Why do I blog? I have lost count of the number of worthy blogs that have fallen silent, and when you link to them you are told they do not exist. As if the wayback machine does not exist, and internet archeology is becoming a discipline.

Because I am not Mundabor, railing about the very real failures of the magisterium: on my side of the Tiber the errors are unchecked and very apparent.

Instead I seem to be repeating myself, warning of the errors. As if one should get tired of warning. The lectionary posts — those unpopular ones, now with a code to the chapter I am discussion — are the foundation of what happens here. For if this blog does not show the word of God, then it should be shut, and I will go on posting pretty photos where they belong.

And I need to add: half the time I find the links via either Wintry Knight (a staunch Reformed apologist) or Mundabor (a staunchly traditional Papist). I don’t always hat tip them: for the sake of clarity.

When you read the BBC article, a chap there has worked all day. A text editor has reviewed it, perhaps several times. A separate professional has made the title. Other people might have been involved in research. The end product is a story, from beginning to end. Often with several links to other stories that help to better understand, or amplify the issue.

A blog is a series of short, personal reflections written who knows where, when there is time, perhaps with such a bad internet connection that it takes forever even to post a link. It does not give to the reader the pre-digested food, so that he does not have to make the effort to chew it. It does, however, presuppose that the readers knows what the blog author is talking about, because the reader is supposed to follow the ongoing conversation.

In this time, the darkness is falling. It is not time to be quiet. We may be silenced soon enough, by the SJWs, the concern trolls, those who would not promote us or move is to the antipodes: to obscurity.

Forgetting that it’s quite pleasant in obscurity, and the antipodes have their beauty. One of the roles we can have is speaking with a little more freedom: the country is too small to let the SJW rampage unchecked.

And as if light and vision is not needed within the church and the nation. Mundabor again, emphasis mine. He refers to another blog: go to his place to get the links.

The new ones are so bad, they let the old ones appear amateurs. You remember Benedict’s butler? When did he steal almost 200 books from his own bishops? Mind, the man has house detention. Will Cardinal Baldisseri have to suffer the same destiny? Don’t bet your pint.

Unfortunately, there are always those who – either because they are naive, or because they are disingenuous – manage to bat for the wrong team.

The very first comment of the post is from a certain “Denis”, who commits to cyber eternity the following words:

This article is trading in the kind of tittle tattle it appears to be condemning. Perhaps during Lent we should all be seeking to build up rather than knock down.

This is the kind of comment which, if I did not write a rather candid blog, would motivate me to start one post-haste.

Good Lord! A mess without precedent in at least seven, and probably twenty centuries is devastating the Church, and those who rightly criticise the utter moral decay of the Vatican personnel should be accused of “knocking down”? We have come to the point of common theft on a grand scale, and we should shut up because it’s Lent? We point out to the shameless bullying of a poor family father in his Fifties, and we should be held for people trading in “tittle tattle”? Who is this man, Grima Wormtongue?

This passive-aggressive, or rather aggressive-passive attitude of some people is truly disturbing. It advocates silence in front of evil in the name of… what again? What in Hades does “build up” means, if it is detached from that solid Catholic thinking that must condemn this kind of corruption and scandals? When was Lent the time you don’t talk, of all people, of the moneylenders in the Temple?

Well, yeah. Mundabor fights the good fight. But on the other side of the Tiber, it appears that we are ruled by the prudes. Those who would damn Marlowe for lewdity, and Milton for defending freedom of speech. The current threatpoints are violence — which has expanded to contradicting her, and adultery, which has expanded through pornography (visual only: her reading of quite sadomaschistic “urban romances” does not count) to seeing nudity or skimpy clothing.

And this needs correction: for within marriage the husband is accountable to the kirk and God for his wife, not the other way around. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out which of these were not written by women.

I’ve gone round and round with Christians on this. If the wife is the arbiter of any sin her husband commits, she is then the arbiter of all of his sins and is the head of the marriage and in rebellion to God.

It’s one thing for hubs to be openly committing adultery. It’s one thing for hubs to be addicted to pornography and depriving his wife of sex. Those sins might require some drastic action like divorce or imploring hubs to get some help beyond prayer and his own willpower.

But watching a TV show like GoT? Really? This is what’s got Gregoire’s reader all twisted up? This justifies wife threatening to break the TV, refuse sex, tell him to sleep somewhere else, or leave with the kids?

This is a power play, plain and simple. This is wife asserting headship over the husband.

This also tells the husband “My feelings reign supreme in this marriage. Therefore, I am head of this marriage. Give me what I want, or else.”

Even more importantly, it tells the husband that if he wants to occupy the space of biblical head of household, he must EARN that space. But, biblical headship doesn’t specify that – it simply installs the husband as head of the Christian household, with no prerequisites or qualifications other than “husband”. He doesn’t have to earn it – he’s simply placed there by divine fiat.

(NOTE to haters and advocates of “equalitarian” marriage who might be reading this – I know you don’t agree with any of this. I know you advocate “equalitarian” marriage, which is a nonentity. It cannot and does not exist. You can advocate for whatever you wish. I am simply pointing out here the biblically ordained hierarchy for Christian marriages, and how they are set up. The fact that you don’t like husband headship in Christian marriages is immaterial and irrelevant. That’s what the bible says is the hierarchy for Christian marriages, which is what Gregoire’s post purports to address and what this post addresses.)

I’m divorced, and I have this nightmare. That I will be held accountable for my ex-wife: for her sins, for I did not call her enough — in part because of fear of the Duluth model, which exists in my jurisdiction, and it part because I was taught that nonsense called the equalitarian model.

Because the husband — or before marriage, the man is held to be wrong. Consider Game of Thrones (which apparently got this going). In the first episode the shocking facts are two: that the queen is having an incestuous affair with her brother — and that the brother pushes a child out of a window when he sees it saying resignedly “the things I do for love”.

That is shocking. That horrified.

What we need to be looking at is the instability in our marriages, the ease with which we do give justification for ending it. This generation of parents will be held to account, for nine out of ten children in many Western countries have their security ripped apart as their parents separate, and while this injustice continues (and children suffer, while husbands are jailed because they cannot afford the unrealistic child support the industry demands) women become more and more sensitive.

And then wonder why men consider the risk of being in any relationship is far too great. For the law and society will say men are not accountable: but we know that the legal system and nature ensures we are.