My children today did a life chain with their grandmother where they held signs in defense of life. My 12 year old reported that there were several people who floated the middle finger as they drove by. She noted that her 9 year old brother said, "They are doing a bad thing," and that her younger siblings did not know what it means. Besides the belittling of innocence of random pro-abortion folks; let's face it, with the infanticide bills passing in radical Democrat states we can now unmask the idea of choice. The radical leaders of the abortion movement are pro abortion, pro infant murder, and they have duped some of the useful idiots into thinking they are for choice. I personally understand the "wailing and gnashing" of teeth as the subconscious guilt of those who, punished in their own members, lash out at the reality that confines and measures them. That is why the reactions are fascist.
The whole scenario that my children experienced brought to mind Alasdair MacIntyre's thesis that our culture, coming from forgotten disparate philosophical traditions, talks past each other in argument, having forgotten where our arguments come from. Whether this is true, I can certainly say there is a sense in which we are beyond argument. In a world where relativism rules the day, the vacuum of truth leaves room only for power. What the radicals in our midst - many of them having intellects so darkened by sin - understand is power.
This idea is evident on our social media platforms. My subjective experience has been that people on Twitter are not interested in rational discussions. I have continuously tried to engage others in debate and the trail always runs cold. Moderns are not interested in confronting the true. Instead, they want to be comfortable in their own understanding of right and wrong. Genuine dialectic draws out inconsistencies in thought and I seek the arguments to genuinely challenge my own thoughts about issues.
That said, saying that our relativistic culture is beyond argument is not to say that argument is dead. The hardened ideologue is frozen. These ice men and women would melt under no heat except the heat of grace; the heat of He who is magis intimum (most intimate). A fascist refuses to hear or assume the good will of his opponent in argument. He seeks to use the state to silence opposition, and to create truth with power. The witnesses of argument, however, are not always ideologue's and this is where argument is still effective. It's not fair to say that argument is dead, because humans were made for truth. Argument only dies in those who kill it as haters of the reality that is.
The bird flippers; the pro-abortionists, do not like the reality that the natural law imposes on them. They go beyond argument to wailing and gnashing of teeth. They do not like the truth. Hell is made of such moral self-creators. As the unmakers of reality, they are beyond argument. Truth convicts them. If only they knew their Redeemer, they would wail no more.
Friday, June 28, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Slave Morality and Masonic Religious Pluralism
In his 1884 encyclical, Humanum Genus Pope Leo XIII stated the following of the Freemasons and secret societies:
"First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions." (pa. 16)
He is referencing the idea of religious pluralism or indifferentism that is the hallmark philosophy of Freemasonry. Upon initiation, Freemasons are allowed to swear upon whatever holy book they prefer. It is basically the idea of religious relativism. All religions are on an equal plain, all reveal something of the divine, and all are paths to salvation. Nothing could be more uncatholic. There is either truth or no truth.
The attractiveness of such a proposition is obvious as it hearkens back to the cause of the fall of man. There is either a ontological structure and truth outside of us that measures who and what we are, or we are the measure of things. The whisper of the serpent can be heard silently in the wisdom of Freemasonic pluralism/relativism. Man brings himself to the Masonic temple, and man justifies himself in his own religion or no religion. Man becomes the measure of things, rather than God and His ontology being the measure of man. As the pope notes, this is calculated to destroy all religion as it leads directly to naturalism (there is no God), since the truths of religion are no truths at all under these auspices.
As Leo XIII notes, it is a deception of the simple mind to believe such indifferentism. Later in the encyclical Pope Leo XIII notes how morality goes out the window with such relativism and denial of the truth that the Catholic faith is the one true faith above all faiths. This indifferentism leads to a slave morality - license that is slavery - couched in the language of liberty. How could such pluralism cross into the sphere of action, into morality? How is it that this religious indifferentism squashes freedom in the moral realm? True freedom is a self-disciplining and training in virtue. Laws themselves are the bottom line encouragement for virtue. Exchange virtue for license, and slavery to the passions ensues. Virtue theory teaches that in order to be virtuous, one must obtain the mean of virtue in action. If one struggles with sexual lust, they must discipline the flesh to find the mean of virtue. That is, they must practice saying no to the pleasure to conquer it. The Catholic faith fits like a hand to glove with virtue theory as it simply adds the necessary element of grace to conquer our inordinate desires.
