Kristen Walker Hatten

Louis C.K. and the death of the modern gentleman

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

October 3, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Who doesn’t love Louis C.K.?

The FX show of which he is the writer, director, editor, and star, “Louie,” is critically acclaimed and frequently appears on top-ten lists and “best ofs.” C.K. has been nominated twice for an Emmy for his performance, and he won the Emmy for Best Comedy Writing this year. I know a few young men who idolize C.K. and record every episode of his show, watching them over and over.

Louis C.K. and his character, Louie, have entered pop culture as a kind of everyman anti-hero. He is positively dripping with post-modernity: bitter, sarcastic, and adorably self-loathing, yet bewildered by his inability to relate to other people or attract a woman.

I have watched two or three episodes of the show, which is autobiographical in that it’s about a 40-something New York comedian named Louie who is divorced with two daughters and lives in a crappy apartment.

Gone are the days in which popular media shows us man as he ought to be. Instead we are shown, for our own good, man as he “really is,” except if a man I met in real life said anything half as despicable as what Louis C.K. says, he would get face smacked like a cad in an old black-and-white movie. And he would deserve it.

In March, Louis C.K. was slated to headline the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, but he ended up bowing out due to public backlash, fueled by Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren’s promise to boycott the dinner if C.K. hosted.

Why did she – and many others – threaten a boycott? Because Louis C.K., every young liberal male’s hero, referred to Sarah Palin’s ”f**king retard-making c**t” during an appearance on the Opie and Anthony radio show. During that same exchange, he added thoughtfully, “I hate her more than anybody.” He also tweeted the following to @SarahPalinUSA: “kudos to your dirty hole, you f**king ja**off c**t-face jazzy wondergirl.”

Rush Limbaugh suggested that wanting people to pay for you to have sex (i.e., provide free birth control) might make you a slut, and everybody shouted for his immediate censure, termination, and in some cases probably beheading. He had to publicly apologize, and President Obama called the object of his scorn to ask her how she was holding up.

Bill Maher and Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin a c-word and refused to apologize, and they got nominated for Emmys and invited to host things. And I doubt the president called Sarah Palin to see if she was okay.

Go into your local hipster watering hole and bring up Louis C.K. Watch young men line up with their Stella Artois glasses to praise his holy name. I have a close male relative who hero-worships the guy, and he is not the only one in his peer group. Louis C.K. is so “real,” so “honest,” so “smart.”

Google “Louis C.K. Sarah Palin” and try to count the number of publications, bloggers, and commentators who cannot write about the c-word incident (or his disgusting drunk tweets) without smirking or outright guffawing at C.K.’s comments.

This is America. Louis C.K. can say what he wants. But the fact that he chooses to say this, and that young men continue to look up to him and praise him, is troubling, to say the least.

I have said before that abortion does not exist in a vacuum. I have pointed out that misogynists like Hugh Hefner and Tucker Max are champions for abortion and birth control because it lets them use women’s bodies while not having to be held accountable for the natural outcomes of that usage. Louis C.K. hates not only Sarah Palin, but everything that comes out of her, including her “retard” baby, of which he said, “Stick your t*t in its mouth and shut up.”

He has also compared Palin to Hitler, which leads me to believe he does not have a particularly sophisticated grasp of politics or history. (It always makes me chuckle when conservative Christians are compared to Hitler, considering Hitler was neither a conservative nor a Christian, but rather an atheist socialist like many of the politicians these same people idolize.)

It’s bad enough to say horrifying things about a woman and her baby with Down syndrome. It’s even worse to do it publicly and then refuse to apologize for it.

You can believe this guy is funny, but it’s sort of hard to deny he’s a misogynist if you listen to his stand-up. It’s not all Sarah Palin-related vitriol. He really doesn’t like women. Listen to this tidbit:

A man will cut your arm off and throw it in a river, but he’ll leave you as a human being intact. He won’t f**k with who you are. Women are non-violent but they will s**t inside of your heart.

Louis C.K. is smart (to a point) and funny. I love comedy, and I admit I see the humor in some of what he says. But I don’t watch his show or listen to his stand-up because he disgusts me. He trashes religion, fears and loathes women, and is just generally dark, bitter, and hateful.

And he is a modern-day hero.

He’s a hero because he seems smart, espousing the kinds of ideas that sound intelligent to someone with only surface-level knowledge of religion, politics, and history. He says evolution is obvious and Christianity is stupid; he’s so über-sophisticated that he can call his young daughter an “a**hole” and make it funny. He’s sarcastic and death-obsessed, and he has all the right opinions about Republicans. He must be smart.

