Truth & Authority

The question of authority goes all the way back to the time of Luther. Before Luther it was inconceivable that there could be a church separate from the Church of Rome. There have always been heresies floating about within the Church that at times needed to be squashed out in one way or another, but never had there been this heresy: that Christianity was the kind of thing that could be divided into separate parts and still retain the fullness of the Truth.

The process of separation from the Church in previous eras had required councils and debates of theology in which either party acknowledged that both sides could not be right if they were arguing opposite ideas. Since it was also acknowledged that ideas had consequences and the desire for the truth was so strong on both sides, when the Truth was uncovered the side with the wrong beliefs had to change their views or be cut off from the Church. It was that simple. There was such a thing as Truth. It, however, did not stop there. If there was such a thing as Truth and since the truth being sought was revealed Truth, then the person to whom it was revealed would know it. Once again, a simple idea. The one to whom the Truth has been revealed has the power to explain the Truth to others. Without this communication of truth from one person to the other it cannot spread but would remain isolated and unknowable by any one else.

Authority is the power that one person has to teach the truth to another. Now, this is all fine and good until things get messy and people forget stuff or confuse stuff or twist information to suit themselves. Lies, dishonesty, stupidity, and laziness all contribute to the mutilation and obfuscation of the Truth. The question of Authority is closely tied to the existence of Truth. If you believe in truth than there is necessarily an authority from which it comes, but if you reject the very notion of truth (which is a logical contradiction) than you necessarily reject authority (which is a societal catastrophe).

Back to Luther. The reason it was inconceivable that a church could set itself apart from the Church of Rome was because either it would  have to reject the notion that the Faith, that is, the Truth of the Gospel, was not given to the apostles, specifically to Peter, or it would be forced to reject the Faith itself as a single immutable Truth.

Both views are clearly wrong, for every faithful Christian knows that there is but one Faith in Christ and the knowledge of Christ was entrusted to the Apostles explicitly at Pentecost and even more clearly directly to Peter, the Rock upon which Christ himself said he would build his church. Even a child schooled in the basic catechism knew that separation without excommunication or schism was preposterous, impossible even. There could be no such thing as two heads to one Church let alone two churches to one head and certainly not two churches each with its own head. That would mean that there were two bodies of Christ, which is preposterous!

There could be no church professing the One Faith separate and distinct from the Church of Rome. Luther's attempt at creating a separate Church was just that, an attempt and nothing more. So long as it retains the Faith and professed the One Truth of the Gospel it cannot be separate from the Church of Rome, at least not in essence.

 It could be different in its structure, in its outward hierarchy, in its customs, or even in certain beliefs that follow from the Gospel of Christ, but as long as Faith existed in the people it would inevitably be a member of the Universal Church.

Just because a hand decides to rebel and jump off the body does not mean that it will succeed in doing so, and it certainly would not make that rebellious hand a whole new body.

 The fact was simple: no matter how much Luther changed the appearance of "his church" he was incapable of changing the substance of it. As long as Lutherans professed the One True Faith, there would be no such thing as the Lutheran Church. Even giving it a new name would not change the fact that it was inseparably united to the Body of Christ in the Universal Church.

Where there is Faith there is Grace and Grace is the life of the Body of Christ, so where there is Faith there is the living Church.

Now a body can be alive without being in perfect health. So too the Church is not in perfect health. In fact, she is so ill and cancerous that she appears to be dying.

Luther noticed the ill health of the Church. He, however, tried to jump ship rather than administer a medicine. He added to the sickness of the Body of Christ another illness much worse than the first, psychological illness. This illness, ironically, was made manifest in Luther himself by the end of his life.

The heresy of modernism espoused by Luther was a heresy yet unseen in Christendom. It was a mental illness that attacked the Church within her own mind, deceiving herself with the fallacy that there could be more than one Truth, which really just meant that there was no Truth. For if one truth could be many different truths than there would be no one truth. Likewise, if the One Faith could be more than one, then there was actually no Faith at all.

If there is no one Way, one Truth, one Life, than who is to say that anyone else's way, truth or life is better than the others? Ideas have consequences and this idea has the most disastrous consequences. We become alone, isolated, incapable of understanding anyone else or being understood by anyone else.

