 
The Mind Meanderings of a Millenial Catholic

Copyright 2016 Oliver J. Olinger

Published by Oliver J. Olinger at Smashwords

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your enjoyment only, then please return to Smashwords.com or your favorite retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Table of Contents

Preface

Part One- Marriage and Relationships

Making Money Before You're Married

The Rape Accusation Cup Overfloweth

How to Scare Potential Converts Away in One, Quick Move

Go to the Wedding, but Don't Bring Scandal

The Quagmire of Infidelity in the Modern World

Are you Getting Divorced, or Do you Reject the Disney Fairy Tale?

No, Jesus is not OK with you Beating your Wife

Part Two- Children

Destroy Planets Rather than Wake a Sleeping Child, a Humorous Interlude

Having Kids Gets in the Way of My Barhopping

The Pros and Cons of Spanking Unruly Children

Stolen Children Make the Future Look Bleak

Stand Between Me and My Kid... Go Ahead, I Dare You!

First Communion for a Transgendered Child?

The Best Age for Confirmation

My Conversion has Upset My Dad

Part Three- Art and Media

X-Men and the Pros and Cons of Fiction

The Sky is Blue and Lord of the Rings is Catholic

The Discord of Melkor and Mary the Mother of God

Catholic-Friendly Movies

Catholicism in Art

Reversing the Trend in Media

Reaction to Zeitgeist

I Can't Wait for the Zombie Apocalypse

Halloween Fun isn't as Bad as All That

Our Lady of Guadeloupe and Mexican Fashion

Part Four- Education

A Tiny, Little Rant About Education

Logic in Modern Education

Latest and Greatest Historical Account?

I Should Stop Using Big Words

Fun with Conjunctions and Prepositions

Mann in Olde English

Definition of Economy from a High School History Teacher

Bookshelf Profiling

Some Opinions About Toilet Paper

A Common Core Tutorial

Part Five- Science

I Don't Believe in Time

My Two Cents on Evolution

Science Vs. Faith- The Eternal Struggle?

Ad Hominem Fallacies and the Hypocrites Who Love Them

Circle, Circle, Dot, Dot, the Cooties Vaccine is a Conspiracy to Control The Masses

Correcting a Very Deserving Hippie

A Little Fun with Publish-or-Die Science

The Half-Glass of Water- Final Answer!

Don't Use that Dirty Hand Sanitizer

Part Six- Politics

Celebrating the Diverse Things in God's Creation

Who's Worse? The Prostitute or the John?

The "Coming Out" of a Homosexual Priest

The Other Aspects of Euthanasia

The Death Penalty and the Jackal

Just What Exactly is a "Left-Wing Catholic?"

"Lesser of Two Evils" and Playing God

Distributism in Practice

Voter Ballot Health Warnings

Part Seven- Religion(s)

Acceptance of All Religions?

All Religion is the Same and Man-Made

The "God-Needs-Man" Mistake

The Issue of Statues Vs. Graven Images

How I Feel About the Desecration of Evil Bodies

Self-Flagellation and Discipline

Islam has No Word for "Peace."

The Palestinian School of Spinning the Media in Your Favor

The Vain Use of the Lord's Name

Those Silly Satanists are At It Again

Part Eight- Catholicism

Does a Bad Practitioner = a Bad Religion?

But All I Have to Do is be a Good and Loving Person

Scrupulousness and a Train Sent from Hell

Neither in Nor of the World

At What Point does a Sin Become a Mortal Sin?

Mortal Sins and the Invincibly Ignorant

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Sola Scriptura and Marian Theology

Once You Go Latin, You'll Never Go Back

Novus Ordo Vs. Traditional Latin Mass

Where Have all the Good Men Gone?

All the Heresies Around Us

Attachments

Anthropophaginian Rights

The Boy Who Cried Water in the Desert

Body Language and Apologetics... A Teaser!

About the Author

Preface

I've put this book together mostly out of Facebook posts and comments. Several friends of mine have suggested on many occasions that I compile all of my comments into a book, so here goes nothing:

My name is Oliver J. Olinger, and I am a 37 y/o, Traditional-leaning Roman Catholic. I attend Latin Mass and I am well read on Church history, theology, and philosophy (of both Catholic and secular philosophers). Contrary to the general consensus in the Traditionalist community, I do not believe that we are currently experiencing some sort of "end times." On the contrary, I believe that the Catholic Church is destined to rise again from the ashes of this dismal failure of an experiment in modernism. I believe this because the Church has managed to weather every storm that has come its way for the past 2,000+ years, so there's absolutely no reason to believe that recent events will play out any differently. If we made it through the Arian Heresy, when nearly the entire Church was lost in the early days of Christianity, then this current crisis should not present any serious threat at all, in the long run. I know that there are some who believe that modernist infiltrators have taken over the Vatican, and are attempting to erode the Church from within. Some of these take it so far as to completely write off the Vatican as lost forever to the enemy. And there are still others who maintain that there is nothing wrong with the Church at all, and that She is simply adapting Herself to modern times. While I tend to lean heavily towards the former, I am not yet prepared to abandon all hope for those who have chosen to stick by the Vatican through all of the changes which have taken place over the past six decades.

For those of you who are unaware of the rift taking place these days in the Catholic Church, I shall briefly explain: There are two streams of thought driving an intensely volatile debate: On one side, you have the Traditionalists, most of whom attend only the Traditional Latin Mass (or Tridentine Latin Mass), abbreviated "TLM." These Traditionalists believe that the Second Vatican Council which took place in the early 1960's was an heretical event which has been attempting to alter or negate many of the traditional, age-old doctrines, dogmas, and practices of the Roman Catholic Church as they have existed since the days of the first Pope, Peter. Some in this group have termed themselves sedevacantists (Latin for "empty chair"), and they hold that there is currently no valid pope sitting in the Chair of Peter in Rome. They view all of the popes since Pius XII as heretical pretenders to the Papal Throne. (There are some variations on this position, but the general gist of their position is clear.) On the other side of this rift, you'll find the Novus Ordo (Latin for "New Order") Catholics, abbreviated "N.O." (Sometimes, this is referred to as the "post-conciliar" church.) Those who align themselves with this side feel that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, ecumenical council and that the changes which have taken place in the Church since the council were necessary in order for the Church to stay relevant in a changing world. Some Novus Ordo Catholics are very opposed to many of these changes in their minds, but are still not willing to question the recent decrees of the Vatican.

Mark 3:25 reads, "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." With this in mind, it's obvious that a rift like the one which is now taking place in Rome can and will bring an organization to its knees. Instead of a solid, cohesive unit of religious authority, we now find in the Church inter-organizational rivalries, disputes, arguments, and the like... all taking attention away from those things which truly require the attention and assistance of the Catholic Church. It's a shame that as we continue to go back and forth over issues such as the validity of the current Pope, the true enemy, Satan, continues to sew confusion and chaos all round us. I'm not saying that these issues aren't important, but if one side is right and the other is wrong (which is unavoidably true) then the side which is in the wrong is destined to fizzle out eventually. Satan can never win, as all of his works will eventually diffuse or collapse on themselves and God will prevail. The Church (the true Church) will never fall no matter how desperate things may seem at times. I see too many Catholics spending their whole day, every day, pointing out and scoffing at the most recent Novus Ordo travesty (like rock bands at mass, or a pope attending a service at a Muslim mosque, for example), attempting to garner nods of equal disgust from their fellows. In my opinion, spending all of one's time pointing accusingly at the other side is tantamount to taking a break from being Catholic. How many hungry are being fed, naked are being clothed, orphans are being adopted, etc. while you're boohooing the opposing team?

For myself, I attempt to live my life according to the precepts and teachings of the Church as they've endured for nearly 2,000 years. If something comes from the Vatican that seems to be contrary to the ancient, traditional teachings, I will simply resist that particular item, favoring the older teaching over the newer one until the situation resolves itself officially and forever (via a correctly accomplished synod of ecclesiastics). It's true that many of these discrepancies continue to not be resolved after years and years of back and forth debate going in circles, but as I stated above I have faith that the true Church will prevail in the end, in its entirety, along with all of its original, timeless doctrines. What I refuse to do is point fingers, assign blame, or accuse anyone of heresy and/or pass judgment upon Catholic clergy. I am a laymen, which means that my authority in Church affairs is of the utmost lowest ranking. The Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy under the Social Kingship of Christ, and therefore a hierarchy of authority exists and should be respected (for better or worse). Even if you have to swallow your pride, pick your battles, and stand down in the face of a potential error, maintaining the Church's authoritative hierarchy will be vastly important in the future, when Satan fails in his task. When the True Church prevails and rises from the rubble of the current crisis, it will need to take back its position in the world, and that position is one that places a high value on proper authority, correctly administered education, humility, and order.

The approach I take in this book (and subsequently on most of my social media posts and comments) is one of cautious optimism. When I look at the world around me, I see much cause for hope. In John 18:37 we read, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." Religion, of late, has been downgraded (in the eyes of most Western nations) to the level of weekend hobby; just another in a long list of potential religious options, all of which are presented as more or less equal in worth. In our country, especially, we are supposed to believe that each person's individual religious practices don't really matter, because we're all Americans, first and foremost. (It's interesting that once upon a time, many a pope stated that national allegiances and cultural practices didn't really matter, because we were all Catholics, first and foremost) Choosing a religion nowadays, for most people, is like picking a card from a Magic the Gathering deck. If you draw the Scientology card, you're now a Scientologist. If you draw the Traditional Catholicism card, you're now a Traditional Catholic. Are we supposed to assume that practically everyone is hell-bound because they picked the wrong choice from a list of hundreds (if not thousands) of potential religious affiliations without any real guidance whatsoever? When I read that passage in John, I hear Christ telling us that He, the Truth, will exist forever, whether we see it or not, everywhere that Truth can be seen, heard, or otherwise understood. If an atheist dives into a swamp to rescue a drowning child, thereby sacrificing his own life to a hungry alligator (I live in Florida, so this is a real concern), he has followed a Universal Truth in determining this course of action, and has therefore done a very Catholic thing in his final moments, whether he knows it or not. I cannot make God's judgment for him, and I can't determine with any degree of certainty whether or not this last, selfless deed was enough to save our hypothetical atheist from Hell.

In this regard, I see in the world around us much call for maintaining Hope. I see the Truth popping up everywhere, in places where one might least expect to find it, no less. I see it in movies and on TV, shining through even some of the most vehemently anti-Catholic, Hollywood rhetoric. I hear it in conversations between atheists, Protestants, liberals, and conservatives in social media and in the "real world." It's almost as if the Truth itself refuses to be kept down. It forces its way up into the foreground, and when it does it has an amazing, almost subconscious impact on everything around it. I ask myself from time to time, "If demons can exert influence on human affairs, and interject subtle error into interactions that otherwise appear to be morally and theologically sound, then why can't Angels exert a similar, subtle influence on things which appear to be fundamentally evil or even directly opposed to Catholic teaching?" Consider the film The Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. In his wrap-up speech, Al Pacino (as the Devil) remarks on how he used the 20th Century to convince the entire world that each person is his or her own, personal god, and that they need only to look into themselves, to their wants and desires, for all of their decision making, thereby using their passions and whims as their guide. This, of course, is presented as the position of Satan, and is almost identical to the many warnings about Satan's creed that have been delivered by many, many popes throughout the centuries. In this example, the Truth of Christ is implied by Pacino's character's speech and is soundly Catholic, in that it is inarguably true. The remaining content in the film might remain questionable, theologically inaccurate (as when Keanu Reeves "defeats" the Devil by committing suicide), or even downright anti-Catholic... yet the Truth shines through regardless: There is a real Devil, and he wants you to think that you are your own god. This has been true since the serpent in the Garden.

The essential point I am trying to make with this book is that there are two ways a Catholic can view the world around them; a constructive way in which we seek to deliver the Truth of Christ, pointing Him out whenever and wherever we see Him, and a self-destructive way in which we wallow in our own despair and bitterness while giving up on our Christian duty to spread the Truth to those who are ignorant of it. I prefer the former approach. I am also trying to remind people that the Universal Truth of Catholicism involves all things everywhere, even those things that outwardly seem to have nothing to do with religion. The Church has as its primary charge the salvation of souls through the teaching of Truth and the unmasking of Satan's deceptions. Lastly, I would like people to come away from this book with a widened sense of just how actively involved Christ still is in this modern world of ours. There is no use in drawing a line of distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic issues, topics, studies, art, etc. If Catholicism is truly Universal Law, then nothing falls outside of its scope! And I believe that the tide has turned in this battle against modernism. Once the Truth has been rejected, chaos, confusion, and destruction must necessarily take its place... but chaos, confusion, and destruction are, by their very nature, fleeting and ephemeral.
Part One- Marriage and Relationships

Making Money Before You're Married

In response to one man's Facebook search for suggestions regarding appropriate and sufficient wage, debt, and miscellaneous financial considerations prior to looking for a wife, I posted the following response: (Most advice seemed to be pointing this man into securing his status in the middle-class income bracket before dating.)

- I wonder, what would our nation look like if married couples were both free of debt and classified as middle class according to their total income. Wage slave/poverty class people are abundant in the USA (and everywhere else, for that matter), and this advice suggests that they not seek a spouse until they are freed of that bondage. In the early years of the Church, slavery was common, until the early Popes effected the freeing of all slaves. The first step in this liberation was to allow slaves to marry and partake in the other sacraments. There was no disclaimer requiring that they first pay off debts or meet minimum income requirements. Poor people get married, wage slaves have children, and married couples stay together in good times and in bad. This includes good financial times and bad financial times. In short, I would suggest that you continue to establish yourself in your chosen career field, but don't close yourself off to the possibility of meeting a good woman, marrying her, and starting a family. You may come up against stumbling blocks on your way to fame and fortune, and what better than a loyal wife and the love of your children to support you through such obstacles?

- Protestantism, on the other hand, preaches (heretically) what they call the "prosperity gospel," which essentially claims that wealth is the primary, outward sign of God's blessings. The stereotype of the suburban, WASPy parents refusing to give their blessing to their children's marriages until after they obtain at least a Masters Degree is a symptom of this harmful teaching. My suggestion to you would be to find someone who you can love effortlessly, with whom you can share your faith, your hopes for the future, and with whom you can raise a family steeped in Christian Charity. Forget about all that income and debt nonsense.

Following several other posts about the importance of "providing," which in this case seemed more often than not to mean "thriving," I added the following:

- My wife and I started at the absolute lowest point possible... a Florida trailer park. And I mean a monthly-contest-for-the-least-amount-of-empty-beer-cans-in-your-front-yard trailer park. I already had a 7 year-old daughter from a previous relationship over whom I had been granted custody. I had no job, no marketable skills (my military training didn't translate well into civilian life). But it turns out that poverty is easier to tackle when you and your spouse act as a cohesive unit; a two-person team against the world. Despair is easier to conquer when you have someone to help remind you of hope. I'm not saying that no attention should be paid to establishing yourself financially prior to seeking a wife/husband. By all means, use the precious years of your youth to gain skills and experience... but there has to be a line drawn somewhere, on the other side of which is acceptance of one's station in life, at least for purposes of deciding to finally get married and start a family. And don't forget that marriage doesn't mean that your quest for a higher station is over. You don't have to surrender just because you realigned your priorities.

In the end, after my comments had been taken as a direct assault on the very core of their beliefs by several participants in the thread (one of whom declared that his priest had suggested that he not seek a wife until after he achieved his career goals), I concluded my conversational involvement with:

- I've been in an incredible amount of debt my entire life. If I had waited for the proverbial skies to clear, I'd be wifeless and childless now. As it stands, I have a wonderful wife and four wonderful children. I'm not presuming to second guess a priest, but I am relaying conversations I've had with my bishop and a handful of other priests. Everyone must weigh their own needs and wants via the resources at their disposal, assign their own priorities, and make the best, most moral decision they can with what they have been given. I apologize if it came off as a direct confrontation. I was simply attempting to present a view which I know many of us have had no choice but to adopt, due to lack of financial success. I wouldn't want to see someone pass up what could be the biggest blessing in their life simply because their net income hasn't yet reached some arbitrary minimum requirement.

I think the best way to look at this particular issue would be to use a bit of a categorical imperative approach (if I may borrow from the non-Catholic philosopher Immanuel Kant), which means acting in such a way as to assume that the maxim of your every action were to set a standard of behavior for the entire population. In short, what if everyone waited to be comfortably "well-off" before beginning a family? It's a generally well-known phenomenon that minimum wage (at least in the United States) does not afford someone an independent life. It costs more than minimum wage to pay the living expenses for one person in most areas... at least if one desires to remain outside of the ghetto side of town. But here's the thing: people live in and raise families in the ghetto. It's not without its potential dangers, but which station in life is above potential dangers? If we all waited to earn, say, 20% higher than minimum wage before beginning to look for a wife, let alone have children, the human population on Earth would dwindle to a mere fraction of its current number after only a few generations. Now, consider what would happen to the economy if the primary generation numbered less than half of their parents' generation?

The Rape Accusation Cup Overfloweth

If you post an Internet meme (a picture accompanied by a brief sentence or two, conceived in order to make a quick point for either humorous or thought-provoking purposes) which claims that "One should never need 'proof' to believe a rape victim- no matter the circumstances," you have to expect a vehement response from those who understand the value of defending potentially innocent people against potentially damning accusations. A Facebook friend grabbed this meme from somebody else and reposted it to his own page (under the header "Idiot of the day award goes to..."). He did this not in agreement with the sentiment presented in the meme, but in an effort to spark discussion amongst friends. I harkened back to my barhopping days for my contribution to these Facebook proceedings:

- If I had a nickel for every time I've heard from a complete stranger, the following sentence: "I don't ever tell anyone this, buy I was raped once," I'd have a sizable mountain of nickels. Are they all telling the truth? Are they all lying? I knew someone who was raped once. She kept that fact hidden for the first year of my knowing her. Finally, she told me in confidence, in a place where no unwanted ears could possibly overhear. I believed her without evidence. As for the rest, I'm sorry but I'm going to need to know a little more before I condemn someone whom I've never even met. Never underestimate the depths to which some people will sink just to get a little sympathetic attention. This may sound like a heartless response, but I have caught several women lying about this very issue... and one even admitted to me that she lied about being raped. When I asked her why, she replied that she enjoyed the tenderness with which a man would handle her if he was under the impression that she had been the victim of a sex crime.

Realizing that, despite my brief explanation as to why I chose to adopt this position, I appeared to be harshly criticizing women who claim they have been raped, I added something that occurred to me years ago while chatting with someone whose brother had been accused of rape because both he and the woman with whom he had spent the evening were inebriated:

- I will add this, however: In a way, we have all been raped by the lousy culture in which we all live. How many of us watched our first hard-core pornographic film before we were ten? To a greater or lesser extent, we all exhibit the behavior of a rape victim because we've had our innocence ripped from us at a very young age.

Women, though, can't go around saying, "Hey, I was raped by the actions of a nation exhibiting a warped, opportunistic understanding of the 1st Amendment!..." Especially since we are conditioned as a nation to applaud entrepreneurial success even in cases of morally bankrupt businesses, such as porn production houses. So instead, they convert that lost feeling; that need for sympathy in the face of severe depression, into a rape story. They say that there's truth even in lies, and if someone is going around telling everybody they come across that they've been raped... even if it's not true, that person may still be suffering greatly under some unseen, menacing demon.

I do not believe, though, that some innocent man should be put behind bars for a crime he didn't commit, if and when someone's manufactured rape story decides to claim a sacrificial victim.

How to Scare Potential Converts Away in One, Quick Move

One issue that has always bothered me is that of some Catholics refusing to attend the weddings of their friends and family (especially family!) if the wedding in question takes place in a non-Catholic Church. This is also true of certain Traditional Catholics who refuse to attend weddings in Novus Ordo Churches. I finally was able to put together (what I believe to be) a strong argument against this type of behavior:

- If we lived in a Catholic nation, composed of a majority Catholic population, then I think the answer to this might be a bit different. In that case, those marrying outside of the Church would be doing so as an act of conscious defiance. But to refuse to participate or attend a non-Catholic wedding in Contemporary America would be tantamount to isolating oneself from almost everyone, including the very people we should be trying to lead towards the Truth. I would excuse myself from certain elements of these weddings, such as their incomplete version of communion, for example. But I see no reason not to stand by someone who is getting married, even if that marriage is taking place in a non-Catholic church. Basically, your presence says, "You'll have at least one Catholic friend to help you along the way."

We can attend a non-Catholic wedding and still demonstrate to others through our example just how completely satisfied and blessed we feel to be Catholic. They might remember our example years down the road when their own religion and/or secular belief structure fails them.

On the flip side, if we present as a people who wall ourselves in, denying to be a part of the world around us, the impression we will give people of Catholicism will not be a positive one. When it comes time for a friend or family member to consider a change in their life, Catholicism won't even make the list of potential options. More than likely they'll think to themselves, "You know, I might not be happy where I am, but at least I'm not as miserable as those miserly, isolationist Catholics." Remember what was once said by a very important person in a very important book: "woe be to those who lead my sheep astray... etc., etc.?" This sort of standoffish behavior comes dangerously close to leading the sheep astray, or at the very least, preventing their wandering anywhere near the flock.

Go to the Wedding, but Don't Bring Scandal

As stated above, I disagree with the advice I've heard many a Catholic give to lay men and women asking for permission to attend a Protestant wedding ceremony. (And since this isn't a matter of actual dogma, I'm allowed to disagree.) One of the primary reasons for my difference of opinion can be summed up with this response comment I posted to a debate on this exact topic:

- I went to a friend's wedding once, and it was (I think) a Presbyterian ceremony. This friend's entire family was present and during the wedding and reception, I found myself chatting with a Protestant who was in attendance and (at the time) engaged. Further conversation revealed that he was not sure how he felt about having kids. Since I have four children of my own, he obviously had a plethora of questions for me, seeking honest advice about children from one man to another. I told him a lot about my Faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding families, children, marriage, etc.

Anyways, to make a long story short, that Protestant started attending Latin Mass several months later and is in the process of converting as I write this. There's really no way of knowing if our presence somewhere is going to be the exact right presence, in the exact right place, at the exact right time to make a huge difference in someone's life. To deny this would be to say that God cannot sew his Truths into unusual or unconventional situations. If you're a Catholic and you've been invited to someone's non-Catholic wedding, I'd say go ahead and attend. But I'd also say it's absolutely necessary to present yourself and your Church to others in the best possible light while you're attending. Don't invite scandal by over-drinking at the reception and flirting relentlessly with all the single ladies present (for example).

The Quagmire of Infidelity in the Modern World

One of my friends suffered the receiving end of infidelity in his marriage. This is something that nobody wants to experience personally, and in today's world infidelity more often than not ends in divorce. My view on this topic probably seems unusual to most people, but I feel that it's more realistic and mature than the consensus view on the issue:

- There is a pervasive atmosphere of chaotic, fleeting selfishness throughout our entire civilization. We are bombarded with the marketing of selfishness on an almost constant basis. This selfishness takes the form of a culture of instant gratification and attacks relentlessly, every hour of every day of our lives. Think about how often you hear or see some sort of sexual innuendo between the time you wake up in the morning and the time you arrive at work (assuming you work a regular, day job). I'm guessing you'll lose count after 50. How long are people, especially those without a strong Faith, expected to withstand the endless waves of temptation before they buckle? We are, after all, only human and predisposed to sin horribly, and none of us would deserve salvation but for the Grace and Mercy of God.

Our first inclination when faced with a cheating spouse is to cut bait and run. However, if we can all honestly understand and acknowledge this permeating disease, we can perhaps more easily forgive each other for being victims of it. Even the most horrific offenses can be put behind us through a mature sense of real forgiveness. In short, whatever horror you've suffered through the actions of an unfaithful spouse, I hope forgiveness finds its way into your life. Stay strong!

Infidelity is a terrible experience, to be sure, but as stated above we are bombarded with sexual imagery, persuasion, advertisements, flirtation, etc. on an almost minutely basis, every day of our lives thanks to the licentious nature of our society. We are told to work hard in our chosen careers, but given every distraction imaginable. We are told to live with moderation, but teased with excess and gluttony at every turn. We are told to be loyal to our spouses, but challenged to seduce and be seduced as often as possible.

There was a time when divorces and/or annulments would not be granted in cases of infidelity. That was not because infidelity was scarce. Rather, it was so common that allowing divorce in cases of infidelity would have effectively rendered the institution of marriage almost entirely null and void. In other words, as we can see in the world today, divorce becomes wide-spread and common, and threatens the very fabric of family life, when each instance of infidelity leads to divorce.

Forgiveness, understanding, and (above all else) the Sacrament of Confession are the keys to moving past infidelity. Also, a realistic understanding of what marriage is truly intended to be can help a couple to heal from these wounds. Marriage isn't a period of extended dating, viewed in the same way one views "leveling up" in a video game. Marriage is the creation of a new, everlasting family, tasked with the duty of contributing positively to participating actively in society as a cohesive unit. Good times and bad, marriage must remain firm even in the face of horrid behavior by either party. This isn't to say that separation is never necessary when one party becomes a danger to the other and to their children... but that discussion is for a different time.

Are you Getting Divorced, or Do you Reject the Disney Fairy Tale?

While this entry might seem to be a near duplicate of the previous entry, I included it because I thought it expanded on the point I was attempting to make.

Divorce is something that is all too common in the modern world, and in many places it would seem that once you're married, you have a less than 50% chance of staying married. I responded to a sullen, hopeless post about this phenomenon. This post included a question to which I refer in my response:

- There's a reason why cheating was never a valid reason for divorce or annulment, and it's not because it rarely happened back in the "good old days." It happened all the time. Probably as much if not more than it happens now. (Just read Chaucer.) The reason was that marriages were expected to weather these types of storms. Married couples witness the very worst in each other, but they are supposed to stick together regardless and exercise forgiveness constantly... thus providing a perfect, real-world, Christian example of forgiveness for their children to witness. A Catholic family is intended to be a reflection of God's relationship with us. If someone can leave their spouse forever because of infidelity, it's pretty much the same as Christ leaving us forever because we committed this or that sin.

Unfortunately, the answer to the first part of your question (why is divorce so common) is present in the second part (I wouldn't want my child to stay in a marriage with a cheater). Somewhere along the line, people began divorcing each other over sexual infidelity... and just about any other issue that could be seen as ruining the "honeymoon phase" of their marriages... and look what happened! Now divorce is so common they sell "Do it Yourself Divorce Packs" in the front of book stores next to a display of Stephen King's newest novel.

Obviously, divorce over infidelity isn't the only thing that has ruined the institution of marriage... But it is a powerful example to use in order to demonstrate the gravity of the solemn promise; "in good times and in bad." Don't let Disney dictate how your marriage is going to play out. Sometimes you'll hate your spouse... But you'll still love them at the same time. Sometimes you'll want to leave your spouse, then you'll wonder how you could go on without her or him. You'll hurt each other in the most personal ways possible. And you'll inspire each other in ways no one else even understands. Don't make the mistake of saying, "Well, those 'bad times' are for lesser marriages. Ours will be superior! We will never fight! We'll be happy constantly, and we'll avoid those 'bad times' because we really love each other, unlike those other marriages..." Don't fall into that trap, because you won't avoid the bad times. Yes, you love each other and no, that doesn't make your marriage an exception to the rule. You'll go through all of it... the good times and the bad times, just like every other couple.

However, given all this, the Church still places marriage and families in an extremely high place of honor. Marriage itself is a Sacrament. (MARRIAGE is a sacrament, not just the wedding ceremony by itself.) The Church requires maturity, forgiveness, selflessness, faith, courage, endurance, and loyalty in the marriages to which She gives Her blessing. Yet, all of those qualities are woefully rarefied in today's society.

And that's why divorce is running rampant in this modern world.

No, Jesus is not OK with you Beating your Wife.

