Perspectives of a Wanderer

Some who know me know I was a prolific poster over at Catholic Answers Forums.  In recent months, however, my activity, although still substantial, has dropped off considerably.  There were many reasons for this but it was a general dissatisfaction with the forums and the direction it was taking.

Today was the last straw.  I did not like something was going and I made it publically known.  Due to that, I received an infraction.  At that point, I had made up my mind to “retire” from the forums completely and stated so on a thread that I frequent.

However, before I could send the “retirement” notification (I was going to do it tonight), I got notified that I had been banned for posting my intention to “retire”.

To tell you the truth, I am glad.  I was spending too much time over there following too many threads.  I have many other projects that I could better spend my time on.

Will I miss Catholic Answers Forums, maybe, but I doubt it.  In fact, I may consider it a badge of honor.

We currently live in a society and so integrated that I am wondering if we could actually go back to a true local society that could survive without outside resources.  The main reason that makes me skeptical about a truly local society is “Energy”.

When I talk about energy, I am not just talking about Electricity.  I am also talking about fuels to run vehicles and machinery, and to heat homes and businesses.  Yes, some, if not much, of this can be produced locally, but could it be enough to adequately and reliably serve the needs of any sizable population.

If there were a sufficient amount of natural resources like coal, oil, and/or natural gas, I guess the needed infrastructure could be created to utilize those resources.  But not all areas have those resources in any appreciable quantities.

That means that alternative resources have to be found.  Yes, wind and solar can be used, but they can be unreliable at best. If there were a way to store the produced electricity for any appreciable amount of time then maybe they could be a more viable option.

Biofuels are an option for fuels, however, at the present time, utilizes resources that are best left for their intended uses.  Saying that, there are a myriad of technologies being developed that will allow biofuels to be created from waste material, weed trees, and even algae that will produce better yields and varieties than what is currently produced from feedstock like corn and soybeans.  However, theses are either years away or are proprietary at the present time.  This means we would have to wait or rely on others for the technologies.

Now one can say that do we really need these types of energies to survive?  The answer is no, but are people willing to go back that far in time (even though it is really only about a century since much of this has been available to the populace).  In most cases, I would say it would be a resounding NO.

In conclusion, if the natural resources were available, then I would say that, yes, there is a greater possibility of creating a truly local society.  If there were not, I would say it would be hard, but not impossible, for those who are willing to go without.

There are other reasons that it would be hard to “go local”, but those are easier to overcome and subjects for future entries.

Yes and No.

I am no theologian or canon lawyer, but common sense says that something needs to be done.  There is too much divisiveness today and that cannot be allowed to continue.  I am also one of those who believe that change must come from within the Church and not from pressure from outside groups.

What the Holy See needs to do is to look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council and everything that has happened since the council.  This needs to be done in a number of steps:

First, they need to look very carefully at the documents (both the conciliar and post conciliar documents) and, if necessary:

1. Rewrite portions (maybe even whole documents) to eliminate any ambiguities.  This is especially true of the post conciliar documents.
2. Scrap any sections and/or whole documents that went beyond the original intent of the council.

The second, and probably more important is to look at all the events since the council and reverse many of the trends that were instituted in the “spirit of Vatican II”.  The “spirit of Vatican II” is probably the most destructive thing to come after the council since it has only served to divide the Church into factions that threaten the foundations of the Church.   Some of the things to look at:

1. The Ordinary Form of the Mass and either scrap it completely or modify it to bring it more in line with Extra-Ordinary Form of the Mass.  This essentially eliminates the need for the terms Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary.
2. Eliminating many of the indults like communion in the hand.
3. Many of the liturgical and lay movements to see if they are compatible with the true teachings of the Church.  In my opinion, many of them will fall short.
4. The Reinstitution of  many of the disciplines on clergy, religions, and laity that were in place before the council.

Finally, and this will probably take a council to accomplish (and please do not let it be called the Third Vatican Council), look at everything from the Council of Trent and on and create a common set of documents to direct the Church in the third millennium.  Too much has happened since the council and much needs to be reviewed. These documents should include codification of dogmas, doctrine, disciples, and catechism that would not only include the rich history of the Church, but also eliminate any ambiguity that has arisen due to the Relativistic and Secular society that has come to be dominant since the Protestant Revolt.  Only by setting everything in stone can dissent be combated.

In conclusion, we do not have to scrap the Second Vatican Council; we need to scrap the ambiguities and the “spirit” that came from it.

Yesterday, a friend of mine posted a YouTube clip on Facebook about the effects of a EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) from an explosion of an atomic bomb high in the atmosphere would have on everyday life.   Essentially, anything run by a computer in a vast area (i.e. over 1000 of km in radius) would be rendered permanently inoperable and would have to be replaced.  This would affect everything from communications to energy transmission to transportation.  Essentially the area affected would grind to a halt for close to a year.  In the most dire predictions, over 90% of the area’s population would die.

This got me to ponder, are we too dependent on modern technology.  In my opinion, the answer is most definitely.  Many of us would be completely lost without the modern conveniences.

