#connect the theology and then rethink the problem and my next steps

[bouquetofrosys]

I Saw the TV Glow and a Theology of Accompaniment

So the other day I watched I saw the TV Glow with one of my friends, and both of us being trans, I often acting as an elder queer in our relationship, had me really thinking about the relationship between Maddy/Tara and Owen/Isabel in the movie and comparing our friendship to theirs. I shared with my therapist the last time we met that I was thinking over and over about "the lesbian character" (Maddy/Tara) in the movie and how it made me reflect on what my responsibility to my friend is in the way that Maddy came back after finding out their own experience of transition trying to convince Owen to come along. And my therapist said something along the lines of Maddy did what they have the obligation to do for their friend when they offered the option they knew would be helpful and set boundaries saying that they were going to go back to what they knew was good for them without forcing Owen to do anything. Which I think is a very strong reading and most likely the most helpful one for the way that I was projecting myself and my own problems onto the character. But it still left me with this feeling of how do you help someone who is trans and/or otherwise queer in their process of transition/coming out without ever forcing them to do something? I feel that I personally have the obligation to help everyone I meet live their most fulfilled life that they can, so I want to help people transition for whom that would lead to their most fulfilled life without being able to make that decision for them.

And this feeling of how can I be with someone who is struggling without taking away their pain myself leads me to the topic often discussed in my grad school classes about a theology of accompaniment. Now I feel that accompaniment gets a bit of a bad rap when it is perceived to be only about someone with privilege attempting to minister to someone facing marginalization by merely being with them in their struggles. While this is a giant step up from white saviorism or telling people to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, folks I speak to can feel it is a cop out for acting for real social change or can be patronizing and paternalistic in its application. However, when I think about accompaniment in the context of I Saw the TV Glow, I am not thinking about someone trying to relate in a topic they have no experience but someone trying to help another through the struggles they have faced themselves. Where one can share in the other's struggles because it is one and the same. Both Maddy and Owen were trapped in the real world away from their "true selves" in the Pink Opaque. And while Maddy has found their way back, they cannot drag Owen along with them. They can only share in each others pain and support Owen's own attempts to get back to the Pink Opaque.

Tying this back to my own problems that created this dilemma for me, I often feel helpless in my friend's transition, knowing that she could be happier than she let's herself be. I have seen what it is like to come out and live a very open life where I can let my transness guide my actions and alter my appearance very publicly to better affirm my own sense of self without worry of others. But my role isn't to drag her, but to show her what I have done. To show that there is a way out like Maddy showed Owen. To show her that she isn't alone. To be there. And as I accompany her on her journey, she is accompanying me and helping me be not so alone.

[pamphletstoinspire]

The Hidden Threat to Catholicism

A serious, even existential, threat to Catholicism looms on the horizon, and it’s hidden all around us. It could very well decimate the ranks of the Church, and perhaps is already doing so. It is insidiously dangerous because it upends the very foundations of Catholicism.

I’m not talking about the abuse crisis, or the lack of episcopal courage, or rampant heresy, although all those threats are dire indeed. But the Church has faced those type of challenges in the past and overcome them, albeit at times with significant losses.

I’m talking about a truly new threat: world virtualization.

The world has gone virtual. Though this trend’s been developing for decades, the COVID-19-related shutdowns finalized the process. We communicate easily with each other through texts, social media, and Zoom chats. Almost any product we buy can be delivered to our doorstep. We now even “attend” Mass online! For many (most?) of us, our lives happen more online than offline.

In the eyes of many, world virtualization is considered an unmitigated good. It allows greater connection, greater leisure, and greater access to information than ever before. There’s just one problem: it’s antithetical to living a well-balanced Catholic life. I would even argue that it breaks Catholicism.

If there is one word that sums up Catholicism, it’s “incarnational.” Our faith is founded on the incarnation—God became man. By becoming part of the physical world, God lifted the physical world to Him. Just as importantly, He made the physical world the means by which we reach Him. In other words, Catholicism is a very physical religion. It requires “stuff” in order to work: bread, water, physical contact, etc. Without the Sacraments (and sacramentals), Catholicism is reduced to a completely different—and false—religion.

Now before I continue, let me address the exceptions I can already hear. What about the hermit, or the Catholic prisoner of conscience put in solitary confinement? Am I saying that they are unable to practice Catholicism because they lack the physical “stuff”?

Of course not. But the very extreme nature of their lives points to the fact that they are truly exceptions, not the rule. An underlying truth about humankind is that God created us as physical beings and that “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18): God made us to be with each other. He also made the physical world to be the ladder by which we ascend to Him.

The digital world we are creating, however, essentially rejects direct human contact and interaction with the physical world. Even pre-COVID we had the phenomenon of smartphone-zombies—countless people staring at their screens and endlessly scrolling through their feeds throughout each day. But the COVID-19 restrictions have accelerated our descent into virtual-land, and many are now so fearful of disease that they don’t even want to be in physical proximity to others. This poses a serious problem for a Church based on physicality. Offering live-streaming Masses and virtual conferences only exacerbates the problem.

How should Catholics respond to this disturbing trend? By promoting incarnational, intentional living.

First, Catholics must be incarnational. We need to rediscover the superiority of the physical over the virtual. Recently I saw an advertisement for a “virtual theology of the body conference.” Talk about irony. If that doesn’t make one pause, I don’t know what will. After all, the theology of the body is supposed to remind us of the importance of our physical bodies and how they aren’t just the soul’s extra appendage, but an essential part of who we are. So let’s discuss this at a disembodied conference!

And of course, that pales next to the live-streamed Mass. I realize that many parishes are doing the best they can to adapt to extreme circumstances. In too many cases, however, many priests—and their parishioners—have taken a bit too much to the live-streamed Mass.

At best, such a Mass is a poor substitute for one in which members of the Body of Christ can actually be present at the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross (I don’t think the Apostle John would have Zoomed into Calvary even if that were an option in his day, although Judas might have). At worst, it sends a signal that the physical world—including the physical world of the Sacraments—is secondary and “non-essential.”

Man is both like and unlike the angels and the animal kingdom. We are a body-spirit hybrid, and it’s foundational to our being that the two work together. Unlike so many heresies old and new, we do not reject the physical aspect of our nature, but we understand that the physical enhances—or diminishes—our spiritual life. To interact with other Catholics in “real” life, to actually attend Mass and eat the Host, to speak to the priest in person in the Confessional—these are all physical activities that help lead us to God.

Second, as Catholics we must live more intentionally. Whenever a critique of the digital world is brought up, accusations of “going Amish” are thrown out. Rather than fight those accusations, I’m going to lean into them. It’s a common misconception that the Amish reject technology. They don’t reject technology, they make intentional decisions as a community as to whether a new technology is, on the whole, beneficial or not. And while we as Catholics don’t have to agree with their final decisions, we should embrace this intentional attitude.

Now, I’m no luddite (another common epithet casually tossed out). I was deeply involved in the Dot-Com boom of the late 1990’s as the first employee of one of the first web hosting companies and a co-founder of one of the first domain registrars. (My continued technology appreciation can be seen in my embrace of cryptocurrencies.) I’m currently the editor of an internet-only magazine, which the majority of readers access on their smartphones. But my long relationship with technology has led me to see that it’s not an either/or decision: either we reject all modern technology or we uncritically accept each latest technology the moment it rolls out.

Instead, we should take time to reflect on whether a new technology—and how we use that technology—helps lead us closer or further away from intimate union with Christ and a building up of his body here on earth. We should also ask if the new technology leads to a more disembodied, and therefore less incarnational, existence. Yes, modern communication methods have benefited society in many ways. Yet they have come at a cost.

One of the primary prices we’ve paid is the loss of direct connection. Instead of spending time chatting on the porch—or even on the phone—with a friend, we send quick, scattershot updates to dozens of acquaintances. We’ve seen a precipitous drop in religious affiliation in this century, which directly coincides with a tremendous increase in virtual “communities”—and the two trends may be related. Blithely ignoring the costs of modern technologies may spell suicide for Catholicism.

And of course there is the obvious problem of being subject to Big Tech, which is becoming increasingly anti-Catholic.

Practically speaking, I think this should lead us to rethink two primary aspects of modern life: physical gatherings and the use of smartphones/social media. First, we must resist the urge to “go virtual” in our interactions with others. Find ways to physically meet with extended family, friends, and fellow parishioners. I was asked recently what Catholic parents can do to keep their kids Catholic, and my first thought was for them to spend time—real time, not virtual time—with other Catholic families. These relationships build an appreciation for the Real, which leads to a deeper appreciation for the Source of all Reality.

Second, we must seriously and urgently rethink our relationship with social media, particularly how we use it on smartphones, which are perpetually attached to us. How many of us can barely find time for prayer, but spend several hours a day scrolling through social media feeds on our smartphones? Even if Big Tech were supportive of Catholic values, the average time spent on their products far exceeds their value for most of us. Instead of scrolling through Facebook, we need to spend more time seeking the Face of God in His Book, the Sacred Scriptures.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we must dump all social media (although it might mean that for some). Our disordered relationship with social media could be reordered by simply removing it from our smartphones and only using it on our desktop computers. Perhaps we even consider a (gasp!) dumbphone. Steps like these help us control our usage instead of the other way around.

Incarnational, intentional living is not an easy path; in fact, most everything in our society today is set up to oppose embracing it. However, Catholics have always been called to be countercultural, and following this seldom-trodden path could be a means to living an authentically Catholic life in a culture that desperately needs that witness.

BY: ERIC SAMMONS

[whatisonthemoonarchive]

A Response to Frank,

I tried to respond to Frank’s post earlier, but lost my reply.  Here is my second attempt:

So what do we have? Chapter one and Chapter 2, where we are addressing the age old question of the purpose of existence. Then the next question which is why we ever need to question the purpose of our existence. The first question stands on it’s own but the second question is subject to endless forms of manipulation from the basis of control. Side stepping the whole Psycho/social implications of the “Fall of man” theology, we come to address the question of sin and separation from God.

I really think that the whole thing needs to be rewritten.  I would keep the opening part about the human desire for happiness and the pursuit truth as a way to realize happiness.  This brings us to “Then the next question which is why we ever need to question the purpose of our existence."  The Greek word for happiness is ”Eudaimonia.“  It is more accurately translated as ”blessedness.“  It is not merely a fleeting emotional feeling, but a state of completion that comes from fulfilling ones’ purpose.  Reaching such a state requires the realization of ”Arete.“  This loosely translates as "excellence” or “virtue” and can only be obtained by struggle, or “Agon."  The idea that this condition is one that requires struggle is why the U.S. Declaration of Independence argues that we have the God give right to pursue happiness, rather than the right to happiness itself.

So, the gist of this is that the Pursuit of Happiness requires a sense of purpose.  Even science is starting to realize this.  Check out this report: ”Hardwired To Connect: The New Scientific Case For Authoritative Communities.“  This report should stress the moral and spiritual meaning component more as it is the key to realizing the kind of communities they describe.  Since 2014, the life expectancy in America has been declining after years of increase.  This is despite the technology led progress in dealing with physical illnesses.  I talked to the producers of  this report and suggested that the breakdown of the connections they mention are the result of a growing hostility to religious discussion in the public square.  This has led to an outbreak of mental health issues that has resulted in a declining life expectancy.

The question of a breakdown of connections to moral and spiritual meaning being a large part of our problem leads us to; ”the question of sin and separation from God.“  According to ancient-hebrew.org: ’The Hebrew word for "sin” is חטאה (hhatah) and literally means “miss the mark.”’

Now, if God is the source of our being, and our sense of wellness requires a connection with that source, missing that mark would really mess us up.  More on that later.

Cutting to the chase, I will volunteer that Christianity provides a novel solution to the question in the form of salvation which is the process of personal reconciliation. This is achieved by accepting personal responsibility for the sin, or separation, through heartfelt repentance and commitment to the deity represented in the crucifixion of Yeshua.

I agree and it was rethinking the mission of Jesus while at UTS that started me on this whole reform crusade.  Earlier, I suggested that the central error of the DP was that it proposes a physical reality like blood lineage as the link between us and a spiritual God.  This is the view of ancient fertility cults, as well as Shamanism.  I suggest that it found its way into the DP through Korean Shamanism and Japanese Shintoism.  Jesus needed to spread his physical seed in order to address this issue.  The failure to do so resulted in a failure of his mission.

What if our “link” to God is really a spiritual life force, of which blood is merely a symbol?  What if the laws of physics, mathematics, consciousness and love are all manifestations of this animating force that was behind the “Big Bang?"  What if the resurrection represents the victory of this life focre over the forces of death and is key to fully reconnecting we humans to this force?  More on that later.

Does it work? Subject to refinement on a daily basis on an individual level, I’m going to go out on a limb and say yes, based upon the history that we have of both success and failures. Does this discount the efforts of the so called “New Age Movement” to replace or derail “olde time” monolithic religion? Nope. It’s just more of the same individual struggle to define ourselves and be happy.

Yep, and I think that the Three Blessing could be reinterpreted as a blueprint of this struggle from the individual level, to the family and community level, etc.  The major cause of most of the misery in the world is a result of trying to take a shortcut and impose someone’s version of "Utopia.”

Once we chart our own course we usually begin to have a positive effect through our interactions with others and our environment. This doesn’t have to result in conflict with the established forms of hierarchical control providing that they have the same purpose. Moving forward, it isn’t difficult to understand where conflict and deviation arise from this perspective. I fully expect that the Unification Church remnants will eventually arrive at the same conclusion that so many have. That their personal reconciliation with God probably won’t have anything to do with the promptings of the church leadership.

This is where it gets tricky.  Successfully trodding this path is more likely to raise the ire of some at the top.  They can deal with negative critiques simply by attributing it to a Cain type reaction against God’s people.  On the other hand, getting members to follow a vision that the top cannot control will cause them far more grief than direct attacks will.  You will be accused of making “disciples,” whether that was you intention or not.

That is Ok, as long as your motivation is to empower members to get in touch with their own “Original Mind"and realize their deepest dreams.

Robert Maynard