Trump Shores Up the Female Vote

So, why did Trump speak at the pro-life march? First, he should be given kudos for doing it, even if his motivation was ... ahem... purely political. He is the first president to have done so, and that is a milestone. But let's look at the numbers which undoubtedly helped him decide this was a good move to make.

First, consider the importance of the female vote:

(As of Dec 2019) Trump – who took 41% of the women's vote to Clinton's 54% in 2016 – would lose female voters by bigger margins to Biden (who would get 51% of female voters, to Trump's 36%), Warren (who has 53% female support to Trump's 38%) and Sanders (who would capture 54% of women voters, compared to 36% who would vote for Trump in a general election matchup). Buttigieg would win women voters by a 47-36% margin against Trump, while Bloomberg would draw 48% of the female vote to Trump's 35%, according to the survey.

Those changes might seem relatively small, experts note, but they pose a big warning sign for a president who lost the popular vote in 2016 and won the electoral college by small margins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. "It doesn't take a lot in this election," Walsh says....

In 2018, when Democrats flipped control of the House of Representatives and picked up many state legislative seats, female voter turnout was 3.2% higher than that of men.... The numbers means that Trump has not really made inroads with female voters in his three years in office, analysts say, troubling for an incumbent.  

In matchups with every one of those five Democrats in the Fox poll, Trump's gender gap stays the same or widens, the polls shows, reflecting the increasing gender polarization between the two parties. 

Women vote Democratic more than men – 2018, for example, was the first time in exit polling history that Democrats took control of the House of Representatives without winning a majority of male voters.

We know Trump has an increasingly difficult time attracting women, and that this difficulty could easily bring him to defeat in 2020. He didn't win by majority vote in 2016. He can't afford to lose any voters in 2020. His gap with women is increasing.

According to Catalist, a progressive data company, college-educated white women swung Democratic by 10 points from 2016 to 2018, and non-college-educated white women swung Democratic by seven points. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that both groups of white women favored a generic Democrat over Trump by margins of 33 and six points, respectively. The pool of women willing to embrace the Republican brand is shrinking.

Second, remember that women - especially Republican women - are more pro-life than men, even Republican men.

Politically, abortion has been a stronger voting issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Abortion ranks as the second-most-important issue for Republicans in deciding their vote for president, behind immigration. But for Democrats, it is fifth — behind health care, America's role in the world, climate change and personal financial well-being... 

54% of men identified as "pro-choice," compared with 60% of women. For women of the different parties, 77% of Democratic women identified as "pro-choice," while 68% of Republican women identified as "pro-life." (A lower percentage of Republican men, 59%, considered themselves "pro-life."). 62% of Republican women said they oppose laws that allow abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. They are the only group to voice majority opposition to that.... 

Republican women are also the only group to say overwhelmingly that life begins at conception. About three-quarters said so, compared with less than half of Republican men and a third of Democratic women.

It's a reminder that Republican women, in many ways, are the backbone of the movement opposing abortion rights.  

As a pro-life candidate, there is no way he will win most Democrat women. 74% of Democrat women support murdering children, only 25% identify as pro-life. If he has to run as a pro-life candidate - which, as a Republican, he does - then his only hope is to double down on the voter most likely to turn out in the general election: the Republican woman. Without that voter, he will not regain the White House. As NPR notes, "If nothing else, it represents the power of the Republican female vote."

Maybe Trump really is pro-life. Given that he famously signed off on giving Planned Parenthood a half billion dollars in federal tax funding each year, that's hard to credit. But he certainly wants to be re-elected, so he is going to act pro-life, regardless of what he personally believes.

Why are Latin Mass Priests So Theologically Unsound?

So, a friend of mine sent me this homily given by a Latin Mass priest this past Christmas. It is, in a word, unsound. This is the kind of theological mess Catholic traditionalists constantly accuse Novus Ordo priests of delivering. 

Let's take a look (my comments are in red):

Christmas Day, Mass at Dawn 

Dear friends in Christ, on this Christmas morning we celebrate the birth of Our Lord, or rather births!  3 "births", if you like. They are reflected in the three different Masses for Christmas - Midnight, Mass at Dawn, means during the day, each with its own propers, each with its own emphasis.  First, as God, Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity (the logos or Word of God) is "born", begotten, generated, and yet always existed.  He was externally begotten of the Father, without a mother!  At Christmas we celebrate this "birth" of the 2nd Person of the Trinity from all eternity!

