Paul Zummo is one of the sanest men on the internet.

And because that is the most back-handed of compliments, let me re-phrase:

Paul is one of the smartest, most-grounded and sanest men around. Period.

Click on the above to read a polite defenestration of anti-anti-abortion sophistry.  

Last's morphing into a hack is nothing short of tragic. While I usually have little use for Friedrich Nietzsche, the age of Trump offers ample confirmation for the German philosopher's warning about fighting monsters and gazing into the abyss. 

Some of Trump's critics have revealed themselves to be mere mercenary grifters happy to mouth any political ad copy for pay.

Far worse are others who maimed their integrity. Last appears to be the latter, to my sorrow. I profited from reading him. What did I miss in his previous writing that could have signaled what he is doing now?

[And, yes, the same applies to those who have prostituted themselves to support Trump. But the principled anti-Trump Mr. Zummo isn't talking about that now. If you want some of that, go here. Speaking of which, I am about to throw up with the Catholic fawning over MTG. Get a grip. Your integrity needs it.]

 

Simcha Fisher on the slog of the daily Rosary.

"The slog" is my term, but her experience sounds very familiar.

Despite these past failures, we have returned once again to this old practice of walking through the events of the life of Jesus of Mary, one bead at a time, a verse or two of scripture per prayer, just one decade a night, because that’s what’s sustainable. As with so many other things in my life these days, I’ve arrived at a possible workable solution by failing at everything else. The plan is just to respectfully witness what happened. Just speak the words if it’s my turn to lead, and listen if it’s not, and just be a witness.

What I’ve found is that the extreme familiarity is not a bad thing, any more than it’s a bad thing to be extremely familiar with the events and memories of my own life. In fact, that’s kind of the point: The mysteries of the rosary ought to be very close to our hearts, very familiar, very well-known. They ought to live with us. We do a different mystery each night, so it’s not the exact same prayers every night. The kids take turns leading, so there’s some variation there. There’s enough variety that you have to pay some attention, so we avoid the rocket prayer effect. But basically, it’s nothing new. And that’s a good thing.

* * *

But I don’t think it’s necessary or helpful to try to torment ourselves into some kind of jarring insight or ecstasy every single time we approach the mysteries of the rosary. Spiritual novelty, it turns out,  is overrated, and probably has to do more with spiritual vanity than with a genuine thirst for holiness. Sometimes it’s more important to sit right where you are and just accept what God has given us, even if it’s just the same old same old. Especially if it’s the same old same old. (It’s called “humility.” Look it up, sweaty.)

My Much Better Half and I have been reciting a daily rosary for more than a year now.

Spiritual insights occur, and this long-out-of-print classic is a very worthwhile companion.

The Presentation in the Temple, featuring one of my favorite New Testament figures, Simeon, is one which holds my focus better than most.

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word.
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
To be a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of thy people Israel.

Faith rewarded, at the very end, right before the Short Darkness falls: it never fails to move me. 

Honestly, though, recitation is often a drill we push ourselves through. And I have come to the conclusion that that is not a bad thing. Love is at least to some extent an act of will: we have to act, and sometimes our heart is not entirely in it. Feelings are far from infallible guides to what love is, let alone to what love may ask of us.

I like to think it has made me a better pray-er, praying more for than against. I also liken it to a kind of spiritual training. As with any other form of training, it is a process with ups and downs--and frequently no obvious results. But with God as the trainer, He will be the judge of progress.

The Perils of Digital Pastoring.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is a good-hearted man.

But he has a tic about verbally positioning himself in the middle between "extremes" in the Church that has worn out its welcome. "Here I stand, right here in the median. Mainstream as all get out, unlike the radicals at either end." 

And it's all right here in this piece about the motu propriu, with jabs at schismatic trads and..."Sister Sandals and Father Fabulous."

Houston, we have huge cringe here.

At least he is starting to admit that he doesn't understand traditionalists. He also has no interest in trying to do so in depth. 

Which--and I mean this with absolute sincerety--is fine. He's a parish pastor with a full plate and has to tend to his flock first. Theological disputations involving people you do not shepherd should not be a priority.

