How to cleanse right-wing brainwashing...

I speak from the position of someone who voted for Trump twice. I was never really what would be properly called a "Trumper" or "MAGA" even, except maybe to those on the hard left who see any opposition of any kind toward leftism as being "MAGA" or "Trumpism" or "Trump-supportive". Like how many Biden voters or Hillary Clinton voters do you really honestly know who actually gave whole support to the ideologies of those? Like most people, I just ended up voting for the lesser of evils. But nevertheless, I did venture more toward right-wing brainwashing. I think a lot of it is dictated by the news we watch. But there is a large responsibility that the left itself needs to take up in creating right-wing brainwashing. There's positive brainwashing and negative brainwashing. And the left contributes to a lot of negative brainwashing.

Pigeonholing is a tactic used frequently in rhetoric where someone puts someone in a position that they would not otherwise hold because of hasty generalizations or strawmanning or even guilt by association. And the left excels in it. I do believe this is how many otherwise conservative people, such as David French, get sucked into making excuses for the left even as the left attacks them. Because if they didn't stray toward the left, they'd end up in my position of being labeled a "MAGA". But that's the thing, these are labels that can be rejected. Labels aren't something that are handed out by people who aren't extemist. Labels are handed out by people who are extremists! I want to make that clear. Understanding that there is pigeonholing by left-wing extremists and anyone who undertakes in pigeonholing is, more often than not, an extremist, is a crucial component of this.

You're not an extremist just because someone says you are an extremist. In fact, you might be normal. I have empathy toward those who see January 6, 2021 as an insurrection. I think that it is an opinion. It doesn't make someone a defender of "MAGA" or a "Trumper" to be able to understand that the usage of the term "insurrection" to define that event is opinionated. What's more concerning is when politicians use the opinionated term as part of their investigation into what happened and so the legal search starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support that conclusion. Others, such as myself, see an otherwise organized rally that somehow erupted into a riot. And that's an equally justified opinion unless evidence proves there was an insurrection. When it becomes a matter of good and evil to see such a thing as an insurrection or people who became riotous and politicians start to use that as part of a legal investigation of the issue, that's dangerous. But an extremist, nevertheless, isolates people who see it as either/or into groups of us vs. them and ignores their own responsibility.

So during the Summer of 2020, the President had to hide in a bunker. That is a fact. He had to hide into a bunker because an organized group of people was committing violent acts, vandalizing the streets of Washington, D.C., and riot cops had to be called into to break everything up. Leftists denied this happened and yet video footage showed it happened. When confronted with this, leftists didn't call it out. They actually sought to justify it based on the nation's treatment of racial minorities...in the past. Most people tend to grow up, but extremists tend to grasp onto what happened in the past and act as if everything in the past is the same as today. That's why you get "Hitler" analogies. Obviously, no one's bringing back Hitler. Though due to the fact that Nazism is a variation of socialism and both right and left cling to socialism, it's understandable why so many make these Hitler analogies, on both right and left. The point is, that the Summer riot could also be categorized as an insurrection.

An insurrection, I think, is something that should be defined before the word is thrown out. Generally speaking, insurrection refers to acts that are intentionally undermining the Civil Government. It's impressive to me how many leftists will insist that our government institutionalizes racism and then will somehow care about that government being undermined. That's just cognitive dissonance disorder. Either you care about the institution or you think the institution is inherently racist. The fact that intent is typically emphasized is why I don't think that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. I'm not saying it may have been, I'm just saying I don't think that happened. The only insurrection I am aware of that happened with certainty was the insurrection in Seattle that occurred in 2020 with "CHAZ".

Going back to my original point, extremism happens on both sides. I don't know what side it is more common with, but the hard rightists typically see the media make comments ad nauseam about right-wing extremism. Then they see on social media video clips of various examples of left-wing extremists and they are hurt and wounded by the fact that there is so much demonization of the right. More than that, but people in the middle, who hold more socially conservative views, see all of this, end up being pigeon-holed along with the more extreme bunch of the right, and end up being categorized as "MAGA", "Trumpers", "Nazis", and "extremists" as well. No one likes being called things they aren't, but it's a part of labeling. Cults typically divide the world into two categories of good guys vs. bad guys. It's easier then to glorify violent acts such as the knifing of Derek Chauvin (leftists recently) and the death of George Floyd (right-wing extremists in the past and today). Or even Kyle Rittenhouse's usage of force against people trying to kill him. Even justified violence should not be glorified. It reminds me of what Elyas says to Perrin Aybara in The Wheel of Time. The moment you start to love that axe is when you need to get rid of it.

The left has engaged in what I would call "negative brainwashing". By creating such a negative picture of the right, that more people on the right have started materializing that in response to the left-wing extremism that is both justified by the media and supported by politicians. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call out those who vandalized a crisis pregnancy center? While opposing right-wing extremism continues to be necessary, it must be remembered that left-wing extremism has media and corporate support. Both should be opposed equally. Those who are of the Kingdom of God know that the enemies attack it from all sides. The warfare is not a material one, but it is an important one. For the left to actually get rid of right-wing extremists, they themselves need to stop thinking like extremists of seeing people as two groups, those for, and those against, their ideological group think. But one thing I give credit to the left on, they at least know that the Kingdom of God is their main enemy.

