Honour

This entry was written following a heated argument with a person has repeatedly failed to keep her word. Though generally patient with others (especially foreign females), her excuses and failure to apologise broke the last straw, leading this blogger to accuse her of being devoid of what seems to have become a forgotten word: honour.

Honour is hard to define and is even harder to put into practice. Many today associate honour with murdered girls and blood feuds. We remember women murdered simply for listening to their hearts, refusing the wishes of their clans, and men left dead in attempts to 'defend their honour' after seemingly mild insults. It reminds us all too much of a culture that remains only in today’s street gangs. Or football pitches.

These people, however, did not kill over honour – they were saving 'face'. There is a distinction between the two. 'Face' represents social perceptions of one's prestige; a loss of which would lead to a (perceived) loss of authority. Honour cannot be taken away by an insult. Honour is lost when one believes the insults and seeks revenge, but it can never be taken away. Honour lies within oneself, and is demonstrated in how one responds to others.

Honour was developed in a violent time where society was driven by class and sex distinctions. This code disciplined the individual, permitting him to take a stand on principle, to become a reformer and to take on injustice.

Honour is first and foremost defined as the deferential recognition by word or sign of another's worth. Thus one would show honour to another by giving him his title if he have one, or by raising one's hat to him, or by yielding to him a place of precedence. One thereby gives expression to one's sense of his worth, and at the same time professing one's own inferiority to him.

We honour God first of all, as the source of all that is and will be. We honour our rulers, who have authority over us, being given by the Almighty. We honour our parents to whom we owe our life. We honour our fellow man, who is made in the image of our Creator.

It is right and proper that marks of honour should be paid to worth of any kind, if there be no special reason to do so otherwise. We are obliged to honour those who stand are superior to ourselves, and even those who are not, for being created in the image of God, they are worthy of basic courtesy and respect.

Why, the Apostle bids us give honour to whom honour is due. To withhold it or to show dishonour to whom honour is due is a sin against justice, and one is obliged to make suitable restitution.

The feudal world that gave life to honour no longer exists, and yet this very notion of 'honour' persists in this very different age. Honour occupies an interesting place in the human conscience. It enhances morality and understanding of God's will. In determining how our conflicts are handled, it aids us as we strive for the perfection of character. In it we are encouraged to return kindness for kindness, to uphold justice and treat all with respect.

There is a story of a master swordsman who sat calmly through numerous insults from bandits. Expertly catching four flies with his chopsticks, he walked away – thus avoiding a fight. A misunderstanding of honour would see this man rising to avenge himself, but nothing the bandits said would have diminished the swordsman’s honour or skill, and fighting them would neither enhance his honour nor skill. It was honourable to walk away.

Honour is courtesy and prudence. Without honour, cherished virtues would be meaningless. Truthfulness without honour leads to embarrassment. Courage without honour brings unnecessary harm to oneself and others. Loyalty without honour is blind obedience. Honour is clearly the hardest virtue to define, and yet the most essential. One must demonstrate courage, courtesy, benevolence, loyalty and truthfulness, finding the balance between humility, glory and respect – even if it means to swallow pride and ambition.

Honour is in right action, goodness and courage on behalf on those who cannot defend themselves – and what one decides to do everyday, one will be honourable. Or not.

Why Can't Everyone Have Courts Like This?

Last month the Court of Cassation Italy's highest appeal Court banned a couple from naming their son Friday - Venerdi - because the name "could expose the boy to ridicule".

The court said the name was derived from the manservant in Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe, and was therefore associated with "subservience and inferiority". The judges ordered the boy to be renamed Gregorio, after the saint's day on which he was born.

Times Online, December 1, 2008

[via Orwell's Picnic]

Aside from it being assigned to a boy, I'm not opposed to 'Friday' as a name. After all, we do have a major saint who bore that name...

NOTE: I am told that St Paraskeva, like the Martyr Sophia and her daughters Faith, Hope and Love, was a pious analogy that became personified over the centuries. Edward, if you are reading this, please provide an explanation =P

2008's Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Peacemaker or Puppet?

Throughout the Western world, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari has been widely hailed, where there has been an outpouring of praise for the man and his efforts.

But there is another side to this man that has not yet received attention:

"It really doesn't matter if Paraguay hasn't recognised," Ahtisaari said. "Well over 65% of the wealth of the world has recognised. That matters."

