CCCLXX – The Sacraments & The Sacred

This will be a bit of a personal reflection so bear with me. For those not interested, I’ll include a read-more tag so you don’t have to scroll past the whole thing. I promise it has a topical point, just wanted to fire this post off while the thoughts were fresh.

Long-time readers may remember that I mentioned briefly in a few posts that I have a fiancé, which implies that nuptials are incoming. The nuptials are indeed coming fast and the time between now and then can now be measured in weeks rather than months. This weekend the future Mrs. Scoot and I attended an “Catholic Engaged Encounter” retreat, and there was something about the weekend that struck me.

Continue reading CCCLXX – The Sacraments & The Sacred

(o) – Making The Troll’s Point For Them

There’s a troll on the Orthosphere right now arguing for some reason that True Christians don’t (and cannot) sin, and that the unsaved and unconverted are devilspawn, and the choice is a choice made exactly ONCE.

The troll is obviously wrong and the Hosts of the Orthosphere are giving him a well deserved run-around, and doing so more politely than I am capable of.

But if you take the trolls basic argument and introduce some nuance there’s an interesting point to be made.

In short: The members of the Church–the Body of Christ–are and must be sinless. The Church cannot err, and does not. When we individuals sin, we leave the body. We are no longer a part of the Church, we have cut ourselves off from her. This would be an interesting reading of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus doctrine. I’ll return to this in a moment.

This idea–that sin not only cuts us off from God but expels us from the Church–reminds me of an ancient article from Hambone in this space about Stolen Valor–that if the rolls of the Church are known only in heaven, claiming to be an esteemed member of the Church is a bit like stolen valor where one is claiming a dignity one has not earned. This idea also only makes sense if you accept 1) That the Church is indefectible, and 2) that sin is an offense against God and so likewise against His Church, and not against me per se.

This gets at an idea I heard recently that said “You don’t BELONG to a Church, you ARE the Church”. If we accept that you ARE the Church then to be in it you cannot sin, and because we know we sin (which the Troll does not accept) then the only logical answer must be that when we sin we are no longer part of the Church and it requires reconciliation to return us to union with her.

I just found this an interesting thought.

*Regarding the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus–that there is no salvation outside the Church–if we take this to mean exclusively that those who sin cannot go to heaven because they are outside the Church then it reduces this doctrine to a restatement of the obvious. This doctrine exists because there is something special about the Church with respect to salvation. This post is not about that so I will leave that discussion for another time.

AMDG

CCCLXIX – Economic Weather Forecasting

I just read a headline that reads “Economist puts recession risk at 80%” and mentally appended: “partly sunny through the weekend, with highs in the mid 60’s…”.

There are two errors, as I see it, with this kind of economic forecasting.

First, it treats the Economy like some unpredictable force of nature. Second, it is not designed to educate the public, but instead spooks them. Imagine if a weather forecaster said there was an 80% chance of a “Spooky Doom-storm” and all it did was rain?

Before I get too ahead of myself, let me back up.

The first error is in treating the economy like an unpredictable force of nature. The economy is not a force of nature and it is predictable on the macro-scale just not on the micro-scale. Inflation is a predictable outcome of the COVID stimulus and other MMT behaviors of our government. How inflation will affect people–micro-scale stuff–is hard to predict, but it was foreseeable that inflation would occur. Recession is a predictable outcome of the anti-inflationary measures being undertaken right now by government. They are intentionally trying to slow down the economy to rein in inflation, and that is a good thing. Given the irrational stimulus (free money for everyone!) we are behaving rationally with respect to its consequences (interest rate hikes, inflation).

This gets at the second error, that claiming there’s an 80% chance of recession. The recession is both logical, unavoidable, and good. People sometimes get the mistaken impression that recessions are always bad–they are certainly always unpleasant but in our present case it is healthy because it will course-correct our economy, so it’s not all bad. The headline itself seems to me to be designed to scare people. “The Spooky Doom-storm is a-comin!” says the economist. But really the spooky doom-storm is a few days of wind and rain and it will relieve the drought and moderate the forest fires.

An ounce of prevention would have been worth a pound of cure, but seeing as we didn’t undertake any prevention, it looks like we have to put up with the pounds of cure. That sucks–but isn’t the end of the world.

