Category Archives: Science-Fiction

An Agrarian hope through Catholicpunk?

At the root of The Catholicpunk Manifesto is the notion that the contemporary world has lost its way and needs redirecting. Jesus Christ is “The Way, the Truth, and the Life,” and He established the Catholic Church to promulgate and defend His teachings, all with the idea of guiding souls to Heaven. Therefore, the Catholicpunk Movement that will hopefully arise from the book is one method by which Catholic creatives will participate in that mission.

All Catholic Christians are called to evangelize. It springs forth from our Baptism and especially from our Confirmation. We are to be ‘Christ-bearers’ to others. 

As I said in this earlier post:

It’s one thing to preach the Gospel by talking about Jesus; it has worked successfully for 2,000 years. But there are additional avenues that the Catholic evangelist can walk down in attempting to convert the world for Jesus.

One method is creating a fictional world that is in marked contrast to our own. I have a belief, unsure where I got it, it might be an actual Original Thought, or it might be derived from someone else, that technology is a sign of a Fallen world. We read in Genesis 3 that Adam and his descendants have to work by the sweat of their brow. Before this, theologians had thought that Adam and Eve were people who had their needs met by God. They didn’t have to ‘work’ for their food. They dwelt in Paradise and had it easy. But that was spoiled by their rebellion and henceforth people have to struggle to meet their needs.

Society is rushing headlong into deeper decadence and depravity; these were motivating factors in my writing the book. And I do not think that the fact that our technology is also developing at an exponential rate is just a coincidence. Technology is not evil in itself; it’s just a  tool. And since Adam after the Fall needed tools to meet his and Eve’s needs, tools have been part and parcel of our march down through the millennia. Often for good; but often for evil. But always to make life easier in response to its difficulties. And this may have moral or immoral qualities. 

Rather than continue in this post on technological development, I’ll switch to the “creating a fictional world that is in marked contrast to our own” point I mentioned earlier. 

While we will probably never return to an idyllic agrarian past, except perhaps as a highly positive or proactive response to a post-apocalyptic scenario, we could take the example of JRR Tolkien’s Shire, and create stories set in an ‘idealized’ non-technological world. While not practically advocating such a future, (except for the post-apocalyptic idea in the previous sentence) creating an idealistic, hopeful setting, and providing therapy for contemporary folk, can at the same time offer radical solutions or alternatives to contemporary problems. How? Have you ever heard the advice about “aim for the highest, so that if you miss, you’ll still land higher than if you settled on a lower target?” That isn’t the exact wording, I searched and kept coming up with Andrew Carnegie quotes and other non-relevant things like song lyrics. But you get the idea. “Don’t sell yourself short,” is another way of putting it. Now, take that concept and extend it to society and culture as a whole. Fundamental problems require radical solutions. Aspiring to create a slower, more peaceful, and humane world by intentionally limiting technology may get people to take a look around and give pause to advancing ever further towards a dehumanizing future. A more balanced society, with technology being responsibly developed with due regard for morality, ethics, and maintaining our essential humanity.

This can be attempted with agrarian fiction, be it science-fiction or fantasy. If you say that science-fiction cannot be ‘agrarian,’ then your perception is biased or you never read Clifford Simak and pastoral science-fiction. One of the definitions of science-fiction that I read when I was growing up and reading Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and so on was something like it is ‘humanity’s response to the advances in science and technology.’ So, what if that response to science and technology was to rein it in? And so this is a perfect concept for Catholicpunkers.

This is a continuation of the previous post, “Peter Maurin and Catholicpunking” and develops it a bit.

Are you a creative Catholic? "The Catholicpunk Manifesto" is my new book exhorting Catholics to apply their faith to change the culture for the better!

Know someone, perhaps yourself, who might like Catholic devotionals for alcoholics? Please take a look at my books! "The Stations of the Cross for Alcoholics" and "The Recovery Rosary: Reflections for Alcoholics and Addicts" (Thank you!!)

So, what is ‘Catholicpunk’ and what’s a Catholicpunker?

And thus begins a series of posts on who is a Catholicpunker what Catholicpunk is! 

A Catholicpunker is someone who Catholicpunks. Essentially, you are a creative Catholic who believes that there is something seriously wrong with the world and you believe that the Catholic Faith has the answer. After all, Jesus is ‘The Way, the Truth, and the Life,” and He established the Catholic Church to shepherd the world on its way Home to the Lord.