Ahtisaari said Serbia would have to recognize Kosovo if it wanted to join the European Union.

"You can't be poking the EU in the eye [while] saying you want to join EU," he said.

Although he was supposed to be an impartial mediator, Ahtisaari admitted he had sent private messages to all parties soon after taking his role as mediator, that Kosovo's secession was inevitable.

- Kosovo Compromise, Monday, October 20, 2008

Svetlana wryly remarked, "Well, then what about Russia? And India, or China?"

As if this blatant statement does not indicate whose interests Ahtisaari has served in the fiasco leading up to the Kosovar Albanian declaration of independence early this year, the man's "negotiating" techniques are anything but peaceful (emphasis mine):

Ristic reports that as Milosevic listened to the reading of the text, he realized that the "Russians and the Europeans had put us in the hands of the British and the Americans." Milosevic took the papers and asked, "What will happen if I do not sign?"

In answer, "Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table," and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, "Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade."

Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, "This is what we will do to Belgrade." A moment of silence passed, and then he added, "There will be half a million dead within a week." Chernomyrdin’s silence confirmed that the Russian government would do nothing to discourage carpet-bombing.

- CounterPunch, October 14, 2008

Many in the West say the continued Chinese presence in Tibet leads to the "mindless destruction" of monasteries, as well as "cultural genocide".

But they remain strangely silent when the very same occurs in Kosovo and Metohija. Hundreds of mediaeval Serbian churches and monasteries, the few remaining strongholds of Kosovo's Christian history, are being emptied and destroyed by Kosovar Albanians as NATO "peacekeepers" nonchalantly watch on. Truly, the Eastern European bias remains alive and well even after the Red Scare has been deposited in history's rubbish bin.

KFOR soldiers helplessly watch as Serbian homes burn near Priština

Gregory Elich concludes:

The selection of Martti Ahtisaari for the Nobel Peace Price was a reward for services rendered. This was a purely political statement, meant to underline an important principle in international affairs. The same Western nations that forcibly carved Kosovo from Serbia are vociferously complaining that independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates international law and the territorial integrity of Georgia. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize affirms the lofty principle that it is only the West that will draw and redraw borders in the manner of 19th-century imperial powers.

It was these imperialist powers who drew the present-day boundaries in the Balkans - sometimes in ink, often in blood. And now they reward this "peacemaker" who has forcibly wrenched Kosovo and Metohija away from Serbia to give Albanian terrorists a country. No Orthodox Christian can ever accept this peace that leaves us with nothing but pain.

Who Needs Depth Perception...

...when you can't drive anyway?

A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.

Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

- BBC News, 14:51 GMT, Friday, 3 October 2008

"We Can Still Be Friends"

A friend's advice regarding a phrase that continues to haunt me, three weeks after it was said.

.:Раде Брдар:. says:
well when girls tell you that

.:Раде Брдар:. says:
they try to be nice, even though they have chosen the other guy, then they are hoping that u never call them again or try to talk to them, but when that other guy @#$% them over they fly to you

.:Раде Брдар:. says:
thats when u tell her to @#$% off

'Traditionalist'

George Orwell, best-known for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, mused in his 1946 essay, "...language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions".

Those words came to mind late last night during a conversation with a Roman Catholic. Let's call him G for the sake of writing. G had used the word 'trad' several times this year (rather freely too, I might add), when referring to a plethora of church events, activities and people - from masses to priests to books. Time after time, however, I found myself raising eyebrows at the event/person/practice he gave that appellation to - and always due to stunned shock, disbelief or sheer disappointment. Needless to say, I began to suspect what he actually meant when he used that term.

Now, the common understanding of a 'trad' (i.e. traditionalist) is (almost always) a Roman Catholic who advocates a return to Tradition, namely the Tridentine mass, doctrinal orthodoxy etc. Also, a trad tends to oppose rather stubbornly against modernism and various innovations (such as communion in the hand).

I have been asked this before, but I don't think Orthodox traditionalists exist. Quite simply, how do traditionalists exist in a Church whose traditions have remained, for the most part, largely unchanged? The gulf between say, Old Calendarists (or even Old Believers for that matter) and mainstream Orthodox is not as wide and vicious as the one that exists between the Roman Catholic trads and mainstream Catholics, but I digress.

