools, seminaries and monasteries, along with priests and bishops who also admit privately that they too 'have SSA'.  They are in the EF just like they are in the OF. 

These people paint your frescoes, make your statues, design your churches and monasteries.  They do your flowers, bake your cakes. 

July 7 is the First Day of the Novena to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel

O most beautiful Flower of Carmel, 

Fruitful Vine, Splendour of Heaven, 

Holy and singular,

Blessed Mother of the Son of God, 

Immaculate Virgin, 

assist me this my necessity. 

O Star of the Sea, 

help me and show me you are my Mother.

O Holy Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven and Earth,

I humbly beseech you from the bottom of my heart, 

to help me in this necessity; 

there are none that can withstand your power.

O, show me you are my Mother, 

O Mary, conceived without sin, 

pray for us who have recourse to thee. 

Sweet Mother, I place this cause in your hands. 

Thank you for having clothed me in your scapular,

Thank you for leading me to your Son,

Thank you for having heard my prayer.

St. Therese, intercede for us.

Let's pray for one another to become holy.  

I am especially asking Our Lady to undo all the knots caused by my sins and infidelities and defects of character, which have scandalized so many people in my life.

Consecrated Virgins should probably visit a doctor to determine if they are still a virgin ...

You are going to have to see the doctor first,

because the order of widows won't touch you

and we're pretty sure you're a used woman.

Would that Dr. Peters and Fr. Z had any say in it.

Distinguished canonist Ed Peters has taken a look at the new document from the Holy See about consecrated virginity. I’ve only briefly perused it and not yet commented. However, in a nutshell he states a problem with it that I noticed. It’s sort of a big one.

Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago punts on one problem, fixes a second, but greatly worsens a third
With papal approval the Roman dicastery in charge of consecrated life has just published an important document on consecrated virginity, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago. Now, according to the plain terms of ESI, the Blessed Virgin Mary, archetype of virginity consecrated to God, would not be eligible for admission to the order of virgins, but Mary Magdalene, model for women who, Deo gratias, set aside a promiscuous life, would be eligible.
Something, I suggest, is seriously wrong with such norms.- Fr. Z

I dunno.  Women in pants and all.  How can they be admitted?

So anyway, a wonderful Servant of God, Archbishop Luis M. Martinez understood the mercy of God very well when he taught, "The Blood of Jesus makes fallen souls virginal."  This is what the teachers of the law seem not to understand.  Although it's Canon Peters job to make these distinctions, but he's just one canonist with an opinion.

That said, some Third Orders permit private vows and recognize secular consecrated life.  Likewise, there is nothing to stop a person from consecrating their virginity - lost or regained in the sacrament of penance - privately and without any worldly recognition, wedding ceremony, or ecclesial title.  Saints have done this for centuries.

The Mass itself is made soft and effeminate – neither masculine nor feminine. - A. Esolen

Botero

Really?

Fr. Z endorses Esolen's latest article for The Catholic Thing, praising him for another clear-eyed piece about effeminacy in the Church.  I love posts like that.  Solving the problem of effeminacy in the Church - it's such an easy fix.  Academics seem to have it all figured out.

So anyway, one would think these guys would be able to point out the origins of the problem - but they won't do it - because Esolen needs to keep his job.  It's also more convenient to blame the homosexuals and the 'queering' of the Church.  It is a problem of course, but it isn't the only problem...

Yesterday I came across a post shared by Janet Smith on modesty in dress for Mass.  Dr. Smith posted this image she shared from another FB page:

Subsequent comments were interesting, and in the defense of pants for women.  I love posts like that - especially in contrast with posts such as Fr. Z's and Esolen's.  Among other women responders, Rachel Lu also commented on Janet's post:

Rachel Lu I normally prefer for women to wear skirts and dresses to Mass (which is what I myself generally do) but not because slacks are *immodest*. They are not. And I think they should get a pass sometimes for non-Sunday Masses and maybe on very cold winter days.

Other's said they never knew anyone considered pants to be immodest.  

Like I said, I love it when these discussions arise online.  On one level because people pay too much attention to what other people wear to Mass - if you live in really big cities, no one cares or notices, because those in attendance can be so diverse.  Small town minded folk pay a great deal of attention, and it's annoying to encounter them.  That said - 'who am I to judge?'  Better yet - 'who are they?'  I digress.

Can pants be immodest?  Yep.  But there is another problem, maybe more serious and culture changing and directly related to the pansification of Catholic men.  Two birds with one shot takes down both arguments.  Women want to wear pants, women and men want a masculine clergy and liturgy, women want a greater role and influence in the Church.  Women want what men are having...

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Or is there?  Because everyone bitches about it.  Trads and academics lament the gays and the limitations placed upon women who insist upon dressing and acting like men.  (And I laugh!)  It's true though - which is why I enjoy jumping on this subject with Cardinal Siri's notice against women wearing pants - or dressing like men.  It seems more relevant today than ever when men's fashions are changing and becoming more effeminate than ever.

Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the sexes.

Cardinal Siri spoke out against it before the pill was introduced, before abortion was legalized, before 'no-fault' divorce, and so on.  And way before LGBTQ rights.  Remember the time Professor?  "Do you remember a time, readers, when you could spend a whole day, actually a whole month, occasionally even a year, and not give one passing thought to the issue of sexual perversions?"