In the theological sphere, Christ showed us that the good is something that must be suffered for. Religious indifferentism is the glorification of the self, of man, as the arbiter of what is true and good. Once man is the arbiter and measure of truth, he no longer strives for the perfection of virtue, as attaining virtue requires self-disciplinary suffering.
By eliminating the importance of the sacrifice of Christ, religious indifferentism turns man over to the weakness of the flesh. In the religious sphere, we no longer have to strive after perfection through picking up our daily cross and suffering along side the savior. Instead, all religions being equal, we no longer need a savior or to make up for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Thus, we no longer need turn to Christ in His sacraments to further our own virtue, we can just invent the good based on our subjective pleasures.
In the philosophical and psychological sphere, this leads to naturalism and the choice of pleasure over the arduous good of virtue. We lay down our striving, finding our final end in whatever passion is our weakness.
This is the backdoor through which all forms of debauchery slip in under the guise of religious pluralism. Now, like Luther, we sin with impunity and empower our lusts. At this point, though, we no longer lead. We are no longer free. Instead, our passions guide us into a slave morality. A morality in which we cannot say "no" to our lower desires.
Pope Leo XIII correctly noted how morality dies with religious indifferentism. Now that our culture is no longer Catholic and is Freemasonic, we can once again see how prophetic the Catholic Church is. The Freemasons have won the day (so far, it is a long war), and so we now see legislatures voting to murder infants, homosexual pederasty and pedophilia on display with children "drag queens," children marching next to naked men, men in little girls bathrooms, and on and on.
This is the result of the Freemasons capturing the culture. They captured the church and so captured the world - for now. The new world order is upon us, the new world order of slave morality and the tyranny of self. The devil's whisper has never been louder. We are little individuals at war with each other over our lower desires. We are a picture of hell because of our indifferentism. Wailing and gnashing at each other over selfish pleasure. Leo XIII stated it truly. The slave morality is upon us.
"First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions." (pa. 16)
He is referencing the idea of religious pluralism or indifferentism that is the hallmark philosophy of Freemasonry. Upon initiation, Freemasons are allowed to swear upon whatever holy book they prefer. It is basically the idea of religious relativism. All religions are on an equal plain, all reveal something of the divine, and all are paths to salvation. Nothing could be more uncatholic. There is either truth or no truth.
The attractiveness of such a proposition is obvious as it hearkens back to the cause of the fall of man. There is either a ontological structure and truth outside of us that measures who and what we are, or we are the measure of things. The whisper of the serpent can be heard silently in the wisdom of Freemasonic pluralism/relativism. Man brings himself to the Masonic temple, and man justifies himself in his own religion or no religion. Man becomes the measure of things, rather than God and His ontology being the measure of man. As the pope notes, this is calculated to destroy all religion as it leads directly to naturalism (there is no God), since the truths of religion are no truths at all under these auspices.
As Leo XIII notes, it is a deception of the simple mind to believe such indifferentism. Later in the encyclical Pope Leo XIII notes how morality goes out the window with such relativism and denial of the truth that the Catholic faith is the one true faith above all faiths. This indifferentism leads to a slave morality - license that is slavery - couched in the language of liberty. How could such pluralism cross into the sphere of action, into morality? How is it that this religious indifferentism squashes freedom in the moral realm? True freedom is a self-disciplining and training in virtue. Laws themselves are the bottom line encouragement for virtue. Exchange virtue for license, and slavery to the passions ensues. Virtue theory teaches that in order to be virtuous, one must obtain the mean of virtue in action. If one struggles with sexual lust, they must discipline the flesh to find the mean of virtue. That is, they must practice saying no to the pleasure to conquer it. The Catholic faith fits like a hand to glove with virtue theory as it simply adds the necessary element of grace to conquer our inordinate desires.
In the theological sphere, Christ showed us that the good is something that must be suffered for. Religious indifferentism is the glorification of the self, of man, as the arbiter of what is true and good. Once man is the arbiter and measure of truth, he no longer strives for the perfection of virtue, as attaining virtue requires self-disciplinary suffering.