There are various degrees of Roman Catholic traditionalism, and to say that all traditionalists are one and the same would be nothing but sheer ignorance. Edward, longtime contributor to now defunct blog, The Cassock and Cotta, distinguished 3 categories of traditionalists (where 'X' indicates the New Mass, i.e. Novus Ordo, and 'Y' represents the Tridentine mass):

1) Those who believe the X is equally valid, if perhaps sometimes rather problematic. These people prefer Y over X for historical, cultural and various reasons, but do not see X as heretical.

2) Moderates. These believe X is seriously problematic and has heretical tendecies - Y is the solution to these modern heresies. These believe that while X is not invalid or graceless, they prefer to wall themseleves off, keeping Y and the true uncompromised faith, forming a sort of resistance, hoping for better times.

3) Extremists. These believe X is heretical and invalid and graceless. Those who adopt X have become heretics, outside the True Church, and that grace leaves that jurisdiction. Those who use X may only be saved if they renounce X and join Y, the only place where true believers may be found.

'Traditional' practices would refer to Catholic practice which began after the Council of Trent and largely died out since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 60s.

Now that we are clear, one who would use the 'traditionalist' to describe something would refer to either one of the aforementioned categories. The terms are hardly, if ever, used to describe an event/practice or even person for that matter, if it is anything less. For example, A Novus Ordo mass celebrated in Latin is not 'traditional', and although traditionalists may attend or even form the bulk of the congregation, it does not change the fact that such masses did not exist before the Second Vatican Council. One would not use the word 'traditional' to describe it. I think the word Edward would use is 'pointless'.

G has applied the term to such masses. And to Stations of the Cross. And rosary. And confession. At which point, I'd stop and seriously question his definition - which I did last night:

Constantine: You seem to be applying it everywhere
G: ok firstly....my definition of traditional would be to follow what the catholic church has always taught till today
G: and that is how the catholic church defines Tradition

30 minutes of attempting to clarify later, the discussion (if you may call it as such) came to this:

G: strictly speaking....the catholic church is traditional
Constantine: No, no... not 'traditional', traditionalist.
Constantine: 'Traditionalist', as in an advocate of the Tridentine mass and various other Roman Catholic practices that have since fallen out of use
G: this is not an official ecclesial terminology right
Constantine: Never has been
G: anyway i am 'traditionalist' therefore but i also subsribe to the normative rite
G: as all catholics are oliged to...with the exception of sspx...(hence they are in an irregular position)

Another half hour of attempts later:

Constantine: When most of us use the word 'trad'/'traditionalist', we follow popular usage
Constantine: Else we wouldn't use it otherwise
G: when u say most...i guess u mean traddys right
G: cos many people i speak to are also non traddys
G: and they also use the 'traditional' term
G: but it wouldn't mean any of the above u named
G: but none of these people are 'traditionalists' per se
G: they are novus ordo catholics
G: who follow the tradition of the church

OK, never mind the fact that he probably didn't understand me, but this revealed why he was misusing the term: he has obviously confused 'tradtionalists' with Sacred Tradition. This is not unlike confusing Democrats with democracy...

This begs the questions: has he misunderstood my use (and very possibly, others') of the terms throughout the past year? Was he not confused himself? He reads the New Liturgical Movement; shouldn't he know?

This obviously doesn't make any sense, but G hasn't made sense for quite some time now. The conversation then moved to the recent World Youth Day in Sydney, and several negative comments (mostly centered around Stations of the Cross) from yours truly later:

G: on the positive side (of World Youth Day) about a 200 000 people went for confession
Constantine: Uh, that's a "good" thing how?
G: so well many souls were restored to grace...u wouldn't find this even in the vatican
Constantine: It's a given that a good Catholic go to confession regularly
G: it is not a given nowadays
Constantine: Please, don't lower your standards....
G: thats why the church needs to 'encourage' young people to go
G: through such means
Constantine: That's not the answer, you realise
Constantine: You might as well give out free beer with every confession

I think I'm beginning to see how he could have used the term so loosely. He has lowered his standards and expectations to the point that even something vaguely Latin would appear 'traditional'. I could very well blame the Second Vatican Council for the decline in faith, as some 'traditionalists' are wont to do, but I won't. Perhaps for G, his language truly is a reflection of his social condition - the climate of political correctness must have rendered him reluctant to offend anybody, while relativism blinds him to objective standards and so blurred the meaning of the term.

