Looking at the history of World War I a person can be forgiven for lamenting that there were no adults in the room. Russia’s agreements with Serbia led it to escalate the war. Germany was itching to prove how powerful its military was and so gladly joined the fighting. France and the United Kingdom alike followed their treaties into the rapidly expanding war. Later Italy broke its neutrality when secretly promised land it had long coveted, and the United States, led by wannabe world ruler Woodrow Wilson, only added to the pain and misery. Could no one stand up to say “Enough is enough – we must work for peace?”

Continue reading at AntiWar.com…

The post Lessons From the Peace Emperor appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Hierarchy: This Council will spread the Gospel better and bring many into the Church!
Laity: Hurrah!

1965

Hierarchy: Now that the Council is over, we’ll start making changes that will bring many into the Church! Don’t worry, though, they won’t be big changes—you won’t lose the things you love about the Faith.
Laity: Sounds good—Hurrah!

1970

Laity: It doesn’t seem like many people are coming into the Church—in fact, some are starting to leave.
Hierarchy: Don’t worry, now we have a whole new liturgy, so they will start flocking in soon!
Laity: Um, okay, hurrah? But I thought you said there wouldn’t be big changes…

1975

Laity: People are still leaving.
Hierarchy: That’s just because we haven’t fully implemented the whole spirit of the Council. Once that happens, then they will flock to us.
Laity: I guess… (Looking at the exit)

1980

Laity: Now my sister has left the Church too – when are the Council’s changes going to help?
Hierarchy: You will see a New Springtime for the Church, because now we’re really going to implement the Council right!
Laity: That doesn’t really make any sense…

1990

Laity: Two of my kids have now left the Church. This doesn’t seem to be working.
Hierarchy: Nonsense! Just give it time!
Laity: (Grumbling)

1995

Hierarchy: Okay, perhaps we didn’t do things perfectly since the Council. We’re going to reform this reform.  
Laity: Well, that sounds reasonable, let’s see how that goes. Can’t be worse that what we have now.

2000

Hierarchy: This next century is really going to be a revival for Catholicism. And don’t worry about anything going on behind closed rectory doors…
Laity: Wait – Why did you just say that?

2005

Laity: (Grabbing pitchforks and torches and heading to the chancery)
Hierarchy: Don’t worry, our lawyers…um, we…have everything under control! This is fine!

2010

Hierarchy: Maybe we didn’t implement the Council as well as we should. Perhaps doing things like before the Council isn’t terrible.
Laity: Sounds good, we’ll look into that.

2015

Hierarchy: Actually, never mind, the Council was great and we need to embrace the world to evangelize it!
Laity: Wait, what?

2022

Laity: You know, I don’t think the Council actually helped very much; maybe it even hurt things.
Hierarchy: Heretic! You are the reason the New Springtime didn’t happen! Away with you!

The post A Brief History of the Catholic Church Since 1962 appeared first on Eric Sammons.

“What really matters is fasting from sin!”
“Take time in Lent to be kinder to others!”

This is an odd trend, to say the least. After all, for over a millennium Catholics have focused on physical penances during Lent, particularly fasting and abstinence. Now, however, it seems that we want to completely drop this aspect of Lent from the Catholic consciousness.

The oddity of this particularly struck me as I was praying Lauds from the old Divine Office this Lent. Most days the Collect for the day (which matches the Collect from that day’s Mass) explicitly mentions “fasting” or “our fast.” And on the few days it doesn’t mention fasting, it typically references abstaining from or denying ourselves food. The assumption in these prayers of the Church is that everyone is fasting.

I don’t remember these references from my days of praying the modern Liturgy of the Hours, so I decided to do a check. I went through the Collects for both the new and the old calendars for the 2nd and 3rd weeks of Lent. I felt that those two weeks would be representative of the overall theme of the Church’s Lenten prayers before and after the changes made in the late 1960’s. I also skipped the Collects for the Sundays because I understand those might not reference fasting and penance.

What did I find? Fasting is almost never mentioned in our modern Collects. In the twelve days of those Collects, it mentions our “observance” twice, “penance” once, and that we must “chasten our bodies” once. In the other eight Collects, there is no mention of penance, fasting, or anything particularly penitential.

In contrast, the old Collects are rich in references to fasting. Six times the Collect explicitly mentions fasting, four times it references abstaining from or denying ourselves food, and once it notes our “observance.” The only time nothing of this matter is mentioned is on the Thursday of the 3rd Week of Lent, which is a prayer about Sts. Cosmas and Damian and an old holdover from the Rome Lenten stations. 

Here’s a chart of the two sets of Collects (click to magnify):

So 10 out of 12 Collects in the old Calendar speak of our denial of food, while none of the new Collects do (with only four even noting anything particularly penitential). 

Realizing this, is it any wonder that so many Catholics, especially priests, would now downplay the discipline of fasting in Lent? They never hear it even mentioned in the official prayers of the Church! It’s as if this ancient discipline has been erased from our collective consciousness. 

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi: The law of what is prayed is what is believed is what is lived. If we remove every mention of a disciple from our prayers, then surely the practice of that discipline will soon be removed in practice as well.

The post The Discipline That Must Not Be Named appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Inflation is making us all poorer. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. With an “official” rate at 6.2% (the real rate is likely double that), we are all losing money every day. Traditionally one way to combat the effects of inflation is through investment. When I was younger, you could have a savings account making 6-7% interest, and with 2% inflation, you’d make a little money each year. 

Now, however, with inflation likely in double digits and savings accounts yielding less than a percent of a percent return, we all are looking elsewhere to park our savings.

One popular option is stocks and bonds. However, bonds yields are terrible, making them little better than a savings account, and stocks right now are overpriced and due for a correction. Are there any other options?

If you know me, you already know what I think: cryptocurrencies. Yes, they can be incredibly volatile. Yes, they can be risky. And yes, you should never invest more than you can afford to lose. But in today’s economy, it just seems to make sense to me to at least put some savings into crypto.

The best path, in my opinion (again: not investment advice!), is to simply park some of your savings in Bitcoin and perhaps a few other top cryptocurrencies (like Ethereum) and just leave it there for years. It’s likely your rate of return will be quite satisfactory over that time frame.

However, the path may be bumpy. You may see downturns of 50% or more. So if you need to access your money during that time, you could be in trouble. Think of money put into BTC as being held in a vault you can’t access for 5-10 years.

But there is another, less bumpy, crypto option: yield-bearing stablecoins.

What is a stablecoin? It is a cryptocurrency backed by an equivalent amount of fiat currency and it is therefore always valued at $1/coin. So if you have 100 USDC (a popular stablecoin), it is always worth $100. There is a centralized trusted third-party behind every stablecoin, and you have to trust that the issuing authority really is holding equivalent funds. This is one reason I don’t use Tether (USDT), because I don’t trust that it’s really backed by equivalent dollar amounts. But I do trust other stablecoins, particularly USDC and GUSD. 

A stablecoin essentially acts like a fiat currency, but it is more efficient to use in digital transactions. So why hold stablecoins rather than just fiat? Because many institutions pay high yields if you hold stablecoins on their platforms. They do this because they are able to use your funds for crypto-lending and other financial activities.

By holding stablecoins in a yield-bearing account, one removes the typical crypto volatility from the equation, while producing some impressive returns. 

While I personally think holding BTC long-term is the best investment strategy, yield-bearing stablecoins allows one to have cash (or its equivalent) on hand, removes volatility from the equation, and still produces decent returns.

What is the risk? You are trusting your money with a third party. You already do this when you have money in the bank, but a bank is insured by the federal government. Crypto companies are not. Personally I think many such companies have matured to the point that they can be trusted, but your personal risk tolerance may say otherwise. It is possible to lose everything in one of these companies, although I think it unlikely.

Here are a few companies I use, and I feel like they are all solid companies, but of course I can’t guarantee their long-term survival (again, none of these are FDIC-insured, so if they go belly-up, you’re out of luck). 

Note: all links include my referral code (except Gemini, which seems to have discontinued their referral program), so I do get a small payment if you use the links. But so do you, so it’s win-win.

The Big Boys

Coinbase

Link: https://www.coinbase.com/join/ericsammons

Coinbase is the granddaddy of crypto services. It has been around since 2012, and it’s established itself as a safe, reliable company. The likelihood of Coinbase shuttering its doors is about the same as a standard bank at this point. If you aren’t going to hold your BTC in your own wallet (which is the best idea), then holding it at Coinbase is the next best thing.

Of course, with less risk you get less reward. Coinbase offers some yield-bearing cryptocurrencies, but their rates on stablecoins are pretty pitiful. Their best yield is on Tezos (not a stablecoin) at 4.63%, which sounds nice compared to a bank savings account, but we’ll see isn’t that great in the cryptoworld, and Tezos is volatile. Coinbase’s rates on stablecoins are less than 2%.

One additional nice feature of Coinbase is that they do offer a Debit Card, which allows you to earn rewards in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, and you can spend stablecoins just as easy as cash.

Gemini

Link: https://www.gemini.com/

Gemini is most well-known for being founded by the Winklevi twins of Facebook fame. This is another established, well-funded company that’s likely to stand the test of time.

Gemini offers much better rates than Coinbase—up to 8.05% on their stablecoin Gemini Dollar. 

The Up-and-Comers

BlockFi

Link: https://blockfi.com/?ref=5cb2344d

BlockFi is one of my favorite crypto companies, and it is constantly improving its services. Currently you can earn 9% on stablecoins, which is better than Gemini and far exceeds bank rates.

BlockFI also offers a Bitcoin rewards credit card. It works like any credit card, but you receive 1.5% reward in Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency of your choice). Not long ago I replaced my Amazon credit card for the BlockFi card, as I didn’t like my rewards being based in a “woke” company. Now my rewards are in something that can never be made woke!

Celcius

Link: https://celsiusnetwork.app.link/124381bbe1

Celcius is similar to BlockFi. It has rates as high as 10.2% right now. Celcius also offers some competitive rates on loans if you back them with your crypto holdings. I’m not a big fan of loans in general, but it’s nice to have the option if you need cash quickly.

Addendum: A Mobile Wallet

Strike

Link: https://invite.strike.me/U3ZRJO

I want to mention one other crypto company. While not offering yield-bearing accounts, Strike is a major advancement in a practical Bitcoin wallet. It allows you to buy, sell, and spend BTC cheaply and quickly. It’s not intended as a way to hold a lot of BTC, but instead a way to transact BTC with others. As we build alternative economies, we need to start transacting in cryptocurrencies (instead of services like Paypal or GoFundMe which can shut you down), and Strike is a good way to start.

Conclusion

There’s no guarantee that these companies will continue to offer the rates they currently do, and not even a guarantee that they will continue to exist—there are rumblings that federal and state governments are looking to regulate them, which usually is bad news for the little guy. But in a time of zero yield savings, inflated stocks, and worthless bonds, having a way to generate some yield for your savings is a nice option to have.

Oh, and did I mention that this isn’t investment advice?

The post Keeping Up With Inflation appeared first on Eric Sammons.

To address this, my wife has compiled a buying guide to get you started on avoiding the big box stores and overseas products. It is by *no means* complete, but it will get your juices flowing, introducing you or reintroducing you to some great resources, and probably leading you to many more that aren’t listed here.

My wife made an effort to include only shops that provide domestically-made items, but her research time was limited. Likewise, we didn’t vet the theology of every shop on this list. Please research the matters that are important to you; hopefully, this guide will get you started.

You can download a PDF of the Guide here.

Feel free to add any other shops in the comments below!

A Catholic Gift Guide 2021

Contemporary Artists

FlorLarios, Etsy – folk art

Adoramus Te Studio, Etsy – prints and decor

Dovetail Ink, Etsy – illustrations and printables

Amberose Marie – including prolife themes

John Henry Folley – classical style art

Opus Americanum Studio – embroidery

Home Shrine Icons – icons written by a contemporary artist

Apparel

Catholic to the Max

Sacra Indumenta – incredibly beautiful baptismal gowns (site may not be completed)

Outrageous Mom – Catholic scarves ​​

Sock Religious – yep, socks.

Brick House in the City – Catholic t-shirts

Classic Art 

Catholic to the Max

Popular Art, Statues, Home Decor

Catholic to the Max

House of Joppa

Smelty Squirrel – ornaments, wooden goods

Candles

Salem Studio – beeswax candles that smell like chrism!, housewares

Corda Candles – Catholic saint candles from the *heart*land (get it?)

Bee Haven Honey – beeswax candles

Bowered and Bare – soaps, lotions, beard care; candles

Water Bottles

Simple Hydration – check out the patented design! Also apparel. 

Books and instruction

Sacred Art Series – this is a project that should be supported. The Gospels of St. Luke and St. John edition is fantastic for children who are too old for a children’s Bible and still intimidated by an adult’s Bible.

Monk Manual – intentional living

Lost Art Press – woodworking resources

Rosaries and Scapulars

Random Brilliants, Etsy – rosaries, pocket rosaries, chaplets 

Meadows of Grace, Etsy

Mantle of Mary, Etsy – very sturdy scapulars

Simply Chic Cositas, Etsy 

Rugged Rosaries – including paracord rosaries and scapulars

Our Lady’s Armory – paracord and other rosaries with a lifetime guarantee

Doer of Knots – sturdy knotted cord rosaries made by me  

Food & Drink

Steubenville Popcorn Company – Try the caramel-cheddar, take my word for it 

Winans Chocolates + Coffee – The name says it all

Willow’s Baked Goods – gluten free bakery that ships directly to customers

Monks’ Bread

Holy Cross Abbey – I wasn’t aware that anyone other than my mother ate fruitcake, but their creamed honey is amazing.

Mystic Monk – C O F F E E

Monastery Candy

Trappistine CandyJuice Plus – recommended representative, Natalie Leylo

Leather Goods and handbags

OréMoose – can’t beat the name

Sandpiper Stitching – handbags

Sacrament gifts

Clarey Clayworks – Catholic ceramics

Catholic to the Max

Jewelry 

Love and Honor Jesus

House of Joppa

Clara Joh 

The One Simple Life

On This Day Designs

Baby & Kid Stuff

Chews Life

Outrageous Mom – Suuuuuper cute handmade baby items

Almond Rod Toys – saint blocks 

Personal Care 

Glory and Shine – soaps, lotions, beard care, etc. One beard balm features a picture of St. Maximilian Kolbe. Makes sense to me. 

Bowered and Bare – soaps, lotions, beard care; candles

Paper Goods, stickers, and games 

Mourning Dove, Etsy

Classic Catholic, Etsy – vintage greeting cards

Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles – also music

Full of Grace – vintage images  

Saint Cards – card game

Relics of Old Decency 

House of Joppa

Carrot Top Paper Shop, Etsy 

Pelican Printery House, Etsy – beautiful traditional greeting cards and printables

Apps

Hallow – “meditation, prayer and sleep app”

The post 2021 Catholic Gift Guide appeared first on Eric Sammons.

This negative attitude toward money seems to have infiltrated some Catholics’ view of Bitcoin, the newest form of money. Most news stories about Bitcoin are about its price changes and how people have gotten rich off it by doing nothing more than holding it (or “hodling” it, as Bitcoiners would say). This has led to criticisms of Bitcoin and accusations that Bitcoiners didn’t earn their riches and even that those who promote Bitcoin have fallen into a new form of idolatry. 

I’m not going to dig too deep into these criticisms (which are mostly based on a misunderstanding of Bitcoin, a misunderstanding of economics, or a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on money), but I would like to address a more simple issue: is Bitcoin moral? Is the technology itself moral, and is it moral for a Catholic to hold and use Bitcoin?

Can a Technology be Moral or Immoral?

To be precise, Bitcoin, like any technology, is amoral. It is neither good nor bad, much like a pencil or a knife is neither good nor bad. It is how the tool is used that matters—one can use a pencil to write slanderous words against another, or can use it to write a beautiful poem about the love of God. Likewise with Bitcoin: it is just a piece of software, and thus isn’t good or bad.

But that’s a cop-out answer. While all tools may be amoral, some tools are more likely to be used for evil than good. A nuclear bomb, for example, is an amoral tool, but it’s almost impossible to use in a morally good fashion since it inevitably will kill innocent non-combatants. Some technologies lead people to sin more easily than others.

By that standard, then, is Bitcoin more directed toward the good or the bad? I think we can discover this by comparing it to its main “competition”, i.e., the U.S. dollar.

Printing Dollars

Many things differentiate Bitcoin from the dollar, the primary being its money supply. Bitcoin adds to its money supply on a fixed schedule that is public for all to see (currently 6.25 BTC are added to the network approximately every 10 minutes). Further, there is a maximum supply of 21 million BTC that will eventually be created. This limit is hard-coded in the software, and is essentially impossible to change.

Contrast that with the dollar: the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve, and no fixed schedule exists for when new dollars are created, and there is no maximum supply limit—dollars can be created to infinity if the Fed wants (and it seems to want that). 

This feature alone makes Bitcoin more “moral” than dollars. When a small group of Elites can flood the money supply, thus devaluing the real purchasing power of an individual’s saved dollars, they are for all practical purposes stealing from those individuals. The senior on a fixed income who is making $30,000/year makes less every single year because of the inflated money supply.

Bitcoin, by design, prevents this form of theft.

Funding Wars

Another feature of Bitcoin that makes it morally superior to the dollar is the fact that a government cannot control it (and in fact, no one controls it). History has shown that governments who control their currency always use it to pay for their bad decisions, particularly war. Most wars are unpopular with regular citizens, and these citizens do not support leaders raising their taxes to pay for these unpopular wars. But with control of the money supply, politicians don’t have to get approval before going to war—they can pay for it through printing new money.

The adoption of Bitcoin can lead to more peace in the world.

Trusting Third Parties with Your Money

In addition, Bitcoin’s decentralized nature also leads to it being more moral than the dollar. When you use your credit card at a store, you are trusting a third party with that transaction (often multiple third parties): your bank, credit card company, the store itself. You have given all these parties access to your bank account. Beside the fact that they could potentially use it to make fraudulent charges (which might be reimbursed to you, but will increase costs to the bank which will be passed to you in fees), the banking system also has the ability to “shut off” your account, denying you access to your own money.

On the other hand, one of the mottos of Bitcoin is that you can “be your own bank.” You can have complete and total control of your money, and when you pay someone, they only have access to what you send to them, nothing else. This leads to far less fraud, and far less ability for a “trusted” third party to abscond with your funds. 

Bitcoin better protects your money. 

Secure Money

One final aspect of Bitcoin that makes it more moral than the dollar is the difficulty of counterfeiting it. While the government has made strides to prevent the counterfeiting of dollars, it is practically impossible to counterfeit Bitcoin. This not only prevents the sinful act of counterfeiting itself, but it prevents the virtual theft of other Bitcoins through devaluation—counterfeiting a currency has the same outcome as the “legitimate” inflation of the money supply.

Bitcoin prevents the debasement of its value.

The Bitcoin Religion?

One more point comparing Bitcoin to the dollar: any negative uses of Bitcoin, such as for buying drugs or funding terrorists, are equally applicable to the dollar. After all, it’s cash that king for illegal activities.

The superior features of Bitcoin get its proponents excited. Yes, that excitement can be excessive at times, even giving Bitcoiners a religious feel. While I wouldn’t say I’ve seen it fall into idolatry as some have claimed, I also know that one should not judge the tool based on some overenthusiastic followers.

For example, football can be an enjoyable sport, but many in this country treat it as an idol, worshipping at the local stadium each Sunday. But that excessiveness doesn’t negate the sport itself—it just shows that there is a religious hole in many people today that needs to be filled. And when the true Faith does a poor job of evangelizing, other activities will take its place, including Bitcoin.

So, is Bitcoin moral? I’d say it’s far more moral than the U.S. dollar. While the love of any form of money is the root of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), money itself is not evil. And in the case of Bitcoin, it’s a form of money that is less prone to tempt people toward evil than other forms of money.

If you want to know more about Bitcoin, you can buy my book “Bitcoin Basics: 101 Questions and Answers,” which was written six years ago, but still lays out the fundamentals of Bitcoin.

The post The Morality of Bitcoin appeared first on Eric Sammons.

However, even if we believe this with all our hearts, that doesn’t mean it’s easy to do. Sometimes there will be passages that seem to float off the page and speak directly to our hearts. But other times there are passages that challenge us, and if we are being honest with ourselves, don’t really add up. In those cases, we have to wrestle with the Scriptures.

Do Not Be Anxious

This past Sunday’s TLM Gospel passage is one such passage for me. It’s a passage I’ve struggled with since I first engaged it back in high school. The difficult part for me are these words from our Lord: “do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on” (Mt. 6:25). Christ then goes on to explain that God takes care of the birds and the lilies of the field, so of course He’ll take care of you too.

This is a problematic passage for me because I’m a control freak. I like to plan out the future as much as possible, and I typically have at least a low level of anxiety about the future at all times. I’ve learned to manage it over the years, but it never goes away. 

But here’s the thing: I’ve found that my anxiety has helped me take my responsibilities as a husband and father seriously. My God-given role as provider for my family obligates me to plan for the future on some level, and I do that because I’m anxious about it. So when Christ tells me to “not be anxious about your life,” my first thought it, “but what about being anxious about my wife or my children’s lives? Is that okay?” I’m not trying to be cheeky; I’m trying to understand Our Lord’s words in the context of my state of life. 

And I have another problem with this passage, truth be told. What about all the people throughout history who have not had enough food or clothing for today, much less tomorrow? I’m not talking about “poor” people with big-screen TVs, or even those who have become destitute due to their own life choices. I mean the truly destitute, particularly in foreign lands, who have nothing. They did nothing wrong, other than be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems too easy to just tell them, “Don’t be anxious! God will take care of you like He does the birds and the lilies!”

Whining Like a Child

Now, know all the standard interpretations: Christ isn’t condemning prudent planning, Original Sin impacts the world in many dire ways, and so forth. But none of these standard interpretations really work for me. Perhaps I’m being too pig-headed, or just too dense, but I have a hard time reconciling Our Lord’s words with reality.

Yet, in the end, that’s exactly what I’m called to do. I know the Lord is right in what he says. I know we need to trust in God far more radically than my control freak nature wants to. So I have to accept that my protestations of this difficult passage are simply the whinings of a child who is told to do something he doesn’t like. 

I will continue to wrestle with the passage, likely for the rest of my life, but wrestling is not rejecting. It’s understanding that we don’t always understand. After all, if every verse in the Bible were easy to understand, what purpose would it serve?

The post Wrestling with the Bible appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Snowden argues that anonymity is a bedrock of a free Internet, and worries that in our cancel culture, everyone would be a target, which would have a silencing effect:

“The forced identicality of online and offline lives, and the permanency of the Internet’s record, augur against forgiveness, and advise against all mercy. Technological omniscience, and the ease of accessibility, promulgate a climate of censorship that in the so-called free world instantiates as self-censorship: people are afraid to speak and so they speak the party’s words… or people are afraid to speak and so they speak no words at all…”

Snowden brings up valid points, and with the rise of oppressive Big Tech, it’s true that anything we write on the Internet will be used against us. But I’ll admit I’m not as enthusiastic about Internet anonymity as Snowden is. While it’s clear that there are good and valid reasons to write behind a pseudonym (think: whistleblowers, people living in oppressive regimes, etc.), it also has its bad—and even ugly—aspects as well.

Legitimate Reasons

Again, to be clear, I’m not opposed to using a pseudonym online. Obviously there are situations where it would be foolish to use your real name; think, for example, of the journalist living in China reporting on its totalitarian government.

And it doesn’t even have to be that serious of a reason to remain anonymous. If, for example, you want to be on a social media platform like Twitter to simply read what others are saying, there’s no urgent need to use your own name. If you just want an account to follow your children’s families, again, there’s no need for your real name.

Likewise, there are situations where it might be personally dangerous to post with your real name online. Perhaps you have an abusive ex-husband, or some other bad situation. It makes sense to be super-careful about what you post online.

And in general, privacy is important, and so not using your real name can help maintain at least a bit of that privacy (but don’t be deluded into thinking that Big Tech doesn’t know it’s you who is posting).

The Power of Your Name

Yet, even though there may be legitimate reasons to hide your identity, using a pseudonym online has consequences. You should not expect others to listen to you as much as someone who uses his real name. When you put your name behind something, it carries more weight—you are willing to stake your reputation to it. You also risk being publicly wrong, including people knowing it is you who is wrong. Your name gives more seriousness to your words.

Particularly in the area of evangelization, using your real name is essential. Why should someone listen to your passionate words against abortion, for example, if they don’t even know who you are? Maybe you are just making the argument to start an online fight—there’s no way for others to know what you really believe. It’s naive to think that people just listen to the words of the argument; they also want to know the person behind those words.

Ugly Anonymity

Beyond the power behind using your own name, being anonymous has its inherent downfalls. As I wrote recently for Crisis Magazine, anonymity often breeds toxicity:

“The internet is fundamentally a pseudonymous medium. Even someone like me who uses his real name and photo on social media is still somewhat pseudonymous to others online. After all, what do you really know about someone who you’ve only encountered on the internet? And of course the most vicious commentary usually originates with those who make themselves truly unknown by using a fake name and avatar. That sense of anonymity breeds toxicity.”

We’ve all experienced it: you post something innocuous and in response you get a comment so over-the-top in its attack you wonder for a moment if a human being could have actually said it. Then you quickly notice that the person who made the comment is using a pseudonym. Of course. After all, it’s highly unlikely this same person would ever say this under his real name, much less in person. The cloak of anonymity removes the human element and turns every exchange in a battle to be won.

We were made to interact with others; it’s in our very being: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Yet that interaction is designed, for the most part, to be truly inter-personal: we read each other’s body language far more than we realize. 

All Internet interactions take that away, but anonymous interactions do so exponentially. How do I react when “DeusVult123” tells me that I’m a closet Marxist? What am I supposed to think when “BLMforLife” accuses me of being a racist? It’s a wasted interaction that serves no real benefit.

Striving for the Real

Ultimately, all internet interactions fall short of true, interpersonal—and in-person—interactions. But by using our real names when we want to have a real conversation (or argument), we at least take a step in the right direction. 

I’m not calling for the end of Internet anonymity; it has its useful purposes. But I am calling for Catholics who wish to promote the Faith in the online world to realize that their words will have far more power if they back them by their names, and may also prevent them from falling into some of the more toxic forms of online discourse.

The post Internet Anonymity: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But I’m violating that rule here, and I hope I don’t regret it. I want to write about my friend Steve Skojec, the founder of OnePeterFive (which, full disclosure, I’ve written for quite frequently). Over the years Steve has been one of the most prominent online voices for traditional Catholicism, and he often says things that no one else is willing to say, but needs to be said. His style is much different than mine—more confrontational, more raw, more personal—but I always felt we were kindred spirits: two flawed people trying to make sense of what’s going on in the Church in a passionate desire to save souls.

Over the past year, however, Steve has become quite disillusioned with the traditional Catholic movement, and apparently Catholicism in general. This all came to a head last week when he recounted that his traditional Catholic parish priest denied Steve’s soon-to-be-born son of baptism and his 8-year-old son of his First Communion, due to their family’s lack of attendance at the parish during Covidtide. For Steve, this seemed to be the final straw.

Now, to be clear: I’m not writing to litigate whether the priest was justified in denying the sacraments or not. We only have one side of the story, and it’s possible the fault lies entirely on Steve’s end. It’s also possible the priest is essentially correct but handled the situation terribly. But it’s also possible the priest is horribly, terribly wrong. Or it could be a little bit of all three. I just don’t know. That being said, I am sympathetic to the argument that it’s unjust that only one side can go public on this—due to the nature of the situation, the priest can’t really publicly defend himself.

(A quick aside: just being a member of the parish does not mean you have “inside” information on this particular situation. I have personally had a situation in which my family was treated horribly by a well-respected FSSP priest, and I’m sure many if not most of the parishioners would have ferociously defended him if I even suggested publicly that he wronged us. He was beyond criticism in their eyes because he was a traditional priest.)

So although I know a number of Catholics are rushing to the priest’s defense while others are attacking him, I think taking sides is a mistake, as we simply don’t know all the details. And ultimately, this event was just the final push for Steve, who was already moving in this direction before this particular event happened.

Beyond the details of that particular situation is the more pressing issue: Steve’s public abandonment of traditional Catholicism and possibly the Faith itself (it’s unclear to me exactly what he believes right now, and perhaps he doesn’t even know himself). No matter the details of the issue with his parish priest, Steve feels wronged, and the fact is, he has been wronged. Because we’ve all been wronged. We’ve been wronged by members of the hierarchy who have continually sold out our Faith and who have gaslighted us time and time again into compliance while they deny Our Lord time and time again. Jesus has harsh words for such hypocritical religious leaders because they wrong the faithful and thus lead many astray.

I’m particularly sympathetic to one of Steve’s main complaints about today’s Church: that the faithful are guilted into accepting all sorts of malfeasance and heresy amongst the clergy, with the threat of eternal damnation hanging over our heads if we dare speak up. Steve calls it spiritual abuse, and he’s right. I know in my own life that it took years for me to gather the courage to speak out against problems in the Church because deep down I was afraid that doing so made me a “bad Catholic.” And we know where bad Catholics end up on the Day of Judgement, don’t we?

Steve has been wronged. And so have all Catholics who have had to endure the modern Church. Yet Steve is also wrong. He’s wrong about the path he’s taking, in spite of being largely right about the problems in the Church and even in some instances about the traditional Catholic movement.

One of the biggest issues with being wronged, as Steve has been, is that it becomes difficult to see what is right. He and I have had a long debate over the state of traditional Catholicism today. He sees it becoming more toxic and more crackpotish. I see it as thriving and drawing in many great and beautiful people.

Perhaps some of our different perspectives come from different personalities. But perhaps some of it comes from the fact that while Steve has stayed home on Sundays for the past year, I’ve been at Mass each Sunday meeting new people literally every week. These are often refugees from “good” parishes that locked down for COVID, and they are stable, solid Catholics who don’t know—and don’t care—about the online debates Steve often engages in. They—and not some yahoos with Twitter accounts—are the future of traditional Catholicism.

Again, being wronged makes it hard to see when things are right. One of Steve’s apparent problems with his current parish is that most of the parishioners have to watch Mass on a screen from an overflow hall. This is a real problem, and Steve’s right to see that it’s not the way things should be. But isn’t the fact that a traditional parish needs overflow space a good thing, something to rejoice over? Yes, maybe the pastor isn’t handling the overflow correctly, but it’s a good problem to have, nonetheless. Here is where a wronged person can only see the wrong, instead of realizing a lot of right is, well, right in front of him.