[The Son of God becomes "Jesus Christ" on March 25 (Feast of the Annunciation), not December 25. The name "Jesus Christ" is a title. Just as I have always been and will always be Steve, but I took on the title "husband" and, later, the title "father", so the Son of God took on the title "Jesus Christ" at a specific point in time - the Incarnation in Mary's womb. That title, "Jesus Christ", THAT has a beginning. The Son of God Himself has no beginning and no end, but the title definitely has a beginning, and it begins on March 25, not December 25. The priest apparently doesn't understand the ENORMOUS difference between being begotten/generated and being born. It is incredibly wrong to use the two terms "begotten" and "born" as if they were interchangeable.

"He was externally begotten of the Father... " Yeah, that may be a simple typo, because the phrase "externally begotten" is never used in reference to the Son. Perhaps that should be "eternally begotten"??]

2nd, we celebrate Christ's birth into our world, the world of space and time - the birth of the baby Jesus - God incarnate! God became man, "for us men and for our salvation".  As St. Irenaeus of Lyons says, "How could we be saved unless it were God who effected our salvation?  In His immeasurable love for us, He became what we are, in order to make us what He is.  How can man go to God, if God has not come to man? 

And so, we rightly celebrate Our Lord's birth into this world at Christmas.  As a man, He was born in time, of a mother, but without a Father! 

[Nope. Absolutely wrong. Frighteningly wrong. Protestant-style wrong. We can say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but we CANNOT say He was born without a father. The latter statement is wildly erroneous. It is de fide that St. Joseph was a true father in every sense except the biological.

As St. Thomas Aquinas points out "According to Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum ii), Joseph is called the father of Christ just as ‘he is called the husband of Mary, without fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family. Consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason that Joseph should not be called his father, because he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife’” (ST III:28:1 ad 1)."

Pope John Paul II: "Scripture recognizes that Jesus is not born of Joseph’s seed, since in his concern about the origin of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph is told that it is of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, he is not deprived of his fatherly authority from the moment that he is told to name the child. Finally, even the Virgin Mary, well aware that she has not conceived Christ as a result of conjugal relations with Joseph, still calls him Christ’s father.’"

“The Son of Mary is also Joseph’s Son by virtue of the marriage bond that unites them: ‘By reason of their faithful marriage both of them deserve to be called Christ’s parents, not only his mother, but also his father, who was a parent in the same way that he was the mother’s spouse: in mind, not in the flesh.’ In this marriage none of the requisites of marriage were lacking: ‘In Christ’s parents all the goods of marriage were realized—offspring, fidelity, the sacrament: the offspring being the Lord Jesus himself; fidelity, since there was no adultery: the sacrament, since there was no divorce.’

“It is to Joseph, then, that the messenger turns, entrusting to him the responsibilities of an earthly father with regard to Mary’s Son” (Guardian of the Redeemer 3; cf. Augustine, Sermo 51, 10, 16: PL 38, 342; De nuptiis et concupiscentia I, 11, 12–13: PL 44, 421)."

In that sentence, this priest essentially denied the existence of the Holy Family.]

And thirdly, we celebrate the spiritual "birth" of all of us who believe in Him, receive Baptism and become members of His mystical body the Church. 

[Well, not at Christmas we don't, at least, not liturgically. We celebrate our baptismal birth in Christ at Easter Vigil, not on Christmas. It is at Easter Vigil that all the faithful receive a plenary indulgence when they repeat their baptismal vows. There is no similar plenary indulgence at Christmas, or any other day of the year, save the anniversary of one's own baptism. Lex orandi, lex credendi. 

Now, you could argue that the Baptism of Christ ends the Christmas season, is part of the Christmas season, and therefore the Christmas season celebrates baptism. Ok, that's a fair argument. But it is in the Baptism of Christ that we celebrate our baptism, not the birth of Christ, i.e., Christmas Day. 

Indeed, it would be a better argument to say that our baptism is celebrated on January 1, the Feast of the Circumcision, since that is the first drop of Christ's blood to be spilled for our salvation, and January 1 is - not coincidentally - also the Feast of Mary, Mother of God. 

Notice the Feast of Mary, Mother of God is NOT celebrated on December 25 (Christmas) or March 25 (Annunciation), but on January 1, Feast of the Circumcision. Mary becomes Mother of God on March 25th, but she becomes Mother of the Church on the first day Christ sheds His blood and thus forms the Church. January 1, THAT is the day when the mystical body of the Church is conceived, as it were. It is at the Crucifixion that Christ gives birth to the sacraments via the water and blood that flow from His side, and it is at Pentecost that the Body of Christ, the Church, is made visible.] 

