Faith Seeking Understanding

One thing I think a lot of people in the normie Catholic world fail to recognize is that the Holy Father Pope Francis did not emerge from a vacuum. One can point to him being a Latin American from Argentina, or a post-conciliar modernist, a classic "progressive," or a religious sympathetic to socialism or Liberation Theology as to why we have the pontificate we do. While all these things are true, you are in for a world of hurt and massive frustration if you fail to recognize that understanding the political ideology of Peronism is essential to understanding the machinations coming forth from the chair of Peter from 2014 to present. 

I think what's also helpful to mention is that in doing so, you may find a sense of relief akin to someone suffering from ADHD or autism or borderline personality disorder receiving a diagnosis from a psychiatrist--"finally," you may say to yourself, "my life up to now finally makes sense." Indeed, to be quite honest, I think understanding the current pontificate in general and Pope Francis in particular in the light of Peronism is the only thing that makes sense over the past ten years of leadership in the Catholic Church. 

Juan Domingo Perón served as President of Argentina from 1946 until his overthrow in 1955. When he took office running on a Labour party ticket (though he eventually formed his own "Peronist Party" which replaced it in 1947), Perón's two stated goals were social justice and economic independence. Theologian Herold Weiss recalled, that 

"Perón opposed the universities, which questioned his methods and his goals. A well-remembered slogan was, Alpargatas sí, libros no ("Shoes? Yes! Books? No!")"

Political commentators have noted that the rule of Perón was a kind of Italian fascism baptized in the waters of Latin America. Perón ruled by violence and various forms of dictatorship. He faced opposition from the Socialist Party; Perón called employers and unions to a Productivity Congress to regulate social conflict through dialogue (sound familiar?)

There is a degree of hubris as well, since on 20 August 1948--less than two years after taking office--he sought to articulate his self-named political ideology in a speech.  He starts right out of the gate:

"Perónism is not learned, nor just talked about: one feels it or else disagrees. Perónism is a question of the heart rather than of the head. Fortunately I am not one of those Presidents who live a life apart, but on the contrary I live among my people, just as I have always lived; so that I share all the ups and downs, all their successes and all their disappointments with my working class people."

In Argentina there should not be more than one single class of men: men who work together for the welfare of the nation, without any discrimination whatever." 

Likewise, on 17 October 1950 in a speech at the Plaza de Mayo, he outlined his “Twenty Truths of the Perónist Justicialism” (particular emphasis mine, in bold)

1. True democracy is the system where the Government carries out the will of the people defending a single objective: the interests of the people.

2. Perónism is an eminently popular movement. Every political clique is opposed to the popular interests and, therefore, it cannot be a Perónist organization.

3. A Perónist must be at the service of the cause. He who invoking the name of this cause is really at the service of a political clique or a “caudillo” (local political leader) is only a Perónist by name.

4. There is only one class of men for the Perónist cause: the workers.

5. In the New Argentina, work is a right which dignifies man and a duty, because it is only fair that each one should produce at least what he consumes.

6. There can be nothing better for a Perónist than another Perónist.

7. No Perónist should presume to be more than he really is, nor should he adopt a position inferior to what his social status should be. When a Perónist starts to think that he is more important than he really is, he is about to become one of the oligarchy.

8. With reference to political action the scale of values for all Perónists is as follows: First, the Homeland; afterwards the cause, and then, the men themselves.

9. Politics do not constitute for us a definite objective but only a means of achieving the Homeland’s welfare represented by the happiness of the people and the greatness of the nation.

10. The two main branches of Perónism are the Social Justice and the Social Welfare. With these we envelop the people in an embrace of justice and love.

11. Perónism desires the establishment of national unity and the abolition of civil strife. It welcomes heroes but does not want martyrs.

12. In the New Argentina the only privileged ones are the children.

13. A Government without a doctrine is a body without a soul. That is why Perónism has established its own political, economic and social doctrines: Justicialism.

14. Justicialism is a new philosophical school of life. It is simple, practical, popular and endowed with deeply Christian and humanitarian sentiments.

15. As a political doctrine, Justicialism establishes a fair balance between the rights of the individual and those of the community.

16. As an economic doctrine, Justicialism achieves a true form of social economy by placing capital at the service of the national economy and this at the service of social welfare.

17. As a social doctrine, Justicialism presides over an adequate distribution of Social Justice giving to each person the social rights he is entitled to.

18. We want a socially just, an economically free and a politically independent Argentina.

19. We are an organized State and a free people ruled by a centralized government.

20. The best of this land of ours is its people.

We are all products of our time and environment. John Paul II grew up under Communist rule in Poland, Benedict XVI in Nazi Germany. Pope Francis was ten years old when Perón became President in his home of Argentina. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he was steeped in and influenced by Peronist thought. 

A few parallels I teased out between Perón's "Twenty Truths" and some examples of Peronist-influenced examples under the current pontificate:

--Some of Pope Francis' messages (for example, to the World Economic Forum as an agenda contributor in 2014 and 2018): The (one-world) government carries out the will of the people (point 1), there is one only one class of men (point 4) rooted in fairness. (point 5)

--He rewards his friends and punishes his enemies.(point 6)

--He is popular in the media, welcoming atheists (while maintaining that "atheists can still be redeemed", praising pro-abortion economists (while simultaneously condemning abortion as killing), and ushering globalists into his audience. At the same time, he is merciless with Traditionalists (what he sees as "cliques") and mute to the persecuted Church in China. (point 2)

--Politics (ie; doctrine) is not objective, but a means to the happiness of the people (the spiritual status quo) (point 9, point 14)

--The anti-doctrine is the new doctrine, which is why it is necessary to create "it's own doctrines"  (point 13)

These are just a few, and I'm sure there are more. 

My point here is to at least give a modicum of solace to those who may not be steeped in Church news but have felt themselves going crazy over the "messy" past decade, thinking, "this seems...off" or "Why is he doing and saying these things?" or "It sure is hard to pin him down!" 

If you see Pope Francis as being influenced by the political ideology of Juan Domingo Perón and Peronist political ideology, then what is coming out of the Vatican starts to make a lot more sense. Wait, I take that back. It still doesn't make sense, but it does help to explain it, like a diagnosis for a mental disorder at least gives a sense of explaining various neuroses and crazy behavior. 

I simply outline it here for those who may be otherwise confused or ignorant, through no fault of their own, to let you know that everything comes from somewhere. If you try to make sense of the current pontificate apart from Peronism, you risk going mad in the process; and I don't want to see anyone go mad on account of being Catholic. 

Confess Your Sins While You Still Can

 

One of the worst tragedies of the modern Church is the downplaying of sin--both its reality and its effects. The number of ignorant Catholics who have not been taught the necessity of repentance through the Sacrament of Penance to rejoin the chasm between our Creator and creature severed by mortal sin are legion. Even if one is not in mortal sin, but guilty of venial sin and imperfections, the Sacrament is a great grace to strengthen one's spiritual life and encourage compunction that should not be taken for granted.

Though individuals must answer to their Maker for every idle word spoken at the Judgement (Mt 12:36), there is also a great and terrible judgement reserved for those priests and bishops who did not do all they could to preach the message of the Baptist, the harbinger of the Christ: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Mt 3:2). And likewise the words of St. Peter, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). And our Lord to St. John: "Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you" (Rev 3:3)

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die (Ecc 3:1), and we do not know when that hour comes (Mt 24:42). 

So for those who lay sick and dying, who have been baptized as Catholics, one would think they would be desirous to confess their sins out of compunction and receive the grace of being washed clean. But alas, we often die as we live. Thankfully the Church in Christ's mercy is given the sacrament of Extreme Unction/Last Rites, otherwise known in the new Catechism as Anointing of the Sick. From the 1992 Catechism:

“The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal life” (CCC 1532)

And from the Catechism of Trent: 

"As all care should be taken that nothing impede the grace of the Sacrament, and as nothing is more opposed to it than the consciousness of mortal guilt, the constant practice of the Catholic Church must be observed of administering the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist before Extreme Unction."

And yet if we die as we live, it is not uncommon for modern Catholics today to 

a) either brazenly or ignorantly receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin

b) have gone for years without confessing their sins in the sacrament of Penance

c) feel no need to confess, either due to ignorance, faulty catechesis, or their culpability or willful refusal to make use of the Sacrament

So, when it comes to the hour of death, we are fortunate to have the grace of Extreme Unction/Anointing of the Sick to prepare us for our Judgment and final repose. 

