Dear Bunglehorn,

I enjoyed reading this little ditty on the net today. “Guess How Many Lovers We’ve Had.” More quality journalism from the Daily Mail. With voyersitic glee, we read all the juicy details of five women who share their intimate secrets in lurid detail.

The headline banner linking to the article asks, “Which of these women has had 180 partners?” Considering the popularity of shows like Sex and the City and Desparate Housewives, the lurid headline is sure to attract readership. What you’ll find useful are the anti-Catholic, anti-religious subthemes interlaced amid the garish public confessions. Let’s look at two glaring attacks, chastity despite religion and promiscuity because of religion.

Chastity Despite Religion

The first woman, the virgin, is “keen to point out that her vow of chastity is not for religious reasons.” How keen for the author to divorce any connection between her choice and religious teaching. The reader is led to believe people make good choices outside of the influences of religion. Skeptics will give her credit because she drew this conclusion on her own, even when her decision aligns perfectly with the Catholic Church’s view of chastity (CCC#2237-2247).

The virgin’s vow of chastity is something she naturally feels called to do. It’s a “calling,” those dreaded instincts the Enemy subplanted in the human persona, evidence of his love for them, like the appeal of self-preservation and survival among all living things. This intrinsic knowledge of universal truths is a crushing front for us to breach, especially those like the virgin. She’s a tough case. She has an innate understanding of the special intimacy, the shared vulnerability and loving support, between husband and wife. She’s also been allowed to see friends hurt by intimacy after they made themselves vulnerable prematurely. I pity this virgin’s demon. His best shot at conversion is the scandal of cohabitation, where she admits her urges can be “terribly frustrating.”

Promiscuity Because of Religion

The article showcases the fifth woman, who after 180 partners has successfully divorced sex from love. Her promiscous lifestyle is tied to a supposedly repressive Catholic upbringing. She proudly claims (and the author dutifully records) “Everything they say about Catholic schoolgirls is true.” Ooh la la!

“My friends and I were in competition to see who could lose their virginity first. I lost mine to a pupil from the local boys’ school.” See what happens when you try hold back the natural inhibitions of a young woman? How solatious!

This is hysterical because it’s just the kind of article to rile up the religious prudes. Her testimony flies in the face of Catholic teaching on intimacy, theology of the body, even feminism. Yet here she represents the Enemy’s Church! Your patient should easily conclude the Church’s abstinence philosophy is wrong.

The irony is, in order to blame the Church for nonsensical views of sexuality and failed catechesis, he must accept the premise that promiscuity is wrong. If their is nothing wrong with promiscuity, then the Church has not failed. This is a problem for us, since most people intuitively know that having too many sexual partners is wrong, even if “too many” changes for the times. What society upholds promiscuity as a virtue?

Should he become aware of his own contradiction in logic, suggest that religious leaders are the actual hypocrites. They are the one’s teaching that sex outside of marriage to be immoral. They declare promiscuity to be an immoral violation of nature, yet by this account, it is their teaching that lead to sex outside of marriage.

You may wonder, won’t he see that the Church’s teaching and how it teaches are two separate topics? No. It’s amazing, Bunglehorn, people can be so enthralled in apparent hypocrisy, especially among those who try to live a life of virtue, that they will not distinguish between what is taught and how it’s taught. The method can be wrong, an utter failure, but the core lesson may still be right.

Remember this valuable lesson. When a person of virtue fails, as fallible people inevitably due, associate their shortcomings with the lesson itself. When a preacher declares inebriation to be a sin of the flesh (it is), call the truth into question when he gets drunk and crashes his car. When a man declares adultry to be wrong (it is), call the truth into question when he cheats on his wife. When the Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is immoral, call into question when one of it’s flock falls prey to our lustful deceipt. From there, it’s not too difficult for your patient to conclude that people will have sex, it’s natural, there is no reason to try to stop it.

More Lessons on Love

The second woman, married, has figured out how to avoid us, so we ought to move quickly past her. “People ask what our secret is – it’s simply that we are totally in love and continue to invest the same effort in making one another feel as special as we did in those early days.” Note she describes a self-sacrificing love she and her husband give each other, thereby they receive from each other. The concept, like many of the Enemy’s, is stunningly simple.

The third woman, with a couple “long-term” relationships between the age of 16 and 18, worried that she’d “miss out on so much in life” if she settled down too soon. We get a lot of mileage out of that reasoning, so use it often. She felt proud of her ability to detach emotion from sex “the way men did.” She eventually learned that men view her differently when she rushed into sexual relations. She reported lower self-esteem and longed for a meaningful relationship with men. After a celibacy pledge, she seems to have regained a mental foothold on the sacred nature of sexuality.

Likewise, the fourth woman expresses shame for sleeping with 90 people and for an abortion. Here the author is the most poignent, in her observation of a woman who has confused sex and love in an ongoing quest for lasting affection. “her experiences certainly contradict the idea that sexual promiscuity is somehow “liberating”, or that women can detach themselves emotionally from their sexual behaviour.”