Yet, that hobbles attempts to communicate with them. Indeed, that surface-level understanding stands out in sharp relief in his commentary:

"Oh, well. The TLM's gone now. 

Naught for it. There's some folks 'tootling' off to the Eastern Rites, or others off to schism. Sad.

But did you know can celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin? With chant and fancy chasubles, too?"

. . .

[Exhausted sigh.]

 To which I reply:

"A Novus Ordo...in Latin? There was one parish on my archdiocese of 1.5 million Catholics that offered such in my 22 years as a Catholic. 

More damning yet: the number of times I have heard the very ancient and very much very optional Roman Canon in the NO in that same time frame in Masses across the United States does not reach the mid-two figures.

And on what planet is a parish in a diocese that just snuffed the TLM because the pontiff said traditionalists are nasty rebellious division-mongers going to cater to said bad people by incorporating "outdated" worship elements congenial to them? 

No one wants to be on the bad side of a Merciful® bishop. Least of all his priests.

And that's assuming you don't trigger the spiritual allergies of older Catholics who hated everything before Vatican II and are also strengthened by the pontifical pronunciamentos. 

Said laity are one of the main reasons you do not see Latin NOs.

Or chant.

Or fiddlebacks.

Abstraction smashes into reality with predictable results."

Not all problems can be solved by claiming there's a compromise in the middle. Especially when one party has the whip hand and has just blooded the other's face with it.

Surely this has happened to you...

You find yourself reading someone whose judgment you used to respect very highly and then it hits you:

"How dumb was I?"

It may even be happening to you right this second....

Lord knows I've worn out my welcome with some over time.

But it hit me reading someone from my neck of the woods just a few minutes ago. I was going to do a post responding to the piece. But I realized that the writer was making the kind of arguments--and in the same style--that I used to eat up with a shovel.

And the arguments were either deliberately disingenuous or were the product of the inability to do a thoughtful analysis. Frankly, the former is not only uncharitable, it is unlikely. 

The reality is, the writer is a bulldog spiritual partisan who operates from presuppositions that are impervious to contrary evidence. And that renders the analysis persuasive only to the already-persuaded from the get-go. The more I think it over, it has ever been thus. 

And my reactions to it, then and now, say more about me than it does about the writer. 

Then there's the possibility: maybe I was right then and wrong now? I truly don't think so, but time may tell.

And on that quasi-Montaigne-ish bit of pacing-about-the-room analysis, I will draw this post to a close.

Thought of the day.

You can't 'speak truth to power' when you have enlisted with the powers that be.

In better blogging news...

Greg Krehbiel is still blogging. Has been throughout this annus horribilis, in fact. 

Take a look here.

Tips of the Blogging Cap.

For those of you looking for more interesting sites to visit, I am happy to offer two.

First is Tito Edwards' Big Pulpit, a Catholic blog/article aggregator that is "Just the links, ma'am."

It is nice to have an aggregator site that doesn't try to editorialize, which makes Tito's work invaluable. Yes, he links to my stuff often, explaining surging tides of viewers. And for that I am grateful--but I recommend it regardless.

The second is the return of Saint Corbinian's Bear, and our ursine lawyer guide is as steady as ever. Right now, he's explaining why modernists win, and it's worth your time.

One of St. Blog's most reasonable--and durable--scribes is now a published author.

Brendan Hodge is officially a novelist, with If You Can Get It debuting in the Ignatius Press catalog.

And he was interviewed yesterday in a podcast from Ignatius, so go check it out here. 

And then order the book--like I will be doing, after my next payday. 

About the sidebar links.

Yes, I am aware that many of them are outdated, linking to blogs that no longer exist, have been made private or long ago went dormant.

I used to purge dead blog links.

But now, I do not. 

It's probably sentimentalism, but honestly I can't bear to delete them. They are a reminder of what was and the chronicler in me thinks there should be some memorial to the vanished writers. 

The old blog world--Catholic and otherwise--had its share of problems. But it also had its good points. And compared to the social media platforms which have mostly supplanted it, it was civil and relatively decent.

Which is something I could not have imagined myself saying during the blog flame wars of the first decade of this benighted century. But it is, sadly, quite true.

To absent friends.

Back in the old days, we had this thing called "blog-rolling."

