#chapel talks

[extasiswings]

Okay so! I noticed in your recent reblog chain a Tweet saying that Vance converted to the "American Protestant idea of Roman Catholicism" and as a catholic-sensibilities Episcopalian teaching in the Bible Belt, I would be fascinated to know what you understand/perceive this to be (feel free to answer privately if you like of course.) The ideas many my students have of Catholicism are... well... they're Something.

So I think there are many different views that could fall under that descriptive umbrella (not necessarily all of which are aligned) but as far as the version of Roman Catholicism conceptualized by American Protestants who Convert As Adults, I do agree with the op of that tweet (technically on bluesky but idk the terminology so I’ll call it a tweet anyway) who wrote a more expanded thread (posted below) (i.e that they think it’s an authoritarian ultraconservative movement where everyone thinks in lockstep based on the word of the pope) + that it’s seen as less of a religion and more of a sociopolitical organization (so as to excuse the actual practicing of a faith aligned with the gospels and the catechism, which is arguably inconsistent with the cruelty of ultraconservative authoritarian politics).

[eddie-diaz-therapist]

I LIVE, Y’ALL

It’s me, your girl, chapel/extasiswings. For those who didn’t hear and/or have been wondering where I’ve been, my account was terminated randomly on Tuesday night.  At least temporarily I’ve made this account as a backup while still trying to get my original back. Thanks for all the love and well-wishes! I’m fine, just extremely annoyed XD

Tagging for signal boosting: @chiquititadiaz @tylerhunklin @letmetellyouaboutmyfeels @yramesoruniverse @sabitchhh @theladyyavilee @catdadeddie @mistmarauder @elisela @kitkatpancakestack @evcndiaz

[extasiswings]

My ideal world is one where the Catholic Church doesn’t have the ridiculous amount of money and power in the world it currently has, but even I can recognize it’s better to have the less shitty option?

We can acknowledge the harm the Catholic Church has and continues to do around the globe while still trying to make life better for the people still subject to it.

Right. And that’s part of my frustration.

By all means, we should all—Catholics and non-Catholics alike—feel free to critique the Church and the choices it makes when it chooses to wield institutional power. But I’m seeing non-Catholics post about Leo as if he’s Trump or Cardinal Dolan or one of the arch-conservative candidates—the worst possible choice? Really? I promise, there were significantly worse choices, and those of us who were paying attention (and not just treating this as the latest round of “posting misinformation is activism”) know that.

And I want to ask these commenters: okay, so who did you want to be pope instead? What were his beliefs and how do they differ from Leo’s? Have you actually seen or read anything he’s written about his beliefs or are you going off of what some random internet post or article or whatever told you he believes? And realistically. REALISTICALLY. What do you think he would have done as pope that would have been different from Francis? And what is it you think Leo believes or will do as pope that is causing you to act like the sky is falling (and where did you get that information)?

I’ll let you in on a secret, nonny—the Church as an Institution(TM) sucks. It has done me innumerable harms as a queer Catholic woman. And. There is not a single candidate for the papacy (yes even the “progressives”) that I believe would have enacted the kind of progressive reforms I would like to see the Church embrace. Not one. But Francis didn’t do that either.

At the same time, I don’t want to go backwards from Francis. I was worried about backlash leading to a conservative (in the Church context) pope—that didn’t happen (and anyone who says otherwise is lying). I’m cautiously optimistic, while still maintaining low expectations (because my expectations are always low when it comes to the institutional Church).

So…yeah.

[extasiswings]

Cant have been very good books if you've read so many in such a short time. Reading is good but a lot of books also require deep thought.

Wow, a lot of assumptions being packed into such a short ask. I’m not sure who made you the book police, but you don’t know my life, my reading speed, or anything about my critical thinking and information processing skills, so with all due respect (which, frankly, is none), fuck off?

[extasiswings]

Hi sorry if it’s is a dumb question but I don’t understand what’s happening with the Tony’s do yo mind telling me? I’m not American so I don’t really get how the wga strike is related , is this a punishment to the writers because of the strike?

Not a dumb question, I'm happy to explain. So. The WGA is on strike. Which means, no WGA members are doing any writing for broadcast television (among other things). Members who cross the picket line would face serious consequences, and non-member writers who work as scabs during the strike also risk serious consequences (like the inability to ever become a member).

The Tony Awards, although focused on Broadway, are nonetheless a televised broadcast. The jokes, the scripts, all the funny bits of dialogue etc? Those are not written by playwrights or naturally improvised by the various hosts and presenters. Those are written by screenwriters. The same screenwriters who are on strike.

So, because of that, in order for the Tony Awards to move forward as usual, the Broadway League went to the WGA to request a "strike waiver." What this means is, they wanted the WGA to agree to allow writers (and anyone striking in solidarity) to cross the picket line to write and produce the telecast without consequences (essentially to break the strike for this particular program).

Naturally, the WGA said no. Why "naturally," you may ask? Because the Tony Awards air on CBS, which is one of the networks that has caused the strike by refusing to negotiate in good faith with the WGA and putting corporate greed over basic human decency and the lives of hardworking people. Granting a strike waiver for this would undermine the whole point of the strike and do little more than line studio pockets with the advertising revenue and viewership from a major broadcast.

In sum: the Tony Awards can't air because they don't have the writers to write the broadcast (in theory, they could try to make it work anyway, but that would be unlikely to go well). If people are upset about that, then they should take it up with CBS. Fuck the Hollywood studios; Support Unions.

[extasiswings]

Tim definitely said - I introduced Eddie shirtless in season 2 to the Fox audience, I will introduce Eddie shirtless in season 7 to the ABC audience.

And the people said AMEN.

[extasiswings]

"The will of the people voted for Biden during the primary" who ran against him? Nobody of any significance was gonna primary Biden, that's political suicide in the Democratic Party. You had an election between him and a couple strawmen. He wouldn't have survived a real primary this time around.

?????? Nobody stopped anyone from running against him. It would have been no more “political suicide” than the people making statements in the media over the last several weeks that they didn’t support him. And there wouldn’t have been any fallout for people currently holding elected positions to run who aren’t up for reelection this cycle. They could have primaried him—they chose not to. Full stop. And then did this. It’s bullshit plain and simple.

“He wouldn’t have survived a real primary” we had a real primary. Just because more candidates, or your preferred candidates, didn’t choose to participate doesn’t make it any less real or legitimate and doesn’t make weeks of hit pieces to get the duly elected nominee to drop out suddenly okay.

[extasiswings]

It's the way Helena said she can just replace anything Chris left behind. What about his Father??? He left him behind. Are you replacing him Helena?

There is very much an element here I think of Helena feeling like Eddie didn't turn out to be the son she wanted and therefore she can take Christopher from him as some sort of twisted do-over. And an element that I think they've left the door wide open to address about why exactly she continues to think Eddie's a failure as a father (and the connection between that and Eddie's consistent falling back into the trap of comphet/why he thinks at least subconsciously that he's not enough). Like...there is a lot to unpack about what actually happened, but also a lot to unpack about what didn't - namely, I find it super interesting that Helena and Ramon basically ignored Buck's presence entirely.