#like. there are Issues with Catholic priests and I recognize that but also this is fucked up imo

[thelastspeecher]

I just discovered that in Roman Catholic Communion, gluten-free versions of the little crackers or bread aren't provided bc the Vatican has decided that it has to be wheat in order to be valid.

and while most people may just be able to have the wine or whatever and avoid the crackers, the priests have to have BOTH. even if they have fucking CELIAC'S.

which has resulted in the Church saying "maybe we shouldn't allow priests who can't have gluten and/or alcohol".

(which is ableist but I mean do we expect better from the Catholic Church)

I am so incredibly riled up over this and I'm not even Catholic.

[swifty-fox]

How long has Burnout John been aware of Father Cleven? Maybe this is explored in your fic. I’m curious if he’s been watching him for awhile. I assume yes, since he had an inkling he’d be able to get Gale do what he did. But yet Gale also didn’t seem to recognize him.

Does Gale even believe in God and all the elements of priesthood—I’m assuming early on yes but seems to be questioning it now. I know in your first one it sounded like he joined because he as lost and lacking that familial support. What was his life like before the priesthood?

John seems to be bi/pan, how do you perceive Gale’s sexuality?

As someone who was raised in a religious background but now am agnostic/atheist, I’m intrigued by this whole fic set-up and where it goes.

Not for long, he grew up in Sheridan but hasn't lived there for almost the last decade. He recently came back to take care of his ailing grandmother

This close John could take in the details of him. He was as pretty as the first time John had seen him two months ago at six pm mass. Angular face softened by sleep, hair that was no longer tamed by gel and fell around his forehead and in sweet waves. A plain white t-shirt that stretched across his broad shoulders handsomely and clung to his tapered waist. His briefs were black and hemmed to mid-thigh, showing off the curves of him deliciously. -New WIP

Generally what happens with the church is they will assign priests where they are needed across the country/world. For instance my byzantine ortho church has a pastor from Ireland because he knows how to give the sermons in Ukrainian. Yes, it's a weird accent combo.

(Pastor whapped my brother right in the face with the holy water hence my giggle)

Gale does believe yes! Which is different from my KfaK Gale who doesn't go to church at all. But in this one I think Gale does believe but also wrestles strongly with his faith and feels like he's a fraud for not going into the clergy for the right reasons which furthers his issues with belief. I don't wanna get too into his life because spoilers but he was very much raised in an oppressive and unhealthy environment. Both his parents made it very clear to him that they did not want him around and resented him for it. it's a large influence as to why he struggles so much with fear surrounding his desires as well as this deep-seated need to be Seen. He learned from a young age it was dangerous and pointless to want things to be more or better, and was never given healthy attention by his caretakers so he craved it. I think pre-entering the seminary Gale did a couple of years community college and debated getting into astrophysics with a focus on black holes.

Gale is always gay to me! I can't picture him desiring women idk the show made him so sexless with Marge in my eyes I just can't see it haha. John is bisexual with a penchant for men in this au.

I was raised pretty religious to, at least surrounded by it. I was never pressured into it beyond getting my first communion to please my grandparents lol. But my Family are all Catholics of various denominations and my great aunt is a nun so

[why-bless-your-heart]

Dumb Protastant Question #5

Also a theoretical scifi world building question.

So a random half-formed thought popped up as I am vaugely aware that you can't/shouldn't do confession via electronic means.

And then my scifi author brain popped up and demanded but what about AI parishioners without corporial bodies? If you can't do electronic confessions than how are good Catholic AI going to do confession?

And then I started thinking, okay, we are still a long way from that, but supposing that we as a culture actually get to that point where we are seriously considering granting human rights to AI? What about when the question of AI souls acutally comes up?

And I started wondering from a world building perspective, how is that going to be handled? Like is that a college of Cardnials type thing? How much of a say does a Pope have? What woudl happen if indivdual priests start treating AI like humans before the official decision is made? Is there an existing structure that could be applied to to determine when AI have souls and if they do how they would confess, or would one need to be created from whol(y) cloth?

Surely Catholic Scifi authors have thought of this...

Anyway so yes, what structure of the Catholic Church would be tasked with determining if sufficently advanced AI have souls that need confession?

Okay so basically humans are body and soul combined. That’s why the resurrection of the body is so important, and also why the sacraments are so vital to Catholic life. What you do with your body affects your soul, which is the whole concept of sin. So from right off the bat, since an AI doesn’t have a body, it’s not considered human and isn’t included in the New Covenant. If you don’t have a body you can’t receive the sacraments. (Sorry).

Putting that aside, when it comes to the spiritual side of humans there’s the soul, and then there’s the mind, which includes the will, the intellect, and the passions. A sufficiently advanced AI could be said to have a mind, insofar as it imitates the functions of will, intellect, and passions, but the mind does not beget the soul anymore than the disintegration of the mind negates the soul (c.f. cases of mental illness or senility). The most generous that could be said is that the machine/program is ensouled the same way that an animal is ensouled with an animal soul, or a plant with a plant soul: it is alive and a part of God’s creation with its own end, and a good in itself, but it still doesn’t have a human soul. The only way you get one of those is by having human parents. (Human cloning is a deep sin against God and His creation, but a clone would still have a soul.)

The whole point of the sacraments is that participating in them is how you participate in the life of Christ. Christ was fully God and fully Man, so by participating in His life we share in the life of God, which makes us fit for Heaven. We’re only able to participate in the sacraments in the first place because of Christ’s incarnation, because He became Man and represented us in the New Covenant. An AI just doesn’t have a representative at the table.

Now, as far as the actual mechanics of church hierarchy. The Catholic Church has a very strict top-down model (Pope -> Bishops -> Priests -> religious/lay), but vox populi (voice of the people) has historically been recognized as an important aspect of Catholicism as well. Usually you’ll have a bunch of lay theologians and priests and bishops discussing an issue on their own back and forth, arriving on a general consensus on what it is that Catholicism teaches on the issue. They’ll appeal to scripture and Church teachings over centuries to build their arguments. It’s usually the fastest response to any new question, but also the most likely to entail a lot of confusion and mistakes. In the US during the 1950s this kind of discussion ended with a lot of people thinking that artificial birth control was permissible under Church doctrine until the encyclical Humanae Vitae (Human Life) was sent out by Pope Paul VI. Depending on how pressing a matter the Pope considers the issue (and depending on whether or not individual priests are starting to try to give the sacraments to AI), he may issue a Papal Edict (a letter saying ‘do this’ or ‘don’t do that’), write an encyclical (a letter to instruct the bishops), or call an ecumenical council for all the bishops to come and discuss the matter together. It’s really up to him. You could have a very quick, passionate, involved pope who slams out an edict the minute he hears that somebody in a sleepy one-horse parish in the left-hand corner in Azerbaijan asked a priest if he could conditionally baptize their AI, or you could have a cautious, thoughtful, hands-off pope who waits 40 years to hear all sides before he calls a three-year council to hammer out the question.

So to sum up in answer to your questions. 1. It depends on the specific circumstances how it’s going to be handled. 2. No, it wouldn’t really be a college of cardinals type thing. Cardinals are just bishops who the pope picks to have a more involved advisory role, and a number of them are also included in the papal conclave to elect new popes. 3. The pope has final say. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he has first say. 4. If individual priests started treating AI like humans before the decision was made they’d most likely be rebuked by their bishops. If they persisted, they could risk being defrocked, which doesn’t undo ordination but does mean that they no longer have permission to administer the sacraments. 5. The existing structure is just the current hierarchy of the church.

Hope this helps and/or gives you some new ideas!

[racefortheironthrone]

So what were the actual politics of the Hussites historically? I always find medieval heresies interesting but it feels like the discussion of "proto protestant" heresies in popularly available books tends to focus in on how much they actually were like later protestantism. Rather than taking them up on their own terms and actions. It seems interesting with the influence they took from Wycliffe, while actually being much more the motivating ideology for the revolt of the lower orders than Wycliffe's own beliefs were.

It's a bit tricky to analyze the "actual politics" of the Hussites of the Bohemian Reformation, because one of the things you come to understand about the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, the Wars of Religion, etc. is that religious symbolism can have really significant cultural politics in ways that can be very opaque and hard to understand for modern audiences.

(Take this as a strong hint for someone to ask me about how the Puritans of the English Civil War and colonial New England are completely misunderstood, especially on Tumblr.)

So leaving aside Jan Hus' broadly Wycliffian/proto-Lutheran position on religious issues like the need to fight corruption in the Church, the authority of the Bible over the Pope, opposition to indulgences, the critical importance of the vernacular Bible, and so forth - what were the politics of the Hussite movement?

Well, the Four Articles of Prague I think serve as a pretty good condensation of Hussite politics, although it's important to keep in mind that it was a political statement of the more conservative faction of the Hussites:

Freedom to preach the Word of God.

Freedom of the communion of the chalice (under both kinds also to laity).

Exclusion of the clergy from large temporal possessions or civil authority.

Strict repression and punishment of mortal public sins, whether in clergy or in laity.

So all of this sounds like it's more theology than politics, but if we analyze it, we can find the politics under the hood. Taking the first point, the Hussite movement was largely inspired by a popular revulsion to the Council of Constance burning Jan Hus at the stake despite the promise of safe conduct - so in reaction, they seemed to adopt a strong commitment to religious free speech.

Second, there is a strong emphasis on anti-clericalism: by the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had come to emphasize the higher social status of the clergy over the laity by changing the ritual of communion such that, while communion in bread was given to the laity, only the priest was allowed communion in wine from the chalice. As a statement of social equality, the Hussites insisted that ordinary people should receive both forms of communion - and went one step further by insisting that children as well as adults should receive both - as a statement of the equality of all men before God.

Third, there is a strong dislike of Church corruption, which tended to emphasize the need for the clergy to devote themselves to poverty and spiritual matters rather than secular politics and moneymaking.

The more radical Hussites wanted to confiscate church lands and transfer them to secular hands, they believed that the Bible was the only authority for both religious and political matters, and they were very strict Biblical literalists who particularly emphasized Wycliffe's denial of transubstantion. In general, they tended to believe that society should be more democratic.

Finally, there's a strong element of Czech proto-nationalism: hence the emphasis on translating the Bible into Czech, and the successful defense of their religious independence during the Hussite Wars, where the Hussites took on the Pope (several Popes declared no less than five Crusades against the Hussite heretics), the Holy Roman Emperor, and the King of Bohemia in the Hussite Wars - and ultimately won, forcing the Catholic Church to recognize the Moravian Church.

(This is something of a simplification of a very complicated conflict, because there was also a civil war between the more conservative and more radical Hussites that saw the radicals militarily defeated and their church disbanded.)

