Eric Sammons

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

Outrageous Mom – Catholic scarves

Sock Religious – yep, socks.

Brick House in the City – Catholic t-shirts

Classic Art

Popular Art, Statues, Home Decor

House of Joppa

Smelty Squirrel – ornaments, wooden goods

Candles

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

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

Bee Haven Honey – beeswax candles

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

Water Bottles

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

Books and instruction

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

Monk Manual – intentional living

Lost Art Press – woodworking resources

Rosaries and Scapulars

Random Brilliants, Etsy – rosaries, pocket rosaries, chaplets

Meadows of Grace, Etsy

Mantle of Mary, Etsy – very sturdy scapulars

Simply Chic Cositas, Etsy

Rugged Rosaries – including paracord rosaries and scapulars

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

Doer of Knots – sturdy knotted cord rosaries made by me

Food & Drink

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

Winans Chocolates + Coffee – The name says it all

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

Monks’ Bread

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

Mystic Monk – C O F F E E

Monastery Candy

Trappistine Candy Juice Plus – recommended representative, Natalie Leylo

Leather Goods and handbags

OréMoose – can’t beat the name

Sandpiper Stitching – handbags

Sacrament gifts

Clarey Clayworks – Catholic ceramics

Jewelry

Baby & Kid Stuff

Chews Life

Outrageous Mom – Suuuuuper cute handmade baby items

Almond Rod Toys – saint blocks

Personal Care

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

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

Paper Goods, stickers, and games

Mourning Dove, Etsy

Classic Catholic, Etsy – vintage greeting cards

Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles – also music

Full of Grace – vintage images

Saint Cards – card game

Relics of Old Decency

House of Joppa

Carrot Top Paper Shop, Etsy

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

Apps

Hallow – “meditation, prayer and sleep app”

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

The Morality of Bitcoin

Eric Sammons — Thu, 09 Sep 2021 18:28:11 +0000

Catholics have long had an uneasy relationship with money. As our Lord said, “You cannot serve both God and mammon” (a word that means “riches”). He also told us that “Blessed are the poor.” Many of the greatest saints, including my favorite, St. Francis of Assisi, embraced poverty and saw it as a path to sanctity. Because of all this, many Catholics are naturally adverse to money. Some go so far as to assume that one cannot be rich and a faithful Catholic (something our Lord and the Church have never taught).

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

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

Can a Technology be Moral or Immoral?

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

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

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

Printing Dollars

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

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

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

Bitcoin, by design, prevents this form of theft.

Funding Wars

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

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

Trusting Third Parties with Your Money

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

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

Bitcoin better protects your money.

Secure Money

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

Bitcoin prevents the debasement of its value.

The Bitcoin Religion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrestling with the Bible

Eric Sammons — Mon, 30 Aug 2021 18:23:48 +0000

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. As such, every single word is authored by God and thus has meaning for our lives. The Bible is meant to change us, to make us more like Christ. We don’t conform the Bible to our lives, we conform our lives to the Bible.

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

Do Not Be Anxious

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

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

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

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

Whining Like a Child

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

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

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

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

Internet Anonymity: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Eric Sammons — Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:43:50 +0000

Can you imagine an Internet where anonymity wasn’t allowed? Where some technical advance made it so that if you posted online, everyone would know exactly who posted it? Edward Snowden can, and it frightens him.

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

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

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

Legitimate Reasons

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

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

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

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

The Power of Your Name

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

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

Ugly Anonymity

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

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

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

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

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

Striving for the Real

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

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

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

Wronged and Yet Wrong

Eric Sammons — Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:29:24 +0000

I’m going to break one of my main internet rules with this post. Many years ago I decided to not write about Catholic “personalities” that I consider generally on “our side.” I try to focus only on general issues that impact all Catholics, such as what’s going on at the Vatican or at the USCCB. I will sometimes comment on something from a major personality like Fr. James Martin who lead many astray. I’m not interested in dissecting what Catholic Personality X thinks or analyzing the spat between Catholic Personality Y and Catholic Personality Z. Let them do their work and I’ll do mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m Going Dumb

Eric Sammons — Tue, 01 Jun 2021 12:02:23 +0000

I know what many people will say when they read the title of this post: “What do you mean, ‘going?’”

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

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

All-Consuming and Addictive

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

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

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

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

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

Designed to Distract

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

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

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

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

All the Benefits, Few of the Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with the Downsides

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

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

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

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

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

Being Intentional

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

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

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

Always There

Eric Sammons — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:54:02 +0000

Eulogy given at the funeral of Russell Sammons, March 27, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Always There appeared first on Eric Sammons.

How I Disconnected from the Google Borg

Eric Sammons — Mon, 01 Feb 2021 21:30:13 +0000

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 ar t icle). 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:

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:

My Choice: pCloud

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

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

Photos

Options Considered:

Cryptee
Piwigo
pCloud

My Choice: pCloud

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

Search Engine

Options Considered:

DuckDuckGo

My Choice: ~~DuckDuckGo~~ Presearch

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

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

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

Browser

Options Considered:

Brave
DuckDuckGo

My Choice: Brave

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

Website Analytics

Options Considered:

Clicky

My Choice: Clicky

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

Navigation/Map App

Options Considered:

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:

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:

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.

A Guide to Living in an Orwellian Digital Age

Eric Sammons — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:43:38 +0000

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.

The Catholic Case for Secession?

Eric Sammons — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:04:02 +0000

Ever since “red states” and “blue states” entered our popular lexicon in the weeks following the 2000 election, Americans have understood that our country’s citizens have taken two divergent paths at the fork in the road. Twenty years later, the possibility that those paths will converge one day seems more and more remote. That is why a word that has long been forbidden in American discourse has gained traction in recent years: secession.

In most Americans’ minds, “secession” conjures up images of the Civil War, slavery, and racism. It represents the darkest and bloodiest hour of our nation’s history, when families were divided and brother fought against brother. Because the term is linked in our minds to a long and nearly crippling war, we naturally recoil at the idea of secession. Additionally, the mythology subconsciously espoused by many Americans that our country is divinely ordained to extend freedom throughout the world makes the suggestion that America could decrease in size unfathomable to most of us.

Yet, people are now talking seriously about the possibility of secession. The proximate cause is the shenanigans associated with the most recent presidential election. A large number of Americans believe that the candidate likely to be sworn in on January 20, 2021 was the beneficiary of fraud on a large scale. If this is the case, then the political system is fundamentally broken; an increasing number of Americans are questioning the efficacy of continuing the charade of a united country.

So, can a Catholic support the idea of secession?

The post The Catholic Case for Secession? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

St. Helen and Holy Relics

Eric Sammons — Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:08:28 +0000

Holy relics are a distinctive feature of Catholicism. Would you expect to see the bones of some ancient martyr on display at your local Evangelical church? To most non-Catholics, holy relics are just plain weird. Sadly, veneration of holy relics even among Catholics has also been a practice often relegated to “old-fashioned” Catholics—a quasi-superstitious holdover from the “dark ages.”

Yet holy relics have been part of the Faith since the beginning. Relics are physical connections to the sacred. They include the body and bones of saints, as well as physical items they owned or just touched. Holy relics allow us to connect to those holy men and women who came before us, to enter more deeply into the mystery of their Christ-like lives.

One woman who did more to promote the veneration of holy relics than perhaps anyone is St. Helen, the mother of the Emperor Constantine. Helen’s son conquered the Roman Empire under the sign of the Cross, and he wanted his mother to find the True Cross—the greatest holy relic of the Christian Faith—so it could be adored and venerated by the whole Church. So Helen traveled to Jerusalem in her quest to find the most precious relic of all.

The post St. Helen and Holy Relics appeared first on Eric Sammons.

How Great was John Paul II?

Eric Sammons — Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:00:27 +0000

Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most dominant figure in Catholicism in the last quarter of the twentieth century. He loomed large over every aspect of Catholic life, directing the Church through one of her most troubling times. And his influence transcended the confines of the Church; at the height of his popularity in the 1990s, he was arguably the most dominant figure on the world stage. He helped bring down the Soviet Union, one of the most terrifying forces of the twentieth century, and he likewise stood up to the Culture of Death that was infecting the West. He was a globetrotting rock star of a pontiff, commanding huge crowds and earning the respect and even adulation of millions of people worldwide.

As John Paul neared the end of his life, the question wasn’t whether he would be canonized but how quickly it would happen. After all, George Weigel had already unofficially canonized him before his death, publishing his international bestselling hagiography of John Paul II, Witness to Hope, in 1999. And at the Pontiff’s death in 2005, there were cries of “Santo Subito!” (Sainthood now!) from his many devoted followers. Sainthood was assumed, and many were arguing that he should be called “John Paul the Great.” His canonization in 2014 by Pope Francis was almost anticlimactic, since his followers had already canonized him in their hearts.

The post How Great was John Paul II? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

St. Catherine of Genoa and Purgatory

Eric Sammons — Fri, 06 Nov 2020 13:05:18 +0000

We recently celebrated All Souls Day, in which we prayed for all the faithful departed to be released from purgatory and brought into the presence of God in Heaven. Yet belief in purgatory has fallen on hard times in recent decades. Of course Protestants reject this doctrine, but also many (most?) Catholics manifest practical disbelief of it. After all, at most Catholic funerals the deceased is canonized, assumed already to be “looking down on us” and happy in Heaven, in spite of the likelihood that most people who die in the state of grace will face a stay in purgatory.

Why has purgatory been forgotten by Catholics? Because we minimize two things: the severity of our sins and the holiness of God. A single venial sin that’s unconfessed or any sin that’s not been recompensed bars a person from the presence of the All-Holy God. When Isaiah had his vision of God on his throne in Heaven, he immediately exclaimed, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” (Is 6:5). Isaiah instinctively understood that a sinful man was not worthy to stand in the presence of God. Why? Because, as he heard the angels sing, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!” (Is 6:3). God is holy, which means He is set apart from sinful humanity.

The post St. Catherine of Genoa and Purgatory appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Troubling Kinship of Bishop Barron and Father Martin

Eric Sammons — Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:47:59 +0000

Bishop Robert Barron and Father James Martin are the two most dominant figures in American Catholicism today. Bishop Barron is the affable producer of popular videos on Catholicism through his Word on Fire ministry; Father Martin is a media darling and a Vatican favorite for his outreach to gay Catholics. As just one indicator of their influence, Father Martin has almost 300,000 Twitter followers, while Bishop Barron has 175,000—both far more than any other American bishop or priest or lay Catholic commentator. For some, the fact that these two men are both extremely popular demonstrates the divide in the Church today. Father Martin represents the liberal (i.e., heretical) wing of the Church, while Bishop Barron is presented as the standard-bearer for the conservative (i.e., orthodox) wing. Yet recently these two worlds met, revealing that perhaps they are not as far apart as some want to believe.

On October 30, Father Martin announced the upcoming publication of his latest book, Learning to Pray: A Guide for Everyone. It had endorsements from just whom you’d expect: Cardinal Cupich, Richard Rohr, and Helen Prejean—heroes of the Catholic Left. However, it was also endorsed by none other than Bishop Barron, who wrote that “Father Martin is a winsome guide to all those who want to deepen their friendship with the Lord.” Bishop Barron’s endorsement sent shockwaves through conservative American Catholicism. After all, aren’t Bishop Barron and Father Martin supposed to be on opposing sides of the battle for the soul of the Church? What’s going on here?

The post The Troubling Kinship of Bishop Barron and Father Martin appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Never Say Never: Why I’m Voting for Trump

Eric Sammons — Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:46:50 +0000

Early in the 2016 presidential primary season, I declared that I would never vote for Donald Trump. Even though I wouldn’t ever consider Hillary (I’m Catholic, after all), I could not bring myself to vote for the GOP nominee, either. So, I voted third-party, and for three reasons.

First, I considered Mr. Trump a wild card. He had the upbringing of a hedonistic, New York limousine liberal and the platform of a conservative Republican. How would he govern? It was anyone’s guess. Based on how many “conservative” Republicans had been disappointing in the past, my bet was that he’d be more liberal than either of the Bushes, and perhaps even more liberal than Barack Obama. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Second, I believed he was fundamentally unstable. I didn’t want him in charge of the most powerful government in the world. Based on his public statements (particularly his tweets), I thought it a reasonable worry that he could cause a major war. Short of that, it still seemed likely a Trump presidency would further instability in places like the Middle East.

Third, I was deeply concerned with the impact of Catholics embracing Mr. Trump. I fully recognize that we are not voting for a “saint-in-chief,” as many of my condescending conservative friends told me time and again. Yet, at the same time, I saw far too often otherwise-faithful Catholics either look the other way or even defend Mr. Trump’s most indefensible acts. It’s one thing to say that a president doesn’t have to be a saint, and I personally believe they are almost all raging egomaniacs. But it’s another to support sin in an effort to get “your guy” elected.

For these reasons, among others, I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump in 2016. I don’t regret that decision; I believe it was the best one based on the information I had at that moment. Yet this year I’m going to do something I said I’d never do: vote for Donald Trump.

The post Never Say Never: Why I’m Voting for Trump appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Initial Impressions: Fratelli Tutti

Eric Sammons — Mon, 05 Oct 2020 12:41:22 +0000

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.