Being wronged also makes it difficult to see the deeper realities of what is right: the sacraments, the Catholic spiritual tradition, the saints, Our Lord Himself—all those aspects of the Faith that first drew us to a committed Catholicism. Those things didn’t disappear just because some (many) members of the hierarchy have behaved badly and wronged us. But when we are wronged, those wrongs consume our souls and block out the beauty of the Catholic Faith. Yet the rights of Catholicism quite literally infinitely outweigh the wrongs.

Because of this inability to see the right due to being continually wronged, Steve is wrong on the path he is taking. We should not stop practicing the traditional Catholic Faith, but should instead embrace it more deeply. As St. Peter said to Our Lord after many disciples were scandalized by the Eucharist, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68). Yes, many wrongs exist in the Church today, but she is still the Bride of Christ with great, if often covered, beauty. We should not leave Catholicism because of the wrongs within the Church, since only in Catholicism will all wrongs eventually be righted.

One final point. I don’t think our response to situations like Steve’s should be to blame the wronged person and see him as the problem to fix. While I know Steve can be abrasive online and so has made some enemies out of people who should be friends, I’m still disappointed that so many traditional Catholics have “cancelled” Steve so quickly.

When a brother is wronged, you don’t point the accusing finger at the brother even if you don’t think he handled being wronged the best way. You direct your ire to the real problem: the ones doing the wrong-ing. And I’m not talking about Steve’s parish priest, since, again, we don’t know all the details of that situation. I’m talking about the Church leaders who have wronged us over the past few decades in so many ways. Those wicked men should be the ones we spend our energy opposing, not a wronged soul like Steve’s.

The post Wronged and Yet Wrong appeared first on Eric Sammons.

However, in this case, I’m specifically referring to my recent decision to downgrade to a “dumbphone.” After more than 10 years with an iPhone, plus a few years before that with a Palm Phone (remember those?), I’ve returned to a device that only calls and texts (it doesn’t even take photos!). My phone is now basically just a phone.

As you can imagine, this is a major decision, but I think it’s one I had to make. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the impact of modern technology in our lives. I wrote over at Crisis Magazine about the potential impact modern technology is having on Catholicism, but I’ve also been looking at its impact on me personally. After decades of submissively embracing the latest technologies, I’ve taken a step back and re-evaluated how much I really need them.

All-Consuming and Addictive

It’s not that smartphones have no value. Of course they do—they are hugely popular for a reason. But during the decades I’ve had a smartphone, I’ve been ignoring its costs—costs in wasted time and distraction (and also the cost of lost privacy, which I’m not going to detail here, as I’ve written before about the need for online privacy). I’ve come to realize that I can still obtain many of the benefits that typically comes from a smartphone without actually owing a smartphone, thus eliminating its costs.

Smartphones gain their value from their apps. Those apps, however, are designed to keep us using them as much as possible. And since smartphones are with us 24/7, “as much as possible” can become all-consuming. And it’s important to realize that smartphone apps are purposefully designed so we spend as much time as possible using them.

For example, the ubiquitous “pull down to refresh” feature is designed after slot machines to give a dopamine hit to the brain, and the notification badge is red because that stimulates the brain to react more quickly. Our addiction to these devices is not a bug, but a built-in feature.

When I did a serious self-examination of my own use of my smartphone, I found that I am often sucked into the vortex of mindless use of the device. Do I really need to see what my Twitter feed is telling me every ten minutes? Do I need to keep constantly updated to all the Discord, Slack, and other group apps I’m part of? Do I need to check my email when I’m out in the garden?

More than once, I’m ashamed to admit, I have been with family or friends and excused myself to go to the bathroom in order to check my smartphone. That’s the behavior of an addict! 

Designed to Distract

But beyond the wasted time, the smartphone is a distraction. After all, that time I spent on my smartphone could have been spent doing something else. The smartphone became a distraction from the things I value most, such as my family and time spending reading and studying. 

I also believe that the constant distractions of the smartphone keep my mind from going deep. My smartphone-based distractions stay with me even when I’m not on my smartphone—I end up thinking about what I was doing on my phone even when I’m not using my phone. My brain has lost its ability to really focus.

When I was in a Master’s program in the early 1990’s, I would spend 10-12 hours a day reading deep theological texts. I look back on that time and two things come to mind: (1) that was a time of deep and enjoyable learning; and (2) there is absolutely no way I could do that today—my brain simply wouldn’t handle it!

Of course, the distractions I’m talking about aren’t limited to smartphones; the whole internet ethos is built for distraction. Yet smartphones take those distractions to a new, personal level, one we carry with us everywhere.

All the Benefits, Few of the Costs

Of course, it’s not like the dangers of smartphone usage are a new revelation to me. Over the years I’ve been uncomfortable with my smartphone usage for many of the reasons I’ve mentioned, and I’ve done all the tricks to try to reduce it: grayscaling the screen, removing apps, turning on Do Not Disturb mode during certain time frames. While each of these tricks would help temporarily, I always fell back to my bad habits.

So now I’ve made the biggest adjustment: remove the smartphone from the equation. I decided to buy the Light Phone II, an admittedly expensive dumbphone. But in addition to having limited functionality, it is purposefully designed not to be used. It has an e-ink screen, which is less stimulating to the brain, and it has soothing, short notification sounds, so you don’t get jacked up every time you receive a message.

But does this mean I’m off social media and all the various messaging services? Does it mean I’ve become a luddite hermit?

No, I haven’t left any platform or service (yet). Instead, I’ve shifted how I interact with them: now I use them only on my desktop computer.

Using Twitter via a browser on a Mac is a radically different experience from using the app on my iPhone. First, I’m tethered to my desk, so I can’t keep up with the latest tweets unless I’m in my home office. This means my brain isn’t thinking about what’s going on at Twitter once I leave my office, either (although it admittedly took about a week or so for my brain to detox from those bad habits).

Second, the overall screen experience is less frenetic. I’ve installed a browser extension that removes Twitter’s “What’s Happening” recommendations as well as ads. So now I get on Twitter, see what’s going on, maybe send a tweet or two, then move on to other activities. It’s not a constant and demanding companion, but instead just a tool I control.

And it’s not only Twitter: all my messaging apps are on my desktop, so people can communicate with me, but I am not in a constant state of being “on notice” that I might have to respond to someone at any hour of the day. I’ll get to it when I get back to my computer.

Dealing with the Downsides

I admit there are downsides to getting rid of my smartphone.

First, there is a chance I’ll miss out on some breaking news or message. Honestly, I don’t see that as a big deal. Humanity survived for millennia without constant access to information; I figure I can as well.

Second, some of the tools on my smartphone were quite useful, such as the camera and GPS. I do have a cheap camera that I can bring with me if I want, and I’ve actually found that being somewhere without a camera makes me engage in the moment more deeply, instead of wondering if I can “share” the moment on social media. Not having a GPS is a real issue, but I don’t do a lot of traveling and I’ll likely buy a stand-alone GPS at some point.

The biggest downside is in messaging with people, particularly family and close friends. They are used to being able to message me any time day or night and me responding relatively quickly if I’m awake. Now they will have to learn that I might not get back to them for a while, particularly when I’m not in my office. 

But I don’t foresee that being a significant long-term issue. Most messages aren’t urgent anyway, and those who need to contact me for emergency situations can still reach me on my dumbphone. For most situations, that’s probably not a big deal and just a learning process for everyone involved. Yes, I might miss out on a funny exchange in the family chat, but I should be able to survive that.

Being Intentional

I’m not arguing that ditching the smartphone is for everyone, but I do think we should all be more intentional in how we use new technologies. Instead of just embracing them because everyone else is, we should think through our needs and our actual usage, making a cost/benefit analysis and deciding if and how they will become part of our lives.

For me, at least for now, the costs of a smartphone greatly outweigh the benefits and so it will not be a part of my life.

The post I’m Going Dumb appeared first on Eric Sammons.

I’ll try to keep this short, as I know two things dad really didn’t like are long-winded speeches and people talking about him.

When preparing for this eulogy, I was trying to think of stories about dad. I have a few, but I realized that I don’t have a lot of flashy stories, because that’s not who dad was. Instead, as I thought back over the years, I realize that my memories of dad aren’t specific stories, but instead the fact that he was always “just there.” Now that might sound like a criticism, or damning with faint praise, but it’s not. It’s a high compliment.

For example, one of my strongest memories of dad was as the scorekeeper of my baseball team. He sat on the bench quietly taking score, not cheering or yelling, but he was always there. Likewise, I can’t remember having dinner at home when he wasn’t there, even though as superintendent, he had many responsibilities and requests to be away from the home.

Dad was steady. I knew that I could always count on him. In a way, he was always part of the background. He let me grow and develop, and of course he guided that development, but he did it in the background, never putting himself before me.

Consider one of the stones that support this building. In all the years Groesbeck United Methodist Church has been here, perhaps no one has noticed it. Yet if it was removed, the building would fall down. Dad understood that to be a good dad he always had to be there, even if he didn’t push himself forward.

Here’s another, biblical comparison. Consider Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. Scripture doesn’t record one word of his, yet his impact on Jesus was profound. He is called a “just man”, and when Jesus was ministering in his home town, the people were astonished and said, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Jesus was identified with Joseph, even though Joseph clearly didn’t put himself forward.

I know something about being identified with one’s dad. All during high school I was mostly known as the superintendent’s son. Two of my nicknames growing up were “Sup” – short for superintendent – and “Russ” – for obvious reasons. Although some sons might not want to be too closely identified with their dad, I never minded, because I knew my dad was a good man, and to be identified with him was a great compliment.

I’ve also found over the years that whenever I’m given a compliment about some good character trait of mine, I realize it came from my dad. He was excellent in passing on human virtues, like being frugal with money (some would say cheap). He definitely passed that on to me.

The primary virtue he modeled was decency and respect for others. Of course he didn’t pass these virtues on by talking about them. As most of you know, my dad wouldn’t be considered “expressive” by any definition of the term. He came from a different time, when people didn’t put their every thought and complaint on the internet for everyone to see. Like Joseph, my dad was usually silent, at least in his words. But his actions spoke volumes. Dad didn’t talk, he acted. He was faithful to my mom. He was focused on his kids. He excelled at his job. He didn’t self-promote, but let his actions speak for him. And those actions practically screamed what a good man he was.

But that didn’t mean he didn’t correct me when I failed to exercise those virtues he modeled. I remember once when I was in high school I said something derogatory about a classmate at the dinner table. My dad, however, as superintendent knew that my classmate had a difficult home life. Without raising his voice, or violating the boy’s privacy, he simply told me my classmate had some difficulties at home and that I should be more understanding. His quiet words—backed by his own example—spoke louder than if he had been yelling at me. And as an aside: that classmate ended up becoming one of my best friends in high school, thanks to my dad.

One thing I’d be remiss not to mention is my dad’s marriage, because it exemplifies what kind of man he was. My mom and dad were married for 65 years. 65 years. Perhaps nothing was more foundational to my own development than the sign of this faithfulness.

Even the idea of my parents not being together has always been unthinkable to me. It would be like trying to convince me that the sun is cold or that the Bengals are a good football team. It’s unfathomable.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the last few years of dad’s life. Alzheimer’s is a terrible disease which ravages not only the person, but also all those around him. In many cases, it transforms the person into someone else entirely. Yet although dad suffered from this disease for years, we always could see him in spite of it. Little things, like how he wouldn’t want mom to walk behind him even when she needed to help him with his walker. He would be unfailingly polite when a nurse or caregiver would come to visit.

And although I’m supposed to talk about dad, I can’t help but mention the tremendous witness of love my mom gave to us by her devoted care to my dad in his final years. And of course dad would rather I talk about mom than him anyway. When I would leave the house after a visit I would say to dad, “I’m leaving now, dad, but of course mom is still here.” Of course she is still here. There is no where on earth she would want to be than at his side, and I’m sure dad would say the same thing.

Fathers are supposed to model God the Father, and as a father myself, I know the tremendous burden that can be. Yet my dad did that the best he could. Because of my dad, I came to see God as Someone dependable who would always be there no matter what. I can’t think of a greater gift he could have given me.

The post Always There appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Since then I resolved to take the first step in my own disconnection process: I decided to stop using Google products and services. This is a big deal for me, as my personal email address has been powered by Gmail for almost 12 years; all of my files are stored with Google Drive; and I use another dozen Google Apps and services regularly. And there’s a reason I use Google’s products so much: they are great products and they are free. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a cost.

You don’t pay for most of Google’s products and services with a monetary fee; you pay instead by giving up your privacy. Every business needs paying customers, and if you use Google, the customer isn’t you—it’s an advertiser who can send custom ads to you based on your email, search, and other Internet activities. Or it’s a government agency able to mine Google’s data for information about the populace. For most people, that’s a cost they’re willing to accept. And it’s even helpful in many ways. Let’s say you buy a dog leash online, then you will soon get helpful ads for other dog products at a whole bunch of sites you visit, and perhaps those products are something you want.

But in my mind the benefits of Big Tech’s reach no longer outweigh its costs. I don’t want to support the Google Borg that suppresses news and information it deems “dangerous” to its establishment woke views. And having my whole online life in the hands of a few tech oligarchs is becoming increasingly frightening. Who’s to say that Google won’t one day decide to deplatform me for Wrong Opinions? My whole email history and all my files could just vanish one morning. Or perhaps something I tell someone in an email flags me in a database somewhere and marks me as subversive—for views that just a few years before were mainstream. And frankly, just the idea of people snooping through my personal emails is creepy.

So, like I said, I’ve decided to leave the green but totalitarian Google pastures for something a bit less Orwellian. This was a bit overwhelming, but there are resources online to help with the process (such as this article). Below I’ll go through each Google product/service I use and what I switched to. But before I detail my disconnect, a few notes:

(1) I still use Google products and services for work, because my work uses Google Workspace (formerly called G-Suite). There’s nothing I can really do about that, but at the same time, I’m not as concerned since those emails/documents will always be related to work. Also, I know that other third-party apps often send data to Google, but I can’t control that—these are just the steps I’ve taken to stop consciously using Google products and services. 

(2) I’m under no illusions that I’m now free from Big Tech’s oversight. I still have an iPhone and I’m still on Twitter and Facebook. But getting off Google was my first step toward regaining my privacy and security, and I think it was a big one. You can’t be on the Internet and be 100% private/secure, but you can increase your privacy/security level. Privacy and security levels are spectrums, not on/off switches.

(3) I noted that Google offers most of their products and services for “free,” but they have a hidden cost. The products and services I moved to do not have those hidden costs, but that means that some do have upfront costs. In other words, I now have to pay for things that before were “free.” I think it’s worth it, though.

(4) I make no claims that these are my final choices. I might find better products in the future and switch to them. But for now I’m going to give these non-Google products a chance.

Now, here’s a rundown of my Google Disconnect:

Email

Options Considered: 

• Zoho 
• Protonmail
• Mailfence

My Choice: Mailfence

First, let me make sure it’s clear how I use Google for my personal email. I don’t have a Gmail email address, but instead I use Gmail to process all email coming to ericsammons.com. This is a business-level paid feature now, but I set it up almost 12 years ago when it was a “free” service, so I’ve never had to pay for it. So to move off Google email meant finding another email provider to host ericsammons.com mail services.

When I first started exploring moving off Google, I thought for sure I was going to choose Protonmail as my email provider. I’ve had a free Protonmail email address for a few years now. It’s the service I recommended in my previous article. It’s got a great reputation for privacy and security, and it offers (for a fee) the ability to use your own custom domain. But ultimately I was looking for an integrated solution that would include at least a calendar, contacts, as well as basic document storage/editing. In other words, I wanted something to not just replace Gmail, but Google Workspace. I briefly looked at Zoho since it has all those features, but Zoho isn’t privacy/security-focused, and they are based in India, which isn’t known for being particularly stringent when it comes to data protection laws.

I ended up choosing Mailfence. Mailfence is based in Belgium, which isn’t as solid as Switzerland when it comes to protecting data privacy, but it’s far better than the United States in that regard (in general, most European countries, other than the U.K., are better than the U.S. when it comes to data privacy). Mailfence is committed to privacy and security, and they allow for completely encrypted emails (see a privacy review of Mailfence here).

I chose Mailfence because I felt it was the best balance between privacy/security and functionality. The truth is that Protonmail just doesn’t yet have the features I’m looking for, such as a Calendar and secure cloud storage (although both are in development). Mailfence is a modern suite of products, although admittedly it isn’t as advanced as Google Workspace. And that’s true of every change I made in leaving Google: functionality suffered. When you are a multi-billion dollar company with advertising revenue flowing in because you’re collecting data on billions of humans, you can design some pretty sweet products. I’m taking a step back in functionality, but I don’t think it’s so far back to justify continuing to use Google’s products.

I also found that changing the underlying email provider for your own domain when you’ve used the same provider for almost 12 years is a daunting task. I had to transfer tens of thousands of my old emails to my new provider, as I didn’t want to lose that history. I also had to check where I used my Google account as sign-in for other websites. I had to set up my own mail filters manually to replace the (really, really useful) Gmail feature of sending certain emails to “Promotions” or “Social” or “Updates.” Finally, my personal website (this one) sends out emails using my email account, and so I had to change the configurations under the hood to make that continue to happen. And of course, I had to change the DNS MX settings on my domain’s registrar record (if you don’t know what that means, count yourself lucky). When I finally flipped the switch to move my email off Google, I was half expecting the whole thing to come crashing down. So far, it hasn’t (yet).

Calendar/Contacts

Options Considered:

• Zoho
• Protonmail
• Mailfence

My Choice: Mailfence

See my comments under Email for my reasoning in choosing Mailfence over Protonmail or Zoho. Again, Mailfence’s services aren’t as advanced and integrated as Google’s, but they are still decent, and, most importantly, more secure.

Document/Spreadsheet Editing

Options Considered:

• Zoho
• OnlyOffice
• Mailfence

My Choice: Mailfence

A few years ago I switched from Microsoft Office to Google Workspace. I didn’t want to pay for MS Word and MS Excel anymore when Google Docs and Google Sheets were “free.” And Microsoft products had become so bloated I was tired of them bogging down my computer.

Of course, now I’m getting off Google, so I need to leave Docs and Sheets behind (an aside: I’ve found in recent years that Google’s programs have become as bloated as Microsoft’s and bog down my computer as much as anything from Bill Gates, Inc.).

I ended up choosing Mailfence’s built-in Documents feature. Mailfence includes some storage space, and they allow you to edit documents/sheets online (although they use a third-party product [Zoho, actually] to do the editing). This isn’t as powerful and as integrated as Google Workspace, but I don’t do heavy document/spreadsheet formatting, so it works fine for me. Also, this only works well on a computer, and I’m still looking for a good option for editing these documents on my iPad and iPhone.

Cloud Storage

Options Considered:

• Tesorit
• Cryptee
• Sync.com
• pCloud

My Choice: pCloud

Since I have been embedded into the Google Borg for years, I was extensively using Google Drive as my cloud storage option. I had almost 100GB of data stored at Google Drive—not including 10+ years of photos with Google Photos! So now I needed an alternative, and this is one area where there are many solid choices. I ended up with pCloud, which is based in Europe and offers an optional client-side encrypted folder along with their normal already-secure storage. This means that there is no way for pCloud to access that crypto folder even if a government authority requested it. Now, for most storage needs that’s overkill, but it’s nice to have the option.

Also, when I signed up with pCloud, I chose the European Union data center option, since that has more legal protections than one based in the United States.

Photos

Options Considered:

• Cryptee
• Piwigo
• pCloud

My Choice: pCloud

The nice thing about pCloud is that it also includes apps that will automatically upload your photos to their cloud storage. It doesn’t include the advanced features of Google Photos, like face recognition, location grouping, etc., but that’s because pCloud isn’t accessing your photos like Google is.

Search Engine

Options Considered:

• DuckDuckGo

My Choice: DuckDuckGo Presearch

I’ve been using the Google search engine almost since its beginning. I still remember how unique it was when it was introduced: instead of a cluttered screen like Yahoo’s, it only had one input field with no ads. That initial screen is still as simple today, but now Google’s search is the most invasive part of their company. Everything you search is tracked for the purpose of selling that data to companies (and governments).

The best privacy alternative to Google’s search engine is DuckDuckGo, and so I changed the settings on my devices to make it my default search engine.

2/8/2021 Update: Only a week later and I’ve made a change. I discovered Presearch, which aims to be a truly decentralized, private search engine. This is far superior to the DuckDuckGo model, which values privacy, but we have to take their word for it. With Presearch, the privacy and censorship-resistance is built-in.

Browser

Options Considered:

• Brave
• DuckDuckGo

My Choice: Brave

Google Chrome hasn’t been my default browser for a long time (I used Firefox), but I did use Chrome at times and I figured this was a good time to reconsider my browser choice from a security/privacy perspective. In the end, I chose the Brave browser for its functionality, built-in ability to earn crypto, and privacy policies.

Website Analytics

Options Considered:

• Clicky

My Choice: Clicky

My personal website has used Google Analytics to track traffic for years. It seemed hypocritical to me to continue using this tool now that I was getting off Google, so I switched to Clicky. It is easy to set up and configure, and I assume it doesn’t send data to Google.

Navigation/Map App

Options Considered:

• Apple Maps
• GPS Navigation & Maps

My Choice: GPS Navigation & Maps

This was a tough one. I’ve used and come to depend on Google Maps for years. But of course protecting location data is a pretty important part of staying private/secure, and so having Google always know my whereabouts is a bit concerning. I could use Apple Maps, but Apple isn’t really better than Google on the privacy front (and yes, I know my new app runs on an Apple-made iPhone; like I said, privacy/security on the Internet is never 100%).

In the end, I’ve chosen an obscure app just called “GPS Navigation & Maps.” You actually download state maps onto your phone, so for now I’ve just downloaded my state and the two closest states to me. So far, it’s working fine (and it even found a location that Google couldn’t find!), but I haven’t used it a lot yet.

ToDo List

Options Considered:

• Todoist

My Choice: Todoist

I’ve been using Google Tasks for a while now, and it was nice how integrated it was with Gmail and Google Calendar (recognize a theme here?). But now I needed an alternative. I was disappointed that Mailfence didn’t have a ToDo list feature, so I ended up going back to a ToDo app I used years ago: Todoist. To be honest, I don’t know if it is any more private/secure than Google Tasks, but I figure I’m off Google, and  I only use it for basic ToDo lists, anyway (I still often use paper lists).

Internet Phone

Options Considered:

• None (see below)

My Choice: Transfer to burner Gmail account

I’ve had a phone number via Google Voice for years that I use in a very limited fashion for business reasons. I couldn’t find a good alternative for this, so for now I transferred the number to a Gmail burner account, with the hope of moving it to another service at some point (or just getting rid of it).

Two-Factor Authentication

Options Considered:

• Duo
• Authy

My Choice: Stick with Google Authenticator

Two-factor authentication is very important for security, so I’m not going to give that up in an effort to be more secure. I currently use Google Authenticator as my 2FA app, and I found that many of the sites that require 2FA only work with Google Authenticator, so I’m stuck with it. Fortunately, this app is connected to your device, not your Google Account, and it has no access to your passwords at the sites that use the Authenticator. So I feel it’s safe to keep using it for now.

YouTube

Options Considered: 

• Odysee
• Bitchute
• Rumble

My Choice: Odysee (plus delete my YT channel, and YouTube [see below])

YouTube is one of the most useful sites on the Internet. As one example, my family recently got a puppy, and I’ve found more free help on how to take care of/train a puppy at YouTube than one can imagine. It also has tons of content on how to fight Big Tech, as well as lots of solid Catholic content (for now). So I’m not going to just stop using YouTube.

At the same time, YouTube is becoming more draconian in its policies by the day and so I don’t really want to support it, either. So I deleted my own YouTube channel, and I’m looking to Odysee first before looking to YouTube. Plus, I’ll be using YouTube without signing in as well, and using a VPN (Proton’s) while accessing videos there. It’s not perfect, but it’s a case where I think the benefits of YouTube still outweigh its costs.

Okay, that’s my Google disconnect story! I’m reduced my Google footprint to the bare minimum, which although doesn’t mean much to the search giant, does make me feel a bit better about my online activities. I know I’ve done a lot of work to essentially take a step back in some features and functionality, but at the same time, I believe I’ve taken a leap forward in protecting my personal privacy and resisting Big Tech by disconnecting from the Google Borg.

The post How I Disconnected from the Google Borg appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But after the events at the Capitol on January 6th, Big Tech has been throwing the digital equivalent of a temper tantrum. They have banned countless accounts, including the personal account of the President of the United States. Even more alarming, the Twitter alternative Parler has been kicked off the Internet, though there is no evidence that its use was at all associated with the storming of the Capitol (and it’s actually more likely that Twitter and Facebook were used last summer to help facilitate violent protests and riots). 

Essentially, our Tech Oligarchs have decided they are the sole arbiters of what you can and cannot say on the Internet. So what can we do? And by “we,” I mean anyone who appreciates liberty and the freedom to speak out against the State when necessary. We can adapt. The wonderful thing about technology is that it’s always evolving, getting better and creating new solutions to new problems. And in this case, the very thing that gave Big Tech so much power in our lives can be used against them. 

Many tools are in development that can work around the restrictions Big Tech is imposing. Not all of them are ready for primetime, and some of them have the same weaknesses of a tool like Parler—dependence on Big Tech. But ultimately Big Tech is playing a game of whack-a-mole: whenever they shut down one service, another better one will rise in response. What I’d like to do here is give a brief primer on some of those tools. 

Definitions

Before I do that, let me give three basic definitions that will help us understand these technology tools a bit better. If you already know the significance of these terms, feel free to skip down to the tools section below.

Encryption: Encryption is the lifeblood of ecommerce. It is what allows you to enter your credit card online and not fear it’s being stolen by some hacker in a basement in Romania. What encryption does is convert something in plain-text (such as your credit card number) into what’s essentially gibberish. And the only way to convert that gibberish back to plain-text is with a secret key, which (hopefully) only the proper people have. Encryption is your friend, and you should always use it on the Internet, but it’s more than just an on/off switch. It also matters what a company does with the secret keys. Do they protect them securely? What are their policies for giving those keys to organizations that ask for them? The ideal are tools that encrypt information without the company even having a secret key, which allows for truly protected transmissions.

Decentralized: A major problem with Big Tech is that it’s centralized. This means that total power resides in a small number of people. For example, Parler completely depended on Amazon for their hosting services. All that was needed to take Parler down was for one person—in this case, Jeff Bezos—to decide they needed to be put down. That’s centralization. Decentralized technologies prevent those things from happening. In a truly decentralized technology, no one is in control. This might sound far-fetched or hyperbolic, but it’s possible. In fact, there is a very well known technology that’s completely decentralized: Bitcoin. No one owns an “off” switch for Bitcoin (don’t you think the government would have shut it down if it could?); instead it runs on a global network hosted by anyone who wants to host a node. But the node owners do not control the network, they just help facilitate transactions (and they can’t choose which transactions they facilitate). Decentralization is the holy grail of a free society, for it allows people to speak freely without fear that our oligarchs will silence them. But decentralized technology is still in its infancy, and so few truly decentralized tools exist that are user-friendly and robust. But we’re getting there. (Note: if you want to learn more about Bitcoin and how decentralized technologies work, read my book Bitcoin Basics).

Open-Source: All Internet technology is made up of computer programs. Someone had to write source code that was then installed and run on the Internet. Sometimes that source code is closed, meaning only the owners (such as Microsoft or Apple) have access to it. So if they insert secret code to track you, for example, no one would know it. However, a lot of Internet technology is “open-source”, which means the underlying source code it made available to the world. It might seem counter-intuitive why this might be more secure, but it is. If the code is open-source, not only do you know exactly what it is doing, but everyone can try to break it. Open-source code that has been in use for a while is usually very secure, because many attempts were made to break it and failed. With closed-source code, there could be a latent bug in it giving hackers access to data that no one knows about until it’s too late.

So, in general, if you don’t want your Tech Oligarchs controlling your digital lives, always encrypt and always try to use open-source, decentralized tools. 

Tools

Now to a list of tools. Note that none of these tools are ideal: some are less secure than others, some are more centralized, and some have poor user interfaces. But they are all superior to Big Tech’s offerings, and they all move us forward toward a less censorious, less oppressive Internet. 

(One final word before I detail some tools available for living in our Orwellian Digital Age. Free speech often means speech we don’t like. It might be political opinions that are distasteful or even dangerous. It might include activities that are offensive or immoral. So, for example, a truly decentralized video sharing platform cannot ban pornographic videos. It could create ways for users to voluntarily hide them from their feeds, but it can’t prevent their existence on the platform. For those of us who acknowledge the destructive power of pornography, this is a real problem. However, in a time when the Truth is being censored, the only way to get it out might be a fully free Internet.) 

Messaging/Communications

Signal: Signal is a secure text messaging app. It works just like your normal messaging app, but in this case, all your messages are encrypted and truly secure. Don’t believe me? Ask Edward Snowden, who vouched for it, saying, “I use it every day and I’m not dead yet.” I highly recommend using Signal for all your texting.

Telegram: Telegram is another secure messaging app. However, it has a bit more functionality than Signal, allowing for groups and broadcast pages on the network, but I trust Signal more.

ProtonMail: If you use Gmail, you know that every single email you send or receive can be read by Google, right? They can see your purchases, your plans, anything you put in email. But ProtonMail, which is based in Switzerland, is encrypted email. And all their servers are in Switzerland, which has some of the most robust privacy laws in the world. Even if you keep your regular email, you need to get a protonmail address (it’s free).

ProtonVPN: The same company that makes ProtonMail also makes a secure VPN. What is a VPN? It’s a “Virtual Private Network”, and in this context, it allows you to surf the Internet without your local ISP or anyone else tracking your activity. There are many VPNs out there, but I trust ProtonVPN the most.

ProtonDrive: Guess who makes this? The Swiss company also has a secure file storage alternative to Google Drive (yes, any documents you store with Google are available to Google). This product is currently in beta, so it might not yet be available to you.

Browsers

Brave: The Brave browser was developed by Brenden Eich, the creator of Javascript who ran afoul of our Woke Police some years back. It blocks ads and tracking software by default, and is far more secure than Chrome (made by Google) or Safari (made by Apple). 

TOR Browser: This is the crème de la crème of privacy browsers. Without going into the technical details, it creates secure, encrypted connections to any website you are visiting. Note, however, that it often blocks normal sites due to security concerns.

Social Media

Parler: RIP. We hardly knew ya. Parler is (was?) a centralized alternative to Twitter. It’s only as good as the people who run it and the companies they depend on. We see what happened there.

