When Promiscuity is Your Sacrament, and You're Terrified of Normalcy

I guess it's to be expected that those omalophobic souls who make a cult of despising virtue, or chastity, or even such a bourgeois habit as commitment, would be screaming on Those Interwebs about that strange, evil guy who, you know, does strange, evil things and set himself strange, evil rules of conduct, because he has these strange, evil notions about a strange, evil institution called marriage, and has this strange, evil superstition that there's such a thing as temptation, and he loves his strange, evil wife enough that he wants to avoid both it and the chance of giving people who delight in that sort of thing excuses to gossip, (not that the previously mentioned omalophobia sufferers have any particular affinity for dishing...)

Do you REALLY see in another person's fidelity or continence an inherent reproach to the way you've chosen to live your life?
Are ya maybe... projecting?

I wonder if there's the odd chance that any of such screamers read today's lectionary?

The wicked said among themselves, thinking not aright:"Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;he sets himself against our doings,Reproaches us for transgressions of the lawand charges us with violations of our training.He professes to have knowledge of Godand styles himself a child of the LORD.To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,Because his life is not like that of others,and different are his ways.He judges us debased;he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.

“When people approach the Church, we must offer them beauty"

Let the Church say "Amen!"
Good article in the National Catholic Register about the foundation of Silverstream Priory in Co. Meath, Ireland.
Dom Mark Kirby is one of the most inspiring people I've ever met at a CMAA Colloquium, which is saying a lot because yearly the gathering takes on the aura of a retreat, and if it's possible for an event to be a "spiritual director," it is surely one.

“Dom Benedict [the other monk with whom Dom Mark founded the community at Silverstream] and I were conscious that, in God’s providence, we were called to rekindle the torch that blazed from the Benedictine abbey of Fore in County Westmeath until its suppression under Henry VIII in 1536.”

Oh, and all this makes it seem like the right time to remind my 3.2 regular readers to vote in Church March Madness.
Though I guess that ought, with a nod to liturgical use, to be "Procession Madness."

The Man Who DOES Kneel Before God (edited)

As I said in another context, it's easy enough to google evidence.... ENOUGH with the calumny and detraction. (Unless you think all these are photoshopped...)

     

I don't know his life, I don't know his knees - and neither, I dare say, do you.

Trying Not To Play "Gotcha!" With the Holy Father

Pope Francis, not sure why, brings out the worst in me.

I know, I already KNOW, headlines are like as not completely deceptive, sometimes flat contradicted by the facts as presented in the article that follows. (Not as big a problem in middle-of-the-road Catholic news outlets, but still...)
And I'm not taking all the blame for this, I think it is a matter of sad confluence that we have at this time a president who thinks in tweets and and a pope who preaches in sound bytes.
Governing well may take more than 140 characters, the Holy Spirit probably doesn't sound like a Hallmark card.
So I see, "Trusting in God means letting go of what we want, Pope says,"and my first thought is, Oh, really? than why do you seem to be getting all bent out of shape when thwarted by Synods, Knights, and Catholics who feel a connection with previous centuries of Catholicism?
And now on top of this, I'm wondering, why is it all right to say, “this is my opinion: women are more courageous than men.”
Are positive generalizations not just as sexist/racist/whateverist as negative ones?
You might, in this PC world, barely get away with, “this is my opinion: men are less courageous than women,” just barely, but there'd be some sniffing, although it means more of less the same thing.
But yeah, you'd get away with it.
Because. Privilege.
But could you imagine the outcry if instead, “this is my opinion: women are less courageous than men.”
He might find himself in Origen's shoes. Or other item of clothing.
Oh, and I also know the Law of Projection, by which we are all to be judged in the 21st century, so if this bother me, clearly it is because if it is a fault it is one of which I myself am most grievously guilty.
So, I see an apt Lenten penance suggesting itself, weeks early....

Deplorable and Deplorabler

Poor Fr. Fox.
For saying that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for either the lesser of two evils or abstain from voting, he is ripped by a crazy woman, (who makes her choice quite clear.)

evShe uses a tactic I am seeing more and more, not just from crazy commenters, and careless on-the-fly bloggers and conversationalists at parties, but from actual "journalists," and that is to repeat over and over the accusation that ones target has said something "amounting" to something deplorable, but steadfastly refusing to supply actual quotes, even out of context.
The tactic is used by both sides, of course, the Trumpite right winger against Fr Fox, the liberal Twitter over-lord against a Breitbart gadfly.
Too much reading of Jane Austen, and her free indirect speech!
All I need to do is vaguely describe what I want people to think you said, and damn you for my words, I needn't actually quote you and be honest about it.

