3 Failed Attempts to Troll the Catholic Church

I got my forehead ashed, pulled out my self-flagellation whips, gave up writing for a bit, and BAM! the awkward enemies of Catholicism descended. Coincidence? Absolutely.

Anyhow, I’m here to summarize just how terribly our enemies have failed to troll the Church these past few weeks. I’ll grant their rage was apocalyptic. (Enough to scare an Episcopal, even.) But it was all sound and fury — signifying nothing, affecting nothing, doing nothing except strengthen my conviction that in this entirely crappy world, the Church is doing something right.

1. Planned Parenthood’s “I Have a Say” Campaign

The brilliant minds that decided it was a good idea to promote themselves as “your private area‘” have done it again! Realizing the necessity for people uninvolved with Catholic teaching to testify as to whether the Church should be allowed to follow its own teaching, Cecile Richards called on pro-Church-buying-your-artificial-contraception women to make YouTube videos declaring their needs. It’s funny because:

In case you’re unaware, that guy with the most views at the top? The one with three times the views of the President of Planned Parenthood? Yeah, that’s a Catholic priest, laying down the message of Resistance. So please, Cecile, if you’re going to start these fights, at least try to win them. Spend some government money or something. But don’t let a priest beat you.

2. Anonymous’ Attacks on the Vatican Website

Now when I first heard that the hacker group Anonymous had crashed the Vatican’s website, I thought the following: But you wear Catholic masks! I thought you were a lay apostolate! Then: Nooo! How will the 7 Franciscan Students who don’t have the print editions look up the Apostolic Constitution CARTHAGINENSIS in the original Latin?! You’re shaking St. Peter’s to its core! And finally: For the love of all things bright and beautiful, tell me you changed the parchment background while you were in there!

But then the hilarity subsided and I realized just how pathetic of an attack this was. They’d already failed to hack the Vatican’s website before at World Youth Day, they failed to do it again, and so they settled for crashing the Vatican’s servers, clogging it with data requests. They couldn’t get any information, they couldn’t defame the site, they just made it unavailable for a day. Just to be clear, a website that looks like this:

…held up better than Sony and the FBI. Anonymous claiming some sort of victory over the Vatican is embarrassing to say the least, like a kid who tells his friends he won the fight because he managed to step on your toe. But the best part of the idiocy was Anonymous’s reason for doing it: It was, according to their statement, a “response to the doctrine, to the liturgies, to the absurd and anachronistic concepts…”

Wait, what? The liturgies? The website of the Roman Catholic Church got shut down because of her liturgies? There are almost too many ways to make fun of that. You’re saying the fact that we have this:

Is making you like this?

You jealous, son?

Regardless of why the liturgies of the Catholic Church make them squirm, the silliness is this: Anonymous stands for — or used to stand for — freedom of speech and freedom from censorship. I know wearing the mask of a Catholic radical should have been a tipoff, but troll-people — you really don’t understand the concept of irony. And as I write this I found that Anonymous managed to hack an old server the Vatican doesn’t use any more.

3. NY Times Anti-Catholic Ad

This one was my favorite. Every now and then Atheists do the Catholic Church a favor, and it’s always a moment for joy and celebration. (Like when Richard Dawkins published the God Delusion, and we all got to watch a biologist cry trying to head-butt a Dumb Ox.)

But The Freedom From Basic Social Abilities Foundation took center stage this time, spending all sorts of cash on an ad in the New York Times entitled “It’s Time To Consider Quitting the Catholic Church.” It was aimed at liberal Catholics, because Muslims are scary.

It’s basically a rerun of this puppy…

…with more whine and less balls. But once I got over the joy of their puns (“Exit en mass,” did you think of that all by yourself?) and really read it, I couldn’t believe how nice these folks were being. They essentially summed up what the Church has been trying to tell people for years, that if you aren’t going to live the teachings of the Catholic Church and profess what she professes, you do not understand what it means to be Catholic — to be a member of the Body of Christ.

When the NYT ad said that those who support abortion, sterilization, and contraception should realize the Church is never going to change its mind and consider leaving, I thought, well shoot! That’s what we’ve been telling Nancy Pelosi for years!

The ad proclaimed the alarming indestructibility of Church doctrine, and Her refusal to conform to our fads and fashions. It came from a moronic angle, but to the liberal Catholic nourished by the beauty, truth and goodness of the Church — who would no more consider leaving the Church than leaving his family — it begs an examination of conscience. Sure, it says “Here is what the Church believes. Here is what you believe. There is a disparity between the two. Leave the Catholic Church.” But there is an unspoken alternative to the NYT ad’s message, an alternative every bad Catholic will hear, whether he wants to or not: “Repent and believe in the Gospel.”  The ad leaves only two options: Either you, or a two-thousand-year-old institution that produced the greatest art, theology, philosophy, science, and music the world has ever seen, is correct. Know thyself.

Now don’t mistake my trivialness. This is unprecedented bigotry. It’s been a long time since a specific religion was publicly attacked and defamed in a national newspaper, and they weren’t exactly times of love and tolerance. But the reasons our enemies are foaming at the mouth over the Church are the very reasons we embrace Her. The Church is too pro-life, too ancient, it stands against the modern age — amen, amen, in saecula saeculorum.

So I thank God for the enemies of the Church. With every ugly, classless attempt to end the Eternal Revolution, to persecute the Persecuted Body, and to scorn the Communion of Saints, they remind us of how good, how true, and how beautiful the Bride of Christ is. A light shines in the darkness, and the darkness — somewhat hilariously — cannot comprehend it.

Update on my super-secret Communist project: It has been delayed, but I’ve decided to give you a hint:

  • MEG

    Welcome back, Marc! Oh how we missed you!

  • beautiphil

    Good to see you writing again Marc! We’re glad you’re back!

  • JoAnna Wahlund

    “When the NYT ad said that those who support abortion, sterilization, and contraception should realize the Church is never going to change its mind and consider leaving, I thought, well shoot! That’s what we’ve been telling Nancy Pelosi for years!”

    Yes, yes, yes!!!! So glad you’re back!

  • Paige

    I’m going with NOT a coincidence. Pretty sure you’re the defender of all things good and Holy.

  • Uy888

    YOU’RE BACKKKKK!!!!!! OH JOY

  • Matticfrancis

    Ah, the hilarious voice if reason! Thank you, thank you!

  • David Bisono

    Thank you baby Jesus for bringing Marc back! Dude please rent me a room in your planet! Awesome stuff!

  • Lauren G

    Missed you dude. So glad to have you back!

    I’m not gonna lie, I googled “kill the fish catholic”. No success.

    Oh, and when you said “Here is what the Catholic Church believes” you continued with “HEAR is what you believe”. Sorry, I’m a spelling freak.

    • Jay E.

      LOL I googled it too.

    • Lindsay H

      haha googled the exact same phrase…brought me to your comment :)

    • http://umeckzki.tk Umeckzki Rebarakaz

      just googled it too but still brought me to your comment :-D

  • http://www.thinveil.net Brandon Vogt

    “(Like when Richard Dawkins published the God Delusion, and we all got to watch a biologist cry trying to head-butt a Dumb Ox.)”

    Brilliant!

  • Pippen Snifferdoo

    I just found this blog today! I can’t believe I’ve been missing out. This is so great.

  • David Garcia Polo

    going fishing?

  • Jay E.

    Gosh, you’ve been missed! The Dolan picture is going to become my wallpaper.

    Kill the Fish. Infuriating?! The only thing that got me going through your long absence was the hope that when you came back you’d change the world: and it’s been DELAYED! Hurry up man!

  • Vargas 90

    Praying for you bro! May the Spirit continue to guide you and give you boldness to stand for our Church…today and always!

  • http://www.goodsaints.com/ Good Saints

    I love the Dolan picture as well! Great post!

  • Anonymous

    “A light shines in the darkness, and the darkness — somewhat hilariously — cannot comprehend it.”
    Love it!

  • Anonymous

    yay! you’re back Marc! i’ve missed you :) the one thing that bothers me with that ad is the “why do you send you children to Catholic schools” line, ok if you don’t want your children to have a Catholic education (theology is a required subject, i went to Catholic school for 11 years) then why do you send them there? there was also a line somewhere in the ad about how the Church “sexually shames” women, i forget where it is, i’m a 19 year old Roman Catholic pro life feminist who’s a virgin, i don’t feel ashamed about my sexuality at all, i actually talk about it at length with most of my friends :)

    • Guest

      19-year-old-prolife-femnist-who-loves-her-sexuality high five!

    • Cal-J

      I’m pretty sure that the rest of us are sharing in that “we’ve missed Marc” vibe. Thank God he only went until the 26th. Some of us would’ve been frothing at the mouth on Easter Sunday.

      That would’ve been hundreds of Catholics waking up on Easter morning, leaping to their computers, jumping online and refreshing Bad Catholic’s homepage every three seconds. (Wonderful way to celebrate Easter –> crash Patheos before the East Coast is totally out of its pajamas).

    • Randomheart458

      This kid <3 ^ I'm seventeen but completely there with you!

  • http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/ Barbara

    Ya, please don’t ever go away again! …the darkness scratches its head and says “wtf?”

  • Tom K.

    Welcome back!

    One should also note that on Cecile Richards’ “I Have a Say” video, she has disabled the comments. Father Hollowel has not. Apparently she has a say, but others do not….

  • Kit15

    “For the love of all things bright and beautiful, tell me you changed the parchment background while you were in there!”

    The exact same thought entered my head seconds before I read this!

    Great to have you back. :)

  • http://allison-and-paul.blogspot.com/ allison

    Welcome back!!! Don’t ever leave again :) Brilliant post, as usual!

  • http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/ Barbara

    Re: The Vatican Website hacking. My thoughts exactly. So what did they think they were going to accomplish by making it impossible for people to read papal encyclicals for like 12 hours? Anarchy? Lawlessness? Revolution? Massive Sulking? As far as revolutionary acts go it had to be the lamest in history.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Angelo-Ocampo/100000081911147 Angelo Ocampo

      They call themselves hackers and trolls!? Why, the Catholic Church has been trolling all Her enemies for the last 2,000 years simply because of Her presence!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      In all fairness, I was forced to go to New Advent instead. Despite the parchment background, the Vatican’s site is so much better.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

      In all fairness, I was forced to go to New Advent instead. Despite the parchment background, the Vatican’s site is so much better.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ciaochristy Christy Isinger

    This is so great! And I totally agree with that parchment background business-hasn’t that been there since 2003?? I think the Vatican has a wealth of art to choose from for a classy background any time now…

  • Kate

    You make me laugh until I cry. And you give me hope for the world. Thanks for that.

  • guest

    Do you realize you posted an image of Freddie Mercury, a gay man, above? It is at least somewhat hypocritical that you are using his image to prove a point, given the catholic church condemns his ‘type’. He contracted AIDS, of which transmission can be reduced through the use of condoms, which your church has also condemned. Next time, at least read up on your memes, lest you look ignorant on even one more topic.

    • Guest

      I don’t think he’s entirely oblivious. (Though, he was bisexual, not homosexual. Picking a nits, I know.) Are you saying that Catholicism teaches that homosexuals, bisexuals, or those that use condoms are inherently bad people, incapable of being good? Because we most certainly don’t. We don’t condemn “types of people,” we condem certain behaviors. We believe that there is always and ever forgiveness available for anyone, and that we are not to judge others. Freddie Mercury was a boss musician, a fantastic stage prescence, and by all accounts, a pretty decent human being. I believe that the author is aware of all of that as well, and probably even admires his work. (But, to be fair, it’s Queen. Who doesn’t?) Furthermore, it doesn’t really matter a lick about who Freddie Mercury was, he used the meme correctly.
      You lose two internets.

      • guest

        Would you not agree that people are defined by how they behave, and in condemning behaviours, you are in principle condemning the person?

        • Guest

          I would not. All human beings have inherent dignity and value, and are therefore created good. No matter what evil we do, we always have an opportunity to return to goodness. Our actions may lead us to places that are far away from goodness, but never to a point where we couldn’t become good again. Certainly, if I were defined by my past actions, I would be considered to be more evil than the gay people you believe we condemn.

