What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Trenchant commentary

This is good stuff.

I've always thought it was pernicious nonsense that disapproving of sinful and dangerous acts somehow encourages the spread of STDs. In any event, my favorite quote in the article is,

Messer's "secondly" shows he's lost the thread of his argument. He's meant to be telling us how churches discourage prevention of AIDS. But the Church's moral disapproval of sodomy, whoring, and drug abuse has the secondary but salutary effect of bolstering disease prevention.

Another favorite is,

Is there, by the bye, any solid evidence for preachers' using "obey your husbands" to exhort wives to submit sexually to a lethally diseased spouse? If so, what they're preaching is residual paganism, not St. Paul.


Can you beat that? Christians were so distracted preparing for their redemption by Christ that they neglected to wave their pom-poms (in front of the news cams) for AIDS victims! Messer doesn't mention victims of cholera, typhus, malaria, yellow fever, sickle-cell anemia, etc., but I'm sure that was just an oversight.

Well-done piece. And I'm not even Catholic!

Comments (2)

Yeah, right: Messer's idea of the necessary methods of AIDs prevention include a long laundry-list of the top left-liberal international assistance programs ever conceived, as if solving poverty would prevent AIDs. Got news for you, Messers: most of the people with AIDs in the US are not in poverty. The AIDs virus is an equal opportunity germ, attacking poor and wealthy alike. And the AIDs - fostering activities, like sexual promiscuity and other sexual deviancies, are found at least as often in the rich as in the poor. So, no, solving poverty will do nothing to prevent AIDs.

Very late to the party, but... my husband has a short-hand for the sort of thinking where everything that someone supports solves a problem, and anyone who disagrees with one of their goals is bad and possibly evil. (Even if the steps prior to the disagreed point-- in this case, "no sex" before the "no condoms" condition, while person A is "lots and lots of sex with anyone interesting" before the "must have condoms" condition.)

He'll read something and just say "more cowbell." (And yes, he can pull of the impersonation.)

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.