The Origins of Hannukah

Ironically, Hanukkah is found in Christian Scripture in 1st and 2nd Maccabees, but is not found in Jewish Scripture at all. Why? Well, these two books (there is actually also a 3 and 4 Maccabees, which some Christian groups consider part of Scripture, but which the Catholic Church does not) were originally written in Greek by the Diaspora Jewish community, they were never translated back into Hebrew. Because Christians preaching the Gospel among Diaspora Jews were using several Greek-language based books like Maccabees to great effect in conversion, the Jews who were opposed to Christianity ultimately ruled that any book not originally written in Hebrew was NOT part of Scripture and should not be considered sacred.

Unfortunately, this ruling meant the Hanukkah celebration was no longer a Scriptural event. This wasn't a huge loss, as it had never been a great holy day. But Christianity spread through Europe and North Africa, and the celebration of Christmas began to become a thing starting around 350 AD.

While it was considered a minor liturgical holiday for the first millennium of Christianity, by the medieval period, Christmas was a major cultural holiday for Christians. The early industrial period turned industrial nations into a surplus-goods society, in which Christmas came to be a way to showcase the cornucopia of goods Christian Europe was producing. Gift-giving entered the picture in a major way. Every culture (Asian, African, etc.) wanted to share in that new outpouring of Christian European wealth.

It was therefore no coincidence that by the early industrial period, Jews were converting to Christianity wholesale and retail. Indeed, some scholars point out that, if not for WW II, Jewish assimilation was on track to wipe out Jewish culture in Europe by the end of the 20th century. To slow the assimilation, one of the rabbinic tools was the elevation of Hanukkah to a major cultural event in order to combat the influence of Christmas. It's still a very minor liturgical event, but the cultural significance now pretty much swamps the religious significance. Hanukkah is now a way for Jews in a Christian society to celebrate Christmas without feeling guilty.

Why Colleges Are Dying

Many people complain that college standards are dropping. They don't seem to understand that colleges really don't have a choice. 

Total fertility rate in America has been dropping steadily since 1800. The only uptick in the last two centuries was the post-WW II Boomer generation. That ended in 1963. Ever since, TFR has continued it's inexorable trend down. This means the number of students who can enter any particular college, or all colleges combined, also necessarily trends down each year. 

So, colleges MUST dumb down standards because the number of students coming in drops every year. Colleges push abortion and contraception, then are shocked to find their students don't raise kids or send them to college in turn. As a result, to keep enrollment numbers up, standards MUST drop.

But why are colleges pushing abortion and contraception? Well, eugenics has long been a darling of the Progressive movement. In addition, women are taking over both the degree programs and the administration. The kind of women who want a career are typically the kind of women who don't want children.  But even sterile women value relationships over truth. Institutions reflect the values of the people who run them. 

So, as women take over universities, universities stop being truth-seeking organizations and start being extended touchy-feely therapy sessions for sterile psychotic women who invite in every stray dog so the psychotic women can continue their extended, paid coffee klatsch sessions.

Women don't build stuff. 

Men do. 

Kick men out, and stuff don't get built.

Dealing with the Frozen Embryonic Child

 So, the Catholic Church says it is immoral to allow these embryos to grow in the womb of a woman who is not their mother. After thirty years, their mothers and fathers may not even be alive.

If we tried to baptize them in their embryonic state, we would instantly kill them.

So, we've got unbaptized babies that are not allowed to grow up, a Peter Pan situation in real life. Is it REALLY moral to leave them in a frozen state for 30 years? REALLY? 

Yes, it was immoral to create them this way. But not giving these children a way forward to grow and become what they were meant to be... and remember, God allowed the fertilization to work, He ensouled these children because these embryos are EMBRYOS, not just fertilized eggs ... how is THAT moral?  

The Economics of Children

 "Family life is no longer a core aspiration of every person but becomes a “luxury"..." That is most assuredly not what is happening.

People are just making the best economic investments they can with the time they have. In a low-tech, agricultural society, children are a high value commodity item because workers are high-value commodities. You need workers to get the work done. Agricultural societies are marked by high levels of child labor.

For most of human existence, 5 through 15 year old children worked in the farms and fields. When industry and mining was invented 5-15 year old children worked those in the factories and the coal mines. Children were effectively indentured servants with a ten-year to fifteen-year return. But as the tasks children could do became automated, their economic value disappeared. Children could no longer earn a wage for the family. 

In a high-tech, post-industrial society, labor-saving machinery... wait for it... saves labor. As fewer people are needed to get work done, the value of the worker drops. The value of having children drops. It's not that children are a luxury, it's that children are no longer economically valuable. They don't start returning ROI at age 5, as they used to do.

Today, it takes 20 or even 30 years to start seeing return on investment, and the return no longer goes to the family that raised them but to the family they are themselves forming. So, each set of prospective parents sees that they will take a substantial loss on raising children and they... don't. 

If children were actually a luxury good, then rich people would have MORE children than poor people do. But that isn't what is happening. Malthus thought children were a luxury good. His original prediction was that rich people would have more children than the poor did. That turned out to be completely wrong. It is fascinating that people invoke Malthus without bothering to have read his theories. 

Now, it may observed that those in poverty tend to have more children than the rich. This is a direct result of the welfare state. Because welfare increases payments as a function of marital status and number of children, the welfare state has re-created the pre-industrial ROI children once provided, but it does so only for a particular segment of society instead of society as a whole.

The article linked above notes that Muslim and ultra-orthodox Jews still have large numbers of children, but this is largely due to the economic circumstances they find themselves in. Muslim-predominate countries tend to ether be primarily agricultural or derive their income from oil revenues. Both are essentially pre-industrial. Ultra-orthodox Jews are paid by donors (and sometimes even paid by the Israeli government) to study the Torah. That is, they get the equivalent of government welfare payments for sustenance, as even the author of the article admits in passing:

These ultraorthodox Jews have been enthusiastic clients of Israel’s pro-natalist policies and rely on the support handed out to large families by the state as an economic basis for their traditional lifestyles and their continued study of the Jewish scriptures. 

Thus, the article's conclusions about Marx are completely off-base. Insofar as capitalism contains within its demographics the seeds of its own demise, the facts demonstrate Marx was completely clueless. Anyone reading through Marxist writings would search in vain for a reference to the demographics we currently face. Marx had absolutely no idea capitalism would struggle with demography. Asserting that Karl Marx was somehow correct about capitalism is absurd. Marx was simply another Malthus. He was a blowhard, an intellectual who didn't ever really understand how the world works. Failed academics are his tribe, which is why today's failed academics love him so and try endlessly to prop him up as a visionary. Failure calls to failure across the deep, and find consolation in each other. 

Computer-generated Art Does Not Exist

When a computer "does" anything, it is "doing" that action in the same way that a shovel is "shovelling" dirt or a hammer is hammering a nail. Somebody, somewhere, is manipulating the machine to do that.

So, when we say a computer has "tunnel-vision" or "limited understanding", we are wrong. The programmers who created the task list for the computer, the PROGRAMMERS have tunnel-vision, for a variety of technical reasons (e.g., they have limited resources with which to manipulate the machine).

