The difficulty of salvation

Some have wondered how it is that the penalty of burning in Hell forever can be a just punishment for a single mortal sin. To start, let’s consider the difficulty of salvation. Objectively, salvation is remarkably simple, just be reasonably diligent in knowing your moral obligations, and don’t choose to do anything you know to be grave matter. It is of itself not that hard.

Where the difficulty arises, is in that we as humans have many sinful inclinations, and our wills constantly try to rebel against our intellects. It is thus that we would choose to commit mortal sins, it is not because God made things difficult, it’s because we do.

And it is because we choose of our own free will to reject God’s commands, that we deserve punishment. And when one dies in a state of mortal sin, then one utterly rejects grace, and the possibility of ever repenting.


An honest conversation about racism

You know whenever a leftist says that we need to have an honest conversation about racism, that the ensuing conversation will be anything but. Still, let’s give it a shot.

First of all, some definitions of terms:

Racism: Hatred (as in wishing evil on) of people because of their race

Subracism: Holding of negative opinions about people because of their race

Racial generalization: Acknowledgement or understanding of general tendencies among a given racial group.

Racialism: Particular attachment to one’s own race.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone not mired in the mental fog of PC that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with racial generalization. Jews do tend to subversion and greed, blacks do tend to violence and criminality, whites do tend to degeneracy and metrosexuality, etc.

It should also be fairly obvious, to anyone not ensnared by monomania, that racism is evil. Fortunately, this ill seems to be fairly rare, and to the extent it does exists it seems to be mostly a matter of hatred felt by blacks for whites. It is moreover to be expected that racism would be very rare, and would only emerge when subracists perceived that members of another race were superior is some way (numbers, intelligence, power, etc.).

Now, subracism is a bit more widespread. Subracism is wrong because it takes racial generalization beyond its proper limits, by extrapolating general tendencies to be universal, which will result in the holding of rash or calumnious beliefs about individual people. Now, it should be clear that in modern America, the most prevelant type of subracism is by whites against whites. I once even heard a priest say that whites all have an inclination to murderous hatred of blacks, this inclination being so innate in whiteness, that even hispanics are affected by it (the priest was an anglo, for reference). As far as I can tell, most nonwhites who denigrate us tend to be more moderate in their statements, and clarify that there are of course good whites out there. Obviously, most white critics of other races are careful to be so clear.

What of racialism then? Many people, mostly anti-white white subracists, claim that any form of white racialism necessarily is motivated by racism. White right-liberals tend to make an even more expansive claim, that any form of racialism, on the part of any race, is motivated by racism. Is this true? Obviously not, since one could have people who were attached to their own people, but never interacted with others, for whatever cause. Introducing the fact that interracial interactions of whatever kind happen doesn’t change this.


The democratic mentality and criticism of a sitting Pope

The norm in public discourse in America and the west more broadly is that if you dislike something a leader does, you publicly lambast them for it.

This is, of course, a fool’s errand (and democracy is supremely foolish). But as terrible as this is for civic discourse, the effects on discourse in the Church are even more harmful. The Pope (and the bishops generally) is a monarch, and this form of critique is anathema to the type of government which is proper to the Church. The problem with democracy, or democratized monarchies, is that lambasting authorities doesn’t build them, but rather just tears them down. Want to endlessly criticize everything the government does, you’ll get a weak-willed cowardly President. Want to be a hippie who hates the Church authorities? You’ll get a hippie Pope.

More fuel on the fire, is still not going to put it out.


The Church as counterrevolution

I’ve often seen the counterculturality of the priesthood as an aspect used to attract young men to it. In itself this seems unproblematic as an opening sales pitch, but the Church must be careful not to make its generalized message one of revolution.

The Church’s goal is not to liberate people in a political sense, but rather to submit all things to Christ. Far from calling for the destruction of order, the Church calls the world to perfect order.

In the days of the early Church, when she was being persecuted by the Roman government, she did not call for the overthrow and replacement of the government, but rather taught the faithful to submit to it in all that was not sinful. Eventually, the Roman government converted to the faith.


Jesus was anti-semitic

The Parable of the wicked tenants:

“Hear another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.

When vintage time drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to obtain his produce.

But the tenants seized the servants and one they beat, another they killed, and a third they stoned.

Again he sent other servants, more numerous than the first ones, but they treated them in the same way.

Finally, he sent his son to them, thinking, ‘They will respect my son.’

But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and acquire his inheritance.’

They seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.

What will the owner of the vineyard do to those tenants when he comes?”

They answered him, “He will put those wretched men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the proper times.”

Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the scriptures:
‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
by the Lord has this been done,
and it is wonderful in our eyes’?

Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.

Here Jesus lays it out as clear as day. The Jews would not heed him, but rather killed him just as they killed the prophets he sent before himself. So the status they held as God’s people will be taken away from them and given to the Church. Moreover, it is confirmed elsewhere that the Jews will eventually be converted, and thereby cease to exist as a people, thus the Jewish people qua group will be figuratively “put to death”.

There are, of course, a great many more parts of the Gospels where Jesus says very critical things about the Jews (calling them a brood of vipers, children of the devil, etc.). This is one of the most politically incorrect aspects of Christianity, but it needs to be explicitly understood in order to fully break with the spirit of the age.

As a side-note, there’s also an (imperfect) analogy which can provide a lesson for us. For the last two millennia, white people have been bestowed by God with many blessings, including superiority in nearly every way over the other peoples of the world (intellectual, technological, medical, etc.) But just as God removed his blessing from the Jewish people, gave it to others, and promised to ultimately destroy them as a corporate group, so too if we do not repent, he may do the same to us. If current events are any indicator, this may be in progress already.


Cartesian dualism and magisterial interpretation

Cartesian dualism is one of the many false philosophies that is ubiquitous in our society. It is in practice (and that is the sense I’m addressing here) a tendency to focus on what must be going on in the privacy of others’ minds, rather than their actual words and deeds.

When interpreting the current Pope’s magisterium (or anything, but especially Francis), it’s important to avoid this. As head of the Church, the Pope has the right to be interpreted in accordance with Catholic tradition (and does not have the right to be interpreted otherwise). Interpreting the Pope to be espousing whatever heresies you imagine he must be adhering to, but which he has not actually expressed in his magisterial teachings (or at all) is spiritually dangerous and can lead to intentional disobedience to the magisterium.