Z‑ophobia, FEMEN, and other quick takes: 7QT XIII, seriatim.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 7, 2014 • Seven Quick Takes

femen
Image via Cre­ative Com­mons [NSFW]
I

saw the acronym LGBTA today, on a job board for free­lancers. An “LGBTA” mag­a­zine is hir­ing writ­ers. Thought I: What’s the A for? I had seen Q; but what was this new A in the alpha­bet soup of queer? I did the sen­si­ble thing and looked it up. It stands for asex­u­al.

I can not keep up. I am quick to under­stand, but insan­i­ty out­paces all sense and defies all rea­son. Where is the rea­son in think­ing of one­self as a species of starfish or sponge? And why leave out the Q’s? Do they have no place in this mag­a­zine? Should­n’t it now be “LGBTQA?” I’m not sure the Q’s should be sent to the back of the bus or told to drink from a dif­fer­ent foun­tain.

Or what about the oth­er let­ters? Why is the mag­a­zine anti-S? What is wrong with H? It is time to stamp out inequal­i­ty in alpha­bet­i­cal per­son­hood. I have had enough of the Z-ophobes. We should wel­come all the sex­u­al per­ver­sion that can be embraced by twen­ty-six let­ters.

II.

With a san­i­ty rare and to be praised, Pat Arch­bold at the Nation­al Catholic Reg­is­ter tells us what was real­ly wrong with the Super Bowl Coke com­mer­cial.

You should read the arti­cle because Mr. Arch­bold does a great job in cut­ting through the insan­i­ty of the debate between those who say the com­mer­cial was great because it cel­e­brates our diver­si­ty, and those who say the com­mer­cial was awful because it was pro-gay. In fact, the gay cou­ple did not much shock him. But he was saddened—not by the diver­si­ty per se but by the fact that it was the wrong kind of diver­si­ty.

Here is a taste:

It seems to me that what we mean by diver­si­ty has changed dur­ing my life­time. We used to pride our­selves on how fast we could become Amer­i­cans. Now we pride our­selves on how long we can resist it. We are no longer the melt­ing pot, we are the cray­on box. Each col­or and type in its assigned place and prop­er­ly labeled.

So when I hear Amer­i­ca the beau­ti­ful being sung in dif­fer­ent lan­guages, I don’t get angry, I get a lit­tle sad. We used to pride our­selves on uni­ty, not diver­si­ty. Our diver­si­ty influ­enced the over­all col­or, but we remained one.

III.

Yes­ter­day the Jew­ish Press report­ed that a Jew­ish woman was caught read­ing the Jew­ish Press at JFK. The Jew was detained, ques­tioned, and released when it was found that the Jew was car­ry­ing noth­ing more dan­ger­ous than a bot­tle of water and a copy of the Jew­ish Press.

If you are scratch­ing your head, you may be part of the prob­lem. You see, those dan­ger­ous Jews are always read­ing Jew­ish things, like the Jew­ish Press and the Jew­ish nov­els of that Jew­ish author Bernard Mala­mud. The next thing you know, those Jews will be read­ing that Jew­ish Old Tes­ta­ment and killing the fat­ted Jew­ish calf right there in the air­port. So the Jew must be round­ed up and ques­tioned, wher­ev­er we find the Jew.

IV.

Speak­ing of odd things found on job boards, here is the first sen­tence of an ad for a per­son­al assis­tant: “Qual­i­fied appli­cant must be an hon­est, cheer­ful per­son whose con­scious­ness and imag­i­na­tion are not enslaved by any epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dog­ma.”

Those poor epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dog­mas. They are always being treat­ed like they are no bet­ter than the Jew. You have to have some epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dog­mas that you cling to, oth­er­wise you could not func­tion. What if every­thing is an illu­sion and the PA job does­n’t real­ly exist? I would want to know.

V.

Two sto­ries this week mer­it seri­ous thought. The first is humor­ous, in an odd and sad way; the sec­ond, less so. If we ful­ly absorb their les­son, I’m not sure we could do else but weep for Jerusalem.