Why dispensationalism is not Scriptural

I've been noticing on social media lately, a lot of Christians, particularly Protestant Christians, trying to defend the claims of the State of Israel unconditionally on the grounds of the theology of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a philosophy rooted in the more extremes of Protestantism. It is an attempt to take literally all the texts of Scripture that refer to Israel and apply them literally to the "people of Israel". It has gained more ground since the founding of the modern State of Israel. And herein lies the fundamental distinction and the most significant flaw of dispensationalism. Even from a literalist reading of Scriptures, it does not compute. This is why Catholic and Orthodox theologians have never held to such a theological position and why the Reformed Christians in Anglicanism and Lutheranism have also refused to accept the position.

Dispensationalists caricature the historic orthodox position of the Church as "replacement" or "supercessionist" theology, but as one looks through Scriptures, it's actually neither. In fact, it's a theology of the fulfilment of the covenant. The Scriptures are divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the word "Testament" is generally criticized as a bad translation. The more accurate translation, and what is more revealing, is "Covenant". In Genesis, God made a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15-17). At the Last Supper, Jesus declared that what His Apostles were drinking was "the Blood of the New Covenant" (Matt. 26:28). Everything in Scripture about God's relationship with humanity centers around the idea of covenants. God makes multiple covenants in Genesis with Noah and with Abraham, and then He becomes a man and makes a New Covenant with the shedding of His own Blood. The Covenant establishes His bond with His people.

When He makes a covenant with Abraham, He promises that Abram will be a father of many descendants and describes the boundaries of their lands, that his descendants will number the stars of the Heavens, and that they will be held in captivity for four hundred years (Gen. 15:4-21). Then, God changes the name of Abram to Abraham and declares that Abraham will be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:7). Abraham is not to be the father of one nation only, but of multiple nations. We can see that there are many peoples throughout the world who confess the name of Christ. God foreshadows an everlasting covenant to be made with the descendants of Abraham. This is not just referring to one nation of Israel or one specific group of people. God's intentions, from the beginning, with Abraham, was to use the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, to be a light for the whole world.

There are multiple instances where "Israel" is referred to in Scriptures. It is referred to in Scriptures as Jacob the Righteous, the son of Isaac. It is referred to in Scriptures as the Kingdom of Israel. It is referred to in Scriptures as the people of Israel, the people of the Kingdom of Israel. Even dispensationalists have to acknowledge that the modern State of Israel is not a Kingdom but a democratic parliamentary republic. But there are already is a King of Israel according to Scriptures! In the Davidic line of descent, the Messiah is born to the Virgin Mary and becomes King of Israel! Moreover, it is revealed in the fulfilment, that this King was to come, not just to the Hebrews but to all nations. Such was the mission work of Christ. He clarifies that He has come for the Hebrews first, but with full intention to incorporate the Gentiles. This became an early question for the Church (Acts 15:3-21). In this controversy over the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles, the Holy Prophet Amos is referenced, "I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down ... [a]nd all the Gentiles who are called by name" (Am. 9:11-12).

So even in the Old Covenant, it is explained that Gentiles were to be included in the promises of Israel! As St. Paul declares, "Now to Abraham and his Seed [Christ] were the promises made" (Gal. 3:16). Those who are included in the promise are of Israel, the Seed of Israel, because Christ is the firstfruits of Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Christ has established Himself as firstborn of a brotherhood and this includes those who find Faith in Christ. Christ establishes Himself as King over all nations in the glory of His Resurrection and the splendor of His Godhood. The Kingdom of Israel, therefore, must be the Church. But St. Paul also recognizes that there is a remnant of Israel according to the flesh.

In Romans 9-11, where many dispensationalists come away with the understanding that their opponents' theology is somehow a "replacement" theology, they miss on key concepts that St. Paul speaks of the remnant of Israel (Rom. 9:27-28). The point is to show that Abraham has descendants according to the flesh, but that the flesh will account for nothing in the judgment from God. Much the same, even Jesus makes note of this in His dispute with the Pharisees where He declares that they are not the children of Abraham but of the Devil (Jn. 8:44). St. Paul is much aware of the statements made by Christ and is making an argument showing that the Gentiles are indeed apart of the Covenant, but how the Covenant is not superceded at all. Ironic that fulfilment theology is often termed "supercessionist" because it is anything but!

When I went to a non-denominational church when I was younger, the pastor once informed us that Paul was a "Jew" and emphasized in his lecture the Jewishness of Paul. I was both disturbed and perplexed. This is because the distinguishing of Judaism and Christianity as a religion nor the ethnic distinction was actually applied. But if we look at Scriptures, we do come across the statements made by St. John that there are Jews who say they are Jews but are of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 3:9). It is not the replacement of Israel that we are looking at in Scriptures, but the fulfilment of Israel. The writers of the Catholic epistles want us to come away with the understanding that we are indeed correctly called Israel, have the promises of Israel, and are included in that. They cite the Old Testament's references that include the Gentiles in that Covenant and show the intent to incorporate the Gentiles into that Covenant. The Gentiles are restored with the tabernacle of David. That is the Church. Anything that contradicts is actually supercessionist and replacement. Was St. Paul a "Jew"? He was a Jew who was a Jew in reality. But that is because the true Jewish religion is not that of Rabbinic Judaism, but that of the Messianic following of Christ in the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. Both "Christian" and "Jew" is appropriate for Christians are Jews of the New Covenant. Those tied to the Old Covenant stand in rejection of Christ. They deny that Christ came in the flesh and are Antichrist (1 Jn. 2:22, 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7). Thus, St. John distinguishes between Jews who are of the Synagogue of Satan and practitioners of the true Faith (called Christians).

