The weight of a priest's examen: How will I be judged by history, by God?

Fr. Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, April 22, 2018)

Recently I watched a video about the Stalin years in the Soviet Union. It was concerned with the 'other' interest of my life, music. The backdrop to the story is that during the height of the Communist era everything was under the control of the central government which, in turn, meant under Joseph Stalin. In terms of music, there was a Soviet Composer's Union which promoted patriotic, that is, Soviet, themes of national pride, (forced) happiness, and (feigned) comradery among the peoples of the USSR. Along with this artificially induced patriotism there was a suppression of any music which was deemed modernistic or, in the language of the day, formalistic. By this means of name-labeling, certain composers of modern music were held in check by Soviet controls. The man Stalin appointed to head this union of composers was the subject of the DVD I saw. In the historical footage he was shown at the height of his power delivering inflated fustian (pompous talking) about the high ideals of Soviet nationalistic music with condemnation of types of music that were being performed in those decadent western countries (such as the USA). At the time of the making of the DVD, the Soviet empire had collapsed and this same man who had once been Stalin's appointee was being interviewed. It was a sad spectacle, in some ways. Now that the great Enemy (Communism) had been defeated, what was one to say for having stood by, complicit in the oppressive Soviet system, an accomplice in fact of the brutal Stalinist regime? Thus was the man interviewed in the post-Soviet era.

This DVD affected me greatly, not only because of the musical interest I had in it but also because of the significance it holds for me as a priest in those disturbing times. What will history say about us, and about me specifically, when at some future time the Church will have settled down (God grant it!) and there will be a return to orthodoxy and sanity in the Church? I imagine an interviewer questioning me about what I was doing and not doing during those years (the present time) and why I had not been more outspoken about abuses in the Church, about the failure of the hierarchy to defend Christ's truth and their contentment to be silent bystanders as corruption rotted away the faith and morals of the Catholic faithful. "How come you, Father Perrone, did not come out and speak more forcefully against the tidal wave of corruption?" This is the question I imagine being posed to me in some future time. The dilemma for me now, as it was for many in the Communist era, is whether it is prudent to be vocal in condemnation or in working in more subtle, behind-the-scenes ways. Prudence is needed to know how much to say at a given time and when to say it. Should, for example, I have spoken out any more forthrightly against things such as contraception, gay 'marriage,' or the troubling messages purportedly made by Pope Francis? Have I been wimpy? Certainly, at the moment many priests and bishops in our country have been anywhere from timid to cooperative in the evil things taking place in our day. What then will happen when this era will have passed and history will pass its judgment upon them? While I wonder about this I am particularly disturbed about what will be leveled against me for not having been a more outstanding critic and defender of truth.

I know of priests who have stood apart and been bold to challenge the mediocrity of our leadership. They have suffered the consequences of their valor. But in the end, and especially in view of the Last Judgment, I wonder how will I stand against accusations of my moderation or my cowardice. Will I be deemed a betrayer of moral and religious truth? Do I need to be more clear or forceful to make my parishioners comprehend doctrinal truth and to practice Catholic living? Or am I failing them by my weakness?

It's always difficult to assess oneself in the present moment, to know that one is pursuing the right path. If I were to deliver a weekly diatribe against the evils of our time in the world and in the Church, would I have been acting rightly? Or are my people already in the know and I only need to be subtly nuanced in condemning errors and the deceptions that cause many to err? I recall Saint John Paul II's first address to the world after his election: "Do not be afraid!"

This reflection of mine also concerns you as parents, citizens of this country, and members of the Catholic Church. How much must you be a vocal "witness"? If you speak up imprudently you may do more harm than good. If you fail to act at all you may be betraying Christ. This is the dilemma.

God's mercy is for this life. When we will finally appear before God's judgment seat, we should expect only justice, what is neither too lenient nor too severe. Each will get exactly what is his due, not more or less, according to what he has done or failed to do.

Wile we have time in this life let us do as much good as we can and repair for our evils. And let us not fear to help our relatives and neighbours to do the same. Much is expected of us.