There are only two Persons who can call Christ- "My only begotten son".  The Eternal Father, and the Blessed Virgin Mary! 

It's just amazing, and not easy to get your head around, but think about it, Mary is both the Mother and the daughter of her son because her Son is God!  At Christmas, Mary (a mere creature) gave birth to her Creator! 

The Divine child in the manger on Christmas morning is also God. He is the Father of His own mother! 

[Yeah, that's not entirely correct either. The priest is confusing God the Father with God the Son. The two  Persons are not the same. While all three Persons participate in every divine action (so in that narrow sense, the priest is not wrong), in each divine action one of the Persons predominates. The Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer and the Spirit is Sanctifier. Now, sure, the whole of creation is created for, through and by Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make the Son the Creator. Sure, we refer to the Holy Spirit as "Creator Blest", but that is in reference to the new creation the Spirit makes of us in the sacraments and the breath of life He gives us at conception.

"CCC 14 It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church..." 
There are many more passages like this one. You would search the CCC in vain trying to find the phrase "God the Son, Creator" ] 

In today's epistle, St. Paul's letter to Titus, we read, "Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost; whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ Our Savior."  Our Lord became man so that one day we might partake of the Heavenly banquet - we receive a tremendous gift from God.  What gift?  The best Christmas present ever!  This gift is His Son, Jesus, who restored the order of grace, allowing us to partake once again of the Divine Nature.  Again, as St. Irenaeus says, "He became what we are in order to make us what He is."  Or, as St. Augustine says, "God became man so that man might become "god"- small "g"!  To share in His Divine Nature, in other words.  What an incomparable gift - the gift of grace! 

I've mentioned 3 "births", I could add a 4th - a daily Bethlehem in our midst, if you like.  And that is the tremendous mystery of the Mass, when daily Jesus Christ comes down or becomes present on the altar.  The miracle of transubstantiation.   

I remember a few years ago at Christmas, it was the Midnight Mass, not here, when a creep, very probably a Satanist, tried to steal a consecrated host - he took it out of his mouth and was seen by a vigilant parishioner - you notice the Satanists never try to steal communion from Anglican or Lutheran services?  The Satanist know that in the Protestant communion, they only receive bread!  It's not Jesus Christ they receive.  But it is in the Catholic Mass. 

2,000 years ago, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity became man.  He took on a human nature and became the God/man Jesus Christ. And He is still on earth - in the Holy Eucharist.  Every Catholic Church is a mini - Bethlehem, because Christ is truly present there, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  He is "born" upon our altars! 

[That really doesn't make sense. Transubstantiation is not like birth, not at all. Birth is a physical movement from one location to another. Transubstatiation is not a physical movement at all, it is a change in Aristotelian substance. So, you can say in transubstantiation the Son of God is conceived on our altars... that would make a certain level of sense, because conception transforms simple physical entities into an immortal body-soul unity that will be separated for only a short time at death, but re-established at the Last Judgement and Resurrection. That change, made by God at conception, is a change in Aristotelian substance, transforming simple physical things into human persons. Thus, conception IS a change in substance, and in that sense, it is somewhat like transubstantiation. 

But birth does not involve a change in substance, it is just movement from one physical location (in the womb) to another (outside the womb). By comparing "change in substance" to a simple "physical movement," the priest's comparison actually undermines the very meaning of the word "transubstantiation."] 

At the 1st Christmas 2,000 years ago, the Son of God came in the flesh.  The Holy Eucharist is the 'miracle' which continues that presence.  We still have Christ near us - we have Emmanuel - God with us! 

Christ became a man to save us, He becomes our spirit food to strengthen us, and both are done out of love for us! 

What should our response be?
Gratitude! 

Let us be grateful to God for sending His Son, eternally begotten; born into our world, to save us. 

Let us thank Him for the sacrament of Baptism whereby we can be brought from the state of enmity to state of friendship with God - for allowing us to become sons and daughters, in fact heirs of His Kingdom. 

And finally, let us be grateful for the gift of Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. 

O Sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur - O holy banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace, and there is given to us a pledge of future "glory". 