And so you wish to evangelize. Then it hits you: “I can evangelize through my art!” Therefore, you begin to infuse your art with Catholic teachings. It could be easy if you’re a writer of fiction or you make movies and television shows (any type of fiction or filmed stories). Create a world that reflects the doctrines of the Church. There’s the Beatitudes, the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy. There’s an entire economic theory that’s founded on Papal writings: Distributism. There are numerous Catholic political theories: Subsidiarity, Solidarity, Christian Democracy (which incorporates Subsidiarity, Solidarity, and Distributism), and even Catholic Monarchism! Whether you create contemporary dramas or veil your Catholicpunking plans in fantasy or science-fiction, it doesn’t matter. 

But you show via the written word or visual images an alternative to the craziness abounding today. You Catholicpunk. It’s one thing to preach the Gospel by talking about Jesus; it has worked successfully for 2,000 years. But there are additional avenues that the Catholic evangelist can walk down in attempting to convert the world for Jesus. Expressing a Christian culture through art isn’t new, but I think it’s time that we ‘ramp it up’ a lot and engage people that way!

If you engage in other forms of art, I’ll address that in another post soon!

Are you a creative Catholic? "The Catholicpunk Manifesto" is my new book exhorting Catholics to apply their faith to change the culture for the better!

Know someone, perhaps yourself, who might like Catholic devotionals for alcoholics? Please take a look at my books! "The Stations of the Cross for Alcoholics" and "The Recovery Rosary: Reflections for Alcoholics and Addicts" (Thank you!!)

Through Nothing to the Infinite: How an Atheist Lead me to God

An atheist leads me towards belief in God during a tumultuous time in my life through his use of vivid storytelling within a deeply imaginative universe.

It begs the question of, “How can a non-believer help someone to believe?” 

Saints and spiritual writers often say that God can bring good out of evil. Evil is not just found in such actions as abortion, genocide, or slavery, but when any personal will opposes the Divine, however minor the act is. Atheism is that kind, ranging from mere unthinking disbelief to the more militant. God wills us to know and love him; atheists reject that will. I am not sure where in that range J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the 1990s sci-fi TV show, “Babylon 5,” falls. He had a Catholic background but strayed from belief somewhere along the way. One episode of his “Babylon 5” drilled me to the floor with its consideration of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. “Passing Through Gethsemane” (S3E4) made me look at Christ’s Agony in the Garden from a perspective that treated it not as some pious event memorialized in the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, but a reality to enter into so as to ponder how your actions might manifest themselves.

Straczynski is an atheist, yet he treated religious belief with a respect at variance with today’s atheists. He regarded religion as being part of the human condition serving as an excellent vehicle to explore it.

In “Passing Through Gethsemane,” a guest character, Brother Edward, (played by Brad Dourif,) is a monk dwelling on Babylon 5 with other members of his order. He has a past, which I won’t reveal for fear of spoiling the show. (Although the episode aired in 1995, streaming services enable new fans to discover the series regularly. If you already know Babylon 5, then you know about this episode.) In it, he is asked by Ambassador Delenn (played by Mira Furlan,) “What is the defining moment of your belief….the emotional core…?” Edward replies with the background on Gethsemane, and specifically that Jesus knew what was going to happen to him. In a moment of weakness, he prayed for the cup to pass from him, so he would be spared the pain of what was to come, including death. But of course, he wouldn’t be spared and he’d be arrested. Edward continues with an emphasis that Jesus didn’t have to be there when the soldiers arrived to arrest him, that he could have left and postponed the inevitable for a few hours or even days. But Jesus knew what would happen and stayed anyway. Brother Edward concludes that he honestly doesn’t know if he would have had the courage to stay.

When I first saw that episode, that latter part blew my mind. “Seriously,” I thought, “does anyone actually look at a Biblical event and personally connect it to their life? As in, what they might do if they were there and then build their faith life from that? Everyone thinks that if they were back in Jesus’ days they’d of course follow him unhesitatingly and would never be in the crowd screaming ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ But, to seriously meditate upon a specific event, dwell on it, and make it the ‘defining moment’ and the ‘emotional core’ of their faith life?”

Perhaps a digression into what my ‘emotional core’ was like at the time. I was ‘raised Catholic’ but left the Faith nearly ten years earlier. My prayers about some complicated desperate situations weren’t answered. I also coincidentally fell prey to some atheistic and libertarian science fiction novels that convinced me organized religion was a sham and a means of exercising mass control over the populace. So I left, and life immediately got better. So much for religion. (But I never became an atheist. I did flirt with libertarianism, though.) Flash forward to how I was when “Passing Through Gethsemane” aired and you’ll read a different story. Life had gotten progressively worse. I had relocated from across the country to escape some more complicated desperate situations (these had the habit of following me) and my ‘emotional core’ meant that drinking was defining my moments. Capt. Morgan and Jose Cuervo were my saviors; here I am being mind-struck by some monk wondering if he would have had the courage to stay in Gethsemane and await the soldiers to take him to his execution. Me, who defined courage by how skillfully I can smuggle bottles into the house.