You'd think Catholics especially would balk at such dishonesty deception, lies, this method having been used against the Church for.... well, forever.
(Soon to be saint,) Fulton Sheen, anyone?

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

The devil's having a grand old time this election.

Improving My Culinary Skills

Okay, not my skills, just my knowledge.

For the first time in my life I have both the time, the money and the place (wait - "both" is wrong, there are THREE things . I fell as if i am in a Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition. I digress,) to work on versions of foods I've always enjoyed but often have to forgo because most people and/or manufacturers, use substances to which I am allergic in their production.


My knowledge is expanding and so am I.
Other than beans, (Boston Baked,  cassoulet, chilis, hummuses.... 'zat the plural?) and even some bean recipes, all of my projects seem to be high fat, high sugar, or both.
Mayonnaise.
Cream Cake.
Frozen custards.
Caramels.

Life is good.


And Those Intewebs are a treasure for someone leading such a sybaritic life.


I am crazy for this  guy, David Lebovitz  is interesting, helpful, crazy skilled and learned in his field - but WHAT IS WITH HIS WEBSITE?????


My computer hates it, my SIL's tablet hates it, Himself's computer hates it - is it the graphics? is it the ads?


Any way, I'll just have to keep slogging thru.


How I suffer...

Capsule Wardrobes, What the Hell?

It took me a while, but I finally came to tems with Pinterest.
I started out annoyed by looking for recipes, (how am I gonna use up that scrag end of a pork tenderloin and some tomatoes that are going soft and a nectarine? oh, and B won't eat chunks of onion and E is gluten -free this week and R is dieting), thinking I'd found one when what I'd actually found was a link to a link to someone being all chatty and sharing 25 pictures of the process of greasing a pan, and then at the bottom of the page, "click this link for the complete recipe!" where it was with a sales pitch for something.

But okay, I get it, and I eventually signed on.

But now I am inundated with suggestions from my "friends" (apparently, everyone whose email addy I have ever had,) and I swear, 95% of them are about so-called "capsule wardrobes."

DO  YOU  MEAN  TO  TELL  ME  THAT  THERE  ARE  ADULT  WOMEN  WHO  DON'T  KNOW  THAT  THEY  CAN  WEAR  A  WHITE  T-SHIRT  PAIRED  WITH  BLUE  JEANS  AND ALSO  LATER  IN  THE  WEEK  PAIRED WITH  A  BLACK  PENCIL  SKIRT  UNLESS THEY RECEIVE  OUTSIDE,  PERHAPS  PROFESSIONAL (buy this book for only 19.95!)  GUIDANCE???????

Catholic Cultural Currents, and Words

What does it mean to "conserve," to wish to "conserve"?
Could we say that sometimes the opposite of "conservative" is "neglectful" or even "destructive"?
If you disparage others as "scrupulous," are you saying it's better to be "negligent"?
Is the opposite of "nostalgia-hankering" perhaps "novelty-chasing" or "trend-infatuated"?

If you insist on setting yourself apart from those you deride as "pro-life," what does that make you? How would you like to identify yourself, vis a vis your position on "life"?

And what does it say about a Catholic who

When you speak of opinions outsiders may have of the Church, do you say, "They are known for the...." when it is aspects which you condemn or disavow, but ask "What do they say about us now?" (The way in '50s sitcoms when Junior drove Mom crazy she'd ask Dad, "What do you think YOUR son just did?")

Just wondering....
As Santayana said, or at least should have, 

Those who fail to appreciate history are doomed to be embarrassed when they look back on the present.

Austin Ivereigh on "The Letter"

The arguments for allowing abortion under very limited circumstances are precisely the same as for allowing abortion under broad circumstances. Legalising abortion out of compassion for the mother’s pain — which is what motivates Professor Beattie — implies, at once, rendering the unborn life a lesser being. First the law strips it of rights, then it is able to be killed.
Once the law declares that the baby of a woman who has been raped, or a disabled baby, is not a life worth defending or saving, it crosses that threshold.If the law does not declare that life worth living under those circumstances, it cannot logically declare it worth living under other circumstances. A life is recognised as such in law, or it is not.Even without religion to teach us that every life, however conceived, is a reflection of the divine, legally and philosophically this has always been an either-or question.