Believe it or not, there are some fringe "Catholics" who take issue with every single trend in the modern world for the sole reason that each of these trends are found in the modern world. There are some who hate Jews because the secular world tells them not to hate Jews. There are others who take illegal drugs, for no other reason than the world has told them that it is unhealthy... that, and they are obviously suffering from BS-excuses-for-a-hardcore-drug-addiction Syndrome. And then there are those who believe that a man should be allowed to beat his wife in order to keep them in line, just because wife-beating is largely unpopular in the modern world:

- OK, so I've seen a couple posts in the past hour suggesting that men should beat their wives in order to keep them in line. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you (you know who you are!) seem to have missed the entire point of Christianity. The world may truly be steeped in secular modernism, but that doesn't mean you need to actually support the unpopular side of every issue (such as domestic violence), simply because you hate the secular, modern world. Also, you're making it 10,000 times more difficult to bring more people to Christ because your actions are going to reflect negatively on Catholicism. How many converts do you expect to win over with an image of a Catholic Church full of beer-guzzling criminals and their frightened, bruised, and broken wives and children? Also, where in the Catechism have you found permission to assault people weaker than you? Which popes and saints have discussed the benefits of physically and/or psychologically torturing your own family? I'd personally prefer it if you'd just break off and form your own Church of Woman Battering Alcoholic A** H***s. I know this reproach won't make even a modicum of an impact on any of you, but I figured you should at least know that you're not welcome... not as far as this Catholic is concerned. I'm not an administrator on this group, but I have no doubts that the administrators have no interest in your "thoughts" on immoral, abusive, criminal activity endorsements.

- I've met a few "Traditionalists" who support this notion. They simply oppose anything and everything that exists in contemporary times, pro forma. In addition to the spousal abuse issue, they may also maintain that black people are inferior human beings; they oppose the illegality of drugs because they "never used to be illegal;" they oppose drunk driving laws because contemporary society frowns upon it; they oppose the very existence of the Nazi Holocaust, etc, etc, etc. Then they wander into a Latin Mass Church somewhere along the way and, because it's old and unpopular, they leech onto it. That's not Traditionalism, it's archeologism (the love of something old just because it's old).

- As I stated above, I'd rather they just form a cult in a separate building, away from my Traditional Latin Mass. I've brought people to the Mass who are in awe at how beautiful it is. They begin talking of converting... then they chat with some of these radical parishioners and run for the hills screaming. The Church wants those who treat everyone (including their spouse) with Christian Charity and the same tenderness and forgiveness with which Christ Himself treated others while he was on Earth in the flesh. If we present as a happy people, satisfied and comfortable in the lives we've carved out for ourselves, others will see in us something that is missing in their own lives. The example we display to the world of our wholesome existence, our thriving family life, and our stable and secure religious beliefs will make a better argument for conversion of the masses than anything we might verbalize in defense of Catholic teaching.

Part Two- Children

Destroy Planets Rather than Wake a Sleeping Child, a Humorous Interlude

My wife and I refer to our middle daughter, whose name is Beatrice, as "the Beables." At the time this status update was posted, the Beables was about two and a half years-old. I know other parents will sympathize with just how difficult it is to get a two year-old to fall asleep and stay asleep once they've decided that they don't want to be alone in their bedroom. All noise must be immediately muffled to a decibel level low enough to not wake up your sleeping babe:

- So, after finally setting my sleeping Beables down in her bed as silently as possible, I turned around and proceeded to step on Peppa Pig's, leg-side-up, doll-house bunk bed. The resulting pain was unbearable, to put it lightly. I successfully channeled the resulting scream of excruciating pain through a trans-dimensional wormhole in the space/time continuum and exploded an entire star system on the other side of the galaxy. The Beables, however, remained asleep though so I'm calling it a win.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programing:

Having Kids Gets in the Way of My Barhopping

The Pope recently brought up what he termed the "culture of comfort," and how it is to blame for the rising number of childless marriages. His sound reasoning on this issue declares that because the birthing and raising of children is difficult, and requires a substantial amount of sacrifice and "growing up," many married couples are simply opting to avoid procreation all together. Being a married man with four children, I had a thing or two to share on this particular topic:

- The definition of marriage in contemporary society has changed to something that is more easily swept aside. Divorces are skyrocketing, and in many arenas they have actually passed the half-way point (more than 50% of marriages are dissolved). Why does this number keep rising? Christian marriages used to be thought of as the building blocks of society. These were balanced households where all basic needs were met by a husband, a wife, and their children. Nowadays, the building blocks of this crumbling society are sole individuals... bitter, selfish, and incomplete. That chronic bitterness and selfishness are reflected not only in our government, but in everyday institutions of all sorts leaving us with a distrustful, paranoid society which is circling the proverbial drain. Having kids means "growing up" and becoming an adult, which is something that is generally frowned upon by our culture of instant-gratification and self-serving motives. In fact, having children is by far the most difficult thing I've ever done (and I completed Marine Corps boot camp once upon a time). It's physically and mentally draining. It's thankless more often than not. It literally beats you into the pavement until there's nothing left but sleep-deprived, bloody chunks of flesh... but it's still more than worth it every time a child smiles at you, and I'd go through it a thousand times more if I could.

The Pros and Cons of Spanking Unruly Children

Apparently, the disciplining of children is still a hot-button issue, even among Catholics. A priest I know posted a painting of a bishop (presumably St. Nicholas) correcting a child, complete with the use of a long, narrow cane or switch. The purpose of his posting this was to illustrate his frustration at unruly children during Mass. The post was not intended to be a serious statement of any sort, and was more akin to a frustrated kindergarten teacher watching Arnold Schwarzenegger's Kindergarten Cop after a long and stressful day in the trenches of American primary education. The image, however, sparked a massive debate about the pros and cons of spanking as a disciplinary action. I chimed in with my thoughts on the subject:

- I honestly don't have a problem with the picture. Different degrees of discipline are appropriate depending on the severity of the offense, the character of the misbehaving child, and many other variables. The society in which we currently live is one that attempts to make parents feel guilty if they even mildly spank a child in the midst of a temper tantrum. And the fruits of this relaxed attitude on disciplinary strategies with children are evident in the character (or lack thereof) of the current generation. Something went wrong somewhere along the line. Even as recently as 80 years ago, it would not have been out of place for a priest to do something like this if a child was disrespectful during the Consecration portion of the Mass, for example. And I can guarantee that the child in question would think twice before disrespecting the Consecration ever again.

- Having been through Marine boot camp, I can say that even some of the strictest, scariest disciplinary actions can be done out of caring and love. (A drill instructor doesn't discipline a recruit because he hates him, he does it because he wants to make a mature, fully-trained, disciplined Marine out of him.) A severe disciplining can be vividly symbolic of the dangerous spiritual harm which can result from unchecked, sinful behavior. A disrespectful act in a child delivers a hurt to his or her spiritual/adult formation equal to the physical hurt of a harsh spanking.

That said, I rarely spank my children. Yes, there are other methods of correction and discipline which can be equally or even more successful, but it is wrong to attempt to deny parents the option of corporal punishment, for only parents can make the final determination on which form of punishment and disciplinary action will work best with their child.

- When I was a child, I attended a Novus Ordo Catholic School. During the Friday mass each week, the boys in my class (myself included) would try to squeeze the blood out of each others' hands during the Our Father (Pater Noster) prayer. One week, the priest caught us doing this. He came into our class later that day and tore into us with a white-hot, red-faced, Irish rage. To this day, I have NEVER AGAIN been disrespectful during the Lord's prayer. His righteous anger and harsh reaction taught me a valuable lesson I might never have gleaned from a gentle "talking-to."

Stolen Children Make the Future Look Bleak

A news story popped up about a family in Norway whose children were taken away by the government because of (as quoted by the original article) "Christian Indoctrination." I wasn't able to figure out exactly what they meant by that. Obviously there is a difference between Catholic parents teaching their children that the things they learn in school shouldn't always be accepted as gospel truth, and Fundamentalist Mormons marrying 10 year-old girls in prison-like compounds. All indications, however, seem to suggest that the family in question was not dangerous, and simply held a view that was different from the secularist view of the Norwegian government.

As one might expect, this has caused a bit of an uproar. A few friends of mine were understandably incensed by the story and began commenting about how dismal the future outlook of humanity is in the face of these types of appalling events. I was inclined to feel the same way at first, but we still must maintain faith that there will be a brighter future, and it was with this in mind that I replied to their comments:

- As terrible as this is, it is likely that we will start seeing a massive turn-around in the hearts and minds of much of the population at this point. The Anti-Catholic/Revolutionary demons from Hell have run their course and are finding it more and more difficult to mask the failures of their doomed methodology. Those demons have successfully reintroduced slavery into the world, caused an embarrassingly low child-per-family average, and managed to create a tyrannical, Godless empire that can do nothing but win enemies of late. There is a turn of the tide coming. Our fiction and art are beginning to betray a hidden emptiness and a yearning for better days.

Even the Catholic Church has begun to shine a little brighter on the pages of contemporary literature, screenplays, and other media outlets, despite the continuing presence of Anti-Catholic rhetoric almost everywhere we look. Where the revolutionary used to sing "All Catholics are bad," they have now changed their tune to "There are good Catholics and bad Catholics." Never mind, for the moment, that their understanding of the words "good" and "bad" may be skewed... for this is just the beginning of an about-face for the revolutionaries. In this first of many steps, it may be enough for them to simply open their minds to the idea of a "good Catholic." Stories like this one will make people think, "Wow, did they really deserve to lose their children?" There will always be those who are adamantly against Christianity in general... and these would love to take children away from devout Catholics at every turn... but here I'm talking about those who have been told their entire lives that Catholicism is evil, yet have no well-reasoned opinion of their own on the matter. They just accept what they're told because nobody tells them any differently. Horrific events like these might begin to turn some heads towards an injustice which might have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Don't let despair get the best of you! To properly surrender wholly and completely to Faith in Christ, we have to strive to find that Faith which shines through even the thickest smoke of Satan.

- I see war on the horizon. I also see incredible growth in the True Church. It never fails! War has a way of bringing everybody a little closer to God. When your next breath could easily be your last, you tend to want to make peace with your Maker, and to stay in His Good Graces. Those of us who are already blessed enough to have found the Traditional Church just need to be ready to present its peace and its promise again and again to all those around us who are casting about for answers. Do you know how many conversions to Catholicism took place, en masse, during WWII? It just goes to prove that Satan's best laid plans are destined to fall short of the mark. Always have been, always will be. We're on the winning side!

Stand Between Me and My Kid... Go Ahead, I Dare You!

A news item out of Michigan recently brought to light a subversive, new law which requires that all children, aged 12 to 17 years, must be separated from their parents for private one-on-one time with their doctors. The intended reason for this is the private discussion of information about sex, STDs, and birth control between doctors and underage boys and girls without their parents being present. I s**t you not, this is the official reason for the law! We're not talking about a situation where a parent brings a child to the emergency room with cuts, bruises, and evidence of rape. Obviously, in life-threatening situations like that, it's at least understandable as to why a doctor might want to determine whether or not the child's parent is responsible for the abuse... but even in those cases, law requires the constant presence of a child-services representative and/or a police officer while the doctor is speaking with the minor. This is not the case in Michigan, however. This law puts your child into a room, alone, with a doctor, and the parent has no say in the matter.

Having four children myself, I had a thing or two to say about this disgusting abuse of government:

- This is an extremely slippery slope... and it will not only be abused, it will be abused A LOT. Even if you don't have a problem with teenagers receiving info about sex, STDs, and birth control, it still takes parental authority away from parents, and it doesn't even pretend NOT to do so. We live in a country based almost entirely on legal precedents, and this is a precedent that will be cited again and again in the future when further attempts are made to strip even more authority from parents... or teachers, or employers, etc. And there's nothing about this that suggests that the parent hasn't had "the talk" with their child(ren). We're not talking about grossly negligent parents here... Many parents, while understanding the realities of teenagers' lives these days, still wish to NOT condone this or that type of sexual activity or behavior. That's their right as parents, regardless of whether or not the government agrees with their reasoning. And I personally don't care whether the nurse wants to ask my daughter if she has an itchy toe or if she wants to participate in a pornographic film... the point isn't the subject matter of the private consultation, its the fact that they are standing between me and my child and refusing me access, which is something that I can't and won't abide.

There have been more than a few cases around the country where doctors have overstepped (sometimes by a wide margin) their bounds when it comes to dealing with underage patients. For example, an Ohio doctor was recently found guilty and sentenced to prison time for child pornography. It had been discovered through the course of the investigation that he used his position as a pediatric doctor to further his pornographic activities. How would any parent feel about a man like that being in a room, alone, with their child?

First Communion for a Transgendered Child?

Should a transgendered child be given First Communion. Most orthodox-minded Catholics would almost immediately jump to a resounding "No way!" on this issue, but the more I thought about it, the less clear the issue became. I mentioned as much in a comment thread on a posted article concerning a real-world case on this very topic. This article revolved around a young boy who attended his First Communion in a girl's communion dress.

- If "transgenderism" is a verifiable mental disorder, should First Communion be withheld? Would you withhold it from an autistic or schizophrenic kid? It's doubtful that a child of such a young age would be intentionally revolting against Church doctrine. Obviously, this falls on the parents for propagating and enabling this delusion within their child. And if this is the case, should communion be withheld from the child because of the parents' sin? I would be inclined to say that the presence of Christ in that child's life would be largely beneficial to them as they come into adulthood, but I'm not a priest. It's a tough call when you stop and think about whether or not sinful intention is present in the person to whom the first communion is being given.

I also see no problem in the priest requiring the proper attire. Like I said, it seems cut and dry on the surface, but the extremely young age of the child makes it difficult.

In response, another group member suggested that if the First Communion was allowed in this one case, many others would line up to follow in these footsteps. It would open a door to more and more instances of this type of abuse.

- Oh, I agree. If this one person does it, then it's OK for everyone to do it. How does one make a single exception to a rule without teasing others into seeking the same treatment... especially those who are out to test the resolve of Catholic doctrine?

If anything, I just feel bad for this poor kid. I think it's abusive to not raise your child into his/her God-given gender. Even if you have no problem with transgendered adults, how are you going to determine that a young child is "one gender trapped in another gender's body?" My child used to tell me she was a cat... should I champion her rights to trans-species-ism? Or should I just pretend I'm a dog and chase her around the house while she giggles and meows? I guess the difficulty here really comes from the possibility that the parents might not dress the child in the proper attire out of some misplaced sense of protest. In this case, should the child suffer for his parents' misplaced rebellion? Because if he is denied First Communion because the parents are awful and won't budge, then you have a child who hasn't received Christ because of somebody else's sinful behavior. I hate that this is even an issue at all, but I can certainly see this happening in today's world. One thing's for sure... I'm glad I'm not the priest who has to make this call. Pitfalls in every direction, and all because of some abusive, idiotic, and stubborn parents!

The primary directive of the Church is the salvation of souls, and here we have a child whose soul is still innocent, not yet having reached the "age of reason," per se. Assuming the parents won't budge, maybe the priest could do the First Communion is private, so as not to publicly endorse the parents' immoral ideology? Obviously, there will be some serious obstacles in this young boy's life as he grows into an adult, and the presence of Christ in his life may help him to overcome some or all of those obstacles. There may be a very slim chance that this kid will grow into a productive, obedient member of the Roman Catholic Church... but it would be despairing to assume that it's impossible.

The Best Age for Confirmation

One of Catholicism's standard practices, with which I find myself in disagreement with a vast majority of traditionally-minded Catholics, is the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is common practices in most dioceses to Confirm 8th graders, who are typically around 12 years-old. My reading and studies in Church Tradition and writings have led me to take a slightly different position on this issue:

- Confirmation is supposed to be a point in which the individual decides to remain actively and devoutly Catholic of their own, conscious volition. Call me crazy, but isn't arbitrarily deciding what age that will be for every Catholic child a bit presumptuous? I baptized my daughter and she had her first communion. But as hard as it is for me to do this, I am waiting for her to ask for confirmation. I've let her know that it's there for her when she wants it. She is currently 16 years-old. If I were to make it compulsory, it would essentially just be another baptism.

I was confirmed in 8th grade, at a Novus Ordo Catholic School. It meant absolutely nothing to me, and only succeeded in getting in the way of my video gaming and baseball card collecting. My parents and teachers told me I had to be Confirmed, so I did what I was told to do. When I "converted" to the Traditional Latin Mass, I was conditionally confirmed into the Traditional Church. THAT time, my Confirmation meant the world to me.

Also, I've run this approach by more than a few priests whose opinions and answers I value, and I was told by all that there is no sin in what I'm doing. The generally-accepted age of Confirmation is by no means dogmatic.

- The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not give an age number. It does say that until children have attained the proper use of reason, the administration of this Sacrament is inexpedient, and if that child is not ready, it is not wrong to postpone the Sacrament. According to the Catechism, during and after Confirmation we essentially put away the things of childhood. A candidate for Confirmation must (again, according to the Catechism) sincerely desire to gain the Grace and gifts of this Sacrament.

In today's world, I know more than a few 20-somethings who haven't yet attained the ability to properly use reason. They are not ready to put away the things of Childhood, and they certainly don't truly desire the Grace and gifts of Confirmation... even those who were Baptised and took their First Communion. We no longer live in a world where 14 and 15 year-olds are considered mature and bear adult responsibilities. We also no longer teach right reason, logic, and moral thinking in our schools... even in most of our Catholic schools.

In Baptism, our parents promise to bring us up in the Church. In Confirmation, we promise to take this responsibility onto ourselves and to go forward in the Church, armed appropriately... but the catch is, it must be truly desired, not feigned for the sake of parents and teachers.

Again, to reiterate, the Catechism of Trent warns to not confirm before a person can properly reason like an adult and truly desire in their hearts the Grace and gifts of Confirmation. Compulsory Confirmation at best gets feigned interest from kids for fear of disappointing their parents, getting in trouble, or upsetting their teachers.

In the days which are inevitably to come, we will need Catholics who adamantly defend their Faith, even in the midst of persecution. I can't imagine that those who were obliged to follow through with the Sacrament of Confirmation when they were 12 years-old will be of much use in these regards. They might contribute to statistical numbers, but I'd rather have a handful of devout Catholics than a battalion of Catholics-in-name-only. One might make the argument that someone who was confirmed at age 12 might become more devout later in life... but if that is the case, they could voluntarily undergo the Sacrament of Confirmation at that point, having already received Baptism and First Communion as children. They wouldn't be denied the True Presence of Christ in their life due to their lack of having been Confirmed... that is the expressed purpose of Baptism and First Communion. That Presence, left to work its way into the person's soul, could guide the person back to Confirmation later in life, when they are ready for it. Then we would have a Catholic who truly decided of their own volition to remain Catholic and defend the Church against aggressors. An army of these types of Catholics would be formidable indeed!

My Conversion has Upset My Dad

A Facebook friend posted in a group that her father had taken serious offense at her conversion to Catholicism. He had accused her of heading towards the "Devil's camp." She wanted to know what she could do to try to convince him of the Truth. These situations can be sticky and extremely uncomfortable. I tried to offer as much positive insight as I could:

- If he's into politics and philosophy, maybe recommend that he read G.K. Chesterton. I've known MANY people who converted after reading him. Malachi Martin's Hostage to the Devil is a good look at the Church as the ultimate safeguard against Satan... and since he is speaking of the "Devil's Camp," he might learn a thing or two about the Devil's true colors. Also, Hostage to the Devil is a great read, and flows like a novel.

Another participant in the conversation suggested that providing the father with information (in the form of books, websites, etc.) might actually make him even angrier, and less likely to listen to reason.

- That depends on the information. Some Catholic writers were widely accepted and admired, even by Protestants... In this case, he may simply enjoy a well-written, thought-provoking book. The fact that the authors of these books were soundly Catholic might just sit in his brain and simmer for a while. This is why I suggested Chesterton. Catholics, Anglicans, and even modern-day agnostics have found good sense, humor, and eye-opening political theorizing in his writings. And a more knowledgeable, scholarly Catholic is hard to find. If your father likes fiction/fantasy, try to get him to read Lord of the Rings. Again, J.R.R. Tolkien was an extremely orthodox Catholic... but loved by all.

- I believe that subtlety is the key to conversion nowadays. So many people, in so many different walks of life, are conditioned from birth to build walls around themselves to protect their constitutionally-protected opinion from any external, alien influence. Even the tiniest hint of offensive movement in debate triggers that switch which closes off the ears to reason and critical analysis.

Part Three- Art and Media

X-Men and the Pros and Cons of Fiction

It's a new year, so obviously a new installment to the ongoing X-men franchise is in order. A new bad guy character has been introduced bearing the name 'Apocalypse,' who claims to have been the impetus behind the "deities" of ancient religions, including Christianity. The man who posted this news item was understandably upset that the writer/director of the film was trying to suggest that Christianity was built upon a lie from some incognito, evil arch-nemesis with superhuman genetic mutations. While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, I had to make a suggestion:

- I truly hope that nobody out there actually takes this sort of thing seriously. We're talking about a movie franchise which suggests that a genetic mutation in a person's cells is somehow capable of magnetically levitating both ferrous and non-ferrous objects (the latter of which is physically impossible... even if the possibility of genetic mutation is taken as plausible for story-telling purposes).

On a side note, I have always wondered why, within the fictional universes of comic books, we haven't seen more superheroes given their powers by angels (and supervillains by demons). It would add to the complexity and quality of the script and theme, plus it's actually FAR more believable that the ridiculous genetic mutation theory. Also, it hasn't been done much... if at all... and anything original would be welcome in the Box Office these days.

Someone posted in response that they didn't accept fiction at all, in any form, and that there was more than enough about which to write in the realm of non-fiction. In his opinion, this effectively renders fiction unnecessary and dangerous. He specifically mentioned Tolkien's works in his harsh criticism of fiction, maintaining that Tolkien was ineffective at promulgating the Catholic Faith. This comes a little too close to Sola Scriptura (salvation by scripture only... or in this case, salvation by non-fiction only) for my comfort. I believe that fiction can and often is used to strengthen Christian Truths through symbolism and allegory:

- I can't support the aforementioned statement about fiction. Fiction is art in the form of writing and storytelling. Art is how we express our hopes and fears, and how we aspire towards all things glorious, courageous, and Holy. It's part of being human, and no Catholic teaching exists which prohibits art or storytelling unless such things are intensionally designed to support sinful, evil ideals. In fact (and I hate to point this out), the only organization that prohibits almost all art (with the exception of architecture and calligraphy) is Islam. And we've run into this LOTR (Lord of the Rings) issue before. I personally have seen Tolkien's stories bring people to (or back to) the Church. I've used them as a means of teaching Catholic theology to curious friends and family. And I believe that Tolkien was perhaps one of the greatest, most pro-active Traditional Catholics of the 20th Century.

- One of the most famous works of literature of all time, Dante's Divine Comedy, is a perfect example of allegorical fiction which has garnered many Catholic admirers throughout history, including several Popes.

The Sky is Blue and Lord of the Rings is Catholic

To add to and build upon something mentioned in the previous entry, someone on Facebook made the mistake of claiming in my cyber-presence that "Lord of the Rings, and the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, are not Catholic." I cannot stress enough that LOTR is actually one of the most Catholic books written in the past several hundred years. My response to this poor guy ran as follows:

- Actually, if you read the stories carefully and understand the varying levels of meaning, symbolism, and allegory, you'll come to realize that there is hardly a more Catholic book in existence. The Ring is a symbol of creativity and ingenuity for its own sake, devoid of due devotion and recourse to God.

The characters of Gandalf and Aragorn are essentially Christ the Third Person in the Trinity and Christ the King. Gandalf dies and returns from the Dead. Aragorn is known to be the true King because of his healing hands/miracles. Gandalf begins as a humble fireworks maker (read: carpenter), but shines pure white light, like and Angel, when he fights evil head-on. Aragorn comes from a prophesied, kingly lineage and represents a long-awaited-for, Messiah-King.

The Shire is a Catholic Distributist society.

The Lembas bread given to the Fellowship had the power to sustain a man's life more and more as that man began to rely solely on Lembas for nourishment, much like many a recorded miracle of the Holy Eucharist.

The Lady Luthien is often spoken of in a similar context with which we speak of the Virgin Mary, and the light of the Silmarils (or the light of Truth) shines forth in the darkness in the form of the vial given to Frodo by Galadriel.

In short, the Lord of the Rings provides a sort of road map to us as we weather the storms of Satan in the form of modernism and progressivism. We cannot turn the source of godlessness to some good use, we must instead destroy the godlessness (The Ring). We can go forth and face any danger, even in the center of all the world's godlessness, as long as we have the ideal, Christian society behind us... even if they are unaware that they are being defended (The Shire). Many, vastly different cultures can come together under the banner of the True King, no matter what their previous differences (The Fellowship).

I recommend reading some of the material written by Charles A. Coulombe on this topic (he's a member of this group).

Also, remember that Tolkien himself was a traditional Catholic who attended mass daily and loved the Church above all else. I really think you're misrepresenting the importance of LOTR and missing out on one of the most unashamed, most commercially-successful Catholic stories of the last 1000 years.

I have always felt very strongly about this topic. And I must include a link to a greater scholar than myself when it comes to this topic:

Written by Charles A. Coulombe as referenced above:  http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/opinion/articles/coulombe/tolkien.html

The Discord of Melkor and Mary the Mother of God

How often do we hear about God the Father and his enemy, Satan? These two figures tend to comprise the bulk of all religious debates and arguments, so much so that one is apt to picture a movie poster of this ultimate face-off in one's head. I can see it now, God and Satan, naturally played by Max Von Sydow and Al Pacino, head-to-head in front of a backdrop of Michael Bay explosions, much like the Autobots and Decepticons (Transformers, for those of you who grew up sheltered in the 1980s). With this image in mind, I threw the following wrench into the proverbial gears on Facebook:

- In a conversation with a priest a few years back, I was told something that has stuck with me ever since. Figured I'd share it here:

People often mistakenly assume that the Devil/Lucifer is the antithesis/opposite of God. However, to say that something is the opposite of something else is to imply that the two are equally opposed in gravity... much like a substance with a PH acidity rating of 0 and another substance with a PH level of 14 are diametrically-opposed, yet both are equally distanced from PH 7, or neutrality. This is not the case with God and Satan. Mary, in fact, more closely represents Satan's opposite. Mary answered God's question with an unequivocal "yes," whereas Satan answered Him with an irrevocable "no."

Many of you have probably already heard this explanation before, but for those who haven't I post it here to help alleviate a common debate topic... especially with Protestants.

After a little back and forth with a few friends, some of whom pointed out that St. Michael might have been a better arch-nemesis of Satan, due to the fact that both he and Lucifer are/were archangels, I once again dragged Tolkien into the mix:

- I feel that, once again, I can work into conversation Tolkien's Discord of Melkor from his work, The Silmarillion. In Tolkien's analog to the Creation story, Illivatar (God) proposes themes of music to his angels. The Ainur (angels) compose a beautiful Symphony of music, according to the Theme of Illivatar. Melkor (Lucifer) composes according to his own secret desires, and not the desire of God. This rebellion against the Theme strikes a discord in the Music. However, in his next theme, Illivatar includes the discord in such a way as to make the music even more beautiful and moving. In short... everything, even the somber parts of the "Music" most closely associated with the mischief of Melkor, eventually backfire on their author (the Devil) and move forward to serve the Glory of God in beautiful and sublime ways that could not have been foreknown by any, save God himself. All the sin and destruction and chaos around us simply serve to make the rest of the Universe far more beautiful through endless, glorious victories against the Devil's efforts.

In this analogy, Mary would be represented by the most triumphant part of the Music of the Ainur. The Light of Heaven (Valinor), captured in the Silmarils, wrested by Beren and Luthien from the Crown of Melkor (Satan), who wore them in mockery of Illuvatar (God) despite the fact that they burned him and made him hideous to behold, and culminating in the victory of Frodo over the Ring... this Light was given to Luthien (Mary) who accepted this charge and passed on this Grace to Aragorn, the King. Obviously, the writing of Tolkien has taken some liberties in this analogy, but the basic Theme remains intact.

Now, I'm not saying that Satan and Mary are equal. I only mean to place them on the same measuring stick for the sake of making a point. Mary is obviously FAR greater than Satan. In fact, all of those images of Mary crushing the serpent's head with her heel are highlighting the victory of Mary's "Yes, I will serve" over Satan's "No, I will not serve." I only wanted to stress that God, Himself, suffers nothing to contend with Him on equal grounds, for He is infinitely more vast and immeasurable in Power and Majesty than any other being... especially, Lucifer.