For those unfamiliar with this older form of social media--which it is--there were and are certain conventions to be observed.

One of those conventions is the hat-tip to people from whom you obtain content, firing back a link for the info. Another is "blog-rolling," wherein you salute people who are just superior content providers.

[These customs are another reason why blogging is a much more civilized form of social media, youngsters.]

Anyway, this is going to be an exercise in blog-rolling.

I have been gone for years, but others have kept making this medium valuable.

One foundational Catholic blogger who has never stopped producing quality content is Amy Welborn. And if you haven't read her essay about "Church Life in the Post-Pandemic World," stop reading this post and read that now.

She remains on a tear, with high-quality commentary on "peak misogyny" and beginning a two-parter on the question of race in American Catholic history.

My good friend Christopher Johnson, after a technical-difficulties hiatus, is back to providing daily hits on issues of the day, religious and secular. He made me look cool in detective fiction, so you know he has the chops. Click daily.

Finally, the American Catholic group blog has never lost a step, either.

Now, here's the part where I say that linkage to a blog does not imply endorsement of every thing that appears there--especially in the comments. But when such occur, my disagreements can be politely stated at all of those places and the responses are never the electronic equivalent of a beat-down.

There's something to be said for still being able to have a meaningful conversation that doesn't end in forced agreement or denunciation.

There's something purported to be a rebuttal of the 1P5 piece out there.

I'd never heard of the blog in question before, and I'm not going to give it oxygen by linking to it. However, it's a pastiche of frenzied material taken out of context (oh, the irony!) using "WAR IS DECLARED" sized font which predictably flounces off in a snit at the end. Oh, and he first shrills at the far more estimable (not to mention reasonable) Carl Olson's more measured criticism.

Here's the summary of the...effort: 

LEAVE FRANCIS ALONE, HATERZ!

No, really--that's the intellectual integrity of it in a nutshell. Unable to rebut facts, he tries to punch up. For me, the only part that merits a response is where the fraud in question accuses me of suggesting that the pope should be subjected to violence.

Yes, seriously. 

My response? I'll let Tommy Lee Jones answer for me.

And so it's up.

Fair warning: the OnePeterFive piece regarding the current pontificate contains sweeping and judgmental quotes, observations and one-sided anecdotes--and some of my commentary is likewise. 

All the pictures save the first are from yours truly.

More seriously--yes, it is a polemical take. And? If you're interested in arguing the facts, or offering rebuttal facts, fire away. If you're interested in being my spiritual director, I'll pass.

The interpretive key to the piece is the word "convert."

To my knowledge, no one in the house has seen "Zardoz."

Least of all Tommy. But right now, our...inventive four year old is pulling up his red pajama shorts really high, sticking his arms through the leg holes, turning it into a loincloth with sleeves. 

Pretty much this, yes.

Anyway, here's the Internet Movie Database entry for the 1974 John Boorman film, which somehow did not get an Oscar for Best Costume Design.

[Update: Commenter Xena Catolica alerts us to the fact that the B-Movie Catechism site did a review of Zardoz. Well worth a read.]

Slam-dunk prediction.

Just "initiating a process."

"Discernment" and "accompaniment" will be the new ecclesial buzzwords, joining such revered warhorses as "dialogue" and "pastoral."

As with the older saws, both will be synonyms for "negligence," "enabling" and/or "tacit approval."

Meanwhile, Ches helps you understand why the "famous victory" is no such thing, and why changing the language always results in changing the meaning.

All translation is a mediation, not only between two languages but between the two cultures that produce those languages. And both linguistic and cultural mediation open up the eventuality that the source text will not be faithfully translated. That is because fidelity to the source battles against adequacy for the target at every turn. Some "archaic or simply incomprehensible" language (to quote Pope Francis) just cannot be translated - like 'Trinity' or 'Transubstantiation'. But what would I know, being nothing other than a phylacteried lackey?

Since I appear to be "for reals" about blogging again...

  

It appears I really need to update the blogroll, for starters. Several are, alas, dead links.

But also, I'm curious about any recommendations you might have. 

The best thing you will read on Ebola this year.

Calah Alexander questions why we should trust the experts when they've been so consistently wrong in their prognostications.