Nails it.
But Eccles still has the best line.

Herod was pro-life, since he only killed people under 2 years of age.

New Web Browser? I Wanna See You Use "Brave"

Brendan Eich, martyr to free speech thought and victim of the PC Police of Vicimistan, is offering a wb with ad-blocking built-in, that blocks ads -- BY DEFAULT!!!!!!!

It will replace them with other ads, essentially, but as the brave Brendan says, "We need to clean the swimming pool."

Look, I don't expect something for nothing, I don't mind giving information out to enhance an advertiser's chances of showing me something that will capture my attention when I use free content, but he correctly says the internets a mess.
(Well, I guess if he's talking chlorine, to continue the metaphor, it's a cesspool.)

Looking forward to trying it out?

"And then Oedipus and Jocasta, assured by their supporters on social media that '#LoveWins', decided...."

In the great time suck that is Those Interwebs, ostensibly searching for some information about children and catechetics on the super highway, I found myself on a bypass about the irrationality and inconsistency of the current tv and movie rating system, and then went up a dead-end about the size of Cinderella's, (AKA Lilly James',) waist, pulled in to a private driveway and noticed something tantalizing about how to nip in the waist of an oversized button up shirt, had to back up to the intersection where I saw a criticism of children's literature that was not protective of the environment/blended families/the Other among us, and decided to go brew a cup, no, a mug, stadium cup of almond tea.

But while sipping, the thought came that there is a great misapprehension of the purpose of the fairy tale.

We get modern takes, and reboots and re-writes, and outright bannings of fables that fail to impart information in the manner of a user's manual.
We want Common Core nuts and bolts to help make us better worker bees instead of the grandeur and deeper truths of myth, shrunk to childsize for little hands, and pureed for mouths not yet containging any permanent teeth.
Cinderella isn't about women needing men to take care of them but about spousal and familial love being a greater goal and a rarer prize than almost any other in this life, finer than extravagant clothes and grand houses, (and certainly than inherited wealth, or servants to boss about.)

Have we done this with, (more than the occasional movie, such as the nit-wit Troy, and all stories from the Bible, on which there is open season) do we do this to creation tales, and to myth, as well?

Is there a volume of Greek and Roman Myths that functions as an apologia for Jocasta's incest and assures us that no, Time doesn't devour his children? where Narcissus has a learning experience, falls in and, rescued by followers who learn of his plight via Instagram, resolves to limit himself to only a few selfies a day? Does Atalanta not just scoop up the golden fruit but speed past Melanion just the same, magnanimously allow him to live and go off with her best gal pal to a life of lesbian bliss?

Contemplating and Confronting Contradiction, the Triduum, and My Own Unrighteousness

It sometimes seems to Himself that every conversation I have with him contains some form of correction or contradiction.
I know this, because he has said so. (I could counter that I'm not getting credit for all the times he says something patently absurd  or factually wrong, but um... fuel on the fire.)

But it is true that I am a contrarian.

A shameful proportion of all of my impulses to write here, or to tweet, or to retweet, or to post in comboxes are in an effort to "fix" some error, or fantasy, or misapprehension.
(Seriously, what's all the fuss about the Oxford comma, what purpose did it serve there? Use it when it's needed, says I. I digress.)
Showing contempt, carping, complaining, critiquing - this is what I do.

I literally only opened this window because I have some culinary obligation for the coming feast, was about to look for a recipe and was confronted with some absurd assertions regarding substitution of ingredients.

In what universe is cinnamon a suitable replacement for cardamom?????

I see myself, (and it is a fearful prospect,)  turning into my great aunt, who could launch a twenty minute rant on virtually anything.
Really.
I was once trapped in a car with her for a half hour ride home while she riffed on the temerity of whoever ran the concessions at the airport at which she had just been met, to stock his chewing gum rack with the variety of wares with which he had chosen to do so,
Another digression.

I have decided to fast from contradiction, in print, pixel or parley from sundown today, until dawn Sunday.
Please pray for me.
(But until then, Katie bar the door.)