          • guest

            Ok, fair enough. I guess where I wasn’t being clear is in using your word behaviour. I would not call a person’s sexuality a behaviour, but rather a very essential facet of who a person is. The church describes homosexuality as unnatural, a deviation. Having such a fundamental element of who you are called unnatural can certainly be described as a condemnation.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            You are still conflating the desire and the act. Homosexual attraction is not condemned by the Church. A man can no more control his attraction than he can the number of toes he was born with. It’s what we do with our desires that the Church cares about. Just like the desire to have sex before marriage is very strong in most – if not all – people, the desire to have sex with another man can be strong for homosexuals. However, the desires are not sinful. Acting on either of them (or entertaining them in your mind) is.

          • guest

            This is all about suppression. It is ok to have the desire, but to entertain the idea in your mind is not ok? Could you explain how these things are different? Have you ever gone through puberty? Do you remember how difficult of a time that was, even without (I assume) the added difficulty of questioning your sexuality? There are people who suppress this fundamental aspect of who they are for years, causing immense psychological stress. Do you wonder why pride parades are so outlandish? For 364 days of the year, many people suppress who they are, and this one day they can be however they want to be. This is not entirely religion’s fault, but it has played a large role in creating the society and the values (some of which are indeed good) that condemn homosexuals today.

          • Cal-J

            “This is all about suppression. It is ok to have the desire, but to entertain the idea in your mind is not ok? Could you explain how these things are different?”

            You are presented with about five pounds of candy. Candy is sweet, and particularly tasty.

            Desire: You want that candy. All of it.

            You think about the candy. Consider how good it would taste. How long it’s been since you last had any. How just a little won’t hurt.

            Entertaining the Idea: You start thinking about the thing you desire, putting more and more mental power into considering it.

            In spending time entertaining an idea and all of its desirable attributes, your brain continues to associate that idea with its potential pleasures, which makes it harder to re-associate it with its possible adverse effects.

            The the approaching of a sinful act (which includes considering it) is called the occasion of sin. Cultivating the occasion of sin deliberately is, in fact, sinful.

            “There are people who suppress this fundamental aspect of who they are for years, causing immense psychological stress.”

            I question the use of “fundamental aspect” — since by someone’s “sexuality” you include the strong desire to engage in sexual congress.

            You seem to hold that discouraging people from acting according to their desires whenever the feel like it is acting poorly.

          • Anonymous

            its using the other person as an object, one for your amusement and pleasure, instead of a living breathing human being, with thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc. use things and love people, don’t love things and use people…

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            This is not at all about suppression. It’s about healthy behavior. Is it suppression for an alcoholic to try to give up drinking? Is it suppression for a lifetime smoker to try to give up smoking? Maybe you would argue that it is. If so, I would say that not all “suppression” is bad. There are things we as humans want to do that aren’t good for us. Sometimes I want to eat an entire cake, but that’s a bad idea (TM).

            The difference between having the desire and entertaining it are pretty obvious I thought. If the behavior is unhealthy, then why entertain the desire for it in your mind? It will only cause greater friction and anxiety and probably make you more likely to give in. Going back to my alcoholic example: If an alcoholic is trying to give up drinking, why would anyone say “It’s ok to dream about drinking and how good it makes you feel. Go ahead, let yourself feel those things.”? That would be insane.

            Homosexual sex is not natural, it is not healthy, and it does not bring joy. I have gay friends who have told me this. It’s pretty simple to understand if you believe in Natural Law.

          • guest

            Consider that we too, find sex outside of marriage to be a sin. The Church asks all to control desires that are part of our humanity – greed, lust, pride, gluttony, ect… – in order to grow in charity towards one another and lift us up to bring Heaven to Earth. For some reason, society gets hung up on the condemnation of sexual sins. It is no different than the condemnation of theft, or anger. We don’t hate those who have stolen, or lost their temper. We realize that all God’s wonderful individuals have fallen in some ways, but that they have potential to rise above it with God’s help.
            You are not what you do, you are the perfect being God made you whether you know it or not.

          • Brandy Miller

            I am attracted to men. Not just the man I am married to, but men in general. The Catholic Church does not condemn my attraction to men. However, if I choose to act on that attraction with a man other than my husband THEN they condemn that action. It isn’t my sexuality that’s a problem. It’s what I choose to do with it that is.

          • guest

            Also, I was using present tense ‘behave’, rather than ‘behaved’, so any personal definitions would be current and disregard past mistakes.

        • guest

          St. Paul, one of our wonderful Biblical authors, was a murderer of Christians. And he is a Saint. A strong Christian at the time of his murdering spree would have thought, “Murdering is wrong, I must pray for Saul.”
          The thing is, we all need prayers and we are all sinners. Just because we say, “— is wrong” doesn’t mean we are trying to pinpoint sinners, because, it would not be our place to ‘throw stones’ at a person God made, especially considering that we all have imperfections and sins. Additionally, casting a stone would put us at fault for yet ANOTHER sin on our conscience.
          I’m sure many people, myself included, have been guilty of judging others, but try to understand that we have a moral guideline in order to judge our own sins and grow closer to God, and when we choose to judge others, we are not doing as our Church or Jesus commands. It is not promoted in any way for us to judge others.

          • guest

            This is the best answer I have received. You are the best type of person.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            Agree, great response, except it’s not strictly true that we are not to judge others at all, period. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. We’re called to judge actions and behaviors justly, but we cannot judge the state of one’s soul, ever. God alone knows a person’s heart, mind, and state of salvation.

          • guest

            All under the guise of love, yes?

          • Cal-J

            Well, yes, except for the guise part. It’s certainly unloving to let people hurt themselves without trying to do anthing.

        • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

          Good grief, absolutely not! Where did you get such an idea?

          Admittedly, though, you have baldly stated what is probably the biggest error committed in the arguments over this issue: the identification of people with appetites and passions, treating them as if they are inseparable and indistinguishable.

          So here’s a basic distinction we must make before discussing the topic: People have appetites, but people are not appetites. To call an appetite disordered is not to attack, belittle, or insult a person. (In fact, it’s not even, at that point, a moral statement, because moral teachings are by nature prescriptive, whereas “This appetite is disordered” is descriptive.)

          So, for example, if my appetite for food is disordered, and I hunger for, say, rocks, my appetite is disordered; its natural object is food, and rocks are not food. Knowing my appetite is disordered, I have an obligation to resist it and, to ensure my body is nourished, possibly even eat things I know are good for me but that repulse me.

          This does not mean I am a wicked subhuman incapable of doing good. In fact, as I hope you can see, that is a conclusion unwarranted by my situation, not even so much as suggested by it.

          • guest

            So suppressing that appetite for however long until you get married is perfectly healthy? I would argue that that is disordered.

          • Tim lambert

            Yes it’s perfectly healthy… And it’s only an appetite to those who have perverted it’s nature and true purpose. I think you comment is more reflective on your psychological well being… Not others.

          • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

            Let’s avoid speculating about the psychological well being of people we comment to on the internet. That’s a rather juvenile form of ad hominem.

          • guest

            Thanks.

          • guest

            Thanks.

          • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

            Let’s start, then, with what we mean by “disordered.” I’m using the word to describe an appetite that is not ordered toward its natural end, as I described in my example: a hunger for that which is not food. A sexual desire for that which is not sex, such as sodomy, would be analogous.

            The question of whether or not people should limit their procreation to within marriage is a different question. I would answer it in the affirmative, as you rightly guessed, but the arguments for chastity, marital fidelity, and monogamy are much lengthier and more involved than the arguments about what we’re discussing here.

            Your assumption appears to derive from Freud, or perhaps from some of the wilder ideas proposed by those who borrowed heavily from Freud. I challenge your notion that “suppressing” a desire is necessarily unhealthy: people have done it, and lived well. The bulk of human experience is against this idea that you are in some sort of vague psychological danger if you say no to something you want.

            Obviously, everyone needs to suppress some desires if he is to live well, particularly if those desires are disordered or cannot be fulfilled. If I lust for, say, a cartoon character who doesn’t actually exist, it is correct for me to suppress the desire, to reject it; I cannot possibly have its object, so pursuing it will necessarily end in unhappiness. If I hunger for an entire chocolate cake every day, I need to suppress my desire or else it will affect my health significantly.

            Is eating moderately, even when I strongly desire to eat immoderately, going to cause me a dangerous psychological condition?

            Incidentally, I am unmarried and celibate. I have personal reasons to be unimpressed by the claim that I must indulge myself lest I become neurotic.

          • guest

            Why is getting lost in a science fiction novel any worse than lusting after a cartoon character? I subscribe to moderation in all things, and I cannot describe having none of something that I am urged to have as moderation. One question, what is the churches stance on masturbation?

          • Jmsteve4

            That would be spilling the seed. It’s almost the same stance on contraception: you’re doing a biologcal act without the correct ends, which in this case would be actual sex with your actual partner tha can actually create life. Another reason that applies to both of these is that they, masturbation especially, create a dependence t consequence-free pleasure- a addiction if you will. We Catholics are not fans of addictions.

          • guest

            Is a wet dream sinning while you sleep?

          • guest

            Is a wet dream sinning while you sleep?

          • Romulus

            No. Acts of the subconscious are, by definition not willed and therefore not sinful.

          • Jmsteve4

            That would be spilling the seed. It’s almost the same stance on contraception: you’re doing a biologcal act without the correct ends, which in this case would be actual sex with your actual partner tha can actually create life. Another reason that applies to both of these is that they, masturbation especially, create a dependence t consequence-free pleasure- a addiction if you will. We Catholics are not fans of addictions.

          • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

            “Why is getting lost in a science fiction story any worse than lusting after a cartoon character?”

            I am afraid I don’t understand the question. Did someone suggest to you that reading sf is immoral? Are you saying you cannot see a difference between imagining, say, spaceship, and lusting? Are you asking me to define lust?

            The Church’s stance on masturbation is as you would expect; it is an improper use of the sexual faculty.

            “I cannot describe havng none of something that I am urged to have as moderation.”

            If I am urged to crush my neighbors, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women, going without entirely may be the only way to be moderate. Some desires ought not to be fulfilled because they are wrong.

            Proper use of the sexual faculty is within marriage. There are many reasons for this, reasons that would take books to explain, but that shouldn’t be necessary because the most obvious reasons are all around you: look at the unwed mothers, the broken homes, the children beaten by live-in boyfriends. All of this is the result of the make-believe that a little fornication won’t hurt anybody. All of this stems from the very nature of the sex act: it is ordered toward reproduction, and therefore belongs properly within a stable relationship optimal for rearing children, such as monogamous marriage precluding of divorce.

            Arguments to the contrary, in my experience, tend to boil down to, “Because this teaching is hard, it must be false.”

          • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

            “Why is getting lost in a science fiction story any worse than lusting after a cartoon character?”

            I am afraid I don’t understand the question. Did someone suggest to you that reading sf is immoral? Are you saying you cannot see a difference between imagining, say, spaceship, and lusting? Are you asking me to define lust?

            The Church’s stance on masturbation is as you would expect; it is an improper use of the sexual faculty.

            “I cannot describe havng none of something that I am urged to have as moderation.”

            If I am urged to crush my neighbors, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women, going without entirely may be the only way to be moderate. Some desires ought not to be fulfilled because they are wrong.

            Proper use of the sexual faculty is within marriage. There are many reasons for this, reasons that would take books to explain, but that shouldn’t be necessary because the most obvious reasons are all around you: look at the unwed mothers, the broken homes, the children beaten by live-in boyfriends. All of this is the result of the make-believe that a little fornication won’t hurt anybody. All of this stems from the very nature of the sex act: it is ordered toward reproduction, and therefore belongs properly within a stable relationship optimal for rearing children, such as monogamous marriage precluding of divorce.

            Arguments to the contrary, in my experience, tend to boil down to, “Because this teaching is hard, it must be false.”

