Did the Pope say "allow ourselves to be smitten" by the love of Jesus?

Last night's "Smitten by his love" post brought email from ddh:

Your suspicion that the Pope did not say "smitten" is correct. After an introductory paragraph in Portuguese, the Pope switched to his native Spanish and said, according to the Vatican:

Pero la Cruz invita también a dejarnos contagiar por este amor, nos enseña así a mirar siempre al otro con misericordia y amor, sobre todo a quien sufre, a quien tiene necesidad de ayuda, a quien espera una palabra, un gesto.

I translate this sentence as:

But the Cross also invites us to let ourselves be infected by this love, it teaches us always to look at the other person with mercy and love, especially to the one who suffers, the one who needs help, the one who awaits a word, a gesture.

So, what he really said was "contagiar" or "to be infected." By the way, most native Portuguese speakers can understand Spanish without great difficulty, although not perfectly. I think for English speakers the effect is akin to listening to a Robert Burns poem.

Who is in a position to confirm whether the effect of Spanish on native speakers of Portuguese is like the effect of Robert Burns poetry on native English speakers? Perhaps no one, but I like the analogy anyway. It's poetic.

Also poetic — or so it feels to me, in translation — is the Pope's invitation to expose ourselves to contagious love. Love as disease is a very old metaphor. Lovesick. Fever. But here the idea is an outbreak, an epidemic of love spreading everywhere.

In English, "contagion" feels — at least to me — more positive than "infection," though "infection" is used positively in phrases like "infectious laughter."

Consulting the (unlinkable) OED, I see that one old meaning of "infect" is: "To instil in (someone) an opinion or belief, esp. a pernicious one, as heresy or seditious views. Of an (esp. pernicious) opinion, belief, etc.: to persuade, win over (someone); to seduce. In early use also in a good or neutral sense."

1559   J. Whyte Serm. in J. Strype Ann. Reformation (1824) I. vii. 154   Books..full of pestilent doctrines, blasphemy and heresy, to infect the people.
1588   ‘M. Marprelate’ Oh read ouer D. Iohn Bridges: Epist. 26   Being infected by him with the true knowledge of the gospell.
1660   Exact Accompt Trial Regicides 55   The end of your Speech is nothing, but to infect the People.

This metaphor is important in the understanding the value of freedom of speech. Are we susceptible to infection or does exposure build up our resistance to what is harmful?

There's no verb like "infect" for the English word "contagion," which hampers the translator of "contagiar." But I assume that the Spanish word the Pope used traces back to the Latin word that led to "contagion" and that is  con- together + tangĕre to touch. "Infect," by contrast, comes from the "classical Latin infect-, past participial stem of inficere to dye, to stain, to impregnate, to imbue, to taint, to poison, to affect with disease, to corrupt < in- in- prefix2 + facere to make, do, put.")

That "impregnate" makes me ideate about things Popes say against the use of birth control and the similarity of opening oneself to the contagion of love. But let's not get distracted. The concrete image within "contagion" is touching, and "infection" connotes putting in. That makes "contagion" sound like what women do, and "infection" seems like the way of the man.

But the Pope said "contagiar," so let's look at "contagion," which has as its oldest meaning "The communication of disease from body to body by contact direct or mediate." Figuratively, we see it defined as "Hurtful, defiling, or corrupting contact; infecting influence," a usage that goes back to Chaucer in the 14th century:

c1386   Chaucer Second Nun's Tale 72   My soule..That troubled is by the contagioun Of my body....
1776   Gibbon Decline & Fall I. xxi. 591   His mind was tainted by the contagion of fanaticism.
1836   C. Thirlwall Hist. Greece II. xiii. 190   The contagion of these vices undoubtedly spread through the nation.

A second old figurative use is "Contagious or spreading moral disease; moral corruption," and then, in a positive way, closest to the Pope's meaning, "The contagious or ‘catching’ influence or operation of example, sympathy, and the like."

1781   Gibbon Decline & Fall II. 117   The contagion of loyalty and repentance was communicated from rank to rank.
1863   A. P. Stanley Lect. Jewish Church I. xviii. 397   A contagion of goodness, of enthusiasm, of energy..almost impossible to resist.