Any attempt at communication is futile, if this intellectual fallacy were possible. The only thing you could know is what exists in your own mind, hence Descartes proof of his own existence is dependent upon his own knowledge of himself, "I think therefore I am." [Never-mind that he has left out his third term necessary to make this a logical syllogism: "I think. All those who think are. Therefore, I am." The hidden unifying term requires the recognition of a reality outside one's own mind.]

The bridge of communication is demolished, since to communicate some truth means to be responsible for it. If you say, "Murder is wrong," the other person is naturally curious and asks, "What is murder? What is wrongness?" You are responsible for knowing the answer to those questions, if you claim that the statement "Murder is wrong" is true.

Not many people get their doctorates in ethics, but that is what you would need in order to teach an other person exactly what you mean by "murder is wrong." The level of knowledge of philosophy, ethics, moral theology that you would need to be able to plunge the depths of that simple statement is more than the average person has.

According to this isolated non-truth, however, each person would have to come to the knowledge of such things on their own, without assistance. No appeals to authority would be welcome. It would be useless to say "I know that murder is wrong because the Church taught me so." An appeal to an outside agent proves nothing to the isolated man living according to this non-truth fallacy.

Notice the inconsistency which betrays the fallacy of this isolated thinking: why would he attempt to ask you anything about your 'truth' in the first place. How did this conversation even begin? This is usually the point in which this poor isolated modernist remembers his isolation and says, "I shouldn't have said anything to begin with! I knew this conversation would be futile." How often do I hear this in conversations with modernists! The conversation begins either out of passion or hope for dialogue and ends in a dispassionate despairing retreat into the dark caverns of the modern mind.

What does this have to do with authority? In order for authority to exist, truth must exist and it must be communicable.

Truth communicated creates authority. "Authority" comes from "author" which is one who writes down, transcribes, or passes on to others something of his own. Authority is the power derived from the agent and given to others in order to accurately pass on whatever it is that he has communicated.

If there is nothing to communicate and the possibility of communication itself is useless then authority ceases to exist. "You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want and not only is there no means of communicating our ideas but neither of us has any more power over our ideas that anyone else. You have no authority to tell me what to do because you cannot know what is actually right to do."

Authority is the action aspect of truth. Authority is a power that enforces the truth. Truth says what must be thought, while authority enforces the consequence of those thoughts: it takes action. Without authority, truth is powerless. Without truth, authority is crazy.

The affect that this mental illness has had upon the world in which we live is obvious, disastrous, and arguably the greatest evil, the sin of Satan: Rebellion.

Rebellion is a passionate word, charged with patriotic emotion and delivered under the appearance of freedom and truth. Rebellion, however, is not true if it denies the power of legitimate authority.

The question of rebellion which we Americans have come to see in the positive light of revolution is puzzling when one tries to reconcile it with the authority of the Church, or at least it ought to be puzzling because it implies a contradiction. If America can throw off the power of the King and establish their own government then they must have the authority to do so.

Notice the democratic notion of authority in America. The mentality towards authority is a product of Luther's own rebellion against the authority of the Church, which in turn is the inevitable reaction to the idea that there is no one Truth. Ultimately this is a rejection of Christ who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Ancient heresies are cute little mistakes compared to the heresy of Modernism. The heresy of Modernism manages to uproot Christ from his very roots in the most ridiculous of ways! I say ridiculous because it isn't a flaw in reasoning or a flaw in interpreting history or any great lofty intellectual flaw. It's a tiny simple error that the smallest child would never fall for. It's an error that once spoken proves itself false. For right after saying, "There is no one Truth," one must hurriedly add, "except that one!" The rejection of truth is self-contradictory. Likewise, the rejection of authority is self-destructive.

Darling Damsel or Wicked Witch?

As a woman, you are either the princess or the witch. Sometimes there are witches that pretend to be princesses or princesses that conceal their true beauty but nonetheless there are only two choices. A girl decides which she will be.

 
      Now, the story of Maleficent is particularly evil. In fact, her name literally means "maker of evil." However, modernists cannot wrap their minds around evil, let alone evil women. Somehow modern feminists have deified women to the point that they can do no wrong. It is strange really. While the great knights of yore would sacrifice their very lives for a princess in need, they never hesitated to call a witch a witch. Some women did not want to be rescued, some women were not worth rescuing, some women chose not to need others, to be vulnerable, and to be lovable. These women were called witches and they could produce some of the most horrible evils!
     Take Maleficent for instance. She chose to curse the infant princess with death because she was not invited to a party. For some reason the child's parents considered Maleficent unworthy of being a guest at their party... perhaps because she was the kind of woman who would cast evil curses upon innocent children because her ego was offended. A woman wrapped up in her own importance is a liability to others, but of course she would never see it that way. A woman blinded by pride and eaten away by jealousy is a dangerous woman to have around your young daughter. The wisdom here is obvious to any good parent living in Christendom. A woman deaf to the needs of others and closed off to their feelings is more like a Dragon than a woman. She can "make" so much evil with just a word, a glance, a touch! A woman like this rightly deserves to be called a witch, for that is what she makes herself.