          • If you need help

            Interesting question. I have two responses: 1) it’s one thing to be attracted to a behavior that the intellect identifies as wrong, and then to ask God’s forgiveness, even if it happens over and over again (this is called being human); and 2) Catholic representatives do a lousy job of ministering to people who are either addicted to masturbation and need help and forgiveness, or to people who have medical conditions that require the clearing-out of semen, a medical matter that is not masturbation. Please see the Catechism Section 2352. There is an element that is missing from sins like adultery and fornication: “in order to derive sexual pleasure.” Someone with chronic prostatitis or epididymitis can easily confuse the need to release with the sin of misusing the sexual faculty for the purpose of pleasure. I wish you the best my friend. If you find yourself unable to sleep night after night, tired, thirsty and run-down, or even in excruciating pain without release, go and sin no more.

          • guest

            Oh yes! Please, please, pray for me! I let your all merciful God into my soul, and wash away my sins! Actually, save it. Keep your judgements and self righteousness to yourself, and let myself and people who actually know me decide what type of person I am.

          • Cal-J

            All we have to go on is how you present yourself to us. It’s all we can come to judgment with.

          • Brandy Miller

            We routinely suppress desires that aren’t healthy and are the better for doing so. For instance, suppressing the urge to strangle the person who annoys you at work every day. I guarantee your life would not be more fulfilled or better or happier if you actually went through with that desire to strangle them. In fact, I guarantee that your life would take an immediate downturn if you gave in to such a perverse desire, however justified it might seem to be. Suppression of desires is not unhealthy. I often desire to eat things that aren’t good for me or to eat too much. I am the better for suppressing those desires rather than giving into them. I am overweight because I haven’t done enough suppression of those desires, and that extra weight causes me plenty of grief and a lowering of self-esteem – it does not improve my life at all. Suppressing desires is also known as self-control – and self-control is a VERY healthy thing for any individual to possess. Self-control is required for the ability to make sacrifices, which is what Christian love is all about – the kind of self-sacrificial love demonstrated by Christ when He died for our sins.

          • Brandy Miller

            We routinely suppress desires that aren’t healthy and are the better for doing so. For instance, suppressing the urge to strangle the person who annoys you at work every day. I guarantee your life would not be more fulfilled or better or happier if you actually went through with that desire to strangle them. In fact, I guarantee that your life would take an immediate downturn if you gave in to such a perverse desire, however justified it might seem to be. Suppression of desires is not unhealthy. I often desire to eat things that aren’t good for me or to eat too much. I am the better for suppressing those desires rather than giving into them. I am overweight because I haven’t done enough suppression of those desires, and that extra weight causes me plenty of grief and a lowering of self-esteem – it does not improve my life at all. Suppressing desires is also known as self-control – and self-control is a VERY healthy thing for any individual to possess. Self-control is required for the ability to make sacrifices, which is what Christian love is all about – the kind of self-sacrificial love demonstrated by Christ when He died for our sins.

          • Tim H

            I think we are also missing the point that Catholics understand our deepest desires to be reflective of our desire for the all encompassing loving relationship with of our Creator.

            So this talk about suppression of this or that desire especially one as deeply rooted as sexuality is in some sense a question of how one expresses one’s desire for God. And I would argue that there are a multiplicity of ways for expressing our longed for loving relationship with God.

            It’s not so much a suppression as a disciplining of our desires and the proper channeling of those desires.

            I think it worth mentioning that the Church is not just saying this to homosexuals (and all of us who desire things that aren’t good for us). It’s really a spirit of charity. If you touch this hot stove it will burn you. But that doesn’t make the desire to touch things evil. If you engage in homosexual sexual acts, it will have disastrous affects on you over the long haul. So find a better way to express the longed for loving relationship with God and others.

            And yes, we empathize that this is an extremely difficult burden to bear. We are all spiritual athletes in training and enjoying the greatest event ever – existence in a fallen world with the compassion of a God who experienced all of our difficulties first hand.

        • Brandy Miller

          No, we don’t define people by their behaviors. We believe in the inherent good of every person – even when they are demonstrating the worst possible behaviors.

          • guest

            What about original sin? Does that not nullify your ‘inherent good’ argument, and actually argue that we are all ‘inherently bad’?

          • http://www.facebook.com/susan.kehoe1 Susan Kehoe

            No. Original sin was an act of free will on the part of the first humans. It brought sin into the world, and all of us are tempted to choose sin instead of good.

            The fact that we are given the freedom to sin does not mean that we are inherently bad. Everything that God created is inherently good especially human beings who are the only creatures created in the image and likeness of God. We therefore have a unique dignity.

    • Hananh

      The Catholic church does not condem people who are gay. They are people born in the image and likeness of God as we all are. The sexual relationships that exist between two people of the same sex is what is not acceptable along with any sex outsidde of marriage – whatever the combination of people involved. HIV transmission via sexual intercourse can also be avoided for deffinite by abstainance – in fact it’s the only foolproof way to avoid sexual transmission of HIV. Freddie had a lot of courage and suffered a great deal and no Catholic in their right mind would condem him to that. So if you want to make a point, maybe you should visist the vatican website (providing anonymous hasn’t crashed the server) so that you can find out what we actually teach about homosexual sexual relationships and the inherent value of all life no matter their age (conception to death), gender, sexual orientation etc lest you look as ignorant as you would like to make out we are.

      May God bless you.

      • guest

        Ok, while abstinence is no doubt the best contraception available, I believe sex to be a natural act, and no matter what consequences you place on a persons soul, sex will be had by many, if not most. In saying that using condoms is a sin, those who are catholic and have contracted HIV will question whether or not to use one, possibly furthering the transmission and endangering lives.

        • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

          …those who are catholic and have contracted HIV will question whether or not to use one, possibly furthering the transmission and endangering lives.

          Hopefully, they are questioning whether they should have sex again. If driving my car – an act not necessary for me to live – would almost certainly kill someone else, I would not drive my car again.

          Condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV. They are actually quite terrible at that.

          • guest

            This is the worst type of ignorance.

          • Marcjohnpaul

            No, it’s brilliance, actually.

            According to the UN AIDS council, condoms have a 10% failure rate in their prevention of HIV, even when used consistently. And, as shown in a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, they reduce risk of HIV posed by homosexual anal sex by just 47% (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/150/3/306.full.pdf+html). This would be bad enough, except for the fact that condoms are rarely used consistently, further reducing their already-less-than-stellar effectiveness.

            Part of the problem is that the use of condoms leads to risk compensation (http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7541/605) – a phenomenon in which the use of risk-reducing technologies makes individuals more willing to take on greater risk. (The use of sunscreen allows us to stay longer in the sun, seat-belts make us more willing to drive recklessly, etc.) Thus it has been proven, in a study published in AIDS journal, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)that condom users may disproportionately erase the benefits of condoms with riskier behavior.

            Now in theory, condoms should help. And no one would deny that in a single, isolated incident of sex they do reduce your risk of HIV. But life is not made up of single, isolated, laboratory-worthy incidents. In reality, and over time, the mass distribution of condoms has no effect on AIDS epidemics.

            James Sheldon of the US Agency for International Development notes this in his analysis Confessions of a Condom Lover, published in The Lancet (http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Shelton-2006-Confessions.pdf) : “In South Africa, for example, with 48 million people in 2004, public programmes provided 346 million condoms, and condom use at last sex was high, especially among single people aged 15—24 years (69%). Yet infection continues apparently unabated.”

            Compare such results to the story of Uganda. Their government and religious leaders focused not on condom distribution, but on the promotion of monogamy. According to analysis published in Science Magazine, by 2004, (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/304/5671/714.abstract) “despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex.”

            Or to the story of Kenya. According to Sheldon, the country’s rate of infection dropped throughout the 1990’s at the same time the number of men with multiple sexual partners dropped. The evidence seems to suggest that it is the promotion and practice of monogamy, not condom distribution, that will rid our world of the scourge of AIDS.

            Thus the answer to the problem of AIDS is neither the ‘conservative’ response: “Abstinence or you’ll die!” Neither is it a ‘liberal’ response: “More free condoms, dammit!” No, the answer to the problem of AIDS is a human one: Live an awesome, monogamous sex life with your spouse, and you’ll save the world.

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            How is it ignorant? As someone who remained celibate for many years, I can tell you that is extremely possible to live without having sex. On the same note, it’s extremely possible to live without driving. We’ve all done it.

          • guest

            Of course it’s possible, but if you own a car, why not use it?

          • http://andrewensley.com/ Andrew

            Because I’ll almost certainly kill someone, the very person I supposedly love so much that makes me want to do so…

          • Jared Clark

            Because I’m not married, and I have absolutely no interest in sharing the most intimate act with a woman that I’m not spending the rest of my life with. That’d just be weird…

          • Jared Clark

            Because I’m not married, and I have absolutely no interest in sharing the most intimate act with a woman that I’m not spending the rest of my life with. That’d just be weird…

          • Anonymous

            because you don’t want to pay the insurance and i want the first person that i have sex with to be my husband?

        • kathy

          Ridiculous statement. Anyone worried about sin will not be having casual sex outside of marriage, which is a mortal sin. And by the way, using a condom does guarantee HIV will not be spread. They leak, break and come off. If you are a caring person will a terrible disease, abstinence is your best course.

          • guest

            Thank you! I realize this. But there are bad people out there, some of whom claim religion justifies their questionable ethics. The restriction of condoms only exaggerates the problem.

          • Brandy Miller

            Actually, if you want to test that theory go review the statistics on countries in Africa who have pushed condoms as a preventative to AIDS versus those who have pushed abstinence and fidelity to one’s partner. The winners? Those countries who have pushed abstinence and fidelity to one’s partner over condoms. Why? Because condoms have a notoriously high failure rate because they are incredibly sensitive to temperature, they break often (especially for those who have genital piercings), and that’s if and when they get used at all. Reality is that abstinence and chastity (not always the same thing) are the very best preventatives for a sexually-transmitted disease.

          • guest

            You guys really love to push this stuff. That was reported by the Ugandan government and is still controversial. The fact is that most health organizations recognize that condoms are helpful in preventing the transmission of HIV, and saying they do not is destructive.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            Most “health organizations” have something to gain from pushing condoms, mainly funding.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

            Most “health organizations” have something to gain from pushing condoms, mainly funding.

          • Anonymous

            we like “to push this stuff” because we don’t want people to get hurt/killed/disease ridden, etc. chastity is the best birth control out there, 0% fail rate

          • Jeannette

            I remember reading the reports about Uganda’s success, on several different websites, including some that I would expect to be hostile to this non-PC news (a UN group was one). And Benedict opined a year ago or so that if gays use a condom during intercourse, there isn’t an additional sin (since they aren’t trying to prevent conception). So the “Sin Twice, use a Condom” meme is a false one.

          • Elestethane

            So you’re saying that some “bad people” are using religion (A.K.A. Catholicism) to justify their dangerous sexual behavior (which is not following Catholic teaching) but somehow manage to follow the Church’s teaching on condoms?

            Seriously?!?!? If they’re NOT following Catholic teaching on sex and abstinence then WHY do you believe they’re following the Church’s teaching on condoms?

          • Elestethane

            So you’re saying that some “bad people” are using religion (A.K.A. Catholicism) to justify their dangerous sexual behavior (which is not following Catholic teaching) but somehow manage to follow the Church’s teaching on condoms?

            Seriously?!?!? If they’re NOT following Catholic teaching on sex and abstinence then WHY do you believe they’re following the Church’s teaching on condoms?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

          It distorts the nature of the act.

          Telling us that allowing condoms and contraception will stop things like disease and abortion won’t work; the Catholic view is that an evil act, however small, cannot be taken to stop a worse thing. Large crimes don’t justify small ones.

    • http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/ Barbara

      Hey, y’all love to appropriate our symbols and re-jig them into your own memes. Pop culture, Hollywood and Gay rights activists have been doing this for years. So, consider yourself paid with the same coin. Fair’s fair.

    • Jake E

      Please read CCC 2538, lest you share the all too common ignorance on the Catholic Church and homosexuality.

      • guest

        That is about envy. I don’t see how it is relevant.

        • Aftyler

          Agreed. I don’t quite understand the reasoning behind quoting CCC 2538 concerning the Catholic Church and homosexuality; please elaborate.