Catholic-Friendly Movies

Many Catholics are upset with Hollywood for much of the anti-Catholic rhetoric intentionally included in many films and television series. It's true that Catholicism seems to bear the brunt of some pretty vehement hatred from certain elements in the entertainment industry. However, I've noticed that despite all of this, there are plenty of options when it comes to Catholic-friendly entertainment. When I initiated this thread, I had no idea it was going to become as popular as it did. Here are some of the highlights:

- I'll start. LOTR, Gattaca, The Passion of the Christ, On the Waterfront, the Blues Brothers (that's right), Braveheart, Groundhog Day (read Michael P. Foley's article/review), and The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

- The following Shyamalan flicks: Wide Awake, Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, and the Village. Also most Hitchcock and Kurosawa films.

- This one will get some disagreement... American Beauty. While it is an incredibly vulgar movie, at its heart it is a story of a man who faces the chaotic consequences of his immoral behavior. He snaps out of it when he sees a young woman making the same irresponsible decisions that, in the days of his youth, put him on his own, destructive path. It is actually a highly moral story. Also, replacing every instance of the word "Beauty" with the word "Christ" yields some interesting and thought-provoking results.

(More on American Beauty next...)

Obviously, this list could go on and on, and include a little more explanation for why each movie is Catholic-friendly... but then I wouldn't have enough subject matter for my next book.

Catholicism in Art

I've heard many a Catholic complain throughout the years that there are too few options in the realm of entertainment toward which a devout, religious man or woman can turn without endangering their souls. If such a notion were true, it would certainly spell out the promise of a dismal and hopeless future, since the art of any generation is typically an accurate measure of that generation's hopes, dreams, fears, etc. I argue, however, that such a notion is not only _not_ true, but more harmful to the survival of the Catholic Faith than any collection of vulgar, blasphemous, or vehemently anti-Catholic movies or TV shows. In fact, to argue that Catholic Truth is somehow less adequately represented in contemporary art (and entertainment) than it has been in years past is to argue that Catholic Truth itself is somehow diminishing over time, which we know to be impossible. Granted, the Truth as it has been taught by millennia of Catholic Tradition may be more heavily veiled and "accidental" in much of what we see on TV and in movies these days, but it _is_ there... in _all_ of its potency, nonetheless.

Almost all Catholics will admit to a certain degree of demonic influence in the affairs of this world, especially in the entertainment industry. So why is it so difficult to believe that such a thing as _angelic_ influence occurs? A quick glance at a list of recurring themes in entertainment will reveal that the concept of a "savior" coming to humanity's aid in the face of seemingly insurmountable evil is quite popular in Hollywood. You'll also find a large number of protagonist characters who make highly moral judgment calls through their unshakable, heroic traits of courage, fortitude, and personal sacrifice. As long as such traits are prized as admirable qualities in fictional role models, all is not lost. Truth prevails in the end and Catholicism itself remains untarnished, if unnoticed by all but the extremely attentive.

One of my favorite examples of this is the film American Beauty. Although not at all child-friendly, the film explores a character who becomes tired of his "fake" life and decides to no longer participate in anything that doesn't directly serve his own, immediate whims. He quits his job, starts smoking marijuana, and begins to lust after the high school-aged friend of his daughter. During a pivotal scene, he reminisces over his lost youth, when he used to "party and get laid," in his words. In the film's finale, he finally achieves his lustful goal... almost. When he discovers that the young girl, after whom he has lusted throughout almost the entire film, is in fact a virgin and preparing to make the same wrong turn he once made when he was her age, he becomes fatherly again and prevents the sexual act from taking place. His wisdom finally comes into play as he transitions from disgusting, middle-aged pervert to protector of innocence and virtue.

The recurring, theme word "beauty" can easily be replaced with the word "Christ" at any point during American Beauty without altering the theme or message. The movie's tagline, "Look Closer," provides an important undercurrent to the story (thanks mostly to legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall). Throughout the film, the main character's face is often visually barred by prison-like reflections or obstacles, only to be remedied in the end by shots of wide open, blue skies when the character dies in a state of grace and achieves "Heaven." The most sublime image in the movie is a dull, black and white photograph of the main character's family sitting on a counter next to a brightly colored bowl of fruit. This bowl of fruit, which visually draws the eye before anything else, is unimportant. The truly important element in the scene is obviously the family photo... but it requires a "closer look" in order to even notice its presence.

Another great example of Catholicism in Hollywood can be seen in the film Gattaca, which is a speculative fiction piece about a not-too-distant future wherein genetics are manipulated in order to "create" perfect children. The main character, who was born the "natural" way (i.e. without genetic manipulation), desires to be an astronaut... a career typically reserved for the genetically-superior. To achieve his goal, he "borrows" the genetic identity of a genetically flawless man who suffers from a lack of motivation as well as a permanent physical injury. In the film, the unaltered human (created as God intended... a point that was even highlighted in the film's dialog), is shown to have more spirit than the lab-created person. Essentially, the main character's drive to succeed was unquenchable, even in the face of gene-based discrimination.

Gattaca becomes even more Catholic in nature when the deleted scenes are taken into account. In one deleted scene, at the office of a geneticist, the "disposal" of the unchosen, fertilized, genetically-engineered eggs is presented as murder (abortion) without actually mentioning the words "murder" or "abortion." Another deleted scene suggests that the genetic-engineering process is still subject to class warfare when the geneticist offers engineering "extras" to a husband and wife for a fee. They can't afford the extra offerings, so their son (in adulthood) is prohibited from achieving any of the most coveted career fields. The resulting slave vs. wealthy caste system presents even further obstacles for the main character. Finally, the deleted, original ending is extremely anti-abortion in tone because it lists many well-known names of great men throughout history who would never have been born if genetic-engineering had been common practice among their parents (read, "if abortion had been common practice among their parents.")

I firmly believe that the current, despairing position of most Catholics regarding film and entertainment comes from a combination of a misplaced nostalgia for the Hays Code of the classic Hollywood era and an unwillingness to understand the broad, all-encompassing nature of Catholicism. While the Hays Code did successfully keep most entertainment family-friendly, it also promoted a simplistic, puritan view of existence. Traditionally-speaking, most classic art and literature was not puritan in character. A brief look at famous, classical writings and paintings will make that fact more than apparent. And Catholic Truth is Universal Truth. Everything that is true is of the voice of Christ. Did He not make it a point to say, "He who is of the Truth, hears my voice?" It is for this reason that books and/or movies like Lord of the Rings, for example, can be so thoroughly Catholic without ever treating of Catholicism directly.

If we, as Catholics, remember that our religion's domain is the Truth... all of the Truth... then we will begin to see contemporary cinema and television entertainment in a different light. There will always be shows like The Kardashians which will offer nothing of substance to the viewer, and in many times can be horribly destructive to society in general. But then again, there will also, always, be shows like Doctor Who which, while being pretty unabashedly atheistic at times, also promotes a highly developed respect for life and an evolved sense of forgiveness. In short, the Light of Truth will shine through any darkness laid before it, no matter how dense that darkness proves to be.

Reversing the Trend in Media

In a thread concerning the eternal question of hating the sin but loving the sinner, someone brought up the more aggressive, propagandizing strategies of the gay rights community. Specifically, the fact that almost every TV show now features at least one gay character/relationship.

- I think Catholics should be attempting to reverse the trend in the media. Someone mentioned earlier that almost every TV show has at least one homosexual character. This is true. And to add to that, these same shows go out of their way to show their audiences just how normal those characters are. A competent Catholic writer could do the same thing, but portray the gay character in a more realistic light. In reality, gay men and women suffer from a loneliness which they simply can't quench with superficial, homosexual relationships. Many have terribly depressing histories when it comes to their childhoods and adolescent years. It is common to see varying degrees of arrested psychological development in homosexuals. Anyways, you get the point. A more realistic portrayal of a homosexual character could generate sympathy for the unwinnable, internal struggle of today's homosexual community instead of generating support for a movement aimed at the normalization of the unnatural. In order to reverse the ideological flow of the Entertainment and Media industries, Catholic writers need a strategy for doing so... one that will grab viewers and gently turn their shoulders until they're facing in a new direction. That would be a great start to a resurgence in Catholic Art, Literature, and Film.

- I was surprised to see the realistic portrayal of homosexuality in the film As Good as it Gets. Greg Kinnear's character was a truly lost soul. He had a history of sexual abuse from his mother when he was a child. His relationship with other gay characters was either completely superficial and unfulfilling, or physically destructive. At the end, he envies Jack Nicholson's straight character for "knowing who he wants." I was shocked to see such an accurate portrayal of homosexuality in such a popular and critically acclaimed movie.

After being asked to elaborate on what I meant by "reversing the trend," I replied with the following:

- Well, via my own meager means, nearly everything I write proceeds along these lines. I've written screenplays, short stories, satirical/humorous blogs, magazine articles, and various other short works. I have yet to get a nice, fat publishing deal or a screenplay option, but I'm still trying! I've also been trying to network with other Catholic writers and filmmakers. It's a slow and laborious journey. I even tried to get an audience with Mel Gibson through his parish in Agora Hills, CA. I did get to meet him several times, but I was forbidden from pitching any ideas at him. Unfortunately, there was a HIGH degree of suspicion there concerning outsiders, especially at that time (I met him while the Passion of the Christ was still in its initial Box Office run.)

Reaction to Zeitgeist

After years of listening to several of my peers suggest that I watch a documentary entitled Zeitgeist (because it was "eye-opening," according to them), I finally caved and watched it while feeding my infant twins at 3:30 in the morning. It was so unbelievably bad, I immediately posted the following reaction:

- I finally got around to watching the film (and I use that term in the broadest sense) Zeitgeist. If someone had informed me ahead of time that the basis of the film is astrology presented as science, that mere hypotheses are spoken of as if they are inarguable truths, and that unfounded, groundless facts are simply made up on the spot for the sake of rounding out a scene... I would never have bothered with this absolute waste of Netflix server bandwidth.

I am astonished that so many people put so much stock into this mockery of humanity's intellectual development. But I guess there's a reason why horoscopes are still printed in every newspaper and periodical.

If you are a fan of this "documentary," I suggest (if you're really looking to expand the horizons of your knowledge) that you look into actually reading real books written by the intellectual and philosophical masters of our civilization instead of wasting your time on a dumbed-down, amateurish video production which clumsily tries to blame the evils of our day on the Egyptian Sun God because he shares some coincidental traits (most of which are made up for the movie) with a blithely misrepresented Jesus of Nazareth.

I Can't Wait for the Zombie Apocalypse

According to pop-culture, there is a seemingly unavoidable zombie apocalypse looming just over the horizon, ready to strike suddenly when we least expect it. This idea now pervades every aspect of our society. Even the military, in a surprising departure from their usual humorlessness, has begun running zombie apocalypse wargame scenarios on the taxpayers' dime (although, it should be pointed out that the actual purpose of these wargames is to run contingency plans for "worst-case-scenarios" of domestic unrest).

To the sociologically-minded observer, it would seem as if people are actually looking forward to a horrible zombie apocalypse taking place in the real world... as soon as possible. The topic has erupted on social networks of late, with The Walking Dead being the most popular show on TV. So why the fascination and impatient desire for such a bleak and depressing future? What is it about the zombie apocalypse that we find so attractive?

\- My contention is that it's not the "zombie" part of the zombie apocalypse that excites people, it's the idea that we could all have an opportunity to govern ourselves the way we see fit in the wake of a complete Government and Law Enforcement collapse. If something like this were to actually take place, feudalism would quickly and naturally rise to the surface as the only sustainable form of government. We have such a fascination with the thought of complete governmental failure and disintegration, that we fantasize about it constantly... with multi-million dollar budgets backing those fantasies. As is always the case with art, the literature of the day betrays the true, hidden desires of a generation... in this case, our zombie apocalypse fiction reflects our deep-seated dissatisfaction with the abuses of government and the oppression under which the vast majority of us suffer on a daily basis. We want it to stop, and most of us are now convinced that the system is too far gone to be fixed from within. Instead, it must fail entirely so we can rebuild a new, better society from the ground up.

Thomas Jefferson said that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" by revolution, or "the blood of patriots." The problem here is this: a sensible person can see that such a revolution staged against a massive U.S. military with a limitless budget would be doomed to almost immediate failure. So, in lieu of a revolution, we instead hope for an unavoidable event/act of God (such as a widespread virus that turns people into mindless zombies) to achieve the results of a successful revolution (and then some!). Also, the idea of "weak" people suddenly becoming soulless creatures easier to kill without guilt due to their "soulless" nature, is an attractive alternative to meeting our fellow, living Americans on the field of battle. Thus, the "strong" will survive and thrive on the slaughtered corpses of the "undead."

Even we, as Catholics, would love a chance to build up a new society with safeguards against the types of errors we've seen over the past few hundred years; a society once again based on the precepts of the Church sans the modernist ideals which have proven time and time again to be nothing more than empty, vapid promises. Hardly a country exists that hasn't been infiltrated by modernist and secularist ideologies. The primacy of Christ and His Church in the affairs of mankind is something that has slowly been "phased out" since the dawn of the Revolutionary Era. There was a time when each Church and its property were viewed, more or less, to be sovereign territory of the Vatican. Fugitives would seek refuge from law enforcement on Church property, because the law enforcement officials would rarely be so brazen as to come onto Church property without permission from the local prelate. Can you imagine this happening in today's world? I seriously doubt that the local police or even the FBI would hesitate to enter a church to capture a suspect. It might seem like a trivial issue now, but when one takes into consideration the historical fact that during WWII the Church used this sovereign advantage to hide and protected Jews and Allied troops from the Nazis, the issue suddenly seems much more serious and potentially relevant.

We are psyched for this apocalypse because we are sick and tired of supporting an absolutely corrupt, suffocating governmental authority. The vast majority of us feel, even if it's only on a subconscious level, that it's high time for a do-over. So, the zombie apocalypse scenario is actually a fictionalization of our collective desire to supplant a broken government and begin anew and unhindered.

Halloween Fun isn't as Bad as All That

I've seen Catholics both in favor of celebrating Halloween, and opposed to it. Those who are opposed to Halloween (at least as it is currently practiced in your average, suburban neighborhood in the U.S.) argue that it is essentially a sort of thinly-veiled demonism due to its foundation in pagan practices; that it celebrates evil through demonic costumes, etc. While I agree that many costumes are disturbing to say the least, and that many other costumes are beyond immodest, I really don't see any issue with celebrating a secularized celebration tantamount to a nation-wide costume party. Intention is the primary consideration when contemplating whether or not something is a sin. I posted this in a Halloween argument on Facebook:

- I'd like to see Catholics, especially devout, traditionally-minded Catholics, remembering the benefits both physical and spiritual that can be had from a bit of light-hearted fun. A family celebrating Halloween together, eating crappy candy, and dressing up like movie heroes and villains, can make lots of great memories and provide good, clean bonding opportunities for both parents and children. Remember, the door of secularization swings both way. We see Christmas and Easter events every year which focus on reindeer and bunnies, respectively, without any mention of or regard to Christ, on whom both holidays are wholly based. By the same light we see holidays like Halloween focus on Yoda costumes and Hershey bars, without any mention of or regard to the pagan practices on which Halloween is based. At the very least, even these secularized holidays tend to bring families together for a little bonding and recreation... which is almost never a bad thing.

Never underestimate the absolute necessity of recreation activities in one's life. This is why you'll see movie theaters and E-clubs on military bases, built at the taxpayers' expense. These are not luxuries abusing tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere... they are absolute necessities to the continued functioning of the military. Never take life too seriously! I'm sure that God, if asked directly, would not want us to never laugh, never party, never have fun. It's those uplifting, fun moments that make tolerable the monotonous hard work and miserable stretches of suffering in between.

Our Lady of Guadeloupe and Mexican Fashion

A friend posted a picture of an expensive, extravagantly decorated, Mexican silk shirt with a large, loud image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe printed on the back. This sparked an argument as to whether this sort of shirt was in poor taste, or whether it was commendable... or at the very least, not sacrilegious.

- One can hardly walk ten feet into Mexico without seeing 2,000 Guadalupe images. To me, it's nice to know that Our Lady is still at the forefront of people's minds in Mexico, despite the rest of the world running away from Catholic imagery. Can you imagine a movement to "remove the image of Our Lady from public sight" gaining any momentum at all in Mexico?

Someone then brought up how Guadeloupe images are common among drug dealers and various other types of criminals, especially in Mexico and Southern California.

- I've seen many a drug dealer adorned in OLG imagery (having been a cab driver). This presents a sort of situation that is almost universally considered to be inappropriate. If a military man commits a crime while wearing his uniform, he not only gives himself a bad name, but the entire armed services. The same principle applies here. If you're wearing this attention-grabbing shirt while feeding the homeless, more power to ya! But if you're wearing this while engaging in a sin and a crime, take it off! You don't deserve to wear that image!

Part Four- Education

A Tiny, Little Rant About Education

Education is important! At least, that's what we continually hear from our politicians, who keep coming up with new and exciting education upgrade demo-reels with which to dazzle their constituency into circling their name on a ballot just one more time. I agree that education is important, but when I look at the state of education in our shamefully under-educated society, I can draw no other conclusion than this: the various institutions of education (public, private, secondary, post-secondary, graduate, etc.) are not only failing in their primary duties, but they are also growing exponentially richer on the backs of their own failures.

Rodney Dangerfield, the comedian, once remarked on how he had once borrowed $100 from a mafioso loan shark when he was a teenager and that now, 40 years later, he still owes the guy $10,000. (Those numbers might be a little off from his original delivery, but the general gist is still intact.) Sound familiar? The mafia, in its heyday, systematically ran scams and various money-making rackets all day long, scooping up millions of dollars in the process. Our current education system, however, succeeds in making these mafioso rackets of yesteryear look like a kids' lemonade stand on a suburban cul-de-sac.

Consider, if you will, the $400 price tag on a college textbook which is only about 60 words and two pictures different from its previous edition. A book which teachers are never going to use anyway because they spend the entire semester giving their students a cheat sheet for use during their final exams in order to reap a bonus for turning out an entire class of A+ students. And in order for a student to obtain the sacred, all-powerful diploma promised to alleviate all financial ills forever, he or she is obliged to participate in this process... all for the low, low price of decades of crushing financial debt and a plethora of hiring agencies and HR departments that couldn't possibly care less about a $100,000 degree which, by the way, barely manages to bestow upon the graduating student an education roughly equivalent to that of a Jersey Shore aerobics instructor's intern. Al Capone's organization in its prime couldn't have run so smooth and profitable a racket on the American people. And if presented with the opportunity, I'd like to imagine that even the mafia of old would have looked at the textbook scam and said, "No, thanks. That's just plain wrong. These students deserve better than that."

No, unfortunately I can no longer support keeping alive an "education system" that produces graduates who don't know where the United States is on a map of North America, or who answer "Bill Clinton" when somebody asks them who the President was during the Civil War, or who (and this is very real, unfortunately) have no idea what event of historical significance happened on September 11th, 2001. Whatever is taking place in schools these days, it's not education. I'm sure I could come up with a few theories as to why this is, but suffice it to say, if one attends a school full-time and still manages to learn absolutely nothing at all (or so very little that an afternoon of reading Wikipedia would have yielded the same results) what exactly is taking place during all that time? Political brainwashing... maybe? Who knows!?

In light of this, one might ask, "Well, how would you fix the problem?" It would probably shock most people to learn that overall literacy and access to education in England and Ireland before the Reformation and Henry VIII was about as high as it's ever been anywhere in history. However, the reformation removed the Catholic Church from all facets of society, specifically the arena of education, in this case. Education was, at that point, turned over to the government/Church of England. The irony, of course, is that as they worked to "fix and improve education" they were never able to return to the quality and quantity of education as it existed previously under the guiding hand of the Catholic Church. So, it would seem that the Catholic Church is fully capable of fixing this problem... but that's not acceptable in a secularist society, now, is it?

[I can't leave out my feelings about the current state of "Catholic" education. While most parishes do operate schools, and many Catholic high schools and universities still exist, the majority of these have folded under the pressure of secularist education interests. Courses like Latin, Philosophy, Logic, and the like have been removed from the curriculum, and the teaching of various errors, misconceptions, revisionist histories, and modernist concepts is steadily rising. Most Catholic schools have essentially become public schools with a price tag.]

Logic in Modern Education

Popular issues revolving around contemporary education cover a vast expanse of content-centric topics. The political world is constantly in flux, making the curriculum in our public (and private) schools subject to the instability of the election cycle. Math must be taught according to this or that standardized test. History must include elements of certain politically-charged events in order to promote some legislator's definition of a well-rounded education. Science is required to cover theories which may have more to do with controversy than with actual scientific knowledge. With all of this influence coming at our children from every angle imaginable, any focus on the methodology of thought is lost in a sea of itemized content. In other words, there's too much focus on WHAT to think, and not enough focus on HOW to think.

Logic, once a required subject in school, has been all but completely left behind or shifted into technological fields, such as computer programming. A quick glance at the world around us will quickly reveal exactly what happens when an entire population forgets HOW to think and is no longer taught critical thinking habits in their primary education. (Examples of this are simply too numerous to include here, but suffice it to say I'm sure most of you can think of a few examples of illogical thinking in your own lives.) In education, a simple understanding of logic can help even the most average student to produce much more poignant and rational thoughts. A populace versed in formal logic can better understand and better utilize mental tools to accurately and efficiently process just about everything, from their day-to-day job to elections to deciding what shoes to purchase. Marketing campaigns and public information industries, however, have created an entire industry based on logical fallacy in an attempt to promote their products, ideas, and agendas. These efforts appeal to base emotions and attempt to anchor and evoke unconscious responses while sidestepping logical analysis. Logic in modern education is an absolute necessity for reversing this trend of irrational and unrestrained abuse of the human mind.

How many advertisements have you seen which include the statement, "9 out of 10 scientists agree..." A formally trained logician will immediately recognize this as an Appeal to Authority, which is a logical fallacy. The statement introduces no technical information to support its claim. It simply alludes to the fact that some scientists agree with their claim. Ad campaigns which suggest, "Hey, everyone's doing it" are taking advantage of the Bandwagon or Ad Populum Fallacy. Have you ever heard a politician say something along the lines of "If by 'abortion' you're talking about a quick-fix to irresponsible behavior; a sort of last resort birth-control option, then I'm against it. If by 'abortion' you're talking about a medically-necessary procedure in severe cases of rape, incest, or probability of birth defect, then I'm for it!" When you hear this, you have just witnesses a textbook If-by-Whiskey Fallacy. In somewhat recent years, we've all heard it said repeatedly on the news that "There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because no 'smoking gun' evidence could be found to prove that such was the case." This is an Argument from Ignorance or Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. The simple absence of evidence does not make something not true. History lessons in primary and secondary schools, and even in college-level classes, often speak of the slavery of ancient empires in light of current civil rights arguments. This is referred to as an Historian's Fallacy in that the concept of "civil rights" is a relatively modern one, brought to light only in the last couple centuries. Slave owners of ancient times had no access to civil rights literature, and therefore their actions cannot be judged on the grounds of civil rights abuses. Teachers, journalists, marketing departments, and politicians are doing us an extreme injustice by perpetuating these fallacious mindsets in popular culture.

There are so many benefits to be had by the re-institution of Logic in modern education. The average person, with even a basic, beginners grasp of Logic, would thereby be enabled with a decision making tool that would certainly prove to be instrumental in many of his/her daily activities. We would see the marketing and advertising industries forced to shift to more informative, fact-based promotional campaigns endorsing their products and/or services with intelligent arguments. The quality of products and services would naturally improve in order to appease a more intelligent demographic of potential customers/clients. Politicians would find their usual approaches to the swaying of votes ineffectual, and would therefore have to present their platforms in a more direct, rational way in order to remain competitive. The ongoing problem of national debt would slowly begin to reverse itself, as both the government and the general populace would start making wiser financial decisions. Just about every major aspect of life could be greatly improved by introducing Logic and critical thinking classes into the curriculum of our schools.

Latest and Greatest Historical Account?

A friend of mine posted a meme calling into question the sanity of those who refuse to accept something written by people who lived 2,000 years ago about events which took place 2,000 years ago, but they have no trouble believing what someone living today wrote about events which took place 2,000 years ago. So I came back with this comment:

- I've always wondered why people put more stock in the most recently written accounts of historical events, rather than accounts of that event from contemporaries of the event itself. For example, it seems to me that what a Civil War soldier wrote about the Civil War while actually fighting the Civil War would be far more valuable to historians than some random person's take on the Civil War written in the year 2016. There are internal and external types of reliability. In the case of history, internal reliability refers to how consistent that history is with itself. The Bible was internally reliable in that it did not contradict itself on events, locations, quotes, etc. (This is not the venue for talking about contradictory teachings, which has been deliberated often elsewhere.) External reliability refers to whether or not a record is contradicted by other records. Once again, when determining the Bible's reliability, it is externally reliable in that other records of the era agree with the records presented in the Bible (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, etc.) Given this, a book written in the 21st Century A.D. claiming that events recorded in the Bible did not take place would be externally unreliable, because it is contradicted by countless historical sources.

I've been trying to coin the term "Enlightened Generation Fallacy" in an attempt to explain just where the error lies in this type of thinking. Since the Enlightenment era, and in an atmosphere imbued with the sudden increased popularity of Eastern religions, Marxist/communistic philosophies, and pop science, there can be detected in our culture the widespread idea that the current generation's ideological position on issues (political, historical, scientific, etc.) is the most complete and most correct it has ever been. Headlines and social media drive the spirit of new discovery and "most recent updates." In this atmosphere, it's easy for a headline that reads "Recent study shows that Jesus may never have existed" to gain momentum where previously it would have been immediately rejected as ridiculous. This fallacy, incidentally, also explains why, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, communism is still tried time and time again with no hope of ever succeeding. In the mind of the communism-adherent, that last generation just wasn't quite enlightened enough to make communism work... but this time we really know what we're doing!

I Should Stop Using Big Words

Language is important. It is one of the key elements of our species that sets us apart from the lower animals. And language has evolved throughout the millennia, more or less. But a recent study "found" that big words don't "impress anybody," so why bother learning to speak more eloquently and articulately? Obviously, this got under my skin just a bit:

- This is what passes as a "study" in today's pseudoscience, publish-or-die atmosphere. To sum up the content of this study: researchers took the scribblings of morons, replaced the language used in said scribblings with "big words," then gave both the first draft and the new edition to other morons to read. The second group of morons found it easier to understand the original text of the first group of morons, and were confused by the "big words" in the second drafts. Conclusion: we should stop using "big words" because it doesn't impress "people."

- I'm all for the evolution of language. The recently developed "Leet" Internet language that has sprung up over the past decade is a fascinating study in pidgin dialects. But language should evolve to make new thoughts easier to express, not devolve to a point where previously deep, penetrating concepts become impossible to impart upon the listener. But here I go using "big words" again. It's been hours since I posted this and I'm still seething with rage.

Important tip: Never tell articulate people that they should stop using big words, because you will not have the verbal ammunition to ward off the onslaught of criticism you are about to endure.

Fun with Conjunctions and Prepositions

A fellow Catholic became worried after a priest informed his congregation that "another big event" was on the horizon, similar in gravity to the Second Vatican Council. This information seems to have been delivered in a pretty cryptic, quasi-dramatic way, but the message was a good one. His priest reiterated how dangerous words can be if wielded by an accomplished word-smith. Even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant change in terminology, or a single word replacement can make the difference between heresy and... well, NOT heresy. I had a perfect example of this, so I shared it:

- One of my favorite examples of this was a single line of dialog in the film version of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. In the film, the line from Gandalf was, "Do not be so eager to deal out death AND judgment."

In the book the line read, "Do not be so eager to deal out death IN judgment."

