Sometime back I “came out” as a Jolly American (you can read about it here, here, and here) and graciously instructed the temperanormative bigots of the Catholic Church on their obligation to affirm me in my okayness or face merciless and draconian punishments to teach them tolerance. So-called “loving” Catholics—living by the “orthodox” ethics of guilt and shame which keep people like me from being able to indulge my appetite for whatever I want, whenever I want it, in whatever quantities I want—have long denied Jolly Americans their dignity. But no more! We’re Out and We’re Stout and you can’t keep us in the Pantry any more!
Naturally, my courageous stand against the hierarchy and the lackeys who talk about “moderation” and indulge in extremist, scary, and frankly un-American rhetoric about the need for Lenten fasting (instead of affirming our glorious God-given appetites) are eager to try to find a way to silence and discredit me. So when word got out the other day that I have lost 65 pounds, forces in the Obesophobic media jumped on it like white on delicious, buttered, lightly salted rice.
One reader, with predictable glee, remarked:
What does the Jolly Movement say about this? Aren’t they convinced that once you are born this way then you can’t change? Do they say that you are just internalizing Jollyphobia?
My reader, clearly unfamiliar with the wonderful diversity within the Lardo/Giganto/Brickhouse/Trans-Fatty community, simply has no understanding of how things work.
It’s like this: When I am fat I am, to quote the Prophet Gaga, “born this way” and simply living out my nature. You are required to celebrate this natural urge to fork what I want, as often as I want, with whom I want—and your Church should be compelled to pay for my meals since food is clearly necessary to human health. Asking me to curb my appetites is like asking me to change my sex. It’s absolutely impossible. Nature made me the way I am.
However, when I become, as I have chosen to do, a “trans-fatty”, you need to realize that I am a thin person who was born into a fat person’s body. So I have the right to eat as much as I want, to practice safe snacks by making sure to purge after each meal, and to alter myself by surgery and amputation because there is no such thing as “nature”. It’s all a construct of dead white males when all that really matters is My Sacred Feelings. This too is something that the State has the right to compel your bigoted Church to pay for—because it’s none of your business what I do in the privacy of my own kitchen. And you cannot just “tolerate” what I do. You. MUST. Approve!—because I can’t be healthy unless my feelings are affirmed, whether freely or under threat of fines and jail for you Christian bigots who talk about the “sin of gluttony” and the “virtue of temperance”. What is this? The Dark Ages?
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Whatever pleasurable sensation I want is the most important thing in the world and a truly tolerant society would recognize that and smash anybody who dares to question it—for the sake of diversity. Such a tolerant society would also force the Catholic Church to pay so that I don’t have to face any unpleasant consequences of indulging my appetites. Because if you Catholics don’t pay for it, then you are denying my right to health and imposing your values on me.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for the chuckle and congrats on conquering your LGBT stance. I’m still praying to St. Kolbe for help with mine. God Bless!
hey Mark…
Long time fan here of your work! Just curious, ever consider posting your Jolly articles for The Onion? I imagine their audience will eat it up.
keep up the great work!
Oh and btw, congratulations on the weight loss!
Sometimes you are just brilliant!
Jim, YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET…
The sympto-thermal method (STM) of NFP is as effective as any oral contraceptive. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm) , and oral contraceptives are known carcinogens. Not to mention damaging to a woman’s fertility.
Oral contraceptives are at best a recreational drug! Why would the Obama Administration mandate women take such a thing AND violate the First Amendment?
I hope this stupidity and hidden agenda come out in the election.
Sorry,,
Mark - YOU ARE RIGHT ON TARGET…
(I need another cup of coffee, can Obama pay for that too?)
Thank you for the moment of pleasure - palatable read while enjoying my morning coffee and healthy oatmeal cookie
Spectacular!!!! I really needed something like this today.