But notice the bolding in both Catechisms (my emphasis): that the expectation is that if one is to receive anointing of the sick and receive the grace of forgiveness of sins though the sacrament, the inference (from the new CCC) is that if the sick or dying person IS able to confess and make use of the sacrament of Penance. If a priest is called in to anoint, the sick or dying person should be informed that the constant practice of the Catholic Church must be observed of administering the Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist before Extreme Unction. 

This responsibility lies on the priest to inform the person of this necessity. But were the sick or dying person refuse to confess their sins, and had the opportunity to do so (after all, the priest is right there, and assuming the person was in their right state of mind, should ask him first to hear their confession) but did not and instead has the attitude of "just give me the anointing" (without confession)--isn't that a problem? And for the priest who were he to not ask the person "do you want to confess?" before anointing, or if he goes ahead with the anointing regarding confession unnecessary--is he himself not culpable?

It is not uncommon for those on hospice and those in hospitals with terminal illnesses to lose their sense of reason, in which case they may not be able to confess because they are not in their right mind, but can still make use of the Sacrament of Anointing. But I think this is a different scenario than one who has their reason and feels no need to confess, yet sees the Anointing as "covering all the bases" including forgiveness of sins without having to confess them.  This seems like a grave dereliction in my mind of both priests who neglect to insist upon Confession before anointing for those in their right mind and capable of it, and those ordinary Catholics who see no need for Confession but presume upon the forgiveness of sins without it. 

What do you think, reader? Am I reading too much into this? I am not trained in canon law or moral theology, but I would think the surest way--outside of perfect contrition, which is possible but rare--is to follow the good thief Dismas and confess with sincere contrition one's sins while they still are able, and to refuse to do so when given the opportunity is perilous. 

If a priest is available to anoint, he is available to hear one's confession. To spurn that opportunity thinking it is not needed seems gravely misleading. And for a priest not to encourage it and instead gloss over the need to confess (if one is in a state of mortal sin and able to confess) is culpable himself.  For no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven who is not sincerely penitent. God is both merciful and just. Dying is serious business, and it weighs on me in these kinds of circumstances that presumption reigns in the vacuum left by neglecting to preach the necessity of confession and conversion. 

Comments are open. I am, as well, to learning more and being corrected if I'm off base. I especially value the input of priests and religious more learned in sacramental theology than I am to shed light on this dilemma. 

̶S̶e̶x̶ Crisis Sells

 

When I was in high school, and before I was a Christian, I served as president of our school's Environmental Club. I remember doing sting-ops to expose how the contents of recycling bins would get thrown in the regular trash by maintenance workers, and campaigning to save the bison in the Article National Wildlife Refuge. The most concerning thing that kept me up at night, however, was "global warming" (aka, climate change). To say I was anxious about it, as well as our planet's imminent destruction would be accurate. 

I haven't given up all my ecological conscious choices--I still commute to work by bike whenever I can, compost, and take cold showers. But I'm hardly a zealot about it. I consider these relatively common-sense, do-what-you-can approaches to conservationism that should rest with the individual. I also think we could make smarter larger scale architectural choices to incorporate building practices that work with, rather than against, the natural envionment--things like passive solar heating and cooling, geothermal, natural building materials, etc. You can do these things in good conscience as a conservative without becoming a liberal eco-weenie.   

The thing is, I no longer worry about the destruction of the planet, whether or not the "science is settled" with regards to climate change. I attribute some of that to waking up to the fact that climate alarmists have been blowing this horn for over half a century now, and we're still here. I've also grown suspicious of the motives and agenda behind the "science." That isn't to deny that it may or may not be a thing, only that those in charge seem to be taking a cue from Winston Churchill that one should never "let a good crisis go to waste."

The best insight I read on this phenomenon of why the angry left is so angry (and perhaps, so anxious as well) came from a Federalist essay by the same title:

"Then there’s the fact that “Progressives” convince themselves that everything they’re doing is for the greater good, which supersedes the rights of any individual. It’s a case of “the humanitarian with the guillotine“: we’re doing this for the overall good of humanity, so it’s OK to start killing people. Or to be really, really mean to them in the comments field.

There’s the fact that advocacy of big government is by its very nature a quest for power and control, for the ability to use force against others—a cause that naturally attracts the bitter and intolerant.

I hate to say William F. Buckley was right, but I think it’s all about immanentizing the eschaton.

There are three basic views of what this ideal state is: the supernatural, the individual, and the social.

In its original context, for the traditional American Christian, the “eschaton” is supernatural: it is life in heaven. That means it’s something that will happen regardless of the state of this wicked world, and your place in it is dependent on you and your own inner spiritual state, not on other people. Hence the Christian’s confounded complacency. If I’m not on board with his religious vision, well, that sucks for me when the Rapture comes. Because my religious critic is a nice guy, he’ll pray that eventually I see the light and accept Jesus into my heart. But at the end of the day (or of history), it’s no skin off his soul.

For someone like me, who is not religious but an individualist, the ultimate end state I am seeking is in my own life. It’s about my family, my work, my home, my own personal interests. The goal I’m seeking is about things I have a lot of control over, much more than it is about other people. Politics is mostly just something that gets in the way of the real business of life. Our ideal end state is that we can reach the point where we’re able to think about our own lives and not have to care about politics any more.

For the secular leftist, the end state is social and necessarily political. It is all about getting everybody else on board and herding them into his imagined utopia. There are so many “problematic” aspects of life that need to be reengineered, so many vast social systems that need to be overthrown and replaced. But the rest of us are all screwing it up, all the time, through our greed, our denial, our apathy, our refusal to listen to him banging on about his tired socialist ideology.

For the Christian, the ideal end state is safely in the next world and therefore is never in doubt. For the individualist, it’s in his own life, and it’s mostly under his direct control. For the leftist, however, it is all outside his control. It requires other people, a lot of other people, and those SOBs usually refuse to cooperate. Talk about rage-inducing.

If the whole focus of your life is on getting everybody else to agree with you on every detail of your politics and adopt your plans for a perfect society, then you’re setting yourself up to be at war with most of the human race most of the time."

For the secular liberal for whom God is not real, climate change serves as a good stand in for the eschaton or parousia. They have the alarm going off, but they have no peace, no assurance, no comfort because they do not serve a living God, but an agenda which as Tracinski notes above, "it requires a lot of other SOBs who refuse to cooperate."  

(Catholic) Christians, however, do have the assurance of being able to say in the face of imminent destruction "I am saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved." This allows a degree of ardent zeal tempered by level-headed pragmatism: we will never get every one of those SOBs on board--so worry about yourself first and help others as you can to know where the bunker is. 

Of course, we can take things too far as Christians as well. There is no shortage of warnings from Our Lady and the saints and seers as to what is in store for us. The state of the Church is in disaray and the powers of Hell seem to be threatening to batter through her gates. 

But when has this not been the case? And what can you really do besides keeping yourself in a state of grace, praying the rosary every day, and trusting in the Lord's promises? Focusing on one's locus of control--despite the schismatic bishops in Germany, or the homosexual seminary pipeline in Latin America, or this or that scandal in the Vatican--keeps one grounded rather than being a Chicken Little. Yes, yes, we know the sky is falling. But we still have to get dinner on the table tonight!

The saying sex sells is an obvious point. But manufacturing and/or highlighteing crisis after crisis--whether ecological, ecclesial, or eschatalogical--to keep people on the edge is a useful way to turn a profit as well. Taylor Marshall has honed in on this years ago by this point, and has found his groove ad nauseum. Crisis magazine and The Remnant have some solid articles, but this is their M.O as well--the destruction of patriarchy, tradition, the Church, etc. We keep waiting for the Church to be hollowed out til she is nothing but a shell of her former self. 

And yet, as many a Communist head-of-state has found, these pesky saints of renewal keep crawling out from the crater of atomic destruction like cockroaches. Forces have been working to stamp out the Church for her entire history, and yet she is still here. Just like the planet, despite all the dire warnings of "population bombs," endangered species, and mass starvation. 

Catholics need to be mindful not to binge on fear-porn too often lest we become like these Chicken Little climate alarmists, but in another sphere. We are people of hope, people of joy, people who do not take refuge in anxiety and fear. If we should fear anything, it is at the level our own souls, as our Lord said,   

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Mt 10:28)

My dad, though he was not overly-religious, always had a way of calming me down as a kid when I would get worked up about all the seemingly unsolveable problems of the world. He would simply assure me that we would "figure it out" as a human race. "We always do," he would say. My dad had a good bit of faith and trust in science, the markets, and human ingenuity to come out the other side. I don't know if I have that level of trust in those things in particular...but I know my trust in the Lord of all is not misplaced. "Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow....for tomorrow will worry about itself" (Mt 6:34). 