Fr. Perrone

Translation project completed: Book to be published

H. G. Stoker, Conscience: Phenomena and Theories, translated by Philip E. Blosser (University of Notre Dame Press, March, 2018)

I have been waiting long to see this project to completion -- a translation of a book by H. G. Stoker, possibly the most exhaustive study of conscience in any language -- and from a perspective informed by phenomenology and the traditions of Christianity. It's more expensive than I would like, but it's not overly technical and should interest a wide audience -- anyone interested in conscience, its psychology, religious and moral significance, how it 'works,' historical theories about it (from ancient Greece, through Medieval thinkers to the likes of Kant, Nietzsche, Cardinal Newman, and F.J.J. Buytendijk), terms used for it in multiple languages, it's development, reliability, and whether it is primarily intellectual, intuitive, volitional, or emotional. The book will go on sale the end of March.

For more details, see the promo page over at the University of Notre Dame Press (Here)

Conscience: Phenomena and Theories was first published in German in 1925 as a dissertation by Hendrik G. Stoker under the title Das Gewissen: Erscheinungsformen und Theorien. It was received with acclaim by philosophers at the time, including Stoker’s dissertation mentor Max Scheler, Martin Heidegger, and Herbert Spielberg, as quite possibly the single most comprehensive philosophical treatment of conscience and as a major contribution in the phenomenological tradition.

David French: on consentual sex

The carrier pigeon didn't even land. It just dropped its little wad of a message like pigeon poop. But there it was at my feet. Guy Noir - Private Eye, again. My underground correspondent from God knows where: somewhere 'stealthy.'

"For some reason, David French — like Peggy Noonan and Elizabeth Scalia — often annoys. But here he is right on," he wrote, in what looked like quill point squiggly ink lines.

The link he included led to this: David French, "A morality based only on consent results in sexual oppression" (National Review, October 15, 2017). Amen to that.

When an Oxford Don goes rogue and comes out in support of traditional marriage and family values

I understand Oxford Don Richard Swinburne created quite a stir when he addressed the Midwest meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers last fall. "The difficulty," according to The Editors of First Things, was that in the course of exploring these topics, Swinburne characterized homosexuality as a “disability” and a condition that, while sometimes “to a considerable extent reversible,” in many instances is “incurable,” given the present state of medical research.

The Editors continue:

Given the current state of public life and the stringency of academic moral codes in favor of diversity and tolerance, it will be no surprise to our readers that the president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, Michael Rea, subsequently expressed his “regret regarding the hurt caused by” Swinburne’s paper, suggesting that Swinburne’s ideas were inconsistent with the Society’s “values of diversity and inclusion.”

Rea’s message has triggered a reaction on the other side. So far the situation has been commented on by Joseph Shaw, Edward Feser, and Rod Dreher, along with eighty-seven philosophers who signed a letter of protest against the principles implied in Rea’s apology. We at First Things were curious about the paper that prompted all the to-do, and so we asked Professor Swinburne whether he would be willing to let us make his paper available. He has generously agreed.

You can read it here [PDF download].

Here is a video of Swinburne's live presentation:

Principles of Catholic moral & political reasoning

Boniface, "Guest Post: Critiquing the 'Non-Negotiable' Distinction" (Unam Sanctam Catholicam, October 28, 2016) - a look at an assortment of voting positions and the reasoning behind them from a doctrinally-informed Catholic position.

The Natural Laws of Sex

Morality and Taxes

A historical overview of taxation, why past empires were crippled and brought to their knees by overspending and excessive taxation, how our current national debt will impact you very soon. Incredible.

Michael Voris on a Mic'd Up episode discusses the effects of overtaxation on families. Guests include author and radio host William J. Federer, Dr. Walter E. Williams, professor at George Mason University, and Msgr. Owen F. Campion of Our Sunday Visitor. Here: "Morality and Taxes" (Church Militant, April 15, 2016).

For the record: a thermonuclear response to Amoris Laetitia

Christopher A. Ferrara, "Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy of a Pontifical Debacle" (Remnant, April 18, 2016), collates reactions on all sides, from Cardinal Burke to Eduardo Echeverria; offers reflection on having to "sift the good from the bad -- again"; then a detailed analysis of Amoris Laetitia, chs. 1-7("Intimations of Subversion"); a penetrating and exhaustive critique of ch. 8 ("An Essay in Subversion"); and, finally, a Conclusion ("Damage Assessment"). Read it and weep.

Maureen Mullarkey on Bishop Barron on Paris

First, here's Bishop Barron, sounding more like a Mennonite pacifist than a Catholic moralist:


Next, here's Maureen Mullarkey on "Bishop Barron on Paris" (Studio Matters, November 27, 2015). Mullarkey's piece is more a response to responses to her earlier piece, "The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron" (One Peter Five, November 23, 2015), in which she had written:

The massacre aroused no outrage, not even a wince of distaste. . . . [Bp Barron] found the atrocity “especially poignant” because he had studied in Paris for three years. And because he remembered some of the locations involved, the attacks were “moving and poignant.”

