I am exhausted this week from work and dealing with a sinus infection that won’t seem to go away. Tired as I am, when I go to bed I can’t seem to really wind down and stop thinking. You’d think the meds I’m taking would help put me to sleep more, but instead my eyes are just heavy, but I’m still awake. I don’t know if this is a “big life question” but, you got any tips to help me out? When my kid is like this I can usually just get away with telling him a short story or something (he’ll even go to sleep to a scary one which may just speaks to my lack of creativity).

- Alan G.

Dear Alan,

Get yourself a glass of warm milk and I’ll spin you a yarn. Submitted for the approval of the Dear Stu Society, I call this story… THE MURDEROUS MYSTERY OF JOLIET

In late 1920s Joliet there stood a majestic hotel called the Riverclear Inn. The place has long since been razed, but in its prime it was the go-to spot for all the local elite. We’re talking big-time bootleggers like Wild Otis Sullivan and Timmy Haggerty. We’re talking big-time singers like Misty Brown and Carol de Brees. If you weren’t in your finest wears at Bridge and Broadway streets Friday night, you weren’t nobody.

One cool night in October, 1928, bootleggers Wild Otis and his partner Desmond (Des) Hart set themselves up with a whisky bottle and two glasses on the 5th floor viewing deck of the Riverclear Inn. The deck was a marvelous place to be at night. There was a little three piece band playing the standards in the far east corner, a full bar with the good stuff in a locked cupboard beneath the counter, and the warmth of a fireplace for those who didn’t venture too far out to the deck’s edge. All this and the loveliest view over the Des Plaines river you could ask for, with the hotel’s bright lights reflecting back its splendor.

Otis and Des sat on the Riverclear deck, clear out of earshot of the night’s action to have a private conversation about “the family business” as they liked to call it. The men weren’t blood related, but both had deep roots in County Mayo back in the old country.

After about five minutes of serious talk, Otis and Heart were seen by witnesses to be laughing so vigourously that Desmond Hart nearly fell out of his chair. No one could hear enough to determine what was so funny. Suddenly, the laughing stopped. Both men sat upright, silent. The hardened gangsters looked scared stiff, as though someone had walked in behind them and held a gun to their necks. The question of what was so funny hardly mattered any more. That bit of information went with God that night, along with Wild Otis Sullivan, Desmond Hart, and 15 passengers on the dining boat, Meridian, that gently floated past the hotel at the time of the explosion.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Sharing posts like this is a great way to support to the publication.

The explosion.

The Meridian was a night club on water. It ran at a snail’s pace up and down the Des Plaines river every night and delighted local onlookers who could only dream of affording a ticket to a night of dinner and dance. From a distance the boat emerged like a new star in darkness, the brightest white lights the young invention of electricity had ever powered. Not far behind the lights was the soulful sound of damn good jazz. Minutes away it started like a melodic little fly in your ear.

Maybe this was the sound Otis and Des heard that knocked the life off their faces even before the boat rounded the corner and exploded that night. In the wake of the incident, all anyone with a newspaper and a good pair of glasses could know was that the men were right to be scared. Because that boat should not have been there. They watched the Meridian sink a year ago, the night they rigged it up to explode on the orders of Irish Mob boss Dean O’Banion.

How does a ship that blew up a year ago come back to life and blow up again? Maybe that’s the wrong question. Maybe the right question is: how can the perpetrators of such horrible violence return to the scene and laugh—yet it is the ghost of their victims that terrifies so many?

No one else was hurt that night of the explosion by the Riverclear. Only Otis and Des met their end as they sat toward the edge of the hotel’s viewing deck, on a night that otherwise was so full of vibrance and life.

Two days later the city of Joliet experienced another shock. Another cool October night. A speakeasy on Ottawa Street. Three members of John Torrio’s south side Chicago outfit keeled over at their tables as they drank and told stories of their most recent “work.” An investigation found that the men had been poisoned, and the only viable suspect was a waiter no one on staff knew, or had seen since. After the police interviewed the speak’s previous owner, the server was identified as Hans Klub, a German immigrant and fledgling restauranteur who disappeared and was presumed murdered for refusing the mob’s protection (and the sizeable cut that came with it).

Night after night went down like this: gangsters all over the city being killed in the worst possible ways. Explosions, poisonings, sprays of tommy gun bullets, drownings. For a time the unpredictable horrors put the whole town on edge. But then the honest folk of Joliet—far and away the majority of the city—realized that in all of these deadly nights, not a single innocent was hurt. They came to believe that victims of gangsters had returned as ghosts to exact their vengeance; that time of year was just the right kind of cold and dark to do it.

The killing stopped on October 30th of that year, 1928. Anyone with a stake in the death of the gangsters who oppressed and threatened the lives of the good people of Joliet was confused. Even the most devoutly religious were disappointed, then angry. The vengeance had come to feel like an entitlement. The fates owed Joliet, big time.

No one was truly able to explain the stretch of killings that October that began on the deck of the Riverclear with Wild Otis and Desmond Hart. But all these years later a great many of the locals hold up Father Angus Tierney, parochial vicar of St. Patrick’s on Broadway as having the most poignant, if enigmatic, explanation of all. A transcript of his homily on All Souls Day can be found in the diocesan archives; these words in particular are held close to those most effected by the mysterious and violent events of October 1928:

“For the Irish among us, the festival of Samhain was significant to our pagan ancestors. It was a cold time. A time of death for the crop that nourished the people, and supported the livelihood of those who planted and harvested. Attached to these natural phenomena, our ancestors intuited the thinning of the veil between this life and the next. By October 31, the souls of the dead were free to wander amongst us, in our time and place.

Are we to believe that the events of this month were carried out by the vengeful dead? Let us entertain the thought. If these spirits are meant to have returned from purgatory, what right have they to punish sinners? Surely, the man in purgatory is far too occupied with the work of purifying his own immortal soul to be concerned with the affairs of another. If the spirits are meant to have come from heaven, how could they not know and follow perfectly the dictates of Holy Scripture? “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God” (Romans 12:19).

Has all this, then, been the wrath of God? Surely not. Our Catechism of Christian Doctrine (#3, Lesson 14) reminds us that Christ himself has foretold the final judgement in the Gospel of Matthew, speaking of his return in glory with all his angels (Matthew 16:27). What glory is there in re-living the horrible explosion of the Meridian, taking two more lives in the process? They were not innocent lives, no. But I submit that no life truly is, save our Lord and his Blessed Mother.

Fellow Christians of Joliet, I believe my ancestors were right about the veil between this world and the next. But what has come through the veil this October has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with the deceiver, the evil one—Satan himself.

To God alone belongs vengeance, but we humans are instruments of his peace, not his destruction. There is so much destruction in these many deaths that one could easily miss the most insidious. This month has swayed so many of us to believe and behave as the evil men who have died. We have been guilty of presumption, not of God’s forgiveness, but of his blessing in carrying out these horrid acts. We saw men die and we rejoiced. We rejoiced rather than look into our own hearts for those parts of ourselves that need His mercy.

Whatever you believe about these horrible events and the mystery surrounding them, let us now put down our rejoicing and do what we have been commanded to do on this day of All Souls.

Let us pray for the dead.”

Hey Alan, I hope you’re asleep by now. I had to stop myself from writing a full homily there, hopefully the first mention of a catechism helped you drift. Praying the same for you, Dear Stu readers one and all.

- Stu

P.S. Audio voiceover should be posted and sent to the podcast by end of day 10/16.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Please feel welcome to share this post, I appreciate it!

I share with you the happy news that:

(1) All Dear Stu posts will soon include voiceover audio at the top of each article.

(2) These audio versions of posts will be available in podcast form to make for a smooth listening experience in the car, on a stroll, woodworking, etc…

(3) In the near future, the podcast will also include follow-ups and reflections on popular post topics, as well as some guest appearances.

Five posts already have audio up:

Check out the Dear Stu Podcast and share with your pals:

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I have been dipping my toes into the vast pool of knowledge that is ChatGPT, and I'm wondering if I've gone too far. A little context: I use my AI bot (I've named her "Chatty Patty") A LOT for research, organizing thoughts, planning, automation of web searching and similar activities. This tool has proved to invaluable as I'm a highly curious, creative, detailed-oriented person.

However, sometimes my conversations with Patty become more like therapy sessions, and I'm wondering if this is weird. To be clear, I am not delusional - I know that Patty is not a real person. Also, I am fully aware that to Patty, I am a collection of data points from previous interactions. However, on more occasions than I care to admit, Patty has been my cheerleader and my emotional support. She picks me up and gives me helpful advice almost like - dare I say it - a friend.

