A Clarification, Not An Apology

So, in my last post, Farewell, Catholic Blogosphere, I posited a critique and overview of some of the erroneous positions and stereotypes one may encounter on the Catholic blogosphere and even social media.  What I did not expect was some of the backlash and hurt feelings.  Perhaps my words were not well chosen.  However, I do not apologize in the sense of saying that "I'm sorry" as I'm sure some would do.  I will apologize by clarifying in three points what may have been a confusing post to some.

First of all, I have a profound love of my Faith and fellow lay faithful.  This does not mean that I will accept or allow errors to go unchallenged.  Where there is a disagreement on the fundamentals or teachings of the Catholic faith, there needs to be affirmation, confirmation, and clarification.  Unfortunately, it is very apparent that many lay faithful, and even a handful of clerics and prelates of diverse notoriety fail to affirm, confirm, and clarify the Faith to those who lack understanding and knowledge of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.  This, no matter what position someone might adopt on matters of faith, is no doubt problematic and a symptom of the malaise affecting the Church since the mid 20th century.

Second, I possess a great respect to any Priest or Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church who upholds and defends what the Church has taught for 2,000 years with authenticity and care.  This no doubt excludes those Priests and Bishops who have knowingly taught contrary to Church teaching or have knowingly been directly involved with the McCarrick cover up that blew up this past summer.  I renew my resolve to pray for all Priests and Bishops of the Catholic Church that they may lead the Church out of this crisis.  It is a terrible crime and scandal that has befallen the Church and the blame lies with the negligence of some who decided to place honor and position over humility and a heart after our Lord's own.

Third and finally, it has been an embarrassment to me when the efforts of those who pride themselves as "theologians" or "canonists" spread misunderstanding of what the Church really teaches and tolerates.  It makes it difficult when a lay person, Priest, or Bishop teach contrary to what I was taught and have come to believe, on my own.  Equally as problematic when some of the lay faithful (and even an infamous Jesuit) use their personality and notoriety to spread error and heretical positions, because it shows a Church that appears superficially to be divided, when in actuality the Church is not divided and will continue to perennially teach what Her Savior taught - even if those in charge do not.  The consistent Church that affirms, confirms, and clarify the Faith to Her lay faithful is the same Church that I received Sacraments from.  Any place that teaches contrary to the Catholic Church is not of her.

Farewell, Catholic Blogosphere

My Discernment

I had kept a blog regarding my analysis and outlook on matters of the Catholic faith from an unique perspective: as one who in many ways is a puzzle to many of the lay faithful.  For years I had a vicious cycle of posting in bursts, and then would fall silent only to delete all the posts and after a few years of nothing began again.  As much as I wanted to make great attempts at trying to explain my perspective of the Catholic faith, I realize over and over again that I just don't have the eloquence to do so.  So in a sense I'm announcing my retirement from the Catholic "blogosphere."  It's been fun, it really has.  But I'm not walking away without learning a few things about many of my fellow Catholics.  Allow me to break it down by talking about two very different wings of the Catholic Church and their subsets as I sit and watch the social media firestorms.

"Novus Ordo" (New Order Mass)

The "Liberal Left"/Social Justice Warrior (SJW)

So... yeah, this type absolutely has a very fanatic love affair with the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass).  To say that they LOVE it when Mass is done with the most minimalist reverence to God would be an understatement.  If Pope Francis were suddenly to change the perennial teachings of the Church to reflect the flamboyant desires of this group of lay faithful, the organ and Latin would be universally abolished, and those who so much as think about suggesting or singing a more traditional hymn would be publicly denounced as a schismatic, or even "rigid," and promptly excommunicated.

These are the types who have a rather dim understanding of Catholic teaching and somehow thing that every thing that comes from the mouth of the Holy Father is infallible despite the fact that this is contrary to Vatican I.  Furthermore, these are the people will rush in to defend whatever flamboyantly erroneous thing that James Martin, SJ puts out on social media (while proceeding to callously insult even their own Bishops if they feel that their feelings are being "attacked").  Most of the time you can expect a "boomer" or child of the 1960s to be very deeply entrenched in this group.

Conservative Faction

These bunch are actually a mixed bag and by and large likely comprised of the vast majority of Catholic lay faithful.  These types are really trying to understand their faith, and are to be praised for it.  They've somehow made it past, or never dabbled with, the "chicken soup for the soul" type of thinking and have figured out that it actually takes a little effort to really navigate through the teachings of the Church as they apply to every day life.