Once again Shea is hiding his beliefs beneath a thin veneer of humor. We will all be alot better off when no one believes anything-remember the Crusades.I remind Shea of two truisms: One: If religious beliefs were so important there’d be a place for them on your resume and Two: Anybody who can bound up a set of stairs like that must know what he is talking about.
Jack - so, my children must be meaningless because they’re not listed on my resume, either.
jack wrote:
Funny, I thought he was slathering on a mountain of humor to make his beliefs as plain as day.
Ah yes, the devastating reductio ad resume argument. Well played, my friend. Well. Played. Indeed.
jack, that was a dumb, factious remark. Come on. Please say your are more intelligent than that little post revealed. I’m willing to give you a second try. A resume is the be all and end all of one’s importance????? You must have just made that up because no one would take that seriously. Who’s standard is that? A resume is a tool for getting a job. Just. dumb. And it is impossible to not believe anything. Even atheist regimes believed in something, like communism or nationalism. So that little bromide was Just. dumb. again.
Maybe jack is just a troll, who gets his jollies by take stupid potshots?
Awesome irony at the highest level!!
Articles like this are why I read Mark Shea. Also, I’m pretty sure that “jack” was being facetious.
I thought Jack’s comment was an extension of Mark’s dry wit. As (or if) such, it was pretty funny. I especially liked the last sentence. Did I miss something?
Oh, and great article, Mark! I’m saving it to pass on at an appropriate moment…
Mark - this was so good! For your next installment, make some reference to a Jolly Studies department at a nominally Catholic University.
65 pounds! You didn’t fall for one of those phony baloney (mmmmmm…baloney) weightloss therapies did you? You know, the ones that think fatitude is a lifestyle choice instead of a integral part of your being since birth? Quit trying to deny who you really are!
Excellent, Mark. Everyone needs to read this! Publish to the MSM.
Truth to tell, I couldn’t make head or tail of Jack’s comment. Oh well….
Andy: Good one! (about the “Jolly Studies” department).
The thing that I always saw as ridiculous is that this current administration tells the homosexuals that they should be able to live how they want yet Michelle Obama’s health plans are being enforced in schools. If this administration were consistent they would allow the kids to eat whatever they want.
Ummm I know we are supposed to embrace the NEW Lardo/Gordo/etc folks but I am not sure that I can get my arms around for a full squuuueze. I too am a member of the recently 50+ lbs lost crowd. I was quite FLUFFY to say the least. Now that I am a little less curvy (I am a guy) it is not easy keeping it off without begging for divine assistance and exercise.
Ah! Having awakened a bit, I think I now get Jack’s unarguable logic:
Point the First: Once again Shea is hiding his beliefs beneath a thin veneer of humor.
Translation: Jack is a member of the “People with Social and Affective Disorder Community” who confuse their fundamental inability to grasp ordinary human interactions such as “humor” (a difficult concept for them) with “having a massively superior intellect”. In this case, Jack’s confusion of intellect worship with intellect use leads him to proclaim, with supreme social ineptitude, that I am “hiding” my beliefs “beneath a thin veneer of humor” when, to people with normal social and affective skills, my point is about as obvious as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Brilliant insight, Sherlock! Another atheist shows a theist the genius that makes atheists the natural masters of the human race.
Point the Second: We will all be alot better off when no one believes anything-remember the Crusades.
I take it you believe that. Thanks for that expression of faith, despite the witness of slaughter under atheistic communism.
Point the Third:If religious beliefs were so important there’d be a place for them on your resume
Which means my love for my wife and children is unimportant, as are the propositions “all men are created equal”, “murder is evil”, and “little boys should tell the truth”, not to mention “E equals MC squared”, the law of non-contradiction, and “Jack is an atheist”.
Point the Fourth: Anybody who can bound up a set of stairs like that must know what he is talking about.
I’m not certain, but I *think* Jack, socially inept and affectively challenged intellect worshipper that he is, is attempting the white-whiskered trick of suggesting that I am a closeted homosexual because I criticize homosexual demagoguery. Ah me! The originality of the anti-Catholic.
