"Well done, young parents." Bp Williamson (SSPX)

So one more school-year at the Seminary came to a glorious end, with the ordination of four new priests, three Americans and a Canadian, at Winona on June 22. On the day before, a violent storm and wind had begun to tear apart the lent erected for the occasion, and a large part had to be replaced, as you will read in the August "Verbum", but everything was repaired in time for the œremony which look place in lovely weather.

Some two thousand souls attended, trom ail over North America and beyond. How many familiar faces! People come back now year after year for the special graces that go with the birth of new priests, and with the celebration of their first Masses. Colleagues at the Seminary commented on how the congregation this year seemed especially recollected and joyful.

There were plenty of little children, as I had hoped for, and a corresponding number of young parents. What a delight it always is to see the young mothers, truly fulfilled by doing God's will in the home, and rewarded with a gracious femininity which the feminism of worldlings quite destroys! ln support of these young mothers and their children and their homes, let me quote at length from an artide by a colleague in France who runs a retreat house, and who must then have every year many young fathers and mothers coming through his hands.

Fr. Delagneau begins by lamenting how many households he sees, either breaking up or preparing to break up, with spouses destabilized and placed in great spiritual danger, with children disturbed for life. Such breaking up may seem no problem to wortdlings, but it must give Catholics pause to reflect: these break-ups do not happen overnight - so what am I doing in my own home now which may be leading in that direction?

Following St. Paul, his artide is divided into two parts: "Husbands, love your wife" (as Christ loved the Church, giving himself up for her - Eph. V, 25), and "Wives, be submitted to your husband" (as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church, his Body - Eph. V, 22). The complementarity of man and woman, the undertaking of which is the key to understanding marriage, and the living of which is the key to living a happy marnage, is a marvel of nature built by God into the design of the two sexes. Notice, however, the reference to Christ and his Church in the two quotes above, taken from the Epistle for the Catholic Church's Wedding Mass. This reference means that only grace, or supematural Faith in Christ and his Bride, the Church, can take the full measure of, and if need be protect, the natural marvel.

Fr. Delagneau notes that whereas in the old days the wife could and would endure a great deal in order to save the home, today it is often she who initiales the process of separation because life at home has come to seem unlivable. Yet separation is a non-solution, so Fr. Delagneau begins by addressing the husbands: -

"Remember firstly that by nature the wife is more sensitive, more emotional, which is why certain worries or problems in the home weigh on her more heavily. And if she stays at home, she has little by way of conversation or activity outside the home to take her mind off these upsets which thereby take on an importance her husband can hardly understand, which wears on her nerves.

"The sensitive side of woman likewise explains how, once she has lost trust in her husband, everything weighs upon her. She becomes tense and withdrawn, and goes on the defensive, increasing her nervous fatigue.

"To regain her trust is a long process and the husband will need to show great delicacy to prove that he really means to change. But that is the price he must pay, because without trust the marriage is going nowhere. Without trust, decisions are never taken together and relations become heavy and superficial while flare-ups and unkind words become more frequent.

"Realize also that, by her nature, woman can for a long time take things upon herself and endure difficulties without showing if, but if one day she cracks, it can be very difficult to repair. She th en goes into a nervous depression, or she gets fixated on some problem.

"Finally, realize just how wearying work in the home can be. Many husbands think that keeping house and rearing children is no heavy burden. But while house-keeping may not seem much, it requires time, effort and organization. Rearing children requires in addition a mother's full attention, self-control, and readiness to put everything else aside. Such obligations also give rise to a real nervous fatigue. Mother has not the same authority as father to settle problems. Fortunately she has more gentleness, patience and understanding, so she is more selfless. But ail of that wears on her nerves.

"Bearing children, especially when they follow closely on one another, while still having to keep house, is for mother an extra burden on her health that must be ta ken into account.

"If the husband bears all this in mind and much else besides, he will love his wife with a quite different love, and he will exercise his authority as head of the house with more Gare and gentleness. Here are a few suggestions: -

"Firstly, he will make a real effort not to let his work take over his life so that he is never at home to take any active part in family life (children's homework, games, conversation, helping around the house or with the washing up to make rife more pleasant for his wife).

"Next he will make time to talk with her, to listen to the major events of her day, to encourage and congratulate her and make a few suggestions. Forgetting his own weariness he will also speak of his own day and of current events, remembering that she has often had no adult conversation all day long, and needs something to open her mind.

"He will keep an eye open for his wife's nervous fatigue, and he will be realistic. That way he can advise her how to organize things better, and to stick to essentials. Wlth his manly authority he will help in the education of their children, so that she is not swamped by their running wild. He will also watch over her rest and health, and sometimes even change his own schedule to enable her to take a few necessary days off.

"The wife is sensitive and delicate, so she knows how to please. But she expects something of the sort in retum. A little gesture, a little kindness, a little display of affection will make her forget many pains and much weariness, and will give her renewed energy for her work. What may cost him little effort Can mean a great deal to her, so let him find out those little things that mean so much to her.

