The nation witnessed another school shooting last week, this time in Florida. And like the swallows returning to San Juan Capistrano, the Left flocked to the tragedy in order to scream for more gun control. Of course, with the Left everything is about control, for they want the government to run every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to what we say to what we think. And they will only meet with limited success as long as citizens have the right to bear arms. So they continue to harangue the nation, hoping the 2nd Amendment becomes a dead letter.

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 Swimming Upstream.

Billy Graham, the famous Protestant evangelist, died yesterday at the age of 99. Graham, of course, is one of the best-known and beloved Americans of the 20th century. He met with every President since Truman, and his evangelistic crusades led millions of people to commit their lives to Christ. By all accounts, he was a sincere Christian and a devoted family man.

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 Swimming Upstream.

I recently recorded a video with Taylor Marshall on “How to Attend the Latin Mass.” It can be intimidating for many, so hopefully it will help those who are interested.

The post How to Attend the Latin Mass appeared first on Swimming Upstream.

I’m excited to announce that I will be writing a regular column over at OnePeterFive called “Scripture & Tradition.” It will consist of reflections on the Sunday Scripture readings for the Traditional Latin Mass.

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.

A few months ago I updated my twitter profile with the label “Traditional Catholic.” Although I started attending a Latin Mass parish back in 2011 and have had “traditional” leanings for even longer, I have hesitated using that label on myself for a long time. I hesitated for two reasons.

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.

Hans Urs von Balthasar was one of the most prominent—and controversial—Catholic theologians of the 20th century. What he is perhaps most known for is his belief that we can hope for the salvation of all men, a belief he lays out in his book, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? (A quick note: this does not, strictly speaking, make von Balthasar a “universalist”, for he does not claim to know that all men will be saved; he just says it is reasonable to hope for such an outcome.)

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.

Guest post from my wife, Suzan 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.

Recently I’ve been reading a few books on first century Christianity, including The Church of Rome in the First Century by George Edmundson and Redating Matthew, Mark,& Luke by John Wenham. The dating of the various events of the first century is notoriously difficult, especially the dating of New Testament writings. Most modern scholars try to date writings as late as possible, often in an effort to distance them from the “original” Christianity immediately following the life of Christ.

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.

How would you like a hand-made Rosary to brighten your day or someone else’s? My wife has been making Rosaries for some time, and is now offering them for sale. These sturdy Rosaries hold up well to use by young children.

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.

Here are some of my initial impressions of Pope Francis’s new encyclical, Fratelli Tutti. This is not intended to be a comprehensive review, but instead what came to my mind while I read it.

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.

We shouldn’t really be surprised by the massive censorship Big Tech is now engaging in. It began years ago, when they started to ban “fringe” figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones. Most people didn’t really care for those figures, so they didn’t really care that they were booted from social media. But once COVID-19 hit, the censorship went up another notch—anything related to the virus that did not conform to the establishment party line was swiftly removed from YouTubeFacebookTwitter. 

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.

My wife and I homeschool our children, which means we get a great deal of control over what they are taught—the materials used, how subjects are presented, etc. We use a Catholic program that offers online classes as well as recommendations for textbooks and the materials for classes we teach ourselves. We’ve used this program for years now and are pleased with it. However, recently I was reviewing a religion lesson with my high-school daughter, and I came upon a section that was problematic: the “living wage.”

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.

A few weeks ago I wrote a brief guide to disconnecting from various Orwellian internet services. It received a much greater response than I expected, suggesting that I’m not the only one concerned about the direction of Big Tech.

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

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.

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.

For the Christian parent today, anxiety can be a constant companion. Beyond the normal stresses of parenthood, the Christian parent has a greater and more pervasive fear: What if my child leaves the faith? Such a fear can leave a parent sleepless and consumed with worry. Even if all appears to be going well as the child transitions from childhood to young adulthood, this anxiety clings to the soul, like an unwelcome guest who simply will not leave the house.

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.

Last week the USCCB announced that over 30,000 people would be entering the Catholic Church this Easter. Among Catholics, this news was received with much joy. As someone who entered the Church at Easter twenty-five years ago, I too was rejoicing for the souls that would become full members of the Catholic Church.

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.

Last week I wrote about the importance of all-boys clubs. My jumping-off point was the decision of the Boy Scouts to drop “Boy” from the name and to open the group to girls. But the push to include girls in all-boy groups isn’t confined to secular organizations like the Boy Scouts. It’s also been evident in the Catholic Church for decades now. From time immemorial, only males could serve at the altar during a Catholic liturgy. However, in the 1970’s (the decade that virtue and taste forgot), parishes began to allow girls to be altar “boys” (renamed “altar servers” to be inclusive). This was unlawful under the discipline of the Church, but most bishops turned a blind eye.

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.

Recently a priest on Twitter argued that parents should never take their kids out of Mass, even if they are making a racket. He said, “Children are never a distraction.” His intention was to be welcoming—he didn’t want anyone, including young parents, to feel unwelcome at Mass.

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.

When I was in high school—long, long ago—I had a youth pastor who warned us that the spiritual life wouldn’t always be easy. Sometimes we wouldn’t have the enthusiasm we had as teenagers. As a young, newly-committed Christian, I heard his warning, but I didn’t really listen. I thought I would always be on a spiritual “high.”

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.

Over a month ago Archbishop Carlo Vigano, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, made a number of accusations against Pope Francis and others regarding their alleged cover-up of the Cardinal McCarrick affair. More recently Archbishop Vigano has singled out Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and urged him to come forward to support Vigano’s claims.

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.

Over ten years ago Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, the motu proprio liberalizing the offering of the Traditional Latin Mass. Before this action, the celebration of “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite, as he called it, was tightly restricted throughout the Church. Since then, its celebration has become more frequent, although its availability is still mostly found on the Church’s peripheries (to use a favorite phrase of our current Holy Father). Typically the Extraordinary Form is offered only at odd times—very early in the morning or on a Sunday evening—and in odd places—in parishes and neighborhoods whose better days were decades ago.

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.