Related: There Is No Fear In Love

This Is Your Future: A Liberal Eye's View Into Falling Birth Rates

 I came across Marty Moss-Coane's Radio Times interview on WHYY and listened to it, if nothing else to try to catch a glimpse of what's going on on the other side of the fence. I will comment at the end, but to just lay out my notes and transcription, see below.

"The birth rate in the U.S. is at an all-time low at just 1.64 children per woman, below the replacement level. That number has been declining for the past decade and pandemic hasn’t helped. Any illusion that quarantines would led to a baby boom quickly fizzled. Across all races, ethnicities and economic classes, more women are delaying parenthood, reducing the number of children that they are having, or choosing to remain childless. So why are so many women putting children off or deciding to be child-free? And what impact will the low birth rate have on the country’s economic future? This hour, we’ll talk with Bowling Green University demographer KAREN BENJAMIN GUZZO, and Penn State University, Berks sociologist LAUREN JADE MARTIN. And Philadelphia Magazine writer GINA TOMAINE shares her story of wrestling with the parenting question."

The pandemic "was scary" for a lot of people, one of the interviewees mentioned. Economics was a "huge reason" for the declining birth rate since the Great Recession. Young people were left behind, she said, leaving them uncertain about their economic situations. School debt prevented young people from experiencing "financial freedom" and put many people on the fence about limiting children, or having them at all. Interviews with 70 women from the interview revealed that "a lot of them did not have stable jobs, were in precarious financial situations or had student debt. They were thinking towards the future...the need to find a really stable job." 

The need to "be ready" to have kids in a secure and stable environment, which depended on family planning services, played large. One interviewee cited the lack of community and social supports, especially for those who have move to far away geographic locales away from family, that seem no longer available (her grandmother had eight children and raised them as a single mother when her husband left her). Constant instability, climate change, "things are not trending positively" and this is not a future "in which your children will have a better future than you."

On the topic of family leave, one interviewee mentions that "it plays some role" and "has a modest affect," but more so after the first child that it becomes an issue. "Parents in the United States are some of the most unhappy," she mentions, and cites the pressure on parents to be both good at their job and good at parenting. "I would love to see more generous family leave policies," she says. When the point of European countries with generous social safety nets came up, and why the birth rates are low there as well, she again cites "the Great Recession" as the reason. 

"It comes down to mothers. No one asks dads this" (questions related to career and child rearing). "Who can afford to have kids?" Seems to be the overarching question, as well as "What do you (as women) want out of your life? Having children does not have to be the default position." 

One third identified as not wanting to have children at all (citing climate change, and war, among other things). Some did not want to be around children at all, but had chosen to be "professional aunts" to get their "baby fix" without children of their own. 

On contraception, it was "good news." "Since the ACA, increasing contraception access at no cost...if we can give teens the knowledge they need to avoid getting pregnant...this is great." 

On the topic of men, "this is a long term problem...where are the men? They are 'part of the story'. We have not studied men enough...it is a glaring gap in the field." 

On the topic of climate change, "that plays into the overall outlook of where our society is and where it's headed. It wouldn't be people's primary reason, but we also want to push against a government and corporations that don't prioritize future generations."

One interviewee admitted to being committed to never having children as a personal decision. "Motherhood has not appealed to me. I like being the professional aunt with no kids. I don't have the orientation towards being a mom." 

Moss-Cohane cites that "the heterosexual marriage is a...dying breed." One interviewer responds that there are "multiple ways to be a family." Three-person families, gay families, friendships, non-binary, etc. "There are lot of ways to "be family." "We have to think about what kind of families we 'privilege.'" 

Here are a few of the comments from listeners on social media:

-Honestly, do people need this spelled out? No maternity leave, high maternal death rate, no social support structures, no early childhood care or affordable preschool, no ability to survive on one income, high real estate prices and low wages, no parental support in the workplace, inflexible schedule, rising cost of food, healthcare, transportation, after school, sports and activities and I am sure I am forgetting something, ah, yes, college. Almost every parent I know is struggling with all of these.

-#1: You need to be rich to afford a kid, especially if you plan on providing them with a decent education. Im not just talking college either. You must live in a good neighborhood (translation = expensive) for a decent K-12 education. #2: The always on work culture in this country means you'll always be stressed out because you'll be juggling a job that expects all of your time. During soccer practice, you'll be taking conference calls in the car and placing your online grocery order for food that you barely have time to cook. At the same time, you'll be trying to figure out how to get in exercise to prevent all of the health problems from stress and sitting at a desk too much. #3: then, you'll have to deal with the fact that you can't do all of this and have to accept being paid less because you're a woman and a parent. #4: then, on top of all of this, you have to meet traditional expectations of beauty and not do anything that shows that you are thinking person because then you're deemed intimidating or demanding.

-Because some of us have different ideas of how we want our lives to be..some of us don't want to simply be mommies...the world is over populated as it is

-It's simple. People can barely afford to take care of themselves. The added costs of a child are simply not worth considering

-Idk but it’s a good thing

-It’s not a mystery. We don’t get paid enough to be able to afford kids.

-I think women are finally feeling confident enough to choose the path in life that they really want. Not every woman wants children, but our country puts such tremendous social pressure on women to do so. Forget that! The only people who should have children are the ones who really really want them.

-Because America talks about the importance of children and does NOTHING to help people who want children.

-It’s not rocket science. And I would add that we have an over crowded planet and dying oceans.

-Why would anyone want to bring an innocent child into this hell called earth?

-This is a good thing...as the population has soared exponentially- we don't need an infinite growing population. We already cruised past the 7 billion and are nearing 8 billion...😲😥 not good for the planet and population as a whole.

-From my young adults perspective it's the state of the world, climate change worries, lack of fair wages, equity ... They right now can't see adding to what they see as a failed or skewed environment

-Daycare is 1250- 1500 a month where I live. Mystery solved

-Because the world already has enough people lol

None of what I listened to for the past forty-five minutes and read in the comments was surprising. But it left me with such a heavy ache for the very future these women cited as "not wanting to bring a child into this world." Because the planned future they envision will simply not exist due to the glaring blind-spots and presuppositions about what a "better world" looks like (ie, a world with less people and less children). It may not be a full-on demographic winter we are facing, but it's one that will be increasingly hard to walk back from once it compounds. And those who are blind do not usually see, until it is too late. 

Were they actually to have an opposing view, I would offer the following:

"This entire interview is based on the following seemingly irrefutable assumptions that hold the following:

-More people in the country and world is an undesirable prospect; voluntary population control is the laudable antidote.   

-The underlying sentiment of women making the choice not to have children or limit them is based in an overarching sense of fear.

-Women working and being in the workforce is unarguably a social good.

-Economic factors seem to be a driving force in the decision to have children. If you cannot have the kind of life you envision, you should rule children out.

-Having children is dependent on governmental and social support structures (family leave, etc); if these are not in place to the degree that a woman feels will be enough, they will withhold their fertility in kind.

-Men do not seem to factor into this equation at all. Supply side economics is a huge blind spot (more women in the workforce affects wages and opportunities for men, for one).

-Access to contraception is an unarguable good that has helped women "have the life they want" which seems to include being permanently childless. It's the demographic loaded gun that you slide across the table to the person struggling with suicidal ideation. 

I could go on, but I think the root of this tree is feminism which imbibes itself into every aspect of the conversation. It is the water one drinks without noticing the carcinogenic particulates within it that affects every aspect of our future. 

The way I see this is like a puzzle. When the pieces all start to fit together to explain it, it makes sense and you see the landscape. But when you don't, you get this kind of blindness; it's either "we need more access to family planning," or "we need more government assistance," or "is this even a problem? (declining birth rates)"

I'm going to say, it is a problem. And just because you are too short-sighted to see it now doesn't mean you won't in twenty or thirty years, both personally and socially. But there is an antidote, even in our modern times:

Marriage between a man and a woman til death do you part is the bedrock of society. The purpose and end of marriage is for procreation and bonding. Children are a gift. People have been having children since the dawn of time. People have children in the poorest deserts of Africa and slums in Calcutta. Abortion and contraception doesn't 'solve' anything. A traditional model of childrearing in which the husband works and the woman stays home to raise children (rather than be full time in the workforce and dependent on daycare) opens the latch for at least population replacement rate. Family support is important, which is why intentional communities of faith (which take work to find, form, and cultivate) have the capacity to step in and at least make efforts to shore up what has been fractured since the Industrial Revolution. Even when married couples do not have their "idealized life" or economic security, they often adjust their perceived needs and expenses to accommodate. And finally, God is the author of life...and fear is not of God. If these important decisions are informed and motivated by fear (of how hard parenting is, or climate change, or whatever), you will reap the fruit of fear. But if they are made or accepted in love and trust, you may be surprised what God provides you with in return (joy, peace, contentment, an embrace of one's feminine nature, etc)--even when you suffer.