"The trust on her part which makes her gladly fall in with her husband's way of thinking, comes from two things; firstly, from her respect for his good qualities and for his success in what he undertakes, and secondly from his readiness to heed her wishes and her judicious advice, so that when he takes decisions, he does so in view of the welfare of the family as a whole.

"This trust is acquired at the beginning of a marriage, but it continues to be eamed thereafter. Of course the husband is the head of the family, but he must leam how to exercise his authority firmly but gently. Clashes should always be avoided. Giving way need not mean he loges his authority, on the contrary it can show that he knows how to adapt it to circumstances. Authority can be undermined by his never making up his mind, or by his giving way every time.

"ln fact, as St. Paul says so well, it is love for one's spouse that will discover the happy medium between being firm and being gentle.

"Under certain circumstances, one must know how to kneel down and pray for light to God, our Father.

"To conclude, let me point out that family problems do not arise only in other people's homes. Let the husband keep watch to preserve the union of harmony in his own."

Thus far Fr. Delagneau's recommendations to husbands. There is no space left for much to be quoted from his presentation of the need and way for wives to submit to their husbands. Here are a few extracts: -

"By becoming a wife, woman enters into a hierarchical society, the family, in which by the will of God man is the head. Just as Christ as man submitted to his Father, so the woman as wife submits to her husband. Neither did Christ lose in dignity by submitting to his Father, nor does the wife by submitting to her husband. On the contrary, obedience makes the soul noble because it makes the greatest sacrifice of self for God, the sacrifice of one's own will...

"Wives, do not listen to the vile propaganda of the anti-culture all around us, which is deliberately anti-Christian and is trampling upon the law of God. Listen to Pope Pius XII, addressing women in 1941: 'Numerous voices will make out to you that submission is in some way unjust. They will suggest that you be more proudly independent, that you are in all respects the equal of your husbands and that you are in many ways their superior. Watch out for such words of the serpent, temptations, lies. Do not follow in Eve's footsteps, but keep to the only path that can lead to happiness, even here below. . .'

"ln practice, the wife collaborates in all family decisions by her judicious advice, and then she falls in with her husband's opinion in view of the family welfare, God's will for each and all. She leams how to use the power that her looks and words have over her husband so to enter into his soul as to bring him round to the good of the family. And he leams to take decisions gently influenced by his wife, without losing authority, but also without being weak or giving way to her charm when she is not seeking the common good. There is a whole art in the wife's influencing her husband for the good. What a misfortune for some wives to have no idea of that art! They openly oppose their husbands' will, and the result can only be a head-on clash. At that point two self-wills corn pete, and only brute force or blackmail can win out. How far we are then from close collaboration in charity."

I add my own conclusion to Fr. Delagneau's good sense: let a husband and wife, who both want to make their marriage work, never despair, despite everything the modem world throws at them. A happy home can be achieved. It is an incomparable strength for the children, an edification as on June 22 for one's fellow men, and it must be a joy for the angels and God to behold. May He bless all of you husbarlds and wives, young or old, who keep trying!

Like sinkspur's claim that all Bp. Williamson ever talks about is the UnaBomber,.... Sinkspur has yet to offer even one quote supporting his claim.

Bishop Williamson's Letters
June 6, 1996,
Feast of Corpus Christi.

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

A fascinating document was published recently in the United States in two easily available books written about the case of a serial killer - the famous or notorious "Unabomber", hunted by the US police over the last 16 years for his killing by postal bomb of three men and injuring of several others, and perhaps at last tracked down this April in the State of Montana.

The document is his Manifesto, nearly 100 closely printed paper back pages, laying out in 232 numbered paragraphs and 16 notes a closely argued attack upon our industrial-technological society. It was, he says in paragraph #96, to get this message before the public "with some chance of making a lasting impression" that he resorted to bombs and killing.

Now Catholics know that the end can never justify the means. However important the Unabomber's message, nothing gave him the right to maim and kill innocent victims in order to get it before the public. So this letter may discredit itself by apparently crowning his terrorist means with success if it considers seriously his message, totally mocked and discounted on the contrary throughout the rest of one, probably both, of the paperbacks.

But I reply, firstly - again - principles are more important than personalities, and the message is, strictly, for good or ill, independent of the messenger. The author of the Unabornber's Manifesto might have since become a Saint without its contents being changed by one word. Secondly, if one stops and listens to some of the delinquents, real or supposed, protesting against modern society, like the Unabomber, film-director Oliver Stone, or many rock musicians, e.g. Pink Floyd, then without accepting that their ends justify all their means, one cannot help having a measure of understanding for their resorting to such desperate means. Modern man is in the more deadly trouble for having his ears blocked by a seemingly impenetrable complacency!

"Yes, but Catholic bishops have no business to be rummaging in such gutters!" Dear Madam, do you wish to save your rebellious teenagers' souls? I am sure you are well aware that if you talk to them of St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Theresa of Lisieux, you do not even get to first base. But just breathe the name of Pink Floyd, and see how their ears prick up! This is our world, and there is no other in which we have to save our souls! If only the honorable professors and respectable bishops were tackling the questions tackled by the Unabombers and the Oliver Stones, then your children might look up instead of down, but since nobody "decent" seeems to address their concerns, who can be surprised if they feed from the gutter? Rock music is one long, unheard, scream for help!