ADDED: Some attention should be paid to the idea of "invitation." God/Jesus/the Cross does not infect or produce contagion on its own. Its action is to invite. We have to accept the invitation to get the contagion/infection. It's voluntary. The human mind counts. But if you allow yourself to be touched/impregnated, then you will have something that surpasses the rational mind. These images are very helpful in thinking more generally about freedom of speech and the right to receive the speech of others. Censorship represents the fear of contagion, but if you see the speech as an invitation and the human mind as capable of deciding which beliefs to accept, contagion is less fearsome.

Read More

9 things Freeman Hunt said...

... in the comments at "If men did this to women..." (##1-5) and at "A somewhat dismissive response" (##6-9):

1. "When I was growing up, the prevailing sex ed was that you, male or female, were wholly responsible for your own birth control and that you should never assume or believe that the other person was taking care of it. That's not the prevailing wisdom anymore?"

2. "Maybe all those traditionally religious people don't hate sex--maybe they have all those prohibitions on sex outside marriage for some other reason... It's like there was a plan for all of this or something."

3. "Odd. This thread is odd. Are some people furious because (1) Althouse suggests men don't go depositing sperm around women they don't love and would despise having children with or because (2) Althouse/the law being in favor of/upholding abortion rights?"

4. In sarcastic imitation of other commenters: "I don't wanna have babies with the skanks I like to hose down with my sperm. Those disposable tramps I bed should be drawn and quartered if they try to pull a fast one on a fine, upstanding guy like me. Just where do these no-good, dishonest women I make love to get off?"

5. About my supposedly "nasty" taunting of males who claim victimhood over their loss of control over the sperm they've released into the wild: "Heh. Oddly enough, I think that was intended to be encouraging. It's encouraging this idea that a person can be more than an animal who ruts around with whoever, even those he doesn't like or know, more than a careless, appetite feeding beast. I think it was an invitation to the recognition of the divine spark in man."

6. "I'd imagine that Althouse, Instapundit, and Dr. Helen are perfectly capable of arguing intensely about an issue and not taking it personally. Surely anyone who comments here, of all places, does the same on a regular basis!"

7. "How many of us have had it out, ripped each other apart rhetorically and gotten on perfectly well afterward? That's one of the best things about this place."

8. "As for my opinion on this small controversy: This is good. This victim man stuff was hitting a tipping point of absurdity, so the push back is well timed.  I write that as someone who adores men and was raised mostly by her father. And I'm proud to say that my dearly departed father would never have advocated such a base vision for manhood, this vision that sees man as a pathetic beast who throws his sperm about with abandon and needs protecting from the women he beds."

9. "@Freeman: It's actually a venerable academic tradition. I learned about it firsthand from an oldtimer and wrote about it here. I thought about bringing up the fact that it's a hallmark of healthy academia. Whenever you see it slide in academia, the result is less rigorous work and meagerness of mind."

Read More

"A somewhat dismissive response."

Instapundit says, somewhat dismissively. 

I suspect he wouldn't want to hear my truly dismissive response, but if you search the comments at my somewhat dismissive response... and over here... you can extrapolate what it would be. I'll cherry-pick some clues as to what I would say if I chose to go hard-core on this subject.

Quoting a commenter who said — about my proposal that health insurance pay for vasectomies and men freeze their sperm in order to provide males with reproductive autonomy — "Point of order, the woman has a right to seek an abortion. There's nothing about anyone having to provide it to her or having Other People pay for it," I said:

That's true, and that is something that makes the proposal in my post not neatly about equality.

But there really can never be equality about pregnancy and childbirth. It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity. I'm not trying to punish men by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.

The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.

I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face. 

Quoting a commenter who said, "Your logic is correct for our pathetic society, but that doesn't rob from how pathetic it is," I said:

Yeah, but that's my point. My real prescription isn't [the vasectomy/frozen sperm proposal]. This is a fall-back now that we've become pathetic.

Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another.

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Quoting a commenter who said "Women are just as responsible themselves..." I said:

I never said they weren't.

Both are fully responsible.

And, on the earlier post, quoting a commenter who said "Let's try applying your logic the other way. Women are free to freeze their eggs and then have their tubes tied. That way they have perfect choice not to get pregnant. So that does away with the case for abortion, right?" I said:

The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.

