Romana Sanders @romanasanders - Tumblr Blog

⛪️: I Talked to a Catholic Canon Lawyer About Sanders Sides

An Essay on SVSR/POF’s Perspectives on Catholic Morality

It’s as the title says, I promise it’s not clickbait. If you’re familiar with my fanfiction “the smallest church” or have read my previous posts about Patton and his Catholic foundations, you may already know that I know a thing or two about Catholic theology more than the average person. For context, I’ve lived in the Philippines my whole life, and the schools I’ve gone to, from highschool to college, have required their students to attend subjects about Catholic Theology, morality, etc.

Even if I don’t necessarily identify as Catholic anymore, I still pick up on a lot of Sanders Sides’ religious themes because of my upbringing. In fact, it surprises me a lot of people do not find the series as an exploration of one’s own Catholic trauma, because the basic structure of the sides (the “Light” Sides vs the “Dark” Sides) is a result from internalized black-and-white thinking, something most Catholics unconsciously believe in.

Patton, in general, is a fascinating, well-thought out character that encompasses the misinterpretation of Catholicism’s morals and principles. This is explored in the episode SVS.R/POF, wherein Patton was badgered on his different takes on various moral dilemmas. Because of this, I’ve decided to contact one of my professors in college to sit down and talk about Patton: what Patton gets right, and what Patton gets wrong.

More than anything, Patton, like Thomas, is a victim of what my professor calls “midwit-ery”. Instead of being taught to read into Catholic code in a more thoughtful manner, Catholics like Thomas are merely taught to listen to what is being told to him, no questions asked. So, take this essay not as an attack on Patton or Thomas, but rather a place to better understand why these misinterpretations of Catholic code happen in the first place, and how they manifest externally.

(TW's: Religious discussion, Catholic guilt and trauma, discussions of oppression, racism, and misogyny, discussions of self-esteem issues)

A. Black-and-White Thinking

Black-and-white thinking, the ill of this current generation. Black-and-white thinking specifically refers to an extremist way of perceiving what is “good” and “bad” wherein something can only be wholly one or the other at any given time. This is most infamous in cancel culture, wherein people “canceled” are often labeled as irredeemable, “wholly bad” people.

Why I bring this up is that the foundations of Sanders Sides, its narrative, and its arcs are about this exact theme. The arc in between Virgil’s acceptance and the present-day focus solely on exploring what it means to be a good person, with SVS and SVSR/POF being the culmination of said arc. Within these episodes, the sides thoroughly discuss whether or not Thomas is a good person for wanting to attend the callback. They posit that selfishness and selflessness are an either-or debacle, wherein you are wholly bad for wanting to focus on the self, and wholly good if you attend the wedding of your good friends.

This is emphasized in SVSR/POF wherein Patton uses the trolley problem to visualize the issue of the wedding vs the callback. When I talked to my professor about the dilemma, he specifically mentioned how it seemed quite extremist for Patton to compare the conflict to the trolley problem, especially since the trolley problem includes actual death. It’s at that point I realized how terrible Thomas’ black-and-white thinking is, that declining the wedding invitation, to him, is tantamount to killing his own friends, making him a bad person.

Outside of this arc, the basis on which the sides are divided is also indicative of Thomas’ internalized black-and-white thinking. In DWIT, Logan explains, “[You have two Creativities b]ecause of your view of creativity and imagination as a purely good force. At a young age, you filed away products of your imagination as either welcome or forbidden.” It’s specifically that differentiation of “bad” and “good” that caused the compartmentalization of sides. And because Patton is in charge of Thomas’ morals, one can argue that Patton was to blame for this division.

Because of this, you have to understand how integral Patton’s role is as Thomas’ emotions and morality, as he is given the responsibility of how Thomas perceives himself as a human being. That is why much blame was given to Patton from SVSR/POF onwards on Thomas’ “restricted moral thinking”, because who Thomas grew to become was spearheaded by Patton.

In relation to this, the growing crisis of black-and-white thinking is quite a Catholic phenomenon. From what I hear, it specifically caters to Christian Evangelicalism in the United States. I’m not an American, but my professor is, so I asked him about it, and he describes Evangelicalism as something similar to secular, political liberalism. That is, there is a faithful adherence to eliminating what is categorically “bad” or “evil” instead of understanding the social complexity of specific phenomena. He specifically describes it as quite reactionary— something looked down upon by both activists and theologists alike, because it means you rely on gut feelings more than critical thought.

