Civilization Not Utopia


Building Civilization

As men who have been converted away from the various empty philosophies of this modern age into the Church and Christendom, even as they appear to be crumbling before astonished eyes, the question must be asked. What does a man actually do with his faith? We are encouraged by the apostle Paul to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Paul understood that there was work to be done.

The preacher and pulpit model of evangelical Christianity prioritizes the saving of lost souls at the expense of all other pursuits. Given that Jesus Himself stated His mission was to save that which was lost, this is not without merit. But what of the other activities that men take up in their daily life? What of the daily work, marriage and family, and all that goes long with those? If a man is not careful, he might get the impression that living any life other than that of wandering evangelist is downright evil.

There exist an underlying dichotomy that pits the work of man against his Creator, calling all human works evil and only God’s work as good. Given how many trials and temptations a man faces in life, telling men their work is meaningless is not motivational. Aggravating this fatalism are the other extremes of judgment-free wealth and utopian social engineering. One disparages the work of human hands and the other exalts it.

Men are at their best when they are building and even better when doing so in pursuit of God’s goodness. Building a family is good, building a civilized Catholic family is even better. Building stable finances is good, building finances capable of enduring hardship, donating to charity, and leaving behind an inheritance is even better. So with salvation, sharing the faith is good. Sharing the faith and building good works is even better. When one looks at the history of the Catholic Church, the list of good works include charity to the poor, preservation of language and education in the face of violent upheaval, and numerous innovations in society that provided so much good to people living in Western Civilization and worldwide. Much of the enrichment, justice, and abundance enjoyed by the West came from men who understood that saving souls was not the limit of God’s good work on earth.

Civilization is equated in the thought of popular Christianity with the building of the Tower of Babel, the historical attempt of rebellious men to construct a world without God. Because of this any and all attempts to build any sort of civilization is viewed as acts of evil and the sole act of good left is a kind of withdrawal and indifference to the affairs of Church and State. Building a good society, a civilization, is equated with attempting to build “heaven on earth.” This is wrong.

There is a difference between men attempting to build a civilization and attempting to build a utopian society.

Good men, especially those whose thoughts are governed by the goodness of Christianity, understand that man is a fallen creature, capable of corruption and evil. They know that no man is perfect and therefore his work will always be imperfect. Civilization is the refusal to succumb to the corrupting forces that constantly pull men toward decadence, destruction, and bloodshed while understanding that the refusal and resistance can never be complete. Jesus declared that man will always have the poor. So it is that good men attempt to alleviate poverty, knowing that it cannot be completely eliminated. They attempt to alleviate murder, knowing that there will always be murderers. Injustice is righted as much as possible while recognizing that there will always be injustice. In this, good men build religious, education, and government centers to solidify that resistance against evil for the sake of those who seek to live righteously, even if imperfectly. For the civilized man he builds knowing that perfection will only come when his perfect Creator comes to end all human suffering.

Evil men deny that man is fallen and instead believe that man is fundamentally good. Building on this, they seek to build utopia, a civilization that does not simply mitigate poverty, but seeks to eliminate it completely. The goal, the dream, is a civilization of perfection, where destruction and bloodshed are purged and human suffering is utterly removed. For the utopian man, he is his own creator and his own savior and human suffering will only be eliminated by his own evolutionary climb toward perfection. The evil of the pursuit is that lust allows any ends to justify the means. Injustice is allowed if it will achieve justice.

To deny man’s ability and call to build a Christian civilization is to stifle the potential that Christ gave man when He ascended into Heaven and left man His commands and Spirit. Catholic men are the salt of the earth and they should strive to build a city on a hill. If they do not then they leave their neighbor to die at the hands of evil or die themselves. Or they leave their fellow man to sell their souls in pursuit of other gods who will promise them peace on earth through utopian visions.

Men should strive to build civilizations. It is an act of good in a world of evil, an obligation even, and without civilization, there is only a descent into barbarism.


Missing The Potent Questions

American family.jpg

Targeted for mass deportation.

New York Times writer Bret Stephens declares that the mass deportation of American “nonimmigrants” would best benefit the United States. Stephens writes,

They need to return whence they came … I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

Given that America is only a few generations old, he is, of course, speaking of Americans whose roots are European, especially Anglo. White people.

His main points proving that nonimmigrants have become useless to America are:

  • Nonimmigrants commit more crime.
  • Nonimmigrants lack serious academic achievement.
  • Nonimmigrants are losing their Christian faith.
  • Nonimmigrants start less businesses.
  • Nonimmigrants have more illegitimate births.
  • Nonimmigrants are declining in numbers.