The word "Christian" was first applied to those who followed Christ as the Messiah by the opponents of Christianity and not by Christians themselves. The first Christians more than likely would have viewed themselves as a sect of Judaism at the time. When we sort through the anachronisms, and understand the texts according to the way the early Christians saw it, we see that they viewed Jewishness far differently than it is understood nowadays, Israel is a Kingdom of which the Church (Ekklesia - gathering) is the standing army, and the Eucharist is the sacrifice. Because many Protestants have rejected that the Eucharist is sacrifice and that Jesus's pouring Himself out on the Cross once and for all is infinitely offered on the Holy Altars, they miss out on this. That's how dispensationalism is arrived at. Because Lutherans and Anglicans haven't dismissed that theology of the Eucharist, they have retained the same views as historic Christianity. Dispensationalism is, effectively, replacement theology because it throws the Gentiles out of the Covenant and replaces the Kingdom of Israel with the modern State of Israel. Dispensationalism, therefore, is heretical.

My view on Fratelli Tutti revisited...

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post about the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. I think it's healthy to reflect on how one's mind develops over the years toward the search for Truth and whether or not I still actually affirm that there are heresies in it. Overall, the Catholic dogma can be vast and is established and is firmly rooted in its historical tradition. This is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism. Whereas Protestantism undergoes self-criticism through Biblical reflection, Catholic doctrine is guided by historic tradition which roots out novelties of Scriptural interpretation, ever discerning how the Holy Spirit is being listened to. Re-reading my comments on Fratelli Tutti as of today, I can state with confidence that the document is a largely problematic document, but each Papal Encyclical is written to a specific audience, for a specific purpose, at a specific point in time. So I think I should re-look at Fratelli Tutti and reassess the analysis I made on it. Consider the Epistles of the New Testament. Whether written by St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. John the Evangelist, each one of these are episcopal encyclicals, and the two by St. Peter are Papal Encyclicals! They are dealing with different circumstances in the Church and different contexts. With that said, a proper reassessment of some of Fratelli Tutti's statements can be further explained.

Private Property

On private property, the statement of Fratelli Tutti when compared to other areas of Catholic dogma don't really appear well. I compared Fratelli Tutti's assessment of private property to Rerum Novarum's assessment of private property. This was wrong of me to do so. When read side-by-side, Rerum Novarum seems to contradict Fratelli Tutti. However, Fratelli Tutti never undermines the doctrine of private property and its management in Rerum Novarum. In today's world, where capitalism is often idolized, we tend to also become very much attached to our own private property. While capitalism was a dominant philosophy when Rerum Novarum was written, there was a budding philosophy that many were beginning to take seriously - communism. Communism undermined the value of the human individual and attacked the private property rights' of the given stewards. The fact of the matter is that all property we are given is actually a direct gift of God Who has made us stewards of that private property. This should be understood first when we discuss the question of private property. When reading Fratelli Tutti in full, we should take into account that the importance of Pope Francis's comments on private property is not to undermine the value of private property, but to remind us of the important usage of private property in direction to the common good of men. That's not heretical at all.

Just War

I still maintain that his position on war has always seemed contradictory. But I think there is an important point to consider is that when the Pope is speaking as an advisor on stately matters, he is not infallible. On this matter, when he is advising nations not to seek war, he is certainly speaking on the position of a stately advisor. Even though this is an encyclical, there are aspects that he seems to address toward the world and to his actual sheep. And I think this is a problem with Pope Francis overall. He strikes me as a much more worldly Pope who gets too much caught up in media attention rather than the focus of his flock. In his writings on Just War, this is a prime example. That said, his position that takes on a much more pacifistic approach is a more healthy way for the lay Christian to engage. Reading some of St. Basil's ethics, one finds that there is considerable question as to whether a soldier would be guilty of murder should he kill another Christian in combat. And I think this also requires historical combat. What extent should Christians be involved in wars between countries when we know that we might be killing our own brethren? On a practical matter, as Fratelli Tutti indicates, no war is a far superior position.

Death Penalty

This one is far more shakier. The past few Popes, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI to Francis, have all been hotly against the death penalty. And though past posts in the past have had me unequivocally defend capital punishment, I think St. Mark the Ascetic's position should be taken. When lay Christians bring others to be punished before the state tribunals, those Christians sin. When Christian rulers carry out punishments against criminals, there is no sin committed. According to Romans 13, the state has been given full right by God to wield the sword of judgment. There is a distinction then that should be made. Unfortunately, it's not a distinction that is made by today's moralists. We don't see any effort to make a distinction, but instead, we presume that the call for Christians to seek the end of the death penalty is an inherently unequivocal call for even Christian rulers to cede their God-given authority. That's where things become more ambiguous and more confusing. Because the historical doctrine is that the death penalty can be used by the legitimate authorities without sin, but the current mode of thought is that all Christians are to be against it. And yet, Fratelli Tutti isn't directed at state officials, but to lay Christians. The intended audience of Fratelli Tutti needs to be taken into account. This is not a political advisory statement to officials, even if it was, such political advisory would not be considered infallible. I think the difficulty is that the position is based on philosophical prowess rather than theological prowess.