Mullarkey comments: "Moving. Poignant. Had the bishop been watching a film version of the death of Little Nell? The sentiment, and the genial detachment it signified, seemed a bizarre reaction to the slaughter and maiming of scores of innocent Parisians." Then, quoting from the earlier article, she writes: "The syrup thickened":

He glided on to a serene tutorial on mercy, on the obligation to “respond to violence with love,” and “to fight hatred with love.” He enjoined Catholics to mercy and “a non-violent stance.” . . . This time on camera, he confused Paris in 2015 with Selma, Alabama, in 1965.

Mullarkey concludes her latest piece with these words: "Bishop Barron has an influential platform. If he uses it to promote confusion between Christian love—caritas—and dispassion in the face of the murderous ambitions of Christianity’s oldest enemy, then he will be evangelizing for evil. No matter the Christ talk."

Was Bp Barron imprudent in his remarks? Was Mullarkey overly harsh? You decide. Guy Noir's only words were: "... the syrup gets thicker. But as I said, certainly the Bishop's lines are the Church's now standard lines!"

Related:  Steve Skojec, "The Perils of Popularity: Critiquing Bishop Barron" (1P5, November 30, 2015).

When your health insurance declines life-extending medication but covers assisted suicide

Imagine that there was medical help to save your life, but your health insurance plan denied authorization for it and offered you assisted suicide instead. This very thing happened to Oregon patients. The Oregon Health Plan notified them by letter that payment for life-extending mediation would not be covered, but that the Plan would pay for assisted suicide. (Sources: here, here, and here)

Here's what's coming, folks. It's already happening, though you may not have noticed it; but what do you think is going to happen when the next real financial crunch comes, when the economy tanks, resources are scarce, medicare and medicaid and social services are swamped and funds run dry?

Monica Miller contra Mark Shea and Robert George on the ethics of the Planned Parenthood videos

Monica Migliorino Miller, "Were Planned Parenthood Videos Produced Unethically?" (Crisis Magazine, August 17, 2015).

Obergefell as "Übercollapse" -- The failure of fornication as a path to happiness, two generations and counting ...

Guy Noir - Private Eye shot me an email 9 hours ago with the subject line: "Post-Obergefell Remedial Reading." Indeed. He writes: James Morgan at CRISIS has one of the better answers to the consternation surrounding the Gay Marriage decision. He offers a needed corrective to extended commentaries that engage the Constitution and Religious Liberty but the hardly touch on topic of sex. The greatest compliment I can pay his words is that they made me want to go find my old copy of Christopher Derrick's Sex and Sacredness: A Catholic Homage to Venus. And Peter Kreeft's Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions. Both books seemed close to containing words on fire when I first read them. Yet I also recall Kreeft's pointing to Derrick, when he initially wrote 20 some years ago, and remarking even then that even as he himself assigned S & S as required book, his students would routinely register blank uncomprehension at its central theses. So the seeds of our present destruction had been strewn that long ago... But here is Morgan. I don't agree with every word, but there is this incisive commentary [Noir's emphases]:

...the true losers in Obergefell are the same as in Windsor: those experiencing same-sex attraction. The blessing is that, post Obergefell, there is no more political frenzy to cover over sadness of soul. Those in homosexual relationships will have to face the hard facts of their lifestyle. Many have already suffered under the normative lie that homosexuality can bring happiness, and many more will suffer now that this lie has been quite literally wedded to state power. Those now given the imprimatur of the federal government on the dead-end slavery of sin—and the children who are condemned to witness this slow-motion destruction of human dignity firsthand—are the true sacrificial victims in this war. If we were not praying for them before, let us start doing so today....

Hence, the fourth blessing: not only are we called to love, but we are now given the chance to demonstrate it in a very real way. The homosexual activists consistently ground their concept of love in two places: the body itself, and the way the body feels. The glittery bacchanalia that started in the Age of Aquarius and has now culminated in Obergefell thus has a very narrow conception of love. For the sensualists, love is an adjunct to the personality. Love gives our sexual identities purchase and heft. It dispels loneliness, assuages fear, and makes us feel better about ourselves. But does love do anything besides fill the vessel of the ego? One need but look at the Cross to know. Love is kenotic. It dies to itself. It lays down its life for the sake of the wayward other. It counts no cost, reckons no reward, holds no grudge. It pours itself out in unmerited bounty for all alike. Love dwindles to nothingness so that others might have eternal life. It is not the self, but the very negation of the self.