        • Jake E

          Oh goodness, my apologies. I meant that to be in response to another guest.

        • Jake E

          Further embarrassment: comment directed towards correct person, CCC 2358, not 2538.

  • Kovach Jennifer

    Brilliant. Thank you for being so articulate, bold, and funny!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=741218460 Syler Womack

    SWEET! great article! I’m waving my arms around, cheering here.

  • http://www.onemoremum.blogspot.com/ Lauren Hughes

    *exhale* I didn’t realise I’d been having withdrawals from your blog till I read this. Welcome back!

  • Anonymous

    “And finally: For the love of all things bright and beautiful, tell me you changed the parchment background while you were in there!”

    LOL It’s been there since before I was your age, Marc. I’m not sure we’ll ever be rid of that!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=26904907 Mandy Schneider Pittman

    Fantastic! Made me smile today:)

  • http://www.facebook.com/maryliziz Mary Liz Bartell

    God Bless you Bad Catholic! I as a woman who is Pro-life and anti-contraception mandate approve your message… I love your style. Right On!

  • Christina

    Oh thank heavens, you’re back!

  • http://www.facebook.com/julieta424 Julieta Contreras

    I missed you! You are officially my favorite Catholic blogger <3

  • http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism Guest

    “Either you, or a two-thousand-year-old institution that produced the greatest art, theology, philosophy, science, and music the world has ever seen, is correct.”

    Yes. No need to think for yourself, authority always knows best.

    • Smtefft

      Depends on the authority, doesn’t it? I certainly know better than my 5 year old. I think I can trust my 2000 year old Church to know better than I.

      • Atheist, judge me good people

        Implying that age has anything to do with truth value? Why not rely entirely on the Confucian Analects (which have at least a good 500 years on Catholicism) and throw the church out the window?

        • Tim411

          And guess which one had the more profound impact on the world? Oh yeah, those Confucian analects…. Yyyup, oh wait… No.

          • http://www.facebook.com/namacdonald Nicholas MacDonald

            Catholicism has had a little more impact, but it the impact of the Confucian works has been massive as well, as anyone from east Asia will tell you, for good or for ill.

          • Con3636

            Hitler and Karl Marx made significant impacts too, does that give what they preached a little more truth value as well?

          • Jared Clark

            Catholic Church–invented the scientific method and the university system. Cares for the poor, preaches the dignity of all persons, etc. And you compare her to nazi germany and communism. You, my friend, are a confused person. I’ll pray for you.

          • Con3636

            Please tell me why you need to announce your prayer, does it make it more effective or are you trying to annoy me? Also I wasn’t comparing the church directly to Hitler and Marx, but rather pointing out that something’s impact on the world does not automatically make it true, which directly addresses what you have said as well. Most importantly though answer the prayer question.

          • Con3636

            Please tell me why you need to announce your prayer, does it make it more effective or are you trying to annoy me? Also I wasn’t comparing the church directly to Hitler and Marx, but rather pointing out that something’s impact on the world does not automatically make it true, which directly addresses what you have said as well. Most importantly though answer the prayer question.

          • Jared Clark

            It’s for your comfort. So you know that there are people that you’ve never even met who care. Kind of sad that you find it annoying, really.

          • Tony A.

            “Well why not? I’ve never seen a prayer hurt anyone.”

            From The Rite. Good movie.

          • Tony A.

            “Well why not? I’ve never seen a prayer hurt anyone.”

            From The Rite. Good movie.

          • Con3636

            Between two believers in prayer that would make sense, but in this case it is obvious that I do not believe that prayer is more than superstition. Therefore telling *me* that I’m being prayed for can’t be out of benevolence.

          • Catholic University Atheist

            testing

          • Jared Clark

            How so? If I tell you I’ll do something you believe will be absolutely pointless, it must be malevolent? How does your knowledge of my actions hurt you?

          • Jared Clark

            It’s for your comfort. So you know that there are people that you’ve never even met who care. Kind of sad that you find it annoying, really.

          • Cal-J

            “Implying that age has anything to do with truth value?”

            You’ve got it backwards, boss man. The implication is that true ideas are likely to last longer. The Catholic Church has had a lasting, living, breathing influence on the world for 2,000 years, and many of the best ideas are nigh synonymous with its teachings.

            ” Why not rely entirely on the Confucian Analects (which have at least a good 500 years on Catholicism) and throw the church out the window?”

            Simply because one set of good ideas does not cancel out another.

            Confucius was a smart cookie. Many of his writings are about a proper way of life, which, while they have certain failings here and there (the emphasis on good behavior is not strictly meant as an attempt to be good specifically, but as very useful ideas). Also, he got started early enough to spread his influence throughout eastern Asia.

            Asia is like the internet. Ideas get spread very easily there and are very good at not disappearing.

            “Hitler and Karl Marx made significant impacts too, does that give what they preached a little more truth value as well?”

            Certainly, neither was so utterly messed up as to spout 100% falsehood, so, yes, parts of their messages were indeed true (Germany was in a really bad place and so were many members of the vaguely-defined proletariat). The problem is that the truth does not excuse the falsehood.

            “Please tell me why you need to announce your prayer, does it make it more effective or are you trying to annoy me?”

            It puts you on guard; it’s an advance warning of the grace he’s asking God to send you. And it doesn’t seem like you’re particularly difficult to annoy, just sayin’.

            “Also I wasn’t comparing the church directly to Hitler and Marx, but rather pointing out that something’s impact on the world does not automatically make it true, which directly addresses what you have said as well.”

            No, but it certainly makes it more likely. The ideas that have the most impact on the world do so because they speak to people’s hearts. The most powerful ideas can general be counted on to have a vague understanding of the wrongs of the universe.

          • Con3636

            Hitler and Karl Marx made significant impacts too, does that give what they preached a little more truth value as well?

        • Tim411

          Also, why did you ignore the other qualifiers in your comment?

    • JoAnna Wahlund
    • http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/ Barbara
    • convert46

      Um….yeah? Weirdly that can happen, authority being right. But of course this does not mean you do not think for yourself! In fact the opposite can happen – if you try trusting the right authority ( a benevolent older person for starters ) you may discover that things do make sense. Good luck!

    • Brandy Miller

      The funniest part about your statement, the part that shows you really don’t get what the Catholic Church is about, is that she has ALWAYS encouraged us to think for ourselves – to ask questions, seek answers, and use our brains.
      1 Thessalonians 5:21 “but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.”

      • JoshM

        And yet why have they killed so many heretics over the centuries because they asked questions? One older interpretation for heresy is a choice. Heretics are those who make a choice that doesn’t fit the bill when it comes to Catholic dogma. In other words, the church has a long history of actively persecuting those people who actually think for themselves. None of this information is made up, it is all history. Your love for the church doesn’t erase the many atrocities that it has committed.

        • Brenn

          The Church herself has done nothing. Quite a claim, right? It’s true though. But that isn’t to say that men and women within the Church are innocent. We are sinners who make up the perfect Body of Christ. I realize this is a very challenging duality, but there it is.

          We’ve sinned. We’ve (human beings, that is) committed horrible things– this, I’ll admit freely. We’re no better than anyone else– I mean, we’re human. Men (speaking in terms of the whole human race) are corrupt. Yes, men have killed each other using religion as an excuse. But was it really religion? No. It was greed, pride, lust– whatever. Religion, again, was merely an excuse. Similar excuses have been used to commit atrocities: The idea that one race is better than another, the idea that Europeans are the only “civilized” society, the concept that Rich are better than Poor, etc.

          But what she said is true. We do encourage people to think for themselves. As a Church, we’ve come far. A Catholic Priest came up with the idea for the Big Bang. JPII said very clearly that we cannot deny the truth when it comes to Evolution (I’m a fervent Evolutionist myself, as well as a practicing Catholic). Thomas Aquinas stated that if a scientific finding were to appear to contradict a religious interpretation, and that scientific finding was proven to be correct, we would have to (as a Church) alter our religious interpretation.

          Nearly every Saint ever has disagreed/clashed with corrupt men or women within the Church. St. Francis anyone? St. Theresa? Saints are, essentially, revolutionaries sent by God to put the humans of the Church back on track. Thinking for yourself has always been encouraged by the Church.

  • http://thecatholicsciencegeek.blogspot.com/ The Catholic Science Geek

    SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK! Another great post. *Tears of joy*

  • Kqueenoftheworld

    i have missed you

  • Msnustad

    YOU help our light to shine on brother! I loved the NY times ad too. I was so tempted to pass along a copy to all my liberal Catholic (aka. cafeteria Catholics) friends…ha ha ha ;) Then I decided to be a good Catholic & go to Eucharistic adoration & pray for them instead. Keep up the good work illuminating the truth in a fun way! God bless!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jennifer-Lynn-Readnour/1036901838 Jennifer Lynn Readnour

    Great article, Marc, brilliant and shared, per usual!

  • http://twitter.com/LivermoreEd Ed Livermore

    Dude, you ROCK.

  • liz o.

    Marc,
    You are too funny…and so right on. I’m so glad you’re back. :-)

  • Margaret

    Marc, you are manna in the desert. Water in a parched land. A pepperoni pizza at midnight on a Friday in Lent.

    • Cal-J

      Stealing that last one.

  • Peter

    The next time you make a list of the greatest things for which the Church is to be credited, you should consider specifying culture and civilization [Western].

    As we are entering a time where the atheists appear to be on the ascendant, where people are looking for their ears to be tickled, I though a good scientific proof that a Creator exists might be useful. It may even be inspired. :-)
    https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=103467443105574

    It’s not long, and you don’t need a Facebook account to read it.

    • Con3636

      What you have posted says, in summary, the universe looks designed therefore it was designed. Your evidence for design however is all wrong. One might look at the human body and think it’s intelligently designed but evidence shows that it came about through evolution. Obviously an electric vehicle on mars looks designed relative to the universe –there is no evidence that vehicles are made without human intervention. However you’re saying the universe appears to be designed relative to what? Science doesn’t claim to know the origins of the universe but there are speculations regarding multiple universes and even evolution of universes.

      • seminarianjc

        The Catholic Church is not against Evolution actually the Church doesn’t take a specific stand when it comes to creation (it is usually the Evangelical fundamentalists that believe and hold to sola scriptora, basically just what the bible says word for word ) The Church in her wisdom asks only that one just must simply believe that it was God who started it all and has created all things visible and invisible. so the church doesn’t reject the idea of there being many universes it simply, on the subject of creation, states that God the initial cause the unmoved mover that started it all and is keeping all existence in being.

      • tim lambert

        Uh Oh, we’ve got a Gnu Atheist on our hands.
        Shouldn’t you be arguing against intelligent design proponents somewhere?

        “Science doesn’t claim to know the origins of the universe but there are speculations regarding multiple universes and even evolution of universes.”

        LOL! Speculations. Let me correct the gnu here… speculations devoid of empirical evidence (you know, that kind of evidence that Gnus insist on having before making any kind of judgement) – nice to see here that you’ll pass up that empirical need when it satisfies a philosophical/theological bias.

        “we’re struggling to make sense of the serendipitious conditions of this universe…. let’s mix things up abit and add a crap load more universes!!”

        And then the Gnu goes on to say “and even evolution of universes”. Really? Explain that for us. Because what it sounds like to me is smoke and mirrors. “Heavens to Betsy!! He said ‘evolution’ and universes’ in the same sentence. I’m folding.”

        You ‘speculate’ about the existence of multiple universes (that you’ve never observed, that really only serve the purpose of dealing with an annoying fact) and then you simply declare “oh and… yeah!!! there’s a survival of the fittest among these universes… because….uhhh… there’s a WHHOOOOOLLLLE bunch of them. Not just one, you see.”

        If you don’t mind, I’m going to do alittle judging – I’m judging you as a fool.