The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.

I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.

Reacting to all the many, many comments from men who have taken Instapundit's invitation to victimology seriously, I said (punctuation corrected):

There are some really sad beta posturings in this thread.

Where is the self-respect?

Where is the awe over procreation?

Lame little men, whining about their meager money.

No one cares about you, because no one should!

Where is your aspiration? Where is your altruism?

Why do you leave the house?

You have your porn and your masturbation.

The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!

I laugh in your scrunched up crying little face.

Another commenter said "You are also forgetting that even if a condom is used and the woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, the man is still held responsible. If a woman takes a used condom from a man having sex *with a different woman* and impregnates herself, the man is held responsible. If a man and woman only engage in oral sex and the woman saves the sperm for later use with a turkey baster, the man is held responsible. None of that means that the man has any actual *rights* in regards to the child." Which made me say:

I am absolutely not forgetting about that.

Men need to value and guard their genetic material.

The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be [a] splooge stooge.

Now, I think women shouldn't want to invest their reproductive effort in such idiots, but that's the other side of the story.

And (emphasis added):

The men who are saying: I want something because women have something.

You guys...

If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that.

You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all.

You are unworthy. The reason something ought to save you from becoming fathers is that you are unworthy, but unfortunately, it seems that some women do still choose to have sex with you and even to bear your children.

And that -- THAT! -- is what you complain is your misfortune.

Amazing blindness. Your misfortune is so much worse than that.

And somebody said: "Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one...), where a woman who performed (only) oral sex with a man, using a condom, retrieved the condom and inseminated herself, and successfully sued for child support. IMO if a man does something that physiologically cannot produce conception without the woman's deliberate and willfully deceptive action, he is not responsible in any way for the conception." And I said:

I don't know why a woman would invest her reproductive effort in carrying forward the genes of such a man, but I have no sympathy with him at all.

Your phrase "physiologically cannot produce conception" is obviously wrong, since it did.

I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.

The man is an idiot, and the woman is an idiot. Maybe the child can rise above it.

But sympathy for this man who has no love and no self-respect? Why don't you save your compassion for someone who deserves it?

This men's rights stuff was old-hat in the 1980s. Recycling it now is the lamest thing I've seen in a long, long time.

If you really cared about men, you'd try to do something to elevate them, as I am trying right now. Instead you are inviting them into a downward spiral. This is worse than The Life of Julia.

The whining and crying about what victims men are these days continued way into the night. In the morning I saw a comment that began with the burnt-out old internet expression "sigh": "Sigh. And yet a wife can make the choice to abort her kid without even telling her husband. Shoudnt they be consulting their husband?" I had to take another shot:

Yes, and that's exactly the reason Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave for striking down a statutory requirement that a woman consult her husband.

Think about it.

And stop your sighing.

Picture me singing that last line like this:



UPDATE: Glenn responds to this here, and I respond to that here.

Read More

"Interestingly, though, doctors often ask married men for their wife’s permission before they’ll perform a vasectomy."

Yeah, but I'm not talking about married men. Once you're married, you should be consulting with your wife. If you're not, you've got problems.

Anyway, if these doctors are asking because the law requires it, the men should win their legal challenge. But I suspect the doctors are asking because they're afraid of getting sued, in which case, the men need to establish their rights in court so they can out-scare the doctors.

Read More

"If men did this to women, it would be considered a species of rape."

Instapundit weighs in on that lying-about-birth-control question we were talking about — a lot — yesterday.

He's mostly focused on sympathy for males who must pay child support, but I think society has chosen to put the burden on men to control where they put their sperm. Imagine endless factual disputes over whether the woman claimed to be infertile or on pills. The child is real and needs support, and anyone who expressed horror — as Instapundit did — at "The Life of Julia" should understand why we hold men responsible for the consequences they risk.

To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him. The general principle is a good one.

If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman. Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse.

Now, here's a proposal, based on all the attention Obamacare has given to women's health. Let's require health insurance to cover vasectomies. Then there will be some surgery that men have a right to choose. How's that for a pro-equality policy? Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers.

Read More