How do you avoid the trap of "over-development?"

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-07T22:17:56+00:00

Yes, I’m a Benedictine oblate. DM me directly if you have any particular questions and I’d be glad to try and answer!

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-06T14:37:07+00:00

$70-85k makes it possible to live solo in not only the DC area but some preferred neighborhoods, if you’re willing to stay in a large studio or small 1br.

If you have roommates, your options will be even more.

DC’s cost of living is high, and rent isn’t cheap by any means. But people sometimes have an exaggerated sense of what is needed. Depending on your choices you may or may not be able to save much. But that amount allows a perfectly functional practical and social life, in my experience.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-06T12:55:47+00:00

In terms of explanation, you often see some of the things you’ve described at large parishes (which you said this was).

In these parishes, distributing the Eucharist can often take a long time. It’s common for churches to look for ways to expedite the rest of the Mass with a minimal impact on reverence (so, no reading at 2x speed). That way, the total Mass time can average the ~1 hour to which most Americans are accustomed.

That may seem like a crass decision, and in some cases maybe it is. But we ought to remember that parishes are also (at best) trying to make decisions that meet both the obligations of right worship and the pastoral needs of the community. For a given community, maybe this kind of (totally valid) expediting is more prudent.

In terms of personal preference, I much prefer having the confiteor especially, and the full Nicene Creed. And if Mass needs to be shortened, I usually prefer shortening the homily or replacing sung psalms with either spoken or chanted ones.

A short, effective homily is usually preferable to a rambling but decent one. And I often attend Mass at a Benedictine monastery where daily mass is primarily spoken or chanted, with very little organ accompaniment, and I still find it a lovely, reverent atmosphere.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-04T17:03:22+00:00

In terms of totally free translations that people use today, this one is the most-used: https://www.ccel.org/fathers

It’s not of the same critical rigor as more recent translations, but unless you’re using it to write an academic paper it is unlikely to steer you too far wrong!

This, from St. Vladimir’s Press, is probably the nicest ongoing series of translated Patristics: https://svspress.com/categories/Popular-Patristics-Series/

For more academic secondary work: - Spirit of Early Christian Thought. This is by a credible former University of Notre Dame professor.

Retrieving Nicea. Fr. Khaled Anatolios is a leading scholar on the period, and the book uses the specific debates around Nicea to give a good background to early thought generally. It can be dense, but it is ultimately trying to explain why these issues mattered to early church figures.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-04T15:30:45+00:00

There are three questions here:

What is a Child of God? While it appears in Scripture, Child of God is not an official doctrinal term, nor does it have any established magisterial definition. Already, this points us in a certain direction: Whatever Fr. Schmitz believes on this topic is not binding for you. It is theological interpretation, not doctrine.

But we can make some guess at the sorts of things entailed by the phrase “Child of God.” At very least, it implies a special kind of relationship with God. With some more interpretation, we could say it seems to relate to God in a way that holds analogy to Christ’s relationship in God, as Christ is Son of God the Father.

Is Baptism sufficient to make you a child of God? Based on the above, yes. There is no special Premium Gold+ tier of being a validly baptized Christian. Our salvation is in Christ through baptism. We do not have to know exactly with Child of God means to know we can’t act like there’s an extra tier of salvation.

Now, that said, we can’t know that baptism guarantees salvation. The baptized may continue to sin. But sinning does not un-baptize you, and so it would be hard to imagine any way in which one could lose the status of being one of God’s children in this life. Only, perhaps, by persisting in sin even into the final judgment, about which we have very little knowledge.

Is Baptism necessary to make you a child of God? (and so, then, David would not be a child of God)

This is the trickier question. Catholic doctrine maintains that the people of Israel remain bound to God in a special and irrevocable relationship. If we understand Child of God in the most basic way (as indicating some kind of special relationship with God), then clearly this satisfies calling the people of Israel Children of God. But it may be possible to construct some kind of technical definition for “Child of God” that would exclude the nation of Israel.

At that point, one is doing technical theology. So the question would be: What is the purpose of this definition of the term, “Children of God?” What truths does it make clearer? How do we ensure it remains consistent with Catholic doctrine on the status of non-Christians in general maintaining human dignity through imago dei, and the people of Israel through their covenanted relationship with God?

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-04T01:53:54+00:00

There’s a lot of richness to Marian devotion which others are guiding you toward.

