Killing Distraction Potential

 So, I've decided to do an experiment.  What has spawned this experiment is an idea.  I'm frequently that person who will inevitably find himself watching YouTube as I am going to sleep.  However, I want to be clear that 90% of what is on my watch list is intrinsically informational or educational.  This is just a habit I've had with variances in intensity over the course of my adult life.

It's true, there's a lot of good information available on the internet.  There is a lot of good information on things ranging from how to cook the perfect fillet mignon and perform basic maintenance on a vehicle to video series covering a breadth of cerebral topics meticulously broken down into 10 minute easy to understand chunks.  I'm not going to be escaping the world of information any time soon.

I am going to disable the YouTube app on my phone.  I intend for this to prove something that I've been saying for years.  Namely that what seems like an insignificant action can really make a huge difference in the long game.  Disabling or removing an app, while keeping a subscription to an online service has the potential of improving what others critically say is our "relationship" with technology.

If we consider how the word relationship is used in our modern society I think it can't be used to describe our interaction with technology.  I assert that it is a lack of temperance or self control that impacts how much or little we interact with computer based systems.  This lack seems to manifest itself in the modern tendency to prefer escapism and be combined with a careless thrust of ourselves into less cerebral and purely frivolous activities.  What ever happened to occupying our "down time" with taking a walk or reading a book?

So, I am going to do three things:

1. Disable the YouTube app on my phone for the remainder of the month.
2. At times when I would watch YouTube (before bed, breaks at work, performing research) I will instead read a book or take a walk.
3. If I want to watch YouTube I will need to use a computer or the Chromecast device on my TV.

I'm not going to cut YouTube completely out of my life.  What I'm doing is better directing where I watch YouTube.  My hypothesis is that if I'm already in bed, why would I pull myself out of bed, walk to my office, boot up my computer, and launch my web browser?  I already know that I'll see this as a bunch of extra steps that I won't want to deal with.  So, also I'm banking on my preference to do things in the most effort and time inexpensive way.

Wish the best for me.  I'm sure this will require that I come back to write about this again.

Dumped Twitter

Twitter Logo

Today I deactivated my Twitter.  I didn't think twice about it.  I'm sure anyone who followed me won't realize I'm gone.

About 6 months ago I deleted Twitter off my phone as an experiment: to see just how frequently I pay attention to tweets and post.  The result:  I don't care about, or use Twitter enough to justify having a username on there anymore.

Let me take a quick second to reminisce . . .

When I first joined Twitter in 2009 (or was it 2008..?) it was one of those fun social media outlets where you could find pictures of everything you regretted the night before.  It was the college students safe haven where every perversion and virtue was churned out mechanically for the world to see.  There was no shame or repercussions for tweeting a drunk selfie that in the morning you'd regret.  Hash tagging was fun too as a way to search topics.  More often than not Twitter wasn't a place for any honest or serious chat.  It was just a platform for college students to brag and advertise where and how drunk they were.  Honestly, despite all else it was a quicker distraction that at least for me didn't turn into a rabbit hole.

It's just not fun any more . . .

Anyone who's still around on Twitter, or has been on Twitter in the last 5 years, can tell you that it's a total drama fest.  Everyone is pissed off at everything, offended by everyone, and trying to have serious discussion in 240 characters.  God forbid if you deviate so much as a millimeter from someone else's political perspective or don't have a rainbow emoji in your Twitter profile!

The worst is anything connected to #CatholicTwitter.  Ugh!  Don't get me wrong, there are many good and decent Catholics on Twitter who are examples of charity and civil conversation, however there is the much more vocal and darker side of Catholic Twitter that is hand over fist a cesspool of eternal drama and narcissism.  I speak as one who has been blocked by most of Catholic Twitter (something which at first I thought was a badge of honor.  Yeah, turns out it's not.)  You have Catholics who literally make their Twitter "brand" to uncharitably insult everyone who isn't Catholic, but when asked a question to discuss their post they return ad hominem attacks and sequentially block them.  And don't forget many of these took an eight month long pause (unless Pope Francis said or did anything) to campaign for Trump to the point where it just became annoying.