Part of the problem with how the Government responds to economic activity is it looks at the 2008 credit crisis as a sequence of bad headlines that will really harm their election prospects. So they manage to the bad headlines and make bumbling errors like Quantitative Easing and bailouts and innumerable other economic policy failures.

Just some quick thoughts.

AMDG

CCCLXVIII – The New Political Topography

Before I get too deep, I just want to acknowledge an obvious objection. “Scoot, why do you keep talking about this? Didn’t you learn from the drubbing you received before?”

The answer is that, yes, I did–but I really like to over-analyze interpersonal conflict. I don’t know why this is a character trait I have, but it is. I’ve had a lot of really fruitful introspection from brooding on points of conflict, so I consider it helpful. That’s what this post is about–it’s less trying to shill for my particular position vis a vis authority, but more trying to understand where everyone else is coming from and why these topics are particularly inflammatory. This post is not intended then as a critique, but as a “Here’s the world as I understand it”–and I welcome insight from those who disagree with my analysis or believe I have incorrectly characterized their positions.


I really like building frameworks, dichotomies, and lists, long time readers may have noticed. Here I have a list of dichotomies that explain the sources of disagreement especially pertaining to authority.

The first dichotomy is between Political Reaction (R) and Entrenched Establishment (E). Political reaction I characterize as the movement opposite and away from Classical Liberalism. The Entrenched Establishment representing the manifestations of classical liberalism which command modern life. This dichotomy is a sliding scale–some reactionaries oppose the left-liberal establishment, some reactionaries go so far as to be monarchists. There’s room for everyone at the reactionary table. Entrenched Establishment includes party line republicans, party line democrats, radical progressives, things like that.

I would say that Political Reaction is the single unifying feature of the Orthosphere. While various contributors and commenters have varying degrees on the Reaction side of the scale, I believe it is fair to say that all of them are on the reactionary side of things. The next two dichotomies are going to be a little more contentious I think.

The second dichotomy is between Tradition (T) and Innovation (I). This is an important point of divergence. The Tradition side of the equation argues, in short, that there is nothing wrong with the old ways and if we doubled down on them then things would improve. The Innovation side of the equation argues that the world fell apart under the watch of the “old ways” and we need new ways to lead us into the future.

This is a logical calculus on both sides. Traditionalism argues that things fell apart when we departed from tradition, so the innovators would make things worse. Innovators argue that things fell apart because of tradition, so doubling down on it would make things worse. These are mutually exclusive positions, and it is easy to see why they are mutually incomprehensible.

The third and final dichotomy is between Institution (S) and Revolution (V). This is an important point of divergence too, and it mirrors somewhat the previous one but is less about beliefs and more about practice and physical manifestations of those beliefs. Institutionalists believe that the existing institutions can be preserved and perfected. Revolutionaries believe that the existing institutions are too far-gone and must be overthrown and new institutions established.

This is also a logical calculus, and more directly reflects attitudes towards authority. Institutionalists are generally more accepting of authority and believe it can be perfected given adherence to their preference on the previous two dichotomies. Revolutionaries believe that institutions that fail should be eradicated because they no longer serve their purpose and only serve the members or beneficiaries of the institution.


You will notice I put letters next to the dichotomies so that I can refer to them in Shorthand. We have The R/E dichotomy, the T/I dichotomy, the S/V dichotomy. We can characterize different archetypes based on different combinations of these dichotomies.

I consider myself more of the RTS type. As a reactionary, I am in opposition to classical liberalism and modernity. As an institutionalist I believe the Church is the foremost institution and she must be preserved and defended and perfected. As a Traditionalist I believe the best preservation and defense of the Church is the Church’s own traditions.

The “romantic christians” as they are sometimes referred to, would be RIV types. As reactionaries they are also opposed to classical liberalism, but believe in innovating new solutions to the problems of classical liberalism and modernity. As revolutionary, they feel that some new structures are needed and old structures ought to be put to rest.

Most modern classical liberals would be EIS types. As Establishment, they favor the current classically liberal order. As Innovators, they believe in bringing to bear some new paradigm that is suitable for modern living. As institutionalists, they favor using their institutions–largely political institutions– to push these innovations to the masses. Republicans or conservatives might be considered ETS types, since they favor the established classically liberal order but only as it has been, and oppose new political innovations.

I have observed in comments some people I would characterize as an RTV type. As reactionary and traditionalists, they agree that the current classically liberal order is bad and that tradition holds the best answers, but believe that new political institutions (or perhaps even religious institutions) are required to bring about the reactionary-traditionalist vision.