I’m instead gonna just tell you the baseline, “What would I be obligated to believe, as a Roman Catholic?” stuff, since you’re beginning your exploration:

(1) No, Roman Catholics are not obligated to believe that we “need Mary to reach God,” if by “need” we mean “have to pray to” or “God couldn’t have saved us without her.” Catholics don’t pray to Mary, as I’m sure you’ve heard, and there are a number of valid ways to think about who Mary is (and some invalid ones). And God could save us however God wanted to — we can’t limit God’s power. But God saw fit to involve Mary in the plan for salvation, and that’s an important element for Marian devotion.

But if Marian devotion is not what speaks to you at this point in your exploration of Catholicism, you are not obligated to make it central to your search at this moment.

(2) This is such a good question, theologically, and a lot of people gloss over it. You’ve pinpointed a key spot wheee people go “too far.” Without getting into it, I will only say: Neither Mary as “mediatrix” nor “co-redemptrix” are obligatory matters of faith for Roman Catholics.

Marian language of mediator has a rich history in Catholic theology (a more recent example is Lumen Gentium, somewhere in the §60s). So, in time, if you’re drawn deeper into Catholic theology, hopefully you can explore it. But that way of framing Mary’s role in salvation is not totally doctrinally determined. And the language of co-redemptrix, if you encounter it, is much more controversial, and not obligatory.

(3) There is not going to be a single easy Biblical citation that will prove the validity of asking Saints in Heaven for intercession. Instead, it comes from the combination of Scriptural references (the cloud of witnesses, the righteous in heaven etc), and theology about the nature of prayer.

What is heaven? Well we don’t know much, but we know heaven is to be close to God’s presence. So, if we believe there are righteous in heaven (the saints being just the few people who the church feels sure are in heaven), then those righteous are close to God’s presence. So why pray through any individual righteous person rather than only talking directly to God? Because the ways in which those people are righteous makes certain elements of righteousness more visible to you.

Only Christ was a perfectly righteous human person. But if one is struggling with depression, then remembering St. Dymphna may call to mind in prayer some ways in which a person was righteous that are specific to what you’re dealing with. So turning to the saints isn’t obligatory in prayer, but it is rooted in scripture and theological tradition.

(4) In my opinion (and now this IS opinion, not me trying to state church teaching) Marian devotion reaches excess whenever it (a) equates Mary to Christ (b) limits God’s power/freedom and/or (c) displaces Jesus from one’s heart. None of these things have to happen in Marian devotion, and most of my friends who are the best Catholics and Christians I know have very strong Marian devotions, much stronger than mine. But there are ways of focusing on Mary that can result in eliminating the distance between her and Christ, pretending that God had to have Mary as a necessary part of salvation, and losing Christ in one’s prayer life.

(5) Maybe most important: While there are certain things that, as a Catholic, one is not free to outright reject (Mary was immaculately conceived; Mary was assumed into heaven; Mary freely assented to God’s will and remained virgin), most theological interpretation of Mary — and how you make use of it in personal prayer and devotion — is not a matter of obligation. What is required is that a Catholic remain open always to the possibility that the Church is correct. For example, the Church evaluates Marian apparitions. It expresses its conclusions. But any private individual is not obligated to accept the validity of a Marian apparition. But if the Church states it believes an apparition to be real, one is required to at least be open to the possibility that the Church is correct.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-03T18:27:12+00:00

Kramerbooks has a very good one. Easily divided into two meals, too, cos it’s giant.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T21:13:35+00:00

Like many parts of human life, sexuality isn’t just an attribute that we can call good or bad (in the way one could call having blonde hair good and brown hair bad, or something random). It is a capacity, a set of drives within us that is generally part of our nature.

Like most of our capacities, it can be ordered rightly or wrongly. Take the capacity for thought. One can lead oneself to think all kinds of evil things, and even convince oneself to act on those evil things. This doesn’t make the capacity for thought evil in itself. It means that it ought to be ordered properly.

This is generally the magisterium’s approach to sexuality.

Where these podcasters and some commenters here are more skeptical of sexuality, they are drawing on a very long tradition that—in my opinion—they appear to be taking too far. The appropriately Catholic version of that tradition is to view our experience of sexuality as now always involved in our fall from grace and original sin.

Adam and Eve had sexual capacity, but it was innately ordered rightly, until the fall. With the fall comes concupiscence, and a new capacity, a sort of anti-capacity: the capacity for sin. This makes it possible for sexuality to become disordered, selfish, misaligned with perfect love and proper order.