Evangelization, Not Public Relations

Eric Sammons — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:23:59 +0000

Five years ago this week I was the co-host of a local TV station’s week-long coverage of Pope Francis’s visit to the U.S. The TV station chose me because I was the local diocese’s Director of Evangelization, and to the media, that’s essentially equivalent to the Church’s PR guy. The station needed someone to explain to its audience the main themes of Francis’s pontificate, what he wanted to accomplish in his visit, why things were done the way they were in the Church, etc. So I dutifully sat in the co-anchor’s chair and explained as best I could.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining the Clans

Eric Sammons — Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:09:12 +0000

It’s no secret that infighting flourishes among traditional Catholics. Of course, infighting is common in many ideological groups (in my pro-life activist days, I would joke, “If you put 10 pro-lifers in a room, you’ll have 11 different views on how to end abortion”). But infighting seems to be more prevalent among traditional Catholics, even becoming institutionalized at times (see: SSPX vs. FSSP).

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

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

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

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

(1) Want to Make the TLM Normative Again

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

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

(2) Be Willing to Criticize Vatican II

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

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

(3) Recognize Francis as the Legitimate Pope

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

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

Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize

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

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

Unite the Clans!

The post Defining the Clans appeared first on Eric Sammons.

How Do Catholics Come to Believe What They Believe?

Eric Sammons — Tue, 08 Sep 2020 15:05:31 +0000

It’s no secret that many Catholics do not accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Almost 70% don’t believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Large numbers of young Catholics don’t think homosexual activity is immoral. Vast numbers of Catholics contracept. Most Catholics believe other religions can lead a person to salvation.

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

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

Many Teachers of the Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Multi-Teacher Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forming Catholics Against Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

How I Went from a Defender of Vatican II to Its Critic

Eric Sammons — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 17:06:56 +0000

I entered the Catholic Church in 1993, during the height of the Pope John Paul II papacy. Just a few months after I was received into the Church, I attended World Youth Day in Denver, along with a million other enthusiastic young Catholics. So it should be no surprise that I was unabashedly a “JPII Catholic,” which meant, among other things, that I was a happy defender of Vatican II, while being a critic of what I perceived as its bad implementation. Then in the 2000’s I supported Pope Benedict’s “Reform of the Reform”—his call to rethink, but not cast away, the reforms that came out of Vatican II (i.e., its implementation). No matter how critical I might have been of what happened in the Church following the Council, I was nevertheless an ardent defender of Vatican II.

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

But now I’m not.

Rotten Fruit

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

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

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

Can You Hijack Yourself?

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

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

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

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

Replacing the Creaky Foundation

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

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

The Time for Dialogue is Over

Eric Sammons — Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:34:06 +0000

May 9th, 2012 is a significant date in this nation’s history. That is the day President Barack Obama, just beginning a re-election campaign against presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, announced he supported legalizing same-sex marriage (notably, Obama was pressured to make this statement after his Vice President, Joe Biden, said publicly a few days earlier that he was “comfortable” with same-sex marriage). The date’s significance comes not from a presidential candidate making a calculated decision to shore up support from his base; that occurs every election cycle. It is significant because on that date millions of Americans became bigots overnight.

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

The Limitations of Dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

Time to Proclaim, Not Explain

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

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

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

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

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

3 Steps to Proclaiming the Gospel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church’s Dunkirk Moment

Eric Sammons — Mon, 17 Aug 2020 16:56:57 +0000

One of the greatest military events of the 20th century was not a victorious battle, but a hasty retreat. On May 27, 1940, the “Miracle of Dunkirk” began. British, French, and Belgian troops had retreated to the coast after being overwhelmed by German forces. With their backs to the sea, it seemed they faced inevitable destruction, but the Allied forces fortified the port of Dunkirk and began an evacuation of over 338,000 troops. Although they lost many ships and more than 40,000 men were captured, this miraculous retreat allowed the Allies to survive to fight another day—and eventually defeat the Nazis.

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

Impending Collapse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retreat, Not Surrender

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

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

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

Our Dunkirk

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

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

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

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

Rethink the Status Quo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covid-19 and the Limits of Obedience

Eric Sammons — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:16:16 +0000

The response to Covid-19 has resulted in a flood of restrictions on our behavior and activities, including within the Church. Initially, the bishops in the United States suspended the public celebration of Mass. If you weren’t a cleric, then it’s unlikely you could go to Mass anywhere in America from mid-March to mid-May. Then dioceses slowly began to re-open parishes, but often with many restrictions. Some of these were relatively uncontroversial—no holding hands at the Our Father, for example. But in some places a few of the new restrictions were met with resistance. I am referring, in particular, to the banning of Communion on the tongue and the requiring of masks or “contact tracing,” or both, in order to attend Mass.

Many well-intentioned Catholics support these restrictions by arguing that (1) the bishop has the authority to make these restrictions, and (2) the restrictions aren’t a big deal, so what’s the fuss about? And so resistance to these restrictions by lay Catholics appears to many to be the sin of disobedience, as well as proof of a spirit of pride. Catholics, after all, believe in obedience to authority.

These calls to obedience, however, have shown a misunderstanding of that virtue, as well as the limits the virtue places upon both the subject and the superior.

The post Covid-19 and the Limits of Obedience appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Accepted, Not Elected: The Curious Case of Pope Boniface II

Eric Sammons — Tue, 19 May 2020 17:29:23 +0000

In the near future:

Pope Francis’s health has taken a turn for the worse. He knows he has only a few weeks to live. In an effort to perpetuate his agenda after his death, he declares Cardinal Tagle as his successor. In a formal ceremony, he places a special pallium upon Cardinal Tagle, representing the succession of the papacy to him. Francis then threatens excommunication to anyone who does not accept Tagle as the legitimate pope after his death.

Soon after this ceremony, Pope Francis dies. Cardinal Tagle, taking the papal name Francis II, moves into the Vatican to begin his pontificate, amid many supporters within the high reaches of the Church. However, more than 100 cardinal electors gather to elect a new pope, refusing to accept Tagle’s appointment. In a surprise move — and perhaps as a reaction to Francis’s heavy-handed manner of selecting Tagle — they elect Cardinal Sarah as pope, who takes the name John Paul III.

A week later, Rome witnesses a bizarre sight: on the exact same day, both Tagle and Sarah are formally consecrated as pope in separate ceremonies: Tagle in St. Peter’s Basilica and Sarah in St. John Lateran.

The post Accepted, Not Elected: The Curious Case of Pope Boniface II appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Hand-Made Rosaries for Sale

Eric Sammons — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 12:34:06 +0000

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:

Shades of faith
Our Lady of Guadalupe (colors of her garments)
Bread of life
Knights of Our Lady
~~Fire of love~~ SOLD OUT
~~Shamrock~~ SOLD OUT
~~Blessed Mother blue~~ SOLD OUT
Ocean sunset
Blue ombre
Sonrise
Pansy mix
Rose ombre
Veronica

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

Called to Divide, Not ‘Dialogue’

Eric Sammons — Fri, 06 Mar 2020 18:12:09 +0000

“Dialogue is our method… The path ahead, then, is dialogue among yourselves, dialogue in your presbyterates, dialogue with lay persons, dialogue with families, dialogue with society. I cannot ever tire of encouraging you to dialogue fearlessly.” —Pope Francis, Address to the U.S. Bishops, September 23, 2015

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

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

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

St. Edward the Martyr, a Saint for Today

Eric Sammons — Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:19:13 +0000

The Catholic Church has thousands of canonized saints. Many are well-known: St. Patrick, St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Thérèse of Lisieux are some of the most famous people who ever lived. But many more are obscure; perhaps they were only known in the region where they lived, or perhaps their following diminished over time. Yet even the most obscure saint is still a saint, meaning that he or she lived a life of heroic virtue or gave his or her life for Christ and his Church. As such, even the obscure saints are examples we can emulate.

St. Edward the Martyr is one such forgotten saint. His obscurity might seem odd, since he was one of the first Kings of England. Royal figures are usually the most famous people of their times and are prominent figures in history books. Yet, if his name is mentioned today, he is likely to be confused for one of two other saints: St. Edward the Confessor, a well-known English King who reigned a century later, or St. Edmund the Martyr, a King of East Anglia (modern day eastern England) who reigned a century before St. Edward the Martyr, and who was England’s original patron saint. Despite his obscurity, however, St. Edward the Martyr’s story is a fascinating and inspirational tale with lessons for today.

The post St. Edward the Martyr, a Saint for Today appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Beginnings of Christianity Timeline

Eric Sammons — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:42:35 +0000

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.

No Church for Young Men

Eric Sammons — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 18:10:28 +0000

“Children are the future of the Church.” How often are such truisms used to explain the extensive focus on a single demographic group within a parish? From youth ministry to religious education to Catholic schools, most Catholic parishes direct a large amount of their limited resources toward young people. After all, if our children fall away, the future of the Church will be dire indeed.

Of course, the future of the Church is dire, demographically speaking. In spite of all this focus on young people, we see them flocking for the door once they reach adulthood. The problem isn’t bad or incompetent youth ministers; I’ve known many good and sincere Catholics involved in youth outreach, who work long hours and are committed to bringing kids to Christ. Yet, to repeat, it’s not working. Once free from their parents’ direct influence, kids are leaving the Church.

So, if the problem isn’t a lack of focus or competent and sincere leaders, then what is it? I would argue that our model for reaching young people is fatally flawed.

The post No Church for Young Men appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Unthinkable: A Christmas Poem

Eric Sammons — Thu, 26 Dec 2019 01:00:42 +0000

The Unthinkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Whom shall I send?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Composed Christmas Day 2019

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

Where Have All the Catholics Gone?

Eric Sammons — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:46:50 +0000

Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II
Stephen Bullivant
Oxford University Press
336 pages
$32.95 hardback, $24.99 e-book

If you want to start a heated debate in Catholic circles, just state an opinion about the Second Vatican Council’s impact on attrition rates in the modern Church. While many implicate Vatican II as the cause of millions of people leaving the Church, on the other extreme are those who blame societal changes for the exodus, absolving the Council of all responsibility.

Stephen Bullivant takes a well researched, comprehensive look at this debate in his book, Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II (Oxford University Press: 2019). To skip to his conclusion, Bullivant essentially says that both extremes are wrong…and right.

The post Where Have All the Catholics Gone? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

12 Practical Tips to Make Fasting Spiritually and Physically Fruitful

Eric Sammons — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:45:20 +0000

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.

The Epistle of St. Jude: A Letter for Our Present Crisis

Eric Sammons — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:36:25 +0000

Many Catholics today are desperate to hear words of encouragement and direction from the bishops, the successors to the apostles. But what if I told you that we have such words from an actual apostle?

The Epistle of St. Jude is written by the most obscure of the New Testament writers. The letter itself is also obscure, tucked in the New Testament between the Apostle John’s three letters and his Book of Revelation. It is never included in the Sunday readings in either the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form calendars, and it is included only once every other year in the weekday readings in the Ordinary Form (the Saturday of the Eighth Week of Ordinary Time in Year II, if you’re wondering). So you’ll be forgiven if you are not familiar with the epistle.

Yet St. Jude’s short letter reads as though it was written by a concerned bishop today addressing our present crisis. And in one sense, we can say it is, for all Scripture is timeless, and the Holy Spirit inspires it in such a way that it is always applicable to our times. We can see that this mystery is abundantly clear in the case of the Epistle of St. Jude.

The post The Epistle of St. Jude: A Letter for Our Present Crisis appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Why We Cannot Hope for Universal Salvation: A Brief Explanation

Eric Sammons — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:42:48 +0000

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.

Is Francis the Pope?

Eric Sammons — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:58:20 +0000

It’s hard to imagine the Catholic Church being in worse shape than it currently is. We have a colossal and ongoing sex abuse scandal among the clergy and hierarchy that continues endlessly like some demonic global Chinese water torture. Due primarily to this scandal, the Church has lost all its moral authority in the world. Further, decades of cozying up to the culture has led to massive defections from the Church, as people no longer see her as an escape from our deadly culture, but instead as a religious blessing upon it. And then there’s Pope Francis.

Pope Francis. Nearly from day one he has been a source of scandal to the faithful. From “Who am I to judge?” to denigrating big families for “breeding like rabbits” to encouraging acceptance of adultery by essentially blessing the non-Catholic paradigm of “remarriage after divorce,” he has consistently been at odds with the most basic Catholic doctrines. And now we have the Amazon Synod and the infamous “Pachamama” idols. Even with the absolute best reading of the situation — that the pope is just taking his love of diversity too far — he has scandalized millions with his laissez-faire attitude toward idolatry.

All of these events and more have led a crescendo of Catholics to wonder why Pope Francis has allowed heresy to flourish so much under his pontificate. This in turn has made not a few Catholics suspect that Francis is himself a heretic. But if Francis is a heretic, some uncomfortable questions follow.

The Nagging Question

Is Francis really the pope? Can a heretic even be a pope? Those are the questions many Catholics are asking today, understandably. How could Our Lord allow the pope — His vicar! — to permit and possibly even embrace heresy and thus inflict so much damage on the Church?

The post Is Francis the Pope? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Why I Call Myself a “Traditional Catholic”

Eric Sammons — Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:30:20 +0000

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.