No, Jack. I am not a closeted homosexual. I’m simply somebody who is tired of homosexual demagoguery. As to my facility at bounding up those stairs, it’s not really a big mystery. Both homosexual acts and gluttonous ones are expressions of disordered appetite. The former have the enthusiastic endorsement of our manufacturers of culture and are mindlessly repeated by herds of independent thinkers such as yourself. The latter, thank God, do not have this approval (yet). I just transposed the rhetoric defending the one vice into rhetoric defending the other so that people can see the shell game.
as i was raised in southern california, i know exactly where you’re coming from. we all just need to embrace who we were born to be. even if the govenment has to make it a law because no else would embrace it any other way!! if we band together and keep beating this dead horse, i’m sure we could make it get up again. i think the MSM should embrace this movement as readily as they have embraced that other group that also uses these same initials (can we sue them for that? i think we can).
Logic and reason. What gifts they are! Almost dangerous in the right hands! Peace to you, Brother Shea.
Brilliant, as usual Mark.
Here’s a variation of the argument, but using alcohol:
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2011/12/dear-lpcers-and-uwcers.html
Blessings in the Eucharistic Heart of the Holy Family of the Holy Trinity
F.Nazar
“Whatever pleasurable sensation I want is the most important thing in the world and a truly tolerant society would recognize that and smash anybody who dares to question it—for the sake of diversity.”
Darn right. And best of all, I can have the pleasurable sensation of fattiness or sweetness in my mouth while frustrating the primary purpose of eating, which is to nourish the body. That’s what Olestra, stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, xylitol and sorbitol are for.
HILARIOUS
Certainly a LOL parody of the ludicrous argument of the Sebelius edict’s defenders.
Beautifully done.
TeaPot562
FANTASTIC!!! Thank you and congrats on curbing your disordered appetite : )
Self-restraint anyone? It is a much needed virtue in our age.
The question “Aren’t they convinced that once you are born this way then you can’t change?” and the article in general fail to address many important distinctions. For example, “born this way” has generally been used as a reference to a person’s apparently unchosen sexual orientation, not to a person’s chosen sexual behavior. And an ability to change one’s weight through diet and exercise does not substantiate an ability to change one’s sexual orientation. Likewise, “required to celebrate”, “must approve”, etc. are fallacious, specious misrepresentations chosen by Mr. Shea that do not honestly reflect the views of the so-called “gay community” who by and large who would rather NOT have such attention brought to their private sex lives. Nevertheless, many have been morally compelled to speak against the adverse often hateful public and private attention that is all too often brought upon gay people by a far larger number of rather vocal persons who seem to disproportionately obsess over homosexual things, who strain for gnats while swallowing camels, who focus on specks while missing the beam, and indeed, the problem is apparently sufficient in magnitude that the Catholic Church felt morally obliged to add a special teaching to the Catechism specifically against the unjust discriminatory behavior toward homosexual persons. Though the Church speaks against such behavior of which Mr. Shea and others like him have engaged, are to we to say that the Church is “eager to try to find a way to silence and discredit” Mr. Shea? Mr. Shea speaks of “homosexual demagoguery” while not attending to his own demagoguery, his own many “expressions of disordered appetite”. According to Church teaching, everyone has “disordered appetite”, whether the particular person is homosexual, heterosexual, etc. and the Church does not teach that the appetites of homosexual persons are more disordered than the appetites of heterosexual persons, for the appetites (and size thereof) of persons are not reducible to simply whether the person is homosexual or heterosexual. Mr. Shea alleges that “[homosexual acts] have the enthusiastic endorsement of our manufacturers of culture” while ignoring that Mr. Shea and people who think and act like him are also among the so-called “manufacturers of culture”. Similarly, he alleges that “[gluttonous acts], thank God, do not have this approval (yet)”, which ignores that approval/support of gluttony in its many forms is as widespread, if not more so, than the alleged approval/support of “homosexual acts”, which frankly is not what Mr. Shea would have us believe. He apparently wants us to believe there’s this supposed vast group out there that insists “It’s absolutely impossible” for homosexual persons to “curb” their appetites. But such a thing is not the claim of the “gay community” or Mr. Shea’s alleged “manufacturers of culture”. Rather, it’s Mr. Shea’s own strawman that he rails against, a collection of false and distorted beliefs from his own bogus “manufacturers of culture” that he battles against.
