On Prudishness

There’s a subject that one doesn’t hear about these days in Catholic circles. It’s Prudishness. One could give as reason for this that the culture has become so sex-obsessed that prudishness is a concept belonging to a past era. Well, I have news: prudishness is alive and well among some orthodox Catholics.
My thesaurus defines a prude as: “a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum.” As synonyms for prudish it lists “goody-goody, prim, prissy, narrow-minded, over-refined, fastidious, stuffy, strait-laced, over-scrupulous, finicky, squeamish, old-maidish.”
I went online and googled-in the word. Many people there have opinions on the subject. Unfortunately, all of them think that if one is holding back any restraints on complete sexual license he’s a prude.
What occasions this article is that recently I came across several Catholic women who exhibit signs of prudishness. One spoke of reading a book until she came upon the phrase, “…and they had sex.” The book in question was one which ultimately fulfills the criteria listed below. I have read the book and there is nothing salacious in it, in my judgment. She actually told the author that he needed to “recall all the books that are out there, and get someone who knows how to write to re-write it.”
This parish has a large number of such people in its congregation. Many of the parents are in their late thirties. They have two children, the older of which is of one sex and is maybe 12; the younger is of the other sex and is maybe 10. In other words, they seem to be practicing birth control. One boy, one girl. These people are choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel.
The pastor of this parish describes his prudes as “more sensitive Catholics.” That kind of denial is masking the problem. That enables them to continue on in their malfunction. A truly “sensitive” Catholic would turn out for doing God’s work in some way, such as the Legion of Mary, instead of sitting warming a pew weekly (even daily!), and limiting her “Catholic action” to sniffing out things over which to act offended, and to report on. Then the pastor is supposed to admonish the “offender” while she remains anonymous.

Examples of Prudishness
I was never much of a fan of the TV series, “Mash.” On the few times that I watched it I was struck by how prudish the priest was portrayed. Mild-mannered, he would blush at the mention of certain things. In my experience, both the mild-manners and the blushing show the formative influence of an excess of women and a lack of the influence of men in a boy or man’s life. Prudishness does seem to be mostly a feminine trait.
When I was a junior in high school we took a course called “Health”, taught by a very young nun. She asked us to start reading newspapers and magazines looking for articles on news about health and to keep a “Health notebook”. I ran across one that described new findings about menopause and glued it in. When I got it back the article had been savagely ripped out and a long paragraph in red told me I should be ashamed of myself for pasting in such dirty material. So much for aspiring to adulthood.
A man meets a group of women whom he knows on the street. “We haven’t seen you for a while,” one of the women says. “I was in the hospital,” he replies. “Oh, really? What was it for?” they ask. “I had an operation on my prostate,” he answers. The face of one of the women turns red. She begins to look very ill-at-ease. “Let’s change the subject, shall we?” she orders. There was nothing dirty in the reply of the man; nothing even vaguely suggesting the beginning of some kind of sexual advance on the women. Besides, if one is not prepared to hear an answer to the question, “Why were you operated on?” she should refrain from asking it.
There is a tendency to call a toilet a bathroom, even tho it is in a public building and there is no bathing facility. The word “toilet” is not a bad word; it’s already an attempt to be delicate about the need to relieve oneself. It comes from the French and means “little work.”
There is no subject that adults cannot discuss, provided that they use appropriate language and in the appropriate location. A woman may be rightly annoyed if at a party of mixed men and women the subject turns to the genital area, and the language is that of the gutter. She may be all the more annoyed if the subject becomes her genital area. If, however, she is visiting her female gynecologist, and the latter attempts to discuss the patient’s genital area in sophisticated terms, and the woman feels embarrassment, that’s a case of prudishness.

