Catholicism and LGBT+ members.

 I suffer, amongst others things, of the curse of being uncharitable at times.

I will be uncharitable right now.

Given how many outreach programs saying how nice Catholics need to be to the LGBT+ all the while saying but not saying that same-sex attraction isn't a disorder you'd think they'd get the point that, yes, the Catholic Church - and science - is right that same-sex attraction is, indeed, a disorder.

Not even Black Americans, who have historically suffered discrimination that was more severe and constant, would need this type of constant affirmation and coddling. But no, at least not at the level of LGBT+.

I see this all the time mental health circles as well. 

"Being gay isn't a disorder."

Treats gay people like fragile sheep. 

Gay people constantly displaying they suffer from various disorders found in the DSM. 

"Yea, totally fine here!"

Shower Thought: Would the passing of Queen Elizabeth spark a movement to make NO mass ACTUALLY reverent AND back the return of the TLM?

Given all the gushing about how the UK is filled with tradition (the monarchy + queen's funeral) in comparison to lame America, and the rise of pathetic boasting of how the constitutional monarchy is fucking amazing to a constitutional republic, American traitors and pompous Brits have responded as one would imagine who has observed modernism.

Will the "eh whatever TLM" types who prefer the NO be swayed to make the NO reverent (I get the feeling they're also traitorous Americans) and would this hot air about tradition be also applied to immense support for the return of the TLM?

Hate to be that guy, but TLM proponents should use this double standards to their advantage and make a hard appeal to tradition and reverence. 

Opinions, opinions ...

 Unpopular opinions I have as a Catholic amongst other Catholics (on the internet).

• The fine-tuned argument is relatively compelling. Much more compelling than "born out of nothing" vacuum argument.
• Theory of evolution is a theory and should be questioned. I am not sure if I'm a "of course I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution" type because that comes across as an odd qualifier when discussion of evolution arises. It's like saying "of course I don't hate gay people!" or "of course I support same-sex marriage, I mean it's just marriage in general!" in order clarify you aren't that type of Christian/person. Of course I don't hate the LGBT+ but I also don't support fake marriage that is same-sex "marriage." I mean that shit's hilarious.
• Bishop Barron has his good days and bad days. 
• The US Jesuits need a purge of their own ranks. 
• I support married women in the work force if it works out time-wise when it comes to childrearing. 
• NO is an inferior mass on most counts when compared to TLM and Anglican Ordinate. 
• Rite switching - from Latin to Eastern, is akin to the non-religious who are on their spiritual journey trying out various religions to see what they like or Protestants church hopping. Looking at you Matt Fradd. It's one thing to attend a Byzantine Catholic Church because you prefer their masses or if it's the closest parish to you, but it's another to change rites all together. If Catholicism is Catholicism no matter the rite, then there would be no need to change. What's next, the slide into Orthodoxy? There's a slippery slope to be acknowledged here.
• If you're a religious brother or sister, wearing your habit should be the first thing you do when you get up in the morning besides brushing your teeth, washing your face and eating breakfast. Karate Grandma Sister Jane without the habit is lame. Lame. Lame. Lame. 
• Do away with weekly ethnic masses (i.e. Spanish, Polish), at least in the States. Masses should be in English and/or Latin. Ethnic masses definitely creates balkanization within parishes. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention.
• Catholic school education when done right is better than a public school and is equal to homeschooling. 
• 
  

The Inconsistency of Sins of Lust

 I never fully understood when Catholics say that crimes of lust are the least of the sins, especially when issues of pre-marital sex, infidelity or homosexual acts are discussed. I personally believe that sins of lust are actually more grave than lay Catholics make it out to be, mainly because they themselves are caught under the "love is divine" aspect of it (i.e. John C. Wright) - or they themselves have committed sins of lust. Here's an example of the inconsistency:

It is said that passionate kissing outside of marriage is near mortal sin (according Aquinas). I think that's absurd in many cases. Yet infidelity, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are said to be "the least" grave sins hence why in hell sexual partners are supposedly in the first circle of hell. C'mon.

If there's one thing where I find the Church vague is it's this. 

Restricting or Banishing the TLM Doesn't Make Those Take TC To A Whole New Level Look Good.

The TLM is a minority in the States and therefore in every diocese. This is the simple reason why I don't take seriously the "trads are doing all sorts of mean things to undermine the Pope and the Catholic community!" Most likely the average Catholic attends an NO parish and has never been to a Latin mass let alone heard of it, especially if they're under the age of 50. This is why I'm skeptical of those who magically appear on the internet saying "Well I came across a trads who said X and Y and did Z that turned me off." Sure, I bet you did. Or you never did - at all. Stuff that never happened. You'd have to actively seek out a TLM and a more conservative Catholic group if you really wanna come across and weird stuff. 

The banning of TLM in the Diocese of Savannah is literally stupid. Literally. So, if true, that Cardinal Cupich is kicking out ICKSP whose headquarters is located in Chicago, out of the Diocese of Chicago, then that's even more stupid. This is after he allowed St. John Cantius to conintue their offering of the TLM.

Why I don't take strict fasting during Lent seriously.

I consider myself a devout Catholic, but I do not see myself as a Catholic who puts one's well-being to side. Modern Church practices have Catholics fasting (2 small meals + 1 big meal) and abstaining from meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and then the same things for every following Wednesday and Friday until Easter Sunday. A good number of Catholics think this is too lax.

