Technology & the Internet
Technology is a fantastic tool that has a variety of many uses. Unfortunately today technology is used for inappropriate, often very exploitative motives and aims. Facebook used to be one of those neat corners of the internet that not everyone was on, but now everyone and their 3-year-old has Facebook. I got nothing against social media, after all I use it to keep up with friends and family. However, I think it would be advantageous for everyone to think about the original use of the internet as primarily and tool for research and development - a way to share information. What we do online is mostly anything but, and we need to have a renaissance of what the internet was intended to be.
I am very pro technology and want to see its development, but not at the cost of people being stupid. Social platforms and online shopping can actually be great things, and indeed they are useful too, but the endless trolling, harassing, getting offended at every occasion a politician or celebrity does this or that thing has to go.
Politics
I am probably the least political person I know. And that is if we are using the term political in the colloquial use of the term which is to participate in the discussion of agendas relating to public policy, social platforms, or religious ideology in an unwanted or otherwise offending manner.
This is not how I approach politics.
Politically I am more aligned with Aristotle as regards the purpose of government and the state. Aristotle thought that the state was there to create laws and constitutions that took into grave consideration the well-being and livelihood of the populace a priori any laws were enacted or placed into effect. Aristotle also agreed with Plato, albeit to a lesser degree, that "There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands." (Plato Republic, Book VI)
Speaking more to my agreement with Aristotle is my position of Monarchy as a good form of government. This is probably one of my most controversial opinions and one that I have had both the pleasure and displeasure of discussing at length.
As a monarchist I still vote in my democratically held elections. Why is this? Well, because I love my fellow citizens and I see it as my duty to my state. Simply put, I view the current sociopolitical theater as archaic, banal, and lacking the sophistication and long-term logistics to support a truly sustainable future for any nation.
Science
I'm all for advancements in the sciences.
Climate Change
Yep it's a thing. Believe it or not humans aren't exactly the main culprit. As it turns out anything that is a mammal that consumes food contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. It's called farting and it's perfectly natural.
Other things that may influence climate are things like Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles, the precession of Earth's axial tilt, and literally a trillion other factors that we just don't have control over. We need to continue to perform more research.
Climate, if you look at ice core and other samples we have pulled from Greenland and other locations, fluctuates and changes very regularly. This is nothing to be concerned about.
Recycling is a good thing because it is absolutely correct that we shouldn't make a mess of our planet. So clean up after yourself once in a while - it's a good discipline anyway, so why doesn't it happen more often.
All things in consideration we humans are not exactly helping things, but at the same time we are not overtly making things worse.
All things in consideration we humans are not exactly helping things, but at the same time we are not overtly making things worse.
Evolution
Sure why not. Doesn't mean that we're apes. Just means that there was clearly an order of operations that was involved with the eventuality of us (humans) turning up. To be honest, the negative take aways a lot of critics claim are problematic with the theory are the same things that are potentially wrong with any scientific hypothesis or theory, that is: there's a flaw. Of course there are flaws! However, in order for a hypothesis to become a theory a considerable amount of peer review and extensive testing has to at least show that there is something to the idea that makes sense in the way that nature works. It is really that simple.
If you don't like the prevailing theory of evolution, then come up with your own scientifically sound hypothesis and test it thoroughly and submit it for review and more research. Just be humble enough to accept that your hypothesis may be disproved.
If you don't like the prevailing theory of evolution, then come up with your own scientifically sound hypothesis and test it thoroughly and submit it for review and more research. Just be humble enough to accept that your hypothesis may be disproved.
The Religion vs Science War
It's fake and perpetuated by people who don't know what they're talking about and should just get back to work. Honestly, people on both sides, religious or not, need to stop, chill out, and focus on other things.
Social Justice
Why are we making a big deal about things? Okay, so people in X community are starving. Go feed them. Homeless? Build them a house.
What's really stopping you is that you're limiting yourself to the idea that government, committees, and meetings are going to somehow going to change the world. They're not. Just go feed the poor in your own community. And don't tell me about it. I mean what am I supposed to say, "Okay, keep it up champ"? Is your ego so famished for attention that you can't do something nice for people without getting a pat on the back or an award? Grow up, pull on your big kid underwear, and just go do it.
Catholicism
Roman Catholic - not traditionalist
I am a Roman Catholic. I am not a "trad" or a "left cath" or a "rad trad." I am just Roman Catholic. As a Roman Catholic I adhere to the teachings (i.e. Catechism) of the Catholic Church as she has taught since her founding by Jesus Christ. So I have been taught, so I will do.
I vehemently oppose those Priests who have damaged the Catholic faith by either abusing their parishioners (children, minors, adults, etc.) or by teaching things that the Catholic faith has defined as erroneous teaching during her approximately 2,000 year tenure.
I recognize Francis as the true successor of St. Peter (the first Pope, appointed by Christ), and am free to disagree with the direction that he is wanting to take the Church - a direction I believe is in error and in discord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I understand that beyond my disagreement of his personal beliefs that he is the duly appointed Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church pursuant to the decrees of Session IV of the First Vatican Council.