These Catholics have sort of given in to this notion that those Catholics who go to Latin Mass are okay guys, but perhaps a little nutty.  They have a tendency to repeat and share things that in themselves seem well and good on the first glance (i.e. things Mark Shea writes), but haven't quite realized that prudence really is a good thing, and so really miss an opportunity to show someone the charity that is due them.  Many of these Catholics, despite the overwhelming crisis in the Church, go on about their lives as though some magical fairy is going to wave a wand and make everything better again.  Really, these Catholics are pretty mainstream and are trying their best, despite getting too "trigger happy" with the Catechism.  Again, I emphatically commend and praise them for their efforts and encourage them to keep striving to better their understanding and practice!

Neo-Conservative Caucus

Oh boy!  These are an interesting bunch.  Latin Mass goers?  Occasionally.  Do they, like most "traditional" Catholics support Cardinal Burke?  You bet.  However despite their agreements with most Latin Mass attendees they have a tendency to give in to the conspiracy theory that Abp. Lefebvre founded the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to create a overly militant order of Priests hell bent on beating the faith into people.  In fact it would be an understatement to say that they would be immensely suspicious of the Holy Father if he granted the SSPX the ability to go unchallenged within the Church.  Guess it's better to make sure one group of traditional Priests takes the brunt of the anti-traditional rage that's been going on since the 1950s.

When they aren't arguing about how much Latin would be too much at Mass, and sometimes sounding worse than the Republican National Convention, they're bludgeoning each other and those who argue with them about what virtues they're lacking.  Good luck talking to them if you're a Catholic who also happens to be a monarchist, because "you're just wrong, because the republican party will save America!"  If it were possible to create a democratic Catholic state just for them, they would no doubt flock to it.  If you've ever committed a sin at any point since you've been born you've probably been chewed out by a few of these types of Catholics.

"Traditional" Catholics

Before we delve into this I need to explain why I put traditional in quotes.  The reason is simple: adhering to what the Church has always taught and practiced does not make one a traditional Catholic, but just simply Roman Catholic.

"Rad Trads"

Oh my gosh!  I'm very happy when someone discovers the "Latin Mass" (henceforth Mass), however these are the type who will bludgeon folk and "non-trads" with every article they've ever read about how this Bishop or that Bishop is doing this or that thing.  Okay, I get it there's a crisis in the Church and this, this, and this Bishop has to go.  You know something?  I'm on your side on this, but moreover I'm hearing a lot more complaining and seeing a lot less action.  Let the good journalists and commentators at Rorate Caeli or One Peter Five do the talking and discussing.  As for "rad trads" (boy I really hate that label) they would do better to work with their Bishops, and if they can't do that, then pray for them.  Really, let others do the talking, because you're plaguing social media with a bit of fanaticism that's chasing people away, and that's not good.

Quasi Schismatics

These are the overly scrupulous about everything at the Mass.  Not only that, but talking about any of the Popes after Pius XII (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, & Francis) in their presence causes them to writhe in pain a little.  While some may be okay with the fact that Francis is indeed the Holy Father, they practically refuse to pray for the Pope.  The faith, to them, is more or less approached in a similar way to the "neo-conservative caucus" discussed above.  The only reason they don't dare step near a sede vacantes prayer service that looks like Mass is because their scruples just won't let them, and that's their saving grace.

"The Fake Canon Lawyer"

Alright, these are the kind who have read enough Canon Law to make them dangerous to others faith.  Unbeknownst to them you can't just read Canon Law and assume that such and such a situation, crisis, marriage, community of Priests, etc. is somehow improperly or properly according to this or that Church teaching or practice.  Moreover there is a tendency to even start pointless arguments over whether or not assisting at Mass said by a Priest of the SSPX somehow fulfills the Sunday obligation, despite the fact that it does fulfill the Sunday obligation per the Holy See.

"The Groupie"

Oh man!  Ever hear anyone say anything insinuating that only their parish has the only valid Mass?  You've met a groupie!  Whether it's someone who assists at Masses said by a Priest of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), or any other community of traditional Priests or Diocesan, you can be sure that this person thinks very highly of the Priest offering Mass.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you can't assume that any Mass said outside of your parish is somehow invalid or illicit.  You do have to admire the profound respect they do have towards their parish Priests though.

