i know you are…

…but what am i?

a reader writes:

Hi Troll, you seem rather unhealthily obsessed with Mark Shea, and you should probably give it a rest. The Great Catholic Grenache is not one to be messed with. Your awesome! Trina

first of all, Trina (if that is your real name), really?!? i’m the one who is unhealthily obsessed? have you even seen Shea’s blog?!? i think we can all agree that he has gone waaay over the line compared with me.

second, i literally have no idea what that nickname means. based on an interwebs search on the google, i see that “grenache” is a pale, thin-skinned grape found in Washington state. i still don’t get it. are you saying that Mark Shea is a grape? based on his own reports, he’s not even round anymore, so while he may be pale, thin-skinned, and a Washingtonian, i still don’t see how exactly this applies. (also, “great” and “catholic” are hardly words that i would use to describe Mr. Shea, since he is nothing more than a obedient little son of the vatican ii church and its recent “popes.”)

third, Trina, i believe the word you’re looking for at the end there is “you’re,” not “your.” i’d tell you to go back to school to learn how to write, but based on your probable femininity, you’re likely to have greater lasting success in learning how to cook and sew instead.

right. and please be sure to dress modestly while you’re at it.

“Honey, take it from me, I make basic writing mistakes all the time.”

7 quick takes: troll ii q&a, take 2

yup, me again

questions from readers continue to pour in to my email account, and i’ve noticed that many of you are especially concerned with my views concerning women and sexuality. after the smashing success of my first q&a post, i’ve opted again to answer these questions here on the blog, so as to avoid unnecessarily multiplying my efforts in responding to the same queries over and over again. here goes…

.

1. hi troll, ok, i *maybe* understand not wanting to joke about sex, especially in light of your opposition to laughing, but you seem to have a pretty negative attitude toward sex and human sexuality in general. what gives?

well, despite what you may have heard from Greg Popcak or Dr. Ruth or whoever, the fact of the matter is that the catholic tradition is clear that human sexuality is an effect of sin and the single biggest cause of sin. sexual congress within the bonds of matrimony is of course sacred and not sinful, but that doesn’t make it any less disgusting. the way i see it, the marital act is a lot like circumcision: it’s painful and horrible and it makes you cry, and yet God’s inscrutable decree has made it something holy. go figure.

“you’ll be doing what to my what, now? and God says this is ok?”

.

2. you seem to speak from painful experience; are there wounds in your life that need to be healed? have you ever tried Theophostic Ministry™? isn’t it the greatest?

there is a lot about my past that is painful, and yes, i have tried theophostic healing. in fact, before theophostic helped me out, i was a fairly normal church-going novus ordo catholic, never realizing the web of depravity and deceit to which i had fallen victim. theophostic helped me realize that everything i knew was a lie. since then, i’ve succeeded in repressing my sexuality and taking pride in my faithfulness and self-righteousness. thanks, theophostic!

“theophostic worked to help me forgive everyone who’s out to get me. awesome!”

.

“yeah, just look at how God has, um, endowed that beautiful woman over there. i mean, wow!”

3. um, the experience of sexuality doesn’t have to be all bad, you know. have you ever heard Christopher West? he says that if you read his books you won’t have to struggle anymore with concupiscence. 

wow, this is turning into a trip down memory lane. of course i’ve read Christopher West, and i know all about how he thinks we should all walk around naked and enjoy looking at each other naked. personally, i used to love West’s tapes, first because they gave me license to give up custody of the eyes, and then later on, after i saw the light and left shamchurch, because they were the best proof around that “pope” john paul ii’s so-called “theology of the body” was a total crock. the only truly good news about sex that the real church has ever taught is that you don’t have to have it. period.

.

4. right, so are you currently seeing anyone?

yes, as i mentioned in my post on SALSA dancing, i am presently involved with a young woman i met over the internets. she has asked me not to talk about her on the site, since her family is very much opposed to dancing. and to men. that’s why i don’t usually talk about her or post pictures. ever. it’s not because i don’t actually a girlfriend, or that i’ve made her up or something. here, i’ll prove it: here’s her page on the facebook. hi, kitty kat :)

.