Now, although I love his acting, Ian McKellen (in real life) is openly gay and may possibly have changed that one little word himself to serve an agenda. Or maybe it was the writer of the screenplay who changed it. Or maybe it was a simple mistake. However, that one little word makes a huge difference in the meaning of that line, which was beautiful and inspiring the way it was originally written. Essentially, Tolkien was admitting that judgment is inevitable, but punishing a person with death because of said judgment is something that denies the possibility of repentance; of a greater plan by God. (In the case of Gollum, about whom the line was written, there truly was a greater plan in place, and as Gandalf said, "the pity of Bilbo ruled the fate of many.") In the film version of the line, one could be impressed with the idea that both judgment and death are equally evil in all circumstances. Granted, the remaining portion of Gandalf's speech was intact in both versions, and the gist of the advice remained fairly intact... but it does go to show just how important it is to choose one's words very carefully.

I can't claim for certain that this was done intentionally, but that little change very neatly and conveniently fits in with modern society's sensitivity over judging the actions of various peoples' lifestyles. Personally, I feel that judgment, especially of sin, is unavoidable. What is to be done once one arrives at a judgment is a matter for long, arduous debate, of course. Is is right to judge the act of homosexuality as a sin? Yes. Is it right to dish out summary executions based on that judgment? Certainly not!

(I really have to reiterate here, however, just how much I appreciate the acting prowess of Ian McKellen in his role as Gandalf. This little issue aside, I can't imagine anyone who could possibly have played the part better. My hat is off to this genius of his craft.)

Remembering that the primary focus of the original post was a cryptic prediction of "something big on the horizon," subsequent posts slowly returned to the subject of ominous forebodings. Further down the comment thread, after several pessimistic predictions succeeded in painting an unavoidably bleak and depressing future, several people involved in the discussion all but resigned the rest of the proverbial fight to despair and began to talk about the "end times." This is easy to do in the shadow of numerous, terrifying enemies, but it's still the wrong approach for a faithful Catholic to take. I concluded with this:

- Something big IS coming down the pike, because something big is ALWAYS coming down the pike, if you think about it. Many may believe that this terrible future event will thin out the herd, so to speak, even more than it already is... but I disagree. I think that, whatever it may be, it is bound to eventually backfire on the author of all such horrors, Old Snatch, and lose for him yet another huge battle against his adversary, the Church. Just remember, Satan cannot win. And history teaches us that every time he gets close, he impatiently overplays his hand. Stay the course and keep trying to restore the Church to Glory!

Mann in Olde English

On the lighter, more educational side of things, I posted this little tidbit following a ridiculous thread about the use of the word "person" instead of "man" when referring to a human being of undisclosed gender:

- I believe that the word "man" is being used in the sense of the human species, not in an effort to exclude women. The word "man" or "mann" in Olde English referred solely to human beings, both male and female. Its use in reference to the male of the species came late (cir. 1000 AD). Before that, in English, the word wir (or vir, as in "virile") was the correct pronoun used to indicate a male human being, or a male mann, as it were... Or perhaps I'm taking this too seriously?

Definition of Economy from a High School History Teacher

After reading a painfully unending thread on Facebook arguing the pros and cons of Capitalism versus Socialism/Communism, I remembered something I heard nearly 2 decades ago. Here it is:

- Today, I remembered the best lesson I have ever heard on economics from my high school American History teacher. It went something like this:

"If you really want to know what the economy is, it's simple: You have something I want or need, and I have something you want or need. This creates an opportunity to barter and constitutes a trade. If everyone has everything they want and/or need, there is no economy. The problem is, many of us want and need different things. While dairy products are a need in most homes, they have no place in the homes of the lactose-intolerant. So, I don't want a politician who promises to give everyone everything they supposedly want and/or need. Some people's needs are sure to be missed, while others will end up receiving things they don't need at all, and very likely don't even want. Show me instead a politician who wants to grant me the means of producing something of value, so that I might engage in trade with goods of my own for those things that I, specifically, want and/or need. Not someone who just dishes out money, which is simply a symbol of accomplished labor, but someone who grants property and access to certain resources which would afford people the ability to become a producer, and by extension a consumer as well.

In retrospect, I think this teacher might have been a closet Distributist. I can't even remember his name... Just this invaluable lesson that has stuck with me all these years.

[Distributism is a fair distribution of the means of production, whereas socialism and communism purport to be about "fair" and/or equal distribution of money. The difference is, of course, the ease with which money is misused. If you are guaranteed some means of production, you will never, truly be a slave. Distributism has been a key element of Catholic economic teaching for a long time. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain is a perfect example of how well a Distributist, Catholic society can run when following the teachings and guidance of Catholic clergy. G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Pope Leo XIII, Rev. Dennis Fahey, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien all wrote extensively on this topic.]

Bookshelf Profiling

I have, over many years, devised a theory of individual profiling somewhat loosely based on the traditions and teachings of the Church. I worded it best in a post to a MENSA Facebook Group:

- One of my favorite movie lines ever is beautifully delivered by John Cusack in the film High Fidelity. It goes as follows; "What matters most is what you like, not what you are like. Books, music, film... These things matter. Call me shallow, but it's the ****ing truth!"

I have gotten better, more accurate results at personal profiling using these criteria than through more traditional methods. Consider the implications for a moment: Does one's collection of movies, books, etc. provide a window into their personality; their soul? And if so, to what extent? If someone owns, for example, the satanic bible, what does that say about them? And what if that same person also owns several books on storytelling, classic literature revolving around occult themes, and a fair amount of more traditional religious publications? What might you deduce about this person based on that evidence? Is that person a Satanist or are they writing a story about Satanism with careful attention to accuracy?

Since the Catholic Church teaches that our actions, beliefs, and intentions determine the state of our souls, wouldn't it follow that the types of things we read, watch, etc. (reading and watching being actions themselves) also affect, and reflect the state of our souls? The remainder of the post is this:

- Certain types of people own certain types of things. One clue, by itself, tells you nothing conclusive, but many clues together begin to paint a picture. A guy who owns a Quran might be Muslim. But a guy who owns a Quran and several books on Islamic extremism, and who regularly attends a Christian Church probably has some interest in fighting Islam or at least arguing against it.

Another person might have an Anatomy and Physiology book, which again tells us nothing. But if we learn that the same guy has a collection of films about torture, violent pornography, and Epicurean-inspired philosophy books... we might want to take a closer look at him for abnormal psych issues and/or criminal activity... and check his freezer, too, just in case there's a head in there.

Some Opinions About Toilet Paper

The root of the word opinion, to opine, used to apply more to personal taste than to beliefs concerning the world around us. One could opine on whether or not he or she preferred chocolate over vanilla, for example. Truth, on the other hand, used to be a word that carried much more weight than it does today. In contemporary times, however, the definitions of the words "opinion" and "truth" are more often than not blended and confused.

With this in mind, I've walked several of my friends and family through a certain mental exercise in order to prove that not every opinion is of equal weight. This exercise is about toilet paper. On the lighter side of the Internet, there is an ongoing debate over the proper positioning of a roll of toilet paper; whether the next sheet should be positioned over the top of the roll, or under the bottom of the roll. And both of these potential methods have die-hard adherents who view the opposing method as something akin to blasphemy.

Upon a closer look, however, I noticed that toilet paper dispensers are often placed in very different locations with respect to the position of the toilet. Some dispersers are to be found on the wall opposite the toilet, in front of he or she who currently resides on the proverbial throne. Others are found directly adjacent to the toilet, either to the left or right of the sitter. So, I set out to run a sort of informal survey on toilet paper use and habits. I found that most of those who spent the majority of their lives with toilet paper dispensers in front of them, on the wall opposite the toilet, tend to prefer the "over" approach, while those who grew up with toilet paper on either their left or right side lean towards the "under" approach.

If one reaches in front of them to tear off a few more sheets of TP, it is far easier to get a clean tear if the toilet paper unravels from the top, because of physics; it's easier to tear paper off of a roll, at a downward angle, when one can use the bulk of the roll itself as leverage for the tear. In this situation, if the roll is in the "under" position, a failed attempt at a clean tear could unravel half the roll at high speed. Conversely, if the TP roll is to your left or right, it's far easier to achieve a clean rip when the paper unravels under the bottom of the roll, for the same principle as the previous description.

What does this mean in the grand scheme of things? Very little except this: sometimes opinions are based on more than just whimsey. Many times, differing opinions only differ due to minutiae and seemingly insignificant variables. Now, let's consider the issue of social welfare. One side of the debate will argue that those who are incapable of taking care of all their family's needs should receive financial assistance from the government. Their opposition will hold that taxpayers shouldn't be held liable for the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves. Upon closer evaluation, however, you will notice that the majority of those in the former group live in urban/metropolitan areas, while those in the latter category tend to live in more rural regions. Poverty is a bigger problem in urban centers than it is in rural towns. In big cities, being poor can be truly inescapable for some people. In rural regions, on the other hand, poverty may be easier to trace to a simple lack of motivation. So this insurmountable division of "opinion" begins to make sense.

The great error of our day is that, for some reason, we are supposed to believe that both of these opinions about welfare are equally-suited for national policymaking. And because that is the way of things, whichever opinion is presented more vehemently is the one that will decide the law of the land. Inarguable truths and detailed variables of specific circumstances never come into play. Why do we never consider the possibility of simply maintaining different laws for densely populated urban centers, where millions of people are stacked on top of each other? It might work. Or it might not work. But one thing is for certain: A blanket law applying equally to all people in every environment, regardless of differences in circumstances, is NOT working. Until we admit of the wholly unique character of each and every individual person, situation, etc., we are going to continue to confuse opinions with truths. Truths are objective, but that doesn't mean that they only exist in an unchangeable state in a vacuum.

A Common Core Tutorial

Time for a comedy break... or should I say satire? I'm one of those who believes that common core math is essentially a terrible attempt to reinvent the wheel; an affront to Occam's Razor. But I do understand how it works. A friend of mine was a bit confused (which is totally understandable), so I attempted to explain it to him:

- Common Core is SO simple! Let's say you want to add 5 + 12. You can't do it directly because you only have ten fingers, so you first take the 5 and add the inverse of the negative square root of i to the 12 once 116 has been divided by a number to be determined in the next step. Round up to the nearest 8th. Multiply that by 93 if the day of the month is an odd number. If not, remove several numbers from the beginning. Now draw a picture of a fire truck. Fire trucks are red, and red is a color, and obviously colors are racist. Lastly consult the oracle about your astrological sign. You should have gotten "photosynthesis" as your intermediate answer. There are 14 letters in "photosynthesis." Add that to the number of sides in a traditional, Ancient Greek triangle. Now you have 17, which should be estimated by each student to be somewhere between 4 and 5,474,980. The final answer is Wooly Mammoth. To test your answer, there are 12 letters in "Wooly Mammoth" and 5 letters in "Wooly." There you go.

I really don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand.

Part Five- Science

I Don't Believe in Time

Sometimes I like to delve deep into high-minded, philosophical pondering. And like every other Sci-fi geek in the world, I am fascinated by the idea of time travel. While stuck in a traffic jam one evening, I posed this topic to some fellow philosophers:

- Time is merely a human system of measurement. A day is a rotation, a year is a revolution, etc. Is it possible that Time does not exist outside of the intellect; an a priori concept, in the words of Immanuel Kant? Is it possible that the Universe had no beginning and will have no end? The measurement between an event taking place within space and time and another event taking place within space and time, even if said events took place on the same spot on Earth, is still a measurement of distance. The Earth has moved, as has our solar system and galaxy.

What has this subject to do with religion? Well, many find it difficult to swallow the idea that God always was and always will be. Perhaps that's because we're trying to assign a beginning and an end to God's timeline. If time doesn't exist, then the Universe, simply put, always was and always will be. God always was and always will be. He never began because he has no physical timeline, as we do, as our planet does... and he will never end for the same reason.

My Two Cents on Evolution

No Facebook debater's life would be complete without the occasional participation on a thread about Creationism vs. Evolution. I despise this topic, because it is inevitably bombarded by participants who have no scientific training or background, and who invariably sling memorized talking points back and forth with absolutely no forward momentum whatsoever. That said, I posted a brief comment about my feelings on the matter in a thread asking Catholics if they reject the Theory of Evolution:

- Personally, I'm tempted to take the Sherlock Holmes approach on Astronomy when facing the issue of Evolution; "So, there are other planets. What does that have to do with me living here, now?" In the context of Evolution/Creationism, I might instead say, "So, the Earth is either thousands of years old or billions of years old. What does that have to do with me living here, now?"

But, in the interest of voicing my own, humble opinion on the topic, the scientific side of my mind rejects parts of the Evolution movement, not to be confused with the Evolution theory. The Evolution movement is a golden calf created to increase adherents who actually don't know the first thing about biology, geology, physics, etc. in order to defeat Creationism through sheer numbers of people who mockingly taunt Christian beliefs. How often do we hear "Well, evolution says this! Evolution says that! I BELIEVE in evolution!" The language used here is more akin, ironically, to the language used by religious people speaking of their deity. It makes sense that those who so adamantly oppose "organized religion" as they put it, would counter those religions with replacement terminology; i.e. replacing the word "God" with the words "Evolution" or "Science." Regarding the actual science behind these theories, I will say that I do find it interesting that a species can biologically adjust to changing environmental conditions over time. I think the fact that dinosaur skeletons have been discovered is truly fascinating. I think it's even more fascinating that the study of geology can give us a clue to past landscapes which have long since vanished. However, am I sold on the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth? No. Am I sold on the 8,000 year model? No. Do I believe that God created Earth whether it took 4.6 billion years, 8,000 years, one million years, 85 quadrillion years, etc? Yes, I do.

The problem with Evolution is that the vast majority of people don't even know what it is. Evolution concerns biological subjects, but most people speak of the 4.6 billion-year Earth model as if it's the province of Evolution. The age of Earth is an issue of geology, not biology. People tend to just think of Evolution as the opposite of Creationism, so they blindly accept the theory as law in their hatred of religion because we are a culture that is truly obsessed with our false dichotomies. Left/Right, Capitalist/Communist, Apple/Microsoft, Coke/Pepsi,... Try telling anyone in contemporary society that there might be a third option to anything which they have not yet considered, and you'll see the two opposing sides join forces for the first time ever just to rally against your assault on their precious dichotomy.

Science Vs. Faith- The Eternal Struggle?

The age-old dilemma: Science versus Faith! But wait a second... is it actually an age old? And what kind of age are we talking about here? Geological age? Generational age? And is it an actual dilemma? We have hardly been more voraciously conditioned by the modern world to believe anything as fully and completely as we have been brought to believe that "science" and "Faith" are two warring spirits, diametrically opposed to each other at every possible turn; Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine, wrapped in an eternal light-saber battle.

As one studies more and more the history of the Catholic Church, and the history of the West in general, one will begin to see that these two things, science and Faith, are not so different after all... if one is honest with one's self, that is. Science is defined by Aristotle and the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas) as sure and evident knowledge of things, from their causes, obtained by demonstrations. Faith (although a little more difficult to define) is essentially a sum of all truths revealed by God. Those, of course, include many truths which can also be demonstrated scientifically.

For example... we claim, despite any scientific evidence, that God actually exists in a real, tangible sense. But is that an accurate statement? Aquinas developed proofs of God's existence. First, he argued that everything that is in motion (essentially, the whole Universe), has been set into motion by something that was already in motion before it, and by necessity there would have to have been a First Mover, which we call God. Second, he argued that everything is subject to cause-and-effect, and that God would necessarily be the First Cause in a seemingly endless chain of causes and effects. Third, everything in the Universe tends towards some goal, or some settled state of equilibrium, and this tendency itself is evidence of some ultimate Design for the governance of everything; in other words... God's plan. [there are two other proofs, but I am omitting them for brevity's sake.]

A mathematician named Ludwig Van Bertalanffy, who ironically was a self-proclaimed atheist, developed a scientific theory called General Systems Theory, which can be summed up as saying, "everything in nature has an underlying tendency towards an ordered state, in one way or another." Sometimes a destructive force occurs, like a volcano, for example... but even that volcano is striving to reach a level pressure, and an eventual state of rest. What is this, if not an exact duplicate of Aquinas' claim that everything is the Universe proceeds according to some underlying plan laid there by God? In fact, these two theories are so similar, it is hard to believe that Bertalanffy identifies as an atheist. Maybe this means that these arguments over what God is and what He is not are merely semantic in nature and bear no real, tangible weight on the ongoing "science vs. Faith" dichotomy.

In reality, Faith can be boosted and bolstered by science, and science can be boosted and bolstered by Faith. Scientific research processes can discover more and more about the Truths of the Universe. And knowing more about the Universe around us can only, ultimately, strengthen our Faith, not weaken it... unless, of course, we are setting out with the express purpose of denying God's existence. God has created a marvelous work of art all around us, and its perfection is quite a thing to behold. Our human reason and rational nature are capable of discovering even deeper and more subtle truths in the Universe around us. The more we understand about God's creation, the stronger our Faith can become. Remember, science does not exist to disprove Faith, but rather to reinforce it.

Ad Hominem Fallacies and the Hypocrites Who Love Them

A certain current event (at the time of this writing) took the Internet by storm (no doubt in some conspiratorial effort to mask some darker, more sinister event which thereby managed to stay off the front page, remaining hidden in the shadows): A county clerk in Kentucky by the name of Kim Davis refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples after the nationwide legalization of homosexual marriage. Obviously, this event sparked some particularly nasty debates across all social networks, but I ignored the main debate and instead decided to hone in on certain logical fallacies utilized by reporting agencies. For reference, ad hominem attacks are fallacies which target the character of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. "Poisoning the well" fallacies are a sort of ad hominem attack wherein the source of some piece of information is permanently discredited due to the presence of ugly traits presented in such a way as to make their source appear unreliable.

Information came to light that Kim Davis herself was four-times divorced, and proponents of gay marriage attempted to discredit her opposition to gay marriage licensing by calling into question Davis' ugly past of personal failures in the realm of straight/traditional marriage. As I typically do, I attempted to make my argument solely about the fallacious arguments themselves, without sparking an endless gay marriage debate. I'm sure that you, the reader, can imagine how well my efforts played out in the realm of Facebook political mudslinging. Here is my original post along with several of my replies:

- I'm getting tired of seeing this stuff. The entire argument presented here is one, big Ad Hominem/Well Poisoning logical fallacy. Regardless of what side you choose, at the very least you could avoid gross fallacious claims like this one. Many people complain about how illogical the world has become, yet continue to perpetuate these fallacies. [in the post, I included a link to an article which attacked Kim Davis on a personal level in an attempt to discredit all of her claims and beliefs]

- Saying that someone's argument is invalid because she's been married four times is classic Well Poisoning. Obviously, she should've seen this particular backlash coming... But a fallacy is a fallacy. For example, I'm a huge proponent of E-cigarette technology, but I'll be the first to point out an invalid argument from my own side: For example, arguing that E-cigarettes are a harm reduction technology which can be used in place of smoking tobacco cigarettes is a valid argument. Arguing that E-cigarettes should be used because Leonardo DeCaprio uses them is not a valid argument. Any side of any issue using any illogical argument simply creates an atmosphere of ignorance across the entire spectrum of politics and society. I, personally, am no more tolerant of a fallacy when it happens to agree with my own, personal positions as I am of those used by my most vicious antagonists. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. My side, your side... doesn't matter.

- We've been conditioned to accept these types of arguments thanks to events like the laughable Republican debate a few weeks ago. Thousands cheer loudly when a Republican candidate suggests that a Democrat's stance on legalized marijuana disqualifies all of their subsequent statements about corruption and unethical business practices in the pharmaceutical industry. But a person who supports the legalization of medicinal marijuana can also, rightly, oppose the proliferation of prescription opiates. In the case of Kim Davis, if you were to convert the argument to a symbolic syllogism, the argument does not hold any water, logically speaking. Also, the act of converting any argument symbolically helps to remove all emotional investment on hot button issues.

- To elaborate on my last comment, a drug addict can offer a valid argument for making a drug illegal. The argument is separate from the one making the argument. Many people soundly rebuked Rush Limbaugh when his prescription pill addiction came to light. Many called him a hypocrite for opposing legal opiate drugs so adamantly, but nobody seemed to even consider the possibility that he was so opposed to prescription opiates because he hated the fact that he, himself, had become so easily addicted. Maybe he wants prescription opiates to be illegal because he can't see himself being able to quit any other way. This sort of thing is EXACTLY why ad hominem attacks have been identified and labeled.

- Actually, the Kim Davis article doesn't even present Davis' argument at all. It presents her actions and her position, but not her reasoning/defense of those actions other than to briefly allude to a "religious awakening." Essentially, the writer is so intently focused on delivering an ad hominem attack, that he/she does not even include the subject's actual reasoning for her anti-gay marriage stance. This is so solidly ad hominem I would be inclined to use it in a textbook. I happen to agree that she appears to be hypocritical, but hypocrisy does not affect the argument. Honestly, when I see stuff like this I couldn't care less about the subject matter of the argument. The issue I care about above almost all other issues is the science of reasoning and logic itself because all sciences, all disciplines, and all of human intelligence in general will suffer farther down the road as our society moves away from the proper forms of thinking. If this article was satirical or intentionally humorous/sarcastic, that would be a completely different story, but it is presented in such a way as to attempt to sway public opinion with a convincing argument... and that's why it's such a cheap shot and a fallacious argument.

In an effort to show impartiality on the issue of logic (a redundant statement to be sure), I posted an equally fallacious article written by a conservative writer (because the writer of the Kim Davis article showed herself in a very obvious manner to be left-leaning in her beliefs). The article I posted attempted to criticize actress Gwyneth Paltrow's argument about poverty by pointing out her own luxurious lifestyle. The approach used here was of the same form as the ad hominem/well poisoning argument of the Kim Davis article.

- Here is an article written by Ad Hominem-loving, conservative writer Michelle Malkin which follows the exact same fallacious format as the Kim Davis attack, from the opposite side of the political spectrum. As much as we love to spew hatred at the rich when they attempt to sympathize with the poor, this article fallaciously blasts Gwyneth Paltrow for supporting the left's welfare policies. Just like the above article, it leaves out Paltrow's reasoning for her actions almost entirely. It poisons the well with adverse information about a Hollywood starlet's lavish lifestyle.

My reasoning for posting here is to point out the primacy of logic when attempting to make a solid point about something. These articles, removed from the issues they attempt to address, are nothing more than aggressive, mudslinging attacks in opposite directions.

- And finally... This was not intended to be an open invitation to debate gay marriage. I pointed out a logical inconsistency. Then I posted another example; the same exact logical fallacy written by someone on the opposite end of the spectrum. I did this in an effort to highlight the fact that the hot-button, gay marriage content was really immaterial to the point I was attempting to make. For me, the issue of logic (or lack thereof, especially in contemporary political arenas) far exceeds issues like gay marriage, abortion, welfare, environmentalism, etc. in gravity and importance. All of those issues, argued without logic, are tantamount to arguing the pros and cons of different makes and models of automobiles without ever obtaining driver training or a driver's license, and without knowing anything about how an automobile works. Arguing the same issues with the use of logic would result in definitive answers and final solutions, making further argument unnecessary.

Circle, Circle, Dot, Dot, the Cooties Vaccine is a Conspiracy to Control The Masses

Another of those issues that refuses to go away is the ever-present vaccine dilemma. Like everything else, the ongoing vaccine debate is fraught with extremists on both sides of the spectrum because we are incapable, as a nation, of doing anything in a sensible, moderate manner. On one side, you have your Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists refusing to vaccinate their children at all... for anything... ever. On the other side, you have the senseless masses of sheeple who would vaccinate their kids against the Unicorn Flu if a convicted rapist approached them on a street corner in the ghetto offering them a shot because the "FDA said it was mandatory." To this debate I contributed my usual "moderation is the key" advice:

- As with most things, I feel sensibility lies somewhere between the extremes. A quick glance around the States will show that cases of Rubella, Polio, Measles, etc. are very few and far between... thanks to vaccines. Yet certain, more recent vaccines appear to have been pushed through the FDA (which has been losing confidence points of late) too quickly for comfort. This feels suspicious, even if it's not. While in the service, I was supposed to get the Anthrax vaccine. I worked near the base's Medical Administration Unit at the time, and I saw too many problem cases associated with the vaccine. I decided that I didn't want the shot. So I... without being too self-incriminating... had a little chat with my favorite Navy Corpsman over a bottle of Scotch. Things worked out in my favor.

I hate watching two sides butt heads ad infinitum over something that might prove not to be such a hot button issue if the valid arguments on both sides were presented in the spirit of rational dialog... But I'm afraid that rational people are so rarefied nowadays that their practices appear to be rubbish to those who've never even seen a rational argument presented properly.

I firmly believe that the Devil prefers not to fight the forces of good head-on. Rather, I believe, he orchestrates situations where the "bad" fight the "bad" loudly, viciously, and very publicly without end, until the "right" and "good" guys are sidelined out of importance and memory. This is not to say that every issue requires moderation. Some, such as abortion, do not yield to depending-on-the-circumstances arguments. More often than not, however, circumstances are so widely variable, that all-or-nothing positions are simply unrealistic. In closing, consider this: Communism works!... in monasteries and convents, due to the circumstances of their organization.

Correcting a Very Deserving Hippie

I must confess, I do enjoy tearing apart some of the more grossly, inexcusably, poorly written content on social media. Not only am I a grammar Nazi, but I'm also a logic Nazi. A meme was posted one day which read, "IT'S ABSURD TO HOPE THAT WE CAN BRING LIFE ON A DEAD PLANET LIKE MARS, IF WE CAN'T SUSTAIN IT ON A PLANET STEAMING WITH LIFE LIKE EARTH." (transcribed exactly as it was originally written.) Under these words was a picture of our planet. Unable to help myself, I posted the following criticism of the meme:

- Ok, I'm posting this to make an example of the poor sap who made this meme. Here we go...

-Firstly, one would bring life TO (not ON) a dead planet.   
-Next, a planet would be TEAMING (not STEAMING) with life.  
-Logically speaking, wouldn't we want to bring life to an empty planet once this one was full (or STEAMING), assuming for the sake of argument that this planet actually was full?   
-Practically speaking, if one planet is dead and another one TEAMING with life, might that suggest that life is, in fact, actually being sustained on said planet?

If you're going to try to play intellectual ball in the big leagues, maybe try learning a thing or two about a thing or two prior to letting your small thoughts out of your head.

I won't argue that I wasn't a little peeved in my response, but there is something to be said for learning how to think properly, with reason and rationality as one's guide. A certain educational foundation should be a personal prerequisite when presenting beliefs about the direction you believe scientific development should take in the future. God granted us with the gift of reason, and human reason is the very thing that makes growth and true progress possible.

A Little Fun with Publish-or-Die Science

Publish-or-die science, or scientific studies forced by financiers to yield results even when there are no results to yield, are slowly suffocating all intellectual potential in this modern world of ours. However, on rare occasion, these publish-or-die reports can provide us with a fair amount of amusement. One such report claimed that a scientific study (read: probably received federal grants and funding) proved conclusively that the removal of bottled water on one, specific college campus resulted in increased consumption of sodas and other bottled beverages:

- Thank GOD for scientists! Without them we would never have figured out that removing bottled water from a campus would increase the amount of other bottled drinks being purchased. That's absolutely incredible! I suppose before we know it, scientists will conclusively prove that jumping into a swimming pool while wearing clothes reduces the amount of dry clothing found on the body of the man or woman who jumped fully clothed into a swimming pool.

The Half-Glass of Water- Final Answer!

And now for that age-old cup-of-water debate: We've all been batting around this glass-half-full, glass-half-empty thing for probably the last three ages of Middle Earth, and I aim to finally set the record straight through a bit of (hopefully) humorous writing:

  * Optimist- The glass is half full.

  * Pessimist- The glass is half empty.

  * Realist- The glass has water in it.

  * Engineer- This glass is actually filled about 1.3 ml past the "half way" point, so it is therefore more full than empty.

  * Chef- I need that ½ cup of water for this recipe.

  * New Yorker- Hey, buddy, I didn't order this water. Where's my Coke?

  * Fish- This is nice and all, but I'd prefer to move into a bigger place.

  * Nihilist- .