Not against Flesh and Blood

Eric Sammons — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:34:51 +0000

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Years ago, when I was Protestant I had two spiritual experiences — one evil, one holy — that pushed me toward the Catholic Church. Before I tell the stories, I should emphasize that I am not the type of person who spiritualizes everything. I tend to be practical in my analysis of situations and likely even go too far in de-spiritualizing events. I don’t hear heavenly voices, and I don’t have visions. But these two events were so profound that even a naturally skeptical person like me couldn’t downplay or deny their spiritual aspects.

The post Not against Flesh and Blood appeared first on Eric Sammons.

An Open Letter to My Bishop

Eric Sammons — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:22:16 +0000

Recently, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati suspended two priests from active ministry. The details surrounding both suspensions are disturbing and make clear that secrecy, corruption, and a lack of faith still prevail within the Catholic Church. Below is an open letter to my ordinary, Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, regarding his handling of these suspensions.

Your Excellency,

I am writing this open letter to express my disgust at your recent handling of the suspension of two priests of the Archdiocese, Fathers Geoff Drew and Clarence Heis.

You suspended Fr. Geoff Drew, pastor of St. Ignatius of Loyola parish, for “inappropriate” texting with a male student at the attached St. Ignatius school. No details have been given of these texts, but they were obviously “inappropriate” enough to warrant the serious action you took. Furthermore, it came to light after his suspension that Fr. Drew had been under monitoring at his last assignment at St. Maximilian Kolbe parish for similar concerns, including complaints of hugs, shoulder rubs, patting of knees, comments of a sexual nature, and texting. The principal of St. Ignatius school stated that he had not been informed of these concerns when Fr. Drew was assigned to St. Ignatius last year. The complaints from St. Maximilian Kolbe parish apparently were shoved under the rug because Fr. Drew’s actions weren’t technically criminal. With the focus strictly on legality instead of the salvation of souls, a wolf was allowed to roam among the sheep.

The post An Open Letter to My Bishop appeared first on Eric Sammons.

New Column!

Eric Sammons — Wed, 05 Jun 2019 14:37:57 +0000

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.

The Resurrection and Evangelization

Eric Sammons — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:17:55 +0000

Soon after the Ascension of Christ, the eleven remaining apostles gathered to choose someone to replace Judas Iscariot. St. Peter lays out the qualifications needed for an apostle: he must be “one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21-22). But why was another apostle needed? What would this new apostle be doing? Peter tells us: he “must become with us a witness to his resurrection” (Acts 1:22).

“A witness to his resurrection.” Even before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the first followers of Jesus understood their primary mission was to tell others about his miraculous Resurrection from the dead and what it means for us. On Pentecost, the Holy Spirit confirms this mission and makes their witness more powerful. In the first Christian sermon (Acts 2:14-36), Peter makes the Resurrection the central theme of his preaching.

Continue reading at Fangraphs…

The post The Resurrection and Evangelization appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Does Warm Weather Create Better Players?

Eric Sammons — Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:38:43 +0000

My high-school-aged son sits at home yet again. Why? Because another of his baseball games has been canceled due to the wet and cold Ohio spring, and my thoughts turn again to our days playing baseball in Florida. Before we moved to this less-agreeable northern climate, it was a rarity to have a game canceled due to weather. Not only that, but games were scheduled year-round, which of course meant more baseball on the calendar. This situation reminded me of the familiar equation known to baseball fans:

Good weather leads to more playing.
More playing means better players.

But is this true? After all, it’s well-known that the best player in baseball, Mike Trout, is from cold-weather New Jersey. Many quickly point to the fact that California, Texas, and Florida are at the top of the list for states with the most MLB draftees, but they’re the three most populous states. Perhaps proportionally they don’t stack up to colder states after all.

I decided to look at the data from the last two drafts — 2017 and 2018 — to see if there is a relationship between a state’s average temperature and how well its players do in the draft. Do warmer-weather states really produce more MLB draftees than average?

The post Does Warm Weather Create Better Players? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Why Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving?

Eric Sammons — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:36:08 +0000

We are now in the Christian season of Lent, the forty days of preparation leading to Easter. During this time, Christians are called to contemplate Jesus giving himself up to suffering and death on the Cross for the salvation of the world. To help in this contemplation, Christians are to engage in three religious practices: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

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

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

Continue reading at Mind & Spirit…

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

How to Attend the Latin Mass

Eric Sammons — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 17:28:11 +0000

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 Eric Sammons.

The Antidote for Decaying Fatherhood

Eric Sammons — Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:32:57 +0000

When looking at the problems facing both the world and the Church today, it’s tempting to try to reduce those problems to one and only one cause. Whether it be the sexual revolution, Vatican II, or certain political ideologies, we are attracted to simple answers to complex problems. That being said, there are certain causes that have had a profoundly destructive influence on the world and the Church. I would argue that a primary cause of modern destruction is the loss of an understanding of true fatherhood. This loss impacts both biological fathers and spiritual fathers.

The Modern Understanding of Fatherhood

The defective view of fatherhood today is related to the defective view we have of masculinity in general. Men have been under attack for decades now, in ways large and small. Men aren’t allowed to act like gentlemen, holding doors for women, offering a coat in the cold, or even saying “ma’am.” Such behavior is a sign of “toxic masculinity,” we are told. Likewise, boys aren’t allowed to be rambunctious and boisterous. They are to sit still for hours at a time and always, always keep their hands to themselves.

But this full-scale war on men includes sniper attacks at fatherhood specifically. Fathers are not allowed to exert any type of leadership in a family. They are not to be distinguished from a mother in any real way. Essentially, children must have “Parent 1” and “Parent 2,” utterly indistinguishable and interchangeable. In response, many fathers never mature into manhood, stuck playing video games and engaging in other diversions instead of the hard work of leading their families.

These attacks reach priests and bishops — our spiritual fathers — as well. The parish pastor has become the impotent head of a democracy; if he exerts any type of real leadership, he is criticized for being “regressive” and “old-fashioned.” So everything from liturgical music to times for Confession must be run through a committee before being implemented. Bishops who show even the slightest backbone are quickly denounced by secular leaders and “woke” Catholic leaders. They learn to keep their mouths shut.

Fathers — both biological and spiritual — have been neutered.

The impact of this massive assault on manhood and fatherhood is far-reaching. Boys grow up not knowing what it means to be a man; girls grow up not knowing what to look for in a man. Catholics begging for guidance in an age of confusion have no one to lead them to salvation.

The post The Antidote for Decaying Fatherhood appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Is It Intolerant to Share the Faith?

Eric Sammons — Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:44:19 +0000

Recently, an evangelical Christian polling firm released a study on Christian views of evangelization. It asked participants to say whether or not they agreed with statements like, “Part of my faith means being a witness about Jesus” and “When someone raises questions about faith, I know how to respond.” The survey then broke down the responses by age group: Millennials (ages 20 to 34), Gen X (ages 35 to 53), Boomers (ages 54 to 72), and Elders (age 73+).

In general, respondents in all age groups responded favorably to statements regarding the importance of sharing one’s faith and knowing how to do it.

One statement stood out, however: “It is wrong to share one’s personal beliefs with someone of a different faith in hopes that they will one day share the same faith.” To this statement, a sizable majority of practicing Christians in the Gen X, Boomer, and Elder categories (rightly) expressed disagreement. But almost half of Millennials agreed that it was wrong to share one’s faith in hopes of converting somebody to it.

The post Is It Intolerant to Share the Faith? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Grading the Cincinnati Reds’ 2018-2019 Offseason

Eric Sammons — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:27:46 +0000

Now that Spring Training is in full swing, I think we can finally give an initial grade to a team’s offseason. There are a few big-name free agents out there, but most teams at this point have the players they are going to compete with in 2019. So I’d like to look at one of the most active teams this offseason: the Cincinnati Reds.

Let’s first review where the Reds were at the end of the 2018 season (insert dumpster fire jokes/memes here). The Reds were bad. Really bad. They finished last in the NL Central for the fourth straight year, and couldn’t even break out of their 90+ loss season streak. What was perhaps worse was that the organization was clearly dysfunctional. Perhaps not Marlins or Orioles-level dysfunction, but still it wasn’t clear who was running the show: the owner or the front office or the manager. Throughout 2018 you’d hear conflicting signals from each one. They didn’t know what to do with their top prospect (Nick Senzel), or how to handle Jesse Winker, an excellent hitter who was playing in his first full season for the team.

Continue reading at FanGraphs…

The post Grading the Cincinnati Reds’ 2018-2019 Offseason appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Introducing WPA-Win: A Better Pitcher Decision Statistic

Eric Sammons — Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:35:28 +0000

Baseball fans have seen it time and again: a starting pitcher will twirl a masterpiece, but because his team doesn’t score, he’ll be tagged with a loss. Or a reliever will come into a game, pitch to one or two batters, and end up with the win.

The vagaries of assigning wins and losses to pitchers are a well-known irritant to serious baseball fans (though perhaps not to old-timers like Bob Costas or John Smoltz). Here is the pitching decision statistic explained:

The winning pitcher is defined as the pitcher who last pitched prior to the half-inning when the winning team took the lead for the last time.

The losing pitcher is the pitcher who allows the go-ahead run to reach base for a lead that the winning team never relinquishes.

Often timing — particularly the timing of a team’s offense — affects the statistic more than a pitcher’s actual contribution to his team’s win or loss. In other words, the decision frequently fails to reflect which pitcher made the biggest difference for the winning team (or was most detrimental for the losing team). In these cases, it simply tags the pitcher lucky or unlucky enough to pitch at a certain time in the game.

In an effort to create a more accurate stat to reflect a pitcher’s contribution to his team’s win or loss, I’d like to propose new stats, which I’ll call the “WPA-Win” and “WPA-Loss.”

The post Introducing WPA-Win: A Better Pitcher Decision Statistic appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Is This the End of the Scott Boras Era?

Eric Sammons — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:30:01 +0000

Every good story needs a good villain. That villain needs to be an outsized personality, with a clear purpose, yet also at least slightly sympathetic. You need to see that, even if he’s the villain, he believes he is the good guy. Even if we root against him, without him the story just isn’t as interesting.

For years Major League Baseball has been blessed with that villain: super-agent Scott Boras. For over thirty years Boras has represented the best of the best players in baseball. He’s brokered many of the biggest deals in baseball (Boras fun fact: he negotiated the first $50 million deal (Greg Maddux), $100 million deal (Kevin Brown), and $200 million deal (Alex Rodriguez)). Boras has one job—make his players a lot of money—and he has done it very well for a very long time. Yet his single-minded focus has also made him the villain to many baseball fans—and front offices—as he has driven superstars out of small markets and cared little for the overall health of the sport in his quest to obtain riches for his clients.

The post Is This the End of the Scott Boras Era? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

To Love Fasting

Eric Sammons — Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:00:59 +0000

I decided to become Catholic in February 1992, a week before Lent started. Naturally, I was excited about my life as a Catholic, and I wanted to dive in headfirst. With Ash Wednesday approaching, I contemplated what I should “give up” for Lent (as a Protestant, I had never participated in Lent before). In my youthful enthusiasm, I decided to give up…food. I had read that St. Francis of Assisi — already my favorite saint — fasted for 40 days one Lent, so I figured, “Why not me too?” I did temper my fast a bit: I allowed myself some bread and water each day, as well as a meal on Sundays.

So how did that first Lent go? By the first Sunday, I had already given up on my fast, after being weak, miserable, and cranky for four straight days. I couldn’t concentrate on my studies, and I was difficult to be around. By Monday I was back to pizza, hamburgers, and my other unhealthy college eating decisions. So much for youthful enthusiasm.

That first foray into fasting was to become a foreshadowing of the next couple decades. Every Lent, and sometimes during other times of the year, I would try to fast at least a little more than the Church’s current guidelines (one meal a day plus two small meals that don’t add up to another full meal). I would skip lunch or breakfast, or I would eat little at each meal. But no matter what I did, my attempts ended in me being miserable, insufferable, and definitely no closer to Christ than when I began.

However, in the past year, I’ve discovered it is possible to fast — even for days at a time — in a way that not only allows me to fulfill the duties of my state of life, but also bestows spiritual and mental clarity. What changed?

The post To Love Fasting appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Secret Weapon of Evangelization

Eric Sammons — Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:40:30 +0000

When I was a Protestant evangelist, I had one goal: get someone to pray the “Sinner’s Prayer.” This prayer essentially asks God to forgive the person of his sins and invites Jesus to become Lord of his life. Once prayed, the work of the evangelist was successfully completed, and he could move on to the next potential convert.

Sounds pretty easy, doesn’t it? And in many ways it was easy…too easy. Once I became Catholic, I realized how flawed this method was. Although I could get people to say the prayer, and by itself the prayer was theologically valid, using it as the singular goal of evangelization was an oversimplified approach, for of course evangelization is much more than just getting someone to say a single prayer.

So what should be the invitation of the Catholic evangelist, if it’s not to pray the Sinner’s Prayer? This will vary depending on the person we’re evangelizing. Right now, let’s only look at evangelization efforts directed toward fallen-away Catholics. Why? Because they are often the “low-hanging fruit” for evangelization, since they already have a connection to the Church. And sadly, they make up the second-largest religious group in America—so there is a lot of work to do. Fallen-away Catholics clearly need to be (re-)evangelized, but what should our specific invitation be?