Standards are important. In morals, in faith, and also in language. Language is important. It turns a mass into something solemn and powerful - or into a farce. It can bring people to raise their minds and spirits to God - or it can get them to join their minds and spirits to each other, and forget all about God.

Let us not make the same error G has made, and stick to clear, concise meaning when we use words!

Newsflash: Italians Want To Be... Italian

Steve Sailor takes on the latest multi-culti boffin outrage:

Wouldn't the whole world be better off if Italy weren't so damn Italian? I mean, what has Italian culture ever contributed to anything? When will the Italians get with the program and adopt the Universal Globoculture? The New York Times wants to know!

More HERE

Ever Wonder Why...

...it matters what you wear to church on Sunday?

After all, it doesn't matter whether you wear slippers or tuxedo - all of this is meaningless externals. God loves you no matter what, right?

Why do little things matter?

via Orwell's Picnic

Why the West Reveres the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama has effectively been turned into a cartoon good guy. In America and western Europe, where backward anti-modern sentiments are widespread amongst self-loathing sections of the educated and the elite, the Dalai Lama has been embraced as a living, breathing representative of unsullied goodness. Despite the fact that he advertises Apple, guest-edits Vogue and drives a Land Rover, he is held up as evidence that living the simple eastern life is preferable to, in the words of Philip Rawson, westerners' "gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions". Just as earlier generations of disillusioned aristocrats fell in love with a fictional version of Tibet (Shangri-La), so contemporary un-progressives idolise a fictional image of the Dalai Lama.

- Brendan O'Neill, 'Down with the Dalai Lama', guardian.co.uk, Thursday May 29 2008

Arousing Desire

So I have been speaking with this teen-aged lass from the SSPX for some months now. Like most girls her age, she is impetuous, headstrong and eclectic.

She's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from being in the SSPX. For rather inexplicable reasons, being in the SSPX for nearly 4 months now and receiving personal catechism didn't instill in her a feeling of obedience toward the hierarchy or empathy for their uncompromising views. Instead, it just fed her adolescent self-consciousness and sexual paranoia. The bad news is that she doesn't seem to have gotten over it yet.

The views of SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson, particularly those on women, have caused her much grief. She takes much offence at "women being fit only for the kitchen and bedroom", and has been airing her grievances at me, expressing her frustration with every opportunity at this supposedly widely-held perception of women.

I don't know the people who tell her these things, but isn't it obvious in modern society, women have never had it easier?

They enjoy freedom of choice in the job market, or can opt to stay at home and raise children (or do both). They are perfectly free to use marriage and divorce as businesses, enriching their personal fortunes by doing nothing more than providing sex. They are allowed to manipulate men with sex and tears to get whatever they want. They have been granted permission to usurp traditional male jobs yet still - with bold-faced hypocrisy - expect men to finance their social lives. They can choose to serve in the military without fear of losing their lives in combat. They expect to be able to denigrate the male gender and treat men like emotional punching bags without protest. They force men to endure "sensitivity training" to pressure them into becoming more like women.

All of this is apparently absent in the SSPX, and all she hears about the fairer sex comes from Bishop Williamson; "true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls". That the SSPX wishes its female adherents to return to the state of women before the 1960s should come as no surprise to some. In most affairs, ranging from liturgical practice to taste in fashion, the SSPX is generally conservative.

Whatever the case may be, one could not afford to be ignorant in the age of Google and Wikipedia - one sifted through the mess that is the Internet and found writings from our friend, Bishop Williamson. Now, as much as some women find them antiquated and bigoted, I personally found them to be quite offensive toward men.

In an October 13, 2007 column on the subject of female Doctors of the Church, the bishop contended that "any woman set up in public view is liable to arouse unclean desire in men".

One would think that Williamson has never laid eyes upon a womyn priest before. They inspire much, but I don't any of it constitutes an "unclean desire" in men.

The SSPX has long denounced the use of women in advertising, and the good bishop's words merely follow the trend. As much as I agree with the former, I find the latter to be insulting and contemptuous - with those words, Bishop Williamson has joined the SSPX to centuries of belief that men have unquenchable sexual drive and are unable to control their urges. It's only natural, of course.