        • Con3636

          The point I seek to make is that science has the humility to admit that it isn’t very sure how the universe came about, unlike Catholic dogma which somehow KNOWS that the universe was created by a conscious entity. As for the evolution of universes, it’s not traditional in the sense that universes don’t fight each other for resources. Instead, universes with different magnitudes of the 4 forces of the universe are more or less stable. These speculations are not devoid of empirical evidence as you assert, they are based mostly on mathematics projected from observations in our universe. Again though, the point is that faith claims to know whereas science does not.

          • seminarianjc

            Dear everyone in this discussion I would like to say that although dialogue is good and I have seen alot of good evangelist and defenders of the Faith. I can honestly say that what goes on in blogs sometimes can turn really ugly really fast. I would like to propose that we all put away all anger and just pretend for a little bit that each and everyone of us is looking each other in the face and treat each other with respect. I especially address myself first and then my fellow Catholics in regards to anger(Matthew 5:1-26) please let us show how Christ is. I am not saying water down doctrine I am not saying be a relativist who unfortunately get immersed into the lies of the prince of this world but I say treat each other with the same mercy and kindness Charity and respect that our Savior has bequeathed to us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and as much mercy you have granted in this life shall like wise be shown to you. and I would like to say sorry truly to anyone who has been hurt or maybe offended by words of Religious who really where not practicing what they believed. I really do hope and pray we all can take this to heart and prayer, even more so coming so close to our Lords passion and reflect on how he gave no harsh words or sharp remarks he gave himself up to the will of God and did not utter reproach.

          • seminarianjc

            Dear everyone in this discussion I would like to say that although dialogue is good and I have seen alot of good evangelist and defenders of the Faith. I can honestly say that what goes on in blogs sometimes can turn really ugly really fast. I would like to propose that we all put away all anger and just pretend for a little bit that each and everyone of us is looking each other in the face and treat each other with respect. I especially address myself first and then my fellow Catholics in regards to anger(Matthew 5:1-26) please let us show how Christ is. I am not saying water down doctrine I am not saying be a relativist who unfortunately get immersed into the lies of the prince of this world but I say treat each other with the same mercy and kindness Charity and respect that our Savior has bequeathed to us. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and as much mercy you have granted in this life shall like wise be shown to you. and I would like to say sorry truly to anyone who has been hurt or maybe offended by words of Religious who really where not practicing what they believed. I really do hope and pray we all can take this to heart and prayer, even more so coming so close to our Lords passion and reflect on how he gave no harsh words or sharp remarks he gave himself up to the will of God and did not utter reproach.

          • seminarianjc

            con3636 although I know that science doesn’t take an absolute stance on how the universe came about but I would like to, if I could, revisit your statement “unlike Catholic dogma which somehow KNOWS that the universe was created by a conscious entity” First and foremost Catholics do not “know”that as you stated; I would like to refine that and say that we Catholics “BELIEVE.” I think that maybe you would better understand Catholic stance if you understood the idea of faith. Faith is, we Catholics believe, a gift from God.(you may or may not believe this) gift from God or not faith is the ability to believe in things unseen or trust in statements not 100% grounded it leaves the empirical mind that we ALL have and states we humans do not have the ability to learn everything and also there are things that we will maybe never know (know in the way of understanding how or what or why) but there are things that, through God and his church, we believe have been given to us as truths. We place trust and we do not claim to have it all totally understood but we do believe there are things that are truths that are truths whether you know how they are or not. Faith is hard to practice and it is something that we ask Gods help with. But what I guess im trying to say is that faith is a humble option. I hope that helps you better understand the idea of faith or belief.

        • Con3636

          The point I seek to make is that science has the humility to admit that it isn’t very sure how the universe came about, unlike Catholic dogma which somehow KNOWS that the universe was created by a conscious entity. As for the evolution of universes, it’s not traditional in the sense that universes don’t fight each other for resources. Instead, universes with different magnitudes of the 4 forces of the universe are more or less stable. These speculations are not devoid of empirical evidence as you assert, they are based mostly on mathematics projected from observations in our universe. Again though, the point is that faith claims to know whereas science does not.

      • Sadie

        “One might look at the human body and think it’s intelligently designed but evidence shows that it came about through evolution. ”

        Wow this is embarrassing but…this is a CATHOLIC blog. I am surprised a brilliant atheist such as yourself failed to realize that. Now go scamper off and bother some evangelicals with your evidence for evolution.

  • Angela Pea

    *sigh*….so glad you’re back!

    The hacker thing? Sends me into fits of giggles every time I think of it. Seriously. I know a few precocious seven year-old Boy Scouts who could do a better job of hacking into a computer system.

  • tealplease

    Can someone be moved to tears at the beauty of the funnies? Presently proved.

  • BeccaG

    First time I’ve read your blog! Thank you so much! (Except for the coffee coming out of my nose part. That kinda hurt… but I’ll offer it up!)

  • http://girlwhowassaturday.blogspot.com/ TGWWS

    Mental association game:

    Reading “kill the fish” on Marc’s blog makes me think of

    (1) contraception. Cause he writes about it’s negative effects A LOT. And doesn’t it mutate fish, or something?

    (2) “save the storks” and similar pro-life phrases that play on eco-friendly secularists’ desire to keep the planet green

    (3) Icthys — the Greek word as an ancient symbol for Christ, which persecuted Christians used to signal to each other

    Not that any of that gets me any closer …

    *HATING SECRETS!*

    • John S

      It’s easy. All you have to do is hold your computer monitor up to the light (works better if it’s a flat panel) and you can read whats underneath the black box. It says YOU CYB

      • http://girlwhowassaturday.blogspot.com/ TGWWS

        Mm. Moderately enlightening, that, but I’m still curious as to the final product!

  • Mel

    Good to have you back! I love your blog, but I would just like to ask you, out of respect for the artists whom you get your pictures from, could you please cite or link to your source (unless you make all those graphics/pictures yourself?)! Have a great day!

  • Dee in Surprise, AZ

    Well said!!!

  • convert46

    I figured it out about you. You take the things that merely make me sad and scared and you turn them into causes for merriment and rejoicing. Your whit is my favorite weapon against the darkness- although I also love it that you can describe Eucharistic adoration with such honesty and love. Keep going!

  • Christine

    Hey, there I am in that screenshot! Christine from the Midwest… ;)

  • Catholic University Atheist

    The news about the “hacking” in this is horribly wrong. The group isn’t organized like the media portrays it and the people doing the attacks probably aren’t the ones wearing the masks. Also some of the comments indicate that Anonymous was trying to do something bigger but failed. This is simply false. They DDoS attack servers all the time just for the hell of it, your stupid catholic website simply wasn’t special enough for the real hackers to give it a shot, that’s why it wasn’t hacked like Sony during the credit card scandal. This whole article is written as if people should give a shit about the catholic church, obviously planned parenthood wasn’t “trolling” the catholic church with that campaign but leave it to you fuckers to watch the god damned priest video enough to make it number one. Disgusting and poorly written is my review of this article.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry you feel that way Sir or Mam, praying one day you will recognize truth

      • Con3636

        You do the praying, I’ll do the critical thinking and we’ll see which gets closer to the truth.

        • Anonymous

          Marc’s blogs are mostly based on critical thinking actual. So are my beliefs. I actually, personally, have trouble believing things unless I can reason through them to know they are true. Looks like your doing the same, just make sure your critical thinking is deep enough into these issue buddy :) Your on the right track to the Truth.

          • Con3636

            Everyone believes what they think is rational, however you’ll notice that almost every religious person was raised with that religion, and by chance they happened to be raised by the one religion out of thousands in the world that is the true one. Children find it almost impossible to, in their adult life, shake doctrines they were taught as children. This is why you think your religion is entirely logical, you have never seen it outside of your catholic blinders.

          • Jared Clark

            *cough*Summa Theologica*cough*

          • Jared Clark

            *cough*Summa Theologica*cough*

          • Jenny

            It is a fact that Jesus Christ did in fact exist. He was a real live person and walked on this Earth 2ooo years ago. Knowing this one then decides if they believe Jesus was truly the Son of God or not. If you believe he was then rational thinking tells you the church that he founded is the true faith. That Church happens to be the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who was lucky enough to be born and raised with those “blinders” have been truly blessed. Its easy to be an atheist you dont have to believe in anything. You better be certain you are right or it is a sad existance to know you had all the same chances at eternal happiness but turned your nose up to it and called it critical thinking.

          • Longbow2236

            Here’s my problem with atheism: it’s just too ironic that the reason you so correctly adore was authored by accident.

          • Anonymous

            as my friend dan likes to say, “i love when atheists make a religion out of not having a religion.”

          • Con3636

            If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.

          • Anonymous

            no he thought it was funny, that those who were against all forms for religion, made a religion out of not having a religion…

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christian-Gjernes/1400126950 Christian Gjernes

            Simple irreligion is just that, but militant atheism is a religion.

          • Alexandra

            So cute, but so wrong.

            When was the last time some atheist claimed to see Christopher Hitchens in the bottom of their bottle of well aged scotch and sang praises to the spaghetti monster?

            Militant atheism isn’t even a thing. Militant implies some sort of combativeness, like militant Christians who bomb Planned Parenthoods. No one is bombing anything in the name of not believing in a god.

          • Johnno

            Oh? Let’s just ignore ignore then the terrors and violence that descends from Atheistic Communism then…

            ALso Atheism is a religion, just more terribly organized where each man is his own authority, sort of like protestantism. You have doctrines you all hold. “God doesn’t exist’ (unprovable belief), belief in evolution (unprovable, also falsifiable), belief in inevitable progress, belief in biological matter from non biological matter, etc. etc. and you hold to creeds found in scientism, naturalism and other various philosophical beliefs that are held a priori without evidence, and all equally miraculous, but more absurd given there is no cause explained nor rationale.

            Atheism is a religion whose folowers are too dull to recognize that they beahve exactly like the religious brights they seek to oppose. Heck, those you consider authorative leaders on the matter are even trying to get their own ‘churches’, ‘proselytize’, and have their own Darwin Day holidays and occasions.

          • Alexandra

            If you say so.

          • Longbow2236

            Here’s my problem with atheism: it’s just too ironic that the reason you so correctly adore was authored by accident.

          • OhhhhBoyyy

            Actually you are right. Of course everyone believes what they think is rational. And yes, I can say there are people out there raised with beliefs that have not changed since they were taught them. Maybe this is because the beleifs are true…? And if you say that we haven’t seen our religion out of our ‘catholic blinders’ I disagree. Well maybe some people. But personally for me, I was raised catholic, but there came I time in my life where I really wondered why I believed all these things I was taught. I’ve lived a lifestyle that doesn’t always reflect the churches teachings, but when I’ve sat down and starting educating myself, I’ve learned the reasons for all the teachings of the church and why they make sense. Trust me I’m not the person you can just tell what to do. I need to know why it makes sense, and why it is good, And everything teaching I have reasoned through in the Church makes sense and is good.

          • Cal-J

            “…however you’ll notice that almost every religious person was raised with that religion…”

            True, and almost every mathematician was raised with basic arithmetic. That fact that you are taught particular beliefs as a child doesn’t have much bearing on their truth.

            “…and by chance they happened to be raised by the one religion out of thousands in the world that is the true one.”

            That certainly is lucky.

            “Children find it almost impossible to, in their adult life, shake doctrines they were taught as children.”

            Well, no, that’s not wholly accurate. Lots of people simply stop caring out of lethargy.

            “This is why you think your religion is entirely logical, you have never seen it outside of your catholic blinders.”

            Well, to be entirely honest, some of us have trouble finding people who can demonstrate how our religion is illogical. Most atheists who come here just get righteously upset at us.

            You’re welcome to try, of course.

          • Con3636

            The difference here is that arithmetic is the same around the entire world, like science in general. It has a single standard because it is logically based. Religion, however, is different depending mostly on location but also on each individual’s specific family. No one has ever died over differences of opinion in arithmetic, more than can be said about religion.

          • Cal-J

            “Religion, however, is different depending mostly on location but also on each individual’s specific family.”

            Religion is the sum of man’s attempt to reach God.

            The fact that people disagree about what is true in religion suggests that there is a truth to be found. The problem is few like to be told that they’re understanding is wrong.

            “No one has ever died over differences of opinion in arithmetic, more than can be said about religion.”