You can contemplate on your own or in the comments the rest of the archetypes which three dichotomies suggest.


These dichotomies are valuable because they tell us about the new political topography. We should not draw allies and enemies based on whether you’re RTS or EIV. But these dichotomies help us to zero in on the point of disagreement–and the point of agreement. These dichotomies are also valuable to illustrate why so many oppositional interlocutors at the Orthosphere are incredibly wrong when they characterize that space as ubiquitously “republican” or “conservative” or “right-wing”.

Like I said, it is the reactionary attribute that seems to unify writers and commenters and thinkers at the Orthosphere. This is valuable to know because discussion centered around reactionary ideas will gather broad agreement. When discussing specific traditions, or discussing specific institutions, these will generate a lot of controversial discussion.

What do you think? I welcome your constructive feedback on this framework.

AMDG

CCCLXVII – Pack A Map

I came across an interesting article on Substack which described things one should pack if keeping a get-up-and-go bag, and how those things relate to the journey of life. The first item listed was a Map, and the author suggested that on the journey of life these were analogous to values and to dreams.

According to the author, values help us determine where to go next–if education is important you will choose pathways that improve your education. Dreams help motivate us and give us purpose on the path.

I would amend this framework, because values as a word includes both the idea that “education is important” but also the idea that “murder is bad”. So that item can afford to be subdivided into skills and virtues. Skills are things you train to make the journey ahead easier, virtues are guardrails that keep you on the right path and keep you from taking a wrong turn.

Furthermore, dreams do help motivate us in an abstract way but there needs to be a practical motivation as well–let’s call this intention.

So now that I have said some words, let’s unpack this bag, shall we?


The whole conversation is predicated on the image of a Map. On the journey of life–in my head I keep referring to this as “the spiritual journey” so I am going to use that language henceforth–we are all ultimately trying to find our way to heaven. If you disagree on that destination then you have a more fundamental question than what the map symbolically represents.

In order to get to heaven using the map, you need to know how far you are, you need to know the path to get there, and you need a means of getting from where you are to where you want to be.

The thing that tells you how far you are is virtue–or vice. Growing in virtues will naturally lead us to heaven. They stop us from taking wrong turns by giving informing our conscience as to what things improve our relationship with God and what things harm our relationship with God. Understanding with a frank assessment your present standing with virtue will tell you your distance from Heaven, so to speak.

Pursuing virtue is the pursuit of heaven. You can make the path a little bit easier by cultivating skills. Skills are things like “people skills” or “outdoorsman skills”–they help us form virtues by giving us discipline and patience to train these skills, and they help us on the path because we can use those skills on the journey towards heaven, for our good and for the good of others.

Why we pursue heaven is a very abstract idea. Our dreams are kind of like our goals just short of heaven. Becoming a saint is a dream, becoming an expert in a field, winning an award for excellent mastery of a skill, these can be dreams. Dreams motivate us because they are kind of like waypoints on the way to heaven. We will stop there before reaching heaven. They provide both a goal and a motivation that is a little more concrete than just heaven on its own.

Our intention matters, though. Winning an award to glorify ourselves does not lead us to heaven; winning an award to glorify God does lead us to heaven. Intention is the on-the-ground, real concrete ideation of our dreams. It’s how our dreams exist now, rather than how we hope they exist in the future. So intention is what pushes us today, our dreams are what pull us tomorrow.


This has all been just an interesting thought experiment.

AMDG

8. The Wandering Philosopher

My mule stepped funny on a rock before we even left the farm this morning. He was limping before I even got the yoke on him, poor thing. I decided to give him a rest–much deserved, for all his faithful service. The other side of my mule’s fortuitous step is that the responsibility for bringing my cart to market fell to me alone.

Continue reading 8. The Wandering Philosopher

CCCLXV – Nothing We Have Is Ours

Let’s take a more intentional reflection through the big to-do I stirred up over at the Orthosphere. If you’d like to see, check it out here. I am not going to respond to any more comments there, consider this the redirect for anyone who would like to continue the discussion. It’s a topic I write about a lot so I am sure you won’t have to wait long for more on the same theme.

