The Fountain of Patriarcy

This post first appeared on ROK 4-12-15

“Patriarchy” is much maligned in our days, despite being the ennobling and civilizing force that it is; while many men have shaken free from much of the bogus propaganda against masculinity, some men remain sympathetic to complaints against the source of patriarchy—God, the King and All-Father. The Feast of Christ the King comes near the end of the Liturgical year, on the last Sunday in October, emphasizing that the divine Kingdom which will be fully realized on Earth at the Parousia, exists even now and has rights over the world.

The world is in a disastrous state at present; the noblest and manliest principles in society have been besieged with special ferocity for five centuries now, at the hands of a revolutionary action against legitimate authority. Whether of King, Priest, Husband or Father, perverse revolutionaries wish to abolish the offices of manly headship; we have inherited a culture almost entirely lacking them, in any authentic form.

Men Must Lead In Private And Public Life

A woman flourishes only under the protection and supervision of a man. Women generally lack a certain self-sufficiency, and their beliefs and sentiments are influenced largely by their emotional ties to others. Men can more easily stick to reason and principle despite pressures and attachment. A man can trust a woman to be sensible only so far, nearer or farther based on her quality; but in the end, a man understands that he cannot, must not, rely on a woman to stay the course indefinitely, piloting herself by the ship of reason.

He must provide an attractive and compelling pre-eminence in himself, to which she may uplift her gaze and give her loyalty. Then, when her inner resources falter, her devotion will have been trained towards him habitually. In a good man, the effort so to acclimate a woman to himself has her benefit equally in mind as his own, and both in accord with reason and justice.

Carrie Nation

The concept of “game” hits upon this perennial truth about the sexes. Some men use “game” contrary to reason and nature; I think that, so long as “game” puts a man in touch with the facts of nature, grants him a more masculine comportment, and imparts a sensitivity to his role and responsibilities as a man, a natural leader of women, it is a good thing.

In this sense, what we call “game,” our great-grandfathers called simple horse-sense. Every good husband should give his wife the gift of a stalwart but benevolent leader. He loves his wife, but knows that she neither wants nor is able to be free from the ennobling guidance and prudent protection of her lord husband. He must be the man to whom her instincts are trained, and he should strive to be worthy of that position; he must manage her emotions wisely and manfully. Certainly he must not meet her emotional needs in the manner she insists upon, which is likely not only to be wrong, but even to be a (perhaps subconsciously) calculated attempt at probing him for weakness, or at self-justification.

Masculinity Is An Analogue Of Divine Sovereignty

In one sense, we can say that God is “beyond gender.” But in another, equally true sense, masculinity, maleness, paternity, are qualities more likened unto the divinity, whereas femininity, womanliness and motherhood are qualities more likened unto the whole order of creation. This is because masculinity is the active and fecundating principle; femininity is the passive and fecundated principle.

The more a thing is ruled and acted upon, the more feminine it is; the more it is (authentically) active, the more masculine. God is Actus Purus, Pure Act, pure Fatherhood; He is the Father “from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth derives its name,” of which our manhood is a proportioned manifestation. Creation exists along a spectrum of being more or less feminine, more or less masculine, in a sense, as it aligns with act or potential.

No, I’m not saying that every man has a “feminine side,” but I am saying that every man, in relation to His Maker, is a subject, is ruled, is in a dependent position, and that this is more analogous to the feminine than the masculine. But of course, as a man, the particular nature of his sex is an analogue of the Fatherhood, the Kingdom, the Priesthood, of God.

In future articles I’ll talk more about this, and about how—in Christianity, at least—the spiritual life is described as a direct participation in God… i.e., how God helps the creature to become more manly, more excellent, more free, more strong, more active, more like Himself by participation in Himself. The spiritual life is a deifying, and therefore a masculinizing, process. And the services for many of the female saints praise precisely this element of their character: that they became more manly than many men.

saint agatha

One also sees that God has given men a special insight into His relationship to the creation, by virtue of our intermediary position as male creatures; we have something of the ruler and something of the subject within ourselves. Our experience as the masters of womankind gives us some insight into God’s experience with all of us; our experience as subjects of God gives us insight into a woman’s subordination (and, often enough, inconstancy).

