From the website of a Catholic parish that hosts a Men Only monthly meeting on a variety of topics. From their post about how the group got started:
During this time the group was open to all and only two women ever came. We prayed and believed this was God's providence. God was showing us that men needed a group that allowed them to come, talk about the issues that mattered most and share in a common bond of brotherhood rooted Catholicism. Modern society has tried to kill true manhood and we hoped this was one way to help restore it. Of course once we said it was for men only a lot of women said, "Hey we want to come!" Sorry gals too late.
2 comments:
Speaking of "too late," I was reading an outline of the president's upcoming interview in Rolling Stone and was re-convinced yet again that American conservatives may as well nekkhamma themselves to four more years of President Obama.
The GOP has zilch to get traction with vs this guy -- irrelevant whether the nominee had been a "real conservative" such as Santorum or ?Gingrich. The president's re-election would be even easier vs a "real conservative."
Absurd to supposed that "pro-Life" campaign could prevail when opposition to abortion has been reduced to not having to pay for abortion via public money. Supposedly abortion should be view'd with alarm as one view'd the death camps (if they had been built in view of the German public instead of more-or-less shrouded by the fog of war). But what do "pro-Life" activists mean by the comparison? They would have been okay with Auschwitz as long as it hadn't been funded by tax money or any other money "coerced" out of them by state power?
Abortion has been a great convenience, in America as in Catholic Poland and Eastern Orthodox Russia and every other place. No one likes it, but no one wants the consequences of abolishing legal abortion. But this means "pro-Life" is bogus as a political platform.
Nevertheless, the GOP has said to the proportion of Americans who want to jump up and down about Life "You're our base!" And looks like this base has been promised that if Romney doesn't win the November election, the GOP nominee for 2016 will be a seriously "conservative" that is pro-Life whatever candidate.
The GOP could maybe have presidency traction had it maintain'd any credibility as the party of economic and foreign-policy competence -- in addition to alarm that "Catholic" law schools in the American system might have to pay for contraception for coeds and thus start to not really be seriously Roman Catholic law schools grounded in Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy.
Romney's crew is trying to claim that he could fix the economy vs Obama's "fail'd policies" but without any serious sustain'd credibility on relevant matters, whether infrastructure, freeing up private enterprise, opening new markets or you name it.
Presumably there's a lot that actually could be done economically, e.g. dismantling all minimum wage laws and instituting a guaranteed annual income (cf early Milton Friedman). But the GOP hasn't been promoting any sort of real economic platform that could challenge the president's only slightly misapply'd Keynesianism.
As for real problems such as dealing with the enormously tremendous debt load built up during the 90s and 00s, all American experts have been speaking and behaving as though this isn't a real problem. This includes Mark Steyn, who uses the problem as comedy material. I suppose if America really were sailing off a cliff he wouldn't be laughing it up but in fact selling his land in Vermont and moving to Australia or Europe.
I mean, if it's a real problem, then it is a catastrophe -- e.g. America paying in interest all the money that China needs to build up a vast military to take over Taiwan, "Finlandize" Japan and Latin America etc, while America continues to borrow more and more money simply to pay off its older loans.
But economics seems to be a fantasy reality. What doesn't work for ordinary households (oikonomiai), which would be foreclosed and grab'd by the usurers for debt problems, seems somehow able to work for government (the kingdoms of Satan's oikoumene Matthew 4:8). ... The prodigal son was a supreme steward of his father's bios or Life in a way, and was richly rewarded. The responsible, work-ethic Elder Brother did not deserve even so much as a kid to sacrificde with his work-ethic nerd friends. ...
Accordingly, Americans maybe were quite right not to write their congressmen and the president to support Paul Ryan's plan. Perhaps the president is quite right that referring to "shared sacrifice" can easily defer indefinitely having to deal with this problem or pseudo-problem.
As for Republicans' plausiblity as 'statesmen' in American foreign policy, American foreign policy hasn't look'd competent since the end of the Cold War, so any sort of "season'd statesmanship" claim is impossible. Unless you think "renditions" etc are fine. But apparently the current president, a Shalom Nobel prize winner, is excellent at this, and the MSM and the global community don't mind in the least.
Besides, a POC as president maybe helps abash Europeans' hostility to American foreign policy. So also with Islamic nations, if it is true that in fact world Muslims consider the president in fact a Muslim. (I assume an LDS president would mean America's head of state isn't even a person of the Book but a mere kaffir in Islamic terms.)
Post a Comment