As I stated I am not a "trad," "rad trad," or fit a Catholic "stereotype." That being said I promote and assist at the Mass according to the 1962 Missale Romanum sometimes known as the "Traditional Latin Mass," "Mass of John XXIII," "Latin Mass," "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite," "Tridentine Rite," "Mass of the Ages," and "Usus Antiquior." I grew up going to Catholic school and was given a solid Catholic education and assisted Mass according to the 1974 Roman Missal otherwise known as the Novus Ordo Missae, "Mass of Paul VI," "Vernacular Mass" or "Mass of Vatican II." While I do not disrespect the Novus Ordo, and recognize that the Vatican has allowed the Novus Ordo to exist, I just simply do not assist at Masses using the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the modern Mass.
If you are curious where to find a Latin Mass and want to see one check with your local Catholic Diocese to see how they are implementing Summorum Pontificum. You can also check out the following Orders and Priestly Societies:
If you are curious where to find a Latin Mass and want to see one check with your local Catholic Diocese to see how they are implementing Summorum Pontificum. You can also check out the following Orders and Priestly Societies:
- Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS, ICKSP)
- Society of St. Pius X (SSPX, FSSPX)
- Canons Regular of St. John Cantius (SJC)
Sedevacantism is not Catholic
I reject as anathema the premises of those who adhere to the "sedevacantist" position and in accordance with the discipline and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, pursuant to the First Vatican Council do not recognize them as Catholic. The sedevacantist position is as varied as there are those who say they are sedevacantist. To summarize, sedevacantists think that there has not been a validly elected Pope since 1958 after the death of Pope Pius XII. There are those who say that Pope Pius the XII could not be the Pope because he was a liberal and helped free as many of the Jewish people as possible from Nazi death camps and therefore assert that after Pius XI there is no Pope. There are still those who insist that there has been no Pope since Pope Pius X and even that he and Pope Pius IX were modernists - despite the evidence of their strong stances against modernism. Following sedevacantist logic to its solution, how could St. Peter have been the Pope since he outright denied Jesus three times. Therefore, the sedevacantist position is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and therefore is not Catholic.
Modernism is not Catholic
Modernism within the Catholic Church has not been profiting the Church well and can be seen as the small beginnings of many of the issues within the Church hierarchy including the abuse crisis that has been ongoing since the 1960s and no amount of changing the liturgy or aggiornamento is going to solve the crisis, except a restoration of the seemingly lost traditions of the Church that are still ongoing in many more places than some Catholics are willing to admit or recognize. The main issue I take with the modernist position within the Church is that on a practical level it denies the goodness of the Church prior to 1968. However, that position begs the question, because why did God decide to give us the Church for the salvation of souls in 1968, instead of at the Ascension of Jesus as indicated by the Gospels and as even those sects outside the Church (Protestants, Fundamentalists, and some Evangelicals) acknowledge?
What is similar between sedevacantists and modernists is the error of ultramonatism, which is the erroneous view that everything that falls from the Pope's mouth is somehow infallible. This error when taken to its logical solution creates an image that the Pope is some sort of ubermensch with super infallibility that is beyond what Catholics truly believe. Therefore, just like sedevacantists, modernists cannot be seriously regarded as Catholic.
The Society of St. Pius X
This is a debate going back as the founding of the SSPX (also FSSPX) which is a Roman Catholic Priestly society dedicated to the promulgation of the 1962 Roman Missal and the training of Priests in the Tradition of the Catholic Church. At the heart of the controversy is the questionable consecrations of four Bishops in 1988 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre, who always encouraged his Priests and Seminarians to remain united to Rome, had always been labelled as a problem child among many of the Catholic Bishops because of his stance of always teaching what the Roman Catholic Church has always taught. (Some of these Bishops would in 2002 and in 2018 be credibly accused of covering up sexual abuse.)
Numerous Bishops and delegates from Rome have visited the seminaries, parishes, chapels, and schools of the SSPX and have found nothing short of places of great devotion to Jesus Christ, the Sacraments, and filial respect and care for the Holy Father. In 2007 the excommunications that were said to be incurred by Abp. Lefebvre were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI and in 2016 Pope Francis had accepted the existing faculties for Priests of the SSPX to hear Confession and officiate at Marriages.
The debate over the current status of the SSPX is a red herring and moot argument to the Catholic Church similar to the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the conspiracy theories and misinformation about vaccines causing autism. The debate over the SSPX has been settled by the actions of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Since the Holy Father has spoken, acted, and given the green light to the SSPX it is perfectly fine for Roman Catholics to assist at Masses said by SSPX Priests and receive Sacraments.
The Divine Mercy Devotion
This devotion is another red herring that every year within a week or two of Easter starts ruffling the feathers of every Catholic. Those who are devoted (sometimes to the extreme) practically demonize those who aren't praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily at 3 PM every. single. day. On the other side of the debate are those who detract from the originator of the Divine Mercy Chaplet (St. Faustina Kowalska) by claiming she was a heretic.
Enough is enough. Both sides need to realize that no Catholic is obligated to accept a private devotion. Just don't confuse superstition with devotion and you're probably going to be just fine.