We have a tendency to anthropomorphize an inanimate object, attributing the skills of the programmer to the computer in a way we would never do with a shovel or a hammer. We must always remember that a computer runs a program in the same way a hammer beats down a nail - it does so mindlessly. A computer is a series of electrical junctions working in synch, that's it. Although the music may be beautiful, the player piano does not play music. Although the result may be brilliant, the computer does not think.

Computer-generated "x" is a misnomer. It is always "programmer-generated art" or "programmer-generated writing". The programmers have created a situation in which other people (users) may collaborate with the programmers and their tools (via user-input) to produce a result.

So AI-art is really just anonymously collaborated art. AI-writing is the same. The programmers create interactive parameters, the users provide inputs, and the programmers' rule-based "world" uses that input to create an output.

Now, the output may be completely unexpected and beautiful from the viewpoint of everyone involved. That's very neat if it is. But insofar as it is beautiful or useful, that's a result of the people involved. The computer contributed only speed and technical accuracy.

And this is why "computer-generated art" *SHOULD* win art competitions. It truly is the product of talented human minds, all working together. The individual people could never have achieved the result, but the team of people - who do not know each other and may never meet - HAVE achieved the result. In that sense, "computer-generated art" is not substantially different than the entirety of human culture throughout history. Every human artist today builds upon the work of countless previous generations of artists, most of whom they do not even know, and none of whom they have met. But instead of collaborating across generational time, computers allow the artists to collaborate across physical space. The anonymity hasn't changed, the individual contributions haven't changed. The tools have changed a bit, but that's it. Whether the tool be a quill pen, a paintbrush, a camera or a computer, the art is still created by the people using the tools they have at their disposal.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Pens, cameras, pianos, computers don't create art, people create art. "Computer-generated art" is a human achievement, not a computer's achievement.

Fascism: A Leftist Fantasy

Sir Oswald Mosley, A Story:

After the War, he sought to return to political life, but found little support, including when he stood for Parliament on separate occasions. In his last political race in 1966, to represent a district in London, he received 4.6% of the vote. He was an early supporter of a strong centralized European government. He saw it an opportunity for his corporate state: economic direction by “experts”, concentration of decision-making, a hedge against democracy—much as the European Union has become. He died in 1980. 

What to make of all this?

Much has been written of Mosley, a good deal centered on the theme of “lost promise”. It is said that Mosley would have been prime minister if only he had not been impatient in 1931 and resigned from the Labour Government; if only he had waited his turn; if only he had not succumbed to the attractions of fascism. “Mosley created the British Union of Fascists (emphasis added) as a vehicle for his economic vision of Britain as a Keynesian economic state”, writes Rubin. “After a period of initial popularity, his movement eventually became a haven for lunatic anti-Semites and fringe members of society. As Mosley became lost within the monster he created, frequent public violence at his group’s rallies made him a national pariah.”

All true to an extent. Yet, the early Mosley of the left and the Mosley of [the British Union of Fascists] have much in common, the core weaknesses in their policies the same. Both believed in government by “experts” and administrators, and replacing the pluralism of the market and entrepreneurial economy with a corporatist directorate. Both held a distrust of democracy, despite their professed populism. These beliefs continue to be are present in globalization debates—though today they are held mainly by the proponents of globalization, rather than its critics....

Mosley himself said in 1968, “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics.”

Fascism is the union of government with private industry in such a way that government directs and controls private industry. Government was seen as a coalition of experts, industry a coalition of businesses willing to be directed by experts. That was Mussolini's definition, that was FDR's execution of Mussolini's definition. Fascism always has been a Leftist fantasy. 

What OT Prophecies Did Jesus NOT Fulfill?

Catholics always talk about the OT prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, but Jews tend to emphasize the prophecies Jesus did not fulfill. From the Jewish perspective, if an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah. What objections do they raise? Here are a selection:

Old Testament Silence on the Second Coming

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a hint of the Messiah's Second Coming. As the Jews point out: 

"Where did you get this idea of a ‘Second Coming’? Was it because Jesus did not succeed the first time that he needs another try? The Bible doesn’t say anything about the Messiah coming twice.”

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill all Old Testament in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the OT Scripture no concept of a second coming exists.

According to Jewish commentary, the Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses (Targum – Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides – Teshuva 9:2). Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BC. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets – Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after Jewish prophecy had ended, and thus could not be a prophet. 

So, why do Christians insist on the Second Coming? First, because Jesus insisted on it. The Gospels show Him speaking of His return again and again. And second, because the OT prophecies listed below are obviously not yet fulfilled. For instance, while the Gospels do not show Jesus Himself saying He would usher in a period of everlasting peace, his disciples taught that He would do that.

Unfulfilled Prophecies: Universal Peace

In Isaiah 11:1-9, we see prophecies about the coming Messiah, some of which were fulfilled in Yeshua, but some have not been fulfilled yet. We don’t yet see any of these things happening: 

• The wolf will live with the lamb,
      the leopard will lie down with the goat,
  the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
      and a little child will lead them.
  7 The cow will feed with the bear,
      their young will lie down together,
      and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
  8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
      and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
  9 They will neither harm nor destroy
      on all my holy mountain,
  for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
      as the waters cover the sea.

The verses in Micah 4:1-3 are also clear prophecies about the coming Messiah, and they tell of a universal peace that has not yet manifested. Yet the Messiah was supposed to end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) The argument then is: if Jesus was the Messiah, why isn’t there world peace? Many Jewish People who are still waiting expectantly for the Messiah are expecting a Messiah who will bring world peace.

Unfulfilled Prophecies: Restoration of Israel and Temple

The Messiah is supposed to build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.’

The Messiah will gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
    I will bring your children from the east
    and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
    and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
    and my daughters from the ends of the earth—

Unfulfilled Prophecies: Torah Observance

Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.

Throughout the Christian "New Testament," Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

Unfulfilled Prophecies: Not a Descendent of David

Many prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father – and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David.

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Inaccurate Prophecy: Suffering Servant

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

Jews read Isaiah 53 as a follow-up on the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. They argue the prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. In Isaiah 41:8, Israel is called the "Servant of God." In fact, Isaiah the Jews claim that Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. Thus, for them, Isaiah 53 describes the sufferings of the nation of Israel. 

Unfulfilled Prophecies: David's Line Failed

Jeremiah 33:17 is, of course, the most problematic of the prophecies. If we take this prophecy at face value, Judaism failed at least a half a millennium before Jesus ever arrives on the scene: 

"For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.'" 

The prophecy obviously failed before the Old Testament period ended. The destruction of the Kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC brought an end to the rule of the royal house of David.  Even if we agree that Jesus is of the line of David, there is a half a millennium gap that Jeremiah and Sacred Scripture, the God-breathed Word, got wrong. 

For at least 500 years, five centuries, 25 generations, there was no descendant of David sitting on the throne of Israel, nor any nation of Israel upon whose throne such a descendant could have sat. Not only did the line of David fail, the Temple failed, the Levitical priesthood failed, and the entire nation of Israel failed. It disappeared off the map of history, and arguably never came back. 

