Hello Internet? I'm Still Here

It's been a while... Again. I decided to start doing something different. As far as blog posting is concerned. I'm using the blogger app to voice record my my blogs. So far it seems pretty accurate. I don't have to do a lot of editing and it seems to capture how I am speaking with accuracy. Of course, to an extent I will have to go back and proofread, and do some editing.  And it seems to be a good method for capturing for my "thought stream".

I've also decided not to spend so much time on trying to find a picture that identifies my post. I'm not a journalist, or an influencer, or some popular person who's thoughts and opinions are the driving force behind the decisions of many individuals. So essentially I'm going for readability and as plain text as possible.

It seems anyway nowadays that the internet is less concerned with reading blog posts as it is more concerned with 10, 15, or 30 second tick tock videos (this, of course very revealing of the declining attention span that modern internet users have.)

Further, while looking at my blog post over the really the last decade, it seems that there is a mix of life events and " hot takes" , which of course are purely my personal opinion or honest thought on whatever it is I am giving a hot take on. The topics discussed on this blog essentially detail much of topics of interest that I have and I see no reason for that to change.

Sometimes, I have not had the energy, time, or inspiration to write. All of this is okay and I also understand that this probably contributes to the fact that no one really reads my blog unless they know me or somehow against their better judgment subscribe to receive updates every time I post. This too is okay.

It is interesting to note that often times I have the perception that many of my thoughts brilliant or absurd, simply go into the void. In a way that satisfies me. It seems to an extent that maybe my externalized thoughts have no affect on the external world they're evicted into. Now of course that isn't true.  I mean, my thoughts have an effect.  For one thing they're taking up server space! For another thing it might be that somewhere out there on the internet someone is reading my thoughts and maybe giving them consideration. To the effect that my thoughts (on the internet or otherwise) have influence is nothing relevant.

And yet here I am still posting. Still up keeping this blog that was started in 2009. At that time I was chronicling my time as a Catholic seminarian with the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. After my time of discernment of the priesthood, I of course attended college as a meteorology student - which unfortunately ended abruptly. Nonetheless, I married my best friend soon after I left my university campus, and now I'm working in the IT field which was my backup career. Of note it is not so different from my second major which was computer science.

As it pertains to the present, I have, after a few years of being absent from a couple of my habits that I had well developed and established over the years, resumed reading books at a fairly good pace. I finally read and completed Frank Herbert's Dune I'm proud to say. At the moment am reading through the fourth book of the "Star Carrier" series by Ian Douglas, which if you haven't read it is a military hard science fiction in a similar vein as Battlestar Galactica. There are nine books in that series, so I've got some reading ahead of me.

If someone had told me 5 years ago that juggling a family life full-time job and several hobbies including astronomy, meteorology, and computer programming would be difficult - I might find myself to be of agreement. However, I found that with a little bit of time management, discipline, and denying myself binge watching YouTube one can indeed find time for just about anything. I think that is a crucial lesson that I have learned in the last 5 years that has been the hardest lesson not in understanding, but in application. Especially with my responsibilities as an on-call technician I have had to learn to deal with one of my personal irritations, that is, being interrupted. And despite this, despite the distractions and interruptions that work and family life often brings to my attention I am still able to find time to read and to pursue my interests and hobbies.

I don't always get to do everything I want to do when I want to do it. That's okay! In fact, in a lot of ways, I'm better for it. In case a lot of people do not know when you are In a technical support role for a tech company. At some point you get used to jumping from task to task to task. You even get used to having days where the frustration level and the chaos of the situation is such that you wonder how and why your company hired you. I think this is what people mean when they refer to Impostor Syndrome - that self-perception that your skills are absolute rubbish. But the most satisfying part of every day is going to bed knowing that I've done my best and more importantly, there's only 24 hours in one day. Again, time management is a skill and a good one to learn at that.

Surrounded By Hypocrites

As humans we are capable of amazing feats.  It was not that long ago when we were putting our first steps on the moon.  We have made innovations throughout history that have taken us from dwelling in caves to now populating the Earth.  We have gone from drawing stick figures on the faces of rock to writing blogs and connecting through social media.  From hunter gatherers on the plain to sitting in Athens discussing goodness and truth, indeed humanity is capable of so much positive and good in this world.  In a sense we should be compelled to congratulate ourselves for all of our accomplishments thus far.