First off, let me say, if you are a new reader as a result of the guest-post, welcome! This post will include some more introduction to what kind of things you can expect here. If you are an old reader, thank you for sticking with me. If you are a reader who comes here to check out “what that big dumb idiot is up to” then I appreciate that you take the time to visit and read and I hope our disagreement can be a fruitful inspiration for your own writing.


My first note here after thinking about the guest post is that the experience was deeply humbling and a little frightening. Of course, stepping on to a bigger stage is always a scary thing, and the Orthosphere has an order of magnitude more subscribers than I have here, to say nothing of casual non-subscribed readership which I am confident exceeds my own in several orders of magnitude. I wrote the guest post not because I wanted to check out the big stage, but because the topic is one I am passionate about, and I felt there had been a lot of ink spilled over there that had not reflected the POV I have come to. I felt my POV was one that the readership of the Orthosphere needed to see. I am satisfied that my intention was good and my message was sound, even the deliverer of the message was faulty or the structure of the argument unsound.

So the humbling aspect comes in two ways: First, in showing me that I am not prepared for the big show. However good I think my ideas are, there are many many more people, much much more smarter than I am, who will vivisect my writing, examining it with a fine-toothed comb. Second, in showing me that the blog-o-sphere is bigger and more interconnected than I thought. I contented myself to write in my space and poke my head over into neighboring blogs to see what they are up to. It’s hard to tell who else is visiting on the internet, because browsing is an activity we undertake alone. So we build this picture in our minds of “what’s out there” and it overlaps with other folks’ picture of “what’s out there” and sometimes their picture is much much bigger than ours.

The frightening aspect came when I realized the conversation my guest post started had spilled the banks of one blog and flowed over into other conversations in other spaces. Scores of people were talking about my ideas and even about me and I was not even part of the conversation, my ideas had ceased to be my own the second I published them and the discourses began. They took on a life of their own, for other people to interact with and examine and criticize and discard and adapt. It was frightening because I felt like I had made a mistake. I had mis-stepped, I am not ready for this level of critique and cross examination. I want my idea back, I promise to keep it to myself. That kind of thing.

The humiliation and fright taught me that I need to be much more careful, much more thoughtful. My blog is my safe haven, my house, people who come here must play by my rules. When I step outside, I must play by theirs, and there is no obligation that they understand me the way I understand me. It also taught me that I need to be much more deliberate with forming my intention when venturing out. I do not want people to look at me and think of me as credible or incredible on my own merits. I want people to look at me and see someone pointing them to God, and to Truth, and trying to understand reality. A fellow prodigal son, not a rogue preacher, not a wise man. A peasant, in other words. A nobody. If I venture forth and try to speak with my own authority, I will fail 100% of the time. If I venture forth and try to lead people to God, I may succeed. So if I am not deliberately thinking “How will my comment, my article, my content lead people to God” then I am allowing worldliness to sneak into my writing. That’s a bad thing.

More than once I have contemplated whether or not I should shut down this blog, for my spiritual good. Let me keep my ideas in the safety of privacy, in the humility of silence. After this guest post I wondered whether I was letting pride get the better of me. I am still praying about this. Please do pray for me.


What is there to say about the topic itself? Blessed little remains. In talking over the hubbub with Hambone, we agreed that we framed the idea poorly, especially in leaving open so many vectors for disagreement. One way we suggested we could have approached it is thus:

We are atoms, molecules of water in the sea. When big things happen in the world, like a tsunami, there is no one atom who is responsible. Tsunamis are things that happen to the atoms. The atom cannot stand triumphantly at the crest of the wave and say “fear me and my mighty tsunami!”–the atom is the recipient of the tsunami. We are atoms. We like to think we have power, we like to think we matter, but we do not. These ideas are all about aligning our concern to our influence.

Hambone put it this way: It’s World War 2. Some given American is removed from history. Is the outcome of World War 2 different? The number of individual persons who’s presence actually influenced the progress of World War 2 is extraordinarily small.

The thesis then is that everything is relational. The widows mite was a profound blessing because those two pennies were all she had. The graces from that contribution come from the two pennies being all she had, not from the aggregated good that comes from the Church’s service to the poor.


I’ve been reflecting on my own reflections and some criticisms as well. One of the most important takeaways is that everything is personal. There is no such thing as disinterestedly discussing abstractions, unless you have a relationship with an individual who enjoys that kind of thing. Everything is personal. People will make abstractions concrete by applying them to their personal lives. People will take an argument personally by taking a criticism of their belief as a criticism of them. Everything is personal.