By eliminating the importance of the sacrifice of Christ, religious indifferentism turns man over to the weakness of the flesh. In the religious sphere, we no longer have to strive after perfection through picking up our daily cross and suffering along side the savior. Instead, all religions being equal, we no longer need a savior or to make up for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Thus, we no longer need turn to Christ in His sacraments to further our own virtue, we can just invent the good based on our subjective pleasures.
In the philosophical and psychological sphere, this leads to naturalism and the choice of pleasure over the arduous good of virtue. We lay down our striving, finding our final end in whatever passion is our weakness.
This is the backdoor through which all forms of debauchery slip in under the guise of religious pluralism. Now, like Luther, we sin with impunity and empower our lusts. At this point, though, we no longer lead. We are no longer free. Instead, our passions guide us into a slave morality. A morality in which we cannot say "no" to our lower desires.
Pope Leo XIII correctly noted how morality dies with religious indifferentism. Now that our culture is no longer Catholic and is Freemasonic, we can once again see how prophetic the Catholic Church is. The Freemasons have won the day (so far, it is a long war), and so we now see legislatures voting to murder infants, homosexual pederasty and pedophilia on display with children "drag queens," children marching next to naked men, men in little girls bathrooms, and on and on.
This is the result of the Freemasons capturing the culture. They captured the church and so captured the world - for now. The new world order is upon us, the new world order of slave morality and the tyranny of self. The devil's whisper has never been louder. We are little individuals at war with each other over our lower desires. We are a picture of hell because of our indifferentism. Wailing and gnashing at each other over selfish pleasure. Leo XIII stated it truly. The slave morality is upon us.
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Voices from hell...
This past week while reading through responses to Bishop Thomas Tobin's Tweet condemning joining in pride parades, I could see the inklings of hell in the responses. Self-righteous haters condemning a prelate of the church, with a pride that sounded only demonic. The moral self-creators of out era sound exactly like hellish ghouls cursing God while making their own truth, wishing to the measure of things instead of being measured by things.
Many of the Tweets circled around the idea that prelates, who allow pederasty to continue under their not so watchful eyes, had no moral authority to condemn "love." Indeed, the Church has been infiltrated and is currently run by the modernist homoheretics. The comical part of the critique was - just a sign of the irrational emotivism of our day - that these self-righteous folks were parading homosexuality without realizing it is homo clerics that were abusing minors. All studies done on the phenomena show that 80% of the abuse was done to post-pubescent boys, quite obviously a homosexual crime. Church haters fail to realize that the homoheritics, at the behest of the communists and Masons, joined the priesthood to hide their "lack of wives" and live lavishly off of the orthodox faithful. This is obvious to anyone with eyes.
Beyond this lack of insight, one particular Tweet stood out to me, and it was someone condemning the Church idea that sexual intimacy should be procreative in nature. The Tweet said something along the lines of "Post menopausal women can't have sex according to the church because they can't have babies. That sex is illicit." First, the Church does not teach that, but secondly it is a misunderstanding of key philosophical understanding.
From the classical (read Thomistic) lexicon, we have the terms per se and per accidens. Now one cannot blame the moderns for being ignorant of the difference between these two terms, since philosophy sidelined itself with the abandonment formal and final causality. Formal causality being the essential act of a thing, and final causality being "that for the sake of which" a cause has. Basically, any given form has a range of effects that it aims at, and these aims are its final cause.
If we review, then, the female sexual organ, we realize quickly that it is for the sake of procreation that it exists. Indeed, the pleasure it attains is merely for the sake of the preservation of the human species. Now, our objector says that once this functionality is gone, then it means intercourse is illicit. However, the lack of procreative functionality is accidental to it's final cause. That is, if you remove the impediment of age, it's per se functionality is procreative.
Similar to blindness in the eye, the lack of procreative functionality is a privation to the properly functioning organ. Remove the impediment, and it's per se functionality returns. Thus, the accident of age does not make sexual intercourse illicit because non procreative function is an accidental circumstance outside the intentionality of the agent in question. This is why nonprocreative sex, with this particular accident, is not illicit.