The feeling of sterility in the aforementioned interview comes through, both in topic and sentiment; it is not robust, joyful, generous, nurturing, but cold, economic, and self-focused. You will reap what you have sown; we all will. I just lament that by the time you realize it, it will be too late to change course.

See: Children of Men; Have All The Babies; The Stay At Home Dad Dilemma Revisited; There Is No Fear In Love; A Too-Planned Life         

The Garden of The Fall

 Every year I do a garden, and every year I say, "I'm never doing this again." Between the woodchucks and the deer, even with fences and traps, it just gets decimated. This year it was six out of seven fruit trees that got stripped, and all my tomato plants. I have visions of bringing in wheelbarrows of fresh produce to the house. This year, will get a few bucketloads of Asian Pears, and only because they are high enough up that the deer couldn't get them. 

When I saw the Portland riots on the news last year and caught the Utopian attempts to be self-sufficient (or whatever it is they were doing) in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), I couldn't help but laugh. It looked like something from a Mad Max movie, but just underscored that liberals are not living in the real world, but a perceived reality totally in congruent with what is required to sustain it. Replete with a little CHAZ garden (it's fruitful bounty picture below), which was eventually leveled by a homeless man, there was a little part of me that sympathized because I knew the feeling of having everything you worked so hard for with such idealism so haplessly destroyed. 

Let it be a lesson, though. We live in a fallen world. We can also do nothing apart from grace. St. Augustine spoke to this in his letters against the Pelagians, who regarded man capable of attaining sanctity apart from grace. Let it also speak to reason, that man's nature is perfected by both grace and the faculty of reason which we employ as a gift from God, not to be cast out as the Protestants maintain (we are not saved by faith alone). And to try to be sanctified apart from baptism is a fool's errand as well. 

I still recall a great commentary I read in The Federalist about five years ago that seemed to describe this so well in a political context:

"I hate to say William F. Buckley was right, but I think it’s all about immanentizing the eschaton.

The “eschaton” is a term from theology, where it refers to the ultimate end state of creation—basically, what will happen after the final judgment. So “eschatology” speculates about the nature of heaven and God’s final plans for mankind. Outside of theology, the “eschaton” is a stand-in for the final, ideal goal we’re hoping to reach.

There are three basic views of what this ideal state is: the supernatural, the individual, and the social.

In its original context, for the traditional American Christian, the “eschaton” is supernatural: it is life in heaven. That means it’s something that will happen regardless of the state of this wicked world, and your place in it is dependent on you and your own inner spiritual state, not on other people. Hence the Christian’s confounded complacency. If I’m not on board with his religious vision, well, that sucks for me when the Rapture comes. Because my religious critic is a nice guy, he’ll pray that eventually I see the light and accept Jesus into my heart. But at the end of the day (or of history), it’s no skin off his soul.

For someone like me, who is not religious but an individualist, the ultimate end state I am seeking is in my own life. It’s about my family, my work, my home, my own personal interests. The goal I’m seeking is about things I have a lot of control over, much more than it is about other people. Politics is mostly just something that gets in the way of the real business of life. Our ideal end state is that we can reach the point where we’re able to think about our own lives and not have to care about politics any more.

For the secular leftist, the end state is social and necessarily political. It is all about getting everybody else on board and herding them into his imagined utopia. There are so many “problematic” aspects of life that need to be reengineered, so many vast social systems that need to be overthrown and replaced. But the rest of us are all screwing it up, all the time, through our greed, our denial, our apathy, our refusal to listen to him banging on about his tired socialist ideology.

For the Christian, the ideal end state is safely in the next world and therefore is never in doubt. For the individualist, it’s in his own life, and it’s mostly under his direct control. For the leftist, however, it is all outside his control. It requires other people, a lot of other people, and those SOBs usually refuse to cooperate. Talk about rage-inducing.

If the whole focus of your life is on getting everybody else to agree with you on every detail of your politics and adopt your plans for a perfect society, then you’re setting yourself up to be at war with most of the human race most of the time.

Which means an awful lot for the Angry Left to get angry about."

Nature is a cruel adversary. When I think of the lushness of the Garden through which God walked in the cool before the Fall, and contrast it with the toil and forces to contend with as we try to raise our daily bread now, it's enough to know that we can do nothing apart from grace, and that such perfection will never take place this side of Heaven. We keep trying and failing to do it ourselves, to create our little utopias. But sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. 

Have All The Babies

 I don't give advice very often, but if anyone in their twenties or thirties was anxious about having kids and wanted my opinion, I would tell them at this point, "just have all the babies."

The concerns are always understandable--for me early in my career, when I wasn't making much money and we were juggling a lot and at our wits end with our two, it can be tempting to not be so open minded (and open-ended). This is the faulty promise of contraception, that you can "be done" and just get on with your life without the constant worry and anxiety that comes with being open to life.

But where does this anxiety come from in the first place? The contraceptive mentality is so prevalent in our culture it's like the air you breath or the water you drink. New life is a barrier to autonomy; it throws things off, wrecks best laid plans, causes financial hardship, and generally makes life harder. 

Is that such a bad thing? Satan wanted to be autonomous, loosed from the bonds of the Divine. Yes, new kids "throws things off," and sometimes upends our best laid plans--but when I think of the 'best laid plans' I have laid for myself and what God has put in their place, I'm constantly reminded that I don't always know what's best for me. Do kids cause financial hardship? Sometimes they do. Life is hard to begin with, but sometimes the hardest things bring out something good in us that wouldn't otherwise if we weren't pushed to trust that it's worth it. 

Babies are not a threat--they are pure gift, and the reason we all exist in the first place. We seem to have forgotten this. We don't "live to procreate," but take having babies out of the picture and it wouldn't be long before we all die out (see Children of Men). Underpopulation, not overpopulation, seems to be more a threat today in many countries thanks to the scar of contraception and may lead many countries to a demographic winter where there is no easy turning course on.

But no one has babies purely because they want to "save the planet." Some people do, however, choose not to have them because they "don't want to bring children into this world" or are fear-mongered into thinking they are being "irresponsible" by doing so or consuming "too many resources." 

I was talking to a mom at our fellowship get together on Wednesday at our house, and she mentioned that St. Alphonsus' Uniformity With God's Will (which we were studying and reflecting on during the course of the evening) felt kind of over her head. I told her that's ok, in scripture St. Paul says that women are saved through childbirth. "I've never read that," she said, with a bit incredulously. "Yep. First Timothy 2:15," I told her, and we looked it up. "Well, I'll be," she replied. "So take heart," I said, "You're doing great!"

The fact is, we are all saved through childbirth. Abortion and contraception introduce nothing but disorder, throwing a monkey-wrench into God's divine plan for happiness and salvation for mankind. This is not to speak of those who want children and can not have them (by way of infertility, for instance), but the decision to delay or prevent children for the sake of the things of this world and our short-sighted plans is, in my opinion, regrettable. I can say without doubt that as a father, "the children have made the man." The notion of sacrifice and protection is wired into us as men, but becoming a father organically taps into those primal characteristics and brings them to fruition. 

The Catholic plan for life is to be generous in regards to life. Some people do in fact have grave reasons to abstain through the use of NFP, but one should dig deep to look starkly at those reasons and discern their gravity. God is not trying to shortchange us--He wants to fill our cups to overflowing with the choicest wine. I think that children are that wine. Can they be overwhelming, taxing, hard to deal with? Sure. Are they worth it? You bet. 

I wish we would have been more open to life earlier in our marriage. Who knows how much more we would have been blessed. We changed course a little late, but God is good all the time, and we still pray that He might use us as His instruments to bring saints into the world. They can't do the work if they are not born. Who knows--you might be the soul they save in the end.

So have all the babies. It's my one regret in life, that we haven't had more. But we trust Him still. Listen to our Lord, "Fear not, for I have overcome the world" (Jn 16:33). Some of the richest people in the world are the most alone and unhappy. But for those rich in children, who may not have much but you trust that God wants them here--"You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us" (1 Cor 4:8).

The Meager Fruit of Catholic Education

 

I've watched a number of episodes of EWTN's The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi. When it features reverts to the Faith, a consistent theme seems to appear--their parents all "did the best they could," which for many included being provided a Catholic education. Parents of that era (maybe 1980's-1990's) figured the "experts" would do a better job at teaching the faith and passing it on to their children than they would. These may have been families that attended Mass every Sunday and said grace before meals, but in which the imbibed spirit of faith and religion was not substantial in the home. 

