Catholic review. The war on Christmas, Kim Jong-il, Sherlock Holmes, and the WBC

I've had an interesting little month. Because I have a new job....

On Examiner.com, I'm now their Catholic columnist.

Yes, I write on self defense and on Catholicism. I'm a strange, strange man.

However, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise. After all, many of my articles on this blog acted as articles for the Examiner column.

In fact, my first column was one of my first articles from this past Lent.  Catholic cannibals: Explaining the eucharist. Yes, Catholics are cannibals. Live with it. :)

If you are a long term reader, you might remember that I was allowed an interview with Murder in the Vatican author Ann Margaret Lewis.  It is now a four part article on Examiner.com -- mainly because Examiner doesn't like long columns. In fact, you can start the Interview right here.  Parts two, three and four are attached.  As is my Review of Murder in the Vatican.

There was also an Interview with "Infinite Space Infinite God II" editor Karina Fabian.  That was only a II part article.  The Review of "Infinite Space Infinite God II," one part only

And there were a few other articles that readers of this blog might know.

Mr. Phelps, David Koresh called, he wants to chat;... 

Fred Phelps, you are disavowed. 

“You're going to Hell.... Not.” I'm Catholic, not Dante 

Japan, and the Christian vlogger - 2011 Catholic... 

Then there was some new material. I wanted to explain December 8th, feast of the immaculate conception, to "normal" people.  Also, I wanted to explain why they were Rewriting the Catholic mass -- yes, they are, and they did.

Last week, there was an odd thing of North Korea versus Christmas. -- and then Kim Jong-il died. Huh.

And then, The war on Christmas came to New Jersey. I can't make this stuff up

Fulton Sheen, New York saint? Yes, New York might have a saint buried in the city limits. Who knew?

I'll see you all again tomorrow. We're not done yet

Month in Review: October, 2011

This is the month where everything went very, very strange.  And, that was apparently a good thing.  This is officially the month with the most page views ever. Who knew?

I started out with something that pissed me off: DC Comics turning Starfire and Catwoman, two of their stronger female protagonists, into sluts, to put it charitably.  They were so totally reduced to sex objects, I wanted to throw rocks.

So I threw angry language at them instead.

Ironically, in one month, it has become the most read post on this entire blog, beating out Disasters to Marvel at, which is a year old.

Also, I decided to get back to creative writing, creating more surveys that my characters have filled out.  You know, the older online essays that used to be sort of fun.  I had one for the German spy Manana Shushurin, and another for the Secret Service agent and nerd, Wilhelmina Goldberg, as well as the lethal weapon, Irish Interpol Agent Maureen McGrail.

I didn't have all that many music blogs this month.  I threw up some John Williams marches, and Tom Smith taking his revenge on technology and Rob Granito

A false report on gay marriage in the military made me start an irate blog .... then I wanted a better footnote, discovered that the story I based my indignation on was bogus, and I was stuck with a blog I had to rewrite, very, very fast.

I put in another blog on writing. This time it was a matter of "how to exposition like crazy" -- when you have to dump a graduate paper's worth of information into one novel.

Also, I had a little conversation on how to write for disaster.  It's mostly how to write characters who are supposed to be terrified, when you yourself have never been quite that scared -- and, making certain that your character's fear is appropriate both to the situation, and the person.

And, there was my self-defense review for the month -- with my  my self defense columns for October. It had to do a lot with Occupy Wall Street, self defense for women, and self defense against the zombie apocalypse .... I'm serious about the zombie apocalypse part.

Catholic conspiracies 3.  This was almost a replacement for It was inspired after I saw a lot of idiots try to pin Occupy Wall Street on "crypto-Jewish Jesuit fascists founded by the Illuminati."

I want my Vatican ninjas.

Catholic Conspiracies 3: Jesuits, OWS, and the Vandals Are Here.

Vatican

Ninja

Remod

(Draft)

Once upon a time, very long ago, I discussed how the Catholic Church seems to be the favorite of multi-generational bands of abject nutcases.  I then expanded the topic, discussing how many fruit loops were involved, and that was titled The Revenge of the Vatican Ninjas.

In this case, we're going to add a bit of local politics.  And by local, I mean New York.

Has anyone heard of Occupy Wall Street?

If you haven't, that's okay, they're rather annoying -- essentially a fun bunch of anarchists hanging out in Zuccotti park who were told that 1968 was a really fun time, that bathing is bad for you, and it's quite okay to defecate wherever you deem fit.  It's not so much a political movement as an unruly mob. They're mad as hell, they're not going to take it anymore, and they are rebels without a clue -- when someone says they hate Wall Street, and the bailouts of Wall Street, yet they don't protest anyone who was bailed out, this spells stupid to me.

They've attacked police officers, and they want the redistribution of wealth, but they whine when their stuff is stolen.  At the end of the day, while they may appear threatening, they are mostly harmless.  And if you read any of the links, you'll notice that I spend most of my time making fun of them.  Just don't tell my editors, they may think I'm having too much fun.

So, what does this have to do with Catholic conspiracies?

Well, recently, I did a search on twitter for "Jesuits."

Big, big mistake. 

Apparently, now, the Jesuits are a crypto-Jews / Nazi / Zionist organization, bent on establishing the New World Order via Occupy Wall Street .... And, of course, founded by the Illuminati. 

As my friend Jason says,

"It's the internet. I'm not surprised about anything I find on it anymore. I think it was created by Cthullu, not Al Gore. It's a bottomless pit that WILL stare back at you if you look at it too hard. In the dark. On a cold winter night. With eerie music playing in the background (Cthullu has a MP3 player)."

I have to ask, now -- what are you people smoking?  Or is it that the internet goes to the loudest spammers, who happen to be nutjobs with unlimited time on their hands.

Either way, it's always good to see that nothing ever changes.

The amusing part of the Occupy Wall Street movement as "crypto-Jewish Jesuit conspiracy" is twofold, really.  One, they've got an emerging anti-Semitic group in there, with makes the whole "evil Jewish Conspiracy" part kinda stupid .... er.  

On the other hand, their fellow occupiers have issues with breaking other people's toys.

How so?

I'll give you one guess.

Their international branch at "Occupy Rome," in addition to firebombing cars, has taken upon itself to smash up religious icons.

All I can think is: if this happened to a synagogue, would the Mossad have already killed everyone in this photo by now?

But, no, it's just the Catholics.  So, who cares?

Ann Margaret Lewis, posted this to her facebook page and asked "Why?"

And isn't it obvious?  Because Catholics are "evil, baby-raping priests," and most of these people are too busy worshiping their iPads . And they like to talk about how they should "eat the Rich"-- and the Catholics are wonderfully rich and powerful, aren't they? They have so many shiny things, after all.... And, somehow, the sarcasm isn't burning a hole in my keyboard.