The problem is, the “science” behind Ebola has been shifting almost as fast as the virus itself is spreading in Africa. First it was extremely unlikely that we would see Ebola in America, then it wasn’t. First it was very difficult to transmit from person to person, then it wasn’t. First any hospital in the country could safely handle Ebola, then they couldn’t. First it couldn’t be spread through droplets, then it could. Is it any wonder that the unwashed masses are having a hard time believing that it can’t be spread without symptoms? What if next week, it can?

This crisis is one of confidence in leadership. And on that point, we've been horribly served by those who have been more interested in public relations than honestly dealing with the public. Read it all.

The Law of Contradiction

The usually-solid Dr. Jeffrey Mirus wrote something of a shocker last week, asserting that the Kasper proposal was a mere matter of sacramental discipline surrounding the Eucharist and did not implicate doctrine.

It was the essence of the Kasper Proposal to request a consideration of precisely this possibility. In other words, the Kasper Proposal was not intrinsically unorthodox. Proponents of that proposal are not (for that reason) heretics, and could have positive reasons for examining the issue. If Pope Francis wanted the proposal seriously considered, this does not call his personal orthodoxy into question.

But clearly other factors affect sacramental discipline as well, such as the possibility of scandal, which is closely tied to the public nature of certain sins—not least sins against marriage, which is by its very nature a public institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Church. Moreover, the Church, in her pastoral wisdom, ought to employ sacramental disciplines which tend to support rather than undermine the truths of the Faith, even though pastoral results cannot be perfectly predicted or measured. On this point, the Church’s persistent refusal in earlier periods to justify a change in this particular discipline, while it may not be conclusive in new circumstances, is immensely cautionary.

Thus, while it was not theoretically impossible for the Kasper Proposal to be implemented in some form, it was ultimately rejected at the Synod because the assembled bishops could not see how anything like it could be used without seriously undermining Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. In other words, the bishops as a body concluded that the proposed cure would worsen the disease.

Emphasis in original.

He followed it up with a thoughtful scenario explaining why he thought it wouldn't be heretical. I like his writing, and appreciate his carefulness and charity. However, the follow-up fails remedy the problems with his initial argument.

The problem with this is twofold. First, the Kasper proposal isn't dead--a majority of bishops were willing to discuss it, and all rejected paragraphs were included in the issued Synodal document for continued "discussion purposes." If anything, its proponents sound reassured. The well-heeled (if parishioner-impaired) church in Germany and its influential sympathizers will be sure to keep the pressure up over the next year.

The second is more substantive--namely, it will not do to simply describe something as "disciplinary" as though that disposes of the matter. All sacraments are subject to the strictures of and disciplinary functions of canon law.  Moreover, at least some sacramental discipline is doctrinal in scope. 

For example, canon law restrict holy orders to baptized males. Can it be said to be merely "disciplinary" to require candidates for orders to be baptized? Can this be dispensed with as a "disciplinary" gatekeeper function because of new circumstances? After all, baptism of desire has had considerable development over the years. Could actual sacramental baptism be unnecessary, then?

I cannot see any way this could be so. Baptism is central to the Christian life, so much so that rare indeed is the Christian offshoot that does not mandate it. The Church has always required that candidates for orders be given water baptism. Christ's explicit commandment would seem to lack loopholes in that regard.

To argue otherwise is to negate the notion of the ordained as, inter alia, an alter Christus, one baptized as Christ was baptized. Such a change would also reverberate, in a profoundly negative way, across the Church's understanding of the Eucharist, and what it means to be united as the Body of Christ. Thus, any removal the baptismal requirement would fundamentally alter the understanding of Holy Orders, and calling it a mere discipline would not change this.

Likewise, Christ commanded that there be no remarriage after a divorce, going so far as to call it adultery. Thus, the Church has followed the Master's direction and held that marriage is indissoluble, prohibiting remarriage after a civil divorce.

And yet, we have a proposal, described as "disciplinary" or "pastoral," which would permit those who have remarried after a civil divorce to receive the Eucharist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to be given the Body and Blood of Christ which seals our unity with Him and signifies our willingness to accept what He taught and to try to conform our lives to Him.

