Salt - A Lesson

 You are the salt of the earth.  But if the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out and to be trodden on by men.  (Matthew 5:13)

Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? (Mark 9:50)

Let your conversation be seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians 4:6)

I am a regular listener to Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Episcopal priest who converted to the Catholic Church and is now an unwavering voice for traditionalist Catholic faith.  At the end of his broadcasts, he references the first of the above verses and admonishes his listeners to "go out and be salty!"  He says this to emphasize that we have a mission of evangelization as Catholics, and it's actually sound advice.  However, his mentioning that as well as hearing a similar sermon from late Presbyterian minister, Dr. D. James Kennedy, on the same subject got me thinking about what this allegory of "salt" in Scripture is really about?  In order to explain it better, let me first delve into a fundamental chemistry lesson about salt to give some perspective.

What we call "salt" is a chemical compound called sodium chloride, and if you look it up on a periodic chart, it is designated by the symbol NaCl.  However, sodium chloride is not the only salt, as the chemical definition of a "salt" is chemical compound of cations (positive ions) and anions (negative ions) which produce a electrically neutral substance.  This also makes it a type of non-conducive (meaning that it cannot be a conduit for an electrical charge) mineral.  Salts can be alkaline (as is sodium chloride) or acidic.  Other types of common salts are MSG, the notorious additive in some Chinese takeout food, and ammonia.  In the case of sodium chloride, it is composed of a cation (positive) called sodium, and an anion called chlorine, which is a gas.  Both of these substances are highly toxic, as sodium is highly corrosive, and chlorine gas will cause respiratory distress that can lead to death.  All of these factors lead to the study at hand now. 

So, you have two toxic substances - sodium and chlorine gas - that produce something that is actually essential for the human body.  And, this is the language that Jesus and the Apostles use in Scripture to describe the attitude of the believer.  There is a very important lesson in this as it leads to consideration of how two toxic things can be synthesized to create something beneficial, and here is the lesson.  Our human nature is by nature sinful due to the Fall in Genesis 3, and it possesses a trait endemic to the Fall called concupiscence.  As natural sodium in its pure state is highly corrosive and toxic, our human nature is likewise corrupted and can corrode our being.  Likewise, the law, while it has a good premise, can also be strangling, much in the same way as chlorine is in its pure state - the pure form of chlorine in liquid form we are all familiar with around our homes is something called bleach.  If you are around bleach for too long, it can be very rough on the respiratory system, but also there is another problem - chlorine bleach, if mixed with another alkaline substance such as ammonia, can be highly toxic and will kill you, as it gives off noxious fumes - I learned that the hard way many years back when trying to clean a cat litter box with bleach; big mistake there!  It took me several hours to recover from exposure to those fumes, which when they reacted actually produced a vapor cloud that was so toxic that one had to leave the area.  The Law is like that as well - while it restrains evil, trying to live up to its standards by yourself can be a fatal thing, much like chlorine gas.  So, there you have it - a substance that can actually erode flesh, like pure sodium, and a gas that can suffocate a person, like chlorine gas, can be deadly by themselves and are not fit for human consumption in their pure states.  But, when a reaction causes them to combine, they produce a substance (sodium chloride, or table salt) that is essential to the human body and its functions.  Likewise, something needs to reconcile the Law and our fallen nature, as they cannot be reconciled on their own, and that is why a third element is needed, and that element is supernatural grace, only given through the Person of Christ and His atonement.  This is where we are going.

The Incarnation reconciled two things - it perfected human nature and reconciled the Law, and it did so through the impartation of supernatural grace.  Christ is the personification of supernatural grace, and He is also the product of reconciliation between divine law and human nature.  When we receive Christ as Savior both by confession and via the sacramental life of the Church, He becomes part of us, and we then also become a "salt" that shares that grace through evangelization to others.  This is why Dr. Marshall actually is right in admonishing us to "stay salty," and now we will examine briefly the benefits of that "saltiness."

Salt has a number of beneficial uses, and here are a few of them:

1. Preservation - salt prevents decay and spoilage, and food treated with it lasts much longer.

2. Cleansing - Salt is the original disinfectant, as it is used to clean everything from contact lenses (which would be called saline solution) to even use in dishwashing processes - the granular action of salt makes it naturally abrasive, and the chlorine component actually sterilizes.

3. Healing - Salt has therapeutic qualities that are related to both its preservation and cleansing.  To "rub salt in a wound" is an aphorism that is based on this principle.  Salt will heal a wound naturally, which is why many people soak parts of their body in salt water to disinfect and cleanse cuts, blisters, and other such things and it also comes in handy for gargling in case of upper respiratory infections.

4. Flavor - Salt is used as a seasoning to add and/or enhance the flavor of something.  In many cases, salt brings out a flavor that would not otherwise be detected, and thus it aids in the culinary process of the human anatomy.  Due to its alkaline properties, salt also makes highly acidic food, such as grapefruit, more palatable too.

5. Hydration - related to healing properties, salt is integral to maintaining water content in our bodies, as its thirst-generating aspect encourages more liquid consumption.  This is why people suffering heat stroke will often drink something containing salt-based electrolytes, such as commercial drinks like Gatorade, or (and this one is personally nauseating to me, but it works) the drinking of pickle juice (yecccchhhh!!  Give me Gatorade any day!).  It aids in rehydration of the body when fluids are at a critical level.

There are other uses for salt too, but as you can see, salt is beneficial in many cases.  So, why are we allegorically admonished by Our Lord Himself to be "salt?"  It is simple.  For one, when society is in a state of moral decay, it needs something to salvage what it can of it and preserve it - our "saltiness" does that.  Also, the wounds of societal decay need cleansing and healing, and that is where we also come in as a "salt" allegory.  Finally, in an utterly depraved and tasteless world where moral and civil decline make public discourse unpalatable, it is up to us to add the flavor of the Gospel to make it more tolerable to exist in.   And, as salt is not always pleasant - it really stings when applied to a wound, and it can also be hard to swallow if you gargle with it - neither is our presence at times.  When we deal with a volatile culture at times, we have to sting a little and maybe even our message may be hard for many to swallow, but it is the medicine our fallen world needs.  And, we cannot back away from administering it either.  As Dr. Kennedy said in the message of his I listened to earlier today, God did not call us to be "sugar to the world," as sugar can mess up a system more than it helps it, and although it tastes better, in the long run over-consumption of it causes health problems;  diabetes, tooth decay, obesity, and other ailments. Also, we are not called to be vinegar, meaning we are too dogmatic to the extreme of risking being spit out due to the nastiness and bad will created.  Sugar tastes good, and in the moral and spiritual sense, it always sounds good, but in the end it has little benefit if it is consumed heavily.  Likewise, vinegar is stinky, nasty, and also putrid - it represents in the spiritual sense the forms of excessive legalism and judgementalism some Christians engage in, and it accomplishes little either.  Over-consumption of both vinegar or sugar often has the same result - it will upset the stomach and induce vomiting.  Salt, on the other hand, tempers the appetite and provides both balance and enhancement.  And, that is who Christ is - the perfect balance, as well as the enhancement of life.  Christ is the source of supernatural grace, which as Aquinas defines it is given to perfect, heal, and elevate us in our nature, bringing us closer to what God originally created us to be.  Salt both is palatable but it also can sting - try, for instance, eating a salty Utz potato chip when you have a sore tongue or mouth, and you will feel it!  But, the sting in this case is good - it means healing is taking place and wounds are also being cleansed.  That is what the Gospel does; it seasons us.  As living conduits of the Gospel in our lives, we also should provide both flavor and cleansing to our world, and sometimes it can sting those around us as it penetrates the wounds of our society.  We should see that as a good thing, as it testifies to the effectiveness of the message. 