Equality

While the question of equality really ought to be defined based on what is meant by equality, I think we should look to earlier theological positions of Pope Francis to determine what is meant before making a conclusion. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis upholds the traditional hierarchical nature of the Church. What he means by equality then cannot, in any way, be a contradiction to what he has maintained in the past. So we should take a view on equality that is far less absolute. Are we all equal as brothers in Christ through our baptism? Yes. Again, the audience of Fratelli Tutti is not those who are outside of the Church. Therefore, we can conclude that equality is not a heresy.

In full retrospect, I think I may have been too hasty with my statements on Fratelli Tutti in the past and I apologize for those positions. Although I will leave that post up to show what my mindset was back in 2020, I'll leave a link at the bottom to this post so that people can have an idea of how my view on the document has changed. Please don't judge me for any errors in the past. I was deeply affected by Traditionalist circles at the time Fratelli Tutti was written and I think that affected my overall reading of it too.

C-3PO's symbolism in Attack of the Clones

Recently, I watched the movie Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. I am aware that George Lucas has admitted to using C-3PO as a metaphor before. In Empire Strikes Back, he compares C-3PO's being pieced back together again as a reference to Darth Vader's being pieced back together. Vader is ultimately broken by the fact that his own son has rejected to join him and overthrow the Emperor. Luke Skywalker has emerged triumphant over Darth Vader's attempt to turn him to the Dark Side of the Force, but Darth Vader is crippled by the fact that his son has rejected him. In the meanwhile, C-3PO is blasted at by a stormtrooper and ends up in pieces. We see Chewbacca struggling to put his robot friend back together and our heart breaks for Chewbacca. After the duel on Bespin, Darth Vader is seen for the first time in Empire Strikes Back no longer punishing his subordinates for their failures. An Imperial Officer says directly to Lord Vader that the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive has been disabled, only for the Falcon to blast away right before Vader's eyes into hyperspace. Darth Vader does nothing. He has been defeated by Luke Skywalker's refusal to join him. Darth Vader has been blasted apart. He is starting to be pieced back together, but Luke Skywalker is now going to be just as frustrated, near despairing, as Chewbacca was when he pieced C-3PO back together.

Flash back nearly 25 years before the events of Empire Strikes Back and we've reached the tides of war in the galaxy. Once you understand the main plot-line behind Attack of the Clones, it becomes one of the most interesting of the prequel trilogy. Palpatine is slowly beginning to coagulate power as the Supreme Chancellor of the Galaxy. Right now, he is operating in the context of a democratically elected parliamentary republic. But there are rules he sees he can bend in order to accumulate much greater power. He has split the galaxy into two factions that don't even realize that they are both fighting for him and against each other at the same time. He has done so through his apprentice Darth Tyrannus - Count Dooku - as we will come to learn at the end of the movie. Count Dooku refuses to use his Sith name in front of the Jedi for he wants the Jedi to think of himself as the Sith Master and Maul as the Sith Apprentice whom he trained. He desires the Jedi to believe he is Lord Sidious while Maul is actually Lord Tyrannus. The Jedi are aware of both, but have not identified the Master. They won't until the end of the Clone Wars.

The Jedi, in speaking with Palpatine regarding the assassination attempt on Senator Padme Amidala view themselves as keepers of the peace. Historically, the Jedi have always maintained peace in the galaxy. But Count Dooku became more and more disillusioned with the Jedi. He came to see them as political agents for the Galactic Republic. The Separatists are disillusioned with the direction of the Galactic Republic so they form a faction with the Trade Federation and begin to declare their secession from the Republic. Senator Padme Amidala is revealed to be a dove who was going to vote on the subject of the creation of the grand army of the Republic. But the assassination attempt will drive her away and create a scenario where she and Anakin will become involved in a relationship with each other. Senator Amidala was Queen of Naboo when the Trade Federation attacked her planet and the Viceroy Nute Gunray is furious for the punishments he suffered. He was also involved in her assassination attempt. Nevertheless, Senator Amidala takes a view of not wanting conflict with the Separatists. She is not an ideologue in that matter and it infuriates both sides of the political aisle, the Loyalists to the Chancellor and the Anti-War faction. Senator Jar Jar Binks takes a Loyalist position and hands all power over to the Chancellor.

In the meanwhile, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up on Geonosis where Obi Wan Kenobi has been taken prisoner by the Separatist Faction. Along with R2-D2 and C-3PO, Senator Amidala and Anakin Skywalker end up in a droid factory. Inside the factory, C-3PO ends up losing his head on the assembly line and it gets pieced back together onto the body of a B1 Battle Droid. A B1 Battle Droid head gets pieced onto his body. The rest is pure comedy. C-3PO ends up shooting at Jedi on the battlefield of Geonosis where he shouts, "Die Jedi! Die!" He corrects himself as soon as he says this, but the point is made. He is confused. What are his ideals? The Jedi, who were keepers of the peace, are all of a sudden becoming armed combatants of the Republic while the clone troopers show up to save them all. It is a confusing position for the Jedi. Once peace-keepers, now they will begin to be turned into soldiers. This justifies the disillusionment of Count Dooku and the Separatists with the Jedi and the Republic.