[kmclaude]

Maybe this is a wildly stupid question, but does being in Hell affect anyone in the Afterlife AU’s faith in God or Jesus? Could be positive or negative, but either way changed from when they were alive.

not stupid at all

annemarie......would be a christmas and easter catholic but early on after her mom passed attended church bc it's what her mom would've wanted and then it became about keeping up appearances. it's just another fairy tale to her in some ways? a lot of the stuff appeals to her but things feel hollow. so winding up in hell -- albeit different from the fire and brimstone -- isn't a shock (her life wasn't great so wow, more of things not being great, wow, surprise). at first it probably felt like a blessing, maybe she even thought wow there IS a god, because no eternal pain? no fire? no torture? just....the same place she had lived her whole life? sure, manageable. until she realizes she is alone. she is in solitary confinement. forever. and then the realization that oh this IS hell sets in. if god exists, he's crueler than she thought. and then when she wakes up one day after GOD ONLY KNOWS HOW LONG ('bout three decades) and she isn't alone and it's her brother (who if he'd just had the decency to die when he was born or better yet abort himself then she wouldn't have had to do what she did to him and she wouldn't BE here) she probably decides that yup god exists: he's a fucking dick and has a sick sense of humor.

tiefer pays lipservice to god. i just read an old post -- maybe i reblogged it IDK -- where i talked about tiefer's relationship with god or faith and...it's a cold thing. he has to have some sort of belief in something, something keeps him in his job as a priest, something bigger, but it's hard for him to square a loving god with his lived experience. definitely when he dies he is not shocked he wound up in the bad place. hell is the absence of god's love and here he is with his sister in their childhood home, a place without love (he refuses to admit that any may have ever existed) -- it squares so well with what he was taught. there's almost a proof of catholic doctrine there.

I think the only think either of them have faith in is that god is a cruel, cold, and hungry thing. they can put their trust in cruelty.

jehan...well...if he's in the afterlife au it's because he suicided and since the old teaching was suicides go to hell (and technically the teaching is they're like offered up to god's mercy -- because we acknowledge mental illness is a thing even if suiciding is a sin?) he would believe he was risking damnation and as such get what he felt he deserved, in a sense (and also what he needs which is closure with tiefer and, well, where's tiefer at....) ANYWAY waking up and realizing he's in hell would funnily enough affirm a degree of faith in catholicism and the catholic god because if that was right then guess the rest is too. hard to have doubts when it feels proven right. that said, the longer time spent in eternal solitary with the siblings, the harder it would be to believe in any sort of eternal savior or all loving god when you start to lose your grip on time, on normal human interaction, on what even love looks like anymore... a progression of 'i want to believe' to 'i was RIGHT' to 'nothing is real' more or less

(i recognize i'm more talking about belief rather than faith but tbh all three of them have trust issues so faith would likely be difficult...)

[hislittleflower-throughconcrete]

I hope your silent retreat is awesome! Do you have any recommended resources for doing Lent when you struggle with scrupulosity, especially around food/disordered eating?

I knew this would be a long answer, so I'm sorry for waiting this long to respond, I just needed to set time aside for it.

I'm going to get on my soapbox for a moment and say we desperately need more resources across the board for scrupulous Catholics. In a Catholic bookstore, 95% have a theme of "improve this virtue! root out this vice! clean up your act, become more faithful!" Now these things are good! But they specifically have a target audience of a normal to lax conscience. Now consider the fact that someone purchasing devoutly Catholic literature in the first place has a vastly higher percentage probability of being scrupulous. The result of this is that the scrupulous Catholic who purchases these books rarely if ever recognizes that these resources are not helping them grow in holiness - they are just feeding the scrupulosity, which they think is holiness. Which is incidentally what I have done my whole life until a few years ago.

Okay, rant done. But I wanted to say that because no, I cannot think of specific resources for Lent when you struggle with scrupulosity. I can recommend a few books about scrupulosity in general, and I can give my own advice. The gold standard book for scruples is Understanding Scrupulosity Thomas Santa, CSsR. He really breaks down what scrupulosity is and how to overcome it. Another book which is on my wishlist but that I haven't read is Scruples and Sainthood: Overcoming Scrupulosity with the Help of the Saints. Colleen Carroll Campbell has a new book I am listening to called The Heart of Perfection and it is really good. Also, if you google "Catholic Scrupulosity" there are a bunch of articles that discuss it that I have found helpful.

The biggest help by far, more than any of these combined, is St. Therese. Literally anything St. Therese! She HAD scrupulosity, and her spirituality she developed was her antidote to it. 33 days to Merciful Love, The Little Way of Lent, and reading St. Therese's own writings on scrupulosity have helped me heal so much and have reoriented how I traverse my spiritual life during Lent (and all seasons).

For food issues specifically, again, there is really nothing. I have had an eating disorder since age 15 that has taken many twists and turns, including a 5 month hospitalization, so believe me, I have looked. There is one (TINY) book called Weightless by Kate Wicker, a Catholic woman who tells her story of recovering from an eating disorder, but I found it unhelpful because she came to love her body when she became a mother, which wasn't something I identified with as a single woman. I also read Cravings: A Catholic Wrestles with Food, Self-Image, and God but I found it to be very spiritually shallow. The Catholic Table: Finding Joy Where Food and Faith Meet by Emily Stimpson Chapman is one that has good reviews but I have not read it. I know she had an eating disorder at one point, but the focus of the book is relationship between food and God I think.

Now for my advice: Get a spiritual director who you trust, who you like, and who understands scrupulosity. They will be the best thing to help you navigate the spiritual life with scruples. For food during Lent, my spiritual director said that those who have disordered eating are exempt from fasting and abstinence from food, and can instead fast from other things like TV. I know you're scrupulous so you're probably doubting me, but ask any priest you trust! Allowing myself to observe the fasting in Lent in non-traditional ways has really helped me not see Lent as a time to engage in damaging food behaviors or reignite my disorder. Finally, remember - fasting is a spiritual practice to help us detach from earthy things. The only reason the Church has historically fasted/abstained from food is that it is our most basic human desire and literally everyone eats! So it is not fasting from food that makes the devotion special. You fasting from other things during Lent is not less than others or going against the Church. God wants us to draw near to Him through fasting, and with disordered eating, you will be focused on the food behavior, not God.

I hope some or any of this helped! I pray you have a peaceful Lent.

[epic-sorcerer]

Merlin would have been so much more gay if the writers stayed true to Celtic paganism(the historicaly accurate “old religion”)

Trigger warnings:

Main triggers: talk of sex, homophobia, religion, Catholics, colonization, anti Celtic, murder

Mention triggers: rape and sexual assault, creepy men, gore, insest, toxic masculinity

I will mark the sections with quick triggers with 2 red lines. Below the second one is when the trigger is gone.

_____________

I am posting this on December 21st, as today is the Winter Solstice, a Celtic Pagan holiday. It will be posted at 3:33 PM, as 3 is a sacred number among the celts. Because of the special occasion, I will be speaking on a subject that was important to many of them—homosexuality.

Some stuff first for introductions. Yes, yes, I know this may be boring but it helps with context. This religion didn’t have a name other than Celtic pagan or Celtic religion bc it seams everyone there believed it. This was until the Roman Empire concurred what is now the UK. Since Rome had adopted Christianity—more specifically, Roman Catholocism—they only allowed that religion to be practiced.

———(genocide)——

Once England was concurred in 43 A.D, the pagans were killed and their religion was surpressed. Not much is known about the pagans for this reason. However, we do know somethings from what the Romans have written down. Although, it is biased, as they believed the celts to be barbaric and also didn’t wright much about women.

——gore ——

First, we know they preformed human sacrifice on kings when the kingdom suffered along with some other groups.This could be from bad ruling to really bad weather. These kings died horribly, as they seamed to be stabbed multiple times, had thier nipples cut off, and left to die in a bog.

They had thier nipples cut off because the subjects would suck on the kings’ nipples to demonstrate submission, so cutting them off would fully dethrone the king.

—————

Now, background over. Here’s where it gets good.

Nipple sucking between too lovers or ‘special friends’ was seen as a preclemation of love, physical intimacy, and sexual expression. This, like other types of sex, was seen as something beutiful and sacred. Often, male soldiers would have these ‘special friend’ relationships with many fellow soldiers in groups. The Romans even observed that Celtic men seamed to prefer other males for love/sexual interest over women.

Nipple sucking was mostly described was between two men. Although, we must recognize that women may have been left out of written history. I would also like to point out, this may prove that aromantic people existed in that time, as these ‘special friends’ had sex and were not mentioned to be romantically involved.

The celts were known for their sex positivity and even eroticism because they loved it so much.This is one of the reasons why the pagans and the Chatholics clashed so badly.

Before the Romans really took over, Saint Patrick—yes, the Saint Patrick—started to try to convert the celts into Roman catholosim. He was appalled at the wide acceptance of polyamory(women were aloud to marry however many people they wanted) and homosexual relationships/marriages. Not to mention the celts could have sex with any one at any time as long as it is consensual.

——(Tw creepy men)——

That means no waiting til marriage, unless a Celtic chose to do so. Although we should take into consideration a statement made by Diodorus Siculus, an antient Greek historian, that “the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused.” In his series Bibliotheca historica. This could mean that either creepy men were comman place, or that homosexuality was so comman and done with everyone, it was wierd to be rejected.

————

Getting back to the Roman Catholics, the book Sextus Empiricus is published in the early 3th century and states,

“...amongst the Persians it is the habit to indulge in intercourse with males, but amongst the Romans it is forbidden by law to do so...”

It also goes on to say,

“...amongst us sodomy is regarded as shameful or rather illegal, but by the Germanic they say, it is not looked on as shameful but as a customary thing.”

For clarification, Germany is apart of Celtic society. So what we can infer is a very serious culture shock in terms of Rome and other places. During Emporor Serverus Alexander’s reign, openly homosexuals were deported.

In early 4th century, Emporor Constaine—the first Christian Roman Emperor—destroyed an Egyptian temple populated exclusively by femme, gay, pagan, priests. The Emproror then went on to eradicate all of them. However in 337 A.D., 3 emperors ruled, including Constantius II and Constans I, who where both in mlm relationships.

An odd thing these emporors went on to do was criminalize male bottoming during mlw sex 342 A.D.. 8 years later, Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius ferther punished this act by killing these men by Public burning at the stake.

———(Tw toxic masculinity)———

I believe this was because masculinity was very important and a man acting in a more feminine role was seen as emasculating and humiliating. For the average man, he had to fight and defend his masculinity. Not doing so was seen as a personal failure.

——————

The last ever known peice of European literature containing a positive representation of homosexuality for 1,000 years was a large epic poem by Nonnus of Panopolis. It was titled Dionysiaca and the first part was published in 390 A.D., the last in 405 A.D..

So yeah, The catholics were very selective in terms of sex. One can only imagine how badly the celts and Catholics clashed. Back to 435 A. D., Saint Patrick began to preach Catholism and around that time wrote in his Confessio. He recounted that he found a boat to get out of Ireland and refused to suck on the nipples of those aboard.

“And on the same day that I arrived, the ship was setting out from the place, and I said that I had the wherewithal to sail with them; and the steersman was displeased and replied in anger, sharply: ‘By no means attempt to go with us.’ Hearing this I left them to go to the hut where I was staying, and on the way I began to pray, and before the prayer was finished I heard one of them shouting loudly after me: ‘Come quickly because the men are calling you.’ And immediately I went back to them and they started to say to me: ‘Come, because we are admitting you out of good faith; make friendship with us in any way you wish.’ (And so, on that day, I refused to suck the breasts of these men from fear of God, but nevertheless I had hopes that they would come to faith in Jesus Christ, because they were barbarians.) And for this I continued with them, and forthwith we put to sea.”