The cesspool goes deeper still with sedevacantists parading around pretending to be Catholic, an infamous Jesuit and a Bishop creating confusion and division among Catholics, and a self acclaimed traditionalist publication with a vicious, personal vendetta against a community of Catholic Priests and a few other Catholic publications.  Yeah, it's pretty deep.

It's time for me to jump ship . . .

As much as I miss the days of drunk tweets and all the regrets that came with it, I don't think Twitter is going to return.  I think at this point (gee, thanks Trump and all those who encouraged his tweets by replying...) it's clear to say that Twitter has become and exists now to enable those famished for drama and who like missing the point and conflating what they read.  The drunk tweets and regrets have now become a bad hangover and everyone is searching for relief by ripping each other apart, because that is what happy, well adjusted, and mentally healthy people do.

Ciao, Twitter!

Contra Sede Vacante

There is an unfortunate phenomenon on social media.  A movement full of vitriol, relentless trolling, antisemitic and other racial slurs, and just plain ignorance of actual Catholic teaching.  I am speaking here of sedevacantism.  What exactly is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the belief that, at very least since 1958--upon the death of Pope Pius XII--that every Pontiff of the Catholic Church has been, and is, an "antipope."  However this is the tip of the iceberg.  There are as many different versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists!  There are some I have encountered who claim that Pope Pius XII was a heretic and therefore an anti-pope.  Still there are even those whom claim that we may not have had a valid Pontiff since Pope Pius IX.  As mentioned prior, there are as many versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists.  In a word, adherents to sedevacantes position are divided over what constitutes a valid Pontiff, and with most of them claiming to be laypersons of the Catholic Church it is very easy to see that they have read a handful of erroneous propaganda and have developed a disordered point of view of the Church.

Similar to them, and just as problematic, are the conclavists, however I will not address them at this juncture.  I should now address a brief history of sedevacantism as far as it relates to our modern history.  I will show the brief history vis a vis the crazed time frame that occurred after the Second Vatican Council (hereafter Vatican II).

It all began when nine Priests, now formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, brought up objections to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during the late 1970s.  The controversial Archbishop was having difficulty among many prelates within the Church, however was still allowed to teach and form those Seminarians who desired to be taught by him.  The nine Priests objected to Abp. Lefebvre maintaining not only ties with the Vatican but also fidelity to Pope Paul VI who was the Supreme Pontiff (e.g. the Pope) until 1977.  Abp. Lefebvre maintained that as he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, as he had sworn fidelity to the Holy Father when we was consecrated a Bishop, and would continue to do so.  This did not sit very well with these nine Priests and so they began teaching those under them to resist the instructions of Abp. Lefebvre.  Circa 1983 the late Archbishop expelled those nine Priests, who in turn took with them their own students, some of whom waited to be ordained by Abp. Lefebvre prior to leaving the SSPX.  Those who left, or were expelled, formed together to found the schismatic Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  Thus sedevacantism is a split from the Church.

In my personal point of view these nine Priest committed an act of schism by refusing the guidance of their superior and therefore the Church.  Their schism de facto cut them off from communion with the Church, and therefore they cannot be considered Catholic.

Let us flash forward 36 years.  What began as nine Priests acting in disobedience has spiraled into several splinter groups.  It could be argued that SSPX did not seem traditional enough, and so the sedevacantists severed ties with Rome; similar to how Martin Luther did in 1517 when he thought that the Church could not meet his personal standards.  From SSPV there are others who split because SSPV was not traditional enough because they held that Pius XII was a valid Pontiff.  This spiral continues similar to how John Calvin thought that Luther was too Catholic and promulgated his own brand of bad theology that one is predestined to Heaven or Hell arbitrarily because somehow the mercy of God is void and favoritism is the name of the game.

Today there exists sedevacantists who claim to be from a Catholic monastery in New York state.  These effectively are taught that SSPX, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and other communities that use exclusively the liturgical books of 1962 are not Catholic and say invalid Masses.  This of course is not true!  One can observe from their style of ad hominem attacks, quoting of obscure situations from the recesses of Church history, and at times even antisemitic stances that they are only interested in one thing: showing how their version of Jesus is better than the next person's, and so on.  I have seen this before in the vitriol preached from the pulpits of some protestant sects who claim wrongly the usual objections of the Catholic faith (i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Pope, the Eucharist, etc.).  So one can ask themselves, "How are sedevacantists different from mainstream Protestants?"  The short answer is that they are no different, and in some ways just as extremist as the Westboro Baptist Church.