A lot more can be said on this subject, but simply, we must be more "salty" than "sweet" in our approach to this world.  We also must be more "salty" than "sour" too.  Therefore, as many of us hear at the end of Mass, we are to go out to provide antiseptic and flavor to a sick world that desperately needs it.  And, the times we live in, this is more real than ever.  God bless until next time.  

Catching Up

 It has been a while since writing, and there is good reason for it that I will discuss momentarily.  Although not the level of 2020, this year so far has been interesting - we have a bunch of godless Democrats running the government now, and we also have weird things going on in our churches that almost looks prophetic (in the case of our Catholic Church, we are being warned by godly leaders such as Archbishop Vigano about this, but that is a theological issue).  But, it is also been fairly stable for me financially this year so far, and I hope to keep it that way.  But, many factors - sans COVID-19, which has relatively little to do with my personal affairs honestly - have precluded me from writing a lot, so I wanted to just talk a bit about those things.  Without further elaboration, let us get into that now.

The first factor that has been contributing to a more busy life is my schooling - I am about to wrap up my second semester in my Ph.D. program and it tends to be intense.  While many of the classes are interesting, I also have the challenge of having some professors who honestly seem to confuse an 8-week class with a doctoral dissertation.  One of those in my Atlantic World course I am finishing up in a couple of weeks is a young lady who facilitates the course - she is a nice lady as a person, but she is a bit over-ambitious as an instructor, which leads me to believe this may be one of the first courses she has taught.  It is my hope that in due course of time her teaching methods will settle and mature, and she can make the class flow with a more reasonable level of work.  Doctoral-level courses are a bit more intensive honestly than either Master's or undergraduate-level, and they require a lot of reading, a lot of writing, and a lot of time.  So, therefore, that would explain why I haven't done as much blogging in recent months.  This will be more intense next academic year, as the second phase of my program - the reading comprehension courses - will take up even more time.  At the rate my doctoral program is going, if I maintain my good GPA (which at present is 3.73) I will complete the program by the end of December 2023.  At that point, it also will mean that I will be finished with school for good, as I will be 54 then and it will be time to move on.  Therefore, expect to see less blog activity for a while.

I am also in the process of reconfiguring my blogwork and maybe consolidating all three of my blogs into one, as at times some of the material does overlap.  Also, given that Blogspot is a product of Google, which is increasingly hostile to the views of people like myself, I may have no choice in the near future but to consider an alternative venue for writing.  This is still in development, and there is much to plan and think about concerning that, so updates will happen as needed on that. 

The second factor that has been occupying much of my time is of an even more serious nature.  I mentioned at the end of last year that as of June 24, 2020, Barbara and I have decided to separate and end our marriage.  The factors entailed in that are complex and are not things that need to be discussed here, but our parting has been amicable and we are still close friends.  We filed the final divorce papers on April 22 of this year, and we are now awaiting the final judgment and/or hearing.  This alone has more or less compelled me to reorder my life, as I am more or less getting back to where I was before I was married.  There have been adjustments, but they have been met and both Barbara's and my outlook is generally good, as this ultimately was the best decision.  For those reading this who are my friends, please do not bear any ill-will toward Barbara - she and I are in a good place now, and I only pray and wish the best for her as she begins a new life as well.  Also, this is not something I have widely talked about, so at this point I would ask that the readers would refrain from any speculation or gossip about it - for one thing, it is our business and no one else's, and also it protects Barbara's privacy as well in all of this.  Thank you for your understanding, and as we step into this new chapter of life, I ask for your prayers for both Barbara and myself, as we are at peace with the decision yet will face challenges with the adjustments it brings.  

That pretty much wraps up what I wanted to talk about today, and as I am able I will be back with more good insights in the near future.  God be with and bless all who read this.  

Cancel Culture and Identity Politics - Some Thoughts

 Due to my doctoral studies and some other factors, I have been unable to write on some things like I would desire to.  However, I do believe that there needs to be some updating to a lot that has been going on recently, and I feel some things need be said. 

What really sparked this is the recent firing of an actress, Gina Carano, who was fired for a meme she posted on her personal social media comparing the "cancel culture" to the way Jews were harassed in Nazi Germany.  It was labeled as "hate speech" (a term which really has no meaning nowadays honestly) and she was fired from the cast of  The Mandalorian.  I have not watched this show, although I am actually an avid Star Wars fan and have seen every episode of similar series (notably Rebels and Clone Wars, two excellent animated series that were on air a few years back - I own the complete series of both on DVD now), but up until it became "woke" (more like doped) I had heard good things.  I may go back and watch some of those episodes just to check them out for myself.  Bottom line, Carano was actually making a valid point - the "divide and conquer" strategy that Fauci and other leftist goons have launched in response to this whole COVID mess has much in common with the way Hitler and his Nazis operated things in the Third Reich and the territories it conquered.  For instance, when Ukraine, Poland, and Belarus, as well as the Baltic States, were invaded and occupied between the years 1939 and 1941, the Nazi strategy via the Einsatzgruppen SS murder squads that followed the Wehrmacht troops was to prey on local attitudes against Jews, Gypsies, and others, and then foment pogroms based on that stir-up of old prejudices.  The tragic fact of that however is that those who would participate in such pogroms - Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, and others - would later be targeted themselves once they served their usefulness.  This is not discussed anymore as "woke" leftists seem to despise history, and many schools don't even teach history anymore because it is a product of some non-existent phantom vice called "White privilege" (which still has yet to be defined, as now even non-Whites such as Candace Owens are accused of it).  So, what does this Nazi-inspired "divide and conquer" strategy have to do with Gina Carano and why she was canned? Let us discuss that now.

Back during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons, there were mayors and governors (notably Gavin Newsome in California, Lori "Uncle Fester" Lightfoot in Chicago, Gretchen "Ubersturmfuhrer" Whitmer in Michigan, Ralph "Blackface" Northam in Virginia, and both Andy "Big Fredo" Cuomo and Bill DeBlasio in New York) as well as the "medical expert" Dr. Anthony Fauci (a sad, strange little man with a Napoleon complex honestly) encouraging people to report Thanksgiving family gatherings, maskless people in stores, etc., in order to "fight COVID."  Oddly, this even led to arrests of innocent people whose only fault was wanting to enjoy the holiday with their families.  In watching a movie called Swing Kids about German youth who liked good music in Nazi Germany and were penalized for it, I recall a scene where Christian Bale's character was encouraged by his Nazi teacher to report and turn in his own father for just voicing an opinion that disagreed with Hitler's war policy.  The Gestapo showed up at the man's door and took him into custody, and as history has documented, many people who experienced this were never seen by their families again.  The modern Left, which claims to be "anti-fascist" and against "hate speech," seems intent to employ Nazi-like tactics against those it disagrees with - disagreement for the Leftist today has become the new unpardonable sin (I can hear the whiney hiss of Greta Thunberg now - "how dare you!").  The new Goebbels of this revised Nazi rubric is not one person but several - some of their names include Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook), Bill Gates, and other multi-billionaire elites who have self-appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and censors of what they dislike.  They are as nefarious and ridiculous as Joseph Goebbels was, and wield a lot of unmerited power they otherwise would not have if free speech were truly valued.  So, Gina Carano is right, and by "cancelling" her via firing, they have proven her point. That now leads to a couple of other points I wanted to address in relation to this.