This should make us better subjects of God, and better rulers of women and society. Sometimes I find men drawing near to the Red Pill who still have flatly immature ideas about God and atheism—ideas fully supported by the same propagandists that brought us Feminism, Socialism, etc. Often this involves objections to God’s rigidity, His intolerance, His use of force, His jealous mastery that brooks no rival.

But these are the complaints by which a feminist derides the actually beneficial qualities of patriarchy. “Red Pill” men usually see the crisis caused by the absence of male influence, but male influence is a shade of the Divine: the Supreme Masculine, the forceful vindicator of Good and punisher of evil, from Whom there could be no appeal. If society needs a king, if it needs a priest, if it needs husbands and fathers, let it look to Him from Whom these offices proceed. If we wonder why the world rejects patriarchy and authority, I will tell you: it is because it first rejected the High King Himself.

crowning henry ii

The Feast of Christ the King stands at the center of the Church’s reaction to an aggressive liberalism. It came in the wake of centuries of ideological and military revolutions in the West—Protestantism, Humanism, Atheism, Republicanism, Democracy, Socialism and Communism. The Church took pains to affirm that God had rights not only over the spiritual realm and the Church, but over all society, over all men, over all nations, which absolutely trump any imagined “human right” formed in abstraction from the principles of Truth and Justice.

To attempt to establish a system of “rights” abstracted from what is Right, is to aid the rebellion of infirmity and folly against Strength and Wisdom. And this is why our times are literally perverse (from Latin perverto, “turn all the way around”), that is, upside-down; Democracy and Republicanism exalt demagogues and mobs over justice itself; Feminism inverts the natural dynamic of the sexes; Socialism and Social Marxism demand the forfeiture of the fruits of a society’s creators to its venal consumers; the gay agenda attempts to equate health and fecundity with disease and sterility. The theme is the same: Righteous, Manly Authority is bad; it wants to stop us from voting for free dildos.

I invite men to reflect on the great right and dignity of being a man, of belonging to the sex upon whose brow lordliness and mastery sit by right. I encourage them to reflect on what obligations and duties this involves; to reflect upon what a man must strive to be, if he is worthy of the title, man.

I encourage them to reflect on the limitations of the fairer sex, and how we should strive to purge any womanliness from our character, and to grow manlier, more like God, by virtue. If we value authority, justice, truth, mastery and excellence in the created order, let us direct our gaze to the supreme Masculine, the supreme Origin of all Fatherhood, and to the highest of all Kings. To reject Him, especially for His quality of inflexible dominion, is to reject a particularly masculine quality of our own souls, and to be allies of the Revolution against noble patriarchy.

Reconciliation with the principle of righteous authority – rather than “democratic fairness” – is an indispensable precedent to a true return of kings.

Advertisements

10 Comments Add yours

  1. Last of the Romans says:

    Hello Brother Moner,

    I have been reading your posts on ROK and in other places for quite some time and I truly appreciate all your work. Ever since I picked up the works of Thomas Aquinas I developed a great interest in God and the correct natural order of things–one opposed to modernity. This has led me to reading many things like philosophy, the history of the church, reactionary thought after the French Revolution etc.

    I myself am at the moment considering Catholicism as a religion and I have been doing so for a number of years.

    I have a few questions about the relation between Catholicism and Patriarchy. I have been doing some research in the manner and it seems that what you have been saying about the greater nobility of the male sex is true and I see that such a position is well supported by the Patristics and the Scholastics. However, I have also been reading that at the same there is the idea of a kind of spiritual equality between men and women. I am not disagreeing with that idea but how do the two come together, temporal inequality and spiritual equality. God created the natural order so why do the hierarchies that he made in a sense cease to exist on the heavenly plane?