The post The Secret Weapon of Evangelization appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Busting the Myth of MLB Disparity

Eric Sammons — Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:32:14 +0000

As a fan of the Reds and the Rays, I’ve got a built-in inferiority complex. An essential element of my baseball fandom consists of complaining that the baseball gods hate small markets. Of course, my Yankee and Red Sox-loving friends usually ignore my carefully-constructed arguments on how to improve baseball parity while enjoying their championships and drinking the tears of us losers.

Complaints about disparity in the sport are nothing new, of course (“Did you know those Cincinnati Red Stockings pay all their players? How unfair!”). In the past two decades, however, many fans of Major League Baseball have perceived the system as fundamentally broken, as they witness big-market teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, and Cubs dominate and small-market teams like the Royals, Pirates, Twins, and Reds often struggle to stay relevant. But, in the spirit of new-school analytic fans questioning all our assumptions about the game, I need to ask: Is there actually disparity in the league, or is that just a myth?

The post Busting the Myth of MLB Disparity appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Michael Lorenzen and the Three-Way Player

Eric Sammons — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:31:01 +0000

If we try to play like the Yankees in here, we’ll lose to the Yankees out there.”

– Oakland A’s GM Brad Pitt

In the eminently quotable movie Moneyball, this particular line sums up the Moneyball philosophy. Oakland A’s GM Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, is trying to convince his old-school scouts that they need to think differently in order to compete with the Big Boys. They need to zig when all the other teams zag. With their limited finances, the A’s can’t construct their roster like the game’s financial behemoths do.

Although the divide between the rich and the poor in baseball has lessened since Moneyball was first released, the idea of Moneyball has taken over the sport. Now “Moneyball” means simply trying to find an untapped advantage before other teams do. And every team is trying to do this, from the A’s to the Yankees. Whether it’s embracing sabermetrics, expanding the use of infield shifts, or, the most recent example, experimenting with “Openers,” every team wants to find that one thing no other team is doing that might give it a few extra wins.

The post Michael Lorenzen and the Three-Way Player appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Youth Baseball: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Eric Sammons — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:29:14 +0000

When I was a kid—back when dinosaurs roamed the earth (AKA “the 80’s”)—youth baseball was pretty simple. From around the end of the school year to about the Fourth of July, you played on your local team with other kids from your school. You usually had one practice a week, and then a game on Saturdays. It was a great time; you got to run around a field, hang out with your friends, and, most of all, you got to grab something at the concession stand—usually something with lots of sugar—after the game was over.

Times have changed. Now youth baseball is its own cottage industry. Kids spend far more hours practicing, playing, and traveling than ever before. Some kids play for teams based in another city, or even another state (I know of a kid who lives in Ohio but plays for a team based in Texas!). Most youth baseball is geared today to the next step, whether it be making that elite travel team, or your high school team, or getting a college scholarship.

My son Peter plays high school ball now, and has been playing youth baseball for over a decade, and during that time I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of modern youth baseball.

Continue reading on Growing Up Baseball…

The post Youth Baseball: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Value of Prospects

Eric Sammons — Fri, 01 Feb 2019 16:27:22 +0000

Every offseason, teams look to improve themselves (well, unless they’re the Orioles). Teams do this in two primary ways: by signing free agents and through trades. In theory, any team can sign any free agent, but for the big-ticket free agents (think Harper and Machado), there’s really only a few teams with the financial resources to acquire them. But any team can and does make trades. A trade can consist of only major leaguers being moved, but more often than not minor leaguers are involved. Here we get to the issue of prospects and their value.

When I was watching baseball as a kid (the 1970’s and 1980’s) prospects were essentially hidden from public view. Sure, a team’s front office knew the top young players in its organization, and so did a few zealous fans, but for most of us, we never heard of a player until he stepped foot in the big league stadium. That of course has radically changed. Even a relatively casual fan today knows the names of the top prospects in his favorite team’s system. For struggling teams, it’s often the promise of prospects coming down the pike that keeps fans interested. Just look at the Houston Astros: they were abysmal at the major league level earlier this decade, but most Astros fans knew that talented players were moving through the system and held out hope for better days. We know how that turned out for them.

The post The Value of Prospects appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Justice and the Living Wage

Eric Sammons — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:01:56 +0000

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.

2019 Hall of Fame Wrap-Up

Eric Sammons — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:58:26 +0000

Thankfully the Hall of Fame season is over. We know we’re in the depth of the baseball offseason when grown men are yelling at each other about the merits and demerits of former players’ HOF chances.

This year’s class, however, leaves little to complain about. Sure, I would have rather had my favorite player, Ken Griffey, Jr., as the first unanimous pick (and when that didn’t happen, I was holding out hope that it would be Mike Trout), but it’s hard to complain that it was one of the true class-acts of baseball, Mariano Rivera. But each of the four candidates were deserving, and I was especially pleased that Mike Mussina got in.

What’s always interesting, however, is who doesn’t get in. Of course, the voters are still keeping the two huge, steroid-inflated elephants out of the room—Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

The post 2019 Hall of Fame Wrap-Up appeared first on Eric Sammons.

How the Pro-Life Movement Made Me Catholic

Eric Sammons — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:18:14 +0000

I entered college as a fresh-faced, enthusiastic evangelical Protestant. I was eager to change the world for Christ. At my large public university, many campus groups offered ways to fulfill those plans. My freshmen year I tried a number of them, such as Campus Crusade for Christ and Navigators, two evangelical “para-church” organizations. Neither, however, scratched my itch to make an impact on the world.

Then, near the end of my freshman year, my sister invited me to attend a meeting of the campus pro-life group. This simple invitation would lead to a series of events that would radically change my world.

I wasn’t a member for long before I became deeply committed. Although the pro-life group boasted a large membership roll, the number of truly active members was much smaller—less than a dozen. I soon discovered that I was the only Protestant among the ranks of the “active” members; the others were practicing Catholics. This inner circle welcomed me without reservation—no one questioned my pro-life convictions.

However, there was a natural distance between the Catholic members and me. When we went to the abortion clinic to pray, I stood off to the side fingering my pocket Bible while the others prayed a rosary. When everyone else attended Mass on Sunday, I was trekking down to the local evangelical church for some praise and worship.

The post How the Pro-Life Movement Made Me Catholic appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Top 10 Most Popular Podcast Episodes for 2018

Eric Sammons — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 16:20:41 +0000

2018 is wrapping up, and before it goes, I thought I’d look back at the top podcasts I did this year. I recorded a total of 41 podcasts in the year, which is a little less than the once/week average I was going for. I try to cover a variety of topics, from Catholicism to cryptocurrency to politics to self-improvement. Here were my most popular episodes from this past year:

10. Episode 48: Top 5 Threats to Civilization

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

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

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

8. Episode 51: The Incredibly Shrinking Catholic Convert Rate

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

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

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

6. Episode 45: The Best Way to Stop Abortion

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

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

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

4. Episode 47: Beginning Lent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Markets and Human Nature: A Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

Eric Sammons — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 15:06:49 +0000

Recently Dr. Peter Kwasniewski wrote an article critical of free market capitalism for LifeSiteNews (How Free Market Capitalism Wears Away at ‘Economic Chastity’). Kwasniewski and I are fellow writers for the Catholic site OnePeterFive, and I have a great deal of respect for him. His writings on the Catholic liturgy and the current state of the Church are indispensable in this time of confusion. However, I found his critique of the free market to be wanting and in need of correction.

One of the Kwasniewski’s most significant assumptions in his article is that the economic situation in the Middle Ages was superior to modernity. Unlike most moderns (but like Kwasniewski), I don’t see the Middle Ages as a “Dark Ages” with little or nothing to recommend it. In many ways that society was superior to today’s. However, I think it’s a stretch to say the economic situation was better, considering most people lived barely above subsistence, with no freedom to improve their economic lot in life. Further, the rulers of the society frequently and heavily taxed these peasants for their own aggrandizement. It would be a fascinating study to compare the two ages and their respective economic conditions for the average person. I can’t imagine the Middle Ages would come out on top.

The Need for Strong Government?

But today I want to just look at one point Kwasniewski makes, right at the beginning of the article:

Proponents of a “morally neutral” or even “morally good” capitalist free market economy seem blind to the perils of handing over the keys to fallen human nature—not to mention blind to economic reality, since, as Pius XI recognized in his great social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, there has never been, nor could there ever be, a perfectly free market; there will only be an arena in which the strong and the weak and their allies or enemies struggle for power.

This is why a society cannot avoid the need for a strong government that implements a system of just laws to regulate economic life. No fence-sitting is possible; either a system of just laws will exist to regular the economy, or a system of unjust laws, or a confused chaos of both kinds—but a government-free realm of economic transactions is practically impossible and undesirable even if it were possible.

Kwasniewski is essentially saying, “Because of Original Sin, man cannot be left to his own devices when it comes to the economy; he therefore needs a strong government to enforce some level of order on the market, for the good of its participants.”

Now, before I get to the essential flaw in this argument, I want to make something clear: free market capitalism is not anarchy. It doesn’t mean no laws; it means very limited laws that only prevent fraud and deception in the marketplace. For example, someone who breaks a freely-entered-into contract is subject to legal penalties, even in a free market. Kwasniewski seems to indicate that a free market would have *no* government involvement, but that’s not true (who the “government” would be is another question, of course).

All Have Fallen

But the more significant issue with Kwasniewski’s analysis is the failure to recognize that a “strong government” has the same problem with fallen human nature that a free market has. In other words, any and every government is made up of individual men and women, who are as subject to Original Sin as any capitalist. The difference, however, is that government has power that no capitalist has—the power to use force to enforce its will without penalty.

In a free market system, each individual and corporation is a servant of the market. The word “market” is often considered cold and impersonal, but the market is simply the aggregate of all the individuals in the society. In a free market, in other words, sellers are the servants of the buyers. If people don’t want a product or service a corporation offers, then the corporation will go out of business. The corporation has no ability to force people to buy the product. Likewise, any individual who has an idea can sell that product to the market and become economically successful—no one has the power to stop him through regulations or other unnecessary laws.

But if a “strong government” is involved, now you have inserted fallen men and women into the equation with an authority no one else has. They can favor certain companies and individuals over others. We see this often in today’s crony capitalism (which Kwasniewski rightly condemns), but here’s a point that Kwasniewski misses: it also happened all the time in the Middle Ages. Kings and rulers regularly gave preference to family members and other sycophants in exchange for favors and support. That’s what happens when fallen men and women obtain power over others: they abuse it.

Free market capitalism recognizes the fallen state of human nature. But instead of granting power to a select few of those fallen men and women, it diffuses power as much as possible, not allowing any one group to have authority over any other in the market. Although it’s often denigrated as “survival of the fittest,” the free market gives everyone equal opportunities for success. That’s something that wasn’t possible in the Middle Ages, and only happens today when the market is allowed to be free.

The post Free Markets and Human Nature: A Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Preaching the Bad News

Eric Sammons — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:06:45 +0000

People have a natural tendency to tell others about things that improve their lives. If a new book gives tips to help you get organized, readers tell their friends about it. If a TV show is really funny, fans promote the show and the joy it brings them.

I do this as much as the next person. Inspired by Catholic Answers’ own Jimmy Akin, I’ve been practicing Intermittent Fasting (IF), and I’ve seen great benefits from the practice. So I’ve been telling people about how it has improved my health.

But the response I’ve received has been unlike the typical response when I discuss other interests of mine. When I broach a topic like Catholicism or politics or baseball, I usually get polite but unenthusiastic responses. Occasionally someone asks for more particulars, but most of the time I just hear, “That’s nice, I’m glad you like that.” But people seem to be genuinely interested in IF, with people peppering me with follow-up questions and some telling me that they too have started practicing it themselves.

Why the different reaction? Am I just a better salesman for IF than other things? Although losing thirty pounds in three months is a strong selling point, I don’t think it’s my sales pitch that’s different. It’s the topic, or more specifically, the type of problem it addresses. When hearing about IF, people immediately recognize that it might solve a problem they recognize in their own lives. When someone is physically unhealthy, he knows it, and when he hears about something that might help, he reaches for it like a drowning man who’s thrown a life-preserver.

Now contrast this with the biggest barrier to Catholic evangelization: many people don’t “feel” anything is wrong spiritually.

The post Preaching the Bad News appeared first on Eric Sammons.

What Pope Francis Gets Right—and Wrong—About Poverty and Wealth

Eric Sammons — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:14:50 +0000

Yesterday the Catholic Church celebrated the second annual “World Day of the Poor.” As Pope Francis has made helping the poor a centerpiece of his pontificate, he naturally addressed the topic in his homily during Mass. You can read the whole homily in the link provided, but I’d like to comment on one paragraph in particular, for it encapsulates what the pope gets right—and wrong—about poverty and wealth (Francis’s words in bold).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Time’s a Charm: My Various Attempts to Improve My Health

Eric Sammons — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 18:19:07 +0000

Although I grew up north of the Mason-Dixon line, I ate like a Southern boy. My mom was raised in the heart of the South, and her cooking reflected that. Just recalling those meals makes my mouth water even today. I’m old enough that my youth was a time before everyone was health-conscious about the food they ate, but my mom cooks pretty much the same way today. Food is an important part of Southern culture, and its traditions are not easily changed, no matter what the USDA or HHS might say.