Seen this way, the Obergefell conception of love can never rise into the upper reaches of our beings. Obergefell love sinks like carbon dioxide in a room, huddling around the homely flesh and fleeting emotions that are the twenty-first century’s poor substitutes for the full promise of the human person. The homosexual activists find this sort of love so unfulfilling that they are forcing three hundred million people to pay homage to it in order to distract from its failure to bring enduring happiness. But regardless of how many hundreds of millions applaud the abstract idea, homosexuality is doomed to be love’s opposite: the tragic amputation of sexual desire from the deep wells of the soul—the mere mutual slaking of animal lust. This love will never satisfy, and we must not abandon our brothers and sisters to the hell they now festoon with the rainbow of God’s covenant. In their orgiastic celebrations, the homosexual activists are crying out for real, transformative love.

Fifth, Obergefell is a chance for repenting of the greatest sexual failure of our generation: not homosexuality, but fornication. For every lost soul searching fruitlessly for love in a gay bar, how many hundreds more are de facto polygamists or polyandrists, shuttling from one wrecked relationship to the next, and increasingly numb to the lies that he or she is telling with body, words, and heart? If there is any moral high ground in the debate over sexual ethics, I for one am utterly unworthy of approaching it. I will stand, instead, beside the gutter from which God’s Grace rescued me, the better to remember, at the very least, who is holy in all of this, and who is made holy thereby. In a very real way, those with same-sex attraction have been fighting, at least in part, for the right to be as flamboyantly promiscuous as all the rest of us. Let us see who among us will dare to cast the first stone.

New Life from Dead Liberalism

Sixth, the majority opinion in Obergefell was a stunning admission of the intellectual poverty of late-stage liberalism. Proceeding by breezy judicial fiat was the only recourse open to the United States Supreme Court, for in seeking to legitimate the paradox of homosexual marriage they could make no honest appeal to reason, truth, Scripture, tradition, common sense, biology, or the natural law. They simply had to harden their hearts and wave their magic wands. Obergefell makes shockingly apparent the impossibility of forming any sort of community based on what is, at the very best, finely-tuned mutual antagonism. Justice Anthony Kennedy therefore has the distinction of having written, not the most insidious or disingenuous opinion in the history of the court (Roger Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Harry Blackmun, and Henry Billings Brown must all outdo Kennedy in this regard), but the silliest. The linty non-sense of the Obergefell decision is a tremendous boon for a United States now coming to the extremities of an unsustainable philosophy. By dint of sheer hokeyness, the Obergefell majority opinion should be enough to wake whole battalions from their intellectual torpor.

The Vatican, U.N., and Global Warming: the emerging battle lines

Elizabeth Yore, "The Pope's Encyclical: A Statement by Elizabeth Yore"


M. Matt, "Voice of the Family statement on the encyclical Laudato Si" (June 20, 2015)

Epidemic pornography, the new crack cocaine of addictive disorders: Russell Brand, Psychologist Dr. Peter Kleponis, and Mark Houck of The King's Men

Fr. Fessio, S.J., defends Philippine bishops' opposition to nefarious "reproductive health" law

That is, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., defends the Philippine bishops against the vicious attack on them by a leading Jesuit of the authoritative "La Civiltà Cattolica," as reported by Sandro Magister today. Thank God for Fr. Fessio and the handful of other good Jesuits who remain with us.

On the whole "death with dignity" thing

From Guy Noir: "A Protestant sermon on Euthanasia that is essentially Catholic moral theology.

"Well-done; and far more connecting in its directness than a polite interview with Rev. James Martin, I daresay."

John Piper, "We Are Not Our Own: On God, Brittany Maynard, and Physician-Assisted Suicide" (Desiring God, October 31, 2014).

[Hat tip to JM]

The Supreme Court agrees with Hobby Lobby, but your neighbor probably doesn't

Trevin Wax posts this piece about the recent court decision, and our correspondent Guy Noir remarks:

See how quickly peoples' ideas of what is normal and what are "rights" evolve.

The rising generation believes people have a right to federally funded birth control options.

Yes, it is the government's responsibility to provide us with pills and condoms, because....

