To my classmates and fellow Catholic school students:
Many of you scoff at my reading. You laugh at me, and consider Catholicism to be “restrictive” and “stuffy.” I would like to formally apologize for your utter lack of catechism and teaching in the beauty of the faith. While I am not personally responsible for this, I can do my level best to teach you as much as possible. All I ask is that you listen and try to learn and understand.
Society is, above all, adamantly anti-Catholic. Don’t try to deny it, because I don’t feel like arguing this now, but I can prove it. You, my friends, by falling into this anti-Catholic trap, are being fed the illusion that you are rebels. Following the “flow” of what is “normal” is not rebelling. It’s like being a nonconformist by being Goth and dressing just like aaaaall the rest of the people in that “type.”
Next time you laugh at someone who is truly interested in their Catholic faith, stop and think about it. Why are you laughing? Why are you scornful? Because they are so fascinated with two thousand years of tradition (and Tradition), doctrine, history, and practices that it is worthy of mockery? Perhaps you should do well to consider your own beliefs. And remember this: a very wise man once said, “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”
Please try to take this to heart. You have my sincerest apologies for growing up in the DoR, and I hope at least one of you passes this on to your friends.
~Ink
Tags: Orthodoxy at Work, Reflection
|
Amen. From the same apologist of colossal genius: “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” Let’s, then, go on against the stream, seeking the One with the words of eternal life.
Amen!
Then again, I’ve never been one to go with the crowd. (Just ask Grammie…!)
The only thing (done by fellow students) which irritates me more than this? Assuming that because I have conservative political views, I’m also frumpy and have no style/don’t believe in contemporary styles. How are the two even remotely related?? I dress modestly, yes… but not frumpily. (Yes that is now a word.) I mean… solid colours… simple lines… that’s pretty modern…
The whole issue is with the reduction of beauty to the confines of sexuality. Thus immodesty becomes desirable, and ceases to be considered immodesty, except perhaps in an ironic fashion.
Come to think of it, there’s another hallmark of modernism/postmodernism… the reduction of the true scope of things.
And the whole thing is reduced to “liberalism,” which is lauded as “brilliant” and “forward-thinking.” This world is a mess…
You tell ’em Ink! God Bless you!
Ink, from your style preferences I’d call you “classic” and that, my young friend, never goes out of style.