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

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

Creeping into Unhealthiness

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

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

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

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

**Attempt #1: Changing How Much I Ate**

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

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

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

I knew I had to make some radical changes.

**Attempt #2: Changing What I Ate**

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

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

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

**Attempt #3: Changing When I Ate**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustaining Success

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

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

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

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

There’s No Such Thing as an Election “Spoiler”

Eric Sammons — Sat, 03 Nov 2018 13:55:14 +0000

Every election cycle we hear of the “spoiler,” the third-party candidate whose candidacy threatens to swing the election, not by winning, but by siphoning votes away from one of the two major party candidates. Some Democrats are still upset at Ralph Nader, the 2000 Green Party Presidential candidate. They believe he took votes from Al Gore in Florida, handing that historically-close election to George W. Bush.

This year, one of the supposed “spoilers” is Libertarian Party candidate Lucy Brenton in the Indiana Senate race. Brenton is running against Democrat Joe Donnelly and Republican Mike Braun. Many political analysts are saying that Brenton’s candidacy threatens to throw the election to Donnelly. Republicans are blaming her in advance for Braun’s possible loss.

When analyzing potential spoilers, most pundits do very simple math. They look at the polling difference between the two major-party candidates, and if a third-party candidate’s poll numbers are greater than that difference, then he’s a “spoiler.” For example, let’s say Candidate D has 44% support, and Candidate R has 41% support. That’s a difference of 3%. Now let’s say third-party Candidate L has 5% support. That’s greater than 3%, so she’s a spoiler!

But there are some serious problems with this simplistic analysis. Here are some ways the myth of an election spoiler doesn’t match reality.

Reading Minds

The first false assumption when designating a “spoiler” is that we can even know with certainty how a voter would vote if the third-party candidate were absent. Typically, for example, it’s assumed that Green Party candidates pull from the Democratic Party, and a Libertarian candidate’s support comes from Republicans.

The Indiana Senate race shows how this assumption falls apart. As I mentioned, Republicans are already blaming Libertarian Lucy Benton for Republican Mike Braun’s potential loss. Yet the data shows something different. There has been only one poll conducted that asked a voter’s preference both with Brenton on the ballot and without her on the ballot. Surprisingly for many, Democrat Joe Donnelly is actually the one hurt by Brenton. In the three-way race, it’s Donnelly at 44%, Braun with 41%, and Brenton gaining 5.5% of the vote. In a two-way race, Donnelly comes in at 48% and Braun at 42%. In other words, with the Libertarian candidate removed, the Democrat gains 4% and the Republican only 1% (and the end result of the race doesn’t change).

Ultimately, it’s a futile exercise to try to predict how voters would vote in the absence of a third-party choice.

Bad Math

Beyond trying to guess how third-party voters would vote in the absence of a “spoiler,” there’s the problem of simple math. If a third-party candidate has 5% support, and a 3% difference divides the two major-party candidates, does that mean the third-party is a spoiler? No. In order to be a true spoiler, the candidate would need to be pulling almost all of her support from just one candidate. For example:

Candidate D	Candidate R	Candidate L
44%	41%	5%

Now, let’s say that Candidate L withdrew from the race, and 60% of her support went to Candidate R and 40% to Candidate D. This means that Candidate R gets a 3% bump (60% of Candidate L’s 5%), but Candidate D still gets a 2% bump of his own:

Candidate D	Candidate R
44% + 2% = 46%	41% + 3% = 44%

In this scenario, only if more than 80% of Candidate L’s supporters would all vote for Candidate R could he have a chance of winning (trust me on the math). But third-party candidates never receive such unbalanced support.

For example, the reason Democrats are upset at Ralph Nader is that they assume his voters would have voted for Al Gore if Nader had not run. However, an analysis of Florida voters shows that in fact, at least 40% of Nader voters would have likely voted for Bush, not Gore. So even a candidate considered to be on the far Left still had support from members of both major parties.

Nader voters were not atypical; third-party candidates usually pull supporters from both major parties. This balanced representation is particularly true of Libertarian candidates, who pull from both traditionally Democratic and Republican voting bases. With what appears to many as an eclectic mix of policy positions, ranging from support for marijuana legalization to opposition to government social programs, the Libertarian Party gains support from both liberals and conservatives.

Choosing None of the Above

Another factor not being considered is that many third-party voters would simply not vote if a third-party candidate were not on the ballot. Again, this is particularly true for libertarian-leaning voters, who already are skeptical of the political process and thus tempted to sit a vote out if only the two major parties are represented. Oftentimes a third-party voter only votes because of the presence of the third-party candidate. In this case, neither major party candidate is impacted by the presence of the third-party candidate.

A Right to Your Vote?

There’s one more problem with the idea of an election “spoiler”: the assumption of a guaranteed vote.

Party partisans can’t imagine not voting a straight party ticket. The very idea of voting for someone else is practically treasonous. This is the assumption behind the very idea of a spoiler: that a voter has decided not to vote for the candidate they “should” vote for in favor of some upstart. Yet every election and every candidate stands on its own. Even if someone has voted straight Republican for 40 years, it cannot be assumed that she will vote for a Republican candidate in the next election. Likewise, even if someone considers himself a liberal, that doesn’t mean he will vote for a Democrat. Candidates must earn every vote they receive.

Political pundits obsess about the implications of every vote: What does it mean for control of Congress? How does it impact the sitting President? If Candidate X wins, does that mean she’ll run for President in the future? But for the average voter, all that matters is how a candidate best represents his interests. So if the Republican Party puts forward a weak candidate, then typically-Republican voters might look elsewhere. Likewise for the Democratic candidate. Talk of an election spoiler is really a way for a party to shift the blame for a loss away from its poor candidate.

It’s clear that most analysis of potential election spoilers is fundamentally flawed. The assumptions made about voters’ “what-if” choices are often mistaken and/or too simplistic. Pollsters and political pundits cannot fit every voter neatly into one of two categories, and the presence of a third-party candidate often allows voter diversity to emerge. There is no such thing as an election spoiler, only winning candidates and losing candidates.

The post There’s No Such Thing as an Election “Spoiler” appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Would the Latin Mass Fill the Pews?

Eric Sammons — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:34:10 +0000

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.

Does Doctrine Change?

Eric Sammons — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:15:39 +0000

Growing up Protestant, I had a distorted view of Christian history. I essentially believed that after the death of the last apostle, the teachings of Jesus were quickly distorted and even lost, not to be recovered until Martin Luther proclaimed them in the sixteenth century. And without much though about the intervening centuries, I assumed that my twentieth-century Protestant beliefs fell right in line with Jesus and Luther. The span of years 100-1500 and 1540-1980 were theological black holes of history.

Of course, this view is full of problems. For one, it completely denigrates or ignores centuries of great saints and theologians who grappled to understand and explain Christian doctrine. The work of theological giants like Athanasius, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas is thrown aside like a used McDonald’s wrapper. The work of a few men—the Reformers—is held up as an example, but even then this distorted history, commonly held among Protestants, forgets that they depended on many before them, and that Protestant teaching today goes well beyond them.

As I grew older and my study of history became more comprehensive, I realized how stunted my previous understanding was. And as I looked into the history of Christian doctrine more deeply, a disturbing question surfaced: does doctrine change over time?

The post Does Doctrine Change? appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Why I am Anti-War

Eric Sammons — Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:43:52 +0000

What’s the first thing you picture when you hear someone described as “anti-war?” For a long time, my mind would conjure one of two images. The first is the idealistic hippie who sings John Lennon songs and in his drug-induced haze doesn’t understand the first thing about the “real world.” The second image is the anti-American liberal, who, in her seething hatred of the United States, reflexively condemns any and all wars the country is involved in. Neither image is one I have wanted to be associated with.

Although I was born during the Vietnam War, the first significant U.S. conflict I remember was the first Iraq War in 1990-1991. Like most Americans, I got swept up in the patriotic fever that gripped the nation and supported our country’s actions there. That conflict was so antiseptic: it only lasted a few months (the fighting itself only a few weeks), and there were so few (American) casualties that it became easy to have no qualms about war.

Just War Theory

A few years after that conflict I became Catholic and embraced the Church’s “Just War Theory.” This classic view of war posits that a country may enter into a war only in defense (i.e., it cannot initiate force). Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines the additional criteria for a war to be justified:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309)

Because I accepted the Just War Theory, I could not consider myself “anti-war” since situations could arise in which it would be justified for a country to enter into war. For years this was my default position regarding war. In practice, however, I didn’t apply these criteria carefully when I considered conflicts my own country was involved in. In fact, my default criteria became “If the U.S. is involved in a conflict, then it must be just.”

Growing Discomfort

However, over the years I became more and more uncomfortable with the use of U.S. military force in the world, especially during our unending “War on Terror.” I could see some justification initially in our conflict in Afghanistan, as that country harbored Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. After all, this conflict was not initiated by the U.S., and the damage inflicted on our country was “lasting, grave, and certain,” as Just War Theory requires.

However, the other three criteria were not so easily met. Had all means of stopping bin Laden been met? Perhaps, but that was questionable. Was there a serious prospect of success? Considering how long it took to actually find him and the human toll it required, that seems unlikely, at least in retrospect. And would the use of arms produce graver evils and disorders than the evil eliminated? The attacks of 9/11 killed almost 3,000 people; however, over 31,000 civilians have been killed since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and there have been almost 3,500 military deaths as well (including 2,300 American soldiers). And of course our mandate in Afghanistan went far beyond capturing bin Laden.

Although one could still try to argue that our original attack on Afghanistan was justified in light of 9/11, the expansion of the conflict and its ongoing nature clearly violated Just War Theory. And this is the one U.S. conflict in my lifetime that best fits the Just War Theory! The second Iraq War was a disastrous foray of foreign interventionism and score-settling. The various U.S. bombings in the Middle East over the years, such as in Syria, clearly violate Just War principles.

I came to a realization: there has been no U.S. military conflict in my lifetime that fully meets Just War Theory criteria. Thus, I was bound, if I wanted to be consistent with my own system of morality, to be opposed to each of these conflicts. Although I am the polar opposite of the stereotypical anti-war activist, I found myself in common cause with him.

Pro-Life Means Pro-Life

A final thought: my growing opposition to war led me to take more seriously the significant human toll every war causes. When I reflexively accepted the morality of any U.S. conflict, I could just as reflexively ignore the damage in lives and properties it caused. After all, that death and destruction was in a far-away land I had never been to and had no connection with. Yet, inconsistently, I was horrified witnessing the tragic events of 9/11. But is the blood of foreign innocents any less valuable than U.S. blood?

As a Catholic, I am pro-life, meaning I’m anti-abortion, for abortion causes the death of an innocent human being. Yet how can I oppose the deaths of those pre-born innocents, and support the deaths of so many thousands of innocents around the world due to the unjustified actions of my country’s government? Being pro-life isn’t limited to defending the lives of only one demographic, it means I oppose any and all killing of innocent people, no matter where they live, how old they are, or who does the killing.

So line me up next to the idealistic hippie and the anti-American liberal. For all practical purposes, I am anti-war.

The post Why I am Anti-War appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Interview with Taylor Marshall

Eric Sammons — Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:00:34 +0000

This week I was honored to be on Dr. Taylor Marshall’s YouTube show to discuss the topic “Can a Pope be Deposed?” It’s a relevant topic, and one without easy answers.

Be sure to check it out:

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

New Podcast!

Eric Sammons — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:05:09 +0000

I’m happy to announce that I’ve started a new podcast. Called “Growing Up Baseball,” the podcast features my son Peter and I discussing the latest happenings in the world of baseball. We were inspired to start this podcast by the fun we had in a recent episode of Swimming Upstream where we reviewed the just-ended MLB season. And since we spend a lot of our time talking about baseball anyway, we figured we’d record it!

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

The post New Podcast! appeared first on Eric Sammons.

On Deposing Popes: A Historical Review

Eric Sammons — Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:28:22 +0000

This article is also available as a printer-friendly PDF document.

Asking the Question

Throughout his five-year reign, Pope Francis has been a controversial figure. He has pushed for novelties and innovations to both the papacy and the Church itself, from superficialities like refusing to live in the papal apartments to more substantial changes like permitting communion for the divorced and remarried. These innovations have been welcomed in some quarters, but have been strongly resisted in others.

The resistance to Francis has grown with each passing year. At first, it was the reserve of only traditionalist Catholics. As the changes kept coming, more and more Catholics became uncomfortable with his papacy. And with the global sexual abuse scandal ravaging the Church and creeping closer and closer to implicating Pope Francis, many of those who supported him initially have begun to distance themselves from his pontificate. This growing discontent from all quarters has led to increasing whispers of a question unheard in centuries: “Is it possible to depose the pope?”

This is not an easy question to answer. If you look at the history of what the Church has taught on this subject as well as the actual record of possible papal depositions, you get a confusing set of often conflicting opinions, actions, and teachings. It will be instructive to review that history in order to address the question seriously.