My wife had this experience attending Catholic school K-12. Her immigrant parents didn't really teach the faith at home, since that was something to be learned almost as a subject in school. As a result, my wife went through twelve years of Catholic school with very little to show for it in terms of knowledge and love of the faith. No one she went to school with practices the faith as adults. I don't think it's unreasonable to judge a tree by its fruit in these instances.

I used to visit all the Catholic high schools as a college admissions recruiter. In the state we were living in at the time, the public schools were sub-par, so there was a number of Catholic school options in the area, many of them elite college-prep academies. No one sent their kids to these schools for the purpose of faith formation. They basically "weren't the public schools." Many had legacies, reputations, competitive sports teams, and favorable college placement. But they were largely indistinguishable from the public schools except maybe for the uniforms, the behavior, and the (sizable) tuition. The faith identity of the schools from what I could see were mostly "we do service." The vast majority of Catholic colleges (around here, and nationwide) stake their identity on the same unobjectionable, watered-down Catholic-lite humanism: "we do service." Well, even Atheists can "do service." So what is it, exactly, you are selling?

We are in our third year of homeschooling. I was an initial hardcore skeptic, but after seeing the fruit of being the primary educators of our children in faith and morals, as well as academics, I am a strong advocate and believer in homeschooling. Our son was the only one to attend one year of kindergarten at the local public school. His teacher was kind and a good educator, and there were no major red flags. None the less, the thought of handing over our kids to learn...well, we didn't really know what...with kids we didn't know, during his most formative years now--neither my wife nor I have any desire to do this. 

I have little faith in the large majority of Catholic schools either. Though we have a general policy of taking things "year by year, and kid by kid," our children seem to be thriving. Our 3rd grader is at a 5th grade level in reading comprehension and a 7th grade level in language arts. All we really do is read a lot to them at home, and use a general Catholic curriculum which is basic reading/writing/arithmetic. They are active in sports, theater, and co-curricular activities. Neither my wife nor I have a background in education. 

Needless to say, though, I'm very grateful we have the lawful opportunity to educate our children at home. If anyone asks me with earnest sincerity what they should do about the "school issue," I would say if at all possible (and you may have to make sacrifices to do so), homeschool. For the sake of the faith, their character, family relationships, flexibility, guarding the latency period, whatever it is, I can honestly say in the large majority of cases--you will see the fruit. And you have to, to be convinced (or reassured, if you're already in the thick of it). They are your children after all, and most parents want the best for them, but might not always know what that looks like. 

Not all children may necessarily thrive as homeschoolers. Every child is different, with different needs. But I would venture to say that many would, if given a chance. My wife left an almost six-figure salary and we made sacrifices and budget adjustments in order to homeschool our kids, with no regrets. On the flip side, though, we have no school tuition bills, no fundraisers, no constant shuttling. God has also blessed us with many unforeseen graces that confirmed this was the right choice for our family. Like I said, I hope and pray we will continue to be able to do so; if not, I may be forced into parental activism, taking to the streets with a pitchfork, given how strongly I feel about homeschooling after experiencing the benefits. 

For any parents thinking about it, I would say do whatever is necessary to at least give it a try for a least a year, and evaluate it yourself. Each family is different; but I couldn't in good conscience send my kids to the Catholic schools around here, as I feel their faith would be watered down and relegated to a corner of their lives, rather than permeating every aspect of it. With some exceptions, the large majority of them simply have not produced good fruit in terms of a legacy of retaining the faith. Which begs the question--what good is a Catholic school if it doesn't produce good Catholics?

Two Sides of the Same Coin

 

Once upon a time, in a lefty-galaxy far away, there was a Jesuit priest named John Dear. He had entered the Society of Jesus in the early 1980's and was passionately active for the cause of social justice and peaceful non-violence. His civil-disobedience for causes of nuclear disarmament, war, and the umbrella of injustice at large landed him in prison over seventy five times. As part of the Plowshares disarmament movement (taking from the scripture in Isaiah that "they shall beat their swords into plowshares"), they would break into government military bases and hammer on the warheads as an act of imperial defiance. Jesus said "love your enemies," and from their vantage point, militarism was in violation of this command and demanded a response. 

As Dear's personal mission of "peace and non-violent ministry" grew more all-encompassing and active, he seemed to see everything through the lends of non-violence everywhere. Jesus was not just the crucified Savior, but the "Non-Violent Jesus." According to an article in CNA, 

"The priest believes that to follow Jesus means “to work to end killing and poverty, and to promote peace, love, and nonviolence, and justice, as he teaches in the Sermon on the Mount.” 

“Was Jesus violence or nonviolent?” he asked. “If he's nonviolent, then we have to be nonviolent, or we're not like him; we're not following him, and it's all a big game.” 

To shed light on this kind of subtle idolatry the priest espouses, the article adds,

Fr. Dear acknowledged that “ultimately, you could say that what happened to me is a question of theology. I'm arguing that Jesus and God are nonviolent,” he said, while “the bishops and the Jesuit leaders” hold to theories which allow for war and violence under certain circumstances.

The source who spoke with CNA said that one can suspect that Fr. Dear “has a very unique take on nonviolence, on who Christ is,” and “obsesses that Jesus is all about nothing but the notion of peace, and, as far as I can tell, the peace that the world gives; not the dynamic peace of Christ.”

The source characterized Fr. Dear as “taking something that is a truth, and trying to turn it into all truth…he's really gotten into this particular subculture” rooted in the late 1960s and the vision of Fr. Daniel Berrigan, a Jesuit who protested against the Vietnam war and destroyed draft files.

In 2012, Dear was dismissed from the Society of Jesus for “obstinately disobedient to the lawful order of Superiors in a grave matter." He “was duly informed ... that his failure to obey the command that he return to the specified house of the Order by a specified date would be cause for his dismissal from the Society of Jesus.” Dear announced his dismissal publicly in a blog post at the National Catholic Register in January of 2013, and said he would not return to his community.

Why, you might ask, am I wasting time and ink writing about a SJW activist priest no one outside of NCR world has heard of or cares about, who has had his faculties removed almost ten years ago? He was admittedly "passionate and outspoken," and the mission/ministry he had prioritized had put him at odds with his Superior who was forced to 'reign him in' so to speak. 

His followers involved in the lay-it-on-the-line peace activism of the 1990's Pax Christi era must have surely felt it was an injustice that someone so passionate and committed to the cause of Christian non-violent pacifism was being unjustly canned by the establishment Superior General. "If only there were more John Dear, SJs, in the world...we might have peace and true non-violence." 

I remember reading one of Dear's books I found in our library at the Catholic Worker (see: "I Was A Lefty Catholic And Other Tales"), so his name at least was familiar. I thought at the time, even as someone who "wanted peace, so was working for justice," that he had kind of made an idol of this non-violent Jesus, seeing everything through this particular lens. 

Passion and commitment are not bad things, but obviously need to be channeled and tempered by virtue and, as a religious, obedience ("one of the hardest vows," a Benedictine priest told me once, "even harder than chastity.") The hammering-on-warheads-protest thing was not my cup of tea--I was serving the poor in the streets, but this kind of political activism viz-a-viz Liberation Theology just wasn't my thing. Obviously, for this particular SJWSJ, it didn't end well. Or maybe it freed him up to do what he felt he couldn't as a Jesuit.

So again, why am I writing about it? I don't know, it just feels...like I've been here before. Like it's just one side of the same coin, just being flipped in a different ideological hemisphere. If you've been following the Catholic news the past few days, I imagine you'll be able to read between the lines and see what I'm inferring. Same issues, just different lenses and factions. 

Don't get me wrong--I'm rooting for good orthodox priests. I'm not sure John Dear was a good priest, or if he was, he "lost his way," as was noted in the CNA article. It's not easy being a priest. It's not easy being a bishop or Superior either. What is easy is posting what 'side' you're on concerning whatever the issue of the day is. Things tend to heat up quickly when you're a passionate and outspoken priest, president, or pundit, and especially when you have a following by virtue of the good and laudable things you have done to serve them.  

I'm at the point in my own faith walk, though, where it has become a little easier to sit back and let the dust settle before making judgments on things, if I even get around to that. It can help to have all the information to do so, and that isn't always possible 'in the moment.' I don't even have to have an opinion or stance (thank goodness!). The coin will fall where it will, when it stops spinning and lands. Heads or tails....sometimes it just feels like two sides of the same coin.