From the Babylonian Captivity forward, the majority of Jews have never again lived in the land of Israel. Even today, as of September, 2021, among the global Jewish population, the number of Jews in Israel is close to 6.9 million, while about 8.3 million live outside Israel (including around 6 million in the United States). The current nation that claims the name Israel is established as a primarily secular state, it is not a monarchy. Many ultra-orthodox Jews actually oppose the existence of Israel precisely because it fulfills no Scriptural mandate. They consider the current nation of Israel to be a fake. To them, it is an anti-Messianic abomination. These Jews want Israel to be destroyed.

Just 20 years after Jeremiah makes this prophecy, the first Temple was destroyed. Sure, it got re-built 70 years later, but that's a 70-year interregnum. Then, once it got re-built, the Second Temple got destroyed in 70 AD. The Levitical priests haven't offered burnt animal or burnt grain sacrifice in two millennia.

Worse, the priesthood of liturgical Christians is of the order of Melchizedek, NOT the order of Leviticus. Christians cannot claim the Mass fulfills the prophecy because (a) Christians claim the wrong priesthood, (b) Christians don't make any burnt offerings at all and (c) even if the first two problems could be cleared up, that still doesn't solve the problem of the 70-year interregnum between the first and second Temples.

If prophecy is a point of contention, then neither the Jews nor the Christians have a solid response to the several hundred year interregnum when David's royal line most certainly DID fail. Neither one has a solid response to the failure of the Levitical priesthood. Jeremiah was absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong in at least two different ways.

If you want to say the Word of God is eternal and valid forever, as Pope Benedict claimed, then that's a problem.

Catholic Schizophrenia

The Catholic Church has long had a schizophrenic view of marriage. On one hand, the marriage of Mary and Joseph is the ideal towards which all married couples should strive. On the other hand, the couple didn't have sex, Mary remained perpetually virgin. Many a canonized saintly couple have entered into a Josephite marriage, in which the couple vowed never to have sex. Canon law indicates  sex forms the "firm foundation" of marriage, any married couple who has not had sex can much more easily have their marriage annulled precisely for that lack. Further, marriage exists in part for the procreation of children, yet a Josephite vow vitiates that purpose. 

To add to the confusion, the Church has long allowed men or women to leave behind their spouse and children as long as they are entering a monastery or convent. Several saints did that, which has long puzzled me. For example: 

• Blessed Rafaela Ibarra (1843-1900) married, then founded a religious congregation (Sisters of the Holy Guardian Angels). Twenty-nine years after taking marriage vows she left her husband, with his permission, taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and entered the congregation she founded.
• Blessed Bartolo Long took vows of perpetual chastity. However, on the advice of his spiritual director, he entered a Josephite marriage with a rich benefactor in order to prevent gossip about how he used the funds of the rich woman he married. 
• Blessed Benedetta Frassinello, born 1791, married for two years with no children, both spouses take vows of perpetual chastity and live a Josephite marriage.
• Blessed Mary of the Incarnation (Marie Guyart Martin), born 1599, greeted the death of her spouse with the words, the Lord "freed me from the fetters of marriage... as soon as I became free, I felt a great repugnance for marriage..". Does anyone speak of being freed from the fetters of baptism, confirmation, reconciliation, the Eucharist, or anointing of the sick? Do priests revel in being freed from the fetters of Holy Orders? Are we permitted to show a "great repugnance" for any other sacrament? She left her 11-year old son Claude (born April 2, 1619) in order to join the Ursulines in January 21, 1631. As she herself said, "Everyone blamed me for leaving a child not yet twelve years old, especially leaving him without any secure means of support..." Pope John Paul II beatified her.
• Catherine of Genoa and her husband lived a Josephite marriage after he "came to his senses" and renounced a formerly dissolute life. 
• Blessed Seraphina (Sueva of Montefeltro) left her dissolute husband, entered the Poor Clare convent in Pesaro, got dispensation from Pope Callistus II and took solemn vows of perpetual poverty, chastity and obedience and eventually became abbess. Her husband occasionally visited. She's an incorruptible. 
• Blessed Mark of Montegall and Chiara dei Tibaldesch got married in 1451, never consummated their marriage, and both left it one year later. She entered a Poor Clare convent, he entered the Franciscan Friars of Observance.
• Saint Nicholas von Flue and Dorothea Wissling, married 1447. Abandoned his wife and ten children to become a hermit (not a priest, a hermit). His youngest son was 16-weeks old at the time. His spiritual director recommended it. He was canonized by Pope St. Pius XII in 1947.
• Blessed Galeotto Roberto Malatesta, married at 16, left his wife at 18, became a third order Franciscan, died at age 21.
• Blessed Dorothy of Montau was married in a "tortuous" marriage with a "pious" man, had nine children, eight died. Her last, Gertrude, born March 1380 alone survived. When Dorothy's husband died in 1390, she gave her ten-year old daughter to a convent. By May 1393, she was a cloistered recluse. Her canonization said she "persevered in marriage." Can anyone recall living the graces of any other sacrament described as "persevered in sacrament X"? She was beatified by Pope Pius VI in 1967.
• Yet, when Frederick Ozanam died, a cardinal remarked to Pope Pius IX on what a shame it was that a man as holy as Ozanam should have fallen into the trap of marriage. The Pope replied, "Oh, I did not realize that our Lord established six sacraments and one trap."

The Eastern Orthodox are no better. Consider, for instance, the Orthodox saint, Mary of Paris, considered one of the greatest saints of the 20th century. She was married twice, her son Yura being born in Tbilisi in 1920. Her bishop encouraged her to take vows as a nun, something she did only with the assurance that she would not have to live in a monastery, secluded from the world. In 1932, with her husband Daniel Skobtov's permission, an ecclesiastical divorce was granted, and she took monastic vows. That makes her son 11 or 12 years old at the time she took monastic vows, so she's no different than Blessed Mary of the Incarnation.

Taking monastic vows is NOT a sacrament. At most, it is a discipline. It provides no special graces, according to Catholic teaching.

Marriage, conversely, IS a sacrament. It DOES provide sanctifying, divinizing grace, special grace that is crucial (cross-bearing) for salvation itself. So, how does walking away from sacramental grace towards just a basic little discipline make one a saint?

St. Paul says we should be like him, no spouse, but if we MUST marry, then he supposes it is ok to do it. He makes very clear, however, that it is much better for everyone to be celibate, as he is. Conveniently, Paul considers himself the measure of man. 

His teaching in Corinthians certainly doesn't seem consistent. Why is he endorsing a celibate life, which is NOT a sacrament unless you are male and ordained, over married life, which IS a sacrament? Especially given that most of us CANNOT be like him, because we are either female, or we simply are not called to Holy Orders? So... I'm supposed to be a monk or a brother, instead of a priest, because being celibate, and/or monastic vows, is somehow superior to the sanctifying, divinizing, deifying grace of a sacrament? I'm supposed to be a monk instead of allowing the grace of a sacrament make me into a god? And, yes, that's what 2 Peter 1:4, CCC 460 and 1999 say sacraments do. Sacraments make us partakers of the divine nature... sacraments make us gods. Taking perpetual vows of celibacy, yeah, not so much. But apparently, becoming a monk or nun is superior to being married.