 Modernists, however, cannot stand to see a woman so described and so they create the movie "Maleficent" and attempt to offer a suitable back-story which can justify her behavior and reveal the real evil. After careful psychoanalysis the story makers conclude that the only thing that would make a woman so bitter is true love gone wrong. She meets a man, trusts him, lets him into her world and then crash! It all comes tumbling down around her as she discovers that he does not truly love her but only desires ambition!

 "We've got it!" They gleefully exclaim, "She could not  possibly have been so cruel had she not been destroyed by the man who she though loved her but who really only wanted to be King!"

    At first glance this seems plausible, but then you wonder, "hmm, I wonder why he did that to her if he loved her so much. Could a man really love a throne more than the true love of an innocent princess? I think he must have had some kind of trauma in his childhood that would make him doubt the love of a woman. Let us make a new movie called "The King" which, after careful psychoanalysis, will conclude that he is acting merely from a place of survival because he was abandoned by his mother as a child."



In order to say that Maleficent is "actually" good and only forced into being evil by the future King, one must either assume that men are capable of acting from a place of pure evil or that there is an other story which will explain his madness.

Now, if he is a source of evil, then your theory of the deification of women is complete. However, if you are determined to be consistent in assuming that no one is "maleficent" then the story must continue and explore his trauma stricken past, to which there will be no end because then you will have to uncover his horrible mother's motivations which will be the result of her selfish husband, who selfishness stems from his abusive aunt, whose anger comes from her abusive uncle, whose misery comes from his controlling wife, whose coldness comes from her father's whatever.... the cycle continues onward and downward until who knows when!

    While there is a truth to the idea that no one is evil, there is a grave error in assuming that good people cannot make bad choices. Maleficent makes evil. She does evil. She is not evil, but she does make it. The story of Sleeping Beauty has more truth than this story because it acknowledges that, for whatever reason, people can make evil. It does more good for you and me to hear that evil is real and to be warned to be on your guard lest you become blind to the evil that you are making! It is more true to say that Maleficent is a wicked witch than to say that she is a misunderstood princess. She is not a princess. She is perfectly understood as a witch.



Princesses are innocent, gentle, and loving whereas witches are warped, unhappy, and bitter. While a princess can be rescued from the enslavement of a witch, a witch cannot be rescued. She chooses not to be. It is her choice whether she is a princess or a witch. One can love, one needs others, one cares deeply about others, the other does not love, does not need, and does not care. It matters not whether she became that way because she was not invited to a party or because she was hurt by a man. In reality, neither of those are true causes, they are just excuses. Being the wicked witch is easy. Being the princess requires trust, which is the hardest thing to make. It is easy to make evil it is hard to make trust.



True Love is the only thing missing from "Maleficent." The true love of a man who fights to protect his beloved from evil is completely dissolved in this modern "twist." In today's world it is not enough for a man to risk is life for yours or to find you utterly beautiful and innocent in order for love to exist. In fact, according to "Maleficent" love between a man and a woman is just simply not possible.

True Love's kiss is more True, more Real, more Wonderful than any other kinds of friendships or relationships. The radical, amazing thing about Sleeping Beauty is that she was dead for a hundered years and a simple kiss woke her up! The Truth of Sleeping Beauty is that she a true princess, full of love, who could ONLY be rescued by a man, a prince, a knight. He alone held the magic that could break the curse of Death itself. If that is not incredible, amazing, and worth sharing, then what is? If True Love's Kiss is not true than what is? If sleeping beauty was not rescued by a man worthy of her heart than why. Why? Why did Christ come? Why is there love between married spouses? Why do we feel deep within our hearts that love like this is possible?

"Maleficent" leaves too many questions unanswered, and does not teach us what true love is. In fact, the movie teaches us exactly how to be a wicked witch. It does not, however, teach us that being a witch is anything to avoid.