In the meanwhile, the B1 Battle Droid, who's head is on C-3PO's body, is frustrated. Not being able to move. He doesn't realize the master he serves is actually in fact the Chancellor of the Galactic Republic that he fights against. Nobody realizes this at this moment. But Count Dooku is aware of this. Count Dooku is the only one who knows all of the mystery at this point. He and Chancellor Palpatine both know the grand conspiracy. And you can hear it when you look at the formation of the clone troopers before Senator Bail Organa and Chancellor Palpatine and the rest of the Loyalists. You can see budding concern on Bail Organa's face as he looks on at the grand army and he starts to question his Loyalist commitment to Palpatine. A commitment that will erode as Palpatine disrupts the Galactic Republic and founds the First Galactic Empire in the midst of the collapsing government. Bail Organa is the B1 Battle Droid, wondering why his body isn't moving. The Jedi are C-3PO who have lost their way. C-3PO is the Galactic Republic, governed by Darth Sidious. The B1 Battle Droid is the Separatists, governed by Chancellor Palpatine. George Lucas, in this brief comedic moment in Attack of the Clones has placed in all of the symbolism that the viewer needs to see in order to know all of Darth Sidious's evil intentions for the galaxy.

Love, forgiveness, and reconciliation

I've been slowly reading through Eleonore Stump's massive book, Wandering Through Darkness. Recently, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship. Not so much a significant other as it was with a friend who I thought I might have been in love with at one point. She was incredibly toxic, dismissive of my emotions, and declared me manipulative for trying to communicate with her when I was being stonewalled. I've been told by numerous people that the behavior on her end was far more consistent with gaslighting and projection, that it was not Christlike behavior that was shown toward me, and that I need to stay away from her. I was struggling with whether permanently staying away from her was consistent with forgiveness so I asked a priest who explained that forgiveness does not mean that we cannot set up reasonable boundaries. In such a case where you are dealing with emotional abuse and the other refuses to even self-reflect, it's necessary to abandon the cause.

Reading through Stump's fifth chapter of Wandering Through Darkness, which is introducing concepts to the core of her main argument, she addresses the question of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation through the perspective of Thomistic moral theology. Stump is Thomistic and Augustinian in her theology and has written much addressing concepts in both Thomistic and Augustinian theology. Starting with the core essence of love in Thomism, love is about the desiring of the good of another. That other may not necessarily desire the good for themselves. So when people were telling me that the friendship was toxic, they were acting in love toward me. They desire the good for me. That which is healthy and no emotionally draining. And emotionally abusive relationship, whether it's with parents or with children or with friends or with a significant other, can have real harm on the psyche of the person being abused.

Part of forgiveness though is a desire for reconciliation. But there remains a question as to whether reconciliation is possible or not. Stump addresses this. Reconciliation is the goal of forgiveness under normal circumstances. We may look toward the Parable of the Loving Father where the Father anxiously awaits the return of his son who squandered his entire inheritance. But what if there is a situation where that reconciliation is not possible? What if there is a situation more akin to Pharaoh, who despite all of the plagues and punishments, refuses to repent for his heart has become hardened. We can still forgive someone who is like that. If there is ample reason to doubt that a person's repentance is sincere or genuine, or if the person refuses to repent or seek reconciliation, then we may need to establish healthy boundaries. In the case of Pharaoh, that boundary was determined by his watery grave in the Red Sea.

In the case of an abusive situation on social media or in real life, that may include blocking or filing a restraining order with the other. Often, it is impossible to tell the real reasons why someone has chosen to be emotionally manipulative or abusive. It is impossible to determine whether that someone is sincere. And when there is no self-reflection, or there is constant accusations made by that person against you, the only thing you can do is walk away from the situation. If someone tells you one thing and does another and makes it seem like you are the one being paranoid for wondering why this is happening, that person is not a healthy person to be around or near. I've been around many people like that.

But this goes to the key point that Stump addresses. Reconciliation may not always be possible when it comes to forgiveness. In such situations, only the desire for reconciliation can be maintained. It'd be one thing if I wanted my abuser to stay an abuser, because then I would not be desiring the good for her. It's a much different thing if I acknowledge that reconciliation with my abuser is not possible at the moment because there is no sign that the manipulative behavior has changed. I can walk away from that person comfortably, knowing that I have not failed to forgive them. I desire reconciliation with that person, I just don't know if reconciliation will ever be possible with that person.

Internet rad-trads

So the past few years, when COVID mandate policies forced us into isolation, I delved heavily into the darkness of social media. I would not like to go back to those mandates for any reason whatsoever. I do not think those mandates have created a healthier society, but a society that doesn't know how to interact with each other and have appropriate interactions with one another. We have become eroded as a society where we are willing to exclude one another. That's what people did centuries ago. And I think more appalling to list among those types of people is the Traditionalist Catholics. Catholics in general, but Traditionalist Catholics to be specific. I have noticed in many places Catholic culture is, overall, eroded by social media presence.

When I first learned about "rad-trads", I presumed that people were generalizing all Traditionalist Catholics. Let me be clear, they are not. One of my dearest friends that I acquired from social media went by the moniker "JMF" and was deeply a Traditionalist Catholic. She even brought up criticism of the rad-trads as well. Specifically the rad-trads who are demanding that everyone become chicken farmers. I am aware of more Traditionalist Catholics that have critiqued this position too. Rather than honest reflection, JMF was heavily repudiated and decided to close her Twitter/X account as a result. She was even chided at as not being "Trad".

