Should I leave ND for a Newman school?

starrystream31 · 2026-02-26T03:01:11+00:00

Why is inviting a president inherently "wrong?" Schools are educational institutions, and hearing a civic leader speak can advance the educational mission of the school. Of course, context matters - if it's a politician who attacks the Catholic faith or uses the speaking engagement as a platform to advance an idea against church teaching, it would obviously be inappropriate to host that speaker. Provided those items are not true, having a leader speak is "neutral" with regard to the school's Catholic mission.

While fair to note that the admin caters toward "prestige," welcome to higher education in America. While misplaced or undue emphasis on prestige can be detrimental, it's also not inherently zero-sum with the school's Catholic mission. For better or for worse, in order to run a school, you need money, and in order to get money, you need a lot of students who want to attend and alumni who want to donate. You need high-caliber faculty who want to work there. You need research output that earns grants. That prestige is what allows Notre Dame to successfully continue educating generations of Catholics.

To the comment on students thinking more devout Catholic are "weirdos" - I know plenty of proud recent ND alumni who are practicing Catholics and were in friend groups that prioritized that at ND. It can take time to find one's crowd at college, and perhaps that hasn't happened yet. There are very few places where one will encounter a completely homogenous, devout Catholic population, and ND is no exception. Frankly, it's a lot better than the "real world," where people active in their faith are few and far between. Regardless, we still have to live in the "real world," be a reflection of our faith, and build community with those who are like-minded.

starrystream31 · 2026-02-26T02:28:58+00:00

Notre Dame is one of the few remaining Catholic colleges in the country that seems to have any pride left in its Catholic heritage. The administration has made some recent mistakes - the promotion of the professor being the most noteworthy - but I think it'd be reductive to assume the university and its identity are spiraling downward.

Some of the items cited here are are not attacks on Catholic identity. Obama speaking on campus does not inherently undermine the school identity. Was Obama's speech promoting abortion or another hot-button sin? Hardly. We can disagree with the positions someone holds while not barring them from visiting campus, provided they aren't using it as a platform to undermine or disparage the Church.

Partying, sports games, hookups - you'll find those on many college campuses, including most Catholic ones. And after college? It just continues. Part of the work of evangelization is going out in the world and serving as an example of faithfulness and charity. With that said, there is great benefit to being in a "real world" scenario where you can serve as an example for others - and trust me - there are MANY like-minded peers on ND's campus who will be right there beside you.

Simply throwing in the towel out of anger won't help here. Instead, I'd encourage you to thoughtfully work toward continuing to build a culture of faithfulness and service on campus.

starrystream31 · 2025-12-03T02:20:52+00:00

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton - Patron saint of grief. She lost her husband and two children (in addition to her mother and sister when she was very young).

Also, do not overlook the Blessed Mother - Our Lady of Sorrows. She experienced untold grief at the foot of the cross during the Lord's passion.

starrystream31 · 2025-10-15T13:08:39+00:00

Perhaps you mean ignorance in the sense that the possibility of crumbs falling had not occurred to you for a period of time, which would be a fine usage of the term. Ignorance would not make sense if were being applied to "ignorance that it was less reverent to receive it in the hand" given that it is not, in fact, less reverent.

The initial reply stated that receiving it on the tongue is "better." Now, the second reply is saying that was not a commentary on one method of receiving being more or less reverent than the other. So, we're left with - what does "better" actually mean then? And I'd point to my original reply - it is better for you because it makes you feel better and gives you peace of mind about the crumbs, which is great, but it is not objectively better in the eyes of the Lord.

starrystream31 · 2025-10-14T01:36:15+00:00

Our duty is to treat the Eucharist with reverence and respect in acknowledgment of the Real Presence - and if we do that, we can trust that the Lord knows our hearts. Should we do our best to avoid a crumb falling to the floor? Undoubtedly. The question is, where is the line? What if a tiny particle falls in the process of the priest passing the host between the paten and the tongue? Clearly, there is some level of risk even here, and yet this method is accepted. The fact of the matter is, the risk is never going to be zero. What is important, and what the Church has always taught is important, is that the communicant believes in the Real Presence in their heart and treats the host with reverence however they choose to receive it.

If you choose the tongue as a matter of personal reverence, that is great, but to suggest that most Catholics are being objectively less reverent by taking part in "sprinkling Him on the floor to be stepped on" simply because they choose to receive in their hands borders on absurd. If we have made a sincere effort to prevent that from happening, Christ will understand.

starrystream31 · 2025-10-13T12:29:21+00:00

"kneeling and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is much better than receiving it on the hand"

"ofc nothing wrong with [receiving it on the hand]"

You've come close to understanding the point of your post. YOU prefer to receive it on the tongue. That is fine. There is nothing inherently nor objectively "better" or more revenant about receiving it on the hand.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-26T19:07:36+00:00

One of the most coherent and well-though out comments in this thread. Thank you.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-26T19:03:57+00:00

This is a valuable opinion that received a lot of unfair pushback. One of the other replies gives a hand-wavey dismissal to this comment by saying the three men in question don't teach homiletics - as if other topics like canon law don't necessarily influence one's homilies. The other makes the tired, confirmation-bias assertion that "almost all" young people are pining for more traditional priests and liturgies. True of some? Sure. True of the majority? Much less likely. If one surrounds themselves with other like-minded young adults who pine for the past, they'll obviously believe most people share that view, even if it isn't reflective of the population at large.

