24 September 2017

Mary and heresies and the Reign of Sex

I wish all readers a wonderful solemn Day of our Lady of Walsingham. Today is the first time since the erection of the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham that our titular Solemnity has come on a Sunday, thus replacing the Sunday Mass. She it is who  Ransomed three Ordinariates out of slavery in (what our other Patron, Blessed John Henry Newman, once called) the House of Bondage.

We are blessed with quite a number of feasts of our Lady at this time of the year. In the Breviary Common of our Lady, there is a phrase that sticks in my mind: one of the antiphons at Mattins credits the Theotokos with "destroying all heresies throughout the world".

This was, of course, particularly true in the period of the first Four Councils, when Arianism and Nestorianism were both put down by the assertion of her title as Mother of God.

But what is the great heresy of our own day? Surely, the Reign of Sex. Pius XI and Paul VI effectively foretold the preoccupations of the current world. Some people, simple souls, believed that pharmaceutical contraception would simply enable nice respectable married couples to ensure nice respectable two year gaps between the nice babies they would have ... nothing more than that.

How naive. How pathetic.

So we now have a culture in which ... but, since you can guess what I'm going to say, I don't need to spell it all out.

And we are told by the current occupant of the Roman bishopric that it is no longer polite to describe adulterous relationships in terms which the adulterers might find upsetting. And we are told by the secular State that, if we are not very careful in what we say, the Diversity Police will come knocking on our doors.

It's not that some new problem has arisen. Ever since the Fall, human sexuality has been assaulted by disorders. Somebody once wittily observed that Sexual Intercourse was invented in the 1960s. But did nobody ever feel and fall for a sexual temptation before then?

The only difference between this age and every preceding culture? Now, it is the Official Message of the ministers of the Zeitgeist that, in sexual matters, Fay ce que voudras admits no qualification (except as regards paedophiles).

Paul VI spoke about the Smoke of Satan entering the Church. Some traddies have tended to assume that liturgical disorder is what he had in mind. I wonder whether it might have been the complete collapse of the concept of boundaries within Sexuality.

Mary, Mother of God, Mary Ever-Virgin, Mater Purissima, stands as the great condemnation of the Reign of Sex, as she does of every other heresy.

Could there have been any better day on which to publish the Correctio Filialis?

16 comments:

AndrewWS said...

Fr Lucie-Smith said something along these lines in his talk at the Ordinariate Festival yesterday - about the omnipresence of porn. Worrying stuff.

Steve said...

Thank you Father.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Father. Amen.

ABS lives in The USA which, following the promulgation of positive law which succors the Four Sins crying to Heaven for vengeance, he now considers an acronym which means Usury, Sodomy, Abortion.

Woody said...

Congratulations on the Correctio dear Father, may God keep you all safe and secure. In that connection, I saw that one of the signatories, Prof. De Mattei is listed as formerly of the European University, the first time that I have seen a suggestion that he may have left. Do you have any more precise information on that? Similarly I see that Fr. Antonio Livi is listed as a Roman diocesan cleric. In past times he was identified as a priest of Opus Dei. Do you have any information on his current status? If he is no longer in the Work, do you know those circumstances? All best wishes on this feast day of the English Ordinariate and our cathedral here in Texas.

Marc Puckett said...

Thank God for the Ordinariates, and for your own work, Fr Hunwicke, and for the Correctio filialis.

I know you don't bother yourself with such nonsense, but I will report to you that Facebook has deleted my postings consisting of links to your posts here on FHME and is refusing to accept any new ones (e.g. of a link to this post): they are offending the 'community standards', according to someone. Tsk. Have asked for an explanation. Am not a conspiracy-minded fellow at all but I wonder that this happens last night or early this morning....

gsk said...

"Could there have been any better day on which to publish the Correctio Filialis?"

Excellent, and thanks for your solid input, no doubt, which gives me confidence in the document. If Our Lady is conqueror of all heresies, surely she can squash these seven. Oremus!

(Heading now to our parish's patronal celebration - Our Lady of Mercy, E.G., RI)

Kathleen1031 said...