—(Tw very mild rape/sex assault mention—

So, as you can see, Celtic and Catholic ways clashed horribly. Something seen as good and sacred to the indigenous tribes was seen as barbaric and sinful to Saint Patrick. Also, don’t worry, the celts did not press the issue ferther, or else this would be a very different story.

—————

This only snowballed into a much bigger issue much later in medival English sexuality. They were VERY picky on what sex was aloud. Missionary was the only aloud position and it has to be the least pleasurable as possible. Making out and masturbation wasn’t aloud either, as that was also seen as a sin. Here’s a low Rez chart to help figure out when sex was okay.

While we are discussing such a queer topic, I would like to bring up the topic of Anam Cara, or Soul Friends in Antient Celtic culture. A Soul Friend was a word used to describe a Philosophy in which one is not completely whole without thier “other half.” This person can be in a platonic, romantic, or familiar kind of love. Really, all it boils down to is that 2 poeple were made to be together since the beginning of time and will be at thier strongest when they become companions.

There is a Celtic legend that seams to depict a mlm Anam Cara relationship. It tells the story of Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, two male worriors who have known and loved each other a long time. But they must kill each other in a duel. Both are vary reluctant, as at least one of them will have to die.

————(Tw insest)———

Before I go on, it is important to mention there is a lot of debate on wether or not this is homosexual. Mainly because they were foster brothers, but since insest wasn’t as much of a taboo, I do not think this would be as much of a set back as it is today.

—————

They had tried to kill each other each day for 3 days, but they ended up hugging each other and kissing 3 times. On the fourth day, however, Cuchulainn killed Ferdiad. The man then holds Ferdiad in his arms and sings peoms for a long time. Here are some:

“We were heart-companions once,

We were comrades in the woods,

We were men that shared a bed

When we slept the heavy sleep

After hard and weary fights.

Into many lands, so strange,

And side by side we sallied forth

And we ranged the woodlands through,When with Scathach we learned arms!”

Heart companions seams to be similar or the same as soul freind, because of how it’s used. Although sleeping in the same bed isn’t inherently sexual, Cuchulainn then goes on to complement Ferdiad’s physical features.

“Dear to me thy noble blush,

Dear thy comely, perfect form;

Dear thine eye, blue-grey and clear,

Dear thy wisdom and thy speech”

Although this is deeply sweet I would also like to caution that Chuhulainn may have simply been commenting on his healthiness, but blush is an odd word considering he is now dead.

Two male lovers, one dead in the other’s arms. Soul friends, maybe. Reminds me of a certain show..I don’t know I just can’t put my finger on it...

I would also like to point out that because Celtics did not pressure others to have sex, and that a soul friend can be any type of love, I do think that an asexual or someone on that spectrum could live without judgment.Unfortunately, I could not find much about intersex, androgynous, or trans people. Perhaps if I find anything in the future and will make a new post.

In conclusion, if Merlin were more historicaly accurate, he definitely would have been queer. Especially because he is said to be magic itself, it would make sense for him to be the personification of Celtic values. That may include homosexuality, because as previously stated, Celtic men really liked other men.

I’m excited to see what will come of this post, seeing as not a lot of people in the fandom seem to know this. More fanfiction? More fanart? It would probably inspire a lot of creators. So, if you do make something because of this post, please notify me in the notes, an ask, an @ or something. Basically anything but a PM. I would be happy to see/read the creation.

Sources:

Sexuality and love in Celtic society:

Same Sex Celts

Druid Thoughts: of Sex and Druids

Anam Cara, what’s a soul mate?

Sexuality in Ancient Ireland

The Celts, Women, and Sex

LGBT history

Sexuality and love in Medival Society:

Getting down and medival: the sex lives of the Middle Ages

Sex in the Middle Ages

Here’s What Sex Was Like In Medieval Times. It’ll Make You Feel Glad You Weren’t Born Back Then!

General Celtic Society:

Who Were the Celts

Celtic Religion and Belieifs

Saint Patrick

17 Things You Probably Didnt know about Saint Patrick

Confession of Saint Patrick

Cuchulainn and Ferdiad

Cuchulainn and Ferdiad, Gay Lovers?

The Combat of Ferdiad and Cuchulain

Insest in Antient Celtic Society

Ancient Irish elite practiced incest, new genetic data from Neolithic tomb shows

Homosexuality in the Roman Empire

Timeline of LGBT history

Timeline of LGBT history in the United Kingdom

[yourlocalcatholic]

What advice would you give to someone who really wants to be catholic but deeply disagrees with the church’s stance on LGBT people? I am afraid that if I go to church, people will say unaffirming things about me or my partner, or push me into conversion therapy.

Well, it’s not going to be easy.

When I started my conversion, I was not in line with what the Church believed about the LGBTQ+ community. In truth, I still struggle with it. 

Despite my previous stubbornness on LGBTQ+ issues, I kept my heart open to God and what the Church teaches. I didn’t ignore what the Catechism says, but instead learned to understand what it teaches and why. This allowed me to accept the Church’s stances on the LGBTQ+ community. 

Since the issues are different for gay and trans people, I’ll address them separately. 

Contrary to popular thought, being gay in and of itself is not a sin. However, acting on same sex attraction is. The Church understands that being gay is not a choice, but as a result of its inherent brokenness, people with SSA are called to celibacy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2359). 

I know a lot of people would like if the Church permitted same sex marriages and relationships, but this simple cannot be so. As Christians, we are called to be faithful to Christ and the Church, to “observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) and that “if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). Christ asked for us to live lives in accord with Church teaching and meeting the standard he set for us. We are not only called to reject our modernist, consumer culture glorifies, but to “be perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). We are called to overcome the vices of vanity, pride, gluttony, greed, envy, lust, wrath, and sloth, while cultivating the virtues of detachment, humility, temperance, generosity, charity, chastity, patience, and fortitude.

This also means we cannot call a sin anything other than a sin. We cannot lower the Church’s standards to the culture’s level, calling abortion, remarriage (without an annulment) after a divorce, homosexual acts, or contraception anything other than violations of God’s law. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8). Claiming the Bible says something that it clearly does not say is projecting our own morality on God. In doing so, we say that God does not know what is best for us and that he does not know what he is doing. 

All of this can seem impossible. And without grace, it would be. Even with grace, we’ll often fall short. When we stumble we must repent, confess our sins, and come back to the Church. 

So... is the Church homophobic? No, it is not. Sadly, however, some people with the Church are. These kinds of people lack one of Christ’s fundamental truths to “not neglect to show hospitality to strangers” (Hebrews 13:2). We turn ourselves into hypocrites when we do not uphold the idea that are all welcome in the Church. 

Keep in mind, also, that just because “all are welcome” does not mean you can remain the same when you choose to become Christian. We are all ridden with sin, and we all have a cross to bear. But, by God’s mercy, we do not have to carry that cross alone. 

Neither to trans people. Like homosexuality, there is a lot misunderstood about how the Church views being transgender. 

For starters, the Church recognizes that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). EVERY person. Consequently, we must act in love towards our trans siblings and reprimand those who name-call, bully, or engage in any other uncharitable behavior toward them. As Christians, how we speak to one another, the language we use, the tone of our voice, and the respect our words and attitude convey determines whether our words are used to glorify God or to slander his children. 

Respecting our fellow children of God also means we use peoples’ preferred name and pronouns. It is not a matter of affirming the person’s decision to transition, but rather it serves no use to do otherwise. If you’re having a conversation with a trans person, that conversation will not last long if you deliberately choose to use a name or a set of pronouns that the person is not comfortable with. What do you hope to achieve by refusing? You are more than likely to lose the opportunity to give them a faithful witness through which Christ can soften their heart to receive and embrace the true Gospel.

This topic is more difficult to address, in part because there is no official policy regarding trans individuals in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The other reason is because the truth is... very difficult to hear. Admittedly, though I am not trans, I struggle to fully grasp it. Like SSA, like anything else inherently broken, it is difficult to hear the truth of our condition. But I’m not here to tell you what I think, because what I think (or have a tendency to think) is corrupt due to my sin. Therefore, I can only share with you what the Church teaches. Keep in mind, I accept what the Church teaches, despite how difficult it will be to hear, because if I didn’t, then why would I be Catholic? 

God doesn’t make mistakes. When he fashioned each of us in our mother’s womb, he did so with the care of an artist making his greatest masterpiece. He choose the things that make you uniquely you, and this includes our gender. If you feel like God made a mistake when you were created, then we don’t share the same definition of God. God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving Father, so it is impossible for him to make mistakes because it would be contrary to his nature. God created you male or female for a reason.

But gender dysphoria, the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex, is a very real condition and many people suffer greatly because of it. 

If your sex is a source of suffering in your life, God can be there with you to comfort you and help you through that suffering. He doesn’t promise to take away our sufferings and struggles, but He does promise to be there carrying our crosses alongside us.

Keep in mind that we are all called to holiness. For this reason, God may be asking you to grow in holiness by wrestling with trying to trust him that he doesn’t make mistakes and that he created you as male or female for a reason.

Now, you also expressed worry about people being uncharitable. Truth is, there are going to be uncharitable people. In my experience going to church, I have not encountered any. That said, I do not make my bisexuality known to the parishioners because I do not feel it is necessary. 

But if you do feel the need, talk to the parish priest about your worries. There are many priests who understand that God has called them to love everyone, not just the ones that can hide their crosses easier. So, speak with a priest - via email, phone call, or in person (whichever way you’re comfortable) - and express your interest in their parish. If they are God-fearing, they will work with you. 

I will be praying for you. God bless. 

[that-devout-catholic-woman]

Hi, my name is V and I'm discerning whether or not to convert into the Catholic church. I was raised in a local Episcopal church and confirmed in it two years ago, but about a year ago I bought a rosary (and now have two more because the first literally lost Jesus and I cannot find him LOL) because I kept getting a persistent feeling that I should. I was devout with it until summer and fell off because of severe anxiety and depression. (1)

Hi V. ❤️ Thank you for sharing your story with me, I think you are so strong and courageous to be going through these changes and spiritual battles the way you have been.

I literally laughed at losing the Jesus, it’s now Lent as I’m answering this so it seems very apropos now. Sneaky Jesus moments, ya know? Lol.

I know all to well the struggle of trying to be consistent in prayer and then falling off the wagon because of mental health issues. Remember it doesn’t make you a bad person if you can’t stick to praying the rosary every X amount of time. God knows your heart and sees your struggles and as long as you’re reaching and longing for Him even in those moments when it’s hard to pray, He recognizes that. That being said, if you can muster up the strength to stick to it even when it’s hard, He sees and recognizes that effort too.