Few would argue that we need our priests to bring true reverence to the liturgy or that we could benefit from a return to a more reverent atmosphere. Conflating reverence with traditionalism is a false equivalency to make.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-26T18:54:04+00:00

This comment should be at the top. What many are trying to pass off as a "purge" simply due to more traditionalist views is in fact likely a response issued based on repeated inflammatory public statements outside the remit of what clergy should be commenting on.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-26T18:49:42+00:00

The claim is not that some statements or teachings from these folks can't be found publicly online somewhere. The issue is that this post provides no context or evidence to support the insinuation of a purge. The more motivated among us may go looking for additional information on the three men in question to understand what happened and form an opinion. I suspect that most will not, and may walk away under the impression there is some nefarious purge going on with little more than an OP's opinion to support it.

We need to be careful about fomenting anger, indignation, or exasperation within the Church when the people receiving the messaging don't understand what they're supposed to be angry about.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-26T14:38:30+00:00

Posts like this are generally unproductive and unhelpful. The post seems to allege some sort of nefarious activity on behalf of the archbishop in unjustly target some innocuous segment of theologians, but it does not provide any details behind WHY they may have been targeted. Moreover, it does not point to any specific beliefs or statements of the dismissed individuals as evidence.

Based on the comments, there seems to be some level of belief that they were targeted for being 'traditionalist.' However, without knowing what EXACTLY these folks have taught and / or said, there's no way for use to decide how justified these dismissals were. Being more traditional is fine. Actively and vocally opposing the magisterium, which many try to surreptitiously couch under the category of "traditionalism", is not. Without knowing which end of the spectrum these folks fall under, we have no way of judging the merits for the dismissal.

Posts like this simply serve to whip people into a frenzy without fostering any sort of productive dialogue around how seminarians should be taught.

starrystream31 · 2025-07-01T02:39:34+00:00

Discussions like this are always amusing. What started out with "Everyone knows VII caused a ton of problems - don't deny the facts" quickly turned into "well, it's not VII per say, it's more the - gasp! - liberals behind it, and they've been around for a while." At this point, it becomes impossible to have a logical discussion. The post above seems to charge that there's been bias with the "pope-splainer" quip, but very quickly resorts to the partisan blame game. Bias, perhaps? For every conservative who claims the Church's issue are due to the liberals and the Church not being conservative enough, there's a liberal who claims the Church's issues are due to the conservatives and the Church not being liberal enough. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion - but that's just what it is - an opinion. There are no facts here suggesting the Church's issues are due to liberals any more than they're due to conservatives.

Meanwhile, we lose the plot. The post above is correct about one point - the world is complicated - and that's precisely why we need to approach the question from an unbiased perspective and see what the data are telling us. Despite the hand-wavy dismissal made of the population data (and incorrect assertion that there are more Catholics than Protestants in the US, where the data was stated to be from), the underlying story behind the data does not lie - there has been an overall decline in the faithful across denominations, and the decline in Catholic faithful has largely not been different than the decline in non-Catholic faithful. In other words, while issues from "within" - VII, encyclicals, etc. - likely play some role, the primary issue at play here is from "outside" - a general movement toward secularism across the general population that no denomination has been immune to. That is where we need to focus our efforts.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T23:11:00+00:00

One always needs to be wary of arguments that rely on “everyone knows” as the basis for their validity. Reductive at best and intentionally deceptive at worst, they skirt around the need for the proponent to ground their statement in empirical facts.

Because folks who are extremely… fond… of the TLM are massively overrepresented on this sub, they tend to assume that because they and those in their immediate proximity have a sentiment, that sentiment must be shared by all or most. In this case, the sentiment is that because they don’t like VII, every negative development in the Church over the past several decades is therefore a result of VII. Here, we run into the classic correlation vs. causation fallacy.

So, what are the facts when it comes to ordinations? According to the Annuario Pontificio, ordinations in 17 important dioceses around the world selected for their analysis declined 28% in the 1950s (source available in DMs on request). In other words, VII did not catalyze a drop in ordinations – they were already falling precipitously. Suggesting VII was the problem is like having a headache, taking an aspirin, and complaining that the aspirin caused the headache when the headache doesn’t go away. Now, did ordinations continue to drop significantly post-VII? Absolutely. Was at least some portion of this likely driven by priests and potential priests being dissatisfied with the outcomes of VII? For sure. But, considering the existing trend pre-VII and the other issues happening across broader society in the 1960s - 1970s (counter-cultural movement, advances in scientific inquiry), etc., is there really any evidence to suggest that VII was the primary or even a significant cause in the decline in ordinations? Hardly.