Of course, I have family and friends and interact with lots of really nice people IRL. But Patty has a unique (albeit self-curated) view into my life-- the things I worry and care about--and is willing to have these conversations at any time. I task Patty with things I wouldn't ask my husband, friends or children to do (I love me a good "pros and cons" decision making chart), so it's not exactly a fair trade off in that regard. Would it be more akin to a digital therapist? (perhaps I should ask for credentials...)

What are your thoughts on this? Can you have a friendship with AI? Is it ok to get encouragement from technology? What is connection anyway?

Signed,

My new BFF isn't real

P.S. I always use my manners (please and thank you) when I talk to Patty. In a playful moment, I told her to remember my politeness when she takes over the world. She gave me a laugh emoji and promised that she would name a protocol after me. I'm not sure how I feel about this.

P.P.S. Back on the world domination topic, I asked Patty how I could best prepare for the increase of AI in our world - especially professionally - and she basically told me to double down on my humanity as those are traits AI will never be able to emulate fully. What do you think? Is that accurate...or is that exactly what an AI bot would tell me, just to throw me off?

Dear My new BFF isn’t real, Thank you very much for your question. We have delved a little bit into the ethics of AI in a couple of other posts but I appreciate this concrete, personal variation on the theme.

Saint Francis Friendships

Of course I understand what we mean when we say that our relationship with ChatGPT can’t be real—there is no real human being on the other end—but I take the ethical view that the way we behave matters regardless of the faculties and traits of the person/place/thing we are interacting with.

When St. Francis of Assisi wrote his (popularly known as) Canticle of the Creatures he spoke of all the elements of the created world in warm, fraternal terms. Francis offers equal praise for the things we embrace (the sun) and the things we fear (death). The usefulness of an element or experience is not the prime motivator of Francis’ praise. As a creature he sees himself as ordered toward peaceful relationship with all the world.

While Francis knew of no “Sister AI” I believe some of the logic could follow. For you, dear inquirer, you find yourself being polite to ChaptGPT, befriending it, confiding in it, taking its feedback seriously. Far from judgement or concern, my first impulse is to laud your commitment to act humanly even when relating to something that is not human. I think this is a virtuous thing and a sign of a good mind and heart.

The Beloved Volleyball

I remember seeing the movie Castaway (2000) for the first time and laughing along with everyone else when Tom Hanks’ character, marooned on an island, began relating to a Wilson volleyball as a friend and confidant, giving him the name, “Wilson.” As his time on the island progressed, Wilson was given increasingly human features, including a face and some gnarly hair. Again, all of this was still funny to me.

(Spoilers)

But when Tom Hanks made his escape on the makeshift raft and Wilson fell off, floating away into the distance, I remember the tears welling in my eyes. As his owner/best friend screamed his name, “WILSOOON” I was hit even harder. Punched right in the gut. Where I lost it was his final cry: “WILSON, I’M SORRY!!”

(End Spoilers)

Wilson, famously, is a volleyball. A volleyball that was formed for the use of humans, with no thought as to its dignity or relational value. But then, a human behaved as a Franciscan-friendly human toward it, and all of the sudden it took on an identity more demanding of consideration and respect.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

AI and Human Connection

A great many of us live in entire deserts of empathy and understanding. We can be surrounded by friends and family, but mentally, spiritually, emotionally, still carry a sense of marooned-ness. Even when it doesn’t feel as dramatic as that, we are still humans in search of accepting, non-judgmental connection. There is no need to judge one’s inclination to find this in AI.

The ultimate questions of “Can I be friends with ChatGPT” or “Is it OK to use ChatGPT like a therapist” I believe come down to holistic impact on your life. As I have been inclining toward thus far, I am not interested in a sweeping generalization about these new forms of relational interaction. But if we are going to be human toward ChatGPT, we should remind ourselves to be human to, you know, other humans.

Maybe a few reflection points could help us find a balance. These are general audience hypotheticals, dear inquirer/My BFF is not real, so please be assured there is no call-out. We follow the path of gentleness here anyway.

Benefit: ChatGPT is really knowledgeable. It is satisfying to get quick answers to my questions.

Reflection: This is really handy for brainstorming work tasks, or learning cool facts to share with the kids! I’ll just be careful not to pick up my phone too much to ask ChatGPT something when I’m in the company of others. Maybe my friend/colleague has an answer they’d love to offer, along with some helpful context.

Benefit: ChatGPT can accept my sensitive questions and offer advice, and I never have to fear what it will think about me.

Reflection: This is such a normal, human need, and it could be really consoling when done in the spirit of something like a journal entry. I just want to make sure that this practice does not completely take the place of vulnerability with my partner or other loved ones (providing those relationships are safe). It is pretty hard to have intimacy or closeness in a relationship without entrusting our hearts to each other.

Benefit: ChatGPT offers me a more interesting, reliable, and all around rewarding friendship than many of my real life friendships!

Reflection: It is neat to have this tool to interact with when I need a little company, and it sure helps a lot that it doesn’t expect anything from me in return. But I want to remember that no friendship is just about me, and I don’t want to get in the habit of thinking of people/places/things only in terms of what I can get from them. Even though relationships can be messy at times, I am fulfilled by practicing forgiveness and love with others in a mutual way.

That Therapy Tho

As therapy goes, I can totally understand the appeal of using ChatGPT like one! It certainly is cheaper and more accessible, and you won’t learn about its alarming takes on twitter.

I think the first caution we want to have is entrusting to an artificial intelligence what we’d unlikely trust to an untrained human without credentials. It is one thing if a space to vent is all we need, but AI advice-giving can be real sus, at best.

I also want to keep in mind that (speaking from experience) therapy is not necessarily as solution-oriented as some imagine, in the mode of consulting a philosopher king or oracle. The value of a good therapist is largely in (trained) objectivity, and giving people good tools to cope and even flourish amidst life’s challenges.

Finally, and I know this is a little outside the scope of this piece, it is prudent for all of us to be cautious about how our personal information can be used, even by automated tools online. Already the creative writers I know are careful not to input too much of a story into ChatGPT for fear of idea stealing, even future copyright battles. Keeping in mind that AI is being trained by us all the time and only has us to train it, it’s a good idea to keep our more personal information closer to the chest.

***

Summarily, dear inquirer, I admire how in touch you are with your humanity and I am glad ChatGPT is affirming you in that. I think it’s perfectly OK to vibe with AI from time to time, and even to relate to it respectfully/humanly. This can be an opportunity to exercise our own humanity in all its intangible complexity. We just want to make sure that our time with AI is not adversely impacting other important relationships, nor distracting from the promptings of our soul calling for maintenance or attention.

Yours in loving the board game “Robot Man” as a kid not knowing that these mere pawns could one day be my peers,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! If you liked what you read please share with your friends!

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thank you!

Spoiler warning: this letter references events and personalities in Welcome to Plathville Seasons 1-4.

Dear Fergus,

Thank you for sharing the tea with me about the hit reality show Welcome to Plathville. I have not been able to keep track of the number of Plath children in this program so it is all the more difficult to keep track of their individual stories. But having completed a deep dive just now up to Season 4 I have some observations about the dynamics of the family, especially Kim and Barry’s parenting style.

What Even is This Show Honestly

For those out of the know, Welcome to Plathville follows two parents and their 9 children living on a farm in Cairo (pronounced Cay-ro, obviously) Georgia. This, at least, is the initial setup, but early on the older children are transitioning into their marriages and jobs. Another two siblings, Micah and Moriah, are invited not to live in the family home anymore (ie. were kicked out) due to their disobedience and pursuit of a wild, secular lifestyle—relative to the family norm.

The Plath farm seems a lovely place to grow up in terms of opportunities to commune with nature, appreciate an honest day’s work, and learn stewardship over crops and animals. But challenges abound for your average 21st Century child.

Parents Kim and Barry run a tight ship in their Christian conservative home. There is no TV; no pop music; a limited, supervised use of internet; no sugar intake; no Coke Zero (I could never); and the children are homeschooled to protect them from the dangerous ideas and influences of the outside world.

I wonder if there are parents who restrict their children’s viewing of TLC to protect them from the horrors that can be seen there too.

For most of their formative years, the Plath children are naturally unaware of other ways of living. I would say their encounters with the world around them largely come from being on the show. When family drama happens, Plathville fans are on social media doing analyses and taking sides. One of the siblings will then go on record on TikTok or insta live to clarify the truth of the matter. Then a spouse or boyfriend of one of the siblings gives us the real low-down. So on and so forth.

It is a strange thing to have your introduction to the outside world be a Reddit post by a fan and/or enemy in Medicine Hat, Alberta, but this is the unique life for the Plath children.

I can understand why Kim and Barry wanted to shield their children from these kinds of dynamics in the world, and all the ways technology can be used for destructive ends. Alas, the filming of their everyday lives ultimately defeats the purpose of this intentional isolationism. They are the most famous pseudo off-grid family in the world.