  * Defeatist- Eventually, all of that water will either evaporate or spill... so what's the point?

  * Computer Programmer- 100011010110001101001010001101011

  * Gecko- Drink this half-cup of water and save 15% or more on your car insurance!

  * Hippie- Hey, where's my bong?

  * Combat Vet- Have you ever seen your best friend dying in a puddle of water, gasping his last breath and looking to you for help?

  * Republican- See, now, the Democrats want to take half of the water out of your cup and give it to someone else who doesn't deserve it.

  * Democrat- This glass represents America. The water you see is owned by the 1% and the missing half-glass of water is spread out among 350 million people.

  * Catholic- I'd like to offer up my missing half-cup of water for the souls in Purgatory.

  * Muslim- That half-filled cup of water is of much higher value than gasoline in my country.

  * Buddhist- The glass is neither half-full, nor half-empty. Only your perspective is such.

  * Charlie Sheen- I wouldn't drink that water if I were you... trust me.

And finally...

  * The Philosopher King- The glass is half full if it is in the process of being filled. It is half empty if it is in the process of being emptied.

I include this for fun, but also to prove a point: Objectivism is tricky. I believe, as should all Catholics, that Truth is Truth, and it can't be altered, spun, or reinterpreted to be anything other than Truth. However, this does not mean that Truth isn't subject to infinitesimal variations and variables which can alter its entire outward appearance. Truthfully speaking, the Philosopher King's answer above is the "correct" answer. But equal, more specialized truth can be found (albeit in humorous context) in some of the other examples; like the Chef's belief that the glass is a half-cup of water for use in a recipe.

We would all do well to remember just how many variations and variables exist within the scope of a single human life on Earth. I fear that we too often attempt to pigeonhole everything into Truths too broad and vague to hold any real importance in the eyes of those who behold them.

Don't Use that Dirty Hand Sanitizer

The level of Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder personalities in the country is getting out of hand, and that's putting it mildly after what I personally witnessed at my local mall recently. Two young, late-teen/early 20s women were talking as they walked past where I was sitting. One of them said, "Uh-oh... I ran out of hand sanitizer."

The other girl suggested, "Why don't you use this one?" as she pointed out one of the many motion-activated, hands-free, public hand sanitizer stations positioned throughout the mall. (I stress that this device was designed to deposit a single measure of foamed hand sanitizer onto a hand when activated by the sudden presence of that hand. At no point would a person actually have to physically touch the device with any part of their body when attempting to get hand-sanitizer from this station.)

The first girl replied to the suggestion with, "Oh, I don't use those. Too many germs."

There's not a whole lot I can say to further drive my point home. Apparently, some of us are so terrified of coming into contact with germs that we won't even use something that is solely purposed to kill germs when other people have access to the same germ-killing aparatus... because those other people might have germs. I think we might be in trouble as a nation.

Part Six- Politics

Celebrating the Diverse Things in God's Creation

The majority of Catholics tire quickly of listening to the constant media rhetoric on our televisions and computer monitors about tolerance, acceptance, and the social "virtue" of judging nobody. However, there is something to be said for the correct use of the words "diversity," and "tolerance," and of exercising the virtues of forgiveness and tact when passing judgment, as these things are defined through Catholic tradition. But before we get to that definition, let's take a quick look at the inner-workings of the average American's mind:

Here, in the United States, we find people who have been granted an inalienable right, and that right provides for each person, no matter how lowly and seemingly insignificant, a position of authority in the governmental structure of their homeland (at least in theory). Each person has a single vote which is a guaranteed and irrevocable privilege affording them an official, recorded voice to be heard by their own appointed legislators via the ballot box. Lying beneath that "right to vote" is a supporting foundation of freedom, as it is expressed and defined by the Bill of Rights. We are granted the freedom of religion, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to speak our minds and to form journalistic entities to assist in that freedom. And we have other freedoms, such as the right to bear arms, and many more.

The First Amendment is firmly entrenched to support the voter and his one, powerful vote. This amendment suggests to each, individual voter that he may develop his own belief structure, assemble with whomever he chooses, and speak his mind concerning any matter about which he wishes to express an opinion. In short, the very foundation of each and every voter's belief structure in this country is subjective in nature, and admits to no set-in-stone, concrete rules or laws for the governing of a nation, or for the governing of the whole Universe for that matter.

One of these voters might decide to exercise their rights in such a way as to place priority importance on the Catholic Religion, and all of its teachings. He might choose to assemble with like-minded Catholics in church buildings and he might speak of the existence of God and His Laws of Charity and Forgiveness in public places... all because he is granted an inalienable right to do so. Another voter might go in a different direction, and accept the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism as the impetus behind all of his decision-making. He might choose to assemble with other Satanists and exercise his freedom of speech by speaking favorably about perpetrating acts of revenge against real or perceived offenses. Each of these men has one vote, and therefore each of them is exactly equal in weight when it comes to their contribution to the whole.

A metaphorical question arises here: What happens when several armies meet on a battlefield, each composed of members equal in number, stature, strength, etc., and all of whom have completed exactly and precisely the same military training. The result, of course, is that the ensuing battle between these armies will rage on and on for centuries without an end in sight. Two men matched perfectly in strength and ability will battle indefinitely, never landing a blow on the other. There will be few, actual casualties in the strict sense of the word, and there will be no final victories whatsoever. (Obviously, there are more Christian voters than there are Satanic voters in the U.S., but the illustration here is more concerned with the "army" of one vote against the "army" of another vote. The content of each vote is immaterial when there is no methodology in place for differentiating between the strength of each. They are equal in strength, fighting for warring "nations" or beliefs.)

When the world tells us to "Celebrate Diversity," what I hear is a battle cry that we're all equally worthless, and that each of our individual votes are being drowned in a cacophony of other individual votes which amount to (in the immortal words of Shakespeare) "Sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing." When somebody says "Celebrate Diversity," I hear "Resign yourself to the gray area in between." Everybody in America battles ceaselessly with everybody else in a vain attempt to win the hearts and souls of their opposition over to their own, mighty positions and opinions. Everyone has been granted the highest position in the land from which to launch an offensive against their enemy with the all-powerful "one vote." Here we clearly have a situation of "too many chiefs, not enough Indians." How does someone who holds essentially the same rank as everybody else actually go about convincing anybody of anything without running into the "who outranks who" dilemma... especially in cases when one person actually holds a clear, professional advantage over others, yet no additional weight is awarded for this advantage?

For example, If I'm an FBI agent and I happen to know through the course of my investigation that several abortion clinics were burned to the ground by their owners in an attempt to scam their insurance companies, how do I convince people in the midst of the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice battle to see the truth? Especially when their dead-set, immovable opinions about who was responsible for the arson/act of terrorism are all equally invalid because forensic evidence has already effected the capture of the real culprit? If an FBI man's opinion holds the same position of merit and credibility as do the uneducated, issue-fueled opinions of the Pro-life and Pro-choice activists, why should the activists abandon their opinions about the event? Are we to believe that the follow-up journalistic headline about insurance fraud is going to be as large and prominent as the initial "Abortion Clinic Burned to the Ground; Activists Suspected." Will this event continue to fuel debates about Pro-life organizations perpetrating acts of terrorism on legally-operating abortion clinic buildings, or about Pro-choice holocausts against the unborn bringing down the wrath of an angry god in the form of fire and brimstone? In this scenario, Truth has no chance of ever becoming officially recognized by anyone. There will always be doubt, and the facts will be discarded because they don't fit neatly into either side's agenda. The Truth, is this case, is downgraded to just another opinion of equal (or lesser) weight as all the others. (I am staunchly Pro-Life, but I use this example because it really happened, and it provides a striking example about how the Truth is skewed by per-conceived notions.)

The phrase "celebrate diversity" is often used simply to refer to "alternative lifestyle choices," minorities and minority religions, and any and all unconventional peoples found here and there throughout the country/world. We are called to celebrate the fact that some people are not white, not heterosexual, not Christian, not conventionally healthy (dwarfism, Down's Syndrome), etc. Diversity, by this definition, refers to those who might be pagan, Muslim, gay, Hispanic, bipolar, liberal, conservative, and the list goes on and on. We are expected to think of these "different" peoples no differently than we think of ourselves. According to this mindset, we're all one people, and it is incumbent on us to accept, embrace, and meld with every difference until the lines between the differences disappear. I argue that this is actually the exact opposite of the phrase "celebrating diversity." Instead, it sounds to me like we're supposed to deny diversity until we all conform perfectly into a collective mesh wherein all identifying characteristics wash away into a sea of foggy gray. This is a very different concept than the definition of "diversity" as it has been brought to us through thousands of years of Roman Catholic tradition.

The Church teaches that God is the Supreme Good, and that this Good is simple and whole. It only becomes diverse and complex in terms of God's many creations. God is Life-giving, He is Wisdom, and He is Knowledge, in their most perfect forms. However, when God created the world, he couldn't capture the whole of this Goodness in just one creature. Therefore his creation became multi-faceted. Many creatures and created things came into being. Just one of these creations, by itself, is a poor representation of the Divine Beauty of God, but some tiny element of perfection in that creation's being will be supplemented by another creation which itself exemplifies some other small piece of perfection. The whole of Creation, in its multitude, considered all at once, comes nearer to being a perfect reflection of the Divine Good. It's the diversity of the creations themselves that make for true beauty. If all animals were suddenly given antlers (because antlers are beautiful and cool) then we would suddenly lose a significant portion of what is truly and uniquely beautiful in this Universe through the loss of antler-less animals and their own unique beauties. We would only be left with a world full of warring, antlered animals with few victories, few casualties, and no final victories whatsoever.

In contemporary culture, true diversity would require a deep, penetrating sense of humility that would feel alien to most of us. We would have to swallow our pride, en masse, in order to admit to ourselves that we're not all perfect representations of everything that is important to the proper ordering of the Universe (including the governing of nations). Farmers would be forced to concentrate of farming, and defer their opinion on issues and problems facing urban areas to their neighbors in the nearest metropolis. Your average coffee shop, arm-chair legal "expert" would have to defer to actual attorneys in real court proceedings, leaving legal judgment to those who have devoted their lives to determining such judgments. Scientists would offer insight into the weather, geology, and medical technologies, and vote amongst themselves on any discrepancies or contradictory findings, paying little or no heed to politicians campaigning on pseudo-scientific issues. We've been conditioned to believe that we all have a right to weigh in on every issue, regardless of whether or not we are qualified to do so. However, imagine if those who were directly responsible for this or that industry were the only ones who participated in the decision-making activities of that industry. This used to be done quite effectively under the Medieval Guild System. True diversity means that a population continues to maintain the characteristics that make each person different and diverse. A whole and complete nation is beautiful not because all of its members are clones of one another, but because all of its members are unique and complement each other in such a way as to comprise one, whole, beautifully organized nation.

As with a painting, the variety of different colors used by the artist adds to the painting's beauty. If only one or two dull colors are used (mixed together through a blend of all other colors on the palette), then the painting becomes a work of modern art, which essentially conveys no real message or story, only a vague sense of disorder and storminess. In our country, we find gun enthusiasts and gun-control advocates. These two forces go head-to-head constantly, striving for a victory they will never achieve. However, there's nothing that says that those who are in favor of gun ownership can't gravitate toward areas where there are others of like mind. And conversely, there's nothing prohibiting gun-control enthusiasts from gradually relocating themselves to places of denser population, where gun control legislation is more popular. Just as there is nothing stopping loyal, Traditionally-minded Catholics from taking up residence in preselected areas and governing their own affairs according to Catholic principles. As it stands, however, someone would certainly take issue with several thousands of devout Catholics moving into the same city, because to our instinctive, American sense of paranoia it would look like some sort of buildup to a hostile takeover at worst or a cult formation at best. But wasn't this the original idea behind the existence of separate states falling under the same union? Why shouldn't a group of Catholics choose a parcel of land and populate it, then proceed to run their new land however they see fit? In this way, true diversity is maintained instead of blended.

How beautiful would the United States be if all the various, diametrically-opposed ideological groups would gravitate towards their own people physically? Then real diversity would shine through at last! Our country would consist of numerous sub-governments of peoples who decide collectively to live in, and govern together, their own chosen areas. Each new city would be a new glimpse at diversity. Today, people who feel and believe one way will often live amongst those who disagree with them completely... and expect their neighbors to change their beliefs to conform with theirs. This is why, more and more, each new city looks like a carbon copy of the last city. It's getting harder and harder to find true diversity in a land of assembly-line towns, too afraid to show any sign of uniqueness. But if you try to picture a land where each sub-population is vastly different than a neighboring population, where collections of like-minded people find each other and live their lives according to their shared principles while not infringing on the principles of their neighbors, then the real beauty of diversity becomes apparent.

This doesn't mean that the doors of one of each of these ideologically-centric, geographical areas can't remain open to those who wish to relocate their family from an area that doesn't truly reflect their inner hopes and desires. It simply means that assemblies of people like our fellow Catholics, for example, can live in the type of Catholic society which strengthens our livelihoods with firm, timeless Catholic tradition and teaching. We could then celebrate our own diversity by implementing the guild system within our own, sub-community. Our farmers could deliberate on all things farming-related. Our craftsmen could do the same, as could our doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, etc. The diversity of career fields can be exalted quite nicely in a way that celebrates each member of society and what they do, without attempting to coerce them into participating and weighing in on fields that are alien to their knowledge and expertise. There's also nothing about this arrangement that would prohibit us from trading with nearby communities. Just as the West used to trade with the Orient along the once-famous Silk Road, we can once again "celebrate diversity" through trade with our neighbors. It's hard to "celebrate diversity," economically-speaking, when every town for hundreds of miles in every direction has the same, exact Wal-Mart with all of the same, exact products.

It's my prediction that the above scenario will come about quite naturally, through a series of subtle movements, over the next few decades. The longer we find ourselves stuck in this ideological stalemate, butting heads with our opposition over and over again with no results, the harder it's going to become to ignore the obvious solution: If we can't all get along, maybe we shouldn't all live in such close proximity to each other. This gravitation towards ideological centers, custom-created for us and everyone like us, has already begun to take place on the Internet. The majority of this book has been compiled from entries on Catholic Facebook groups, which are essentially the cyber-version of exactly what is being discussed here. How long before the real, physical world begins to reflect the cyber-world, which is essentially a digitized projection of our true hopes and goals? I have fantasized many times about constructing a large, beautiful Gothic cathedral directly in the center of a new housing development and small commercial district designed to house other like-minded Catholics. Think of the sense of community and camaraderie that would be present in such a place! Hopefully, small initiatives like this will come to fruition some day and bring back the true spirit of the diversity to a country which seems dead-set on dissolving it into the proverbial melting pot.

Who's Worse? The Prostitute or the John?

Hardly a day goes by when I'm not faced at least once with the problems of "lowlifes" in America. More often than not, this exposure comes in the form of a negative post about how these "lowlifes" are "getting out of hand." There are too many drug users, drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes, etc... so claim these angry posts on a daily basis. So I finally felt the need to throw my two cents into the proverbial ring:

- I drove a cab for several years... night shift, in the ghetto. I saw more junkies, dealers, pimps, prostitutes, etc. than you can imagine. After a while I realized that what I was really seeing was a mirror image of the fear, ignorance, loneliness, Godlessness, and chaotic, amoral atmosphere within which we all live. I was able to forgive them in my heart and redirect my anger towards those who maliciously created the evil conditions which gave birth to all of these problems.

The more I thought about this, the more I realized that there is a certain question I can ask of people, the answer to which can determine with a high degree of accuracy whether or not he and I will have common ground on which to build a friendship.

The question is this: Who is the more culpable? The prostitute or the john? This question can be reworded in several different ways to be applied to a series of situations. For example; Who is the more culpable? The woman walking into the abortion clinic or the family who disowned her for being pregnant and the "respected" public figures who made her think abortion was a viable option?

I'm not claiming that prostitution and abortion aren't sins, but I find those who create the demand for such services to be more culpable than those who simply participate in the sins due to a lack of (perceived) options. We are all responsible for our actions, and a sin is a sin. But with prostitution you're dealing with a woman who has arrived in this profession due to lack of other options. The john (or the man who is willing to pay money for a prostitute's services) is not only sinning in his action, but he is also perpetuating prostitution through demand. He could just as easily give the money he was going to spend on sex to a woman who is in need, no strings attached. A woman walking into an abortion clinic is (at least in many cases) doing so due to a lack of options. Her family, instead of rejecting her, might have taken her in and helped her in her time of need. Prostitution and abortion are symptoms of a lack of Charity. Those who are denying this Charity aren't in desperate situations due to a lack of options... they are simply being selfish and prideful.

The "Coming Out" of a Homosexual Priest

A homosexual priest released a statement about how and why he decided to "come out of the closet" regarding his homosexuality. He cited a list of considerations such as harming his parishioners by creating a level of discomfort in their presence, being penalized for his admission by his superiors, and also the possibility that his admission might provide a ray of hope to young, gay members of the Church. In the end he decided to make his homosexuality public. As might be expected, there was quite a response in the social media arena, and I contributed my thoughts:

- Andy Warhol was Catholic and gay... and he remained celibate. I don't see anything in this brief article wherein the priest in question vows to remain celibate... unless that's what he means by "[he] doesn't disregard the Church's teaching on homosexuality." It feels, however, that he is skirting the issue of celibacy and purposefully avoiding any mention of the topic for fear of facing a more direct line of questioning. I understand that this priest is trying to be honest with himself, but what people look for in their priests is someone who has risen above sexuality, and given it up entirely (gay or straight) in order to devote their lives to others. I'd be happier if this priest were saying something along the lines of "I am sacrificing my sexuality in an attempt to rise above the sins of the flesh so I can better attend to the needs of my parishioners' souls."

- I think it's important to acknowledge that heterosexual priests (at least many of the ones I've known) have had to find ways of leaving even their heterosexual inclinations and temptations behind. One priest told me that it was easier for him to think of himself as asexual. If a priest, essentially, stops being (an active) heterosexual when he is ordained, why would there even be priests who are "struggling with their homosexual inclinations?" Shouldn't they have stopped being a homosexual (and left it in their past) when becoming ordained, just like their fellow, non-gay priests? In short, when you're ordained. Don't be sexual, homo- or hetero-!!

- I struggled with sex addiction when I was in my 20s. The way I deal with those "inclinations" is to not look, when others are looking. To scroll past "that one Facebook post" without stopping. To go to the kitchen to grab a snack during "that part" of the movie or TV show. It takes discipline, but it's not impossible especially with significant amounts of prayer. Why aren't any of these homosexually-inclined priests talking about homosexuality like this? I hear NOTHING about healing or self-discipline. They say nothing about praying through their temptations. In fact, they say NOTHING at all about confessing their sin or even seeking forgiveness. To hear them talk about it, they seem to accept it as inevitable that "homosexually-inclined" priests are fully incapable of controlling themselves or disciplining their own behaviors and thoughts. If there's no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals save "inclination," why is it that heterosexual priests can control themselves, but homosexual priests cannot?

In reading this article, I also noticed that typical, Catholic words like "sacrifice, contrition, forgiveness, etc." are not at all present... anywhere in his words. When faithful, educated Catholics speak about their religion, they tend to speak using recognizable Catholic concepts and phraseology. I am suspicious of the intentions of any supposed Catholic who uses terms and phrases more suitable to modernist thought than to Catholic theological discussions.

- Like I said, he's being open and honest, that much is certain... But nowhere does he say anything about chastity or NOT acting on homosexual inclinations. Of course, that doesn't mean that he DOES in fact act on them, but people tend to lie by omission more often than they lie via direct, untruthful statements. There's just not enough information here to know anything for sure. As a priest, though, he should not have excluded this information if he were truly attempting to live the life of a priest as dictated by tradition. The gay rights movement is always on the lookout for "sound bites" and excerpts to support their cause. They could misinterpret what he's saying here (or interpret it correctly, depending on the meaning behind his words) and use that interpretation to support their manipulation of popular opinion and their infiltration of the Catholic Church and Her teachings. Historically, statements by Catholic clergy have never left much to interpretation. More often than not, statements by Catholic clergy were always very direct and to the point so as not to be left open to misinterpretation. Vagueness and open-ended statements are dangerous because of how they can be received and manipulated by the wrong people. I sense here one of three possible explanations: either he is afraid of saying anything too definitive for fear of offending someone, he is purposefully leaving out words which would suggest his obligation to NOT act on homosexual inclinations, or he is simply ignorant of how his words could be used against the Church.

The Other Aspects of Euthanasia

The issue of Euthanasia is always a touchy one, and the typical user of social media is conditioned to react angrily whenever someone dares to oppose the idea of "mercy killings." However, I weighed in on just such a Facebook thread with the following insight:

- Euthanasia is, by definition, an act of ultimate despair. It is not for us to decide when life is no longer worth living. It is also a prideful act, as evidenced by the all-too-familiar "death with dignity" argument. Many who desire euthanasia (for themselves or others) attempt to justify their position by speaking of the messier aspects of death (incontinence, immobility, etc.). They speak of how they are trying to save their surviving family members from having to care for them when they are no longer able to care for themselves. It's prideful in that they assume they can make decisions about what their family members do or do not wish to do for a dying loved one.

There are other problems that arise from legalized euthanasia. As has been shown in other countries, once insurance companies adopt euthanasia as a valid option, they reserve the right to deny other treatments which don't have a high enough success rate to justify the expenditure. Since euthanasia is now legally recognized ad one of many potential "treatments" for this or that condition, an insurance company can, if it so chooses, only approve euthanasia for coverage due to its low cost, especially when other treatments are deemed not likely enough to work.

And lastly, how is medical science supposed to continue to advance when euthanasia makes it difficult or impossible to find terminal patients for drug trials? My family knows that if I am ever terminally ill, they are free to sign me up for any and all experimental trials. If the experiment kills me, the researchers can cross that treatment off the list and move on. If it works, I get to live a while longer knowing that I helped to further the study of medicine.

I'd like to add that there are other aspects of death, besides the "messy" ones. Contrition and restitution come to mind. Also, if a family is watching a loved one suffer through their final days, weeks, or months, there can be an important lesson to be learned of sacrifice, unconditional love, and respect for one's elders. It might seem cruel to suggest that someone suffer simply to teach their kids one final lesson, but I'm betting that if you asked those who are dying whether or not they wanted their children to be men and women of strong character; the types of people who would sacrifice their time, money, and comfort in order to help someone incapable of helping themselves... they wouldn't hesitate to answer "yes."

The Death Penalty and the Jackal

In recent times, the topic of capital punishment has come up quite frequently in the Church. The tune being sung by the Vatican has changed of late, and the resulting debate rages on in social media. Having read the teachings of the Church prior to the 1960s, I understand why the Church was always so reluctant to issue a blanket prohibition on the death penalty.

- Traditionally, Popes have always called for forgiveness and rehabilitation in sentencing (this does not mean that no prison time should be served). They've always stopped short, however, of an all-out prohibition of capital punishment. Pope Leo XIII said that it is not within the rights of the Holy Office to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation when it comes to capital punishment. It's impossible to predict every possible scenario which could potentially result in a death penalty.

Case in point: Carlos the Jackal was perhaps one of the most dangerous killers in recent history. He was eventually (in the late 1990s) captured in France and given life in prison due to France's national prohibition of the death penalty. While in prison, the Jackal published writings from his cell which are collected under the title "Revolutionary Islam: How to Defeat the West." In this book he swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. This book has been used by Al Queda, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to win over new recruits and public support in Arab nations through its defense of terrorism as a form of class warfare. In short, there are many people who are dead today because of that book which was, incidentally, found in the personal libraries of most of the 9/11 hijackers.

It may very well have been better if Carlos the Jackal had been executed for his crimes before writing these dangerous works. In this case, he was (and still may be) too dangerous to be left alive.

- I'm not exactly campaigning for the Jackal's execution. I just chose an extreme example in order to help illustrate why the Popes were so hesitant to completely prohibit death penalties. I'm against the death penalty because I like to believe that given enough time, compassion, charity, and prayer, nobody is beyond saving. But I can also be a realist. I can't say that nobody EVER throughout history deserved to die as punishment.

Also, there is a doctrine covering Just Wars in the Church. And what are wars if not summary executions on the field of battle? Prohibiting the death penalty might interfere, in ways, with the concept of fighting completely justified battles for the defense of one's homeland or the protection of the innocent and helpless.

Just What Exactly is a "Left-Wing Catholic?"

So why and how, exactly, have "left-wing Catholics" actually sprung into being here in America? (and elsewhere, I'm sure.) We all have friends, or family members, who go to Church weekly, baptize their children, get confirmed, etc. who also vote Democrat and support things like abortion and gay marriage. How is this possible, when the Church's teachings against those two issues are so abundantly clear?

- Once again, I blame this phenomenon on a harmful culture of false dichotomies. I always used to wonder just how in the Hell there was such a thing as "left-wing Catholics." I just couldn't fit my brain around it. But as I read more about Catholic social and economic teaching, I realized that the so-called "left-wing Catholics" are actually aligning themselves to a small part of Catholic teaching perfectly. They see the "right" (economic conservatives) as being evil in that they place primary importance on money, corporate interests, and the economy in general. They begrudge the right for creating wage slaveries everywhere, for applauding greed, and crushing the "little man."

Even many of our past popes (Leo XIII, Pius X, XI, and XII, and others) spoke out harshly against Capitalism. Authors like G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Denis Fahey, JRR Tolkien and many others wrote about the evils of Capitalism constantly (either directly or in allegory). The problem is, of course, that since they have aligned themselves with all things "anti-Capitalist," they become Democrats and thus automatically assume that they must support all of the "left's" platforms, such as gay marriage, socialism, abortion, etc. They are most certainly in the wrong for not seeing the very obvious answer that the "left-wing" of politics in this country is just as evil as the "right-wing." However, this realization managed to shed some light on the nature of their existence... at least for me.

I find that sometimes, especially among my "conservative" friends, it is important to remind people that "conservatism" is also known as "classic liberalism." Both the modern right-wing and the modern left-wing are "liberal" in the sense that they deviate from Catholic teaching. Let us pray that all loyal Catholics are eventually able to shed these restricting, thought-terminating labels so they can begin to reacquaint themselves with the True Church.

Obviously, there are many excuses associated with this phenomenon. We have the "lesser of two evils" teaching, which in this situation says, "Well, I believe that the issue of downtrodden wage slaves in this country is the most urgent issue we currently face, so I'll vote Democrat... even if I don't whole-heartedly agree with their entire platform." We also have the whole mindset of "Cafeteria Catholicism," which sees professed "Catholics" picking and choosing Church teachings which just happen to agree with their own whims. And we have long-standing cultural traditions, such as those found in Boston, MA, where everyone is both Catholic and Democrat simply because that's the way things have always been in Boston.

The most annoying of these excuses is the old, third-party-has-no-chance-of-winning argument, which is closely related to the above-mentioned "lesser of two evils" approach. As clichéd as it might sound, third party politics are real and will become bigger as the two standing parties continue to disappoint their constituency. We can speed up that process by refusing to continue compromising our real beliefs for our Republican and Democratic overlords, and instead voting our consciences without partisan restraints.

"Lesser of Two Evils" and Playing God-given

What is the nature of compromise in modern society? I believe that the Hegelian Dialectic is at least partially to blame. Hegel's philosophy has been used extensively in Revolutionary politics since the beginning of the Revolutionary era. This forum entry is perhaps the best (in my opinion) I've written on the subject:

**-** In a debate (which quickly degraded into a stereotypical, Internet, cornered-animal-hissing-and-spitting battle) on another group's forum, I came to a realization. The debate was on the ever-present "lesser of two evils" voting issue. What occurred to me was this:

Yes, there are instances where popes, even Pre-Vatican II popes, have essentially green-lit the "lesser of two evils" approach to elections. Despite the fact that the context of those encyclicals was of far less gravity than, let's say, abortion, there is another reason why I believe political compromise to be unacceptable now, in contemporary America.