Gab: Gab is another Twitter alternative, but the big difference between Parler and Gab is that Gab is far less dependent on Big Tech. They don’t have apps in the Apple or Google app stores (although you can easily create a link on your phone screen and it acts like an app), and they use their own servers. However, it’s important to note that Gab will only be free as long as the powers that run it allow that to be the case. Also, right now Gab is almost unusable due to extremely high demand from everyone leaving Twitter.

MeWe: MeWe is a Facebook-like platform which is far better regarding content moderation and privacy. Personally, this is my favorite alternative social media platform right now, but I’m under no illusions that it couldn’t one day be subsumed by Big Tech. 

Odysee: A YouTube alternative, Odysee is a truly decentralized video-hosting platform based on the LBRY cryptocurrency platform. This is the real deal, folks. If you want to host videos without fear of them one day being deleted/deplatformed, put them on Odysee. 

Flote: I’ve only been recently introduced to Flote, but it is touted as a decentralized social media platform, similar in functionality to Twitter. I haven’t used it much, but it’s possible this will be the future of social media. 

This is not a completely comprehensive list, and I’m sure it will become dated rather quickly. But hopefully this primer will help people get started on the path to digital freedom. Just remember, when possible, always choose encrypted, open-source, decentralized technologies.

The post A Guide to Living in an Orwellian Digital Age appeared first on Eric Sammons.

This is not a religious document, but instead a political document with a religious veneer. It’s no secret that the focus of this pontificate has been mostly worldly affairs, and this encyclical only confirms that focus. Although Fratelli Tutti does include a chapter on the parable of the Good Samaritan, this is included mostly to support the pope’s political advice throughout the encyclical.

While it’s true that popes have in the past often addressed current political issues, it was usually to clearly re-affirm certain Catholic moral teachings, and then encourage the laity to apply these teachings to the political realm. This document seems the reverse: affirm certain political views, then apply some religious language to support those views.

Fratelli Tutti is long and self-referential. This is in keeping with most post-Vatican II encyclicals, particularly starting with the pontificate of John Paul II. But Francis takes this to new levels: Fratelli Tutti is 287 paragraphs, and 60% of the 288 footnoted references in this encyclical are references to other Francis statements and documents! Compare this to the classic Pius XII encyclical Mystici Corporis, which had only 113 chapters and most of the footnotes are to Scripture, the Fathers, or older Church documents.

Fratelli Tutti marks the return of “Frank the Hippie Pope.” Early in Francis’s pontificate, the YouTube Channel “Lutheran Satire” created a funny cartoon called Frank the Hippie Pope. It presents Francis has a stereotypical 1960’s hippie, preaching peace and love. Fratelli Tutti only fosters this stereotype. It reminds me of The Beatles’ song, All You Need is Love, essentially telling the world that all our problems can be solved if we just love each other. While that’s technically true, it ignores the impact of Original Sin on the world and thus the need for practical means to resolve differences and live in peace.

Many Straw Men were harmed in the writing of Fratelli Tutti. If Straw Men had a union, there’s no question they would be suing the Vatican. At times it felt like every paragraph started with a straw man, then continued by knocking that straw man down. Here’s one little trick I figured out: look for any sentence that contains the word “some;” it very often contains a Straw Man. A few examples:

Some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others considered worthy of a carefree existence. (18)

Some economic rules have proved effective for growth, but not for integral human development. (21)

Then too, “in some host countries, migration causes fear and alarm, often fomented and exploited for political purposes. This can lead to a xenophobic mentality, as people close in on themselves, and it needs to be addressed decisively”. (39)

I realize that some people are hesitant and fearful with regard to migrants. (41)

Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction, for their part, are not – as some would have us believe – a positive form of mutual support, but simply an association of individuals united against a perceived common enemy. (43)

Some people attempt to flee from reality, taking refuge in their own little world; others react to it with destructive violence. (199)

These are only a few examples of murdered Straw Men in this document. RIP, dear Men of Straw.

Saying something is “not this” doesn’t mean it’s not that. This is a classic move, in which Francis will advocate for something, then say it’s not what his critics will say it is. For example, after advocating for globalism, Francis says, “I am certainly not proposing an authoritarian and abstract universalism, devised or planned by a small group and presented as an ideal for the sake of levelling, dominating and plundering (100). But of course the practical result of what he is advocating is exactly “an authoritarian and abstract universalism, devised or planned by a small group.” He may not want it to be that, but that’s what will happen if his advice is followed. 

Those are a few general overall impressions of the document. I also wanted to bring up a few specific items that caught my attention.

St. Francis was not a champion of “dialogue.” Pope Francis begins the encyclical by championing the way of St. Francis of Assisi, presenting the Poverello as a modern ecumenist, with no desire to convert others (1-4). This is simply untrue. St. Francis went to the Holy Land with one purpose: to convert Muslims. We can understand the Saint’s true attitude by his embrace of the first Franciscan martyrs, who were killed trying to convert Muslims in Morocco. 

“Just War” is still just. Just like he did with capital punishment, Pope Francis is now trying to overturn the traditional Catholic doctrine of Just War. In paragraphs 256-262, the pope not only laments the tragedy of war, but also goes further and rejects the applicability of Just Wars. He states, “it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!” (258) The footnote attached to this last sentence (footnote 242) begins, “Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day…” 

I’ll admit that I’m sympathetic to the pope’s overall point here. I myself have argued that most, if not all, modern wars do not satisfy the Just War criteria. Yet that does not mean that Just Wars are no longer possible, which Pope Francis seems to at least be implying. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear that a nation can engage in lawful self-defense. Quoting the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, it states, “governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed” (CCC 2308). It then goes on to list the criteria of a Just War (see CCC 2309). I guess the pope will move to edit that section of the CCC, as he did with the section on the death penalty.

Religious Pluralism reigns. When this encyclical was announced last month, I was worried it would endorse the religious pluralism of the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which stated that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions…is willed by God.” Fortunately, that statement was not repeated, but sadly,  it wasn’t repudiated, either. And religious pluralism is still present in Fratelli Tutti. Near the end of the encyclical, Francis notes that “The Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions, and rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions” (277). He then notes the importance of Christians living the Gospel. But then there is a curious sentence: “Others drink from other sources.” What does this mean? The next sentence says, “For us the wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” which seems to imply that there are other legitimate sources for people to drink from other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sure there will be Catholics who will try to explain this away, but the plain reading of the text is that Pope Francis believes (and teaches) that there is more than one source to fulfill man’s religious desires. 

The post Initial Impressions: Fratelli Tutti appeared first on Eric Sammons.

However, at this point in my life my inner frustration with Francis was reaching a breaking point. During my commentary, I had to grit my teeth and not say the things that I was thinking: that Francis was harmful to evangelization, that he was allergic to tradition, that he had an abysmal record for purging abusive priests/bishops out of the Church, that he wasn’t giving a strong moral message to the world…the list could go on. Instead I said the boiler-plate pablum I was expected to say, which of course included absolutely no criticisms of the pope.

When my week on TV ended, I felt like I needed to take a shower. How was my putting a positive spin on an obviously bad situation helping the Church? Was it bringing anyone closer to Christ? I didn’t become a Director of Evangelization just so I could play Baghdad Bob for the Church. I wanted to draw people into a deeper relationship with Christ in His Church, not be a PR flak for a dysfunctional organization.

It was then that I realized I couldn’t work for the Church anymore. Although my bishop gave me a lot of leeway in my job, there were certain lines that were just impossible to cross, and criticizing the pope—in any way—was the most prominent of those lines (along with criticizing Vatican II). Yet these uncrossable lines were barriers to evangelization; they were barriers to honest, fruitful efforts to lead people to a deeper relationship with Christ. If I was required to mindlessly support every single thing the pope says and does, then non-Catholics—particularly evangelicals already suspicious about the dangers of the papacy—will be quickly turned off to the message. Further, thinking Catholics who know something is amiss will begin to think they are crazy for thinking that way and may begin to doubt their own faith.

It’s unfortunately a common misconception among Catholics that good evangelization means you can’t bring up the bad things going on in the Church. “Stay positive” is the number one rule of modern evangelization. If you bring up the bad, the belief goes, then people will be turned off to Catholicism and go elsewhere. Yet this isn’t true; in fact, the opposite is true. If an evangelist isn’t willing to publicly face head-on the problems in the Church, then people will know he’s just a slick salesman trying to cover up the warts. He won’t be trusted. But if an evangelist not only brings up those problems, but also directly addresses them and explains why they don’t negate the core message of the Gospel, then he will more likely be listened to. 

We can see this principle in practice in the Bible itself. Consider the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Most people know of this epistle from Paul’s beautiful meditation on love found in its 13th chapter. Yet the main purpose of the letter is for Paul to air out the dirty laundry in the Corinth church and urge its members to reform their ways. If the Apostle took the view that we should ignore problems in the Church (as we see done by every institutional organ of the Church today), then he would never have confronted the Corinthian Catholics. And if God thought we should hide our dirty laundry, He would have never inspired the letter or had the Church include it in the Biblical canon.

To stop the downward demographic trend in the Church, we need to stop pushing the problems that are accelerating those trends under the rug. Only by being honest with our internal problems will we be able to go out into the world to effectively proclaim the Gospel. We need to be true evangelists, not PR flaks. We need to be like St. Paul, not like Bagdad Bob. 

Postscript: the priest pictured with me in the photo above sadly left the priesthood a couple years later. It’s a poignant example of the all-too-common, and all-too-real, problems in the Church today.

The post Evangelization, Not Public Relations appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Now infighting isn’t always bad, and in fact a healthy group always has at least a bit of it. Internal debate allows members of the group to prune bad ideas and focus on the overall objective. If someone within a group has a really bad idea, then you want infighting in order to purge that bad idea before it becomes associated with the group.

But more often than not, infighting is the result of ego and pride rather than a virtuous effort to remain true to a group’s goals. It’s a ridiculous purity test, in which all who don’t toe the party line 100% are attacked and shunned. Unfortunately, infighting harms a group’s ability to achieve its goals. This has certainly been true of infighting among traditional Catholics.

Because of the adverse effects of infighting, in early 2019 Remnant Editor Michael Matt made an impassioned plea for traditional Catholics to “United the Clans” while a guest on Taylor Marshall’s YouTube show. This phrase “Unite the Clans,” a reference to a scene in the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart, became a shorthand way to urge traditional Catholics to stop infighting and join forces in the struggle to restore Tradition in the Church. 

Personally, I wholeheartedly embrace Matt’s call to Unite the Clans. It’s essential to unite at a time when there is a spike in interest in traditional Catholicism, as well as a hardening of opposition within the halls of many chanceries and parish offices. Yet I think it’s important that we move beyond the slogan and be clear as to what we mean when we say “Unite the Clans.” Most importantly, who exactly is included in “the Clans?” I can’t speak for Mr. Matt or any other traditional Catholic, but I can speak on who I think is included. What are my criteria for who is part of the traditional Catholic movement and therefore part of the Clans? Three criteria for inclusion present themselves.

(1) Want to Make the TLM Normative Again

The first criteria is a desire to see the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) become the normative Roman Rite again. Every traditional Catholic is thankful that Pope Benedict XVI liberalized the use of the Traditional Latin Mass back in 2007. But Benedict’s action was also an innovation that created a liturgical environment never before seen in Church history: a bifurcated Roman Rite. There have always been multiple rites within the Church, yet never before had one rite had two “forms” allowed concurrently. Such a situation isn’t tenable long term; there should be only one Roman Rite, and it should be the TLM.

So making the TLM normative again is the shared goal, but how this is achieved is a matter for prudential discussions and arguments. Some traditional Catholics argue that the Novus Ordo should be abolished tomorrow, whereas others believe such a move is not pragmatically possible right now. Likewise, some traditional Catholics never step foot in a Novus Ordo Mass, while others attend either out of necessity or other considerations. Regardless of these issues, all that matters for inclusion in the Clans is a desire to see the TLM become the sole Roman Rite again.

(2) Be Willing to Criticize Vatican II

The second criteria is a willingness to criticize Vatican II itself and not just its implementation. A common belief among traditional Catholics is a distrust of the Vatican II-based reforms. Some argue that Vatican II should be scrapped and denounced by the Church; others would like a more surgical approach. But one of the main things that distinguishes a traditional Catholic from a “conservative” Catholic is a willingness to criticize Vatican II itself, not just how it was implemented (or “hijacked,” as many conservative Catholics say). 

To be part of the Clans, at least as I see it, one must be willing to admit that perhaps parts of Vatican II are the cause of many of our modern problems in the Church, or at the very least Vatican II exacerbated those problems. There can be legitimate debate as to what parts are most problematic and how to handle those issues, but one must admit the possibility of problems with Vatican II itself.

(3) Recognize Francis as the Legitimate Pope

My first two criteria are likely non-controversial with most traditional Catholics. But my final criteria might ruffle some feathers. To be part of the Clans, one must recognize that Francis is the legitimate pope—one cannot be a sedevacantist (believe that there is no pope) or a beneplenist (believe that Benedict XVI is still the pope).

Why is this a criteria for me? After all, most of those who reject Francis as pope easily fit the first two criteria. This criteria, however, touches directly the end-goal for traditional Catholics as I see it: a restoration of the TLM and Tradition within the Catholic Church. By rejecting the papacy of Francis, a sedevacantist/beneplenist creates a parallel Church with no way to reform the Catholic Church. I don’t want a parallel Church, I want the Catholic Church to re-embrace tradition. This is why I’d put the SSPX squarely within the Clans, because it recognizes Francis as pope (and it obviously fits the other two criteria as well). 

Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize

For me, these are the only three criteria one must meet to be considered part of the traditional Catholic “Clans.” I don’t care if someone prays the Luminous mysteries, or thinks distributism is the only truly Catholic economic policy; as long as he fits the three criteria above, he’s part of the Clans. But it’s also important to note that those who do not meet my three criteria are not thereby automatically my “enemy.” For example, on many issues, I would willingly work together with conservative or charismatic Catholics. We hold many common objectives. And of course I agree with sedevacantists/beneplenists on many issues. But I would not include any of them in the traditional Catholic Clans, because I do not believe that they share the same end-goal as traditional Catholics.

There’s no question that the quest to “Unite the Clans” is a difficult one. After all, those who embrace traditional Catholicism usually have strongly-held opinions and are willing to contradict popular narratives. So they also don’t mind arguing with other traditional Catholics. But that arguing cannot denigrate into pointless fights that take us away from our common objective: the restoration of the TLM and Tradition in the Catholic Church. We must be more willing to join forces, rather than treat prudential/practical matters as reasons to separate. In a time when more and more Catholics are looking to tradition, we must…

Unite the Clans!

The post Defining the Clans appeared first on Eric Sammons.

How is it that so many Catholics reject what are official teachings of the Catholic Church? Some of it of course can be put at the feet of our disordered wills; people often don’t want to believe something that makes them change their lives. Blame can also be laid at the feet of terrible “feel-good” catechesis over the years. 

But I would argue that the reason a lot of Catholics don’t accept the teachings of the Church is that they’ve been taught not to…by the Church.

Many Teachers of the Faith

What do I mean by that? Simply put, for decades now the Church—through her leaders, teachers, and other representatives—have been “teaching” Catholics to reject fundamental teachings of the Church. To understand how that occurs, we need to understand how Catholics come to their beliefs in the first place.

Learning the faith is not like something out of the Matrix, where Catholics just have a catechism downloaded into their brains. In real life, countless “teachers” form each Catholic’s beliefs, including a pastor’s homilies, media reports, Church documents, home life, papal interviews, peer influence, and many other sources. 

This has led to a vast dichotomy between “official” Church teaching and how Catholics have actually been taught. It would be easy to see all these other “teachers” as unofficial and therefore not important, but that would ignore the very real way the Catholic faith has always been passed on from generation to generation since the time of Christ. The Church is not a “document Church,” simply consisting of declarations and teachings that we must assent to. It is a living Body made up of men and women that passes on the faith in all the ways humans have always passed on knowledge. So even though the Church might officially teach one thing, from the perspective of the average Catholic, “the Church” may very well teach the opposite.

Understanding the reality of learning the Faith through multiple “teachers” is important, even if it can be frustrating. Traditional and conservative Catholics usually want to see only official Church teaching as the source of a Catholic’s knowledge. If someone challenges or questions Church teaching, they believe the debate is over if they can just show what the Church “really teaches.” 

Yet history has shown that this isn’t sufficient. When Martin Luther ignited the Protestant Reformation, a Catholic couldn’t just say, “Official Church teaching is that you can’t sell indulgences,” and expect the debate to be over and Luther to go back to his monastery, tail tucked between his legs. Many political, economic, cultural, religious, and other factors contributed to the formation of European Catholics of the time, and these factors led vast numbers of them to leave the Church.

What matters is recognizing how things are, instead of pining for how we want them to be. Understanding how malformed views of Church teaching originate can help us to do better at combating them. 

A Multi-Teacher Case Study

Let’s look at a concrete example of how the faith is taught: the relationship between Catholics and Muslims. This is a relationship with a long (and often violent) history, and it has radically changed in the past few decades. Because of these changes, Catholics today are taught to view Islam in a far different light than previous generations. How has this changed teaching come about?

First, a quick review of the Catholic view of Islam before Vatican II. St. John of Damascus in the eighth century treated Islam as a heresy of Christianity; in the 11th century, a monk of France, likely Hugh of Cluny, wrote that Islam was led by Satan and drew many souls to Hell; and St. Thomas Aquinas referred to Muslims as “unbelievers.” An overall negative view of Islam—ranging from Satanism to heresy—dominated Catholic thought until the middle of the 20th Century.

However, the Second Vatican Council did much to change the view of Catholics in the pews in regard to Islam. It stated, 

“The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth…Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Muslims, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.” (Nostra Aetate 3). 

We can see the major change: what seemed Satanic in the 12th century is now held “with esteem.” Far from condemning Islam as a false religion which must be resisted, as many popes throughout history have done, Vatican II states that we must strive for “mutual understanding” and work together “for the benefit of all mankind.” 

This view of Islam from Vatican II has dominated the Church since the Council, and has not changed in any significant way since that time. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, released almost thirty years after Nostra Aetate, simply repeats Vatican II teachings on the subject. Yet even without changes in official teaching, how the Church interacts with Muslims—and how Catholics view Islam—has developed since then. Looking at how popes since Vatican II have addressed Islam is one indicator of this development.

A few years after Vatican II, on a 1969 visit to Uganda, Pope Paul VI told Muslim representatives that he had “high respect for the faith you profess.” He compared the Catholic and Anglican Ugandan martyrs to “those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” Finally, he expressed the hope that “what we hold in common may serve to unite Christians and Muslims ever more closely in true brotherhood.” We have now moved from “mutual understanding” to “brotherhood,” and to referring to Muslims as having “faith,” a term that formerly was reserved to Christians. 

Pope John Paul II continued to develop the Catholic view of Islam during his pontificate. In 1979, he told a group of Catholics in Ankara:

“When I think of [the Muslim] spiritual heritage and the value it has for man and for society, its capacity of offering, particularly in the young, guidance for life, filling the gap left by materialism, and giving a reliable foundation for social and juridical organization, I wonder if it is not urgent, precisely today when Christians and Muslims have entered a new period of history, to recognize and develop the spiritual bonds that unite us.”

No longer are we simply working together and holding Muslims in esteem, now the pope is stating that Catholics and Muslims are united with “spiritual bonds” and is offering unqualified praise for good things Muslims do. In 1985, John Paul II further stated to a group of young Muslims, “The Catholic Church regards with respect and recognizes the quality of your religious progress, the richness of your spiritual traditions.” More unqualified praise for a religion that previous generations of popes warned against and considered false. 

It’s not papal statements alone that have shifted Catholics’ views of Islam. In 1986, Pope John Paul II gathered many world religious leaders for a World Day of Prayer for Peace, and the prayer service made headlines around the world, including images of the head of the Catholic Church gathered with leaders of other religions, including Islam, in prayer. To the average Catholic, these images put Islam and other religions on equal footing with Catholicism.

More recently, Pope Francis has gone beyond both Paul VI and John Paul II in his public appreciation of Islam. In 2014, Francis told a group of Christians and Muslims that Muslims can “expel the bitterness within our hearts, which embitters our hearts…with the Quran,” thus holding up the holy book of Islam as a beneficial guide. Most controversially, a document signed in 2019 by Pope Francis and Amhad Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, states that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions… are willed by God.” We have moved far beyond the esteem Vatican II said Catholics are to give Muslims to stating that their holy book is to be followed and that their religion—for centuries considered false by the Church—is willed by God.

These papal actions “trickle down” through the Church to the pew-sitting Catholic. It is now common for Catholic leaders, from bishops to parish priests, to emphasize the common beliefs of Catholics and Muslims, as well as the need to engage in “dialogue” with Muslims. Although it might be the case that some priests, for example, believe Islam to be false, there is no contemporary public statement or even suggestion by Church leaders that Islam is a false religion, or that the Catholic Church is the only path to heaven. The acceptance of Islam by the Church has become an unquestioned part of being Catholic. 

For the average Catholic, what is the result of this shift? A Pew Study in 2008 found that 62% of Catholics believe that Islam “can lead to eternal life” (another 18% answered “Don’t know”). A 2014 Pew Study found that 68% of Catholics believe that some non-Christian religions, including Islam, can lead to eternal life. Note that the poll question is not simply if an individual Muslim can make it to heaven. It’s whether the practice of Islam (or other non-Christian religion) can of itself lead someone to heaven. While the Church has acknowledged the possibility that a non-Catholic can make it to heaven, she has always officially taught that it is only the Church—and not the mosque—that dispenses the graces of salvation merited by Christ’s saving work. 

Forming Catholics Against Catholicism

This example regarding Catholic views on Islam that I’ve been belaboring is intended to show that there can be a wide divergence between “official Church teaching” and “what Catholics actually believe.” Most importantly, this divergence is often due not to negligence on the part of average Catholics to understand that “official teaching.” Instead, it’s due to the various ways Church leaders can send signals which are easily interpreted in a way contrary to official Church teaching, without actually being explicitly against that teaching. 

If leaders in the Church spend decades never mentioning the necessity of Catholicism for salvation, while at the same time praising over and over the faith of Muslims, the beauty of Islam’s spiritual heritage, and even suggesting that Islam itself is “willed by God,” then it’s only natural that most Catholics, who don’t spend their time digging into official Church documents, will think Islam can lead to heaven. The average Catholic has been “taught” a teaching contrary to official teaching by the words and actions of Church leaders that don’t technically contradict official Church teaching.

These various and subtle—and sometimes not-so-subtle—ways in which teachings are imparted to Catholics have a huge impact on how Catholics view their religion…and other religions. Continuing with the example of Islam, if Muslims—and often by extension, other non-Christian religions—can obtain eternal life by following their religion, then Catholics have no incentive to evangelize Muslims or any non-Catholics. They will not believe that Catholicism is a unique way to salvation. In many ways, it undermines the whole purpose of Catholicism itself. And it’s not the outside world that’s led to this undermining of Catholicism, but it’s been Catholic leaders and teachers who have done so.

Image: Pope John Paul II convenes an historic gathering of religious leaders in Assisi to pray for peace. 1986 Credit: L’Osservatore Romano

The post How Do Catholics Come to Believe What They Believe? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

My defense of the Council led me to study the Council documents thoroughly, even taking a graduate-level course devoted solely to reading and interpreting those documents. The course was taught by another “JPII Catholic” who also loved the Council but lamented its implementation. We spent a whole semester diving into the documents and determining their “true interpretation” and how they should have been implemented. Following that course I continued to study the council texts, and I continued to believe the implementation, not the Council itself, was the only problem. I continued to be an ardent defender of Vatican II.

But now I’m not.

Rotten Fruit

How did I go from being a defender of Vatican II to a critic? First, let me note that “critic” is a broad term and can mean many things. It could mean one thinks the Council is invalid or heretical. It could mean the critic thinks Vatican II was ambiguous or imprudent. But ultimately, it means the person is willing to criticize the Council itself, not just its implementation. In my case, I do not think Vatican II was invalid; nor do I believe it heretical (although certain passages can be interpreted in ways that support heresy). I argue that the council texts are at times intentionally ambiguous, imprudent, and in tension with a historic understanding of Catholicism.

So what led me to become critical of Vatican II itself, and not just its implementation? A number of factors led to the change. The first was simply practical. For decades I have worked in Catholic evangelization, at the personal, parish, and diocesan levels. I’ve read all the modern Catholic books on how best to bring people to the Faith, and checked out the various movements and programs of the “New Evangelization” that promote Catholicism today. We’re spending a lot of energy trying to bring people to the Church, but, if we look honestly at the numbers, the New Evangelization, founded on Vatican II, has been an abysmal failure. It doesn’t work, at least not on any macro level. I even wrote a book about this phenomenon.

Conservative pro-Vatican II Catholics like to point out that liberal Vatican II Catholics don’t produce converts, but here’s a little secret: conservative pro-Vatican II Catholics, while bringing in a few converts, don’t hold back the tidal wave of Catholics leaving the Church. No matter how you present Vatican II Catholicism, the result is a rapidly shrinking Church.

Can You Hijack Yourself?

But my real epiphany when it came to Vatican II was the realization (which is quite obvious in hindsight) that the implementers of Vatican II were the Council Fathers themselves. This point cannot be overemphasized. The standard line for conservative defenders of Vatican II is that the implementation was “hijacked.” By this, they mean that certain forces within the Church used Vatican II to implement their own agenda, one that was supposedly contrary to the Council itself. 

Yet this argument, while commonly advocated, stretches credulity to a breaking point. After all, who were these supposedly nefarious implementers? Vatican II was implemented by the Cardinals and bishops of the Church, the same men who were responsible for writing and approving the Council documents. How is it that 99% of these Council Fathers misinterpreted their own documents? Did they not understand what they were voting for? Was there some mass delusion that occurred among the episcopate as soon as the Council ended whereby they thought the documents now said things they never meant?

Clearly that’s absurd. The reality is that the men who wrote, debated, and approved the 16 documents of Vatican II were the same men who returned to their dioceses and implemented those documents. And with only a few exceptions, they all implemented them in the exact same way—the way that led to the post-Vatican II “Dark Ages” of the 1970’s, which is still the foundation of today’s average Catholic parish. They all embraced the New Mass; they all embraced the ecumenical movement; they all embraced interreligious dialogue; they all embraced transforming the Catholic Church into another mainline Protestant denomination.

It seems to me the height of arrogance for Catholics today to look back and say the Council’s implementation was “hijacked.” If it was hijacked, then it was hijacked by the rightful owners—the Council Fathers. How exactly is that a hijacking? The implementation of Vatican II is of a whole with the Council itself; it is a feature, not a bug, of the Council. To criticize the implementation is to criticize the foundation of the implementation: the Council documents.

Replacing the Creaky Foundation

For decades a fierce debate about the way forward for the crumbling Catholic Church has raged between those who want to continue the implementation of Vatican II as it has been going on for 50+ years, and those who want to have a new implementation of Vatican II. Yet very few within the Church hierarchy want to admit that perhaps the issue isn’t the implementation of Vatican II, but the Council itself. Catholics today must have the courage to admit that a primary reason the modern Church is crumbling is that it’s been built upon a creaky foundation: Vatican II. Until we recognize that fact, we’ll never be able to move forward and rebuild the Church, which is falling into ruin.

The post How I Went from a Defender of Vatican II to Its Critic appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Of course, no one actually transformed into a bigot that night. But Obama’s announcement opened the floodgates to allow the liberal establishment—in the media, in academia, and in Hollywood—to accuse millions of Americans of being bigots for not supporting same-sex marriage. As long as the Left’s standard-bearer withheld his support, it was impossible to equate opponents of same-sex marriage to Nazis or Klansmen. But once Obama officially embraced the growing zeitgeist, such comparisons became commonplace.

The Limitations of Dialogue

Although many crucial events led up to this turning point, I consider it a watershed in American history. It marked the final nail in the coffin of rational public discourse. When a view that has been the default of every culture in every time in history is suddenly considered “hate,” and its adherents treated as extremists not worthy of a public platform, any recourse to reason has been abandoned. Yet many Catholics continue to act as if reasoned dialogue is the path forward. 

Dialogue, of course, has been the Church-approved solution to every political and religious problem since the 1960’s. Pope Paul VI introduced this novelty in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, in 1964, and ever since then dialogue has been the Church’s magic wand for resolving any conflict and overcoming every hurdle. Yet dialogue presumes good will and an open mind on the part of both parties. If anything has been clear since May 9th, 2012, it’s that there’s no good will or open minds left in the liberal establishment. How is dialogue possible when the other side is simply calling you names and refusing to even listen to your arguments?

We’ve seen the difficulty of reasoned dialogue only increase since 2012. During this year’s Summer of Discontent, thousands of young Leftists have rioted, destroyed private property (including statues of Catholic saints), and browbeaten anyone who dared to stand up to them. The “Cancel Culture,” which can be traced back decades but received its official opening on May 9th, 2012, has meant the death of dialogue.

Yet Catholics should not be surprised by this development. We see the roots of it in John 1:5, which the Vulgate magnificently renders, et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt, which is translated, “And the light shines in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.” The darkness did not comprehend the light. Sometimes this is translated that the darkness did not “overcome” the light, but the underlying Greek word, katalmbano, means “grasp,” so “conprehenderunt” is a perfect translation. 

The light is something the darkness simply cannot understand; it is beyond the darkness’s ability to grasp.

Time to Proclaim, Not Explain

So does that mean there is no hope for those in the darkness? The very next verses in John’s Gospel make it clear that there is a way to reach them: 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. (John 1:6-8)

This means that those who dwell in darkness can be reached, and that John the Baptist is the model for doing so. John’s message is two-fold: (1) Repent of your sins (cf. Matthew 3:2); and (2) Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). In other words, he reveals the real problem in the world—personal sin—and he gives the only solution to that problem—Jesus Christ. John the Baptist has no desire to dialogue with those who have embraced sin; he wants them to confront their sins and shows them the way to be rid of them. 

Why did John the Baptist reject dialogue as a means to bring about change? Is it because he was an intolerant bigot? No, it was because he recognized that the primary problem inflicting man was not one of the intellect, but of the will. Dialogue presumes that the will follows the intellect, but for most people, it’s the exact opposite: our intellects follow our wills. 

This is why the primary duty when it comes to evangelization is to proclaim the Gospel, not explain it. There is a place for apologetics—the intellectual defense of the faith—but apologetics is only fruitful when the other party is willing to listen. Someone who believes you are “literally Hitler,” however, isn’t going to listen to your natural law defense of the complementarity of the sexes. 