I think that Prudes believe their prudishness is a higher form of orthodoxy, or a higher form of spirituality, and that they are, therefore, holier. I challenge that belief. I believe that Prudishness is rather emotional immaturity, arrested emotional development, infantilism. Prudes are stuck in puberty.
There are three types of conscience: scrupulous, which holds almost everything to be sinful; lax, which holds almost nothing to be sinful; and right, which holds the proper balance between the two. Prudishness is allied with the scrupulous conscience.
It may be that the mothers of prudish women raised them to think that sex is dirty, that it had to be endured. Their husbands may have seen them as mere lust-objects, and roughly demanded sex whenever they wanted, and paid no attention to their wives’ satisfaction. As a result they may have cut off their husbands from the marital act a long time ago. Because they fear their husbands they become inordinately attached to their children, who they really don’t want to grow up, so that they will always be there for them. Consequently, and subconsciously, they sabotage their children’s maturation.
I have an MA in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Our moral theology book explained that when two people marry, each owes the other the “debitum”, i.e., that when A asks for sex, B has to grant it, given that the circumstances under which it is asked are reasonable. (A husband asking for it when the wife has a 104 deg. fever would not be). Such withholding is usually done by women. And it’s a sin.
I know a man whose wife cut off her husband over twenty years ago for some infraction. I know him to be faithful to her in his enforced continence. She plays the organ at a Catholic church! Obviously either she has not confessed this sin or the pastor has not dealt with it in a homily. She may not know its sinfulness.
Prudes read a book until they come to a word to which they object, and then slam the book shut, blushing. Someone taught them this behavior. If something is learned, it can be unlearned. If they were to read to the end, they would establish things in context. It would make an interesting exercise to snip passages out of the Bible, change names of people and places to American ones, and read them to these folks. “Porno!” I can hear the shouts.

Can a bad word be used in an otherwise chaste book?
I believe it can. These would be some criteria under which bad words may be used, in my opinion. Perhaps this incomplete list will lead to some additional criteria from readers.
1. The intended audience is definitely mature. Perhaps twenty-one should be considered the bare minimum age. Parents in their late twenties will read right by a bad word, looking for the big picture, whereas that same word, read by a seventeen-year-old, may have an arousing effect.
Of course a person has to be honest with himself. If he picked up a book in good faith, looking for entertainment only, and comes across a word, phrase or situation that he finds sexually stimulating, he needs to discontinue reading it. This isn’t at all the case I’m dealing with in this article. As I said above, a prude is: “a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum.” There’s nothing stimulating in that definition.
2. The bad language is kept down to a bare minimum. Let’s say that to shock the reader with the Devil’s vileness, the author has a man possessed by the Devil let out some profanity when he sees a priest. This happens once, maybe twice, in a book. A book with bad language on every page ought to be rejected.
We all know men who use f--- every second word. Let’s grant just for the sake of argument that that word can be used to show real disgust. If he uses it often, what does he do when he really needs to show disgust? It’s a matter of relativity.
3. Ultimately good triumphs over evil; God’s ways triumph over the Devil’s; Catholic truth triumphs over error.
4. The mere fact that there are low-life types who use bad language in daily life does not justify employing it in a book.

Prudes would exclude words like f---, s--- and the like from the dictionary. I disagree. They should be in there, with an explanation as to what kind of words they are, and that they are not used in polite society. Pity the poor newcomer to the English language who hears f--- somewhere and uses it at Lady Buffwharpington’s tea party because it was not in a dictionary.

Now for Some Praxis.
How should a man react to dirty speech? Should he blush, turn away, and squirm uncomfortably? That’s not manly and it makes religious men look ridiculous. Certainly he should not, out of human respect, participate. But that’s still passive. He should be pro-active: “Look, you guys, I don’t appreciate that kinda talk” would be more like it.
How should a woman react to dirty speech? Should she blush, turn away, and squirm uncomfortably? That’s what they would have taught her at Miss Lydia Pinkerton’s Ladies’ Seminary in 1878. No. What she should do is to say, “Look: I don’t appreciate such talk. If it doesn’t stop, I’m outa here.” There is a legitimate feminism whose premise is that women are capable of far more than we men have thought them capable of.
What should a woman do if she comes upon a pair of animals mating? Should she blush, turn away, and squirm uncomfortably? I can tell you from my own experience living on a farm in Poland that women who are raised on a farm are not prudish. Generations of European peasant families of – say twelve children - were raised in one-room huts. They learned the facts of life naturally. They came upon animal matings frequently. They didn’t regard it all as dirty; they just regarded it as part of life and moved on.

Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue or positive character trait can be described as a pleasant intermediate activity between a painful excess and a painful deficiency. There is a spectrum on which modesty is the golden mean; libertinism is the deficiency, and prudishness is the excess.
It should be of some interest to chart the course of history leading down to our American Catholic prudishness. On the continent of Europe John Calvin launched Calvinism, which was very puritanical. The citizens of Geneva, Switzerland were ruled in a joyless, prudish way for a while. Calvin’s puritanism spread far and wide. It spread to England, where the Puritan movement, led by Oliver Cromwell, overthrew the British monarchy. Cromwell and the Puritans passed laws imposing a strict moral code on the people. The Puritans went so far as to abolish Christmas: having fun was looked on as sinful in itself. Our own American Puritans were rigid prudes. Then the monarchy was restored, and the pendulum swung to the other extreme: libertinism. This was particularly characteristic of the way people regarded the later Hanoverian monarchs who immediately reigned before Queen Victoria. (Interestingly, George III, against whom our Revolutionary War was won, was a Hanoverian.)
Our American prudishness is an outgrowth of Victorian morality. Victoria mounted the throne in 1837. It is said that Victorian prudishness held it improper for a man to say "leg" in front of a woman; instead, he had to say “limb”. And let’s not forget that it was during these days that the word “ain’t” was totally outlawed, whereas it does have one legitimate use: “I ain’t”, or “Ain’t I?” Remember that “ain’t means “am not”. It is absolutely ridiculous to say, “Aren’t I?” One wouldn’t say “I are”. Women going bathing had to wear a heavy, and dangerous, bathing costume. Middle- and upper-class girls were sent to “ladies’seminaries” or “finishing schools” or off to Switzerland to acquire these prudish attitudes.
Ireland had for 800 years been a part of the British Isles, and as such, fell under the hegemony of prudery. It should not be surprising that in my long life (born 1937) prior to about thirty years ago I ran across many Irish, chiefly women, who exhibited prudishness, even to the marrying at advanced ages like 38 and up. The prudish women I refer to in this article are Irish. Ireland made a great mistake in allowing-in our American movies and syndicated TV programs, for the pendulum now has swung to the other extreme: Irish youth are very sexually promiscuous.
Back to Calvin. His Puritanism spread far and wide, so much so that it was bound to infect Catholicism. This resulted in the heresy known as Jansenism. Jansenism was extremely rigorous, so much so that Catholics felt unworthy to receive Communion more than about once per year. They didn’t even make their First Communion until at least the age of 15. I’ve seen enough quaint faded Communion photos with the date shown on a little table to prove this.

What can be done to help the person who suffers from prudishness?
1. Instead of passively catering to prudes, a clergyman should meet with them individually, find out their stories, and get them psychological help to grow up. He should not be a prude himself. The prudish person should see a spiritual director regularly. She should follow his directions obediently.
2. Most prudes have a TV. Every night they sit and hear the f-word, the s-word, and a host of others, not to mention our Lord’s name taken in vain. They watch erotic situations, or the beginning of such situations. If they’re going to be consistent, clergy need to mount a campaign to get them to get rid of their TVs. At the very least, they need to mount a campaign to get the stations to air wholesome programs. The USCCB needs to use its clout to achieve this latter end.
3. Clergy might consider preaching homilies on the subject of wives withholding the debitum from their husbands, or hold classes on the morality of marital intercourse. And certainly they need to work on eliminating their own prudishness.