First, what was once considered "radical" is now considered "normal," and I want to cite a specific example I came across recently that illustrates the point.  A couple of years ago, I worked at a company as a contractor, and one of my co-workers was a sweet and talented girl in her early 20's that for security reasons we'll call Marie (not her real name).  Marie is a gifted photographer, and actually was a beautiful but artsy young lady who at that time was shy and had very little involvement in political issues (on her social media then, she listed her political views as "nobody's perfect," which I can respect).  I had a great admiration for this young lady, and followed her work on social media.  However, in the past few months, something radically happened to her that really defaced the person I really believe she truly is, and it was ugly.  To begin, she actually shaved her head and made herself just ugly - her hair was actually beautiful the way it was.  Then, her rhetoric became very offensive and caustic - she began to use the "mf" word a lot, and a lot of her pictures ended up bordering on the obscene in her posts. This later was reflected in her political rhetoric - she made the usual nonsensical claims that she "hated America" and one of her other friends actually said on a post during the 4th of July to "f... your Independence Day!"  Not only America though, but she expressed particular vitriol against Christianity - she accused Christianity of "destroying civilization" and "enslaving indigenous peoples" as well as other garbage, and said how "grateful" she was at not being part of a church anymore.  That deluded diatribe - which has the impressions of Howard Zinn and Saul Alinsky all over it - showed how truly ignorant this young 22-year-old kid was of true history.  She failed to understand that without Christianity, there would be no hospitals, universities, or even civil rights.  She also failed to understand that rather than destroy civilization, Christianity actually enhanced it by preserving the best of the cultures it evangelized - I doubt if many people would know about Plato if it wasn't for dedicated Christian monks preserving his writings. You see, the evangelistic mission of the Church is not just for the conversion of the individual, but for the positive transformation of society.  As Aquinas and Bonaventure taught, it was the impartation of supernatural grace into a culture that elevates it, heals it, and perfects it.  Pre-Christian cultures possessed many good things, but only when the light of Christ shown into them were those things developed to their full potential.  Another aspect of Christianity's impact on culture is the respect of life and individual dignity - true feminism, which recognizes a woman as a human being worthy of the dignity and value she has as a human being, is a cardinal virtue of Christianity.  Also, Christianity made life worth living for so many people - thanks to things such as better education and the ability to use one's talents to better one's life, even the poorest of people can have the opportunity to rise above their circumstance.  Although I disagree with him theologically, the televangelist Mark Chironna once said something that sums up this well - "your present position does not determine your future potential." Why? Because the Gospel does have transformative power!  The transformative power is a fruit of supernatural grace too, as that is exactly what supernatural grace does.  Marie and her friends are even recipients of that to a degree, although they tend to bite the very hand that stretched to give it to them.  Let me rephrase that and say it again - even the non-Christians (and in this case, even anti-Christians) benefit from the fruit of Western Civilization that has its roots in supernatural grace due to the exercise of Christian virtue.  Therefore, far from being detrimental to civilization, Christianity actually enhances civilization.  So, my advice to Marie and her friends (as well as many more like them) is to re-read history, appreciate it, and perhaps they may understand that if it wasn't for the transformative power of the Gospel on a societal scale, they would be a whole lot worse off. 

A second thing I wanted to address in relation to this is what "racism" is, in particular what is now touted as "systemic racism."  Rather, I would like to make the point that this word, which is bandied about by so many "woke" jackasses as a weapon to shut down those they disagree with, has lost much of its meaning.  Is there such a thing as "systemic racism?"  Historically, yes - the "Jim Crow" laws of the past were a form of systemic racism, as was the very things that created atrocities like the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.  But, the real question is does it exist in American society today?  My answer to that is complex - no, but not yet.  The reason I say "no" is because for the most part, Blacks and other minorities are entitled to pretty much the same rights and privileges that everyone else possesses - a Black man can ride in the same bus as a White man, eat in the same restaurants, use the same bathrooms, etc.  If this phantom called "systemic racism" does exist, it poses a difficult question for those who like to holler so much about it.  By "systemic" for instance, it means the apparati that are in place which govern the society - things such as the academy (universities), entertainment (sports, Hollywood, pop music etc.), the media, the government, and the scientific community.  If someone makes the charge of "systemic racism," then it begs a question as to who is in charge of the systems themselves then, right?   For the most part, all of these "systems" are controlled by the political Left, so if we make that charge, then it means that the Leftists who tout the systems and control them are the racists then, right?  On this, I would defer to people who have dealt with that idea specifically, such as conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who originally (and astutely) brought that point up, as well as author/documentarian Dinesh D'Souza, who actually did the footwork on researching the true origins of the Democratic Party (as a teaser, what he discovered does not look good for them).  Read and watch what they have learned, and it will be enlightening.  That leads to my second affirmation that "systemic racism" does not exist yet.  What that means is that the new arbiters of truth - the ones controlling the systems themselves - are growing increasingly more racist on two levels.  On one, there is now a demonization of people they consider "White" just based on skin color, but now "Whiteness" is no longer even about that - Black conservatives such as Candace Owens and Ben Carson have been accused of having "White privilege" (again, whatever that is supposed to be) although they are clearly not White.  This weird and insane classification makes no real sense, and it is clearly baseless.  So, in a sense, the ones who decry "White privilege" may themselves be the true racists, although God forbid you say that to them!  On the other side of that, this mentality is racist against Blacks and other ethnicities in general in that it basically wants to reinforce what is negative in their communities at the expense of the positive - the radical organization Black Lives Matter has even come out and said as much.  And, that leads me to a couple of final thoughts on this before I wrap it up.

First, let me be very clear in saying that racism is real - no one denies that - and any form of it is unacceptable.  Whether it is directed against Blacks, Whites, or anyone else, racism is racism, and it is evil and should be rejected.  The reason is simple, and again is rooted in a basic Christian principle.  God created mankind in his image, and in reality there is only one race - humanity.  There are a diverse number of ethnicities (and Blacks are one of them - an ethnicity, not a race) within the human race, but despite shades and tones on the outside, each is still indisputably human.  We therefore have no right, and there is no merit to be found in, condemning someone over a shade of skin.  Those who commit that evil - be they the Ku Klux Klan or Black Lives Matter - are violating a basic tenet of human dignity. And, that leads to a second point.

Secondly, people are evaluated on individual merits rather than physical appearance or shade of skin.  A person is accountable based on their own actions and decisions, and not on some fictional predetermined genetic traits that have not even been proven to exist.  A person who commits a bad action, regardless of what they look like, is judged by that action and not by their blood or skin color.  And, there are good and bad individuals within all ethnicities.  Likewise, a person's potential, intelligence, and individuality should not be limited by the color of their skin - every human being of every shade and color has the potential of learning, growing, and action upon their own decisions, and that is called merit - while it is true that some groups are more successful at some things than others, it does not mean the whole group is stereotyped based on the actions of individual members of it.  Although Blacks are often painted as criminal risks, there are as many Whites who have done stupid and evil things as there have been Blacks.  Likewise, there are substantial numbers of successful people in all ethnicities - it all depends on how they used their own gifts and talents to get that success, and has nothing to do with their skin tone or genetics.  That is why this affirmative action and "political correctness'" crap needs to stop now.  Again, it is time we observe the merits of the individual rather than either relying on stereotypes or stupid notions of identity politics.

I could say a lot more on all this, and probably will in due time, but you get the idea.  "Cancel culture" simply needs to be cancelled, and we need to stop using racial identity politics as a standard for life in this nation.  This means that we must unilaterally reject both the Ku Klux Klan as well as Black Lives Matter, as they are both two racist sides of the same coin of bigotry.  Honestly too, there is little distinction between the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and Louis Farrakhan - one is as much a racist and a fascist as the other, and both need to be rejected.  But, that rejection should never be in the form of a "cancel culture" mentality - people can have opinions, even when they are wrong, and no one can "cancel" a person's opinion.  So, let the Kluckers and BLM thugs rage, but also let's not give them unwarranted attention - ignore both groups of bigots, and in time they will see they have no relevance for the majority of normal, decent human beings who just want to go about their business and live their lives in peace.  Thanks for letting me share today. 