But cannot their arguments be verified?  This is where it can be easy to get wrapped up in their arguments and be fooled into thinking that they're correct in their position.  Recently, in a discussion I was having with a sedevacantist I proposed that Christ promised that "the gates of the Hell shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18) against the Church.  In response I was given the counter argument, citing Pope St. Leo IX as the source, "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." Taken at face value this would seem to indicate that when a Pontiff states something that is contrary to what the Church has always taught that it immediately invalidates the Papacy and the one who is Pope fails to be the Pope.

In the same conversation it was claimed that I am "rejecting Christ's words that the gates of hell will never prevail because [I am] effectively saying that the 'gates of hell' are sitting at the VERY TOP of His Church." This is an absurd take, because it essentially states that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has no power to protect His Church against Her very Bishops and Pontiff! That is as the first Pope, St. Peter, defines in his second epistle (letter) as a "personal interpretation." (2 Peter 1:16-20) I could give more examples, but we would be here all day.

What is contained in the very eloquently stated arguments and talking points is something nefarious. Hiding beneath the facade of appearances of zealous devotion to the Church and Her teaching are superfluous arguments, circular logic, and a twisting of what the Church teaches to satisfy a hidden desire to deceive all who are unprepared into believing that they are correct. For any who do not know their faith well enough they will be easily taken into the charm of their claims. Simply put their claims address the overwhelming crisis in the Church by manipulating the emotions of those who at the moment, and for good reason, feel that the Church is falling apart. And what an opportunity the sedevacantists have chosen. That they have chosen to capitalize on the crisis in the Church by taking to social media to promote their deception is the only thing I can say is a point in their favor.

What makes sedevacantism so appealing is that it appears to solve a crisis in the Church. But at what cost? Accepting the sedevacantist position means falling into a similar error that unfortunately many who took and ran with the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" fell.

Ultramontanism is the error that everything that falls from the mouth of the Pope is infallible and therefore to be taken, believed, and acted upon with immediate effect. This is not true. The First Vatican Council discussed Papal infallibility in these words, "For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation of the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles." From this we know that the infallibility of the Pope is only when speaking of faith and morals. It is well worth it to research, in depth, the documents of Vatican I because in no way does it make out the Pope to be some sort of super king with a hyper infallibility. Yet this is what both sedevacantists and some who adhere to the craziness of the 1970s "spirit of Vatican II" conflate Papal infallibility to mean, which is contrary to Vatican I!

To conclude, the problem with sedevacantism goes much deeper than one can write about in brief. Sedevacantism is a misappropriation of Church teaching and is therefore a true poison to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Once you have backed them into a corner, and they run out of arguments, they return ad hominem attacks, and if you're Catholic claim that you are excommunicated. These "excommunications" are not valid, nor should they ever be treated with more than a good laugh, since only a Bishop (including the Pope) can excommunicate someone, so really it just takes on the appearance of an overzealous "citizen arrest" situation that just goes to further demonstrate that truly, no matter what they claim, they are just as knowledgeable about what the Catholic Church actually teaches as someone who listens to a protestant pastor drone on about the alleged heresies of the Roman Catholic Church.

Family Day

Now that I have a family some things have become more important - specifically spending time with my wife and daughter in a non distracting environment.  I say non distracting, because it would seem that in the world that I'm raising my daughter in is not lacking in distractions.  If it's not concerns with work and what immediately lies ahead on the daily agenda, then it's technology.  Interestingly, those who know me would be confused at this point.  Technology?  Really?  The self described technophile is concerned that technology is a distraction?  Well c'mon, I'm not naive!  As much as I enjoy working with and learning about and using current tech trends I'm also equivocally vigilant about how much of my life is spent basking in the warm, inviting glow of my phone, tablet, or laptop.  (As an aside, I make every effort not to abuse tech, however that's a discussion for a later time.)