His opinions reflect those of too many young people who regurgitate what they hear in the media. And unfortunately, he and others like him add misogyny to the mix. A generation of young men has been sucked in by this garbage, believing that you no longer have to be respectful of women as long as you are “real” and “honest.” To many young men today, being a gentleman means offering to pay for the abortion.

Only those who harbor deep hatred and contempt for women need to be dishonest and “fake” to be respectful.

A culture corrupted by abandonment of traditional morality and an embrace of radical feminism has led to this: men are now told to treat women like “equals,” but because of the inescapable, natural fact that we are not the same as men, treating us the same as men doesn’t work. It leads to unhappy women and, as a result, confusion and anger on the part of men, as evidenced by Louis C.K.’s obvious bewilderment at the hurt done to him by women, which is reflected in his stand-up and in the desperate, sad, “single-and-looking” title character of “Louie.”

I have a fiancé. He is almost the same age as Louis, but he was raised in the South. Never in a million years would he ever call me – or any woman, no matter how much she “deserved” it – a name half as foul as what Louis C.K. called Sarah Palin on the radio. There was a time when virtually no man would do that, and certainly not where any woman could hear it.

There was also a time when other men would shun and possibly roundhouse punch any man who said that about a respectable woman and her disabled child. Apparently those times are gone, because dudes on the internet can’t get enough of it.

If these are the heroes we’re offering to young men, this generation is doomed.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org

Red alert! Last call.

Please support fearless pro-life and pro-family reporting. Donate to our summer campaign today.


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen / LifeSiteNews.com
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

Pope tells Girl Scouts to oppose ‘ideologies’ against God’s design for marriage

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

ROME, June 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis told Girl Scout and Girl Guide leaders from across the globe last week that it is essential they promote respect for marriage and family according to God’s design.

The pope’s remarks came as both the international organization, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, and Girl Scouts USA face criticism over support for abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, and contraception.

"It is very important today that a woman be adequately appreciated, and that she be able to take up fully the place that corresponds to her, be it in the Church, be it in society,” Pope Francis said in his address on the morning of June 26, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision imposing same-sex “marriage” on the country.

In the face of ideologies that seek to destroy the truths about marriage and family, he said, the formation of girls through Guiding "is absolutely determinant for the future."

"We are in a world in which the most contrary ideologies are spreading to the nature and design of God on the family and on marriage. Therefore, it is a question of educating girls not only to the beauty and grandeur of their vocation of women, in a just and differentiated relation between man and woman, but also to assume important responsibilities in the Church and in society," Pope Francis said.

The pope spoke during a private audience at the world meeting of the International Conference of Catholic Guides (ICCG), which took place in Rome from June 25-30.

Stressing that among educational movements Guiding has played a pivotal role in the faith formation of young women, the pope said, "Education is, in fact, the indispensable means to enable girls to become active and responsible women, proud and happy of their faith in Christ lived in every day life. Thus they will participate in the building of a world permeated by the Gospel."

“To Live the Joy of the Gospel as a Guide” was the theme for the ICCG meeting in Rome, with the stated purpose of reaffirming and strengthening the organization's 50-year-old history within the Catholic Church.

Among the participants at the ICCG meeting in Rome were Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) CEO Anna Maria Chávez and National President Kathy Hopinkah Hannan.

In a statement, Chavez maintained that faith is “at the heart of Girl Scouts, and is woven into everything the organization does to inspire girls to take action to make the world a better place.”

However, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has cautioned that some aspects of the Girl Scouts pedagogy go against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

A report by the USCCB focused on three issues:

  1. GSUSA's relationship with groups like Planned Parenthood and international affiliate World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS);
  2. GSUSA's views on issues related "to human sexuality, contraception, and abortion";
  3. and various materials and resources GSUSA has that have "inappropriate content."

With regard to WAGGGS, the report notes that while this group claims it does not formally back abortion and "reproductive rights," language on its website leaves no doubt that such support exists, as well as support for contraceptive use.

Numerous pro-life and pro-family groups have organized boycotts of Girl Guide cookies in protest of the organization's embrace of feminist politics and activism.

The pope's address to the ICCG meeting, translated into English by Zenit, is available on the Zenit website here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
St. Peter Damian
Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

St. Peter Damien (1049): what Church MUST do in response to rampant homosexuality among clergy

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

June 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The rise of the power and influence of homosexual priests, bishops and cardinals, as well as influential laity, has been a major factor in the growing chaos within Catholicism over the past 60 years. This disorder within the Catholic Church has had a negative impact on the entire world because of the resulting decline in the positive influences that Catholicism has had on civilization for many centuries.