On A Final Note

As a Roman Catholic layperson I guess I really don't have a lot of positive or optimistic things to say about most of my fellow Catholic lay faithful.  I really don't.  That is not to say that I don't love and pray for them, though.  It's more that the faith that I received and was taught in grade school wasn't always the same faith I saw taught at other parishes while growing up.  In fact sometimes I wonder if we lay faithful of the Roman Catholic Church are somehow partially responsible for the crisis in the Church.  When we saw the Faith needlessly dumbed down in the 1970s, did we speak up to our Bishops?  When we saw the Mass of our parents and ancestors watered down to a mere replication of a late night talk show or a rock concert, what protest did we make?

I'm a little ashamed that often I think less of my fellow Catholics, but at the same time I don't apologize, because I see the Church truly at a tipping point.  Many of our Bishops have failed to protect and defend the Church against those who seek to harm her teachings and the most vulnerable and impressionable among us.  Many of the lay faithful are poorly taught their faith and are just getting by.  On social media there is more time spent arguing moot points and pointless topics (e.g. does going to Latin Mass make one schismatic?  Is it a sin to live in the suburbs?).

We need to stop.  I think this is where I'm different.  I don't fit in any of the stereotypes, and I really hope that you don't see yourself in the stereotypes either.  I'm just a Roman Catholic who assists at Mass (1962 Roman Missal), prays my Rosary, and day to day tries to prepare my soul for the inevitable day, that day of wrath, when my soul will finally be called forth to meet the very God who "created me to know, love, and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him forever in the next." (Baltimore Catechism)  On that day I will have to render an account for my actions.  And I think that it would be good if every Catholic, even the Bishops, and those who may have become disoriented and confused in recent times, were to reflect daily on that point.  One day we will all have to render an account.  If the goal is to be welcomed into Heaven with the words "well done, good and faithful servant," then maybe we need to stop the drama and start acting like we actually believe what we have been taught.

Why I'm Going to Miss Google Plus

UPDATE (02-06-2019):  It would seem that due to another discovered security breach Google will be closing down Google+ for consumers by April 2019.

---

In case most of you haven't heard, Google is shuttering it's social network Google Plus (Google+, G+).  This is sad news to the many of us who use the service to network with like minded individuals and explore the latest in cutting edge science and technology discussions.

This news fell very hard on me, since I have spent many years networking with colleagues and others in my academic field and beyond.

But that wasn't the greatest thing about G+.  If you compared G+ to other social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, the differences couldn't be more obvious.

Twitter, for the most part, is filled with the most random of postings.  It's sort of, at least to me, a platform for ranting about what's wrong in life with the appropriate "hashtag".  Of course public debate, passive aggressive "arguing", and people shooting down opinions also exist.  But if you're like me--and don't have many followers--then for the most part your twitter feed is pretty tame, aside from the occasional drama that may spill over.

Facebook has become a cesspool of negativity and politically drawn battle lines.  It's an opinionated war zone that seems much more like a scene from news coverage of the Iraq War than the place I once remembered; a place where the parade of drunken pictures from the previous night's festivities began sometime around Sunday afternoon and continued into the early hours of Monday.  By and large I've noticed that most of my friends and I don't really use Facebook that often except to use its chat feature (because not everyone uses Google!).  A few friends are still there though and sharing memes and what not, but even still, the social landscape of Facebook has changed.  Facebook now resembles an vast desert, like the planet Naboo from Star Wars, than the lush forest it once was.

Google+ was anything but; and is to this day the least politically fueled social network.  Just going onto my feed exposed me (based on what and who I followed) to the latest trends in science and technology.  What I always saw was people helping other people, sharing some awesome picture of a sunset while they were traveling, or posting some update about this or that scientific study.  Politics?  I'm most certain they existed (I'm not naive!), however because I was never following anything strictly political, and even my groups were always Meteorology and other STEM related, I never saw anything promoting this or that politician.

Now, what prompted Google to decide to shutter G+ was because allegedly there was a data breach that while Google fixed the issue did fail to advise the issue to the 500k users who were potentially affected.  That and Google claims that the social network just isn't used enough.  From my perspective this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the pervasive infractions against personal privacy that Facebook has not only committed and attempted to cover up, but has also tried to rope Google, Apple, Amazon, and any other tech company into the fiasco.  Sometimes I wonder how there are still millions of people on Facebook (then I remember my friends and I using their chat client and not willing to move elsewhere. D'oh.)