I'm finding myself increasingly aware of the fact that it would be the best thing for my family if I'm not constantly checking social media, reading the news, drafting a new blog post, catching up on the latest research in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), or just aimlessly browsing until I land somewhere interesting.  After a lot of reflection on every pro and con and measuring how much time I really spend using such frivolous things as social media I've come to a simple conclusion:  It's time to set aside an entire day where I don't engage with tech - at very least keep it to a practical minimum.  Of course, in practice this can be complicated.  Look around you and it cannot be more clear: technology is used every day by every person.  This is why being practical about tech is just that much more imperative.  So, just like every goal I've ever set (I'll admit some goals I've set are more practical than others) I have to establish the ground rules, so as the Joker is quoted as saying in Batman: The Dark Knight: "So, here we go..."

1. No checking social media!  That witty response, meme, or group chat?  That can probably wait until the next day.  If it's the family group chat, that's allowed, because... it's family day.
2. The computer stays off!  My internet browser, while good at showing my email, agenda, and to-do list is also a temptation to sit for a while and stare at my social media feed (if I have nothing else to do).  That time spent staring and gawking at society's "epic fails" or shortcomings could actually be spent with family.
3. Phone calls and text messages are allowed, because it could be my boss trying to get a hold of me due to an emergency at work, or maybe a friend needs something urgent.

As I made clear the idea is to minimize my engagement with tech by taking one day out of the week and shifting my focus to something else.  I foresee actually being able to eventually sit down and a couple books that I haven't picked up in a while (books that I'd really like to dive back into!).  I could also see the time spent with family turn into breaking out a board game or even going for a walk (spring is coming soon... I hope!).  The end goal is to make a purposeful effort to give my family the time it very much deserves.  As far as what day that is?  Well, that's easy:  Sunday!

What I'd like to do is also encourage you to try the same.  (No, your family day doesn't need to be on Sunday, that's just what I've chosen.)  Don't try to just give up technology, as that would actually be impractical, and typically those who completely cut the cord with tech usually come off as conspiracy theorists who have a unfounded paranoid opinion linking the government and "Big Tech" as somehow trying to enslave the human race, or some other garbage.

What I'm encouraging here is a chance to take one day a week and do something fun that doesn't have to include technology.  All the advancements in technology are great and totally worth while, and often times extremely helpful, but we have to remember that just like a hammer, a car, or a pocket knife these are merely tools.  Sometimes, even your favorite tool is also allowed to have a day to rest from use.

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.

Reminiscence of Social Media Past

Recently, my wife and a couple of friends were discussing social media and how exhausting the internet, with all of its drama, has become.  The conversation eventually became a nostalgic guide through the late 1990s and early 2000s as well as a reminder of the "prehistoric" world that existed before Facebook and Twitter.

My Story...

Back in 1998 I was one of many thousands of people who had a LiveJournal.  LiveJournal was a blogging service filled with everything from the first fan fiction writings to the angst filled verses of amateur poets and song writers trying to express themselves.  Around that same time GeoCities was beginning to take off as the premier FREE website publishing server (now I think it's part of Yahoo! or something).  I had a GeoCities website which functioned as an outlet of my creativity and experimentation with HTML.  With a website or blog you didn't have a comment thread or any of that nonsense; you had this thing called a "guest book."  Across the web you could count on seeing the phrase: "Sign my guestbook!"

(Man it was a simpler time by comparison!)

Also at this time was a phenomenon called a "web ring."  Web rings were the thing that connected your website or blog to other websites or blogs.  To make your website/blog part of a web ring you would paste in an HTML code into your website.  Every time someone would find or visit your page they would be able to scroll to the bottom and click next and would immediately be taken to the next website in the web ring.  Eventually you could make it all the way around - hence the "ring" in web ring.  Web rings proved to be very useful for websites and blogs that had a common topic or interest.  I had a website (GeoCities) that was all about helping people learn HTML and was part of a web ring of the same topic.

All this was short lived though because something was emerging that would be the predecessor of all social networking:  Myspace.