I hope by now you’ve found the courage to go to that scary parish and found community, but if not, this is your sign to go. Large parishes really do seem scary since you know no one but the conversion process through RCIA (one that I’ve been through myself) is typically a small class/group so it’s easier to connect and share. I’d also recommend looking into their different ministry groups and seeing if any appeal to you. I was a part of the young adults group at my home parish after I moved back home after college and made so many of my current best friends there. There are pockets of community even in a big parish.

As for worrying about being judged for who you were, if anyone tries to shame you, say that Jesus has changed your heart and the old you died and the new Christian you has been resurrected with Christ. That tends to shut people up real quick lol. But I think you may find that people tend to be rather accepting when you tell them you’re trying to convert since most Catholics obviously are going to try to encourage that.

Oh V. Lol if only you knew how much tinier Courtney related to being afraid of confession. I went once when I was like 7 and then didn’t go again until I was in college going through RCIA. I was TERRIFIED. I had no idea how to do the thing. My suggestion is to download the Laudate app and go to the “confession” tab. You can click one of the confession app choices and it will take you through an examination of conscience so you can remember all your sins and when you click the little next button it tells you **everything** you’ll need to say in the confessional. Super convenient, right?? I’d make an appointment rather than going during the typical time it’s offered at the parish since obviously it’d probably take a while to get everything out and that way the priest knows that it’s your first confession and can help guide you in what’s happening and what you should say. No matter what you’ve done, priests have heard people confess wayyyyy worse. It’s scary to have to tell someone all the bad things that you’ve done in your life but trust me, confession is so healing and worth it.

When people shame me for my faith I like to try to remember the Bible verse from John 15:20: ““Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.”” I’m sorry that you parents and especially your dad isn’t supportive of your faith and I can’t imagine how hard that must be. But stay strong, God sees that and loves you and supports you all the more as you endure that and hopefully try to bring them closer to God as well.

I will continue to pray for you and I’d live an update as to where you are in your faith life if you wouldn’t mind. Also any of my followers who sees this, if you could pray for V as well I’m sure she would be so grateful.

[qqueenofhades]

Having just sent you a message the other day about how much I love your historical asks, I realized I have a question myself that you might know the answer to. I’m a Christian and I have never been able to figure out why Christianity has historically viewed non-procreative sex for pleasure as bad. (And none of my family, including my clergy father, have figured it out either. I think my dad has a bone to pick with Augustine? And I feel like Aquinas also has something to do with this.) But given that Jesus had a body and gives a speech about “the Son of Man came eating and drinking” as though he enjoyed it, how did this whole “the body is sinful especially the sex part” thing happen? I have been thinking about this a lot recently for Old Guard reasons, which should surprise no one.

Oof. So, a short and simple question, then. (Sidenote: did they expand ask limits? Because I’ve definitely gotten a couple asks today, including this one, that are longer than usual, rather than forced to space out and hope that Tumblr doesn’t eat them.)

The entire history of sexuality in the West and its relationship with Christianity throughout the centuries is obviously a topic that far, far exceeds anything I could possibly cram into this ask, but let’s see if I can hit on some of the highlights. First off, one could remark that some aspects of Jesus’s teaching managed to disappear from the official doctrine of Christianity almost immediately, and for a variety of theological, cultural, and social reasons. As anyone who has a passing knowledge of the late Roman Empire is aware, they were known for being sexually liberate (at least if you were a nobleman, as the freedom certainly did NOT apply to women), and the notorious run of emperors who were having orgies and sleeping with boys and their sisters and hosting nonstop sex parties did a lot to sour early Christianity’s relationship with it. Because pre-Constantine/Theodosian Code Rome was Christianity’s enemy (since Christians refused to perform the traditional civic sacrifices to the Roman gods, which was all that Rome required alongside permitting its citizens to practice whatever other religion they wanted), and because the emperors were such a high-profile example of sexual excess, that became an easy point of critique. Obviously, the Roman polemicists, like every other historian, should not be trusted on EVERYTHING they say about the emperors, but the general pattern is there and well-established. So Christianity, trying to establish its religious and moral bona fides, can easily go, “Well, Caligula/Nero obviously sucks, come join us and live a purer and more moral life!”

Constantine converted in the early fourth century and the Theodosian Code was issued at the end of the fourth century, which made Rome officially Catholic and represented a huge reversal of fortune for fledgling Christianity, helping it expand like crazy now that it was officially sanctioned. However, the Roman Empire was splitting into two halves, west and east, and the development of Greek Christianity in the eastern empire was strongly influenced by ascetic and austere traditions (if you’ve heard of the Stylites, i.e. the guys who liked to sit atop poles out in the Syrian desert to prove how holy they were, those are them). The cultural context of denial of the flesh and the renouncing of bodily pleasures also played intensely into the third/fourth/fifth century debates over heresy and orthodoxy. Some of the most vicious arguments came over whether Jesus Christ could have actually had an embodied (and therefore possibly inherently sinful) human body, or it was just a complicated illusion, the “shell” of a body that his entirely divine nature then inhabited without actually being part of. This involved huge theological arguments over the redemptive nature of the Eucharist and even Christ’s sacrifice: was it real/effective/genuine if he didn’t REALLY die and suffer the pain of being crucified, and was just assured that he’d be fine ahead of time? So yeah, the question of whether Christ had a real body (because then that might be sinful) was the knock-down, drag-out theological disagreement of the early centuries C.E., and left a lot of hard feelings and entrenched positions in its wake.

Likewise, your dad is correct in having a bone to pick with Augustine, at least in terms of his impact on views of sexuality in the late antique and early medieval Christian church. Augustine is obviously famous for agonizing endlessly over his sexuality/sexual urges in Confessions, his time as a Manichaean, his relationship with a woman and the birth of his son out of wedlock (and if you want a lot of repressed homoeroticism: well, Augustine’s got that too) and how his conversion to Christianity was intensely tied with his renunciation of himself as a sexual being. Augustine also pioneered the nature of the inheritance of Original Sin: therefore, every human who was born was sinful by virtue of sharing in humanity’s legacy from Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. (And yes, obviously, this led to the beginnings of the embedding of clerical and social misogyny. Oh Augustine, I kind of hate you anyway because I had to read the entire goddamn 1000-page City of God during my master’s degree, but bro, you got a lot to answer for.) This involved EVEN MORE obscure speculations about whether original sin was passed down in male semen, and therefore Jesus was free of it because he was supposedly born divinely to a woman without a male father, but yeah, the idea that sexuality itself was already a suspect thing was fairly well correlated and then cemented by Augustine’s HUGE influence over the early church. Everything post-Augustine incorporated his ideas somehow, and so the idea of bodily pleasures as separating you from divine purpose got even more established.

Then we had the Carolingians in the eighth and ninth centuries, who were the first “empire” per se in Western Europe post-Rome, and who were also intensely concerned with legislating moral purity, policing the sexual behavior especially of its queens, and correlating moments of political or military defeat with insufficiently virtuous private behavior. The Carolingians likewise passed these ideas onto their successor kingdoms, especially the medieval kingdom of France (which would eventually become the pre-eminent secular power in Western Europe). Then the eleventh century arrived with the Cluniac and Gregorian Reforms (which were interrelated). One of their big goals was for a celibate and unmarried clergy on all levels of holy orders, from humble village priests to bishops and archbishops. Prior to this, clergymen had often been married, and there wasn’t a definite sense that it was bad. But because of this, and the idea that a married clergyman wasn’t pure enough to provide the Eucharist and would be distracted from his commitment to the church by a wife and family, the Cluniac and papal reformers intensely attacked sex and sexuality as evil. Priests didn’t (or rather, were not supposed to) do it, and if you weren’t in a heterosexual church-performed marriage and didn’t want children, you shouldn’t be doing it either. (Did this stop people, and priests, from doing it? Absolutely not, but that was the rhetoric.) This was about when celibacy began to be constructed as the top of the heap in terms of holy lifestyles, for men and women alike and laypeople as well as those in holy orders. NOT having sex was the most virtuous choice for anyone, even if sex was a necessary evil for having heirs and the next generation and so on. (Which is interesting considering that our hypersexualized present attaches so much value to having sex of one sort or another, and the asexual-exclusion types, but yeah, that’s a different topic for now.)

Of course, when the Cathars (a schismatic Catholic heresy in France and Italy) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries began attacking ALL materiality and sexuality as irredeemably evil, the Catholic church went a bit like “whoa whoa that’s a little too far, hold on now, SOME sex is good, sex can be nice, we’re not actually like those guys” (even though they had been about a hundred years before). Because Cathar spirituality taught that any kind of attention or indulgence to the body was sinful, that included any kind of sex at all, even married heterosexual intercourse. (Of course, the Cathars themselves didn’t always live up to it either; see Beatrice de Planissoles and her Cathar priest lover.) The Catholic church obviously didn’t want to go THAT far, so they began rowing back some of their earlier blanket statements about the evilness of sexuality and taught that husband and wife both had a responsibility to offer each other sexual pleasure and fulfillment. I’ve answered many asks about sexual behavior and unions in the medieval era, the arguments over the definition of marriage, and how that changed over time in response to social needs and pressures, so yes. We know what the IDEALS were, and what people were legally supposed to do, but the fact that church writers were complaining about bad behavior, sexual and otherwise, literally the whole time means that, obviously, this did not always match up with reality.

The theories of the Roman physician Galen, which prescribed that female orgasm was necessary to conceive, were also well known and prevalent in the medieval world, which meant that ordinary married couples trying to have children would have had some awareness that female pleasure was supposedly necessary to do it. (This ties into my “it wasn’t an unrestrained extravaganza of violent painful rape for women all the time YOU GODDAMN MORONS JESUS CHRIST” rant, but we will recognize that I have Many Rants. So yes.) Obviously, we can’t know what the sex life of individual married couples behind closed doors was actually like, but there were a variety of teachings and official stances on sex and how it was supposed to be done, and as noted in other posts, just because the church thought it is zero guarantee that ordinary people thought that way too. People are people. They (usually) like having sex. They had sex, both gay and straight, married and unmarried, so on and so forth, even if the church had Opinions. Circle of life, etcetera.

Anyway, then the Renaissance arrived (and we just had the “why the Renaissance sucked for women” ask the other day), which prescribed a reversal of all the comparative sexual and political and social latitude that women had gradually acquired over the medieval era. It very much wanted to see women returned to their silent, domestic, maternal, objet d’arte roles that they had occupied in antiquity, and attacked the actions of women in their public and private lives as one of the major causes of the crises of the late medieval era. (Because you know, misogyny is always a useful scapegoat rather than blaming the powerful men who have fucked everything up, as we’re seeing again right now.) Because the Renaissance is regarded, fairly or unfairly, as the start of the early modern Western world, it’s where a lot of modern gender attitudes and views of sexuality became more explicitly codified and distributed faster than at any point in history before, to a more extensive audience, thanks to the invention of the printing press. We’ve obviously had moves toward sexual liberation and agency in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the emergence of the modern feminist and gay rights movements, but now in some ways, we’re back in oddly Puritan attitudes in the twenty-first century. And since America was founded by Puritans, their social attitudes are still embedded in the culture, fanned today by hyper-conservative Protestant evangelicalism. Even though Puritans themselves ALSO, shock surprise, didn’t always live up to the stringent standards they preached.