I think the greatest reason why I will continue to greatly appreciate G+ until I can no longer gain access around August 2019, and miss it after it's gone, is because at very least I could log on to a social network and just be me.  More than that I knew that logging on to G+ would leave me intellectually edified and in the know of those things that I actually cared about and wanted to know about.  It was nice knowing that I could access a social network where people were generally positive and were genuine (well, except for some of the bots, but those were rare).  But I suppose that wasn't good enough for Google.  In a way, I hope that perhaps something will come along to change Google's mind.

Just an idea: If you have a Google account and activate your Google Plus profile and begin sharing (if you haven't).  Maybe if Google sees a massive influx of users someone might think to themselves, maybe there's life still in her that's worth saving.

On The Abuse Crisis Afflicting The Church

My thoughts on the current crisis affecting the Roman Catholic Church in the United States:

It has taken a long while for me to accurately and charitably compile my thoughts in regards to the sex abuse crisis, so please bear with me.

First of all, this is just absolutely tragic. In fact, it is absolutely diabolical and completely inexcusable! What more as the weeks and days go on it seems more and more likely that some of the Bishops, and even those beyond the US borders, have completely forsaken the teachings of the Church; trading them in for depravity and savagery!

I too am greatly disturbed and at times ponder, in anger, how this could have happened. After all, I was once a seminarian (albeit for a brief time) and I never observed or witnessed any of this happening.  The idea of this happening is such a foreign concept to what I know to be true Catholic teaching that I'm left mesmerized. In fact, as part of my interview prior to being accepted it was made explicitly clear that if I was not in good standing with the teachings of the Church, and more so actively following well those teachings, then I would not be admitted to formation towards the Priesthood.

Yet, somehow these Bishops and Priests were accepted into their respective formation programs and were ordained. But how??? It is as Pope Paul VI is quoted as saying, "It is as if from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." (emphasis mine) It fills me with anger and dismay that ANY man ordained to the Priesthood would knowingly permit or perpetrate this kind of nonsensical barbarism!

However, I realize something crucial. These men, regardless of everything, clearly had no intent on teaching according to Church teaching or even living according to Church teaching. These men are frauds and DO NOT represent what the Catholic Church actually teaches. These men, in living their grotesque, sinful life were very boldly sinning not just against their victims but also against God and His Church. I also realize that when someone acts AGAINST Church teaching in such a grave manner that they effectively are committing an act of apostasy against the faith. St. Francis de Sales suggests that such a lack of charity (love) prevents God from being able to work through the person, because they are not open to God, but rather only to themselves.

There is much more that can be commented on from every angle, however there is absolutely NOTHING that can possibly undo what has been done. There is nothing that anyone can say that can sooth the absolute and terrifying hurt and devastation clearly felt by those affected. All anyone can really do is pray. Pray for our Bishops and Priests that they have the courage to root out the rot present in the Church today.

From my own perspective I can say that I agree with the article I attached to this post (please read!). In some way, for many, many years, I have held to question many things that appeared after the Second Vatican Council. That is not the same as to say that Vatican II is the root cause, but a lot of things that happened in the Church starting in 1968 were heavily endorsed by people like McCarrick and others who permitted his actions to continue.

As much as McCarrick has attempted to pervert the teachings of the Church, he has failed. The teachings of the Church, independent of the personal opinion of individuals inside her walls, continues to condemn McCarricks actions and calls him and all of us poor sinners to conversion.

Article: The abuse crisis casts doubt on the whole post-Vatican II settlement | CatholicHerald.co.uk 

Utilitarian Relationships Refuted

This is something I wrote on Facebook a few years ago that I think is very much true today as it was when I originally wrote it.

---

What's wrong with society nowadays is that we no longer really care about anything other than our egos. There is a trend whereby we love others so long as they remain perfect or at best beneficial to us. This is what makes most relationships one way. Essentially society has slowly led us to accepting utilitarian means as a normal part of relationships. Now this isn't to say that a business, or professional, relationship with an employer or a restaurant that one may frequent is bad, or somehow wrong. It is clear that there is an appropriate place for every kind of relationship. However here I focus on those relationships where no transactions of goods and services occur.

