Why I Can't Recant (This Time)

It was inevitable. The mob has come after me. They demand I delete my twitter. They demand that my friends abandon me. They attempt to strip me of a major portion of my livelihood. I have made it a practice to always admit when I say something dumb. For those who have followed me for awhile, this has taken place twice. Yet, why not this time? This surely seems to be the strongest wave of attacks, from liberals, “Christians,” and even fellow Catholics attacks come day and night. I have had tiktoks made about me, all future job prospects are out of the window. Why not now? Well, I cannot recant this time because I said nothing wrong (a notable exception to this was my reference to 109 which I apologized and deleted when I understood the full import of the phrase).

Last night I dropped in a Twitter space and was allowed to plead my case before a few dozen people, most of which admitted that they got caught up in the hype and realized that I’m not a raging anti-semitic, misogynistic, racist. I pray that this little apologia will have a similar effect, dispelling rumors and setting forth my genuine beliefs.

There are three types of claims against me, first, that I am racist, second, that I am anti-semitic, and, third, that I am sexist. Concerning the first, the only evidence set forth is hearsay that I commented positively in response to a story where a lady made a racist remark (which, conveniently, nobody screenshotted, and “got deleted”). I don't really have many thoughts on race, haven’t commented on the issue frequently, and plainly deny the claims as calumny.

Concerning the second, there are various claims (hard to keep track of all these things I supposedly believe). First, the 109, which I have covered. That was dumb on my part. Second, the claim that I deny the Holocaust. This is stupid, considering the fact that multiple saints (e.g., St. Edith Stein) were martyred in the Holocaust. I don’t deny it. Stop making up lies about me. Third, the case of the martyrdom of St. Simon of Trent.

Concerning the cases of Blood libel, as the Popes have, even in that era, I sharply disagree with the responses of the men of that day in justifying pillaging and killing. But, I believe, 1. St. Simon of Trent was killed, 2. He was killed out of hatred for the Catholic faith, and 3. The person (people) who did the killing were of the Jewish religion. I do not make any claims on the manner in which he was killed, whether ritualistic or not. I deny that those who killed him were representative of their time. The facts of the St. Simon of Trent case are relatively simple. First, his body was found in the Jewish quarters of the city. Second, the finding of the body was reported by those of the Jewish community (which is why it makes no sense to say that there was some plot of the entire community). Third, there was the response of corrupt judicial measures that caused the death of many within the Jewish community (which I follow the popes in condemning). Fourth, the frenzy of ritual murder investigations was condemned by Pope Sixtus IV. Fifth, there were hundreds of documented miracles attributed to the intercession of St. Simon of Trent. Sixth, St. Simon of Trent was added to the Martyrologium Romanum, a martyrology recited at the canonical hour of Prime, imposed on the entire Latin rite, commenting "At Trent, the suffering of the holy boy Simeon, barbarously murdered by the Jews, who was afterwards glorified by many miracles." Seventh, his local cult was affirmed by Pope Sixtus V, an equivalence to beatification. Eighth, Pope Clement XIV reaffirms the authenticity of the martyrdom (as the most authentic of any of these cases), and affirms, as I do, that this is not some sort of “corporate sin” of the Jewish people. Ninth, Pope St. Paul VI removed him from the calendar.

With these facts before us, what can we gather? We can gather, as the Popes had, that the trial was unjust. Yet, since his body was found in the ritual water bath of a synagogue, we can gather that the murderer was religiously Jewish. From his beatification and inclusion in the Roman Martyrology, we can gather that he was a martyr for the Catholic faith. While he was never canonized (and thus not infallibly a martyr), the guidance of the Holy Spirit is present in beatification and in the liturgy of the church, thus it would be impious to say that there was such a substantial error imposed on centuries of priests and religious in reciting the Martyrology. The removal from the calendar has nothing to do with “de-beatifying” him, but was merely a liturgical regulation.

Now, onto the other claim, that I am “misogynistic.”

When it comes to voting for both men and women, rather than voting for men as representative of their households. First, while democracy is licit (as Pope Leo XIII teaches), monarchy is the best form of government simpliciter (c.f., St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno and St. Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice). So, I do not believe it is ideal for either men or women to vote. Yet, in this state of affairs, there are important considerations to make in Catholic philosophy that should lead all to hold my position (this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia provides a good overview: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm ).

My main thesis may be sought in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this question, “After this the natural basis of society and the natural position of woman and the family were shaken to such extent by the French Revolution that the germ of the modern woman's suffrage movement is to be sought there. The anti-Christian ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries led to a complete break with the medieval Christian conception of society and the state. It was no longer the family or the social principle that was regarded as the basis of the state, but the individual or the ego.”

In classical views of the state, it was not the individuals who made up the political life. Rather, the political unit was made up of smaller units (the principle of subsidiarity), until we reach the family which is made of individuals. At each of these layers, there are representatives of the body. This does a great deal in protecting the individual, for, every single layer would have to corrupt for the whole to corrupt, rather than going in without protection. Thus, voting patterned this in having the father of the household vote for his household, recognizing this principle that it wasn’t the individuals who made up the state, but family groups who made up the state.

It is to this question that Pope St. Pius X comments, “There is much to admire in the feminist desire to elevate women intellectually and socially, but the Lord protect us from political feminism.” (N.B., “political feminism” in his day was first wave feminism, i.e., right to vote, hold political office, etc.,)

This is why the ancient jurists (which most of the canonists follow) on the matter ruled thus: "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators." (Ulpian, Dig., I, 16, 195)

Second, when it comes to employment. The matter is simple, and Pope Pius XI has already spoken prophetically on the matter (also, referring to women’s suffrage, “devoting themselves to public affairs), no further word is necessary: “This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.” (Casti Connubii 75)

In fact, Pius XII points out that this work is the proper outlet for political action: “Your own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families. We must not forget that the making of a home in which all feel at ease and happy, and the bringing up of children are very special contributions to the common welfare. So we rejoice in the fact, which you yourselves rightly recorded, that among rural families, which are still such a large part of society, woman’s work in the home still goes hand in hand with her contribution to the social and national economy.” (Papal Directives For The Woman Of Today)

Third, when it comes to clothing. It must be noted that in this regard, outward behavior is being restricted. Yet, this is not the restriction of outward behavior for its own sake, rather such a restriction is able to cultivate natural virtue and to dispose oneself to the reception of grace. This is best seen in the 20th century “Modesty Crusade” by Pope Pius XI to the entire world. His rules were simple, “A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers’ breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” These standards were placed on all Catholic women.

In conclusion, I cannot recant.