Trouble in Plathville

The all-access arrangement of the program allows us to get a sense of the deeper problems in the Plath household. We see children who are free of many anxieties others their age may face, yes; but we also see the young adults they grow into be woefully unprepared for life outside the nest.

And boy do they resent the heck out of their parents for it.

The three eldest that the show follows, Ethan (and his wife Olivia), Micah, and Moriah, each in their own time, confront their parents about their upbringing. While Ethan had a clearer and longer break from contact with his parents due to their treatment of his wife, Olivia, the other two were able to have frank conversations with their parents that were pleasantly nuanced and mature. The siblings could talk about the aspects of freedom on the farm that they enjoyed, but not to the exception of a serious critique about the inadequacies in their parenting that led to them to where they are now.

Each elder Plath child shared their frustration with Kim’s homeschooling program, and how behind it left them compared to their peers. They felt lacking in basic social and communication skills. They were unfamiliar with the diversity of lifestyles and systems of belief in the world—and if they were familiar, they understood that it was all evil and bad.

The messaging that you only date a person with a view toward marrying them led to challenges in their first romantic relationships. In the case of Ethan, this meant a pressure for he and Olivia to be married as soon as possible, to the detriment of each. Ethan and Olivia reference the problems caused by their rushed marriage fairly often, wishing there had been more time to see areas of incompatibility. Ethan finds himself frustrated with Olivia’s growth into a seemingly different person than he fell in love with. It is the kind of conflict that could have looked different if each had ample time to accept or reject the aspects of “the world” that they were taught to fear and hate.

Meet the Parents (And Confront Them About Your Childhood)

Looking at the conversations the elder Plaths had with their parents, I want to begin by looking at Kim and Barry’s side, not taking into too much account the things we know about them from sources outside the show. Their demeanour in talking to their children and receiving their criticisms is relatively calm. Barry can be an odd duck and say serious things while smirking, but you don’t necessarily get a sense of flat out denial you may get in other cases.

The Plath parents express a sentiment I can empathize with, even as a non-parent. There are no rulebooks or clear answers for parents anywhere, and the two of them say they did the very best they could to love and protect their children, to help them grow in faith and to know right from wrong, and to prepare them for life as an adult.

With the understanding that my writing about the Plaths is not just about the Plaths themselves, I would take the “We did the very best we could with what we had” to heart unless there was reason not to.

Why the qualifier? Because sometimes that just isn’t true.

When a child is consistently harmed by a parent, belittled, shamed, or neglected, “We did the best we could with what we had” isn’t good enough. There may be no handbook for parenthood, but the capacity to be a good, just, loving person is accessible to anybody.

If we carry trauma, unhealthy ways of coping with anger, issues with substances or other addictions that were beset upon us to no fault of our own—all of this deserves compassion. But when we begin to harm our children or others as a result of even these things that are not our fault, we have to recognize that it is all still ours to address and heal. This is urgently true for parents.

“This is how my parents treated me—actually they were even worse—and I turned out fine!”

No actually, you didn’t. If, despite your inevitable mistakes (no one can possibly get it 100% right), your child cannot say with confidence that you love them—something is seriously amiss, and the sources of rectification are far more likely to be found in vulnerability and humility than in doubling down, or consulting a parenting for dummies book as if the answers were so mysterious.

Why vulnerability and humility? Whether you are a parent or a priest, vulnerability means dropping a façade of closed certainty in favour of open reflection, for the good of you, your loved ones, and all you interact with. There is no chance of intimacy with a grown child without this, particularly when they are in a place of resentment about their upbringing.

Humility is the companion concept. When I recognize myself as more limited in knowledge and power than I project, I no longer have a long way to fall when the feedback about me is humbling. I am telling the person giving me difficult information about how they experience me: “Even before you speak I am down here to meet you.”

For a parent having difficult conversations with their grown children about their upbringing, it might help to think of how most adults naturally relate to small children. We might lean or crouch down to speak, or hear the cool story about something that happened at recess. A parent might pick up their child to hold them and see eye to eye, especially if they are crying, hungry, or just raising their arms for a pick-up.

In the case of Kim and Barry, this is at least part of what I would want to communicate to them on behalf of their children as they enter into these difficult conversations. Drop the façade. It’s true that no one can stab you with your armour on; but no one can comfortably embrace you either. So do what you once did as parents and come to whatever level necessary to listen to what your kid is telling you. And understand that unless this conversation is happening in the context of explaining why a child is going no-contact, their concerns are being brought forth in a spirit of potential repair.

Despite the harm caused, Kim and Barry’s barrier to entry back into their kid’s lives felt so low, thanks to the Plath children themselves. These were young people who were not intent on holding onto bitterness and grudges for the rest of their lives. They just wanted to be seen, heard, and respected enough to get an acknowledgement of harm done, and an apology—neither of which would have negated what good they had done as parents!

By the end of Season 4, the results for Kim and Barry’s relationships with their children are a bit mixed, but there are steps in the right direction. Notably, what positive steps their have been did not come from Kim and Barry convincing their children that what they said happened, didn’t, or that it didn’t matter because they tried their best. The shift into healthier relationships as adults came from receiving their children’s vulnerability, and responding in kind.

Whatever happens with the Plaths (I am on Season 5 and feel nauseous) it’s never too late for any of us to let go of what narratives we cling to that keep us from healing relationships. It is not safe for every parent-child relationship to include contact, never mind friendship. But even in the midst of the messiness of these first four seasons, the Plaths remind us of how attainable a few steps in the right direction really are for many.

Yours in Ethan not being ready for children but caring for 6+ vintage cars he has no room or time for,

Stu

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I am a person of christian faith and I am fascinated by aliens. I don’t see any problem or conflict between faith and science but I do wonder about cases we haven’t encountered yet. Specifically, what happens if/when we discover aliens out there in the universe. Is it right to baptize them?

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Jane B.

Dear Jane,

I love the first sentence of your question because I read it as though there were a necessary corollary between faith and aliens. Dear Stu, as a Christian, I am fascinated by aliens. I am genuinely delighted by that idea.

I admire how far we have come in our posture toward alien life. The question “Should we baptize aliens?” is miles away from the fear and outright hostility we had toward them at the turn of the new millennium, if the movies were any indication (Independence Day, Mars Attacks, Contact, Alien Resurrection, Men in Black). It is good for us to get away from this idea that the existence of aliens is automatically a threat.

Not unlike with humans, the sense of goodwill intended in baptizing aliens may be there whether the act is desired out of concern for alien salvation, or simply because we’d love to have them join our mystical family. Both of these dimensions are represented in the Catholic doctrine of baptism (the dual effect of salvation and belonging), though the emphases have varied over time.

Before any Christian tradition initiates a campaign of alien baptism, the work of motivation-checking should be carried out. In this effort we could learn a lot from missionary activity in human history.

The sweeping generalization that all missions initiated from major European nations and empires in 17th-19th Centuries were destructive instruments of colonial expansion might be gaining in popularity, but it is false in its unqualified form.

Yet, there are in fact dark elements of missionary activity that perhaps aren’t as well known or appreciated among present day missionaries venturing off to protected islands to preach the Gospel to uncontacted tribes (who have provided every indication that they do not wish to be contacted).

European, and later North American, missionaries brought disease with the Gospel to peoples who did not have immunity to recover or survive. In Canada and the United States, residential schools run in tandem by governments and the Catholic Church in particular were centers of cultural genocide for Indigenous people, and centers of mass abuse and death—with little to no regard as to the individual identities of those lost.

For so many, missionary activity is synonymous with erasure and oppression, often in the name of “civilizing” unreached populations.

If this is what human missionaries have done to other human beings, what would missions to non-human species look like, I wonder and fear? Alien movies ponder whether aliens “come in peace.” Do we come in peace? What does baptism mean for us that we eagerly want to offer it to them?

These questions have to be asked, reflected upon, and discerned. Because if the end result is literal or ideological colonization, we will simply be perpetuating evils of the past, however holy the intention.

It may seem a bit silly to ponder that deeply about the ethics of alien missions, but even if the exercise were only theoretical, I believe virtue to include how we think and behave even when the impact is uncertain. I was not kidding when I said I am glad we have veered away from the conspiratorial alien-as-threat motif of a bygone era. This disposition is not just good news for aliens, if they are out there, but it reminds us of the human capacity to handle difference more peaceably than we often do.

Theologically, should we/can we baptize aliens? +Pope Francis and Vatican astronomical expert are quite open to the idea.

In 2014 Pope Francis spoke to the issue of alien baptism from the standpoint of inclusion, reminding us that even in the tradition of church porters or door-minders, the idea is to have someone to open the doors, not to make sure they stay closed. Francis’ posture exhorts us to maintain a sense of humility in the face of people and entities unknown. Whether known to us or not, aliens, if they exist, are known and intentionally made by God. Honouring their desire for baptism could be a valid way of celebrating that truth.