How does that even work? 

How can simple celibacy under disciplinary vows be superior to a DIVINIZING SACRAMENT??? From the perspective of saving grace, it makes zero sense. And notice, it isn't sex that makes the sacrament holy. True, once you've had sex, it's a lot tougher to get an annulment, but it isn't strictly necessary to have sex in order to gain the sacramental grace of marriage. Indeed, as you can see above, there are examples of spouses who never had sex at all, and are canonized saints. In fact, the two greatest saints of the Church were married but never had sex. That's an answer to people who say the Church just wants Catholics to have a lot of children so the Church has a lot of disciples. I mean, if that were the case, then deliberately celibate married couples would not be canonized saints.  

So, are Mary, Joseph and all the rest BETTER saints because they got married and lived celibately? It sure seems like that is part of the message, yes. But then what happens to the three goods of marriage, including marriage being a remedy for (sexual) concupiscence? Even more weird, how is it BETTER, through sexual abstinence, to deliberately AVOID bringing into existence immortal human beings who will praise God for all eternity? 

On the one hand, marriage is a divinizing sacrament. On the other hand, we are supposed to imitate all the saints who were "freed from the fetters of marriage" and consequently abandoned their spouses and under-age children so they could join a monastery or convent. A Josephite (i.e., physically barren) marriage is held up as better than a fecund marriage that produces numerous immortal images of God. Ignore those children and grand-children and great-grandchildren, the whole web of generational life of men and women who presumably would join their lower-rung saint-parents in praising God for all eternity. To all those thousands of generations of people, well to them, God, the Giver of Life, gives out lower-quality awards because those people actually... you know... physically participated in living out His image in their own bodies. 

That physical stuff, that's yucky. After all, it's not like God physically created man with His own hands out of dirt or anything... oh... well, it's still yucky. So even though they are divinized by the sacrament, married people are not as meritorious as the celibate people who aren't divinized by the sacrament, because, YAY CELIBACY! Which isn't, by itself, divinizing at all. 

Out of all the sacraments, the Catholic message on marriage is, perhaps, the most schizophrenic.

Does the Catholic Church Teach Pedophilia?

We know Muslims have no real issue with child marriage.

But we know Catholics are supposed to (1) obey the Church and (2) imitate the saints.

OBEY THE CHURCH

Check the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Canon 1083 currently sets the age of marriage as 16 years of age for boys and 14 years of age for girls. This maintains the ages set in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1067. But, the 1917 code was a change from the pre-1917 code, which set the canonical ages of marriage at twelve for both ages (younger marriage was possible if the spouse had entered puberty). And for most of the Church's history, one could be betrothed to marriage by the age of seven, although younger betrothals were not uncommon. 

St. John Chrysostom (a Doctor of the Church) said young men should marry as soon as possible (before they turn 20), to keep them out of the whore houses and theaters.

Now, Catholics typically want their children baptized as infants (as early as possible), given first  Reconciliation and first Eucharist by age 7 (as early as possible), many Catholics want their children to be confirmed as early as possible (also age 7). 

For most of the Church's history, the canonical age for minor orders was seven to twelve. But, the canonical age for major orders was quite different: twenty-two for Subdeaconship, twenty-three for Deaconship, and twenty-five for the Priesthood, but there were exceptions. Pope John XI was perhaps twenty-three or twenty-four, and Pope John XII was not yet twenty-two. Reception into a monastery or convent was generally prohibited before age 15. 

The canonical age for Holy Orders is currently 25. Currently, a religious must be 21 in order to make final vows.

However, the canonical age for Holy Matrimony is 14 for women, 16 for men. So, why is marriage the only sacrament no one wants their children to receive at canonical age? 

Remember, Chesterton said tradition was allowing the dead to have a vote. Well, traditionally, the age of marriage was at minimum around 10 or 12. So, if you are a Chestertonian, you should support marriage at that age, right? 

And, remember, Chesterton was born in 1874. In an era when most people didn't know their exact birth date in the first place, British common law allowed girls to marry at 12 and boys at 14. In 1929, just seven years before Chesterton's death, the minimum age for a girl's marriage was set to 14 years (in India), 16 years (in England) and that for boys was fixed at 18 years.

Chesterton died in 1936. So, for most of Chesterton's life, the legal age of marriage for both the Church and the culture he lived in was 12 for girls, 14 for boys.  Chesterton would have had ZERO problem with a 12-year old woman marrying and consummating the marriage.

IMITATE THE SAINTS

    Betrothed at Age 10    

• In Confessions (Books 2 and 6), St. Augustine said his saintly mother had arranged for him to marry a 10-year-old girl when she became of legal age (i.e., 12). He was 30 years old at the time. He had been having sex since he was at least 16 (marriageable age was 12 for men too). He notes that his mother, St. Monica, could have arranged a marriage for him earlier to give him a legitimate outlet for his sexual urges, but she feared that marriage at that time would hurt his chances for a successful career.

    Married at Age 11

• Saint Frances of Rome, born 1384, married 1396, bore six children, 

    Married at Age 12

• The Blessed Virgin is assumed to have been about 12 to 14 when she got pregnant with Jesus. 
• Saint Godeleva married "very young"
• St. Rita married at age 12, bore two children
• Blessed Michelina of Pesaro, married age 12, bore one son, Pardino.
• Saint Frances of Rome, born 1384, married 1396 at age 12, bore three children.
• Blessed Jadwiga (aka Hedwig, Polish queen), born 1374, married 1386 at age 12, bore seven children
• Saint Hedwig of Silesia, born 1174, married 1186 at age 12. Her husband was between 16 and 21.
• Saint Joan of France, born April 23, 1464, married Sept 8, 1476 at age 12. Her groom was age 14.
• Marianne Frances, daughter of Saint Jane Frances de Chantal (d. 1641), married at the age of 12 to a 16-year old groom with her saintly mother's approval. 
• Blessed Thomas Percy, born 1528, married "at the age of eligibility" (i.e., 12 years old) to Anne Somerset. They had four children.
• Saint Elizabeth of Portugal married 20-year old King Dinis. She bore him a child at age 19.

    Married at Age 13

• Saint Melania the Younger, born 383, married 396 at age 13, bore two children. Her husband was 17.

    Married at Age 14

• Saint Kinga, born 1234, married 1248 at age 14.
• Blessed Mary of Oignies, married at age 14, never consummated.
• Saint Catherine of Vadstena, born 1331, married 1345 at age 14, never consummated.
• Saint Matilda, born 895, married 909 at age 14. Bore four children.
• Saint Bridget of Sweden, born 1303, married 1316, at age 13, consummated marriage 1317 at age 14, bore eight children, including St. Catherine of Sweden.
• Saint Elzear and Blessed Delphina.  Elzear was born 1285, Delphina 1282, married 1299, at ages 14 and 17 respectively.
• Saint Philip Howard, born 1557, married at 14 to Anne Dacre
• St. Elizabeth of Hungary married at age 14 to 21-year old Louis (Ludwig IV) Landgrave of Thuringia, and had her first child at age 15.