3 Steps to Proclaiming the Gospel

So what do we do? We do the same thing as John the Baptist. We proclaim the Gospel—repent of your sin, turn to Jesus, and you will be saved. A better question for us moderns, however, is, how do we do this? After all, I don’t think most of us want to go to the desert, dress in clothing made of camel’s hair, and survive on locusts and wild honey. Yet we can still be John the Baptists today. 

The first way we can do this is by simply and publicly stating the truth. When Herod had married his brother’s wife, John the Baptist publicly stated the truth: this was no marriage. Today, we must state, without apology, truths like abortion is murder, marriage is between a man and a woman, and a man cannot declare himself a woman. 

Second, we must make clear that the solution to our societal problems is ultimately not a political solution, but a spiritual one. While many Church leaders naively want to work for the “common good” with secular elites who hate them, Catholics need to refocus on pointing the world—including those secular elites who hate us—to Christ, like John the Baptist did.

Finally, we must be willing to accept suffering and even martyrdom. For many Catholics, fear dominates our response to a world gone mad. We fear social ostracization. We fear being “cancelled” as bigoted/racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. We fear losing our jobs. We may even fear the possibility of far worse outcomes: having our children taken away, or being arrested, or being killed. But John the Baptist feared none of those things, and he was willing to be killed by the State rather than fail to proclaim the Truth, who is Jesus Christ. We must be as fearless as he was.

Ultimately, we must remember that life is not a college course conducted in an ivory tower; it’s an ugly battle. It is a battle between the forces of good and evil, and when we are combating evil, we cannot refuse to stand up to it, hoping that perhaps the other party will come to his senses if we calmly explain why he’s wrong. Instead we need the fortitude to stand up to evil, and to call those who embrace evil to repentance, pointing them to Jesus Christ, the only solution to the world’s—and each man’s—problems.

Image: U.S. President Barack Obama said he supports same-sex marriage, in an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC’s Good Morning America. May 9, 2012 (HANDOUT/REUTERS)

The post The Time for Dialogue is Over appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Today the Catholic Church in the United States is facing a similarly dire situation. If we want to survive—and eventually emerge victorious—we need to start planning our own Dunkirk.

Impending Collapse

Although for years many Catholics have lamented the decline of the Catholic Church in America, the situation is far worse than even the most pessimistic projections. How bad things really are is concealed by various demographic factors. For example, the total (self-identified) Catholic population in America has grown from 54.1 million in 1970 to 72.4 million in 2019, a respectable-sounding increase of 34% (statistics from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate). However, during the same period, the American population increased by almost twice that much—60%. Further, much of the Catholic increase is driven not by converts or high birth rates, but by immigration from other countries.

And the news is far worse than just not keeping up with the population or being propped up by immigration. During the same time frame (1970 to 2019), the annual number of infant baptisms decreased by 46%—from 1.089 million to 582,000. So at a time when the population has more than doubled, and Catholic immigrants flooded the country, the number of infant baptisms decreased by almost half. This reflects the fact that although many adults still self-identify as Catholic, they do not practice the faith in any meaningful way (after all, they are not even baptizing their kids), which makes it inevitable that their progeny will have no attachment to the Faith.

When we look more closely at the numbers, we see that things have begun to disintegrate rapidly in recent years. The rate of decrease in infant baptisms, for example, has not been steady over the past 50 years; the decline has occurred mostly in the past 20 years. In 2000, there were still 996,000 infant baptisms, a decrease of only 8.5% since 1970. Not good, but not a complete collapse. However, in the last 20 years, there’s been a 41.5% decrease in infant baptisms.

It’s not just infant baptisms: there’s been an even greater decrease in the number of adult baptisms as well (falling 54% since 2005):

Further, this century has seen a rapidly decreasing number of self-identified Catholics (declining 10.8% in the past 15 years):

Not surprisingly, the number of Catholics who attend Mass every week has also sharply declined this century (31% since 2000):

Finally, there is one number that is increasing: the number of self-identified “former Catholics” (increasing 151%[!] since 2000):

And if these trends aren’t depressing enough, it’s likely things will get worse. The McCarrick scandal was only two years ago; how it will increase the ranks for former Catholics is still unknown. The recent suspension of all public Masses in the United States in response to Covid-19 has broken many Catholics’ habit of attending Sunday Mass, a habit that for many was already teetering on the edge. How many Catholics will come back to Mass once the doors are fully open again? And if they don’t come back, will their children? Unlikely.

So it’s not alarmist to say the Catholic Church in America is facing an overwhelming enemy, much like the Allied forces were overwhelmed on May 27, 1940. 

Retreat, Not Surrender

In the face of this coming implosion, what is the Church to do? Most Church leaders effectively say, “Keep the status quo!” Others of a more evangelical bent might say, “We need to do more outreach!” I’ve been involved in Catholic evangelization efforts for decades and was a diocesan Director of Evangelization for five years, so I’m sympathetic to the latter response. However, I’m now convinced we are in a Dunkirk moment, and we need to act accordingly.

Before I explain how the Church might pull off its own “Miracle at Dunkirk,” let’s be clear what the Dunkirk evacuation was not: it was not a surrender. In war it’s sometimes necessary to retreat in order to gather your strength for later battles. A retreat can be honorable and prudent. When it comes to the Church’s mission in the world, a surrender is never acceptable, but a temporary retreat can be the most prudent course of action.

Another thing Dunkirk was not: it was not a panicked fleeing from trouble. Dunkirk is called a “miracle,” but in reality it was a well-executed evacuation that involved the coordination of many leaders and thousands of men. Had it been an every-man-for-himself situation, massive casualties would have ensued. Instead, through courage, heroism, and determination, the Allied troops accomplished their objective, beyond even their own hopes. 

Our Dunkirk

How then should the Church’s Dunkirk proceed? Obviously the first thing is to get our Church leaders—particularly bishops and parish pastors—to realize we are in a Dunkirk moment. Pretending that everything is fine not only ignores the complete collapse that will inevitably happen (and is happening now), but it leaves us in a weaker position to recover from it. And we can’t pretend that Christ’s promise that the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18) will keep this collapse from happening. History has shown that this promise does not protect the Church’s presence in every geographic region in the world: Catholicism was completely overwhelmed in North Africa after the rise of Islam, and the local church quickly succumbed to King Henry VIII in 16th-century England.

Second, as in any retreat, we must leave behind everything non-essential. During the Dunkirk evacuation, the priority was getting the men to safety; if they had to leave behind personal belongings, or even military apparatus, then so be it. The men came first. Likewise, our dioceses and parishes need to jettison everything non-essential to surviving the collapse. Since the collapse will also entail a financial reckoning, the dioceses and parishes will have to trim their activities anyway. This means a hard look at what is essential and what is non-essential.

Of course, the first thing to be jettisoned are any diocesan or parish activities that aren’t directly related to strengthening the faith of those few Catholics who remain. Youth sports, community social groups, interreligious outreaches, and other such extraneous activities might have at one time seemed like good ideas, but now they use up resources with little spiritual return.

And the cuts need to be deeper than the obvious. As one example: we need to question whether to continue Catholic schools as they are currently structured. Is it essential to spend an inordinate amount of money to maintain a barely-Catholic school that educates barely-practicing children of barely-practicing parents? Having these schools hasn’t prevented the collapse; keeping them only directs limited resources away from the Church’s core mission, which is the salvation of souls. 

Rethink the Status Quo

Finally, we need to plan for the future. After the Allied forces successfully retreated back to England, they didn’t just say, “Let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing—it’s sure to work next time!” No, they realized that the status quo would simply lead to more losses. Likewise, dioceses and parishes can’t keep trying to reach lukewarm Catholics with the same methods that drove them to their lukewarmness in the first place.

In the face of the unrelenting blitzkrieg which has inflicted so many losses on the Church for decades, we need to question how things operate in the Church. We must rethink everything: youth ministry, religious education, the number of parishes, priestly assignments…the list could go on and on. Although many of the ways parishes and dioceses do things were begun with good intentions, that does not mean they are suited to the current crisis.

And we can’t be content in simply rejecting the failed post-conciliar status quo—we must discover where Catholicism is currently thriving in America. Although the overall Church is in a state of free-fall, there are pockets of growth. The most prominent pocket is young homeschooling families, many of whom attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Instead of eyeing these families with suspicion, Church leaders need to embrace them and learn from them. Why are modern young people attracted to traditional forms of piety, be it the liturgy or popular devotions? How can we encourage those forms more broadly? Further, why do these families distrust conventional Catholic schools? Perhaps their criticisms have merit and shouldn’t be ignored or mocked. 

No one wants to hear bad news. Yet ignoring bad news usually makes a situation worse. And the news is beyond bad for the Catholic Church in America: we are cornered and facing imminent collapse. Will we foolishly maintain the status quo, pretending we can engage the overwhelming enemy on his turf, or will we execute a well-planned retreat that will strengthen us for victory in the future?

Image: Troops evacuated from Dunkirk on a destroyer about to berth at Dover, 31 May 1940.

The post The Church’s Dunkirk Moment appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Pricing:

• $6/Rosary for 1 or 2 rosaries  + $2 Flat-rate Shipping
• $5/Rosary for orders of 3-5 rosaries + $3 Flat-rate Shipping
• $4/Rosary for orders of 6 or more + $4 Flat-rate Shipping

Further Details:

• Pay by Venmo (@suzan-sammons) or PayPal (suzan@poverellos.com)
• Email my wife (suzan@poverellos.com) to make an order or for more details.

Colors:

1. Shades of faith
2. Our Lady of Guadalupe (colors of her garments)
3. Bread of life
4. Knights of Our Lady
5. Fire of love SOLD OUT
6. Shamrock SOLD OUT
   
7. Blessed Mother blue SOLD OUT
   
8. Ocean sunset
9. Blue ombre
10. Sonrise
11. Pansy mix
12. Rose ombre
13. Veronica

The post Hand-Made Rosaries for Sale appeared first on Eric Sammons.

In the halls of Catholic chanceries around the world, the term “dialogue” has become an Eastern mantra, repeated over and over as if the word itself has the spiritual power to break down divisions, heal wounds, and bring about the Age of Aquarius (although I’d prefer a return to the Age of Aquinas). Do a Google search on the Vatican website for the word “dialogue;” you’ll get over 33,000 results while words like “evangelization” and “conversion” return less than half as many. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops alone is currently involved in more than 20 official “dialogues” with various religious groups. Dialogue is lit.

On the other hand, the Bible tells the story of a world sharply divided between those who follow God and those who do not. Salvation history is the tale of setting apart one group of people from the rest of the world, and the dangers that arise when that set-apart people mixes with other peoples. This is a theme that runs from Genesis, when Abraham and his descendants are set apart to be God’s people, to Revelation, when the final, permanent, division will occur.

Continue reading at Crisis Magazine…

The post Called to Divide, Not ‘Dialogue’ appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But I believe those proposed dates are faulty, so I decided to put together my own timeline of the events and writings of the time frame ranging from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D.

Enjoy!

The post Beginnings of Christianity Timeline appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The angels gaze down from heaven,
“The land is doomed,” they say.
Man has rejected the Lord,
He worships himself instead of God.

As the angels lament the fall of man,
They hear the Voice,
The Father speaking from His Throne,
and they stop and listen.

“I have seen the misery of man,” declares the Father.
“I have looked upon his misfortune,
I have endured his betrayal,
But I will have mercy on him.”

The angels rejoice, but they wonder as well,
How will the Father accomplish His Will?
Though He is the Omnipotent One,
They know this will be His greatest work.

The Father continues,
“I will send someone from heaven,
One who will become a man,
One who will save my people.

“This one will suffer and die,
But in his suffering and death,
Man will be made whole again,
And raised to new heights of glory.

“Whom shall I send?”

The angels look to one another,
“Which of us will he send?
How can an angel—a spirit—become man?
Is this possible, even for the Lord of Hosts?”

Then the unthinkable happens:
God the Son, seated at the right hand of the Father,
Rises, turns to the Father, and says, 
“Here am I, send me!”

The angels are silent,
Unable to comprehend the Son’s words.
God Himself, becoming man?
What a great mystery this is!

The Word become flesh,
Wisdom become folly,
The King become a slave,
The Mighty One become a human babe?

Then the angels break their silence,
In the face of this great mystery,
In light of the unfathomable love of God,
They thunder out their eternal song:

“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, 
who was, and who is, and who is to come!
Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, 
to receive glory, and honour, and power!”

—Composed Christmas Day 2019

The post The Unthinkable: A Christmas Poem appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Here are some ways to make your fasting spiritually and physically fruitful. (This is not medical advice*; I’m just a nutrition grad student )

1. Any fast can be spiritually fruitful. Write down intentions for your fast or think of one major intention. When you get challenged during fasting, read your list or ponder that one big reason you’re doing it. Even if you’ve decided to start with just skipping snacks between meals, make it worthwhile spiritually. The best way to make your fast spiritually fruitful is to be ABLE to fast. That’s why all these practical, physiological tips follow.

2. Start with a baby step. And then keep taking baby steps, as soon as the first thing you changed feels comfortable. A great way to begin fasting is simply to limit the daily timeframe in which you eat. Rather than eating from morning to night, give yourself, at first, an 8 or 10-hour window, such as 8 or 10 AM to 6 PM. When you feel able, shrink that window by a few more hours. Essentially, look to stick with a late lunch plus dinner.

3. Understand hunger. Most people think that hunger pangs are your body’s way of telling you “You need to eat!” No. They are your body’s way of telling you “This is when we usually eat!” Ask people who routinely skip breakfast. They don’t feel hungry at that time – because that’s their habit.

4. Know that hunger comes in waves. If you are fasting and feel hungry: a) remember your prayer intention, b) tell yourself that the feeling will pass, c) drink cold water with a little salt and/or coffee or tea with no sweeteners of any kind. Particularly if you feel a headache coming on while fasting, drink water with a little salt. (Don’t drink a great quantity of water while fasting unless you’re adding some salt.)

5. Healthy people feel wide awake and energetic during a fast. If you feel lethargic, it may be due to your eating habits (see #7) or it may be that you are getting dehydrated. You need to drink plenty of water (urine should be almost colorless) but not only that – you need some salt. Sprinkle a few dashes of good salts in your water – like sea salt and “lite salt” which provides potassium.

6. When you’re ready to fast for a more extended time (40 hours is a good timeframe to try first) – choose a good day. If you have too much time on your hands, your fast will be more difficult. If you have a stressful event scheduled, fasting might be too much to handle. An example of a 40 hour fast is closing the eating window at 6:00 PM on a Thursday and fasting until 10:00 AM on Saturday. The most difficult times will likely be at the time of your normal meals on Friday. Reread #4.

7. What you eat when you’re not fasting will affect your fast. If you follow a standard American diet you may find it more difficult to fast than someone who follows a very-low-carbohydrate diet. If you find it extremely difficult to fast, try eliminating all sweeteners, all grains, and high-carb produce (such as bananas, pears, potatoes, etc) from your diet for a few weeks. Eat meats, seafood, nuts and seeds, healthy (I.e. natural) oils and fats, vegetables, berries, and full-fat dairy (if you tolerate dairy). Then try fasting again. You’ll see a big difference.

8. It’s still a sacrifice. I’ve been criticized for trying to make fasting “too easy” when it should be a penance. It’s still hard – it’s just hard in a way that makes it not impossible. And not impossible fasting means more frequent fasting. That’s a win in my book.

9. Fasting for weight control has additional considerations. To leverage fasting to lose weight, you might need to reevaluate your beliefs about which foods are good for you. Do some research that will help you understand weight gain as *insulin-driven*, not calorie-driven. The calorie-driven model America has labored under for decades has left us with an obesity epidemic. See Dr. Jason Fung’s resources, including his books.

10. Pay attention to how you break your fast. Put some good habits in place now: only eat when you’re sitting at a table (or whatever place(s) make sense for you). Prepare all the food you plan to eat before beginning to eat. Pay attention to what you’re eating while you’re eating it. Eat slowly, savoring and thanking God for the food. All these things will help you avoid overeating when you break your fast. Overeating will not likely negate all the benefits of having fasted, but it might make you feel yucky. Try to eat normally.

11. Autophagy is an important benefit of fasting. If you’re interested in disease prevention, particularly diseases of (malevolent) growth such as cancers and Alzheimer’s Disease, find out about fasting and autophagy. Your body has specific tasks it does only in the fasting state – such as the subcellular cleansing process called autophagy. Learn more from Dr. Fung.

12. Be OK with failures. There’s always tomorrow. Fasting can benefit us also by keeping us humble. We will make mistakes but a new chance at success comes around quickly.

I hope this quick explanation is of some help. Some ideas for further reading:

• An article I wrote for Crisis Magazine.
• An article by my husband on the history of Christian fasting.
• The website of modern fasting pioneer Dr. Jason Fung

*If you’re pregnant or breastfeeding, save this post for later. If you have a diagnosed metabolic disorder such as T1D, find a holistic practitioner who can help you determine how changing your patterns of eating and fasting can help you. If you have ever struggled with an eating disorder, fasting is not for you.

NOTE: Fasting should never make you feel ill. If you feel ill while fasting, stop. If you try again another day and it makes you feel ill, you may want to investigate whether there’s an underlying condition at work.

The post 12 Practical Tips to Make Fasting Spiritually and Physically Fruitful appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Von Balthasar’s belief got him a good deal of criticism (although, as he notes, other noteworthy Catholics—such as St. Gregory of Nyssa—have held the belief before him). But in recent years von Balthasar’s views have made a comeback, as they have been given an imprimatur of sorts from one of the most popular bishops in the world, Bishop Robert Barron. Barron is an enthusiastic fan of von Balthasar, and he believes we can hope that all men be saved. But is this view a consistent with Revelation and Catholic teaching? I want to give just a brief explanation as to why it is not.

At the beginning of his book, von Balthasar engages some of his critics, and one particular criticism struck me:

Now comes a…paradox from G. Hermes: “We can well…hope for every [!] individual [!] man and pray that he attains salvation, because [?] we do not know what judgment God will pass upon him. But we cannot hope that all men will enter heaven, because that is expressly excluded through revelation”

As is obvious from von Balthasar’s editorial additions of exclamation points, he does not think too highly of Hermes’ argument. However, it is Hermes who is correct instead of von Balthasar. It is one thing to hope for each individual; after all, the Church does not declare specific individuals to be condemned to Hell (although Jesus appears to condemn Judas in Matthew 26:24). However, to hope for each individual man is different than hoping that all men be saved.

As a (admittedly crude) analogy, let me compare von Balthasar’s hope for universal salvation to my hope about my favorite baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds. Let’s say they are supposed to be very good next year (yes, I realize that takes a lot of imagination). Before every game, I will hope that they win. However, never would I hope that they win all 162 games, as I know that is a hope for something that is simply not possible. The reality is that they will lose some games no matter how good they are.

The problem with von Balthahasar’s hope for universal salvation is that it effectively negates human freedom. If all men are saved, then in truth there is no human element in the process of salvation, something which goes against Catholic teaching. To return to my analogy, if the Reds did somehow win all 162 games, I (along with everyone else) would suspect that something had been rigged. Likewise, if all men are saved, I would have to suspect that something is rigged, that man is not truly free—his salvation is predetermined regardless of the choices he makes. And freedom is a necessary component of love; without freedom, we are simply slaves of a benevolent master, not children of a loving father.

The post Why We Cannot Hope for Universal Salvation: A Brief Explanation appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Labels Are Not Universal

The first is that putting a label before the word “Catholic” is by necessity dividing Catholics into multiple groups. And if you know the meaning of the term “Catholic” (“universal”), you’ll know that any label before the word is essentially oxymoronic. It should be an instinct of every Catholic to want to be “just Catholic.” However, we unfortunately live in an age when saying we are “just Catholic” is a luxury we can’t indulge in. Due the confusion that has reigned throughout the Church the past sixty years—from top to bottom—it is hard to say anymore what it means to be “just Catholic”. These days it can range anywhere from a daily Latin Mass-going Catholic to a Catholic who only attends Mass a few times a year. There’s a lot more of the latter than the former, so does that mean the lax Catholics are the true “just Catholics”? The term “Catholic” has little unifying effect anymore.

Further, anyone who says that he is “just Catholic” today means that to be Catholic is to be like him, which means to not be like a whole bunch of other Catholics. So even saying you are “just Catholic” is as dividing as any label might be. And it doesn’t really help the conversation, for it sadly says almost nothing about what you believe or practice. I long for a day when being “just Catholic” has universal meaning, but that day is not today. For the foreseeable future, every Catholic is a “labeled” Catholic.

Traditional Stereotypes

The second reason I resisted claiming the label “traditional Catholic” is that I long had the same impression many people have of traditional Catholics: grumpy, bitter Catholics who hate the Ordinary Form of the Mass, believe Vatican II to be invalid, and think every pope since Pius XII is a raging heretic. Even after I met and interacted in person with many traditional Catholics and saw this stereotype landed far from the mark, I had a hard time shaking the impression in my mind. But while I’ve found that, like any sociological grouping, traditional Catholics have people on the extremes, those extremes should not define it.

Most traditional Catholics I know are simply Catholics who care very much about the state of the Church and are willing to question many of the reforms that came in the wake of Vatican II. They prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF, aka Traditional Latin Mass) not for simple aesthetical reasons, but because they believe it is the best way to worship God. They question many of the Church’s ecumenical and inter-religious outreaches not because they hate Protestants and other non-Catholics, but because they wonder if those outreaches ever result in people drawing closer to Christ in the Catholic Church. In general, they lament that the Church’s acceptance of modernity has weakened her ability to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Loving “X” Doesn’t Mean Hating “Y”

Yet the label “traditional Catholic” is still fraught with hidden meanings for many people. Doesn’t this mean you reject the Ordinary Form (OF, aka the Novus Ordo)? Not at all. I believe the OF is a valid Mass and that many graces are possible through it. The most solid Catholic family I know, in fact, attends the OF, and I know countless other OF-attending Catholics who live good and holy lives. But while I believe the OF to be valid and a means of grace, I still believe the EF is a better form of worship. To use a baseball analogy, if one team finishes 100-62 and the other finishes 95-67, the second place team is very good, but it’s still inferior to the first place team.

The other big topic that can’t be avoided whenever the term “traditional Catholic” comes up is Vatican II. Doesn’t being a traditional Catholic mean you reject Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council? Again, no. What it means is that you are willing to entertain the thought that just perhaps the wholesale devastation seen in the Church since the 1960’s might be related to the Council and its aftermath.

It’s true that there are traditional Catholics who would be far more harsh than I when it comes to the OF Mass, Vatican II, and the whole post-Vatican II project. But even though a label narrows the field as to who it includes, it doesn’t mean there isn’t some legitimate diversity within that label.

I don’t like labeling Catholics, but it is necessary today. And since I prefer the Latin Mass and believe the post-Vatican II experiment to be largely a failure, I gladly label myself a traditional Catholic, no matter what undue stereotypes that might foster.

The post Why I Call Myself a “Traditional Catholic” appeared first on Eric Sammons.

There are many resources for Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but very few for those who attend the Extraordinary Form. I’m hopeful that this column will help TLM-attending Catholics to be more spiritually prepared for attending Mass. 

You can find an archive of the columns here.

The post New Column! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

These three practices are not unique to Christianity, of course. In fact, Christianity inherited them from Judaism, out of which it was born. The religion of Islam also embraces the importance of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, particularly during the season of Ramadan. Other religions also stress the value of these practices. Why do so many faiths emphasize these three activities in particular?

Because together they are the best weapon in the most important battle we each face: the battle within.

Continue reading at Mind & Spirit…

The post Why Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post How to Attend the Latin Mass appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Here is what her textbook (which is excellent in many ways) said about a living wage:

What does man need to preserve his right to life and to live with dignity? the basic needs are clear: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, transportation, savings (to provide for long-term needs, illness, retirement, and similar needs). The amount which meets these basic needs is called a living wage…

Let’s take a hypothetical case. Over at the local big corporation there are two men who do exactly the same kind of work. Joe Cool, a bachelor, has no dependents, lives in a condominium, drives a sports car, and has a St. Bernard dog. The other is Mr. Jones, who has a house in a development, a wife and six children, and drives a station wagon. Both men, as we said, do exactly the same kind of work. Let’s further hypothesize that they have the same education, the same experience, the same competence, and the same dedication to the company. Does justice demand that each be paid exactly the same amount? No. Federal government regulations may insist they be paid the same, but this is not in justice. An employer has an obligation to pay a man enough to support himself and his dependents. This is consistent Church teaching.

(Following Christ in the World, Anne Carroll, Seton Press, p. 39)

Playing with Emotions

Okay, I’m not sure where to start because there are so many problems with this analysis. (Before I continue, I want to mention that our homeschooling program also assigns Economics in One Lesson, which is the best economics textbook available today and would also take issue with this explanation.) Note first that it uses highly emotional language. We are supposed to picture the first employee, “Joe Cool,” in an unsympathetic light. He’s obviously just a selfish hipster who doesn’t care about anyone but himself. He probably wears $500 shoes and dines at fancy restaurants every night. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, is a working stiff trying to heroically support his big family (note that most students using this textbook likely come from large Catholic families). Also, it’s a “big corporation” we’re talking about, which suggests it’s cold and callous. In reality, most businesses are small or medium-sized companies, who bear the brunt of most regulations enacted, but that wouldn’t make the story as sympathetic to Mr. Jones. Such emotional language does little to seriously and dispassionately address the issue at hand.

What is a “Basic Need”?

The problems continue with the book’s definition of “basic needs”: “food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, transportation, savings.” The first three needs seem pretty obvious, but after that we face some issues. What is included in “medical care”? Most likely emergency services, but what about other services, such as a nutritionist, or cosmetic surgery? Who determines if a service falls under a “basic need”? The employer, the employee, the government? You could ask similar questions for the other categories as well: what level of education meets one’s “basic needs”? High school, community college, a university degree? Public school or private school? You even face the issue with the needs of food, shelter, and clothing. Who determines what the minimum amount of these needs is considered “basic”?

Justice for All?

Now let’s look more closely at the specific hypothetical situation given. It’s clear that both workers provide the exact same service to the company, yet supposedly justice demands the company is obligated to pay Mr. Jones more than Joe Cool. The whole focus is on justice for Mr. Jones, but the textbook forgets there are other actors in this economic drama. What about justice for them? Let’s look at each one in turn.

The Other Employees (“Joe Cool”): How is it justice for Joe Cool to be paid less for the exact same work that Mr. Jones is doing? Joe presumably works just as hard and as well as Mr. Jones, yet because of his living situation—which is unrelated to his work—he receives a lower wage. This would be like a grocery store charging different amounts for ground beef depending on a customer’s marital status and number of dependents.

The Employer (“Local Big Corporation”, aka “LBC”): Here is where things get really convoluted. In this scenario, LBC has to pay more to one employee than it would to another for the exact same work. Let’s think this out a bit more.

Let’s say companies are required to set wages based on the living situations of its employees (which is what this textbook seems to want). When LBC is hiring, and the choice is between a person with no kids and one with six kids, who do you think it will hire? Obviously, the one that it doesn’t have to pay as much. So Mr. Jones is less likely to get hired than Joe Cool—how is that justice for Mr. Jones? (Note: this is why minimum wage laws are flawed. They keep the very people who need entry-level jobs priced out of the workforce.) Such a requirement would make it harder for Mr. Jones to support his family, not easier.

More importantly, how exactly does LBC determine a “living wage”? Is it based on number of legal dependents? What if Joe Cool is from Venezuela and he is sending part of his paycheck home to his disabled brother who has eight kids he can’t support? These family members don’t show up as dependents on Joe Cool’s tax form, but nonetheless they are depending on Joe as much as Mr. Jones’ children depend on him. Yet LBC won’t treat Joe as worthy of a higher wage like Mr. Jones. Is this justice?

LBC (or more likely the government) is put in the position of determining everyone’s appropriate “living wage.” But there are so many factors involved that it’s simply impossible for a company, or even a government, to do so. Determining what is truly a basic need for each person and family (public or private school for kids?, a single-bedroom house or a four-bedroom house?) is a recipe for ineptitude and corruption.

And remember, in many cases we aren’t talking about a “big corporation” being impacted, we are talking about a small business, often run by a family. That family might also have six or more dependents. Is it justice that they are forced to pay more than market rate, thus potentially harming their ability to meet their basic needs? (Many small businesses run with very tight margins.) What about justice for that family’s dependents?

The Customers of LBC: The problems of the living wage keep extending outwards into the economy. If LBC is forced to pay more than market rate for Mr. Jones’ services (assuming they hire him in the first place, of course), then it needs to make enough money to do that. That means it needs to raise its prices. Let’s say LBC provides one of those “basic needs” listed above, like food. Now, because of this “living wage” requirement, food for all of LBC’s customers just got more expensive, and their customers’ wages might not be enough to pay for food now. So, will all other companies in the area need to increase their wages to match the new “living wages”? If they do, then we’ll have a vicious cycle of increasing wages followed by increasing prices followed by increasing wages. That way lies economic disaster.

Balancing Act

The challenge for a just economy is balancing the needs and desires of thousands, even millions, of people. Whenever focus is placed on justice for one group of people, inevitably that results in injustice for others. Yet usually the “others” are forgotten or ignored. True justice takes into consideration all parties involved in an economy, not just the ones who might be the most visible or the most sympathetic.

I’m disappointed that an otherwise solid religion book is so wrong about the issue of a living wage. However, I’m not surprised. When it comes to economics, many otherwise intelligent people fall for emotional arguments that sound just on the surface, but ultimately bring about more injustice than they claim to solve.

The post Justice and the Living Wage appeared first on Eric Sammons.

10. Episode 48: Top 5 Threats to Civilization

I was a little surprised this made the Top 10, as it’s basically me detailing what I think is most likely to cause The End of the World As We Know It. But I guess I have an audience of pessimists.

9. Episode 63: Can You Be a Catholic and a Libertarian?

As a Catholic and a libertarian, I often am challenged by those who believe the two are incompatible. Here I lay out why I disagree.

8. Episode 51: The Incredibly Shrinking Catholic Convert Rate

Every Easter we hear reports of how many people entered the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, that number is steadily (and quickly) decreasing. I look at why in this episode.

7. Episode 50: Is It Okay to Be Upset with the Church?

I recorded this episode before the McCarrick scandal blew up. Even then lots of Catholics were upset at the Church, and I wanted to tell them that it’s okay to be upset.

6. Episode 45: The Best Way to Stop Abortion

On the 45th anniversary of Roe v Wade, I looked at what I thought was the best way to end the horrific practice of legalized abortion. Hint: It’s not what you might think.

5. Episode 61: What’s a “Pro-Life Issue”?

I got a lot of flak for this episode and a CatholicVote article I wrote in conjunction with it. What does it mean to be “pro-life”?