And, sure enough, someone said just that, responding with two recent stories.**   And by recent, I mean they happened the week before.  The words are "innocent until proven guilty ... unless he's Catholic," aren't they? But, it's nice to see anyone can justify a hate crime is the target is "right."

But, thus far, Occupy Wall Street has endorsements from the Nazi party of America, the Communist party, and David Duke.

Between this and the above "evil Jesuit plot," it seems that a faceless, aimless rabble makes for a great Rorschach test for ideologists of any stripe.  "Oh look, there's a group of angry protesters, they must hate who I hate," or "they embody everything I despise."

Vatican Ninja Chibi.

"Grr. Arrgh"

While it is quite entertaining to watch a group of people go slowly insane, it's time these guys ought to come up with a coherent message. Hell, the Tea Party's wants could be summed up as "We hate big government, we want fewer taxes, less spending and no Obamacare."

With the OWS, we have the Nazis, the Klan, the Communists, "we hate Jews / big business / brand names / we're wearing brand names/ we hate bailouts but won't protest those who got bailouts ...."  

Oh, yeah, and they're an evil Jesuit conspiracy.....

Can I have my Vatican Ninjas now?

**The footnotes are below the break.

DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.



A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.



I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.



One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.



Yes, the military has their own archdiocese.



In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services.

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.



The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).



So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.



Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.



It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.

[More below the break]



Then, on September 30th, the Pentagon issued an order allowing all military clergy to perform gay marriage ceremonies ....



The response of Broglio?  It's pretty much the same. Not to mention, there is still DOMA.  It's a federal law.  How can a federal agency allow the existence of something that, legally, does not exist at the federal level?



And, come April, 2012, what will happen when all of the gay married couples file joint income tax? The IRS cannot acknowledge them -- the IRS is a federal agency.  Accountant friends (and relative) are already saying that the IRS will not accept joint filings from any of the new marriages from New York (et al) between two men, or two women.



Not to mention .... the military has bases all over the 50 states. Gay marriage is only passed in about ... Five? (CA, VT, MA, NY, HI).  Isn't that a bit of a problem? And arguing that they are federal institutions is a problem, when you consider that, again, DOMA is federal law. State laws do not matter in this instance.



Is it just me, or did someone not think this through?



As I said the first time: I'll start to care about gay marriage when someone comes after religion in its name.



I don't care just yet. Initial reports of this story said that "military chaplains are being forced to marry homosexual couples."  I cared for about five minutes, then I looked for more footnotes.



However, now that I found that it "allowed" gay marriage, instead of "requiring" clergy to perform them, I'm back to not caring. Though the legal situation is going to be hilarious.

Redemption Comes Through The Jews… Excerpts

This was interesting when I found it on the Facebook page of Ann Margaret Lewis (of Murder in the Vatican), so I figured I would post a few excerpts.

I especially found it interesting that the numbers presented here are similar to the ones I posted a while ago.

You can find the full text here:

But the edited version you can find below.

Twitter Trolls: Writing in the Electronic Age

Should you want to become a writer, you're going to have to live with the Internet. You're already on the net, since you're reading this, but if you're just a casual user, get ready for culture shock. There are nut jobs all over the Internet. Normal, reasonable people, added to the Internet, seem to become quite psychotic. And I don't mean a little nuts -- because that can be any Friday afternoon after a busy week and you're stuck in rush hour -- I mean frothing at the mouth rabid, violently deranged.

If you want to go into writing, the Internet will be your friend. And your worst enemy. Probably at the same time. You will need it to sell your book. Interviews, book tours, podcasts, guest blogs, book reviews, all of it, are done online. It will be a valuable tool. Statistics seem to indicate that casual viewers of your material will not comment, one way or another. I have posted some stories from the blog for A Pius Man on another website, and have been rewarded with some glowing reviews of my work. One story got me three reviews in a matter of hours -- but only after nearly two thousand people had already read the story.

On this blog, some of the more viewed blog posts have come with people who have seriously, seriously hated me and everything I said. See the Lent post, if you don't believe me.

But, people are complicated: You could, for example, look at Matt's website. Matthew Funtime, artist for all of the good artwork on this blog, is an atheist. And I don't mean the casual "I don't believe in God, thanks, bye" sort of atheist. He's a bit of a die hard. And, if you look at his posts on religion, you might think he falls into the above rubric. He really doesn't. Unlike some people, who are reasonable until you lodge a disagreement, Matt seems to be in full Keith-Olberman-without-his-medication-mode to start with. However, if you lodge a simple, civil disagreement, he will politely disagree with you, and have a conversation.

Matt is a sane, reasonable person if you are a sane, reasonable person.

There are some that aren't so sane....



Long-time readers will remember that I dislike politics because the moment I have a label put on me, I have other people telling me what I think. I can't finish a sentence, or explain my long, thought-out, nuanced position, political philosophy.

Apparently, that's not even limited to politics anymore. Apparently, it's called the entire Internet

For example, there is a twitter exchange I had with one entity who made a casual mention about the Westboro Baptist Church -- that if they really hated gays, they should be outside the Vatican....

Now, after last week, you know my position on that particular cliche: it's overdone, overblown, and somewhat stupid. I figured I could take a swipe at him, or casually correct what he was saying. I could also call him out on the insult to gay people -- he was using the term "fag," and not referring to a cigarette or a piece of wood -- but he probably wouldn't get it.

So, as a lead in, I gave him a little counter attack, which was:

APiusManNovel JohnK
@GASmithIV Actually, if they wanted pedophiles, that's what the teacher's unions are for.

Yes, it's provocative. I wanted a reaction. When he asked for clarification, ("Are you saying that public school teachers are pedophiles?") I gave him

@GASmithIV Public school teachers had over 300K vics in the 90s, vs 10K for priests (1950-2002). So, yes.

@GASmithIV Teachers: http://tinyurl.com/y3423mc Priests: http://tinyurl.com/32oq9q

That was the total extent of it. Notice, if you would, that the numbers given only refer to numbers of victims. Nothing else. Yes, there are bad teachers, but there are still bad priests. The most I could make of "an argument" is that the priesthood isn't the only institution with a corruption problem.  The numbers in the report on teachers (cited last week) was that there were over 300,000 complaints registered against public school teachers over the course of more than a decade, and only 1% were investigated, or given any credence.  And that one in ten children go through the public school system and get abused at some point. From 1950-2002, there were only over ten thousand people who made accusations, and only 3% of those accused (the accused were about 4% of the overall priests during that time period) were convicted of anything. For a correction rate, 3% of 4% isn't bad. If you go by The New York Times, that boils down to only 100 bad apples over half a century.

Granted, 100 bad apples that should suffer horrors that would make GITMO detainees want to be water boarded, but still, for a corruption record, it's not that bad.