More strict fasting goes vegan (Eastern Rite) plus fasting for 40 days and 40 nights. Some Catholics practice Black Fast were abstaining from food all day along until a sunset for one vegan meal. The following picture is that of a "traditional" fasting calendar for the entire liturgical year -

You might as well be vegan if you're going to do this calendar since almost half of the year you're abstaining from meat (March, April, November, December, June, and August). If most Catholics followed this they'd be probably be underweight and suffer from malnutrition. (This  calendar was made by A Catholic Life -- a Catholic who's quite gung-ho on the traditional ways of Catholic life but then he's also vegetarian in real life and you know I feel about those types of people.) Say good-bye to endurance sports and things like lifting weights for health. Not to mention that hitting your 2k calories per day during Lent will not be met. 

Do Catholics who practice Black Fast for multiple consecutive days, trying to push it to 40 days,  have jobs that require them to exert energy let alone get out much, like adult responsibilities like errands and taking care of kids. That's a serious question. It may get you to a spiritual high, but it totally rejects modern - and sound - science, and commons sense,  where you need sustenance, and adequate sustenance, to function fully. 

I say this with all respect to those who want to take their fasting game to the next level while wanting it to be more prominent in the Catholic world: We're not monks in the desert. I wish that were the case because I'd probably take the extreme form of fasting a little more seriously. I don't mind doing Black Fast as an experiment, but I ain't gonna flex about it if I ever do it for more than a couple of days. Heck, I support bringing back Ember Days.

I've seen myself and my own mother, when deprived of food and only turning to liquids for than five days edge towards going apeshit. The reason being I had a couple of wisdom teeth pulled out a few years ago were I was subjected to only liquids as I abstained from solids for the entire week. By day five my hands were shaking because sipping water and eating yogurt just wasn't enough for my body. Just last year, my dear mother decided to get braces. She was also exercising daily in order to lose and maintain a healthy weight. Due to having braces, the first few weeks of eating was a chore. She was limited to only soft foods, liquids and blending any solids that were too hard for her to chew into a shake. Accompany that with exercising daily she lost weight faster than usual. If this continued her weight would've been dangerously low for her height and age. Thankfully, after a month or so, she gained control of the situation and slowly started to eat solids again. The experience was quite unpleasant for her. 

If there's one thing I'll say that's archaic about in my faith  -- in a bad way -- it's how Catholics tackle fasting not just during Lent but throughout the entire liturgical year. Western Rite or Eastern Rite? Traditional fasting or modern fasting? There's no true set expectations that I know of besides abstaining and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent in preparation for Easter Sunday. I'd rather people develop a deep prayer life than admire any extreme form of fasting because "that's what they did in the old day" or "why can't we admire our Orthodox brothers or Eastern Rite Catholics because they're really hardcore about fasting!" Yea, no. Sometimes a thing being old isn't always good, let alone sustainable.

Some take fasting as optional or barely even fast and abstain on Wednesdays or Fridays during Lent. On the other end of the spectrum I've read posts saying they're going to only drink water through the 40 days of Lent as they give a link to some physician or dietitian saying it's totally okay if done "safely." Um, okay.

For those that are looking at Lent and the liturgical calendar to implement a strict fasting practice, do you advocate bringing back social norms like mantillas for women when attending church and suits for men? How about alter rails, no communion via hand, and rood screens? I get the feeling they wouldn't really approve of these resurgences and those advocating for it (for example, me). I wonder the percent who are passionate about strict fasting that prefer the NO or the TLM. It be an interesting survey to unpack. 

Without that said, I am actually going to adopt abstaining from meat on Fridays year round. I think that's a very reasonable practice to take-up (plus it aligns with my current diet of abstaining from meat for health reasons outside of my Catholicism). 

In the meantime I think concepts like Exodus 90 for Lenten preparation is a great way to follow the instructions of the Church for Lent while building a prayer life, implementing health choices (daily exercise, cutting out alcohol for 40 days, cutting out sweets and eating between meals), abstaining from brainless internet use and entertainment, and controlling unnecessary spending (Amazon, Ebay). This, to me, is more relevant to what plagues men and women today. As I said, we're not monks back in the old day living in the desert where we had the whole day to think about our Lord and where strict fasting was conducive to demands of the lives lived. Things have changed.

Pope Francis

I'll admit, Francy boy is a bad pope. Sure, there are many who have returned to the faith because of his approachability, but overall he does nothing that strengthens the faith. When socially left clerics and religious members like him you can take that as a sign of complete mediocrity. 

Unpopular Catholic Thought #1

Those who are in the Latin Rite but want to convert to the Eastern Rite are really just rite shopping like Protestants do with their churches. In most cases this isn't about orthodoxy of the priest and/or seeking out a reverent liturgy, but "being drawn to" (whatever that means) Eastern Rites, which, historically, are Orthodoxy. "Being drawn to" is shallow in my mind, at least in the Catholic sense since instead of converting to another religion or denomination one makes a conversion within the Catholic Church. I call these people "meta-converts." Don't like the pope and all the legalism and clericalism of the Latin Rite? Well, I guess I'll seek out the Eastern Rite or even Eastern Orthodoxy. Have issues with the Church's view on NFP? Well I can't consider myself a Catholic anymore and become Orthodoxy instead! Don't like the precision, or imprecision, of a Latin Rite encyclical? Well heck, I'll just go to Orthodoxy cause I don't have to bother with my wannabe philosopher brain nitpicking on what some dead pope said!