Oh Myspace!  I set up my Myspace in 2003 and immediately noticed I could have a blog and website combined with a continuous comment thread!  It was the birth of the social network, although, at the time, no one I knew called it that.  The world of convenience was at your finger tips.  With Myspace users could "friend" someone and there was such a thing as having your top 8 friends.  It was a way that through blog posts, comments, and who your top 8 was that you could finally compare yourself to your friends.  The race for the most angst filled blog post and most edgy profile (profile songs too!) had begun!

In 2006 I received an invitation to join Facebook.  Since I was working as a college computer lab tech I was able to use my college email to sign up for Facebook.  Back then you could do more than just poke your friends - you could throw a sheep at them or even defenestrate them!  Facebook wasn't serious.  It was that thing you did to keep up with friends and brag about getting enrolled in classes.  When you signed up you had to belong to a "network" which meant that you had to have a valid university email address.

The rest as they say is history: Facebook eventually opened itself up, so now everyone and their five cousins and their grandma are on Facebook.  Heck, I've heard a rumor that some places have started Facebook classes that teach people how to use it!

What has it all become?

It seems anymore that not just Facebook, but all of social media has become an outlet for the very worst of society.  We have become as the sophists of ancient Greece, neither caring for, or much less interested in, what is true, real, and good.  Even our politicians (i.e. President Trump) have given in to and have enabled a culture of living within the borders of 280 characters.  Social media has indeed become competition what 20 years ago was considered normal social interaction.  And at what cost?  We hate each other!  Rather, we hate what we perceive through our narrow lens of social media.

On the contrary it must be said Facebook and Twitter have been great ways for me to keep up with family and friends who live far off.  I mean, it really brightens my day to know that a former colleague got that job he wanted, or that my niece is enjoying school, or that old acquaintance from class was finally proposed to by the man of her dreams!  All this is absolutely wonderful, and I enjoy all the positive.

If there's one thing I wish social media was more of an outlet for, besides catching up with friends, I wish that it provided a constructive forum where ideas weren't needlessly trolled or savagely shot down with prejudice.  Perhaps I'm just babbling incoherent thought vomit, but could it be that maybe this is something?  At least, I enjoyed a cathartic reflection of a time, not long ago, where things seems - at very least - a bit more civilized.

Guess I Crossed The Line?

As I'm sipping my coffee this morning and looking at my social media this morning I can't help but notice that I think I may have crossed over into a new phase of my life on Twitter.  As of the moment I've reached more followers than pages/people I follow.  So I guess that's something.

I've never kept track of, cared about, or taken notice of how many followers I have.  The way I see things on Twitter is the same way I see things on any web presence I have.  Blogs and social media are just outlets I use to express and give some semblance of life to my thoughts.

What does this even mean?  Have I accomplished something?

From my perspective all I think I can really say is, cheers to all those fine individuals who somehow find my rubbish in some way useful or tolerable in your day to day lives.  I'll try to keep things interesting.

To all those who find my rubbish nauseating at best or intolerable I ask, why do you keep watching on?  What have you come to see?

Why I Left LinkedIn

Those who know me won't be surprised to learn that after several years of inactivity I have left LinkedIn.  LinkedIn is a social network where you can post your resume and connect with others on the job market.

So, why did I leave?

Well, just as in other postings I've made, I'm cutting down on my social network usage.  With LinkedIn I had a profile set up with my work history and resume, and for a while it was cool to check in and see what new connections I was suggested.  Sure it was great when I received an endorsement on my skills ranging from public speaking to various tenets of computer knowledge, however I never actually used the site, and overall I was dissatisfied.

With all the jobs out there I've applied to - that give the option to apply with LinkedIn - it seemed redundant to import my information, and then fill out the exact same information that was on my profile.

Okay, okay, okay, I probably didn't take full advantage of LinkedIn.  You're right, I didn't.  I just didn't have the drive.  Overall, I've found better usage on job sites such as Indeed.com.  Also, I have a tendency to prefer the old fashioned way of applying for jobs: in person or directly through a company's website!

So, while you won't see me on LinkedIn there are a couple of ways to connect with me via a social network:

Twitter:  @noherp2012
My Twitter handle is used more often than even my Facebook*.  I've been on Twitter since 2009 and pretty much don't take it as seriously (although I've been known to post anything interesting or remotely controversial 😏).  So pretty much I just use it as an outlet for the random happenings of life (hmm, kind of like a 240 character blog post...) what in common parlance is called shitposting.  Seriously, if you're into that sort of thing I'm not going to stop you from following me on Twitter.