Now, I figured that, when this fellow read through the footnotes, the most he would do was correct me that the report cited above doesn't paint all teachers with a brush of child abuse -- a perfectly valid correction, one I would have easily accepted. We would smile, nod, and depart with an agreement. The sole premise: the Catholic priesthood might not be the most evil entity on the planet.

Then, in a reply peppered with foul language, this particular person on twitter said that was only because the Catholic Church hid everything. Muahahahaha .... okay, there was no evil laughter, but it would have been preferable to what he did say.

So, I blinked a few times. Wait a second. I cited a perfectly valid John Jay University study that examined the situation with science, psychology, statistical breakdowns and a full, nuanced report. John Jay U, an institution that deals heavily in criminal justice and related professions. It is a secular, impartial authority. You have to get up pretty early to pull the wool over their eyes. Since most Bishops don't get up until 8am, that discounted most Catholic clergy.

Hoping to prompt this fellow into reading the darn report, I decided to go the sarcastic approach, and underline the part I was certain he missed.

@GASmithIV Yes, because John Jay is in the pocket of the Catholic Church. #brilliant

Okay. Certainly, that would get him to read everything I had just sent him, right?

Not really. From the violence of his response, you would think that I had insulted every beloved relative he had. It took up three twitter replies, and the language was certainly R-rated.

The only salient point was that his reply was a little deranged. He wouldn't debate me on twitter, etc, etc, and there was a whole bunch of violence thrown in.

I went for the assumption of Godwin's law. He went postal, he lost. I told him so.

He proceeded to go even more postal. He suggested that I be hung from a lamp post, with every priest ever born, all of my twitter followers, and my little dog too.

I only had two answers for him.

@GASmithIV So, you approve of public school teachers as pedophiles? Good to know it's not the action you hate, just the priests.


@GASmithIV U do realize the only implication was that there r other groups with corruption issues? U jumped straight 2 lynching. Good job.
19 May via web

Yes, it was a little childish stab at the end, but after the homophobic, Catholic-phobic, and generally delusional replies, I figured I was owed the jab.

Now, for those of you who are wondering: "Why did John only post his own replies?"  Good question. The answer is that I have no idea.  As I write this (Sunday, May 22, 2011 -- if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done), all of the various and sundry comments made by GASmithIV have evaporated into the digital realm, yet all of my replies are still on my twitter feed. I have no idea why this is, or how, just that it is.

Unfortunately, there is a part of this story missing because it's my fault. Someone tried to get cute with me, and posted on my blog about the numbers I posted on Twitter. The moron read the numbers of victims as the numbers of the accused. He also told me not to debate him, because he was right, and I was stupid. So there.

Since he obviously didn't read anything I had posted, and he posted the comment in my Neil Gaiman post, I deleted it -- I mean, heck, he could have posted it in the appropriate slot in the cliche post. But he couldn't be bothered looking for that one. In retrospect, I should have saved the comment, but it didn't occur to me to write this post until after I deleted it

It was interesting. Without making any argument at all, I was subjected to a whole slew of death threats, ranting, raving, and general carrying on cranky.

So, welcome to the Internet. Lessons you should learn:

1. Don't feed the trolls.

2. No matter what your argument, people will disagree with you violently. Possibly because they have nothing better to do.

3. If you don't have an argument, people will fill in the blanks just so they can disagree with you violently. In all likelihood, because they want to be angry.

4. Don't go looking for attention from morons unless you know they will be morons in advance and you're ready for them. For example: when I had a twitter conversation with the Phelps spawn, I knew they would be morons in advance, and I spent most of my time laughing at them. I concluded they had no sense of humor. At all.

5. When they tell you not to debate you, laugh at them. A lot. Perhaps maniacally.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Osama. Death. Events. Superman... a Strange week.

Yup, the title's a little odd, but then again, so have been my last few days.



So....



First things first:  Osama bin Laden is sort of dead ... So, to the soldiers of the US military: Thank you for blowing him straight to Hell.  Expect "Osama tapes" to keep being broadcast on al-Jazeera for a few more weeks, at least.  I suspect that, like Stephen J. Cannell, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Parker, bin Laden still has a postmortem career ahead of him.



However, I talked about Osama yesterday. Let's move on.



The rest of post will be short.  There's a death in the family.  Please, no condolences; I have a strange reaction to death: there's either Heaven, Hell, or Nothing.  If Heaven is the option, the dead have it better than we do.  If there's Nothing, then, well, the cancer is over.  If the other option ... well, then, there's nothing to be done about it, is there?



Moving on ....



I had partially considered starting my "Evil Religions" series, which I had mentioned before Lent first started.  However, after the whole Snarky Theology series, I think I'm going to take a break from posting non-fiction.  You'd be surprised at how work intensive it can get.... also, my first "Evil Religion" post is ten pages long, and that's after constant editing and revision.



I had considered the latest Disaster to Marvel At ... and it's not a Marvel disaster.  For once.  No, it seems that Quesada disease has infected DC.  In an attempt to be relevant, they are having Superman renounce his American citizenship to join the United Nations.  Because "truth, justice, and the American way just isn't enough anymore" ...



Funny, "the American way" didn't work very well for Osama, when it landed on him in the form of a SEAL team.



I have plenty to say on the Super-idiocy, much of it utilizing words that are inappropriate for a PG-rated blog.  However, the lovely and talented Rebekah Hendershot will be commenting on it.



And I wanted to discuss that Pope John Paul II is on his way to becoming a Saint, and that his day will be ... May Day.  Funny, that a guy who fought the Soviet Union until it's dying day now gets to take over their feast day.  How's that for a souvenir of war? But, non-fiction is rather work intensive. Maybe next year.



So, that leaves me free to mention a few upcoming items.



1) This upcoming Saturday is Free Comic Book Day.  I will be posting an online short story called "One Way to Stay Out of Jail."  The star of this story is one Sean Ryan, who appears in A Pius Man and has already had a few short stories all his own: The Pirate King, the surprisingly popular Boys of the Old Brigade, and God Hates .... Superman?.  He's one of my more colorful characters.  Unlike Scott "Mossad" Murphy, who likes to go unnoticed, Sean has a tendency to leave behind evidence of his presence.  One can usually follow him if one just runs towards the screaming.... Oh, wait, wrong blog.



And, for the record, the complete list of stories is here.



2)  Now, a while ago, I had mentioned that I try to keep busy.  I do this mainly by writing other novels.  And since I've written a whole trilogy around A Pius Man, there's only so much I can do since the first book may or may not survive its first form.  I have considered copying from my friend Rebekah, and publishing one of these books online, for free, in serialized format.



Right now, it's starting to look like vampires might be a good idea.  How many people would like to see a novel of vampires where: A) It all makes sense? B) Vampires all follow the rules laid down in Dracula? And C) THEY DON'T SPARKLE?



