Just an ordinary myopic internet enjoyer.
Can also be found at lemmy.dbzer0, lemmy.world and Kbin.social.
There’s this saying “a fish is caught through its mouth,” and this is an illustration of what it means. This pope might present this ‘cool’, ‘modern’ image to the public, but his words spoken in private amongst his peers reveals his real stance about these things.
Edit: proofreading.
Investigators also spoke to the priest, who said the woman had been told at an earlier Mass on Sunday that she had not fulfilled all the requirements for receiving communion and could not participate, officials said.
When she returned for a later service, the priest says she “attacked” him and “grabbed” a tray of communion wafers from his hands, the affidavit says.
“She informed the priest she did in fact do the steps necessary and is now accepted by God, thus, granting her the ability to participate,” an affidavit reports.
That’s when the priest “became upset and tried to ram the ‘cookie’ in her mouth,” she told police.
“In response … she attempted to grab another communion bread which (the priest) was holding. However, (he) grabbed her and bit her arm,” the affidavit says.
AFAIK, the priest does have the power to refuse communion to someone. But then again, a quick online search to confirm this gave me the following:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
(Taken from https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann879-958_en.html#TITLE_III)
Not a Roman Catholic priest, let alone a Roman Catholic canon lawyer, but I think any baptized Catholic can take communion unless:
And then, Catholics are enjoined to refrain from participating from mass or receiving communion if they’re aware of committing a grave sin and haven’t yet done the sacrament of confession.
The only way I can justify the priest’s prior actions given all this is if the woman has been explicitly (visible to all the people in the church) committing grave sin. Or is known by the congregation that the woman is committing grave sin.
However, from the other places, it seems that the advice is to privately convince the person to refrain from participating in communion. Assuming the priest has done this in that previous mass, and the woman escalated the situation by reaching for the communion wafers, I could understand the priest going wild. Afterall, the priest has a duty to ensure the sanctity of the communion wafers.
That the priest’s first impulse in this situation is to bite the woman still is funny to me though. Was his hands and arms already otherwise occupied?
Of course, all I’ve said above (TL;DR: the priest can possibly bar someone from participating in the holy communion, that the priest has a duty of keeping the sanctity of the consecrated hosts) still doesn’t excuse the priest from being charged with assault and battery. I feel this part needs to be said out loud.
And since I’m already quoting the Roman Catholic Canon law, I think this one’s most apropos:
Can. 909 A priest is not to neglect to prepare himself properly through prayer for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice and to offer thanks to God at its completion.
Indeed. Translating from Japanese is hard, even more so Japanese that involve figurative expressions and idioms (that are already usually hard to translate to and from any language to begin with).
Hate is such a strong word. But yes. The real world can get really tiring sometimes.
With that out of the way, off to my tangent. There’s probably two parts to explaining why there’s a lot of isekai works out there.
It is easy to write. It’s easy for the writer to basically insert themselves into their works. That way, they would have a far easier time working through the main character’s motivations, actions and reactions. Isekai also makes it easier for the writer to worldbuild. They can just do an anything goes setting with a god who specifically made the world in whatever way that’s most convenient to the writer. That is, lazy writing. That is not to say this means all isekai is bad, but rather, since it’s easy to write, there’s bound to be a lot of people who’d give it a go.
It’s easy to read. A lot of the isekai works I’ve read so far has been the type where I can just check out my brain at the entrance and dive in. A lot of this has to do with the kind of isekai I read, but with a setting that’s anything goes, and an MC that I can relate to, I can easily snuggle into the work and pretend. Yes, it’s escapism, and I don’t think the genre as a whole has any pretentions otherwise.
As far as I’m concerned, isekai as a genre is like potato chips. It’s unhealthy, even not that interesting culinarily, but it’s also something I would love to indulge in from time-to-time. Add to that a tub of vanilla ice cream as a dip (probably a hot take) and I’m set for a relaxing night watching isekai. (Of course, the next morning, I’m back to the real world and all its shit).
“Going into Happyland” sounds like a great euphemism. I’m going to steal it if you don’t mind.
And that’s perhaps the most peaceful peace. A peace only nothingness can bring.
There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.
From the article:
She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.
Whether we agree with her or not, it’s her decision.
And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.
Indeed, that’s not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.
To reiterate: it won’t be initiated by the medical professionals. They’re simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed “proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered”. The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they’ve arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.
My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved.
I accept this point. This is why I put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it’s on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made “the correct decision” isn’t the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.
I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn’t even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.
Ah, thanks for that clarification. That much I can agree with in general.
This might be a hot take for an anime enjoyer, but what immunity are they talking about here? Immunity against nudity? Fanservice?
I’m leaning more towards “people losing immunity towards nudity (in shows)” but that’s one extreme. If every show on Earth has people fully-clothed, covered from hair to toe, and porn is relegated to an extreme taboo that one would go to great lengths and at great risk to access (kinda like Shimoneta, I guess?) then maybe? But even then, sex is such a human need that people will find ways.