The Real Woman: Mary the Mother of God

     In order to understand women, or womanhood itself, one must understand the Blessed Mother. The pagan world does not understand her. They might have their goddesses and priestesses, but they fail to recognize the heart of a woman. Perhaps it is because woman tend to lack the ability to communicate their feelings, their heartaches, to men. Men assume that women are no different than them, and women will generally want to agree with them. Most will hide their feelings out of a sense of piety or honor (both highly respected manly virtues), while others will guard their own hearts out of a fear of heartbreak (since men are apt to trample over their gentle hearts in order to toughen them up). But women are not women when their hearts have been toughened.

      What a sad world it must have been to have lived among the Romans who praised Lucretia for her piety when she plunged a dagger into her own heart. A good woman, Livy claims on behalf of all Romans, is one like Lucretia who works hard in her home, manages her servants well, and does everything without complaint. According to Livy's tale, Lucretia's husband bet his fellow soldiers that he had the most noble wife among them, when they went to each of their homes to see what their wives were doing they found all of the other wives partying, but Lucretia was still working late into the night. It was here that the evil son of the evil king Tarquin began to plot how he might seduce Lucretia and have her for himself. After the men left, he returned to her home secretly and she invited him in, knowing him to be a friend of her husband, but he soon revealed his true intentions. He sneaked into her room after she had laid down to bed and woke her with a sword to her breast saying, "Quiet, Lucretia; I am Sextus Tarquinius, and I have a sword in my hand. If you speak, you will die." He proceeded to threaten and cajole her, both begging and commanding her to allow him to sleep with her. 

Her virtue was so strong that she was not afraid of death, so his threats carried no weight. So he tried again but this time he threatened worse, he said, "When I have killed you, I will put next to you the body of a nude servant, and everyone will say that you were killed during a dishonorable act of adultery." This threat she could not handle for she was an honorable woman. Thus Sextus Tarquinius was able to triumph over her virtue.

       Here is the great divide between the pagan women of Roman and the gentle women of Christendom. How many virgin martyrs are there written in the Book of Life? How many Christian woman even forsook their own honor in order to preserve their chastity? Had Lucretia been a Christian woman, not even the threat against her honor would have broken her. For a Christian's strength comes from God, not from the opinions of others. Certainly a Christian woman wishes she could whisper in Lucretia's ear, "Don't fear, daughter! Your piety is good and your honor pure but it is your heart that God finds the most dear! Do not give it up for anything less than true Love!" Just look how the Blessed Mother found herself in a similar position as a young girl, to sacrifice her honor for the sake of Love. To sacrifice her idea of perfection for true integrity. The integrity of her heart was so sacred and so beautiful to God that he found in her a home worthy of his presence. 

       The immaculate heart of Mary is said to be pierced by seven swords. Seven is a number that symbolizes perfection or completion, eternity. Her heart than was pierced as many times as was possible. She could not have suffered even a tiny bit more for her heart was completely pierced. The Blessed Virgin, however, remains alive in spite of her wounds. Amazingly, her heart is not destroyed by the swords, by the great suffering that she has endured! How is it possible?!  Here is where the pagan cannot follow, for only one sword pierced Lucretia's heart, the one guided by her own hand, and she perished in spite of her honor, in spite of her dutifulness; in spite of all her efforts she perished by the sword. 

The Blessed Mother remained true to her heart. She remained vulnerable. Vulnerability means that one is capable of being wounded. Mary never hid her heart from herself, let alone her Lord. Do you think that God loved Mary because she did her duties, certainly not! Although she certainly did do her duties but not in the way a pagan could understand. Do you suppose that God found Mary most pleasing to his sight because she was the most honorable woman? Certainly not! Although her honor is without stain, even though the law would have her put to death for being pregnant without a husband. Do you think that God chose Mary because she was the most obedient? Certainly not! Although she was indeed the most obedient to His Holy and Venerable Will! On the contrary! God looked with favor upon his lowly handmaid because she was full of Grace!

  

    Before God planted his seed within her, she was full of Grace. Mary, concieved without Original Sin, enjoyed the happiness of a soul so tighly integrated within itself and so inseperably joined to the font of Life that she basked in the Glory of God! Here is a woman who lived, who experienced life, who held the Word of God within her very soul, to the point that it pleased Him to rest bodily within her own sanctuary. Imagine for a moment a woman so lowly that even her own honor delighted her not. She took no pleasure in her own piety even though she was with out a doubt the most pious person in all existance. She knew her Lord and He loved her. 