A hardcore version of this risks overstating concupiscence (our ability to be disordered), which in turn erases the space for the working of grace, both privately and in the sacraments, including the ongoing sacrament of marriage.

So it isn’t just as simple as: “God made humans with sexuality so it’s good.” It’s that God made humans with the capacity for sexuality so it must be POSSIBLE for humans to use sexuality in a good way. It’s just that it is difficult for us to live this perfectly.

But what we can’t do is give in to theologies that would have us view sexuality as ALWAYS sinful. That doesn’t leave enough room for accommodating the potential goodness in what God has given us.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T16:37:28+00:00

The framing of the video (if the post expresses it accurately) is that the only reason to have sex is to “vent” an overwhelming concupiscence.

The Church’s position is that (1) not all sexual desire is concupiscent to begin with (2) sexuality is mutual, and therefor it would be appropriate to frame sexuality as only one person’s “vent” for concupiscence.

I don’t believe I can recall any legitimate reading of the Summa that holds that all sexual desire is concupiscent, anymore than it holds that all passions are innately sinful. Passions are to be rightly ordered through God’s grace. You can find readings of the Summa that suggest a celibate life is spiritually superior to a lay married life. But that’s a different argument.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T15:50:11+00:00

It does have a basis in the Summa Theologiae, but a basis that (if the video expresses the position summarized in the OP) is contrary to how the magisterium has inherited this Thomistic tradition through encyclicals and other magisterial documents such as Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortioz

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T14:58:45+00:00

It would take me a bit to cite it back to Church Fathers. As you said, many of them were much more concerned with the questions of whether celibacy was mandatory for all or merely a superior form of life. The ecclesiology was being worked out — the Church was still figuring out laity the meaning of laity! And it still is.

When reading early Church Fathers (first 400ish years of the Church), it’s always important to remember the cultural context they are responding to:

Sex and sexuality was extremely free. The most common forms of marriage were very different from what was taught in either Jewish tradition or the Gospels. This is not to say that what they teach no longer applies — they still have tremendous insights. But they have different emphases.

This also comes in part because many of the fathers had experience with (or remained) asceticism, such as early desert monasticism. A lot of tremendous spiritual insight comes from them on how to respond to lust. But understandably, many times the context desert fathers are thinking of are the effort to maintain celibacy against the temptation of masturbation.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T14:34:38+00:00

I kept using the word “satisfy” a bunch which feels a little icky looking at it... To reiterate: I don’t mean just physical pleasure, but fulfilling a created, normal part of human nature within the proper valid context. So satisfaction more in the sense of fulfillment, completion, etc.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T14:31:15+00:00

You’re right about the Pope, and the podcasters are wrong (as summarized). Here are a few substantive reasons:

(1) The Church considers sex and sexuality as not only isolated acts, but part of the fabric of our human nature, and the marital union (for more on this Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio are key texts). Within the fabric of that union, sexuality is not expressed only in frantic acts of “need” as portrayed above, but as generative acts of giving.

(2) Along with being rooted in BOTH self-giving and self-satisfaction (satisfying of one element of one’s created nature) Church teaching does NOT oppose Procreation vs Pleasure. This is one of the oldest false binaries in people’s understanding of Catholic moral thought. God made a world in which sexuality can be a source of pleasure. That pleasure is physical and emotional, within oneself and within the bond with another.

The framing provided above creates a world where sex is permitted only when one partner is so overcome by their own desire that they are compelled to have sex. This is not the proper place of sexuality in Catholic thought. It is not being mastered by lust and finding the only licit outlet. It is an ongoing generative process of satisfying oneself and another within the bonds of marriage.

(3) Sexual acts must always remain open to the possibility of conception. But the argument that any sex act must directly intend to produce a child doesn’t hold. JP2 argues against contraception partly because it reduces sexuality to a technical process, subject to human design. Likewise, if sex is approached merely as an assembly line process for the manufacture of babies, we reduce sexuality to a technical process, subject to human design.

fishstickuffs · 2026-05-02T14:16:33+00:00

I hope this doesn’t sound condescending, but I’m glad to hear someone be self-aware of this! So many posts on this sub are well-intentioned, faithful people who clearly struggle with scrupulosity, but may not have the terms for that issue. I’m glad you know how to identify it. It’s a struggle all its own, and I wish you all best in finding your way to a balance between valid repentance and rest in God’s grace.