For Aquinas, moral actions have three basic components, an object, circumstances, and intentions. The object is the action or happening "out there" in mind independent reality. Circumstances are accidents that surround the object and intentions are the aims or targets of the agents. Circumstances and intentions are able to change the essence of an act, or the object. Circumstances, however, can also NOT affect the essence of an act. For instance, if someone is driving along on their way home from work, and accidentally run over someone, the object of the act is a crime of invincible ignorance. If that same person stops at the bar, and then runs over someone, the circumstances have changed the object, and the crime now becomes one of moral fault. Similarly, if the same person had a bad day, and sees the person who caused that bad day riding a bike, and intends to run him over, again, the object has changed because of the intention of the driver.
So, if we take all of that into consideration, we can see how post menopausal intercourse is not illicit. The object of the act is marital unity and procreation. Because of a circumstance that is uncontrollable in terms of intention by the aged woman, the circumstance of age does not change the morality of the act. For, remove the impediment, and the essential characteristic of the sexual organs returns. Basically, to check the intentions a post menopausal woman need merely ask if she were to become pregnant as a result of the intercourse, would she be okay with that? If she has the correct intention, the accident of age makes the act licit.
So, the per se functionality of the sexual organs are procreation. It is per accidens that they do not have this functionality, a circumstantial accident that does not change the essence of the act. Therefore, sexual relations amongst married couples that are not procreative on account of a privation in the sexual organs are licit, but only if there is no purposeful destruction of the procreative functionality. If and when someone mutilates their body in this way, the intention of their act changes the essence or object of the act, and thus makes it illicit. It becomes illicit because it changes the nature of the act, as the end of sex is procreation. By changing the end, one alters the act and acts contrary to nature.
If the moderns hope to be moral again, they need first to return to philosophy that recognizes the four causes. Without final causality, we obliterate nature and in so doing, have no natural law to guide us. No wonder we are a miserable lot...
Many of the Tweets circled around the idea that prelates, who allow pederasty to continue under their not so watchful eyes, had no moral authority to condemn "love." Indeed, the Church has been infiltrated and is currently run by the modernist homoheretics. The comical part of the critique was - just a sign of the irrational emotivism of our day - that these self-righteous folks were parading homosexuality without realizing it is homo clerics that were abusing minors. All studies done on the phenomena show that 80% of the abuse was done to post-pubescent boys, quite obviously a homosexual crime. Church haters fail to realize that the homoheritics, at the behest of the communists and Masons, joined the priesthood to hide their "lack of wives" and live lavishly off of the orthodox faithful. This is obvious to anyone with eyes.
Beyond this lack of insight, one particular Tweet stood out to me, and it was someone condemning the Church idea that sexual intimacy should be procreative in nature. The Tweet said something along the lines of "Post menopausal women can't have sex according to the church because they can't have babies. That sex is illicit." First, the Church does not teach that, but secondly it is a misunderstanding of key philosophical understanding.
From the classical (read Thomistic) lexicon, we have the terms per se and per accidens. Now one cannot blame the moderns for being ignorant of the difference between these two terms, since philosophy sidelined itself with the abandonment formal and final causality. Formal causality being the essential act of a thing, and final causality being "that for the sake of which" a cause has. Basically, any given form has a range of effects that it aims at, and these aims are its final cause.
If we review, then, the female sexual organ, we realize quickly that it is for the sake of procreation that it exists. Indeed, the pleasure it attains is merely for the sake of the preservation of the human species. Now, our objector says that once this functionality is gone, then it means intercourse is illicit. However, the lack of procreative functionality is accidental to it's final cause. That is, if you remove the impediment of age, it's per se functionality is procreative.
Similar to blindness in the eye, the lack of procreative functionality is a privation to the properly functioning organ. Remove the impediment, and it's per se functionality returns. Thus, the accident of age does not make sexual intercourse illicit because non procreative function is an accidental circumstance outside the intentionality of the agent in question. This is why nonprocreative sex, with this particular accident, is not illicit.