The Fuss Over the Election

 I wanted to give some perspective as I see it on the election last week.  As we all know, there has not technically been a winner declared, despite the media trying to "project" the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, as the new President.  Fact is, there is a lot of controversy surrounding these election proceedings, and President Trump and the Republicans may have reason to cry "foul" in this one, as there seems to be some questionable ballot counts in many states.  This election is at center stage of national attention right now as there are a lot of things at stake, perhaps more so now than in any previous Presidential election.  So, what does that mean for us?  That is the reason I wanted to share some thoughts today.

When Trump was elected in 2016, I didn't vote for him - honestly, at the time I like many thought this was more of a joke than anything, but at the same time when he was elected I gave a big sigh of relief as it meant the chaos of the Obama era was effectively over.  However, as Trump took his place as leader of the most powerful nation in the free world, I must admit he pleasantly surprised me.  The reason is, unlike so many other Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) who were essentially career politicians and not worth two squirrel turds in a walnut shell, Trump was something different, and he was what many of us needed.  He was not a politician by any stretch - as a matter of fact, some have called him the "anti-politician" because he was a businessman rather than a bureaucrat, and he actually listened to the people. Was Donald Trump perfect?  Not by a long shot - he tended at times to run his mouth when he should have been quiet, and perhaps his constant activity on Twitter was a deterrent.  But, at least he possessed something many career politicians did not - honesty.  What he said he was going to do he did, and for the most part the past four years were good ones for me personally.  Of course, the "Establishment" was not happy - I mean, how dare a President actually do what he says he's going to do, and how dare he listen to these poor schlubs that pay taxes and have to be governed by the laws!  That is what got the dander up for some characters like the drunken Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her Senate concubine Chuck Schumer.  It also equally got the proverbial goats of career Republicans like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, who didn't like their comfort zones being upset by a maverick as President who actually made them accountable to the voters.  In short, the Establishment hated Trump, and they did everything in their power to get rid of him - the Russia hoax, the whole impeachment sham, etc.  But, Trump withstood all that vitriol from the Establishment career bugs, and he prevailed, and the people loved him.  But, 2020 presented new opportunities for the Establishment Democrats and their Republican collaborators - a thing called Coronavirus significantly altered life worldwide, and the Democrats were sure that this would dethrone Trump; it almost did.  But, Trump rose to the occasion and actually led the nation while the Democrats and their Republican patsies whined and pontificated, aided by people such as Dr. Fauci (who resembles Rick Moranis's character Dark Helmet in the movie Spaceballs - I guess that makes Pelosi President Scroob?), and other so-called "experts" who recently decided to try to force people to not celebrate Thanksgiving (a decree I will choose to ignore, because it is stupid frankly), not go to church, not work to pay their bills, not allow their children to be educated, etc.  What is the deal with this COVID-19 thing anyway?  Was it as bad as it was made to be, or is there an ulterior motive which is inflating its significance?  Let me talk about that briefly.

It is of interest to me that this virus had its origin in China, and interesting enough, for all the so-called "Russia collusion" BS the Democrats have been trying to pin on Trump, I find it odd how many of them have a vested interest in the Chinese government.  I believe that this may be the real collusion - leftist Democrats, many of them radicalized socialists, are I believe being bankrolled by the Chinese government, and perhaps this little pandemic was the gift of the Chinese to the Democrats to ensure they seize power.  I of course cannot substantiate that at this time, but it is just fascinating and may explain the obsession many on the left have with President Trump and the "Russiagate" BS.  In time, all will be revealed, and it is just a waiting game.  However, I believe the odds are high - high enough I could wager a bet - that there is some connection somewhere between the Democrats and the Chinese government.  Too many things just look odd.  And, maybe not even China - the Democrats are bankrolled by a number of billionaire corporate interests (Silicon Valley demagogues like Zuckerberg and Dorsey, as well as people such as Bill Gates and no doubt the Antichrist himself, George Soros).  My estimation though is that both the corporate billionaires (Silicon Valley satrapies for one) and China may have a stake in American politics, and the will of the common man on the street does not matter because the guy who drives the big rig hauling canned soup or the local farmer don't have the big bucks to buy politicians, and the main force behind American politics is not the democratic process - it is who can be sold to the highest bidder.  Chinese dollars earned by Pelosi in her pursuits may explain why she can eat $15 pints of ice cream, not to mention the gallons of vodka she swills. One day too, this shall come to light as well. 

The stakes in the election are indeed high ones, and if we are to maintain our way of life and keep our freedoms, it is imperative that someone like Donald Trump is elected rather than a Chinese puppet like Joe Biden.  The radicals who have taken over the Democratic Party are hell-bent on what some have called a "Great Reset" - tearing down everything that is, and then building their own utopian vision which would benefit them and not anyone else.  It is important that we try to preserve our traditions, our families, and our property from these forces of evil that would seek to subjugate us and remake an America in their image which would be a dystopian nightmare for the majority of us.  The stakes are so high that many people are depressed over it, and some are obsessing about it in fear - I don't think this is productive honestly, and we have to try to keep cooler heads in all of this, regardless the outcome.  That is why now I wanted to just offer some encouragement to those who are, like myself, people of faith who may be trying to make heads or tails of  what is happening.

For the Christian, it is important to remember the words of Scripture, in particular Romans 8:28, which reminds us that all things - the order of current events and even our elections - work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose.  What does that mean exactly?  Essentially, it is a simple message - God is in control of things, and we just have to trust him to take care of us.  Luke 12 kind of expands this a little by reminding us that as God takes care of the birds and the grass, how much more will he take care of us who are created in his image?  Looking at Luke 12:26, we see that a bit of wisdom about situations like this is imparted to us by the Lord Himself - he tells us that if we do not have power to do the least, why worry about the rest?  In other words, we are simply not the ones in control of things - God is.  Therefore, we are admonished to trust Him for what we need, as Philippians 4:19 reminds us that He will supply our needs for us, as His resources are without limit - after all, the entire universe (including us) is His, and He created it.  So, when adversity hits - including pandemics like COVID and the possibility of a corrupt Democrat being elected for President - there are two things we need to do.  First, we obviously pray, and we also come together to support one another, as many will be discouraged and scared.  Second, we go on about our business and don't let these circumstances distract us from what's important.  If we do that, then we will have a healthier outlook on things.  The ultimate hope is the story of redemption itself - for those of us who believe, we know the Author of the book, and we know how the story ends; God wins.  Therefore, we must not let ourselves get discouraged and sidetracked, because whatever the circumstance it is only temporary. 

Like many who may read this, I don't know what is going to happen in all of this - we could keep Trump for another four years as our President (which many of us hope will happen), or Biden may actually win the Presidency and then we will have our work cut out for us.  Our duty now is to be vigilant, stay focused, and honor those responsibilities of life we are entrusted with.  If we keep busy, it also means that we won't have time to get depressed or scared, and we can be proactive in doing what we need to do without letting this stuff derail us.  I hope these rambling insights will provide some comfort and encouragement to you who are reading them today, and just be encouraged and as Red Green says, "Keep your stick on the ice."  Blessings to you until next visit. 

Coyote Catholicism, and the Current Crisis

It has been a while since writing, and I have a few reflections to note.  Have any of you reading this ever seen a coyote?  It is a dog, looks like a dog, and even acts like a dog in many cases.  Yet, there is a huge difference between your pet Fido and a wild coyote.  For one, the coyote would kill Fido in a minute - my mother-in-law lost a pet chihuahua she had to a coyote who cannibalized her.  The coyote will wag its tail, and you can probably approach it, but it will tear your butt up if you touch it, believe me!  That analogy today relates to a situation I want to address now.