    Also, I have read a work by an author called Leon Podles on the development of bridal mysticism in the Middle Ages. He says that the view of each individual soul as a bride of Christ in some ways feminized men in the Church. Should the idea of bridal mysticism be accepted and, if so, how does that relate with what you describe as the masculine nature of Christian life.

    Like

    1. aureliusmoner says:

      Thanks for your comment, my friend, and please forgive me for the late reply.

      The hierarchies do exist, and remain in place. But many things come together in these matters. As human beings, we all have the same nature and are equal in whatever inherent dignity there is in such things. Yet insofar as the man is the reflection of the Divinity (and the woman the reflection of the creature), woman is subordinated to man by the qualities particular to the nature of her sex. Then again, insofar as we consider all Christians as baptized into Christ, there is another kind of equality that comes from all of us being members of the one Christ. Then again, as St. Paul says, some members are more or less honored, and obviously the New Testament contains clear teaching that recognizes the differences between the sexes and genders even within this, some of which (like the natural pre-eminence of men in the natural sphere) has an effect upon which kinds of members people can be (i.e., only men are capable of receiving holy orders). The angels have a superior nature to ours; but by grace, we are deified in Christ and shall sit in judgment over angels, and have received power over demons, in Christ.

      Hence, there is in the natural order and in the household of God a kind of mutual submission, where one may take preeminence in one way, be subject in another, and be a peer in another. One sees this come up in the Scriptures, in the Catholic social order, etc. A bishop holds the supreme sacramental power of Christ’s priesthood, a power higher than the angels. Yet as a fallen man, he is subject to them in many other ways and asks their supplication and assistance. In the supernatural order, the Blessed Virgin and other women saints are vested with very high privileges and authority, yet the Blessed Virgin herself venerated the priesthood of the Apostles and did not presume to offer Mass or to preach homilies in the Church, despite being the most knowledgeable and perfect of all creatures. Nor did she even dare to serve as a “Eucharistic ministrix”, despite being the “Weaver of the Royal Purple” (i.e., she who brought forth God from her own flesh).

      As to Bridal Mysticism… As I pointed out in this article, and again in this comment, there is a sense in which the whole creation is feminine, the counterpart to God’s masculinity. The Scriptures themselves present Christ as the Divine Bridegroom of the soul, as does the Church’s iconographic and mystical traditions. The soul experiences a variety of impulses of love towards the Godhead – I find myself loving Him now as a Father, now as a Brother, a Friend, a Patron or Master, etc. I also acknowledge Him as the lover of the soul, but it may be helpful to remember that one can speak of “eros” (love centered upon an object of desire) without necessarily introducing a sexual element. One of the ways that most helps me with this, is to consider the long tradition of intimate friendship that has long been a feature of Western society.

      While certain ages inevitably want to interpret these relationships in “homoerotic” ways, one finds that this interpretation is often resisted by the healthy elements – indeed, sometimes it even fails to occur to them. For example, in our days people read about Achilles and Patroclus, and assume they were sexually involved. But many even of the ancient Greeks expressed outrage at the useless effeminates advancing that idea during their civilization’s decadence, as well. So, when it comes to David and Jonathan, Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades, Polyeuktos and Nearchos, Amis and Amiloun, Eger and Grime, and in some real-life monastic duos (such as Romanus and Lupicinus of the Jura), etc., etc., we see a strong tradition of intense bonds of friendship, rising almost to a “romantic” level of more intense love, yet ever without so much as a hint of sexual involvement. And from time immemorial, men have had oaths for swearing these kinds of bonds, taking blood oaths or, subsequently in Christianity (where bloodshed in ritual was prohibited) through a special rite that made men sacramentally into brothers. This rites were popular with knights and ascetics; some medieval knights even went so far as to have their arms quartered, almost as if in marriage, and to share a burial tomb.