In other words, you would have Christ's doctrinal teaching on marriage existing right alongside its negation, both in full communion, judged to be equal in the eyes of the Church.

The Church would be contradicting herself. Full stop. This is old-school Aristotelian/Thomistic logic at work. The bottom line is that it is doctrinal, no matter how carefully packaged it might be in the soothing language of  "discipline" or "pastoral solution," and it would be recognized as such. I am not suggesting that Dr. Mirus is playing games here--he is sincerely wrestling with a hard case. But for me, it's hard to see how explicitly contradicting Christ could be seen in any other way. It is dubious to restrict it to a matter of "discipline," and to do so opens the gates, as Cardinal George correctly notes:

Pastoral practice, of course, must also reflect doctrinal conviction. It is not “merciful” to tell people lies, as if the church had authority to give anyone permission to ignore God’s law. If the parties to a sacramental marriage are both alive, then what Christ did in uniting them cannot be undone, unless a bishop thinks he is Lord of the universe. The difficulty of giving communion to parties in a non-sacramental marriage doesn’t stem from their having sinned by entering into a non-sacramental union. Like any sin, that can be forgiven. 

The difficulty comes from avoiding the consequences of living in such a union. It is foolish to believe that a publicly approved although “restricted” exception to the “discipline” around the sacrament will remain “restricted” very long. When speaking of acting “pastorally,” a bishop has to ask what is good for the entire church, not just what might be helpful to an individual couple. How the entire pastoral conversation around marriage will change with a change of “discipline” is a question that must be answered before making any other decision.

New Blog News!

[Update, 8/4/14: I will not be writing for the venture after all. I told Steve that since he wanted Catholics writing for it, I really didn't qualify any more. I wish the site the very best, however.]


I have been invited by the founder of OnePeterFive to contribute some content to this interesting new venture. As the placeholder page states:

We thought it was time to bring something new to the discussion. Catholic content aimed at weathering the storm facing the Church, restoring our understanding and sense of tradition, and rebuilding Catholic culture.

Catholics these days are facing tough challenges. From religious liberty to contraception to liturgy, we're faced with a lot of competing voices telling us what we should and shouldn't believe; what we should and shouldn't do. It's harder and harder to know what someone means when they say, "I'm Catholic."

Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently said that we've entered the "fourth great crisis in the Church." We're not going to get through it alone. We need to work together.

That's why we're here. We're looking forward to bringing you the best Catholic content on the web from some of the best and brightest Catholics commentators in the world today.

I've decided to focus on book reviews--but there's going to be content that runs the gamut, including about pop culture.

For those unfamiliar with the scriptural reference, here is 1 Pet. 5:1-11:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.  Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,  not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.  And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.  Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”


 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.  Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you.  Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.  Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world.  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.  To him be the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

See you there!

As the wind builds to a gale.

Ches offers some sage spiritual advice, suggesting St. Francis' example. If nothing else, he certainly captures the mood:

 So, what is the relevance of all this? Only that I sense that so many of my readers are probably feeling a little like Theoden at the moment. Hardly a week goes by currently without yet another crazy papal phone call, yet another nutty cardinal promising more madness, and yet another kick in the teeth for simple people of faith. I read today of the suppression of Protect the Pope by the Bishop of Lancaster. Paradoxically, the news arrives twenty-four hours after we read of the rehabilitation of Fr Sean Fagan, a priest whose views were so embarrassingly unCatholic his order bought up remaining copies of his nastiest book. The medicine of mercy would appear to be available but not for the likes of Deacon Nick Donnelly. How did it come to this?

The Fagan release would have been unremarkable had it come with a recanting of his errors. I mean, it was just five years ago that he was deriding and dismissing church teaching. Apparently, "mercy," too, means never having to say you're sorry. 

St. Francis is never a bad example, but I'm not sure the times are analogous. Francis (and Luther, whom Ches also discusses) faced venial clerical corruption, not an attempted revolution from above. Don't get me wrong--I think proposals like Kasper's are objectively-corrupt attempts to reach a concordat with debauched modernity, to hell with the consequences. You can assign him points for good intentions if you like, but recall:

My point is not to deride his advice--it is excellent--but rather to suggest that medieval/Renaissance analogues don't quite fit. The one that does fit best is the post-1965 hurricane, which much of our leadership seems to want to reboot. (And I thought we were going to get a reform of the curia--oops.) I don't think we've canonized anyone yet who offered a counter-example to the clerical ineptitude (and worse) of that era. Nor are we likely to, either, as long as nostalgia for that time of discord and confusion remains strong. 