Why, this puts the good bishop more in league with the local mullah than with any Catholic bishop today. Whatever the case, any woman who takes Bishop Williamson's words seriously ought to have her head examined. After all, this is someone who condemned The Sound of Music as virtually pornographic!

I cannot speak for all masculinity, but one can safely say that men are NOT aroused by the sight of ANY woman - not even those who have been deprived of female company, like those working in the military, or in engineering. "But hold on, Constantine," you may be yelling at your computer, "what about the men who rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals?" Well, do all men rape elderly women and have intercourse with animals? Certainly not. Just like not all Moslems are terrorists.

On a side note, rape is often a crime of power and control rather than purely that of sex - but that is a story for another time.

Who are these women who have "set [themselves] up in public view"? They are myriad; we have police officers, models, politicians, ballerinas, insurance agents, actresses, salesgirls, bank tellers, singers, royalty, famous-for-being-famous types, waitresses, etc. The list goes on and on.

Are we to say that all these women arouse unclean desire in men? Why, the poor men won't be able to leave home without suppressing serious testosterone urges first - but since men are incapable of doing so, how are we to solve this troubling issue?

Those who have propagated that message have given us a solution: keep women covered up and out of the workplace, a la Yemen. Better yet, why not arrest every man, as he is likely to commit a criminal offence? After all, growing on every man's body is an organ which may be an accessory to rape.

This goes to show how ridiculous the notion is. Most women would like to have the power to arouse men on sight, but unfortunately (or fortunately), that is not the case. Men do not arouse as easily as certain people would like us to believe. Why, as many have already pointed out - it is often used as a tool to keep women chaste and submissive. This is not to say, however, that women should now do the reverse and flagrantly display their uh, feminine virtues with utter abandon.

Being chaste is a good thing, but it should not be achieved on a foundation of lies told about men.

Return to Christian Roots?

I don't think this is what the Second Vatican Council meant when it decreed that "elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers".

Holy Thursday Mass, St Aidan's Cathedral
Enniscorthy, Ireland

This almost looks pagan.

[via Catholic Church Conservation]

Quote of the Day

By my horns, I don't understand humans. I've lived around them close to two decades now. The things they swear by! Sex, excrement, and religion. I'll never understand them.

Kardue'sai'Malloc in Empire Blues: The Devaronian's Tale

If You Don't ...

...read this blog post and forward it to 15 people, unspecified bad things will happen to you. The Paragraph Farmer looks at chain prayer email.

[via The Curt Jester]

Revenge of the Minorities

Moscow police have arrested a gang of three deaf, mute, gay prostitutes after they robbed a client who didn't pay them all the money he owed.

[...]

The men, aged 18, 19 and 20, apparently work together, visiting different clubs to pick up punters.

- Russia Today, October 24, 2007

What the...

Gay mafia in America. Gay gangs in Russia.

But gay, mute, deaf prostitute-thieves? Good heavens.

More "Tolerance" from America

"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools under a bill signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who with his signature also ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose.

- WorldNetDaily, October 13, 2007

I am surprised - Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, should know better!

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," (Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families), said.

This demand for "tolerance" and "acceptance" is quickly evolving into a new mood of aggressive intolerance against accepted values. Perhaps this is what those who clamoured for "tolerance" wanted in the first place.

Burning Chilli Sparks Terror Fear

You just can't make news like this up:

A pot of burning chilli sparked fears of a biological terror attack in central London.

Firefighters wearing protective breathing apparatus were called to D'Arblay Street, Soho, after reports of noxious smoke filling the air.

Police closed off three roads and evacuated homes following the alert.

Specialist crews broke down the door to the Thai Cottage restaurant at 1900 BST on Monday where they discovered the source - a 9lb pot of chillies.

The restaurant had been preparing Nam Prik Pao, a red-hot Thai dip which uses extra-hot chillies which are deliberately burnt.

- BBC News, Wednesday, 3 October 2007, 12:54 GMT

If you ask me, Westerners would consider most Asian food 'biological weapons' anyway.

Noteworthy

Post-feminists in the 90s assured women they could re-embrace their femininity without sacrificing equality or credibility.

And so manicures, and Brazilian bikini waxes and pole-dancing classes were all reintroduced under the guise of harmless girlie 'fun'. Barely 10 years later, we look in the mirror, and mistake ourselves for sex workers.

Decca Aitkenhead, columnist, The Guardian