In the Gospels, Jesus told a number of small stories in order to teach His disciples some truths, and we call those stories parables.  The parables Jesus told were often lessons in how to live in the kingdom of God, both here and in the hereafter, and in many cases he does some contrasts between those who really are of the kingdom and those who are not, even noting that at times it is hard to tell the difference based on externals.  One of those parables, found in Matthew 13:24-30, focuses on the metaphor of wheat and tares in regard to this principle.  If you recall the story as Jesus told it, a farmer was sewing seed, and unbeknownst to him there were some weeds called tares mixed in among the wheat.  First, what is a tare exactly?  In common terms, it is called a cockle, but it is also known as a darnel, darnel ryegrass, or poison darnel, and its scientific Latin name is Lolium Temulentum.  It is a pest/weed that often grows among wheat fields, and in its juvenile state looks identical to the wheat plants until it matures, and then it yields toxic seeds and also is susceptible to LSD-producing fungus.  If too many of them are found in a harvest of wheat, they can taint and damage the wheat and render it unusable.  It is these weeds that Jesus is referring to when He talks about them, and much like a coyote resembles a dog but is dangerous, so a tare is likewise. 

As the Church has grown over the centuries, many tares have ended up in the harvest field, and some have been so deceptive that they have managed to get into leadership of the Church both on the universal and local level.  One such notorious individual was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who perhaps is responsible for some of the nonsense we see in the Catholic Church now.  But there are others who serve in strategic positions on local parish councils, in leadership in the Knights of Columbus and other apostolates, and they may even be sitting on the church pew next to you.

Some of this will come as no surprise, as there seems to have been some subversive elements long before de Chardin and others which have been trying to destroy the Church from within, and in his book Infiltration, Dr. Taylor Marshall details the existence of a secret society called the Carbonari which met in secret groups called alta venditas, and one purpose of these groups was that they wanted to subvert both the Catholic Church and traditional monarchy.  My guess is, however, as Benjamin Wiker notes in a number of his writings (notably the book Politicizing the Bible he co-authored with Scott Hahn) that the roots of this go back even further - Descartes, and even back to people such as Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham.  It was based in the mentality of the Enlightenment in other words, and as such has at its roots a deliberate divorce of faith from reason, and a relegation of religious faith to human reasoning.  As Marshall notes though, the ultimate goal of such things was to create a new religion, a selfish, man-centered faith that denied the supernatural and was guided by a series of secret societies, notably the Freemasons (Marshall, Infiltration. Manchester, NH:  Crisis Publications, 2019, pp. 9-11).  This in turn led to the secularism that was touted by people beginning with Darwin, Freud, Marx, and later adding such "revolutionaries" as Simon de Beauvoir, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Saul Alinsky, and others who sought not just to merely add an "alternative" to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to destroy and replace it.  The way many proposed to do so was insidious - infiltrate the Church (and even Protestant denominations) with rationalist-based mentalities that radically altered theology and ethics, and thus in Catholic circles you get Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and in recent years, James Martin. Among Protestants, it was a string of theologians actually starting with Karl Barth and culminating in radical revolutionaries such as James Cone.  The tainting of Catholic teaching is evident in who many notable Catholic theologians and philosophers kept company with - Henri de Lubac's friendship with Teilhard de Chardin, Jacques Maritain's acquaintance with Saul Alinsky, etc.  Vatican II was largely hijacked by such people, and the result has been about 50 years of major theological deficit in many sectors of the Church.  It started in the seminaries and universities, and has especially infected the Jesuits within the past century.  And, as academia and the religious tier of the Church was so infected, it trickled into the pews, and thus the reason why I am writing this now.  I had an encounter with one such individual in recent days in our own parish, and I wanted to tell the story of that encounter now.

Greg is the name of a parishioner in our church, and as such he is not just a mere parishioner.  For one thing, Greg has several positions of leadership on the parish council, as well as serving as a Eucharistic Minister, usher, and RCIA sponsor in the parish.  He is also active in our local Knights of Columbus council, where he is a past Grand Knight.  If you met Greg in person, you would think he is a wonderful guy - he is friendly, and honestly, despite what I am about to share I really don't think he is an evil man as he does display some commendable virtues that are sincere.  But, in being "friends" with him on social media, a few disturbing things came to light in recent months that need to be addressed, because Greg represents an example of a tare/coyote in the field, and there are many more like him in parishes across the country.  This is due in part to a lack of sound discipleship and catechesis on the part of the leadership of the Church - unfortunately many bishops are more like bureaucrats than they are spiritual leaders and shepherds, and they cannot tell the coyotes from the sheepdogs in their flock (nor are they very discerning a lot of times of the difference between a sheep and a goat).  The recent sex scandals in the Church are a glaring reminder of that.  It is a problem that numerous orthodox Catholic writers on both the Traditionalist and pro-Vatican II side of the spectrum have addressed, ranging from Michael Rose's 2000 book Goodbye Good Men to Dr. Taylor Marshall's 2019 book Infiltration aforementioned and referenced.  With that all being said, let us now talk about the specifics of the conversation with Greg.

Due to the recent looting/rioting in response to the unfortunate and tragic murder of George Floyd in Minnesota by a corrupt cop (a whole other issue I will be addressing at another time), there are many people now flouting the "Black Lives Matter" (a terrorist organization which is more White than Black, as it is primarily made up of virtue-signalling White liberals) cause, and many of us who are conservatives are trying to remind the public that the greatest enemy of Black Americans is not Donald Trump, Republicans, or even all White people, but rather White leftists, in many cases the very ones who virtue-signal "racism" about everything.  This is evident in the travesty that is abortion, which if you read Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, and what she actually believed, you quickly see she thought of Blacks as "human weeds" and "inferior" and a big part of her eugenics plan was to abort as many Black babies as possible (she also targeted Catholic immigrants, poor Appalachian people, and others too).  I posted the following meme several days ago on my social media page concerning that, and of course it garnered attention, primarily from Greg.

After posting that, one of the first people to jump on and comment was Greg, and what he said revealed a lot about himself.  Greg is very politically liberal, to the point that he actually defends Marxists such as Saul Alinsky, and what followed in the discussion was an alarming revelation that he values his politics over his faith.   When the sin of abortion, and the fact that the Church affirms life begins at conception and that abortion is the sin of murder were brought up to him, he said this:

 "It is easy for the church - a clergy of men - to say that those unborn are the most vulnerable - how about the more than 75,000 families ripped apart by government action at the border with children being molested, traumatized and raped BY GOVERNMENT agents ? How about the denial of adequate food to children and critical medical care to them once born?"

The second part of this discourse he posted is an argument that is virtue-signaled by leftists all the time, and is easily refuted - many of those same leftists, if they were really honest, would support a neo-Malthusian agenda that is evident on the Georgia Guidestones in which the population would be reduced by them to what they feel is an ideal number.  Do they care about adequate food for children and critical medical care?  Some may, but most don't - for the majority, it is a talking-point only with little substance. He calls the Church "a clergy of men," and even said that he would rather be excommunicated than let a group of "old men in robes" (in reference to the Catholic episcopacy) force him to deny a "woman's right to choose."  My question to Greg was a simple one, and he dodged the answer - why, then, ARE you Catholic??  I already know that answer without trying to even indulge the question - Greg is a "cradle" or "cultural" Catholic, meaning he was raised in the Church but never made a conscious choice to embrace and follow the Church's teaching.  As a wealthy attorney, Greg is one of those people that used parish membership, his involvement in the Knights of Columbus, etc., as social-climbing skills to advance his own status.  Like I said, it doesn't mean he is an evil man - as a matter of fact, in other areas he has displayed some admirable virtue - but it does mean that he is Catholic for the wrong reasons.  When you come into the Church, by participating in its sacramental life you affirm that you believe what she teaches, even if you don't quite understand it.  When a Catholic man joins the Knights of Columbus, he also confesses an oath and a promise that he will uphold and defend the Church and her teaching even under opposition; that is actually part of the First Degree ceremony as a matter of fact.   For Greg to say what he said indicates that he is dishonest when it comes to his faith - he is part of the Church for the wrong reasons, and that can be a dangerous game for his soul to play.  Sometimes, it takes either converts or those who are "cradle" Catholics that have a true experience with Christ to educate other Catholics as to what their faith really entails, as many do fall short.  That is not judgmentalism either, but rather a fact of life and a reality of authentic faith.  Greg has yet, unfortunately, to learn that. 