But we have one of the most invasive pests in our midst.  A pest so clever that even after hundreds and thousands of years we have not be able to shake loose from its luxurious accommodations.  Hypocrisy is a disease, and unfortunately there is no cure or vaccination for this.  It seems as though we are stuck in a continuous cycle of great achievements followed by some of the most embarrassing follies we can devise!  What is more astonishing is that we take more pleasure in performing our hypocrisies than we do in those things we do well.  Rewarding and intellectual pursuits such as science, philosophy, and theology seem to take the back seat to our hypocritical pursuits.  For an unknown reason we much enjoy playing the hypocrite more than those things that make us reach higher than ourselves.

But, why?  Why is it easier for us to give in to hypocrisy time after time?

The short answer is because we are human.  It is an intrinsic property of our natural state of being.  However, I think we like the simple answers because humans are prone with ready heart and mind to accept overly simplistic answers and solutions.  We do not like long winded explanations, or dissertations.  We have not the patience for those things which may require a bit more effort, and yet we repeatedly implore others to have more patience with us than we are ready to render to them.  How is that morally correct?  It is not.

Use of reason vs. our ego

It is interesting to note that we are the only known species that we are aware of that has the amazing ability to reason.  We use the neurons in our brain to form words and attribute meaning to them.  We call this language.  We use it to communicate, but only as we will.  When we are angry or have some sort of grievance against another we find very clever passive aggressive ways of coping with our perceived feeling of being rejected, offended, or forgotten.  In our self complacent pride we endeavor to be at the very top of those around us.  It is subjectively desirable to be perceived by others as morally and virtuously superior.  None can dare upset the equilibrium of our egos.

We are unknowingly as gods unto ourselves, and anyone who so much as threatens our self complacency and confirmation bias are as devils proudly exclaiming "Non serviam!" (I will not serve!)  Ergo, our response to the disgusting parasitical demon that is our fellow man is the same as is attributed to St. Michael the Archangel: "Who is like unto God?"  The irony is that what we really think with our subconscious inundated by our ego is: who is like unto me?  This is where any basic form of communication truly becomes void and impossible.

The conspiracy theorist

Then we have the conspiracy theorist.  Ironic we use theorist, a word used to indicate someone of scientific intelligence, to describe the nonsensical rubbish that oozes from the mouths of the self obsessed.  It is hypocritical to be a conspiracy theorist because it goes completely against reason.  Let us examine a likely position he may take.

As much befits the attributed stereotype this man has a vendetta against technology.  Technology is some evil force that is responsible for Original Sin and therefore is used against society as the weapon of choice for the government--who is a tyrant--which has allowed the erection of all the "big box stores" and "big tech" corporations to exist entirely to spy on him, and take away his freedom.  It is not inaccurate to say that the man here in our example takes to social media--that is to use technology--to announce his "great" discovery that only a 30 pack of cheap beer can inspire.  Of course let us not dismiss his use of social media to share political sound bites and articles written by fellow conspiracy theorists.

We see the flaw in his argument (and in the method he chooses to deliver his argument) in that it is the utmost of absurdity.  It is absurd because it can be very quickly deduced by reason that the government is not spying on him, and quite frankly has no care for who he is.  However, this man will be the subject of his own self fulfilling prophecy when he accidentally says something with the intention of arousing the interest of the authorities.  The man is a lunatic and consequently cannot be trusted, and yet he is somehow able to inspire trust by others.

The reason the conspiracy theorist is able to inspire trust in others is of course due to the propensity of man to be gullible, as well as experience periods of mental dullness.  The details in his conspiracy theory are so incredible, vague, and yet are subjective enough that disproving his claims would appear to take more effort and dedication than is warranted.  Therefore, to the gullible his claims are true.  However, to those who are willing to set aside the temptation to be hypocritical and dishonest the reward is a very well done refutation that brings light to the darkness that the conspiracy theorist brings.

Conspiracy "theories" do not just have to be about technology either.  Any range of topics can be used for conspiracy theories.  Climate change, politics, education, religion, vaccines, university fraternities and sororities, among many other controversial and "hot button" topics can easily fall victim to the undermining efforts of conspiracy theorists.

The emotionally reactive

Imagine if you will someone of reasonable wealth and affluence who will never be able to be bothered to help one of the many homeless in their city and is always ready to profane and demolish anything and everything that does not digest well with their personal fantasy of how the world should work.  Enter the emotionally reactive.