Trigger Happy

It's been about two months since I left social media. Every now and then I will run across a Daily Wire article on my wife's phone, or rely on her to post something for me on Marketplace. But all in all, I've moved out of the furnace into more temperate mental climates. It's a little more boring with less drama, but I'm past the withdraw period and slowly gaining back some vacancy in my previously-packed brain.

In the thick of it, though, I would take on a lot of burdens and anxieties that, perhaps, I didn't have to. I bought a good hundred pounds of dried beans and lentils when I heard something about a meat-shortage on Facebook (that never happened). It's been a few months since the November election and while gas prices are creeping up, my family and I are not being hunted down and crucified in the street and my day to day hasn't changed much. It's not that there aren't dangers, of course (ie, the frog in hot water). It's just that the amplification of everything has...dialed down.  

Two nice things about having a non-monetized blog--I write what I want, when I want, and I never consider it 'work;' and I don't have to rely on click-bait to pay the mortgage. I'm not sure news outlets and political pundits--whether liberal or conservative--who are reliant on likes and scour the landscape for the next raging inferno to report on have this luxury, but it's also a chosen career where, I'm sure, they do pretty well.

But old ways die hard, and when I got the email from my employer for mandatory (virtual) "diversity and inclusion" training, my alarm bells went off. What would this entail, exactly? Will it be like a Clockwork-Orange, forced to have my eyelids held open and viewed against my will? Would it threaten my faith, put me in a precarious moral predicament, like stepping on the fumie? Would the content be objectionable? What if I refused? And should I on some kind of general religious grounds?

Since it was a slower day at work, I ended up logging in and going through the hour-long module on my computer to get it out of the way. I was bracing for the worst. In reality, it was relatively benign.

Was it PC? Sure. That's the point. Content wise, it ran the gambit-- stereotypes, racial discrimination and unintended bias and assumptions, 'micro-aggressions,' disabilities, issues of "privilege and power," identity, gender and sexual discrimination, and, yes, even religion. The thrust was that diversity is a strength to any organization, not a liability, and inclusion means fostering a welcoming environment in which to work.

Once I got past my initial 'lock the arms' defensiveness and relaxed a little, I realized something: I actually value these things too. Do I really want to work with all white, middle class Catholic men? Not really. Is there value in having different viewpoints, backgrounds, and perspectives? Of course. Do I want to work in an unwelcoming environment that would discriminate against me for maybe the most obvious source of identity in my case (religion)? No, I wouldn't. Do I value mutual respect? One hundred percent. Though I might not agree with all the assumptions, I found rather than being a kind of boogie-man, it was presented rather respectfully without any militant undertones. 

I have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions--when someone doesn't return a call or text, I think I did something wrong, or their lying dead in a ditch somewhere, when the simple explanation is they just might not have seen it, or been busy at the time. I also tend to think in worst-case, fatalistic scenarios.

I've always had a fear--maybe after reading too many Crisis articles or simply from being fanned the flames of incendiary rhetoric from conservative news sources--that is was just a matter of time before I was cornered into some kind of Title IX sting-op where I'd be forced to go against my faith and affirm something I didn't ascribe to against my will, and be disciplined or fired as a result. 

Even though I'm the only conservative I know on campus and person of faith that believes what the Church teaches (which can be lonely at times) I have a genuinely good working relationship with my team, with the faculty, the administration, and the students. I imagine most are left-learning. A fair number are gay. Because we are a public institution, we have to be inclusive, and there have been efforts to increase diversity as well. And I don't necessarily think this is a nefarious thing, if one operates under the assumption that it's not just lip service but that they are at least consciously devoted to some kind of common-good.

As Catholics, we belong to a "big tent" religion that is, in fact, diverse and inclusive, at least in the invitation. It's mission--to lead souls to Heaven through belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ--may be different from that of a place of employment, but we do see value in different rites, spiritualities, and ways of living out our respective vocations. Christ is the head, and we are His body. As St. Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

There's a balancing act that goes on when working in the world as a Christian. Diversity and inclusion is a double-edged sword--if you are required not to discriminate or stereotype minorities, or those who are disabled, or those who identify as gay or trans or whatever, it should be expected that Christians should not be either. 

We know it happens. We know we also gain merit when we are hated for Christ's name sake (Mt 10:22), and that our reward is not on this side of eternity. We are called to love, and respect the dignity of all men as children of God. One doesn't need to be ashamed of affirming this, as if they were a traitor to some kind of partisan litmus stick. We take our lashes with a smile, stand firm, tell the truth. But we don't need to egg on our perceived oppressors in order to earn the crown. If we are true to our faith, the time will come when God wills it, and He will give us the words to say at our trial (Mk 13:11). I try to keep an open-mind about things, though I know what I believe and where I stand, which makes it easier to do so, I think. I try not to judge people or make assumptions, anymore than I would like to be judged, but let things rest on their merits while valuing respect. I know all this sounds kind of hokey, but it is scriptural that "they will know us by our love" (Jn 13:35). 

I'm not trying to score any points with anyone here. Maybe if things took a more militant-bent of forcing ideologies, I'd be writing a different post. But in terms of this recent diversity and inclusion training, it wasn't anything to get up in arms about. We'll be ready for what comes if we cleave to Christ and our faith, and stand firm. But we don't have to be so taunt that we break at the slightest bow or perceived threat. Always be respectful, always smile, always tell the truth. Don't back away from anything, but don't give anyone who wishes to frame you ammunition to do so. I'm sure bigger things are coming down the pipeline. So pray, hope, and don't worry. Be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. And like Mother Teresa, always smile. They will know us by our love. 

A Too-Planned Life

Life in the COVID era has been surreal. Masks are a pocket accessory as much as a cellphone or car keys. Assuming conversations about whether one has gotten the vaccine or not yet has become commonplace in everyday conversations, the way someone may talk about getting a UTI or being on birth control as if it were normal. Then there's that moment when you don't know what to do when you would normally shake someone's hand. Like I said, kind of surreal. "Normal" life seems like a dream ago.

One interesting aspect of the pandemic-age has been in housing. In some aspects, there has been a predictable rise in people fleeing major urban areas (70,000+ exodus from New York City alone costing the city billions in tax renevue) as many employers have gone to remote work. Other people more prone to prepping long for land and neighbors miles away.

In another sense, though, there has been the curious phenomenon of COVID creating a surge in demand for 'tiny homes'. Some on wheels, where you might have a Murphy bed or a composting toilet. Nano apartments less than 260 sq ft in Hong Kong which sell for around $650,000USD have also been on the rise. 

For our part, I have really appreciated having a little more space in our single family home--some extra rooms to escape to (no Millennial 'open concept' floor plan here in our 1950's split level), and without the need to constantly be cleaning and tidying up. 

Affordability may be part of it (though tiny houses are arguably a poor investment in terms of resale value and are more of a depreciating asset). But I think there's more to it.

Whether or not you ascribe to the idea of a global NWO, there seems to be an ideal of a more or less 'planned society' in the works. In Render To Caesar, I wrote, 

"Have you ever seen an architectural rendering? You know, one of those two dimensional stylized representations of a future reality that doesn't exist but SHOULD because it would be so awesome and would solve all of planet Earth's problems? Like a 200 story high rise that is covered with vegetable gardens, or a mixed-use space where young urbanites can live and work and play and shop in a walkable paradise? It doesn't exist yet, but 'build it and they will come.' 

I have an admission: I hate renderings. Why? I don't know. I just like life in the real world. I have a low bs threshold, and real life has a way of not always fitting into neat prescribed models. I remember watching Jurassic Park as a kid when it first came out and thinking, "this is a HORRIBLE idea!" And it was, in the end, as all the dinosaurs escaped or something and turned on people. Maybe it's my acute awareness of the Fall, not only the rebellion in my own life, but in the world in which we live, that is wary of such social utopias."

You know one thing that messes up best-laid plans (in the best possible way) and a perfectly manicured life where everything gets put away in its place, beds are flawlessly made, and everything serves a purpose and is kept only if it 'sparks joy'? 

Kids.

It's apparent that population-control advocates like Bill Gates see humans and future generations in terms of environmental liabilities rather than human worth and capital. In Children of Men, I wrote:

"We seem to almost be living in a science fiction novel today. 59 million lives have been lost to abortion since Roe vs Wade in 1973, and 1.5 billion worldwide since 1980. We manufacture human life in test tubes and freeze or destroy embryos, bank sperm, take a morning after pill to terminate a pregnancy after contraception fails. Governments enact policies to limit children to 1 per household and force sterilization and abortions when citizens don't comply, while black market surrogacy is thriving. Human life is commodified and exploited by merciless systems of production, and traditional nuclear families are in the minority. Meanwhile, Europe faces a population disaster due to plummeting birth rates, the economic implications of which are starting to be realized.