To think that what is happening now is new, however, betrays an ignorance of history. In 1049, when St. Peter Damien wrote his treatise, Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus), to Pope Leo IX, homosexuality and sexual perversion in general were far more openly rampant within the clergy than today.  This horrendous state of affairs is what the Saint addressed in his appeal to the Pope for urgently needed reforms.

We often hear from sleepy, comfortable, cowardly, timid or cultural Catholics, and especially from clergy who are directly implicated in homosexuality, that we should never criticize priests, bishops and especially the Pope. Supposedly, that is a greater sin than that of the heretics and sexual perverts facilitating great personal suffering and sending souls to Hell without anyone doing what is necessary to either convert or stop them.

St. Peter Damien was not so foolish as to listen to such nonsense denying God His justice at a time when the Church appeared to be in its death throes. He understood the grave duty to be blunt about the dangers and sinfulness, to not minimize the catastrophe that would come if strong actions were not quickly taken and to demand corrective actions. And yet, he also emphasized that all of this must be done with charity and Christian hope for the persons involved in the moral corruption. Their conversion was above all hoped and prayed for, rather than their condemnation for eternity.

An Italian translated version of the Book of Gomorrah has recently been published. An English version carefully translated by one of our LifeSite journalists will also soon become available.

On Feb. 11 of this year the Rorate Caeli website published excerpts from the introduction by Professor Roberto de Mattei to the Italian version.

Following are some paragraphs from that introduction that I hope will jar awake some of the faithful, especially considering what is going on now in the United States as a result of the mad Supreme Court decision and the moral chaos around the Synod on the Family regarding Church sexual teachings.
 

Excerpts from the Introduction:

St. Peter Damien (1007-1072) Abbot of the Fonte Avellana Monastery and subsequently Cardinal/Bishop of Ostia, was one of the most outstanding figures of Catholic reform in the XI century. His Liber Gomorrhianus, appeared around 1049, in an age when corruption was widely spread, even in the highest ranks of the ecclesiastical world.

In this writing, addressed to Pope Leo IX, Peter Damien condemns the perverted habits of his time in a language that knows no false mercy or compromises. He is convinced that of all the sins, the gravest is sodomy, a term which includes all the acts against nature and which want to satisfy sexual pleasure by separating it from procreation. “If this absolutely ignominious and abominable vice is not immediately stopped with an iron fist – he writes – the sword of Divine wrath will fall upon us, bringing ruin to many.”

There have been times in (the Church’s) history when sanctity pervades Her and others when the defection of Her members cause Her to collapse into darkness, appearing almost as if the Divinity has abandoned Her.

Peter Damien’s voice resounds today, as it did yesterday, with encouragement and comfort for those, like him, who have fought, suffered, cried and hoped, throughout the course of history.

He did not moderate his language, but kept it fiery to show his indignation. He was fearless in voicing an uncompromising hatred for sin and it was precisely this hatred that rendered his love burning for the Truth and the Good.

Today, at the beginning of the third millennium of Christ’s birth, priests, bishops and Episcopal conferences are arguing for married priests; they are placing in doubt the indissolubility of the marriage bond between man and woman and at the same time, accepting the introduction of laws for homosexual pseudo-marriage. Sodomy is not being thought of as a sin that cries to God for vengeance but is diffused in seminaries, colleges, ecclesiastical universities and even inside the Sacred Walls of the Vatican itself.

Liber Gomorrhianus reminds us that there is something worse than moral vice practiced and theorized. It is the silence that should speak, the abstention that should intervene, the bond of complicity that is established among the wicked and of those, who with the pretext of avoiding scandal are silent, and, by being silent, consent.  

Graver still, is the acceptance of homosexuality by churchmen, thought of as a “positive” tension towards the good, worthy of pastoral care and juridical protection and not as an abominable sin. In the summary Relatio post disceptationem of the first week’s work in the Synod of Bishops in October 2014, a paragraph affirmed that:   “homosexual persons have gifts and qualities to offer the Christian community”, with an invitation to the Bishops “…are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing them a fraternal space in our communities?”

This scandalous statement was removed from the final report, but some bishops and cardinals, inside and outside the Synod Hall, insisted on the appeal to look for the positive aspects of a union against nature, going as far as hoping for “a way to describe the rights of people living in same-sex unions.”