            No one has ever cared enough about math to fight over it (except I’m willing to bet that’s not true), less than can be said about religion.

          • john

            Logic, mathematics and science are rules derived by feeble man’s intellect as a model of what already exists. There is no power or truth in the rules themselves, only in the reality they attempt to describe. Even so there exists truth beyond mathematics, which ironically has been proven by mathematics. Newton’s law were thought to be perfect until Einstein came along. Consider the power of quantum mechanics. The solutions to the equation for even the simplest problems became quickly intractable by our best mathematicians and most powerful computers. Nevertheless, the are solved everywhere in the universe simultaneously and continuously. Is this not evidence of an intelligence and wisdom only God could possess? “I am, Who am.” More than solved, the solutions are also enforced across time and space. Is this not evidence of a power only God could possess? “I am, Who am.” The universe appears to be made up of countless particles of different kinds with countless identical to each other and all somehow related and bound to each other by rules we only barely understand. Is this not evidence of pervasive commonality which of necessity demands a simple unity, a unity that only God could possess? “I am, Who am.” The Power, associated with the Father, the Wisdom/Intelligence associated with the Son and the Unity/Commonality/Love associated with the Spirit…The Trinity…”I am, Who am.” I don’t think you appreciate reality/existence/truth for what it it is, but instead try to replace it with comparative nothingness of your extremely limited self. “I am, Who am.”

          • Anonymous

            i know clergy men who are intelligent, who are probably more intelligent than most secular thinkers i know…

          • Feeneyja

            So where does that leave the vast number of former atheists I know that have converted to Chritianity? I saw Steve Mosher speak last night and he definitely had no Catholic blinders on in his walk towards conversion. In fact, the blinders of his world view were shed when he saw first hand the atrocities of China’s one child policy. Or the vast number of Catholics who left the Church post Vatican II and are now finding their way back? Or the staunch anti-Catholic Protestants that are now Catholic (Scott Hahn is an excellent example).

        • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

          Was your angry, vulgarity-laced rant above supposed to be an example of your critical thinking skills?

          Let’s see you work on your manners instead.

          • Con3636

            What is wrong with vulgarity? I do admit I got a bit carried away with the language but attacking manners alone doesn’t really prove much of a point.

          • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

            “What is wrong with vulgarity?”

            Is that a serious question? The words we call vulgar are reserved for the purpose of provoking rage or belly laughs.

            “. . . attacking manners alone doesn’t really prove much of a point.”

            I was proving no point. I was telling you to mind your manners.

          • Anonymous

            vulgarity when trying to make an argument makes it really hard to get on the level of the person you’re arguing with. trust me on this one, every argument i’ve been in where someone was yelling and swearing at me, i lose respect for the other person almost immediately

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          My good man, I tell you that praying and critical thinking can be one in the same! It’s known as contemplation! You should really brush up on your prayer if you plan to insult us.

          • Con3636

            Brush up on prayer? How is this even possible considering that there is an infinite amount of ways to “pray”. I am always amused when prayer is attacked and the response is “that’s not what prayer is”. If I understand it correctly, prayer contains the expectation of supernatural intervention and if it doesn’t, then it is more useless than just thinking about something. Additionally I’m not sure why it had to be announced that I am being prayed for; the only conclusion I can make is that it is an attempt to upset me since surely the annunciation of a prayer makes it no more effective.

          • Cal-J

            ” How is this even possible considering that there is an infinite amount of ways to “pray”.”

            Well, a good place to start would be to come to an accurate definition of prayer. A workable place for us to start would be to consider the etymology of the word; “to pray” meant to ask or to request (as in “I pray thee, good sir”), so when you pray, it should be to someone and about something (even only implicitly).

            “If I understand it correctly, prayer contains the expectation of supernatural intervention and if it doesn’t, then it is more useless than just thinking about something.”

            True dat, boss. See, you’re learning! :)

            “Additionally I’m not sure why it had to be announced that I am being prayed for; the only conclusion I can make is that it is an attempt to upset me since surely the annunciation of a prayer makes it no more effective.”

            Generally, it’s an attempt at showing someone good will, if poorly thought out. You can choose to be annoyed if you want, just like you can choose to ignore it.

          • Anonymous

            i can recommend some good prayer books if you need some to get you started, i have a ton

          • Con3636

            Brush up on prayer? How is this even possible considering that there is an infinite amount of ways to “pray”. I am always amused when prayer is attacked and the response is “that’s not what prayer is”. If I understand it correctly, prayer contains the expectation of supernatural intervention and if it doesn’t, then it is more useless than just thinking about something. Additionally I’m not sure why it had to be announced that I am being prayed for; the only conclusion I can make is that it is an attempt to upset me since surely the annunciation of a prayer makes it no more effective.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

          My good man, I tell you that praying and critical thinking can be one in the same! It’s known as contemplation! You should really brush up on your prayer if you plan to insult us.

        • Rapunzel Pres

          Wahhhhhhhhhhh

        • Rapunzel Pres

          Wahhhhhhhhhhh

        • Jared

          Why not do both? Catholics pray and critically think all the time!

        • Jared

          Why not do both? Catholics pray and critically think all the time!

        • Anonymous

          just because we are religious doesn’t make us stupid, some of the smartest men i know are members of the clergy

    • Tim411

      Gotta love it when an atheist ends up looking like an emotional train wreck, struggling to swallow down the bile as he crafts such a beautiful post. Screaming at Catholics “NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOU,!!!”… Yeah, apparently no one but you.

      • Con3636

        Do you honestly believe that planned parenthood started that campaign in an effort to “troll the catholic church”. It’s a charity with sincere and noble intentions which I understand you don’t agree with but making a video for the campaign with a priest speaking against it seems like it’s the Catholics trolling the charity.

        • Alexandra

          EXACTLY!

          This article made me laugh because, really the only thing that was an actual a well organized and deliberate “trolling” of the Church was the NYT ad. And I don’t see how that is a failed trolling. It raises really good points and made people think. That was the goal; to make people think.

          That wasn’t a huge Planned Parenthood crusade against the Church, indeed it had nothing to do with the Church, it was about the US government. And it wasn’t like it was some massive well funded campaign that got taken down by the 100k hits on the Father’s video.

          And Anonymous didn’t fail at what they were trying to do, as Catholic Uni Atheist said.

          So yeah…I’m saddened by how little arguing fodder there is in this article. Step it up, Marc!

          • Cal-J

            Alexandra! I missed you!

            “And I don’t see how that is a failed trolling. It raises really good points and made people think. That was the goal; to make people think.”

            Yes, it did. As Marc points out, however, reflection on the issue might just lead people to try and understand our issues; you see, in encouraging people to think about their faith, you end up encouraging them to think about it. They need to rise up out of their lethargic state and consider the issues. This is risky, since the whole “vaguely Catholic” bit is founded on that lethargy.

            And considering the issues involved in this discussion regard women’s health, we might turn to see what the people care about when it comes to that sort of thing. (More on this later).

            (Side note: I thought that the goal of the ad was to get people to leave the Church, by the way. You know, the way they spell it out like that and all).

            “That wasn’t a huge Planned Parenthood crusade against the Church, indeed it had nothing to do with the Church, it was about the US government.”

            Is the Birth Control bit we’re talking about part of PPACA? ‘Cause if it is, I’m pretty sure we’ve established that it indeed has profound effects on Church operations.

            “And it wasn’t like it was some massive well funded campaign that got taken down by the 100k hits on the Father’s video.”

            Of course not. Youtube is forever. However, given that Planned Parenthood ended up providing a forum that gave a good 200% (and growing) lead to its opponent, one questions exactly what the people are thinking.

            It seems to me that the various efforts of “making people think” about the Church seem to be leading them to listening to the Church. (Planned Parenthood, public favorites once again — oh, wait, nevermind).

            Besides, Planned Parenthood kinda sucks at publicity, no matter how “sincere and noble” its intentions are. Nobody likes working with someone who claims to be their private area. Or their friends with benefits. Or their sexual experience. Right now, they’re running ads that tell me that someone I know needs birth control. I have to wonder what on Earth that accomplishes; am I suddenly going to go out of my way to find out which of the people I know needs birth control? How would I do that?

            “Hi! Remember me? We went to middle school together! Hey, that Planned Parenthood ad made me think…. Are you pregnant? Do you need birth control? I’ll go and buy it for you! :)

            “o.o”

            …Seriously?

            “And Anonymous didn’t fail at what they were trying to do, as Catholic Uni Atheist said.”

            Well, I dunno. The defense of Anonymous seems to derive its main argument from “They don’t represent all of Anonymous!” Fair enough, I’ll cede, for the sake of argument, that a small group of Italian malcontents aren’t quite representative of Anonymous’ scope and reach (I certainly hope so, Lord knows certain credit card providers would not like to lose to the Vatican’s website on the whole “Anonymous took us down” competition).

            Except that leads us to certain issues. The group that hacked the Vatican’s website did so in Anonymous’ name, and to my understanding, Anonymous has not declared that they had nothing to do with the incident, which leaves Anonymous with the burden of having failed to attack the site. (They could, Lord knows, and I’m not sure I’d mind it too much. We could use the publicity).

            Also, the whole “not failing” bit rests on a sudden change of priorities that occurred when the group failed to successfully hack the server. Crashing the site has the wonderful taste of sour grapes, here.

          • Alexandra

            Oh Cal, I didn’t miss you.

            You think you’re a whole lot smarter or cleverer than you actually are. You make me crazy with your arguments because they really don’t make any sense. And you know, people being wrong/not making sense on the internet is one of the most pressing issues out there.

            I prefer to focus on fighting with people who can at least make a coherent argument.

          • Cal-J

            “Oh Cal, I didn’t miss you.”

            Denial doesn’t look good on you.

            Well, lessee, how did I fail to address your arguments?

            You said “And I don’t see how that is a failed trolling.”

            I pointed out that it’s not a good troll if you end up generating more points for your opponent.

            You also said the goal of the ad was to make people think. Forgive me if I was wrong, but it seemed to me that you couched the stated purpose of of the actual ad in a much vaguer goal.

            You said it the “I have a say” bit had nothing to do with the Church but with the government.

            I pointed out that the government’s recent actions, and specifically those in which the “I have a say” videos share context, have quite a bit to do with the Church and its activity.

            “You make me crazy….”

            You’re welcome.

            “And you know, people being wrong/not making sense on the internet is one of the most pressing issues out there.”

            Quick Tip: It helps when you try to point out HOW someone is wrong rather than just claiming someone is. Edinburgh did that and it only made him look foolish.

          • Con3636

            Do you really think that the priest response video to the planned parenthood prerogative gave a special lead to it’s opponent? I am willing to bet that it was mostly people who already had a firm stance on the issue who increased the view count; not to mention views could also be from planned parenthood supporters.

          • Cal-J

            “Do you really think that the priest response video to the planned parenthood prerogative gave a special lead to it’s opponent?”

            I’m saying that the Priest video itself benefits from the PP campaign, having 3x as many views as the initial launch video; further, stated support for the video is roughly 6:1 in favor of the Priest’s video. It would certainly seem, given this data, that among those who care, support is remarkably strong with the Father.

            “I am willing to bet that it was mostly people who already had a firm stance on the issue who increased the view count,”

            Naturally. The majority of people who would go out of their way to watch any of these videos would be those who care. But, even if the percentage of people who are only considering the issue is small, and assuming it’s the same on videos for both sides, that leaves us with a lot more people willing to spend time listening to the priest than the planner.

            ” not to mention views could also be from planned parenthood supporters.”

            True. A strong showing from all 300 of them.

    • convert46

      God is love. You aren’t feeling it. Praying for you!

    • Brandy Miller

      What’s that? I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you over the sound of how AWESOME the Catholic Church is.

      • Con3636

        Ignorance is bliss, props on the counterargument!

        • Cal-J

          Okay, handsome. Wanna try me on for size?

          “The news about the “hacking” in this is horribly wrong. The group isn’t organized like the media portrays it and the people doing the attacks probably aren’t the ones wearing the masks.”