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
Christmas Day Homily by Traditional Latin Mass Priest

Conclusion:
The priest who gave this homily is not well-formed in his theology. He could have given a much better homily if he had actually taught correct theology instead of this.... stew. This mixes all kinds of theological errors together and pours them into the laity's ears. This good priest needs to have his homilies thoroughly vetted. He shouldn't be saying stuff like this from the ambo during Mass, especially not at a Christmas Mass, where this may be the first Mass/homily some of the members of the assembly have heard in months and/or years.

Celibacy on the Amazon

Apparently, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah have co-authored a book advocating for priestly celibacy. Whether it is intended to or not, the timing of the book's publication appears to weigh in on deliberations of the Amazon Synod, which recommended a relaxation of the discipline of priestly celibacy for certain South American pastoral situations.

Many in the self-appointed Catholic "traditionalist" world have applauded this work as an important contribution. This reaction shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the part of Catholic "traditionalists" concerning Catholic Faith. Neither of these men are the Pope, thus their opinions, whether they contradict or affirm the Pope Francis' eventual decision, are completely irrelevant. Insofar as they confirm Pope's opinion, they violate the dignity of the papacy, who is first among bishops. It is the Pope's role to teach, the bishops' role to collegially (not publicly) advise the Pope and disseminate the teachings.

The Pope speaks first. These men have not the right to usurp the papal function, even if they are right. And, of course, if they are wrong, then, by the gravity of the stations they hold, they give scandal and promote disunity in the Church.

The Amazon Synod has no teaching authority, nor does any other synod, nor does any group of bishops not in formal council. The Amazon Synod was a group of South American bishops and their representatives, called together by the Pope, whose job it was to advise the Pope on their pastoral and catechetical difficulties in the region. The Pope himself spent his entire life in that same region, working with those same problems. It was a group of local experts advising a local expert on what they felt was the best way to handle a set of situations they face.

Cardinal Sarah has no experience in the Amazon region. Pope Emeritus Benedict may have had skilled and knowledgeable advisors to consult with while he was Pope, but he no longer has access to that level of information, nor has he had for years. So, we are meant to compare the opinions of two men whose knowledge is, respectively, little and none, to the opinions of men who are well-versed in the subject area. This is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity (CCC 1883), the idea that those closest to a situation should make the necessary decisions concerning that situation. 

You may claim Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus are simply trying to awaken the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful, CCC 91-93)  which is also a valid expression of the Magisterium. In fact, the sensus fidelium is a perfectly valid, if often forgotten, infallible expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But the sensus fidelium is not astro-turf. It bubbles up organically from the faithful themselves, it does not need ordained men to stir the pot.

Insofar as this may be a public attempt to sway the Pope's decision, it is completely outrageous and a serious breach of discipline. The Pope speaks first. Instead of allowing the Pope to speak first, these two have arrogated to themselves the right to try to influence the faithful, possibly in contradiction to the Pope. Unless they have certain knowledge of how the Pope will rule, they have no business speaking now. And if they had such certain knowledge, then why did they frame their book as an appeal to the Pope? That line of deduction cannot hold. This book should not have been published at this time, or even at all. These conversations should be had in private with the Pope as advisors, not in public.

You may claim that St. Paul publicly remonstrated St. Peter on the matter of eating with Gentiles. True, he did. But St. Peter had not given a formal teaching on how that particular discipline was to be lived. He simply gave a lived example, with no indication that he was going to give a public decision on the matter.

Sarah and Benedict are publicly "teaching" when they KNOW the Pope is soon going to give a public decision. It is no different than the Judaizers publicly teaching that all must be circumcised, even though they knew Pope Peter was going to rule on the matter, but had not yet done so.

Two quote a few commentators:

Why is a discipline suitable in Belarus, the Melkite Churches and Ukraine (and sanctioned by the Council in trullo a theological and pastoral threat in Africa and South America?

And again:

Sarah asserts that "ordaining married men would be a pastoral catastrophe, lead to ecclesiological (sic) confusion, and obscure our understanding of the priesthood." But he also claims "the Evangelical Protestants are sometimes more faithful to Christ than we are.” If  marriage has not been a "catastrophe" for the ability of Evangelical Protestants to be faithful, or to evangelize in undeveloped countries, what's the basis for Sarah's argument?

The ordination of married men in the Anglican Ordinariate was already permitted by Pope St. John Paul II before Benedict took office. Insofar as this book interferes in Pope Francis' decision, or contradicts it, this book at best questions papal authority and, at worst, may well serve to bolster a schismatic movement in the Church which Catholic "traditionalists" have already begun. It is a completely irresponsible move. These men are using the gravity of their respective offices to make more difficult a decision that is proper to papal authority.