    Married at Age 15

• Edward Longshanks married at 15 to his 13-year old second cousin, Eleanor of Castile. They had 14 children. 
• Saint Joachima de Mas y de Vedruna, born April 16, 1783, married March 24, 1799 at age 15, mother of nine children.
• Saint Paula of Rome, born 357, married 372 at age 15 to a Roman senator, mother of five children.
• Blessed Virginia Centurione, born 1587, married at age 15 
• Saint Catherine of Genoa, born April 15, 1447, married January 13, 1463 at age 15.
• Blessed Seraphina, born 1434, married 1448 at age 15.
• Blessed Umiliana Cerchi, born 1219, married at age 15.
• Blessed Aleth and Tescelin, married at 15, had seven children (including St. Bernard of Clairvaux)
• Saint Adelaide of Burgundy, to 21-year old Lothair II of Italy.

    Married at Age 16

• Saint Adelaied, born 931, married 947 at age 16, bore five children.
• Saint Humility, born 1226, married 1242, at age 16
• Blessed Galeotto Roberto Malatesta, married at age 16.
• Blessed Louisa of Savoy, born Dec 2, 1462, Married 1479 at age 16.
• Blessed Victoria Rasoamanarivo was born in 1848 and married in 1864, at the age of 16.
• Blessed Mary of the Incarnation, born 1566, married in 1582 at age 16.
• Blessed Dorothy of Montau, born 1347, married 1363 at age 16.
• Blessed Joan Mary de Maille born 1331, married 1347 at age 16.
• Blessed Peter To Rote, aged 22, married 16-year old Paula Ia Varpit, who bore two children.
• Saint Thomas More, aged 27, married 16-year old Jane Colt, who bore four children.

    Married at Age 17

• Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, betrothed at age twelve, married at 17. bore two children.
• Saint Joan de Lestonnac, born 1556, married at age 17.
• Blessed Helena of Bologna, born 1472, married 1489 at age 17.
• Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, born 1271, married 1288 at age 17
• Saint Zdislava, born 1220, married at age 17. Mother of four children.
• Blessed Ida of Boulogne, born 1040, married 1057 at age 17, mother of three

QUESTIONS

So, if you are a faithful Catholic, are you preparing your children to joyfully accept the saving grace of the sacrament of marriage between the ages of 12 and 17? Are you encouraging them to marry before the age of 20, in imitation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and following the sage advice of a Doctor of the Church, in accordance with canon law?

Is it possible that the the problem of teen pregnancy is actually a problem involving the failure of Christians to prepare 12, 13, and 14-year-olds to be married between the ages of 14 and 16?

Even if it is not stressed, does the Catholic Church formally teach its adherents to accept marriage during the ages that the secular world would call "child marriage" and "pedophilia"? Is secular society correct about when to receive the sacrament, are the ancient laws, teachings and traditions of the Church wrong? Or is the Church correct and secular society the one that is wrong to prevent men and women in their teens from marrying? 

Does the Church instruct us to no longer imitate the saints? Are we to refuse the advice of the Doctors of the Church? Do we block our sons and daughters from being properly prepared to receive the eternal, life-giving grace of marriage at the age of 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16, when canon law has said, or currently does say, they are permitted to receive it? 

Traditionalists get upset when the Pope or the bishops say divorced spouses might still, under certain circumstances, receive the Eucharist, but they refuse the example and teachings of the saints, and look askance at the canons of the Church when it comes to encouraging teens to enter into marriage. Marriage is a sacrament. Why would you discourage or prevent its reception? 

A Timeline Leading To Middle-Eastern Crusades

The Crusades against Islam (as opposed to the Crusades against the Albigensians or the Crusades in Northern Europe) are commonly agreed to have occurred between 1095 and 1291.

• What happened prior to 1095? Well, Islam began it's expansion around 632. In that year, every piece of land which touched the Mediterranean was Catholic.
• By 647, Islam had begun to conquer North Africa. Crusade was not called.
• In 674, Islamic armies laid its first siege of Constantinople, capitol city of the Roman Eastern Empire. Crusade was not called.
• By 711, literally half of the Catholic Roman Empire had been conquered by Islam, and Islam had crossed the channel to invade Spain. Crusade was not called. For the next 600 years, Islamic armies would conquer most of the Iberian peninsula and fight Christian kings for control. Crusade was not called.
• 782, the Islamic invasion of Asia Minor began. Crusade was not called.
• 827, Arab Islamic armies attack and conquer Sicily. Crusade was not called.
• For the next two centuries, Islamic corsairs would raid all along the Spanish, French, Italian, Neopolitan and Asia Minor coast of Christian Europe, kidnapping and enslaving Christians. Crusade was not called.
• In 846, the Arab Muslims raided Rome. Islamic armies sailed up the Tiber, defiled the Church of St. Peter in Chains and St. Paul Outside the Walls, and attacked Rome itself. The papal response was to raise the wall around Rome, to make it one foot higher. Crusade was not called.
• The churches in Jerusalem were razed or defiled, with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher turned into a horse stable. Crusade was not called.
• Only when Muslims forbad Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem did the Popes finally declare that they had had just about enough of this, and declare Crusade.

Now, compare that to the modern situation. Can you imagine foreign armies invading the United States from the East, capturing every scrap of territory between the East Coast and the Mississippi river, laying siege to Los Angeles, raiding American cities all along the Gulf Coast, the Mississippi River, the West Coast and the Canadian border, and we don't respond militarily for four centuries?

That we don't respond even after they turn the Lincoln Memorial into a Chinese takeout, and destroy the Washington Monument? That we only respond militarily four hundred years later, when the stop America tourists from being able to visit Washington DC at all?

If you think the Crusades was unreasonable, then you must also have very serious objections to the US response after 9/11. And the reconquista of all that territory between the Mississippi and Washington DC... you would obviously object to American military force being used for that, right?

Can We Prove God's Existence?

Any argument based on the observation of the physical world necessarily suffers from the p<.05 problem.

"Luck is inherent in random trials. In a medical study, some patients may be healthier. In an agricultural study, some soil may be more fertile. In an educational study, some students may be more motivated. Researchers consequently calculate the probability (the p-value) that the outcomes might happen by chance. A low p-value indicates that the results cannot easily be attributed to the luck of the draw.

How low? In the 1920s, the great British statistician Ronald Fisher said that he considered p-values below 5% to be persuasive and, so, 5% became the hurdle for the “statistically significant” certification needed for publication, funding and fame.

It is not a difficult hurdle. Suppose that a hapless researcher calculates the correlations among hundreds of variables, blissfully unawarethat the data are all, in fact, random numbers. On average, one out of 20 correlations will be statistically significant, even though every correlation is nothing more than coincidence.

Real researchers don’t correlate random numbers but, all too often, they correlate what are essentially randomly chosen variables. This haphazard search for statistical significance even has a name: data mining. As with random numbers, the correlation between randomly chosen, unrelated variables has a 5% chance of being fortuitously statistically significant. Data mining can be augmented by manipulating, pruning and otherwise torturing the data to get low p-values."