This kind of black-and-white thinking is pervasive in purity culture. Purity culture is notoriously known to be the “no sex before marriage” principle, but nowadays it’s outgrown itself to be more about protecting the dignity of a person or a group of people. A great example of this would be fandom, wherein fans, especially younger fans, tend to stray away from conflict, debate, or critical thought because they think it may taint themselves, the things they do within the fandom, and the characters they love.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what happened in the Sanders Sides fandom in 2020. Because the fandom was paraded to be the “unproblematic” fandom, people tended to stray away from complex topics because it was said to “disturb the peace”. This is why we have “unsympathetic sides” tags when other fandoms don’t, or why many POC were shamed in 2020 for speaking out against racism. Instead of entertaining nuance, complexity, and critical thought, purists opt to ostracize and separate themselves from parts of fandom they disagree with, similar to how Patton unconsciously compartmentalized Thomas’ personalities because he needs to ensure that he can stick close with the “good” sides, and isolate the “bad” ones.

I have no answers as to why purity culture is more ubiquitous today. Although, I posit that it has something to do with current power structures and white supremacy, as many colonizers throughout history weaponized Catholicism, especially the notion of purity, to justify their acts of oppression. My country is an example of this, wherein many of those who defy the authority of the church were punished or exiled. Today, many white people are still conditioned to believe they possess that sense of superiority, which is why they use meager things like fandom as a means of posturing one’s moral goodness.

This black-and-white thinking is a perversion of the Catholic notion of goodness and sin. When talking to my professor, I got the impression that sin isn’t as morally black as people frame it to be. Similarly, doing good does not simply mean making yourself a sacrificial lamb. While we can label our actions as “sinning” or “doing good”, Catholicism at its core does not entertain punishment as much as modern-day Catholics do. In fact, true Catholics should be considerate of the social aspects of sin— the idea that one may commit crimes because the social structures we live in oppress certain groups of people. Sin and goodness have always been complex, and should not be perceived at face value as being a wholly “bad” or “good” person.

B. Morality and “Feelings”

Something that SaSi fans often don’t bat an eye on is the fact that Patton encapsulates both Thomas’ morality AND emotions. This is actually a recipe for disaster, especially if you do not study the true intentions of Catholic moral teachings.

When you watch SVSR/POF, I have a challenge for you: Jot down every time Patton mentions the word “feel”. He mentions it a lot, both in reference to Thomas’ moral dilemmas and Patton’s own. There is a noticeable hypocrisy in words. On one hand, Patton berates Thomas for “feeling good” when fulfilling a good deed. On the other hand, when asked about what defines goodness, he describes it as allowing other humans to feel good, to avoid pain.

Patton’s confusion should be taken into account considering how poorly Catholicism is taught to its members. Because it was recommended by my professor, much of what I understand of Catholic morality comes from Grisez and Shaw’s Fulfillment in Christ, and in the first chapter, they specifically mention that Catholicism utilizes a nonlegalistic approach when discerning moral goodness. The main issue this presents is that many Catholics can bend biblical teachings to their will, even if Grisez and Shaw claims this looseness should allow for more deliberate understandings of morality.

What this all boils down to is the vagueness in which goodness presents itself as within the Catholic faith. Grisez and Shaw use the example of an umbrella. When you see rain, you automatically equip an umbrella because it is the right thing to do. To them, Catholic moral goodness should work similarly, where one would simply develop the notion of doing what is good based on the circumstance at hand.

Obviously, this is flawed, especially if one’s faith to Catholicism is incredibly surface-level. This is why my professor advised to understand the difference between intelligible and sensible goods, as described by Grisez and Shaw. What Patton does — act on impulse gut feelings — is subscribe to his sensible goods, enacting on what we immediately feel within a specific situation. But, Patton neglects the need to fulfill one’s intelligible goods— more all-encompassing and well-thought out needs, like Thomas’ mental health, one’s ability to communicate with close friends, etc.

Sensible and intelligible goods often overlap. However, a key difference between both is that intelligible goods subject one’s own senses and feelings to reason. You cannot simply enact something because it feels like a good thing. You need to rationalize it, deliberate the how’s and why’s.

Actually, Thomas, Patton, and Roman’s incapacity to level past sensible goods is partially Logan’s fault. Something I realized recently (which will get its own essay, I promise) is that Logan’s role as logic isn’t simply to be a direct foil to another side. Yes, Logan fights the other sides often, but that isn’t so much because he opposes them. More so, he acts as regulation. He ensures no side tips the scales towards their favor alone; he ensures Patton doesn’t ruminate on the past too much, he ensures Virgil doesn’t commit to fatalism, he ensures Roman doesn’t allow Thomas to live only in unrealistic fantasies. Logan doesn’t forbid it, but he’s there to moderate.