If Catholicism is ever driven back underground I wouldn't be surprised if such meta-converts would be absent. When the going gets tough they'll back out. What a bunch of Judases. 

The boogey-man that is the alt-right.

A Catholic blogger Haley who runs the Catholic blog called Carrots for Michealmas posted her thoughts on the alt-ight this past October. I have some issues with it, and much more with the comments that followed. It was the typical normie talk when it came to politics, believing the media and normie politic chatter that white supremacy is a growing issue in America. Here's what she had to say.

The title of the post: "Why Catholics Should Be Aware of (and Denounce) the White Supremacist Ideology of the Alt-Right." Okay, not a bad start. I would agree with this. Haley saw a drawing by an artist named Jinjer Zilla that pictured a family - white one. But it wasn't the color of the family that made her feel uncomfortable. She writes -

The other day I was scrolling through Facebook when I saw an image of a family. The caption added by my Catholic Facebook friend was the beautiful quote by Pope St John Paul II “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.” This particular quote communicates a beautiful Catholic view of family, but the image accompanying it immediately made me hesitate.

It was a drawing featuring a dad, pregnant mom, and young children with a banner stating: “This Is How We Save the West” I felt that something was off immediately.

“This Is How We Save the West….This isn’t usually the way a Catholic describes the blessing of large families and openness to life,” I thought to myself.  “Where have I heard that rhetoric before?” Something in the wording made me uneasy. What is meant by “the west?” Are we talking about Christian Culture as preserved in the Catholic Church? I knew in the pit of my stomach that this was not the case. This isn’t an image in support of big Catholic families, I realized, this is about white supremacy.

That's quite the jump. As a non-white I will say that I will agree with the initial meaning of Zilla's picture - families are a key in "saving" the West. I'll even say that saving the West is vitally important to the world. But given how any alt-right or any meme not championing multiculturalism is deemed as ethnocentric if not racist, Haley's senses understandable if not wrong. She searched for his twitter account and concluded -

It was steeped in the most vile alt-right rhetoric and the thread with the image I saw was a string of his followers applauding the “white baby challenge,” bemoaning the existence of minorities, and speaking fearfully of the rate at which Africans are procreating and what should be done about it.

 I've searched for his twitter too and it seems he does hold views that are not necessarily mainstream conservative e.g. post about Obama and his supposed birth in Kenya not Hawaii, but then again I'm not sure how the Catholic friend reposting the artist's picture supports the artist's other political stances. Zilla's website and twitter says he's a patriot, well, maybe the Catholic friend is one as well so their interests align.

Now I do think Haley misses the point the artist's and those reposting with concern of minority babies outnumbering whites. Haley shows pictures of replies citing birth rates of minorities but she ignores what this means demographically, culturally and politically. In fact, every single post in agreement with Haley does not mention anything about it; they just talk about loving our neighbor (true).

The problem with the image is not that it’s a depiction of a white family. Images that don’t include people of color are not somehow automatically racist. My family is white. Do I have to be suspicious of the photographs on our home’s walls of my family? Obviously not. A drawing of a white family featuring Pope St. John Paul II’s quote supporting passing our faith on to the next generation isn’t problematic. But THIS image was because of what the artist intended to communicate.

Church teaching on sexuality sometimes leads Catholic families to be bigger than contemporary cultural norms, but that’s not the same message at the heart of white nationalism that promotes large families in an effort to preserve the white race as a form of conquest. There’s a gigantic difference between the Catholic view of family and vocation and this image advertising for large white families to “save the West.”

Here’s an example of another image of a happy family with the text “Healthy Parents, Healthy Children.”

 Haley continues -

Certainly no one is against smiling families or wellness! But a closer look at the fine print reveals an exhortation to comply with sterilization laws to prevent non-ideal offspring. This is an image created with the intention to promote eugenics: large, healthy Aryan families are the goal. You probably knew right away that this is WWII Nazi propaganda and could discern its REAL message without even knowing what the text says.  We have the cultural context to recognize it for what it is. But the language used by the modern alt-right may not be as familiar–hence why the image of the white family saving the west may not immediately be a red flag.

Whoa whoa whoa! This is the same lazy thinking of those who said Trump was literally Hitler because they compared his style of rhetoric and with Hitler finding similarities, hence Trump is Hitler. I don't know what Zilla's thoughts are about abortion, its types and if he is Margaret Sanger sympathizer, but Haley just drove off the curve a bit here.

My Facebook friend certainly didn’t know that the image he posted was created to communicate a white supremacist message and took it down immediately when I explained the artists ideology–something he wanted nothing to do with.

 Phew! Right? Not really.

But I was perplexed. Do intelligent, faithful Catholics not know about the alt-right? I sent the image to a few Catholic friends and asked, “would you have known right away that there was something wrong with this image?” Some said yes, but many said no. It wouldn’t have even crossed their minds that the image was anything more than support for openness to life.

 So your friend is just guilty by association and somehow is being subtly brainwashed into #WhiteCulture.  I don't believe not knowing the artist is a #WhiteCulture type renders intelligent Catholics not knowing what the "tricks" of the alt-right. I have sure Haley knows no more about the alt-right than Ben Shapiro (who think the alt-right is mostly about white supremacy) and the MSM (who really have no clue what the alt-right is).