I'm going to talk with my agent about it, obviously, but I would like to know: if I write this, will you, kind reader, want to come and play?  I can promise you that I will make fun of certain cliches running rampant right now. I can promise that I will include philosophy, history, theology, and enough action to make the Blade movies seem slow and ponderous. And I try to make fighting vampires practical in a modern age.....  I just really wanted to use the Throwing Stars of David and Vatican Ninjas. 



So, what do you think?  Please comment below.... and keep it clean.

Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN

Today's work of art is provided by the ever-charitable Matthew Funtime.  I don't know about you, but I find it funny as heck.  But then again, I am quite possibly a sick, sick man.



And it's Easter, so there.



When I first started this blog series, I promised you I would introduce you to the rabbit hole that is my faith, but I wouldn't shove anything down your throat as far as my belief in it.  This still holds. I'm going to do a little walkthrough on the story of Easter Sunday.  Pretty much it.



As mentioned in my surprisingly popular blog post on Lent, Easter is more of an estimated time, and it's conveniently located at the start of spring.  Or, if you live on the East coat of the United States, when spring is supposed to start.  It was put in near Passover, and there were a whole bunch of computations put into the matter that I don't pretend to understand. 



I want to say it was programmed up against a pagan Roman festival of Ester, though I think I may have had my wires crossed there, if only because the Catholic church did something similar with Christmas, put up against Saturnalia, a pagan feast that involved an orgy of food and drink and other things that happen at orgies -- it's still celebrated as the office Christmas party.



Anyway ....



So, when last we left our Deity, He was about six feet under.  More accurately, He had been put into a cave, a tomb on loan to him from Joseph of Aramathea -- a wealthy businessman, disciple of Jesus, and he was either unconcerned about sharing a crypt, or he figured he'd only be loaning it out.



Also, someone was intelligent.  When Jesus was put into the crypt, one of the Sanhedrin suggested that "Well, this Jesus guy hinted that if we put Him into the ground, He'd come back.  Might we suggest a few guards to make certain that none of the groupies steal the body?"



Since politics were, in large part, the reason for putting Him into the ground in the first place [see last week], this seems like a reasonable suggestion.  If Fred Phelps ever made a suggestion about coming back from the dead, when he died, I'd want an armed guard just to make sure he'd stay in the ground, one way or another.



Also, while Jesus was getting the heck beaten out of Him, His acquaintances, are, largely, nowhere to be seen.  The women in His life are the only ones who moved within swinging distance. His Number Two man has already sworn up down and sideways that "Nope, don't know Him, never saw Him, no idea what you're talking about, bye," thereby setting a standard that church bureaucrats never fail to live up to.



So, the moral of the story thus far is that you can be a good little boy all your life, and still get nailed to a set of 2x4s, while all of your friends pretend you never existed. 



Sounds like high school. 



So, this God is so wimpy, weak, and pathetic that He gets publicly humiliated, whipped, beaten, and publicly executed next to the Hekyll and Jekyll of death row, and His backup are rejects from the Keystone Kops.



Let's say that it's about thirty-six hours after the 2x4s when the story gets interesting.  Mainly because the Twelve apostles are (1) down to Eleven and (2) are busy hiding in their hotel room, hoping that they don't find themselves in a similar position to the guy they'd been hanging out with for the previous three years.



Maybe they didn't think the crypt had seating for twelve.



So, the Roman soldiers are on guard at the tomb, like most guards, are bored out of their mind.  They don't fall asleep, because Roman soldiers are, more or less, the equivalent of marines, only the penalties for slacking off on duty are tougher.  Much tougher. 



And then ... why did the earth just move, and why is the tomb now empty?



I don't need to be a mind reader, a psychic, or posess any measure of ESP to telling you exactly what went through the minds of those soldiers at that moment. 



"No es in profundus feces."



Or, in English: "Oh darn.  We're in trouble."



Hmm, now what?  These Romans, who have been shipped to the back end of the Empire, have no interest in taking any more abuse from the locals, and really didn't want to be parked in front of a grave all night long in the first place, probably pondered their options.  They could either (A)  go to their nearest Centurion (Sergeant), and get the heck kicked out of them, or, (B) "You know, those old Jewish guys wanted the dead guy watched.  Maybe they can come up with something."  The story goes that the Sanhedrin came up with something perfectly reasonable -- "Just say you fell asleep, the body was stolen, and here's monetary compensation.  Since, let's face it, if you say that the guy just vanished from the crypt, well, what's Latin for 'funny farm'?  Yes you'll get a beatdown, but this should make it worth your while."



A few hours later, after dawn, two of Jesus' closest female associates come up to the tomb and find it empty.



Their first thought: "They stole Jesus!  Those bastards!"



Soon after, Jesus pops up again.  "Yes, I was dead, but I'm feeling much better."



In theory, it could have been mass hysteria and people seeing things ... but no one ever hallucinates the same thing when there's mass hysteria.



Also, I'm trying to imagine those eleven boneheads called the apostles sitting in a room.  Their dead friend came in, walked through the wall, had an extended chat with them, and ... they never compared notes on what just happened?  Not impossible; the apostles were never a brain trust, but I think something like that would make most people take a step back, reevaluate their sanity, and compare notes....



And, of course, someone could have stolen the body ... why they would have stolen the body would make sense if I could believe any of the original bozos as having the potential to be Fred Phelps in progress.  After all, if Jesus didn't pop up of His own accord, it would have been obvious that, nope, no Messiah here.  They would KNOW that they were part of a fraud, risking their necks for a hoax. So, that would be sort of stupid.



The only reason I can come up with to disappear the body would be as part of as a massive power play ... Considering all of the candidates for such a conspiracy ended up being crucified, fed to the lions, and having been immortalized in the Bible as not being the brightest lights in the night sky, I'm thinking .... no.  After all, the apostle Peter turned out to be the leader of this ragtag bunch of fishermen and ex-thieves.  His nickname translated as "The Rock," or "Rocky," or, perhaps most accurately, "Rockhead."  He ended up being crucified himself.



Welcome to the moral of Easter: you have Heaven and Glory ... though you're still going to have to go through a Good Friday of your own, even if it's only death.



Narrative-wise, the Easter story makes sense.  The story is now back when the Bible begins.  As we see in Genesis, the point is ..... People Are Stupid ("I tell you don't eat the apples, was that so hard?").  And that the God of Abraham does not come in a show of force.  He comes in a gentle breeze.  He doesn't pick an empire and adopt it, but a bunch of nomads and farmers.  He picks a stuttering nervous wreck found floating on the Nile.  He picks the smallest and weakest boy of a family of brothers, from the smallest tribe.  You have the thing with the 2x4s, and the Twelve morons.  And there were more wars for survival fought over the years, it looks like everything AFTER the 2x4s meant a problem once every hundred years or so.