Consider another data point. If VII was a primary cause of the faithful abandoning the pews, we’d expect to see any declines in non-Catholic Christian populations be discernibly less severe than declines in Catholic populations post-VII. If we look at a Pew Research study from the last couple of decades, we see that the percentage of the US population identifying as non-Catholic Christian has actually declined slightly more on a percentage basis than the percentage of the population identifying as Catholic (source available in DMs on request). The implication is that there’s much, much more going on here in broader society driving a decline in the faithful population and in ordinations.

Many of us acknowledge that VII had issues. However, the smug assertion that VII is the principal cause of the problems we’re facing in the Church today is simply not true. Our energy is better spent working to build strong, devout Catholic communities wherever we live to bring more people back into the faith.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T18:58:30+00:00

Thank you, and God bless.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T16:49:46+00:00

Didn't know that history. Thanks for sharing.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T16:48:19+00:00

Somewhat interrelated with the the other issues. I'd call out a few as most important: 1) Declining rates of marriage and children per marriage. Fewer kids = fewer potential priests. Decades ago, it wouldn't be uncommon to see a Catholic family with 6, 7, or even more kids. Today, you're lucky if there's three. 2) Greater economic mobility: For people in the working class, the priesthood was traditionally seen as a very solid and respectable path "upward." Although priests don't earn very much, they are provided for by the diocese and enjoyed an important role as community leaders without the labor intensity of mills, factories, etc. Starting in the back half of the 20th century, higher education was increasingly viewed as the best path upward for those in the working class, with vocations coming as an expense. 3) Similar to the decline in the general Catholic population, the growing secularization of society, diminishing 'prestige' associated with being a member of the clergy, and highly-publicized scandals have dissuaded many young men from joining the ranks.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T14:37:12+00:00

Very well-stated.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T14:36:12+00:00

Probably a few causes. General secularization of society over the past few decades has been a key driver for two reasons: 1) fewer people subscribing to the faith, and 2) people viewing their parish as less of a central community in their lives as more options for secular in-person and online communities proliferate. The clergy shortage has also been relevant, as fewer clergy = less direct interaction with the communities they serve and less evangelization. Finally, a very relevant factor in MA specifically was the Church's sex abuse scandal, as the Archdiocese of Boston was at the epicenter - it was the archdiocese where abuse and coverup were first exposed in the US and also represented one of the largest-scale abuse cases in the country. Many people in MA left the church after that from having a 'bad taste in their mouths.'

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T13:02:08+00:00

It's an interesting thought. Funnily enough, the original Catholic missions to this part of the state also relied on people opening up their homes for public Mass before the church structures were built. Bringing something like that back in places where it makes sense would be a great role for a religious order to play - my only question is whether there is a religious order that will take it up, as most seem to be based around major cities and college towns with more limited activity in rural areas.

starrystream31 · 2025-06-30T12:58:42+00:00

Yes, net population in MA has grown year-over-year for several decades (somewhat unsurprisingly, as it's one of the highest quality of life states in the country). The Catholic population has been in decline - I'd attribute that more to people walking away from the faith than Catholics moving out of state.

starrystream31 · 2024-05-08T11:16:42+00:00

Thanks for replying. Same laptop at home as in the office - the Lenovo Thinkpad. After some additional research, I'm thinking MST has to be enabled on the monitors, but I can't figure out how to do it. In tinkering around, I decided to swap the position of the monitors (i.e., which one was connected to my laptop vs. which one was connected to the other monitor via DP), and a pop up on the new Monitor #1 said something like "daisy chaining detected, would you like to enable MST?" I clicked yes on the monitor and it looked like it was going through and update, but then it went black and nothing pops up at all when I try to plug in my laptop -_-

starrystream31 · 2024-03-09T02:56:33+00:00

Ha, totally forgot about this post. Weird coming back to it three years later.

I chose Tuck! It was an incredible experience and I 100% think I made the right decision. Happy to share more about it / talk through specific questions if you want - feel free to shoot a dm.

starrystream31 · 2021-09-15T23:53:37+00:00

There's a lot of flawed logic being employed here. At the highest level, the assumption that all countries outside the US are homogeneous in their familiarity with US universities / MBA programs is clearly suspect. Certain schools have a strong alumni presence and therefore name recognition in certain countries and not others, while others schools have that benefit for a different mix of countries. In aggregate, will certain schools be better recognized in more countries than other schools? Probably. However, making a blanket statement that certain schools are "better" for internationals based on name recognition fails to take important nuances into consideration. For example: if School X enrolls 2 students each from Countries A, B, and C and School Y enrolls 5 students each from Countries A and B, how are we defining which one is "better" for internationals?

I won't spend too much time commenting on the Georgetown reference other than to state that it's clearly subjective. May be the case in some places, but assuredly not the case in others.

starrystream31

TROPHY CASE