In short, we have taken human life for granted, and there will be a price to be paid.

A quote from the film that stayed with me was when Kee's midwife reflects on the beginning of the infertility crisis in 2009, when people stopped getting pregnant and giving birth. "As the sound of the playgrounds faded," she said, "the despair set in. Very odd what happens in a world without children's voices."

Admittedly, I do watch a lot of tiny house videos and things on YouTube, because I like learning about construction. Almost without exception, those enamored with the idea are single women or young couples sans children; additionally without exception, they have pets which they treat as children. 

I saw this meme once on social media. It was brutally jarring and uncomfortable, but I think it speaks a savage truth about how future generations are holding up and actualizing their ideals of a planned life:

I appreciate simplicity. I appreciate, to a degree, a minimalism in owning things and what we bring into our home (that often alludes me, despite my best efforts). What I appreciate most, though, is what most upends all of that: my children. And not just my children, in the possessive sense, but the children we have brought into the world (or, rather, that God has brought into the world using us as the co-operators in that plan) for the world's benefit. Not just "going forth and multiplying," as the Lord commanded (yes, commanded) us to do. But forming them, sacrificing for them, so that they can actualize the kind of world we as Christians see as the ideal. Which is completely at odds with the focus depicted in the graphic above.

Maybe the thing about COVID and all it brings with it is the unsettling sense of uncertainty and upending--when the pendulum swings, and in a vaccuum of faithlessness, and where the vaccine is the new secular Eucharist, people want more control, not less--from the top (the "global elites") on down to the couple that's okay with doing number 2s in a sawdust bucket toilet and owning two sets of dining utensils and living in 150 square feet--as long as children--the enemy of a planned future--don't come along and mess it up. Or if they do, that they factor in seamlessly to the well-manicured 'plan for life' they have laid out for themselves.  

It's one thing to have to live in a shoebox-type living situation by necessity in parts of the world like Hong Kong or Japan, or the slums of Calcutta. Millions of people do. But here in the West, the vast majority of us have the luxury of choice and space. The tiny house phenomenon may be a fad but it's a curious one and I think tells us about what those attracted to it prioritize. There is a happy medium between McMansions and cottages-on-wheels. It's where we find ourselves as a family, and happily so. We have room in our home and space in our hearts for children, for guests, for mess, for the (thankful) luxury of not having to be constantly cleaning and tidying and putting things away. 

I'm not sure what the future generations will look like in the "12...6...2...dog" projection, but it doesn't inspire confidence in a future that seems very much the opposite of 'sustainable.' In a too-planned life, there's no extra room in the inn, and not just in terms of square footage. We need room in our heart and lives for uncertainty (which necessitates faith); mortality (which inspires fear of the Lord); charity (which inspires virtue); and love and commitment (in marriage, which begets children). Or, as the wisdom of Scripture attests, “Where no oxen are, the trough is clean; but increase comes by the strength of an ox.” (Prov 14:4)

Throw Her Out

If I could urge dads young and old to do one thing this day moving forward, it's this: if you watch/buy/use/consume pornography--stop.

If you work in the fields, you don't walk in the house with your mud-caked boots. That's what you do when you view porn--you track it into your home. And it doesn't scrub out as easily from the carpet as mud does.

You may have sons. You may have daughters. It affects them both. It affects your spiritual state, and as a result it affects theirs and those of your household. It affects how you treat your wife, and as a result how you treat their mom. It affects your mind, your body, and your soul. It's like voluntarily infecting yourself with a disease.

Porn--and by extension, lust--is a four-fold Alinsky-esque tactic of the Devil. It perverts man's natural engine for procreation (which Satan cannot stand, as he is anti-life), and he whispers the play-by-play in the ear of man of how to carry out his revolution of degeneration:

ISOLATE IT

OBJECTIFY IT

USE IT

DISCARD IT

Man and women are a unity of parts. In isolating body parts for the purposes of lust--parts made beautiful and in the image of God himself--to meditate on for the purpose of fantasy, he attempts to dismantle the very essence of the Incarnation itself.

In objectifying the parts, he treats them as butcher would. But women (and men) are not animals, but children of the Creator.

Just as the Devil uses us for his own purposes, lust (and its specific tool, porn) causes us to use others with no care for their welfare. That is why young girls/women (and young boys/men) are depersonalized in a rote, utilitarian mechanization that is the very antithesis of holy love and tender sex.

When you are done using something, what do you do with it? You throw it out. Like a paper towel after you have dried your hands with it. That is why after Amnon rapes Tamar and his unholy desire is sated, he hates her (2 Sam 13:15). What does he say after the deed is done? "Throw her out." (2 Sam 13:17)

Is this man you want to be? Used by the Devil, like a pawn that benefits you nothing? Like a cliche-radical rebelling against your Father?

Sin is boring. Addiction is boring. It always promise a different ending and the ending never changes. Just stop it. Get off the horse. Reclaim your manhood, and put on the armor of chastity. Quit tracking mud into your house. Do whatever you need to do. Be the man, the father, the husband you were meant to be.

The Progressive Presupposition

This evening I attended a panel discussion at the invitation of a friend. The title of the sponsored evening was "A Crisis of Leadership and Faith" and included three panelists--a child advocacy lawyer, a theologian, and a parish priest--who shared their views on the "reality behind the headlines" of the clergy abuse scandal from their respective positions. It was held at a local Catholic college, one of a dozen or so in our immediate area.

I went into the evening with as open a mind as I could. My inclination was to presuppose both the panelists and the audience were of a more progressive bent, though I was also prepared to be mistaken if that was in fact not the case. I did check out the twitter feed of the theologian on the panel prior to the talk, and did notice he retweeted Fr. James Martin, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, and a quote by liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, which gave me a pretty good idea of his leanings. The friend who invited me and with whom I attended was not Catholic, but had an respectful curiosity about Catholicism in general and was open to learning something about the Church, which was in many respects a kind of foreign institution.

Life, politics, religion are never completely polarized to the extent we see on the news. Most people in everyday life are not classified in a binary fashion as either "Radical Leftists" or "Right-wing extremists" but have ideations on a gradient. And yet when it comes to my feeds, my social circle, and my Catholic sphere of influence, I would say I am in somewhat of a conservative bubble. I vet sources and am generally aware of which lean left and vice versa. I know publications like America magazine and The National Catholic Reporter exist, but do not feel inclined to read or cite them, though I try not to demonize them either. I am willing to concede that there are different ways of approaching or seeing an issue, and I try to be respectful and charitable in the way I would hope to be respected and treated with charity. So, my attendance at this talk was a kind of opportune forced exercise, a chance to venture out of said bubble and see what was going on on the other side of the Catholic fence.

The panelists shared their respective experience and views on the roots of the crisis. The lawyer--a Catholic mother of four--spoke about abuse in general and what was unique about abuse in the Church, the PA Grand Jury report, and her advocacy work. The theologian spoke about the problem of clericalism, structural sins/violence, unequal distribution of power, church organizing, and changing social structures. The priest spoke about his particular parish, comprised of predominately Hispanic families (many of whom were undocumented) and how in this community the priest is trusted and "they come to me for everything." They shared for about an hour, after which questions were taken from the audience.

I was there to learn--about the abuse crisis in the context of this particular talk, yes; but also as a "mystery shopper" to learn about how progressive Catholicism works and how "we-are-the-church" Catholics think, what they believe, and the things they presuppose. Here are a few of my observations:

-Learning how to read between the lines. 
The language that is used says a lot about their ideological presuppositions. For instance, references to the #metoo movement, social sin, change, justice, organizing, empowering, etc. are keywords for a progressive ideology. Whereas a conservative may regard with suspicion or disdain and would not include such terms in their lexicon, it is important to realize that for a progressive, these are points of pride. Change is not something to fear but embraced, for instance. It's where efforts should be focused, and mobilization should be occurring, a kind of "get out the vote" mentality. It can be subtle, though, not always overt but implicit.

-What is not talked about is as important as what is talked about.
Orthodox Catholics can sometimes fall into the trap of litmus testing and showing their hand in brusque fashion. "Yes, but what about ABORTION??" may be preemptively interjected when the topic of the preferential option for the poor comes up. Of course care for the poor should not be antithetical to the life of the unborn, so it plays into progressives' dismissal of conservatives as "obsessed with below-the-belt issues." The theologian spoke about his work supporting CRS (Catholic Relief Services) and getting other students involved with them as well. That being said, it was notable that many things were intentionally left unsaid when the John Jay report came up during the discussion. Homosexuality was never mentioned, and pedophilia was brought up, but not pederasty, for instance.

