“A Call to Battle”

On September 30, 2015, I wrote about the newly minted Apostolic Exhortation written by my Bishop, Thomas J. Olmsted titled, Into the Breach. It is a call to all Catholic Men to be what God has designed us to be – leaders and soldiers for our families and to our culture. To read my post, check it out here.

My fellow men: we have been sold a box of dung that looks like roses but smells like garbage. We have been deceived to believe that the tenets of Maxim magazine and things of this nature is what we should strive for in our daily lives. We must regain our masculinity, which has been stolen from us, and we must do this through one person – Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the perfect and most true example of masculinity for all men in all times.

To compliment the aforementioned document, the first ever documentary-style short film has just been released by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. It is titled – “A Call to Battle”. I just watched it and let me tell you – it’s inspiring! It makes me want to be better in every aspect of my life.

This video must be shared with every Catholic man that you know. This video must be given a wide breach. Please do me a favor and share it on your Facebook walls, your LinkedIn accounts, your Twitter pages, and every other social media outlet you personally hold. If you don’t have social media, then email it to your friends and family. But whatever you do – Share it today!

Pray that the letter, Into the Breach and this documentary, “A Call to Battle” are well received here in the Diocese of Phoenix and that Catholic men will have the courage to subtract the things in their lives leading them away from Jesus, and add those things that will bring them closer to Him. Pray for Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted and all the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Amen.

14 thoughts on ““A Call to Battle”

  1. I agree that Our Lord is the perfect and most true example of masculinity for all men in all times.
    But also, if I may add my humble opinion as a Catholic woman, nothing adds more masculinity to a man than a Rosary in his hands. But not a Rosary as an accessory, a worn out one that is used/prayed daily. A man who prays the Rosary is as masculine as can be. And Who better than our Blessed Mother to accompany Catholic Men in the Battle and transform them to be the men God has designed them to be?
    Excellent post Tom.

      • I showed the video to a friend and he expressed a positive opinion about it. He got the message. I’m sure he won’t be the only one to get it either.
        I wrote my opinion after watching the video only. Haven’t read the document…yet.:) I’ve bookmarked it and I’ll read it if not later today, tomorrow morning.

  2. It’s like a story with a bunch of lofty ideas but no emotion or passion and nothing people are actually interested in. It’s bloodless, with sentimental music. If they actually wanted to appeal to men, which they don’t–they want to to appease feminists. But if they wanted to actually appeal to men, they would stop adding the caveat “spiritual” to “leader” or “head” of the family and just say “head of the family” or “head of the wife.” And they would note the privileges and rights that come with that office, not the just the obligations. The reason they don’t is that that would suggest that women have obligations to men. If they actually wanted to appeal to men, and not to feminists, they would put out videos that instruct women on how they ought to behave toward men. And, most importantly, they would repudiate JPII’s obliteration of the father as the actual head of the family in Mulieris Dignitatem and elsewhere, which was reiterated again at the World Meeting of Families and the Synod on the Family: “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.” This is a lie from false teachers. Pope Pius XI warned us about them in 1930: “74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected.”

    But, again, they’re not really interested in appealing to men, or actually helping men. They’re talking to feminists in that video.

    • Hi Patrick. I often get confused when I see folks say ‘spiritual’ because I don’t compartmentalize this way. Then I remember that many seem to be unaware God is ever present. Maybe this is why they use it. The Bishop wrote a good exhortation, I think, for young men who were not blessed as I was, with saintly parents. It is, perhaps, a hopeful start. Who’s to say our Lord will not send them a wise helpmate as Abigail was sent to David, Rebekah to Isaac?😉 The Lord surely works in mysterious ways!
      Yes, the world is in a bad way. All they can do is address men. The only one I can think of who might’ve called feminists to abandon the idol of their sex is Mother Angelica, but she cannot speak. All we can do is pray the Lord raises another like her and the young women listen. And may we all pray for Mother, God bless her!
      And for young men, now is the time to set aside all bitterness and rivalry, rejecting pride for humility, and pray things get better, even if tomorrow be the last day. God bless all

      • My sense is that the use of “spiritual” head of the wife is an example of “the exception that proves the rule.” I.e. that the husband isn’t the head of the wife in any way other than “spiritually.” I don’t think any woman can solve it because if a woman solves it for herself she would most likely start supporting men however she can which would mean a stepping back. But if she doesn’t solve it for herself, how could she teach it to others?

