A Recipe for Tyranny
CNA recently ran an article by Bishop Wenski of Orlando which was published last Sunday. In the very short summary, Bishop Wenski makes some very important points about the negative direction of society which is being orchestrated by a very few.
Particularly, he addresses the decision by a handful of activist judges in California who have chosen to push a disordered relationship as normal upon the rest of the United States. In fact, he is concerned that this is the tip of the iceberg in which the state will begin to use its coercive power to eliminate religious freedom when it comes same sex attraction disorder. He calls this a recipe for tyranny.
The soup stock for this recipe can be seen in the all out assault by the modern media in its promotion of disorder as not just normal, but perhaps even an exalted alternative. Yves Saint Laurent and other French fashion designers are the latest to join the fray through their attempts to feminize men through fashion.
This disorder is driven in part, by a fear of masculinity. Radical feminists who tend toward the Mary Daly variety epitomize this fear in terms of hatred. Other more pragmatic types wish simply to androgynize both sexes in order to attenuate the feared masculine characteristics. Same sex attraction disorder sexualizes this fear of masculinity, though it is a different fear for men and women sufferers. Men who suffer from the disorder cling to themselves, fearing their need to offer themselves to a complementary other in an offer of total self-gift. Women in this condition, on the other hand, fear masculinity as a hostile threat.
All of this is a more fundamentally disordered version of the disorder of sin from which we all suffer. In fact, John Paul II advises that the sin of Adam and Eve was, in a sense, a fear of masculinity. That is, it was a rejection of Fatherhood. It was a rejection of the gift of God the Father to His creatures because this gift required the total trust of man and his return of himself to God.
There are a host of attacks on man and his value in our culture today. However, the most fundamental attack is against the institution which most reflects Trinitarian love in both aspects of man’s nature, body and soul. That is, the attack on marriage. Society cannot survive without stable, selfless marriages. The fear of masculinity, reflected in the fear of man himself, is leading us toward a tyranny of the state against anyone who dare to suggest these disordered responses of fear are in fact disorders. Bishop Wenski is right, this is indeed a recipe for tyranny.
.jpg)
David,
This tyranny is all the more potent in a society that believes everything it hears and does not examine for themselves claims made. Also, I have met several people in the last few years who have turned away from the Catholicism because a family member has chosen an “alternative lifestyle”. Many times this is merely an attempt to avoid confronting the truth that someone we love is living outside of God’s design. It is easier (immediate gratification) to align with the loved one and deny the truth. Ah, the media and our laziness!! Just my two cents. Peace, CLS
Comment by Chris — July 2, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Can you give a specific example of “feminized” fashion?
Comment by Karen — July 2, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
Karen,
Follow the embedded link in that reference for the specific examples.
Comment by David — July 3, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Poor dears, they think wearing certain fabrics, and having detailed tailoring, is ‘feminine’ ? How historically blind ! For instance, Louis XIV wore a lot of silk, with various frills, (not to mention a long-haired wig !)but somehow I doubt anyone saw the Sun King as ‘feminine’ !
These people come across as ‘upscale cousins’ of some of the idiots I’ve run into who think cassocks and kilts are ‘feminine’, just because they are skirted garments…
Comment by Donna — July 6, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
This is such gobbledy-gook. What is your point? Maybe you could compile a laundry list of “man clothes” and “woman clothes” so we know what you deem it acceptable to wear?
Comment by Teem — July 8, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Teem,
Perhaps you should read the post more closely. It is not about fashion, much less my thoughts on it. The post is about the explicit, anti-human attack on the recognition of sex difference and its fundamental meaning for the human person.
I apologize if this point was not more evident in the post.
Comment by David — July 8, 2008 @ 10:12 am