Based on my few years of interaction with Traditionalist Catholics on Twitter/X, one major takeaway I have is that they confuse their radical traditionalism with orthodoxy. When you first hear criticism of the "rad-trads" online, you might be tempted to think that all Traditionalist Catholics are being condemned. So did I. Traditionalist Catholics just want to be able to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and honor God the way the saints did. That's not an issue at all. But the "rad-trads" are those who push it completely over the edge. When Pope Francis came out swinging at the "rad-trads" as being rigid, a lot of Traditionalist Catholics were rightly offended and upset about it. But if you are a Traditionalist Catholic like myself, and you see that "rad-trad" group in operation, you begin to understand his point.

I should be clear, most Traditionalist Catholics are Western Rite. I am Melkite. But I think any Catholic who affirms the continuity Tradition and sees Tradition as the basis of orthodoxy is a Traditionalist Catholic. Not to mention, any Catholic who desires the survival of the Traditional Latin Mass in the West is a Traditionalist. Yes, I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is also valid, even if major reform is needed in order to bring it back to the rubrics, but if done properly, there really isn't a need to conflict the TLM with the NO at any rate and the disobedient heretics are those who think the NO replaces the TLM. I have seen more disobedience to their proper ecclesiastical authorities from many of these neo-Catholics who run media places like Where Peter Is and National Catholic Reporter than other spots. National Catholic Reporter was required years ago to remove the word "Catholic" from its name by their own bishop. Yet they'll somehow blast orthodox Catholics as not obeying their bishop? So to be clear, there is nothing wrong with Traditionalist Catholicism in its orthodoxy.

The problem is with a certain group of Traditionalist Catholics who are more than just "orthodox", but are rigid. You might have noticed a lot of posts on the internet contending that Pope Francis was a supporter of abortion, or who communes Nancy Pelosi despite her excommunication. And yet both of these positions couldn't be any farther from the truth! Do you know what each member of the House of Commons looks like, you American? Hey, who's the President of Romania? And yet you expect the Pope, who is originally from Argentina, who is the Head of State of Vatican City, one of the tiniest countries in the world, to know everyone and everything about the entire makeup of the U.S. Congress? Absurd! The Pope has condemned abortion on numerous occasions and there has been no statement from the Pope that has hinted at overturning the excommunication of Nancy Pelosi. On the contrary, the Pope has even indicated in the past that the individual bishops of the United States are to have their authority to excommunicate politicians who support heretical social policies excommunicated.

And that's just one example of rigidity. There are numerous examples of rigidity that can be captured. There is a movement dedicated to the position that suits and ties must be worn in Church. I respect the position that one dresses up for God. But modesty and respect are not necessarily about showiness. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wearing a suit and a tie, but to mandate it as a requirement for all of your churchmen is rigid! Likewise, the war on jeans in church is one of the most ridiculous discussions ever. Why is there so much effort against the wearing of jeans? Are jeans disrespectful to wear? Are they immodest? Or are they just less than slacks? And if it's the last one (which it is), maybe that's not a good war to wage. The fact that there are many rad-trads like this shows the Pope's criticisms of "Traditionalists" (rad-trads) as rigid are actually quite valid.

In the recent past, I once was chided at by a rad-trad for stating that all sexual sin was intrinsically disordered. The charge was that I "diminished the sin of homosexuality". The funny thing is that his charge against me diminished all sexual sins that weren't homosexuality. There is apparently categorization of sins by the "sins that cry out to Heaven" and the "seven deadly sins". That's besides the point. The problem is that both Byzantine moral theology and Latin moral theology are accepted orthodoxies in the Catholic Church. Latin moral theology tends to rank one sin as worse than another sin while Byzantine moral theology ranks one sin as leading to the same damnation as all the other sin. But this is what's most important. What we are looking at is categorization. The sins that cry out to Heaven and the seven deadly sins are sin categories, not individual sins. But is a "rad-trad" really going to call out defrauding workers? You don't see that from the "rad-trads" at all. Further, when you are ranking homosexuality as worse than coercing someone into sexual intercourse with you, there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning.

Many other examples of "rad-trad-ism" can be pointed out. But I think if one's interactions with Traditionalist Catholics on the internet is limited to the Fish Eaters forum, one does not come across this segment of Traditionalist Catholicism. Vox Clamatis has historically done a quality job preventing dissemination of conspiracy theories (like the notion that there was an impostor Sr. Lucy) because there has been tremendous backlash against "rad-trads" who have rightfully been seen as conspiracy theorists. If your only interaction with Traditionalist Catholics online has been in a forum like that, you might see a lot of in-fighting and squabbling among us Traditionalists one week, but then the next week, we're all brothers again. Hopefully, we can bring that forum back to life again. Right now, it's down. But it's important to point out that people are not talking about those people when they criticize "rad-trads". They are not talking about JMF when they criticize Traditionalist Catholics.

Star Wars: Death Troopers

The last time I did a book review was on my other blog. But I wanted to do a book review on Star Wars: Death Troopers as it looked very interesting. It's not the first time that Star Wars has mixed into the horror genre. One would have to go to the Galaxy of Fear series to see the first time. Those were probably the first and only horror novels I could actually handle as a younger kid while others read things such as Goosebumps. That, and the more comedic horror children's novel called Bunnicula about the vampire bunny-rabbit that sucks the juices of all the vegetables. But anyway, this particular book, Death Troopers, I remember coming across at a book store when I was in high school and expressing interest in it. But I don't think we were looking into getting Star Wars books on that run though and I didn't have the money at the time. A couple of weeks ago, when I was shopping, I saw it in the book section and decided to finally get a look at it.