Now, statics could easily be found that dispute some of these points, if not all of them. Such is the of nature statistics. This information is all but useless because the important questions that need to be asked are not being asked.

  • What forces caused nonimmigrants to abandon the educated, family-oriented, English-speaking Christian culture of their forefathers?
  • What convinced them that America was no longer worth appreciation?
  • Since conservatives failed to protect nonimmigrants from this decline, why do they believe that they can protect immigrants from those same forces?
  • Once the immigrants who will replace the nonimmigrants become as useless as the nonimmigrants they replaced, then what?

Stephens also states that he is a “conservative columnist,” revealing that the label of “conservative” no longer has any meaning.

Baby Jesus Or King Christ


Who do men say that I am?

When Jesus asked that question, he was speaking to his disciples, a group of men struggling with the identity of the man they were following. In modern times, the question is still relevant and might be more pertinent than ever. Christianity is predicated on the identity of Christ and that identity drives the doctrines and actions of its followers.

There has emerged in modernity two identities of the man from Galilee. One is Jesus and the other is Christ. Initially, this sounds strange. Jesus Christ is the full title of the man who died on a cross and was resurrected three days later. How can those names be separated? The Church has indeed done that very thing.

These two views are symbolized by how Christianity is viewed. The faith is centered on Jesus Christ, set between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is this idea that reveals the two views.

In one view, the Church is a cradle and set in the bottom of its boundaries is the baby Jesus. Here, the innocent gentleness of an infant is emphasized. He is vulnerable, swaddled in comfort and safety, and is bereft of the dirtiness of the world around him. Wide-eyed wonder and purest joy shine is his eyes and wordless gestures.

This view of a child is very appealing. The baby Jesus has unconditional acceptance of everyone and everything, an open and unlimited love. Here is an infant, weak and vulnerable, safe and serene. There is nothing here that might weigh on the shoulders or prick the side with a thorn. In the cradle is a Jesus who is small and needs Christian love and thrives on unending affection. Baby Jesus knows nothing of being a man, only of being a Mother’s child. There is no masculinity or femininity in him. He has not entered into churches and learned doctrines and so knows nothing of controversy or social issues. As an infant, he is infinitely approachable.

In the other view, the Church is a mountain and set at its pinnacle is a throne and on that throne is Christ the king.

This view is far less appealing. Christ is a grown man, hardened by the realities of life and steeled with the purpose of his heavenly Father. He knows the dirtiness of real life and the suffering visited by spiritual malevolence (temptation). The scars of His determined submission to the authority of his Father are seen in His hands, His feet and His side. Some have been saved by Him and others damned to judgment. Christ knows war and violence. To approach Him is to approach one who has the authority to grant life and take life, to bring blessings and inflict curses. His place is not safe nor is it comfortable. Everything is His to give and take as He sees fit. He is strong, invulnerable and unmovable. There are no rights or autonomy before His throne.

The first impulse is to reconcile the two symbols, to say that the man is both Jesus and Christ, both the infant and the king. The problem with such moderation is twofold. First, when Jesus was born, He began His progression from a child to an adult and it was as an adult that He was given his mission. Second, when He was resurrected, His was not the body of an infant, but that of the man He was when he died on the cross. It was as an adult male that Jesus ascended into heaven and is seated on His throne.

Among Christian men, there is a crisis of adulthood, where adolescent boys grow into adolescent men and then marry women in hopes of finding direction in life. They are incapable of governing themselves and look toward others, especially women, to govern them. The symbol of Baby Jesus is ultimately a place for women and children, where women raise children in safety, and this is where adolescent men long to be.

However, in order to move into adulthood, an adolescent boy must leave his mother’s world, leave behind the cradle, and begin the hard and arduous climb up the mountain to the place of authority where Christ grants men their purpose and authority to carry it out. It is not a place for women and children, but for men. Christ does call women in service to Him, but it is to men that authority over families and churches, over women and children, is given.

More and more Christianity, even the conservative branches, are growing sympathetic to the identity of Jesus the infant and structuring itself accordingly. The identity of Christ the king has fallen on hard times. Weakness in the church culture is manifested by a perpetual move toward an adolescent understanding of who the person of Jesus Christ is. Instead of seeing Christ as above the church reining with authority, the Church is seen as the cradle of a weak and vulnerable infant named Jesus. Not viewing Christ as an adult male king ruling over the church also removes the idea that adult male Christians should have authority over family and church. Authority and equality cannot coexist.