Welcome to the Catholic church.  Everywhere you don't want us to be....



What, you thought I was going to end on an uplifting, soulful note?  Sorry, wrong blog.



This concludes my Snarky Theology posts.  I hope you've enjoyed reading them.  I've enjoyed them so much ...



I hope to never do it again. Thank you.



Next week, I will not be doing a blog.  I will post a short story.  One for Sean A.P. Ryan.  Which means there will be blood.



A Pius Man, slipping theology and history in between the gunshots since ... well, whenever I get published.



See you next week.

Guest Blog: Karina Fabian of Infinite Space, Infinite God II

For those of you who may have missed last week, we had a guest blog from the gracious and talented Margaret Ann Lewis, author of Murder in the Vatican, the Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes. It was followed shortly thereafter with an interview and a review.



 If you were looking for another Snarky Theology blog, sorry, you're out of luck. Because this week we have a guest blog from author Karina Fabian, editor of Infinite Space, Infinite God II, an anthology of Catholic science fiction. You can find it at B&N, Amazon, etc.



Some may ask why I would host a science fiction author / editor on my blog. Murder in the Vatican was at least a Catholic mystery, and, in a way, A Pius Man is a mystery, but science fiction? Since one of my top five post at the moment is a report from DragonCon, 2010, I'm assuming there's an interest.



Oh, yes, and while I think of it, I have been asked to inform you that the first book, Infinite Space, Infinite God is on sale for .99 cents through April 13. It and the sequel are for sale for 2.99 through April 23rd.



From here on out, Infinite Space, Infinite God II will be shortened to ISIG2.



This concludes all the formalities.  Now, the blog:

Faith in Science Fiction

By Karina Fabian

John asked me to write about religion in science fiction. It’s becoming a big topic lately, from SFGospel’s “Ten Best SF Stories About Religion” to Charlie Jane Ander’s “The Seven Deadly Sins of Religion in Science Fiction”. Why is religion and SF becoming a big deal?



Truth is, religion and science have always been a big deal . In ancient times, religion and science were often one and the same. The ancient Pythagoreans tries to determine the work of the gods in mathematics, for example. The medieval Catholic Church sponsored many great scientists—and still does today. Gradually, the two separated in their functions, so that religion addressed the why of creation and science the how (an oversimplification, I know.) Today, the Catholic Church still sponsors scientific symposiums, with scientists of all faiths and even atheists. Many scientists are very faithful followers of a religion.



Yet with the Age of Enlightenment, religion began to be seen as something separate from “reality,” including science. That attitude held on well into the 20th century, and in the new genre of literature born of that era—science fiction. Too often, humankind was portrayed as having “outgrown” such archaic ideas, or the religious figure was brought in as a foil to the hero, which pitted the religion and science against each other. Over time, the ideas of separation of Church and State morphed into the idea that Church should be separated from everything—even our entertainment. For a long time, the author who stepped into religious grounds, even for the purpose of worldbuilding, was risking their book; and the publisher who took them on risked losing money. Only a few were able to do it successfully, and they were the exception rather than the rule. Most, even then, took a light hand.



Then came the movement of Christian Fiction, but often, they took the same approach but in an opposite direction—pitting the evil scientist against the moral and courageous religious hero. That did find some readers, but in my opinion, only hurt themselves and the idea of that religion and science can support each other.



My husband, Rob, and I are both devout Catholics. We are also major sci-fi geeks. We don’t see a dichotomy between faith and science. Science teaches us how God made the world to run; use of science gives us technology that makes our lives easier. Religion teaches us why we are here and how to treat each other; use of religion guides us in the use of science and technology to make our lives better. This is how we live and frankly, this is what we’d like to see when religion and science combine in fiction. That’s why we created the anthologies Leaps of Faith, and Infinite Space, Infinite God I and II.



What’s exciting is that we are part of a growing literary movement that sees religion as a legitimate part of world building, and not just a tool for evangelizing—either for religion or for the end to religion. There are publishers like Splashdown Books and Marcher Lord Press that are dedicated to religious speculative fiction and there are secular publishers, like Twilight Times that published Infinite Space, Infinite God I and II, that are not intimidated by the mix as long as the writing is strong. And, whether done well or badly, we are starting to see the re-emergence of religion in our entertainment. It’s no longer a separate aspect of human lives that needs to be shut away.



Rob and I consider that a blessing.

About the Author / Editor: Karina Fabian

After being a straight-A student, Karina now cultivates Fs: Family, Faith, Fiction and Fun. From an order of nuns working in space to a down-and-out faerie dragon working off a geas from St. George, her stories surprise with their twists of clichés and incorporation of modern day foibles in an otherworld setting. Her quirky twists and crazy characters have won awards, including the INDIE book award for best fantasy (Magic, Mensa and Mayhem), and a Mensa Owl for best fiction (World Gathering). In May 2010, her writing took a right turn with a devotional, Why God Matters, which she co-wrote with her father. Mrs. Fabian is former President of the Catholic Writer’s Guild and also teaches writing and book marketing seminars online.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants.

The third in our Snarky Theology series for Lent.  Round one was on how Catholics are Cannibals.  Round two was some simple (Perhaps even simple minded.) thoughts on Lent itself.  I had considered making this about sex, but after last week, I think I'll hold off on the incendiary topics for another week.



This week, let's take a look at evolution ... No, I don't think it's an incendiary topic.



Evolution: the premise that humans came from other species.  Monkeys seem to be at the top of the list of suspects.



Apparently, it's quite important to some people.



Seriously, deeply, psychotically important.



You have the really weird creationist museum. Which should either be there as comic relief, or set on fire. Pick one.



But I've noticed there's two sides to the so-called debate, where they take the idea of evolution and decide to apply it to religion.



Really, people? What is your problem?

 Creationists: The Bible is literal, but we have dinosaurs, which weren't in the bible.  Which indicates a time period before the Bible, but the Bible is the end all and be all of all of history? NOOOOOOOO.  How can we reconcile dinosaurs with the book?  I know, dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden!  Let's have Adam and Eve and a VELOCIRAPTOR! BWAHAHAHA!!



Evolunatics: God is dead! The Bible was meant as a literal chronology of all of human history, but we have dinosaurs!  It's all wrong!  All of it!  MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



Then I roll my eyes, sigh, and shake my head.  At the end of the day, I look at both sides, and decide that this particular asylum isn't being run by the psychologically stable.



Does it matter where we came from? Scientific research might benefit from such knowledge, sure. But, from what I've noticed, there's enough conflicting evidence to show that it's a nice theory, not a dead-certain fact. 