You’re probably thinking that this TV episode changed my life right then and I found a priest, went to confession, and resumed participating in the life of the Church. No. Reversion was still a few years off. But seeds were planted that started growing, eventually bearing fruit later on.

The crux of this is that faith powers a spiritual life. What I learned from that episode, ironically written by an atheist, is that for faith to have meaning it has to grip you by the scruff of your neck, shake you up and down, and demand that it be lived and taken seriously. The kind of faith that inspires people to willingly sacrifice their lives, not the faux faith that attends Mass whenever they feel like it, or sets it aside when it proves inconvenient to their political or business choices. The latter kind is mental pablum designed to make you excuse your sins and feel good about yourself.

That was in marked contrast to the faith that I had. In the years before I left the Church, my Catholicism was broad but not deep. It couldn’t have done what Brother Edward did; intimately apply some event to my own life to create an emotional core that defined it. 

A faith that defines your emotional core such as what drove Brother Edward to contemplate his place in Gethsemane fosters the willingness to firmly plant your feet and say, “This is what I am about, regardless of the passing fancies of society or what the neighbor’s think. This is me, my self-defined ‘I AM.’” It confronts the crucial significance of belief and its consequences. This is the willingness to face down death; literal death or just those things which challenge you or can kill your soul. But perhaps more importantly, that drawing from this power and courage means you have the willingness to be a transformative force in the society around you in a manner best suited to your unique talents. 

That may have been what Brother Edward was wondering. Not only the literal, “If I was in Gethsemane, would I have…,” but in drawing from that would he have had the courage to face everything challenging him, both personal and external.

These are challenges everyone faces, and an atheist started me on the way.

Are you a creative Catholic? "The Catholicpunk Manifesto" is my new book exhorting Catholics to apply their faith to change the culture for the better!

Know someone, perhaps yourself, who might like Catholic devotionals for alcoholics? Please take a look at my books! "The Stations of the Cross for Alcoholics" and "The Recovery Rosary: Reflections for Alcoholics and Addicts" (Thank you!!)

Two theories on the Ending of the World

OK. I have a theory about stuff going on today. Two theories, really.

I just watched an episode of Star Trek: Voyager which offers an explanation in support of my theories. The episode is entitled “The Voyager Conspiracy.” (S6E9) In it Seven of Nine modifies her regeneration alcove with Borg technology so she can process massive amounts of information (crew reports, sensor data, blah blah.) Nice idea, it can make things more efficient in the long run for the crew. Her ability to process and interpret the data results in Seven uncovering several plots, secret missions and such like from over the previous 5 years.

{{{ SPOILER ALERT, PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK even though the episode dates from 1999, there may be n00bs discovering the series from DVD collections or streaming services.}}}

She confronts others regarding her findings which causes problems in itself. In the end she discerns a conspiracy against her, which she tries to terminate by escaping and if need be, killing herself.

Problem is, it’s all bunk. There were no conspiracies (although there never was any explanation as to why Voyager was carrying tri-cobalt devices, which are non-standard Starfleet Issue, nor who was aiming a tractor beam at the Caretaker array while it was being destroyed five years ago and what were they doing with it.) Anyhow, it turns out that although the Borg technology in her alcove was working perfectly, she was incapable of processing and interpreting the data properly. Her Borg pride would never admit to that. She subconsciously tried to make sense of the whole mess by seeing patterns, connections, circumstantial evidence and so forth and drew erroneous conclusions from this. In short, the information she received was too complicated for her and she tried to make sense of it and the only way she could do that was to reframe it all into compact, concise theories that “explain it all.” These are typically known as “conspiracy theories.”

I know that one common explanation for conspiracy theories is that people who cannot cope with complicated systems such as modern civilization create theories to make sense out of it all. It’s a coping mechanism. They need to make sense of things and reduce complicated systems to a simpler, sensible reality. Which is wrong, one doesn’t actually need to make sense of things. People can just leave things be and worry about their own life and what they need to deal with. But conspiracy theories help them do that because they can “connect the dots” of circumstantial patterns, etc., and this makes life understandable.