What’s tricky is that the terms get crossed. My friends probably interpreted “the west” as “western Christianity.” They weren’t aware that the people who created the image were selling an ideology about the superiority of white people–what the alt-right means by “the West.” 

No, "the West" means Western civilization and western culture. 

But aren’t those white supremacists people just a few crazies shooting their mouths off in the cesspool of Twitter? No. I think it’s very easy for your average white person to be unaware of the prevalence of white nationalism today in the insidious subculture of the alt-right. But, my friends, I’m telling you about it right now. If you’re not aware, it’s time to become aware. I’m begging you to hear me out with an open heart.

The alt-right is often dismissed out of hand as a small group of fringe extremists rather than a growing and terrifying ideology. The neo-Nazis marching with torchs are dismissed as just a few nutcases rather than representatives of a real movement. And it’s not just the neo-nazis, the alt-right has many defenders and is creeping into more mainstream demographics.

  This sounds like fear mongering which is the product of a unsound understanding of what the alt-right is and sad lack of perspective of all things socially political.

Being aware of the warped and disgusting ideology of contemporary white supremacy would help you know that this image wasn’t advocating for intact families, or even large families, it was advocating for white families which for white nationalism are the only families worth having around.  It’s the context of the ideologies currently gaining traction that should make us skeptical of the twisted alt-right rhetoric.

Look, I don't support the alt-right white nationalists but it's not a concern of mine. Your suspicions are your own fear acting up. 

A lot of this is hard to see and the rhetoric is so subtle that it’s easy to miss, hence the confused response many of my friends had to this image and how easily it was accepted as promoting something good. Isn’t that the way evil works? Taking something that’s good and warping and perverting it? It’s nuanced. No one’s coming out and saying, “Look we hate the Jews and people of color.” Even the Nazi propaganda image I shared is speaking in positives: “healthy families!” Who can argue with that? The alt-right is far more subtle and dependent on predominantly true statements and good things slowly twisted into something incredibly dangerous and damaging. I find the idea that this could seep into Catholic culture positively terrifying. 

This is some paranoia taking. 

One reason some people are perhaps susceptible to this imagery is that it wears the veneer of “tradition.” A fetishization of 1950s white culture espoused by the alt-right overlaps somewhat with perfectly innocuous or positive things: prioritizing family life, cooking at home, and other things that my rather traditional Catholic family also practices. A perfect example might be some of the social media celebrities of the “tradlife” movement. If you take a look at @apurposefulwife on Twitter, for example, you’ll see a woman’s feed lauding 50s fashion, carving pumpkins with your kids, enjoying being a stay-at-home mom and…..white supremacy.

So a handful that use #tradlife also support white supremacy. Oh dear. I searched for #tradlife on twitter and, yes, the mentioned twitter account is the one that mostly uses it but so do others who give no mention or signs of white supremacy.

Her feed seems mostly harmless and silly until you see the posts that reference “our people” and conclude with bizarre racial claims promoting white nationalism. You’d think she’s just some crazy woman on the internet, but she had over 30,000 rabid fans following her bizarre tweets.

 Rabid fans? So you call her followers "rabid" because you strongly disagree with her views. It's sorta like Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable because they don't follow the "enlightened" view. 30K is small compared to public figures who have millions of followers that hang onto their word. I'm on twitter and follow people who could be deemed racist by the left but it doesn't mean I agree with what they say.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with appreciating a 50s aesthetic. However, we must recognize that this time period was chosen as the ideal age for white nationalists for a reason. It was a period of strong economic growth in this country but also a time when minorities were not yet appearing in advertisements.

And it was the time when traditional value and concepts were more accepted and respected.

White supremacists want to sell you their movement and what better way than the ready-made, whites-only advertisements of the 50s? We have to be careful not to idolize a 50s aesthetic if it’s warping into a toxic ideology. (As well as acknowledge that the 50s was no golden age for many Americans.)

See my statement above. Italicized my emphasis: speaking of "heard it before", I've heard this before from people who are prone to falling for the multicultural is grand rhetoric and who tend to be politically naive. No offense, Haley.

So if you love eating meatloaf as a family (hand raised), or covet Betty Draper’s wardrobe (hand raised again), be loud and proud about it! But be aware of how the alt-right is co-opting the rhetoric of traditionalism and worshipping the negative facets of 50s cultural mores (such as rampant racial inequality) that have no place in Catholic culture.

True. Finally you've said something that emotes reason.

Be skeptical of language that calls for the salvation of “western civilization.” Recognize that when these people are talking about saving “the West,” what they mean is preserving white power. We need to understand that when these people idolize large intact families, it’s not because they have really taken Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching to heart, it’s merely because big white families produce lots of white babies. And we must be aware in order to keep Catholic culture from becoming muddied with this toxic and dangerous anti-Gospel ideology in any way.

Given the birth rate in America is barely enough to sustain it in the next generation, as well as many European countries falling below replacement rates, I think the white supremacists have a very good point on having more babies in order to save the West, because let's face it, if there's one thing multiculturalism (the bad kind) has proven is that it has failed massively. If a given ideal ethnically diverse neighborhood has peace it's mostly likely because many members of the community have the safe values and are within the same economic bracket.

Equip yourself to know it right away and to reject any ideology that diminishes the dignity of each human being. When you hear someone talking about immigrants ask yourself is this is the same message the bishops are offering.