This is no surprise why the individualists take the stance of having an individualized relationship with God, and see no necessity for the Church qua institution. But it’s also no surprise why poking the hornets nest causes the hornets to sting in self defense. I have assailed a central belief–I have assailed them. This goes back to why I must be much more careful when venturing out.

I’ll add also a note on anonymity. I do not disagree that writing under ones own name takes courage. Everyone must evaluate their own circumstances and the risks and rewards of writing under their own name or a pseudonym. Just because writing under ones own name takes courage does not mean that the opposite is cowardice. I don’t begrudge anonymous writers–eponymous writers can be just as nasty and unsportsmanlike as anonymous ones, so it is better to judge people by behaviors than accidental features like their nom-de-plume.

I write anonymously because I do not want to risk my nascent career, my privacy, my public life. Some may call that cowardice, some may call that prudence–I leave the final Judgement of that to God, may He lead me to the path that makes me Holy. I also write so that I don’t begin trading on my name, as I indicated above. If my name was Two-Bit Billy Buckland (it isn’t), I wouldn’t want people to say “Hey, are you Two-Bit Billy Buckland, from the terrible guest post on the Orthosphere? I love your work! I hate your work! I am nonplussed by your work!” because then the work becomes about me, Two-Bit Billy Buckland, and not about God, not about Truth. “Scoot” as a pseudonym serves me well and is silly enough to not distract people from entering deeper into their faith, God willing. No one will come up to me and say “Aren’t you Scoot?”

I do tell people about the blog in real life sometimes but luckily most of the people I’ve told about it don’t read it, so I am safe, for now.


A final note here about the purpose of this blog. I started this blog as a place for me to chew on ideas publicly. Since my first post in December of 2018, I’ve basically kept that as my purpose. I see something, I’ll write about it, I’ll explore the consequences, I’ll think of objections. I’ll reflect on self improvement, and my own spiritual growth, things that have helped me. Occasionally I’ll make observations about things that strike me as true, good, or beautiful. Over time, a little community has formed and the conversations and engagement with my ideas has spurred more thinking and more ideas to explore. It’s been very rewarding to think that my public ideation has spurred some kind of conversation.

In the future–this place will host more of the same. This blog is for me and I’ve been consistent in pointing out that any benefit you get out of reading here is a happy accident. This attitude is important for my sanity, because it allows me to write freely and creatively. When I become self conscious–when I try to avoid criticism or gain praise, the purpose of this blog will have failed, because it’s not about me exploring ideas anymore, it would be about you. I do have a place that aims to please you–it’s my substack. Click that link, there’s a coupon code that you can use to get a free subscription for life. The coupon is good until the feast of St. Luke in October. My substack is where I do customer-service, trying to produce a product that you can enjoy. Here is where I chew on ideas and you come to see what I’m chewing on. I hope it’s been fruitful, I hope you have enjoyed it, I hope you continue to read here, because I like hearing your thoughts and they really help fill up my plate with ideas to chew on.


If I may express a motif for this post, that connects all these threads–the guest post, anonymity, my blog, etc etc–it’s that nothing we have is ours. By some mystical working of the Holy Spirit, God graces us with ideas. When we write them, they cease to be ours and enter the public consciousness. I do not force anyone to visit my blog either–by some mystical working in your lives, you find yourselves here, reading what I have to write. God has given me ideas, God has sent me you readers, God has blessed me with the means to write and the motivation to write frequently. Nothing we have is ours. All of it, everything we have, everything we want, all our sufferings and all of our successes, come from God.

That is why I end (almost) every post with AMDG: Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam: For the greater glory of God. Because that is what I hope my posts do–glorify Him. That you see what I write is a blessing. If you feel my writing glorifies God, I have succeeded.

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to many happy–or humble, or frightened–returns.

AMDG

(n) – Wow

This has been an enlightening experience. I could not have predicted the response. Well, I should have, but did not.

Some lessons from poking the hornets nest:

1- Manage vectors of disagreement. I could have anticipated some objections, and tried to keep my proposal as simple as possible, and/or at the highest possible level. By allowing the conversation to devolve into specific applications of all different kinds of authority, the message was lost.

2- Agree on a way of interpreting scripture, or don’t use scripture. Everyone thinks they have the authoritative interpretation of scripture, and it’s just impossible to have a conversation with competing interpretations. If there is not a common agreement, then there are more fundamental problems then whatever argument is taking place that requires scriptural justification.