Well, it's the government's job to make sure we are well-fed, have health care, are educated, have retirements, are taught correctly, and can spend our personal time how we want to without consequence, I guess. Affluence is a right after all, right?

Pretty flooring: You don't have the right to NOT provide me with birth control. I would think drugstore lobbies would be up in arms!

Where Evangelicals shame Catholics

Patricia Miller, "The Catholic-Evangelical (Non-)Coalition" (RD magazine, April 30, 2014).

The downright embarrassing bottom line:

Writing in The Atlantic, [Public Religion Research Institute's] Robert Jones gets at the truth behind these numbers: "there is more support for official Roman Catholic Church positions among white evangelical Protestants than among Catholics."

[Hat tip to JM]

Why reverence comes first in intimate relations

Alice von Hildebrand, The Dark Night of the Body: Why reverence comes first in intimate relations(Roman Catholic Books, 2013) is a book that followers of discussions of Catholic sexual morality will be unable to ignore.

In interests of fair disclosure, I am a great fan of Janet Smith's work on contraception and areas touching this field, though I am not, as she is, a great fan of Christopher West's. I admit that West has produced some works I would be willing to recommend to others, with a caveat or two. As influential as his work has been on a popular level, however, I do not find the quality of his work comparable in any way to that of the remarkable work of Janet Smith's. I mention this in-house business only because I know that Dr. Smith may have some misgivings about Alice von Hildebrand's new book, if for no other reason than the fact that it is critical of Christopher West.

In any case, the following is a review of Dr. von Hildebrand's new book, entitled "Dark Night Arrives" (Bellarmine Forum, November 4, 2013), by John B. Manos, who is also critical of Christopher West and the Theology of the Body "movement" generally. I post it mostly for its coverage of the contents of the book. It is what it is. Read it if you like, or if you don't, at least buy and read Dr. von Hildebrand's work. The review:

Finally, today, I had a box in my mailbox — I was hoping, and it turned out to be the box for which I have been waiting. The Fall catalog of Roman Catholic Books advertised this saucy title from Dr. Alice von Hildebrand:

It is precisely what it says:  a critique of the Theology of the Body movement afoot these days.  I underline movement because there is at least three or four different things roaming our lands identifying themselves with that name.

• First, there is the 129 wednesday audiences from Pope John Paul II — that is the actual Theology of the Body.
• Second, there is a campy series of talks and lectures given by traveling speakers, most notably Christopher West, but others as well.  It is touted as the cause celeb and many people claim to be experts after listening to an hour talk and buying a book.
• Third, there is a movement comprised of people applying and misapplying what they wanted to hear at these talks.
• Fourth, there is everyone caught in the headlights of this mess who don’t really know about it but think they need to support it because they think all of it is John Paul II, so they won’t suffer the appearances of critical discussion.

To get things straight, I recall seeing one of these talks years ago and laughing in my sleeve at it.  It struck me as a cross between Anthony Robbins, an infomercial, and some sprinkles of Catholic words on top so that everyone got the idea that it was supposed to be Catholic.  Nowhere in it did I encounter advice or practical tips that matched the advice I had received from older, wiser, and far better read priests in the years prior to the arrival of this circus show movement.

POINT ONE:  the practice of chastity begins with telling the truth.  That’s easy to comprehend.  I really meant it when I posted this article last year – the problem of chastity, even in instructing young people today, is one caused by the crisis of truth in people’s minds and speech.  It’s an easy concept — to delve into the life of promiscuity requires internal lying, and a choice by the unchaste to accept and develop the lies.  If lies are at the root, then telling the truth begins the remedy.  Like all the virtues, it’s such an easy idea to comprehend, but that’s not so easy to practice.

POINT TWO:  there is no defect corrected by or grand discovery in Pope John Paul II’s lectures.  His lectures were mostly expository of things known and well discussed in Catholic tradition, with some synthesis in modern terms — it was not new and unchartered territory (as is alleged by many in the movement).  The very point of honesty and telling the truth, both with the tongue and with the body was a major assertion by John Paul II.  In several places across many of the lectures, John Paul II makes the point that fornication is but one work of the flesh, that Purity begins in the heart, yet, says John Paul II:

“Impure works in the same sense are defined not only as adultery and fornication, and so the sins of the flesh in the strict sense, but also “‘evil thoughts…theft, false witness, slander.’”

