The marchers don't need men to degrade them

One of the milder photos. The "pussyhats" were everywhere.

Donald Trump's got nothing on the participants of yesterday's "Women's March" themselves.

The female marchers degraded themselves so much more profoundly and efficiently than any lecherous man ever could.

What Trump said years ago in a secretly recorded video was terrible. It was a loathsome way to talk about women; it disparaged women, marriage, and human dignity itself.

Trump's words, however, never made me ashamed to be a woman. Yesterday's march did.

I won't post the disgusting photos on my page, but please, click these links and read/observe all. See what was said at this march, listen to the speakers, look at the photos, look at the signs. Take in the scene, figure out the themes (it won't be hard to do):

Thousands of Women Head to Washington to Protest Donald Trump

Here's What We Saw at the Women's March in Washington

(More signs)

The vastness of the proud display of vileness and evil was shocking. How far have so many women fallen from an embrace of the virtues, from simple common decency. It is shocking how many of our sisters, living in the freest nation in the history of mankind, have become as crude and shameless as the depraved men they decry.

Think about it, logically, for a minute: How did the women of the "Women's March" respond to their disgust of Trump's degrading words? By degrading themselves on a scale worse than anything Trump ever said. Multiply what he did by a million, and you start to get the picture.


As one friend put it:

I watched some coverage of the 'Women's March' in DC and I have to say: I saw and heard MORE foul language, MORE crude terms for female and male genitalia, MORE misogyny (and even misandry), MORE mockery, MORE derision, MORE thuggishness, MORE rudeness, MORE law-breaking and MORE lunacy in those few minutes than I ever saw from Donald Trump in the 18 months of his campaign.

Who but the devil himself could have concocted such a plan? Take the evil, and multiply it! Make throngs of proud, elated, deluded souls feel as if they are giving women dignity, when they are doing exactly the opposite. Deceive them into believing they are lifting women up to the sky, when they are actually smashing women down into the filthiest muck.

It's a trick from the pit of hell, but that's the point. These women are blinded.

In its essence, the entire anti-Trump march was nothing more than a pro-abortion, pro-LGBT march. No one can plausibly deny it. The names of the sponsoring groups prove it. The explicit rejection of pro-life women's groups confirm it.

My hope and my prayer is the crux of Christian mission: That Donald Trump's sins are not imitated and multiplied, but that his sins are met with virtue. Not only our own virtue, as citizens, but that the people surrounding Trump would present him with the alternative: A witness of Christian truth. A witness of prayer and goodness. And guess what? As far as I can tell, that is what has happened to Donald Trump in the past few months. He has been surrounded by good, prayerful Christians who have, by all their accounts, seen him change. Let's pray it continues.

Any Christian who mocks the possibility and the movement toward redemption of President Trump has missed the point of our Faith.

Redemption of sinners is the point of our Faith!

While Trump has apologized for the words he spoke in the past -- and so what if the catalyst for that was his public humiliation? If any of us had our sordid pasts exposed and were moved to betterment, that's a good thing! -- the women who (literally) hate him have become like him. Times a million.

And no, it's not somehow better because the women degrade themselves, it's worse. Far better that someone sins mortally against me than I sin mortally myself.

Dear Lord, what have we become?

To the good Catholic women and men who went to this pro-abortion march to make a pro-life presence known, to plant seeds, to reach lost souls, I applaud you. We need you. You are full of courage. Thank you.

But to see some good Catholics openly supporting this march? Well, at first I was truly stunned, and next my heart broke. To the claim that the march had "some" worthy messages and would promote "some" good, I say same with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does STD testing and very basic cancer screening, for example. These are "some" good things we can identify in a terribly evil organization. But no faithful Catholic would proudly, happily march in a Planned Parenthood parade and excuse the overriding evil of the thing, would they?

Women of the march who hate Donald Trump:

You multiplied him over a million times.

You slimed us all.

That's not a win. You lose. Women lose. Men lose. Children lose. We all lose.

God forgive us.

To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.  -- Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

Professor Robert P. George on what's happening to religious liberty

It's been a bazillion years (give or take) since I've blogged, and while I have several things in the pipeline, my life at home has been incredibly busy, and I have not been able to complete a thing!

However, in the meantime, I urge you to watch this talk that I had the privilege of seeing in person, when Princeton Professor Robert P. George (one of my heroes) spoke locally at the invitation of Catholic Phoenix.

This talk is brilliant.

This talk left my own holy and courageous Bishop Olmsted nodding his head in agreement.

This talk outlines what has happened in this culture for the last few years, why our heads are spinning, why we are disoriented and bewildered, and what to expect next.

There is so much clarity here for anyone confused about the growing LGBT frenzy-obsession and the fallout for Christians and those who are concerned for religious liberty.

Get some tea, find some quiet time, and watch.

(If you have no time to watch the video, click here for the audio version.)

Secularists who subscribe to gender fluidity: Is this new science or just a feeling?

Serious question.

After watching these two videos of seemingly intelligent university students saying things that seem utterly irrational (we would almost want to say crazy), my brain craves a clear answer from you, dear secularists who believe in "gender fluidity".

First, please watch the videos. If you don't watch the videos all the way through, please do not bother to comment on this post.



College Kids Say the Darndest Things








Okay, when I watched those video interviews, my jaw literally was hanging open, and my mind was crying out, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no.... I cannot be seeing and hearing this. We cannot be here. This is a joke."