4. Episode 47: Beginning Lent 

I was happy this made the Top 10, as it didn’t involve me complaining about anything or criticizing anyone. I just look at what we can do to practice a holy Lent.

The three most popular episodes shouldn’t be surprising given what’s been happening in the Catholic Church this year. They all relate to the scandals that have surfaced, and how the heirarchy—including the pope—have fostered them.

3. Episode 73: The Battle for the Soul of the Vatican

In this episode, I discussed the raging battle going on in Rome to control the Church. It’s getting ugly, but we can’t ignore what’s happening.

2. Episode 64: How Should Lay Catholics Respond in Wake of the McCarrick Scandal?

The McCarrick Scandal unleashed a fury among lay Catholics not seen since the Protestant Reformation. I discussed what the laity should do in the wake of such corruption in the highest levels of the Church.

1. Episode 74: What Makes for a Bad Pope?

I haven’t been hesitant to express my displeasure at the pontificate of Pope Francis. But here I wanted to look at what exactly makes a pontificate “bad”. Based on its ranking, this is obviously something others wanted to know as well.

Thanks for listening this year, and I look forward to many more episodes in 2019! If you have any ideas for podcast topics, feel free to shoot me an email.

The post Top 10 Most Popular Podcast Episodes for 2018 appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Let us ask for the grace to hear the cry of all those tossed by the waves of life. The cry of the poor: it is the stifled cry of the unborn, of starving children, of young people more used to the explosion of bombs than happy shouts of the playground. It is the cry of the elderly, cast off and abandoned to themselves. It is the cry of all those who face the storms of life without the presence of a friend. It is the cry of all those forced to flee their homes and native land for an uncertain future. It is the cry of entire peoples, deprived even of the great natural resources at their disposal. 

Although the Holy Father gets criticized for overemphasizing the need to materially help the poor, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this is an essential requirement of being a follower of Christ. Our Lord made this clear in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Mt 25: 31-46), when he made our salvation dependent on how we help “the least of these.” I think it was Archbishop Chaput who said, “If we ignore the poor, we will go to hell.” This is a true—and frightening—statement. We are obligated to assist the poor in some way. So even if we think Pope Francis neglects spiritual matters at times in his focus on the material, we can’t do the opposite and neglect materially helping the poor.

I also appreciate who Francis includes in his list of the “poor.” Beyond the obvious groups we’d consider “poor” (such as starving children and those “cast off”), he mentions the unborn as well as children “more used to the explosion of bombs than happy shouts of the playground.” What is a greater poverty than living an existence in which your very life is constantly in danger? Yet that is the plight for many unborn children, as well as children living in war-torn areas such as the Middle East (who too often face U.S. bombs).

I know some might find controversial his inclusion of “all those forced to flee their homes and native land for an uncertain future,” but no matter your views on immigration policy, we must be sympathetic to the plight of those who live in such dismal conditions that they must sacrifice everything to leave it for a better life. How we can best help them can be debated, but we can’t debate that they are among the poor.

It is the cry of every Lazarus who weeps while the wealthy few feast on what, in justice, belongs to all. Injustice is the perverse root of poverty. 

Here things get a little more problematic. What does Pope Francis mean when he says that “the wealthy few feast on what, in justice, belongs to all”? What exact resources are the wealthy feasting on? What does he mean that these resources “belong to all” in justice?

Unfortunately, based on a long history of comments by the Holy Father, it’s likely he’s advocating a system of forced redistribution of resources by governments, i.e., some form of socialism. Yet how would that forced redistribution not itself be an injustice? Although the pope only talks about a “wealthy few,” every system of redistribution always includes even those who are middle-class, even lower middle-class.

Let’s assume someone works an honest job to support his family. If he is a Christian, then I would argue that he is obligated to donate at least some portion of his wages to charity to help the poor. How much would depend on how much he makes and his legitimate obligations, but it should be something. Let’s say he doesn’t, though. What if a man with a gun came to his home, said, “Give me 30% of all your money – I’m going to use it to help the poor!” Would that be a just action? What if that person were wearing an IRS jacket? Does that make it just?

(If you question the analogy that an IRS agent would use force, try to not pay your taxes sometime and see what happens. You will eventually end up in jail, and if you refuse to go to jail, men with guns will come for you.)

Government redistribution of wealth faces many practical problems, in that governments are notoriously terrible at effectively distributing the funds. However, the main issue with government redistribution is a moral one, not a practical one, for it takes money by force from one person to give it to another. Pope Francis says that justice demands that the rich help the poor, and I don’t disagree with him that the rich should help the poor (I’d say that’s mercy, though, rather than justice). But it’s a core Catholic teaching that one cannot do evil that good may result—so why would it be okay to forcibly take money from some in order to help others?

The cry of the poor daily grows louder but is heard less and less. Every day that cry gets louder, but every day heard less, drowned out by the din of the rich few, who grow ever fewer and more rich.

Here Francis is simply incorrect to say that “the rich few…grow ever fewer.” The fact is that the past 200 years has seen a dramatic rise in material wealth. Further, that wealth has become better distributed over the past 30 years than ever before.

Let’s first look at historical world GDP (all data/charts from here). You can see in this chart that for almost all of human history, GDP had been essentially stagnant. Yet in the early 1800’s—which corresponds to the rise of the industrial age and capitalism—we witness a huge spike:

Now perhaps all the wealth is just concentrated with the “rich few,” as Pope Francis suggests? That’s not the case, as can clearly be seen from this chart tracking the share of the world population living in absolute poverty from the early 19th century to today:

Over 90% of the world was living in absolute poverty in 1820, but less than 10% do today. In other words, not only is the world getting more and more materially prosperous, that wealth is reaching everyone.

Finally, let’s focus just on the last 30 years and how income has been distributed across the globe. In this chart, we see global income distribution in 1988:

If it’s unclear, this chart is essentially saying that the non-developed world was dominated by very low-income workers. Now let’s look at the same chart in 2011:

It’s clear that income has become more and more distributed around the world. So when Pope Francis says that the wealthy are growing “fewer,” he’s simply mistaken. And when he says the wealthy are growing “more rich,” he’s correct, but that’s only because everyone is growing richer!

Pope Francis is correct to urge Christians to help the poor. However, many of his suggested solutions, which are often backed by inaccurate data, can be unjust and will often do more harm than good. There’s a two-fold means for Christians to help the poor: promote capitalism and perform charity.

First, advocate for policies that strengthen the free market. The rise of the free market (i.e., capitalism) corresponds directly to the rise of global wealth. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty due to the free market. If we want to help the poor, we should push for structures that generate wealth for the poor.

Second, be involved in charity for the poor. No system will ever lift everyone out of poverty; the human condition is such that some will always face financial difficulties. In these situations, Christians need to reach out their hands to help those truly in need.

Unfortunately, Pope Francis appears to use his heart more than his head when he advocates bad solutions to help the poor. But if we are really serious about lifting people out of poverty, let’s use both our heads and our hearts to do all we can to make that a reality.

The post What Pope Francis Gets Right—and Wrong—About Poverty and Wealth appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But Southern cooking wasn’t my only dietary issue growing up. My family lived across the street from a convenience store, and those were the days when you could return a glass soda bottle to the store for a 10-cent refund. Next to the convenience store were some woods, where my brother and I would scour the ground for thrown-away bottles. Most days we could find a few. So we’d collect them, turn them in, and with the money buy a Mountain Dew—the favorite drink of young boys everywhere. We often consumed four or five 16 oz. bottles of Mountain Dew a week. My parents had no idea.  

With these dietary habits, you might think I was an overweight kid who had trouble fitting into his prom tux. In fact, the opposite was true. I ran Cross Country and Track and did weightlifting on the side. As a 5’10” senior in high school I weighed only 135 lbs and had less than 10% body fat. So to my mind, there was little connection between diet and health.

Creeping into Unhealthiness

As I entered my 20’s I continued to give little thought to my diet. After all, I felt great and was still pretty slim. Sure, college put a few pounds on, but being around 150 lbs isn’t something to worry about. So I continued to drink lots of Mountain Dew, and didn’t mind swinging by McDonald’s when I was in a rush.

When I got married and entered the work world, my diet did improve at home (my wife’s cooking was far superior to my bachelor, Ramen-based meals), but I still drank lots of soda and ate more fast food than I should have. I had a desk job, so my physical activity dropped precipitously. However, I didn’t have any health problems, and while my weight slowly crept up (now closer to 160 lbs), I wasn’t concerned. I saw no reason to change my lifestyle choices. A lunchtime stop or two at McDonald’s became part of my weekly routine.

Then I hit my 30’s. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say they hit me. My weight no longer crept up, it galloped. I entered the 170’s with little resistance and my body had its sights set on 180. I had less energy to get through the day (which increased my Mountain Dew habit). After a physical for a life insurance policy I learned that my triglycerides were through the roof. Before the physical I didn’t even know what a triglyceride was, but I found that maxing out on them wasn’t a good thing. I realized I would have to make some changes. The first thing I did was stop the trips to McDonald’s and switch from Mountain Dew to Coke. Not exactly radical, but it was a step.

However, my weight kept going up and I didn’t feel “right” most of the time, so I knew I had to take more drastic measures.

Attempt #1: Changing How Much I Ate

Like most people who want to lose weight, my first attempt involved eating less. Makes sense, right? Just discipline yourself and cut the amount of food you eat and your weight/health problems will be solved. So I significantly reduced my calorie intake. This mostly involved eating a very small lunch (perhaps a handful of peanuts), and a more reasonably-sized breakfast and dinner. I didn’t change what I ate, just how much. At first, I thought I’d licked the problem. My weight dropped pretty quickly and I was down to around 160 in a month or so. Problem solved!

Um, not so much. After the rush of the first month, I found my energy levels were very low and I was hungry most of the time. What I didn’t know then, but know now, is that my metabolism had adjusted based on my new routine. My body was burning fewer calories each day in response to my lower caloric intake. This left me energy-deficient, my body constantly screaming, “I don’t like this—go back to your old routine!” Well, I’m not one to argue with my body, so that’s exactly what I did. My eating routines went back to normal, and my weight went back to “normal” as well: 180+ lbs.

I soldiered on as before, getting through my late 30’s without any changes in my eating habits. But you know how I said my 30’s hit me? Well, my 40’s steamrolled me. My weight went up to the low 190’s. I became more lethargic, even depressed. I had almost constant “brain fog.” I started having digestive issues. Eventually I was diagnosed with “reactive hypoglycemia”—when I ate something sugary I became light-headed and even dizzy due to my pancreas freaking out.

I knew I had to make some radical changes.

Attempt #2: Changing What I Ate

Since my earlier attempt to cut down on calories ended in abysmal failure, I decided to take a different tack this time. Instead of controlling how much I ate, I would control what I ate. I cut out all sugar (including soda!) and gluten from my diet. At first, the results were remarkable. I had loads of energy, my brain fog disappeared, and my stomach settled. I lost over 20 pounds (down to the high 160’s). Success!

Unfortunately, like my first attempt, this success was short-lived. After perhaps three months my symptoms returned and my weight began to creep back toward 180. I was disappointed and a bit frustrated. Why didn’t this help more? Now to be clear, removing sugar and gluten did help. Since eating either caused immediate light-headedness, avoiding them eliminated that problem. But my more fundamental health problems lingered, and I couldn’t get my weight down to a healthier level.

Eventually I was diagnosed with “pre-diabetes.” Like the name suggests, this is essentially a step on the way to Type II diabetes. Keeping my blood sugars in control became a constant battle, and I found I had to eat every few hours or else risk ravenous hunger and dizziness. So my schedule became breakfast at 8, snack at 10, lunch at noon, snack at 3, dinner at 6, and snack at 9. I still felt awful most of the time, but this seemed to keep the food crashes at bay. I went to multiple doctors, and everything “checked out.” None of the doctors even broached the topic of diet. I felt that I had hit a dead end. Then I saw a friend on Facebook post about something called “Intermittent Fasting.”

Attempt #3: Changing When I Ate

First, a quick explanation of what Intermittent Fasting (IF) is. It simply means not eating for some set amount of time each day. Instead of “grazing” for six meals a day (as I was doing), you only eat in a certain window during the day. The most common schedule is called the “16:8 plan,” which means you don’t eat for 16 hours, then you have an 8-hour eating window each day. For example, you would eat your last meal of the day at 6 PM, and then not eat at all until 10 AM the next day. Variations include 18:6 and 20:4 plans, eating only one meal a day (OMAD), and alternate day fasting.

When I first ran across the concept of IF, I dismissed it as personally untenable. After all, I couldn’t go even a few hours without eating during the day without significant side effects. As a Catholic, I’m required to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday each year, and I even exempted myself from these fasts due to health reasons. So I never considered IF.

But in my friend’s Facebook post, I noticed that someone mentioned being pre-diabetic and wondering if Intermittent Fasting was doable for him. My friend said IF was not only doable, but could improve his condition. This intrigued me, because my biggest issue wasn’t being overweight (although I was), it was the symptoms that kept dragging me down—low energy, brain fog, and digestive problems. Perhaps IF could help me with them?

I ended up devouring research on Intermittent Fasting: books, journal articles, YouTube videos. It seemed like a lot of people had success with IF for weight loss, but also many found that the very symptoms I had lessened and even disappeared while on IF.

During my research I noticed that a lot of people doing IF were also on something called the “Keto Diet.” Essentially, this is a variation of the Atkins diet, in which one eats a very low quantity of carbohydrates, moderate amounts of protein, and higher levels of fat. The Keto diet was intriguing to me because I discovered that carbs spike insulin much more than protein or fat does. Even after cutting out sugar and gluten I still consumed a lot of carbs in the form of rice, potatoes, corn, and tree fruit (and Fritos!). But since I was pre-diabetic, lowering my insulin levels would be beneficial to me. So along with starting IF, I also went on the Keto diet.

I stepped into IF gradually, only fasting for 14 hours at a time. This meant eating dinner at 6 PM, then not eating until 8 AM the next day. That might not sound too difficult, but for someone who ate every few hours every day like me, it was a challenge. However, I found that the keto diet helped me with the fasting window tremendously. After a Keto meal I didn’t have the “crash” I had often experienced a few hours after eating, when I would get extremely hungry and weak. Soon my body adapted to my new routine, and I moved to 16:8, then 18:6, then finally to a 20:4 plan. Each day I now usually only eat between 2 PM and 6 PM.

The initial results, much like my previous two attempts, were amazing. In fact, they were even better than those attempts. Within three months my weight dropped to around 150 lbs (for the first time in over 25 years). My fasted glucose levels went under 100 mg/DL, which means I’m no longer pre-diabetic. Most importantly, my issues with low energy, brain fog, and stomach problems all completely disappeared.

Sustaining Success

As I mentioned, my first attempt to change my eating habits, which was essentially a severe calorie-restriction plan, was not sustainable. After a month or so, my metabolism had adjusted and I couldn’t stay on the reduced calorie plan. However, Intermittent Fasting, at least in the four months I’ve been doing it, has been completely sustainable. In fact, I’m surprised at how easy it is. After my dinner I feel fully satisfied, and I don’t start getting hungry again until around noon or 1:00 the next day—about an hour or two before I eat. And my hunger isn’t ravenous, it’s just a reminder that I should eat soon. Keeping to an IF schedule—whether it be 20:4 or 18:6 or 16:8—isn’t a pie-in-the-sky ideal. It can be as simple as skipping breakfast and not eating after dinner.

My second attempt to change my eating habits, while partially successful, didn’t bring lasting change because it wasn’t radical enough. Although it cut out sugar and gluten, it didn’t cut out carbohydrates, which I believe were a big culprit in my health issues. More importantly, it didn’t address my eating schedule. I was constantly spiking my insulin by eating every few hours. My body had no opportunity to rest; I was running on the sugars found in the foods I ate, instead of burning fat.

I’m convinced Intermittent Fasting, as well as the Keto diet, is a major piece of the puzzle to solving my various health issues. By controlling when I eat, along with what I eat, my body is able to take time each day to rest and recover. Instead of having to deal with digesting food (with its corresponding insulin spikes) almost 24/7, my body can spend time each day rejuvenating and healing itself, which gives me more energy and makes me feel better.  

The post Third Time’s a Charm: My Various Attempts to Improve My Health appeared first on Eric Sammons.

For many traditionalists, the lack of availability of the Extraordinary Form is both a scandal and a detriment to the renewal of the Church. When an EF Mass is celebrated, it is often accompanied by a church bursting at the seams with young families. In stark contrast, Ordinary Form Masses at many diocesan parishes are frequently half-full and consist mostly of gray-haired boomers. If this is the case, traditionalists wonder, then it seems like a more expanded offering of the EF could bring back vitality to a Church that desperately needs it. The very fact that the offering of the EF is still restricted makes one suspect that all the talk of a “New Evangelization” is less about growing the Church and more about putting lipstick on a pig. Yet many non-traditionalists argue that there is no real pent-up demand for the Latin Mass, that offering the EF more frequently would have little or no (and possibly even negative) impact on Church attendance.

Would offering the EF more frequently and in more places lead to more people in the pews? Is there a greater demand for the EF than the supply? I think the answers aren’t as simple as either traditionalist or non-traditionalist Catholics might think.

(Note: I’m not going to address the question of whether the EF should be offered more frequently just because it’s the superior form. That’s a legitimate discussion, but here I’m only concerned with the practical effects of a more frequent offering and how it would impact Mass attendance.)

Demand for the Latin Mass?

For five years I attended an FSSP parish, which offered the Extraordinary Form Mass on a typical parish schedule: twice every Sunday morning, and once a day throughout the rest of the week. The location of the parish wasn’t in an odd place, either; it was easily accessible to a wide range of people. Based on the arguments you often hear from traditionalists, Catholics should have been flocking to this parish. But did that happen? Not really. We typically had around 200-250 people each Sunday, while a nearby diocesan parish a mile away usually had more than 1,000 people in attendance on Sundays, and other parishes within a twenty-mile radius had similar attendance numbers. In an area consisting of tens of thousands of Mass-attending Catholics, only a handful chose to attend the Latin Mass. (I’ve since moved from the area, but my experience where I live now is similar.)

At first I was perplexed by this reality, as I held the view that “If you offer it, they will come.” I tried to find fault in many places—perhaps the existence of the FSSP parish was unknown to most Catholics, perhaps other parish priests had badmouthed it, perhaps the stereotype of bitter traditionalists had kept people away. Some of this might have been true, but it wasn’t the real answer. As I got to know more and more Catholics in the area (I worked for the diocese at this time and so had a lot of contact with average pew-sitting Catholics), I found the main reason was much simpler:

Most Catholics just aren’t interested in the Latin Mass.

Most Catholics are content to attend the Mass they have always attended. They have no problem with how the Mass is celebrated, they like their parish, they like their priest, they like the time it is celebrated. There is no pent-up demand for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

This shouldn’t be surprising. For the past 50 years Catholics have experienced the Ordinary Form of the Mass as, well, the ordinary way one worships God. If they have heard anything about the Latin Mass, it’s probably that it’s a relic of a past we’d just soon forget. So it’s no wonder that most Catholics have little interest in the EF.

So does this mean that traditionalists are wrong in their belief that expanding the offering of the Latin Mass would lead to more people in the pews? Perhaps surprisingly based on my experience, I actually think traditionalists are essentially correct.

Imagine a Catholic Bizzaro World

To demonstrate why I think this, do this thought experiment: imagine Rome decreed tomorrow that every parish in the world had to flip when the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form Masses were offered. So instead of the OF being “ordinary,” it became extraordinary; it was the one offered at odd times and odd places. The EF, on the other hand, replaced every OF Mass currently being said (also assume that every priest was magically capable of celebrating the EF Mass). What would be the result?

Of course we’d hear howls from some quarters of the Church—primarily from aging prelates and clergy. But here’s how I think most Catholics would react: with a shrug. They wouldn’t change a thing: they’d keep going to Mass at the same time and at the same parish they do now. If Joe Catholic is a regular attender of the 9:00am Mass at St. Ann’s, then he would keep going to the 9:00am Mass at St. Ann’s even after it became an EF Mass. It might take him a few months to get used to it, but quickly it would just become his new norm.

We’ve seen this phenomenon twice already in the past generation. When the Novus Ordo was implemented in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s, most Catholics just kept going to their regular parish Mass. Likewise, when the new English translation of the Mass was instituted in 2011, the same thing happened. Most Catholics, I believe, aren’t that consciously concerned with how the Mass is celebrated; they will go to just about any type of Mass their parish celebrates. Over time, yes, how a parish celebrates Mass has an impact on attendance, but in the short term, even radically changing the form of the Mass will have little impact.

But let’s look at this Catholic Bizarro World a little closer. What would happen to the now-restricted Ordinary Form Masses? Would people drive miles and miles, and disrupt their family schedule, to attend an Ordinary Form at an odd time in an odd place? I doubt it. Whereas the beauty and richness of the EF inspires people to make sacrifices to attend it, I doubt many Catholics would be similarly inspired by the typical OF Mass. Likely the offering of the Ordinary Form would dry up and eventually disappear. If it’s not propped up by the institution, then it has little to make people want to sacrifice for it.

Sign of Contradiction

Making the Extraordinary Form ordinary wouldn’t turn off the typical Catholic, and would make things easier for the traditionalist Catholic. But it would also do something else: attract those put off by the banality of how Mass is often celebrated today. The beauty and built-in reverence of the Latin Mass would reach out to those the Church has forgotten: the souls who know there is something beyond this world, but don’t experience that at the typical Mass. The Church would again become something it hasn’t been in decades: a sign of contradiction, which, paradoxically, would attract souls looking for more than this world offers.

The post Would the Latin Mass Fill the Pews? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Be sure to check it out:

The post Interview with Taylor Marshall appeared first on Eric Sammons.

If you are a fan of baseball or know someone who is, I encourage you to check it out:

• Subscribe on iTunes
• Subscribe on Google Play
• Subscribe on Stitcher

The post New Podcast! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

In response Cardinal Ouellet today released an open letter to Archbishop Vigano, but he didn’t give the response Vigano was hoping for. Ouellet’s letter is a combination of fawning veneration of Pope Francis, an avoidance of the main issues, and personal attacks on Archbishop Vigano.

Below is the text of Ouellet’s letter with my commentary included within.

OPEN LETTER FROM THE PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS, CARDINAL MARC OUELLET, ON THE RECENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE HOLY SEE

Dear brother Carlo Maria Viganò,

In your last message to the press, in which you make accusations against Pope Francis and against the Roman Curia, you invite me to tell the truth about certain facts that you interpret as signs of an endemic corruption that has infiltrated the hierarchy of the Church up to its highest levels. With pontifical permission [In other words, this letter has been vetted and approved by Pope Francis and thus is a quasi-official response from the Holy Father to Vigano. Remember that throughout the letter.], and in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I offer my testimony about matters concerning the Archbishop emeritus of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and his presumed links to Pope Francis, matters that are at the center of your public accusations and your demand that the Holy Father resign. I write my testimony based on my personal contacts and on documents in the archives of the Congregation, currently the object of study to clarify this sad case. [“Sad” seems a soft description of the depravity and evil involved in McCarrick’s case, and striking in its mildness compared to the language Ouellet directs at Vigano later in this letter.]

Out of consideration for the good, collaborative relation we had when you were Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, allow me to say, in all honesty, that I find your current attitude incomprehensible and extremely troubling, not only because of the confusion it sows among the People of God, but because your public accusations gravely harm the reputation of the bishops, successors of the Apostles. [Here is the perennial problem, the one that is a major cause of the whole sex abuse crisis: a disordered view of the “reputation” of members of the hierarchy. The reason the reputation of the hierarchy is so low right now isn’t because of accusations, but because the actual evil actions of bishops and clergy. Protecting the reputation of corrupt prelates is why so many cases of evil have been covered up over the years. Reputations are earned, not protected.] I recall a time when I enjoyed your esteem and your trust, but now I see that I have been stripped in your eyes of the respect that was accorded to me, for the only reason I have remained faithful to the Holy Father’s guidance in exercising the service he has entrusted to me in the Church. Is not communion with the Successor of Peter an expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and sustains him with his grace? [Warning: papolatry on display. Vigano has done nothing to break communion with the Successor of Peter. Did St. Paul break communion with St. Peter when he confronted him? Did St. Catherine ever break communion with the pope? Criticism alone doesn’t break communion.] My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you criticize, is grounded in this fidelity to the living tradition, which Francis has given us another example of by recently modifying the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty. [A couple important points here: First, “living tradition” has become the go-to phrase when tradition is being rejected. In this view, if it’s “living” that means it can fundamentally change. Ouellet admits that Amoris Laetitia is a part of this fundamental change – along with the revised teaching on the death penalty. Of course, basic Catholic teaching is that teachings can develop, but they can never contradict previous teachings, which both Amoris Laetitia and Francis’s teaching on the death penalty clearly do. It’s sad that Ouellet, who for a long time was seen as a solid, reliably-orthodox bishop, has fallen into such a deformed view of tradition.]

Let us address the facts. You said that on June 23, 2013, you provided Pope Francis with information about McCarrick in an audience he granted to you, as he also did for many pontifical representatives with whom he met for the first time that day. I can only imagine the amount of verbal and written information that was provided to the Holy Father on that occasion about so many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that the Pope had such interest in McCarrick, as you would like us to believe, given the fact that by then he was an 82-year-old Archbishop emeritus who had been without a role for seven years. [Wow – a Cardinal who is a serial sex abuser doesn’t register on Francis’s radar? Is that because he was too concerned about climate change and other pressing matters, as Cardinal Cupich insinuated? I’m incredulous that Ouellet tries to downplay McCarrick’s evil. Talk about tone-deaf.] Moreover, the written instructions given to you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your mission in 2001 did not say anything about McCarrick, except for what I mentioned to you verbally about his situation as Bishop emeritus and certain conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct. [Here’s the smoking gun: Ouellet admits to the restrictions on McCarrick in place under Pope Benedict XVI.]

From 30th June 2010, when I became Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I never presented in audience the McCarrick case to Pope Benedict XVI or to Pope Francis – not until recently, after his dismissal from the College of Cardinals. The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. [Again, Ouellet admits that restrictions were in place.] It is false, therefore, to present those measures as “sanctions” formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis. After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties. [Now Ouellet wants to play the semantics game – there were no “sanctions,” just “measures.” But he’s admitting to the main accusation made by Vigano: that McCarrick was told to lay low by Pope Benedict XVI based on rumors of his sexual activities with seminarians and others.] The reason is that back then, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged culpability. [Why wasn’t their sufficient proof? With so many rumors, why wasn’t a full investigation initiated? This indicts Benedict as much as Francis, of course.] Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church. His case would have deserved new disciplinary measures if the Nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us recent and definitive information about his behavior. [Ouellet presents himself as outside the loop – but he was the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops! Why couldn’t he initiate an investigation of one of the highest-ranking bishops in the world?] I am of the opinion that, out of respect for the victims and given the need for justice, the inquiry currently underway in the United States and in the Roman Curia should provide a comprehensive and critical study of the procedures and the circumstances of this painful case in order to prevent something like it from ever happening in the future.

How is it possible that this man of the Church, whose incoherence has now been revealed, was promoted many times, and was nominated to such a high position as Archbishop of Washington and Cardinal? I am personally very surprised, and I recognize that there were failures in the selection procedures implemented in his case. However, and without entering here into details, it must be understood that the decisions taken by the Supreme Pontiff are based on the information available to him at the time and that they are the object of a prudential judgment which is not infallible. [At least he admits not everything the pope does is infallible. But he’s trying to shield the pope from criticism. The pope is not just a figurehead in the Church, he’s the one in charge, which means he’s responsible when things go wrong.] I think it is unjust to reach the conclusion that there is corruption on the part of the persons entrusted with this previous discernment process, even though in the particular case some of the concerns that were raised by testimonies should have been examined more closely. The Archbishop also knew how to cleverly defend himself from those concerns raised about him. Furthermore, the fact that there could be in the Vatican persons who practice or support sexual behavior that is contrary to the values of the Gospel, does not authorize us to make generalizations or to declare unworthy and complicit this or that individual, including the Holy Father himself. Should not ministers of the truth avoid above all calumny and defamation? [Ouellet is avoiding the issue and trying to distract our attention. He’s essentially saying, “Yes, there’s a group of predators in the Vatican, but you generalize it too much!”]

Dear pontifical representative emeritus, I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator and, therefore, of being an accomplice to the corruption that afflicts the Church, to the point that he could no longer continue to carry out his reform as the first shepherd of the Church, appears to me from all viewpoints unbelievable and without any foundation. I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation. Francis had nothing to do with McCarrick’s promotions to New York, Metuchen, Newark and Washington. He stripped him of his Cardinal’s dignity as soon as there was a credible accusation of abuse of a minor. For a Pope who does not hide the trust that he places in certain prelates, I never heard him refer to this so called great advisor for the pontificate for episcopal appointments in the United States. I can only surmise that some of those prelates are not of your preference or the preference of your friends who support your interpretation of matters. I think it is abhorrent, however, for you to use the clamorous sexual abuse scandal in the United States to inflict an unmerited and unheard of a blow to the moral authority of your superior, the Supreme Pontiff. [It’s important to realize what Ouellet barely mentions in this letter. Vigano says that McCarrick became one of Francis’s top advisors and that the sanctions (or “measures”) were lifted on McCarrick. We can’t know for sure how influential McCarrick was in advising Francis, but we know for sure that McCarrick became a much more prominent and public figure in the Church after Francis’s election. This strongly suggests that McCarrick returned to favor under Francis, in spite of the well-known rumors, and exactly as Vigano alleges.]

I have the privilege of having long meetings with Pope Francis every week to discuss the appointment of bishops and the problems that affect their governance. I know very well how he treats persons and problems: with great charity, mercy, attentiveness and seriousness, as you too have experienced. I think it is too sarcastic, even blasphemous, how you end your last message, purportedly appealing to spirituality while mocking the Holy Father and casting doubt about his faith. That cannot come from the Spirit of God. [Now Ouellet falls into attacks to discredit Vigano because he’s not polite enough. I know Ouellet’s Canadian, but sometimes the truth has a bite.]