This encounter with Greg from the parish led me to seek counsel from trusted sources I know, and there are many individuals that gave me some valuable guidance - Dr. Desmond Birch, Charles Coulombe, and even written sources such as Scott Hahn, Regis Martin, Taylor Marshall, and others.  What they told me was the same thing essentially - Greg's flippant dismissal of the Magisterium, in particular the Episcopate of the Church, as merely a group of "old men in robes" and a "clergy of men," invokes a challenge he needs to face.  The "old men in robes" he so flippantly dismisses in favor of his own sentiments also entails the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church, people such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, and many of them explicitly condemned abortion as murder and a mortal sin.  Also, those "old men in robes" are the successors to the Apostles, and have been ordained with their authority by Jesus Himself, who established the Church and its leadership, so in questioning that Greg is calling Christ a liar and not taking seriously Christ's authority.  That is some pretty serious stuff when you really look at it.  Now, that being said, let me address some of the bishops we see today who act more like bureaucrats or activists than they do the successors to the Apostles - those bishops have valid office, and as such they should be respected as far as the office goes.  But, when they say or do something that is contrary to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, they too need to be called out on it, as they are in defiance of the very Lord and Savior who ordained their office.  And, that even includes the Pope where he is wrong.  So, as a side note, it isn't about the "clergy of men," as Greg so flippantly said, but rather about something much greater - Apostolic authority, coming from Christ Himself, embodied in the Deposit of Faith.  The problem with Greg and so many others is that they are ignorant when it comes to the Deposit of Faith.  I have even seen it with my 6th-graders I teach as a catechist - one girl even asked the question "what is a Gospel?", which unfortunately she didn't know, and many kids that age now cannot even recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria from memory - these things are basic catechesis that they should have learned at least 3 years before they come into my 6th-grade class!  So, it is not only a social crisis, as well as a faith crisis, but is at its root a catechetical crisis - ignorance is rampant, and where ignorance is rampant heresy and apostasy flourish.  The first-grader who is not adequately catechized will become the Greg of tomorrow - leftist, obstinate, and more self-involved as well as ignorant.  They become Catholics in name only, with their church membership being nothing more than a means unto their end and no serious commitment to follow Christ and His teachings.  This is tragic, and is a scandal of high proportions.  Until it is effectively addressed, the Catholic Church will suffer, but it also can be seen in Protestant denominations too now, even those who historically have been more conservative and Evangelical.  

I wrote all of this today to address some serious problems.  We all encounter them on social media almost on a daily basis, and it is daunting at times.  If one dwells too much on it, the whole thing can be depressing as well.  But, hope is there - it starts with you, with me, and every individual Catholic.  We make the change in our own homes, we commit to spiritual growth and educating ourselves on what our faith means to us, and we even challenge ourselves as to why we are Catholic and Christian in the first place.  Mostly though, we need to let the Holy Spirit impart supernatural grace to us to elevate, perfect, and heal us so that we may be the type of person God called us to be.  And, the greater responsibility rests with the leadership of the Church as well - they need to set the example.  Thank you, and God bless until next time. 

Avoiding the Extremes

If one wanders around in theological discussion groups on social media or elsewhere, it is inevitable that at some point there will be someone you disagree with, or you will say something that will fire up someone else to come after you.  Dogfights on social media these days are an unnecessary but unavoidable reality at times, and even with our best efforts, nine chances out of ten even the most innocuous thing you say will tick off somebody.  That is equally true in political discourse as well. With this being an election year, coupled with the recent Trump impeachment issues, the tension among people is thick enough to be cut with a knife honestly.  So, as a person of faith, how would one handle this?  That question has compelled me to expound upon this openly.

Recently, one of my cousins posted that she was getting kind of sick of politics and hearing about it, especially the hateful vitriol she (and I am sure others of us as well) has been exposed to.  She is perfectly right to feel that way, as those issues will wear you out physically, mentally, and even spiritually if we allow them to get out of control and eat up a lot of our time and energy.  It was her comments that led me to explore this, and she has some valid concerns I believe many of us share. 

For someone of Christian convictions, religious and political issues are inevitably intertwined, as what we believe and where we exercise our faith determines much in the shaping of our worldviews.  The Assemblies of God pastor that actually officiated my wife's and my wedding, Rev. John Broome, said once in one of his Sunday sermons that "every issue for the Christian is a theological issue."  Of course, he was right, and to be honest, I have taken that to heart and still agree with that to this day.  As a result, how we vote is determined by how we pray, in other words - that is, if we take our faith seriously.  Can we get some things wrong though, and is there room for growth?  Of course, as the fact is we are all fallible human beings, and even our best intentions can sometimes need some work.  That is another reason I wanted to write this today, as at times we do need to step back and reassess a few things as we grow in our faith.  Fundamental convictions that are universally true are not what changes, as God's laws are eternal, and the natural law that is subject to God's sovereignty is also immutable as well.  However, how we view those convictions and act on them may require some "tweaking" if you will, and for the remainder of this discourse, I want to focus on something I read recently.

There is a friend of mine who I have known for years who operates a website in which she gives her perspective on issues, and this particular friend and I have a long history - her grandfather, who was a retired minister, was our landlord at one time, and her brother was for a short time the pastor at the church we attended years ago.  Her father, likewise, served as the Dean of Students at my alma mater where I received my Bachelor's years ago.  So, she has a deep heritage in her faith tradition.  On many things she has written about I actually agree with her, but she does tend to be problematic in other areas - she is virulently anti-Catholic for instance, and she also tends to come across somewhat harsh and callous in her convictions at times, even outright condemning people.  She serves as an example of how often there is a fine line between right belief and wrong action and conviction, and one issue stands out concerning some things this person has written that I want to address.

Over the past several months, my friend has been tackling the issue of premarital sex on her blog, and the issue of children being born out of wedlock was front-and-center of the discussion.  First, let's address what I agree with in regard to what she said.  One, premarital sex is a sin, and it is wrong - it is known as fornication, and Scripture does forbid it.  Two, there is no doubt that the laxity in sexual morality in our society has led to an upturn in couples cohabitating without the virtue of a marriage covenant, and in many cases, children are produced from those disordered unions.  On both of these, there is no dispute.  Three, many people doing this are also professing to be "Christian," and that does create a contradiction between faith and action on their part, and thus a lack of proper discipleship and other issues are at the root of the problem.  Again, I agree with that as well, as I have witnessed that sort of behavior in couples even within our own parish community, unfortunately.  Now that those facts have been established, the problem with addressing it is that oftentimes people like my overly-zealous friend tend to go to a certain extreme, and in this case, it is pretty serious.  Let me address that now.

In her own missives on this subject, my friend basically condemns children of unwed parents as being "bastards," and although she doesn't come right out and say it, she has essentially denied the fact that such children are also loved by God and that Christ died for them too.  Let us look at John 3:16 again shall we?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall be saved"

You do not have to be a learned theologian, Biblical scholar, or be versed in Greek or Hebrew to understand what that plainly says - whosoever implies anyone!  Now, this is where my friend missed the boat big-time, and there are two areas she got it wrong on:

1.  Fornication is the sin of the parents, not of the unborn child that may result from such a union.
2.  A child is a person, a human being, and despite how the child was brought into the world, the gift       of Christ of Himself is still as valid for the "bastard" as it is for anyone else.  We claim oftentimes       as Christians to be "pro-life," so let's validate that by not condemning innocent children.