The topic of the book dealing with a contagious virus spreading throughout the ship gave eerie reminders of the past couple years. As we all wore masks and got vaccinated to prevent ourselves from spreading a contagious disease. Yet the medical droid in the book who was the infectious disease expert gave the sentiment that such PPE was more than likely useless. Let's face it, COVID still spread despite our best efforts to stop it. And COVID, being a disease one could get multiple times, wasn't going to be put out of business by a vaccine. That said, I've probably disobeyed more COVID rules than others, as long as I could get away with it, and have never had COVID myself. I'm not saying the virus unleashed in the book is at all like COVID. Oh no. This virus literally turns the flesh of sentient lifeforms into zombies.

There's a ton of horror fiction about zombies and much of it typically devolves into the science fiction genre. I think this is because when it comes to zombies, there is manipulation of lifeforms. Much like when it comes to Frankenstein, we see the manipulation of life by Victor Frankenstein and how that manipulation of life ends up haunting him, demanding more, and rebelling against the creator. I think much of sci-fi horror is based on this idea of how manipulation of life ends up killing the creator who thought himself God, or at least destroying that creator's loved ones. Especially with Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. And perhaps Anthony Fauci would have done well to read Death Troopers before tampering with the corona virus.

Most of the book is dark and atmospheric when you are on the prison barge, though the mood seems to change along with the atmosphere as our characters escape to the Star Destroyer that they are boarding for spare parts. It's later revealed that nothing was wrong with the barge, but it was a tractor beam that had forced the barge on board. The characters soon discover the genetic manipulation of this viral substance that ended up leaking, though some of the Imperial officers believed that it was intentionally leaked onto the crew, and exposed the entire crew of the Star Destroyer. Eating alive the flesh of its victims and then taking over their carcasses, the Empire, we learn, was actually experimenting the potential use of such a virus in the lab.

This book, if not clear already, is written from the perspective of the Empire and the criminals that the Empire had caught. We aren't given much information on two of the main characters' father Von Longo other than he was apparently acknowledged as a good man by the Imperial officer who tortured him to death. The way the book humanizes all of the characters gives you much more sympathy for them. Jareth Sartoris, who killed Von Longo during interrogation proceedings, ends up developing as a character midway through the book. As the book peers into his character, you get to see much more of his character as a human being. Trig and Kale remain as kids throughout who are put through Hell. Trig, being the youngest, has to learn to toughen up the most. Zahara Cody is the Imperial doctor who ends up being one of the central heroes in the early ongoing of the disease's outbreak, developing the vaccine that saves Han Solo and Chewbacca who happen to be prisoners as well.

And yet, despite the fact that most of these people are working for the Empire, we see in the officers a sense of human duty. Both toward each other and toward their fellow sentients. Politics and past lives of crime are put aside. Han Solo is Han Solo. He doesn't trust the Empire or anyone working with the Empire, but he softens up in the situation. This character trait of Solo's is even present throughout the original trilogy of Star Wars too. He's just a smuggler who was paid out by Obi Wan Kenobi and then out of situational awareness, decided to come back and save the friends he had just met. Death Troopers is definitely a book not like any other Star Wars book. And I think that's a huge part of it. You see the Empire in a much different light. Not as a political villain, but as fellow humans performing human duty toward each other. And the epilogue of the book brings the circle of human duty toward each other to a full closure.

The identification of the True Cross

When the Empress Helen discovered the sacred relic of the True Cross, it was not known as to which one the one in which Christ was crucified on was. Helen led the excavation team which found the three crosses. One was the True Cross and the other two were the ones that the thieves alongside Christ had been crucified on. During the crucifixion, at the earthquake, the footbeam on the True Cross had been twisted to reveal the judgment of the two thieves. One to Heaven and the other to Hell. The True Cross had been made with three types of wood, fashioned like that together in order to reveal the Holy Trinity. Having established with Faith that the Cross was the one with the plaque indicating that Jesus was the King of the Jews, St. Helen wanted to confirm this before all.

As a funeral procession was meandering by, the Empress proclaimed the finding of the Cross to the Holy Bishop. The Bishop wanted to test this great finding. For years, the Pagans had attempted to cover up the Cross with shrines and temples dedicated to their gods hoping that when Christians would pay homage to Christ, they would actually be rendering homage to the deities of the ancient Romans. But such was a laughing case. When homage is paid to God, it is done to Him, even in the presence of the wicked. The Bishop now saw that the temples of these demons had been desecrated. Could this really be the True Cross? Indeed, he called for the funeral to be paused and the crosses to be brought forward.

One by one, the crosses touched the dead man. The first cross touched him and nothing happened. The second cross touched him and nothing happened. The True Cross, the one proclaimed to be the True Cross by the Empress, touched him and the dead man came alive. The True Cross, which grants resurrection and life to all for Life itself was hanged upon the wood of that Cross, brought the dead man back to life as it does for all of us who are dead to sin. This was a joyous moment and the Jew who had helped Helen find the Cross declared that he was now in allegiance with Christ and accepted baptism. He would eventually become a bishop of the Church too during the reign of the Apostate Emperor Julian.