Deconstructing Christianity, Deconstructing Christ

A bit of shock, sadness and sniping at a Catholic Mass intended for those who have virtually no choice in the time or place of their corporate Catholic worship, or of the sensibility of ars celbrandi embodied in that Mass (which makes it all the more troubling, and cruel, when you consider the purpose of such broadcasts,) that makes use of a shocking, sad, and yes, worthy-of-snipe song. (By the way, this sacrilege took place several years ago, there is not reason to believe that those responsible for it, the problematic nature of such programming having been called to their attention, have not been admonished, been instructed, and amended their ways.)

Gaia? really? REALLY? is Gaia our creator, is she our redeemer, is she our advocate? is she the Word, is she homooúsios with the Trinity, which is then, what? ....a "quadrity"?

Patently not - nor is she a saint, not the mother of Jesus, not a member of the hosts of heaven; in brief, not someone who enjoys the beatific vision.

And if she ain't, WHY IN HELL DOES A CATHOLIC MASS CONCLUDE WITH A SONG IN PRAISE OF HER?

Really, if Catholics are going to sing, or listen to encomiums to her, why not address Tartarus at funeral Masses?
Oh, sure, in the bad ol' days it was mentioned as a place, but why not as a sentient being, a primordial being?
And why sing about Tartarus instead of to him? O Tartarus, please don't swallow the souls of the departed?
Or maybe, please don't "absorb" them - we might think of Tartarus as a collective like the Borg!

In the great timesuck that is Those Interwebs, I had to look into the source of the Bad Song that kicked off the discussion.
Unitarian Universalist.
Well, not exactly, she's part of "a loose community of women", (word order is everything,) but she is the composer of "most beloved song" of that sect.
And she is also one the creators of the Water Communion, a ritual with a long tradition - going back all the way to the 1980s!

Due to the nature of Unitarian Universalism, traditions vary from one congregation to another; however, most Water Communions follow the same general idea. Throughout the year, members of the congregation collect small amounts of water that have meaning for them, either from a special location (e.g., the family home, an ocean or river, memento of a trip) or a special occasion (first rain after a dry spell). At the service, the samples of water are placed in a single bowl so they can merge. Some of the water is often saved, sterilized, and then used for ceremonial purposes at other times of the year; the rest is returned to the world.
The symbolism, like that of the comparable Flower Communion, can be interpreted in various ways. The classic life-related symbolism of water is apparent. The rejoining of many waters can also symbolize the rejoining of the congregation after summer travels. McDade and Longview chose this way to honor the "journeys" of women, and to represent the way women both contribute to and draw from each other's strength, working both individually and together, to bring change. 

Mayhaps I am looking at this the wrong way, but the emphasis on women doesn't seem very, well.... inclusive.
But that's just me.
The "flower communion"?
A Unitarian minister, (do they call them "ministers"?)

saw the need to unite the diverse congregants of his church, from varying Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish backgrounds, without alienating those who had left these traditions. For this reason he honored the universal beauty of nature by having a communion of flowers instead of the Eucharist. 

In a religion that believes nothing in particular, don't the rituals mean nothing in particular?
Reading this, I wondered - was the danger of "alienation" from referencing something a congregant formerly had rejected? or formerly believed in?
Flowers are pretty, that something we can all get behind!
How would a former Catholic who had reject the tenets of the Faith react to echos of baptism, with PTSD or warm fuzzies?
But Unitarian practice has many echos of Christianity.
In looking at the "most beloved song," I watched a very well sung and arranged version on the Tube of Youse,  the visuals of which were pretty nature photography and the lyrics.
And then, mirabile dictu, the Corporal Acts of Mercy, (though not so named,) or bits of Matthew 25.
Who do most UUs think Jesus was, do you suppose?
Who spoke those words?
Someone Who spoke profound truth there, but was crazy or lying when He forgave sin, or claimed that "I AM" before Abraham was, or declared that the Father and He were One, or when He promised to send His Spirit?

Why, when they are so ready to humbly accept the transcendence of nature are they not ready to humbly accept the transcendence of God, why so unwilling to embrace their inability to understand the One-in-Three?