But, I understand that my position is not the "enlightened" nor "educated" nor "acceptable" one today. The college students in the videos are the ones who stand for the vision and view of the secular elite, our ruling class, so to speak: Academia, government, Hollywood, the arts, the media.

Before my main question, some context:

This rejection of "the gender binary" -- the idea that there are two sexes, male and female -- was not even a thing just a few short years ago. Oh, I'm sure it was always there way out on the fringes, but it was not a part of mainstream thought, not even approaching the radar screen of most Americans, conservative or liberal (or most human beings in general, for the history of mankind).

The concept of "gender fluidity" has blazed onto the scene in a fury, a frenzy, and one might even say faddishly. The very same high-minded folk who champion gender identity ideology today had neither thought about it nor believed in it just a few short years ago. How do I know? Well, I've been a citizen of this planet for 49 years, and I've been politically, socially, and intellectually active for at least the past 35 years. Even having been plugged in for all that time, I am bewildered at the speed of this new line of "gender" thought as it burns through every aspect of our lives and culture -- a line of thought that we all now must agree to, lest we expose ourselves as bigots or troglodytes.

Now my question:

You who are secular pride yourselves on being firmly on the side of science and the material, not believing in nebulous, emotions-based things like religion, God, metaphysics, the supernatural, the transcendent. So: What is the new gender science, the science that no one understood or saw before, that has been uncovered recently and requires the overthrow of men and women? 

Where did this science come from? Can you cite it? How did this new science capture the imagination and sweep the nation so quickly? How is it that the populace never before understood that there is no actual distinction between men and women, and why did most secular Americans miss it as well, until very recently? Why did you previously believe that there were men and there were women? Because I think you would agree with me that in the recent past, within all of our memories, we never would have heard the answers we just heard on those videos.

Or, could it be that there is no breakthrough science to which you can point? Maybe this new ideology sweeping the nation is just that: an ideology. Maybe it's based in people's feelings more than in any science or in the understanding of biology/human nature? Perhaps gender ideology is no more than a socio-political movement that seeks to undo sexual norms and constraints so that we are all "free" to do what we want, when we want, with no judgement or opposition?

I guess I'm wanting to know if you changed your mind so suddenly because something concrete and empirical convinced you away from everything you (and everyone else) had previously known, or if you are simply going with the zeitgeist, which has sprung up from feelings and desires?

And why is there suddenly (again, like a flash) such a steep social, political, and even financial price to pay for those of us who hold to the axiomatic idea of male and female, the same one you yourself held, until your very recent "conversion"?

Thanks for considering jumping in the discussion. I want to understand the principle behind your stance, and how it came about so quickly.

The Death of Friendship: The heartbreaking fallout of the gay/transgender movements

All my children and grandchildren have gone back to home/school, and now I continue on with book writing and emails (help, Lord!). But this is something that needs discussing....


I came across this article (please, please, read the whole thing) and it has put words to the ache I have felt in my heart as I watch in real life even clearly non-homosexual, non-"gender fluid" teens suddenly begin to question their sexuality and even find an opposite-sex alter ego.

From "How to Stop Sexualizing Everything", emphasis mine:

The more friendship is misunderstood and ignored, the more people will identify as homosexual and bisexual. The more we condition our perceptions in a sexual way and the more children are exposed to sex even before they develop meaningful friendships, the less likely they will be able to separate healthy nonsexual feelings from sexual ones. Sex will become the defining feature of all their feelings. Eros will have slain phileo.

The death of true same-sex friendship.

I could have never imagined it even a few years ago, but now American children are expected -- expected -- to question their sexuality and "gender identity". They are not to assume they are heterosexual or male/female according to their very biology. They are not to be bound by those "societal constructs" which are now seen as destructive and repressive, even abusive.

On the heels of the first article, I read a brilliant analysis by (my new favorite author) Anthony Esolen, who writes in "A Requiem for Friendship":

Language is not language if it is not communal; it is a neat trick of political abracadabra to argue for an individual’s right to change the very medium of our thought and our social intercourse. If clothing is optional on a beach, then that is a nude beach. It cannot be a nude beach for some and an ordinary beach for others; to wear clothes at that beach at the very least means something that it had not meant before. If you may paint your house phosphorescent orange and violet, and you persuade a couple of your neighbors to do likewise, you no longer have what anybody would call a historic neighborhood. 

If all of Kate’s friends leap into bed with whatever male gives them a hearty dinner at Burger King and a round of miniature golf, and Kate chooses instead to kiss her date once on the cheek and leave him on the porch, she will suggest to everybody that she is a prude. She may be, or may not be; she may be more firmly in the grip of lust than they are, for all we know, and may just detest the boy. But her actions have connotations they did not use to have. 

Imagine a world wherein the taboo has been broken and incest is loudly and defiantly celebrated. Your wife’s unmarried brother puts his hand on your daughter’s shoulder. That gesture, once innocent, must now mean something, or at least suggest something. If the uncle were wise and considerate, he would not make it in the first place. You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flits before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it. 

By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not. 

If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind. If a teenage boy is found skinny-dipping with another boy—not five of them, but two—it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that until swim trunks were invented this was exactly how two men or boys would go for a swim. 

Because language is communal, the individual can choose to make a sign or not. He cannot determine what the sign is to mean, not to others, not to the one he signals, and not even to himself.

You see what he's getting at, right? You see what we have lost? What boys and young men have lost, especially? Please take the time to read it all.

The loss of pure, un-sexualized, un-suspicious same-sex friendship is a catastrophe. How on earth do we get it back?