3- Abstraction becomes personal. As a method of comprehending the abstract, our default instinct is to make things personal immediately. We try to take theory and assimilate it into our personal lives. When it becomes personal, dialectic is over, it is now an effort at managing an argument. No one is walking away feeling edified. Minimize abstraction to avoid it.

4- Know your audience. I thought I understood the audience of the Orthosphere. I do not. My mistake. There’s an axiom among lawyers that you should never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Well, now we know to never publish a guest post without knowing what the reaction will be.

5- Do not assume prior knowledge. Explain first principles as often as necessary–this helps avoid misunderstanding. [Edit 9/7/22 based on a comment from NLR. Thank you NLR for this suggestion!]

I regret starting the conversation without contemplating these lessons, but these lessons have been learned, better late than never.


A side note, to some loyal readers:

Please be respectful when engaging in other spaces. I appreciate the enthusiasm and trust me, if I had less control I would have been maximally snarky, to the detriment of the conversation and to the chagrin of our hosts at that space. It was probably fortuitous that the article published while I was traveling–I wasn’t able to hover over the comments and fire off replies, I had a chance to cool down before saying anything.

The dialogue was frustrating and infuriating. I was surprised at how emotional the conversation became immediately. But we have to keep our heads. If other people think our ideas are stupid, mundane, immature, ignorant, or evil–that is their opinion. If we are confident in our opinion, no need to respond with snark–ignore, or be polite. But we should also prayerfully think about whether or not they have a point. I was doing a lot of self reflection while I was sitting on the sidelines this weekend wondering where things went wrong. The fault ultimately lies with me: I spilled gasoline all over the floor and then lit a cigarette–I should not have been surprised.

So anyway, if there is any snark required, direct it at me for being careless with my argument and my audience. Please do not abuse the hospitality of hosts of other blogs. They have been kind enough to allow us to send in articles, and to allow us to comment. It’s their house, please be mindful of their rules.

AMDG

CCCLXIV – Cool Story, Bro

Or, 10 Rules for the Catholic Reactionary

All this stuff with the society of Scootland is interesting but I’ve said here and elsewhere that I’m not going to suggest we advocate for Monarchy, so what is the point of all this? What can we take away and bring with us to real life?


  1. Don’t Vote
    • Secede from Liberalism, stop voting. Help change the culture to one centered on virtuous values and truth, rather than performative political gestures and populism.
  2. Advocate for a Just system of taxation
    • Taxation can be evaluated by mechanism, by amount, and by calculation method. Advocate for justice in all three.
  3. Respect & Obey Authority
    • Zippy: Obedience is Voluntary. Obedience is Mandatory. Both/and, not either/or.
  4. Live imaginatively in your home, and serve your community with the intent of bringing your imaginings to reality.
    • Love your country and your community and see the good and seek to emphasize the good, true, and beautiful.
  5. If you have land, use it productively
    • Self sufficiency is always good and always cheap. Do what you can to use your land productively.
  6. As a matter of self mastery and self improvement, seek training in defense. Be a defender to your household, and a defender to your community.
    • It’s just a good thing to do. Be useful, and be a protector of justice. God willing you won’t need to fight for Justice, but be ready just in case.
  7. Write letters to your representatives
    • This is actually probably better than voting. It is direct, personal association with leaders and allows you to represent your ideas to them. They may never read it but if you want to do something, that is a perfectly valid thing to do for a politically aware reactionary who doesn’t want to content himself with merely not voting.
  8. Be involved in your children’s formation in religion, politics, and all areas of education
    • If practicable, send your children to the parish school, do not send them to public schools. Be involved in your parish and in bringing the best out of your parish.
      • If you don’t like your parish, then change your parish.
  9. Understand Tradition, ritual, and precedent, and bring those things into your home, bring them (if they are not already abundant) into your parish.
    • These things give a certain predictable regularity to life and become joyful milestones everyone looks forward to.
  10. Consume the cultural output from your culture and avoid the cultural output that is contrary to your culture.
    • We are talking about political or religious culture first and foremost. If you want to read the news, read news that is biased the way you are biased. Look at art that promotes your culture, read books that share your values. Understand that variations of these exist that seek to undermine your culture and it is best for your good and the good of your household to censor things that are contrary to your values.

AMDG