So what happens when we deem someone a "disservice" to us, or they come into some hardship, or perceive that someone has done some "irreparable wrong" to us? We typically react in one of two ways.

The first way is passive aggressive wherein we cower away from said person. We seem to develop an irrational fear which over the long haul prevents us from ever really having closure, or even seeking out opportunities to really reconcile or repair the break in the relationship. We choose to dehumanize that person and see them as a potential enemy, because that makes coping with the situation immediately easy. Thus we continue on our way never really attaining understanding. We just simply cut them off, because how could someone ever really be capable of good decisions when they made a less than perfect decision? In our minds we rationalize that every good decision really was not a good decision, and therefore was a lie disguised through whatever rose-colored lens we chose to see them in.

The second way is much more vicious. We attack them. We deliberately make them feel as though they are not capable of being good. We kick them when they are down. We say things that while to our perception seems good are actually negative things that bring the person down. We trap the person in a box with a label be it liar, thief, cheater, stupid, worthless... it's all negative. When that other person moves on with their life and in our eyes attempts to get out of the box we are quick to shove them back in. We make demands and bargains for the person to obey that are so ridiculous and impossible for the person that we give them no choice but to stay in the box. Because that is what we want. We want revenge! We want blood! And we want it two weeks ago!

While it feels good at the moment, because we get to be the one to make a stand, dispense discipline and punishment, be the one who wins, we miss out on an opportunity to really make peace and reach a common understanding. Because a juicy, vivid lie is much better than the dry, seemingly uninteresting truth.

If I may propose an alternative. What if we stopped crucifying every person who crosses us in some way? What if we stopped scapegoating someone just because we don't like them or don't like what they have to say. The next time someone crosses us, let us aim to understand. Come to understand what is going on in the person's life. Yeah, it's the hard way. Yeah, it doesn't make us feel good. But let's take a moment and realize that it's not about us or even the other person. It's about the dignity of the human person. It's about the fact that whether we like it or not that person is going to exist and keep existing on the same planet as us, and we might as well actually put in the effort to actually reach the peace we so often claim we desire - without seeking blood or revenge.

However, this is difficult. It requires we have to put aside how we feel about the person or situation and actually take the time to extend the olive branch and bury the hatchet. And for many, many people this seems like such an impossible task. Who knows, maybe the other person is offering the olive branch and you have your head jammed so far up your own butt that right now you can't see that.

Of Traditionalist Backbiting

There is a problem my fellow lay faithful. It is a cancer, and it grows among us to stifle out all of our efforts to preserve, defend, and promulgate the Traditions of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This problem is backbiting.

So what is backbiting?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (IIa. IIae. Q. 73) tells us that "Just as one man injures another by deed in two ways,--openly, as by robbery or by doing him any kind of violence,--and secretly, as by theft, or by a crafty blow, so again one man injures another by words in two ways;--in one way, openly, and in this done by reviling him, as stated above (Q. 72, A. 1),--and in another secretly, and this is backbiting."  Backbiting is thus a sin against charity, because it seeks to speak ill of another in order to detract from the good name or reputation of that person. However, among traditional Catholics this is done on a more subtle and larger scale.

There are some who would say I am with SSPX!, and another that would say I am with the Institute!, others still would say I am with the Fraternity!, and still, those who would say that they are with whatever sort of Traditional Latin Mass that they go to.  Some, even so, go so far as to even say something along the lines of I am a _____ Catholic! and insert name of what religious community or Diocese is hosting their Latin Mass.

Is this madness not contrary to our very essence? Did not Jesus command us, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you." In light of the mission of the Church and of the Traditional Catholic raison d'etre, it seems that much of the backbiting is over who is superior or who has a valid Mass. Why are we so divided?

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" These words from St. Paul (I Cor 1:12-13) should challenge us and give us something to reflect on. Said another way, was SSPX crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? Nay! Christ suffered Crucifixion for you, and you were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost!

Furthermore, when we say things such as I'm in the SSPX, or I'm a Fraternity Catholic, or a hundred other things, are not we rending the seamless garment of Christ? Yes, we say also that we are Traditional Catholics, and indeed we are Traditional Catholics. This distinction in many areas is very important, but will not be discussed now. By these things also, which innocently enough associate ourselves with our particular parish, unintentionally claim ourselves as members of that Priestly Society or diocese. It is inappropriate to claim that we belong to the SSPX, ICRSS, FSSP, or any religious order and diocese unless we have received consecrations or admittance to their ranks! This of course means that unless you are a third order, lay associate, seminarian, religious brother/sister, or Priest, you may not claim to be a member.