This is why, at the end of SVSR/POF, Janus and Patton states that selfishness is only good in moderation. Logan, as logic, failed to deescalate when it mattered. To be fair, this is mostly in result of some internalized epiphanies in LNTAO. Because he saw the merit of emotions-centric problem-solving, he released some of his grip on Thomas, but accidentally make him rely too much on his emotions. Now, Thomas doesn’t listen to him, which makes him less critical about his own black-and-white thinking.

An important thing my professor asserted when discussing about emotions-centric morality is that what you feel does not always indicate what must be done. It’s a direct criticism of what happens in SVSR/POF, during the part where Thomas compares moral goodness to food and sleep. An example he gives is, one can develop an appetite towards a particular kind of food. You can eat the food, if it’s your first meal. But obviously, just because you like the food does not mean you can have ten servings of it in one sitting. Likewise, just because you feel something is good does not mean that it is. You need to be deliberate. You need to think it out. If you don’t, you are left with a “just ‘cus” mentality.

C. Social Responsibility

One thing Patton gets right (to a certain degree) in SVSR/POF is the idea that our existence is intertwined with other people’s, hence making them our personal responsibility. What is correct to do is not always the easiest thing to do; that is something I agree with as an activist, too. But, on regards to Patton’s second example in the video (ie. Not saving a kingdom because it makes you feel good), my professor believes this way of thinking dissuades people from doing good. This is because, again, your feelings are not a reliable source for discerning one’s morality.

Patton perceives action merely as an extension of one’s moral needs, but in doing so, he neglects the seriousness in which we need to treat our physical/material and psychological needs. The reason why Patton is hellbent on Thomas’ moral pureness (besides the fact that, well, he is morality) is that morality, specifically Catholic morality, is quite Kantian at its core. Kantianism, in more comprehensible terms, focuses on developing one’s principles. The actions one does based on one’s principles do not matter as much as the principle that is formed due to such action.

This is why it is easy for Patton to dismiss the idea of wanting to save a kingdom just to feed one’s ego. He cares more about what it says about the self rather than see the good in the action itself. Like what Janus mentions in CLBG, Kantianism is quite idealistic.

To stray away from Catholicism for a brief moment, a lot of what Patton believes is actually something a lot of staunch leftists, especially Marxists, would contend. The reason why Marx claimed religion is the “opium of the masses” is because it distracts people from thoroughly understanding the material conditions they reside in. We put our belief more in the supernatural and spiritual than what truly exists. In Sanders Sides, this heavy focus on moral formation distracts Thomas away from praxis— the ability to apply what is learned in practice.

I’ll mention though, Catholicism and Marxism aren’t completely mutually exclusive. Many of those who belong in the global south have criticized Catholicism’s lack of social action. Liberation Theology is a great example of this. Latin American priests in the 20th century fought for Catholicism to be more considerate of the reality of the poor and the oppressed, making it one of the main proprietors of the Second Vatican Council. You know who opposes these movements? A lot of white evangelicals of the States.

Furthermore, let’s talk about when Patton states, “Doing nothing is worse than doing a good thing for the wrong reasons.” It reminds me of a reading I did in another theology class where it states that sin is more about the good actions we did not do rather than the “bad” actions we do. This is why Patton asserts that it is important for us to spend our time volunteering and “doing something good”. He thinks every time we don’t actively seek out doing so, we are sinning.

Of course, this is another one of Catholicism’s beliefs that has been perverted beyond belief. Why it was crucial for my past professor to bring this up is because, whether or not you are Catholic, he believes the welfare of society is a shared responsibility amongst all its people. Many Catholic priests and nuns are revolutionists. In a way, this perspective on sin intends to implore us to be critical of the state of the world, and not fall for fatalism.

Balancing out the two sides of social responsibility, my professor posits that it is always important to understand one’s capacity for doing something good. He states, “doing something costly does not mean you are doing something good”. In fact, he states that many ordinary things can be done with Christian or Catholic intent. Thomas does not have to become a martyr to do something good. It’s like what Patton says in SVSR/POF, he just… didn’t know. He did not update himself on Thomas’ present-day capacities.

So, I suppose that begs the question of— why does Patton lean towards self-sacrifice?

D. Sacrifice and Power

I asked my professor why many Catholics idealize sacrifice in an unhealthy manner. Of course, part of it is to replicate the personhood Jesus beheld at the cross, but I think we can all admit that Catholics do not follow this principle as much as they use sacrifice as a means to self-flagellate.