My friend, although coming from a more Wesleyan-Arminian Pentecostal background, is nonetheless acting as a quasi-Calvinist when she is more or less arbitrarily condemning a child to eternal damnation for something that child was not responsible for, and that is where she errs seriously.  If I were my friend, I would be careful of that, as it borders on heresy to spout such things.  If you cannot love the unborn child of even an adulterous union, then the love of Christ is not in you as it should be.  And, that leads to a couple of other observations.

As mentioned, the child is not accountable for the sins of the parents - they need to account for their own sins and do something about them.  If a couple is living in a disordered relationship - in the vernacular, meaning "shacking up" - yet claims to be Christian, they are in need of some serious counseling from their pastor or priest to find a way to remedy that.  Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, and as such it imparts a grace of its own to those who enter into it.  That grace is vital and important, and cannot be underestimated or cheapened by some selfish, lazy requirement that "we are married in the eyes of God and don't need the Church."  People are playing a dangerous game when they do that.  It also bears mentioning that as marriage is a sacrament of the Church, it cannot be ignored, re-defined, or violated in good conscience by those who profess Christ either. Therefore, if a child is produced out of such a union, then the parents need to seek to legitimize that union as husband and wife and not produce any more offspring until they do so.  But, if the sin of fornication does result in the production of a child, the child should nonetheless be seen as a blessing and miracle of life - irregular, but still a miracle.  It is up to the parents to legitimize their relationship, and an innocent child should not bear the sins of their parents for which they had nothing to do with. 

If the hyper-Fundies are going to one extreme, there are some Christians that go to the other, and they are equally wrong.  God's laws don't change, and he established boundaries for our protection, and if we profess to follow him, we are obligated to honor those commands.  Some in the Church though have advocated for laxity in regard to sexual morality, and they often use absurd reasoning to justify it.  One person that comes to mind here is the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," James Martin.  Although Martin is an ordained Catholic priest, his celebration and legitimization of "same-sex unions" is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church.  So, while we treat those involved in the LGBT lifestyle with the dignity afforded all humanity, we do not embrace their lifestyle choices as "good," and the Church never has despite what some liberal revisionists like Martin said.  Martin and my aforementioned friend are both guilty of the same lack of grace, although they manifest it in different ways.  In the end, neither has the true love of Christ in the way they handle things, nor do they have the necessary balance to uphold the truth with love as they should - one ignores love, the other ignores the truth, and you need both.  That is why both of these extremes need to be avoided by all of us who seek to follow Christ, as neither is truly following Christ if they are allowed to manifest.  Thank you for allowing me to share, and will be back again soon.

"Rad-Trads" and "Mad-Trads" - Are They Really Trads?

The impetus for this discussion has to do with a heated discussion that happened on New Years's Eve a few weeks ago with a self-styled "Traditionalist Catholic."  The young man - who is also African-American (that will play into this shortly) - essentially was promoting "Zionist conspiracies" and other nonsense encouraging the hatred of Jews as an entirety as practically a virtue.  When I called him out on it when he started promoting Holocaust revisionism, he got very upset at me and accused me of "virtue-signaling" mainly because for me it is incomprehensible why an African-American would be engaging in Holocaust denialism.  But, he is but a symptom of a greater problem, which is what I want to address.

First, I want to just state my own position.  I am of course a convert to the Catholic Church from Protestantism (specifically, from the Pentecostal tradition) and as such I have a rather unique perspective on things.  I would myself identify as a traditionalist as far as my own Catholic faith is concerned - I am favorable toward the Traditional Latin Mass, and am not overly enthused with some "innovations" I observe in Catholic parishes that result from the faulty application of things from Vatican II.  But, as a traditionalist, I am not your run-of-the-mill advocate of the SSPX and such either, but rather take a more balanced approach to issues.  For one thing, I don't reject Vatican II - I have read the documents, and there are many valuable insights to be found in them.  And, that leads to two other observations on Vatican II.  First, it must be understood that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, and not a doctrinal one - no doctrine was changed, and the majority of the documents of the Council do affirm the historic doctrinal positions of the Church.  Second, the problem with Vatican II I would have is not so much Vatican II itself, but rather a faulty implementation of what it proposed - let's face it; there are some crazy things going on in some Catholic parishes!  When it comes to things such as the acceptance of theistic evolution, the position Catholics should have in regards to other religions, and the modernization of some things in the Mass, more clarification is needed for the faithful to understand better, as it has led to a lot of funny ideas being espoused by individual lay Catholics in the pews.  Taking the Mass first, the Ordinary Form that most Roman-Rite Catholic parishes use (also called by the Latin term Novus Ordo) is not evil or bad in itself - it has reintroduced many good things that the Church needs, and I don't necessarily unilaterally condemn everything about it.  That being said, however, there are abuses, and the Ordinary Form could use some tweaking and refining of its practice for sure.  But, it is a valid Mass, and there is no need to unilaterally condemn it as "modernist."  Then, regarding the acceptance of "theistic evolution."  Many Catholics are under the false assumption that this is the Church's official position on origins, but it is not - in fact, the CCC says that God is simply the Creator of all things, and that man is the pinnacle of His creation (CCC 337-344), and theistic evolution is not even addressed there.  It is only alluded to in other Church documents, but when it is, essentially it is addressed as a theory by which Catholics should be knowledgable, but there is no binding decree for Catholics to accept theistic evolution as a dogmatic truth at all (and honestly, there is little evidence).  Most of the Catholic espousal of such things in orders such as the Jesuits is due to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin and others, which at best are suspect as they are Novelle Teologie and not Magisterial.  That as why as an orthodox Catholic, I accept the Biblical view of Creation as valid, and would scientifically subscribe to an Intelligent Design view personally.  Regarding other religions, this has led to a lot of confusion largely based on misreadings of both Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate.   Both of these documents lay out the fact that there are indeed truths within other religions, but the problem with that is when the average Catholic reads it, they don't understand that it actually means this - while there are truths in other religions, those truths bear witness to a greater Truth that many of those same religions reject, and looking at it historically the little truth other religions have is actually corrupted truth, and thus is deficient.  The same Council also affirmed two other truths of the Catholic Church - first, that salvation is only possible in the person of Jesus Christ, and secondly, that the fullness of that salvation is found only in the Church herself.  Catholics need to keep this in mind when they read this stuff, and they need to read them in context with the whole Deposit of Faith and not on the stand-alone merit of the document itself.   So, no - in reading the Vatican II documents myself over the course of my graduate work at Franciscan University of Steubenville, there is nothing significantly out of order with the majority of their content, and where there are variances, they can be rejected in good conscience because these are pastoral documents and not doctrinal ones, although doctrine forms the underlying basis for the pastoral positions.  That should put many thinking Traditionalists at ease who may, by necessity, have to attend an Ordinary Form Mass due to lack of accessibility to a Traditional Latin Mass. 

Another thing that bothers me about the "MadTrads" is their rejection of any other Christians who are not exactly like them.  Coming from the place of a convert to the Catholic faith, I find that mentality disturbing in that it nullifies what I know to be true, that being that one can believe in Jesus Christ and also be Christian without being formally part of the Catholic Church.  There are two reasons I hold this view.  First, before I became Catholic, I did know I was Christian, and although I also was aware something was missing in my Christianity, I was nonetheless still Christian.  One of the positives of Vatican II that I do actually think is good is the fact that other Christians (mainly Protestants) are considered "separated brethren," and to a limited degree, they do participate in the life and legacy of the Church, although they don't possess all the grace of the Church.  That essentially means that a Protestant can be saved, but that the fullness of that salvation is only recognized through the Church - Lumen Gentium addresses this to a degree too.  Protestants and Catholics are not separate religions in other words, as each is unmistakably Christian (as are the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and others).  But, the revelation of truth the Protestant receives at their initial conversion should help them grow toward the Church, and thus to the fullness of their Christian faith.  This is why the Church allows the reading of certain Protestant writers who are not in conflict with the Catholic Church, and also why it is perfectly fine to read even blatantly anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature like Chick comics because it also helps the Catholic to be more informed when engaging in dialogue with their Protestant brethren.  It is advisable, however, for Catholics to be prayed up properly and receive the proper education and spiritual counsel before attempting to venture into that territory, as a level of protection is needed. 