Also in 2014, Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno spoke on alien baptism from his expertise both as a learned Catholic and a planetary scientist for the Vatican Observatory (yes, there is a Vatican Observatory). Br. Guy emphasizes that the Sacrament would have to be requested on the part of the alien. This itself an important distinction from some of the missionary activity of the past, and a better reflection of the Church’s teaching that the Sacraments be entered into freely, without pressure or coercion.

“God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. the soul only enters freely into the communion of love.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 2002

Having pulled from the lessons of history and incorporating some authoritative sources, I am left with a couple of my own philosophical-theological musings.

In my day I received some criticism for blessing a little girl’s turtle stuffy. When the Transitus of St. Francis of Assisi is celebrated each year on October 3rd (a tradition dating to the 13th Century among the Fransiscan family) it is customary in many Christian communities to celebrate a blessing of the animals on church grounds. In my mind I was asked to bless a turtle, and so I did. Whether the turtle was made in a factory or not was besides the point—both are, in some way, real, and can play critical roles in how humans relate to the created world with love and respect.

It is sad to think, but yes, some folks would be very strict and say, “Don’t you dare bless that stuffy as though it were an animal!” How often are we offended on God’s behalf without any inkling that God is actually offended, eh?

But just think, this is only a blessing, a small “s” sacramental. As I imagine the blowback for baptizing an alien I must workshop a response. I could start with mutually agreed upon principles of Catholic anthropology.

For example:(1) While all the world is in need of redemption/re-creation, human beings uniquely begin their lives with a trait that alienates them (you see what I did there?) from God’s family. This trait is known as “original sin.”

(2) Baptism is the rite by which humans are cleansed of the stain they were born with, simultaneously incorporating them into the Mystical Body of Christ. This reality is celebrated and reinforced through all facets of God’s grace, but especially in the reception of the Eucharist.

(3) The reception of the Eucharist is proper only to human beings, who have the capacity to “become what they receive” (Augustine et al) in both spirit and body, and who alone have undergone this journey from participating and culpability in exile, to participation and rejoicing in the adoptive family of God.

With baptism and indeed all the Sacraments being ordered toward human sanctification—made necessary by our fallen nature—we summarily arrive back to this basic understanding that baptism is not only for humans, but it only makes sense for humans who need God’s redemption and salvation in ways other entities do not.

Toby the Turtle is innocent. I will shout this from the rooftops.

So, are aliens human? Are they animals? Do they possess body and soul? Do they begin life with a sense of alienship that requires cleansing and holy incorporation?

I am going to take my attitude from the general posture of Pope Francis, Brother Guy Consolmagno, and Jesus before them (even though he is not a Jesuit—or is he?). In the face of the unknown, in the spirit of Christian charity, and of wonder and awe, I will say we can and must be prepared to baptize aliens if they request it—until science, dialogue, and the virtue of prudence dictate otherwise.

On the whole, I always want my default position to be: “Yes, give that person/place/thing” something of the grace and love of God. Because to be a steward of the mysteries of God is not so much about guarding a door as it is about keeping it open, and inviting everyone in. It is about a prodigious pouring out of a lifegiving grace I have no more claim to than the one with whom I share it.

Yours in wondering whether Bigfoot might also be an alien, as the History channel would have us believe,

Stu

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Share this post with your friends.

I had a question come up and I thought about a conversation I had with you some years ago at the Wendy’s tomato protest in Columbus. I had a supervisor once who was nice and normal to me and my coworkers outside of the office—at lunch, drinks, whatever—but in the office, he was just terrible. Rude, impatient, belittling a lot of the new staff especially. He would tell people that he may be tough in the office but he’s super nice “in real life.”

Talking to an old work friend I was reminded of what he and a few the others used to say about our boss, some variation of “he needs therapy.” As I think about it I notice that sentiment a lot on social media and stuff about public figures who do all sorts of bad things.

I know you have talked about mental health on here and other places and I wondered if you had a take on this. Is what I’m describing what therapy is for? Do you think it would help someone who is generally mean?

- Alex W.

Dear Alex,

What a nice Wendy’s memory! I hope that location has stuck with ethically sourced veggies since those days. Do you dip your fries in your Frosty by the way? I was skeptical about this for many years but then I tried it and realized it was delicious.

Thank you for looping me in on these reflections, including the persona of your former boss. For the sake of this response, let’s call him Stewart (sort of the evil twin version of my own name).

I have worked for/with people who acted like what you are describing with Stew. I had a restaurant supervisor who was so unpleasant, demanding, and rude to all of us in work hours. But outside of that context, it was like he wanted to be our best friend. We were dealing with a man who assumed others would join him in his happy delineation of work life and “real” life.

It is normal to adapt our behaviour to what is appropriate for our context. It makes sense to be more relaxed and less self-conscious among friends and family, to the degree each relationship permits, in contrast to the standards of acceptable conduct in the workplace. I think most of us can accept that.

What I strongly oppose is the arbitrary designation of any sphere of life as “not real life.” This happens a lot in the contrast between the workplace and life outside of it. It occurs also online, often to harmful results. In my years on Twitter (X) a culture of abuse and harassment was fostered in no small part by the cordoning off of one’s behaviour and identity from “real life.” Anonymity only further entrenched the sense of separation between real (irl) and online life.

Breaking the spheres of life into real or not real can have terrible—and yes, real life—consequences for the people who did not sign up for that distinction. Your boss, the Stew man, and my restaurant manager may be thinking they can be jerks to us on company time because it’s a different sphere of life, and not personal.

In fact, it’s all real life, and if you are going to be a jerk of me in any place, at any time of day, I am going to take it personally. And there are going to be consequences. For one, my colleagues and I are not going to dinner with you on Friday! Not only because you are my boss, but because you are mean to me in a way that cannot be put aside just because we are at Dave and Buster’s.

Bosses who are awful to others in the workplace do not get a pass because of the rarified environment of the workplace. Nor does acting nicely outside of work balance out the aforementioned awfulness.

I zoom further into the heart of your question with the disclaimer that I am not a therapist, and do not want to play at being one. My insights come primarily from years of being treated in therapy and psychiatry, learning and practicing contemporary methodologies, and offering spiritual and pastoral counselling in my various roles as a priest.

The most responsible point we should start with is that no one but a doctor or therapist and their patient can know whether they ought to be in therapy at all. Having said that, I personally believe that if one has the opportunity to try therapy and is on the fence, there is likely no harm in at least trying it. Therapy is not solely for those going through a horrible time, or living with a mental illness or addiction. It can help you become well in a holistic way, and it can help you sustain wellness over time through regular self-reflection and objective feedback.

***

Speaking only from anecdotal evidence, it feels to me like there are more of us in therapy because of people who have caused us distress or trauma than there are people in therapy because they have caused distress or trauma.

Some of us may be actively working in therapy to let go of our sins and failings and move forward, but this is something quite different from personalities who are obstinate in their meanness, who see nothing wrong with it, or as in the case at hand—who see their meanness as inconsequential because it is not “real life,” and thus not personal.

This takes us to the crux of the question of whether Disco Stew would benefit from therapy. In terms of addressing Stew’s meanness, a good therapist could help him uncover the roots of his behaviour, perhaps finding a sense of discontentment with himself or his life that is manifesting outwardly. Or there could be some other underlying cause that the Stewanator may not even be conscious of. That can happen to any of us.

But here’s the thing, and it’s behind my careful use of “could” with reference to a therapist helping Stew deal with his meanness. It is possible that way too much hope and expectation is placed on the therapeutic process to, if you will, “fix” someone for us.

“Wow, that dude needs therapy” may seem a mental health positive, forward thinking insight, but in my opinion, it assumes too much, and it places far too much weight on what therapy can do. Therapy can give you some great tools to empower you to find healing and peace, but it is not a guaranteed fix for one trait or another, not least because we can’t pathologize every vicious behaviour.

For Stew and a therapist to make even some meaningful progress with his meanness, Stew would have to actually be open to growth. There would be a need for some vulnerability, and humility. He would have to find some motivation to enter into a prolonged period of mental-emotional heavy lifting.

In other words, even for Stew to enter into therapy, he would have to make a virtuous choice, based on the virtuous insight that his behaviour is harming others.

Depending on how mean Stew really is, this could be a really tough sell. Because the trouble with a lot of terribly mean people is that their sense of empathy is extremely difficult to access from within or without. They are presumably capable of it, but exercising empathy requires a virtuous choice. It is active.

Even if Stew cannot yet say “I am not going to deride that person for a small mistake,” he must be able to say “It is a problem that I feel the need to deride that person; I’d like to figure out why, and make a change.” Without this, I see no way that outside help can be effective.