The Cross remained in the possession of the Christians for many years until it was seized by the Persians hoping to demoralize the Christians. This did nothing to demoralize the armies of the Romans. For the Emperor Herakleios would lead his men to reclaim the property that was rightly of the Christian Faith. Marching into Persia, the Emperor reclaimed the Cross for the glory of the Lord and took it back to the Empire. But it was not to remain there, for it was better that the Cross be returned to Jerusalem where Our Lord was crucified. The Emperor would carry it.

But in Jerusalem, on that path of blessed suffering which the Lord marched on, the Emperor felt a heavy weight upon him. He was strong enough himself to carry the Cross. There was no issue with his physique. But an angel had pinned him down, preventing him from carrying the Cross. The Bishop would discern what was happening and told the Emperor that unless he humbled himself as Christ had humbled himself, he would not be able to enter into the Holy City where the Lord was crucified. Tossing away his imperial garb, the Emperor put on rags like a beggar and carried triumphantly the Cross of Christ, back to its original place where it would stand.

So let us humble ourselves and attach ourselves to that Cross which grants us life. Let us walk with humility, a living sacrifice to God. And let us glorify the Holy Trinity forever!

I haven't been here in a while

I have not been posting here in a while. I took a break from blogging here, because, truthfully, I wanted to try things out as a different person. That did not go well at all. I wanted to hide myself away from past mistakes. But that does not work at all. I cannot hide from that past or from that filth. I can only pray that people love me and will forgive me for whatever sins and failures I have committed. You may have heard of someone called "Autistic Catholic". That was me. That was my moniker. That is who I am now. I am no longer "newenglandsun". But "Autistic Catholic" has the same exact character flaws as "newenglandsun" did. Only that "Autistic Catholic" was able to get the things that "newenglandsun" didn't get. And getting those things that "newenglandsun" didn't get turned "Autistic Catholic" into a monster.

I have found more emotional abuse in the past year and a half getting the things that "newenglandsun" didn't get than emotionally worthwhile friends. That might be only partially true. I found some very decent friends as Autistic Catholic and made friends that I might not have had if I wasn't. And I think I have found very good and decent friends as Autistic Catholic that I could have also found as newenglandsun if I had genuinely wanted to. And the people who didn't want to be friends with newenglandsun to begin with were probably the ones who eventually turned on Autistic Catholic anyway. It was an interesting experiment for about one and a half years actually allowing myself to admit that I was autistic.

I found that Catholics on social media really like the idea of an autistic person speaking on behalf of the Faith. What they don't like is when that person begins to show more and more character traits associated with autism. I learned a lot of Catholics on social media claim to be empathetic toward autistic people, but turn their backs when character traits associated with autism become more obvious. There is a mixture of welcome and a mixture of hostility toward the autistic community. Spiritual warfare is not seen as a cause by some of these people as a source of problems for autistic people online, but only the exclusively autistic problems. If an autistic person is attacked for being autistic, many of these Catholics will attempt to instruct an autistic person defending that person's dignity as being "Woke" or "playing victim".

I think a lot of this has to do with the failure of Catholic culture on social media in general. I've encountered hostility on Facebook, Instagram, X, etc. Catholic culture on social media should not be seen as representative of the Church. There is a statement made by St. John Henry Cardinal Newman about how the Barque of St. Peter is a truly magnificent ship if you refrain from entering into the boiler room. Too many online Catholics want to step into the boiler room. One of the most recurrent problems in Catholic culture today is a mass of bishops who want to lead their sheep directly into the boiler room. Whether they are disobedient liberals who reject Church Teaching or are the "Rad-Trad" pastors who are relentlessly lamenting about how the Church is persecuting them.

I've been called a hypocrite by Catholics on social media many a times. I've been called a hypocrite once by a woman who claimed she would promote each of my blog posts (she never did because she was a liar). I might very well be a hypocrite. I have to get the plank out of my own eye before getting the speck of sawdust out of my neighbor's eye. The thing is that many sins I've committed have been done directly in my interactions on social media and my brethren there have never given me a chance to display my fruits. I have complained about the double-standards. If I were to block someone on X, I'd be accused by Catholics of "holding a grudge". A person who blocks me is "defining boundaries". Of course, I've felt constantly held to the position of being the one who figures out what those boundaries actually are, rather than them clearly being defined. That was my latest negative interaction on X.

It's always the same scenario. I was once told I was being bullied by a woman by another woman who said that she would block the woman who was bullying me. That woman never did that. She went on continuing being mutuals with the other woman until I finally challenged her trustworthiness and brought up that statement. I was blocked. The woman currently has a backup account and where she mutually follows the woman she said she would block and who was "not a good person". She claims what she did to me was "merciful". It was anything but. It's an expected demand that I be a mind-reader in social interactions. That woman knew and understood autism but apparently did not understand that if definable boundaries are not set, I'm not going to have a clue if I'm expected to be a mind-reader.

There were too many interactions like that. I quit. My mental health improved. Honestly, I don't think I will ever go back. One of my dear friends on X though is @fifth_wife (Katherine Howard). She has been a faithful friend almost since the beginning of my tenure on X, even when she thought I was a girl. I have never seen anything from her that has not been unwholesome. I have told her that if she ever converts to Catholicism, I want her to be my goddaughter. I'm referring to people who are exclusively on X though. Not people who I still communicate with via another media form.

I've been looking at my stats here and I might try and blog here more often seeing as people are apparently still viewing this website, even in my absence. I don't recall ever getting that much traffic while...not blogging!