Abbey-Roads2

“Why would God Chastise China?”

This may be another reason non-believers like to hate Christians.  Right in the middle of a great disaster and huge loss of life, that even secular media is calling apocalyptic, some religious person comes out with an article about God chastising China.   If indeed God was busy chastising China - the world ought to recognize the chastisement is meant for us as well.  What did our Lord say in the Gospel about the towers that fell?  “You will all come to the same end unless you repent.” 

“California Court Legalizes Same Sex Marriage.” 

And people are surprised?  The Court was divided- but the issue passed anyway - and if it goes to the US Supreme Court, I’m sure it will be thrown out.  The SS marriage issue is nothing more than an economic issue.  SSA couples simply want the legal rights heterosexual couples and their families enjoy - it’s not really about love.    In the American pantheon of idols; tax, health and monetary benefits, along with entitlements, are two of the most important.  (Even though Ellen was in love with Ann Heche, she will now wed Portia de Rossi, who is much prettier BTW.) 

“What’s with all the gay stuff?”

A question frequently asked here.  but just check out Lifesite News - there is always gay agenda stuff there.

That’s all.

Silence 

I have a feeling many people may not like this woman - her close friendship with Oprah and all.  I expect she may be a big liberal feminist as well.  I don’t care, I happen to like her.  (And no - I have never read an entire book of her’s - just excerpts.)

When she was a little girl she was raped, and after she was asked to identify her attacker, she did so.  The man was killed, and young Maya felt she had killed him with her words.  She never spoke again - for years.  That is just so profound, such a lesson to me, one I find so hard to put into practice.

Reading other blogposts - I won’t name them - I notice, as anyone must  - lots of anger, contempt, and disrespect for so many fellow Catholics, but none more so than bishops and often times priests.  I think it takes a good year or two of blogging to learn not to do that kind of stuff - and much longer to avoid com-box combat.  It perhaps takes others a very long time to abstain from referring to the USCCB bishops as buffoons, or to have the effrontery to call a Cardinal an idiot and by his last name when mocking him outright.  But I digress.

I realized I’ve probably offended a few bishops and priests myself, and I’m not proud of that.  My first temptation is to imitate Ms. Angelou and say no more - ever - or at least to quit blogging.  Instead, I’ll continue writing posts for awhile, because there are a few matters I want to finish, but my conversation will be limited - so as to avoid insulting anyone else.  God willing, from now on, the only person I will defame is myself, the only criticism will be of me, and I will try to have fun doing it so everyone may continue to be entertained. 

Someplace in Scripture the Holy Spirit speaks:  “Set a guard on my tongue, and upon my lips an effective seal, that I may not sin by them.” 

But first, connecting the dots about linkies…

I’m not linking to anyone in this post, but surfing around the blogosphere, I have come to realize why some people link to the people they do.  Just because one has a blog does not mean people will link to you.  There is a status quo one must live up to in order to get the linkies thing going on.  (I’m always the last to learn these things.)

Well, first of all, people have to read your blog and like it for them to want to link to it.  (Which is why I have so few readers by the way.)  Having said that, if someone has a literary blog, or an intellectual blog, they may read you, but you are not qualified enough to be on their blogroll.  Nothing wrong with that.

Now I’ve commented in the past few weeks how certain cafeteria blogs seem to be trying to appeal to more sophisticated intellectual/news blogs while being somewhat dismissive of their original “lunatic fringe” fan base.  It all gets so complicated.

Blog hostilities.

Now I find blog competition rather interesting, especially as it involves the elitism of several quality blogs.  It is all rather humbling.  Many bloggers, from whatever school of thought they hail from, tend to be more or less elitists.  I’ve noted liberal and conservative Catholics alike refer to their inferiors and those who disagree with them as ‘wackos”.  (They also will refer to their commenter’s with the same condescending tone.)  I actually like that in some respects  - they sort of cancel one another out that way, and it helps me maintain a proper introspection.