Continue reading at CatholicVote…

The post On Deposing Popes: A Historical Review appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Papolatry of Cardinal Ouellet

Eric Sammons — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 22:49:10 +0000

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.

The Danger of the “Common Good”

Eric Sammons — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:09:36 +0000

In political debates among Catholics, you’ll frequently hear the term “Common Good” invoked. The U.S. bishops are particularly keen to appeal to the Common Good when defending their positions on issues such as universal health care, environmental protections, or minimum wage increases.

Appeals to the Common Good are typically in support of government expansion. Usually this involves the restriction of the rights of individuals for the greater good of society. As the great Vulcan philosopher Spock succinctly put it in Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

But there are significant dangers with this conception of the Common Good. It can lead to vast expansions in the power of a ruling class while curbing the freedom of individuals and families. Is this what the Common Good truly is?

The post The Danger of the “Common Good” appeared first on Eric Sammons.

There is Another Choice for Ohio Conservatives this November

Eric Sammons — Tue, 02 Oct 2018 14:40:27 +0000

Avoid marrying yourself to a “lesser of two evils” mindset.

This should be a time of great joy among Ohio conservatives. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump won the state in 2016. Republicans dominate the Ohio State Senate and the House of Representatives. Every non-judicial state-wide office is held by a Republican. Most U.S. Representatives from Ohio are Republicans. Yet there has been much discontent among rank-and-file Ohio conservatives in recent years. The reason can be summed up in two words: John Kasich.

Kasich is one of the least-liked governors within his own party in recent history. Despite his protestations that “I’m a conservative,” most conservatives in the state are uneasy at best with his record.

And now, to deepen this uneasiness, the Republican candidate to succeed him—Mike DeWine—is seen by many conservatives to be essentially a third term of Kasich politics. Although Lt. Governor Mary Taylor was supported by many Ohio conservatives, she was unable to defeat the entrenched DeWine in the Republican primary. So Ohio conservatives are stuck voting for DeWine, with their noses firmly held.

Or are they?

Continue reading at Cincinnati Republic…

The post There is Another Choice for Ohio Conservatives this November appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Titanic Sinking: A Review of the 2018 Cincinnati Reds

Eric Sammons — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 12:15:33 +0000

It’s hard to be a Reds fan. The team hasn’t won a postseason series since 1995 (Lord, please let me forget the 2012 postseason!), and have only had five winning seasons in the past twenty-two seasons. Ugh. This season, unfortunately, lived up to what are now Reds expectations: bad baseball. But since I’m glutton for punishment, let’s review the team’s 2018 season: the good (the offense), the bad (everything else), and the ugly (the ownership).

Season Recap

March/April: We’ve Sprung a Leak! (7-22 Record)

It’s almost impossible for the Reds season to start worse than it did. While no one except the most optimistic Reds fan expected them to compete for a playoff spot this year, no one could have predicted the Reds to be 3-18 out of the gates. A lot of reasons could be given, but it was mostly a combination of injuries (especially to Eugenio Suárez), bad luck, and lackluster effort under manager Bryan Price. Speaking of Price, he was quickly fired (at the 3-15 mark) and replaced by perennial interim manager Jim Riggleman (insert obligatory mention of his quitting on the Nationals mid-season here).

Price was a scapegoat, of course, but he should have been fired anyway. In fact, he probably should have been fired the year (or even two) before. Although hired with much promise, Price was the definition of a mediocre manager. He talked progressively, but managed by conventional wisdom. For a smaller-market team like the Reds, a below-average manager just doesn’t cut it (ironically, the only manager who is even more the definition of “below-average” than Price is Riggleman). Price wasn’t the reason for the 3-15 start, but he wasn’t the person to lead the Reds to the Promised Land, either.

After April, it was almost impossible for things to get worse, and happily, the Reds did start to patch up the sinking ship.

May/June: Patching Things Up (28-26 Record)

May and June were mirage months for the Reds: they gave fans hope that they were actually a solid team, with a 28-26 record over those two months. Although a few (sycophantic) reporters wanted to give the credit to Riggleman, the truth is much simpler: they were healthy and things went their way. All their offensive weapons (and, yes, they do have some offensive weapons) were healthy, and their starting pitching wasn’t as abysmal as it usually is.

Further, the Reds in May/June proved an immutable law of baseball: no team is as bad as their worst stretch, and no team is as good as their best stretch. The Reds aren’t as bad as their 3-18 start, but they aren’t as good as their 15-11 June. They are a below-average team, and by the end of the season, their overall record reflects that.

July/August: Never Mind (22-30 Record)

The stretch from July to August is probably the best indication of what the Reds actually are, as they compiled a .440 winning percentage, which would be a 71-91 record for the season (a little better than they actually finished). After all the praise directed toward Riggleman for a decent stretch, reality set in: this is just not a very good team. While the offense is above average, the defense and bullpen are mediocre, and the starting pitching is godawful.

September: Sinking to the Bottom (10-17 Record)

Perhaps the Reds players decided they didn’t want Riggleman to look too good. Or perhaps they wanted a nice “bookend” feeling to the season, as they finished the year 4-16. Whatever the reason, the Reds ended the season like they started it: terrible. Frankly, I pretty much checked out around mid-August, so I can’t even say what happened here.

Can the Ship Be Salvaged?

Now let’s look at various areas of the team and what it means for the future.

Jim Riggleman, Full-Time Manager?

I sure hope not. It’s impossible to come up with an adjective that describes how mediocre and forgettable Riggleman is. Other than a passion for bunting in every possible situation, he does nothing memorable. Although the team loved to promote how much he emphasized “fundamentals” with the team, there’s no actual evidence that the team improved in this area over the year (and at least by the eye test, they seemed to regress).

There are rumors that Reds owner Bob Castellini is fond of Riggleman and could bring him back. That says more about the problem of the Castellini ownership (see below) than anything good about Riggleman.

Three and Out

You might think I’m referring to the 2010 NLDS against the Phillies. I’m actually referring to most outings by Cincinnati Reds starting pitchers, who seemed to get pulled out of games faster than baby out of a burning building. I thought about looking up their season ERA, but I’m sure that would only depress me more. Starting with Homer Bailey, this year’s crop of starting pitchers was abysmal with a (very) few flashes of promise. This was supposed to be a time for the young crop of pitchers the Reds have been stockpiling to make a jump, but most of them instead took a plunge. I still believe in the promise of Luis Castillo, and Anthony Desclafani is a solid major league pitcher when healthy. But I don’t have confidence in any of the other starters (although I desperately want to believe in Cody Reed). Unfortunately, the Reds will go into next year knowing no more than they did this year about their starting pitchers (other than the fact that Homer Bailey and Robert Stephenson need to go).

Bright Spots on a Dark Landscape

Yes, even in this dreary season there were bright spots for the team. It starts with my new favorite Red, Eugenio Suárez. It’s still hard to believe we got him for a one-month-away-from-being-washed-up Alfredo Simon. After signing a very team-friendly long-term contract before the season, Suárez put up an MVP-caliber season before faltering in September. He was one of the few things to look forward to when watching a Reds game this year.

Other bright spots include Scooter Gennett and José Peraza. Gennett proved last year wasn’t a fluke, and while I think he’d bring more value to the Reds in a trade, it’s never a problem to have someone who can hit like him on your team. I didn’t believe in Peraza before this season, but he happily proved me wrong. He put in a very solid season, and he’s only 24 years old! Hopefully the Reds have found their long-term solution at shortstop.

Other than that, there’s not much positive. Jesse Winker was having a good season, but then got injured. Joey Votto, by human standards, had a good season, but by Votto standards, it was a disappointment. Jared Hughes was effective out of the bullpen, but it’s hard to get too excited about an older reliever on a two-year contract.

Another Steinbrenner?

The most troubling aspect of the Reds dismal season wasn’t anything that happened on the field. Instead, we discovered how involved owner Bob Castellini is in the day-to-day running of the team. Castellini, who has no experience in baseball, has apparently been very hands-on in his running of the team. Instead of letting the front office people—who he supposedly hired because of their baseball knowledge and experience—make decisions, instead he inserts himself into those decisions. He apparently was the reason the Reds didn’t (inexplicably) trade Matt Harvey. He also seems to love Billy Hamilton and won’t consider offers for him (and, for all we know, maybe it’s due to Castellini that the Reds continue to sometimes bat the light-hitting Hamilton lead-off). And, as already mentioned, he’s supposedly a fan of Jim Riggleman, even though Riggleman literally has no record of success in his past.

Of all that went wrong for the Reds this year, the meddling of Castellini is surely the worst. Pitchers can be replaced, managers can be fired, even front office staff can be let go. But owners are forever. They only leave when they want to leave (and usually to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars). So the Reds are stuck with Castellini. Which very well could mean that they’re stuck as a mediocre franchise for a long time.

Hitting Rock Bottom

I’ll be honest: I’ve never been more down as a Reds fan than I am right now. I’ve seen bad stretches (the early 2000’s, for example), but never have I had less confidence in the people running the team than I do now. I had high hopes for front office executives Dick Williams and Nick Krall, but they don’t seem to have actual power in the Reds front office. Instead it appears that decisions are mostly coming from Bob Castellini, with former GM (and baseball fossil) Walt Jocketty whispering bad advice in his ear.

Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully the Reds will sign a couple of front-line starters in the offseason, release Homer Bailey, and figure out what to do with uber-prospect Nick Senzel. But until I see evidence to the contrary, I’m preparing for a long winter as a Reds fan.

The post Titanic Sinking: A Review of the 2018 Cincinnati Reds appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Scandal of the Church

Eric Sammons — Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:50:08 +0000

In the second century, the Church faced its first great heresy: Gnosticism. This confusing and eclectic system of beliefs threatened to destroy the Church in its infancy. Among Gnosticism’s tenets was the conviction that the material world is contemptible, unworthy of redemption. Unlike the Christian view that the material world was originally created good but then fell through sin, Gnostics believed that the world we live in was created as the result of some tragic accident. Only the spiritual world mattered; anything physical was to be left behind.

Against this heresy rose the great Church Father St. Irenaeus, who in The Scandal of the Incarnation explained that the key doctrine of Christianity is the Incarnation: the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). The physical world is not to be held in contempt; on the contrary, it provides the means of our salvation.

Although eventually Gnosticism was conquered, its material/spiritual dualism has reared its ugly head throughout Church history. Many heresies borrowed it, including Manichaeism, the heresy embraced for a time by St. Augustine. And although Protestantism does not fully endorse a material/spiritual dualism, there are aspects of this flawed worldview in its belief system—for example, in its rejection of a visible Church.

The post The Scandal of the Church appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Best Nike Kaepernick Ad Parodies

Eric Sammons — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 19:45:38 +0000

Last week Nike released an ad featuring controversial former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In case you were visiting Mars the past week, here it is:

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

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

Catholic: Archbishop Vigano

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

Political: Bernie Sanders

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

Weirdest: Alex Jones

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

Libertarian: Larry Sharpe

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

Pop Culture: Thanos

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

Most Appropriate: Edward Snowden

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

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

Diocese on a Diet: Reducing the Temporal Power of the Bishops

Eric Sammons — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 21:15:44 +0000

As frustration and anger toward bishops grow, Catholics are asking what they can do to resist the corruption that has infected the episcopate. Ideas include prayer, fasting, writing letters, and protesting at USCCB meetings. All these are valid responses, but some are advocating for something more concrete – specifically, withholding financial support to the men who have enabled and promoted predatory monsters in their midst. The bishops receive most of their funding from the laity; discontinuing funding is one of the only mechanisms by which the laity feel they have some pull.

Yet many Catholics are hesitant to make such a move. If money is withheld, do we really think it will restrict the lifestyle of most bishops? How many bishops will cut their own salaries or sell their houses? More likely, it will mean less money to diocesan programs as well as to parishes, including some important services and outreaches. As a former diocesan director of evangelization, I can attest that these concerns are valid. The most likely outcome of a financial shortfall is that diocesan services will be decreased. But I have to ask: would this necessarily be a bad thing? Perhaps it’s time to rethink how dioceses operate.

Continue reading at Medium…

The post Diocese on a Diet: Reducing the Temporal Power of the Bishops appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Cryptocurrency Dream, Revived

Eric Sammons — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 20:32:15 +0000

Tothe outsider looking in, the cryptocurrency world may appear to be a geek version of the movie Wall Street. Crypto-traders obsessing about minute fluctuations in price, newbies dreaming of Lambos, and shills hyping their worthless coins to the naïve are the order of the day. The whole thing doesn’t come across as very noble, to be sure. However, like many earlier adopters of Bitcoin, I initially embraced cryptocurrency not because I dreamed of personal wealth, but because I dreamed it could literally make the world a better place. Call me idealistic. Guilty as charged.

At the time most of my friends scoffed at my lofty dreams. Here in the developed world where I live, most people accept that our economic situation is essentially stable. If people put their money in the bank, they have confidence that it will stay there, and that it will be worth about the same when they withdraw as when they deposit. Yes, inflation causes a devaluation of their funds, but to most people it’s just a slow drip of annoyance rather than a real issue of importance. Further, none of us ever encounter real problems with purchasing goods and services with our credit and debit cards. The fees and occasional fraud might cause annoyance, but again not so much that we lose any sleep over it. So, my friends asked, why bother with cryptocurrency? What problem is it really solving?