But I think seeking out a Saint and emulating the way he or she imaged Christ is a good idea. 

As is having him or her help you batten down the hatches before the red-and-black square flag goes up. 

Just because I don't post Catholic commentary these days...

...doesn't mean I can't refer to other people's.

1. Steve Skojec ruminates on the apocalyptic. And offers some solid advice on prayerful responses. The latter seems especially fruitful, and worth pondering. God knows my own prayer life is best described as "undead" these days. Read both.

With respect to the former, I don't have much to offer. It strikes me as moderate, thoughtful and speculative, with Steve freely admitting the latter.

My only thought is it seems to be in the cultural air, so to speak--"it" being apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic thinking. From people spending hefty sums on the latest survivalist "cottage" to shows about "preppers" to hotcake-sales of young adult fiction (Hunger Games, Divergent, The 100), a discordant chord is chiming through our society right now. We sense that something is really wrong, even as we try to distract ourselves from facing it. Mostly successfully, if not entirely so.

I'm the least capable prognosticator you've ever run across, so I'm not going to begin to speculate, at least not in the religious realm (my exegetical skills being even less trustworthy at this point). To the extent I will venture out on a limb, I am reasonably certain we're past the point of no return, fiscally-speaking. We're an interest rate spike from being unable to service our debt. Not a new dark age, but more of a slow-mo tumbledown, with the related corrosive impacts on the social fabric. Zero-sum gaming begins once the money runs out. That, and the scapegoating. Our progeny will have ample reason to resent us, and wonder why we wasted so much time on bullshit and reality-avoidance.

2. Elliot serves up some weapons-grade snark at Catholic quietism, but there's a deadly serious argument wrapped up in it. Namely, in our post-conciliar age, with its mashup of collegiality and soft ultramontanism, Catholicism is no more than what the Pope and/or your bishop say it is.

Given the irresistible and undeniable power of the episcopacy to do whatever they want with the traditions, disciplines, and “style” of the Church at any time in history, why should I bother clinging to those features from any age in the Church’s life, as if such pesky particulars mattered? The Faith is the thing, the Creed is the thing, the Mass is the thing–not how it’s lived, expressed, or celebrated. What am I, more Catholic than the pope?

Admittedly, this quietist position does not help me resolve the tension created by seeking above all to “empower the laity” in the past half-century or more, but, again, I am a mere worm, and the Church certainly doesn’t need my input. The key to Catholic happiness, apparently, is more than “pay, pray, and obey.” The key to happiness in the Church in our day is not simply to submit, not simply to commit all things to the Lord, but, rather, actively to flout one’s sense of tradition and prudence in order to defend and valorize and “internalize” every aspect of the status quo. Resignation is not enough; celebration is the sign of a Serious Catholic. After all, didn’t Luther criticize the hierarchy and various abuses, and we know how that turned out? The key to happiness in the Church now is to breathe deeply and unflinchingly from the exhaust pipe of the New Evangelization as the hierarchy drives the Catholic Cadillac where God knows it must go. Woe to the man who would lay a finger on God’s anointed one. Just ask St. Athanasius. 

Which is, I think, a--if not the--root of my discontent.

By the way, I recognize the following sorta violates my no-commentary rule, but permit me to answer a question/charge posed to/thrown at me before. Namely, if I fall away, it won't be to sojourn to the weird, illogical faerie realm of sedevacantism, nor to the anomalous-status Society, whose position doesn't really compute, even where I sympathize with layfolk who have gone that route. That, and the repulsive Jew-hatred that permeates some sectors of trad-dom also finds fertile enough soil in both places.

Nor does Orthodoxy persuade--despite my incurable love of things Byzantine. I'll just be...gone, I guess. So much for my earlier bravado.

Such are the twists and turns of life. Your prayers continue to be welcome.