          The problem with adopting a name is the taking on of an identity. A shared identity is

          “Also some of the comments indicate that Anonymous was trying to do something bigger but failed. This is simply false. They DDoS attack servers all the time just for the hell of it, your stupid catholic website simply wasn’t special enough for the real hackers to give it a shot, that’s why it wasn’t hacked like Sony during the credit card scandal.”

          The

          “This whole article is written as if people should give a shit about the catholic church,”

          Which you obviously don’t. Going out of your way to post long, biting tirades in the combox, and all.

          “…obviously planned parenthood wasn’t “trolling” the catholic church with that campaign”

          Depends on what you mean by “obviously”, “trolling”, and “campaign.”

          Admitting that “trolling” is used rather loosely (clearly, there are not enough “u mad bro”s going around), Planned Parenthood is “obviously” trying to turn the cultural tide in its favor, which, in (main?) effect, turns it against the Church. However, it’s “campaign” has had functionally the opposite effect — people are flocking to the church’s video in excess numbers.

          I will, however, acknowledge the vague sense of satisfaction with this turn of events.

          “…but leave it to you fuckers to watch the god damned priest video enough to make it number one. Disgusting and poorly written is my review of this article.”

          lol u mad bro?

          • Cal-J

            Whoops. Skipped ahead of myself, again.

            “The news about the “hacking” in this is horribly wrong. The group isn’t organized like the media portrays it and the people doing the attacks probably aren’t the ones wearing the masks.”

            The problem with adopting a name is the taking on of an identity, and shared identities are dangerous in that it automatically speaks of a unity. So, unless Anonymous actually denies involvement in the screw-up, people have used its name and influence and failed. Strike.

            “Also some of the comments indicate that Anonymous was trying to do something bigger but failed. This is simply false. They DDoS attack servers all the time just for the hell of it,”

            Except they were trying to actually get into the server. They changed priorities when they failed.

            “…your stupid catholic website”

            Which is totally not worth mentioning, of course.

            “…simply wasn’t special enough…”

            To comment on? Of course not.

            “…for the real hackers to give it a shot, that’s why it wasn’t hacked like Sony during the credit card scandal.”

            By “real hackers” I assume you mean skilled crackers. Well, I would certainly hope so. As I mentioned above, nobody wants to lose the “Anonymous took a swipe at us” contest to the Vatican’s website.

          • Derpy

            The skilled hackers of Anonymous didn’t attack the Vatican website because it doesn’t have anything valuable like credit cards.

          • JoAnna Wahlund

            And the irony is… it does. For free, even. They just don’t realize it.

          • Cal-J

            They might’ve if they’d gotten in.

          • Anonymous

            i’ve seen the comments on the priest video, its not just us who are watching… :P

          • Cal-J

            I would certainly hope not. No point in an echo chamber. :D

        • Anonymous

          ignorance is bliss? you must be pretty happy :)

    • http://twitter.com/torch621 Justin Jurek

      Tell you what, I’ll actually care about what YOU have to say when you can say something without including profanities :)

  • Mangydonkey

    I think I overheard the devil saying something like ” Oh crap, he’s back”

  • Catherine

    I literally went “YES!” when I saw this post. :) Made my day. So good to have you back!!!

  • Mark Noonan

    Bro – you are hilarious. Awesome stuff. Keep it coming. Prayers and regards – Fr. Mark buffalopadre.blogspot.com

  • Gail Finke

    Sorry it took me so long to read it! Hilarious!

  • Andre

    Can you be my friend? Like in real life? …Pretty please? Hahaha, just kidding, but seriously you are too funny! I wish I had devoutly Catholic friends who understood memes and had an awesome sense of humor like you. The best my friends could achieve are maybe two out of three of those things, and it’s usually not devoutly Catholic friends who understand memes, but perhaps devoutly Catholic with an above-average sense of humor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rhoslyn Rhoslyn Thomas

    This is the best blog EVER!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rhoslyn Rhoslyn Thomas

    This is the best blog EVER!

  • A saint I ain’t

    Absolutely brilliant once again, marcus.

  • Jared Clark

    “Like when Richard Dawkins published the God Delusion, and we all got to watch a biologist cry trying to head-butt a Dumb Ox.”

    That might just be the best sentence I’ve ever read. Welcome back!!

  • Sleep4long

    Trolling is done in an attempt to get a response or disruption in normal conversation. By writing an article about these attempts you have validated them as successful trolls. However, I would argue that all three of them weren’t intended to troll with the middle one being some stupid kids trying to “rebel” and the other two being people expressing a difference of opinion.

  • Sleep4long

    Trolling is done in an attempt to get a response or disruption in normal conversation. By writing an article about these attempts you have validated them as successful trolls. However, I would argue that all three of them weren’t intended to troll with the middle one being some stupid kids trying to “rebel” and the other two being people expressing a difference of opinion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Angelo-Ocampo/100000081911147 Angelo Ocampo

      And yet they got trolled by the mere presence of the Catholic Church. :)

  • Con3636

    To all who have read my comments:
    After posting some comments on here I have realized that this technique is not effective in achieving my goal of enlightening people about atheism and/or improving the public image of atheists. Please know that I am pleasant in person and I don’t talk about religion unless talked to. I don’t dislike any of you but we do share differences of opinion. Carry on and enjoy your lives!

    • JoAnna Wahlund

      So… what’s the point of your little image that mocks the Virgin Mary?

      • Jeannette

        Actually, I think that’s awesome! Kind of proves the whole point of the article? (But then again, I thought the headline “Pope joins twitter, loses interest in his job” was funny too because I’m kind of a crappy Catholic)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XDBHIYMAH4R75XTXE6XJDTSL4 Common-sense-man

    As a matter of fact, we the Catholics ought to be grateful for these attacks, however lame and moronic they are. Our muscles have gotten a little flabby and this is a good opportunity to get back in shape. Let the Church Militant be militant, viva Cristo Rey!

  • http://www.military-history.us/ Patrick Shrier

    Where do I sign on the dotted line to join the resuscitated Knights of the Hospital? Keeping in mind that the only nobility in my blood line is 6 generations ago and from Ireland.

  • http://twitter.com/CJ_Napier CJ Napier

    Haha. Great post.

  • http://www.facebook.com/claudia.champion Claudia Champion

    I’m so glad you’re back! I missed you.

  • http://jabstaboops.wordpress.com Paco

    I still think it’s hilarious that the Vatican website did hold up better than every other website Anonymous has hacked

  • http://blog.pukeko.net.nz/ Chris

    Well, they tried to subvert the committees of the RC church as they did in Protestantism… and lost.

    Now, since I’m a Prot, they are losing there. Because their right on, politically correct appointees are repugnant. Because they do not preach the gospel. And… in protestantism there is no need to belong to this congregation… people vote with their feet for the more orthodox preachers.

    As a result of this (over two generations) the current bunch of seminarians are not politically, correct, not right on, but hungry for God. Again, the Spirit keeps the church, with all its flaws and divisions, going.

  • Deniz

    Enemies? Get a grip, no-one gives a shit…get over yourself bellend

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KDQFQTMD56CJAKMLXRFYUDNCPQ Montague

    You’s Back! Huzzah for mah favorite blogger!

    This has got me thinking that maybe WBC might be useful (Gollum was useful) after all.

  • Jmsteve4
  • uninvited guest

    considering the “failed trolls” caused you to write this article, i would submit that rather than failures these alleged trolls were highly successful. That is what trolling is, doing, writing or saying something spiteful in order to generate a response and amuse yourself and your peers. Now if you, and everyone else, had simply ignored all these incidents, they would have in fact been failures. However by your need to respond, and the 211 comments your response has generated (at the time of this writing) you have, instead of heaping humiliation on the perpetrators, given them many lulz, if they are even aware of your blog. Spend any amount of time in any online discussion thread and you would learn the only way to combat a troll is to starve it, that’s why there are so many “don’t feed the trolls” posts. So that leads me to one of two conclusions: 1) either you don’t know what the word “failed” means in relation to the fine art of trolling (cue Inigo Montoya); or 2) you know exactly what you are doing and spend an inordinate amount of time trolling atheists, secularists, non-believers and anyone not catholic enough for your own tastes.

    On another note it baffles me that more than a billion people fail to see how the “bride of christ” as you put it continues to disregard some of most simple advice Jesus ever gave – that bit about not making a big show of your religion and piety. The chapter and verse escape me at the moment, but i seem to remember him admonishing his disciples not to call attention to themselves by praying in public, and rather to go home and hide in a closet to do it, yet every Sunday hundreds of millions of Catholics pile into opulent temples to publicly profess how holy they are. That of course all really took off when the Catholic Church got the word “Roman” appended to it in the 4th Century and became an arm of the state, rather than a route to salvation, if you happen to believe in that sort of thing. The early christian communities of the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles bear no resemblance to opulent, gold-encrusted church properties of the vatican. They were more akin to communes where all resources were pooled and shared to each according to his need. From the moment Constantine made the church a state institution to the moment Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenburg Church the business of the Catholic Church was building institutional power, wealth and prestige, not saving souls. Since the Protestant Reformation and the dawn of the Enlightenment the man-made infrastructure of the church has been fighting a rear guard action to hold on to as much of it’s power and influence as possible as it’s had to admit it was wrong about Copernicus, Galileo, the Inquisition, selling indulgences, opposing having the Bible and liturgy in the vernacular instead of Latin (which neither Christ nor his disciples ever spoke), and the standard operating procedure of shuffling pedophiles around to various parishes rather than defrocking them and turning them in to the authorities.

    But if you want to continue to delude yourself that any one man can be completely infallible when talking about a supernatural being (supernatural by definition meaning outside of the natural world that we can observe, contemplate and come to understand, something that is so utterly beyond the comprehension of the human mind as to be unknowable) and that an organization riddled with hypocrisy and responsible for making the most well know of the classic blunders, not once but several times over – I mean come on who thought the Crusades were a good idea, you never get involved in a land war in Asia – by all means go ahead.

    • http://www.scificatholic.com D. G. D. Davidson

      Copernicus was a Catholic in good standing. Don’t go to Dan Brown for your history.

      The Crusades were a response to the Mohammedan take-over of Christian lands (in other words, the Christians did not start you “land war in Asia”). They may have failed in their ultimate object, but they also prevented the Mohammedan take-over of Western Europe.

      Yes, early Christians met together in houses when they could do nothing else. They also restructured houses into liturgical spaces and quickly built separate church buildings and decorated them when they could. I fail to see your point in complaining about nice architecture.

      Your definition of “supernatural” is incorrect. It does not denote something about which nothing can be said.

      Your definition of the slang word “troll” is probably more-or-less correct to the way the word is usually used, but that is a mere quibble.

      • uninvited guest

        Copernicus may very well have been a good Catholic, the church still had to admit it was mistaken about the earth being the center of the universe, something that didn’t happen until long after Copernicus had died.

        I stand by my definition of supernatural, as something outside of nature, and since nature includes the entire universe of which we are a small part, anything outside of that universe is unknowable by us, yes even Ratzinger. I didn’t say nothing could be said about the supernatural, i said it could not be known. People say all kinds of crazy things every day.

        I wasn’t so much complaining about the architecture of the church buildings as much as I was complaining about the concentration of wealth. With the prices of precious metals as high as they are now, how many ongoing and sustainable development and aid projects could the Church fund in developing countries by melting down a few chalices, selling them for their weight in gold and using the money to fund well and irrigation projects, or provide livestock to families in the developing world, things that can help those people become self-sufficient? Another thing Jesus said that the church hierarchy ignores is sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. Sure the lay people open their wallets and checkbooks every Sunday, does everything used in a mass need to be gold silver or crystal?

        on the Crusades I was just happy to get another Princess Bride reference into my previous rant, I however don’t believe Europeans had any business trying to tell Middle Easterners what religion to belong to. The Spanish and any allies they had at the time had every right to kick the Moors out of the Iberian Peninsula, but King Richard had no business in Jerusalem. And the Spanish really did get out of hand after the Moors were gone with that whole Inquisition thing.

        And thank you for your grudging admission of my being correct about the usage of the term “troll.” I’m glad we can agree on something.