We see this search for love began when her parents divorced, her mother married and divorced again and her father appeared sporadically. “I’ve never had a man in my life who’s cared about me consistently, and that’s what I’ve been searching for – even if I’ve gone about it the wrong way.” Like other girls profiled, her parents did not discuss sex. The Church declares parents to be the primary educators of their children, so you and I can pry ourselves into the hearts of children whose parents neglect this duty.

I hope you’ll find opportunities to apply these lessons of deceit, especially with subtle digs against religion. Please keep me apprised.

Warmest Regards,
Wigglebrick

Dear Bunglehorn,

You may have heard recently of female sharks in captivity that reproduced asexually. The idea isn’t a secret in science. Parthenogenesis (Greek translated literally is virgin creation) is seen in many species of plants, birds and amphibians where reproduction occurs without male fertilization. This story is gaining traction because it hasn’t been observed in sharks until recently.

Well, the blogosphere is already making holy connections to the Immaculate Conception. I know, I know, we can easily rationalize parthenogenesis as only being observed in the lower rungs of flora and fauna, never among mammals. And we can say it happens more frequently than we realize, we’re simply more apt to observe the phenomenon with modern science and technology. That is all fine and well.

However, I am concerned about certain intellectuals, your patient included, who easily grasp the limits of natural sciences. Scientists can only study what they observe. They cannot disprove what they cannot observe. This understanding leads to dreamers. It’s far too difficult to compete with the child-like state of wonderment, especially from an intellectual whose scientific observations strengthen his faith. Isn’t the Theory of Evolution widely accepted, even with missing links?

It’s best if we shred the mere possibility that the Enemy entered the world through a virgin vessel. Many accept this on sheer faith, and they may be beyond our grasp, but we can reach the intellectual through his nagging need for proof. These latest reports do not provide proof, but they could cause his mind to conceive the possibility, no pun intended. Once he embarks on that path, and considers the Enemy’s omnipotence (anything is possible), it’s not so difficult to imagine that he could manifest himself through the mystery of an Immaculate Conception. The idea, coupled with proof in Sacred Scripture, is a sliding slope to reverence for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Enemy so commanded.

So by all means, distract your patient if you catch the slightest glimpse of hope. Use hunger, fatigue, cynicism, lust, whatever tools you have at your disposal.

Warmest Regards,
Wigglebrick

Dear Bunglehorn,

I saw this piece, The More ‘Wives’ the Merrier in the Chicaco Tribune and thought you might want to get it to your patient. It’s another MSM endorsement of an alternative lifestyle, this time polygamy.

The author takes the reader through her inital skeptical reaction of polygamy to a playful embrace of the sister-wife concept in her Michigan cul-de-sac. She paints a rosy picture of her neighborhood in which everyone knows each other and watches over each other’s children. The idea seems quite radical today, but just a couple generations ago, American neighborhoods closely resembled the tight-nit community she describes. One may still find such ambience and values in smaller towns across the country. Otherwise, we’ve rendered such neighborly behavior as abnormal, merely nostalgic.

Reflect for a moment how the past few decades we’ve undermined community bonds with violent crime, fear and mistrust of neighbors to bring about isolationism, largely aided by visual media. Now, as people express a desire for the good society gone by, we again use visual media to suggest a course via a twisted prism of “Big Love.”

We found ourselves confessing that plural marriage didn’t look so terrible, even in a drama filled with suffering and intrigue.

It was kind of like the Waltons, what with the big family and the red-state setting. One always had company. There was help with the children. And though the three or more women married to one man didn’t seem so great, it seemed a small point.

We’ve come so far so quickly. I wonder what your patient might think of our version of Utopia?

Warmest Regards,
Wigglebrick
-=-=-

Dear Bunglehorn,

The American Psychological Association cast a light on some of our more dubius tactics with regards to sexualization of girls and girlhood. It’s a pretty damning overview of our successes in fashion, toys, television, music videos and beauty pagents. Joseph D’Augostino, in his ruthless quest to root out the evils of radical feminism, tied the trend to that movement as well as consumerism. Don’t sweat it, I don’t expect any sweeping cultural changes. Women, and girls by effect, will continue to be sexualized. I just wanted to give you a heads up from our Intel Division.

Did you know that just a generation or two ago, men found domisticity to be the most desireable traight in women? They wanted women made in the likeness of their mothers. Women who cleaned the house, washed clothes, cooked dinner and tended to the children, yet made herself available to her man when he returned home. After WWII, when women entered the workforce during a national emergency, we planted the seeds of modern feminism, hidden in legitimate complaints of unfair treatment and lower wages for women. We pushed the agenda further by deemphasizing gender differences, confusing equality for sameness.

One masterful stroke, aided by the mass distribution of contraception coupled with no fault divorce, was the debasement of sexuality, again in the name of equality and fairness. Why should men have all the fun? Can’t women express themselves sexually? Many women didn’t quite feel comfortable with this shift, but men were too happy to embrace the “free love.”

Well a funny little thing happened. As women elevated the importance of their sexuality, men adjusted their views of women. Domesticity took a back seat to sex appeal as the most desireable traight in women.

Naturally, this shift affected children. Women taught, and girls learned, that their value lies in their sex appeal, narrowly defined to their physical attractiveness, as defined by popular films, television, magazines and fashion designers.