Then let us firstly consider the problem raised by the Unabomber which paperbackers and all similar technophiliacs would rather.run a mile than face, because they have no solution (Pink Floyd has no solution either, but at least he faces the problem). And secondly let us indicate the Catholic solution, because if a problem is human and serious, the true Church of the true God cannot not have the solution. W e begin with the Unabomber's argument, here cruelly condensed from the 232 paragraphs which he says are already too brief for the subject (my own section numbering):

1) Modern society is destroying human dignity and freedom by its industrial technology. A symptom of this destruction is the modern left-winger, or "Leftist", a type of man recurring in numerous protest movements today. Often himself belonging to no minority group, yet in the name of a variety of such groups he attacks Western civilization with a hostility betraying his lack of real compassion for the supposed victims. Nor can his revolt be so real against society when he wishes to integrate them into it!

2) In truth, the industrial-technological system, I.-T. or IT for short, makes it so easy for men to satisfy their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter that man's equally natural need to attain some goal by serious effort on his own part remains widely frustrated. Also family, or any such small-scale loyalty natural to man, is necessarily disrupted by the large-scale commitment required for IT to function. So IT destroys family values. Similarly the host of rules and regulations imposed by IT's functioning stifle man's acting on his own part to attain real goals, which is his real freedom.

3) Nor can any minor adjustment or compromise reconcile IT with freedom, both because IT has to regulate human behavior closely in order to function at all, and because all parts of IT are interdependent Moreover men's desire for IT and IT's benefits has for a long time been proving stronger than their desire for freedom, for a variety of reasons, so that the advance of IT seems to many people to be irreversible. For instance, the use of a motor car was originally optional, but it so changed the lay-out of cities that now it is obligatory. Therefore IT will be stopped by no small-scale reform but only by wholesale revolution.

4) The clash between IT and human freedom is highlighted by IT's present pursuit of ways to tame "wild" behavior: control of schooling, control of parenting, drugs, psychotherapy, neurology, genetics, eventually brain-engineering, etc., are all forms of manipulation by which IT will (if it can) re-engineer the very nature of man to fit IT. Presently more and more humans are rising up in revolt against IT, but if IT prevails, not even IT's rulers will have much freedom to move, whereas if IT is smashed, there maybe chaos, but at least humanity has another chance, and the chaos may cause less suffering than IT's continuance will.

5) For if IT survives, then the future looks grim: either, for the sake of efficiency, machines will be in total control and no man will be free. Or an elite will run the master machines, either so as to eliminate the masses so that a few are in control while the rest are dead, or so as to domesticate the masses so that the few are chained to the machine while the rest have no freedom or meaning in their lives. If IT survives, whichever way, man will have had to be re-engineered beyond all recognition!

6) However, IT is not unstoppable. The positive alternative we need is WILD NATURE, free of men, or with wild men. Wild nature is non-technological, it is beautiful, it takes care of itself, it permits survival living (One may have tooth-aches, but rather tooth-aches than IT!). The means of IT's overthrow are a revolution not merely political, but economic, technological and world-wide, for IT cannot be overthrown piecemeal. Above all, let our revolutionaries have the one clear goal: IT must go! All means to achieve that goal can then be pragmatically adjusted.

7) Finally, let our revolutionaries not mix with leftists who are as anti-individualist as IT is, and so will only oppose IT in order then to use it against everybody else. Also, leftists habitually collaborate in revolutions with non-leftists only to double-cross them later. Leftism is totalitarian by nature, in fact it is a substitute religion, the need to believe in which will make even decent follower's condone the most indecent crimes from their leaders.

I hope the brevity of this summary does not prevent readers from discerning a sharp mind tackling a real problem. Say what one will about the advantages of the present industrial-technological system of living, it is doomed as long as it rides roughshod over the deepest needs of human nature. This the Unabomber senses very clearly (sec. 2), as he sees very clearly the falsity of the solution by leftism (secs.1 and 7), which is why the leftist media have no love for him as they would have if he were one of theirs.

On the other hand as a child of the IT society and a product no doubt of an IT education (or rather, non-education), the Unabomber has an inadequate grasp of human nature, which prevents him from getting its crushing by IT correctly in focus, in two ways. Firstly, he centers the problem on man's loss of freedom (secs. 2 to 5), which is why the only positive solution he can come up with is a return to wild nature with no, or wild, men (sec. 6)! Shades of baby-seals, hug-a-tree and ozone! He is falling back into leftism's pathetic conclusion that the only pollution is men ("I can keep the kitchen wonderfully clean - just let nobody have any more meals"). Archbishop Lefebvre said to go back to the country, not to the wilds. (The man picked up in Montana had gone back to the wilds. That is not a solution.)

++++++++++++

This nonsense goes on and on; just do a Google with "Williamson and Unabomber" and you can find this white boy's rantings.

Pink Floyd? Williamson has a Jones for Pink Floyd?

What a nutburger!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.