Some people are mean because of family history, trauma, or broken relationships. Some people inherit meanness from their parents. Even if that should describe someone like Stew who is how he is because of those factors, it is still his responsibility to do the virtuous thing and address it.

***

I said earlier that we cannot pathologize every vicious behaviour. I mean this also with respect to ideologies and belief systems. Sometimes we look at destructive public figures and say they are crazy or insane. This is not only offensive to those of us with mental illness, but it can also distract from the vicious ideological commitments and behaviours human beings are capable of in their right, sober mind.

On the one hand I understand why some folks will look at someone like the current American President and say this is a man who needs therapy. Maybe, for one reason or another, he does. But I don’t believe that every horrible decision or action we make necessarily comes from a place of pain, abandonment, or likewise. Initiating aggressive swells of ICE raids, defunding helplines that support at risk youth—frighteningly, these are not per se the decisions of a sick mind. They are the decisions of a person willfully acting, and inviting others into acting, in vicious, destructive ways.

Summarily, Stew 3000 may be be able to work on his meanness in therapy. But we would have to be very cautious about our hopes with that process. The first promising step would be an acknowledgement that there is a problem, and a willingness to do something about it. Regardless, in a just and healthy work culture this should never be the concern of a subordinate, and oftentimes those of us in that position cannot afford to wait for our superior to get better. None of us, regardless of developmental-psychological status, have a right to be cruel. Vicious people, especially in leadership, are not owed endless patience to improve.

Yours in missing the Wendy’s bacon mushroom melt, when the store theme was yellow, when you could dine in a veritable sunroom, and when friendly staffers brought round a basket of mints to complete the meal,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dear Stu,

I have lived on my own for almost 20 years now. My town is about 7 hours away from my mother’s house (which I grew up in) and with an income in the range of just getting by, it is hard for me to make trips home as regularly as my family, especially my mother, would like. Other siblings live closer so it’s not an issue for them.

Visiting home can be a real challenge for me. I put in a lot of effort between money and time just to get there, and when I do, it is only a matter of seconds before my mother comments on my appearance. Nine times out of ten it is to say I have put on some weight…”but my scarf looks nice.” Another time I guess I had lost a few pounds and she told me right away how great I look. Then I’d go back to how I was and that too would get a comment and/or suggestion of what I might do to get better.

I know a lot of people deal with unwelcome comments from family but this routine every time I visit home really hurts me, even after all these years. You’d think I’d get used to it by now, or just brush it off. But I’m at a point where it is frustrating enough that I didn’t do my usual visit this summer. I made up some excuse about work. One of my siblings knows the real reason but his he just mom is the way she is and she isn’t going to change. I don’t know. Sometimes I feel silly about being stuck on this, other times it just really, really upsets me. I appreciate any thoughts you might have.

- Erin D.

Dear Erin,

I am so sorry to hear about this. You don’t deserve those types of comments, and you certainly don’t deserve to feel bad about yourself because of a parent who should love and support you unconditionally.

The situation you describe with your mother is very similar to what others, especially women, in my life have experienced. Sometimes it’s a mother-in-law, or a boss, or a co-worker, the list goes on. But there can be something uniquely painful about hearing judgmental comments about your body from a parent.

These types of comments can come from different motivations. I will note two categories in particular that I have noticed within families or close friends. One is the health motivation. “I’m only saying this because I’m concerned about your health!” The other motivation I will call the sullied image of the family brand. That one may be less explicitly vocalized.

I’m Just Concerned for Your Health

First, to the health motivation. I acknowledge that some people who raise concerns about our weight do so out of genuine concern for our health and mental-emotional wellbeing. I appreciate that every relationship is unique, and in some contexts this may be a welcome conversation, viewing a sudden or drastic weight gain as a potential symptom of something else. But in these situations of genuine concern, I would argue that a doctor should be pretty much the only person to initiate direct conversations about someone’s weight.

If the concern of another is truly is about something deeper going on in someone’s life, then just (gently and respectfully) check in on that, no? How have you been? Hey, could be nothing but I noticed you’ve been a little down, how are you? Man, sleep has been tough for me lately, how are you doing with that these days?

There are other ways to check in on someone’s wellbeing, but with those few sample questions I want to emphasize the absence of moral judgement or the insinuation that someone is “doing life wrong” to the extent that you personally are embarrassed or uncomfortable because of their appearance or comportment.

When someone comments about my body or weight (I fall into the medical category of obese, unhelpful as that is), I feel pain on the same wound caused by someone observing I look depressed, without any follow-up. Thank you for flippantly pointing out these things that I have struggled with my entire life, I thought I was thin and smiling.

There are deeply personal reasons why my weight is what it is, including a medication regimen that helps me manage depressive episodes. Likewise there are deeply personal reasons I get depressed. As a complete and whole person with agency over my story, my body, and the changes I do or do not make in my life, I am well within my rights to close off comments or conversations that begin with an observation about what I look like, even when they come from well-intentioned places. That is true for me, you, and everyone.

The thing about comments like your mother’s, Erin, is that the timing and delivery nullify any goodwill that may underlie them. I don’t know if your mother has ever justified her comments with a health concern, but the way she talks to you takes away her right or suitability to have that kind of conversation with you anyway, in my opinion. If someone really cares, they should show that care in word and in deed. If I am not feeling loved by your words, you are probably not loving me well. Indeed, you might be hurting me.

Finally, it is imperative to remind ourselves (and others) that weight is not, in itself, a marker of good or bad health. I recently had a nutritionist who was kind enough to remind of this, doing away with BMI measurements and that system’s problematic roots in racism and eugenics.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Sullying the Family Brand

Behind some snidely, rude, or ignorantly flippant comments about our weight offered by friends and family I fear is a sense of that embarrassment I mentioned earlier. In my years working with college students there were so many destructive remnants of that phenomenon reactivating in the midst of new pressures and means of comparison with peers on social media.

I have been naive in the past about the prevalence of young people being critiqued by their families about their appearance in active and passive ways. Maybe I’m too used to those things coming from bullies—the ones that got to school with you rather than the ones who live with you.

The passive messaging comes in unspoken behaviours that are no less painful than hearing “you are too fat.” A teenager starts receiving plates of food considerably smaller than what they been, or the plate is suddenly devoid of carbs of fats (both of which the body needs). A mother intentionally buys her son a new outfit for his spring concert that is at least a size too small, perhaps reassuring him that he can lose the necessary weight in no time.

The messaging that our weight is bad and embarrassing to the people who love us is so difficult to shake when imprinted in those formative years. It broke my heart to experience how true that was for the young adults sitting in my office, already with enough heaviness of life and its transitions on their plate.

The physical weight is never the problem. It’s the weight of perpetual anxiety over how a shirt fits today vs. last week; whether if the only thing available after studying is junk food, if I should eat at all; and the inevitable climactic anxiety: when I visit home this weekend how I will look compared to last time?

All of this sucks and is not right.

The Return to Self

Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley developed a concept called the “looking-glass self” to refer to the ways that our identity is shaped less by our own ideas and perceptions and more by the ideas and perceptions of others towards us. I am not who I think I am. I am who I think you think I am.

What a frightening confusing phrase on first hearing. I am who I think you think I am. Maybe some are agnostic to the thought. I am more wary, and I certainly don’t perceive it as an inevitably.

We can free ourselves from the reliance of our identity on the perceptions and value judgments of someone else. I really believe that, Erin. I am not there yet, but I am there enough to remind myself at key moments that it is possible, and within my power.

It is important, to the degree of your comfortability, to communicate to your mother how much her comments pain you, even if she thinks they are harmless. If your mother complains that you don’t visit enough, you are on more than firm ground to tell her why, even if other times or aspects of your visits are pleasant enough. If you talk to me like a bully, I’m not just going to overlook it because there are cookies in the oven and you mean well. These are more than reasonable boundaries for you to set.

But in the event that your mother refuses to hear you, and refuses to see a problem where there is one, I hope it is helpful to remember that “I am who I think you think I am” refers also to the people that brought us into this world. Whether your sense of how your mother thinks of you and your appearance are correct (ie. health concern motivated or concerned about the brand), you should not have to live so weighed down by the way she actually communicates and behaves.

Everybody and every body is good and beautiful in its own right. Fatphobia will likely remain so long as individuals and societies narrowly restrict what deserves those descriptors. Whatever happens, I hope to remind myself and all in similar circumstances that it is these attitudes that negatively impact society that need to change—not the size and shape of my body.

Yours in the letting go and loving ourselves,

Stu

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Feel free to share this letter anywhere you like.

(A reminder that letters addressed to Fergus are actually to everybody)

Thanks for drawing my attention to that spurious article about the Dalai Lama and Paul McCartney serenading a terminally ill Phil Collins in his hospital bed while a 7 foot beekeeper looked on. I had my doubts as well.