Recently, a Catholic blog that is considered to be rather liberal, let’s call it “Vox Nova” (I rather like the blog BTW) has entertained me with the lively comments their posts generate concerning the “wackos” on the Internet.  Actually, this is where I learned that what I write just doesn’t count for the many elitists out there.  (There is one blog in Asia…)  And no, I am not offended, and I keep going back to these blogs, mainly because I enjoy other writer’s point of view - and as Liza Minelli said, “I think that’s the greatest gift one can have!”  (LOL!  Again!)

Finally, that  “wingnut loon” and his crazy followers.

No - a commenter on that “liberal Catholic” blog was not using that term for me - although many others might - but rather for Fr. Zuhlsdorf.  In fact, another commenter added, “Of course, the online cult of Fr. Z. is going to be upset that their oracle has been denounced. Seriously, he seems to be the major spirit behind the radical Catholics on the net, making them feel like they are in the norm when the reverse is the actual case. “Save the liturgy, save the world” craziness says it all — the liturgy doesn’t need to be saved.”  (I don’t want to link to the article because they probably already think I’m a wingnut too.  LOL!)

I especially like the last comment.  “The online cult of Fr. Z.”  Aside from demeaning his vast readership, it also demonstrates my point:  There are various factions and cliques in the blogosphere; little people and big people, has beens and haven’t beens, employed and unemployed, intellectual and banal, spiritual and gnostic, trad and lib, and so on and so on.  Some get their breaks with other media, other’s troll around the net, hoping to get their own “cult”…  It is pretty much about power and influence, although it is much more about look at me, listen to me, support me.  Me.

Cat Fight Update! (4:20 PM)

Oh crap!  It is just too funny to miss, so I’ll link  - go to Vox Nova and read for your self.

Warning:  Some of the food may be tainted…

And the proprietor may be too busy trying to reinvent himself to care.  But hey, decide for yourself - his comment on the new-old Cafeteria here:  “Thankfully, my blog isn’t rated on the site you cite I consider my blog a personal rather than a Catholic blog with claim to orthodoxy (TM). Admittedly, ex post, the blog title was a bad idea. It was meant as a bon mot re: Ratzinger. Apparently, on the internet the accusation of ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ is ubiquitous. In my defense, I was a pup when I started. I hadn’t even known how far out some people are, Frequently, they have a lot in common, regardless of whether they’d be viewed as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Dislike for democracy and individual rights, for example.” - Vox Nova

His latest post here seems to confirm my earlier observations here.

I have to believe he really would like to change the name of his blog, but as he commented to me once:  “My blog’s really a personal opinion blog on many topics, not a ‘Catholic blog’ per se. With 2+ million visitors, it’s more popular than ever.”  And what assurance does he have all of those people would follow him to a new site?  Especially since it was the uber-Catholics who made him so popular (and contributed to his support) in the first place? 

“Oh!  I am blogdom’s fool!”

I may have to do a few critical posts - but I’ll pray about it first.

UPDATE: 

Answered prayer - Maybe another time. 

Catholic bloggers are only voices - they are not the Church. 

I think some bloggers are not what or who they say they are.  I think a few seem  to be Catholic, but they are not.  Quite a few are protestant Catholics - commonly called ‘dissident Catholics’, or in some cases ‘rad-trads’ - they are both protestant however.  I think bloggers who claim to be Catholic generally are Catholic, but many seem to lack experience and don’t really know what they are talking about when it comes to dogma, discipline, liturgy, tradition, prayer and spirituality, and all of that.  Not a few bloggers are recent converts or born again Catholics - they go by the title, ‘reverts’.  Some are simply misfits spouting off interpretations of things they may have studied in the past few years.  (And some lie.)  But, like I said, many are in their first fervor and haven’t much more than a clue as to what living from faith is really all about.  Some are even self-proclaimed mystics with a private message from God.  Promoting oneself is usually a good sign of at least vanity, if not deceit. 

There are a lot of strangers out there blogging - be really, really careful.  (Maybe I should do a list?)

Art: “Ship of Fools” - Bosch 

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, the blogosphere’s pastor.