Idolatry of a discipline is stupid. In Christian charity, we can only assume this is a sign of approaching dementia on Benedict's part.

UPDATE:
You know, there is one other possibility. It's possible that Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah ran the publication of this book past Pope Francis, and received his permission to go ahead with publication. Pope Francis is famous for encouraging a broad, full conversation on topics. He may well be interested in seeing of Benedict and Sarah can astro-turf the Church. As indicated above, the very fact that this book is in print at this time rather strongly indicates that Pope Francis is seriously considering dispensing with clerical celibacy in certain Amazonian regions.  It seems unlikely that the faithful, apart from the rather fringe "traditionalists" are going to get upset about such a dispensation.

Don't get me wrong. The discipline of priestly celibacy has borne enormous fruits through the millennia, and it is a wonderful discipline. It would be a shame to see it go. But, ultimately, disciplines change. The Church abides.

UPDATE 2:
Well, it looks like Fr. Fessio, former pupil of Pope Benedict and CEO of Ignatius Press, conspired with Cardinal Sarah to mis-represent Pope Benedict as co-author of the book. Hilarious.

If I had to guess, I would bet Fr. Fessio is having trouble meeting payroll, so he decided to "publish" another Benedict book, as he has exclusive rights to Benedict's work, and those royalties are reliable income streams. Cardinal Sarah went along with it because it increases his stature as well. Win-win, or so they thought. There is no way Fessio didn't know the authorship status of that book before he published.

What does CE *REALLY* Mean?

  

Over the last couple of decades, historians have tried to rename the old AD/BC numbering system for historical dates to an alternative CE/BCE. According to this new scheme, the year 1 AD should be renamed 1 CE and the years prior to 1 CE, say, for instance, 200 BC, should now be called 200 BCE. Why the change?

Well, according to these dimwits, since Anno Domini (Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ) reference a specifically religious event, that is not an acceptable numbering system. Using CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era) is meant to be value neutral, culturally neutral:

The term "Common Era" can be found in English as early as 1708, and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications as a culturally neutral term. 

Let's see how accurate this idea of "commonality" is, shall we?

Since "1 AD = 1 CE" and "1 BC = 1 BCE", we have to ask: to whom is this numbering system common? Well, let's see.

Below is a table of several different ways in which the year "2019 Common Era" are rendered.

Gregorian calendar	2019 MMXIX
Ab urbe condita	2772
Armenian calendar	1468 ԹՎ ՌՆԿԸ
Assyrian calendar	6769
Bahá'í calendar	175–176
Balinese saka calendar	1940–1941
Bengali calendar	1426
Berber calendar	2969
British Regnal year	67 Eliz. 2 – 68 Eliz. 2
Buddhist calendar	2563
Burmese calendar	1381
Byzantine calendar	7527–7528
Chinese calendar	戊戌年 (Earth Dog) 4715 or 4655     — to — 己亥年 (Earth Pig) 4716 or 4656
Coptic calendar	1735–1736
Discordian calendar	3185
Ethiopian calendar	2011–2012
Hebrew calendar	5779–5780
Hindu calendars
- Vikram Samvat	2075–2076
- Shaka Samvat	1940–1941
- Kali Yuga	5119–5120
Holocene calendar	12019
Igbo calendar	1019–1020
Iranian calendar	1397–1398
Islamic calendar	1440–1441
Japanese calendar	Heisei 31 / Reiwa 1 (令和元年)
Javanese calendar	1952–1953
Juche calendar	108
Julian calendar	Gregorian minus 13 days
Korean calendar	4352
Minguo calendar	ROC 108 民國108年
Nanakshahi calendar	551
Thai solar calendar	2562
Tibetan calendar	阳土狗年 (male Earth-Dog) 2145 or 1764 or 992     — to — 阴土猪年 (female Earth-Pig) 2146 or 1765 or 993
Unix time	1546300800 – 1577836799

Here's the question: if the number system is "common" and "culturally neutral", why does it seem to be used only by Western historians? Furthermore, why does it simply seem to ape the Gregorian AD/BC counting system? Couldn't we just as accurately say that "CE/BCE" stands for "The Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era"?

Obviously, the CE/BCE system isn't culturally neutral or value neutral. It's sole purpose is to wipe out all reference to the Christian worldview that created Western civilization. From a truly historical perspective, the CE/BCE system deserves only mocking disdain.