Depends on what they say. I'm  under no obligation to follow what the bishops say, especially if they support open borders, amnesty and sanctuary cities. 

When you hear someone talk about “the west” ask yourself if they want to preserve the Book of Kells or if they want to perpetuate oppression toward people of color and the perverse gospel of eugenics.

 Better than the previous quote at least.

The same people urging white women not to abort their babies may be the same people pushing for sterilization of minorities, because it’s not the right to life that concerns them but the power of whites in the global sphere. Be aware and be wary.

 Where on earth do you even get this from?

After that very disheartening day that the white supremacist image crossed my path, I saw another image on Facebook. It was a beautiful image. A large family was gathered together praying the Rosary with that same quote from Pope Saint John Paul II. It was created by artist Rebecca Fuentes to represent her own interracial family. The juxtaposition was powerful.

 Oh puh-lease.

"Oh my, an interracial family! Isn't that just wonderful!"
"So what about an Asian family who prays around the rosary?"

May God grant that our brothers and sisters of every race and culture are cherished and given the dignity that God has endowed them with by making them in his own image. And let us not be taken in by lies that twist and pervert what is beautiful and true. The alt-right has no place in Catholic culture.

Given that Catholicism is pretty counterculture compared to embracing modern concepts and beliefs and actions, it's pretty alt-right to me.

Little steps made to restore liturgical dignity.

My grade school parish church decided to move the tabernacle in the center of the sanctuary after it was to the side for as long as I can remember. I may just stop in for a weekday mass to experience the aesthetic and rubric changes in the near future.

As long as I can recall it's been a post-Vatican II type of parish, but more on the reverent end. The group standing on the alter is par for the course for this type of flavor. Little steps.

New link added.

It's called Badass Catholic. A millennial blogger who pokes at her generation, though with compassion.

Catholics do enjoy life.

And within these struggles - abstaining from sex, to not abort, to follow the doctrines of the Church - there comes great triumphs.

Those critical of Catholicism say that the faith has too many rules. Maybe so. Even if it does, it's the most balanced worldview, allowing Catholics, within good judgement, to partake in the worldliness of planet earth. I'll try to frame this post in a way that best represents some of the secular worldview on Catholicism.

1. Catholics don't like sex. 

A couple of decades ago Catholics were known to have large families, say three kids or more. Sex is encouraged and seem as something amazing - within marriage. So yes, Catholics do have sex - as seen by those Catholics who commit sin by premarital acts and out of wedlock babies (the all-female Catholic high school next to my high school alma mater was mockingly called Queen of Pregnancies due to a senior becoming pregnant every other year, though the amount of pregnancies dropped when I was in school), and as seen by Catholics who get married and have children.

2.  Catholics follow a puritanical system of beliefs.

See #1. So no. See #3. So no. Strict, yes. Puritanical, no. Keep reading #2.

I'm going to kick secular non-meat eaters between the legs because I can (it's my fallen nature). Vegetarianism abstains from eating any meat products. They believe meat is murder. Veganism goes two steps further and abstains from not only consuming meat products, but any products made from animals. This means no eggs and diary. It's encourage one to not wear clothing made from animals, so no real leather. Catholics can consume meat with no shits given unless it's Friday during Easter (or if they give up meat for Easter) or, if they truly want to, every Friday of the year. (If you haven't noticed, I have grave issues with the non-meat/sustainable/food movement bunch.)

There is debate that Christ did not want humans to eat meat, with followers of this particular belief saying it's found within scripture. This particular belief is made up of a very small minority (if we want to play the numbers game). For the most part there is no true "food movement" to abstain from any meat or animal products in the form of the secularized version of food purity. Catholics enjoy meat and they enjoy beer as well as a good cigar. Afterwards, if they're married, they can enjoy a good shagging with their opposite sex spouse. Please be aware that I did not use any male pronouns here because I truly believe that a Catholic/Christian woman can enjoy meat, beer and a cigar just as a Catholic/Christian man would. How's that for equality, eh?

3.  Catholics hate science.

This is a loaded statement. If being skeptical of climate change (read: anthropological global warming) makes one anti-science then you're full of yourself. If believing that a fetus is an actual human, and therefore the Catholic stands by the Catholic stance to be against abortion, makes him anti-science then you're an arrogant dick. If not supporting same-sex "marriage" due to natural law and just the innate reaction of "well this is messed up" makes one anti-science then you're a bigger idiot than Christian fundamentalists.


4. Religion is just something to hold on to because you're weak.

More false than true. I believe everyone is weak and we attach ourselves to secular movements to fill the gap in our life to have a purpose (see: veganism and the "sustainable movement"). Catholicism to me fulfills my thirst for truth and knowledge. That might've of made non-religious folks chuckle loudly because in their mind religion is anti-science and anti-knowledge, like "Catholics hate science" their belief is quit loaded and assumes many things. Catholicism encourages me to seek out the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. In many ways it's natural to me. Study astrology. Study the classics. Study architecture. Study sex. Study philosophy. Study different cultures. Why? Because there is truth, goodness and beauty in each. Be in the world, but not of it.

Catholicism is a complete worldview. It's the Ivy League of faiths steeped in history and culture. It's the Big Ten school with its fervent pride found within its followers. It's the liberal arts school where personal, quiet attention can be found. It's the University of Chicago where knowledge, and even wisdom, is nestled, waiting to be discovered, though many are not aware of its grandeur and uniqueness. And just as varied as these academic institutions, there are elitists, obnoxious frat boys, artsy, bohemian folks and intellectuals found within Catholicism.