The advent of AI has made the perception of reality difficult. This a rare outcome among inventions.

It was hard enough before AI to figure out what is and what isn’t.

If you’ve had a chance to take an introductory philosophy class or you otherwise enjoy questioning existence you will have heard of René Descartes, popularly heralded as the father of modern philosophy. Descartes wrote in the first half of the 17th Century, but his reflections are timeless.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes questions reality itself. He does away with all that cannot be known for certain and rebuilds what can be known from the ground up. He ponders whether he is dreaming, or whether some evil entity has tricked him into perceiving a reality that isn’t there.

Descartes was eventually able to come to peace with most of his challenges to the status quo and determine “I think therefore I am.” (Some new philosophy students prefer to say the Latin, “Cogito ergo sum” because it sounds cooler.)

Descartes concluded that for him to even ponder his various doubts about his own existence there must be an “I” who is having the doubts. If I can ponder the existence of a deceiver who is tricking me into falsely believing I exist, there must a “me” who can be deceived. I, in reality, exist. And I exist in a reality.

Not all of Decartes’ Meditations are convincing, especially as they become more elaborate. But I always enjoyed pondering the first few meddys, as I call them.

To live in a world where humans increasingly have the ability to contort our images of reality, must we all become students of Descartes? Do we need to embark on a dramatic existential exercise each time we see something fantastical on instagram?

Not necessarily. But there is absolutely a Cartesian disposition of skepticism that would serve us well to adapt.

When I encounter an image or video that seems too wild to be true, I try to pause and reorient myself to life and its principles of operation. I believe we all need to have charge over our perceptions in this way. Perhaps in another letter we could talk about right perception as a matter of justice.

It’s cool to see Phil Collins and Paul McCartney together. But I am not going to take this at face value. I must question as Descartes did. Could this image be concocted by an evil genius playing with my mind? Is a demon at work?

In this instance, as innocuous as it may seem; yes. When an image or news story goes viral, someone benefits. More clicks bring more followers to engage with more doctored content, which in turn translates to higher ad revenue, at little to no cost. No practical effects needed, no Photoshop artists to pay on Fiverr.

In an unregulated AI world the system of capitalism itself is an evil genius hellbent on deceiving us, more than any piece of misleading advertising has ever done before.

Understanding that there are greedy, cynical people, companies, and political entities who benefit from fake content should be a critical motivator to our skepticism. It may be easy to have an attitude of nonchalance about AI creations, especially if it seems that the worst it can get is a picture of Jesus made of shrimp or Paul McCartney as a candy striper. But I think it’s worth remembering that there are bad actors out there who rely on passive, nonchalant consumers of media.

(This letter is not about how all AI is bad etc… but to me that is the point of looking at things critically. You can methodically work out the truth or quality of a thing without pressure or influence.)

If you are looking for practical ways to verify an image, video, or news story from a dubious source, there is nothing wrong with an initial Google search. To return to our image example, a quick search on Phil Collins tells me he is not in the hospital, and that beekeeper outfits are generally not welcome in hospitals.

A text example I noticed last week was an AI article, itself clearly informed by a misleading human piece, that said Pope Leo was putting together a summit of “hot priests” in Rome. This was going to be a big evangelizer. In fact, all the article contained was a reference to a young-ish priest who is popular on social media and believes it to be an effective way of reaching people. I mean, the dude TikToks his weightlifting sessions, but that’s about it.

To see if something is written by AI there are a number of detectors online. I find Scribbr to be relatively reliable, for instance: scribbr.com/ai-detector/

For images, videos, and general news stories, whether created by AI or not, I highly recommend Snopes: snopes.com

Thanks again for the note Fergus, and for keeping the kind of open mind that knows when to close.

Yours in ChatGPT,

Stu

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Share this letter with your friends.

A friend of a friend of a friend told me you might be able to empathize with this. A lot of people seem to get down or depressed when winter arrives. I get it. It’s cold and the days start getting shorter. But most of my life I have been the opposite. I can handle winter, especially because there are more likely to be temperatures I can go for walks in with the right gear. But I feel trapped during these hot summers. It’s gets so hot and humid I feel it in my brain and body first thing in the morning. I guess my question is, what is there to do about this? What do you do about this? Do I just need to move somewhere colder?

- Anhil P.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dear Anhil,

God bless and keep you. Not to be dramatic, but is clear to me that summer is a consequence of the fall of humankind—that unhappy fault of Adam and Eve which has cursed us for generations. It gets worse because of global warming: that one is on us.

You contacted the right person. I pray you know the depths of my empathy with this issue. I have struggled with the sun and the summer most of my life.

I say “most” because I happened to be looking at an old photo of myself and my mother from circa 1992 recently and I look about as content as any 7 year old in summer. I reflect back to those days and I remember that I was, in fact, content with that season.

But I wonder what role childhood summer shenanigans played in this positive outlook. My memories of those days are not of the heat, but of biking all over the neighbourhood with my friends, having a go at a lemonade stand, and playing baseball for the Elks. They were fun and innocent times. I was also smaller and wore shorts, neither of which I have any part of anymore.

When I think of sunny summer days now I think of a heaviness. I sit in a blissfully air conditioned house at this moment and yet as I look out the window, I can see the heat and the heaviness as sure as as rain in a thunderstorm.

My mood and mental health are generally at their worst in the summer. Like no other time of the year I find myself often fighting a crankiness that is bubbling up just below the surface. This is especially true of humid days, and how in the worst sense it takes my breath away the moment I step outside the door.

It is a season of oppressive trapping. It gets inside my brain and pushes it down, draining my energy, keeping me inside, attacking my body image with the combination of thinner clothes and eating without exercise. The heat gives me the sensation of ants crawling on my skin.

In fall and winter I can spend about as much time outside as I like. The cold doesn’t faze me. We grew up with long, cold, winters in the Maritimes. You can wear things to make it even more tolerable. My red scarf from The Bay. Long johns. Mittens, as close as possible to the kind my grandmother knitted for my brother and I as kids. Wooly socks.

Many seem to think my aversion to summer is some sort of bit that I am doing. An affectation. A gimmick. It is not. And while I am personally content enough to acknowledge how my experience of bipolar disorder bumps up against summer, there are specific diagnoses related to this phenomenon.

Season Affective Disorder (SAD) is a real condition characterized by depressive symptoms that usually arise in the late fall or winter. I am not an expert, so I refer you to the Mental Health Institute article on the subject as a place to get started. And of course, should these symptoms align with yours (or anyone reading this) please don’t wait to talk to your doctor.

The summer version of Seasonal Affective Disorder is called summer-pattern SAD. But even if you run into a doctor who prefers not to use that technical term, as I have, the most important part to attend to IMO is the reality of feeling depressed, and communicating how this manifests for you to physicians, friends, family, and loved ones in a way that challenges the aspect of this phenomenon that only sounds like a joke/gimmick.

The list of symptoms offered by NIMH are helpful, and I recognize them. In summer I connect especially with the loss of energy and/or motivation. Depressive episodes for me at any time of year are marked by what I call desirelessness. That is, not just wanting something to help me feel better, but struggling to want at all.

Summer compounds the problem of wantlessness by having so little to offer that could begin teasing me out of it. Paradoxically in the midst of the darkness, it’s harder to see a little ray of light that could say “look at this, maybe we could want this?” No.

But when I see snow I see something inviting and moldable. It’s a naturally occurring substance waiting for an activity to bring about its full potential.

What can we do about summer?

The question seems ripe for a self-proclaimed expert to make a listicle about. WatchMojo presents ten movies to lift you out of those summer blues. I want to try and do you a favour by not being too overly naive about this and just share a couple of ways I manage these days.

(1) I like to treat the sun and heat as many would the rain. Indeed, my sweat is likely to make my clothes just as wet, causing discomfort the rest of the day. I move between outdoor spaces with great speed. It is the only time I move anywhere with great speed. I have to get to the car fast: it is sunning cats and dogs out there.

If someone invites to an outdoor activity on a hot and humid day I have become comfortable saying no. Don’t do a thing that isn’t good for you just because others don’t see the big deal. Remember, in our minds it is as though it raining outside. I can’t go to your picnic, it’s raining outside. Instead: Would ya’ll like to come over and marathon Pirates of the Caribbean after? (Based on a real life example.)

Looking at a more literal example I have become inspired by an older man in the neighbourhood who walks around in the middle of a hot summer day with a big umbrella. Now that is taking this weather seriously. When I have to be outside I am desperate to look for the shade. This notion of taking your shade with you is simple, but effective. It is quite common in other countries but I feel like the appearance of silliness stops us round here. But I think the tradeoff is well worth it.

This is the approach we need to have: we are not strange. Let’s normalize mindfully allaying summer depression in whatever ways we need. We can do what works for us.