This is all a reflection of an adolescent church culture. Christian men need to leave behind adolescence and move into adulthood, climb up that mountain to the throne of Christ and serve Him alone. From that culture, the Church can then grow up.

Blackmail Of The Roses

Blackmail of the Sexes.jpg

If a man were to open his bible and read the various admonitions to Christians concerning husbands and wives, he would notice that they are voluntary in nature. Husbands are not told to force their wives to submit and wives are not told to force their husbands to love them. The love of the husband and the love of the wife are to be given freely. This makes sense given that an action done under threat is not an act of love.

Even though the Christian family is being dissolved in the countries of the Occident, men and women are still seeking the love and submission family arrangement from each other.  They have separated from each other and chosen paths that are meant to force the other to fulfill their family role.

The dominant sex is women choosing the State as their source of blackmail when dealing with men. With the legal system backing their right to no fault divorce and favoring them in cases of child custody and alimony, women are now able to force men to love them. Men marry them and live devoted, passive lives under the threat that if they displease their wives, they may very well lose half of their material possessions in a divorce and be enslaved to the wronged female through alimony.

Those men who choose not enter into marriage to avoid this threat have several options. They can marry an non-occidental woman from cultures where women are less empowered or they can simply live life as a bachelor, interacting with women through random sexual encounters. A portion of men have chosen enter the porn industry where their beefed bodies are used in a pseudo-violent sexuality portrayed through numerous scripted scenarios where actors and actresses play their illicit roles. In these filmed and financed encounters, men are in positions to dominate, to force women into submissive states where their pleasure is given priority. Regardless of what path a man chooses, the threat is the same. They are threatening to withhold their money and strength in an effort to blackmail woman into submission.

Women use the power of the law to blackmail men into giving them the love they want. Men use the power of money to blackmail women into giving them the submission they want.

What neither is doing is humbling themselves before God and entering voluntarily into His call to marriage and family. In such a place, the man might not always be a loving a husband and the wife would lack the legal power that could force him to love her. The woman might not always be submissive and the husband could not use his financial power to force her to submit. There is fear and fear feeds pride.

What there is not is faith and only faith can truly forge a genuine marriage and provide men and women the submission and love each crave and need.

To Give Or Deny

To Give Or Deny.jpg

As part of my conversion to the Catholic Church, I’ve begun the work of organizing my money to both be more responsible, but also include charitable giving in my budget. In my Protestant past, my efforts to tithe were sporadic and more often than not I found something better to do with my money than the donation plate, even if it meant I was “robbing God.”

However, I have again run into an issue concerning money and the Church. No doubt the Catholic Church is in a weakened state and I confess that though my faith was strengthened by my conversion, it was not strengthened as much as I would have hoped. Weak homilies, video presentations on donating to the local archdiocese during Mass, and immigrant African priests who sing “If you’re happy and you know it” during Mass (yes, really) are just a few of the experiences that have weakened my convictions and make devotion that much harder. Yet, I feel a sense of duty to financially support the Church to which I have sworn fealty.

In this struggle, I find that The Hirsch Files has asked the question of why Catholics have reduced their tithing. One commenter asked, “… why faithfully give money to a group working against your faith?”

So the issue for me is, should I support the Catholic Church in its weakened state knowing that my contributions will mostly likely be used to further the weakness or do I withhold my support?

The first immediate response is a pseudo monastic option where I both withdraw all support by not giving financially nor giving of my time past what is absolutely required. If there is an illness in the Church, than continued financing of it by own hand makes me complicit and a poor manager.

The second option calls me to give in an act of faith, trusting that Christ will correct His Church. From this stance, money and time given are given more for Christ’s sake than the Church’s. Devotion and loyalty are maintained and put into practical action, even in the worst of times.

At this season in my life, I do not have access to Traditional Latin Mass or one of the breakaway parishes that have deliberately worked to resist the modernization and weakness in the Church. So I must engage in the parish I am attending.

Turning toward Tradition and Scripture, I came across the offering of the widow in Luke.

[Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had.”

I wonder if that poor widow considered the Temple life of that time to be corrupt (as Jesus declared it to be). If she did not believe it to be corrupt then she was giving out duty and faith. But if she did believe it to be corrupt, then her faith in God still shone through and Jesus made note of it. There was something beyond the money that mattered.

So I ponder, should I give my tithe to the Church, knowing it is in a poor shape or should I deny it? Which is an act of faith? Which is true to God?