The society in which we now live is the product of many, many long years of conscious, carefully calculated compromise. The Revolutionary Movement and the "progressives" have used the philosophy of Hegel to push two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back... and this has been going on steadily since the 16th Century and earlier. Now we find ourselves imbued in a culture where vice is celebrated and virtue condemned, sobriety of mind and body is cloaked with an air of isolationism and hermitage, while millions of thralls to materialism and addictions of all sorts experience camaraderie and social acceptance. Fallacy is trusted without question and right reason is at best regarded with contempt and suspicion.

We have long since crossed over that central ridge between strong, principled politics and utter ruin at the hands of absolute tyranny. So, with that in mind, who can truly and honestly say to themselves that _just this one more compromise_ will heal all ills? What will happen if we simply refuse to entertain the "lesser of two evils" temptation. The same temptation that was actually born of the very Progressive movement which has relentlessly hacked away at our Faith from within and without for centuries?

Many feel that their vote would be wasted, their voice would not be heard, and that some super-villain of a Democratic candidate would find themselves elected to the highest office in the land when the non-partisan voters' "sacrificial votes" might have stopped them. Suddenly, in a panic, compromise on a lackluster Republican candidate is seen as a better alternative to this terrible outcome. But what if your refusal to cast that particular vote actually _did_ send a message... a message to the enemy that his secretive, subversive tactic of planned compromise has been discovered and unveiled. His evil deeds will no longer succeed in escaping the spotlight. And, what if refusing to compromise actually sent a message to the Creator that we are now ready to take back the world for Christ. Maybe, just maybe, that's all He wants to hear before unleashing the full force of Heaven against the servants of Satan.

The pragmatic reader might find this too fantastic to consider realistically. However, that sense of wonder and readiness to place blind faith In God has kept the Church fresh and alive for millenia. We pray constantly for God to fix the horrors of our world, but if we are not preparing ourselves to be worthy of beholding the true, wondrous Glory of God in answer to these prayers, then why are we praying in the first place? In short, do we have so little faith in God that we resign ourselves to the "lesser of two evils" approach because God couldn't possibly do better?

Even with this long diatribe, I still found myself butting heads with hardcore, die-hard Republicans, still hanging on tenaciously to the party line. After a long back-and-forth dialog of constant repetition, I ended thusly:

**-** The last Republican candidate for whom I voted was Alan Keyes. And then only in a primary election. (Later he ran for president under the Constitution Party and I voted for him again.) The fact that one of the most devoutly Catholic candidates ever (who was schooled in formal logic to boot and was an obvious fit for the office of the presidency) came in dead last in that primary told me everything I would ever need to know about the Republicans Party.

And you say there's nothing to lose by casting my vote for a Republican candidate because my third party vote has no chance of achieving a majority, but I have my self-respect and my soul to lose by voting Republican (and/or Democrat). I cannot have the understanding and knowledge of the Church that I've accumulated over 15+ years of intensive study, and vote Republican with a clear conscience. I would be a traitor to the very life toward which Christ has led me. I have decided to stop compromising, and to put my faith in God that my decision, and my vote, will eventually be rewarded.

Republicans are more dangerous to my fellow Catholics than are the Democrats and all other socialists combined, because they feign compatibility with Catholic Faith in order to subordinate the teachings of the Church to the control of the state. The Democrats? All they do is hate Catholics, which is significantly more charitable than willful treachery.

**Distributism in Practice**

On rare occasion, someone on a social media site will actually admit to not knowing or not understanding something. In fact, this is so rare, I believed it to be pure myth until I actually saw it with my own eyes. On a Catholic Facebook forum, one man admitted to not fully understanding the political system of Distributism and asked for a brief, easy-to-understand example... so I submitted the following answer:

- If you were to start a business in a modern, Distributist economy, you would share ownership of the company with your employees... Not equally, but justly. Your community would determine the exact details of the requirements for operating a business, but essentially you would have a duty to "distribute" profits either annually, or quarterly, etc. For example, 30% of your profit would be distributed to your workers according to their contributions. 30% would be kept in your capital account for rainy days, future expansions, repairs, etc. 30% would go to the community (roads, parks, police force, etc.) and the rest could be yours. This is extremely simplified, but it illustrates the main points. You could also co-op with other businesses to strengthen your business. If you make luxury cars, you could form a co-op with an economy car manufacturer, so your co-op would remain stable in both good and bad economic atmospheres. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque Region of Spain is a perfect example of Distributism in action and has probably the most stable economy in the world.

- Essentially what Distributism does is to close the cap between extreme, miserly wealth and extreme poverty without the communistic "redistribution of wealth" wherein everyone receives equal amounts of everything (at least according to their theory). The Distributism in Mondragon is Catholic, as are most Distributist economies, and were developed along the guidelines outlined in the writings of Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, XI, and XII, GK Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, and many other authors of the Catholic Intellectual Renaissance. There is an element of feudalism in it via the close-knit relationships between businesses and their communities. The Medieval Guild System also comes into play as industries are forced to communicate with each other as all workers are also part owners of the means of production. What Distributism attempts to do is to fairly distribute the means of production instead of wealth. Wealth can be misused and too easily creates wage-slaves. Means of production give a person the ability to maintain their own wealth according to their abilities and contributions without the constantly looming fear of hostile, hording behaviors in the upper classes.

Voter Ballot Health Warnings

Smoking is bad for you... but in all fairness, there are plenty of other things that are just as bad for you, if not worse. That said:

- Sharing from another thread: I think they should require pictures of poverty, starvation, concentration camps, and death squads on voter ballots, just like some countries put pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packs. The same logic applies. If the use of a product has certain, unavoidable, negative consequences no matter how it's used, a picture of said consequences should be included with the product as a warning.

Part Seven- Religion(s)

Acceptance of All Religions?

Many contemporary Catholics seem to get a little confused on the touchy topic of "acceptance of all other religions," which seems to be a modernist maxim akin to a Commandment in this day and age. Modernized Catholics tend to lean towards the idea that all religions are equal. Traditionalists and the more Orthodox-minded Catholics, on the other hand, tend to give off the image of a rabid, crusading knight with a Papal kill order under his/her belt. I take the following position:

- The modern Church confuses the acceptance of all people/sinners with the acceptance of all lifestyles and all professed beliefs. I feel that the answer to this lies in humility. It's easier to accept people who are sinful in their heretical beliefs if you are open and humble about your own sins and vices. A man may be a homosexual, but your disdain for him personally is only justified if your own sins of despair, pride, envy, etc. have been eradicated... and even then he does not deserve your disdain or contempt. His sin might, but he, himself, only deserves your compassion, charity, direction, and love.

For example, which of the following do you suppose works better; telling people that they should convert to Catholicism because they're godless heathens destined to broil in the hottest cauldron of Hell, or telling people they should convert to Catholicism because the Catholic Church has offered you forgiveness for your own sinful mistakes, and that that forgiveness has brought you a sense of serenity, meaning, and conviction previously unknown to you?

All Religion is the Same and Man-Made

In response to the odd statement (odd, that is, on an all-Catholic forum with serious Traditionalist leanings), "I know many Catholics won't agree with this, but religion is man's attempt to reach God, and therefore all religion is man-made," I composed the following retort:

- You're right, no Catholics will agree with such a fallacious statement. To a Catholic, religion isn't an attempt at anything. It is the embodiment of untampered Truth in the Universe. Anything that's true (i.e. triangles have three sides) is of that Universal Truth. Things that tend towards order, reason, life, and truth are of Catholicism/Christ. Anything that tends towards destruction, chaos, death, lies, etc. are of Satan and his infernal agents. Catholics believe that there is Truth which cannot be affected or destroyed. Roman Catholicism is an institution of those striving to identify, understand and live by those Truths. It is singularly interesting that other religions show man striving to reach a god, whereas Catholic Christianity is the only religion (outside of a few Ancient Mythological tales) that sees God coming down to reach man.

The "God-Needs-Man" Mistake

In a question and answer-based Facebook group, a member asked any and all priests present whether or not a statement by a certain priest was wrong/heretical. The statement was, essentially, that "God created us because he needs us." I put my two cents in, but also had an opportunity to respond with a word of caution to another commentator who was, unfortunately, following a very calamitous line of thought:

- The "God created Man because he needs us" theory is actually just the flip side of the "Man created God as a way to deal with unanswered questions and metaphysical curiosities" fallacy. This unsettling hypothesis decrees that God purportedly needs mankind because he can only exist in the minds of men, whom he created specifically for that purpose. (And yes, I'm aware that this is a horrific use of circular logic, which in and of itself is a horrific use of logic.) This type of theory is typical of the various existentialist philosophies popularized in the last couple centuries and in my opinion, is really no different than the ramblings of those who seek for answers via chemically-enhanced mental states.

The theory itself cannot even stand the test of a simple, philosophical analysis. If we are to define "need" as something that one cannot survive without, and we propose that God created man because he needs man, then we are implying that God will die when men die, or shortly thereafter... like an organism deprived of food and water. If this is true, then God is dependent on something for survival, making that something necessarily greater than God. If a thing holds another thing in its power, then the former thing essentially holds dominion over the latter thing. But as Catholics we know that God is dependent on nothing for His existence. Rather, everything that exists is dependent on God for his/her/its existence. Therefore, God must exist independently of mankind. So why, then, did God create us? We may never be able to answer this question adequately, but at least we can assume the following: The existence of everything depends on God, meaning that life comes directly from Him. He creates, making him the Creator, and why does any creator create? To make beauty where there previously was ugliness? To give order to a disordered chaos? To represent through artistic expression something within the Creator's very essence? Is creation itself a necessary function of the Creator, as unavoidable and undeniable as running is to a cheetah? Or is it a combination of all of these things and more?

In response to another group member's reply, which contained several comments about "mystic visions" and "the divinity within us," (presented in a positive light by the author of the comment) I posted the following cautionary warning:

- You posted, "Within us is an endless kingdom... a universe..." Just be careful with that particular line of thought. Many a dangerous idea has sprung out of such thoughts. Of the several branches of philosophy, epistemology is the one which deals with human knowledge; what man can know, and how he can know it. (Many modern philosophers even believe that epistemology is the only real branch of philosophy.) Metaphysics is the branch that deals with the existence of things external to ourselves. Some of the more well-rounded philosophers tackled both of these branches... Like Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

During the Renaissance, people began to "look within themselves" for answers and truth. The Church, however, has always endorsed objectivism, or the belief that there are Truths which are true no matter how human beings attempt to redefine them. The "look within yourself" approach, however, is an offshoot of subjectivism... or the belief that truth is something that is constantly changing and subject to varying points of view, expressed beliefs, cultures, and opinions. Of the subjectivist school was born the idea of Sola Scriptura, the Protestant teaching that each person should read the Bible and interpret its meaning for themselves instead of studying the many informative works of learned churchmen throughout the ages. Subjectivism began to be applied to religious thought beginning with the Protestant Revolution. This exact mindset, however, was declared by the Council of Trent to be anathema... or cursed, essentially.

The snake in Eden told Adam and Eve to "look within themselves" for knowledge and answers, rather than to listen to the external Law of God. There's a great scene in the film Devil's Advocate where the Devil (ingeniously portrayed by actor Al Pacino, I might add) tells Keanu Reeves' character that "The 20th Century was all mine... [I have] convinced everyone that within themselves, they are all their own gods." This statement perfectly reflects what the Church has traditionally taught for nearly 2,000 years about Satan's strategy for steering us away from God. From this mindset, you'll find Protestantism, communism, paganism and new-age "religions," liberalism (both classical and modern... otherwise known in the U.S. as Republicans and Democrats, respectively), nihilism, Americanism (or the belief that absolutely everything is subject to democratic processes of majority rule), and the like. The Church itself has been slowly invaded by this diseased mentality over the past 100+ years, and now we see a Catholic Church in trouble... crumbling to pieces until now, when very few people actually know their faith, or follow religious guidelines in their lives... even if they do attend Church on Sundays.

So many people have been caught up in the flowery language of this error, such as "our soul will expand and adapt divinity" which I have quoted from your reply post. But it ignores the Objective Truth that there is something much larger than us in this Universe... something that is true no matter how we feel about it, or what kind of spin we put on it. This Objective Truth is an anchor for us, to help us exist and thrive in a meaningful and productive way within the world around us (with due reverence to Natural and Moral Law, and appropriate human behavior/ethics). I'm not bringing up any of this as a reprimand. I only offer this advice as a friendly reminder that you are standing very near a dangerous pitfall. Proceed VERY cautiously, my friend!

The Issue of Statues Vs. Graven Images

A priest friend of mine posted on his Facebook page a light-hearted meme stating (at the onset of the Advent season), "Christmas is that magical time of year when Protestants don't have a problem with statues of Jesus, Mary, Saints, and Angels." This silly little bit of Internet humor sparked a lively debate, to which I added:

- Catholics are often offensively criticized for their use of statues. Protestants claim that this is akin to worshiping a graven image, which is expressly forbidden several times in the Bible. In reality, our statues (and all other forms of Holy art) remind us in a tangible, visible way of what we can aspire towards. This has long been a source of contention between Protestants and Catholics. I believe, as do most Catholics, that the Holy Family and all the Saints set the ultimate example of how we should live our lives. Constantly seeing their painted or graven semblances help to keep us humbled (and thereby truly Christian) in their presence. I feel that if I weren't constantly surrounded by the great men and women who came before me, I might be tempted to think too highly of myself and invite pride into my life. That's why, in my opinion, the issue of statues is such an important one.

I'd like to add that I once asked a protestant friend of mine about his Christmas Nativity statues. He said that those statues were OK because "it was tradition." Hopefully the irony of this statement wont be lost on you, my readers.

How I Feel About the Desecration of Evil Bodies

A terrorist event recently took place in California, which claimed the lives of many Americans. The remains of the female perpetrator of this attack, after her suicide (as in suicide bomber), have not been claimed by anyone (at the time of this writing, at least). Her family has not come forward in an attempt to claim her body and give her a proper burial. There was also a male perpetrator, but his remains were claimed. The public outcry against this atrocity gave rise to the sentiment of "feed her worthless remains to the dogs or pigs!" and other, equally irreverent responses. While I have absolutely no love for the crime that was committed, I feel strongly about this issue:

- Bodies are vessels created by God to house a spirit. That spirit was always intended to find its way back to God, even if it never succeeded. I don't agree with desecrating remains, no matter how horrible that person was while alive. The Church teaches that the dead should be buried, and only makes exception for incineration in cases of mass graves, public health issues, etc.

Further discussion brought up the many occurrences of desecration of bodies, specifically beheadings, done to "infidels" by Muslim terrorists. This allowed me to interject something that has always made me wonder:

- I find it interesting that throughout history, those who were likely the greatest enemies of the Church gravitated almost unconsciously to beheading and dismemberment as methods of execution. We see it in the Roman Empire (in the years prior to the Edict of Milan and the institution of the Holy Roman Empire), the French Revolution, and in Islamic Terrorism to name a few popular examples. Japanese soldiers (samurai) loved to behead their enemies and even their own, dishonored members... and did so quite often even in modern times to Christians living in and around Japan (read about the Rape of Nanking, if you have a strong stomach). It would almost seem that these enemies of Christ can't stand to leave a body/vessel intact and feel obliged to desecrate it in order to complete their offense against God... or maybe I'm over-thinking it.

Self-Flagellation and Discipline

Are Catholics allowed to have fun? This seems fairly intuitive, but too many people seem to think they are doing something wrong when they are having a good time. A Facebook post on my news feed pictured a nun smiling and bowling, accompanied by a question... "Why do some Catholics seem to feel guilty whenever they are actually enjoying life?"

- Love the picture! There was/is a sort of unofficial movement in the Church that seems to put undue emphasis on suffering. At one point, self-flagellation was a thing. This was done to punish oneself for perceived sins. I think, in practice, it tended to result in dangerous levels of masochism and scrupulosity. You can still see remnants of this brand of Catholicism in the Philippines, for example. There are people there who actually have themselves crucified (for a brief amount of time... not to the death) once a year. Some even allow the full nailing of their hands and feet. I believe this comes from a mixing of Catholicism with elements of Hinduism, where self-punishment is much more popular (half of the weirdest Guinness World Records are Hindus torturing themselves in unique ways... Longest fingernails, longest distance of laying down flat and rolling, etc.) But I also believe that this self-flagellation practice still remains in small, more subtle ways, especially amongst Traditionalists. Suffering is one thing, bringing about your own suffering is something completely different.

In the spirit of debate, a friend responded with a statement about how discipline, in general, is frowned upon by most of society these days... and that suffering has become something repulsive and unnecessary. I replied:

- Discipline is sorely lacking in the secular world. And those who are interested in maintaining the practical application of discipline are forced into the shadows, where they find others... many of whom are only interested in taking discipline WAY too far in an extreme direction. If discipline were mainstream in the society in which we live, there would most likely be something reasonable in between free-reign licentiousness and sadistic, disciplinary abuse.

- I don't believe that everything that has been hypothesized by the modern science of psychology is bogus. It's okay to make yourself pay for something you've done wrong, or to accept punishment for wrongdoings. But those whom I've known who punish themselves regularly seem to suffer from a sort of low self-esteem, and are treading awfully close to masochism. If you are constantly punishing yourself, especially in a physical manner, you're likely to find yourself looking deeper and deeper for every possible, perceived sin. Some self-flagellation, for example, comes in the form of hurting oneself because a woman with a low cut blouse walks by. I would say that, especially in today's immodest world, this sort of thing would be detrimental to one's physical and mental health.

Islam has No Word for "Peace."

In these modern times, the issue of Islam and Muslim terrorism is never more than a few minutes away from being openly discussed in public and causing fights. Having been an Arabic Linguist in the Marine Corps, coupled with the fact that I'm a huge history buff (specifically Church history, of course), I have slightly more substance to contribute to these debates than the average arm-chair misanthrope.

The topic of Islam surfaced once again in a Catholic group to which I belong. There were questions of whether or not we're supposed to love and accept Muslims, and/or whether or not we're supposed to fight them to the death. The original post brought up the fact that Pope Francis actually claimed that Muslims worship the same god as Catholics (the God of Abraham). I couldn't help but to dive head-first into this discussion:

- I'm not a sedevacantist (I'm not one of those who believe that the papal throne has been empty since the 60s), but I take a cautious position of resistance to obvious error when it comes to the current Bishop of Rome. That said, I would bet my soul on the fact that Muslims (at least while following the tenets of their religion to the letter) don't worship the One, True God. I've seen what they do for their god at his bequest. I'm sure the Catholic God wouldn't endorse teaching children via Barney-the-Purple-Dinosaur-esque TV shows to rape beheaded fetuses ripped from their mothers' wombs. (Sorry about the graphic imagery, but this is something that is actually happening right now in the real world.) And I don't believe they should be allowed to hide behind the "religion of peace" label.

Another group member brought up our duty to pray for the conversion of non-Catholics. This, of course, reminded me of our Charitable obligations... so I changed my tune a bit:

- She brings up an important point. While Muslims may not worship the same God as us, they are still created by God to find their way back to Him. There is a path for each of them which leads to Christ. We must remember that. There is, however, such a thing as a just war... and many Muslims have devoted themselves to pushing their enemies into a situation where they must either surrender wholly or march to war if they deny the primacy of Allah.

I've had many Muslim friends whom I love. I don't pretend to be a fan of their religion, though. I should also point out that these Muslim friends of mine were the Islamic equivalent of cafeteria Catholics, which is to say, Muslim in name only.

Another responder introduced the topic of "peace" as it exists within the context of Islamic teaching. This is something about which I have done an extensive amount of in-depth research:

- The University of Cairo is the official interpreter for the Quran for most of the Arab world, sort of like the Jesuits and Church Doctors are/were to Catholicism. It's also the "headquarters" of the Muslim Brotherhood, which branches off into well-known terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Al Queda, the Taliban, etc. The professors and Imams of the University define the Quran as a sort of road map to Muslim conquest. The "peaceful" quotes from the Quran, which have often been quoted in an effort to prove that Islam actually does teach "peace," are taken from the first stage of this road map, whereby Muslims are directed to begin populating an area that is under foreign/infidel control. It's sort of a "biding time" arrangement while the Muslim population is increased enough to press forward into legislative arenas and the second stage of their conquest. The third stage is nothing short of hostile takeover. This is the same understanding of the Quran which once resulted in 2/3 of Europe falling under Muslim control before the First Crusade was launched in retaliation.

As a former, military Arabic Linguist, I can add that there is actually no word in Arabic for peace. The word "Salaam," which is often mistranslated to mean "peace," comes from the root "salama," which means to defend. "Salaam" means "defense of Islam," which is redundant because the words "Muslim" and "Islam" also come from the same root. In the eyes of someone who subscribes by the "road map to conquest" interpretation of the Quran, this defense of Islam is peacefulness, in that they will have peace when all of their opposition is destroyed. The irony is that their "defense" is more often than not offensive in nature.

The book Islam and Terrorism by Mark A. Gabriel provides extensive and fully-documented information about this "road map" interpretation. The author, himself, was one of the Quran scholars at the University of Cairo who converted to Christianity (thereby changing his name). Judging by the content of his writing, I have no doubt that there is a significant price on his head for exposing all of the juicy intel included in his book... so I highly recommend reading the book and heeding his warnings so his sacrifice will not be in vain.

The Palestinian School of Spinning the Media in Your Favor

I generally try to steer clear of debates about specific issues, but there are a few that I can't help but jump into because of my own, personal experiences. One such topic is that of the Palestinians versus the Israelis in the Middle East. I have had extensive training and experience in this topic, so it's difficult for me to refrain from pointing out erroneous opinions on this topic. My position is based on what I have actually seen and heard with my own eyes and ears. With this in mind, I was scrolling down my Facebook news feed one day when I saw someone refer to the Palestinians as the "underdog" in the conflict. Oh, no. Not on my watch!

- In the realm of modern media relations, it's all about painting yourself as the underdog. The Palestinians excel at this. The Muslims in the Middle East outnumber the Jews in Israel 100 to 1, yet we always think of them as the underdog because they've learned exactly how to spin media coverage in their favor.

- Arafat figured out a long time ago how public statements in front of news cameras about peace negotiations go a long way towards making one look like they are serious about peace. (He was so good at this, in fact, that he was given the [laughable] Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to negotiate peace.) What will typically happen in the Middle East is this:

-The Palestinians will kill non-combatants in Israel in an effort to strike terror into the hearts of their enemy.

-As soon as the attack takes place, and before Israel has a chance to strike back, the Palestinian leadership will issue a public statement to the media, expressing their sympathy for the Jewish victims of the attack and urging Israel to return to the negotiating table with them.

-Israel, not gullible enough to fall for the same BS over and over and over again, will retaliate by targeting a military target (because it is a war, after all).

-The Palestinians, however, keep their military targets surrounded by women and children and other non-combatants, for the sole purpose of counting them as civilian casualties of an attack when the Israelis hit their target.

-Palestinian Leadership will then issue public statements about how Israel doesn't care about peace and loves to target innocent non-combatants. They also make sure to remind the world that just prior to the Israeli attack, Palestine had called for a return to the negotiating table. This way, it appears (to the media and to those who acquire their news from headlines and sound bites, at least) that Palestine is reaching out to Israel for peace, but Israel is not interested in responding and simply wants to murder Palestinian women and children.

It's really quite appalling, and if you look back over the many events that have taken place in the Middle East over the years, you'll see this exact pattern repeating itself over and over again, without deviation.

- I should add that every time there actually are peace talks, the Palestinians demand that Israel turns over all of its land and departs the area forever, and they refuse to compromise those demands... so there really aren't any "negotiations" that have ever actually take place over there. If there were, Palestine would have settled for the areas they have already been granted, more or less.

The Vain Use of the Lord's Name

Whenever someone posts the topic of "taking the Lord's Name in vain" on social media, you can be sure to see a never-ending comment stream that tests the limits of your computer's memory. Most of these comments will jump to the conclusion that simply using the dreaded GD or JC in a sentence is a mortal sin damning the speaker of such words to eternal hellfire. Being a linguist, I have a slightly different take which I believe is more accurately representative of the spirit of the original Commandment:

- I am against the inappropriate use of the Name of God. I believe that His Name demands reverence, humility, and awe. Linguistically-speaking, however, colloquial expressions often abandon formal meaning for informal expression in certain contexts. For example, we often say that something "sucks" when we are not pleased. The origin of this colloquialism is sexual in nature, but that particular meaning is no longer implied unless sexual qualifiers follow the word itself. In contemporary usage, the word "sucks" has worked its way into our lexicon of colloquial expressions, and is more or less harmless in nature. I believe the same is true for those who use the name of God in profane ways in informal settings. On the flip side, many atheists can be caught saying "Go with God," (or "Via Con Dios") even though they claim to not accept the Objective Truth of His existence. Once again, formal meaning has given way to informal etiquette. I, personally, believe (as do we all, at least on this particular forum) that the Name of God is sacred and should not be used in an informal manner... but for the average, lost soul who has never been properly exposed to the idea of reverence, he or she is probably not consciously intending offense towards God when they use these expressions. But someone who uses the word "God" appropriately in a formal sentence such as "God can be found within you, not in churches or in organized religions" is actually perpetuating heresy and is far more guilty of blasphemy than someone who stubs their toe and screams, "OMG!"

In response to my comment, someone postulated a scenario wherein a person who regularly uses the Name of God informally is then informed of the true meaning of the words they are speaking. Would they, then, be guilty if they continued this informal use of God's Name after being properly instructed?

- Then, I'd say, they are most likely purposefully doing so just to spite you. Saying OMG when you see/experience something shocking might be easily forgivable, but once you know that someone near you takes offense at the expression, it can be less so. It's interesting to point out that, despite all of their faults, Muslims rarely use the word "Allah" inappropriately. In Arab nations Islam is the official state religion, and reverence of the name of "Allah" is perpetrated from the highest office in the land and misuse can actually lead to severe punishment. In Western nations, Christianity is no longer the state religion and people regularly use the Name of God inappropriately... so who is the more culpable in this case? The person angrily yelling "GD it!" when they get caught at a red light, or the people who successfully removed God from our national culture, thereby demoting God to a mere informality?

I should add that after careful study, I have found that there is much more to the commandment "Thou shalt not take the Name of thy Lord in Vain" than meets the eye. The original Hebrew word used in the Bible translates as "vanity" or "falsehood." Ancient Hebrew had a different word for "profanity," but that word was consciously not used in the Ten Commandments. A common use of the word in question translates from the Ancient Hebrew as "false swearing." However, "swearing" at that time did not mean what it means today (save for our use of the word "swearing" in a court of law). I argue that "taking the Lord's Name in vain" can be more accurately defined as using God's Name, or proper religion in general, as a sort of cloak to falsely disguise oneself as pious and holy. Falsely swearing by the Name of God would be equivalent to being a wolf parading in sheep's clothing. By this definition, the true violators of this commandment would be, for example, televangelists who use fiery, pseudo-religious speech and subtle, psychological trickery couched in religious terminology in order to strip unassuming victims of their money for personal gain.

One of my biggest pet peeves about over-simplified, Sunday School theology is exactly this... proponents expend far too much energy condemning those who have unwittingly adopted religious words into harmless (if slightly irreverent), informal colloquialisms while failing to reproach those who are far more culpable when it comes to this oft-misunderstood commandment. A hunter who spots the biggest buck he's ever seen on the horizon can say "JC!" and it not be a mortal sin. If it is anything at all, it might possibly be a mildly venial sin (unless he is actually attempting to argue that the deer IS Jesus Christ... which is, of course, absurd!). But using religion and the Name of God like a sort of metaphorical, velvet robe to give you unearned authority over others because you are "saved" and they are not... that sounds more like a mortal sin to me, especially if once you don that robe, you use it to coerce others into believing that you are divinely ordained to have authority over them, their money, their livelihoods, etc. (again, assuming that you have not earned your position of authority in the eyes of God, i.e. priests and bishops).

