I do not quote Bonald enough. For he is correct. The old church called us to holiness. The new church gives us licence to corrupt ourselves by the means of our lusts. What he describes among Catholics is not limited to them: it is mrely more apparent because the catholic liberals were forced to write things down.

This liberalism is anti-christian. For if we deny sin, and refuse to call to holiness, the people neither see the need to repent, nor have this need acknowledged: there is no gospel preached, and there is no salvation. There is a form of religion but no power in it. And this makes me angry. I am aware that when the Anglicans/Episcopalians started to converge with the Unitarians when I was in primary school (or earlier) there were a bunch of conversions to the Catholic church in a search for challenge, clear teaching and sanity. But the [post Vatican Catholic priests live power more: yes I know, not all are like this, but Bonald reflects further in his post my experience. The priest or pastor is the most liberal person in the parish.

Vatican II, together with the movement preceding and following it, destroyed all the laity’s major means of agency.

1. It repudiated “integralism” the movement for the laity to demand doctrinal accountability from the clergy. From now on, the priest may spew forth any heresy he likes from the pulpit, and parishioners can take it or leave.
2. It inaugurated a new opaque style of discourse based on European continental philosophy whereby nobody can ever know exactly what Catholic doctrine is. Not only are we to avoid privately interpreting the Bible; we cannot even privately interpret magisterial documents. (Uppity laity confronting priests with creeds and encyclicals are called “Catholic fundamentalists”, and their behavior is regarded as a sign of immaturity.) Indeed, the need for interpretive mediation never seems to end, so that doctrine never reaches the actual minds of the faithful, at least not to the extent that we could ever reason from it. Our only virtue is docility to the post-conciliar clergy, who may proclaim any teaching or directive they like, its connection to the supposedly public deposit of revelation being forever unfathomable to us.
3. It repudiated Catholic monarchists and conservative/reactionary political parties, the lay movements aimed at defending the Church from hostile forces and returning society to traditional Catholic prescriptions.
4. It had nothing but scorn for lay Catholics resisting secularism even in voluntary, cultural arenas (e.g. the Legion of Decency).
5. It undermined the authority of fathers, the spiritual heads of households.
6. It continually works to undermine the sacrament of which the laity is the distinct custodian: marriage.

Our opportunities to fight for God were taken away, and in exchange we were given indulgence to sin. The pre-Vatican II Church considered all its members to be called to holiness. The post-Vatican II Church repudiates this by calling into question whether we must obey the moral law’s demands.

The final point Bonald makes is important. Marriage is for most. Some people are celibate: they do not burn with lust. But most of us do. We desire: our most common sin is sexual. And Paul has a very simple rule: if you can no longer control yourself, marry.

Marry quick. Procreate under the blankets. Make not bastards.

Do not pretend that we are gelded, Be realistic about our sexual desire — for provision, status, cuteness. Have no place for scandal.

The liberals want to burn all our institutions, and burn them down. As if instead of using the marital bed to quench desire and lead us to prayer, we let our unfulfilled desires, greed and covetous to incinerate everything. And we burn continually. building our own hell.

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

(1 Corinthians 7:1-9 ESV)

If I can be bold, as a person whose marriage blew up (and has to deal with the consequences of this daily)… do not, wife, withold because your are angry. Let yourself be seduced. Do not let your anger kill your desire, husband. Leave her truly satiated.

And if you are going to fast from this, do it by agreement. For sex does bind you together, More than prayer: prayer binds us to Christ. And it the congregation, we should share much, indeed at times all, but not our wives.