Dear brother, how much I wish that I could help you return to communion with him who is the visible guarantor of communion in the Catholic Church. [This is a shocking statement – Ouellet flat out states that Vigano is out of communion with the pope!  Did Vigano get secretly excommunicated? One does not fall out of communion with the pope just for criticizing him. That’s papolatry at its finest.] I understand that deceptions and sufferings have marked your path in the service to the Holy See, but you should not finish your priestly life involved in an open and scandalous rebellion that inflicts a very painful wound to the Bride of Christ, whom you pretend to serve better, while causing further division and confusion among the People of God. [Division and confusion are caused by those who do evil or who cover it up – not by those who attempt to reveal those evils and coverups.] How could I answer your call except by saying: stop living clandestinely, repent of your rebelliousness, and come back to better feelings towards the Holy Father, instead of fostering hostility against him. [Vigano legitimately fears for his life; this request to come out of hiding could be seen almost as a threat. Also, note the strong language Ouellet uses such as “repent of your rebelliousness.” All he can muster for McCarrick’s actions is to call them “sad,” yet Vigano gets read the riot act. With all the scandalous behavior committed by clergy and prelates, only Vigano is singled out for condemnation—everyone else is “accompanied.”] How can you celebrate Mass and mention his name in the Eucharistic Prayer? How can you pray the Holy Rosary, or pray to Saint Michael the Archangel, or to the Mother of God, while condemning the one Our Lady protects and accompanies every day in his burdensome and courageous mission? [More abject papolatry. It’s unbelievable that a man could rise so high in the Catholic hierarchy with such a warped view of a fundamental Catholic teaching. To think that one must unquestionably venerate the person who occupies the Chair of St. Peter is giving truth to the worst accusations of fundamentalist Protestants about our religion. Ouellet is nothing more than a Vatican party apparatchik now.]

If the Pope was not a man of prayer; if he was attached to money; if he favored riches to the detriment of the poor; if he did not demonstrate a tireless energy to welcome all miseries and to address them through the generous comfort of his words and actions; if he did not seek to implement all possible means to announce and to communicate the joy of the Gospel to all in the Church and beyond her visible horizons; if he did not lend a hand to the families, to the abandoned elderly, to the sick in body and soul and, above all, to the youth in their search for happiness; one could prefer someone else, according to you, with a different political or diplomatic approach. But I cannot call into question his personal integrity, his consecration to the mission and, above all, the charisma and peace he enjoys through the grace of God and the strength of the Risen One. [Honestly, I’m starting to feel sick to my stomach. His fawning is getting embarrassing. Someone needs to say to him, “But for the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal?” At least Wales was worth something.]

Dear Viganò, in response to your unjust and unjustified attack, I can only conclude that the accusation is a political plot that lacks any real basis that could incriminate the Pope and that profoundly harms the communion of the Church. [As always, enemies of the truth always try to reduce things to politics. Truth doesn’t matter, only power does.] May God allow a prompt reparation of this flagrant injustice so that Pope Francis can continue to be recognized for who he is: a true shepherd, a resolute and compassionate father, a prophetic grace for the Church and for the world. May the Holy Father carry on, full of confidence and joy, the missionary reform he has begun, comforted by the prayers of the people of God and the renewed solidarity of the whole Church, together with Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary! [Remember that Ouellet says this letter was vetted by Pope Francis. Which means that Francis approved all the sycophantic statements in praise of him within it. What kind of person does that?]

Marc Cardinal Ouellet
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,
Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, October 7th 2018.

The post The Papolatry of Cardinal Ouellet appeared first on Eric Sammons.

For those who might be unaware (would that be anyone at this point?), Kaepernick is a former NFL quarterback who became (in)famous for kneeling during the National Anthem to protest police brutality. Soon other NFL players followed suit. This infuriated many conservatives, and has particularly bothered President Trump, who seems to be campaigning for Commissioner of the NFL in his spare time.

While this ad caused a lot of controversy (and, contrary to what you might think, an uptick in Nike sales), it also gave us something to smile about: endless parodies. You can’t scroll through your Twitter or Facebook feed for more than a few seconds before finding another parody of the original Nike ad. Here are some of my favorites.

Catholic: Archbishop Vigano

Okay, I’ll confess: I created this one right after the Nike ad dropped, so it shouldn’t be surprising it’s my favorite Catholic one. It depicts Archbishop Vigano, the former papal nuncio who courageously revealed the Pope Francis and others knew about, and covered up, the details of former Cardinal McCarrick’s sexual misdeeds.

Political: Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s muppet-like face is very meme-able. But it’s his socialist beliefs that are particularly worth mocking, especially as it calls for sacrifice from everyone else.

Weirdest: Alex Jones

Okay, I’ll admit I don’t completely understand this one, but it’s hilarious nonetheless. Jones is known to believe every crazy theory, so I guess at some point he claimed that frogs are gay.

Libertarian: Larry Sharpe

Larry Sharpe is running for New York Governor as the Libertarian Party candidate, and needless to say, he’s not a fan of big government. And neither am I, for the same reason as Sharpe: it will cost you everything.

Pop Culture: Thanos

After Infinity War was released, a lot of people noticed that the archvillain Thanos held beliefs that were frighteningly close to some modern-day environmentalists. His calls for “sacrifice,” like most tyrants (and most politicans, for that matter), usually involved others’ sacrifices.

Most Appropriate: Edward Snowden

A big reason for the pushback against Nike was its suggestion that Kaepernick had made a significant sacrifice. The truth was that he was already a backup quarterback and it’s questionable if his decision to kneel was the decisive figure in his lack of work in the NFL right now. In fact, he probably is more popular than he would have been if he hadn’t knelt. Regardless, if Nike wanted to make an ad that truly represented their campaign’s message, no one would be more appropriate than Edward Snowden, who really did sacrifice everything for what he believed in.

The post Best Nike Kaepernick Ad Parodies appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Ah, the naivety of youth.

Anyone who has been a disciple of Christ for any real length of time knows that the spiritual life can be hard. Having a life of prayer, regularly reading the Bible or other spiritual works, dying to self to serve others: these things don’t come naturally to most of us. Although we might experience bursts of spiritual enthusiasm from time to time, remaining motivated to maintain and improve our spiritual health is challenging. Many factors can influence our spiritual life: psychological factors, external influences, and the effects of Original Sin are a few that come to mind. But there’s one factor that I think is often overlooked, although it can have a great impact on our spiritual health:

Physical health.

Continue reading at Mind & Spirit…

The post Want to Grow Spiritually? Get Physical! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post Sooner or Later God’ll Cut You Down appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post Catholic Answers Live appeared first on Eric Sammons.

“Why not? It’s their job to protect us!”

I understood my nephew’s frustration. Our once-beautiful town of Ecclesia has for years been overridden with crime. The police have apparently given up. For a while they did the rounds, making an appearance of fighting crime, while in reality looking the other way. Now they don’t even bother to do that.

I wasn’t around during the “good old days,” but older neighbors tell me Ecclesia was quite different then. Not that everything was perfect, but at least there was a concerted effort to fight crime when it occurred. And usually the police were successful. But something happened in the years just before I was born. The police decided that criminals needed to be “engaged” instead of combatted. This, the argument went, would stop them from being criminals.

Of course, the opposite happened: the tactic just emboldened them to commit more crimes. Most police officers simply stopped enforcing the laws, afraid of going against the new push for “engagement.” Some of the police even joined the criminals, while remaining on the force. It was an open secret that the local drug gang was led by a police lieutenant.

Some of us decided to go to state officials to complain. We told them time and time again of crimes going unpunished. We wrote letters recounting families torn apart by criminals run amok. We begged them to step in and replace our ineffectual and corrupt police force. Instead, they gave our high-ranking police officers awards for their “excellent work.” We realized that we wouldn’t be getting help from higher-ups. The solution wasn’t going to come from the capital.

We had enough. We decided to form a private security force to combat the rise in crime in Ecclesia. If the police wouldn’t resist crime, then we would. We would patrol the streets. We would find ways to prevent young people from joining gangs. We would stop letting criminals run the streets.

What was the response of the police? They condemned us! They said that it wasn’t our job to defend Ecclesia. Leave it to them. The police threatened arrest for those who didn’t abandon the effort to stop crime. A few people resolved to defend our town anyway, but most of us gave up. With both the police and the criminals against us, the cause appeared hopeless.

Crime is a fact of life in Ecclesia. We look the other way. Sometimes a young person will become upset when a crime occurs, but he’ll be told there’s nothing he can do. Eventually he accepts reality. What is that reality? That our once-glorious town of Ecclesia is not so glorious anymore.

But a small number of families are quietly teaching our children about Ecclesia’s past. We dream that one day things will change. Although the apathy of the police is pervasive, we hope a new generation will build a restored Ecclesia.

The post The Decline of Ecclesia: A Parable appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Good intentions, bad advice.

As a father of seven, let me just be the first to say: children can be a distraction. Especially at Mass. There’s no shame in admitting that you can’t concentrate on the sacred mysteries when some toddler right behind you is screaming louder than a Boeing 747 at takeoff. Although the Mass is the heavenly banquet, we celebrate it here on earth, where we struggle with this mortal coil.

The best advice I’ve heard is from a priest who would say before each homily, “If your children get obstreperous, please take them out until they settle down. Then please feel free to return.” First, anyone who can use the word “obstreperous” in a sentence gets extra points from me (and yes, I did have to ask my wife what the word meant). Second, this is just common sense advice: take the child out to calm him down, then bring him back once that happens. This should be obvious, but apparently it’s not anymore.

Practical Advice

Let me be even more practical, based on my own experiences after more than 20 years of having a baby or toddler at Mass (if your teenager is still distracting others at Mass, you’ve got bigger problems than I can address here). I have two guidelines: loudness and duration. If a child is making a noise that only your pew and perhaps one pew in front or behind can hear, don’t worry about it. I’ve heard elderly people “whisper” loud enough to be heard five pews over, and we don’t ask them to step out of church, so a semi-quiet noise like that can be tolerated. Second, if the noise lasts for less than ten seconds, don’t worry about it. By the time you collect the kid and do the walk of shame down the aisle to the back of church, the distraction is already over. (As an aside, never bring noisy toys to distract your child during Mass. They are usually much more distracting to everyone else around you.)

True story: One of our daughters was a “screamer” as a child. She had the lungs of an opera singer. One Sunday, I had to take her out of Mass, and as we walked to the back, she screamed at full volume, “NO! I DON’T WANT TO GO BACK, DADDY!” Good times.

So if a child is loud enough to be heard 2-3 pews over AND is making the noise for over ten seconds, I’d say that is “obstreperous” and you should probably find the nearest exit.

In my own experience, following these rules trains children to act properly at Mass. For all our kids, we usually had to take them out of Mass almost every single Sunday from the time they were 1 1/2 years old until they were 2 1/2 years old. When we first start taking a child out, there’s no punishment involved. But by the time she is around 2 1/2 years old, we make it so going out of the church is something she doesn’t want to do: she isn’t allowed to play in the back and she must stay still. Eventually she realizes she would just rather stay in the pew quietly. She also comes to realize that there’s a certain way to behave at Mass, because Mass is a special, sacred event.

Training Children in Reverence

This leads to an important point. Teaching children to be quiet at Mass is being courteous to other parishioners, but it’s also good for the children themselves. One of the most important duties of a parent is teaching our children how to act in the world. They need to look someone in the eye when they shake his hand; they need to say “thank you” when given something; and they need to replace the toilet paper roll when it runs out (for the love of all that is holy, replace the roll!!).

They also need to learn how to behave at Mass. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the most sacred event we can participate in. It’s our opportunity to be at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. We need to treat it as such. Would we blow a kazoo during the middle of a funeral? Would we attend a State dinner at the White House in cut-off jeans and a tank top? (Actually, we shouldn’t ever think that’s a good fashion combo.) Of course we wouldn’t. Likewise, we should treat the Mass with the reverence it deserves. This means maintaining silence as much as possible. It also means that toys and food are not appropriate to bring into the pew to distract the child. Instead, bring a Bible story book or a children’s lives of the Saints. The child needs to know that this is not playtime, but a time set aside for the sacred.

When I think of the priest who argued that it doesn’t really matter how kids act at Mass, I can’t help but see a larger problem. If we don’t care how kids act at Mass, then we won’t care how adults act outside of Mass. If attendance is all that matters, then we are not really asking people to change their lives to conform them to Christ’s. By telling a young child that it doesn’t matter how he acts during Mass, we are telling him that this activity is no different—and no more important—than playing on the McDonald’s playground. We need to teach our children from a young age the importance of reverence during sacred activities. This is a good first lesson on the importance of conforming our lives to Christ in all things.

Mass is the intersection of heaven and earth; it’s where we unite with the Saints and the angels in worshipping our Lord. But there are still earthly elements involved, such as toddlers who can’t sit still or keep quiet. Let’s train them properly to understand the sacredness of the Mass so that one day they fully appreciate the privilege they have in participating in these great mysteries.

The post Noisy Children at Mass: How to Train for Reverence (and Why) appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Eventually, the practice was made lawful by Pope St. John Paul II (one of the bigger mistakes of his pontificate). Now almost every Catholic parish in the country (and the world) has girl altar servers. The argument is that they can serve just as well as boys (which is true) and that there’s no doctrinal reason to prohibit them from serving (also true). It’s also argued that allowing girls to serve makes them more “involved” in the parish and therefore more likely to remain Catholic as they get older. There’s no evidence to back this up, and of course for centuries girls weren’t allowed to serve at the altar and we didn’t see a drop in female membership then.

But the real problems with allowing girls to be altar servers aren’t even addressed in these pro-altar girl arguments.

Boys to Men

First, having all-male servers allows boys a time to be together without girls. As I noted in my previous article, this fosters a healthier masculinity in boys. It also fosters a healthier spiritual masculinity. Like everything else, how men and women “do” religion is often fundamentally different. Men often see religion in militaristic tones, whereas women see it more in terms of relationships. Neither is wrong, just different. Men will practice their faith in terms of fighting a battle: a battle against temptation, against the world, against the devil and his fallen angels. Women, on the other hand, often practice a more relationship-based spirituality. They practice their faith out of devotion to their beloved, Jesus Christ.

(As an aside, this is why the modern, one-sided emphasis on Christianity as a relationship is damaging. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’ve seen so many men leave the practice of the faith at a time when we only focus on the relationship aspects of following Christ.)

When my son was eight years old, he had expressed no interest in being an altar server. Our parish was a typical one, and we had both boys and girls serving at the altar. Then we moved to another state, and began attending a Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), which only allowed altar boys. Almost immediately he expressed an interest in serving.

Why the change? Did he have deep-seated anti-woman, chauvinistic feelings? Did he think girls were unworthy to serve and be in his presence? No, he was just a normal, healthy boy who was in the developmental stage where he wanted to hang out with other boys. When he saw boys serving at the altar, being serious and reverent, he was naturally attracted to it.

I also believe the military-like aspects of serving the TLM attracted him. Here were boys standing at attention, following orders, and moving in unison to achieve their goal. Just like a military organization. Although our society now allows women to fight in battle (another terrible surrender to radical feminism), most people still naturally see military service as the purview of men. Likewise for service at the altar. By letting girls serve at the altar, we are feminizing the activity, and thus making it less attractive to the boys.

(For a very sad case of how the inclusion of girls at the altar impacted one young man, read this article: What Being an Altar Boy Once Meant to a Former Gay Man.)

Training for the Priesthood

Another problem with altar girls is that service at the altar is supposed to dispose boys to the priesthood. It’s not that every altar boy will be a priest, but priests often come from altar boys. Allowing girls to serve at the altar while not allowing them to be priests is cruel, to be frank. It’s like letting a kid practice with a team, but then not allowing him to play in the game. Of course, some think the answer is to allow women priests, but Our Lord already precluded that possibility.

When girls serve at the altar, we make that service no longer about training for the priesthood; it’s simply another profane activity, like sweeping the church after Mass. Such an activity is an important service, but it’s not sacred, as the priesthood and service at the altar are supposed to be. Some might complain that the Church therefore thinks men are more sacred than women. Yet sacred duties are not about the person performing it, but about God who is being served. A proscription against girls serving at the altar was never a statement about the worthiness of girls, just as the fact that men can’t join a Carmelite convent doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy enough to follow St. Theresa of Avila. Likewise, the Blessed Mother isn’t “less sacred” than the Apostles just because she wasn’t chosen as one of the Twelve by the Lord (quite the contrary, in fact).

Further, having girls at the altar restricts the ability of the priest to really open up about life as a priest. If he has a mixed-sex gathering of altar servers, how can he talk about the priesthood without being insensitive to those who can never become priests? However, if there are only boys, he can reveal to them more openly what it means to be a priest.

Combatting Today’s Gender Nonsense

Finally, allowing girls to serve at the altar removes a shield in the battle against today’s secular gender nonsense. Many Catholics who understand the problems with radical feminism don’t grasp that having no gender distinctions in the Church (other than the priesthood) is a surrender to that radical feminism. If Catholics were to see a clear gender delineation every Sunday at Mass, they would be less likely to succumb to arguments that men and woman are the same. They will understand, subconsciously at least, that they are not.

Several years ago I was conducting an “Ask Any Question” session at my parish. People could ask any question at all about the Catholic Faith. Most who attended were Catholics who only infrequently attended Mass, or had some issues with the Church. I built a relationship with one of the men who attended a few times. He had a number of problems with the Church, but had a good heart. He also respected my adherence to Church teaching. However, one day in passing I mentioned that my daughters would not be altar servers because “I don’t believe in altar girls.” (This was when I was at my parish that had both altar boys and altar girls). My friend flipped out. He could not understand my position. He thought it was discrimination, plain and simple, to exclude girls at the altar.

I realized quickly that he would not listen to any of my arguments. His mind was set. I also realized how deeply the view that men and women are the same has taken hold in our culture today. No institution has resisted that view. Even in the Church, which is supposed to be supremely counter-cultural, that view prevailed. If, however, the Church had resisted the push for gender sameness, then perhaps a generation of Catholics would have at least implicitly remembered that men and women are different. But we’ll never know.

The post In Defense of Altar Boys appeared first on Eric Sammons.

While I agree that in practice every family presents a unique situation, and thus each family must choose what is best for them, I’d argue that homeschooling is in fact the best objective form of education for Catholic families in the United States today. This doesn’t preclude the reality that homeschooling might not be the best subjective form of education in individual circumstances.

Let’s look at the most common forms of education today. And in the spirit of things, let’s give each one a grade. Note that my description of each form is of course a generalization, but I’m trying to give an overview of each option as it exists today in America.

Public school

Grade: F

In essence, public schools are the worst of all worlds. They are frequently academically substandard, pushing political correctness over academic excellence. The recent anti-gun march is just the latest example of the government-sponsored brainwashing many public-school students receive. Public schools not only do not teach Catholic values, they often espouse anti-Catholic beliefs and practices. At a time when a child is in his formative stages, public schools work to separate the child from his parents and their values. In all honesty, we’ve come to the point where only in the most extreme situations should a Catholic family send their kids to public schools.

Catholic School

Catholic schools have to be broken down into two categories: those schools that are pseudo-Catholic, i.e. they treat the Faith as a facade (the majority); and those which take the Faith seriously.

Pseudo-Catholic School

Grade: D

Most Catholic schools today simply use the Faith as a front. They put crucifixes on the walls and say a few prayers, but Catholicism does not permeate the school. Unfortunately, most diocesan schools fall under this category. Many simply ape the public schools when it comes to academics, though some do have legitimately strong academic programs. In some ways a pseudo-Catholic school can be worse than a public school, for the students come to believe that the weak Catholicism presented by the school is the actual faith. They essentially misrepresent Catholicism. But I’ll give them a better grade than public schools simply because they usually have better academics and are less dogmatic about political correctness.

Serious Catholic School

Grade: B

There do exist some Catholic schools that take the faith seriously. These can produce Catholics who excel both academically and spiritually. Unfortunately, there are far too few of these schools. However, even these schools are not without issues. Sometimes a solidly Catholic school is strong theologically/spiritually but mimics the public schools academically. Without confidence in, or perhaps knowledge of, the long academic tradition of the Church, they espouse the latest educational fads. Further, while it’s good such schools are solidly Catholic, children there must still contend with negative peer influences. If we lived in an age when most kids were raised well, such influences might be minimized. In today’s world, however, every kid in any school is bombarded with the cultural trash that permeates our society, and that is sadly part of their “education.”

Private School

Grade: C

Non-Catholic private schools are a mixed bag and include Christian schools, secular schools, or even non-Christian religious schools. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. But for a Catholic, all can be problematic. None will teach the Catholic faith, and many will outright contradict it. Some might be strong academically, but finding such a school is a crapshoot. They are also often very expensive, which can be overwhelming for large Catholic families. While there might be a few that work out, private schools aren’t usually a solid option for Catholics.

Boarding School

Grade: B-

Boarding schools are quite rare in the United States today. At their best, they can give a child a solid foundation for character building. At their worst, they can isolate a child from his family and teach values contrary to that family. I do know a few families who have sent their children to boarding schools with success, but they are so rare and such an unknown, they are not really a realistic option for most Catholic families.

Homeschool

Grade: A

Many people who don’t homeschool think that homeschooling is simply normal school, but at home. This is what I too thought before our family began homeschooling more than fifteen years ago. I came to realize, however, that homeschooling represents a completely different paradigm. It creates a family togetherness that simply isn’t possible when the kids are out of the house for eight hours every day. Siblings spend more time together, and they have to deal with different age levels (unlike traditional schools, which enforce rigid age groupings).

Homeschooling also allows children to absorb their parents’ values and beliefs, without the propaganda they often receive at outside schools. Instead of hoping that the science teacher won’t make anti-Catholic remarks, the parent is the science teacher!

Another strength of homeschooling is that academics can be adapted for the individual student. This was the primary reason we decided to homeschool our oldest daughter many years ago. She was in a (decent) Catholic school for a couple of years, but we noticed that, as a quiet child, she was easily lost in the shuffle of a normal classroom. Most teachers spend most of their energy teaching to the average students and controlling the worst. Anyone who might be in any way outside the norm was forgotten. With homeschooling, all lessons and subjects can be directed towards the child’s strengths.

Grade-A Catholic Education

I would argue that homeschooling is objectively the best form of education for Catholic families in the United States today. If homeschooling is a realistic option for a Catholic family, they should choose it over other forms. Of course, I recognize that subjectively it depends on the situation. Single parent homes, families with a difficult parent/child dynamic, communities with little homeschooling support all might lead to other options that are necessary in that particular situation. But all things being equal, homeschooling offers the only Grade-A education option for Catholic families in the United States today.

The post What’s the Best Education Option for Catholic Families Today? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But I couldn’t help thinking: is that it? Back in 2005, the USCCB announced that “more than 150,000 Americans will join the Catholic Church on Holy Saturday”. I remember that the 150,000 number was frequently thrown around in those days as the typical number of new Catholics entering the Church each year. So although I’m happy for those 30,000 people who entered this year, I couldn’t help be disappointed as well.

But I still thought 30,000 sounded really low, so I decided to do some digging into the numbers. Using Google and the Wayback Machine I found the USCCB’s Easter convert announcements over the years, dating back to 2004 (when they also said “more than 150,000” people would enter the Church). I thought it would be relatively easy to find the number each year and do a comparison, but what I found was a mess of different statistics, differing methods of reporting, and mistakes from the USCCB. Eventually I was able to wade through to some semblance of reliable numbers. I found that even though the numbers aren’t as bad as a drop from 150,000 to 30,000 in thirteen years, they aren’t encouraging either.

Related: My Facebook Live discussion on these findings

Steady Decline

Almost every Spring since 2004 the USCCB has issued a press release proclaiming the tens of thousands of new members coming into the Church at Easter. But this year was the first time since 2005 they have given an estimated total number. They arrive at that number through some extrapolation, for most dioceses don’t report to them their actual convert numbers. Most years, however, the press release will include the previous year’s Official Catholic Directory total number of adult baptisms and receptions into full communion. The OCD number is the most accurate number to use for how many converts the Church has received each year. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to past Directories, but digging through various sites and press releases, here’s what I found:

*In 2008, I could not find actual OCD numbers, but I did find an article that gave a rounded number from the OCD.

Here are the numbers represented in graph form:

As you can see, 1999 is the modern high point for new Catholics, with over 172,000. The numbers stayed relatively stable in the early 00’s—right around that magical 150,000. But we start to see a decrease in 2007, which essentially continues, with the exception of a tick up in 2014, all the way to 2016, the latest date I have reliable numbers. Most years see about a 5-10% decrease from the previous year. Overall, since 1999 the number of yearly converts has decreased by 40%.

So where does this year’s 30,000 number come from? Have the number of converts really dropped from over 100,000 in 2016 to 30,000 in 2018? I don’t think so. I found that the numbers reported by the USCCB for Easter Vigil aren’t always the total number of converts eventually reported by the Official Catholic Directory at the end of the year. Many people come into the Church at other times of the year, and I also think the USCCB messed up their estimate. If I had to guess, I suspect that the number will most likely around 95,000, based on recent history. A larger number, to be sure, but also a clear decline.

Recognizing the Problem

Everyone has an opinion as to why these numbers are going down. I think it’s a combination of a lot of factors myself, but I’m not interested in the “why” right down. I’m more interested in the attitude of Catholics—particularly Catholic leaders—toward these numbers.

I’ve done Catholic evangelization work for the almost quarter-century at the individual, parish, and diocesan level. One thing I’ve discovered is that the Catholic Church in America is the most self-congratulatory organization I’ve ever seen. You constantly hear bishops praising their “vibrant” dioceses, and priests gushing over their “welcoming” parishes. Lay people love to brag about anecdotal stories of tons of new converts. It’s like the New York Yankees having five straight losing seasons, yet their GM and manager are praising how great they are doing. If you didn’t know the numbers, you could be forgiven if you believed that the Church was growing by leaps and bounds (note: these numbers don’t even reflect the more sobering reality that millions of Catholics—including many of those previous converts—leave the Church each year).

The first step to recovery, they say, is recognizing you have a problem. As long as we delude ourselves into believing we are doing a great job at evangelization, these numbers are going to continue to decline. We need to recognize that how we attract members as a Church is not working, and something needs to change. Only then will we see those numbers reverse their trend and begin to increase each year. Then we will have a real reason to rejoice.

USCCB Easter Convert Announcements:

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 (none issued)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018

The post The Incredibly Shrinking Catholic Convert Rate appeared first on Eric Sammons.

For a while I despaired that I wouldn’t be able to become self-employed due simply to the ridiculous cost of health insurance. But then I decided to research health sharing plans. I knew that someone in a health share was exempt from Obamacare penalties (starting in 2019, that penalty will be removed), but I’ll admit that I was initially skeptical of actually depending on such a plan. I worried that they wouldn’t really cover my medical expenses, and it seemed bordering on crazy to depend on a bunch of strangers to pay for potentially huge doctor bills. But after doing some research I decided to take a leap of faith and sign up with Samaritan Ministries.

How It Works

Essentially, here’s how it works. Each month I send a check for around $500 to another family in the Samaritan Ministries network. These checks are to pay for that family’s medical expenses. The whole process is completely automated: I get an email each month telling me to login to my account to pay my “share.” The system will tell me exactly how much to pay, what it is for (a broken arm, a pregnancy, etc), and who to send it to. Samaritan also encourages you to pray for the other member and to send them a supportive note.

My share is my total expense: about $500/month (the amount varies each month depending on the needs, but it’s always within about 5% more or less than $500). Also note that as a family with children I pay the highest monthly amount a member would pay—single people and couples without kids pay substantially less. In other words, I’m paying almost $1,000 less each month than I would with the cheapest possible health insurance. In addition, that cheap health insurance would have required a very high deductible—as much as $5,000 a year. So my total savings is up to $17,000 a year ($12,000 premium + $5,000 deductible).

Health Sharing in Practice

This all sounds good so far, but what worried me is when I had medical expenses: Will doctors accept me as a patient without insurance? Would the expenses be covered by Samaritan? Would the process to receive reimbursement be difficult? Since I’ve been a member, I’ve had to submit four separate needs, and each one was simple and straightforward. Let me give a recent example.

My little one at the hospital.

In December I had to take my two-year-old to the emergency room because she was having trouble breathing. They ended up transporting her by ambulance to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where she spent one night. Here was the total costs associated with this incident:

• Children’s Hospital & Doctors: $6,813
• Emergency Room Doctors: $812
• Emergency Room Hospital: $1,706
• Total: $9,331

Even though the incident with my daughter was relatively minor (only an overnight stay), the bills were substantial. Most of us don’t have over $9,000 sitting around in our bank accounts, even if we have a rainy day fund.

How was this handled with Samaritan Ministries? First, allow me to let you in on a little secret known as “self-pay.” When you go to a doctor or hospital, the first thing they ask you, even before asking what’s wrong, is your insurance information. However, since I don’t have insurance, I tell them that I’m “self-pay.” This magic word brings incredible discounts. And I’ve never been denied service for not having insurance. In the situation above, here are the discounts I automatically received, simply by saying I’m self-pay:

• Children’s Hospital & Doctors: $3,270 discount
• Emergency Room Doctors: $324 discount
• Emergency Room Hospital: $511 discount

So now my total bill was down to $5,226. Still a lot, but much less than $9,331. At this point, I submitted my bills to Samaritan Ministries. They have a convenient online portal where I can just upload my bills quickly and easily. They take a few days to process the need, and then they share it with the network to pay. So about a week after I submitted my bills, I logged onto the portal and was shown a list of eleven Samaritan members who would be sending me checks ranging from $200 to $500. The total amount I would receive? $5,226. In other words, the whole amount. Sometimes you have to pay the first $300 of your bill, but if you get discounts, they apply it to that amount. Since my discounts were far more than $300, I was reimbursed the whole amount.

Click to read this nice note.

As of this writing, I’ve received seven of the eleven payments thus far, and the rest are due by April 5th. I’ve received some very nice notes as well, with members praying for my daughter—see, for example, the sweet note on the right (my daughter’s fine now, in case you were wondering). In my two years with Samaritan, I’ve only had one incident where a member didn’t send me a check. In that case, Samaritan simply asks another member to send me a check the following month (and I assume the non-paying member was removed from Samaritan’s services).

Some Caveats

Needless to say, I’m sold on Samaritan Ministries. But it’s not necessarily for everyone. There are a few caveats regarding using a health share system like Samaritan. First, pre-existing conditions are not covered. This of course excludes some people who might want to use the service, but it keeps the overall expenses to share at a reasonable level.

Second, when signing up at Samaritan (and other similar programs, I assume), you have to agree to live based on “biblical principles.” This means no extramarital sexual relations, no drinking to drunkenness, no recreational drug use, etc. This ensures that members live in a healthy manner, and also that members don’t have to pay for the immoral lifestyles of others (also note that Samaritan won’t cover abortion or contraception services).

A final caveat involves cash flow. There can be a 2-3 month time frame between the time you receive your bills and the time in which you receive your payment from other members. So you will need to either contact the hospital/doctor and work out a payment plan, or pay the bills out of your pocket and then be reimbursed later.