It was a great day for a public correction by laity, and I thank God for it. He will not answer of course, except in a new barrage of barbs and insults for actual Catholics. His anger is bound to be provoked at the audacity of resisting his renovation effort, God protect the signatories. Then, please God, sooner rather than later, a canonical correction. Hopefully there are remaining prelates among the many who actually do believe in the Catholic faith as the One, True Faith, and who will also sign a correction. The signatories of this one presented it to him, then waited one month, a generous amount of time, most reasonable, in which to expect a response. Not getting one after one month, it is time for a public correction. We hope the canonical correction takes place soon and follows the same timeline.
He will not answer that one either, and then we are down to it.
Jesus, have mercy on us. Our Lady, pray for us. Amen.

Calvin Engime said...

"Somebody once wittily observed that Sexual Intercourse was invented in the 1960s. But did nobody ever feel and fall for a sexual temptation before then?"

I turn for guidance to that great 1929 monograph of Messrs Thurber and White, Estne necessarius coitus? Aut, cur tu sentis ut sentias:

> Throughout the nineteenth century the American man's amatory instincts had been essentially economic. Marriage was basically a patriotic concern, the idea being to have children for the sake of the commonwealth. This was bad enough, but nevertheless it is far less dangerous to get the commonwealth mixed up with love than to get the infinite mixed up with love.

> There was not a single case of nervous breakdown, or neurosis, arising from amatory troubles, in the whole cycle from 1800 to 1900, barring a slight flare-up just before the Mexican and Civil wars. This was because love and marriage and children stood for progress, and progress is—or was—a calm, routine business. "Mrs. Hopkins," a man would say to the lady of his choice (she was a widow in this case)—"Mrs. Hopkins, I am thinking, now that George¹ has been dead a year, you and I should get married and have offspring. They are about to build the Union Pacific, you know, and they will need men." Because parents can't always have men-children when they want them, this led to almost as many women as men working on the Union Pacific, which in turn led to the greater stature of women in the present Northwest than in any other part of the nation. But that is somewhat beside the point. The point is that men and women, husbands and wives, suitors and sweethearts, in the last century lived without much sentiment and without any psycho-physical confusion at all. They missed a certain amount of fun, but they avoided an even greater amount of pother (see Glossary).

> ¹ The late George Hopkins.

Tom Broughton said...

Thank you, Father!

gsk said...

@Calvin Engime: very interesting anecdote, but perhaps a wise meeting in the middle would be prudent. All the spousal imagery in the Bible cannot mean that we "grit our teeth and offer it up for England." The Christians who white-knuckled their way through life couldn't have evangelised very effectively, and Jansenism in the Church was only met with licence without. Virtus est in media res.

Dad29 said...

Fay ce que voudras admits no qualification (except as regards paedophiles).

So far. That exception will shortly vanish, too.

Albrecht von Brandenburg said...

Yes, but to what extent is the present preoccupation with sex (no-doubt apurred on by the disciples of Gramsci and Alinnsky) a reaction to the most recent period of neo-Platonic, even gnostic, thinking that sex either is inherently polluting, or at least involves ritual impurity?? Both of these contrarieties are false, the first blasphemous, the second heretical. Sadly, many of my fellow traditionalists still maintain them. Is it then, any wonder that things are as they are???

Diane said...

Actually there is a movement afoot to "normalize" the frightful predilictions of pedophiles or "Minor Attracted Persons" (MAPS) as they are pushing to be renamed. The sodomite agenda is to remove all stigma from any "consensual" activity whatsoever. Don't forget their mantra "Sex before 8 or it's too late". A little research is all it takes to be horrified by the reality of these demonic times.

susan said...

Thank you for your strength and your courage Father to speak the Truth in and out of season. May you be blessed abundantly. You are a good and faithful shepherd, and the sheep (who still believe) are abundantly grateful.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Marc Puckett said...

(Facebook this morning restored my 'sharings' of your posts, Father, saying a 'mistake had been made'. It's good to know that you aren't yet subject to proscription.)

Albrecht von Brandenburg said...

Oh boy - you just can't make this sort of thing up!!!

A mere FOUR DAYS after my post mentioning ritual purity, on a traditionalist forum, we have this thread: "Can catholics be ritually unclean?"

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18610.0

The fact that this error is repeated in the Roman Catechism seems to absolve it from condemnation in the eyes of some people.

I repeat - it is no wonder things are the way they are. There will be no renewal of the priesthood, and therefore no renewal of Christendom, while traditionalists believe in this error.