The battle goes on. As I enjoy my free time here in the SGA office, another round of praises and criticisms directed toward myself is circulating in the vicinity. The reason: another no-holds-barred letter to the editor of Le Provocateur [not posted as I write], this time in defense of orthodox Catholicism, as a response to the Matthew Garlin article in the last issue. I cannot find a link to Mr. Garlin's piece, but hopefully Assumption readers are familiar with it. Mr. Garlin and I have been of late rivals of sorts in the Provoc's pages (though luckily we enjoy cordiality in person). Indeed, we are just two of the players cheering on the opposed camps in the present duel for Assumption College's soul (itself just a small skirmish in the greater struggle of Orthodoxy and Modernism). To our own forces, I remind you that in our conflict, the pen is mightier than the middle finger, and also that we must persistently ask God for wisdom, not only so that we can apologize for our position, but also so that we can appeal to those in the middle in an honest yet effective way- let us not be said to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing as the Bourbons were when they were restored. Emmanuel d'Alzon, no lover of the French Revolution and the subsequent regimes he and the early Assumptionists had to live through, worked toward favorably presenting orthodox Catholicism to the republican French while not compromising the Faith for the sake of democratic values. That may be a difficult line to walk, there being lukewarmness on the one side and irrelevance on the other, but we must try, or accept a future with no place for the Truth in our Republic. To those opposed to our message, I wish the best, and ask for a deeper examination of one's own values and the reason for upholding these values than I have in general seen. The only way to be truly philosophical and intelligent is to detatch oneself from the values of their society and their emotions, and to search for the objective, eternal Truth.
Otherwise, this day's going very well. After crawling out of bed near noon, I was fortunate enough to get a Crush soda (old school glass bottled) in our class's fundraiser, "Send you crush a Crush" for only $1. Genius, many thanks to Carleigh Baldwin, our class prez, et al for putting it on. As one might expect, it was just from one of our kind Assumptionist fathers. As I'm not fit for the religious life, I often pray that God will let me be married, but so far the signs aren't too promising...
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thankyou for your blog! :) God Bless You
Don't lose hope... I never dated anyone before my fiancee. But don't say that you're not cut out for the religious life either. Before I met Rachel I considered becoming a religious brother (or a priest, but the religious brother idea seemed more appealing), even though I wanted to get married someday. Even when I was dating Rachel (but before we got engaged, of course!) I kept the idea in mind. That's what dating is for: discernment not only if you're a good couple, but also if you're the right kind of person to be apart of a couple. After a lot of prayer, I knew that God wanted me to marry her. But I still kept that option open right up until about a week before I popped the question! :-)
so i herd u liek mudkipz
Cencorship is the bedchild of Facism... but I guess that's to be expected by a Monarchist, Elitist son of a bitch who dreams of Fantasy Worlds of Disney Kings and Courts when he'd most likely be the poor bastard in the fields slaving away without rights.
Go figure.
Oh yeah, it's Worl War Cheese again (VIVA LA REVOLITION!)
Actually, I haven't censored you once. As a believer in property rights [Thou shalt not steal], I hold that individulas have the right to manage their own property and to regulate the uses thereof by others. Therefore, I have the right to delete comments containing lies, slander, and bad language from my blog. Yes, there are times when censorship should be used to stop such slanders and lies by malicious people and organizations (such as the propaganda that was used to turn the people against the Bourbon monarchy in France), but in your disagreement you are just spouting random buzzwords. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I could delete your newest assembly of calumnies, but I'll leave it be so that your blind malice and hatred can be seen by all.
Corrections:
-I'm not an elitist; you just assumed that I would desire to be a king in a restored monarchy. Actually, my support of monarchy in various cases stems from the fact that, before revolutions swept the nations of Europe, Catholicism was the state religion in France, the various countries that made up Italy, and in every other place where the Faith, once strong, is now weak. Legalized abortion and the homosexual lobby? Those were unthinkable! There were failings, but at least states in that era tried to promote virtue and morality- and often to great effect, as in Maria Theresa's Austria and Louis XIV's France (before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which I view as a strategic blunder). And today, with Europe a sea of atheistic, hedonistic houses of parliament and prime ministers' offices, the pretenders to the throne in many nations, such as Louis XX (not so much Prince Henri), would-be King of France, are staunch opponents of the Godless order of society, and are often devout Catholics, much more fit to rule than any of the current goons in office.
-Your previous comment about the French Revolution (the cake) displays an ignorance of the subject; it is common knowledge that Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake".
-Finally, I don't like Disney. Your reference to Disney, when my original words mentioned nothing remotely similar to the contents of a Disney princess flick, reveal that you are just working from uneducated, media prejudices about what monarchies are like.
VIVE LES ROIS! (You see, I can repeat soundbites just as well as you :-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home