False Witness and slander are lies.  John Paul II makes this connection in many places — why?  Because Catholic tradition has always made this observation of basic human nature!

I challenge you to find such in the “MOVEMENT” afoot today, however.It follows that liars cannot be intimate with someone, because there will always be a false basis to the things shared between them.  Thus, if a person habitually lies, they cannot, without reformation to truth telling, have a relationship with another person as God intended and made us to.

Even Dante’s Inferno makes this point by the stratifications of hell.  The people with sexual aberrations are not at the lowest levels — no, the lowest levels of hell were for liars, cheats, frauds, and treachery.  The fornicators and other pervasions are still in hell, but it should be obvious to anyone reading here why they aren’t down in the depths of depths with fraud and treachery.

I summarize a larger topic only to make the point that here is something so essential and fundamental to the topic at hand that is never discussed — telling the truth is key to human relationships, even those with sex (marriage).  Only on this basis can there be true intimacy — and it follows then that the body will follow.  Just as every other practice of virtue starts — errors (lies) are expunged from the mind that the mind can properly inform the will.

THE PROBLEM:  Academic discussion revolves around critical analysis.  Ideas are worked out by debate and debate acts as the honing stone that chips away the error from the blade’s edge making it sharp.  Have you tried to critically analyze Theology of the Body movements, though?  You will be met with aghast looks disdain, shock, horror, and all sorts of other emotional response.  Criticism is not welcome among the people who think it is a good thing.  Over the years, I’ve come to suspect that such reactions are because most people don’t have actual knowledge of the subject and want to cheerlead.  It’s not a satisfying discussion because the ideas are vague and misapplied.  What’s worse, omissions are severe and terminally erroneous (such as overlooking the connection to telling the truth).

So how do you convince people that the ToB “movement” is washed up in silliness and doesn’t even cover the most fundamental point?  You don’t – not on the mass movement scale at least.  People like talking about sex, Hugh Heffner, porn, and perversions and how disordered they are.  Telling people that they can learn chastity by telling the truth is like offering them castor oil — it’s not sexy.

Despite wanting ideas and topics that can withstand the strongest critical analysis, most of the cheerleaders resort to emotional fallacies to protect the concept.  So there isn’t a good hearty discussion, just acceptance and books sales and a lot of hopeful self-made experts.

Somebody like Dr. Alice von Hildebrand can, however, get people’s attention. I expect I will scratch my head a few times and have to re-read a section here and there, but it will be worth it.  This topic consumes so many around us, and a real, heartfelt, and critical discussion needs to happen — despite what is claimed by ToB cheerleaders, JPII didn’t suddenly overthrow 2000 years of Catholic understanding of human nature.  So what’s going on?

It’s a short book — the Table of Contents is interesting to me:

I haven’t read it (yet) — but notice even the point where Dr. von Hildebrand arrives:  Chapters 11 and 12 are about truth.

Have you read this book yet?  What about Theology of the Body?  Have you read John Paul II’s talks themselves or just heard somebody mention it?

[Hat tip to JM]

65,000+ Reddit users flock to forum founded by atheist to quit pornography, masturbation

Even a blind hog in a pigsty, as they say, can stumble upon an acorn occasionally. John Jalsevac, "65,000+ Reddit users flock to forum founded by atheist to quit pornography, masturbation" (LifeSiteNews, July 12, 2013):

July 12, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – They’re called “fapstronauts”: men and women who, for whatever reason, have signed up to take the “ultimate challenge” and conquer the urge to masturbate (“fap” in Internet slang) and/or use porn, whether it be for a certain, set period of time, or permanently. And joining their ranks is quickly becoming one of the hottest new trends on the social media site Reddit.

Read more >>

What is notable here, perhaps, is that while the reasons for pursuit of the goal in question are varied, the majority of those involved are secular atheists, not Catholics or otherwise religious; and, like Catholics familiar with Church teaching, they are coming to the realization in this highly hedonistic and over-sexualized culture that pornography and auto-erotic self-gratification do not lead to happiness or joy, but alienation, emotional distancing, objectification of others, and emotional isolation.

In one sense, as Christopher Blosser pointed out to me, the movement might be characterized as a modern day grassroots revival of stoicism (exercise of will and reason, mastery over passions, etc.); but in their own meagre way, these young people -- although completely ignorant of Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular, or even anything redolent of the "theology of the body" -- are coming to parallel epiphanies. Given time, the "truth will out," as they say.

[Hat tip to C.B.]