However, evolution has become a religion. It's sort of like man-made global warming—which is hard to prove considering that our evidence is the geological equivalent of a eyeblink in the history of the universe.  And, living on the East coast this winter, I would really, really like my global warming already.



How does evolution effect me, a Catholic?



Not at all.  Not a bit.  Not even for thirty seconds.



Looking at genesis, God made the world in six days, rested on day seven. While I think it is a very nice generation of a story based on the theology of the day (over two thousand years ago), I don't think that God needs a nap.



If there is a God, qualities He should have include omnipotence—naps should not be required.



Do I think it's more likely that someone wrote the story with the concept that “well, we're supposed to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day, therefore, so did God”? Yes.



Then there's the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve. I, and the Vatican, last I checked, look at the story more as a parable: the first sin that man ever committed was pride, the first time that someone said “I am more important than my neighbor / God / insert someone here.” There's a reason that, in most mythology, Greek, Roman, et al, pride kills about as often as all the other causes put together.



I can look at the story of Genesis and easily reconcile it to the Big Bang.



“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Expand “Earth” to “everything” and that sounds like a good enough description of nothingness as I could generate.



“And God said 'Let there be light.' ” Sounds like an explosion to me.



And before this degenerates into a line by line reconstruction of Genesis via science, I'm going to end it with saying, simply: if God fits the model generated by Thomas Aquinas, He is eternal, and thus outside of time; who's to say what a day is to Him? Six days, sixty billion years, same difference.



The difference between Catholics and some evangelical / fundamentalist Christian groups is that Catholicism rejected literalism as a heresy over fifteen hundred years ago.



As for evolution: if the premise is right, then fine, great, it is merely the mechanism God used to create people. As Cardinal Baronius (1598) said, “The bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”  (Googling this, I had about four different citations to the quote, so don't shoot me.)



But, right now, what does it matter? Seriously, as Sherlock Holmes once said, "What the deuce is it to me?.... [Y]ou say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."



And, until my works of science fiction become publishable, the solar system doesn't matter to me, either. Evolution will probably never become important to me and my work … if only because James Rollins already wrote that book (Altar of Eden).



Science likes to talk about how it's been a poor, persecuted field of endeavor, starting with Galileo ...



Well, Galileo was prosecuted for two things. One, he taught a theory as though it was a fact.  Saying that the Earth goes around the sun was unsubstantiated at that time for several reasons.  1) We could not observe stellar parallax (if the Earth moves, we should be able to see the stars change position relative to each other; stellar parallax was unobservable until the mid-eighteenth century).  2) If the Earth is moving at a thousand miles an hour, why doesn't feel like it's moving; and why haven't we flown off it yet? Science is still shaky on these points.



What else was Galileo prosecuted for?  Well, it could have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that he publicly made fun of the Pope, who had been his friend, and, well, you know what happens when good friendships go sour, they end badly.  He had never once been threatened with being burned at the stake.  He was sentenced to house arrest.  According to letters with his daughter, a nun, he actually agreed with his jail sentence as a just punishment ....



And yes, I am a nerd of many colors.



Evolution has it's own "martyr" in John Scopes.  For those unfamiliar with the The State of Tennessee v. Scopes, it was made into the play "Inherit the Wind"-- a teacher was put on trial in the southern United States for teaching evolution in school.  William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow ran the defense.



Here's the problem: atheist scientist Daniel Dennett is on the side of the prosecution in that case, because the evolution of Mr. Scopes called for sterilization of rednecks, and other "undesirables."  The book Scopes used is called Civic Biology.  I particularly like the section called "The Remedy."



Creationists: You want to take every single word of the Bible literally? Fine, then why aren't you all Jews for Jesus?  Evolution isn't a threat to you if you put five seconds of thought behind it.  And you people are putting way too much money into defending something that's really rather stupid.  Most of you are in Kansas (what is the matter with Kansas, anyway?  First Creationism, now Fred Phelps. Is it something in the water?).



Evolunatics: if you're right, any sensible person of faith should dismiss evolution as simply “God's mechanics.” And even if you are right, stop using the Scopes trial as a stigma to beat a dogma.  Anyone who reads Scopes' textbooks will not be on your side.  If you wish to back Scopes to the hilt, eugenics and all, Cold Spring Harbor and Auchwitz are both thataway (points East).



On the one hand, with "Intelligent Design," I think it's an uncessary argument, due to the paragraph above.

As for evolution ... Evolution is a nice theory. From what I've seen, it assembles most of the puzzle pieces that evidence has handed over. Is it a fact according to the rigorous standards of science that I was brought up with? Not last time I checked. Then again, with the standards of science I grew up with, you practically needed video evidence of something happening to prove that it happened and how it happened, and sometimes not even that is enough evidence.



We have audio recordings of echoes from the big bang, and even that isn't enough for some people. Why? "Oh dear, if there's a definitive start to the universe, someone might use that to prove there's a deity" .... I'm actually serious on that part. Stephen Hawking dedicated a whole theory on the start of the universe that involves time loops, making the universe a self-sustaining phenomenon ... and I just lost you, didn't I? I'll put away the Star Trek terminology now.   The short version is that some scientists would rather come up with badly written science fiction then even have a good scientific theory that might, may possibly, give ammunion to all of those "annoying God-people."



While Aquinas had an argument for God called the argument from causation, I wouldn't expect any good scientist to say the equation is "Big Bang = God." I would expect a good scientist to come up with scientific reasons following evidence they have.  Self-sustaining time loops do no count as good science. I don't even think they are good science fiction.



But, as far as evolution goes, it isn't even a significant portion of the puzzles pieces that are my life, and I seriously, seriously wonder about people on both sides of the issue. The creationists are really rather weird. On the other, you have the evolution crowd who want to declare that God is dead because of evolution.



I think they're both invalid arguments.



So, to the creationists and the evolunatics, I say: Calm down, the both of you.  Not only are you both embarassing yourselves, you've both spent enough time and energy fighting over this that you could have cured cancer by now.



(And, oh, yeah, Kansas, if you spawn another delusional, foaming at the mouth band of lunatics, I'm going to start a petition to have all of the floride in your water system replaced with thorazine.  Capisce?)



[Update: It has been pointed out to me my Mr. Gerrity (below) that some topics have been shafted in this article.  One, I thought that creationism had been linked to within the document, for those people who are not already familiar with the BS involved.  Two: this is called snarky theology.  I'm trying to entertain as well as give a slight education.  If you desire more on this topic, and in a more serious manner, then please say so below.  I will not write a new, serious, piece of apologetics that will probably make my own eyes glaze over if only one person is going to read it.  And, three, Richard Dawkins will get his own, special blog, much much later.]

Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent.

For those of you who aren't Catholics, or for those Catholics who don't care, Lent has already started.  In fact, it started last Wednesday.  I suppose standard procedure would have been to post it then, but I had someone post a link I wanted to respond to, and I needed a few days for my blood pressure to come down.