An observer within the universe has no way of knowing if he is observing random chance or intelligent design. Given enough variables, enough time and enough universes, it is absolutely possible to live in a universe that is random but appears designed. And since "time" is itself one of the variables that can mutate, there's no way of knowing what the probabilities are from inside the system.

If God were totally contained within the universe, then the laws of the universe could be used to test for God's existence. But God is not contained within the universe. Although He holds every part of the universe in existence from moment to moment, He exists completely apart from it. The laws of the universe cannot contain God. As His creation, the laws of the universe may contain traces of His Being, indications of His characteristics, but that is all.

An objection might be raised. Did not Godel mathematically prove the correctness of Anselm's argument for God's existence? Why, yes. Yes, he did. Godel demonstrated that Anselm's proof for the existence of God was VALID according to the laws of modal logic. Unfortunately, Godel did NOT prove that Anselm's argument was TRUE. To be fair, he can't. Proving something true is outside the bounds of logical proof. Logic can only show validity. And even so, Anselm's argument involved thought, "God is that which a greater cannot be conceived," and thus is not obviously bound within physical universal laws.

So, any argument that relies on the "intelligent design" of the universe to prove God's existence fails. In fact, such an argument MUST fail according to the tenets of Christianity. Persons are not known by proof, they are known by self-revelation. The persons of the Trinity are self-revealed (which is why the OT didn't know there was a Trinity – the Trinitarian Persons had not yet revealed the inner workings of the Godhead). God is certainly pure Logic, but He is, more importantly, Three Persons.

Personhood is the key to discovering God. Thomas was chastised not because he sought physical proof, but because he failed to believe his friends, the other ten surviving apostles. In the moments before the risen Christ appeared, Thomas was in the same boat the rest of us have been in for 2000 years – we have no physical evidence, all we have is trust in eyewitness testimony and trust in Christ's self-revelation. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but what is the evidence that warrants faith? According to St. Paul, it is the Resurrection. If Christ is not risen from the dead  then we are all dead in our sins. Thomas objected because the apostles had only an empty tomb and some hysterical stories. Technically, the apostles weren't even eyewitnesses to the Resurrection.

Remember, even the apostles were not present at the Resurrection, they didn't actually see the physical event. The only people who were even close to being actual "eyewitnesses" were the (Jewish or Roman) soldiers guarding the tomb. Oddly enough, their testimony is not directly recorded anywhere. We have hearsay testimony of what they told the elders and their own superiors, but we don't have any Scriptural letter or other direct account from any of those soldiers. Six hundred years after the event, historical accounts begin to tell us Longinus, the soldier with the spear, converted, but none of the soldiers guarding the tomb, that is, none of the men who were most likely to have actually seen some aspect of the Resurrection, none of them are said to have converted. 

The Jewish objection to Jesus is that the Old Testament prophecies a Messiah, but not a Messiah who shows up twice (Christians are still waiting on the Messiah's return - Jews consider that very weird). 

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but what is the evidence for faith? According to St. Paul, the Resurrection is the evidence for Faith. If He is not risen from the dead, we are still in our sins, and the most foolish of men to boot. But, the Resurrection was not seen. 

So, according to Scripture, the Resurrection is the evidence for Faith, and Faith is the evidence for the Resurrection. Which is circular logic, and does nothing to convince anyone who buys into Aristotelian logic. 

The testimony of the ten "eyewitnesses" who "saw" the Resurrection, that is, the apostles in the Upper Room, actually relies on what Jesus told them before (and after) His death. Yes, the ten see the empty tomb and logically conclude something happened, but exactly what happened is left to the prophetic testimony of Christ before He died, and the self-revelatory testimony of the risen Christ. The ten who saw the risen Christ believe the testimony of the only actual eyewitness whose testimony we actually have, Christ Himself. Thomas refuses to believe the ten, and so must be shown physical evidence, self-revelation, by the risen Christ as well. But, ultimately, the entire chain of evidence for the resurrection relies on Christ's self-revelation. The apostolic eyewitness testimony consists of the eleven being eyewitnesses to Christ's self-revelation, His spoken words, before and after the event, it is not eyewitness testimony of the actual Resurrection, the physical event. 

As Thomas shows, Christian faith can use physical proof, but that physical proof will always be secondary to God's self-revelation. Because God is pure logic, we must use logic in our search for God. Our search through the physical universe allows us to observe the witness the universe makes to God's existence, but that, by itself can never be sufficient. The physical presence of Christ before the apostles was not sufficient. The apostles required Christ to explain what their senses perceived. And even among the apostles who witnessed the risen Christ, "the eleven disciples went to Galilee... when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." The testimonies of those who claim to have seen with their eyes and touched with their hands are the best eyewitness evidence we have, but even that is not truly sufficient, as both Thomas and the other unnamed "doubting" apostles demonstrated. 

It wasn't the apostolic testimony of the Resurrection that ultimately brought Christian belief to the Roman Empire, it was the apostolic service to others, their willingness to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, rescue the abandoned, care for the sick, bury the dead. In the last analysis, we must remember that while God is pure logic, at His core, God is Love. Thus, ultimately, we find God not through physical perception, nor logical analytics, nor even through emotional experience, but only through the choice to serve persons. We meet Christ through each Christian's choice to Love. After all, if God is pure logic, and God is Love, then the only logical choice is Love. If you want evidence of God's existence, start there.

Advantages of Cardano

Cardano Energy Use

Cardano is PoS, not PoW, so it is much less energy intensive. 

Cardano Staking Model

Cardano's staking mechanism does not require "lock, slash and burn." 

There is no coin locking. 

There is no slashing for unfaithful staking pools. That's pretty unusual. Once I have an ADA coin, the only way I lose it is through my own stupidity, not through someone else's (i.e., a staking pool's stupidity). My collateral is NEVER locked or slashed.

Staking is extremely easy and relatively profitable.

Cardano is hard-capped at a maximum number of coins, so it is not inflationary, it does not need to burn coins.

eUTxO accounting advantages

Cardano uses eUTxO accounting (similar to Bitcoin), whereas most other chains use an account-based system (similar to Ethereum). As a result, Cardano transactions are much cheaper and Cardano fees can be computed precisely before the transaction takes place. Therefore Cardano transaction fees are known ahead of the transaction, and are not lost if the transaction does not execute.

Cardano transaction fees are not the cheapest, but are on the cheaper end of any of the coins out there.

Cardano eUTXO model allows multiple assets to be sent to multiple wallets in a single transaction without requiring a smart contract.

Because Cardano uses the eUTxO model, and transactions are deterministic, the determinism  prevents block producers from reordering transactions for their own profit at the cost of others. 

Because eUTxO transactions are done on-chain, the ability to hack the transaction is greatly reduced. 

Due to the eUTxO transactional model, ADA can be sent to multiple addresses with a single transaction fee. It is also the case that multiple assets (e.g., both ADA and SundaeSwap) can be sent together with one transactional fee.

