The Apocalyptic Error of St Paul

It is tempting these days to think of ourselves as traditionalists. The modern world is defined by insanity, more or less, thus the past must be defined by rationale and virtue. We must be careful, though, for while traditions tend to be good, because they've survived some societal test of time, they aren't necessarily so. Some are downright awful, or antiquated. A dogmatic devotion to traditionalism leads invariably to stagnation, which is death. Life is about growth.

I've been reading, slowly but surely, the letters of Paul. Despite being raised Catholic, I know very little of his writings. I only recall being taught that he had been transformed by a religious experience from a persecutor of Christians into their foremost early leader. (Perhaps even the founder of Christianity, or sometimes referred to as a "second founder.") There is little to disagree with in Paul's writings. While he is not a humorous author (there seems to be little humor in the Bible at all) he does come across as lively and intelligent, making numerous practical arguments for living a noble life. Still, one flaw sticks out. From Corinthians I,

Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided.

Paul was apocalyptic. He was a true believer, not just that Christ would return to judge the world, but that it would happen soon. Within the lifetimes of his contemporaries. Thus, not only did he take on a vow of celibacy, he encouraged his followers to do the same. Why bother with such worldly endeavors as family building when the world is soon to be destroyed anyway? Fortunately for western civilization, most Christians did not heed the advice, but the effect of his early stance on marriage has lingered on, much to the detriment of the Church.

Most people on the right realize that a major problem with the left is the number of older childless women. They project their maternal instincts in unhealthy and unnatural ways, and adopt the world's underclass as their progeny. But what of these unmarried priests..aren't they living unnaturally too? I say they are. Perhaps it makes sense when the world is soon to be razed by vast cosmic powers of destruction. That's not a natural circumstance, to be sure! But, 2000 years later, we must admit, at least, that the impending doom is not of the short-term. Priests would be better to lead by example, raising families that sustain the congregation and the nation.

The major problems of the Catholic church result from this dynamic. Their flocks are dwindling. The priests are caught constantly is sex scandals involving children. The pope is a pinko. The latest news is that he donated half a million dollars to "refugees" camped out at the US south border. He calls it an act of charity. I call it an act of war. What gospel preaches that Christian lands shall be demographically invaded? None, of course. Perhaps he might argue that the Hispanics are more devout, thus entitled to the fertile lands of an increasingly materialistic people. It would be a sound argument, perhaps, but it's not one he makes. No, he is merely a communist, always seeking to destroy social structure, to invert order. The busybody has no children to tend to, no legacy of his own. His only legacy is pandering to virtue cults obsessed with worldly concerns. Why does he lead migrants away from lives of poverty, a life Jesus recommended? Why does he lead them into the realm of the godless? He cannot answer properly, for he is a materialist, not a Christian.

Would you attend services in a Catholic church? Would you put alms on the plate? I would not. There is no Biblical imperative to commit treason against one's own nation. I will not fund an organization that promotes it. And I'd prefer not to attend mass where the men aren't permitted to marry. They should be required to. Celibate clergy is tradition for the sake of tradition. After 2000 years, perhaps they should finally realize that all teachings of impending apocalypse can be safely downgraded. What good is the promise of Christian salvation when all the churches are empty or destroyed, like the Christian nations?