It’s sad: there is a dichotomy between orthodox- and liberal- Catholics. Orthodox Catholics have true doctrine but are frequently mean-spirited, and downright cruel in their prudish zeal; liberal Catholics do not hold true doctrine but are usually kind and friendly in their indifference. Would that we could raise up a generation of Catholics that are orthodox and kind and friendly.

New Book: The Strange Life of Walenty Karnowski, the Rabbi's Illegitimate Grandson

My new book, The Strange Life of Walenty Karnowski, The Rabbi's Illegitimate Grandson, was published on May 27, 2011. It is available at http://www.amazon.com Simply type in my name, Gerald R. Schmidt, and hit Search. You can find a synopsis there.

Debriefing re: Police Visit Wed. Morning, Jan. 12, 2011

I was working upstairs at my computer when the doorbell rang. I thought it was Garrett, a neighbor with mental problems who frequently asks for money or a ride somewhere. I could see thru the open blinds that there were a woman and man, neither of whom I recognized. I opened the door.
She was shorter than he, and in front. They both flashed legitimation, but she was at least 4 feet away, and he 10 and I could not read it. The woman took the lead in speaking. (Much of what follows is the meaning of their words, not always the exact words.) She said that I was implicated in some kind of plot, and that they wanted to ask me a few questions. I still had not the slightest idea what she was referring to. My adrenalin shot all thru my body. I had all I could do to appear calm.
I am a Catholic: I believe that I need to show kindness to others, especially when they threaten, and this certainly seemed threatening. So I invited them in. They entered my living room. The man took a seat on one sofa; the woman on the other, unbidden. These sofas are arranged at right angles to each other. The woman told me to sit down. “This is MY house; it is the height of rudeness for a guest to be telling me what I may do in it” I thought, but said nothing. I sat down in a chair meant to be placed at a desk, but which I keep a few feet away from my TV. (I like to watch up close.) So there was a kind of triangle. When she spoke, I swiveled toward her; when he spoke, I swiveled toward him.
They stated their names, but I was concentrating too much on staying composed to have caught them. They said that they were part of the Intelligence something or other. (A week later I called 630-7600 and asked for the full name of the department which began with the word, “Intelligence”. The man at the other end acted as tho he did not know what I meant, but when pressed said there was something called the “Intelligence Unit”. I asked for the name of the person who headed it. He wouldn’t give it. Instead, he gave the phone number: 630-2185.)
She produced a dossier which she opened. It appeared to have data that she had accumulated, at least 1/8” thick, presumably on me. The first sheet had a colored picture of me about 3” square, in the upper left corner. I could see, as she folded it back, that the next sheet had a colored picture of an acquaintance of mine, Al Lamoureux. She asked if I had sent an email in which I stated, “Audrey Moran must be scotched right now.” I said that I had. She asked if by that word “scotched” I intended to kill Audrey. I said that I did not. I am a practicing Catholic; go to daily Mass and Communion. Killing someone would be totally inconceivable for a practicing Catholic. I said that she could find out what sort of person I was by consulting my pastor. She ignored this and went on.
She said that she had looked into a dictionary, and had determined that the word “to scotch” means to kill, harm, maim and the like, and that it was often used to kill a snake. (I have retold this story to many people by now. Some of them have looked up the word, unrequested by me. They came up with innocuous meanings. The inquisitor seems to have limited her meanings to those which would damn me.) She asked how I meant it. I said that the image that I had in mind was a long wooden stick with a Y at the end, which is placed behind a snake’s head to stop it. (After the inquisition I went to my own dictionary and read, “to cut or maim. To put down, to stifle, as, to scotch a rumor.” My dictionary was published in 1963. I believe that the word has evolved since then to the exclusive meaning of “to put down or stifle”. My three thesauruses do not even contain the word.) I explained that there is a time when language is used strictly, and another when it is used loosely, and that writing an email is generally considered a time to use it loosely. I said that I do not consult a dictionary when I write an email.