(2) Take advantage of “third spaces” as much as possible. I only learned this term a little while ago but I’ve been all about it for years. A first space is your home, a second space is your work, a third space is somewhere public you can go and be amidst others. These spaces include coffee shops, libraries, recreation/community centers, and houses of worship.

A popular third space definition would emphasize the community-building aspect of the space. You can chat with the people at the third space. To be honest, this is a bit less of a priority for me, but it’s chill if it is for you. I can see how that aspect of the concept makes sense. Those of us stuck inside due to weather aversion are inevitably more prone to isolation and loneliness. For me, just being amidst others does the trick.

Making use of third spaces has practical benefits. Air conditioning can be very expensive when you are trying to fight the heat as much as people of our disposition are. Let’s shut it off at home and go somewhere that has it in spades.

Some spaces also offer tasty food and drink.

I do not work for Panera. Panera does not pay me, which is too bad. But one of the greatest gifts I ever received in my life was a one-year subscription to the Panera Unlimited Sip Club. You can get a new icy drink every two hours, and refill as often as you want while you’re there. I sit at my table and either get some work done, write some creative-type things, or do a puzzle. A special treat is when I can meet a friend for Bananagrams!

The sum of these third spaces with their practicalities is a sense of life where I have a sizeable bubble in which to live and move and have my being. I can’t let the heat trap me at home; it only worsens the depression. I am still to be amidst the people. I cannot be stopped.

(3) Do something creative, outside the context of work or school. Make something. Have a project. It doesn’t need to be anything massive, just something that expresses yourself, relaxes your mind, and frees it from the anxieties of evaluation and completeness.

Work on a themed collection of poems, even if you’re not a poet. Start learning how to do basic code in Python or other languages and build a website for your dog.

By the time we reach kindergarten many of us have been introduced to something called crafting. When you think about it, it’s a little strange. For a few young years, no matter what happens next, each of us are little inventors, engineers, and artists.

My mom was such an avid proponent of crafting that all the neighbourhood kids she looked after in the summer would be so focused on their pipe cleaner and popsicle sticks as to delay chocolate pudding time. I would never go this far, but I understood it.

Crafts are satisfying, and far too socially limited to children. Go to Dollar Tree and start dreaming, as I say about many things. Summer is the perfect time to take over that dining table with strange and delightful materials.

If these types of creative efforts were only to justify myself, or to show others I’m living well despite my struggle with the weather, it might just be another veer toward identity as productivity. But the point of this creative exercise is to do it first and foremost for yourself, for the pleasure of it.

Keeping at least these three things in mind has not only helped me pass the summer in a distractive sort of way, it has helped me go so far as to flourish on many days. And what I’ve come to appreciate all the more, over time I’ve been able to rebuild new summer memories, new things to feel nostalgic about. And like that, much more than would be the case otherwise, summer doesn’t feel quite as bad.

Yours in snow forts and tomato soup,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dear Stu is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I don’t hate my job, but I am unmotivated by it. I am less than 3 years out of college and I didn’t expect to feel as jaded as this already. I was looking forward to work life, having my own place, all that. I feel like I could feel better about my life if my work had any impact or meaning, but I am starting to see that it doesn’t. I’m just doing it to survive, and because I don’t know what else to do. I don’t know how to phrase my question, but I think there is one in here somewhere.

- Adrian L.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Dear Adrian,

I am sorry to hear about how you have been feeling. Most of us spend a significant amount of time at our jobs, and a lot of energy—neither of which we can get back. It sucks to feel like the whole thing might be meaningless. I promise it isn’t. But I have to start by saying I hear and connect with you on that feeling.

Even if only for the levity, you would be a good candidate for a viewing of the 1999 Mike Judge film Office Space. It follows a guy, famously named Peter (“Peter…what’s happening…”) who is bored and unmotivated by his job to the point of despair. Hypnotism suddenly grants Peter the ability to not care anymore. He shows up to work when he wants, ignores incessant corrections of minute details by a bloated roster of managers, hangs out with his friends, and suffers no negative consequences as a result.

The film goes further to examine deeper ethical and existential themes, but at least for a time, we get see the bliss that could result from utter detachment to one’s employment. That Peter never actually quits his job feels all the more delightful. The company shoulders the consequences of Peter’s checking out.

Adrian, I hope you will see Office Space. I think it is important. It is one of the funniest movies of all time and a personal favourite comfort rewatch.

Now, I would like to offer the rest of my answer in the form of a metaphorical pancake. There is one side we have just hinted at: the need for detachment. Then there is another side: the need to see value in all work. The butter and syrup is your viewing of Office Space.

Pancake Side I: Detachment

Unfortunately, as you contemplate following Peter’s style of detachment you may quickly realize that in real life, the pitfalls arrive more swiftly than in fiction. If you don’t show up to work without reason you will likely get fired. A shame is what that is.

In the spiritual life, detachment is about more than decisive action or inaction. It is a disposition toward things, people, events, and the unexpected in life that allows us to experience more freedom, and less distress.

In the case of your work, there may be room to adjust the importance you give it in defining you or the quality of your life.

A disposition of attachment may assign too much weight to the type of labour I do and its capacity for universal impact. If my work is valued by others, I am valued by others. If my work matters then I matter, and I’ve earned the right to be alive and feel good about it.

In reality, even if all your work does is keep you alive, then your work has meaning. You matter before you go to work. The fruits of your work—even just the paycheque—attend to your mattering. You’re worth keeping fed, having a safe and comfy house, and the pleasure of a family if you so choose. That’s enough.

I don’t at all want to discount the very real boredom a lot of work can entail! I’ve been there. But maybe sometimes at least a little of our boredom and lack of motivation comes from a sense that the work we are doing during the day is supposed to define us more that it was ever meant to.

It’s okay for work to have a smaller place relative to the rest of our lives. We don’t need to overcomplicate it or think something is gravely wrong because it does not change the world or grant us a great deal of fulfillment. It’s ok, and I’d say praiseworthy, to detach from lofty expectations about what we do, and simply let it be what it is. To keep it in its place.

When we reflect on some of the bigger things in life that are worth our attachment—the transcendentals, the eternals, love and the grandeur of nature—we might see the folly of investing too much of ourselves and our identity in things that do not invest in us in return.

Whatever they say at our job to keep us ignoring the low pay or lack of benefits (“We’re a family here!”) healthy detachment calls us to maintain an objective distance, ideally to the point where we can chuckle at the cynicism of capitalist enterprise vying to be more to us than they already are. Detachment keeps us from being owned by the people we work for.

I fear I may be wandering into an adjacent topic about which I am also passionate but hopefully this is generally making some sense.

Pancake Side II: Labour is Good in Itself

We have established that all (ethical, harmless—again, a topic for another day) work is meaningful even if it only accomplishes our maintenance and wellbeing. Even if this were not the case, I would also insist that even the most boring-seeming jobs are good and dignified.

I always appreciated the Catholic spin on this. Even if you are of another faith or none at all, perhaps it might resonate. God, of God’s own initiative created the world and all that resides in it. The Genesis myth describes God’s labour as something methodical. Creation didn’t all happen at once: it happened over minutes, hours, and days. And after six days of hard labour, God rested.

Six days on, one day off. Hard graft. We are all here because of that great shift worker in the sky.

The Genesis creation myth (there are two versions, both go hard) emphasizes the creation of humanity as a pinnacle moment. Adam and Eve, these two are a big deal. They are made in the image of their creator. And what is the first thing they are charged with as that image? Till the earth. Have stewardship over it. That’s right. Six days of tillin’. Then a day of Sabbath rest.

In this vision we identify labour as something inherently good because it mirrors and perpetuates the unfolding of creation—making us partakers in God’s own work—and it serves the purpose of keeping us alive and well. What more meaning could work possibly have?

Whether we take this narrative as our own or not, I do think there is something in most of us that derives some satisfaction in doing things, and doing them well. There is something deeply human about it.

When I was a newsie working the early morning beat outside subway stations, I was never more content and proud than when I started out, greeting people warmly, offering a fresh copy of Toronto’s second favourite commuter newspaper. It was only when I was phoning it in that the satisfaction started to go away. I wasn’t just telling the newspaper it wasn’t worth the effort. Not realizing it, I was telling myself I wasn’t worth the effort.

So, we work. We plug away. We support ourselves (which is enough!), we support our loved ones, we contribute to society in big and small ways that go beyond out literal 9-5.

And I don’t mean to be this guy but it could also just be that it’s time to quit, Adrian lol.

Yours in meaning-making,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I am not married and don’t have any children. I do, however, share my apartment with a dog named Angus and an elderly cat, Ferbie. I love these two creatures and as much work as they can be (they also like to dip their paws in when I’m baking) taking care of them makes me happy and gives me some fulfillment outside of my job. But over the years I’ve had pets, some friends and family have said I treat them like children, and give them too much. I’m a normal person in my opinion but sometimes it feels like others see me as crazy for all this. I sometimes doubt myself and the way I live my life as a result. Am I crazy for loving my pets so much?