So, what is Lent?  Lent is a part of the Catholic calender that is, essentially, a forty-day warm up to Easter. I've already started living on yogurt and berries.



As part of my Lenten series of sort-of religious blog posts, here are some FAQs about Lent.



FAQ: Why is Lent when it is?



A: Read the Bible. Pick a gospel, any gospel. While they can't agree on what Jesus' last words were, one thing they all agree on is that Jesus was nailed to a day of 2x4s the day after the Passover meal. The only reason Passover isn't always the same time as Easter: the math is different (literally, different astronomy, Judaism uses a lunar calender for such calculations, Catholics don't. Greek Orthodox do, however). 

FAQ: What's with giving up stuff?



A:  Religious reason: Traditionally, you give up stuff for the forty days of Lent because it's part of mental and spiritual discipline. Not to mention that Jesus got nailed to a set of 2x4s, we can give up Oreos for a few weeks.  And, forty is the running gag of Biblical numerology, so it's as good an idea as any.



However, giving up "stuff" isn't supposed to be the point.  Giving up any bad habit, sinful behavior, reflecting on your spiritual life, is supposed to be where the emphasis lies.  If you look at the question sheet my parish handed out, it's focused on spirituality, etc.  Giving up stuff isn't even mentioned -- the start of Lent is marked by "What are your resolutions."  Giving up material things isn't necessarily required.



“Real world” reason: Look at the time frame. Lent falls in late winter, early spring. Basically, when you start Lent, most of the world will be coming to the end of their winter stores of food. Lent took a problematic reality and turned it into a religious duty. Who says a religion can't be practical?



Modern "real world" reason, for the West: think of it as extra incentive for all of those new years resolutions you couldn't get through.  See above: Jesus got nailed to a set of 2x4s, we can give up Oreos for a few weeks.



FAQ: Catholics giving up “meat” on Fridays during Lent, yet eat fish? What, fish grow on trees now?



A:   I assume that no one who asks that question has ever done their own shopping. “Meat” is in one aisle, “Fish” in another.



The Latin word for meat is “Carne,” which translates more literally as “guts.” Meat, in the original language version, was anything that had internal organs. This is pretty much why fish is allowed on Fridays. I can't say that I've ever been able to identify any internal organs in any shell fish I've ever opened up; and any non-shelled aquatic animal tends to be gutted.



And, another "real world" reason: if you live near a large body of water, you could probably always find something to eat.  "Out of season" fish is a reletively recent concept.



Q: Why do you make children participate in Lent?  They're Children, they know nothing of sacrifice!  They can't understand!  This is child abuse!



A: Honest to God, I've seen this argument, I can't make it up.  I must thank Matt for this one.   He posted a link on his Facebook page, and I followed it through. 



Now, while this guy brought up some excellent points about Vatican II (which was administered by abject morons, and as well-timed as a pork roast at a bar mitzva), he shows about as much thought to the concept of religion and children as Richard Dawkins, whom he cites.....



I read the article. I found it a lovely piece of evidence that, while Catholic education is great for teaching reading and writing, they suck on teaching things like, oh, BEING CATHOLIC. I know, I went, and I had to look up everything myself.



The article author talks about fish not being meat [Again:  Carne (meat) meant "having guts." I've seen the internal organs of shellfish, they look less like guts and more like mush. Therefore they're "not meat."  And other fish are gutted]



Also, the article itself is a little confusing.  At the start of the article, his ten-year-old-self seems to understand everything about Lent, and does it quite well. By the end, he's whining that "no ten year old can understand" the concept of sacrifice; yet, at 13, he seemed to want a MORE stringent guideline. Someone should have told him that no one was going to stop him. He could have even gone to a pre-Vatican II church, Mel Gibson's father is part of one.



I liked how he seemed to have grasped the basics, until "Oh No!  It's Vatican II!"  Suddenly, he can't understand any of it, because "Vatican II radically changed the way Catholics practiced"..... 



Um, no, not really.  That may have been the way it was filtered down to this guy, but congratulations, it means that you're doing mass in English. You don't have to learn Latin, and the Vatican figured out that, gee, you don't have to fast every day of Lent anymore, since half of the planet is no longer in starvation mode by the end of winter -- the Church changed the bare minimum, that's all.



Vatican II (V2: Repentance Day) was supposed to have the church address the "modern world," instead of this guy's thought that we were losing members. The irony is that Rome hemorrhaged members AFTER V2, not before. There were enough internal memos that made it to the public, V2 looked like Obama's foreign policy during Egypt, for much the same reason. The Pope who called V2 wanted the church to keep up and adapt to the world. The argument the article gives is that nothing in the Bible, or Jesus, or any text, had changed, is true -- but the entire world had.



And so, V2, "Oh, we're going to bring the laity into the decision-making process."  Thanks, I've been through that process.  I'd sooner take the nuns.



The parts of Lent modified by V2 turned religious duties into mandatory minimums, since they were no longer harsh realities for half the planet.



After reading this twit's suddenly inability to comprehend, I wonder ... Does that mean I was a very bright eight-year-old, or does that make him a really dumb thirty-year-old?  I understood Lent while growing up, and so did he -- but, sometime between the start and the end of the article, he got confused, and fell down.



To actually answer this nitwit, I would like to direct him to my answer to the second FAQ.  I used a specific phrase:  the modern real world reason for the west.  Because, guess what, this isn't all about him. Screaming "child abuse" doesn't work, when you consider that the original, practical reasons for stringent fasting still apply to parts of the world he wouldn't be caught dead in. 



Now, I don't know if that makes him a provincial, small minded, "ugly American," or if that makes him a cranky Catholic who no one explained stuff to.  And, considering that half the kids in America are butterballs, taking away their junk food for forty days might, just MIGHT, be a good idea.



Not to mention that, oh, dear, Michelle Obama is also trying to make kids sacrifice food ... all year round .... I must have missed his article when he screamed that the First Lady was abusing our children. 



Oh, and, again, giving up stuff is a surface sign of faith, and is not the main point-- modifying behavior for the better, enhancing faith, is the point, and that is where the emphasis lies; maybe that's what he didn't, and doesn't, understand.



I also like the assumptions inherent there.  "I don't understand something, so why should I be expected to do it?"  Little kids sometimes don't understand the concept of "don't steal" (have you ever seen one with toy bins in Kindergarten?), or don't lie, or "don't touch the burner on the stove," or "don't stick that up your nose,"  "your face will freeze like that," and "Look both ways before crossing the street."  We expect them to do all that, though. This guy wants to cry abuse at "inflicting Lent on children."  Hey, Michelle Obama wants to legislate what they serve kids in public school, maybe he wants to bitch about that, too.