For Aquinas, moral actions have three basic components, an object, circumstances, and intentions. The object is the action or happening "out there" in mind independent reality. Circumstances are accidents that surround the object and intentions are the aims or targets of the agents. Circumstances and intentions are able to change the essence of an act, or the object. Circumstances, however, can also NOT affect the essence of an act. For instance, if someone is driving along on their way home from work, and accidentally run over someone, the object of the act is a crime of invincible ignorance. If that same person stops at the bar, and then runs over someone, the circumstances have changed the object, and the crime now becomes one of moral fault. Similarly, if the same person had a bad day, and sees the person who caused that bad day riding a bike, and intends to run him over, again, the object has changed because of the intention of the driver.
So, if we take all of that into consideration, we can see how post menopausal intercourse is not illicit. The object of the act is marital unity and procreation. Because of a circumstance that is uncontrollable in terms of intention by the aged woman, the circumstance of age does not change the morality of the act. For, remove the impediment, and the essential characteristic of the sexual organs returns. Basically, to check the intentions a post menopausal woman need merely ask if she were to become pregnant as a result of the intercourse, would she be okay with that? If she has the correct intention, the accident of age makes the act licit.
So, the per se functionality of the sexual organs are procreation. It is per accidens that they do not have this functionality, a circumstantial accident that does not change the essence of the act. Therefore, sexual relations amongst married couples that are not procreative on account of a privation in the sexual organs are licit, but only if there is no purposeful destruction of the procreative functionality. If and when someone mutilates their body in this way, the intention of their act changes the essence or object of the act, and thus makes it illicit. It becomes illicit because it changes the nature of the act, as the end of sex is procreation. By changing the end, one alters the act and acts contrary to nature.
If the moderns hope to be moral again, they need first to return to philosophy that recognizes the four causes. Without final causality, we obliterate nature and in so doing, have no natural law to guide us. No wonder we are a miserable lot...
Sunday, June 2, 2019
"He shall rule over you."
In a postmodern world where the ontological basis of all argumentation is a nexus of power, one of the most culturally aggravating things for our new atheistic outlook is where woman is placed in the Christian ethos. Various feminist ideologies point to the "patriarchy" which is, from what a I can gather, the boogeyman of a male dominated world where women have unequal access to public goods.
While I am of the opinion that this so called "patriarchy" is a great chimera of our time and has led countless women to a miserable existence - as the further we deviate from the natural law, the further we remove ourselves from personal happiness - I am more and more convinced everyday that the target of these feminists is not the patriarchy, but Christianity. Indeed, they are synonyms. Since we have no metaphysical foundation, no ontological anchor, we swim in this post Hegelian deluge of power. As Nietzsche so aptly noticed with his metaphysical outlook, without God there is nothing but change and competition for power where one more powerful thing overcomes another. This is the metaphysics of feminism.
While I do not here intend to critique the philosophical problems associated with the Nietzschean or Heraclitian metaphysics of change, it is obvious that such a philosophy runs aground on performative self contradiction, so astute minds need not accept its claims.
That said, I have been reflecting lately on Genesis, where the Lord tells man that his punishment for sin will be bringing forth the fruit of the earth through toil. Laborious work is masculinity's curse for having sinned. On the other hand, the feminine curse is painful labor and that her desire will be for her husband and that he should rule over her. Through the eyes of the "will to power" ethos that is the foundation of modern culture, this passage may look like the foundation of the patriarchy and of sheer domination by man over woman. While history is full of this wicked dominating pattern, I have recently wondered about the psychological impact of this curse?
You see, I notice that our culture, post sexual revolution, dehumanizes women and treats them as sexual objects. Our over sexed culture is extremely "masculine." Biology has both burdened and blessed women with pregnancy, and thus, her promiscuity comes at a far greater price for her than for man. Nature has designed woman to be the bearer of life and as such she is biologically the sexual gatekeeper. That said, our culture has reversed that for woman at the behest of man. At the natural level, male sexuality is determined to spread its seed far and wide. Thus, male sexuality is more "visual" and more "promiscuous." But this is exactly what our culture had done to woman! She parades her wondrous form before the lusting eyes of men, and the modern female hero is the scantily clad super model. How masculine a culture is this feminist one!