Google+:  Link to profile towards top
Pretty much the entire point of my G+ is to utilize a GSuite service that comes free with my email account (like Blogger, YouTube, Drive, Docs, Groups, Photos, Sites, Maps, Keep, Calendar...).  But over the years I've kept it geared more towards sharing and posting stuff relevant to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and connecting with other people who share that common interest.

*Disclaimer: I only accept friend requests on Facebook from people I have actually met in the real world.

I do occasionally pop in and out of Goodreads, but only when I'm updating my reading progress.  Quite frankly I find Goodreads a mere convenient interface to share with others what I'm reading.  Aside from that don't expect me to be on there frequently.

Alright, so I do enjoy a good tangent every now and again, and given that my blog here is more about free writing and life updates I don't feel ashamed for my endless tangents or rants (probably followed by some family and a couple of friends than a random stranger).

That's all for now!  Now to get back to taking care of that pesky laundry that never actually goes away.

Altering My Use of Social Media - Part 2

So, a couple months ago I decided to take the Facebook app off my phone. (You can read about my reasons here.) After a couple of months of not using Facebook on my phone I've discovered more than just some space and battery being saved.

From time to time I just get into a mood. A real mood. A mood to write, blog, tinker with a website, or practice my coding (C++). I have to be honest those notifications were getting in the way of things I wanted to do, and much more than I thought.

After seeing the results of two months without Facebook on my phone, I've decided to keep it off my phone. I'm still going to use Facebook, but I've discovered that I only use it to keep in touch with friends and share... well... pointless stuff. A lot of what I share on Facebook is a lot of inside jokes that only friends and family members understand, so that's also why I don't accept friend requests from anyone unless I've actually met them (you know, in like real life).

As much as I still use social networking I've found that my main outlet is Twitter or Google+. It's not that Facebook doesn't cut it for me, or that I don't find it entertaining. It's mostly the fact that the amount of time I spend on Twitter and Google is considerably less than what I spend on Facebook.

That being said, I've been able to find more time for blogging - which presently is my best medium for writing and getting my thoughts out. So, until next time...

The Scandal of Fr. Martin, SJ

Once again Fr. James Martin is taking to Twitter. This time in praise of another Priest who recently was arrested for protesting immigration reform. This other Priest did state publicly that his intent was to be arrested. And today Fr. Martin tweets: "Fr ThomasReeseSJ arrested in US Senate during protest on behalf of Dreamers. On the Mount of Beatitudes today in the Holy Land we read out Jesus's words: 'Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sale of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' So blessed is he!"

To clarify - before we continue - and may it be clear that the Church does not endorse illegal activity, and most certainly discourages against purposely breaking the law!

On the outside, this looks like a harmless tweet in support of a brother Priest defending the downtrodden. There is no need to bring up politics, so none will be discussed. However, underlying this tweet, with the accompanied verse from St. Matthews Gospel, is a Pandora's box of, as is the norm with Fr. Martin, pushing a political agenda. What's more is that this sort of grandstanding was done on social media to make a political, not catechetical point.

This grandstanding was actually what Christ warns us against shortly later in Matthew 6:1-5 wherein Jesus says, "Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven. Therefore when thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But when thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth. That thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward."

So what is the crux of the matter here?

What makes Fr. Martin's tweet problematic is that it is a tweet that reads much more like look at how great I am. Look at how great this Priest is. In no way is any credit given to our blessed Lord! Moreover, the use of scripture to back up a publicly premeditated intent to break the law essentially flies in the face of reason, and further abuses the words of Christ to exhalt, when on the contrary one should always be humble when doing God's service (even if somehow the law of the land enters the scene).