The scary thing is that is a very recent phenomenon.  It was not too long ago, only a couple of decades, that computers had little or no presence in every day life.   Go back a decade or two further and computers are non-existent.   Yet, energy was generated, cars operated, manufacturing occurred, banks were open, and stores were stocked.  We have come to a point where we are so dependant on computers, most, if not all of this, will cease to exist.

This gets me to the point I am trying to make.  We need to look at everything in our lives and see where we can, if possible, find alternatives to our current way of life.  If available and viable, we need to reverse the technological trend in products (i.e. cars), production (i.e. robotics), and even retail (i.e. computers for cash registers).

Even in our everyday life.  We need to be ready, or even replace, with alternatives that rely on electricity and computers.  We do not need “smart homes”.  We can get by with manually turning lights on and off.  Have, where possible, alternative for heating, cooking, and lighting and use them.  In addition, have the ability to generate electricity via solar and wind, even it is for minimal usage, that do not rely on computers to regulate the flow (I know this is possible but not how to do this).  We must learn how to grow, process, and store our own food.  Heck, with the right ingredients, we can make our own soap.

I would also go as far as to say, it might be advantageous to set up whole communities that are as far off the grid as possible as available sanctuaries in case of such a catastrophic event would occur.

What I am saying is that, we need to evaluate and wean ourselves out of the technology age as much as possible in order to be able to survive.  Even if it does not happen, the simplification of one’s life will be an improvement over what we have now.  And this is coming from one who is in a computer related career.

This is a quick followup to “Is Globalism a threat to the food supply?”

I am an active member on Facebook and one of my friends posted Nine Steps Towards Family Food Security by Robert Waldrop from the ChesterBelloc Mandate.  In the entry, the following nine suggestions are made:

1. Grow some of your own food.
2. Eat with the season.
3. Buy directly from farmers.
4. Learn to process foods.
5. Learn many things. Practice many skills. Teach others.
6. Make your own snacks.
7. Help the local food coop’s reach even more people.
8. Work together with neighbors and friends.
9. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

I modified #7 since it referred (along with #3) to a specific food coop.  However, what is contained there could be applied to other food coop’s in your area.  Mainly, the solutions are practical ways to modify one’s life to not only be more self sufficient, but also help the local economy.

In my opinion, yes.

I will not get into the “genetically altered food” debate here (even though it is part of the equation) since there are many other issue to be discussed.

All of the reasons can be boiled down to one thing, self-sufficiency.  When one is dependant on others for their food supply, as well as other goods needed for survival, one loses the ability to be self-sufficient.

Now, we are all, in one way or another, dependant on others for many, if not most, of the goods we need to survive.  However, this is amplified when what we need is grown, or produced, half way around the world and/or by a small number of providers.  If one, or a couple have “production issues” the whole supply of food could be severely disrupted.  By have many smaller providers for the same food you reduce this threat.  In addition, many providers possibly supply a wider variety of the same type of food.

The second issue is transportation.  Transportation these days is dependent on one thing and one thing only: oil.  We saw over the past year or so how the spike in oil prices can have a drastic effect on not only prices, but also on supply when certain food products are diverted for other uses.  This is only amplified when the food has to travel further and further to get where it has to go.  By having the source closer to the consumer, both costs and disruption in the supply of goods is reduced.

The third issue is disease/insects.  When production for vast amounts of a certain food is concentrated in one area, disease and/or insects could wipe out a considerable percentage of the supply of that food.  We have seen that recently with the blight destroying vast quantities of certain types of wheat in the Middle East.  In addition, if the producers and transporters are not careful, these diseases and insects could easily be transported along with the food to other parts of the world.  By having the food produced closer to where it is sold, the chance of contamination spreading from one place to another is reduced.

The fourth issue is related to the last part of issue three.  That issue pertains to quality control.  Many parts of the world have very poor quality control.  We have seen this in the past year with many products coming from China where people and animals have died from the products produced in China.  We have also see that with other food products from areas like Mexico. Just like issue three, by having the food produced closer to where it is sold, the chance of contamination spreading from one place to another is reduced.

The final issue is one of competition for the goods produced.  When they are produced in limited areas and/or by a limited number of producers, there is not only increase competition for the food produced, but also the threat that certain countries and or factions may try to hoard those goods and extort even higher prices for the goods produced.  This is an increasing issue these days due to terrorism and the increase of radical socialist governments bent on the control of everything.  By having food produced and sold closer to the source, this is reduced but not totally eliminated.

While some foodstuffs cannot be produced everywhere, or even all year round, it is best to produced as much as possible, by as many sources as possible, as close as possible to where it will be consumed.  Yes, we may have to do without many types of foods, even if it is only for parts of the year, but the dependence on other parts of the world will be greatly reduced.

I know this is a divisive issue, but here it goes.

Currently, there are two main forms of the Mass in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.  The first one is the Ordinary Form or the current Mass that is celebrated in most parishes these days.  The second is the Extraordinary Form or the Latin/Tridentine/Old Mass that was celebrated before Vatican II.