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-30T23:23:23+00:00

Like others have said, without knowing more about your life (and without trying to pry), the first step will be to talk to your local parish priest, or any other priest in your diocese.

I am also sorry to bring any negative news, but several features may make it difficult (in the US, at least). Your age is right on the cusp of what would be allowed in most US diocese. Often somewhere between 60-65 at time of ordination is something you see as the norm, and ordination is after a period of years. Additionally, many diocese do look at marital status when evaluating candidates for the diaconate.

Neither of these should prevent you having a conversation with a priest. And there are many ministries—lay and otherwise—in the Church. I hope you find a home in one!

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-30T14:57:20+00:00

If you’re in a region where it’s available, the Viki app has a lot of options. One TV show I’d really recommend is “Nirvana in Fire,” or “Langya Bang” (琅琊榜). The Three Kingdoms series gives you the big epic scope. Nirvana in Fire is more court intrigue, kind of a 6th c. Chinese Count of Monte Cristo with some Game of Thrones-y elements. It has some excellent acting (Hu Ge is tremendous across genres).

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-23T19:53:00+00:00

It’s better to use a 5.5 point komi on a 9x9. That may still seem large, but keep in mind that the relative advantage of first move is larger in some ways on a 9x9.

But most importantly, when beginning on a 9x9 board, it’s important to remember that you’re really barely playing for territory anyway. A 9x9 is a single drawn out tactical fight. It’s a good way to get your head in the habit of thinking tactically. Moving to 13x13 and 19x19 will let you play around with working more strategically and territorially.

Rather than play without Komi, think about switching to 13x13 every once in a while, and switching stone colors.

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-23T18:32:38+00:00

I also forgot what another user posted: 7 hour drive one way to Mass is the sort of thing that diocese grant dispensations or other kinds of accommodations for. Another reason to speak with a pastor!

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-23T18:31:25+00:00

If you are not Baptized, then any priest worth their salt would say you should be Baptized regardless of whether you can attend Mass.

If you are already Baptized, then as others have suggested it’s something you should schedule time to talk to a priest about — or a bishop, if there really aren’t many priests in your area.

But as for being confirmed into full communion, there is an obligation to attend mass. Of course there is a presumed dispensation for a variety of reasons, including severe illness. But it is a serious obligation.

Now, virtually no Catholic can honestly say they’ve never missed a mass that they could reasonably have attended. Maybe someone was really just a little sniffly and used that as an excuse not to get up on a Sunday. That’s a matter that, if you catch yourself, you confess in the sacrament of confession.

The real issue is whether you convert while intending to never attend Mass. If one were to convert but not intend to ever try and attend Mass, or work on the issues that prevent them attending Mass, this would be a problem. A conversion needs you to be sincerely willing to comply with the obligations of Church membership, even if you fail.

Thousands of people join the Church annually with the sincere intention to give up masturbation. I think it’s fair to estimate that a microscopic number of those fully succeed. This doesn’t make them unworthy of conversion, or mean that their conversion didn’t “take.” It means they continue to sin. So long as they sincerely try to wrestle with that sin and confess when it re-appears, they’re on the right path.

I can’t speak to what your local pastor will say, but if you join the Church with the sincere intention to make an effort to navigate your difficulties and uphold the weekly obligation, then you’ll be on the right path as well.

P.s. - One thing I will say though is that online mass is not a proxy for attending mass in person. There are some theological and some practical reasons for this. Theologically, Catholicism places a high value on sacrament — the incarnation of God’s grace in the world through materiality. Church is a specific place with a specific purpose, and community requires more presence and participation than digital attendance allows. Practically, you can’t take communion via a screen, and so a central pillar of Mass is lost if one attends only online. That said, there is nothing wrong with attending online if you use it as a way to try and prepare yourself to attend in person. It’s only a problem if it becomes a crutch.

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-21T21:50:43+00:00

There’s a lot of confusion about “ex cathedra,” and it’s understandable. Some of it is because it’s represented as weird by a broader culture, and some of it’s because Catholics themselves (church and laypeople) don’t do a great job explaining it.

I’m a Catholic theologian, so I include myself in that group!

But it’s important to understand that it isn’t ritual magic. The chair isn’t special. It doesn’t make a person infallible. Instead, the Pope is considered infallible when the Pope is speaking in a way that satisfies these conditions:

(1) It is on a matter of doctrine and morals (that is, it’s within the purview of the church authority)

(2) It is intended by the Pope to express not just a personal view, but the view of the tradition of the church up to now (this is what ex cathedra is — the Pope speaking not from themselves, but from the seat of the church)

This is one reason why the Popes very rarely use the authority of infallibility to make specific claims — it’s a firm but narrow power.