      It is in this light, that I generally approach Christ as the lover or bridegroom of my soul. The things that a bride would normally feel for her husband – the desire to be owned and marked by him, to submit to him, etc., are present in these masculine bonds, albeit somewhat altered by the fact that both desire to belong one to another, not doing violence to each other’s masculinity. But such men exchanged signs, traditionally, of mutual donation and belonging one to another – for example, being called in the Eastern Churches “cross-brothers” from the custom of trading their baptismal crosses in the rite of fraternity. Montaigne thought (correctly) that this kind of friendship is uniquely masculine; but I would disagree with him, insofar as I believe some women in the Gospel rise to a manly quality of soul, a belief reinforced by the teaching and Tradition of the Church.

      So, to bring this to a conclusion: I do relate to Christ as the Bridegroom and Lover of my soul, and I do understand that in a certain sense, my created quality subordinates me to Him, the Divine Patriarch, in a manner analogous to the woman’s submission to her lord. But in our world the institution of marriage is so intimately tied to sexuality and reproduction in light of the Fall, that I do not find it helpful or edifying to imagine myself as a “wife” or a woman in any sense, walking down the aisle in a big, white dress to meet my Hubby Jesus. Rather, I feel the desire to belong to Him, to wear His marks upon me, to enter into intimate union with Him, but my primary touchstone for this relationship is an erotic love stripped of what is sexual, and thus, for me, the tradition of profound and intense (but chaste), manly love, is the way I best understand this relationship. I truly do understand Him as my Bridegroom in a sense, therefore; I do not depreciate that in any way. But though I acknowledge the femininity of my created nature in reference to Him, I still own my own manhood, for He made me a man. I keep those two things in balance, and as I say, the tradition of intimate male friendship resonates more with me.

      I’ll also say that I have not seen any significant display of “bridal mysticism” from male priests or Catholics that I know, though I do come across it in the spirituality of nuns. Certainly artists have often depicted the soul as feminine, and Catholic men have thought of their soul as “symbolically” feminine and joined to Christ as its husband and master. But I’m not aware of any strong tradition of Catholic men thinking of themselves as “brides of Christ.” The Church is the Bride of Christ, and we are members of that; Christ is the Bridegroom of the soul, true. But it’s one thing to acknowledge these symbolic truths, and another thing for a man to get comfortable imagining himself as a literal wife of the Lord. Have you ever come across such a thing?

      I apologize for the prolixity; I hope some of this helped.

      Like

  2. Last of the Romans says:

    Fantastic response. Thank you. I now think I understand why some teachers of the Church have referred to the soul as the bride of Christ and i understand that such a reference does not at all harm one’s masculinity.

    Also, I can definitely see what you mean by the importance of friendship between men. One of the most terrible things about the rise of homosexuality is the way society tends to view those who are close friends to each other as being homosexual when in fact the friendship has nothing at all to do with that particular species of degeneracy.

    Like

    1. aureliusmoner says:

      Yes, and bonds between men are practically the definition of public society; after marriage and family life, which create society, nothing advances civilization like friendship, camaraderie, good-natured competition and the shared energy and pursuits of men. Our society is imploding after its reorientation towards impiety, and everything it does is designed to destroy both the foundations and the fuel of civilization and its energies. Homosexuality, abortion, divorce and women’s “liberation” are kinds of infernal “sacraments” for the Left, because they so effectively manifest the Void, and the Mystery of Iniquity.

      Women’s “liberation” also undermines male friendship and encourages homosexual anxieties about it, because it makes it possible for young men to form emotional bonds with women at a time when they should be separated from women, bonding with male peers and studying/training under male mentors. Because their first emotionally intense connections will be with women, and are likely to be sexual (even if only in desire), they associate intimacy and erotic desire exclusively with sex and women. Then, if they ever try to develop close bonds with another man, they are often perturbed by the natural feelings of love and intimacy (since these have been reserved for sexual relationships before), now that their affection and appetites have been so warped. The gay movement exacerbates this, obviously. So, once you have warped a man’s emotions, trained him to fix them on his subordinate as an independent equal, made it easy for spouses to separate, have severed sex from procreation and dissolved any sense of binding, familial commitments in connection with it and prominently “celebrate” disordered and degenerate, sodomitical bonds between males, is it really any wonder that society becomes dysgenic, everyone becomes miserable, and men become emotionally defeated creatures? Kyrieleison!