     Here is the mystery of our Faith: That Love was so in love with you, with me, that He waited and waited, groaning with expectation, for that one Woman above all other women who would let Him in to her heart so that He might redeem us from the death which we had merited for ourselves! How strange, is it not, that through a woman God was able to enter into this world? Surely, God came as a man, but only through the heart of a woman. Without her heart, open and unafraid, there would be no Salvation, no rescuer. In fact, she herself would not have been saved were it not for her own openness! Her grace filled heart was a result of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross! She was already indebted to Christ before he even became flesh and dwelt within her! 

      Perhaps it was not possible for damsels in distress to exist before Christ, but one did. She recognized herself as the most in need of Christ's mercy. She basked in the joy of Grace even while swords pierced her beloved heart. She suffered the torments of the Dragon while holding on to the unfailing hope in her rescuer. 

    

Without Mary there are no damsels in distress or princesses worth rescuing. There might be honorable and pious women but there are no woman worth the Dragon's time. The Dragon does not bother with those women who are content to live the way they perceive men to live, guarding their hearts and toughening themselves up. The truth is that a woman is to a man as her heart is to herself. Her joys and sufferings are his joys and sufferings! Why does the Dragon bother stealing the woman? Why does the man bother rescuing her? What treasure do they both see that she cannot?! Her heart is their greatest treasure! Listen to the Song of Solomon, truly the song of the Creator for His Chosen People, the song of Our Lord for His Blessed Mother, and the song of Christ for you: 

"[1] How beautiful art thou, my love, how beautiful art thou! thy eyes are doves' eyes, besides what is hid within. Thy hair is as flocks of goats, which Come up from mount Galaad. [2] Thy teeth as flocks of sheep, that are shorn which come up from the washing, all with twins, and there is none barren among them. [3] Thy lips are as a scarlet lace: and thy speech sweet. Thy cheeks are as a piece of a pomegranate, besides that which lieth hid within. [4] Thy neck, is as the tower of David, which is built with bulwarks: a thousand bucklers hang upon it, all the armour of valiant men. [5] Thy two breasts like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.
[6] Till the day break, and the shadows retire, I will go to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense. [7] Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. [8] Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come: thou shalt be crowned from the top of Amana, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions, from the mountains of the leopards. [9] Thou hast wounded my heart, my sister, my spouse, thou hast wounded my heart with one of thy eyes, and with one hair of thy neck. [10] How beautiful are thy breasts, my sister, my spouse! thy breasts are more beautiful than wine, and the sweet smell of thy ointments above all aromatical spices.
[11] Thy lips, my spouse, are as a dropping honeycomb, honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments, as the smell of frankincense. [12] My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up. [13] Thy plants are a paradise of pomegranates with the fruits of the orchard. Cypress with spikenard. [14] Spikenard and saffron, sweet cane and cinnamon, with all the trees of Libanus, myrrh and aloes with all the chief perfumes. [15] The fountain of gardens: the well of living waters, which run with a strong stream from Libanus."

The heart, hidden within her delicate frame, is a fountain! a garden! a mountain teaming with beauty! It is as though God has hidden within a woman's heart the garden of Eden and only her lover can be let in, but oh how the Serpent has cast between them a fiery sword. He will not be let in until he can break the Curse of Sin and defeat the Dragon which ensnares her! 

    Look with the eyes of faith at any woman and you will see the Blessed Mother's innocence, purity, and beauty. Look even closer and you will see the Serpent slithering at her feet, the Dragon encircling her tower, the thorny brambles grown up around her fountain. Where is her Knight? Where is her Prince? Where is her Lord? Is he equipped to fight for her, to defeat the Dragon, to render the Serpent powerless, to rescue her from evil? Christ has come and made it possible for women to be true women and men to be true men! Now marriage is real, and not just a symbol. Now a man and a woman really can be united because the cavern that separated them was destroyed by Christ's Sacrifice. Only Christendom could produce knights in shining armor and princesses who need rescuing because Christ returned Love to its rightful place: a woman's heart.