        • john

          The complaint about the concentration of wealth resonated with the Gospel reading from Monday: “Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany,
          where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
          They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served,
          while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him.
          Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil
          made from genuine aromatic nard
          and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair;
          the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
          Then Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples,
          and the one who would betray him, said,
          “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages
          and given to the poor?”
          He said this not because he cared about the poor
          but because he was a thief and held the money bag
          and used to steal the contributions.
          So Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone.
          Let her keep this for the day of my burial.
          You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’” Jn 12:1-11

          • Jeannette

            And that we believe that God the Son resides in the tabernacle. No, God doesn’t need us to move these things (that belong to Him anyway!) but it is pleasing to Him, just as it brings me joy when the little ones spend my money to give me a present that they lovingly picked out. They can’t give me great treasures as the world thinks of it, but I’d grab the picture of the Easter egg before I’d grab my good earrings, if the house were to catch fire.

        • Johnno

          Actually Science hasn’t proved that Earth isn’t the center of the universe, nor has it actually proved heliocentrism either. In fact both the heliocentric and geocentric systems both are workable with the movements of the stars and as coordinate systems. Just go read what Einstein and other scientists have said, which is why Einstein came up with relativity. To explain away phenomena that seemed to assert the centrality of the Earth because the scientists preferred Copernicism. Relativity was sought to explain that anywhere could be the center as it’s all relative as in there is no fixed center. So even using Relativity one could argue that the Earth is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies are set up relative to it in their operation. Of course this requires Intelligent Design, but adherents that reject God must buy into Naturalistic religious beliefs about the universe’s origins to try and make the Earth not the center and therefore less special, just some cosmic accident of chance. Unfortunately, as Hubble observed to his horror, the expansion of stars and galaxies away from the earth at equal velocity greatly suggested the Earth’s centrality. In physics, the Earth could also be argued to be fixed and non rotating if it were located directly in the center and the universe as a whole was moving around it taking the stars and other planets with it. And given there is no means for a fixed frame of reference outside the universe to observe it, we cannot prove nor disprove it given our limitations. Science… how does it work? Well, thus far it certainly works quite well alongside Supernatural Revelation in the Catholic Church, which is more than can be said for the sorry state of atheistic philosophy and its religious tenets of long ages and macro-evolution and life from non living matter. For people who proclaim how they are so rational and scientifically minded, they’ve still yet to provide a semblance of a hypothetical explanation for any of these things, and yet they call us superstitious religious people who believe anything some guy wearing white says…

          • Alexandra

            The universe is expanding in all directions. What you say about the Earth being the center is true for any given point in the universe, that the rest of the universe is expanding away from it at the same rate. It’s like blowing up a balloon, expanding away from any given point within the balloon in all directions at equal speed, no matter what point you pick inside the balloon.

            While sure you can view the universe from a different reference frame and arbitrarily make the earth the center, that doesn’t mean anything in the physical world. In the physical world, the sun is the gravitational center of the universe, which is why the planets orbit it.

            Regardless, heliocentrism doesn’t disprove religion, so I’m not sure why you’re making these arguments, they make it very clear that you have no real understanding of physics and astronomy. I don’t claim to either, but I at least know you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Jeannette

            I think you mean that the Sun is the gravitational center of the Solar system, not the universe. Seems to me that the increasing speed of the universe’s expansion supports the intelligent design model over the “all by its own self” model (I have some extra skepticism for that model because its the one the kids used to describe the banana glop on the ceiling).

            My guess is that the logo has to do with the environmental damage that the Pill does to our water system: girly-man fish in Colorado, decreased fertility among French men etc?

        • ftidus12

          The Church didn’t back up Copernicus because his argument was flimsy. This was a case of the science of the time (Aristotelian) facing a challenge, and the Church, being a repository of learning was not about to seize a new, weak theory and overturn Aristotle without more proof (which is still how science works today). Hence why it was to be taught as a theory until Kepler was able to “show the beef” as it were.

    • Jsteve4

      Hehe witty name. I would just like to point out the differences between praying to be seen and simply praying in congregation, and also explain why churches are decorated (Marc made a post about this sometime… not sure where). The thing that matters here is intent: praying to be seen is expressly praying so that people see you. It has nothing to do with hat you actally pray. You don’t beieve what yu say, but yu like theattention, and the reputatin it gives. Praying in your own home cannot do that. You must pray to pray there. However, that is not to say that anyone who goes to church is there to be seen. We believe these people are our brothers and sisters. this is truly a family affair. Of couse there are people who only do it be seen, but they also hear the verse you quoted in the readings. As for thebeauty of a church: people love God. They think he deserves he best, and that can mean sacrifices to adorn His house. My computer is dying, so I can sa no more at the moment.

    • Aggie Matt

      Well, as you said, “trolling is, doing, writing or saying something spiteful in order to generate a response and amuse yourself and your peers”! Most situations of embarrassment call for laughing at yourself, letting actions speak more than words, and thanking God for the opportunity to share in His humility; read Marc’s blog post from today http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/04/the-scourging-at-the-pillar.html
      However, in the case of falsehoods, reiterations of doctrine are necessary in modern times, “Saeculum” for Augustine, as people are to gullible and unmotivated to find truth, settling for whatever is presented in front of them. So society has taught that reason/logic is the “white-man’s tool of suppression”, and that any religious institution using it must be babbling to explain away those spiteful bits and misunderstanding how to use reason. This is the hilarity of modern man, that he cannot use logic because of his on bias and deep-seeded relativism, making anyone using such methods “a religious nut”.

      I offer, ergo, some responses to your own spiteful remarks; never dish-out what you cannot ultimately eat.

      Are you familiar with the book of Revelations? I believe several Catholic-converts’ conversions began after their familiarity with the book of Revelations and witnessing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, i.e Scott Hahn, G. K. Chesterton, etc. Heaven sounds particularly glittery and rich to me in St. John’s visions. Does not Matthew 7 say “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you”? Thus, how can you speculate that Catholics attending Mass are doing so out of pompous pietas or pius, to use the words original language of coining? Would not the early Christians of quasi-socialist communes not also be “showy” by banding together and worshiping together; read “Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquilina. I personally attend Mass because I need God, physically, I go to proclaim the wonders of the Lord, my own concupiscence and failings, and mercy and utterly fulfilling love He pours upon all who ask. That is what Mass is about, not so much my reception of Him under the veil of the Sacrament, but His reception of me!

      I’d like to offer the words of not a Saint, canonized, nor a “churchman”, nor a “craddle-Catholic”, but a convert of, often now, obscurity in response to the pagan-ness of Latin:
      He begins to realise that it is the secular world
      that spoils the sense of words; and he catches an exciting glimpse
      of the real case for the iron immortality of the Latin Mass. It is not
      a question between a dead language and a living language, in the
      sense of an everlasting language. It is a question between a dead
      language and a dying language; an inevitably degenerating
      language. It is these numberless glimpses of great ideas, that have
      been hidden from the convert by the prejudices of his provincial
      culture… G.K. Chesterton “The Catholic Church and Conversion”
      Not to mention St. Paul as a Roman citizen would have known both Greek and Latin… as did almost every Roman.

      As to the history lesson of the 4th century, there is a good reason why Constantine is not a Saint, he was the most superstitious Christian and the beginning of modern Protestantism; i.e. he believe God worked in a “prayer” as modus operandi of “miracles”, the health&wealth gospel of modern preachers. The Church had absolutely nothing to do with the amendments of laws in favor of giving clergy tax-exemptions, land, no death-tax, etc. As to the greed of the Church over the concern of salvation of souls, what was the Council of Nicea in 325 or Church fathers that fought Constantine’s Arianism like St. Ambrose or Augustine?
      Never mind the fact that because Constantine set such laws in effect that weirdos and opportunists became clergy men to gain from such things, and the Church at the time had no means of definitively “rooting-out” such people because the institutional foundation to decide such matters was not yet created! Hence the building of hierarchy and institution! If you’d like more knowledge on the subject of the early Church within Roman history, I’d recommend Dr. Cochrane’s book “Christianity and Classical Culture”, not a religious but academic view of Roman and ultimately Church history/ philosophy.

      And you believe that since enlightenment and Luther, Protestant churches do not acquire wealth or build institutional power? Studies have found that just as much sexual abuse, scandal, greed, etc., occur in Judaism and Protestant denominations. Also, while never, even once, are clerical abuses ever tolerable, the fact remains that less than 1% of priests have committed such scandal. In Matthew 7, again at the risk of ad nauseum, Christ states “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”. Go look at your own church’s problems, then come help us.

      And who can speak infallibly about God, I want to meet him?!?! You misunderstand Papal Infallibility, as it speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals… who do you think first merged NeoPlatonism and Christianity, thereby stating how God can never be know by what He is, but what He is not… Augustine, anyone? St. Anselm’s ontological argument, anyone?

      Well, who isn’t a hypocrite? If you’re not as much as a sinner as I am, I’ll let the Vatican know we have another perfect human on the loose, and tell CNN that 2012 is the end of the world for Christ has come again!

      Finally, the Crusades were as much about a holy war as jihad is about killing everyone in the world. Crusade = armed pilgrimage

      I hope you don’t find this rude, that would be a failing of Colossians 3:16 “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God”.

      “The LORD bless you and keep you! The LORD let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you! The LORD look upon you kindly and give you peace!” Numbers 6: 24-26

      • uninvited guest

        I am familiar with the Book of Revelation, so familiar in fact that I know it is Revelation (singular) not Revelations (plural).

        Also I never defended Protestantism, Judaism or any other religion most of them are even crazier than the Catholics.

  • Lai Win

    thank you for giving us old, dusty orthodox Catholics hope for the future.

  • http://everythingtosomeone.blogspot.com/ Christie

    Amen and AMEN!

  • 4011134

    For anyone interested in the future of the western liberal democracies; research our current birth rates and the recognised rate needed top sustain a culture. Then ask if our government’s ideas about the family are doing us any favors.

  • John

    Awesome! Thanks!

  • Josh M

    I like the fact that many more people are standing against the Church these days. Based on what I have learned from studying history, the Catholic Church has been a huge blight on the world for a long time. And so what if that priest is in favor of the birth control issue? The most we see in the media are the ones who stand against it. Actual churches aren’t even being forced to give birth control in their insurance, since they are churches. Hospitals and charities? No, they do not get that same exemption. Nor should they, because they are not churches. New polls have shown that more Catholic youths are finding it easier to disagree with views expressed by Church officials, and I find that encouraging. The Church has caused enough damage throughout history, and it’s time we stop giving them the voice and means to do so.

    • ftidus12

      “Studying History”? Sounds like you’ve got more studying to do, if that screed is the sum total of your knowledge .

      -”God’s Philosophers” by James Hannam
      -”The Beginnings of Western Science” by David C. Lindberg
      -”Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion” by Ronald Numbers

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVZZJQRMDBW24Z7GJ4JSOHGW7E Lisa

    The latest troll fest:

    http://www.northeasttimes.com/star-home-news/4996-can-catholicism-save-itself-from-itself.html

    I know Marc could answer this one best.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lisa-Mladinich/1124041137 Lisa Mladinich

    Well done, young man. I’m glad you’re on our side!

  • Tolerance

    I think people that are attacking the catholic church are stupid. However, people that attack these “haters” are stupid too. It is a senseless discussion. Everybody shall believe in what he thinks is right and tolerate everybody else.

  • DragonsREpic

    “can’t find the server at http://www.blackrectangle.o-wtf it does exsist O_o

  • Caitlin

    I’m starting to wish I didn’t stumble across your blog (not really) because now I’ll be up all night… I can’t stop reading. Pure genius, that’s all I can say. This is not only dead-on but hilarious. Don’t ever stop writing, seriously.

    • http://umeckzki.tk Umeckzki Rebarakaz

      Same here :)
      I found this blog by accident and I can’t stop reading.. :-D
      Sorry for my poor English as English is not my primary language :(

  • Sabrina L.

    You are brilliant, sir.

  • CatholicDadof3
  • Joseph Mo

    AWWWWW, you mad, bro?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X