A Better, More Christian, Way

At this point I’m a huge supporter of health share plans like Samaritan Ministries. In fact, I find them far superior to, and far more Christian than, modern health insurance plans. For they allow Christians to share their burdens with other Christians. They are much more economical. They allow us to escape funding medical services that we find immoral. And finally, they push hospitals and doctors to charge more reasonable fees instead of their inflated insurance-based fees.

Although this sounds like a sales pitch for Samaritan Ministries, I’m not being compensated for this article (although if you sign up and mention my name, I’ll get a small referral credit on my account). But I get asked a lot about my experience with Samaritan Ministries, so I wanted to lay out my experience for others to see. I recommend them highly for anyone looking to escape the health insurance system and take care of their medical bills in a more fair, more Christian, way.

The post Escaping the Health Insurance System appeared first on Eric Sammons.

After Rev. Graham’s passing, the deserved accolades began to pour in. On social media, thousands spoke highly of him and the influence he had on their lives. Those who are Protestant naturally assumed that he went directly to heaven. But I also noted that many Catholics were doing the same. By doing so, they were essentially canonizing him as St. Billy Graham. For example, Fox News commentator and Catholic priest Fr. Jonathan Morris tweeted:

From Jerusalem, I mourn the death of Billy Graham. From this earthly city of human brokenness, I can imagine more easily the New Jerusalem, where Our Lord has now welcomed his faithful son, #billygraham

— Fr. Jonathan Morris (@fatherjonathan) February 21, 2018

I found this tweet problematic for a Catholic, especially a Catholic priest. If you are Catholic, then you believe (or should believe) what the Church teaches. And the Church teaches that the sacraments are the best instruments of grace we have, and that the Church is necessary for salvation.

Now Rev. Graham was a baptized Christian, so he was a member of the Church, albeit imperfectly. And his Protestantism was not a choice he made against the Catholic Church, but instead something he was simply born into. So I’m not saying that Rev. Graham is going to hell. However, as a Protestant who never was Confirmed, never received the Eucharist, and never went to Confession, he missed out on immeasurable graces that would have brought him closer to Christ in this life. Because of this, it’s far more likely that Rev. Graham will spend at least some time in purgatory, contrary to what Fr. Morris implied in his tweet.

If a Protestant can go immediately to heaven—even a Protestant as commendable as Rev. Graham—then what is the purpose of being Catholic? For it would appear that simply being a “good Christian” is good enough to bypass purgatory. To me, this seems like a works-based religion. For it means that if someone works hard enough at being a Christian, then the graces found in the sacraments are unnecessary.

Billy Graham was a great man, and a commendable Christian. We have reason to hope that he will one day be welcomed into the New Jerusalem by Our Lord. However, for his sake, please pray for him instead of canonizing him, for, like most of us, he likely will need to spend time in purgatory before entering his heavenly reward. I’m sure that our prayers, rather than our praises, is what he most wants right now.

The post St. Billy Graham? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are advocating for more guns. For example, I saw a lot of people arguing for armed guards at schools. Prominent conservative Matt Walsh tweeted:

I'll never understand the mentality of people who are resistant to armed security in public schools. It's a government building. A government building with our kids inside. Why shouldn't it be protected like any other government building?

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) February 15, 2018

So is this the answer? Should we have armed guards at school? While it might sound comforting, I think there are some significant negative unintended consequences of such a move.

Dehumanizing Environment

When I was working for a diocese down in Florida, one of my responsibilities was overseeing prison ministry throughout the diocese. This meant visits to various jails and prisons over the years. Anyone who’s been to a correctional facility, even for a visit, knows how dehumanizing they are. You can’t help but become a little depressed just walking through the halls. Every movement is monitored, and you are constantly aware that you have no freedom while inside these walls. This is intentional: part of the security is the psychological wearing down of the inmates. You are less likely to cause trouble if you have no hope of freedom, even in the smallest areas of your life.

Also during this time in Florida, one of my daughters, who was being homeschooled, had to take the SAT. In order to do so, we had to visit the local high school in order to register her. This high school was pretty typical; it was average size and the students were middle-class. It wasn’t an inner-city school, nor was there any history of violence or significant trouble at the school.

When we arrived, we had to first enter a building that gave access to the rest of the campus. We gave the secretary our driver’s licenses and she created school IDs for us, which we had to wear at all times while at the school. We then walked to the appropriate office, which shared a waiting area with the Vice Principal in charge of discipline at the school.

Naturally we had to wait for over an hour (government efficiency!). While we waited, I witnessed a stream of students being brought into the office, usually accompanied by what appeared to be a security guard. It didn’t seem as if any single big incident occurred—the students were brought in for unrelated events. I was struck by how omnipresent security seemed to be in the school.

Once we got what we wanted, we began to return to the building we entered. This led us past the cafeteria, and it was lunchtime. Surrounding the students were a host of security guards—at least six in total—who constantly surveilled the students. I don’t know if they were armed, but they were uniformed and intimidating in appearance. As I left the school, I couldn’t help but realize the similarities between visiting a school and visiting a prison. The same sense of incarceration and hopelessness prevailed at both. The underlying feeling, at both the school and the prison, was the crushing of freedom.

Band-Aid Solution

I completely understand why schools have security guards. The sad fact is that they are often necessary to keep order and allow students to do their studies in peace. However, I also think the prison-like feeling in a school has a real—and negative—impact on students. If you are treated like a prisoner, you will likely begin to act like a prisoner. You will either chafe at all the restrictions, or you will become exceedingly compliant and docile to all authority. Either way, you will not be educated to your full potential, and it will fundamentally alter how you look at authority.

Armed guards in schools is only a band-aid when surgery is needed. It won’t solve the problem, and it might even give a false sense of security which will lead to more long-term problems down the road. So what is the solution? There are no easy ones. The biggest problem in society, and the main cause of school shootings, is the breakdown of the family. Children who grow up in intact, loving families with the mother and father together are far, far less likely to commit these type of crimes. Yet there is no government solution that can build families; in fact, in most cases more government just weakens those family bonds. As long as we only look to legislative answers to our problems, the best we can do is band-aids, even if they cause more problems down the road.

The post Armed Guards at Schools Aren’t the Answer appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Churchgoing, But Not Religious

I grew up in a family of regular churchgoers. We attended our local Methodist church dutifully each and every week. Missing church services on Sunday morning was unthinkable. Even to this day it’s inconceivable for me to do anything other than attend church on Sunday mornings.

But being regular churchgoers didn’t mean we were particularly religious. We prayed before dinner, but other than that, we didn’t discuss religious topics at home, nor did we partake in any other religious activities. Belonging to the local church was more of a social duty than anything else in our family. It was an outward sign of respectability, not really an inward religious conviction. I gave little thought to Christianity outside of Sunday services. (However, years later my parents became much more religious and convicted in their beliefs).

This type of upbringing didn’t really prepare me for the temptations of high school. Although I was a “good kid” growing up—never getting in trouble at school or doing anything to disappoint my parents—I didn’t have any strong convictions to help me resist various worldly temptations as I got into my teen years. So it’s probably not surprising that at the beginning of my sophomore year of high school I fell in with the “wrong crowd.” I started going to parties that included alcohol, and eventually joined the drinking. I wasn’t completely comfortable with this lifestyle, but I didn’t see myself stopping it either. The path my actions were leading me down was not a good one.

Sticking Around

Around this time I also started attending my Methodist church’s youth group. This might seem contradictory: why did you start attending youth group at the same time you were falling in with the wrong crowd? The best answer is that teenagers are full of contradictions. I didn’t start attending youth group due to some inner conviction, but instead it was just something to do, and my sister had started going, so why not? Of course, looking back I see grace at work. Interestingly, years later my youth minister told me he thought “there is no way Eric will stick around” when I first started going to meetings. It must have been clear to him I had little interest in following Christ at that point in my life.

In April of my sophomore year, my youth group went on a retreat at a Christian college in Indiana. I went along, primarily because a girl I was interested in was going. On our first night there, my roommate at the retreat asked me if I wanted to smoke weed with him. I had never smoked weed, but I can’t say I wasn’t interested. Fortunately I was afraid we’d be caught so I turned him down.

As the retreat progressed I became more interested in the talks and skits. Growing up I had always taken sermons seriously, often making resolutions during them. However, upon leaving church I quickly forgot those resolutions. Hearing a crash-course of sermons over a few days, however, meant the word of God dug deeper into my soul. I began to feel more and more convicted as the retreat progressed.

Life-Altering Conversion

The closing talk of a retreat like this is a special one. The retreat leaders go all-out to get the kids to make a commitment to Christ. I don’t really remember the details of what was said, nor do I remember anything about the speaker. I do, however, remember the auditorium and where I was sitting. I even remember where the girl I was interested in was sitting (one row in front of me, a few seats to the right). What I most remember, however, is that at the end of the talk, the speaker asked anyone to come forward “who wants to receive Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” I also remember that the song Friends by Michael W. Smith was playing, which was the go-to emotional song of that time. The retreat leaders were leaving nothing to chance.

When I saw people go forward, I began to consider going forward myself. I’ll admit that part of my reason was that I thought it might impress the girl I liked, who was serious about her faith (never underestimate the power of a girl to a teenage boy). Almost without realizing it, I found myself standing up and walking to the front. I knelt down, and someone placed his hands on my head and began praying. I felt convicted, for the first time, that I wanted to serve Christ completely for the rest of my life. I made a promise in that moment to give my life to God. And looking back over thirty years later, I can say that I’ve tried to keep that promise ever since then. Of course I’ve fallen at times, but that promise made in an Indiana college auditorium to the tune of a Michael W. Smith song has stuck with me to this day.

Eternally Grateful

For Catholics reading this, there might be some uneasiness with my story. After all, this wasn’t a sacramental moment; in fact, it all sounds pretty emotional. Didn’t you go forward to impress a girl? Weren’t the leaders manipulating your emotions? Lots of people make promises in the heat of an event, and many (perhaps most) of them forget that promise pretty quickly afterwards.

All this is true. However, I know with certainty that this moment was grace-filled for me. I know that my life changed in that moment: I went from living for myself to striving to live for Christ. The conviction that began that April night in Indiana eventually led me five years later to become Catholic. I had made a promise to follow Christ no matter where it led. Of course, at the time I had no idea that Catholicism would be a part of that. But when a few short years later I was presented with the truths of the Catholic Faith, I realized that in order to keep that initial promise, I would have to enter into Christ’s Church. And so I did.

I realize that emotions (and hormones) were likely involved that night in Indiana. But that doesn’t mean God’s grace wasn’t also involved. And for that, I’m eternally grateful to God and to all those who held that retreat over thirty years ago. God works in mysterious ways, and on that night, he worked in me.

The post My First Conversion appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Super Bowl commercials are a cultural touchstone—they often give an accurate reflection of what’s important in our society. But sometimes they reflect, not our current culture, but what the ad-makers want our culture to be. Two ads this year in particular revealed the desires of their makers to remake culture.

The Wonder of Being Woke

The first, and most blatant, was the Coca-Cola “The Wonder of Us” commercial:

Coke is introducing a more diverse product line, and so they used that as an opportunity to push our modern religion: multiculturalism. The commercial carefully includes a whole range of races, ages, and genders. It also includes a subtle transgender reference.

Coke is clearly trying to get points for social consciousness. But unlike the touching Budweiser “Stand By You” ad, which shows a salt-of-the-earth manager helping get water to those in need, “The Wonder of Us” comes across as a ham-handed exercise in virtue-signaling. “Look how woke we are!” It’s pushy, condescending, and too earnest all at the same time. It looks like it came out of a campus diversity training workshop.

Rewriting History

The other ad trying to change culture is a bit more subtle. I’m referring to the Budweiser “Bud Knight” commercial:

In general, there’s nothing really wrong with this purposefully-stupid ad. It’s set in the Middle Ages, and shows a battle the Bud Knight is supposed to end. But what is insidious about the ad is that it includes women in the battle scene.

Of course, putting women in traditionally male roles has been a major Hollywood trope for some time now. In an effort to diminish the God-given differences between men and women, women are often depicted in physically-demanding situations that traditionally were reserved for men. So you see Black Widow, who has no super-powers and weighs about 120 lbs, overcoming large male Special-Ops warriors in hand-to-hand combat. See? There’s no difference between men and women!

The Bud Knight commercial takes it further. By including women in the medieval battle scenes, the ad-makers are rewriting history in order to push for a false equality between men and women. For of course women never fought in battles in those days—societies were actually more civilized back then, and they wouldn’t dream of putting women into battle. They knew that war was not for women, and they were also smart enough to know that men were far superior in physical fighting to women and they wanted to win. But our cultural elites wish to demolish any distinctions between men and women, and so they must purge any evidence of their inherent biological differences.

Pushing Change

Are these two commercials the end of Western civilization? Obviously not. But they are examples of how media can remake culture and push it in a specific direction. If we are concerned about the direction of our current culture, we would do well to understand all the ways being employed to change it.

The post Super Bowl Culture-Changing Commercials appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Since the Filial Correction’s release, other signatories have been added, and my name was added on October 5. I’d like to explain here why, after much prayer and consideration, I added my name to this Filial Correction.

Souls Are at Stake

A common narrative associated with the Filial Correction is that there are two sides of the battle: those who care about individuals facing real-world difficult situations; and those who only care about doctrine, with little thought of actual people. Those in the former group are “pastoral”; those in the latter group are “doctrinaire.” These labels give a clear indication of which group is supposedly more compassionate and caring. However, it is precisely because of real individuals in real-life situations that I decided to sign the Filial Correction.

For over twenty years I’ve been involved in evangelization efforts at the parish and diocesan levels. In that time I’ve talked to hundreds of Catholics about their “real-world” situations: from divorce and remarriage to homosexuality to fallen-away children to everything else you can imagine. As one might guess based on the current state of the Church, a large portion of the Catholics I’ve encountered have a faulty understanding of Catholicism and Church teaching. Some of their errors are slight and easily corrected; other times they represent heretical beliefs—in some cases the faulty belief system amounts to, in essence, an altogether different religion. However, it is only in recent years, specifically since the election of Pope Francis, that I have seen these Catholics emboldened in their errors and hardened in their heresies.

For years, when I was discussing a “controversial” topic with a Catholic, I would argue from Scripture, Tradition, and reason for the Catholic position. I would also bolster my argument with the writings of the current Holy Father, whether that was John Paul II or Benedict XVI. However, in recent years when I outlined the Catholic position I would quickly hear, “But Pope Francis says…” followed by an erroneous understanding of Church teaching. Never did I experience the previous two pontiffs used in such a manner. These were not just theoretical or hypothetical arguments either; they were real-world Catholics justifying real-world sins by virtue of the teachings of the current Vicar of Christ.

A few examples are in order. I know a Catholic woman who attends Mass regularly and whose son has been a practicing homosexual for many years. She supports his lifestyle, claiming that he was born that way and that he is unable to live chastely. I first met her when Pope Benedict XVI was reigning as pope. She was frustrated at the Church’s position on homosexuality (she knew it was against her own position), and she longed for the Church to change. I explained to her that would not happen, and was impossible in fact. Then Pope Francis was elected, and in less than a year she was crowing that the Church was, in fact, in the process of changing its position and “accepting her son.” No matter how much I tried to convince her that the Church did not—and would not—change its teaching in this regard, and that her son’s lifestyle was harmful to him, she went to sleep each night convinced that she had been vindicated by Pope Francis.

Another example. A woman I know had a sister who was divorced and remarried (without an annulment). Her sister was a Mass-going and Communion-receiving Catholic. This had gone on for a number of years, and my friend was uncomfortable with her sister’s practice, but didn’t say anything to her about it. Then this issue catapulted to the forefront of the Church due to Pope Francis. My friend followed the stories of the Synods and then Amoris Laetitia with much interest, and she eventually concluded that her sister was doing nothing wrong, and in fact she could and should receive Communion even though she was living in what the Church had since the time of Christ considered an adulterous union.

So in the first example, a young man is living a dangerous and destructive lifestyle—one that harms him physically, emotionally, and spiritually—and his mother fully endorses that lifestyle, believing that she has the backing of the Vicar of Christ. In the second example, a couple engages in sexual union outside the bounds of matrimony, yet receives communion, thus fulfilling the words of St. Paul, “any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29). Yet no one challenges or confronts them on the wayward path they are following.

Now contrast these stories with two others from my experience, both from before the time of Pope Francis. I have a friend who lived a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle for years. He was miserable, and he makes clear today that this lifestyle, no matter how much the media promotes it as natural and joyful, is destructive to the human person. About fifteen years ago he heard the message of the Church regarding homosexuality, came into contact with the apostolate Courage, and left his sinful lifestyle. He is now living chastely and is more happy and joyful than he’s ever been before. All because he was presented with the beautiful truths of the Faith regarding human sexuality.

I am also good friends with a Catholic woman who years ago married a Protestant in a Protestant ceremony (i.e., outside the Church). She attended Mass regularly, receiving Communion without any qualms. One day she heard a homily in which the priest lamented the number of Catholics who are in invalid marriages and who receive Communion. She realized that day that she was one of those Catholics. She met with the priest, who charitably but firmly told her that she needed to go to Confession and validate her marriage before she could receive Communion. She followed his advice and was reconciled to the Church. Her husband, inspired partly by the Church’s strong stance on the sanctity of marriage, eventually converted to Catholicism. Because this priest clearly articulated the Church’s teaching on marriage, a family that was at one time outside the Church is now a practicing Catholic family.

These are the people I think about when I hear calls for a softening of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality and marriage. Yes, I believe it is important for the Church to defend strongly its doctrine, but, contrary to popular belief, this defense is not at the expense of people, but instead for their happiness and salvation.

Squaring the Circle

Initially, many argued that there were orthodox interpretations of Amoris Laetitia and the many statements and actions of Pope Francis related to the issues surrounding divorce and remarriage. Initially I too thought that was possible. I argued at first that the media was misinterpreting his words. Then I believed he was a poor communicator. But over time I realized that the evidence is simply too overwhelming (and the Filial Correction documents much of that evidence). I no longer had a good response to “But Pope Francis says…”

Sadly, in many quarters there is no longer even an attempt to square the circle; instead, the heretical interpretations of Amoris Laetitia have become accepted and promoted as orthodox. Catholic leaders are embracing the core practice at hand—communion for those who are divorced and remarried without an annulment—because they are accepting the heretical presuppositions behind it.

For example, Cardinal Ouillet, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, explicitly called for those who are in such irregular unions to be able to receive communion. On a lower level, well-known Catholic apologist Tim Staples also promoted the idea that adultery shouldn’t preclude someone from receiving communion, arguing that sexual relations between two people not married to each other is not always a mortal sin. Note in both cases, these are not “liberal” Catholics who have previously advocated for heretical positions; they have been up to now rock-solid orthodox Catholics. Yet they believe that Pope Francis (and Amoris Laetitia) calls for a practice that is clearly contrary to Church doctrine dating to the time of Christ himself.

Can a Catholic “Correct” the Pope?

I realize that even those who agree with the content of the Filial Correction might be uncomfortable with the idea of “correcting” the pope. After all, isn’t he the Vicar of Christ? Doesn’t canon law state that “the First See is judged by no one” (Can. 1404)? I’m not going to argue this point here, as others have ably done so.

However, I do want to make one point in this regard. Often when people defend Pope Francis, they fall into the error of believing everything a pope teaches is infallible and thus cannot be disputed. Even when they acknowledge that the Church does not teach that every utterance of the pope is infallible, they still act as if they are. For example, in a recent La Stampa article, the author notes:

This false accusation railed against Pope Francis, claiming that he is teaching or prompting heresy in part of his Ordinary Magisterium is in effect a denial of the one of the essential truths behind the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, who is granted Divine assistance which prevents him from erring in matters of faith and morals, even when teaching non-infallibly.

Note what is being said: the pope is prevented from teaching error, even when teaching non-infallibly. Yet that is a logical contradiction: if he is prevented from teaching error, he is by definition teaching infallibly; if he is teaching non-infallibly, it is by definition possible for him to err. Either he cannot teach non-infallibly (which contracts Catholic belief), or he can err. Such illogical thought has unfortunately become all-too-common in the Church today.

Devotion to the Papacy

Ultimately, I signed the Filial Correction because of my deep love and devotion to the papacy, and because of my desire for the salvation of souls. I also signed it with deep sadness and grief. My saintly father-in-law, who mercifully passed away before the pontificate of Francis, taught his children a simple rule: follow the pope. He knew, as Catholics should instinctively know, that one will be spiritually safe if he remains united to the pope. But this union is not one of blind, unthinking obedience; it is part of a devotion to the Church, her Lord, and the totality of her Tradition. As St. Paul demonstrated in the first days of the Church, love and devotion to the papacy does not preclude filial correction, because souls are at stake. It is my hope and prayer that this Filial Correction will be a step towards a papacy which gives a full-throated, robust defense of Catholicism to a world that desperately needs it.

The post Why I Signed the Filial Correction appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Two Goals of the Christian Parent

What can a Christian parent do? Is there a secret to raising children to be faithful Christians? While there is no one formula that magically produces a Christian offspring, there are some things to keep in consideration that might ease the fears that linger in the background throughout what should be the best years of a parent’s life.

Raising Christian children actually involves two related, but distinct, goals. The first is the same as for any parent: forming children into well-adjusted and mature adults. The second is particular to the Christian parent: helping children to make the Christian faith their own. Paradoxically, focusing on the latter goal will often result in both goals falling short, whereas focusing on the former can make it more likely that both will be achieved.

Continue reading at Mind & Spirit…

The post The Secret to Raising Christian Children appeared first on Eric Sammons.

As I think back to those days, the background always seems cluttered by various resources from Catholic Answers. My roommate would leave pastel-colored Catholic Answers tracts lying around our dorm, as well as back issues of This Rock. At times I would pick them up out of curiosity, not realizing the impact they were having on my own spiritual pilgrimage to the Catholic Church. As I became more friendly to Catholicism, my roommate gave me a copy of Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Along with the cassette tape of Scott Hahn’s conversion (which I listened to while watching dinosaurs walk by the window), Keating’s book was the most influential resource in my conversion to Catholicism.

I thought of this as I read Keating’s announcement of his retirement. Keating has been phasing himself out of day-to-day operations at Catholic Answers for a while, but now he is officially gone. It marks an end of an era. 

When Keating started in the late 1970’s, Catholic apologetics was as dead as Richard Nixon’s presidency. No Catholic engaged in apologetics; the practice was considered anti-Vatican II and not in keeping with the spirit of the times. After all, isn’t apologetics just a relic of those terrible pre-Vatican II triumphalistic times? Keating didn’t see it that way. He considered apologetics a necessary part of Christ’s command to evangelize the world, and he embraced it enthusiastically. Eventually he founded Catholic Answers and made apologetics his full-time profession, and Catholic Answers a juggernaut. In so many ways, he single-handedly re-legitimized Catholic apologetics. 

It’s impossible to know the impact Keating has had on the Church, but it’s unquestionable immense. So many non-Catholics—and in particular, Protestants—have come to understand the truth of Catholicism from the work of Keating and Catholic Answers. I haven’t always agreed with Keating over the years (in particular, I think he overemphasized the impact and danger of Traditionalist movements in the Church), but I’ve never questioned the tremendous good he’s done. Without his work, I’m convinced there would be a lot fewer Catholics today. 

It was a great honor to recently have a book published by Catholic Answers, the organization that had such an impact on my own conversion, and an organization founded on the vision of Karl Keating. To me, it was giving back to an organization that gave so much to me. It’s quite possible I wouldn’t be Catholic today if Keating hadn’t decided to step out into the deep. 

Thank you, Karl Keating!

The post Thank You, Karl Keating appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post Mass Exodus: Why Are People Leaving the Catholic Church? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

My plans are to put up about two episodes a week. I’ll discuss the same topics I cover in my writings: Catholicism, technology, culture, and baseball. My guess is about half the episodes will cover Catholic topics, and the rest my other areas of interest. I’m keeping each episode to 10 minutes so that they are easy to listen to (and easy to produce).

My latest episode is titled What is the Old Evangelization? – I give a definition of “Old Evangelization” and discuss how it differs from the New Evangelization we hear so much about. I’ve already done episodes on Bitcoin and the 7 Myths of Catholic Evangelization, and have plans for episodes on why people leave the Church, my favorite baseball players, and how the liturgy impacts evangelization.

You can listen to the podcast on my website, or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher. Just search on “Swimming Upstream” and look for my radio-face.

Enjoy!

The post New Podcast! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

This book was challenging to edit, since children can receive Confirmation as early as 2nd grade, or as late as 11th grade. We decided to focus on the 7th-9th grade levels, since these are the most common ages for children receiving Confirmation. But I think high school students wouldn’t find any issues with using it as well.

From the Preface:

Midwest Theological Forum is proud to offer The Sacrament of Confirmation, which is our first book in the Didache Sacramental Preparation Series.

This series stands alongside the Didache Complete Course Series, the Didache Semester Series, the Didache Parish Series, and the Didache Bible. It was prepared for the catechetical needs of dioceses across the country and in accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This book was designed with preteen and early teenage students in mind, but it may be used profitably by Catholics of all ages. My prayer is that it brings you toward a closer union with Christ and a deeper intimacy with the Holy Spirit, “in order to be more capable of assuming the apostolic responsibilities of Christian life” (CCC 1309).

I encourage you to read the material at the end of each chapter. These special sections will teach you how to pray and discern God’s will for you (Sealed in the Spirit). They will also strengthen your relationship with your parents, who are your first teachers in the faith (You and Your Parents), and help you grow in spiritual friendship with your sponsor (You and Your Sponsor).

Most especially, since the Holy Spirit’s “actions, his gifts, and his biddings” (CCC 1309) can be seen most clearly in the lives of the saints, each chapter highlights a particular holy person who has powerfully manifested the fruits of the Holy Spirit. As you read the stories of these heroic Christians, I invite you to pray for their intercession and open your heart to a closer friendship with each of them.

I hope you enjoy this book as you prepare—with the loving help of your sponsor, parents, catechist, parish priest, bishop, guardian angel, and patron saint—to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Rev. James Socias
Author

If your child will soon be preparing for Confirmation, or your parish/school is looking for resources to help children prepare, check out this great new textbook!

The post The Sacrament of Confirmation: New Textbook appeared first on Eric Sammons.

• Thursday, May 4th, 7:45 AM EST: SonRise Morning Show
• Thursday, May 4th, 3:00 PM EST: Meet the Author
• Friday, May 5th, 8:15 AM EST: Iowa Catholic Radio
• Wednesday, May 10th, 7:45 AM EST: Morning Air
• Wednesday, May 10th, 9:30 AM EST: My Catholic Faith
• Friday, May 12th, 7:45 AM EST: Kyle Heimann Show

If you’re near a radio, check ’em out!

The post Upcoming Radio Interviews appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post Catholic Answers Live appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Q. Before we get into The Old Evangelization, could you give us a definition of “The New Evangelization”?

Pope St. John Paul II called for the “New Evangelization” because he recognized that we are in a new era in the Church’s history: we have millions of baptized Catholics who have not been evangelized. Instead of the necessity of traveling to a foreign country to evangelize, now we need only look next to us in the pews. This new reality presents new challenges for spreading the Gospel.

Q. Now that we’ve got that settled, what is your definition of “The Old Evangelization”?

The Old Evangelization is a return to the basic principles of evangelization which originated with Jesus himself. Too many things labeled “New Evangelization” today are neither new nor evangelization. The term has been co-opted. Popular techniques and programs are often just reruns of corporate marketing tricks or Protestant megachurch methods. The Old Evangelization focuses on the bold proclamation of the Gospel, based on the model of Jesus Christ, and primarily through one-on-one relationships.

Q. Give us an example of how you would use The Old Evangelization in practice.

Let’s say you have a close relative who has fallen away from the Church. This book will help give you practical advice–as well as encouragement–to talk to that person and help him or her back to the practice of the faith.

Q. What was your motivation behind writing this book?

I’ve been involved in Catholic evangelization for 25 years. In that time I’ve seen “evangelization” go from being practically taboo in Catholic circles to a buzzword attached to every parish program and outreach. Yet we still see a massive number of people leaving the Church. So I asked myself, “What if we don’t really understand what evangelization is?”

The most common misunderstandings I’ve seen are a result of these two traps: First, many Catholics see evangelization primarily as a job for other people–those who are professionals, or maybe for the people who run the programs at their parish. Or, second, they misunderstand what evangelization entails, figuring it can be summed up as being nice to others. Yet true Catholic evangelization–like it was practiced by Jesus and his first followers–means every Catholic boldly proclaiming the truths of our faith to those around us. I wrote The Old Evangelization to remind Catholics of that fact and to show them how to do it.

Q. You call this “A Practical Guide”….How so?

Laced throughout the book are practical examples of evangelization. First and foremost are examples from the life of Jesus himself, unpacking his encounters with people like the Samaritan woman at the well and the rich young man. The book also includes examples from the lives of the saints over the pasts two millennia. Finally, I include many examples of evangelization–both successes and failures–I’ve encountered myself over the past quarter century of evangelization work. The book draws lessons from each of these examples that equip and encourage the reader to evangelize.

Q. I notice the book has study aids at the end of each chapter – Examination, Exercise and Exploration. Was the book designed for group as well as individual study?

I’m a firm believer that evangelization itself is best done one-on-one. But learning about evangelization can be a group affair! The Old Evangelization can be read individually or as a group, with the purpose of encouraging each Catholic to go out and proclaim his or her faith without fear.

Q. What is the greatest lesson you hope people get from reading your book?

That they should not be scared to evangelize. Some are intimidated because they don’t think they know enough theology or doctrine. Others are intimidated because they fear social rejection if they talk about some of the Church’s more controversial teachings. In both cases, it is the devil who is working to keep Catholics quiet, but Our Lord wants us spreading the Faith as he did!

The post The Old Evangelization: Questions and Answers appeared first on Eric Sammons.

This book explores the best way to evangelize today, based on the model of Jesus himself, plus the saints, as well as my own personal experiences from over 25 years of evangelizing.