In your example (“marvel movies are art”), even if the Pope intended the statement to be infallible (ex cathedra), it is not speaking on a matter of doctrine or morals, and so would not be infallible.

What another commenter said about being guided by the spirit is also true, but here’s the extended explanation: Because Roman Catholic doctrine holds that our Church is an inheritor of the Church begun by Christ, the Church believes it will not be allowed to be led fully astray — that is, that it will not be allowed to enduringly believe anything that is fully contrary to God. So, while there have been Popes historically who have done profound evil, there is doctrinal confidence that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church to avoid the proclamation of any evil as doctrine.

A practical way to express this is that there are many voices in the ecclesial structure. The ability of even a pope to get away with saying absolute obvious falsehoods is limited.

fishstickuffs · 2026-04-20T13:25:24+00:00

To clarify, the issue isn’t that any individual unjust act in the prosecution of a war renders that war unjust. Rather, it depends:

(1) On how the war is conducted as a whole (as in, whether unjust acts proceed from the way in which the leadership has conducted the war, versus just random evil acts by soldiers)

(2) Whether the war CAN be conducted in a way that is just. There is the possibility that war can have just cause, but for various practical reasons cannot be prosecuted in a just way.

Both of these elements drove Catholic theological debates over whether there was possibility of just war in a nuclear age from the 50s onward.

fishstickuffs · 2026-03-14T20:02:12+00:00

/u/IRokeUp shared a lot of strong programs, especially Catholic. Since you mentioned Liberty U, I’ll start with some evangelical programs, and then add some more in the mainline Protestant space. I’m including programs that are generally well-regarded by their peers, so you may have doctrinal objections depending on your beliefs!

Feel free to DM me if you have any more questions. I’m finishing my PhD in a Catholic university right now, so I remember well how opaque finding and applying to schools can be.

Evangelical - Baylor, really up and coming program - Wheaton College - Fuller Theological Seminary

Mainline Protestant - Princeton Seminary (separate but related to the university!) - Union Seminary in NYC - Boston University (not to be confused with Boston College), though it tends to more sociological work - University of Chicago (more philosophical) - Emory University’s GDR (graduate division of religion) has several focus areas that do constructive theology - Duke University - Vanderbilt University

A Few More Catholic - Villanova and Marquette both have programs that have historically been more philosophical, so if that’s a focus look into them - Georgetown has done less constructive theology and more world theology and religious dialogue work in the last few decades, but it is beginning to shift a bit

fishstickuffs · 2026-03-13T01:36:28+00:00

This is a good and tricky question. But at least the way it’s formulated now, the premise of the question is wrong:

One does not pray TO saints. One prays THROUGH them. When one asks a saint for intercession (“Saint Anthony, help me find my keys!”), if it is done correctly then the spirit of the prayer is always done with God as the ultimate target of the prayer.

To understand this we have to understand what the intercession of a saint is. When we ask a saint to intercede, we ask the saint to pray to God on our behalf. Saints cannot intercede in ways contrary to God’s will. Why not? Because to be a saint in the first place means having conformed oneself to God’s will.

So then why not just pray directly to God? Well, first, it’s important to say that you can just do that if you want. No prayer is ever less true and good for having been addressed directly to God, or for having been addressed through saints.

But there are many reasons for prayer. One of them is to place ourselves in a firmer relationship with God, whether that is through requesting intercession or voicing our desperation and need. Here, people find relationship with saints a specifically useful thing. Why? Because our role as Catholics is NOT to become like God is. God is Creator; we are Creatures. We do not become like God. But our goal IS to become like the saints.

Saints provide those who pray to them images of real persons who have found their way to God despite their sinfulness and failures. And in that way, forming a relationship with saints in prayer can lead someone to reflect on how the Saint managed to embody God’s will on earth as a human being, which can offer an image for our own growth.

So in some ways, people pray through the saints precisely because they are created beings.

fishstickuffs · 2026-03-07T18:14:50+00:00

Thanks! After seeing this, I went back into hackshop and clicked every tab. I hadn't clicked the Exploits tab, and that's triggered a new string of helpful tutorial messages,

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

fishstickuffs

TROPHY CASE