St. Peter Damian as a simple monk, and with greater reason as a cardinal, did not hesitate in accusing even the Popes of that time for their scandalous omissions. Will the reading of the book Liber Gomorrhianus instill the spirit of St. Peter Damien in the hearts of some prelates or laypeople, by shaking them out of their torpor and force them to speak and act?

Even if abysmally far from the holiness and prophetic spirit of St. Peter Damien, let us make his indignation against evil, ours, and with the words that conclude his treatise we turn to the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness, Pope Francis, presently reigning, so that he may intervene and bring an end to these doctrinal and moral scandals: “May the Almighty Lord assist us, Most Reverend Father, so that during the time of Your Apostolate, all of the monstrosity of this vice be destroyed and the state of the Church, presently supine, may wholly rise up again in all its vigour.”

The book can be found in Italian here. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Phil Lawler

So now is it ‘hate speech’ to deplore the Obergefell decision?

Phil Lawler
By Phil Lawler

June 30, 2015 (CatholicCulture.org) - The ink was barely dry on last week’s Supreme Court ruling when Father James Martin, SJ, began scolding Catholics who were, from his decorous perspective, too strident in denouncing the decision.

”No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality,” Father Martin told his Facebook followers. He repeated the same message several times throughout the day, warning commenters that they must not indulge in “homophobia” and suggesting that someone who questioned whether we were all expected to sing “Kumbaya” was illustrating his point. So is sarcasm now prima facie evidence of hatred?

In my own surfing through the internet, reading scores of posts on the Obergefell decision, I can honestly say that I did not see a single message, a single comment, that struck me as hate-filled. Perhaps Father Martin’s email traffic is qualitatively different from mine. Or perhaps—far more likely, I’m afraid—he sees “hatred” where I see only vehement disagreement.

Is it possible to be angry about the Obergefell decision, to consider it a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the Constitution, without being viewed as a hater? Wait; let’s turn that question upside-down. Is it possible to see all serious disagreement with the decision as hate-speech, without celebrating the outcome of the Obergefell case?

I ask the latter question, you see, because if Father Martin was upset by the Supreme Court ruling, his dismay did not show through on his Twitter feed. He recommended three columns reacting to the decision: one by a fellow Jesuit, recounting how his grandmother could not marry her lesbian partner; another by the gay New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, celebrating the decision; the third by the gay activist/blogger Andrew Sullivan, also celebrating.

The recommendation for Andrew Sullivan’s piece was particularly striking because of the title: “It Is Accomplished”—an explicit reference to the words of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Father Martin, who was horrified by so much of what he read on Friday afternoon, let that blasphemous headline pass without comment. His demand for the use of temperate language, and for avoiding comments that others would find offensive, was applied to only one side of the post-Obergefell debate.

And that’s likely to be the party line for politically-correct Catholics in the wake of this momentous decision. We are allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court, politely, but not too forcefully. Any strident denunciation of the ruling or its logic might be interpreted as hate-speech, which of course is unacceptable. As the secular left clamps down on religious expression—and we’ve already been served notice that the crackdown is coming-- the Catholic left will worry aloud that, yes, some strong public expressions of religious beliefs are distasteful.

The influence of this approach, with its keen anxiety to avoid provocation, has already been evident in the statements released by some American bishops in response to the ruling. Archbishop Gregory says that he disagrees with the Court, but if you don’t know why he disagrees before you read his statement, you’re not likely to be any better informed when you’re finished. Cardinal Wuerl reminds us that we must hate the sin but love the sinner; he neglects to mention what the sin is. And Archbishop Cupich gives no indication at all that he disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling.

We have a long uphill struggle facing us as we seek to restore a proper understanding of marriage, to revive appreciation for the natural law, and to undo this wretched judicial decision. We cannot expect success if we go into the battle unarmed. If we begin the debate by saying that we must not offend our adversaries—even after our adversaries have declared our most fundamental beliefs to be offensive—we are doomed to failure.

We already know how the battle will unfold, because the campaign to crush resistance to same-sex marriage is already underway. The militant left will choose vulnerable targets—a pizza-parlor here, a baker there—and vilify them as “haters.” People who been trained to see “hatred” in any firm disagreement will nod in solemn approval as the alleged offenses are harshly punished. And so juggernaut will keep rolling, gaining momentum, until it reaches us.

There is an alternative. We can speak the truth. Yes, certainly we should avoid making unduly provocative statements. But since we are trying to provoke reactions, we cannot pull all our punches.

More to the point, if we’re going into battle—and we are—we need to know who’s on our side, and who’s working against us.

This article was originally published on CatholicCulture.org and is re-published with permission.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook