Outside The Asylum

Robert Royal has an excellent article on this today  on his experiences over the weekend, go and read it. This weekend my family was on a retreat for special needs families.  Every year, we send the kids to "respite care" - playtime with volunteers- while we care giving parents get a much needed break and a chance to talk.  This session is led by a priest. This year, Fr. Raul told us a couple of things we really didn't want to hear.  The first was that this would be the last year he was able to come to this retreat, as he's been named as the priest for the deaf community in Portland (and yes, it was a joy to watch him say mass, as he's picked up the habit of adding American Sign Language to the mass- the closest thing I've ever seen to actual honest-to-goodness holy liturgical dance in accordance with the General Instruction- quite beautiful).  And yes, I did make the suggestion that next year, we add the deaf community to the English weekend for the Journey...

The latest round of the priest abuse cases, which is about younger-but-adult people being abused, shows a crack in the very philosophy behind the Sexual Revolution. Not every act can be consented to. At least not validly. Yes does not mean yes when coercion of any sort is involved. Yes does not mean yes when selfishness replaces love. Yes does not mean yes when damage and pain is involved. Yes does not mean yes when sex is perverted away from conception. Yes does not mean yes when sex is over in a single night. Basically, sex is supposed to be a part of something larger- a lifelong relationship that brings new life into existence and raises that new life to be a functional part of society. Sexual revolution consent fails at the primary purpose of sex completely.

I've written often about my confusion at the Jesuit proposal of a "doctrine of reception", which enables cafeteria catholicism by explaining sin away as merely being "a teaching not received", as if the real problem isn't enough learning rather than the effects of Original Sin in our lives. Today, in an article written by  Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB on the Salt and Light blog   we see a new doctrine proposed.  I'd call it, for lack of a better name, the Anti-Pharisee doctrine.  Apparently under this new doctrine, while it is nice to follow scripture and tradition, both are considered  to be "disordered attachments" at times at the discernment of the Pope.  This leads to a rather confused teaching- for everything is now based on the Pope as Dictator, rather than on continuity with the historical magisterium. On Zenit where this first appeared, the article has been rescinded, but it is a fascinating look into the mind of some people in the church...

Everybody knows that Silicon Valley corporations struggle when it comes to how they deal with conservatives.  Here are four very practical suggestions on what big tech social media firms can do to rectify the situation. 1) Provide Transparency:  We need detailed information so everyone can see if liberal groups and users are being treated the same as those on the right. Social media companies operate in a black-box environment, only releasing anecdotes about reports on content and users when they think it necessary. This needs to change. The companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable, while giving weight to privacy concerns. 2) Provide Clarity on ‘Hate Speech’:  “Hate speech” is a common concern among social media companies, but no two firms define it the same way. Their definitions are vague and open to interpretation, and their interpretation often looks like an opportunity to silence thought. Today, hate speech means anything libe...