Accord­ing to the first sto­ry, the Vat­i­can had to tell the Unit­ed Nations this week that boys and girls are dif­fer­ent. The Unit­ed Nations does not know this, it seems; it must be told.

That is how far gone we are in our mad­ness. It is what hap­pens when we reduce our human­i­ty to a let­ter. In our mad desire to be as God and define our sex­u­al iden­ti­ty for our­selves, as though it were mal­leable sil­ly put­ty, we have for­got­ten such basic things. That boys and girls are dif­fer­ent comes as a shock to us.

Fr. Z had the sec­ond sto­ry. The vile (and lost) women of FEMEN are up to their antics again, this time attack­ing the arch­bish­op of Madrid as he got out of his car to say Mass. They threw bloody panties at him and sport­ed the slo­gan “Abor­tion is sacred” across their bare breasts. The blood on the panties is sup­posed to have been blood obtained dur­ing ille­gal abor­tions.

Each one of them has been made in the image of God, but they have become a run­ning and rav­ing defile­ment. Pray for them.

But there is a seri­ous ques­tion to be asked: At what point does the insane become demon­ic? There has to be a real fine line there, and the cul­ture is begin­ning to cross it. And it is not the fault of the Bea­t­les.

St. Bruno, pray for us.

VI.

Ear­li­er this week, for a series I am writ­ing on Catholic social teach­ing, I was read­ing Pope Leo XII­I’s 1891 encycli­cal Rerum Novarum. Forty years lat­er, his suc­ces­sor Pope Pius XI wrote Quadra­ges­i­mo Anno, in which he penned these very telling words:

Those who would seem to hold in lit­tle esteem this papal encycli­cal and its com­mem­o­ra­tion either blas­pheme what they do not know, or under­stand noth­ing of what they are super­fi­cial­ly acquaint­ed with, or if they do under­stand con­vict them­selves for­mal­ly of injus­tice and ingrat­i­tude. Cer­tain doubts have arisen con­cern­ing either the cor­rect mean­ing of some parts of Leo’s encycli­cal or con­clu­sions to be deduced there­from, which doubts in turn have even among Catholics giv­en rise to con­tro­ver­sies that are not always peace­ful

Dear Tra­di­tion­al­ists: We are still the same Church we were before Vat­i­can II. No wor­ries.

VII.

Eliz­a­beth Scalia gives all Catholic and con­ser­v­a­tive blog­gers an oppor­tu­ni­ty to exam­ine their con­science. The occa­sion of her post was that Sarah Palin was bitchy to Peg­gy Noo­nan for being too late (in Ms. Pal­in’s view) to wake up about Pres­i­dent Oba­ma. Where were you in 2008? Ms. Palin rant­ed, address­ing her remarks to “Peg­gy and [her] ilk.”

(Inci­den­tal­ly, what does one have to do to acquire an ilk? Accord­ing to Kevin Tier­ney in the com­box of one of my ear­li­er posts, I have a “base.” But I’ve been blog­ging for over a year now; it’s high time I acquired an ilk too. Fr. Z has an ilk; Mark Shea def­i­nite­ly has an ilk. Where’s my ilk?)

Any­way, Ms. Scalia goes on in her arti­cle, which you should read, to talk about the cour­tesy we owe to oth­ers, even when we dis­agree and argue pas­sion­ate­ly:

Fight for Amer­i­ca, by all means. Engage, pas­sion­ate­ly, every day, if you like—observe, cri­tique, orga­nize, and even snark a bit, now and then. But don’t give up your human­i­ty for her, because nations only last for as long as they last, and then they are gone. If, while fight­ing for this one, you become inca­pable of see­ing the human per­son before you (who is equal­ly beloved of the cre­ator) you will have gained the world and lost your soul in the process.

Please read the whole arti­cle. It is well worth reflect­ing upon. Thank you, Ms. Scalia.

 

Read more of this week’s quick takes at Con­ver­sion Diary.


Discover more from To Give a Defense

Sub­scribe to get the lat­est posts sent to your email.