That is a common feature of modern man, no? Profound ambivalence about the supernatural.
Oh, we moderns couldn't believe in that, we're too knowledgeable for THAT, as he rejects the hard sayings of religion, (as if an Aquinas, or a Ratzinger, or a Lemaître is a silly, superstitious, uneducated, gullible, slightly dim hick,) and then fill the hole he has created in his his soul with vampires, or the earth, or aliens -- or the idol he has made of his Self.
Jesus - is He the Christ, the Son of God, the Logos? or is he, (note lower case,) just some nice Jewish teacher who died tragically young?
If the latter, why does He have such a hold on those who reject the former, why their continuing fascination, their inability to go their merry way and ignore Him, even, very often, their insistence on defining themselves in relation to Him in that very rejection?

Is a puzzlement.

LIke Christmass, Pi Day Deserves Not Only an Octave, But Perhaps the 12 Day of Pi(e)

Had little time for cooking yesterday, but had what I thought was pie in the freezer, took it out to thaw, opened it 'round about 7:00 pm for an evening snack with a glass of shiraz to wash down my diphenhydramine, and wouldn't you know?
It was breakfast casserole.
No pie for Pi Day, alas!
However, earlier in the day I had come across this, so I may make a hand pie later today.

Jo and Sue's Single Serving Pie Crust:

I think I figured out why I am so in love with single serving recipes.

I had a bit of an epiphany whilst standing in front of my toaster oven.

Remember the Easy-Bake oven?

That's what it's like making these little treats in the toaster oven. Single serving recipes in the toaster oven/microwave/oven are like Easy-Bake treats for adults.

Plus...by making only one little servings you can't eat more than that. I mean...if I bake a whole pie then I can eat a whole pie. Not that I have....noooooooo no no......never. If I only make a mini pie then I can only eat a mini pie - which, as it turns out - is far healthier for me.

Here is the rundown on this tasty little number:

(According to Fitday)

Crust only: Calories - 165, 11.7 fat, 12 carb, 1.8 protein.

Crust and filling: Calories - 199, 11.8 fat, 22 carb, 1.9 protein.

I think I have some strawberries.
You may be skeptical that someone who obviously spends so much time reading the not-strictly-necessary online truly has "little time for cooking."
I have two words for .... how many?....  29 words for you -

Your call is very important to us. Please remain on the line for the next available associate. Calls will be answered in the order in which they were received.

Thank you so much, insurance companies, government, banks... it is very flattering to know that the time of Little Ol' Me is important to the likes of Big O'l You,

Is it my imagination, or are 90% of Jewish girls...

Is it my imagination, or are 90% of Jewish girls on the Interwebs named Shoshana, 90% of the Catholic girls named Shannon, and 90% of the Baptist girls named either Shania or Shaniqua? (I understand the former is  singer, the latter a song.)

What's current in pagan and wiccan circles?
What's the atheist parents' name of choice for girls?

If I were an atheist, I'd name a child "Whatever."

The Enemy of My Enemy's Enemy's Enemy Is My... SQUIRREL!!!! And what in the world is "Sutdugoo"?

I imagine we have all been embarrassed by finding ourselves in agreement with someone whom we find loathsome - or lest you think I am attacking anyone ad hominem, whose ideas, words, opinions, attitudes, or actions we find loathsome.

And of course, the interwebs are just that, a web, a tangle, a great time-sucking morass of claims, counter-claims, self-contradictions - after a bit, of trying to understand the scorecard, I just get distracted.

I'm weak minded that way.

What brought on my present crisis of faith in my own judgement and "alliances" is two-fold. Or maybe three?

First there is the absurd vortex of militant feminism, militant islam, militant atheism  or anti-christian sentiment, (never can quite make up my mind,) and militant misogyny.
I'm not going to link to any of these loonies, suffice to say I offered sympathy to someone whose attacker seemed either evil or unhinged, (mocking, laughing and singing jovially about the death by suicide of a sibling,) as caught on video.
Supporters of that attacker claim that attacker was attacked via tweet by an attacker linking a satirical attack on the first attacker who is therefore now an attackee and also another attackee, both of which attackees are apparently frequent attackers themselves, and both actual persons identifiable in the satire but only one of whom the supporters of the initial attacker feels should be spared attack, as they don't like the other attackee in the satire, so tough beans for him.
Got that?

"Does [attacker via tweet] have any conception of just how much abuse [persons] like [attacker who mocked suicide of relative of soon-to-be-an-attacker-himself] get?"