...whoof. I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but hopefully that gives you the broad-strokes development.

[minervacasterly]

One of the many aims in Mary's reign was reforming the Church from within. Like her maternal grandmother she recognized the crippling state of the Catholic Church in her country, and sought to remedy it. Many of the priests and bishops who were responsible for tending to their flock couldn't speak the language, those who did were not in tune to the needs of their flock and other simply didn't want to associate with the common people, instead they wanted to take as much money as they could and live off from their benefices. Things like these had allowed the Protestant movement to grow. Mary's only option was reforming the entire structure of the English church. She took advantage of the printing press to produce a substantial body of homilies and reference material, much of it penned by the bishop of London, Edmund Bonnet. She also took a strong stance against married priests (something Elizabeth I also did in her reign) and in March 1554, nine months after her accession, issued an order that deprived every priest of their benefices and removed “according to their learning and discretion, all such persons from ecclesiastical promotions who contrary to the laudable custom of the church have married and used women as their wives.” One of the people affected by her policy was the Archbishop of York who had been married under Edward's regime. While her councilors advised her it was best to wait, Mary was anxious to see religious change in the country. As a princess she had been educated by the best Humanists in her day and she was in the most true sense, a renaissance princess and like her mother and father, she blamed the current state of the country and the distrust in the Catholic Church on the priesthood. During her reign many charters and religious institutions were founded, re-founded, and established as well as scholarships to encourage young men to continue their education.

Sources: 

Myth of Bloody Mary by Linda Porter 

Tudor by Leanda de Lisle 

Bloody Mary by Erickson.

Image: Mary I c. 1554 by Antonio Mor.

[church-history]

St. Siricius - 4th Century Pope

Some of our separated brothers and sisters in Christ have a tendency to claim that the first papacy exercising supreme pontifical authority over The Church did not occur until the 6th century, this claim is erroneous by many historical accounts; so for the edification of my fellow Catholics and in the spirit of loving instruction to our Orthodox and Protestant siblings in Christ, I offer this article (not written by myself) pertaining to Pope St. Siricius of the 4th century, and period references to his pontifical predecessors.

 source: NewAdvent.org 

Born about 334; died 26 November, 399, Siricius was a native of Rome; his father's name was Tiburtius. Siricius entered the service of the Church at an early age and, according to the testimony of the inscription on his grave, was lector and then deacon of the Roman Church during the pontificate of Liberius (352-66). After the death of Damasus, Siricius was unanimously elected his successor (December, 384) and consecrated bishop probably on 17 December. Ursinus, who had been a rival to Damasus (366), was alive and still maintained his claims. However, the Emperor Valentinian III, in a letter to Pinian (23 Feb., 385), gave his consent to the election that had been held and praised the piety of the newly-elected bishop; consequently no difficulties arose. Immediately upon his elevation Siricius had occasion to assert his primacy over the universal Church. A letter, in which questions were asked on fifteen different points concerning baptism, penance, church discipline, and the celibacy of the clergy, came to Rome addressed to Pope Damasus by Bishop Himerius of Tarragona, Spain. Siricius answered this letter on 10 February, 385, and gave the decisions as to the matters in question, exercising with full consciousness his supreme power of authority in the Church (Coustant, "Epist. Rom. Pont.", 625 sq.). This letter of Siricius is of special importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal decretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questions of discipline and canon law). It is, however, certain that before this earlier popes had also issued such decretals, for Siricius himself in his letter mentions "general decrees" of Liberius that the latter had sent to the provinces; but these earlier ones have not been preserved. At the same time the pope directed Himerius to make known his decrees to the neighbouring provinces, so that they should also be observed there. This pope had very much at heart the maintenance of Church discipline and the observance of canons by the clergy and laity. A Roman synod of 6 January, 386, at which eighty bishops were present, reaffirmed in nine canons the laws of the Church on various points of discipline (consecration of bishops, celibacy, etc.). The decisions of the council were communicated by the pope to the bishops of North Africa and probably in the same manner to others who had not attended the synod, with the command to act in accordance with them. Another letter which was sent to various churches dealt with the election of worthy bishops and priests. A synodal letter to the Gallican bishops, ascribed by Coustant and others to Siricius, is assigned to Pope Innocent I by other historians (P.L., XIII, 1179 sq.). In all his decrees the pope speaks with the consciousness of his supreme ecclesiastical authority and of his pastoral care over all the churches.

Siricius was also obliged to take a stand against heretical movements. A Roman monk Jovinian came forward as an opponent of fasts, good works, and the higher merit of celibate life. He found some adherents among the monks and nuns of Rome. About 390-392 the pope held a synod at Rome, at which Jovinian and eight of his followers were condemned and excluded from communion with the Church. The decision was sent to St. Ambrose, the great Bishop of Milan and a friend of Siricius. Ambrose now held a synod of the bishops of upper Italy which, as the letter says, in agreement with his decision also condemned the heretics. Other heretics including Bishop Bonosus of Sardica (390), who was also accused of errors in the dogma of the Trinity, maintained the false doctrine that Mary was not always a virgin. Siricius and Ambrose opposed Bonosus and his adherents and refuted their false views. The pope then left further proceedings against Bonosus to the Bishop of Thessalonica and the other Illyrian bishops. Like his predecessor Damasus, Siricius also took part in the Priscillian controversy; he sharply condemned the episcopal accusers of Priscillian, who had brought the matter before the secular court and had prevailed upon the usurper Maximus to condemn to death and execute Priscillian and some of his followers. Maximus sought to justify his action by sending to the pope the proceedings in the case. Siricius, however, excommunicated Bishop Felix of Trier who supported Ithacius, the accuser of Priscillian, and in whose city the execution had taken place. The pope addressed a letter to the Spanish bishops in which he stated the conditions under which the converted Priscillians were to be restored to communion with the Church.

According to the life in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 216), Siricius also took severe measures against the Manichæans at Rome. However, as Duchesne remarks (loc. cit., notes) it cannot be assumed from the writings of the converted Augustine, who was a Manichæan when he went to Rome (383), that Siricius took any particular steps against them, yet Augustine would certainly have commented on this if such had been the case. The mention in the "Liber Pontificalis" belongs properly to the life of Pope Leo I. Neither is it probable, as Langen thinks (Gesch. der röm. Kirche, I, 633), that Priscillians are to be understood by this mention of Manichæans, although probably Priscillians were at times called Manichæans in the writings of that age. The western emperors, including Honorius and Valentinian III, issued laws against the Manichæans, whom they declared to be political offenders, and took severe action against the members of this sect (Codex Theodosian, XVI, V, various laws). In the East Siricius interposed to settle the Meletian schism at Antioch; this schism had continued notwithstanding the death in 381 of Meletius at the Council of Constantinople. The followers of Meletius elected Flavian as his successor, while the adherents of Bishop Paulinus, after the death of this bishop (388), elected Evagrius. Evagrius died in 392 and through Flavian's management no successor was elected. By the mediation of St. John Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria an embassy, led by Bishop Acacius of Beroea, was sent to Rome to persuade Siricius to recognize Flavian and to readmit him to communion with the Church.

At Rome the name of Siricius is particularly connected with the basilica over the grave of St. Paul on the Via Ostiensis which was rebuilt by the emperor as a basilica of five aisles during the pontificate of Siricius and was dedicated by the pope in 390. The name of Siricius is still to be found on one of the pillars that was not destroyed in the fire of 1823, and which now stands in the vestibule of the side entrance to the transept. Two of his contemporaries describe the character of Siricius disparagingly. Paulinus of Nola, who on his visit to Rome in 395 was treated in a guarded manner by the pope, speaks of the urbici papæ superba discretio, the haughty policy of the Roman bishop (Epist., V, 14). This action of the pope is, however, explained by the fact that there had been irregularities in the election and consecration of Paulinus (Buse, "Paulin von Nola", I, 193). Jerome, for his part, speaks of the "lack of judgment" of Siricius (Epist., cxxvii, 9) on account of the latter's treatment of Rufinus of Aquileia, to whom the pope had given a letter when Rufinus left Rome in 398, which showed that he was in communion with the Church. The reason, however, does not justify the judgment which Jerome expressed against the pope; moreover, Jerome in his polemical writings often exceeds the limits of propriety. All that is known of the labours of Siricius refutes the criticism of the caustic hermit of Bethlehem. The "Liber Pontificalis" gives an incorrect date for his death; he was buried in the cæmeterium of Priscilla on the Via Salaria. The text of the inscription on his grave is known (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christ. urbis Romæ", II, 102, 138). His feast is celebrated on 26 November. His name was inserted in the Roman Martyrology by Benedict XIV.

[tinyshe]

June 3, 2021 Your Excellencies, Do You Even Believe? Jennifer Hartline 

The learned and the mighty have been weighing in now for weeks regarding the ongoing scandal of Catholic pro-abortion politicians, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Joe Biden, and the question of giving and receiving the Holy Eucharist.

I wonder if the USCCB will listen to a voice like mine. I am not a theologian or scholar. I am an ordinary laywoman. (Please note: This is not directed at the bishops who have spoken out publicly in defense of Eucharistic and moral coherence. Those few, steadfast shepherds are the exception, not the rule. I am immensely grateful to them.)

The scandal isn’t merely the Catholic politician who betrays the Faith. It is also those priests and bishops who shrug and nod, issue utterly worthless statements about the need for greater “dialogue” about what to do, and bemoan their “immense sadness” over the whole thing.

You lament the present “situation” and issue another statement about your sadness.

The “situation,” of course, is that baptized Catholics who publicly profess their devout faith are using all their political power and energy to facilitate the ongoing slaughter of the child in the womb. They guarantee half a billion dollars each year in funding for the killers. They protect this “right” (their language!) with legislation and fight every attempt at restricting the killing.

They do this gladly, without remorse, without any intention of ceasing. They are proud and empowered in their zealous advocacy of slaughtering innocents.

Yet, you only find your indignation and courage to condemn the “politicization” of the Eucharist. We must not “weaponize” the Eucharist, you solemnly warn, as though you are oblivious to the truth that it is Biden and Pelosi et al. who are “politicizing” the Eucharist. It is they who have made receiving Communion a litmus test of “inclusion” and “conscience” and “unity” according to the world’s demand.

To these scandalous Catholics (and to the rest of the Church listening) you speak with all the conviction and authority of a whimpering dog. The public figures in question laugh at your carefully worded, heavyhearted softballs, knowing they will whack it right back in your face.  

They sing the tune, and you dance on the end of their strings. It is clear who preaches to whom.

I can only conclude, sadly, that you do not believe. Nothing else makes any sense.

If you truly believed the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, then you could not be so careless. You could not be so indifferent to the mockery of the King by those who publicly disavow His authority.

Or maybe what you don’t believe is that abortion is evil. Maybe you do not really believe it is always wrong to kill the child in the womb. Maybe you do not believe it is morally imperative, or even a good idea, to outlaw abortion.