5. frankly, i’m surprised that you have a significant other, because it often seems from your posts that you hate women, especially women bloggers; aren’t you kind of misogynistic? 

first off, how could i hate women? me mum’s one. so is our lady of fatima. and my girlfriend. second, when i express disgust at what women do, it’s not because they’re women but because they’re NOT acting like women. it’s like Steve Kellmeyer rightly says, women these days are stupid and sex-crazed and sinful. which of those things am i supposed to like? oh right, none of them. because i’m a real catholic. it’s not my fault that women these days prostitute their femininity by working outside the home and then trip up men by showing off their lascivious bodies, leaving practically nothing to the imagination. i think the more accurate thing to say is not that i hate women, but that i am afraid of them, especially their bodies, which is as it should be, right?

this looks about right to me

.

ah, even better

6. speaking of women’s bodies, don’t you think your comments about modesty have crossed a line? i mean, burkas? really?

well, what you find off-putting i would say is just plain common sense. simply put, i find women’s bodies to be absolutely terrifying, since they are basically an efficacious sign of the carnal allurements of the flesh, which must be avoided and condemned at all costs. some might say that at least some responsibility should fall on the man, since he’s the one doing the ogling, but they’re wrong. it’s like Mel Gibson once said, if you go outside wearing pants, you’re probably asking for it.
.

7. ok, this is getting really offensive, really quickly. in light of the commotion caused by your nfp post the other day, could you please clarify whether there are any other, non-sex-related reasons for irrationally hating it so much?

i don’t know. off the top of my head, i can say that the whole idea of letting the laity prayerfully and prudently discern God’s will for their family sounds silly to me, and an awful lot like planned parenthood. (paging Dr. Sanger.) everything should be left up to God’s will. married couples should never actively try to have children, and should never actively try not to have children. sex is a mystery, a disgusting forbidden mystery, and it simply should never be left up to husbands and wives to be actively involved in cooperating with God in his plan for their family. that’s what the catholic church says about it anyway. at least my catholic church.

.

remember, if you have additional questions or comments, you can always email me realcatholicsdontlaugh [at] gmail [dot] com.

and for additional (and probably more licentious) quick takes, bang it here. or don’t.

fake “catholic” mombies

to my profound shame and embarrassment, i have found myself in recent weeks skulking about the darkest corners of the internets in the desperate hope that i might find something, anything to restore my joie d’pêcher à la traîne. for a few days there, i thought i had found what i was looking for in the absolute abyss of meaninglessness that is the world of fake “catholic” mommy blogging.

hmm, care to take a stab at which titular trait the book lacks?

i mean, there was just so much there to criticize: banal posts about children’s sleep, eating, and bowel movements; awkward pictures of people no one else cares about; callous disregard for the basic rudiments of english grammar, spelling, and syntax; sinfully vain obsessing over women’s fashion (fashion!); indecent discussions of UNnatural family planning; and an absolutely insane degree of praise for what is surely a horrible turd of a book, called “style, sex, and substance.”

as far as i can tell, every fake “catholic” woman in the english-speaking world loves this book so much that she has purchased two copies, just so she can give one to a friend and still have one left over for her superawesomeletsgossipanddrinkappletinis book group.

well, almost all of them. there’s apparently one woman that didn’t like it.

yup, just one.

everybody else in the entire world wants to marry the book.

apparently even sissy fake “catholic” men love it. like these tools.

this was just too much liberated womyn amchurch groupthink for me, and i immediately began to feel my heart rate double and then double again as pure, unadulterated self-righteousness pulsed through my entire body.

the old me was back! i was leaving horrible comments in comboxes left and right, ridiculing these ninnies for their inanity and vanity and utter inability to discern good reading (or writing for that matter), and yelling, YELLING i tell you, about how none of them were really catholic.

i sat and waited for the inevitable responses to start pouring in.

i was literally sweating with anticipation.

and then… nothing.

these women went right on with their silly comments about how sad this was, and how funny that was, and how cute this picture was, and how awesome that recipe was, and not a single one even noticed me.

at first i thought, “gadzooks, these women have willpower like none other!” i had never seen anything like it before.

and then it dawned on me. they weren’t choosing to ignore me, they were just too distracted and sleep-deprived to even process something that didn’t have a smiley face and seventeen exclamation points and pictures of smiling kids making messes.

they were zombies (zmombies? mombies?), and there was nothing. i. could. do.

three guesses as to which “style, sex, and substance” contributor this is.

i had never encountered anything like this before. in shock and utter disbelief, i quietly deleted my comments and backed away from the computer. i started pacing, and then frothing, and then raging. and with no outlet for my andger adrenaline, i ended up spending the rest of the night in the bathroom, vomiting and weeping uncontrollably.

i will never, ever go back.