The complaint seems less a matter of "Lent is stupid" and more a matter of "Lent should be harder."  Someone should have told him that he could make it as hard on himself as he likes.



Unfortunately, I can't even blame this moron for his ignorance. Did I say he made excellent points about Vatican 2? Sorry, I meaant to say he's a perfect example of what went wrong with Vatican 2. Welcome to post-V2 Catholic education by the laity: "Just do this, we won't even attempt to explain it to you, because we don't believe it or understand it ourselves .... assuming we tell it to you in the first place."



I think this article and his author are great examples of arguing for more, better Catholic education.



And, for Lent, I'm going on a variation of his stringent fasting. I'm going to survive on fish, veggies, and yogurt. Since I'm overweight to start with, how's that for making a religious duty out of a practical necessity?



UPDATE:

As my friend Jason has pointed out, Jews + Fasting = Yom Kippur and Passover.  Catholics also took the same religious traditional definitions of fish and meat from Kosher laws.  Hmm, maybe the twit from that article wants to talk about Kosher as child abuse too. Hmm...

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals.

Right now, I am not certain if I have have yet made this point explicit; but, just in case, I need to be clear about something.....

A Pius Man, this blog, and myself, are not here to convert anyone.

One more time.

I'm not here to convert anybody.

To start with, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. For another thing, the bulk of my friends are Jewish. It wouldn't go over well.

Not to mention that I wouldn't drag anyone into the mishegas that is the Roman Catholic Church, unless they were really patient.

Let's look at my religion for a moment.

I believe that a strange visitor from another realm came to Earth, with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. As He grew up, His powers developed, until He could walk through crowds as though He were invisible, could calm tempests, turn water into wine, walk on water and multiply food to feed a few thousand people. He's also such a pathetic Deity that He would later get nailed to a set of 2x4s.  Even more pathetic, when He does something interesting and comes back from the dead, it's done in such a low-key fashion that it could easily be reported as "someone misplaced the body. Oops."

Welcome to the church that follows Yeshua bin Joseph. AKA Yeshua bin YHWH. AKA Joshua Carpenter, AKA Joshua, son of Joseph. Better known by his Greek alias, Jesus the Christ.

Welcome to the rabbit hole I live in.

Now, the above is just how I phrase this sort of stuff.  I'm sure most Christians wouldn't phrase it quite like that.  However, if one is looking at it objectively, it's probably quite insane. According to sociologist Rodney Stark, the major reason Christianity received ANY converts was that the early Christians themselves were big on charity. They had a tendency to stay in areas that smart people left -- areas like plague-infested towns, when even the doctors fled.  When things were so bad that the intelligent people left the others to their fate, Christians were the only ones dumb enough to stick around. It's a good thing they were too, otherwise Christianity would be a small sect in some unknown corner of the world no one ever heard of.

But wait, there's more.

My particular subsection of Christianity, known as Catholicism (from catholic, meaning "universal"; IE: Catholics, everywhere you don't WANT us to be, and "We'll take anybody.... no, really, anybody"), has a special tenet.

One tale of fellow Jesus had Him grabbing the bread at the Passover dinner, and He said "Take all of you and eat it. This, my body" (apparently, the Aramaic version is far more direct about it). 

He also did the same thing with "the cup" (probably the one left for Elijah) and called it His blood.

We Catholics took this tale, and we took it literally. In fact, we play Swallow the Leader every Sunday.  It's technical term is transubstantiation. .... aka Swallow the Leader.

Yes, you got it, Catholics are cannibals.  We eat our Savior as a sacrifice, drink his blood.  Insert evil laughter here ....

No, not really much on the evil laughter, but still ...

One of the better uses of this transubstantiation concept comes from the pen of F. Paul Wilson, horror writer and Fordham University product ... um, graduate. At one point, Wilson had some fun with a vampire story -- since the Catholic mass serves the body and blood of Christ, the vampire took his daily feeding from the chalice.  Now, technically, Wilson is not a Catholic, since Fordham is, after all, a Jesuit school, and any relationship between the Jesuits and Catholicism is tenuous, at best (Sorry, inside joke.  See "Attack of the Vatican Ninjas" for details).

Amusingly, there are some people within the Catholic church who have problems swallowing this last bit of theology (pun intended). "Jesus is supposed to be ACTUALLY IN the bread and wine? No way!"

Yes, because turning water into wine, telling a tempest to shut up, walking on water and COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD are simply sooooo much easier to believe. But Jesus being actually in the bread and wine, using it as a guise for body and blood?  No way dude!

This is of course, right up there with Joseph Campbell complaining that if Jesus physically ascended into Heaven, we should still be able to pick Him up on radar ... If you're already part of the whole Christianity thing, and you're presuming that Jesus is, oh, the Divine Being, Creator of the Universe, etc, et al, then one would have to figure "Hmm, if God created the laws of physics, I wonder if He could bend and/ or break them."

Or, as my father put it, from God's point of view, "It's My game, My ballpark, My rules."

I have occasionally had people justify their lack of believe in this (or any) part of the faith under the heading of "cafeteria Catholicism," where they pick and choose whatever random parts they want to believe in. Which is odd, because by now, I think there's a Protestant group of every sort that has some variation on the faith.

Shop around a bit, you can become a member of whatever theological system you like.  Including a Christian group without Christ (they're called Unitarians). I also enjoy people who enjoy saying they are Catholic, yet believe NOTHING of the Vatican's teachings.  Which is odd, I didn't think Catholics were so cool that people hung around, despite not believing a word, or The Word. 

Right now, there are so many varieties of Christianity, I think being a "shopper" within a faith is sort of like saying "No, I joined this militia because I couldn't find a gun club. I like the shooting, but this whole 'overthrow the government' part is just not my thing.  Honest. Why are you arresting me?"

Now, as I said before, I can objectively look at all of the above elements of faith.  From the outside, it looks positively insane.  There's a reason there are three references to Alice in Wonderland in the above text. And I can give you all sorts of reasons why I, a moderately intelligent fellow, believe in all of the above insanity.

Gutters #22

But that's about twenty pages (small print, small spacing, really small margins), of Really Boring Garbage. And, as I said, I'm not here to convert anybody. If I can explain to people what Catholics believe, and the reasoning behind it, I'll be happy. The phrase is "apologetics"; not saying "I'm sorry," but explaining why. In Greek, apologia meant a legal defense.

That's one reason I have occasionally referred to A Pius Man as apologetics in-between the bullets.

Though no matter how much I explain it, it'll all still look insane. There's a reason I used a description from Superman in reference to Jesus ...

Although in the first Superman film, his spaceship did look like the Star of Bethlehem. I guess we can blame that on Godfather author and Catholic, Mario Puzo. He must have made Hollywood an offer they couldn't refuse.