That would help explain why this “situation” has gone on for decades, like a horror movie on endless repeat.

If Pelosi and Biden championed the legal right to kill kindergarteners, and poured half a billion dollars each year into an industry that existed solely to kill kindergarteners, would you have any qualms about them receiving the Eucharist? Would you still say that it was a political statement to deny them the Sacrament?

The unvarnished truth is that Pelosi and Biden actively work for the abortion industry. Do you understand that? Who works that zealously for something he truly believes is wrong?

Or perhaps you do not love. It would seem so because there is no love in betraying the Lord. Nor is there any love in enabling the death of souls in your charge. Or will you argue it is not a mortal sin to kill the child in the womb? If it is a mortal sin, how can it be justifiable to deliberately enable that sin? What excuse can possibly be offered for one who champions the killing of innocents, who personally and professionally benefits from partnerships with those who kill?

These are the ones who scold and sneer at your gentle chiding about the “protection of the unborn.” You refuse to act with courage and clarity to confront their heinous actions. You refuse to call them to repentance and fidelity. You refuse to care for their souls.

It is not a private matter any longer. It hasn’t been for many years. The scandal is public, the effects far-reaching, the consequences of your inaction are devastating. It is incoherent, inconceivable, that you, as a body, are conflicted and unsure whether it is right and just to withhold the Eucharist from any Catholic who willfully persists in zealous facilitation of abortion.

One wonders if you still believe in sin at all or have any fear of Hell at all. The faithful sheep still do, and we need shepherds who recognize the wolf as a threat. Unfortunately, I have seen how you shepherd. I have seen how you compromise and make excuses, and I have no confidence you would act any differently toward me.

You would leave me to the wolf. You would choose some other, lesser love over love of God. You would “accompany” me on the wide road. If I were lost in mortal sin, deluded by the evil one, participating in acts that will condemn me to Hell if I do not repent and convert, I could not count on you to tell me unchanging, hard truths. You would not offer me severe mercy, only counterfeit mercy.

You are unwilling to risk the mockery and scorn of the world, so you preach inclusion and unity rather than repentance and conversion.

You pretend that a soul can openly betray Church teaching and still claim to be a faithful son or daughter of the Church. You are there with handy excuses for why all the teachings of the Church are hard to embrace in their entirety, given all the complexities and pressures of daily life.

You do not love. You do not believe. What other explanation is there?

There is set before us life and death, the blessing and the curse. How long will you go on pretending there is any “dialogue” still to have? What is left to say to Herod at this point?

source Crisis magazine online

[jess-rewatches-prodigalson]

Speak of the Devil (S2, E2)

Damn. I love this show.

As usual, my time stamped SPOILER FULL thoughts are below.

As always, I reference Malcolm’s mental health. A lot. So if talk about depression/mania/suicidal ideation is going to be a trigger for you, don’t keep reading. 

0:14 - Hector’s back!! hahaha :) 

0:40 - So Martin is worried about Malcolm.....he could stop manipulating Malcolm if he’s so worried. That would make Malcolm feel slightly better at least. 

0:50 - What. A. Boss. That ambush was gorgeously executed *chef’s kiss*. haha how many times do you think Jessica has orchestrated this type of ambush on one of her children? 

0:52 - I love this outfit on Malcolm. Seriously - why is it sooo attractive when he’s not wearing a tie?

0:55 -........he’s not seeing Gabrielle....but but he had a lollipop last episode. Am I supposed to believe he buys his own lollipops? Maybe he bought some to throw the team off the scent? UGH. MALCOLM, SWEETHEART, GO BACK TO THERAPY. YOU’RE IN CRISIS. ....wait. I bet you he’s not seeing Gabrielle because she knows when he’s lying. He’s probably scared that he’ll end up telling her about Endicott. And I’m pretty sure that legally Gabrielle can’t keep a crime a secret regardless of doctor-patient confidentiality. 

1:02 - .....Malcolm didn’t know that he wasn’t paying his own therapy bills? WHO DID HE THINK WAS PAYING THEM?!?! Damn. Rich people, am I right?

1:10 - You ever wonder how many therapists Malcolm saw as a kid before they found Gabrielle? Just me? Cool.

1:15 - OMG. “Sexual in nature”?!?! Calm down Jess. He’s a grown ass man and even if it was sexual Malcolm sure as hell wouldn’t want to talk to his mother about his sex life. 

1:19 - Oh so now both of your kids are in a “good place”? Martin, less than a minute ago you were ‘worried’ about Malcolm. Further proof that Martin is a liar and we can’t believe anything he says. Ever. 

1:43 - Tom Payne’s physical acting during this interaction with Jessica is incredible. Ugh. Honestly, can I give him an Emmy myself? Look. Look at his face when he says, “You wouldn’t understand.” This is a teenage boy trying to hide something from his mom and is terrified that she’ll see the lie if he makes eye-contact. <3 

1:45 - You know, Jessica really isn’t a perfect mother (especially to Ainsley) but she does care about her kids. I love her for it. She actually shows more concern for her adult children than most parents with adult children that I’ve been exposed to. 

2:08 - I can’t decide if I love the music that was playing through that scene or if it’s just super cheesy and cringey. I mean “I did a bad bad thing” right as the title page rolls out? Kind of amazing but also super dorky. 

2:13 - So Mr. David hears this whole conversation. Malcolm talking about his guilt, Martin calling Malcolm a hero, and Malcolm saying that the only person he can talk to about his problems is Martin. Sooooo either

 Mr. David is being paid very well to keep quiet on Whitly family drama, 

 Mr. David stopped listening years ago.

 Mr. David is a moron who can’t connect the dots. OR

 Mr. David is going to blow this whistle on this fiasco to Jessica soon. I mean, he called her in the first season when Malcolm started visiting Martin. Mr. David has Jessica’s number...and I have a hunch that Mr. David cares about Malcolm. He’s watched Malcolm grow up into a troubled, bizarre, but very sweet man. 

2:14 - “Why are you calling me?” Malcolm sounds upset that Martin is calling him; so why pick up the phone? I mean, I guess Martin will call him back incessantly but still. 

2:19 - Malcolm’s completely honest version of how he’s doing mentally is heartbreaking. He “doesn’t recognize himself anymore”? Ugh. Baby. My heart is shattering. Someone hug him. OR TAKE HIM TO GABRIELLE.

2:30 - There is a moment when Malcolm says, “narcissistic psychopath” where is genuinely sounds like he’s about to have a complete breakdown. This boy is on the verge. My whump heart loves it and it makes me evil. 

2:56 - aaannnnnnd there’s Malcolm on the verge of tears. This boy. Ugh. <3 

3:00 - “It’s not going away Malcolm. The guilt. Take it from me.” Sooooo Mr. David isn’t a moron right? He’s going to connect the dots. He has to. ISTG Jessica keeps saying “No more lies” in the promos because Mr. David told her what he overheard. 

3:06 - And that is the face of a boy who is dead on the inside. Seriously, he’s spent his whole life trying to convince himself (and others) that he is nothing like his father. But here we are - all his fears confirmed and it’s killed him. 

3:20 - “Is this what you used?” Ainsley is talking about how Malcolm disposed of the body right? Because last episode she thanked Malcolm for covering for her. Sooooo she clearly knows that she killed Endicott even if she doesn’t remember it. I mean, she was covered in blood - Malcolm wasn’t. 

3:23.- OMG. Endicott was killed with the Milton family silver. hahahaha why is that so funny to me?

3:43 - Just how big is that gap in her memory? I’d truly like to know. When did she check out, when did she check in, and are those times different than what she’s letting Malcolm believe?

3:55 - Yeah - I still want to know why she moved in. COVID? Is she afraid she’s going to do something else murdery? Because surely, living in the house where you know you killed someone can’t be pleasant. Or easy. Unless of course Ainsley is more like Martin than we’d like to believe. 

4:09 - hahahahaha I am living for Malcolm’s facial response to Jessica saying, “I am in charge of boxes.”

4:22 - hahahaha Malcolm and Ainsley teasing Jessica about Gil is so precious. I love it. I wish they were always that happy. 

4:40 - Look at Malcolm’s face when he says, “You and a certain Lieutenant”. He’s practically giddy. Whether that’s because he’s thoroughly enjoying the opportunity to tease his mother OR because he’s always wanted Jessica and Gil to be together in that way that many children who grow up in single parent homes hope for a fairytale parental ending. My guess - a mixture of both.

4:45 - Ainsley looks delighted at the idea of Gil/Jessica too. I assume it’s because she loves the gossip and the opportunity to tease Jessica. BUT I also wonder what Ainsley’s relationship with Gil is like? Do they have one? 

4:58 - “Does he let you wear his turtlenecks?” OMG. bahahahaha comedic GOLD. 

5:10 - THIS. The evolution of JT and Malcolm’s friendship is everything. 10/10 would recommend. So sweet. LOOK AT HOW CONCERNED MALCOLM IS. <3 <3 Malcolm’s been calling JT?!?! UGH. This warms my cold dead heart.

5:20 - JT is a bad liar. This dude is not okay. 

5:27 - “When I say I’m fine, I’m always lying.” .....we already knew this but it hurts to hear Malcolm say is so nonchalantly. 

5:32 - JT does the sign of the cross....so he’s definitely religious. 

5:56 - “Holy...” “Watch it Bright.” hahaha how much do you want to bet that Gil took Malcolm to church once (1) time as a kid. It went so poorly that Gil never brought him again. Malcolm was probably questioning the priest and generally just asking a lot of “why” questions. 

6:15 - Gil is so done with the Edrisa+Bright banter. Look at his face - he’s just sooo tired. .....is Gil particularly cranky this episode because Jessica is dodging his phone calls?

6:23 - Malcolm looks pensive as soon as Gil mentions that the Father had been with the church for 30 years. Why? 

6:56 - I’m not going to lie. I’m really getting tired of the crap Dani (and even Gil in this episode - is he mad at Malcolm for avoiding him when he was hospital-bound? Or just cranky because Jessica isn’t calling him back?) are giving Malcolm. He’s asking a question relevant to the case. Sure - it’s not an easy question to ask but last season they wouldn’t have glared at him for asking it. I understand that Dani is upset with Malcolm for lying to her and she probably thinks he knows something about how Endicott died. I get it - Malcolm screwed up. BUT Dani’s reaction is so over the top. I understand where she’s coming from - she has trust issues. That doesn’t give her the right to treat him like garbage for the rest of his life. It’s been literally MONTHS. 

7:11 - “That’s not a no.”....Damn, he looks cute when he says that. 

7:30 - I LOVE that Malcolm knows so much about the Bible and Catholicism even though he’s not a believer. It makes me think he investigated a ton of religions as a kid - looking for relief from his trauma. I respect that he did the research and I respect that he doesn’t (openly at least) think other people are moronic/short-sighted for believing in God(s). 

7:56 - I’ll be honest, my first reaction to Jonah was: “Why does he look and sound like he’s dying?”