Now, this might be a wild shot in the dark, but if they’re talking about lack of fanservice leading to people not having sex, uh… Japan has a lot of problems with young people not having enough children, but I don’t think lack of fanservice has anything to do with it, and more about the pressures and bleak prospects.
IDK, I just don’t get it and maybe someone who has access to the original interview quoted here can clarify things?
I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:
People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?
And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.
She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”
Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That’s not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.
We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.
In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they’ve tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn’t have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one’s condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they’ve been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.
If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.
Oh, sorry, I’ve been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don’t have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there’d be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they’re in) can sign up.
The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they’d ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I’d be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I’m completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I’m lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I’m continuing the process, then I’d choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!
Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can’t be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.
EDIT: Some proofreading.
Thanks as well. It’s certainly a POV I didn’t consider (that it’s akin to a protest) having grown up in the culture that produced such practices. Again, thanks!
Ah, my bad. I didn’t mean to imply that it being done in a religious context invalidates it, just that the religious context would inform us more about the man’s intent and whether or not they’d continue on doing so regardless of the result.
I used the term “pledge” earlier, but maybe it’s better to use the word “vow” to refer this. The term in Filipino is “panata” (which wiktionary translates to “vow”). It usually isn’t as dramatic as this, however. And as far as I’ve observed, a lot would do these vows after they deem their prayers to have been heard (usually recovery from illness or accidents, or recovery from financial ruin), and thereafter, no matter what, they’d try to fulfill their vows, whether that’d be a crucifixion reenactment, or attending processions, or even just as simple as foregoing alcohol or vices or letting their hair grow.
edit:
I must clarify my position here, I guess. I am neither in favor nor against the practice. But having grown up in the country where these practices occur, I just felt I have to clarify some things. Personally? I don’t mind. They’re doing these things with good intentions, and they’re hurting no one. As far as I know, they don’t force anyone to join them, but rather, make sure that those who are following their footsteps are sure they want to.
That was a clean ending, most loose ends tied up (Ivy’s starless status and Ciel’s existence being made known being made known to trusted people, as well as Sora’s origins), but with just enough leeway for another season.
I am not sure how far the source material has gone and whether or not it is enough for another season or two, but I fear they made the ending this way because they aren’t sure there might be another season after all.
I agree with your sentiment, but I felt compelled to comment on one crucial element here: what he has been doing isn’t a protest, but some form of a religious pledge. It just so happened that this year, he’s praying for world peace. This is akin to some traditions in India and other parts where self-flagellation is part of religious ritual, but only for those who pledge themselves to it. It’s touched upon in the article, but he’s been doing it since the 1980’s as thanksgiving for his survival in an accident. Some people just do it once, but some devote their lives to it, and it seems to me that he’s one of the latter.
Whether or not his actions will lead to results doesn’t matter, as far as I see it. He’s already devoted to the bit, and only old age (and poor health) will likely stop him.
The “postman arc” in the manga (though I think it’s multiple arcs under a bigger arc–but they’re unrelated, at least it seems at the start) really felt like a huge drag. Every town they passed by had a little arc of its own, some entertaining, some just felt meh. A hypothetical S2 might take some of those little arcs, perhaps two or three towns as they make their way. S3 could probably feature the rest of the way to their destination, but idk, at the rate the manga is being published, there might be just enough for an 2-cour S2, but not by much.
Definitely! The only reason I put it on hold is that it got so raw and close to home that I had to stop watching for a while. Kinda embarrassing, but in a way, a statement to how good it is.
There’s already quite a lot of good recommendations here. I’ll just add another voice recommending Kino’s Journey and To Your Eternity.
Also, I’d say don’t expect Frieren levels of polish and awesomeness with the recommendations given, as Frieren is just a different level altogether (with lots of deserved hype).
As for my own recommendations? Let’s see:
Aria the Animation, Natural, and Origination — this is but one anime series with three seasons of varying length. Every episode is more or less self-contained, but the characters develop slowly over the span of a lot of episodes (I counted 72 for all three seasons, could be wrong though). In a way, the character growth and exploration here is more comparable to real life. The pacing might be a bit too slow for a lot of people though. and the overall tone might be a bit too sweet for some. There’s some world-building here, but it’s really subtle at times—with the episodes focusing instead on the everyday and sometimes, the supernatural goings-on around the city the characters live in.
Natsume Yuujinchou [Nastume’s Book of Friends] — six seasons of varying lengths. This is also mostly episodic with some character growth happening but the kind that you’d easily miss just watching the episodes. This one, however, has more supernatural themes, but also touches on how the youkai (non-human entities–to put things simply) differ from humans not only in mindset, but also in their perception of time.
Mushishi — I haven’t yet watched this one in its entirety, but this is favorably compared to Natsume Yuujinchou, and so it might hit the same notes as that one.
Thanks! I had to do something to make the titles stand out since it’s just a huge wall of text otherwise. I also can’t be sure how it’d be rendered in other Lemmy frontends so, yeah! glad it turned out okay.
I wonder why… Surely it isn’t because a seminary is a good place for a confused, self-hating homosexual to be in, right? Surely it isn’t because being gay was seen as so anathema in Catholic-dominant societies that the seminary seems to be a sanctuary, right?