Account-based models operate using a unified global state machine. Every transaction updates the state, meaning that every transaction has to go through it. The speed of the network is limited by how fast nodes can process all these transactions. With a eUTxO model, the ledger doesn't use global state. It's simply the set of unspent transaction outputs (UTxOs) all of which can exist and be used independently of one another. This makes scaling faster and easier than non-eUTxO models

In Cardano’s eUTxO model, Submitting a transaction does not block you from submitting another one regardless of the first one being completed. 

Cardano treats tokens and NFTs as native assets. Cardano does not require (expensive) smart contracts to mint NFTs. It can be done on-chain. This means no smart contract are necessary, security is improved, an entire attack surface is eliminated. Consequently, things like dusting attacks are impossible. Creating NFTs via smart contracts (the model Ethereum and similar coins use) is a bolt-on solution (a hack) with a wide attack surface. 

With Cardano, if the transaction doesn’t go through, you don’t lose your transaction fees. Cardano fees are known BEFORE the transaction takes place. No guesswork.

Cardano has a cap to it's blockchain storage requirements, other chains don't. With other chains, as the number of transactions grows, the blockchain also grows. 

"Every transaction that stores data on the blockchain needs to include a certain amount of ADA that corresponds to the amount of data. That ADA can only be reclaimed by spending the UTxO but spending the UTxO means that no future transaction can reference that UTxO so the associated data does not need to be stored any longer. All of this means that the size of the state of Cardano cannot grow beyond a certain limit (since ADA has a maximum supply)."

Cardano Speed and Reliability

Cardano has modular design. This is no longer a new thing, but when Cardano started developing this, they were among the first to attempt it. Modularity improves security and limits failure modes. 

Cardano is written in a functional language, Haskell, which can be easily checked for formal mathematical verification, that is, the correctness of the code can be much more easily verified.

Haskell is one of the "safer" programming languages available. Microsoft, Google, Apple are all moving away from C-like languages and towards formal languages like Rust or Haskell. The Haskell community overall reaches for generalizing a solution as far as possible, usually along the lines of some abstract mathematical underpinning. There are huge advantages to this. They build out solutions to problems they didn't even know they had. They are able to rely on mathematical laws to guide designs and ensure concepts compose nicely. Solidity and similar languages aren’t built to do that. 

Cardano's design is so reliable it has never gone down. 

Cardano has never required a hard fork or rollback and never will.

Cardano is fast - not the fastest, but faster than most of the other top ten coins.

Cardano consistently has the most development on the chain every year.

Cardano procedures and protocols have been subject to peer review. Peer review is not some magical cure-all, it has its own problems, but it improves the odds that Cardano procedures and protocols have no major flaws.

Cardano is not single-layer, it is dual layer. That gives it more resiliency and flexibility than single-layer protocols.

Cardano has one of the most active Github developer communities in crypto. It consistently has more code development commits than nearly any other project. When combined with the formal correctness of the code, that means a lot of solidly beneficial code is being consistently produced.

Cardano Decentralization

Decentralization can mean a number of things: 

1. Decentralized governance: How decisions about future development of the network are made. 
• Decentralized software development: Who contributes to source code development, and who decides which changes get accepted? This is arguably a subset of governance.
• Decentralized protocol: are the rules of the protocol the highest authority within the blockchain, or can powerful people in the community change the rules ex post facto, negate the protocol, rollback the blockchain and retroactively enforce a different protocol than the one the community had previously agreed to operate by? This is also arguably a subset of governance.
• Scattered/equal token distribution: Who owns how many native tokens on the network? This could be an aspect of governance, depending on network design.
2. Decentralized infrastructure: The (number of) parties running the network infrastructure, the diversity of hardware, and the distribution and number of different locations.

"With Bitcoin, just a handful of mining organizations (often five or fewer) control more than 50% of the hashing power of the network, which is enough to dictate the ordering of transactions. (Just three mining pools control 47% of Bitcoin’s hashing power, and just two mining pools control almost 48% of Ethereum’s hashing power).  Worse, a very small number of providers build Bitcoin mining hardware, so companies like Bitmain effectively control the Bitcoin network."

Cardano is arguably the most decentralized coin available by infrastructure. Cardano is one of the most decentralized chains by infrastructure (number of stake pools) and its protocol doesn't hard-fork or require rollback. The rules of the protocol are still under the authority of IOHK, so it's not the most decentralized protocol on that front yet. It also is not yet most decentralized by governance or software development, although both of those situations are also under development.

Cardano MOUs

While Bitcoin is the only coin that has been declared an official national currency, Cardano is the only coin that has MOUs with national governments.

Cardano's structure has been supported by the peer review process. This is not fool-proof - a lot of stupid things have the "peer review" imprimatur - but it's better than not having it at all. It's like trying to do encryption. Microsoft tried to roll their own for decades. Every time they tried, they got faced by hackers. In every case, Microsoft ended up adopting an open-source encryption tool developed by actual mathematicians. Cardano started out that way.

Is Judas in Hell?

Here's the problem. 

1) Scripture is inerrant. That is, on points of faith and morals, it does not contain error. Sure, it may not accurately describe things in a way that is in accordance with experimental science, but Scripture is not meant to be a science textbook, It is, in various books and passages, a history. It engages in poetry, allitration, hyperbole, sarcasm, even cynicism, but it is on matters of faith and morals without error.

2) Scripture says Judas repented (Matthew 27:3). Notice: although all Christians agree Peter repented, it says nowhere explicitly in Scripture that Peter did, in fact, repent. Luke's Gospel tells us Peter "wept bitterly" (Luke 22:62), but it does not explicitly say he repented. Peter's repentance is implied, never explicit. The explicit words of Scripture tell us of Judas' repentance.

So... that's an issue.

Now, one might argue that is is clearly not an issue because the Church tells us that Judas is in hell for having betrayed Christ. But the Church doesn't actually say that anywhere in any of her official documents. Sure, individual saints, Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church either implicitly or explicitly tell us Judas is in hell, but those same individuals are often unclear on points of doctrine or get specific doctrinal points wrong, despite their sanctity. The Church exists to correct those errors and steer us on the clear path. The Church's Magisterial authority does not clearly state Judas is definitely in hell. (see note below)

Now, perhaps this is all just a translation problem. If we look at the Greek, we can see that Judas "metamelloma" (repented). Does "metamelloma" mean "equivocal" or "incomplete" or does it have some other kind of asterick? 

According to James Glentworth Butler, "as nearly as possible [metamelomai] is the exact equivalent of the word Repent or Repentance." Worse, God chastises those who did not "metamellomai" after hearing John. (Mat 21:32). But Judas DID metamellomai. So... why is metamellomai sufficient when people listen to John, but not sufficient for Judas? It's the same word. 

If there is some kind of asterick surrounding "metamelloma", then why are the tax collectors and prostitutes who do this after hearing John's message forgiven? Or, conversely, if the "metamelloma" of the prostitutes is sufficient, then why isn't Judas' "metamelloma" sufficient? 

What options are available here?

