Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,203 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 19130

Posts: 278

My Comments: 1132

User Comments: 1814

Photos: 3

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 4

Points: 5343

Last Online: 5 days ago



No Recent Visitors

Dystopia, the Church and the Rise of the NONES

Added: Friday, December 13th 2019 at 8:32pm by tjdonegan

Note: A "NONE" is a spiritual believer that no longer identifies with any specific religion, many former Catholics and denominational Christians are today NONES...

In the United States - and we guess, globally,  at least in countries formerly of Christendom - social maladies are burgeoning e.g., drug-abuse, sexual immorality, pornography, physical and sexual-abuse, divorce, fractured (alienated) families, mental-illness specifically LGBQT movements (Note: there are, but 2 genders males and females, but behaviorists have encouraged schooling people to become mentally ill, and treating such illness as a norm...), loneliness, alcoholism et al, and now contrast the rising-flood of social maladies with the millions of people leaving organized religions - particularly the Roman Catholic Church and denominational Christianity. Note the stentorian Church's silence vis-à-vis these social maladies...

Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Catholic priest; PhD Philosophy) and Father Benedict Groeschel (a Catholic priest, and professional psychologist) both argued – independently - most psychological maladies can be treated in the confessional (Of course they presupposed traditional Catholic priests...).

As people - in the former locus of Christendom - suffer the aforementioned maladies the Church is bleeding members; the Church - organically, post-Vatican II - has allowed the behavioral-scientist to replace the Church in providing moral direction. The behavior-sciences teach materialism (i.e., reality reduced to length, width, depth and time) - thus, if one desires "A", and "A" is not prohibited by law, one ought to act upon one's inclinations; thus people are tacitly - if not explicitly - encouraged to sin!

Many Church clergy, and laity, claim they love Jesus, but Jesus says: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."John14: 15"; one of which is: 'Go into the whole world, and proclaim the gospel to every nation' Mark 16: 15. Logic indicates that those trimming the gospel to social acceptability - e.g., Pope Francis - do not love Jesus, and serve some other master! This - likely - accounts for the rise of NONES...?

Thomas J. Donegan




User Comments

Maybe people wouldn't run from the Catholic Church in such numbers if the priests would just stop fucking their children. Not to mention the church protecting these kiddie fuckers. Oh wait, it's the "nones" that are bringing down society.lol

Hello, Anonymous!

The missive doesn't claim that NONES are harming society; it makes the point that so many people that claim themselves Catholic, or Christian, forsake the teaching of Jesus Christ if those teaching conflict with the wide culture. As it is those same people will claim they 'love' Jesus Christ, but yet they forsake his teaching. The Church laments that so many are leaving her, butt he Church - by its not teaching, and not indicting itself and the wide culture for moral decadence show an insobriety regarding its own historic teaching. Moreover, many, many people - including all of the children sodomized/molested by perverse priests - are on their own, because the Church does not bring Catholics/Christians to awareness of their moral responsibilities to the 'least-of-these.' The missive was submitted to a local paper where the clergy and congregants at my parish may digest its words; words - if understood - attempt to awaken them to their palpable insouciance and hypocrisy...

Cordially, tjd

Tjdonegan, have you ever given to a thought that people just want to live their lives on their terms and not based on any doctrines? That people just want to live their best life without being told what to do? That they don't want to be treated like children all the days of their lives? The people who teach doctrines don't even upkeep them. 

Hi, Writer!

Is it a 'feeling', or a 'thought', that prompts you to ask such a question? Of course, I understand that to be the case, but I am also well aware that most people are walking-talking-breathing contradictions not understanding most of what they claim to believe; most people are blithely unaware of what is presupposed by their claimed beliefs, nor are they aware of what those avowals circumscribe as not only further 'beliefs', but also moral obligations...  

There are many old saws (sayings/utterances) which may people utter and many others nod in agreement e.g., "It is a fine line existing between genius and insanity." and such a claim cannot be universalized - and is therefore it is vapid (an utterance of the empty-headed), but additionally ascribes to the individual uttering such both sublime intellectual powers, and the ability to ascertain what is sanity by simply observing an individual and listening to them speak (i.e., by their outward comportment); this is the same arrogant conduct incessantly exhibited by those that prescribe "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," et al, predicated upon how the individual make the prescriber feel... Rather than there being a 'fine line between genius and insanity,' I suggest one may make an objective and universal claim regarding a fine distinction between egoism and wickedness... The egoist (selfishness properly understood is not stinginess with one's possessions e.g., refusing to share a finite resource/good; rather selfishness is accepting only those truths/facts amenable/pleasing to self...) disregards objective standards/principles unless such standards are understood to advance the individual's interest; thus, the egoist generally disregards the utility in human beings ordered principally, i.e., a human ordered morally (note: if morality isn't objective, it isn't morality...), is circumspect/cautious in his/her actions/choices for fear that rash conduct will harm others, in some way. Sentimental (egoistical) humans are - dispositionally - primarily concerned with themselves i.e., "just want to live their lives on their terms and not based on any doctrines." Those who actually love human beings, and subordinate their good/interest to those of the beloved and society, understand that both - individual and aggregate suffering/abuse/neglect - is directly proportional to the people who disavow/dismiss objective moral limits and their attendant moral obligations...