The post The Cryptocurrency Dream, Revived appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Sharing the Good News When the Daily News Is Bad

Eric Sammons — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 19:27:09 +0000

Many years ago, a couple of Mormon missionaries came to my door. My policy has always been to invite them in for a chat. I do this for two reasons: 1) I’m able to evangelize them about Catholicism, and 2) they can’t be knocking on anyone else’s door while they’re with me.

We hit it off well, and they promised to come back another time. And they did. And they did. For the next few months, they were regular visitors. When they walked up the drive, my kids would yell out, “Dad, your Mormon friends are here!” I think my openness to talk gave them hope that they could convert me. And of course I was hoping to do the same to them.

In one conversation, they decided to bring up the topic of history. Anyone who knows Mormonism well knows that the historical record isn’t kind to Mormon claims. But they wanted to discuss Catholic history—specifically, the stories of scandal and immorality surrounding popes and bishops. They hoped that would weaken my attachment to the Church.

But before they could really get started, I interrupted them.

“Listen—you think you have some good scandals to report. But you don’t know the half of it. I’ve studied Church history for years, and the sins and scandals are far worse than you could imagine. But here’s the thing: only a divine institution could survive the people who have led the Catholic Church over the years. So if anything, these past scandals make me more convinced that I was right to become Catholic.”

Needless to say, they quickly changed the topic and moved on.

I’ve thought about that discussion a few times during the recent scandals rocking the Church.

Continue reading at Mind & Spirit…

The post Sharing the Good News When the Daily News Is Bad appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Want to Grow Spiritually? Get Physical!

Eric Sammons — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:02:25 +0000

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.

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

Selection Bias and the Process of Picking Better Bishops

Eric Sammons — Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:15:22 +0000

“He’ll be a bishop someday.”

That was the prediction in the parish I attended fifteen years ago. Our pastor was a nice man – likable and affable. No one had anything negative to say about him. The best word I can use to describe him is “safe.” He didn’t court controversy and did his job in a head-down kind of way. He was an able administrator and ran the parish efficiently. Because of these traits, Father was often involved in various diocesan responsibilities, helping the archbishop and chancery as needed. Almost everyone in the parish assumed that one day he would be made a bishop.

Everyone was right: this past year, he was made a bishop. And that’s the problem.

I want to be clear that I have nothing against my old pastor. At the same time, I don’t have anything really for him, either. Even though he was pastor for my first five years in the parish, I can’t remember one homily he gave, or much else about him, other than the fact that I considered him a nice guy. In contrast, the pastor who succeeded him, I remember quite well – he dramatically increased confession times at our parish, preached against contraception, and encouraged us to go door to door to evangelize the neighborhood. Perhaps not surprisingly, the joke after he came was, “Well, he won’t ever be a bishop.”

Crickets from the Episcopacy

Why is it that during this time of the Cardinal McCarrick scandal, less than a handful of active bishops in the United States have made a statement that could even be called Catholic? Instead of lamenting sin and urging repentance, we’ve mostly seen lawyer-ese and calls for more policies. And even though a couple of bishops have made decent statements, not one bishop has actually yet done something. Statistically speaking, selecting 250 random practicing Catholics in the United States should result in at least a dozen who “get it.” But with more than 250 active U.S. bishops, you still can’t find one who is willing to expose the filth that infects the episcopacy. Why is that?

The post Selection Bias and the Process of Picking Better Bishops appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Power of Jesus’ Name

Eric Sammons — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:13:34 +0000

When I converted from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, I made a lot of theological changes in my life. I expected this, but I didn’t expect that I would be making a lot of sociological changes, too. Every group has its own subculture, and that includes religions. Language is one of the biggest differences. How we talk about our faith, how we pray, and how we refer to God all differ. All this had to change for me when I became Catholic.

One thing I immediately noticed is the hesitation among Catholics to say the name Jesus. In my Evangelical world we referred to Jesus on a regular basis. But Catholics were different. They usually didn’t talk about Jesus directly, and even when they did they would often refer to him as “Our Lord” or “Christ.” I later found that this was a cultural tradition that originates from a reverence for the name of Jesus. In the same way you wouldn’t talk about the president by his first name, Catholics didn’t refer to the Lord by his name.

Although the intentions are good, this reticence to use the name of Jesus has its drawbacks—for the name of Jesus has power.

The post The Power of Jesus’ Name appeared first on Eric Sammons.

When Bishops Lose Their Authority

Eric Sammons — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:10:16 +0000

While on the scaffold awaiting his execution, St. Thomas More famously declared, “I die the king’s faithful servant, but God’s first.” Throughout the controversy surrounding King Henry’s divorce and remarriage, More was adamant about one thing: he was a servant of the king, and accepted the king’s authority over the land. Although he could not consent to Henry’s rejection of the Church, More still acknowledged that he was the rightful king, and that as such, Henry had authority given to him by God.

That was the genius of More: he was able to distinguish the office of the king from the personal failings of the man who held that office. He didn’t call for the abolishment of royal rule; instead he refused to support the sinful actions of the current king.

While we don’t live under kings anymore, Catholics today are faced with a similar dilemma. Some who exercise spiritual authority over us—our bishops—have shown themselves to be unworthy of this authority. As Catholics, how are we to respond? Do we quietly ignore their egregious sins and keep quiet, fearful that any criticism might be disrespectful of the episcopal office? Do we see the profound failings of these men and decide that the office itself is flawed and should be jettisoned? Or is there a third path for Catholics in this time of crisis?

The post When Bishops Lose Their Authority appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Sooner or Later God’ll Cut You Down

Eric Sammons — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:39:29 +0000

Johnny Cash has a word for warning for Cardinal McCarrick and the bishops who enabled him:

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

Catholic Answers Live

Eric Sammons — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:51:30 +0000

I was on Catholic Answers Live last night to talk about evangelization. If you missed it, you can check it out here:

The post Catholic Answers Live appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Dialogue or Disassociation: What to Do with Heretics and Public Sinners in the Church

Eric Sammons — Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:50 +0000

The watchword of the day is “dialogue.” Invoked by Church leaders like an Eastern mystical mantra, dialogue is the solution to every problem. Pro-abortion politicians claiming to be good Catholics? We need dialogue. Priests promoting same-sex relationships? We need dialogue. Millions of Catholics leaving the Church in droves? We need dialogue. No matter the issue, dialogue will make the world sing in perfect harmony.

But dialogue is not always the answer. Sometimes, in fact, the Church has embraced the opposite of dialogue – disassociation – as the proper means to address certain issues. Consider the problem of heretics and public sinners within the Church. What should we do when someone claims to be Catholic (or even is a priest or bishop) and yet acts in a manner fundamentally at odds with the Faith? Should we dialogue with him or disassociate from him?

Continue reading at CatholicVote…

The post Dialogue or Disassociation: What to Do with Heretics and Public Sinners in the Church appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Why I’m Through Being ‘Pro-Life’

Eric Sammons — Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:38:29 +0000

Thirty years ago, the anti-abortion movement had an image problem. In most media reports, opponents of abortion were depicted as angry men opposing fundamental women’s rights. They were “anti-abortion.” Those who advocated for legalized abortion, on the other hand, were seen in a positive light, championing “choice” and the right to freedom. They were “pro-choice.”

Hoping to change this perception, John Willke, the President of National Right to Life, came upon a simple solution. He insisted that his fellow anti-abortion advocates stop using the phrase “anti-abortion,” opting instead for the term “pro-life.” Although the term pro-life had been used haphazardly by anti-abortion groups previously, Willke felt it was imperative that the term become the only label for those fighting against abortion.

The label made sense, both in practice and in perception. Abortion is the direct killing of innocent life, so using the term “pro-life” denoted that being against abortion was being for life. Likewise, it was an effective marketing strategy. Pro-abortion forces claimed to be “for” something (“choice”); now anti-abortion forces were for something even more fundamental: life itself.

Although initially the pro-life label normally referred solely to abortion, it soon took another issue under its banner: euthanasia. As Dr. Kevorkian made “assisted suicide” a national topic in the 1990’s, pro-life groups began to fight against that barbaric practice as well. Including euthanasia under the pro-life umbrella seemed like a given, since it also involved the direct killing of an innocent human being. Yet the term was still limited and clear. Pro-life people were those opposed to abortion and euthanasia.

Evolution of the Seamless Garment

Even in the early days, however, there was tension over expanding the pro-life label to other issues. Over the years, one of the most common criticisms of pro-lifers is that they only care about life before birth, and don’t care what happens to a baby after she is born. Veteran pro-lifers have heard this canard for decades and typically shrug it off, knowing the reality of pro-lifers who work tirelessly at crisis pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, hospitals, and thousands of other outreaches.

The post Why I’m Through Being ‘Pro-Life’ appeared first on Eric Sammons.

My Limited Patriotism

Eric Sammons — Wed, 04 Jul 2018 19:36:32 +0000

I grew up in a conservative town in a conservative family attending a conservative church. By “conservative” I don’t mean politically conservative as much as culturally conservative: we respected our traditions, respected authority, and respected our country. I assumed America’s greatness and unquestionably supported our military and police.

However, that respect was challenged when I became involved in Operation Rescue while in college. This was the movement to stop abortion through civil disobedience. I was arrested a half dozen times for (non-violently) blocking abortion clinic doors in an attempt to save babies from certain death. While I was involved in this movement my view of both America and American authorities began to change. I witnessed police and judges treat pro-lifers with contempt and often a harsher attitude than they would treat hardened criminals. I had friends sentenced to over a year in jail, simply for pro-life-related activities. Most importantly, I began to have a less rose-colored view of America; after all, this country had legalized the killing of unborn children, and went to great lengths to keep that “right” intact. My support for America and her authorities was no longer unquestioned.

I came to see abortion as the third of America’s Great Sins, the others being our treatment of Native Americans and of course slavery. Conservatives like to whitewash those previous two evils, but we must recognize them for what they are. They are evils perpetrated by the legitimate American government, with the consent of the American people. After all, we live in a republic, so if the American people wanted to end legalized abortion (or slavery or our treatment of Native Americans), we could do so by electing leaders who would make it happen. Yet we never stopped our exile of the Native Americans, it took a civil war to end slavery, and we still have legalized abortion on demand. I find it hard to be super-patriotic about America when faced with those facts.

Requirements of Patriotism

This leads to some important questions: Am I required to be patriotic? What are the limits of patriotism?

In order to answer those questions, first we need to define patriotism. Patriotism is a category of the virtue of justice, along with religion and piety. Justice is giving someone what he is due. Piety is giving our parents their due: they made our life possible, and so we owe them respect. Religion is giving God his due: he made everything possible, and so we owe to him his due, which is our worship and service. Patriotism is also a part of justice: each person is born in a country, and owes that country its due for providing a specific place to be born and to be raised. Thus patriotism is a virtue that every person should have. As an American, I owe my country love and devotion.

However, virtues can be abused and become vices. For example, if a parent tells you to do something immoral, it is not the virtue of piety to obey; it is the abuse of piety. If a priest teaches heresy and gives a bad example, it is not the virtue of religion to remain silent and allow it to continue without opposition. Likewise, it is not patriotism to offer blind devotion to one’s country, supporting it no matter what evils it might commit.

The abuse of patriotism is typically known as nationalism. This is when a person supports the actions of a country’s authorities no matter what, simply because those authorities represent his country. Nationalism is a sin, not a virtue, for no country is perfect, and one cannot support evil, even if done in the name of one’s country.

Combatting Nationalism

I believe that conservative patriotism in our country is in danger of morphing into nationalism. One trait of nationalism is an equivalence between patriotism and an exalted veneration of the military. The military performs an important role for America, but it is not the primary representation of America. The military is composed of sinful human beings who can (and do) commit sins in the name of America, yet any criticism of the military is seen as a fundamentally unpatriotic action. Nationalism looks the other way; patriotism challenges those actions and see them as a blot on the nation.

After 9/11, however, many conservatives have turned worship of the military (and police and rescue personnel) into the defining characteristic of patriotism. If you don’t give unquestioned support for these institutions, then you must hate America. We have turned the Fourth of July into a “Praise the Military” day, instead of recognizing the fundamental subversiveness of it. Our founding fathers were resisting an oppressive State. They were seeking to oust the army of that State from their shores. How does glorifying the military arm of our own State honor them? Like the founding fathers, we should instead direct our praise to regular, everyday Americans.

I see these institutions like every other government institution: made up of flawed people who might often do good, but can easily fall into abusive actions if not kept in check. In fact, it is the worship of the military which is most likely to make abuse possible, for it leaves no one to challenge it if it crosses the line. Just because I have a skeptical view of the military and police (as well as a skeptical view of all government institutions) doesn’t mean I’m unpatriotic. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

I love America. I do believe it is the greatest nation on earth. I also believe it is very flawed—just less flawed than every other country. I pray for my country, and hope that God will lead us to be truly the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The post My Limited Patriotism appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Who Watches the Watchmen? The Fatal Flaw of the Dallas Charter

Eric Sammons — Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:57 +0000

It was 2003 and I was a young father sending my daughter to a Catholic elementary school. I wanted to be involved in the direction of the school, so I volunteered for the school board for a three-year term. Most meetings were what you would expect: boring discussions of the details of running a small Catholic school. But one evening the topic turned to something far more significant. Our diocese was implementing the “safe environment” policies that came out of the meeting of bishops in Dallas to respond to the clerical sex abuse crisis (the so-called “Dallas Charter”). That evening we were discussing introducing a “talking about touching” program at our elementary school. It was all part of a well-publicized push by Catholic bishops to show that they cared about the abuse scandal and were doing something about it.