Remember the time?

Can't have it both ways - or can you?

Just saying.  I do enjoy throwing it back at 'them'.  I mean, what are they going to do about it?  How, what do they think these laments accomplish?  Was Cardinal Siri a prophet?  Trads think he should have been pope - others think he was pope - and haven't had one since.  (And I laugh!)  Seriously, what is blame game?  What does it accomplish?  Why such lamentation?

So let's review the Siri notice, and then explain why you think the Liturgy and the priesthood is so effeminate while the women in our lives wear (the) pants?  (And I laugh!)

Requiem for Cardinal Siri

Séminaire de Gricigliano - ICRSP

I'm thinking the ICRSP might agree with the following.

Cardinal Siri.

In 1960 Cardinal Siri advised the clergy and faithful of Genoa regarding immodest fashions for women, including wearing men's clothing - trousers.  In view of these adaptations assumed by women and how they dress, is it any wonder that gender ideology has emerged as a result?  Or transvestism by gays and lesbians?  Or the fact that women let themselves go and become morbidly obese - much like Burgermeisters of old?

I. The first signs of the collapse of civilization is the use of men’s clothing by women and girls, even mothers of families.

First, with regard to covering the female body, the wearing of men’s trousers cannot be said to constitute in itself a grave offense against modesty, because trousers certainly cover more of a woman’s body than do modern skirts. 

Second, for clothing to be modest, however, it must not only cover the body but also should not cling too tightly to the body. It is certain that some women’s clothing today fits more closely to the body than trousers, but the latter can also be tight fitting – and in fact generally are so. Therefore, wearing such tight fitting clothing causes us no less concern than exposing the body. Thus it is that the immodesty of men’s trousers on women is one aspect of the problem that must not be left out of a general judgment on the topic, even if it should also not be artificially exaggerated.

II. There is, however, another aspect of women wearing trousers that seems much graver to us.

The wearing of men’s dress by women primarily affects the woman herself, first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women. Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes.Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered. 

• Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women
• Women wearing men’s clothing tends to corrupt the relations between the two sexes - Read more here.*

 Song for this post here.

Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati

Today is the feast day of Blessed Pier Giorgio.

Pier Giorgio's bedroom at the family home in Pallone.

Floods ...

Giovanni Gasparro

Blood of Christ, save us!


July is devoted to the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

"In Christ's blood we are made strong, even though weakness persists in our sensuality ... since our reason is made strong in Christ's blood, we must drown ourselves in this sweet glorious ransom." - S. Catherine of Siena

That flood pours into our souls in and through the sacraments - especially the sacrament of penance.  In the Eucharist we are inebriated in it ... "and in that blood we are freed from our weakness."

The Centurion and the beloved servant.

Did Jesus approve a same sex relationship?

That's how Today's Gospel has been interpreted in contemporary gay exegesis, based upon translations and meanings of the original Greek words, pais and doulos - used for servant or slave in different accounts - which can have a sexual connotation.  A Roman might have a slave used for sex, or a young male concubine.  The interpretation makes sense, but I'm not sure the Fathers would have understood it exactly in that way.  Even if they had, homosexual acts can never be approved, therefore it could never be interpreted as approval of a gay union.

Regardless of how it is understood, it's absurd to imagine Jesus giving his blessing upon a same sex relationship in either account from Luke or Matthew.  The Centurion prayed for a cure for a beloved servant-slave, no mention is made of their relationship or domestic situation.  Some suggest that the Centurion didn't want Jesus to enter under his roof because he was afraid the young servant would fall in love with Jesus and leave him.  Where do people get this?

When Christ said he would come and heal the servant,

The centurion said in reply,

"Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof;
only say the word and my servant will be healed."

We say that before the reception of Holy Communion.  

It is an acknowledgement that we are unworthy to Have Jesus enter under our roof, our soul.  It is an act of faith, a sort of confession of sin, and/or of our unworthiness.  It can't be a pretense or something to hide behind to feign humility.  The faith of the Centurion in the power of Christ is detailed by the soldier as he describes how he commands those subject to him and attributes the same power of command to Christ.   Our Lord healed the servant because of the Centurion's faith.  What their relationship was is never part of the narrative.  Perhaps it was a homosexual relationship - how would anyone believe from the narrative that Jesus approved of it?  In the case of the Samaritan woman, he didn't show approval for her relationship with a man who wasn't her husband.  neither did he approve of the sins of the woman caught in adultery - he told her to go and sin no more.

If anything, Today's Gospel demonstrates that salvation is available to the Gentiles, even those in sinful relationships, and Jesus shows us once again that His mercy is for everyone.  Perhaps the Centurion didn't want Jesus to come to his house simply because he was ashamed?  Maybe he really meant what he said, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof."  Maybe when he returned home and found the servant healed, they both became followers of Christ?  That's a more reasonable interpretation. So imagine what you will, Christ came to call sinners, so it doesn't matter if the Centurion and his servant were straight or gay.  When we follow Christ, we leave behind our former way of life, we repent of our sins.

Anyway.  Today concludes gay-pride month, and I want to try and make this my last post on the subject.  I think I have become more and more irrelevant on this and many other subjects and I need to leave it be.