8:03 - “Catholic.” haha I love some good religious comedy. BUT AGAIN GIL, THAT GLARE IS SO NOT NECESSARY. That wasn’t a ‘warning - you’re being insensitive’ glare. That was a ‘I’m your father and you’re in sooo much trouble’ glare. I love Gil with my whole heart but everyone is being a dick to Malcolm today (minus JT and Edrisa) and I’m done with it. Malcolm’s fragile mental state can’t handle it. Be nice to my boy. 

8:35 - Is this Gil’s church?!? Why does he know all the church staff by name? He either attends this church or someone gave him an amazing briefing before he got to the church.

9:34 - At least Gil knows something is wrong with Malcolm. 

9:41 - What? That’s it? No. Gil - press on. Don’t accept Malcolm’s “I’m fine”.

10:18 - I wish this scene didn’t end with Gil’s look of disbelief and concern. I wish we got to see Gil tell Malcolm not to go see Martin. I wish we got a more concrete papa!Gil moment. 

10:42 - Something about the fact that Martin is tethered to a pole like a tether-ball is hilarious to me. Also - why are some prisoners not tied up? The inmate talking to Friar Pete has no rope. 

10:52 - Ugh. When exactly did Martin give Malcolm “The Talk”? Like how old was Malcolm? How traumatic was it? Ugh. It’s very upsetting to remember that Martin acted like a good father to Malcolm for a good portion of the first 10 years of Malcolm’s life. It really doesn’t help Malcolm’s PTSD. 

11:00 - That’s right Malcolm. Don’t let Martin ramble. Stand your ground. <3 So proud of Malcolm <3

11:15 - Listen to the way Malcolm says, “Who is that?”. He’s some combination of resigned and scared. I love it. 

11:33 - Friar Pete is so creepy. The way he just walks up to Malcolm until his rope goes taught?! UGH. Poor Malcolm looks so done with this whole situation. He’s rolling his eyes and grimacing at various points throughout this scene. He has some major sass right now and I’m here for it. 

 11:41 - “You two should talk!” ....Is this Martin’s really eff-ed up way of trying to help Malcolm with his guilt about Endicott? I don’t like it.....and Malcolm’s face tells me he doesn’t either. 

12:48 - Is that true? Can churches really not exorcise people without medical permission in the current day?  I thought exorcisms were just banned? IDK - I’m a Christian, my branch of faith doesn’t do exorcisms. 

13:33 - YES! A JT AND MALCOLM SCENE. <3 <3 I’m unreasonably happy about this. 

13:45 - sooooooo is this Norman’s real home and his real mother? The first time I watched it I thought it was some sort of weird catholic-inpatient facility but now I’m not sure. 

15:10 - Ok. I can’t hold back anymore. Malcolm’s shoes. They. Are. Awful. I understand - Tom Payne is a short guy. He probably needs heels to fit in the shot. I’m not mad about the heels. I’m made that they gave him very very ugly heels. Is it just me? These shoes are hideous. 

15:14 - “Hi Norman.” .....Malcolm is so soft here and I’m in love with it. My cold dead heart is melting. Also JT’s freaked-out look in this scene is everything. 

15:25 - There’s something about the way Malcolm says “Good.” that just hits me really hard. It’s beautiful. He sounds and looks a little scared but he’s also really calm and professional and it’s just...*chef’s kiss*. 

16:44 - “He’s clearly mentally-ill.” I love this. I love that Malcolm is defending the person with a severe mental illness because he doesn’t have any proof that Norman committed a crime. It also breaks my heart. Makes me think of how many people dismissed or judged Malcolm poorly throughout his life because Malcolm’s mental illnesses. Even though they weren’t quite as extreme as Norman’s.

16:54 - I love this. JT is telling Malcolm to stay behind the line partially out of fear (because this whole Norman situation is clearly freaking JT out big time) but also partially because he just cares about Malcolm. I love their friendship and it’s evolution. SO. MUCH. 

17:21 - Is there a mirror of something? How the hell did Norman know that Malcolm crossed the salt? Was it the slight creaking in the floorboards?

17:54 - Dude. Is every suspect this season going to accuse Malcolm of being a killer? First Boyd, now Norman. This is not helping Malcolm’s mental state or his ability to hide his guilt from the team. 

18:30 - “Malcolm Bright. Always crossing the line.” lol. I love JT here. He’s half-teasing Malcolm. Makes me think that he subtly trying to tell Malcolm that he isn’t the killer Norman says that he is. 

18:44 - I DO NOT LIKE THIS. LOOK AT HOW SCARED MALCOLM IS WHEN HE WALKS INTO THE ROOM. A ROOM WITH GIL AND DANI IN IT. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. HE’S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SCARED OF THEM. 

19:00 - “What the hell do you have?”. Wow. Okay. No. I love Gil. I understand that he loves Malcolm like a son and he’s scared for Malcolm and Malcolm’s mental state. But this question is so over the line. Gil knows damn well what Malcolm’s mental diagnoses are. It feels like he’s accusing Malcolm of being crazy. I don’t like it. 

19:17 - “Are you serious?” Ok. Dani really needs to start being nicer to Malcolm. She doesn’t have to trust him but some professional civility would be great. I really don’t like how hard the writers are pushing this tension between Dani and Malcolm. It makes Dani look so immature. An adult would be pissed but get over the anger after literal months. The relationship wouldn’t necessarily be the same but it sure as hell wouldn’t be this hostile.

19:40 - Something about Malcolm being the calmest person in the room is both comforting and upsetting. 

19:55 - “My father gave it to me.”.....that’s so not going to help Gil’s concern about Malcolm.

20:50 - This is cute. We don’t get to see enough of Jessica and Ainsley acting like a semi-normal mother-daughter duo. I love it. 

21:00 - “We are WASPs. It’s. What. We. Do.” OMG. Hahahaha 

21:05 - I love how invested Ainsley is in the Gil/Jessica relationship. It’s so clear that she wants her Mom to be happy and I love it. It also makes me wonder if she ever wanted Gil to be her real dad as a kid.

21:30 - Damn. This episode is creepy.

21:45 - First clue that this is a dream - Malcolm says “we” but he’s alone. 

21:57 - ...are Nuns allowed to paint their nails? #GenuineQuestion

22:14 - Not going to lie. This made me cry. I relate to Malcolm so damn much here. I’ve had a severe anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember (seriously I saw my first therapist - against my will - at the age of 4). I’ve also had chronic depression for almost as long. AND I’m a christian. I can’t tell you how many times other christians have told me to “cast my worries on the Lord” and “be free” of my pain. Or that I don’t really believe in God because I’m still suffering so visibly. The problem is - I don’t know if I want to be free. I’ve had these issues so long that I’m genuinely not sure who I’d be without them. It’s how I define myself. It affects every aspect of my personality. I feel like Malcolm might feel the same way - he doesn’t want to suffer anymore but he’s afraid of finding out who he is without the pain. 

22:17 - Okay. So there’s Gil’s voice. So Gil+ Malcolm = “we”. As though I’m supposed to believe that Gil would split up with Malcolm when they’re looking for a nun, who isn’t even a suspect, at a church. Nah. I don’t buy it. This is clearly a dream. 

22:30 - “You have to tell them what you did.”...and then we see the knife. Does this mean Malcolm is slowly convincing himself that he killed Endicott. Not Ainsley? Either way - I agree with nightmare-Ainsley. The team loves Malcolm but they’re also detectives. They’ll figure out what happened. And when they do - yikes. 

22:46 - I hate this. All season suspects have been calling Malcolm evil. Martin has been calling Malcolm a “hero”. Malcolm’s guilt is eating him alive. Simultaneously, the people who are supposed to trust and care about him (Dani, Gil, the precinct, Jessica) have all shown signs of doubting him. Dani alone has pointed a gun at Malcolm’s head. Now she’s wearing body armour? AND LOOK AT THE OTHER COPS. THEY ALL HAVE THEIR HANDS ON THEIR GUNS AS THOUGH MALCOLM IS A CRIMINAL. A THREAT. DANGEROUS. This is very bad for Malcolm’s mental health......God, the whump-whore in me hopes he has a major panic attack or something this season. 

23:23 - I love this scene. This is the papa!Gil content I’m here for. 

23:51 - JT expressing fear and concern for his unborn child makes my heart grow several sizes. Look at his puppy dog eyes here? Ugh. So precious. This whole JT arc is heartbreaking and beautiful. I love it.

24:15 - Sooooo JT knows about Jessica right? He’s a detective and a husband. He so knows. hahaha this is so cute. 

24:19 - Gil. You. Are. A. Liar......and you’ve been really grumpy this episode but I’m going to forgive you because I love you. 

24:28 - GIL. You’ve waited 20 years. How much longer can you wait for Jessica?!?!

24:35 - Maybe JT didn’t know? At least - not until Gil rambled on about waiting? JT looks like he just connected all the dots and he’s super uncomfortable.

24:43 -...... so she verbally attacks him all episode then drives him home and acts like she did toward Malcolm by mid-season 1? I’m getting whiplash. 

25:18 - This scene is so cute. They actually made the real life version of heart-eyes at each other. And Malcolm pours her a glass of water. Because 1) she’s driving and 2) she’s a recovering addict. He’s so casually respectful and I love it. 

25:28 - “Are you any different?” Ouch. Look at how hurt Malcolm is. :( Although, props to Dani for confronting him about it. Someone needed to and she’s being really calm and caring about it. 

26:10 - Dani’s little speech about being a black woman feels a little forced? Like the writers put it in so she doesn’t feel left out compared to JT? Idk, the whole thing just seemed not quite believable. Probably because when JT was racially profiled Dani - a black woman - pulled out her badge and all the white cops listened to her. It just doesn’t track. They wouldn’t have listened to her if they were racist and bold enough to attack JT in the first place.

26:47 - Anyone else think that all those lit candles are a fire hazard? Just me? Cool cool cool. 

 27:21 - Yo. This is stupid. I understand why this happened - because the plot needed it to happen. BUT WHY DID ALL THREE ARMED COPS LEAVE THREE UNARMED PEOPLE ALONE?!? And when does a team of 4 split into a group of 3 and 1??! It makes no logical sense (except for plot purposes).

28:03 - Creepy. 

28:30 - Oh. HELL no. This is absolute bs. My entire heart is breaking for JT.

29:05 - I really like how chill this Priest is. Like - he respects that Malcolm’s a disbeliever and he’s willing to talk to him without trying to convert him. 

29:55 - Listen to how upset JT sounds here!! :( :( :( My heart. :( 

30:08 - Ok so how did she end up tied in the closet and not murdered? 

30:40 - ....so did Jonah ruin that painting while Sister Agnes was in the closet or is the Sister just a moron who didn’t say anything about the guy ruining the painting?!?

30:50 - Sooooo Jonah is an “expert”. He taught Sister Agnes how to safely handle the lead-based paint. Yet - he didn’t use the protection? We saw him with a gas mask at the beginning of the episode? Did the sister not notice that he wasn’t using the protection? So much of this doesn’t track. Thankfully, I don’t watch this show for the “murder of the week” plot line.

31:30 - Malcolm is a good dude. Even now. He’s trying to help Jonah. <3 Heart of gold. 