“Which means my love for my wife and children is unimportant”
I didn’t even know that Jolly people existed until I read this piece and now I find out they are already allowed to get married and procreate? This country is going to Heck.
Bravo Bravo (clapping from Canada EH) Jolly good old man.
“...natural urge to fork what I want, as often as I want, with whom I want…”
Oh my! :)
From: LGBT’s of Central Washington
To: LGBT’s of Seattle/Puget Sound
“i was weighted, I was over-weighted”, I love the 70’s/80’s music. Long live fluffdom, go seahawks?
Mark, don’t forget to wear your napkin every time you eat. You never know what kind of stains you could get if you don’t.
G.K. and Tom Aquinas… a JOLLY good crowd to be associated with. Kudos Mark, great parody.
I enjoyed reading your response to Jack almost as much as I enjoyed your article. Brilliant!!
I guess you think you’re a wit and you could be half right.
The Pursuit of HAPPINESS has become America’s basic and most important tenet, and you have hit it on the nail with this piece!!
And Virtue brings true happiness. Not being able to act in accordance with one’s conscience is wrong and illegal.. Our Constitution is the highest Law in the land. We have a President sworn to defend it and he is trying to get rid of it.
Pursuit of the “fork” (Russells comment above) does not bring happiness. It’s a kind of slavery.
Just woke up and read this. So much hungrier after reading :)
I’ve been keeping up with this site for some time now, but I felt I needed to speak up in this instance. I returned to the Catholic Church over a year ago, and in so doing I changed my mind on a lot that I always assumed I never would, especially with regard to the so-called “LGBT” community—although even then I never liked that identification, or the “T” being associated with the others. And even before I returned it occurred to me that I couldn’t logically think of a way to support sex change operations without also supporting cosmetic surgery, which I never wanted to support and still don’t. But while I now believe that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin and oppose same-sex unions and sex change operations, I felt compelled to speak about these kinds of blog entries. While I trust that Mr. Shea meant nothing untoward with them, I personally find them indelicate and unfunny. People with sexual disorders (or for that matter, with weight issues) are still God’s children, and while we should never give in to disorders, our own or those of other people, we should treat them with respect, dignity, and love. Is this kind of blog going to get so-called “LGBT” people to come around to our way of thinking? Does God want us to make fun of people? Did Jesus call us to do that? I don’t think so. I only ask that you please remember this, Mr. Shea and all who found this blog entry humorous and who liked it. I realize that the intended target isn’t “LGBT” people as such, meaning all people with those disorders, but only those who want to be allowed to act on them and cry “discrimination” when they are not, but I felt I had to be honest: this did not make me laugh (and I’ve laughed at other intentionally humorous stuff on this site).
“I realize that the intended target isn’t “LGBT” people as such, meaning all people with those disorders, but only those who want to be allowed to act on them and cry “discrimination” when they are not, but…”
If you get it, then why the but? The intended target seek to destroy you and me, and Mark is right to illustrate the pettiness and shallowness of their vendetta against us by using humor.
@Mark Duch: Do they seek to destroy us directly, though? I know that what they want will have that effect, but do they all directly want to destroy us? I know for a fact that the answer is no, because I used to be one of the intended target, and I never sought to destroy the Catholic Church or anyone therein at that time. I agree that people on that side (and the other) can be petty and shallow, and I see the point of using humor to deflate potentially tense issues. I just didn’t personally think this in particular is necessarily the appropriate kind of humor, and I didn’t find it funny. I don’t think any the less for Mr. Shea, or for anyone who did, I just personally found it indelicate.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.