There has been ample time since then to re-run the entire interrogation in my mind. I wish I had thought to say that I am a writer, and that writers try to avoid hackneyed ways to say things.
The man asked if I were a member of the “organization” known as 40 Days for Life. His tone and demeanor conveyed the message that he thought that this was some kind of sinister society. I explained that it is not an organization at all, but an idea. There are no dues, meetings, initiation. The word goes out and we show up to pray at abortion mills. I said that I had shown up a few times this year, more last year.
“Forty Days for Life sinister!” I thought to myself. “Everyone I ever met there is mild-mannered. They stand and pray. They hold signs. There are websites to which these two could have gone to learn that the most violence re: abortion is that perpetrated by pro-aborts against pro-lifers. I believe it was Janet Napolitano who implanted this canard against pro-life people in American society. And these two have fallen for it.”
When referring to the places where unborn babies are killed the man referred to them as clinics. A clinic is a place where health is dispensed. He thereby showed a bias toward abortion.
The man said that their visit was made necessary by the shooting of the six people in Tucson, Arizona, on Jan. 8th. I have thought about his seeing a connection to me since then. It was established almost immediately on the radio, at least, that the shooting was the work of an insane person, Jared Loughner, and unconnected to any right-wing group; that, if anything, he was more influenced by the left-wing, since he extolled the Communist Manifesto, and hated George Bush, to name just two things. People in the left wing have been doing their best to divert attention from themselves and to create a connection between Loughner and right-wing causes, hoping to shut them down. I wondered if anyone from Planned Parenthood, or the ACLU, or Andy Johnson was being grilled. So when police come to me and suspect me of wanting to kill a pro-abortion mayoral candidate, and believe that 40 Days for Life is a malignant organization, they have succumbed to being partial to one side and biased to the other. Police work should be neutral.
The man gave me a lecture as to how the police have to be impartial. “You’re preaching to the choir”, I thought. “And you can say that with a straight face after your bias in favor of the Left?” I told him that heretofore it seems that relations between pro-lifers and the police here in Jacksonville HAVE seemed to be good. I told him about my experience with the police of Pittsburgh, which used to level trumped-up fines against pro-lifers, and how judges who were partial to the abortion cause would uphold those fines, how I was twice personally assaulted by a pro-abort with the police looking on, doing nothing.
At the end of their probe they seemed satisfied and more relaxed. The woman asked if this is a condo. I said that it is. She seemed surprised. (I thought: “I don’t seem to be fulfilling the profile of a deranged killer.”) I told her that it is “under water”. She said that she had owned a condo, too.
At the very end I said that I fully expect that someday I will be hauled before a judge and accused of being a Catholic, and I hope that there is enough evidence to convict me.
We still have a First Amendment. When the Judeo-Christian ethic was in the driver’s seat, one could say the most outlandish things and be protected by it. Now that Socialism is in control, we are becoming like Nazi Germany or the USSR. It doesn’t matter what I said; I do have a right to say it.
I am disappointed in Sheriff Rutherford. He is supposed to be a practicing Catholic. If one IS a practicing Catholic, he practices all the time, and that includes at work. (Otherwise, he has two faces: a church face and a work face. During the grilling I told the woman that I used to have three faces, but that I had consolidated them all into one.) The sheriff seems to have permitted this interrogation. Perhaps his organization is so large that he was unaware that some under-chief did this. He needs to investigate.
I have to assume that my emails are now being intercepted. My phone conversations may be listened to. It used to be that when a phone conversation is recorded a beep was necessary. Now, in this brave new post-1984 USA, that is probably not required. I wish that I had asked if they were carrying a recording device.
It is so hypocritical: a woman’s “right” to an abortion is based on her right to “privacy”, a right which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. My privacy will be routinely violated, even tho my right to speak anything I want is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.