Category: Culture War

Here’s the introduction of a rather large essay John Pacheco and I have written for Challenge Magazine – an orthodox Catholic Canadian monthly – in which we demonstrate the historical and theological link between contraception and witchcraft:

Protestant fundamentalists often refer to their beliefs as That Ol’Time Religion. This is somewhat amusing from a Catholic perspective. After all, protestant fundamentalism is a relatively recent phenomena when compared to the age of the Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, one should never confuse That Ol’Time Religion with The Old Religion. The latter is an expression used by practitioners of wicca, paganism and witchcraft to refer to their particular belief system. Practitioners of That Ol’Time Religion and practitioners of The Old Religion would have one believe that their two religions oppose one another.
This holds true until one comes to the practice of contraception. Protestant fundamentalists who defend the use of contraception among married couples include such notables as Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tim LaHaye who co-authored the Left Behind series. Not surprisingly, Dobson also sees the practice of masturbation among teenagers as harmless while LaHaye reportedly sees no biblical injunction against oral sex.
This is no coincidence; like contraceptive sex, both masturbation and oral sex are sterile sex acts. They separate the physical pleasure of sexual intimacy from the natural consequences of the act. They deny the married couple’s blessing of becoming co-creators with God. Their highest goal is the immediate physical gratification of those who practice them.
Sexual Gratification and the Occult
This philosophy is no different than that of Raymond Buckland, the author of several books on witchcraft and a disciple of Gerald Gardiner (the father of modern witchcraft). In Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft, the author’s best-selling introduction to the practices of modern witchcraft, Buckland provides a rather substantial entry describing what modern occultists call “Sex Magick”.
“This is one of the most potent forms of magick,” Buckland writes, “for here were are dealing very much with the life forces. Dr. Jonn Mumford, in Sexual Occultism, states the most important psycho-physiological event, in the life of a human, is the orgasm. Sex Magick is the art of using the orgasm – indeed, the whole sexual experience – for magickal purposes.”
For Buckland, sexual intercourse is about pleasure and power rather than procreation. “The sex act is obviously the best possible, and most natural way of generating the power we need for magick,” Buckland writes. Quoting Mumford, he then adds: “The firming modality, be it masturbation, homosexuality, or heterosexuality, is irrelevent. Only the end result (orgasm) is important and any form of sexual behavior is but a means to an end.”
Buckland mocks Catholic teaching on human sexuality as “early Christian propaganda,” then lists several alternatives to natural intercourse. “One alternative is mutual masturbation,” Buckland writes. “Another is oral sex. […] Oral sex can be especially suitable, of course, when all chances of pregnancy must be eliminated.” Buckland recommends masturbation “for the solitary witch”. In other words, once marriage is neutralized within the equation, witches and fundamentalist protestants are not as far apart in their sexual theology as one would first imagine.
Catholic Teaching and the Natural Law
In contrast to the sterile teaching of That Ol’Time Religion and The Old Religion, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) reminds us in article 1652: “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowing glory.”
“Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves,” the CCC continues. “God Himself said: ‘It is not good that man should be alone,’ and ‘from the beginning [He] made them male and female’; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ Hence true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich His family from day to day.”
This Catholic teaching seems rather novel in today’s world, however, at one time it was the common teaching of all Christians. Even the founders of protestantism vigorously condemned contraception and Onan’s spilling of his seed in the Old Testament.

Philosopher David Carlin, often a thoughtful critic, writes a provocative piece suggesting that the clergy should stop performing the civil aspects of weddings, for the reason that this makes them complicit in the state’s policy of easy divorce.

“…If either of you would like to end your marriage tomorrow, you have a perfect right to do so. If you would like to remain married until death, you can do that too. It’s all up to you. Don’t feel constrained by the vows you have just taken.” […] The priest, insofar as he is the performer of a civil marriage, will in effect be adding this to his implicit comments: “You have just entered into a union which is between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman. The civil institution of marriage that you have just elected to become participants in has neither permanence nor gender specificity. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the traditional Catholic institution of marriage.”

Prof. Carlin contends that the officiant of a civil-law marriage is in effect saying all the above nonsense: but that’s a very doubtful proposition. The Catholic minister who conducts a wedding ceremony and performs the related civil functions has every intention to communicate to the spouses (one man, one woman) that their commitment is permanent. If the State fails to maintain that permanence in civil law, that implies no “implicit comments” of agreement by the clergyman. Carlin’s argument seems to consist of little else than putting words in someone else’s mouth, an unworthy rhetorical tactic.
Ed Peters offers a rebuttal with regard to the canonical implications of Carlin’s suggestion.

Obviously Prof. Carlin grieves over the divorce mentality among Catholics and he is acutely aware of the state’s contribution to this social disaster. But while looking for ways to bring Church teaching on marriage more directly to bear on state policies in this area, we must avoid destroying one of the few areas wherein the state and the Church cooperate correctly in marriage….

Islamofascism is on the march around the world, which gives Islam itself the appearance of strength and power. (No, I do not equate Islam with the ideology of the Islamofascists, though they share many of the same basic errors and malign tendencies.) But the furor over the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor’s undiplomatic comments about jihad reveals the true state of Islam today.
I agree with Mark Shea on this one: Islam is superficially strong, because many of its adherents carry out horrific violence in its name. With Belloc, I observe that Muslims are largely impervious to conversion — and today, they are seemingly unwilling to carry out anything like a dialogue. But neither of these things are indications of real strength. If they were truly strong, they would have the self-confidence to shrug off comments that they with which they disagreed, or that were blantantly offensive (and the Pope’s remarks were not.)
Instead, as if on cue, Muslims explode into intemperate rage when something offends their delicate sensibilities. But why are they so worred about what non-Muslims say about Islam, when so many of their own brethren say much worse? Islamfascists equate Islam with murder, forced conversion, political oppression, and even genocide, and it’s business as usual. Maybe Muslims should spend more time and energy refuting them, if they’re looking to preserve the good name of Islam and its “prophet.”
But how does one have a dialogue when the other party reserves the right to fly off into a self-righteous rage when they hear something the least bit offensive? I don’t doubt that there are Muslims in the world who can discuss their faith rationally, but when I’ve attempted it, I always get the same reaction, which is more or less, “You have to accept Islam before you understand it.” Maybe so, but why would I want to accept something that I don’t understand? And how can I understand if you won’t appeal to my intellect?
Good luck, Holy Father, in your efforts to promote dialogue with the Islamic world. They don’t seem the least bit interested, but God can find avenues that are invisible to the naked eye. The alternative — decades, if not centuries, of conflict and unrest — makes it worthwhile.

The truly awful thing is that many people will agree with CAIR:

US Muslims bristle at Bush term “Islamic fascists”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Muslim groups criticized President George W. Bush on Thursday for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a “war with Islamic fascists,” saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions….

“We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.

Don’t you think that plotting to murder 2,700 people is a little more likely to “inflame anti-Muslim tensions” than a couple of words uttered by the president?
Besides, “Islamic fascists” is a perfect description of the terrorists’ ideology. They plan to form an Islamic superstate from Morocco to Indonesia, governed by their interpretation of sharia law. From there, they will make jihad against non-Muslim lands until the entire world submits to the Word of God as delivered to Muhammad (npfp). This isn’t the president’s imagination. This is the Islamofascists’ stated game plan. It’s not a mischaracterization or interpretation.

Cool! Thanks to Republicans across the river, I got to meet fellow bow-hunter Ted Nugent. Here’s a picture of him autographing my membership card for an organization that supports hunters’ rights.

(Thanks to Dave Helwig at SooToday.com for snapping the above pic.)