Imagine that.
People who behave badly experience retaliation.
Because it's all a matter of the new hobby that's sweeping the globe! It's  SUTDUGOO, ("Selective Umbrage-Taking Dependant Upon Gored Ox's Ownership.)

Oh, I said two- or three-fold, didn't I?
Well, I've gone on long enough for now.

Speaking of Dutifuls and Prodigals....

I'm not the nicest person in the world.
I like to make jokes, and I do it too often at other people's expense.
I'm trying not to snark too much at political figures at the moment, (not because they don't deserve it, but because politics is actually making me a little sick so I'm trying not to think about it,) and I fear that the excess snark not so utilized is being deployed in other directions.

So I don't want to make this too snarky, and I REALLY don't want to indulge in noting that some kettles share the same coloration as myself.

That said--

There seems to be a kind of dionysian glee, (a paradox, yes) taken in lamenting that certain persons who should not have received the Blessed Sacrament have partaken of the Eucharist throughout the Catholic blogosphere.

The commentary, (this is generally in com-boxes, not the work of writers with any reputation or standing,) almost wishes perdition on separated brethren and sistren rather than praying that they might be saved, that all might be one.

I do not condone the sacrilegious, (even if unintended, it is sacrilege,) reception of Communion at Mass, nor the fuzzy thinking and preaching that may have encouraged it, but come on - people must be presumed to be of good will, and people of good will need to be catechized, not have anathemas hurled at them.

There was an excellent reflection in Magnificat this past week, can't recall the writer, that essentially told of the truth of a Word being attested to in any of three way: the speaker can be trusted, the word itself is self-evidently true, or those who already hold it to be true inspire confidence in it.

Orthodox Catholics Are Obliged To Behave In A Manner Worthy Of The Vocation In Which The Are Called.

You cannot draw people to the Truth if you make that Truth seem ugly.

Time for the Monthly Tribal Council of Dutiful Sons of Either Sex and Other Righteous Persons

Over at Catholic Exchange:

Coming onto Those Interwebs one Thursday, I read a woman on Catholic Exchange complain to her readers about the conversation of some women who had been in church with her. I cringed for those women who had no idea that someone was talking negatively about them. Gossip and detraction are not from God. How sad that this writer had just emerged from the place where heaven meets earth—the Holy Eucharist—and rather than praising God, she was judging the people in the pews.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have read such a display: not only about the things people say, but the clothes people wear, the way they pray, the way they sing, the way they parent their children, and more. The Enemy wants to distract us from the true purpose of Mass, and here is one way he succeeds.

Except, of course that's not really what she wrote.

As for me, I thank Thee, Lord, that Thou hast not made me like other bloggers....

Here's the thing - this seems to be the season for, I dunno... running out of spiritual matters to write about? Christmas almost over*, Lent not yet here, lousy weather, Pope's not travelling.

I know! I'll write a column/blog judging people who are too judgey!

Is it my imagination?
As an acknowledged member of the Tribe of the Dutiful Son, (that snotty Prodigal's better behaved elder brother,) I think I recognize a fellow Righteous Person when I see her.
--------------------
*Yeah. You heard me.

"Jesus Betrays His People"

(I know this is grossly out of date, blame Facebook's algorithms, which somehow decided this should be linked to something current I was reading today.)

As the Lord concludes his meeting with His apostles this week, He reveals Himself as grossly out of touch with both grassroots Judaism and with the Sanhedrin. While there were certainly some who objected, He set forth an agenda that has little to do with the Huffington Post's wishes, and is opposed by the majority of Huffington Pot's readers.

I realize poor Miss Duddy-Burke supports certain sins, perhaps because she herself is unable to resist their temptation, or from mistaken notions of mercy toward others who are drawn to them.
And it is undoubtedly true that many sins are almost universally committed.
But where would anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of what Jesus and His Bride teach get the idea that the morality or immorality of an act or attitude,  of, yes, its fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, is determined by majority vote?
Most people lie, for instance - is that evidence that it isn't wrong?

What about that survey, (probably deeply flawed and inaccurate,) that purported to show that one third of college men would commit rape given a consequence-free opportunity?
HAD the number been higher - would that have somehow made rape a morally permissible choice, and signal a "betrayal" by those who were still ag'n' it?

Use your brains, people, if you won't use your souls, at least use your brains!