    • Dear Patrick,

      I think I understand some of your concerns however, a comprehensive understanding of Ephesians 5 leads one to see a clear mutuality of submission within the marriage. It is true that men and women, husbands and wives were created to carry out different roles within the human family / society. That being said, Ephesians 5 clearly volley’s regarding responsibilities. First, it speaks to the wives. The second section lays out the responsibility of the husband and the expected results. In my estimation, when you look at the guts of what is being said St. Paul clearly lays the lion’s share of leadership regarding sacrificial love and example setting on the husband.

      Not so sure the video or Mulieris Dignitatem are all filled with ideas clearly designed to feminize men. That does not mean there are not strains, groups, and / or pressure within the without the Church to do so. Some of that stems from an unnatural, historic application of Ephesians 5:22-24 and some of it is due to growing secularization, atheist ideals and anti-intellectual sentiment that has been filling out modern / post-modern society for decades.

      In Christ,

      • Not a comprehensive understanding, a misunderstanding. Look at Titus 2 for clarification from St. Paul about what he meant in Eph 5. Look at what St. Peter said about it in 1 Peter 3, that a wife is subject to her husband even if he isn’t even a believer.

      • First, I did not say there was not a responsibility on the behalf of the wife. What I did say is there is a significant responsibility on the husband as well. This is consistent w/ the scripture in question (Eph. 5). In addition, with all scripture our interpretative strategy, in order to derive at a well reasoned interpretation, must take into consideration the specific situation the writer was addressing in the moment / time it was written. As with St. Paul, many of his admonitions were extremely specific to the day in which he was writing. It would not be appropriate to take what the Saint said and make a one to one application in the current moment. So, we have to ask ourselves questions as we read and interpret. Again, your strain of “all things currently are feminizing the church” seems to be coloring your take on a number of scriptures. I will restate, there is a move within the secular culture (and other forces) that seek to diminish and destroy a biblical understanding of men / women (roles etc.) and what they were created to be. It seems that in order to make your very narrow point you are engaging in a bit of proof texting.

      • Thanks for countering Patrick’s comments, however, arguing with him is going to be futile. He is from a camp that is completely alienated from the Church. I will approve his comments so others may dialogue with him, but in the end, he’s not going to get it. Some FYI for you.

      • Tom, I sensed this and was planning to make my last comment final. I get it, he has a particular focus and it is coloring everything he sees. Appreciate your blog.

  3. Tom, thanks for not cutting me off. I don’t think the SSPX is considered “completely alienated” from the Church. But I was catechized, baptized and confirmed by them if that’s what you mean…

    eneubauer:
    This is the point I replied to:
    “a comprehensive understanding of Ephesians 5 leads one to see a clear mutuality of submission within the marriage.”

    And I provided other passages which can clarify that that passage. Proof-texting, in my opinion, means using one, single, ambiguous verse (i.e. the mutual sujection one) as a lens through which you see everything else in the whole Bible. Also, Tom’s right that I won’t “get it” if your fall back position is that times have changed since St. Paul wrote his letters, so we need to change as well. People say the same thing about his references to homosexuality. And I’m not making a one-to-one application in the current moment. But this was the constant teaching of the Church all the way up to, at least, Pope Pius XI in 1930: “74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected.” It’s a difficult spot to be in, granted, because JPII, who was alive to receive instruction from Pope Pius XI, rejected the instruction I just quoted, and did exactly what Pope Pius XI said false teachers do. So if we believe in the authority of the pope, in my thinking, it’s pretty obviously that JPII didn’t pass on what he received from Pius XI and is therefore, in that regard, a “false teacher.” I gather you’re not going to argue with me further.

    But does anyone know of a passage or chapter or something where JPII explains the rights of the husband and the duties of the wife toward him?

Leave a Comment Below

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