The irony: I was living in the Archdiocese of Washington. Our Archbishop was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, now revealed as a predator himself.

Pointing the Finger

I had listened to Cardinal McCarrick make earnest-sounding statements when the clerical sexual abuse scandal first hit the news. He wanted to “protect” children, he said. His way of doing so, however, was to implement policies that introduced inappropriate material to children and looked at lay people, including parents, as the potential abusers. It was classic misdirection: look at all our efforts here…and ignore the scandal at the top of the archdiocese.

When the “talking about touching” program was first introduced, I objected to it strongly. I felt it was inappropriate for a school—especially in a co-ed situation—to talk about this topic in a public setting. Think about it: a teacher, who is essentially unknown to the parents, is discussing topics in a classroom such as who can touch your genitals with a group of seven- and eight-year-old boys and girls. Beyond the obvious inappropriateness of this, it’s also a situation ripe for abuse. If a teacher were an abuser, such a class is fertile ground for finding victims. Is it surprising that an archdiocese that was led by a predator would implement such problematic programs?

The post Who Watches the Watchmen? The Fatal Flaw of the Dallas Charter appeared first on Eric Sammons.

When It’s Time to Stop Evangelizing

Eric Sammons — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:52:47 +0000

Allison came up to me after my talk. She was distraught. Her co-worker Christina was a fallen-away Catholic, and nothing Allison said or did seemed to help her return to the Faith. For years, Christina was indifferent to her religion. She wasn’t anti-Catholic; she just thought there was no purpose to Catholicism. Allison had been inviting her to Mass, encouraging her to go to confession, and giving her Catholic books to read. But to no effect. Allison asked me what more she could do. My answer shocked her.

“Perhaps it’s time to shake the dust off your feet, Allison.”

What did I mean? she asked.

“Some people are just not open to God. Jesus himself told his apostles that if someone doesn’t listen to your words, then you should shake the dust from your feet as you leave that house (Matt. 10:14). He meant that there is a time to move on and stop evangelizing.”

“But Christina is my friend! How could I let her reject the Faith?”

I understood Allison’s pain, and my advice did seem to go against one’s natural instincts. But it was well in keeping with what our Lord asks of us as his disciples.

Continue reading at Catholic Blockchain…

The post When It’s Time to Stop Evangelizing appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Catholics and Cryptocurrencies: When Opposites Attract

Eric Sammons — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 13:05:29 +0000

I’ve been involved with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for almost five years now. In that time I’ve noticed among Catholics a hesitation to embrace this new technology.

Some of that hesitation comes from ignorance or misinformation. For example, many Catholics believe that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are simply tools for criminals and terrorists, even though, like all money, they are used for both moral and immoral purposes.

But I also think some hesitation comes from the very nature of cryptocurrencies themselves. In essence, these new technologies seem anarchic while the Catholic Church is the opposite: it’s a centralized, strictly governed institution. How can someone support both at the same time?

The post Catholics and Cryptocurrencies: When Opposites Attract appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Decline of Ecclesia: A Parable

Eric Sammons — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 13:52:45 +0000

“It’s no good, calling the police,” I explained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Situational Evangelization

Eric Sammons — Thu, 24 May 2018 17:21:53 +0000

A few months ago I wrote of the emphasis many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, give to “having a relationship with Jesus.” My point was that overemphasizing one aspect of Christian discipleship to the neglect of other important aspects can lead to a warped view of Jesus. We can end up seeing Christ more as a buddy than as the Lord of the Universe.

This overemphasis can also have a detrimental impact on our evangelization efforts. Why? In the Protestant world, having a relationship with Jesus is often the end-all, be-all of Christian evangelization. Once someone has committed to this relationship, the thinking goes, the work of evangelization is over. Some Catholics have also embraced this form of evangelization. In homilies, talks, and conversations, they are laser-focused on the importance of relationship above all else.

Now, to be clear, it is important to have a relationship with Christ. And it’s an important aspect of evangelization to urge people to begin and to foster such a relationship. But it’s not the only aspect of evangelization, and often it’s less important than many other aspects. Like a basketball player who drives only to his left, we’ve let “have a relationship with Jesus” become our one go-to move. But in many situations, a different emphasis could be much more effective.

Every person is unique in his desires, personal history, and culture. What’s appealing to one person might be distasteful to another. That’s why there can never be just one way to evangelize. How to evangelize always depends on many factors, such as the specific person being evangelized and his current life situation, or the relationship you have with the person. An overarching insistence on the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus ignores those nuances. But recognizing personal nuances is often what makes evangelization successful.

The post Situational Evangelization appeared first on Eric Sammons.

Noisy Children at Mass: How to Train for Reverence (and Why)

Eric Sammons — Fri, 18 May 2018 17:33:11 +0000

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.

In Defense of Altar Boys

Eric Sammons — Fri, 11 May 2018 16:54:11 +0000

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.

In Defense of the All-Boys Club

Eric Sammons — Fri, 04 May 2018 19:12:06 +0000

This week the Boy Scouts of America decided that they are no more. Well, the organization will still exist, but now it will be called “Scouts BSA.” The stated reason for the change is that girls will soon be joining the ranks of the organization, so “Boy Scouts” isn’t an inclusive name.

Such a move isn’t really surprising. For decades our cultural elites have worked to downplay, or even eliminate, any difference between boys and girls (and men and women). Even the simple suggestion that boys be allowed to do something that girls are not is met with howls of protest (although such protests are mostly non-existent when girls are allowed to do something without boys). It’s a foundational doctrine of our secular culture: there is no difference, nor even any distinction, between boys and girls.

(Note to those who argue that the Scouts will keep separate their boy and girl troops. Anyone who has paid attention to our culture knows this is a temporary stop on the way to completely co-ed scouting. A friend of mine noted the likely progression: soon smaller troops will become coed because it’s more convenient and Scouts BSA will turn a blind eye. Then Scouts BSA will allow troops to be coed at their own discretion. Then it will mandate coed troops if anyone asks for it. Finally, all troops will be coed.)

However, there’s a real need to allow boys to have separate all-boy groups in their lives. The push to include girls in every all-boy activity leads to boys who don’t understand what it means to be a man.

Why do boys need programs just for boys? For many reasons, but I’ll discuss four here: (1) boys are different from girls; (2) the difference between boys and girls impacts their participation in organizations; (3) boys need social cues from other boys and men to develop properly; and (4) boys act differently when girls are around.

Boys Are Different from Girls (Gasp!)

Although it’s considered controversial today, it’s a biological and sociological fact that boys are different than girls. For example, they have greater physical strength and are more aggressive. These are differences to be celebrated, not ignored or even denigrated. How often do we see Hollywood movies in which an almost-anorexic woman (*cough* Scarlett Johansson *cough*) can beat up scores of highly-trained, bulked-up soldiers? This is simply fantasy-land. It doesn’t happen. Sure, some women are stronger than some men. But if you take the strongest men in the world and the strongest women in the world, there is no competition when it comes to physical strength.

The differences go beyond the merely physical. Men, in general, have different ways of relating than women. We have different interests. Just look at the average town in America: more boys are interested in youth sports than girls. Even after the huge push to have girls participate in organized youth sports, only 52% do, compared to 66% of boys (source). None of this is to say, of course, that boys are better than girls. They are simply different. Trying to make them the same is fighting against nature. The very fact that they are different makes it clear that they have separate needs, which often requires separate groups and organizations.

Outshining the Boys

The differences between boys and girls play out clearly in organized groups for youth. Girls naturally excel in ways that organizations value. For example, they are quicker to develop organizational skills and they are typically more responsible at a younger age. Because of these traits they quickly outshine boys in group activities. They become the leaders of the group, and the ones most quickly praised by the adult leaders. This has the effect of pushing out the lower-end boys; they become forgotten and become at risk because they have no organized groups to give them structure.

Of course girls should have opportunities to shine. But so should boys. And young boys shine in different ways than young girls. This is clear in most school settings. Traits that are common—and natural—in boys such as aggressiveness, intensity, and physical acumen are seen as roadblocks to school success. Instead of learning to control those traits and put them to good use, boys are taught that they are bad…because look at Sally who sits so quietly in class.

The Need for Social Cues

Child development is a complex science, one that no one has mastered. But simple common sense tells us that boys need other boys in their lives to learn how to act like a boy, and girls need other girls to learn how to act like a girl. All-boy groups allow boys to pick up on the social cues of what it means to act like a man. They learn what healthy masculinity is.

It’s a known phenomenon that many men who have homosexual tendencies did not have solid male role models in their lives. During the time that they needed to develop their masculinity, something—or someone—cut it short. Their interest in learning about other boys when they are young boys—a completely natural interest—was denied. If this interest is continually denied, then it can develop into an unhealthy, sexualized interest. Obviously, there are many factors involved, but studies have shown that for those who do develop homosexual tendencies, the lack of male companionship at a young age is a major factor. (For a more detailed look at this phenomenon, please see “Same-Sex Attractions as a Symptom of a Broken Heart: Psychological Science Deepens Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity” by Timothy G. Lock, Ph.D. in Living the Truth in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex Attraction.)

In the Presence of Girls

Boys also act differently when in the presence of girls. In many ways, the presence of women is a good thing, for it tends to civilize men. But young boys need to have times separate from girls to explore their masculine traits. They need to feel free to wrestle and compete and argue with other boys. And yes, even hit another boy in certain circumstances. And they need to understand that they should never, ever hit or wrestle with a girl. How they treat girls should be different from how they treat boys. But if they are always in a co-ed situation, they will never learn what it means to be a man.

A number of years ago I would regularly play pickup basketball with some co-workers. Usually it was just men who played, but sometimes a woman from our office would join us. The dynamic of the game immediately and dramatically changed. The game became less rough, the trash talk diminished, and the competitiveness lessened. No one did this “on purpose” nor was anyone doing this in some effort to demean the woman. In fact, just the opposite. We knew, perhaps subconsciously, that you act differently around women than around men. But in this situation, it made the activity less, well, masculine.

By forcing the suppression of a boy’s masculine traits, we are suppressing a boy’s natural inclination to aggressively protect and fight for what’s right. We suppress their ability to develop those traits for when they truly need them—not in a basketball game, but when defending their family’s honor or standing up for the truth. By getting rid of all-boys clubs we turn boys into the emasculated men that dominate our culture today.

So even if a group is teaching lessons that are applicable to both boys and girls, there is a need for some single-sex groups so that each sex learns the unspoken lessons they need to know. (If you want to read about the beauty of true feminine strength, read this article by my wife.)

Beautiful, but Not the Same

The Boy Scout decision to change its name is just a symptom of a larger problem. Unfortunately, the battle to make men and women perceived as the same has been largely successful. Most people today think it sexist to even suggest that there are real differences. God made both men and women beautiful and in the image of God, but he did not make them the same. We should celebrate those differences, not alter our institutions to ignore and destroy those distinctions.

Next week, I’ll examine a specific case study of making an all-boys institution co-ed: altar servers at Catholic Mass.

The post In Defense of the All-Boys Club appeared first on Eric Sammons.

The Five Circles of Evangelization

Eric Sammons — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 16:13:36 +0000

In my quarter-century of Catholic evangelization efforts, I’ve been asked many questions. But one of the most common is:

“Do you have a system for evangelization I can follow?”

I can understand the intention behind this question. A lot of Catholics want to spread the Faith, but they don’t know where to start. So they want a program they can follow that will result in conversions.

Well, I have bad news and good news. First, the bad news: there is no guaranteed conversion-making system.

Evangelization isn’t marketing. A successful company might have a system that can turn the most timid person into the quarterly sales champion. But such a system doesn’t exist for evangelization. I should know; I tried to use a system when I was in college.

As a freshman—and before my conversion to Catholicism—I was a member of the Protestant group Campus Crusade for Christ (now called “Cru”). It taught an evangelization system with a script, a booklet to hand out, and detailed directions for how to share our faith with others. As someone committed to evangelization, I was excited to find this system and eager to try it out.

Fast forward just a few months: I now hated evangelization. It seemed so forced; so, well, scripted. Even when I was “successful,” which was rare, I essentially just got someone to say a prayer and then I never encountered him again. But usually I failed completely, and I felt bad for the people I was pestering. I soured on the whole idea of evangelization.

Fortunately, I came to realize that this wasn’t really evangelization; it was Christian cold-calling. When I later studied the history of the rise of Christianity, I found that the Faith didn’t primarily grow because of a specific system of evangelization, but instead because of the Christian multitudes naturally sharing and living their faith with those around them.

And that’s the good news: there is a proven way to evangelize. It isn’t flashy, but it can work. It usually doesn’t produce instant results, but can produce lasting ones. I call it the Circles of Evangelization.