Quarrels over fish.

Over at fisheaters, the traditional Catholic forum when compared to the VII friendly CatholicAnswers, I've discovered all is not well, at least when it comes to those who are converting - to Orthodoxy. I've noticed more than few a posters express that if they had an Orthodox church near them it be very tempting to convert while a couple went through the conversion.

On a thread where the original poster said that she was thinking of leaving Catholicism due to her addiction to masturbation, one poster actually said to look into Orthodoxy. What's more disturbing is that no one actually really said to this poster that he was leading her astray from God, since it is the belief of the Catholic that Catholicism is the true church of God. Any other sect or denomination is a pale imitation if not an outright lie. So even in the trad community there is a little VII spirit, just in a different light. I suppose it's because Orthodoxy is seen as the closest thing to Catholicism in the eyes of the well-read trad Catholic. Still, I was expecting these types of Catholics to interject and say the famous belief that gets Protestants all in the piss: Catholicism is the one true church of God. Salvation outside of the Church is not possible.

Protestants take this as arrogant and their reading of "outside the Church" means those who do not believe in a God and/or live a very secular, sinful life.

What I gather from those on fisheaters, from those who converted to Orthodoxy, is that the Catholicism is riddled with convoluted apologetics, the issue with infallibility, the Church's dealings with sin (e.g. masturbation - in the Orthodox mind it's still a sin but it's much less serious when compared to a Catholic lens), and historical grievances. I'll confess I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy, but just on face value those who converted tend to act very Protestant when expressing their disagreement. I find this rather ironic.

Pacman, a poster at the site, posted a thread stating he was leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. The byproduct was 29 pages of debate on whether Orthodoxy is more "true" than Catholicism. I tend to read the entire thread to learn about his reasons for leaving and, ultimately, to learn a little more about his new denomination.

So instead of debating whether there is a God, at fisheaters the fight is over Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If there's one thing both sides over at the forum agree upon is this: VII effects suck and modernism can go to hell.

In the end it's still sad. Not even the beloved Latin Mass, so revered in the trad community, was enough for these Catholics to Orthodox converts to stay. 

What VII and the Sexual Revolution have wrought on the Roman Catholic Church.

(Oct 1962 – 1965)

Tridentine Mass --> Novus Ordo

                                     ↓              ↓

   Shrinkage of priesthood       More drastic shrinkage of nuns/sisters

                                     ↓              ↓

   *Consolidation of parishes   Sisters who taught left teaching; 
                                                  hiring of laymen = tuition rises

                                                     ↓

                                                 Catholic parents send kids to 
                                                 public schools = no/little tuition

                                                      ↓

                                                 Shrinkage and closing of parochial schools

*Add in laymen not catechizing their children soundly and you have cafeteria Catholics and fallen away Catholics, thus furthering the shrinkage of practicing Catholics when one enters their 20s and 30s. The acceptance of contraception has proven to equate to smaller families, or no kids at all due to “choice.” 

Liberal Catholics do no favors for the Roman Catholic Church, turning it into some Protestant Episcopalian or UU wannabe denomination. This also goes for the “liberation” of those in the consecrated life, shedding their habits that once made them distinctly unique to the public eye. Sister Theresa who does yoga in the park, in her Eastern influenced martial arts uniform, is no inspiration because she most likely looks like a grandma who belongs to a third order, not someone who once was a dignified Bride of Christ. 

I won’t go into the Church of Nice priests, “I'm gonna say something profound but not really” cardinals and spineless bishops. They do no service towards Catholics wanting true guidance on the local level. 

So what is the seeking and faithful Catholic to do? Call the ordained and the nuns/sisters out. Enter teaching and teach at Catholic schools. Better yet, practice your entrepreneurial skills and takeover a Catholic "light"/VII school and make it actually Catholic in curriculum and social practice.

New link added.

This one's called 1PeterFive. It's a site dedicated to issues about traditionalism and its eroding and shrinking presence against the "modern" Church of Nice (not the city).

Aesthetically it's a nice looking site. I do like the masthead; the logo of the site looks like an equation though.

Topics that I liked that were discussed were sacred music, communion on the tongue while kneeling and vocations towards the religious life. The writers appear to be intelligent and thoughtful, engaging not so much in navel-gazing, like how contributors at Social Matter can be, but in a more less self-important way of calling out for attention towards a certain issue, all while talking about religion and its many aspects.

'Extreme' Catholic traditionalists vs Theology of the Body.

I've recently learned that some traditionalist circles, some would deem them extremists even, are at odds with Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body (TOB) and Chris West, a prominent advocate and presenter of the late Pope's famous (or infamous, if you're an 'extreme' trad) work.

Now I think TOB is quite good when it concerns sex and sexuality, and being someone who recently is taking his faith more seriously I was rather disappointed to learn that TOB is not liked at all in some circles in the traditionalist strain. I sort of view this like when I started actually cooking for myself. I was learning how to be more independent and learning through trial & error. I got better at certain dishes and I found out I was good at making various breakfast items. I learned that when it came to lunch my creativity lacked. I also learned that making dinner was plain fun.