32:25 - Martin - shut. up. 

32:45 - Friar Pete is a creepy treasure. I love him. 

33:24 - “Oh you’ve gotta be kidding.” hahaha I feel you Malcolm. I feel you. 

33:34 - Not gonna lie - when I watched this the first time all I could think is “How the eff does Malcolm remember everything Pete just said?” Maybe it’s just me but I would need Pete to go 1-2 words at a time. And slowly. ....maybe Malcolm took Latin in school? 

24:06 - Oh so all the killers this season are also going to accuse Malcolm of being a killer and/or evil. 

34:40 - Damn. I wish the team walked in right as Malcolm was screaming “the power of Christ compels you!!!”.

35:15 - I. Love. This. Gil screaming on the phone is everything. Him going to bat for JT is everything. Malcolm saying “This is bad”?!? *chef’s kiss*. ISTG Malcolm’s been scolded by Gil when Gil is that mad at some point during his teen years. 

35:53 - “I’ll take care of it.” JT. Is. My. Hero. What an absolute king. He’s going to take care of it, even though he’s terrified, because he needs to protect his family. Not just Tally and the baby. But little sister Dani too. <3 My heart is full. 

36:11 - ....okay so not to ruin a totally beautiful and profound scene but every time I’ve watched this scene JT doing that lean into the wall is very weird to me. Because he turns to face the camera. If he just slid down the wall or just leaned his head against the wall - it wouldn’t have felt so strange. It honestly distracts me from the scene. Every. Time. 

36:18 - This is hot garbage. I don’t even want to rewatch this scene because it makes me so upset. 

37:51 - I understand where Jessica is coming from but I also think she’s being a moron. I will say though, I respect the hell out of Gil for walking away when asked. A lot of men wouldn’t but he respects Jessica even if he doesn’t like what he’s hearing. So he left because she asked him to. 

39:00 - If this isn’t a red flag for Jessica about Ainsley’s mental health idk what is. 

39:25 - Poor Malcolm looks like he’s on the verge of tears here. :( I’m genuinely scared that Malcolm is becoming suicidal. He’s reaching the level of depressed and guilt where I think it’s a possibility. I genuinely think he’d rather kill himself to stop his guilt and suffering than to admit it to Gil, Jessica, JT, or Dani. ...for legal reasons he definitely can’t tell Gabrielle. 

40:00 - Sooooo Martin is finally suggesting that it was his idea to dispose of the body. I hope it’s the truth. 

40:05 - Martin is a piece of trash. He really needs to stop playing with Malcolm’s head. It’s literally killing Malcolm. 

40:50 - Oh. SHIT. Malcolm just clapped back hard. I am so so proud of him. ...also concerned about this deep anger in him though.

 41:46 - I swear - if we don’t get a Gil and Martin face-off when Martin breaks out, I will lose my mind. It’s one of the top things I want from this show. A Martin+Gil showdown. 

Ok. So I kind of loved this episode? Even though there were...many plot holes and things that annoyed me about it. Is it just me or has this season felt much darker than last season so far? It makes sense given last season’s finale but it’s still thrown me a bit. 

BUT I CAN NOT WAIT FOR 2x3. That promo. Ugh. <3 <3 We’re going to get traumatized teen!Malcolm content and I’m a sick bastard who is living for it. 

[angria]

My church still remains the one consistent good thing in my life. I have other good things, but I have yet to have a bad experience at my church and I will have been there two years this month.

CW: positive religion talk/not evangelizing, Christianity, God mention

Every single encounter I have with one of the priests or a parishioner is so loving and welcoming. They go out of their way to make sure you feel supported. My church recently joined an interfaith organization in the city, which already has over 300 churches/places of worship involved. Their main purpose is to identify societal injustice prominent in the city/state and bring plans of action to political delegates so they may change or implement laws to address these issues.

I attended a listening session within my church (and it turned out to just be me, one of the priests, and the core leader) and I spoke about the stigma of mental health and the lack of access to treatment. Which they brought to the bigger assembly of the organization. That assembly identified seven issues, including affordable housing, racial justice, education, etc. And within the healthcare issue they emphasized mental health. Turns out, my church is part of the team for the mental health sub-issue. So I (the priest) and T (the core leader) invited me to observe a core team meeting last night. It was so cute too when T passed out the agenda and one of the topics was “Say Hello to E” 😊 The meeting was really cool and we bounced around ideas for the organization, but then I and T brought up my listening session (no details) and wanted to start a mental health support group at our church. Even among our welcoming community, mental health isn’t necessarily discussed in the open. So that was huge! They really want to get it off the ground in the fall. Then! They invited me to join the core team group! I told them I’m interested, but just don’t know my schedule due to the job search. Still, it was really cool that they invited me.

I don’t like to talk much about my personal relationship with God, but honestly? I can clearly see Him through all my experiences with this church... Randomly meeting that Episcopal priest at my coffeeshop two years ago, with her suggesting I try out this church. Discovering the rector is openly gay and also has an MSW, having worked in adolescent inpatient wards, that he knows how to help me because religion is so intertwined with my trauma history. After meeting with J one-on-one for a couple months, I attended my first service, terrified to go.  I had so many bad experiences at churches (Catholic) up until that point...will this church be any different?  As soon as I walked in, someone came up and introduced themselves, sharing welcome and if I needed anything. J was presiding the service and the Gospel reading was the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32)--a wandering lost son comes back to his father, who immediately welcomes him back and rejoices that his son is found. In his sermon, J spoke that God loves you far too much not to rejoice in you, that it is in God’s nature to find and to love, that you are precious and loved and worth seeking and searching, that you are worth rejoicing. And if you can’t see that for yourself, believing you do not deserve to be found, then let J (and God) believe it for you until you are able to.  Because you are worthy and deserving of love, just for being you.  No exceptions.

That was the very first sermon I heard at this church. Needless to say, I was sitting in the back, sobbing. And as I was leaving, J saw me and broke out into a smile, telling me he was so proud I came, knowing it was painful for me. Never had I heard such a sermon/homily at a single Catholic Church in my life.  I have an extremely difficult time recognizing God’s presence in my life, terrified to even look for it due to what happened as a child. Let alone believe it. But, those first experiences with this church? Might as well slap me in the face, His presence is blatantly here. This church is my home. I have finally found a home overflowing with unconditional love, validation, and support. And they remind me of my worth every time, whether I can see it for myself or not.

[rael-rider]

I read Daniel Warren Johnson’s Beta Ray Bill #1 and for the most part it was good. I liked that DWJ fixed that continuity error in Cates’ Thor regarding Bill. As always I love DWJ’s art and the fact that even if it's very distinctive to Walt Simonson’s it still has that feel similar to Simonson’s (the epicness, the big giant creative comic sound effects). I like that this is touching on Bill’s past. Fing Fang Foom was a nice touch although the Horse jokes got tiresome (and another fricking King in Black crossover).

The rest I’m kind of iffy about but it’s not entirely a deal breaker.

Like Bill being jealous of Thor because of how he’s in his shadow and how Thor gets all the glory while Bill does all the work doesn’t really feel like something Bill would think about Thor. I mean Bill came in and beat the crap out of Thor the first time they met, he was worthy of Mjolnir, and he even won against Thor in a contest to see who was worthy of Mjolnir. The whole reason he got Stormbreaker was so he wouldn’t take Mjolnir from Thor.

Most of the Aaron arc Bill gets to see Thor at his lowest, without being worthy of Mjolnir and not even being able to use his own name. Bill even offers Stormbreaker to Thor but Thor refuses because he knows how important Stormbreaker is to him. Also the Asgardians always recognized Bill for his valor and Odin told Bill that he saw him as a son. Hell, I think even Thor left Bill in charge of Asgard at one point in what was basically the All-Father position.

The only way I can make sense of Bill being like this is him feeling insecure about not having Stormbreaker anymore and all the crap Cates has put him through probably has him depressed. The way Thor has been behaving towards him doesn’t help either.

Now lets talk about Sif and Bill.

I always loved Sif and Bill’s relationship, at the time Thor was being messed with by Amora’s sister Lorelei and him and Sif were on the outs. In comes Bill and he reminds Sif of all of Thor’s good qualities. Bill tells Sif of his woes about how he lost his humanity and doesn’t think he will ever go back home even after saving his people because he feels like a monster. Sif reaches for his hand but Bill takes it away. But at this point she’s already taking a liking to him and this is before she knows he can turn into a regular Korbinite.

Throughout the Walt Simonson run there was a lot of heavily implied stuff between her and Bill. Mostly both of them waxing poetic at each other and having romantic drama. You never see them kiss, but you see them hug and touch and hold hands. They spend a lot of time together.

I think it’s this moment that really drives home that Sif and Bill are a couple and their relationship is much more intimate.

During their last moments close Sif gets dramatic about having to leave him.

But yeah you cannot convince me that they didn’t have any form of intimacy.

That said Sif spends time with Bill in his modified Korbinite form and in his regular humanoid Korbinite form and she shows attraction to him in both forms.

In Kelly Sue Decconick’s Sif #1 Sif meets Bill’s then partner Ti Asha Ra and there’s awkwardness.

I think the most obvious example is in Kathryn Immonen’s Journey Into Mystery where Bill doesn’t change into his humanoid Korbinite form at all and remains in his cybernetic and enhanced form for the entire duration of that arc.

Just look at Sif during this moment

Yeah that memory probably involved something naughty.

You get the idea. She’s attracted to Bill no matter his form.

So in DWJ’s comcic we have Sif dragging Bill to a room and then this happens.

It’s not so much that Sif refused him, that’s fine, but the fact that she intended to have sex with him but only if he was in his humanoid Korbinite form. I don’t see Sif ever doing that to Bill especially knowing how self-conscious and tortured he is about his looks. He makes it clear the first time they meet.

If Sif wasn’t attracted to this Bill and only his humanoid Korbinite form then I don’t think she would ever try to take him to a room with the intention of having sex with him only in his humanoid form. I just don’t see Sif ever doing something like that to him, knowing Bill hates his monstrous form and has trouble finding acceptance in it.

But still this wasn’t the part of the story that bothered me, this was:

I really hated how Thor acted in this, specifically the “I am who I am!” answer after Bill confronted him about getting all the glory. Where did all of Thor’s humility went? It’s not like that’s a major arc for his character why Odin turned him into Donald Blake (and that’s another rant for another day, Don I mean, not the character but what they have done to him and Thor). It sucks but I haven’t really enjoyed a Thor comic since Aaron’s God Butcher arc and I miss Thor when he wasn’t portrayed as a dumb goof or an angry Viking jerk. Give me that regal Kirby and Shakespearian like poetic Thor who occasionally could be an ass but is not devoid of accepting when he was wrong and being empathic towards his friends. The Thor who recited the last rites to a Catholic Priest in the Priest’s religion. TheThor who would be terribly upset if he ever heard Bill say this to him and would want to hear his friend out and do anything to repair their relationship.

Anyway despite that stuff I am still on board for issue 2 and I will refrain from heavily judging this until I’ve read the whole thing.