Just as with all of Fr. Martin's social network activity, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that, even with the best possible of intents, his activity is scandalous. In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas states, "Scandal is, therefore, fittingly defined as something less rightly done or said, that occasions another's spiritual downfall." (ST II-II Q.43 A.1) With such a definition it is hard to believe how the tweets associated with Fr. Martin can not be an occasion of scandal for souls. Repeatedly denouncing the faith of those who do not share his opinion, by the use of name calling and other such word play reserved for children who do not know better, has a great risk scandalizing souls by way of sowing confusion and mistrust of his fellow Priests and religious - who rightly should be trusted by the lay faithful.

The grandstanding, name calling, and scandalous activity evident on his Twitter feed is not becoming of one who claims to be an alter Christus, that is, another Christ, but becoming of one who enables a victim mentality among followers, some who, in a seeming chorus, repeat his slurs and perjuries against those who have honest questions, or who disagree. This bullying by his followers is scandalous too, because they claim to want an end to the apparent "bully pulpit" as also Fr. Martin claims. So why the appearance of hypocrisy? Possibly because once you establish your role as a victim, it is not difficult to find all sorts of justification - even scriptural - for all sorts of bad, reckless behavior. Such a mindset is harmful as it is often difficult to see how one could be harming others despite one's desire for help.

Some are not scandalized, which is very good. In this sense Fr. Martin may only be scandalous to those who are not fortified well in their understanding or practice of faith. It may be possible too, since once cannot truly know Fr. Martin's intents or motives, that it may be a case of what St. Thomas Aquinas calls passive scandal. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that "One man's word or deed is the accidental cause of another's sin, when he neither intends to lead him into sin, and yet this other one, though being ill-disposed, is led into sin, for instance, into envy of another's good, and then he who does this righteous act, does not, so far as he is concerned, afford an occasion of the other's downfall... Wherefore this is passive scandal, since he that acts rightly does not for his own part, afford the occasion of another's downfall." (ST II-II Q.43 A.1)

It is perfectly understandable at times that it is difficult not to perceive that despite all else that what appears to be is as St. Thomas Aquinas defines as active scandal. Active scandal of course is much more severe and is a great stumbling block to these little ones. As is universal, cases of scandal must be avoided to preserve all from sin and spiritual misfortune.

Altering My Use Of Social Media

In this age of the world it is very common to be helplessly connected to social media. One might even say that it has become necessary, if not unavoidable. Heck, anyone with a Gmail has access to Google+ -- Google's social network. So of course, like me, you probably use social media and most likely have an app on your phone or tablet.

As it is, I enjoy the convenience of social media apps. It makes keeping up with friends and family a breeze. It also means that I must be prepared to charge my phone by keeping an adapter at the ready. The notifications popping up really demand a lot of attention if you don't like things waiting in queue. Have I mentioned the battery usage?

The problem that come with social media mean carelessly, if not intentionally, poking a nose into every sort of textual wrestling match and backbiting that rears its ugly head at every turn. Like many who intend well I'll gladly assert a theological point, a personal opinion, or even some critique of reason when the situation calls. But at what point is all this just a mindless distraction?

So I decision to delete Facebook off of my phone and tablet.

"Oh my gosh, finally!"

"Oh geez, look who's on his soap box!"

"So what, you were usually too busy to care anyway."

"Good riddance!"

Wait, wait, I still use Facebook, but from a computer. Remember all the endless bickering on social media? Well, I do enjoy a good and well reasoned discussion. On the contrary, my life isn't what it once was. I'm married and have a family. My responsibilities have changed.

While I briefly studied for the Priesthood I didn't have time for social media. So I wasn't on, but periodically. While I studied for Meteorology for a time I didn't have a lot of time for social media, except maybe in the spare moments between classes and when I was killing time. So I wasn't always on. Now as a family man I'm on whenever I get the chance - which is sometimes.

"So you're turning into one of those people who calls cell phones 'idiot boxes' and hates social media?"

Nope. I love technology! Actually, I very much promote its integration in society as many online tools and apps have tremendous potential when it comes to productivity. I highly recommend Google Suite products for instance. Also, not every social media app is going off. Just Facebook. Google+ and Twitter will still reside on my devices, because they take up less space. Quite frankly, the only thing that would keep the Facebook app on my phone or tablet would be if the app itself didn't obliterate my battery. In comparison, Google and Twitter take up much less battery.

So that's the latest from yours truly.