1) Well, we could conclude that Scripture is wrong, Judas' repentance wasn't real, and Judas is going to hell for betraying Christ. But if Scripture is wrong on this point, that means Scripture is not inerrant. That's a non-starter.

2) We could conclude that Scripture is correct, Judas did, indeed, engage in true repentance just like the tax collectors and prostitutes. So, is Judas in hell? If he is, then he isn't in hell for betraying Jesus, because Judas repented of that. He would have to be in hell for some other reason. Perhaps his suicide?

But there's a second problem. Scripture describes him as dying in two different ways.  

Matthew 27:5: Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18: Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

There have been various attempts to harmonize these two discordant passages. The most popular is to say that he did, indeed, hang himself, but he hung himself in a tree in the Field of Blood. After he was dead, either the rope broke and his bloated corpse fell to the ground and burst open, or the simple act of bloating was sufficient to cause his entrails to burst out and his corpse fell in some unspecified manner.

This is vaguely disorienting. Perhaps some variation on those themes work, although it isn't entirely clear why the two passages appear to disagree so strongly. You would think Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) would have talked with each other about Judas' situation, or that Peter would have been better informed about the fate of one of the Twelve. But, leave that as it may be. What do we do with the money?

Notice that in Matthew 27:5, Judas throws down and abandons the pieces of silver. The chief priests then pick up the money and buy the field that became known as the Field of Blood. In Acts 1:18, Peter says Judas didn't throw the money away, instead, Peter says Judas kept the money and bought a field with it. Which one is it?

Matthew 27: 5-8: And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter. 6But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the Temple treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers. 8For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day.

Acts:1:18-19: And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, falling headlong burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

To make matters worse, it is Peter who tells us the Acts 1 story, so the discordance between Matthew 25 and Acts 1 involves not just Scripture's inerrancy, but Peter's infallibility.  Not only do we have the question of (1) Judas repentance, we also have the questions of (2) who, exactly, bought the field and (3) why, exactly, was it called the Field of Blood?

Now, the third question is easily harmonized. A group might have more than one reason to name a thing, and it is quite possible that both the method of purchase and the bursting of bowels combined to give the field its name. But the purchase itself... how do you harmonize that? The only possible way to make it work is to say the chief priests made the purchase, but since they made that purchase with money they morally refused to accept, they made it with Judas' money, properly speaking, and so it was Judas' purchase, even though Judas had not himself made the purchase. But if we insist that the chief priest's implicitly repudiated the money, so it was really Judas' money, then we have to ignore the fact that Scripture explicitly says Judas also repudiated the money. Why do the chief priests get to repudiate the money but Judas doesn't get to?

We're back to the same problem. Scripture explicitly says Judas repented. Scripture explicitly says Judas repudiated the money. Scripture only implies Peter repented, Scripture only implies the chief priests repudiated the money (after all, they used the money, so it's not entirely clear that they really did repudiate it). We're more than happy to grant the implicit motivations, and very quick to reject the explicit Scriptural statements about Judas.

Keep in mind also that both passages agree on the name of the field. It is not called "Field of the Damned." It is called "Field of Blood." From a Scriptural perspective, this is very noteworthy. According to Scripture, blood is life. 

Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Gen 9:4)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11)

Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water. (Deuteronomy 12:23)

From the perspective of Scriptural concordance and interpretation, given that blood is equated to life, the name of the field could as easily be translated either "Field of Blood" or "Field of Life." Does this mean Judas' blood is life-giving? Not at all. We just need to remember that for the Scripturally knowledgeable and Scripturally observant Jew, the word "blood" has entirely different connotations than it does for 21st century Christians. Blood was holy, the blood of animal sacrifices at Passover was used to anoint the altar. Judas' blood was poured into the ground when he "burst asunder" (or the money that bought the shedding of Christ's blood was poured into the purchase, or both) to such a degree that the field was named after blood. The one thing the two passages do agree on: the money given Judas to betray Christ, one way or another, was used to purchase that field. The price of Christ's blood and the actual life-blood of Judas are co-mingled in that Field of Blood. 

If Christ is the scapegoat for our sins, then Judas' role in salvation history may be seen in another light. In Leviticus 16, two goats are given to the priests for sacrifice. One is killed, the other is assigned to have the sins of the nation put on its head and be released, it is the Escape Goat (scapegoat). The priest who lays hands on the Escape Goat and sends it out into the wilderness is, by that action, rendered unclean. He cannot return to the people of Israel until he has ritually bathed. The Jewish ritual bath (mikveh) that the Old Testament priest must undergo is a precursor to the baptism instituted by Christ. 

In the Garden, Judas' kiss sends Jesus into the wilderness of the secular world and secular judgement.
Since Jesus is the Escape Goat, this makes Judas the impure Old Testament priest who requires a ritual bath in order to return to God's people. But there is no record of Judas going through any Old Testament purification ritual or either of the New Testament purification sacraments (baptism and confession) that would restore his purity. Of course, Scripture does not explicitly describe any of the tax collectors and prostitutes who heard John as having undergone these rituals either. But, it is an interesting thing to think about. 

Scripture never explicitly tells us why Judas committed suicide. While the Church has historically dealt harshly with suicides, for example, refusing them for centuries the right to be buried in holy ground, medical advances have made it clear that some cases of suicide are deeply influenced by uncontrollable medical conditions. As a result, the Church has greatly mellowed in her treatment of suicides. 

If we accept the inerrancy of Scripture, than we must accept that Judas did, indeed, experience true repentance. We must also accept that he did, indeed, truly repudiate the payment for his betrayal of Christ. It is true that he is not known to have undertaken any ritual attempt to regain purity of life. However, given the Scriptural facts of his repentance, combined with the increased medical understanding of suicide, an understanding not possessed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, can Catholics in the 21st century accept that "Judas in hell" may possibly be incorrect? If the names of the twelve Apostles are written on the twelve courses of the foundation of the Heavenly City, does that mean Judas' name is written on the foundation of heaven? 

The simple answer: Yes. Just as many of the Fathers and Doctors were wrong about the Immaculate Conception, so many of them may have been wrong about Judas being in hell. 

NOTE

The Catholic Church cannot definitively say anyone is in hell because it is not part of her mission to do so. The Church shares Christ's mission. The Son of God became man so that all men might be saved. If the Church were to declare that someone was in hell, then that declaration alone would be sufficient for damnation. But Christ did not come into the world to damn men to hell, He came to save men for heaven. Thus, the Church can categorically state that specific people are in heaven (the canonized saints, the angels) because that is Christ's mission, but declaring someone to be in hell is not part of Christ's mission and so not a statement the Church can officially make about any particular person.

The Church clearly states that persons are in hell. We know that persons are in hell. Angelic persons are in hell.  Fallen angelic persons are demons, those persons are in hell. But the Church cannot say any particular human person is in hell.

The same issue applies to private apparitions. First, if we follow the advice of Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, we should ignore ALL private apparition. If we decide we will not follow the spiritual advice of a Doctor of the Church, then we must at least realize that visionaries can get messages wrong or misunderstand them. Yes, even Fatima visionaries can get things wrong.