Skip to main content

Why does coffee always get the blame? - Seton

+
JMJ

My wife sent me a link to this article and I think it is too good to not share.  There is truth as well as humour in these lines.  I think I will add a 'humour' label even though Mr. Clark does seem to be in earnest!

P^3

Source: Seton Magazine - John Clark





Why Does Coffee Always Get the Blame?

Has anyone else noticed that coffee has become the financial “fall guy” lately? We live in an age of bailouts, zombie banks, troubled assets, and more troubled liabilities, yet coffee is often pointed to as the real financial problem. Here’s what I mean.


Have you been in a conversation expressing your frustration that you can’t afford something, and someone chimes in with a tidbit of advice like this:
Adopting a sarcastic tone:
“Well, if you’d just stop drinking your vanilla lattes every morning, then maybe you could afford that new house/used car/vacation to Mongolia.”
As if.
2014-05 Gospel Time  Trekkers
As if the only thing that stood between the good life and me were vanilla lattes. Did I miss something, or is a demitasse a little more expensive for others than it is for me? We’re talking about a few dollars a day, right?
Wouldn’t the college tuitions, orthodontics, violins, ballet classes, and homeschooling books overturn my financial applecart long before the espresso? Is frothy coffee really going to be the thing that makes or breaks me?
I can see it now…
Sometime in the future, a friend comes over to my house, looks around and says: “John, how did you and Lisa afford such a beautiful house?”
“Well, Scott, I didn’t think we could do it, but we gave up lattes for twelve-hundred-and-seventy-five-years, and we were able to make a down payment. Of course, there has been a downside: we’ve been dozing off the entire time because of the lack of caffeine.”
I understand that a few dollars here and a few dollars there helps you plan for the future. I believe in planning for the future too, but I also believe in planning for consciousness later in the day. Diminished states of cognizance seem somehow rude at times. For instance, people start to wonder if you are truly engaged in a dialogue if you begin snoring during it.
Especially if it’s in the middle of a speech.
Especially if you are the speaker.
(If you’ve been reading my column for a while now and you know my backstory, you might be asking why I don’t get enough sleep at night; after all, my youngest child is almost five years old. Fair question. Here’s the answer: when your children are little, their crying keeps you awake. When they become teenagers, your crying keeps you awake. And lest you think otherwise, for the record, I have nine of the greatest and most wonderful children in the world. But, however your children are doing in life, worrying about them—along with the concomitant daytime narcolepsy—is an understandable reaction. Hence, the need for coffee.)
Implicit in the anti-coffee comments like the one above is the idea that coffee is a needless luxury. Not only do I disagree with that as an economist (coffee clearly falls under “need” as opposed to “want”), I disagree from the perspective of theology. Some time ago, I remember Lisa telling me about discalced orders who start their day with a bowl of java. In other words, there are religious orders of people who don’t have shoes—but do have coffee.
There is a lot we can learn from our religious brothers and sisters: namely, to paraphrase St. Teresa of Avila, there is a time for fasting and a time for froth.
Or, to put it another way: live a little.
Drink the latte.

Read more at http://www.setonmagazine.com/dad/john-clark/coffee-always-get-blame#lOpvy72hKuM5a07C.99

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is Tradition?

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...