Those spell out some of my specific positions on things in contrast to others who identify as Catholic Traditionalists, and it does at times bring me into debate with them on these issues, as they often have some issues of their own.  In an excellent article available at tumblarhouse.com, Fr. Chad Ripperger notes that the problems some "Trads" have can be identified and addressed, and he does so in an article entitled "10 Problems in the Traditionalist Movement."  Fr. Ripperger is himself identified as a Traditionalist as well, but he is also insightful and well-grounded, and thus for many years I have used his material as a trusted resource for my own research.  Fr. Ripperger identifies ten major problems he observes among "Trads," and briefly, these are what they are:

1. Becoming Gnostic and elitist - they think only they are privy to some "secret revelation" no one else has.

2. Impurity - the sin of pride, essentially, leads to other sins among self-professed Trads.

3. Generational Spirits - What Fr. Ripperger means by this is simple:  although Trads profess to be faithful, they use their Trad label to sometimes ignore serious issues in their own families, and thus their children get involved in things they shouldn't.   I see this as well among the more old-time Holiness/Pentecostals I was part of when I was growing up, and even recently a young man I know from among them made an abrupt move into a homosexual relationship that is still shocking.  It is also about sometimes setting the bar so high that no one can get over it, and thus it leads to concupiscent behavior - Trads are not exclusive to this, as Protestant Fundamentalists of various traditions also have a similar problem.

4. Isolationist Attitude - This is a problem many Trads share with other Christian traditions, in particular, fundamentalist Independent Baptists.  It relates to the inherent Gnostic tendency noted above in that the natural world is rejected in lieu of a self-created religious utopia.  That has failed among Fundamentalists, and will likewise among Trads who embrace it too.

5. Depression and Despair - Fr. Ripperger notes this as a problem because Trads (and also Protestant Fundamentalists I would add) sit and mull over the negatives so much that it ultimately adversely affects their spiritual well-being.  I will put it this way - they cannot fully participate in the Christian life because they deprive themselves of the joy of Christ and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and thus they also hinder the work of supernatural grace. 

6.  Anger - related to depression, anger can be detrimental to spiritual growth too, and many Trads are falling into that.  Fr. Ripperger notes that this anger also leads to a diminishing of the virtue of charity, just like depression leads to a diminishing of goodness and Gnostic flirtations lead to a diminishing of beauty. 

7.  Disrespect of Authority - This is one where some empathy can be shared with Trads, as at times honestly some of our clergies (and not a few laypeople) in our parishes can be real jackasses.  Also, I share many concerns about the current Pope - he has done some things, honestly, that warrant concern, but at the same time he is still the validly-chosen Pontiff and Bishop of Rome, and a certain amount of respect and decorum is due him.  As Fr. Ripperger would agree, the real course of action in something like this is to pray for Francis, as God does love him and Jesus died for him too just like He did for us.  Where he is wrong, it is OK to disagree, but do so respectfully.

8.  Loose, Reckless Argumentation - This is a serious one for Trads, as many of them run their mouths quite loosely about things before thinking about what they say.  This will tie in as well to a later issue I am going to be addressing, as do several of these, and that is the rampant anti-Semitism among some Trads. 

9.  Bullying - like the argumentative spirit Fr. Ripperger notes above, bullying is a problem in some groups of Trads.  As Fr. Ripperger affirms here, it is one thing to identify a problem and address it civilly, but quite another to be abusive to others over it. 

10. Driving Others Away - This sort of ties the others together, as disrespect, combative discourse, and bullying tends to do that.  Trads need to remember that they are being watched by a searching world looking for answers, and we have an evangelistic mandate to reach out to them in love.  When we go beating them over the head and try to impose things on them that they are not bound to, it tends to drive people off.  This is especially true with the recent controversy over transgenders - those who struggle with this may encounter Trads or other Christians to seek answers, and when we get nasty with them, it has the effect of not only driving them away, but it also will make them more militant and it will hurt the witness of Christ that they could have had. 

Those are the ten problems Fr. Ripperger notes, and although he did get the component symptoms to another I am about to address, he didn't address it directly, so I will do so here.  I don't understand why, but a certain segment of Trads have gotten themselves infected with anti-Semitism, and it's ugly.  I have heard shocking things from self-identified Trads about Jewish people - for instance, citing the Apostle Paul out of context to justify hatred of Jews, embracing "Zionist" conspiracy theories, and sadly, even Holocaust denialism.  I want to make one thing very clear here and now - Never in the history of the Church has any Pope, bishop, Church Father, saint, or theologian ever encouraged the hatred of Jews.  At times, they have rebuked certain Jewish communities harshly over their rejection of Christ as their Messiah, and have even responded in kind to occasional Jewish opposition to certain things, but although harsh, their response has never encouraged a rejection or hatred of the Jewish people as a whole.  And, it is definitely not a virtue of being a Traditionalist Catholic either, as even the SSPX has a strong statement condemning anti-Semitism among its members.  The official statement of the SSPX, titled "Anti-Semitism is Not Catholic," states very clearly that the SSPX "completely rejects the false claim that it teaches or practices anti-Semitism, which is a racial hatred of the Jewish people because of their ethnicity, culture, or religious beliefs."  Further, the same statement affirms historic Catholic teaching by stating further that "The Catholic Church teaches its members to pray that the Jewish people will recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah and convert to the Catholic faith for their salvation...the Catholic Church desires the happiness of ALL people in this life and the next."   That is actually a good statement on the part of the SSPX, and I commend it.  As for the Holocaust denial among some Trads, that is more disturbing - as Fr. Ripperger notes above, many Trads hate Jews so much that they get reckless in the crap they spew out of their mouths, even trying to distort actual history.  The news flash for them is this - the Holocaust was a major tragedy, it happened, and millions of innocent people (Jews and others) died in those camps, including a significant number of Catholic saints and other Christian martyrs (St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Bl. Emilian Kovch, as well as Protestants such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Orthodox saints such as Fr. Grigol Peradze).   That being said, it is insulting that Trads are denying the Holocaust, and they should be ashamed of that - may St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein intercede for their souls honestly.  The eyewitness testimony and countless survivors even alive today from those vile camps are enough evidence to debunk any stupid allegation of "hoaxes," and if that still doesn't convince people, then maybe some therapy in a padded room with a designer sleeveless jacket will because only an insane person would deny a major atrocity like the Holocaust happened.  I still maintain that many Trads who are engaging in this anti-Semitic BS need to make a trip to their local confessional, as they need a lot of help.

Just because I was hard on the Trads here doesn't mean I am excusing the "Modernists" either - people like James Martin, the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," should be defrocked and removed from public ministry in the Church, as they are heretical, plain and simple.  If the Trads were deplorable for embracing anti-Semitism, there are some Modernists likewise culpable for going to the other extreme. Both of these extremes - the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees and Sadducees - are equally damaging to the witness of the Church, and therefore they must be rejected by faithful Catholics.  There is a better way than going to these extremes, and that rests in knowing one's faith, and also asking oneself the question as to why I am Catholic.  How that question is answered will be a huge determining factor in where one stands on these issues, and it is something perhaps we should all think about as we approach the Lenten season in a few weeks.   Thank you for allowing me to share, and God bless.