The beauty of this shift is how it aligns with modern views of personhood. With the sexualization of girls, they are no longer valued for who they are. Instead, they are objectified and made into a thing for someone else’s sexual pleasure. Likewise, the value of a person in the broader sense, has shifted from the sacred to the functional. People are no longer valued for who they are (a human being), but for their function in society. With this insidious premise, we’ve convinced an entire generation that human embryos are not viable or valuable in their own right, nor are the severely retarded and handicapped, nor are the elderly or terminally ill. The gaining acceptance of functionalism, the value of a person by their contribution to others, brings us closer to what radical feminists supposedly fought: the conversion of women to objects, property and slaves.

Here are some tips for your patient.

When he sees a little girl wearing a t-shirt that says “Flirt,” point out the humor of such a mismatched label. Disregard the implications or more tasteful alternatives like “Lawyer” or “Nurse” or “Astronaut.”

In the check-out counter, direct his attention away from the teen magazines that show preadolescent girls how to look sexy and get a boyfriend by losing weight. The cover of a celebrity or feminine fitness rag ought to catch his eye.

Pique his interest in the music video of women in pigtails dancing provocatively in school girl uniforms.

Trigger an ill feeling toward women who choose to stay home and raise their children. Invoke pity for them, for all they are missing outside of marriage.

Silence any concern he may have about protecting his nieces when a commercial of models posing in bras and panties suddenly appears on prime-time TV. The best shots are the flashing lights, fast cut editing and pulsating music that mysteriously tap primal reflexes in people. As are the transparent tapestries flowing across their curvy bodies that invoke a yearning for the hidden, unattainable and taboo. Suggest that this is the world’s reality, so they may as well be exposed entirely and immediately.

And by all means, never question honest gut reactions! Remind him, life is too short, don’t dwell on the little things he can’t control. Even when he could respond with little actions like changing the channel, reflection and prayer.

Warmest Regards,
Wigglebrick

Hello Bunglehorn,

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, a coup de grâce for our Master below, we see the community demanding accountability from someone, anyone. They will not be satisfied with the sheer horror of the event. Their anger at Cho Seung-Hui shifts to the school administration, because they did not anticipate Cho’s violence or respond quick enough.

This reaction is useful to us in a couple ways. First, a demand for people to anticipate worst case scenarios will cause them to be hyperaware of the presence of evil, even where it does not exist. Such is the consequence of a constant state of fear. Like the Israelites who begged for a king, American university students will sacrifice liberties for a false sense of security. Better to be safe than sorry!

The second benefit is a retreat from real life to virtual worlds. Permanent isolationsism is counter to the Enemy’s call for men to join in communion via a single body of Christ. It is through this communion that people come to know the Enemy. The Enemy’s very definition of sin is the disorientation away from Him. It is his intent that men bring each other to him. It is our intent, then, for men to become isolated, fenced off in a world of our making.

You might say that people interact with each other in virtual worlds. These connections are not the same as they are in person, or even via the lost artful expression of letters. The anonimity of the web removes the hassle of self-control when dealing with their fellow man. In virtual reality, people are inclined to become someone they are not. They’re prone to allow instances of mean spiritedness to enter their personality (if not full blown nastiness and violence!), much like the strange insular environment of one’s car in traffic. There is a diffusion of responsibility between the real person and their virtual avatar.

Therein lies our deception. Real people are truly hurt by what happens to them in virtual worlds. Look at internet addiction, online affairs that hurt marriages and kids going crazy while playing games. MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Second Life allow an entire generation to escape to an alternate universe with it’s own economy, language, code of ethics and sense of time. This has the potential for great good and for great evil.

Virtual reality allows one to behave in two moral constructs. One in a real world where they more readily appreciate the consequences of their actions and one in a virtual world where they easily avoid consequences. What does such a mindset do to the person? It may be too early for humans to tell, but you and I, existing beyond the constructs of time, can better see the effect. People will disconnect from others both because their trust in their fellow man is eroding and because facing consequences of their own behavior will become too burdensome.

I noticed with glee that NBC decided to play Cho’s manifesto “so that we may better understand him.” Peacock poppycock! How can one reason with the unreasonable? Playing the killers package immortalizes him in death, exactly what he wants, his sick protest of over-commercialization. This from the same network that just fired Don Imus over righteous indignation for poor remarks that he repeatedly clarified and apologized for. So while NBC faced lost revenue from sponsor pressure, they play a killer’s manifesto against the wishes of police and the pain of the survivors in a ratings grab to attract sponsors. Don’t you love such twisted morality?

How can you parley these benefits to your patient? First, shift his anger from a lone killer’s decisions to those who couldn’t reasonably foresee it. Confuse his rationale, which is only reasonable with hindsight, as plausible without hindsight. Then, imbued with a sense of insecurity, dispair and distrust, suggest that he “check out” for a while. Not in a healthy way like a holiday outdoors or time before the “Blessed Sacrament,” but in a way that feels good. Perhaps killing an entire weekend playing video games. LMK how that goes.

Warmest Regards,
Wigglebrick