I think the Internet is at fault. Humanity has megabagazillions of bytes of data out there in the form of websites that have stuff on all sorts of things. News is no longer available on TV for just a half hour in the evening. Even with 24 hour cable news channels, you could still somewhat cope. But now… with all-this-stuff out there, it’s a supermassive information overload. Also, there is no vetting process controlling what information is brought online; sheesh, even I have two blogs. See how screwy the system is? You’re reading one now that I don’t use much (although I’d like to change that). So humanity has become overwhelmed with information, some good, some ridiculously dumb. But there’s a lot of it. Our educational systems haven’t been up to the task in inculcating critical thinking skills to assist us in sorting out the crud from the cream.

Result: conspiracy theories have become mainstream. Alex Jones and his InfoWars are almost as credible as a “mainstream” news site. I’m not insulting either; I do think InfoWars is onto something, sometimes, and the mainstream sites are… well…. Anyway, satire news sites are often mistaken for real news. Really, now people, what’s the matter with you?

GIGO: Garbage in – Garbage out. The quality of the interpretation of data is only as good as the data coming into the system that is doing the interpreting as well as the ability of that system to interpret it. Lots of data coming in (good or bad) + too much of it + poor interpretation + poor coping = disaster. There you have it. Look outside and see what is going on in our culture. Essentially, we are self-destructing and performing a self-lobotomy. How much of the crap going on is Internet-driven? We cannot handle the information overload and we’re going nuts.

I said that I had two theories. That was one. Here’s the other: I said that, “the Internet is at fault.” I think the Internet was introduced decades, if not a century or so, before we could be ready for it. I think that was planned as a means of wiping humanity from the Earth by aliens without them having to fire a shot. We would destroy ourselves in a non-nuclear manner. Ever wonder why the Internet and the “World Wide Web” came after the Cold War ended and after we backed significantly away from irradiating the planet in a nuclear war? That would have rendered the planet uninhabitable; the aliens couldn’t have that! So they secretly plant the idea of the Internet in the side most likely to make the best use of it, the capitalistic West. This would enable them to better coordinate military development, technologies and such and eventually defeat the Communist Bloc. Even the Apollo Lunar Landing program was a side project of the aliens. Knowing from their own history the positive economic benefits of space technology, this would propel the West to advance much faster than the East, which would collapse in the economic rivalry, and nuclear war is avoided. Ever wonder why we only went up there to collect a few rocks and whack a few golf balls and then just come home? The aliens wouldn’t want us to develop a space-faring culture, so they sabotaged it! Their only reason for the Apollo Program was that from it we could develop microcomputers, transistor radios, teflon and other things with which to beat the Russians into economic submission.

So the aliens inspired a few unsuspecting humans to develop the Internet, so that, along with the resulting massive economic uplift from it and the space program and all the derivative technologies, and the subsequent termination of the bipolar nuclear rivalry, Earth would be spared a nuclear war so that when they land, the planet could be livable for them. But still, how to get rid of the humans living there? Well, also drawing from their own history, they knew that if a culture develops a better means to distribute information and knowledge, along with improved methods for their people to assimilate and interpret that knowledge, a golden age of freedom, peace, love and understanding will result. But they couldn’t have that! So after one side defeated the other side in a peaceful Cold War/Economic rivalry, they would get someone to open the Internet up to the world at large while at the same time sabotaging any substantive educational reform so that human society will self-destruct. Incapable of dealing with the information overload, people will turn on each other, technological society will collapse, civilization will revert to barbarism, people who depend on “modern conveniences” will be unable to develop useful living skills and die off, the rest would just kill each other in blame games, sport or just rage and vengeance. There may be a few people left living in rural, primitive areas on all continents, but they’ll prove to be no opposition to when the aliens arrive. When they finally come and colonize the Earth, whatever human survivors that are left will be pushed aside and die off, much like the Cro-Magnon pushed aside and out-competed the Neanderthals in Europe to extinction.

This plan is a slow, decades-long process because it’ll take decades for them to travel here. They’re patient. But they’ll be arriving within a decade or two, if that! You’ll see!

Only one of these theories is serious.

Are you a creative Catholic? "The Catholicpunk Manifesto" is my new book exhorting Catholics to apply their faith to change the culture for the better!

Know someone, perhaps yourself, who might like Catholic devotionals for alcoholics? Please take a look at my books! "The Stations of the Cross for Alcoholics" and "The Recovery Rosary: Reflections for Alcoholics and Addicts" (Thank you!!)