The emotionally reactive is a hypocrite in much the same way as the conspiracy theorist.  Both are more satisfied with their own ego and confirmation bias than they are with actually having experienced any form of civility or rational thought.  They thrive on their buzz words such as "tolerance," "equality," "racism," "shaming," "gaslighting," and other words that ignite a passionate reaction to protest the littlest inconvenience or distressing moment some person, somewhere in the world, God forbid, might experience.  In fact they may even genuinely feel like something has to be done because of reasons A, B, and C.  If formulated in an otherwise rational state of mind in a calm, introspective demeanor it could be argued that perhaps some thing should be done about this or that situation.

However, on the contrary we find that everything is reactive.  Their coffee is a degree hotter than expected.  Bring on the lawyers and blame the employee for discriminating against their veganism!  The level of absurdity flirts with the boundary where most psychologists would agree delusion begins and a healthy mind ends.  This is serious.  It is serious because the many, many individuals who experience this type of hypocrisy may never become fully aware of it.  The reason for this is because self preservation and even herd mentality not only go hand in hand but magnify a perceived threat to be bigger than just something that is noticed.

Similar to the conspiracy theorist, the emotionally reactive have the flaw of absurdity in their argument.  This happens when we make an argument based on emotion rather than reason.  It could actually be argued that the source of all disagreements in the colorful history of humanity that have either escalated to total war or long term animosity is precisely the human temptation to let emotions take the lead on decision making.  This tendency needs to be tempered otherwise the great ambition of humanity of living among the stars may never come to fruition.

How hypocrisy is resolved

Let it be revealed to our minds that there is no easy remedy or solution to hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is going to continue to infect the human condition as the bubonic plague infected millions in Europe during the 14th century.  It is a most unfortunate Achilles heel to the foot steps of the human species that if left uncontrolled will mean the slow, progressive destruction of everything that we possess any affection for.  Your trip to Starbucks.  The freedom to worship Almighty God.  The ability to acquire an education or provide for your family.  All of these things which every day we take for granted could be snuffed out like a candle or left to rot like road kill if hypocrisy is allowed to persist.

Indeed hypocrisy is an integral part of human nature, and as such demands our attention and respect.  Respect for the destruction it can bring to our own lives and to our society and culture.  Attention to its symptoms will help us to recognize how we too are in need of introspection and self examination.  When do we say what we think is right, but when given the opportunity do anything but what is right, and then give our selves every excuse?  When do we give in to false information, become enraptured in the hype of a news story, or allow our passions to become inflamed over some trifling thing?  Ah yes, hypocrisy is like an unattended fire in the wilderness.  All that is required is for one action to spark a reaction that destroys hundreds of acres of beautiful landscape, and thus this is what hypocrisy does to the soul of every person who has ever traversed the world.

I've Created A Monster

So, I'd say I've created a monster.  Let me start with a history lesson, of sorts, to aid in our understanding.

My dear wife, Jessica was merrily putting our daughter down for a nap when the tablet she was holding (containing a game she enjoyed playing) slipped from her grasp, descended through the atmosphere, and crashed on the tray of Isabelle's high chair.  The screen now hilariously dysfunctional and gone to meet it's eternal reward, left my wife with nothing else to do with her free time.  She had become exhausted of the parade of Netflix personalities and wanted a new hobby.

I come home from work and she asks me to help her create a blog.  Of course I'm always happy to help my family and friends with their web presence, so I didn't realize what I was doing.  I created a monster.

To place humor and superfluous parlance aside, it is a good blog.  My wonderful wife really knows how to write and weave a tapestry of words.

You can find her blog at Crafty Adventures in Motherhood.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Taking Up Writing Again

Okay, so some of you may already know I've had a futuristic/science fiction trilogy in the works for some time.  After over a year of writers block (mainly due to focusing on school) I think I'm ready to start writing again.  This comes after being asked to co-write a couple of projects with a couple of friends.  Lately I've been intuiting a flow of creativity and I might as well ride the wave as long as possible.

In other news, for the past several weeks, if not months I've been reacquainting myself with two of my favorite TV programs.  That's right I've been going on Cheers and Frasier binges.  So far favorite episodes are "Abnormal Psychology" and "Dinner At Eight-ish" (Cheers season 5 episodes 4 and 20 respectively) and "Adventures in Paradise" (Frasier season 2 episodes 8 and 9).  I will just say that if you're looking to laugh for hours to the point of hyperventilating both Cheers and Frasier will not fail to satisfy.

I guess that's all that's happening at the moment, besides the realization that I'm turning 29 in a month.

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?