      I’m glad, if my comment helped to understand the “bridal” element, a bit. God bless as we await Pentecost on the morrow.

      Like

  3. Last of the Romans says:

    Yes, I cannot help but see the Mystery of Iniquity in all this. There have been evil and destructive movements throughout history but never has the very essence of the natural order been challenged so thoroughly and consistently.

    Of all the various great heresies Belloc enumerated Modernism strikes me as the most pernicious. Sure, Arianism, Islam, and Protestantism have all been forerunners to Modernism; take for instance Islamic sexual immorality and Protestant emphasis on individualism. Modernism, however, has at its very root the Luciferian rebellion against God. If you reject God, you reject both Him and the world He created. Hence the association of secularism with greed, abortion, contraception, feminism, homosexuality, cowardice and one can only wonder what else will come in the future.

    I totally agree with what you said about women’s liberation. In my own personal experience, I have seen how it many times leads to a certain kind of effeminacy as young men try to accommodate their talk or behavior to sentimental standards. Of course, as you pointed out above, not all women have this sentimental nature (they may have a “manly” soul) but sentimentality is certainly a feminine proclivity.

    I can attribute to your writings my return to Catholicism since about a year ago I had gotten very weary of the crisis in the Church and had essentially apostatized as a result. However, still believing in God because of philosophical reasons and also believing in natural law, I did not go liberal but started frequenting many of the “alt right” sites, up to the point where I nearly became convinced by much of their incessant rhetoric about the effeminacy and weakness and even innate liberalism of Christianity. However, I also came upon your articles and one way or another here I am, having seen the beauty and truth of Catholicism once more and restored to a Faith greater than I ever had before.

    I urge you to continue writing and have a blessed Pentecost.

    Like

    1. Last of the Romans says:

      To edit that slightly, I should say that even before my yearlong journey away from Catholicism I was even then only holding to Catholicism tentatively, given that I am Eastern Orthodox by birth. However, my difficulties have now been resolved so I plan to actually become Catholic.

      Like

      1. aureliusmoner says:

        Again, Laudetur Iesus Christus! Let me know if you face any confusions or difficulties along the way; Catholicism is in the throes of apocalyptic crisis, as we both know.

        Like

    2. aureliusmoner says:

      Well, glory to God! That’s the whole reason I write. Having formerly been atheist, Protestant and finally Orthodox, I feel like I understand the main objections to the Faith, and I hope to provide a demonstration that it is not irrational, it is not weak, and that the Catholic Faith does not represent a real departure from the early Church (indeed, the Orthodox are more guilty of this theologically, though very traditional Orthodox Churches may still do many things as they did them eight centuries ago). Indeed, I have found in the full, authentic, orthodox, Catholic Faith, the fullness of all beauty, vigor, truth and balance. We must strive so mightily to overcome the weakness of our age, and to “live in a manner worthy of the calling ye have received,” as St. Paul says. I’d be fascinated to hear more about your own path thus far, some time.

      My Pentecost was great, glory to God; how was yours?

      Like

  4. Last of the Romans says:

    One issue that I haven’t thought much about is what is the place of the Virgin Mary in the spiritual life. I know that there seems to be a tradition that she is the Co-Redemptrix of mankind. Does that mean that we should generally try to pray to Christ by means of her at all times? If that is true, then why is it in the Lord’s Prayer that we directly pray to the Father through the intercession of Christ?

    Like

    1. aureliusmoner says:

      Sorry I didn’t respond right away to this; I had planned on writing an article about the Virgin, which I have now done. Hopefully it can make a beginning of an answer to this question! Don’t hesitate to ask more questions, there; it is a complex topic.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s