So, then, feminist women push the sexual liberation of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and in general promiscuity without responsibility. This is very masculine, at least at the reductive natural level for men. Because we are rational natures, more is expected of men and virtue/happiness require much more than spreading the seed far and wide.
My recent reflections have led me to the understanding that "he shall rule over you" is not merely a physical or social dynamic, but a intra-psychological phenomena within the female psyche. This is expressed by the aforementioned feminism. Man rules over her by her desire for her husband. In the case of feminism, the desire for the husband is to embrace masculinity as the locus of femininity. It is to make the feminine masculine. This is part of woman's curse.
The feminist push for woman in the workplace reflects this "desire," but furthers the curse by making woman embrace man's curse! In my own life, we haven't been financially blessed where my wife could stay with the children while they were little, and the way this works out is that she ends up managing most of the domestics and still has to work. It's not that I'm not there to help, but the young children just naturally gravitate toward mom, and mom has the gift of nurture that puts her in tune with the children's personhood. In short, she is better suited by nature to understand the children and their needs. With work, we just add that much more burden to her. "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you." She desires his curse, and his curse rules over her.
While I am of the opinion that this so called "patriarchy" is a great chimera of our time and has led countless women to a miserable existence - as the further we deviate from the natural law, the further we remove ourselves from personal happiness - I am more and more convinced everyday that the target of these feminists is not the patriarchy, but Christianity. Indeed, they are synonyms. Since we have no metaphysical foundation, no ontological anchor, we swim in this post Hegelian deluge of power. As Nietzsche so aptly noticed with his metaphysical outlook, without God there is nothing but change and competition for power where one more powerful thing overcomes another. This is the metaphysics of feminism.
While I do not here intend to critique the philosophical problems associated with the Nietzschean or Heraclitian metaphysics of change, it is obvious that such a philosophy runs aground on performative self contradiction, so astute minds need not accept its claims.
That said, I have been reflecting lately on Genesis, where the Lord tells man that his punishment for sin will be bringing forth the fruit of the earth through toil. Laborious work is masculinity's curse for having sinned. On the other hand, the feminine curse is painful labor and that her desire will be for her husband and that he should rule over her. Through the eyes of the "will to power" ethos that is the foundation of modern culture, this passage may look like the foundation of the patriarchy and of sheer domination by man over woman. While history is full of this wicked dominating pattern, I have recently wondered about the psychological impact of this curse?
You see, I notice that our culture, post sexual revolution, dehumanizes women and treats them as sexual objects. Our over sexed culture is extremely "masculine." Biology has both burdened and blessed women with pregnancy, and thus, her promiscuity comes at a far greater price for her than for man. Nature has designed woman to be the bearer of life and as such she is biologically the sexual gatekeeper. That said, our culture has reversed that for woman at the behest of man. At the natural level, male sexuality is determined to spread its seed far and wide. Thus, male sexuality is more "visual" and more "promiscuous." But this is exactly what our culture had done to woman! She parades her wondrous form before the lusting eyes of men, and the modern female hero is the scantily clad super model. How masculine a culture is this feminist one!
So, then, feminist women push the sexual liberation of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and in general promiscuity without responsibility. This is very masculine, at least at the reductive natural level for men. Because we are rational natures, more is expected of men and virtue/happiness require much more than spreading the seed far and wide.
My recent reflections have led me to the understanding that "he shall rule over you" is not merely a physical or social dynamic, but a intra-psychological phenomena within the female psyche. This is expressed by the aforementioned feminism. Man rules over her by her desire for her husband. In the case of feminism, the desire for the husband is to embrace masculinity as the locus of femininity. It is to make the feminine masculine. This is part of woman's curse.
The feminist push for woman in the workplace reflects this "desire," but furthers the curse by making woman embrace man's curse! In my own life, we haven't been financially blessed where my wife could stay with the children while they were little, and the way this works out is that she ends up managing most of the domestics and still has to work. It's not that I'm not there to help, but the young children just naturally gravitate toward mom, and mom has the gift of nurture that puts her in tune with the children's personhood. In short, she is better suited by nature to understand the children and their needs. With work, we just add that much more burden to her. "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you." She desires his curse, and his curse rules over her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)