Imagine thinking of what type of meat you'll purchase from the butcher to make that awesome dinner recipe Gordon Ramsey made in a mere 5 minutes on yotube. He's your "man". Soon after you come across non-meat eaters -- vegetarians and vegans. They say meat is bad and that one should abstain from meat entirely if you truly care about animals and not add to the deteriorating health of Mother Gaia (cow farts and whatnot). Now if you follow their advice you can't make that Gordon Ramsey dinner. In fact, you cut out a good portion of all the dinners you want to try. You feel deflated. You're just sharpening you cooking skills and a group of people say nope, sorry, put that brisket back. That brisket is murder. That brisket is an injection of poison to your body as well as to the earth. What? you think your yourself. You buy the brisket anyways. The non-meat eaters then throw around all these arguments, some paragraphs long (much longer than this post), that seem sorta right yet sorta off. What? That's how I feel when I think about the 'extreme' trads and their issues with TOB.

Like the non-meat eaters, those who are vehemently against TOB haven't said explicitly why it's a bastard work besides "ew modernity." I don't like modernity but c'mon. You got to  give me more than that. They write long paragraphs, typing much, but saying very, very little.

I'm taking TOB and I'm gonna enjoy it and proclaim it's rather good. If any Christian or Catholic asks about it or if the topic of sexuality and family comes up I'll recommend it.

Catholic education Part II: funds

People think that Catholic schools are rich, thinking it's "private" in a sense where Duke University is rolling in dough, or how Harvard had an endowment that can afford its poorest students free tuition. Where I live? Not really. Some are wealthy; some are poor. A perfect example would be the music departments of Catholic schools versus public schools.

I'm a product of parochial schools (attended an all-male high school; co-ed grade school) only finally entering the secular educational world once I entered university. If there's one thing that public schools do have a clear advantage over Catholic schools is that their is more money to fund extracurricular activities and to hire more staff (hence more options for classes creating a robust curriculum). There is no orchestra at the grade school level for Catholic elementary schools in my area. If the Catholic school is lucky there will be a band, a very tiny band.

At the high school level my school only had band - no orchestra. Not only that, but one public high school nearby had winter guard, winter percussion and orchestra (divided into beginner and advance), pep band (pep band in my school was rarely formed - it only came into existence at the whims of those who wanted to form one for a particular game whereas football games were mandatory) in addition to the band. The music students had options to participate in solo-ensemble contests at nearby universities after marching band season. The high school had welding classes, it had a far more in-depth art department (we only had drafting) and not to mention a drama department boasting a choir and a couple of musicals (my school didn't have a drama department - we had a drama class but since the teacher who taught that retired there is zero drama education). We had no speech & debate while other public schools did.

Some Catholic schools were in much better financial shape with a more balanced curriculum than my alma mater. One all-girls Catholic school, Mother McAuley, does have many of the extracurricular activities mentioned with a heralded music, drama & fine arts department. That school focuses on the liberal arts. My alma mater is currently focusing on STEM which is a change from its previous, more balanced curriculum. The band director at Brother Rice, MM's "brother" school, just recently expanded their music program with a wind ensemble, adding to the already existing symphonic, concert and jazz ensembles, replicating where he previously taught. Now, if I were in charge of my alma mater I'd borrow some pages from MM as well as BR. But the thing is my school doesn't have the funds nor the does it see it as "challenging the status quo of Catholic schools" (whatever that means), says the current president of my high school. A large part has to do with the vision of a particular program and how those overseeing view it.. The current band director at BR is making the music department more robust despite being the sole teacher (?). He brought back the marching band after several years of its absence. The school's bands are expanding and winning competitions. The man even has a hand in growing the choir.

To go back to faculty, take for instance Lincoln-Way East and Mother McAuley. If you look at their music class selection there's no doubt it takes more than one person to teach all of those classes whereas my alma mater had two - a chair and an associate (usually a recent music ed major). When we did have a marching band (now defunct due to low membership) the associate band director headed it with a lady who focused on color guard. That's it. What's the difference between now and then? There was a healthy relationship between the president the band director. The president wanted the band to succeed.

With all that depressing facts aside my alma mater did excel at academics. What we lacked, oh so sorely lacked in extracurricular activities and faculty members, we somehow made up in discipline. There were several times were I wore my letterman jacket out in public, once at a grocery store and at the movies, where people went up to me and said, "That's a good school. You're lucky." I didn't get the feeling they felt that way about the local public schools. Reavis? Nope. Oak Lawn? Nope. Argo? Nope. Stagg? Nope. Don't even mention Bogan, the nearest CPS. Maybe Brookfield-Riverside, though.

Even though I admit that the school's music department was a pebble compared to the larger and wealthy ones it was highly respected. The band director, now retired and replaced by a much less ambitious - and much younger - band director, was also respected and well-known throughout area when it came to music directors. People knew our band (to be expanded in Part III).

As with teaching at a Catholic school, be it elementary or high school, hiring is a sacrifice. Take for instance the music department. You most likely don't have the financial means to hire a separate choral, jazz, orchestra and marching instructor. You either got one or two people putting on many hats: marching instructor, jazz director, symphonic and concert instructor. Music theory class? Now that's a sign of wealth.

In many ways I'm in awe of how the band was perceived in the community and what it did in its glory days as well as my days.

You may ask where I went to high school. I'm a Viking. I went to St. Laurence.

Compared to BR St. Laurence was known as the poor school. We're still poor but also more narrow in focus (STEM and sports). 