Cordially, tjd

Sentimental egoistical humans sounds like a fancy name to call someone who just want to live their best god given life without having to dig into its origin or who is responsible for giving this life? One will find out when they are dead or they may not. Either way it is irrelevant to our existence.

Hi, Writer!

Actually, Writer, it is a necessary way of addressing an endemic, fast becoming a pandemic, decadent social development; as stated in my first response people’s actions, knowingly, or unknowingly effect, and affect, other’s lives – for good and ill – only serendipity (or God’s grace) would have the actions of an individual not harm those with whomsoever they interact and compete for “X” [wherein X is understood as running the gambit from material goods to moral relations e.g., relations wherein actors are bound and obligated to others, and the binding locus includes both emotional attachment and perhaps familial and legal bounds, as well; such a locus/binding-point often results in messy competing impetuses; an egoist/sentimentalist ultimately disregards the other/others…]; particularly when the individual – in question, as an egoist has assimilated their ‘moral-compass’ from this culture-of-death, which superficially and ubiquitously imputes ‘love’ as a remedy, but whose understanding of ‘love’ is in fact moral irresponsibility; thus, self-love a.k.a. selfishness… So what I attempted to point out, is that most people do great harm to many others, in many, many ways; which they results from moral insouciance (devil-may-care – act in accordance with how one feels, while unconsciously bracketing moral obligation…), and because moral insouciance is their modus operandi they are blithely unaware, and unconcerned, about the harm they have done in the wake of their passing through… And if one were to contrast two societies; one organized in accordance with raw sentiment, the other sentiments limited by moral principle, the contrast would be stark; the aggregate suffering in the former would dwarf the unhappiness in the latter; moreover, regarding aggregate happiness, it would be the reverse...

Cordially, tjd  

There are a lot of things that cause harm and death to others, bombs, guns, knives etc. We just learn to live with their presence. Yes, people's lifestyle can be harmful to themselves and others. But there are consequences and there is also free will. What you call moral issue a lot of times turn out to be issues that we see in the daylight, but in the dark it uncovers a lot of things eg the case of Catholic priests molesting boys. 

Hello, Writer!

The things you name which can '"cause" harm, and death to others, bombs, guns, knives etc.' must be employed by a human to "cause" harm and death; the bomb doesn't act to harm, or cause cause death, neither do guns and/or knives... A lifestyle which is harmful to oneself, or others, is undoubtedly prone to be more harmful if the individual does not conform to the moral law; homosexual priests act contrary to the moral law both in molesting children, and in homosexual actions... The point of the missive above is that the Church is disregarding moral teaching which results in greater aggregate immorality, and thus, an increase in aggregate harm to individuals within the society; this insincerity of the Church vis-a-vis human relations, belies the Church's claim to care for the 'least of his brethren.' This makes the Church appear phony, and certainly some, perhaps many, in the Church are phonies, but phoniness is also opposed to the moral law... Again, humans who act in accordance with the moral law - [which requires articulation i.e., being taught; people can no more ascertain the moral law by their feelings, than they may solve a mathematical equation via their feelings...] - are less prone to harm others, and more prone to help others in their conducting of their personal affairs...

Cordially, tjd

How I see it is that we have free will but it comes with consequences. It is up to the individual to understand that and act appropriately. It doesn't need religion to understand that concept. Its like touching a hot stove and getting burned. 

Hello again, Writer!

Objective morality stands apart from religion; the original missive was aimed at the Church and its refusal to 'look and see' and to 'listen and hear;' as the Church bleeds members, it does so largely because it is not critical of things (including istself, and its clergy and members) which ought to be criticized; if something, or someone behaves/advocates/acts contrary to the moral law they ought to be criticize i.e., be contrasted with choices/conduct which ought to reflect their conduct... So my note was about the Church, its neglect of its responsibilities and the rise of the NONES as a natural consequence of Church neglect of culture...

Free-will, Writer, is not choosing what one desires, but rather choosing what one ought to do; occassionally what one desires agrees with the moral law (i.e., what one ought to do...). Our argument/s regarding sentimetality/egoism are separate arguments, they address the issues that you raised, and they do not narrowly address you, but rather address any individual, or group, that chooses not what ought to be chosen (i.e., the 'good' i.e., that which agrees with the natural law...), but rather chooses his/her desire and disregarding the objective good...

Cordially, tjd

Sometimes tjd, I wonder if this life is a reflection of heaven and hell. Sometimes I wonder if the challenge of this world is to see how we work things out so it can be a heaven for all. Is it possible? I don't know, but I try to play my part. I see the despair in some humans and it hurts just to know what the cause is. Hopefully one day we will get it right.

An apt discussion, TJ; The loss of church attendence is primarily due to the worldly attitudes and actions of the church leaders themselves. And yes, Jesus' commandments are primarily ignored these days. Great post!

Hi, us2nomads!

Thank you!



Hi, Anonymous!

It would be difficult to make a more cogent argument that yours{#basic-laugh.gif}; truly impressive!{#basic-cool.gif}

Cordially, tjd


Post A Comment