He produced an interesting answer. He told me that, because Catholics believe death brings forth eternal life in heaven, they do not believe death is the worst thing that could happen to man. This is why many Catholics, especially white Catholics, do not help the poor and the oppressed; Catholicism has made them minimize death to the point where they think it doesn’t matter if someone dies.

While my professor understands the importance of sacrifice, he asserts that death should not be idealized to achieve a common good. It’s one of the Christian modes of responsibility: One should not be moved by hostility to freely accept or choose the destruction, damaging, or impeding of any intelligible good. Opposite to Machiavellianism, the ends does not justify the means.

Furthermore, my professor states that it is a moral failure to not care for one’s own body. It is not enough to be morally sound. If you neglect your own health, whether mental or physical, that also does not abide other Christian modes of responsibility that seek to do good as soon as you can. An example he gave is that, when my professor first arrived in the Philippines, he started developing weird splotches on his skin. It is his moral responsibility and duty to himself to check them out as soon as he can to ensure that he is healthy. Just as much as it is a sin to neglect others, it is also a sin to neglect oneself.

Like I said earlier, one often sacrifices one’s own psychological and physical needs to sustain the moral, even if, in fact, they are all intertwined. This is Patton’s biggest flaw in SVSR/POF: he believed martyrdom was the only way to prove one’s good moral standing, even if it destroyed Thomas’ mental and physical health. This is, unfortunately, a common problem amongst Catholics— the idealization of suffering, because it was what Christ did.

Patton does not perceive Thomas outside of his moral obligation to others. Again, of course he does. He's morality. But that is why other sides exist. Logan in particular is established to care for Thomas’ physical health, as what was said in WDWGOOBITM. But, he failed at his job as someone who moderates.

This is especially exacerbated when understanding the control Patton has over Thomas and the other sides. Besides being cc!Thomas’ favorite side, there is something so coincidentally rich about Thomas' morality being a father figure. Gender inequality is still a prevalent problem in Catholicism. Reverence towards males, especially father-like figures, are unconsciously taught through mass and other religious activities because most church leaders are men. They are your fathers in the same way God is your father.

Many Catholics justify this gender imbalance using two biblical instances: the story of Genesis, and the perception of Jesus as a male figure. Firstly, because Eve is derived from the ribcage of Adam, many believe women are inferior towards women. That is a common misconception. No aspect of Genesis postures an imbalanced gender dynamic. Even the terms “man” and “woman” are mistranslations of terms meant to describe Adam and Eve, because the original words, “ish” and “ishah” just mean “man” and “person derived from man”.

Secondly, Jesus is perceived to be biologically male. This is heavily contested in Catholic theology, where gender scholars posit that many prophets tend to possess a third gender, one encompassing both male and female traits. Queer Catholics, for example, perceive the crucified Jesus’ side wound as something similar to a vagina, because it is during his crucifixion was the Church born. Many paintings throughout history even portray this side wound in this manner (Google it, I promise).

All gender talk aside, Patton's assertion and restrictiveness as a side are incredibly reminiscent of men, especially religious leaders, in Catholicism. He possesses that aura of being all-knowing, similar to priests, even if, deep down, he doesn't know anything. Because of this, it is also implied that many of the other sides struggled to go against his will before SVSR/POF happened. The other sides, especially Roman, revere Patton. Why else would they have this problem of black-and-white thinking, if they didn't listen to Patton unconditionally?

This also explains why Thomas’ mental health is in shambles. If Patton's idea of moral goodness is self-sacrifice, then Thomas’ breakdown in SVSR/POF is just a culmination of decades worth of putting himself down. This makes the current arc's focus on the “Dark” Sides’ acceptance more impactful, because we are literally watching Thomas’ ego death. He is going through an immensely life-changing paradigm shift, because the very foundations of how he perceives himself — how Patton perceives Thomas — is changing.

E. Conclusion

In summary, Patton is a very well-written example of Catholic guilt and trauma, reminiscent of surface-level Catholics who do not wish to understand their religion at a more scholarly level. The main things he gets wrong, which is also what a lot of Catholics get wrong, is 1.) believing the extremism of black-and-white thinking, 2.) using feelings alone as a basis for moral insight, and 3.) diminishing Thomas’ welfare by forwarding the notion of sacrifice.

The biggest takeaway that I'd like to impart is that your feelings are not a reliable source for discerning one's morality. Especially without understanding the true semantics of your Catholic beliefs, especially without logical deliberation. Otherwise, you give into a kind of belief system that serves as the base of operations for ignorant Catholics.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Romana Sanders