A more interesting question is if I had a child would I send him to St. Laurence. The answer to that is a definite no. I don't like where the direction of the curriculum is going. The band sucks; the local elementary public district band has better tonal quality. The president, President Joe Martinez, gives zero fucks whether or not it flourishes. If I had a girl she'd be looking at Mother McAuley. A reason I'd be hesitant to send her there is the feminism that runs through it. Like soon-to-be defunct Queen of Peace (who also jumped on the STEM trend, though they included art so it was STEAM) it practices the bizarre "we don't need men" narrative, which, apparently, was far more potent at Queen of Peace. But still. If a boy, Brother Rice or maybe St. Rita. I'd even look into St. Ignatius.

Part III will focus on my thoughts on St. Laurence and its current transformation. 

Catholic education Part I: a sensitive topic to those who dislike them.

In the United States there is a debate whether or not private/Christian/Catholic schools, on the elementary and high school level, educate their students better than public schools. Early studies say yes, some are mixed, while the most recent study says no. Whatever the consensus the articles I've read and ventured into the comment box have been telling, though only slightly.

The comment box attracts a lot of people. Me being one of them. In the articles in favor of private/Christian/Catholic education there seems to be three groups of people who dismiss such an environment. The first being the Catholic who says they were taught at a Catholic school but due the mean nuns left. The second are the people who sent their kids to Catholic school but took them out due the supposed arrogance, hypocrisy and elitism extolled by other parents. The third are atheists. These atheists aren't particularly sophisticated in their rebuttals, just saying that Christian schools indoctrinate their students and that public schools do not.

The main reason I write this post is because I've grown tired of these complaints. A wise poster did apologize for whatever rude attitude that was presented, saying that no school is perfect and, like public schools, Catholic schools vary. Your mileage may vary, basically. But that wasn't enough. The same anonymous poster insisted how hypocritical those who send their kids to Catholic kids are - not just in the past but present and future.

The bitterness by the people who were met by mean, cruel nuns is more understanding, but then again I was met with a very impatient, poorly talented math teacher when I was in 4th and 5th grade who made me fear math. I still get nervous when I know I have to a math course or test. I do not say math is a horrible subject or that all math teachers and the institutions that employ them are despicable. In some I've gotten over those horrid two years and I'm now self-teaching the topics I did so poorly on - with fervor and enthusiasm. I do not "hate" math - I'm just simply not that good at it. Within this group of bitter people some confessed to burning their school uniform (sure ya did).

The atheists are atheists. They're the modern types aka Gnus. I don't expect much out of them.They will say the usual talking points dismissing Catholic schools (indoctrination). I actually met one parent who said that the measurement of a good school is how many scientists they produce since, after all, science is the basis of our world. There were too many lawyers in his mind. He then proudly went to say his daughter is a product of public schools, has a masters in environmental geology, and is now a chief geologist. All with the Catholic upbringing. I then said I had two friends who were raised Catholic, attended parochial schools, where one went on to become a medical radiologist at Johns Hopkins; the other a child physician at a Level 1 hospital near his hometown. Both are millennials. But I only brought them up for context, not so much to brag.

Reinvesting in my faith.

Easter Sunday has past and Christ has risen. I type that without feeling silly or strange. I type that with a much deeper appreciation and knowledge of Catholicism. If you asked me to say that out loud during my university years, or even my high school days, I'd feel somewhat strange. Within the next couple of days I'll be starting a post about how I came to where I am today with my faith.

People lose weight. They make promises to learn a new instrument or "be their true selves" - whatever that means. In the past couple of years I've started to take my faith more seriously. And I've also loss some weight (I'm nearing my high school weight).

Now, this is both unique and strange since my generation, especially those who were (sorta) raised Catholic, well, probably don't take their faith seriously. Whether they attended parochial schools till university or were products of the CCD system. They're are either non-religious/fallen away or, at best, cultural Catholics if not spiritual.

Being in your twenties while buckling down to get "in shape" for mass is the strange part. It's unique because it truly sets you apart - not "I'm non-binary and/or LGBT" outlier type, but truly unique in terms of transcendence. Even if you are non-binary or and/or LGBT subscribing to something that says no to your sexual urges is unique. Same goes for straights. When you're under-30 and have decided to reinvest in your faith in a traditional manner that's unique. That's interesting.

People will ask why. They'll ask what's the point. Both are good questions. Both I will try to answer in the up coming days.

"And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God."  

- Romans 12:2

Lent Update & Parish Issues

I will be absolutely honest: I have failed miserably with keeping up with my Lenten promises. I won't say what my promises were since I'm rather ashamed of them.

There's about two weeks left for this liturgical season, so that means there's two weeks to "salvage" my set standards.

To start things off "right", I need to schedule a confession with one of my local parishes. I've tried to attend confession for the past two months, but every time there's a line that barely inches forward. I wonder what type of sins the people are confessing - must be serious. Since I help out at Saturday mass I need to be ready once the mass starts; due to the slow confession line I'm forced to yank myself out of queue in order for me to get to my spot on time. It's frustrating.

I'm not scheduled to help out this Saturday so I'm planning on attending confession at another parish, with hopes that the line will actually move and that the priest shows up on time. My home parish is  Novus Order type, the type that borders on being a Protestant mass. I'm sometimes a little embarassed by it. The other parish I'm eying for confession is also a Novus Order type but they're more "serious", a larger congregation and probably has more than one priest scheduled to hear sinners.