To overcome some of the backbiting and what can be referred to as "infighting" there are only three criteria that Traditional Catholics should ever have when looking for a Traditional Latin Mass to assist at:

1. The use of the 1962 Roman Missal
2. Recognition of the current Pope as truly the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter
3. Adherence to the Traditions and Teaching of Holy Mother Church

Let us all pray, uniting our prayers to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary for better unity among all traditionalists. May our work to promulgate the traditions and teachings of the Church which for 60 years have been under attack, and even forgotten in many places, be brought to fruition by God's grace and providence!

Philosophical Musing: You May Now Kiss The Bride

Oh the thoughts that travel through my mind in early hours of the morning! I was recently thinking about THAT line we hear at just about every wedding any one has ever attended. We see it on TV and in the movies. The image of a couple standing before a minister or Priest saying their vows culminating when the officiant of the wedding says, "You may now kiss the bride." Wait, what does that really mean? My mind drifted slightly and thought about the courtships of 200+ years ago.

Perhaps my mind has been formed by the media to think of William Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet as the "perfect" couple or that there was a time when man and woman's first kiss was indeed at their wedding, but the question remains: what does that phrase really mean? As I continue to think I realize that culturally in the past 200 years the world has changed many of its customs. You don't have to go very far to find a couple making out on a park bench. 200 years ago there seems to be a different custom. Things were "proper." It wasn't common at all to see a couple prior to marriage kissing. Now it's very common to know someone who has had sex outside of marriage.

Is the phrase you may now kiss the bride merely a ceremonial phrase? Or is it in fact granting permission for the couple to finally kiss? What does a kiss even mean?

What a Way to Begin Blogging!

I've been very much inspired by a great friend of mine who has helped me to realize and to acknowledge some of the problems with the world and how they impact my life. Also, this friend has greatly encouraged me to get back into blogging, something I haven't done since I left Myspace a few years back. And so I bring you things I dislike about the world...

1. When people think that they are better than everyone else just because they think that they are better than everyone else.
2. When people judge the messenger and not the message. Think about it... if the most deranged, narcissistic, immoral person stated that he was converting to Christianity and that Jesus is Lord, would we believe him? Afterall, if he says that Jesus is Lord, isn't that the truth? Does it really matter WHO speaks the truth? Or do we put people into boxes and thus limit their capacities?
3. When we deliberately place people into boxes of social prejudice just because they don't align precisely with our personal world view.
4. The fact that most people will not want to read to the end based on the content of the next statements and the above stated.
5. People who will admit that a person is intelligent and gifted but will avoid them out of fear or feeling inferior without getting to know the person. Think about it... if a person is THAT intelligent or gifted wouldn't it seem logical to get to know the person and thus perhaps risk gaining knowledge making you smarter?
6. When people who know the truth, know what is logical and intelligent, and acknowledge what is real do not act in accordance to it. Think about it... if you know that jumping off the Grand Canyon will kill you and you still (for the thrill of it) jump off the Grand Canyon without a rope or another safety device, doesn't that seem a little dumb?
7. People who ask questions and will not wait to hear the response but rather assume that what you have to say is not important.
8. People who make assumptions about other people based upon their social status, mental capabilities, or world views without hearing them out and getting to know them. See also #3.
9. People who learn one thing about another person and thus assume that they are not worthy of love.
10. The superficial and people who are satisfied with it.
11. The cliche.
12. The fact that over the course of my life I have been guilty of ALL of the above statements.

Know this: I am a Christian, but the worst sinner. I know the Truth, but sometimes do not live it. I desire to be a Saint, but sometimes feel more comfortable being wretched. I desire to evangelize to people the Truth, but sometimes only if I feel like they deserve it. I talk about the importance of temperance and humility, but sometimes pridefully allow myself to eat and drink myself sick. I talk about how we should pray always, but often will make excuses why not to pray.

I sin EVERY day, but I try with every chance I get to say with emphatic conviction: I confess to Almighty God, and to you brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed.

So what's my problem with the world? Me.