-How the narrative is framed
One thing I noticed--both from audience members when they offered their comments and questions, and from the panelists themselves--is that progressive-minded Catholics frame the narrative as one of power structures, inequality, and a kind of egalitarian ideal. One woman called for "a greater role for women in the Church" and another man spoke of empowerment of the laity in leading discussions and working to make a difference. It is an interesting intersection with conservative Catholics, though, who also realize there is a failure in ecclesial examples of personal holiness and that the laity will in fact be leading the charge in keeping the Church afloat. 

-Radically different assumptions
Much like the way Republicans favor small government, states' rights, and free markets while Democrats favor taxation and more federal oversight and regulation, there are different assumptions within the Church among progressives and conservatives on what "church" means, the role of the conscience, and ecclesial authority. Emphasis on the social and collective versus the personal was something I noticed (social/structural sin vs. personal holiness, etc)

When I had the opportunity to ask a question, I asked how the panelists saw the crisis of faith, as noted (but not discussed) in the title of the talk. I cited some statistics from Pew research indicating that 50% of young Americans who were raised in the Church no longer call themselves Catholic; that 7% of those raised in the Church still attend Mass weekly; and that 8 in 10 leave the Faith before they turn 23. Of course there is no real answer that can be summed up in a few minutes time, but the question itself, I felt, was worth asking. Does progressive Catholicism attract a committed and sustainable community of young believers? Does orthodoxy? If so, it is overstated, or is it enough to sustain the demographic vocations cliff that will radically challenge the ecclesial carrying capacity of the Church in the next twenty years when aging priests retire and/or die?

I felt like an outlier in the crowd, and while I originally had a kind of antagonistic mentality going in, I deliberately tried to temper it with an open-minded listening and a respectful temperance of pushing my own ideological assumptions forcefully into the conversation. These were people who were also committed to the Church as they knew it. I felt for the young theologian, who said that between his wife and him, they had five degrees in Theology between them. "I have given my whole life to the Church," he said, and seemed to imply that he was too invested to turn his back on it. But I also got the impression that the progressive platform rested on the theme of change, and doing it from the inside by way of organizing and challenging the nature of ecclesial hierarchy. It seemed like a kind of hold over from the 1960's way of thinking/organizing/exacting reform, a bit tired, and one that I'm not convinced will save the Church from its present crisis.

"I Was A Lefty Catholic" And Other Tales

We were at dinner a few months ago with some friends. My son's godmother introduced me to one of the guests at the table who attend the Traditional Latin Mass. "This is Rob," she said good naturedly, "he used to be a lefty-Catholic!"

I couldn't argue. But when I joined the Catholic Worker after graduating college (and three years after joining the Church), I wouldn't have known what you meant if you called me a "leftist Catholic." Sure, I read books by John Dear and the Berrigan brothers, and like any good twenty-something was attracted to the revolutionary spirit of those working for justice on behalf of the poor. My friends would protest at the School of the Americas in Georgia, we had a community garden, we hung bedsheets from the windows in a spirit of solidarity and liberation. When I moved to Philly, I went to St. Vincent de Paul in Germantown where we joined hands around the altar when the priest would break leavened honey-wheat bread; the liturgical abuses, in hindsight, were legion.

It's all easy to see now. But at the time, I was totally ignorant of the factions in the Church, just happy to have been saved, forgiven, and redeemed, and feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor as Jesus called us to do.

But now I see the hold-overs form the Ploughshares movement and other social justice initiatives, and they just look...weary, and a little passed-by. I'm not sure if their children practice the Faith, but my guess--since the "praxis" of liberation and the here-and-now was often given more importance than stodgy old doctrine--is that many do not, since the spirit of the revolution is harder to pass on than formative teaching by way of the catechism.

Our age is the age of social experimentation. We have experimented with marriage, with conception and human life, with the foundations of society--the family--with political ideology, with what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. In the Church, the years of experimentation in throwing off the shackles of dogma for primacy of conscience and religious communities traded habits for secular garb.

Since I've been laid up in bed sick for the past couple days, I've been watching some movies and things. One recommended by a priest I know was an obscure 1973 made-for-TV film on Youtube called "The Conflict," starring a young Martin Sheen who plays Fr. Kinsella, a young liberationist priest sent from Rome to his religious order in Ireland to straighten them out and to work on banning the TLM.

A telling exchange occurs about halfway through the film between Fr. Kinsella and one of the monks:


Monk: You're one of those new priests, aren't you, the revolutionaries? 

Fr. Kinsella: Are you interested in that? 

M: Tell me: is it true, in South America, some priests are overthrowing the government? 

FK: Yes they are. 

M: How can they be doing the likes of that? 

FK: Well why not? The early Christians were revolutionaries, remember? 

M: What does that got to do with saving souls for God? 

FK: Everything! Do you know in places like South America young priests our age are dying for the causes of social justice? 

M: What are they doing being priests? You know, if i wanted to join the IRA, I'd have joined the IRA. But I joined the Church. 

FK: So the Church can be a powerful instrument of change! It can lead a revolution that people will follow. You have enormous influence! 

M: You know, that's trite! Look at the people over there on the mainland. They don't want your social justice. They want the old Mass. They want to believe in something, something more than this world can offer them. And what do you offer, Father?  

FK: Well perhaps a better life, Father, not pie in the sky. 

M: Ah, but you're a priest. That's not your job. They want you to forgive them their sins, to baptize them, marry them, bury them. Show them there's a God above them, a God who cares about them. Now the old parish priests knew that. You don't.


The exchange was meaningful for me not as much for what it had to do with the Mass (though that is a primary focus of the film), but because, in this particular exchange at least, it got to the heart of the role of the priest and the desires of those who cling to the Faith:

They want you to forgive them their sins

to baptize them

marry them

bury them

Show them there's a God above them

a God who cares about them

Liberation Theology was wedded and adapted to a godless Marxism and concerned itself more with the immediate here-and-now than the eternal, the social more than the timeless. As a praxis-based experiment, it's motives may have had some merit (alleviation of the suffering of the poor, economic justice, etc), but it failed to bear the fruit to sustain itself. Personal prayer and sanctity, at least in my experience in the movement, was never emphasized very much. I know enough to know that any life without the sustenance of prayer doesn't have much of a future. 

Here's the thing: Anti-foundationalism, post-modernism, and 21st century liberalism are not homes of peace. Because the work of justice is never fully accomplished, and the revolution is always just around the corner, and the fuel tank of agitation and outrage is always needing a refilling to keep the vehicle of change from stalling out. That does NOT mean we can ignore the plight of the poor or become like the rich man dining sumptuously at his table while Lazarus licks his sores. It does NOT mean we cannot see and admire the laudable work of justice and models of civil disobedience, as could be seen in, for example, the fight for civil rights in our country. 

But as a whole, if I had to put money down, I would not place my chips at the table of the National Catholic Reporter types to save the Church in a post-modern wasteland. The force of the culture is too strong, and we need a rope braided strong with centuries of tradition and clear teaching to keep us from washing out to sea. We need a 'movement' that lauds the timeless and encourages (and gives the tool for) the development of personal holiness, for the culture is converted a saint at a time. We need a movement that steeps itself in deep and devoted personal prayer, develops a practice of piety sharpened by mortification, and draws its strength from Christ in the Eucharist. A movement that encourages frequent confession, and does not see sacramentals as nice little charms, but recognizes them as the armor necessary to protect its followers spiritually. A movement that thousands of canonized saints have themselves been a part of, leading the way and leaving their footsteps in the dirt for us to follow, for the themselves follow the crucified Christ. 

Judge a tree by its fruits, but make sure you see the fruit through eyes that can distinguish the temporal from the eternal, the 'here and now' from the place where souls exist until the end of time. Gear everything you have, everything you own, everything you can will, towards the Eternal. Follow closely in the footsteps of the saints who have gone before you, read about their lives and follow their examples, and don't stray from the path. Pass the Faith to your children so that they might be saved. Form your conscience in obedience. And never cease in prayer.

I can't afford to put my hope of eternal salvation in a social experiment like liberal Catholicism. Maybe I'm just getting older and (hopefully) a little wiser--or, at least, am wising up a little, but I'm happy to have left liberal Catholicism behind. Only took twenty years to "get woke" to tradition, obedience, and the hard road to sanctification. 

But better late than never.