Let Us Now Chide Famous Men Persons

A number of... oh, for pete's sake, they are all men, a number of men on whom fame and fortune smiled most winsomely have died recently.
Much ink was spilled, many pixels employed first to mourn them, then to say, in at least one case, hold on, wait one mo...

Likewise, there have been a number of protests, and in some cases tantrums, of late, at honors given long ago to men long dead whom many today find not so honorable.
In the US, most of this involves honoring men who fought and died in defense of the right to hold other human beings as chattel slaves, (oh, or who were revered football coaches.)
At Oxford, it involves Cecil Rhodes, who is accused, (I can't find the details,) of "mass murder," by students who have no problem attending university on his dime, it should be noted.

One of the things I've always been drawn to in the stories of the saints is the quirks to overcome and the sins of which to repent most of them, all of them, had.
In the "great men who did bad/awful/bizarre/shady things" stakes there are those like Martin Luther Kin Jr who betrayed their wives and marriage vows, there are "freedom fighters" who are indistinguishable from terrorists like Menachem Begin, there is Wagner who was a self-centered egomaniac, there is St JP II who treated Oscar Romero with less than saintly kindness.
And speaking of saints, there was Augustine of Hippo who delighted in his transgressive nature, Thomas a Becket's whoring and roistering, "Gypsy" Mary...
For that matter, there is Blessed Theresa of Calcutta who suffered agonizingly "dry" periods, the kind of spiritual torture that non-spiritual people seem to think is evidence of some sort of hypocrisy - see! she had DOUBTS!!!!

Oddly, secular society, despite celebrating and lionizing some sins, can't wrap its mind around this. Ooh, she did something evil? he had doubts? not a saint, off with his (statue's) head!!!!
So you get the Guardian, in a piece enumerating the lapses in Mohandas Gandhi's c.v., reminding their readers, "there's no such thing as a saint."

Reading around Those Interwebs about Mahatma, I gather the details of what is claimed as proof of his feet of clay may indeed be accurate but the big picture painted thereby? very likely not.
One "writer" (although I am unsure that one can claim to be a writer and type a phrase such as, "if Hitler would of [sic] heeded Gandhi’s words") believes, like so many today, that anyone who thinks any limits should be put on sexual expression is "sex obsessed," (he betrays his own obsessions, with his gratuitous boot licking of one of the more prominent demi-gods in The Cult of Atheism's little pantheon and even more gratuitous swipe at the Church.

Why are we such seekers after all or nothing? why can't we accept that all good men have their flaws, all bad men have some redeeming characteristic?

Why can't we admire whiteout being hagiographers? criticize without seeking to wipe every previous word of praise from public discourse?
In Anhalt's screenplay from Lucienne Hill's translation of Anouilh's Becket... so i don't know who gets credit for the line.... Becket fondly chides a newly devoted disciple, about being such "a creature of excess."

Aren't we all?

Look, just LOOK at the lunatic words spilled in the wake of David Bowie's death!
I'm not the Grief Police and I'll take people at their word that others have indeed "pissed on" their mourning, telling them how they should or should not express their sorrow, but I did not see any of that.
I did see unctuous and incomprehensible tweets, and overblown encomiums that seemed to betray the principles of what should have been the tweeter's first priorities, and well as ludicrous brushing aside of mentions of the singer's pretty publicly known and acknowledged sins crimes - I had no idea that statutory rape isn't rape if the now grown victim was okay with it at the time, and that it is "condescending" to say that a victim "is entitled to believe" that she was not a victim, or that that is "brushing aside an adult woman’s agency and replacing the narrative of her own life that she knows for herself to be true" with, umm.... facts.

Thanks to a great moralist, I know that great artists don't, or maybe can't, commit "rape rape" but one wonders if, say, one of Jerry Sandusky's victims said their encounter was no big deal, or if the predator being eulogized were a priest, how different the reaction from all the Internet Tribes would be.

That being said, while a great and true point is made by writing, "it can’t be a crime when rubbish entertainers sleep with children, and all fine and dandy when great ones do," saying "one would have had to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the lush smorgasbord of lachrymosity that accompanied his death earlier this week" is a snark too far.

Because while, yeah, some of wailing and gnashing of teeth is from "the chorus of people with nothing to say, but who’ll say it anyway, for a fee," plenty of it is simply authentic expressions of emotion from people who want to share their love for the late singer and his music with the wonderful immediacy that social media now allow.