The post Available for Pre-order! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Dr. Ed Peters rightly calls the document a “disaster.” A few quick thoughts of my own:

• The conclusion reached by the document – that divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion as long as they are “at peace with God” (par. 10) – should surprise no one. This has been the end game ever since Cardinal Kasper gave his infamous address almost three years ago to the Roman Curia introducing the “Kasper Proposal.” This was not the Church listening to the Holy Spirit and going wherever He leads. It was planned from the beginning, and this was the conclusion that was to be reached, no matter the opposition.
• Like all those who have been pushing for this change, the Maltese bishops use the language of “ideal,” “discernment,” and “complex situations.” But we all know the bottom line: this transforms the Catholic policy on communion to essentially the same as that of most mainline Protestant denominations, i.e. open communion. For if feeling that one is at “peace with God” is the primary criteria for receiving Communion, what precludes anyone from receiving?
• The image on the cover of the document – Our Lord encountering the woman caught in adultery – is the height of irony, although I’m sure the Maltese bishops don’t realize it. After all, after Christ had dispersed the crowd, he told the woman, “Go and sin no more.” The bishops, in effect, are telling men and women in a similar circumstance, “Go and sin some more.”
• The priests of Malta – and anywhere such a policy is implemented – have a decision to make. Will they obey their bishops, or will they obey the Lord? I don’t envy them, and we should all pray that our priests remain faithful to the Lord’s commands, even if it means opposition to their bishops.
• The Maltese bishops speak of living in continence as an “ideal” that is “humanly impossible” for some (par. 9). Yet the bishops themselves are required to live in complete continence. This tells me one of two things: either they believe they are superior to these couples, or they themselves don’t live up to the “ideal.” So the bishops are either arrogant or immoral.

St. John Chrysostom famously said that the “road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” It looks like the road is about to be repaved.

The post Go and Sin Some More: The Bishops of Malta Endorse Adultery appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Having a powerful, Internet-connected computer in your pocket of course has changed the way we live. Sometimes I try to explain to my kids what life was like before cell phones, and before smartphones particularly. My teens who are old enough to drive are especially amazed that we were able to get anywhere without a GPS-based mapping system in our pockets. “How did you know where to go!?!” And of course, just having a phone with you at all times solves all sorts of problems (we just watched “Home Alone” and I chuckled when I realized the whole premise of the movie falls apart if cell phones were prevalent then).

But what was truly revolutionary about the iPhone – and what made it so successful – was the App Store. When I used my Palm Pilot, not only was it clunky to use, but it was limited in what it could do, for only Palm software could run on it. But Jobs opened the iPhone to everyone, and thus the iPhone had the potential to do things even a visionary like Jobs couldn’t even dream of. Case in point: digital payment systems.

Apple is trying to roll out ApplePay, with limited success, and other tech companies are also trying to make payment systems embedded in our phones. But where payments systems and smartphones can really shine is with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Dash, which are fully digital. With legacy payment systems, Apple and other companies are trying to shoehorn antiquated, card-based systems into the digital universe. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, live and breath on the internet, and so fit perfectly into the smartphone world.

Yet workable cryptocurrencies didn’t even exist when the iPhone was introduced, and so Jobs couldn’t forsee them being available on his creation back in 2007. And the relationship works both ways: if the iPhone didn’t exist, I’m not sure if Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies would have taken off. After all, Satoshi Nakamoto originally presented Bitcoin has an “electronic cash system,” but who would want to pay for things when saddled to PCs and laptops? Without the potential for using cryptos outside the walls of our larger devices, I doubt they would have caught on as they have.

Happy Birthday, iPhone! You have impacted the world far more than anyone could have guessed when you were first introduced, and I have a feeling your impact is only going to grow as you get older.

The post The Impact of the iPhone appeared first on Eric Sammons.

To give you a taste of the collection, here is the introduction to the book:

Introduction – Be Watchful

Ever since I became Catholic in 1993 I’ve been actively involved in the Church, mostly through evangelization work at the individual, parish, and diocesan levels. I’ve met thousands of Catholics and worked with hundreds of priests, even a few bishops. Much has changed in the Church in those twenty years, some for the better, some for the worse. But one constant has remained: the Church has been in crisis.

Sober reflection on the state of the Church should render this statement uncontroversial, but for most interested parties it is a highly debatable claim. It’s difficult to judge our contemporary situation as dispassionately as we judge times past, for we don’t know how to weigh the importance of current events by any unbiased standard. For example, faithful Catholics might critique a long-dead pope without qualms, while those same faithful Catholics will find it exceedingly uncomfortable to censure a living pontiff.

However, the numbers speak volumes: the modern Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members for decades, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Church in the United States (see my article “How Great We Aren’t: The Catholic Church in America Today”). Many factors have led to our current situation, but one thing that isn’t helping us escape the crisis is our inability to be self-critical.

Too often, today’s Catholics mirror the subjects in the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Something is amiss, we all know it deep down, but none of us wants to be the one to mention it. We’re afraid we’ll be labeled “reactionaries” or some other epithet. Or we’re afraid that our criticism will appear to be a criticism of the Holy Spirit, whom we know guides the Church (see “The Holy Spirit is Not a Control Freak”). Like it or not, in order to fix our current problems, we must first acknowledge them. This is part of the commission St. Peter gave us when he instructed, “Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith” (1 Peter 5:8-9). Being watchful means recognizing when our adversary, the devil, is succeeding at keeping souls from Christ. A watchman who doesn’t cry out in a time of crisis is useless.

The articles contained in this book comprise my own attempt at this kind of alertness. They address some of the issues the Church faces today, mostly focusing on attitudes and issues I have seen firsthand that harm the Church’s ability to spread the Gospel to the whole world. My call for self-criticism doesn’t mean I don’t see good things happening in the Church today. Every day people are receiving forgiveness in Confession, souls are being baptized, and Jesus Christ is becoming sacramentally present on altars all around the world. The work of the Holy Spirit in the Church never stops, and today is no exception. But we must strive constantly to cooperate with the Holy Spirit to make His work present to the whole world and to acknowledge when we aren’t doing so.

These articles were written over the last two years for OnePeterFive (onepeterfive.com), a website dedicated to “rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic tradition.” OnePeterFive, in fact, takes its name from the passage I mentioned above. I’ve appreciated OnePeterFive’s willingness to “be watchful” and be honest about the state of the Church today. This has come with some controversy, but I’d rather have free, open discussion than have some topics considered “off-limits.” I believe there is a need for an apostolate like this today, and I hope that my own articles, originally found at OnePeterFive and now found within this book, help us all to “be watchful” and to rebuild Catholic culture and restore Catholic tradition.

The post My Latest Book: “Be Watchful” appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Free, But Valuable

Not me.

I remember my first introduction to Linux back in 1997, when the OS was barely out of the hobby stage. I had begun working at a web hosting company – before anyone really knew what a web hosting company even was. The founder of the company hired me as the first employee, and he needed me to do a whole host of things for him: customer support, system administration, software development – whatever was necessary. It was the classic start-up: I worked in his basement, helping him build up the company from scratch. At the time he hired me, my employer already had hundreds of clients on a half a dozen servers. However, it was still a shoe-string operation at that point (it would grow in a few years to over a thousand servers hosting hundreds of thousands of sites). When I first started, he introduced me to Linux, and open-source software in general. Before this job I only had experience working on Microsoft platforms. I asked him why he chose Linux over Microsoft Windows, the dominant operating system of the time (Apple was then just ending their dismal Steve Jobs sabbatical). The simple answer, “I can’t afford Windows, and Linux is free.” A sound business decision, to be sure.

Because of Linux, our customers were able to have a website for only $40/month (very cheap at the time) plus the $35/year to the monopoly Network Solutions for registering their domain. If we had to use Windows, the cost of the licensing as well as the added technical support needed (Linux was much easier to maintain, even then) would have put the cost to the customers in the hundreds of dollars a month range. In other words, not worth it to people who didn’t even know if a website would be a worthwhile thing to have. Because of this, I would argue that had Torvalds not created Linux when he did, there is a good change the Internet revolution would not have occurred as quickly as it did. For if websites required hundreds of dollars each month to maintain, they would only be available to corporations and the rich. But because of Linux, anyone could get a website up and running cheaply and easily – something we take for granted now, but this was revolutionary at the time.

First They Laugh At You, Then They Embrace You

Yet we had detractors. Over and over I heard that Linux, as a free, open-source product, wasn’t suitable for business. Some of the things I heard:

“No respectable corporation would base their business on a free product.”

“It’s not backed by a company, so we can’t depend on it.”

“If everyone can see the code, it can’t be secure.”

Yet while the “professional” class was scoffing, I saw young startups again and again eating their lunch by basing their business on this “unproven” software. Eventually, the scoffers became believers. Linux is now the operating system underlying many of the major websites of today, such as Facebook, Google, and Wikipedia. And its reach is even deeper than just websites: the mobile operating system Android is based on the Linux kernel, so Torvald’s creation is now running on millions of personal devices around the world.

The Power of the Market

Linux Torvalds – Master of the Internet.

The story of Linux is a beautiful one, full of innovation and the power of creativity. There was no controlling authority directing its development; after all, Torvalds had no intention of creating such a behemoth – he just wanted to develop a better operating system in his spare time. Further, Linux has been able to overcome its doubters and enemies simply because it works. The market – in the form of thousands of entrepreneurs like my employer back in the 90s – selected Linux, not because someone told them to, or they were mandated to select it, but because it was the best solution for their needs. In response, other companies such as Microsoft had to adapt to keep up with Linux, not the other way around.

Linux is a wonderful innovation that shows the power of human creativity and the free market when left to their own devices.

Happy Birthday, Linux! And thank you, Linus Torvalds for having a great hobby.

The post An Ode to Linux on Its 25th Birthday appeared first on Eric Sammons.

First, some back story. In my first 8 years of marriage, my wife and I were blessed with four children, each born about two years apart. My wife and I had wanted a big family, and these children were a source of great joy for us. About two years after our fourth child, my wife became pregnant again…right on schedule. However, after about 17 weeks, she miscarried. It was a tragic loss for us. Our doctor explained that this can just happen sometimes and doesn’t mean we will have future miscarriages. About a year later, my wife became pregnant again. Again, she miscarried in the 2nd trimester. We were heartbroken, and we began to look into potential medical reasons for the multiple miscarriages. Our doctor could find nothing. Another year passed, and my wife again became pregnant. We were nervous, but our doctor did not believe we were at a higher risk for miscarriage. About 15 weeks into the pregnancy, my wife miscarried for the third time.

After three miscarriages we feared that we would never be able to have any more children. We were very blessed with four children already, and we knew couples that were unable to conceive, so we tried to be content with what God had richly given us. But we were still young and had assumed that God would give us even more children to care for. But at this point we began to reconcile ourselves to that fact that we would not have any more kids.

4th of July Vision

About a year after the third miscarriage my family was going into downtown DC to watch the 4th of July fireworks. We arrived early to find a good place to sit, and brought with us a picnic dinner and some games. Unfortunately, Mother Nature didn’t cooperate, and it began to rain. Heavily. We got under some umbrellas and a plastic tarp we brought with us, and decided to wait out the rain. As I sat there daydreaming, I had a “vision.” Not a vision that I saw with my eyes, and in fact it wasn’t much different than a daydream. But it was very specific, and unlike my usually mental wanderings. I saw myself holding a newborn infant, and I knew – similar to how you “know” things in your dreams that aren’t explicit – that it was my child and that it was the 4th of July the following year. It was clear to me that I would be holding a new baby – my new baby – one year from that date.

Because of our heartache and the fact that doctors could not tell us why my wife had three consecutive 2nd trimester miscarriages, I didn’t want to tell my wife about my vision. It seemed to me to be cruel to get her hopes up over what might just be a fanciful daydream. So I kept the vision to myself, even though inside I was confident that it was from God.

Hope in God

A few months later, we decided to go to another doctor who had been recommended to us by a friend. His name was Dr. Bruchalski, and he was a well-known faithful Catholic doctor who specialized in difficult pregnancies. At the beginning of our first meeting, he prayed with us. Very quickly he believed he knew what was wrong (so quickly, in fact, that I was skeptical – how could he determine the cause within a few minutes after other doctors didn’t know for years?). But we decided to follow his advice, and a few months later my wife became pregnant. To say we were nervous would be a great understatement. We didn’t know if we could handle yet another miscarriage. Early in the pregnancy, my wife was scheduled for a sonogram. The technician had troubles finding the baby’s heartbeat, and the tech told us that the baby had probably died. Even with this statement, I was confident the baby was alive. Sure enough, a few days later we had another sonogram and all was well.

A reason to hope

As we got closer to the time in the pregnancy when my wife had thrice miscarried, we prayed and trusted in God’s providence. Every week without miscarrying felt like a victory. But Dr. Bruchalski made it clear that the child would be at risk all the way up to the day of birth. So we never could completely relax. My wife was scheduled for induction. We prayed and prayed, and our hopes kept rising that we would be blessed with another child in our lives. After a long day of labor, my wife gave birth to a beautiful healthy girl. All our hopes had been realized, and so we named this precious gift, “Hope.”

The date was June 29th, less than a week before July 4th. On that national holiday, one year after my vision, I was holding my newborn daughter, just as God had shown me I would be.

The post God Gives Hope appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Since the time of Lincoln, advocating for the division of the “indivisible” amounts to political heresy. The United States can only add states and territories; it can never lose any. To suggest otherwise deserves derision and contempt for being unworthy of political discourse. Nevertheless, I’m going to suggest it: the United States has become too big and too unwieldy to represent its citizens. I believe it should break into smaller, more manageable nations. Begin lighting the fire to burn the heretic at the stake!

The United States, Not the Divine States

I want you to be American!

Why’s it so unthinkable in modern discourse to consider the breakup of the United States? Like all countries, the United States has developed its own founding mythology. A particularly strong one, too. We are the “city on the hill,” ordained by God to bring freedom to the world. Because of our country’s predominantly Christian background, this mythology often intertwines with Christian belief. Yet nothing in the teachings of Jesus or in the Scriptures speak of the necessity of a 50-state United States. There’s no reason to believe our country has a destiny to remain as it’s currently configured until Christ’s Second Coming. Over the centuries empires have risen and fallen; the fate of the United States will be no different. Instead of clinging to the façade of a great nation until it’s too late, perhaps it would be better to voluntarily break into smaller, more nimble, nations?

For if there is one thing the United States is not, it’s “nimble.” Our country now has over 300 million citizens. But what has grown even faster than the population? The size of the federal government. Unsurprisingly, with greater size has come greater bureaucracy and greater bloat. We see this in the business world all the time. A company becomes successful and grows rapidly. In order to manage the growth, it creates more and more rules and regulations until finally it’s simply crushed under the weight of its own bloat. Governments are not exempt from this process; in fact, they are more prone to it. However, in the case of government, such ossification doesn’t just impact a company’s bottom line, it impacts its citizen’s freedoms. A smaller, more nimble government must be more responsive to its citizens’ needs, and cannot afford to trample on its citizens’ rights. Why? A small group of people can greatly impact a small government. But what can a small group of people do in the face of our leviathan federal government?

Your Vote Counts! Well, Not Really

The impact of your vote.

The sheer size of this country makes a mockery of the idea that a few individuals can “represent” the masses. Every four years we are told we are part of “the most important election of our time” as we go to the polls to select our representatives. 2016 is no different; on our vote, we are told, hinges the future of the republic. Yet does it? We live in a nation of almost 220 million voter-eligible adults, which means my vote amounts to 0.0000005% of the total voting population (and that’s rounding up). Does anyone seriously think my vote will make any difference in the outcome?

Compare this to the first years of George Washington’s presidency, when he only had to represent 3.5 million people. The U.S. governmental system could, in his time, better represent the will of the people. But what might have worked in a small 13-state union doesn’t necessarily work for our modern 50-state behemoth. Even many individual states today dwarf that original population. I live in the state of Florida, which has a population of almost 20 million. Although there are many days Florida appears amazingly homogenous (retired white couple, age 67, husband loves to golf, wife loves to shop, and neither wants your kids anywhere near them), even in this pool there are a wide variety of views and perspectives that are difficult for any one government to represent.

It’s not just the size, either, it’s the diversity. The United States has always prided itself on being a “melting pot” – a diverse collection of cultures, religions, and peoples, who are united for a common purpose. But over the last century the diversity has begun to overwhelm the unity. There’s little in common between a young hipster in Greenwich Village and an old farmer in Nebraska, or between a teacher in Minnesota and a software developer in Silicon Valley. Again, compare that to the United States in the days of George Washington; I’d be willing to bet there was much more commonality between residents of Massachusetts and North Carolina in 1796 than in 2016. Expecting one mammoth government to represent all this diversity borders on insanity.

Objections

How will we defend ourselves?

Some might object that we need a large country in today’s world to defend against threats to this continent. What if Russia were to decide to attack? How could a broken-apart America defend itself? By banding together in times of need. After all, when Nazi Germany threatened all of Europe (and beyond), Allied nations came together to resist it. These Allies even included countries as diverse as the United States and the Soviet Union!

Furthermore, smaller countries would be better suited to resist modern threats such as radical Islamic terrorism. Instead of large bureaucracies like the NSA, Homeland Security, and the TSA, smaller countries could have more nimble forces which protect their citizens against threats without trampling on their liberties. When you are looking for a needle in a 300-million-needle haystack, you don’t mind trampling over a lot of needles to get your man. But if you have a much smaller haystack, you can be more surgical in your work.

Are you calling for a violent overthrow of the government?

Discussing the break-up of the United States brings up a dirty little word: secession. To most Americans, secession means violence. After all, the one time in history states seceded from the United States we witnessed the greatest bloodbath in U.S. history, the Civil War. Yet secession does not have to lead to violence. Consider the Soviet Union. It was possibly the most oppressive, violent State in the history of mankind, but when nations finally seceded from it, not a shot was fired. Armenia. Azerbaijan. Belarus. Estonia. The list could go on; all left the Soviet Union without bloodshed. A country can dissolve into smaller countries without violence. There just has to be acceptance from the populace – and pressure on the ruling elites – that such a breakup represents the best interests of the people.

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

Parting is such sweet sorrow…

One may believe all this sounds interesting in theory (or one may believe I’m a raving lunatic), but practical realities must eventually be addressed. What exactly would a Dis-United States of America look like? Honestly, I don’t know. I do know this: it should be an organic development that best represents the people. There shouldn’t be a central planning committee to decide, but instead the people in each area would self-determine the direction of their community. Perhaps from Maine to parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland would become the Northeast States of America. The upper midwest states – from North Dakota to Wisconsin – could form a country. Of course, Texas could become its own country (naturally). One country might impose government health-care, another might outlaw abortion, and a third might dismantle the Surveillance State. However it worked out, once they was formed, citizens from anywhere in the former United States could, at least initially, move to the nation they believe best truly represents them, thus strengthening the common ideals of each nation.

One thing is certain: the United States won’t last forever. But the question remains: will we resist change out of some misguided sense of patriotism until the country become so bloated that it crashes under its own weight, or will we transition it to something better, and more representative of the people?

The post The United States of America: Too Big to Succeed? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

I was smiling, but only because I didn’t know the Reds were about to lose 101 games.

Since I was a young boy, I’ve been a dedicated Cincinnati Reds fan. Unfortunately, I wasn’t old enough to witness first-hand the Big Red Machine, and my first years of truly rooting for them came in the early 80’s when they were one of the worst teams in baseball. Since then they have had 1 World Championship (1990) and a few playoff appearances (along with the dual embarrassments of Marge Schott and Pete Rose). But it appears that they will again be one of the worst teams in baseball this year, and frankly, I don’t want to back a loser.

Thus, I have decided that today is a perfect day to switch allegiances and root for new teams this year, one in the National League and one in the American League. And I’m going to back winners! No more rooting for teams that only have an outside chance of winning; I’m backing the teams that have obviously sold their collective souls to win.

Without further ado, my new teams are…

National League

Go Redbirds!

American League

Yay Bronx Bombers!

And, oh yeah, I’m supporting Trump now too.

Winning!

The post Switching Allegiances appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Enjoy!

The post Daily Decrypt appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post It Feels Good to be a Clinton appeared first on Eric Sammons.

coinvalue.io

The concept is simple: enter a list of addresses for any one of five cryptocurrencies – Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash, Dogecoin, and Peercoin – and coinvalue.io will determine each address’ balance (after determining if the address is valid), and then calculate the total value of all the addresses in the list. It is a simple way to keep track of your crypto-investments.

Here are some screenshots:

coinvalue.io Main Screen:

coinvalue.io Results Page:

(alas, not my personal addresses)

Another shot of coinvalue.io Results Page:

I hope people enjoy using this little tool. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the tool, let me know!

The post Announcing coinvalue.io! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

At One Peter Five, I call on Catholic leaders to stop apologizing for our Faith:

No More Scraps: Regaining Rightful Catholic Pride

And over at Bitcoin.com, I give some tips on how to explain Bitcoin to your family and friends this Thanksgiving:

How to Explain Bitcoin to Your Family This Thanksgiving

Hope you enjoy them!

The post New Articles appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The post VIDEO: Why I Wrote My Book on Bitcoin appeared first on Eric Sammons.

I’ve been interested in Bitcoin for a few years now, but unlike the media obsession with Bitcoin as a speculative investment, I have been fascinated by the technology and economics behind Bitcoin. As a payment network, Bitcoin is a technological marvel, allowing secure transfer of value without a trusted third-party. As a currency, Bitcoin upends the conventional wisdom of how modern currencies are supposed to work – it isn’t government-controlled, and it has a limited supply.

However, I’ve found that most people are only vaguely aware of Bitcoin, and the little they know consists of half-truths and propaganda (either for or against). So I decided to write this short, easy-to-read book in order to answer the most common questions I’ve heard regarding the cryptocurrency.

The table of contents gives a general layout of the topics I cover:

1. Bitcoin Basics
2. Bitcoin as a Payment Network
3. Bitcoin as Currency
4. Ownership of Bitcoin Network
5. Technological Advantages of Bitcoin
6. Economic Advantages of Bitcoin
7. Using Bitcoin
8. Cost of Using Bitcoin
9. Bitcoin Mining
10. Anonymity of Using Bitcoin
11. Security of Bitcoin
12. Value of Bitcoin
13. Objections to Bitcoin
14. The Future of Bitcoin

I think this book will help explain Bitcoin to the laymen, so if you are interested in Bitcoin, or know someone else who is, buy this book!

The post My new book! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

I’ll admit that I’m not a big fan of supposed “private revelations,” such as Marian apparitions. I’m skeptical of any supernatural origin for them, and I suspect some are simply frauds perpetrated on innocent and naive believers. I basically accept Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima and ignore the rest.

One theme, however, that you see in many of these apparitions is a prediction that one day there will be a “Sign” for all to see that will be unmistakable and from God. To me this does not seem very consistent with how God works – He usually does not do anything that cannot be interpreted by non-believers as something other than what it is. He requires faith from those that follow Him.

Yet with the release of the Planned Parenthood videos exposing their callous barbarity, my wife mentioned to me that she thinks these videos are like an unmistakable “Sign” for all to see. We can quibble about whether Carly Fiorina properly described one part of a video, but this is straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Anyone who has seen the videos know that they show a callous disregard for human life – which is why Planned Parenthood is desperate for no one to see them. These videos demand a decision: will our country continue to deny the humanity of the unborn child, or will we finally – finally! – see that the unborn child in our midst is deserving of every legal protection?

The Sign is there – how will we respond?

The post An Unmistakable Sign appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Source: Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/obamas-recovery-just-9-charts). For the brave of heart, click image to see the full damage.

The post Obamanomics in 9 Charts appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Thou art higher than all cedars,
whereon the Life of the world hung,
whereon Christ openly triumphed,
and His death trampled down death for ever.
(Laudes antiphon)

The post Exaltation of the Holy Cross appeared first on Eric Sammons.

There are a lot of staggering numbers associated with her reign, but I personally think one of the most staggering is how many coins her image has adorned. By one count, over 30 countries either currently or at one time had her image on the obverse of their circulation coins (and this doesn’t include the many countries which have had commemorative coins issued with her image). Over 63 years, the number of coins produced with her image must total in the billions.

During that time, there have been five different portraits used:

Mary Gillick Portrait (1953-1971)

Arnold Machin RA Portrait (1968-1985)

Raphael Maklouf Portrait (1985-1997)

Ian Rank-Broadley FRBS Portrait (1997-2015)

Jody Clark Portrait (2015-)

Long live the Queen of Coins!

The post Queen Elizabeth II, undisputed ruler of coins appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Birth of Mary – by Domenico Ghirlandaio, from the Cappella Tornabuoni, Santa Maria Novella, Florence

The post Happy Birthday, Mary! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Well, Bryce Harper obviously believes in that saying:

The post A walk really is as good as a hit appeared first on Eric Sammons.

@EricRSammons she was jailed for not complying with the law of the land. Pretty simple, the supreme courts ruling was pretty clear

— BK (@bkrich83) September 3, 2015

 

To which I argued:  

@bkrich83 As MLK taught, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” An unjust law is no law at all.

— Eric Sammons (@EricRSammons) September 3, 2015

Of course, I was attacked for comparing Martin Luther King’s fight for civil rights with those who oppose same-sex marriage, but my point was broader: there is such a thing as an “unjust law”, and just about everyone recognizes this. In fact, progressives haven’t always been so gung-ho for the “rule of law:”

@jwilcox79 Was it okay when Mayor Gavin Newsom issued same-sex marriage licenses in defiance of Calif law in 2004? Why didn’t he go to jail?

— Eric Sammons (@EricRSammons) September 3, 2015

So what makes a law “unjust”? How do we determine this? I think MLK, basing himself on St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Christian tradition, says it very well in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (emphasis added):

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

“Not rooted in eternal law and natural law” – that is the key to determining if a human law is just or unjust. In the case of segregation, the laws in this country were unjust because they went against the dignity of the human person, considering one race of people inferior to others. In the case of same-sex marriage, the laws in this country are unjust because they go against the dignity of marriage as it has been understood throughout human history: a union of a man and a woman. Thus, Kim Davis is acting squarely in the tradition of MLK by refusing to issue marriage licenses to those who simply cannot, by natural law, contract a marriage.

The post When is a law an unjust law? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Our culture is filled with the phenomenon of “in name only’s.” For example, RINOs – Republicans in Name Only, and CINOs – Catholics in Name Only.

These are people who proudly claim a label – Republican, Catholic – but go against some of the fundamental principles of that label. It is apparent that for decades the pro-life movement has been plagued with PLINOs – Pro-Lifers in Name Only – and they are rearing their ugly heads again:

Mitch McConnell says the GOP won’t defund Planned Parenthood

I’ve been involved with pro-life work for over 20 years now, and in that time I have witnessed a lot of beautiful pro-life rhetoric coming from politicians. However, what I have not witnessed is any significant action to stop, or even slow down, the onslaught of legalized abortion in this country. Today we have a situation in which Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, is caught red-handed – and on video! – perpetrating some of the most vile evils imaginable, and yet the “pro-life” GOP can’t even muster the strength to deny them funding. Not shut them down and lock them away (which would be true justice), but just simply stop sending them our money.

This is why I simply do not care how great a politician’s pro-life rhetoric is. I have heard it all before. What I care about is: will Politician X actually spend political capital to confront legalized abortion? Are they willing to risk their political careers to stop this evil? If you look at the previous GOP presidential candidates of the last 25 years: H.W., Dole, W, McCain, and Romney – the answer is pretty clear.

Looking at the current crop of GOP candidates, the chances are not much more promising. I would guess that Paul, Cruz, Jindal, Santorum, Huckabee, and perhaps Perry would spend at least a little political capital to defund Planned Parenthood. But I can’t be too sure – fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (or 100 times), shame on me. Others, such as Carson, Fiorina, Rubio and Walker, might support defunding, but I won’t hold my breath.

That is why I don’t take pro-life rhetoric in consideration when evaluating candidates. Yes, Marco Rubio sounded great at the first GOP debate, but does anyone sincerely think he really will spend political capital to push a pro-life agenda?

This is why my main consideration in picking a candidate is their attitude towards the Leviathan State. Why do I say this? Because as we have seen clearly, the Leviathan State NEVER defunds anything, it only adds new initiatives and programs. If a candidate is comfortable with Big Government (in their actions, not just words!), then he or she will probably do little to stop legalized abortion.

Unfortunately, all the GOP candidates in some form or another are comfortable with an expansive Federal Government. Sure, some, such as Paul and Cruz, are closer than others to recognizing the inherent problems of Big Government, but that is like saying Philadelphia is closer than New York to Los Angeles. Both cities are a long drive away. Hopefully the GOP will nominate someone who at least has an inkling that the first step to a strong country is a weaker Federal Government, which will be good for all of us, including the unborn.

The post PLINOs appeared first on Eric Sammons.

But after watching the Little World Series this year, I have to think we need to change that definition. There were a lot of (over-the-fence) homers this year. A lot. And many of the dingers were massive – at least 40-50 feet beyond the 225 foot fence. For those not familiar with the abilities of the average 12-13 year old, this is incredible. In my son’s league, the fences were at 200 ft, and we had only an average of less than 1 homer per game, and we had some good kids in that league. Yet these kids are hitting it 250ft+ with regularity. And if you watch closely, many of their swings don’t even look that great – oftentimes it looks like they are all arms and hands in their swings, with no power from their legs.

I’m not accusing anyone of cheating, and some of these kids were HUGE, but I wonder if the expensive bats have gotten so advanced that homers are becoming too commonplace. In 2006, Williamsport moved the fences back because of all the homers; I wonder if they will have to do it again. Personally, I’d prefer they become restrictive on the bats used instead of changing field dimensions. Until then, dingers away!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZBTJB4q8ig

The post Little League Home Runs Not So Little appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Yet it seems that the campaign against Planned Parenthood has lost its steam. No longer is it on the forefront of news, becoming “old news” already. This reminds me of the famous Stalin quote, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” To that I would add, “One PP video is shocking; dozens of videos are boring.” At least to the eyes of this world.

Check out the video here:

The post A little evil is shocking, a lot of evil is boring appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Down on Republicans and Democrats, #Bernie2016#FeelTheBern.

— Steve Wozniak (@stevewoz) September 1, 2015

I’m generally with Woz on the “Down on Republicans and Democrats” theme, but Sanders is going in the exact wrong direction: we don’t need more of the Leviathan State, but less of it. Although Sanders claims to agree with Rand Paul regarding the dismantling of NSA surveillance operations, I doubt someone who thinks the State is the answer to our problems would be very strong on protecting citizens or private companies (like Apple) from encroachments from the government.

#FeelTheBern? No thanks, I’d rather #StandWithRand.

The post Woz wants us to #FeelTheBern appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Be ready to be hypnotized!

The post Dingers! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Not me.

Well, I’m back.

After a few years’ hiatus, and a very static website, I have returned to writing regularly for my website. At least I hope so. At the same time, I’ve decided to revamp the site and give it a different feel. In my old “Divine Life” site I wrote almost exclusively on Catholic topics, but “Swimming Upstream” will be more eclectic in its tastes. I plan to write on just about anything that interests me, whether it be Catholicism, economics, technology, sports, politics…you name it. Hopefully it will be of some interest to the reader, but at least it will be interesting to me!

I have no idea how often I will post articles, but hopefully it will be at least a few times a week. We’ll see.

The post Diving back in… appeared first on Eric Sammons.