Joan of Arc: the Ultimate Damsel in Distress

"Joan was France, the spirit of France made flesh... Joan was our country embodied, our country made visible flesh cast in a gracious form. When she stood before others, they saw Joan of Arc, but [we] saw France." (Mark Twain, Joan of Arc)

Let us begin the unveiling of the innermost being of femininity by considering one woman who was clearly stronger than the strongest generals of her day and yet was as sensitive as a child.

The apparent contradiction in Joan of Arc might lead some to see her as an exception, rather than the rule. However, when it comes to great saints they love to the greatest extent of their being, so when considering Joan we must keep in mind that what appears to be masculine can only be just that, an appearance.

Her heart is feminine and that is how she loves: with all the passion of a woman.

Although she was in the midst of battle, she never used her sword, the great sword of Charlemagne found beneath an ancient church altar according to the directions of an angel.

Although she led armies and commanded generals, she bowed before her rightful king.

Although she fought against the English her heart could not differentiate between friend and foe for if he lie dying in the field after the battle, she wept for both with equal agony.

Her military genius was her own gift. She had a mind for logic and strategy even when she was a young girl. God knew this when he chose her to rally his beloved France.

She had a keen skill for reading people's hearts. It was said that just by having faith in a man she could make him worthy of her trust.

She was squeamish, of all things, but saved her weakness for after a battle was complete since her men needed to see her confidence in order to have any of their own. She had no fear, no worry, except to displease God who she was most devoted to, owing all her strength to His generosity.

Of all the things that Joan of Arc did to help her country, her single greatest achievement was reminding the French that they had something to stand and fight for.

After 100 years of war their beautiful country was weighed down by depression, exuberant taxes, and cowardice.

"Yes, most Frenchmen were soldiers; and admirable runners, too, both by practice and inheritance; they had done next to nothing but run for near a century...When have French soldiers won a victory? Since eight thousand Englishmen nearly annihilated sixty thousand Frenchmen a dozen years ago at Agincourt, French courage has been paralyzed. And so it is a common saying to-day that if you confront fifty French soldiers with five English ones, the French will run." (Mark Twain, Joan of Arc)

She gave them her sincerity, her innocence, her gentleness, and her passionate confidence in their abilities.

She was the heart of France, not the arm, the foot, or even the head, but the heart. France's sorrows were her sorrows, France's joys were her joys.

She had the deepest love for her king, as her entire motivation for going to war was to crown the dauphin. Her love for authority was more than respect for an institution but the result of a deep faith in the good will that a true king has for his people. She held a sword and wore men's clothes as symbols of authority, but she never used the sword or demanded to dress like a man.

She had the authority of a Queen not of a King.

Authority, however, is a discussion for another day. Let it suffice to say that she did not seek worldly power or authority. She sought victory for France. She sought liberation from cowardice, depression, and taxes for her people.

Her greatest achievement: being something worth fighting for, is one of the single most feminine traits that Joan of Arc reveals through her life.

Men might fight for other men out of a sense of honor and friendship but they only risk their entire life with all their strength and every last ounce of their energy for a woman, a woman who would not be able to live without their sacrifice, a woman so womanly that she becomes his purpose for life and even death.

Joan of Arc was a young girl of eighteen or so when she took up the task of rallying France. She was said to be the most beautiful maid in all of France. She was gentle, understanding, trusting, and weak. She managed to get the most hardened heathen General La Hire to attend prayers multiple times a day and to quit swearing (at least while he was around her), and he did it with joy! She trusted the generals to the point of naivety, actually believing them at their word, even though they were conspiring behind her back, and shamed them afterwards with her shear brilliance.

In one sense Joan was no damsel in distress; she carried a sword and was trained for battle. By all accounts she could take care of herself, but she never did. She chose not to take care of herself, confident that she would never use her sword. She trusted so deeply.

First, she trusted God. She had Faith that no matter how much pain she had to endure, God had a plan for her and was looking out for her.

The very heart of womanliness is just this: trust.

Trust will most likely get you hurt, and in Joan's case it earned her death, and yet she still trusted. Trusting is a woman's way of loving. If Joan were not to trust, even a little bit, she would be closing herself off to others. In this way she is most certainly a damsel in distress; she is absolutely vulnerable, by choice.



Women feel dead inside when they cannot trust others, especially their loved ones. Women build walls and create masks to protect themselves from the pain of trusting someone who does not care about them. In order to feel alive, to love, a woman must open her heart.

If the heart of a woman is like a gate to a great castle, then the man is the soldier standing in front to protect it from being taken by the enemy. A woman loves like a gate: either she is open or she is closed.