Here I am, minding my own business, checking blogs - I go first to Sante Pater  to see what Vincenzo did - he has a post on Fr. Z  - like a biography, and I think - “Does he hang out with Father?”  (Twinge of envy.)  I read the post, and I think, “Wow!  Vincenzo really writes well!”  (Stab of envy.)  I re-read it, and I think, “I didn’t know that!”  (Admiration.)

Then I go to Fr. Blake’s blog,  and he too has a piece on Fr.Z - as I read the post I realize Father had been interviewed by the Catholic Herald,  and both Fr. Blake and Vincenzo linked to the interview.  And a great interview it is.  It is a must read.

Just yesterday I was telling my friend John Hastreiter how important Fr. Zuhlsdorf  is to the Catholic Internet, and what he does is a real apostolate.  He is the pastor of the blogosphere, and the world is his parish. 

Objectifying men in Holy Orders.

Catholic news is often full of stories about liberal nuns who want greater equality in a male dominated Church, along with reports of their counterparts who either lobby for female ordination or go ahead and have themselves ordained. 

Then there are the periodic reports of the occasional scandal involving a priest leaving orders to marry a parish worker or some Camille he may be counselling.  Media, including Catholic bloggers love to exploit these stories.  Such stories also provide an excellent opportunity for uber-Catholics to proclaim their orthodoxy and fidelity to everything traditional, while condemning the heretics.  It’s something to blog about.

However, I find it curious that women, like gay men, seem to have an inordinate attraction not only to the priesthood, but to priests themselves.  I’ve heard some very traditional women say they think the priest is sexy in his cassock - even if he may have ho-hum looks.

Of course, Donatella Versaci has been rather vocal about her attraction to Monsignor Ganswein, the Pope’s secretary; last year she based a portion of  her men’s collection on clerical wear because of him.  The Monsignor also seems to be popular with female bloggers - Catholic and non-Catholic, and as one would expect, gay men seem to have the hots for him as well.  The poor Father is just too sexy for his cassock.

Respecting boundaries. 

Fatal attractions for priests and religious are nothing new, the movie, “The Devils” based upon the book by Aldous Huxley, ”The Devils of Loudon”, contains several scenes of Vanessa Redgrave’s character lusting after the local parish priest.  She was especially turned on by her fantasy of him naked beneath a lacy alb.    I don’t really know what it is that women find so attractive about priests and seminarians - and although I have a few ideas, I won’t go there.  (Photo: Oliver Reed from “The Devils”, Ken Russell, 1971.  Shown here is his scene as a fantasy of Christ for the prioress [Redgrave] who lusted after him.)

Even the most devout and sincere woman can mistake attraction for  devotion and dedication to her faith or position in the parish, although in many instances, she is most likely in denial.  I expect that must be the case when it leads to a priest leaving ministry for the woman he either worked with or counseled.  There are all sorts of situations which can befall a priest, and although it takes two in cases involving romance, the woman may indeed have greater responsibility in the affair.  Why?  If, as studies suggest, women are more intuitive than men, they ought to be more sensitive to the onset of infatuation and lust.  Men, ordained or not, often just don’t see it until it  happens. 

In such cases women would do well to recall the old saying; “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”  Although before it gets that far, they ought to keep in mind the  other saying;  ”Where there’s fantasy there’s desire”.

It may be better to pray for priests, rather than to foster crushes on them.

Links:

Priests and Emotional Love, by Rev. Thomas G. Morrow - A very good article on the subject.

 [Top photo:  Monsignor Ganswein with another prelate.]

Around and around…

A blog I respect  actually has a current post concerning an Elvis impersonator priest, whom I posted about months ago on my “funny” blog, Abbey1.  (It is a non-issue which ubers  obviously feel a need to respond to - just read the nutty comments.  Since I am not an Elvis fan, I simply think the priest has no taste.) 

To be sure, it is no big deal who is first to post what, although what cracks me up is how this type of trivia acquires a semblance of importance, and gets circulated so repetitively, while there are always several readers who jump into the com-box to condemn whatever is regurgitated. 

Just think, a person just starting to blog today will repeat what somebody writes about tomorrow.