To be truthful, I was one of those who recognized the need for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but was resistant to it because of some bad experiences with the proponents of the Mass.  My position them was “I have no issues with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, it is the people I have issues with.”

That has changed somewhat.  I still have issues with people, but I now go almost exclusively to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  The only time I do not go is if my parish changes the time of the Mass or when I am traveling and cannot get to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  In fact, I have done a complete 180 and now prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

The two forms of the Mass is a divisive and, in my opinion, must be reconciled sooner rather than later.  As for me, would like to see the following:

1. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass become the norm or Ordinary Form of the Mass.
2. The current Ordinary Form of the Mass transformed to be another type of a “Low Mass”.
3. Eliminate the differences between the old and new calendars (preferably keep the old calendar and add in the feast days of the newer saints)

To accomplish the second goal, I would love to see only the readings, but the rest of the Mass to follow the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  The only other things I may keep is the vernacular in come cases, the prayers said out loud, and responses from the laity where possible.

I know there will be many that will not like my suggestions (on both ends of the spectrum) but something must be done.

A few days ago, I wrote about creating a “Catholic Town Square“.  Since then I have finished the first step in the process by creating a Facebook group called Catholic Town Square which essential is the “will mainly be a “discussion group” and as exposure to the final site to be developed” part of my plan.

In keeping with my goal, I have started the discussion topic:

Ideas to Strengthen the Influence of the Catholic Church

I am hoping to get ideas and post them here.  Right now, there is only nine people in the group.  I hope to expand that soon.

Yes, I know. I it is a weird title.

What has the last five hundred years gotten us? Lets see:

• The Protestant Revolt spawning the plague of Relativism.
• The Industrial Revolution spawning modern Capitalism that ultimately spawned the backlash plague of Socialism and the Global Capitalism.
• The breakdown of morality that coincided with the emergence of the plagues of Liberalism and Materialism.

What I am saying is that the last five hundred years, with all of its advancements, is not what it is all cracked up to be. Being an amateur historian, I have always been drawn to the Medieval, or Middle Age, period, especially the High Middle Ages between the 11th and 13th centuries.

Some of the things that draw me to the High Middle Ages:

• The Church was reaching, what I consider, it apex of influence which has been waning ever since.
• A revival of monasticism, especially the establishment of monastery of Cluny that served as the blueprint for other monastic revivals.
• It was a period of great religious movements including the Crusades.
• The flourishing of the Guild system that set standards for various trades.

Now, by all means, I am not saying that we should completely abandon modern society with all of its technological achievements. What I am saying is that we need to live our lives more in accordance with the morals and priorities of the High Middle Ages. We need to restore the place and influence of the Catholic Church to where it was back then.

However, we should also simplify our lives to. This does involve some abandonment of modern conveniences that drive many to the excesses of Materialism. We need to simplify everything form what we eat to what we buy. Instead of buying food that is already prepared where we just have to shove it in the microwave or into our mouths in the case of fast foods. Start making meals from scratch. Not only will it taste better, but also it will be healthier in the long run, less waste, and one will get the satisfaction of making it for themselves.

Each of need to reflect on how we live our lives and make the appropriate adjustments. Only them will we find happiness and fulfillment.  In addition, we will be better able to combat the plagues of Relativism, Socialism, Liberalism, Materialism and Global Capitalism that is threatening to implode society by eroding its foundation.

Yesterday, I wrote on self-sufficiency in an entry titled “Transforming Society – Self-sufficiency”.  This is kind of a follow-up on that post.

Today, I decided to go to the Michigan Renaissance Festival that is near where I live.  For those who have never been to a Renaissance fair, it is a themed event that loosely emulates some period in the Renaissance period (14^th – 17^th Century) usually England.  I say loosely, since it is mainly a gathering of artisans and performers whose theme based on the period.  Other than that, there is not much in common for the period.

Once you get past the bawdiness of some of the performers and crafts, you can learn a lot about different crafts that can be used for everyday living and also how small and individual businesses operate.  Some of the items I saw of interest varied from mugs, candles, honey, and even soap.

Now, I know what some will say, what does this have do with self-sufficiency.  Not much unless you look at things one can make that they normally buy in stores.  Lets concentrate on one item, soap.  The soaps there were made from various ingredients from beeswax, goats mild, olive oil, and honey.  Many of these ingredients that can be produced by the individual if they have the resources (many can come from a garden and/or small farm) and the knowledge and patience to do so.

The second thing is that many of the artisans at these Renaissance fairs own their own businesses that produce the goods they sell.  Although it is not based on Distributive principles, it does show how one can run their own business, do what they like, and make a living at it.  One can get inspiration from this to do the same thing.

Finally, a Renaissance fair shows a kind of cooperative or community atmosphere.  It takes a lot to get and organize a diverse group of relatively independent people together for a specific number of weekends each year.  Although it is a completely different concept, a community or cooperative based on a Distributive economic and rooted in Catholic Moral and Social teachings, one can learn a lot from a Renaissance fair on how to come together to start and work towards a goal.

We can learn a lot from a Renaissance fare.  However, it is how we put this knowledge to use that is important.