Those Silly Satanists are At It Again

The American Satanists, whom I envision as a comical, watered-down version of a photocopy of an original print (much like the infamous Illinois Nazis, as seen in the film Blues Brothers) recently threw together a small gathering of maybe four or five people for purposes of desecrating a statue of the Virgin Mary. Obviously, the event was granted wholesale media coverage. Many a Catholic attended the event as well to voice their displeasure and to pray publicly against the Satanists' efforts. One particular man on Facebook desired to see a much more confrontational approach than was demonstrated by the Catholics actually present at the event. He sighted, in his comments, the extremely confrontational approaches taken by Muslims reacting to anything that blasphemes against their prophet, Mohammad. I disagreed:

- The Muslims are defended by their governments in such actions. If Catholics had done the same thing here, they'd be in prison for "infringing on the Satanists' rights." I'm not saying that such a thing is not WORTH a little prison time... but people in prison can't take care of their families or put food on the table. It's difficult to ask anybody to do that.

After I posted this, the subject of the Muslim reaction to the TV show South Park's animated depiction of Mohammad was brought up. This was juxtaposed with the lack of Christian backlash at the same show's animated, blasphemous depictions of Christ.

- I agree, and yes we are strangely silent when shows like South Park or Family Guy blaspheme against Christ. But Christianity is a bit different than Islam, in that Muslims take it upon themselves to personally correct every wrong they see, in a very In-Your-Face manner. Christians can and should exercise the virtues of temperance and faith (depending on the severity of the circumstances). We can see the blasphemy taking place and pray that the producers of said blasphemy see the light and change their ways. We can also ignore the blasphemy as ridiculous and childish, and go about our Christian business. Muslims seldom take this approach. That said, I do believe that there are times for taking a stand and suffering prison sentences or even death in defense of our Faith. I'm just not convinced that this was one of those times. I don't know what would have come across better to potential converts/TV viewers; Catholics reciting the rosary next to this ghoulish blasphemy, or Catholics forcefully attempting to stop the event. The media has an annoying way of presenting the plight of the perceived "underdog." As it stands, I think the Satanists came across as vulgar bullies and the Catholics came across as a mature, prayerful people. That's not exactly a bad message in and of itself.

Finally, in response to a statement about the disintegration of Christianity and the lack of militancy among the supposed faithful, I concluded with:

- It will get worse, for a while. But I see an upswing in the future. I look around and see many people, collectively, getting sicker and sicker of all the transparent lies surrounding them. They might not realize yet what the answer to those lies is... but mark my words, the world will turn back to the traditional Faith over time. Satan might win an occasional battle, but he can't ever win the war... EVER!

Part Eight- Catholicism

Does a Bad Practitioner = a Bad Religion?

Many, many people will argue incessantly against "organized religion" by using the evil or questionable actions of some practitioners as evidence that religion itself is flawed. This subject is a veritable mine-field, especially in company of mixed ideologies, but I still have my own thoughts on the topic... and those thoughts are founded in Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If you don't know what that is, it's essentially a philosophical theory suggesting that everything is subordinate to Forms, or perfect blueprints towards which everything strives. A horse for example, in Plato's theory, would be described thusly:

- At the top, there is the perfect Form of horse-ness... sort of a perfect idea of a flawless, eternal god-of-all-horses; Shadowfax, for all you Tolkien fans out there. The next level down would be the science of the horse, i.e. what makes a horse a horse; horse anatomy and physiology. The third level down is the actual horse itself, which very well may fall short of the Shadowfax ideal due to age, injury, birth defects, etc. Finally, at the bottom, are images of horses, like photographs, videos, literary representations, etc.

In short, you have the higher forms (or perfect ideals), then scientific/philosophical knowledge (untainted by any sort of spin or deception), then the perception of each physical entity, and finally imagination. This is obviously a very complicated topic which cannot be fully explained here, but that's the best, abbreviated explanation I can come up with at the moment. In arguing against those who argue against religion (specifically the Catholic religion) with that tired, old "well, look at the evil done by some Catholics... Catholicism must be evil" argument, I argue the following:

- People who criticize religion with half-cocked "logical" arguments should brush up on their Plato. There is perfect Religion (Roman Catholicism), and there are the imperfect (sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes ill-intentioned) practitioners of that religion. Their imperfections don't affect the perfect Form of True Religion in any way. Just like a three-legged dog doesn't mean that the perfect (biologically-speaking) dog must be a three-legged animal, the existence of a sinful Catholic doesn't mean that the "perfect Catholic" must be a sinful one.

Let's bring back Theology, Apologetics, Philosophy, and Logic as mandatory subjects in schools... Especially Catholic schools! That would be the best method of combating anti-Catholic rhetoric like this!

But All I Have to Do is be a Good and Loving Person

A disturbing number of Catholics are under the unfortunate impression that the dogmatic teachings and sacraments of the Church are unimportant and/or optional. Several studies and surveys have determined that a large number of people who identify as Roman Catholic believe that simply being "good" and "loving" towards others is the only requisite they need worry about in order to win through to their Heavenly reward. I tend to disagree with this over-simplified approach:

- An accurate measure of what's "good" and "loving" must endure throughout the millenia. Adhering to the dogmatic teachings of the Church ensures the survival of such a measuring stick.

It used to be considered "good" and "loving" by the majority to be kind to and respectful of one's slaves. Nowadays, owning slaves at all is considered "bad" and "hateful."

Regarding the slave example, though, a dependable moral measuring stick given to us by Christ maintains now and forever that owning slaves is not permissible. (Shortly after the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, slavery was outlawed by the pope through a series of stages designed to transition a huge portion of the population from slavery into citizenry, granted the same rights as everyone else.) The concepts of good and bad are subject to the whim of each generation. Unless there exists an immovable guideline of living, which we find in the timeless teachings and practices of the Catholic Church, the concept of being a "good" and "loving" person will forever be a subjective, changeable paradigm.

Scrupulousness and a Train Sent from Hell

Here's a thread which started, innocently enough, with a camera-phone picture of a train, photographed and immediately posted by a friend. He said that the train was sent there by Satan in order to prevent him from having enough time to confess before mass. Obviously, this was intended to be a light-hearted joke tantamount to a Catholic version of Murphy's Law. (He didn't actually believe that the train was sent by Satan to thwart his plans.) However, it spurned an interesting comment thread that brushed on a few great topics, beginning with someone who was shocked to hear that some churches still hold confession before mass instead of after:

- What's the point of having confession AFTER mass? Wouldn't you want to confess before receiving Holy Communion? And if you go to Mass, intending to confess after Mass... Shouldn't you skip communion?

- I haven't been to anything other than a Tridentine Rite Mass for nearly 20 years. I'm used to taking Pre-Mass confession for granted. I was shocked to hear that many churches actually do it the other way. It seems counterintuitive to me.

At one point, the same friend who wrote the original post brought up the topic of scrupulousness, especially as seen in those stereotypical, old women who are always in line for confession every, single day... even though they could hardly have had an opportunity to sin in the short 24 hours since their last confession.

- Scrupulousness is one of those gateways through which Satan is currently launching a full-forced attack against the Church, in my opinion... Scrupulousness and Americanism. But this is my pet issue and I can't help myself from jumping up on my imaginary soapbox.

- I'm not talking about a detailed examination of conscience. I'm talking about the "I drove past a public beach and caught a brief glimpse of a bikini." Or "I forgot my 12th morning rosary yesterday."

[  
](https://www.facebook.com/ojolinger) - I should add that I've seen overly-scrupulous "Catholics" tell women who've had abortions that they should be put to death because the "Church" demands justice. I've seen the overly-scrupulous tear their families apart because they refused to go to a wedding in a traditional parish with an SSPX priest instead of a priest of some other type of traditionalist order. This is the type of stuff where I most feel the presence of evil. I see the sin of pride, and I see division where there needn't be division.

Neither in Nor of the World

Here are a few thoughts I posted to Facebook after contemplating the characteristics of the typical Catholic in today's world. I've seen far too many Catholics, especially Traditionally-minded Catholics, who refuse to go out into the world to spread their knowledge and love of Christ, and in the same breath complain about how the world is forgetting about the Traditional teachings of the Church:

- I've noticed over the years that too many Catholics seem to be neither in the world nor of the world. Many of us are praying desperately for a magic trick, for God to wave a wand and magically change the world into something more tolerable to us. I cannot subscribe to this line of thought. I believe it is incumbent on us to be in the world, to take part in its daily activities, while continuing to not be of the world; to go to where the lost and hopeless live, work, and play... and show them how to escape feeling lost and hopeless.

As I wrote in a previous post, I pray for the resolve to fight that part of the war which I am called to fight. I am a writer. So, in the spirit of the epic poem, I begin each day with an invocation to the muse, in a Catholic sense of course. I pray that whatever I write might truly inspire those who read my work... You know, all four of them.

I often find myself very angry that so many Catholics spend so much time asking for miracles without personal contribution; quick fixes without sacrifice or initiative. I resent that Catholics, especially older Catholics, flock to the Church like they're seeking a place to hide from the scary outside world. A place where they can quietly and peacefully await death while resigning the Earth to the end times because they can't imagine any hope for the future.

- It always baffles me that people seem to think that the Church, specifically the Traditional Church, is a great place to hide from Satan. I always tell them, "If you were a general, would you send your best troops and captains to places you've already conquered? Or would you send them to the front lines? Make no mistake, Satan is right there next to you, laughing at the fact that you think he can't see you, attacking you with his most subtle and powerful weapons." Religion isn't a retirement hobby, it's the province of hardened warriors ready to continue the onslaught against Satan to the last man... at least it should be.

At What Point does a Sin Become a Mortal Sin?

Be careful when someone starts asking questions like, "Which sins are mortal sins and which ones are venial sins?" My experience has shown that 9 times out of 10 the person who asks that question is looking for a loophole, and intends to entertain a vice of some sort. This exact question was asked in a group to which I belong, although to this person's credit, I believe she was simply being a good group administrator and keeping the group's feed fresh and interesting. But I still threw in my two cents because... that's what I do:

- It's hard to make an actual list of mortal and venial sins because of this: what's a mortal sin for one person might not be for another person. Here's a perfect example: If a recovering alcoholic falls off the wagon and has a few drinks, that act could be a mortal sin for him. Alcoholism is something that tends to take over your whole life and soul, and not taking one's recovery seriously is tantamount to saying, "I surrender my soul over to alcoholism." Someone else (who is not an alcoholic) might have a drink or two at parties or fancy dinners and it not even be sinful at all. The book Drinking with the Saints by Michael P. Foley (highly recommended) covers the drinking of alcohol in a moderate and responsible way.

A venial sin makes your soul sick and a mortal sin kills your soul (or would kill your soul but for the Grace of God). Those two pieces of information are the best measurement you're going to find for determining the degree of severity for this or that specific sin. A priest with whom I used to eat breakfast every day once told me that it was dangerous to try to list sins, categorize them, etc., because the practice too easily gives way to feelings of pride for those who feel like they've found sin "loopholes." It's also too easy to judge others unfairly or without enough evidence to make a sound judgment. Like protestantism, it over-simplifies a necessarily complex subject. Your personal sins should be between you and your confessor. Even attempting to create a definitive list of mortal and venial sins is fraught with potential pitfalls. At the very least, putting together such a list will result in a huge waste of time.

Mortal Sins and the Invincibly Ignorant

The topic of mortal sin tends to pop up quite often on the Internet, to wit "invincible ignorance" is often discussed in detail. In an effort to expose one particular, contemporary example of where the concept of invincible ignorance might come into play, I presented this scenario:

- I've had friends who have had monogamous relationships with their girl/boyfriends that were sexual in nature. The world praises them for being monogamous and they tend to feel, because of this, that they are good people, primarily because they don't sleep around behind their partner's back. Invincible ignorance might come into play here. How do you tell someone who's constantly being praised for being a loyal, faithful partner that they are in fact guilty of a sin because they are sexually active while unmarried?

One person responded by suggesting that some people explain this or that sin away because they envision that the rest of what they do with their lives is morally praiseworthy... almost as if they "earned" that sin through good behavior.

- I think a lot of Catholics imagine a line in between Heaven-bound and Hell-worthy, and they attempt to stay on the good side of that dividing line. I'd say thinking this way is dangerous... but we've all done it at least once. The problem with this line of thought is that it leaves no room for Purgatory. Invincible ignorance refers to those who sin because they are not aware that what they're doing is a sin. It stands to reason that a person like this would be relatively well-behaved in other aspects of their life, to the best of their ability, in that they are at the very least well-intentioned. Since intention is at the heart of every sin, this goes a long way towards arguing a secure place in Purgatory for even the most invincibly ignorant among us... and Purgatory is certainly better than Hell.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the Latin phrase meaning "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." This is a point of much controversy in the Catholic Church, and it carries with it other controversial issues such as invincible ignorance, and Baptisms of Blood and Desire. This, in turn, brings up the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney concerning Baptism of Water. I am not going to go into detail about my feelings on the issue here, but I will include a few thoughts I wrote in a debate thread on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus:

- There are different definitions of "Church" theologically-speaking. There is the Church Militant, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church temporal organization itself, physical church buildings, the Magisterium, etc. Which of these is being referred to in the phrase Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus? All of these things can proceed with the simple nomenclature of "church," or "Ecclesiam" in Latin. It seems to me that most people assume that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus refers to the Roman Catholic organization rather than to the Magisterium. This is essentially a "letter of the law vs. a spirit of the law" argument, touching on Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development: someone may choose not to commit murder because the Church says it's wrong, while another person may decide not to commit murder because they have reasoned on their own that murder is wrong and against Natural Law. Both of these are successfully following Catholic precepts, though one is definitely aware of the fact, whereas the other may or may not be aware that what they are doing is approved of and promoted by the teachings and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

In today's world, yes, most people have been exposed to the Catholic Church in one way or another. But the that exposure can be drowned in a veritable sea of thousands of potential religious-alliliation options. The atmosphere of religious freedom in most countries goes even further toward reducing the Catholic Church to just another name in a hat, equal in weight and validity to every other name in the hat. So, with that in mind, have people really been exposed to the Church in such a way as to result in their KNOWING that they are consciously declining the One, True Faith if they decide to choose another option? The Vatican does not enjoy the grandeur and primacy in the public light that it once did. It's easy to say, "Well, everyone has heard of the Catholic Church, so they can't claim Invincible Ignorance anymore." But you're assuming that they have heard of the Catholic Church in the same way you have heard of it. Some people have only heard that the Catholic Church is full of pedophile priests and is responsible for all of the world's wars, famines, diseases, etc. And who is countering that prejudiced image for them? Are you going to reprimand Hollywood and the News/Media for slandering the Church, then in the same breath punish those whom they have successfully duped with their campaign against Catholicism?

The Church, however, manages to remain relevant in the background, coursing through the veins of humanity in subtle, unconscious ways. People are still getting married, having families, raising kids, following the law, helping others, exhibiting charity, hoping for better days in the future, and having faith that there is a God, and that He is merciful and all-powerful. All of these things proceed according to Catholic Natural Law, which exists independent of human whims and currents. Whether these families are aware of the fact that they are doing just what the Church would require of them if they were formal members is almost immaterial. While this crisis in the Church continues, all of these people are making future generations of potential Catholics possible, in the days to come when the Church returns to its former glory. "He who hears the Truth, hears My voice." As long as Truth endures, so does the Church. And those who fight for Truth, are fighting for Christ... Whether they are fully conscious of it or not. An atheist lawyer who proves his Catholic client's innocence has made it possible for a Catholic father and husband to remain with his family, to provide for them, to guide them in the teachings of the Church, and to love them as Christ loved us. Does the lawyer's contribution count for nothing?

As sensible as this sounds, this still managed to spark a vehement battle between opposing sides. I decided to respond to one, specific statement, which actually did contain a defensible point. This commentator's contention was that non-Catholics cannot achieve Heaven, not necessarily because of their lack of sinful behavior, but because of the stain of Original Sin left on their souls since they were never baptized.

- You are assuming that their life hasn't warranted a baptism of desire in the eyes of God. We can't make that call. Only God can determine if a soul is to be considered baptized through a strong, unconscious desire expressed by the many virtues of that person's life. So, again we return to the issue of Feeneyism, and consequently the concept of Invincible Ignorance.

- I will agree that the Catholic Church is by far the straightest road to Redemption and Salvation. Not being on that road increases the difficulty level by a substantial margin. But in today's world, where NOT being Catholic isn't the conscious and informed act of rebellion that it once was, I refuse to agree that non-professed-Catholics have absolutely no chance of attaining their Heavenly Reward. It's unreasonable, illogical, and smacks of Pride in that it attempts to reign over God's actions. There is no Mercy in such a statement. There is no Charity, nor Hope, nor Faith in such a statement. Such a statement attempts to tell God what He can and can't do when passing eternal judgment on a soul. I won't support such a statement, and the Church has never endorsed this mindset. It has, however, actively condemned the teaching of this view on several occasions.

- I believe that Christ's words, "He who hears the Truth, hears my voice" are the very essence of the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This is reinforced by the texts of the Council of Trent concerning Sacraments, as well as the pronouncements and encyclicals of Popes Innocent III, Pius V, and Gregory XII. This interpretation regards the definition of "Church" (as it regards this issue) as the accumulation of all Truth. This truth is taught best and most accurately by the Magesterium. Regarding the Magesterium as the teaching authority of the Church Heirarchy and the Roman Catholic Church organization is the best way to salvation. Self-interpreting complex issues such as baptism is a road fraught with perils. Receiving the Sacraments are imperative to following this path. However, for those who fall outside of the fold of the Church proper, salvation is by no means impossible to attain. Acts of perfect contrition, charity, faith, and hope can come from any human being, and justifying grace is bestowed on those who perpetrate these perfect acts.

- There are a lot of people who are successfully living good lives. The continued survival of our species is evidence enough that somebody must be doing something right. The Devil only wants death and destruction, so any survival at all means that he must have failed somewhere along the road. Somebody whom he tried to tempt with worldly goods, decided instead to raise a family. Somebody else whom he tried to tempt into pillaging the poor, decided instead to donate food and provide shelter for the homeless. People do manage to say "no" to Satan even when they know nothing about real Catholicism. The problem, of course, is that (thanks to the absence of Catholic teaching in the world) there's a genocide around every corner. Even small errors amplified over millions of people across generations become big problems. In these cases there truly is no salvation outside the Church, because those small, seemingly insignificant rules and doctrines are in place for the sole purpose of preventing small issues from snowballing into massive atrocities. But this doesn't mean that people who aren't even aware of the importance of the Catholic Church's existence aren't still making Christian decisions on a daily basis and living according to Christ's example simply by virtue of their own gift of human reasoning... which, by the way, was given to them by their Creator. I think it's very cool that God has gifted us with the ability to reason, and even those who deny his very existence take advantage of this gift and manage to come to the same conclusions about behavior, virtue, and ethics as have been taught by the Catholic Church for time immemorial.

There are more substantial reasons that the Church teaches the very real existence of Purgatory, other than simply for people who missed one Sunday Mass 27 years ago or who stole money out of their mother's purse when they were adolescents. I have no doubts that Purgatory is full of non-Catholics of all sorts; people who lived exemplary lives above and beyond even some of those who counted themselves members of the Catholic Church. Their only sin was never finding their way into the Catholic Church in an official manner. The alternative to this is a pride-filled, only-we-selected-elite mindset which holds way too much in common to the belief structure of Jehovah's Witnesses.

From here, the debate began to descend into anger-fueled, unproductive venom... and unfortunately, I got a little carried away. In an effort to bow out of any further aggressive interactions, and to smooth things over with other group members with whom I had no desire to have bad blood, I posted my formal apology:

- Apologies to group: I went ahead and got carried away earlier today. I allowed a hot-button issue to drag me down into just exactly the type of aimless, back-and-forth, senseless debate I promised myself I would no longer be a part of. I took on an angry, mocking tone with a few of you, and for that I apologize. After all, we are all on the same side here, and no matter what our position is on that endless Feeneyism debate, we here were all baptized Catholic with water, so it hardly matters within the context of this group. I'd love to blame my absolutely terrible week for the sour attitude I exhibited, but that would just be a lame excuse for unacceptable behavior.

I decided to include this apology in this book in an effort to highlight the fact that we are all called to be humble, and I would venture a guess that most of us (including myself) tend to forget about humility when we get involved in heated arguments. When we debate, especially amongst ourselves, pride tries to sneak its way into our hearts and minds, as is evidenced by the tones of our voices and the language of our body's unconscious limbic system. Instead of embracing the spirit of fruitful, constructive dialectic, we end up looking down our noses at our opposition. We think that a person who mistakingly believes in an error must necessarily be beneath us intellectually and/or spiritually. We fail to remember that the lives they have led have contributed, for whatever reason, to their belief structure in a variety of different ways... and they are willing to defend that belief voraciously. Direct attack almost invariably leads to mud-slinging, and the hearts and minds of men are hard to reach when they are covered in mud.

Sola Scriptura and Marian Theology

A Facebook friend who had converted to Catholicism from Protestantism commented in a discussion about the Virgin Mary that, during the process of his conversion, he had the most trouble wrapping his brain around Marian theology. The doctrine of the virgin birth, he said, along with the Church's tradition that Mary was without the stain of Original Sin, was very hard for him to swallow. I tried to make him feel better by reminding him that even some of the Saints themselves had trouble with this element of Catholicism.

- You're not alone. St. Thomas Aquinas, while able to wrap his mind around some of the most complex theological concepts, admitted that the virgin birth was something he simply had to accept with blind faith, because even a mind as great as his couldn't quite grasp it. However, out of that faith and through a profound respect for the woman whom Jesus himself respected above all others, he maintained due reverence and love of Mary.

One interesting aspect of Catholic teaching is that Mary is the opposite of Satan. Many tend to think of God as being the opposite of Satan, but God is above all and suffers no equal/opposite. Satan said "no" to God's call to obedience while Marry said "yes" to the same call. This is why so many artistic renditions of Mary show her crushing the serpent under her foot.

Further conversation turned towards the Protestant theory of Sola Scriptura, which means that one need only read the Bible in order to attain salvation. This heretical ideology is heavily opposed to the reading of books about theology, philosophy, etc. such as the writings of the many Saints/Doctors of the Church. Sola Scriptura also urges the reader to look into themselves and adhere to their own understanding of what they have read in the Bible, rather than to listen to others' learned interpretations.

- I always trusted my own understanding above all others' interpretations... that is, until I took a class about Catholic political thought. In that class, many of the Church Fathers' teachings about the 10 commandments were discussed. Among these was a fascinating lesson about how the commandments pertained even to political thought and governmental obligations. I was blown away by the way these great thinkers were able to translate the commandments and apply them to the field of political science. I would probably never have thought to apply them to the governing nations. In short, there is nothing wrong with humbling oneself and taking into consideration the hard work and detailed analyses of the great minds who paved the road before us.

Once You Go Latin, You'll Never Go Back

A stranger on a Facebook group to which I belong posted that there had been some strife in his home, especially concerning his wife, between the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo. Apparently, the wife refused to even attend a Latin Mass with her husband. The husband, on the other hand, had "discovered" the Latin Mass and, as those of you who share in that discovery know, there is no turning back from that no matter what hangs in the balance. He was looking for advice on how to convince his wife to at least give it a shot. I chimed in with:

- I've run into this issue in a slightly different way. My wife was, at first, very open to the Latin Mass. We went to a local Latin Mass parish for a while, as I am an altar server trained specifically to serve the Tridentine Rite. The problem arose through other traditionalists. My wife wanted to interact with other parishioners, form friendships, make play dates with other families' children and our own, volunteer for Church activities and youth groups, etc. Unfortunately, these things were impossible. Every time we tried to meet other Catholics, we were subjected to the Traditionalist interrogation, as I like to call it; what kind of Traditionalist are you? Do you accept this or that priest's ordination? Are you a sedevacantist? How do you feel about baptism of blood/desire? Oh, you had an abortion before you converted to Catholicism... Well, it doesn't matter that you confessed it, you'll still burn in Hell for it! (someone really said that!).

The worst obstacle to the resurgence of the Latin Mass appears to be traditionalists themselves. This type of behavior is disgusting. It fosters a mentality in which everybody is their own pope. They have taken it upon themselves to excommunicate, pass papal pronouncements, and to keep numbers dangerously low just so they can maintain themselves as the final remnant of the Church. To them, Catholicism is no different than the Jehovah's Witnesses' tenets, even though they would never admit this to themselves. They're building themselves up to feel like the elite, chosen few, while simultaneously condemning all others, all to secure their ultra-privileged ride to heaven.

None of this matters to me because the Mass is the Mass. I know that every Mass I attend is Christ's sacrifice, and that the other attendees couldn't possibly affect that, no matter how hard they try. I'm educated in theology and traditional Church teachings. I've read encyclicals, councils, etc., and I am comfortable attending Latin Mass no matter what the external environment. My wife, however, is a simple Catholic. She wants the feeling of community and camaraderie, and who can blame her? We should be able to feel safe and accepted in a traditional church. We should be able to build life-long friendships.

I love the Latin Mass, but because of disgusting behavior like this, I have nothing but anger and contempt for most Traditionally-minded, lay men and women. It's so backwards, that one can hardly miss the mark of Satan on it, taking pleasure in the sewing of chaos and distrust.

I truly feel for you, my friend. I'll pray that your wife comes around but I'll also pray that your fellow parishioners don't scare her off once she does.

The original poster responded positively to this comment, and added that one of the primary hangups he was experiencing was trying to convince his wife that there even was a crisis happening in the Church at all. Apparently, she was in a significant amount of denial concerning the goings-on around her. I added:

- The argument that worked for me was sublime in its simplicity: "Look at the fruits."

Since the 60s, the priesthood has dwindled, Church attendance is a fraction of what it once was, scandals have sprung up almost daily, and the Church has lost almost all of its influence in human affairs, to the detriment of all. Because of that last bit, immoral behavior has skyrocketed. We celebrate the most depraved acts of deplorable vice. The porn industry has become one of the largest in the world next to oil and drugs. Islam is pressing into the West again. Divorce has reached pandemic proportions. Abortion is targeting the most innocent among us for extermination. And slavery runs rampant everywhere (although usually under a different name)!

I find it to be beyond coincidental that all of these things suddenly soared high, as if they were suddenly turned loose from their infernal prisons, beginning almost the same instant the Second Vatican Council was completed. I am not claiming here that all Catholics who accept the council are wrong, and therefore not "real" Catholics. I am simply suggesting that the Council and a MASSIVE, negative change coincided almost exactly. I pray that this is remedied by faithful ecclesiastics over time, as they are the ones with the authority to administer such a remedy.

The other thing that really won me over was the fact that the priest faces the altar in the Latin Mass. The more you think about that, the more impressive and awe-inspiring it becomes.

These are the things that won me over. Obviously, everyone will follow their own unique path. I've known people who were won over by the Latin language itself, by pre-mass confession, by proper placement of the tabernacle (front and center on the altar), by communion on the tongue, and by the meatier, more substantial sermons of Traditionalist priests. But remember this... your wife is supposed to return to Christ, just as we all are. This means that there is a path divinely designed for her, and that path may be wholly different than yours. Just do your best to help her recognize the signposts, detours, and obstacles she is bound to discover along the way.

- Addendum: I find it best to highlight the positive elements of the Latin Mass, and completely ignore any commentary on the Novus Ordo/Pre-and-post-conciliar debacle no matter how tempting it might be. People today are conditioned to switch to a closed-off, defensive mode almost immediately. You'll see it in their body language as they cross their arms, exhibit distancing postures, etc. Once that happens, they essentially turn their ears off to all else. Share what you love about TLM, not what you hate about the N.O.

A separate commenter chimed in after my first comment with an acknowledgement of the difficulties presented by Traditionalists through their own prideful, elitist mentalities. This is a sore topic for me, so I had to throw in one more comment to add to complete my commentary:

- I feel, unfortunately, that the generation who lived through the changes will have to pass on before the millennials and future generations will truly be able to stimulate growth again. I'm not saying this to be mean, but there's too much anger, resentment, and pain in those who watched the Church change so dramatically and drastically around them. Now they feel that the Church is broken and they can't help but resent their enemy's victories, and hunt for new atrocities to bemoan and begrudge. The younger generation, who grew up in the Novus Ordo church and found Traditionalism along the way, will be far more inclined to treat it like it's new and exciting, because to them (me, for example) it is new and exciting. Lest we forget, the best salesmen are those who truly believe in the benefits offered by their product... Not those who are still fed up with a bad product that never lived up to its promise.