You can tell a closed off woman from a mile away. She is cold, distant, fearful, old, cranky, bitter, blaming, scheming, controlling, and she likely does not have a strong warrior defending her heart because she can take care of herself.

But an authentically feminine woman is open, warm, comforting, understanding, confident, caring, nurturing, and lively. She will feel greatly, as did Joan who wept for the wounded and dying. She will inevitably feel pain because the world is cruel and the devil is stalking her like a ravenous wolf, looking for the perfect time to attack and make her fear once again.

By trusting her men, and ultimately God, Joan made herself someone worthy of fighting for. Her radical trust was made by choice, not out of fear or coercion. She chose to trust them for no other reason than that they were her men, they were the men of France, and no matter how rough, crude, and cowardly they were they were her only hope of survival.

She needed them. France needed them.

France needed her knights to be knights. She was too weak to stomach war, but they could do it, they needed to shake off the oppressive control of England.

True, they needed her too, but for an entirely different reason. They needed her to remind them of the purpose of war: peace. They needed her to remind them that there were still homes full of innocent life that sang and danced and lived in peace and would not be able to continue to do so under the oppression of the English.

A Challenge Accepted!

After reading this post on The Art of Manliness I felt like accepting his challenge to do for womanliness what he has done for manliness. Anyone who knows me knows how much I think, talk, and read about this topic. I'm not the first person to write about femininity, and I am not aiming to be the best at it. I hope, however, to at least add insight from a different angle that maybe a few people will be able to understand. I have some experience of femininity, considering I am a woman. Also, I was raised by a very feminine woman who had five daughters, and I am my daddy's little girl!  Other that that and my Classical Liberal Arts degree I have zero credentials in this realm of gender psychology and who knows what other credentials I might need to be able to write a real book on the topic.

Women practicing the old art of talking 

while trying to make it appear as though they are being productive, 

hence the spools of thread

The very first step one must make on the journey to discovering the difference between men and women is to accept the fact that they are different. Without this initial discovery, which usually comes through some experience that feels at lot like an unbearably painful crisis, there can be no coming to understand the opposite sex or even your own sex.  When I was younger, back before I was told by others that there is no real difference between men and women, that there was a difference between boys and girls was obvious to me, Obviously there is no essential difference (I mean "essential" in the Aristotelian sense), but there is a difference and it feels pretty essential; perhaps we could call it a significant difference. This first step boils down to trusting your own perception of reality regardless of whether that perception is agreed upon by others. More on this later...

While the first step is fundamentally philosophical, the second step is essentially Christian: one must believe with his whole heart and soul that the other person over there who is causing him so much grief or pain or loneliness is actually trying to love him. This is the part that requires faith, faith that feels a lot like Faith with a capital F because ultimately this must be our attitude towards life and God himself.  God is a Father; he chose to reveal himself to us as masculine, so our understanding of masculinity and femininity as it pertains to the mundane things of life is directly related to our eternal happiness! But I digress... the little faith comes before that. So take a moment to accept the notion that no one is essentially evil , but that everyone, men and women, want to be good and are motivated by that more than any other desire. 

Once you have done these two things you will have a foundation for understanding, but it is not going to be easy. As Christ said, "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,... thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones."

God Himself became one of those little ones for this very reason.

Now before I lose you because I just revealed my blatantly Catholic bias, let me say one thing: Love is not the result of division but of unity. You were brought to this site out of a desire to love, to understand another so that you could love and be loved in return.  We all have the same desire to love and to be loved and that is what unites us. Masculinity and femininity are natural divisions and they exist for a reason, namely: to inspire attraction in order to create unity. Whether it makes you feel good or not, this is a truth heartily embraced by the Catholic Church, and this is the mode through which I have come to understand the truth about love that I strive to practice more perfectly everyday, in my own imperfect little way. 

Furthermore, I cannot use modernist language to explain this, not because I am not fluent in modern language, but because the language of True Love does not translate into modern, politically correct, androgynous, atheistic language. To become a believer in True Love, in the romance of knights in shining armor and damsels in distress, one must take off the glasses of modernism and cover your face with the bridal veil of Catholic Medieval simplicity. The middle ages were not Catholic by chance but by necessity. The archetypal virtuous medieval knight and beautiful gentle princess are the natural and necessary conclusion to the belief in the One True Sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the Fiat of his Blessed Mother.