Novus Ordo Vs. Traditional Latin Mass

I unintentionally offended someone who attends the Novus Ordo, vernacular Mass in her town. As it was not my intention to offend anyone, I attempted to clarify my reasons for preferring the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo:

- I truly don't have a problem with anyone who attends the Novus Ordo Mass. I will not call them heretics or protestants like some of the more militant Traditionalists are apt to do. I truly believe they are Catholic. But I do have reservations about the Novus Ordo Mass, and I find that the TLM makes me, personally, feel much more connected to Christ and to the hundreds of generations of Catholics before me. When I attend Latin Mass, I feel that I am stepping out of time and into eternity, if only for a brief moment... but that moment is incredible. I feel nothing akin to that at Novus Ordo parishes. These, of course, are my own, personal preferences. Please don't take offense at anything I have said. It was not said maliciously. I believe we're all tied into the same fate which, one way or another, will be realized in due course of time. I know one thing for certain: Satan CANNOT win. He can NEVER win. This is why he despises everything of God so vehemently. Patience and Faith will show us a world where Catholicism endures.

Where Have all the Good Men Gone?

In recent years, male attendance at Mass has declined considerably. It seems that, statistically, the numbers of women, elderly, and children have managed to remain fairly static in Catholic Churches, but the number of young, working-age men has steadily dropped. After discussing the numbers with several friends in a post, I added this:

- Our beloved Church used to be a warrior's religion; A manly organization with the heart of true sacrifice and vehement loyalty. But the solemnity and timeless character of the Mass is diminishing, and therefore has become consistently less and less attractive to men from teenage years to retirement.

Men have an instinct to be "real men," despite the entirety of the modern world attempting to steer them in a more neutered direction. That kumbaya, hand-holding tripe that has become so common place in recent years seems more suitable to a hippie drum circle than to a collection of responsible, hard-working men. And as long as the Catholic religion equates to nothing more than a Sunday morning hobby celebrating a watered-down, Sunday-school theology for preteens, mature men are going to find other outlets for their masculinity, most of which will no doubt be harmful to their souls.

It's interesting to me that Irish pubs tend to draw so many of the same men who are leaving the Church in droves. There, they still get to touch on a tiny piece of Catholicism from the old country (i.e. Ireland) while still getting to demonstrate the toughness and masculine empowerment for which they have been thirsting in a desert of emasculation. The fact that they are drinking irresponsibly and (probably) sinning up a storm just goes to show how little priestly direction has been devoted to this neglected demographic of would-be, loyal Catholics.

All the Heresies Around Us

Following a discussion about all of the various heresies, I decided to comment when someone brought up the fact that Pope Francis accused the Traditionalist movement of being guilty of Pelagianism:

- Some Traditionalists have a rather Puritan (read Pelagian) feel about them. This is probably what the Pope is talking about. Puritanism results in a binary mindset: there is either wholly good or wholly bad. The reason this is considered to be heretical and "non-Catholic" is because it does not allow for the concept of Purgatory, and everything that the real existence of Purgatory implies. Most heresies (again in a very binary, false dichotomous manner) only recognize sin and virtue while failing to highlight the differences between mortal and venial sin. A man who dies in a state of venial sin will still, eventually, see the gates of Heaven after being purified via Purgatory, thanks to the price paid by Christ on Calvary. This is not an endorsement of sin. It is, simply put, a realistic view of mankind. Everybody sins and, but for the Grace of God, none of us could ever hope to attain Heaven due to the stain left on our souls by those sins. Many sinners, however, still manage to live good, charitable, Christian lives and their sins remain venial in nature. In essence, Purgatory is a necessary component of Grace because nothing impure can enter Heaven. Why would a purification process be necessary at all if only those who died without sin could attain the eternal reward of Heaven?

Then someone asked group members to speculate on which new heresies might be recognized and officially labeled down the road, as the Church becomes aware of their mechanisms and damning effects:

- I tend to think that eventually the Church will determine in an official manner that two things in particular are heretical:

1. The tendency of many of the faithful to neither be in the world, nor of the world... a sort of extreme isolationism. We all know what the actual quote from the bible says ("be in the world, but not of the world"), but I look around the world and see people employing a sort of isolationist mentality regarding active participation in their communities out of fear of coming into contact with sin.

2. Americanism, which could be defined as an extreme sense of self-importance, not subject to superior authority in the governing of nations and communities, and not subject to hierarchical structures of any kind. Essentially, that all-too-common belief that everyone is their own pope/king/president/boss/etc. This would-be heresy is a sort of pride couched in terms of "freedom" and "popular vote."

I know the essence of these errors has already been addressed many times by many different popes, synods, and holy men. However, they are so prevalent and popular nowadays, I think that they will eventually be redressed in more specific ways in some future council.

In order to clarify my statement, in light of a reminder that some saintly people in the Church have actually chosen to remove themselves from society completely (such as the desert fathers, silent convents, etc.), I responded with:

- I think it depends on how you are approaching the isolation. Removing oneself as a part of your vocation is one thing. Removing yourself because you're scared to leave your comfort zone is something else. I see far too much of the latter, and I think it's wrong to hold onto our beloved Catholicism like it's some sort of secret, members-only society. I don't like the fact that the majority of parishioners in my Church refuse to interact with "outsiders" at all, if they can help it... and if they are forced to interact with "outsiders" in the course of their careers, they tend to keep their Catholicism to themselves. We're not Amish, and we're not Puritans. We are Catholics and it is our duty to involve "outsiders" in our lives in an attempt to bring them into the fold of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Attachments

Anthropophaginian Rights

A close friend of mine has all-but physically forced me to include the following satirical essay I wrote several years ago. In this essay, I attempt to use modern-day, humanistic arguments (excluding any and all moralistic considerations as modernists are apt to do) to argue for something that would force even the most staunch liberal to cringe uncomfortably. My goal in writing this was to prove that, using the typical arguments of a secularized system, some things that might be seen as horrifically taboo and undeniably wrong could be ostensibly justified within the framework of a secular society. Following the many, recent victories of the homosexual rights movement (gay marriage, transgendered bathrooms, etc.) we have begun to see other minority segments of society coming forward with extremely questionable "alternative lifestyles." These groups include, but are not limited to, pedophiles (of which NAMBLA, or the North American Man/Boy Love Association, is a perfect example), men and women who "self-identify" as other species (cats, ponies, etc.), and others who describe themselves as children trapped in adult bodies (adult babies). Now we are seeing these types of people, who used to be considered mentally unsound and sometimes even criminally evil, coming out into the open and utilizing the same, exact arguments used by homosexuals and transgendered people, who in turn "borrowed" their arguments for "equal human rights" from the civil rights movements of the last century. (Before anyone jumps on that, I'm NOT claiming that we never should have granted equal civil rights to African Americans!) So, without further ado, I present to you my Cannibal Rights Essay:

The following is a desperate plea to anyone who claims to believe in certain civilized ideals like compassion, tolerance, acceptance, and basic human rights! Please lend me your ears for a moment and open your mind to the plight of an oft-misunderstood and near-universally condemned people. Many a derogatory, hateful word has been used throughout history to describe them, from savage to devil, cannibal to troglodyte, but those who ingest the ethically-obtained and life-sustaining meat of the human animal actually prefer to be referred to by the non-bigoted term anthropophaginian, meaning simply "eaters of mann." These noble people suffer such thoughtless and narrow-minded portrayals in the media as the infamous example of "Hannibal the Cannibal" from Thomas Harris' book series and associated film adaptations. Their proclivity for human meat is innate in their being, and inseparable from who they are as people... that's right: people! They are as deserving of equal treatment under the law as are any other demographic of "normal" persons!

As with every misunderstood element of society, education and open dialog is the best way to gradually tear down long-standing prejudices and stereotypes. Anthropophaginianism is no exception to this rule. I hope here to put to rest some myths and misconceptions, long-ingrained in our culture, about the anthropophaginian lifestyle. First, and probably most important is that anthropophaginians are not murderers. There have been more than a few literary and media representations of anthropophaginian characters designed to present them in a negative light without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Most recently, we find "cannibal" antagonists in iconographic, pop culture spheres like the aforementioned Hannibal Lecter stories, The Walking Dead television show, even popular, cult independent movies such as Cannibal Holocaust (an obvious and malicious comparison to the genocidal activities of the Third Reich) and Cannibal the Musical (a horrifically offensive movie and stage play written by the creators of the South Park animated series). Even celebrated literary masters such as Herman Melville have written in a way so as to present a one-sided, non-inclusive image of the stereotypically murderous, uncivilized, man-eating barbarian... never once mentioning the civilized, law-abiding anthropophaginian. The unfortunate result of this is, of course, centuries of misinformation aimed at creating a prejudice. News flash: one does not, in fact, need to commit murder to engage in anthropophaginian activities!

The examples of the Donner Party and the 1972 plane crash in the Andes made popular by the film Alive are typically lumped into the same category of "cannibalism" as the aforementioned examples of willful, psychopathic murder, when in fact these examples stand apart as inspiring stories of survival anthropophaginianism. The truth is, there are many ethically-sound, responsible ways of procuring human meat for purposes of ingestion. Several groups of anthropophaginians throughout the world have made arrangements with each other to voluntarily donate their own meat to the other group members as prescribed by their own, generally-accepted guidelines. Some group members, for example, diagnosed with terminal illnesses will decide to end their lives on their own terms, and will even undergo strict dietary regimens before doing so in order to increase the nutritional value of the meat which they are freely giving to their fellow members. Some groups have agreements with hospital morgue workers to turn over unwanted, vagrant cadavers before they undergo the embalming process. This, of course, is currently illegal due to unfair laws and regulations created to discriminate against ethical anthropophaginian activities. For this reason, these sorts of arrangements are kept on the down low at this time; done in the shadows like so many conspiring criminals. Hopefully, the Constitutionally-protected rights of the anthropophaginian population will soon be recognized, and those who engage in these types of activities will no longer have to do so in back alleys, plagued with unnecessary shame and the ever-present fear of imprisonment.

Typical anthropophaginians lead healthy, productive, and utilitarian lives. They have no desire to take life or abuse living persons. They are more often than not avid recyclers and reusers of materials, and ecologically-conscious in all of their daily activities. Some engage in the ingestion of human meat for nutritional purposes, others for spiritual reasons. Contrary to popular belief, but excruciatingly obvious when you think about it, the meat of a human being is packed full of exactly those nutrients required for our survival. Even an unhealthy person typically has more healthy organs and muscles than they do unhealthy ones, otherwise they would more than likely not be alive. It certainly stands to reason that the nutrients which kept one person alive would be present in the meat of that same person and would, in turn, deliver the same nutritional benefit to the eater of that meat. Minerals found in high quantities in human meat include iron, magnesium, potassium, and B vitamins to name a few. All of these are essential to a healthy human diet. It has been argued that any disease present in human meat would be passed on to the consumer, whereas many diseases present in the meat of other animals do not have an effect on human biology. This argument has some merit but such a situation can easily be avoided with an appropriate foreknowledge of the donor human's medical condition. To reiterate, a person who dies of a brain tumor, for example, would still have healthy thighs, arms, ribs, etc.

I briefly mentioned above how some people engage in anthropophaginianism for spiritual reasons. Many cultures throughout history have engaged in the ritual eating of human meat for metaphysical purposes. Some believed that the eating of a vanquished enemy was the best way to honor him or her, even in defeat (the grim alternative being the leaving of enemies' corpses on the field of battle to rot putrefy). Others believed that their deceased loved ones could live on in the bodies of those who survived them through digestive absorption of their residual, spiritual energies. For whatever reason, religious belief and practice is supposed to be protected in this nation by the Constitution. Why, then, do these particular beliefs somehow warrant exclusion? Once again, we're not speaking of murder here. We're talking about honoring our dead (and even our national enemies' dead) in whichever way our spiritual beliefs dictate. I, for one, while not a religious man per se, believe that I have a duty to live on this Earth in a symbiotic way with everything around me. I don't enjoy the idea of littering the ground with countless billions of graves, tossing away the bodies of those who have passed by burying them in the ground in such a way that their decomposer isn't even allowed the honor of fertilizing the ground around them due to their being separated from the earth by a man-made, impenetrable casket.

I weep to see that, while we've come so far in our fight to establish civil rights for all, we still have such a long way to go. In many ways, this marvelous world of ours has proven capable of achieving the greatest feats! In other ways, however, these achievements have taught us to be a wasteful and unappreciative species. We pollute the planet with our waste. We even throw away our own deceased friends and relatives without recycling them in ways that can greatly benefit the living. I am not, by any stretch, attempting to convince those not born with the innate, anthropophaginian inclination for human meat to change who they are. But those who cannot and should not be forced to change their genetically-inherited tastes and hungers deserve the same, basic human rights afforded to everyone else. How many times are we going to repeat the same mistakes over and over again until we learn to accept and tolerate those who are different?

[The above essay is a satirical essay, and is not meant to be taken literally. This should go without saying, but unfortunately we live in a world where the subtlety of satire is lost on some. The goal of writing this piece is simply to propose a question within the framework of a democratic society: If one is to deny the above argument, on what grounds is he or she denying it? Unless the human body is viewed as a vessel for the soul and held sacred for that reason, doesn't this argument for cannibalism stand strong against even the harshest criticism, especially under the circumstances discussed above? If the arguments used within a society can be effectively used (within that society's generally-accepted aphorisms) to convincingly argue on behalf of something so horrific as cannibalism, then what can be said about the morality of that society? Perhaps there are other considerations which have been wrongfully excluded, such as moral theology, reverence, religious doctrine, etc.]

The Boy Who Cried Water in the Desert

Once upon a time there was a people lost in the desert. As often befalls those deprived of a viable water source for an extended period of time, these people were thirsty. Once in a while, they would chance upon a thorny cactus, and fight each other viciously for a moist chunk of cactus meat. Every once and a while, in a fit of heat-induced insanity, one of their population would step forward to suggest they search for sustenance in places beyond the confines of the desert. These rare outbursts tended to provide the people with a rare serving of fresh meat as they would proceed to eat the poor lunatic alive for his impudence. After all, the desert provided them with unlimited property rights, an endless supply of bright, life-giving sunlight, and an abundance of scenic panoramas. Not to mention the historical fact that a healthy tree grew there a couple hundred years ago near Liberty Falls, which had by then become no more than a dried up, alluvial fan producing the nothing more than a handful of rubies and emeralds over which half the population of the desert fought and killed each other.

Now, among these self-alienated people was a young boy who, as young boys often do, harbored an unrealistic hope of a time whence they might stumble across a healthy well of fresh spring water. Like those around him, he loved his desert home, and was proud of it's rich heritage, but he lived each day under the harsh burden of a dry mouth. He began to wander away from the crowd, and one day happened to come across a mirage. Feeling the strain of duty bearing down upon him, he ran back to the people and shouted, "Water! I've discovered water!" The stampede which followed shook the very earth itself with the might of its anticipation. However, when the crowds arrived at the location in question there was, in fact, no water to be found. Only a flat, sandy expanse of desert floor lay before them. They reprimanded the youngster for his crime and returned to their camp.

A few days later, after the sting of his scolding had subsided, the young boy ventured out once more into the unexplored regions of their homeland. And again he found a wide, reflective body of water hovering gingerly in front of his eyes. Once more he returned to his people, singing of the marvelous glories to come if they would only accompany him to their salvation. Another stampede, another dry, desert floor, and another admonishment followed in turn once it was discovered that the youngster had only succeeded in discovering another mirage.

Well, to make a long story short, the boy continued to discover mirages and the people (suffering more and more with each passing hour from the pains of their incredible, collective thirst) continued to investigate each subsequent discovery, not willing to risk missing the one discovery of actual, drinkable water. And the years continued up until the present day, where this emaciated, desert people still cling to their deadly paradise in hopes that it will someday be less deadly and less utterly devoid of life-giving water, all the while forecasting yet another annual precipitation of about half an inch. The boy is now fully grown, and wears a suit and tie while wandering in search of sustenance. His people follow him on his wanderings, watching him closely for the telltale body language of discovery.

Then one day, all of a sudden, this once coherent people splintered. Most of the resulting factions remained in the desert, warring endlessly with each other for control of a cactus, or a tiny pond of mud. One of the smaller groups, however, appointed one of their number to be their leader. He proceeded to backtrack across the many places the desert people had given up as hopeless. Many disagreed with his direction, but nevertheless continued to put faith in the far-sighted vision of their leader... their king. He led them back over the paths of their forefathers; back across the endless expanse of desert to a place where rivers flowed loudly down from the mountains. Trees grew there, too. Birds and beasts of all sorts populated the riverbanks and forests and valleys. And there was abundant, fertile farmland. There they took up residence in the abandoned abodes of a civilization long since forgotten and lived happily ever after under the wise guidance of their sovereign. And they wondered why the desert folk had always warned against their "going back" to the green lands beyond the desert. Their valley was small, and the sweeping vistas of the desert (full of seemingly endless possibility) were lost to them, but their needs were met, and the climate was mild and pleasant.

One might read this parable and wonder how the people of the desert could be so unbelievably stupid. I must confess that I found them hard to swallow even as I wrote them. Nevertheless, in the real world, every time somebody stands on a rooftop and shouts, 'Democracy will work! Give the [Democrats, Republicans] a chance!" they are essentially relaying their sighting of a mirage in the desert. We might have a clear memory of a time when a scraggly tree grew on our lands, but the terrain has long since declined to a hostile, suspicious wasteland. The only thing on the rise is debt, unemployment, and good, old-fashioned American licentiousness. Education has slipped low enough to fail even in reminding people that there are other terrains where water still flows, yearning for our attention out of the distant past. Essentially, we have come through the long years of human history, from believing that the entire world was a just a small valley to discovering that there are are lands beyond those borders. Perhaps, now that we've discovered the entire world, we can go back to our valley and rest assured that we live in the most beautiful, little valley on the entire planet.

Body Language and Apologetics... A Teaser!

The study of Apologetics is directed towards defending the various tenets and doctrines of the Catholic Church against intellectual and analytical onslaught. In contemporary practice, however, Apologetics are almost exclusively utilized for structured attempts at converting would-be Catholics. Those of us who have studied Apologetics have learned ways of countering various heretical, secular, and otherwise erroneous arguments with strong, rational Catholic principles. This countering action generally involves predetermined exercises based on sound reasoning and logical analyses, resulting in thoroughly defended Catholic concepts, impenetrable to even the most astute skeptic. There is one element of Apologetics, however, that has received little to no attention... and that is body language.

Almost every devoted Catholic has, at one point or another, been involved in a situation where he or she was forced to defend their religious beliefs. On occasion, this type of situation presents an opportunity to instruct someone in the teachings of the Church, and in the reasons for those teachings. And every once in a while, this type of instruction yields positive fruits in the form of someone converting to the Catholic Faith (Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation). However, more often than not a Catholic who is put into such a defensive position will exhibit closed-off, defensive body language and posturing. This closed-off posturing can, quite literally, drive an extra wedge between you and your opponent, making their conversion to your line of thinking even less likely than it normally would be. Open, comfortable, inviting body language, coupled with non-threatening facial expressions and other considerations designed to communicate an unconscious feeling of welcome, can all be utilized in order to assist in the delivery of the many sound, logical arguments employed by Apologetics. Divine intervention trumps all, obviously, but there are still numerous steps which can be taken in order to close the gap between you and the person you are attempting to guide towards the proverbial light. In short, would you sooner trust a salesman leaning away from you with folded arms, looking down his nose at you with an angry expression on his face, or a happy, relaxed salesman sitting next to you, leaning slightly towards you in a thoroughly nonthreatening manner? The former is indicative of closed-off, arrogant, and defensive mannerisms, while the latter is evidence of an open attitude and a demeanor of interest and engagement.

When sitting down with someone with whom you are planning to discuss the topic of religion, it is best to _not_ sit across from them, especially if there is a table in between the two of you. The reason for this is that you have essentially created a sort of firing squad scenario, which will reinforce defensive posturing. Someone who feels that they are sitting down range of an attack will unconsciously close themselves off to anything that threatens their person, physically and psychologically. A table lying between you and them also creates a sort of metaphorical barrier between your ideas and theirs. Instead, try sitting next to the person or at the corner of the table, situated perpendicular to them. This is a much more non-threatening seating arrangement, and it will help to alleviate defensive body language. What you are saying with this less-threatening seating arrangement is, "We're together on this. Let's work hand-in-hand on the issue before us in order to overcome any misunderstandings and to build a healthy alliance." Think of all the times you had deep conversations with a loved one... were you sitting far apart, facing each other with a physical obstruction separating the two of you? Or were you seated next to each other on a couch, or close to each other at the corner of a small table, in close enough proximity to facilitate hand-holding, hugging, etc.?

Next, try to identify what type of body language your opponent is displaying. Are they sitting with their arms folded and legs crossed? Are their feet and legs vibrating with nervous anxiety? Are their faces displaying expressions of anger, disgust, or contempt? Are their hands clasped behind their head? Are they touching their faces, itching their noses, or tugging at their collar/jewelry often? Are they picking imaginary specks of dust and lint off of their clothing? Do you feel that they are presenting themselves as dominant or submissive? In which direction are their feet and legs pointed? If they shook your hand when they or you first entered the room, was their hand over yours, under yours, or even with yours? These are all important questions which can help you to determine your opponent's inner moods and emotions. For example, if their arms are crossed, they could be feeling defensive (unless they are cold) or aggressive (if their hands are in fists). If their hands are clasped behind their head and their body laid back and relaxed, they are more than likely feeling dominant and see you as non-threatening and beneath them in importance. If they are tugging at their clothing or jewelry, they are probably unconsciously trying to pacify themselves, meaning they are nervous and uncomfortable. If one or both feet are pointed towards the door, they are probably counting down the seconds until they can leave the room. All of these considerations are important for your plan of attack, as it were. If your opponent is defensive, you'll want to work on opening them up and relaxing them. If they are dominant, you'll want to mirror that dominance in order to level out the proverbial playing field. If they are open and engaged, mirror that as well. The goal is to create an atmosphere of comfort, openness, and mutual benefit.

[It should be noted that this _does not mean_ you will be expected to compromise a single one of your beliefs in the spirit of "mutual benefit." You are simply saying, with your body language, that your opponent has nothing to fear, that you are comfortable being on an equal level with them, psychologically, and that you aren't trying to start a fight, but to build a relationship... which will make it that much easier to convey elements of the Catholic Faith without triggering a defensive shutdown.]

Body language can be tricky, and it is important not to put too much stock on one, isolated instance of this or that body movement or posturing. What you should be looking for is clusters of certain types of body language. For example, if a person simply scratches their nose, it is entirely possible that their nose itches. If they scratch their nose, pull at their collar, and pick at their sleeve, however, this is a cluster of activity and is more likely indicative of something anxious and uncomfortable going on inside their head. It's also important to establish a baseline for each person. If a person is naturally fidgety, then continued fidgeting means that they are about as comfortable as they are ever going to be. If you see an increase or decrease in their baseline fidgeting, though, you might want to start evaluating what took place immediately beforehand. Did something come up in conversation that could have made them suddenly throw up their defenses? Did you say something that may have struck a nerve with their personal history? If, for example, you are talking about Church history and you bring up Pope Pius XII... and you notice a sudden change in baseline body language, you might want to spend some time talking about the positive things done by Pius XII during World War II. Many people learn in school that Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" and are apt to view him in an extremely negative light. Knowing this, and identifying a sudden change in body language can let you know that it's time to correct a commonly held misconception about an heroic pope.

As you get better and better at identifying and analyzing your opponents' body language, you may want to start implementing some NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) techniques. NLP is often looked at as a sort of unfair, brainwashing-type of mind control. And while NLP has often been used for nefarious purposes by some less-than-trustworthy characters, it is a valuable tool if used appropriately. One major element of NLP that you might want to implement in Apologetics is called _anchoring_. Anchoring essentially means that you use a physical stimuli of some sort in order to _anchor_ a specific emotion. In the context of Apologetics, you might want to guide your opponent in recalling a positive experience he or she had with a Catholic priest in the past, either in real life, or even in the form of a character in a book or film. As they recall that positive memory, you might gently touch a knuckle on their hand, or gently grab their elbow... or even give them a hug. Try to time the physical touch with the memory, and maintain contact for five to fifteen seconds. Then change the subject of your conversation just a bit and break physical contact. If done correctly, you will have anchored a positive emotion and a positive association to Catholicism to that specific type of physical contact. You can do this numerous times and "stack" anchors onto the same physical touch (being sure to use the same, exact anchor location... unless you are purposefully starting a wholly different type of anchor). To illustrate, bring up the film _The Passion of the Christ_ while talking to your opponent. Hardly a single, living person was able to get through that one scene where Mary runs to Jesus while He is carrying the cross (you know the scene!), without sobbing like an infant. Mention that scene and talk about the details of it, and the emotions you, yourself felt while watching it. As they begin to recall the imagery in their head (their face will change once the memory has come back to the surface), anchor them by holding their hand. Voila! With continued attention to this anchor, you will slowly create a very positive association for them with an extremely Catholic image.

This is obviously just a brief introduction to the use of body language reading techniques and NLP as they pertain to Catholic Apologetics. This knowledge can greatly improve your chance of getting through to even some of the most stubborn anti-Catholics. Understanding body language will help you to better know just how to approach your opponent, how to get them to lower their guard, and how to open them up in ways that allow them to consider new ideas without immediately putting their prejudices into play. Implementing NLP techniques can help you in planting positive, highly-emotional seeds that will stay with them, even after they have gone home for the day. I will be devoting an entire book to this topic in the future, either directly after this book or after another book I plan on writing which will list and describe films and TV shows that unintentionally, despite their best efforts, exhibit Catholic teachings and doctrines. However, both of these upcoming publications will relate to each other. Since the art of filmmaking encompasses everything from music, to painting, to set and costume design, to acting and cinematography, etc... the visuals contained in certain films and TV shows can elicit strong, vivid emotional responses in viewers. The extreme popularity of these mediums will make these responses invaluable to driving certain points home via correctly orchestrated body language and Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
About the Author

One particular Facebook group to which I belong began seeing many of its members posting short narratives about how they became Catholic. I added my own story to the list, knowing that the path I took was unconventional to say the least:

How Rene Descartes lead me to the Church...

When I was about 19 or 20, I wasn't happy with the world around me, and like most teenagers, I cast about for answers... none of which satisfied me. I began studying philosophy, starting at the the beginning and working my way forward; from the Ancient Greeks to the Present. When I started reading the works of Rene Descartes, I was impressed by his method of methodic doubt, wherein one doubts the veracity of anything and everything until it has been proven to oneself through careful deductive reasoning. (Nowadays, I know that technically this is a dangerous approach which has yielded many rotten fruits over the years, but bear with me.) So, I cleared my mind of all previously held beliefs and answers... Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) really made sense to me, so I used that as a jumping-off point. Then it became apparent to me (and also to Descartes) that Cogito Ergo Deus Est (I think, therefore God is). From there I moved on to Immanuel Kant, who in my opinion was the champion of that narrow branch of philosophy known as epistemology (the study of how knowledge is possible, and what types of knowledge are possible). Although Kant was not Catholic, and his philosophy lead to error in many of his students, he was an objectivist, not a subjectivist... and that lead me to Thomas Aquinas, with whom I aligned my entire belief system. (I should add that I'm skipping many, many steps in this narrative for the sake of brevity.)

I realize that I was, essentially, the blind leading the blind. But for the Grace of God, I never would have found my way out. I would not recommend this path to anyone trying to convince themselves philosophically that Christianity is the best of all possible religions and philosophies. I might, however, share this unusual method with an atheist or agnostic if the more traditional methods of logical reasoning and apologetics were not working for that particular individual.

My point in bringing this up is this: We can never tell what paths God has chosen for us until we are actually on that path, and sometimes we don't even know what path we are on until we reach the end, turn around, and look back at where we've been. And God is powerful enough even to turn error against its infernal author in order to lead people back to him. The devil doesn't hold a candle to God. So as bad as this world may look to you, it is quite probable that we are all exactly where God wants us to be at this juncture... on the front steps of the next great era of Christianity. Stay the course!