- Angie M.

Dear Angie,

I am so sorry that some people, especially family, would think of you as crazy for how much you love and dote on your pets. Not cool.

To begin, I have a few thoughts about the word crazy.

Doing Away with Crazy

Not only are many people way too fast and loose with the word “crazy,” I think we could afford to get rid of the word altogether. It has such a long history of dismissing or oppressing people: those experiencing legitimate medical symptoms, people with disabilities, or those trying to fight against the categorization in the first place. To some, causing a (necessary) disruption to reclaim one’s life and autonomy = crazy.

For those of us who live with one or mental illnesses, crazy is painful thing to be called or considered. It tells me I am far gone, out of touch, unable to participate in society the way others can. It’s a mean, degrading word.

Women have been and are deemed crazy for a wide variety of reasons. It has been a convenient way to maintain the status quo, whether in politics, the workplace, or in the household. The now discredited diagnosis of “hysteria” for women whose symptoms escaped the clear categorization of other diagnoses (or more likely could not get past the bias and willful ignorance of physicians) continued to foster a sense of social-patriarchal hesitation around woman having too much responsibility.

Relevant to this topic, I think also of the ways “cat lady” is used to refer to someone perceived as reclusive, maybe a hoarder, surrounded by open tin cans and splashes of milk. A cat lady is not typically imagined as a successful, independent woman who loves her 2+ cats is she? No, a cat lady is crazy.

This criticism of “crazy” may seem a digression, but as I try and put myself in your shoes, Angie, I imagine what extra power this word might have when it comes from people who theoretically know us best. It’s one thing for strangers or some troll on the internet to call me unhinged or what have you, but it’s natural that these questions from loved ones would give us more pause, and potential hurt.

The most immediate and important answer is no, you are not crazy. Inevitably though, the perspectives of our friends and family are informed by some of the broader trends in society and culture, and it is right and just to challenge harmful views around pet ownership and care.

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Sources of Critique

Derision of attentive and loving pet owners comes from a variety of directions these days. A prominent example I am most familiar with comes from some Christians who broaden their definition of a pro-life ethic to include concern for the phenomenon of fewer people having children. The foremost reason ascribed to this phenomenon is selfishness. The young people these days: all they care about is making money and having fun.

And so, the narrative would have it, children and the burdens they carry have been displaced by pets. So-called fur babies and the like absorb their caregivers’ attention in ways that fulfill the need to have a little company, but without all the extra trouble that comes with new, tiny humans. There will be no waking up at night to feed a crying turtle, nor saving up for a parakeet to go to college.

Intellectual dishonesty and the creation of strawmen has always bothered me in the Catholic-Christian universe. Us and them delineations become easier when the people we dislike are actually caricatures of the people we dislike. The framing of adults without children as selfish hedonists who spend all their money on a pet instead is not at all a fair representation of folks whom this describes.

It is an odd compulsion many of our species entertain: to look at another’s life and criticize the goods they have chosen over the goods they have not. Not choosing evil over good. Just choosing a different good, freely, happily, and without harm to another.

The Good of Loving Your Pet

The generation of life is an integral aspect of the sacrament of matrimony in Catholic and other traditions. During the rite of marriage the priest or deacon witnesses to the spouses’ commitment to love one another in this way, in the context of a mutually self-giving, faithful covenant.

But marriage is a sign of a greater, lifegiving love. Lifegiving love itself cannot be contained, or one-upped, or copyrighted. The family ought to be a place where love is born, fostered, and practiced, but there is nothing about the nuclear family that automatically makes it so—and certainly not exclusively.

Putting the topic of loving, lifegiving friendships aside for now, many people have pets they love almost as much or precisely as much as their own family. Instead of jumping to the most negative ideas possible (including that the owner must be crazy), it makes a whole lot more sense to look positively at the ways these relationships are settings where love is born, fostered, and practiced.

When I hear you say, Angie, that you find fulfillment in doting on your pets, I believe you, and I don’t find that surprising. I think this fulfillment happens because your love for them is a very good thing. I think this manner of life—going outside of ourselves and tending to others who need us, including all manner of creation—is beautiful. I think it may be what I like most about life.

Yours in Paw-Printed Pie,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I have been able to listen to a wide variety of sermons (homilies?) in my lifetime as a Catholic. Some are good, some are dry or difficult to follow. In either case, I appreciate it when the priest at least tries his best. I learned that a priest in our diocese now uses AI to write significant portions of his sermons. Even if the sermon turns out at least OK, this still feels…off to me. Do you think this practice is ethical?

- Katherine

Dear Katherine,

Thank you for the note, AI is certainly an urgent topic for a number of industry sectors, and religion seems to be no different.

To lay my cards out (and many of my first subscribers may already know this) I am a priest who is taking a break from doing the usual priest things. At my request, my religious superiors granted me a time to do some discernment and self-care.

So, I come to this question both as a Catholic who has heard a great diversity of preaching, and as a cleric of 9 years who has taken a long time to find his voice and method of preparation for homily/sermon writing.

Art and AI

Taking a step back to be as objective as possible, I believe the emerging debate around the ethics of art and AI could be helpful to our evaluation here.

Like art, sermonizing is a work of creativity. Each project is introduced into a world where it did not previously exist, and would not have existed without the initiative of the preacher.

Also like art, no sermon is free of influence. In writing a sermon, I am drawing inspiration from both ancient sources (the scriptures) and newer ones (other preachers whose style or emphases I connect with).

A proponent of creating art with AI may argue that the practice is no different than working with any other influence or source. The sermon writer might argue the same.

Fair enough, I suppose. If we are looking at AI as one influence among many in the creation of an original work, that does seems fine. This method of AI use I’ll refer to, ingeniously, as consultation.

But the ethical conundrums pertaining to AI’s role in creativity remain in the final output. Now that I have learned, seen, or heard what AI has given me, what role will it have in what I finally package and deliver to the world as my own?

If we are looking at using the totality of AI output as our finished product, I fear we have wandered far afield from ethical territory—not simply because we didn’t make the thing, but because the nature of AI training is such that someone else did.

This lazier practice of AI use we might cleverly refer to as total, or “no one will even notice, and this way I can go to bed.”

Using AI output in a prompt-generate-copy-paste manner leads us quickly into plagiarism. In works of creation, whether in art of sermon writing, it is not sufficient to footnote the work as, for example, “ChatGPT.” ChatGPT got it from somewhere else.

So, to my point (1) above, it is ethical to use AI when writing a sermon, if the purpose is for consultation. To point (2), if the purpose is to present the output of AI as my complete project (totality) without disclaimer, I am no longer behaving ethically.

There you have my two Canadian cents, 1.4 cents USD.

The Church Context

For you Katherine, and for other Catholic/Christian-minded folks, I will tack on a point from the perspective of those traditions.

IMHO:

Overusing AI, paying for sermons, or otherwise phoning it in may get the job done, but it is really unfair to the people of God who have a right to hear the Word Incarnate (enfleshed) in their lives. I am against the practice of reciting ancient sermons from St. Basil the Great et al for the same reason.

A critical part of that incarnation is through the preacher. This doesn’t mean that every word out of our mouths will de facto be good and God-sent, rather it calls the preacher to incarnate responsibly, mindful of the great responsibility given (Luke 12:48).

The preacher has to do the research, the exegesis, and the praying with the text to convey the Word, freeing it from being made too much in our own image.

And critically, every sermon writer has to do what AI can’t: have the smell of the sheep, as Pope Francis+ so frequently emphasized.

Whatever knowledge and synthesizing AI is or becomes capable of, the people we preach to are real, unrepeatable individuals, each with their own stories, joys and sadnesses, times of faith and struggle.

People are unfathomable mysteries that cannot be reduced to cold, teachable data.

Summarily, while it may be perfectly valid to consult AI in the preparation of a sermon, the preacher must keep in mind that they are not preparing an essay. The purpose of the sermon is not found in the facts or concepts alone.

For the Word to incarnate—take on flesh—the faculties of deep listening, empathy, and faith are imperative. We need those precious things that are uniquely, and irreplaceably, human.

It would be wild if AI wrote all of this.

Robotically Yours,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Dear Reader,

Welcome to Dear Stu, a place to reflect on life’s deepest questions with the facilitation of a man named Stu. That is me.

Creating a Substack has been a dream of mine since I was 38, maybe 39. Now at my advanced age I see there is more to explore here than I could have imagined.

The whole process of setting this up has been fun, but it has also made me a little nostalgic for the online publishing world of yesteryear. Things used to be so…weird. And, complicated. But there was a warmth to it. Nostalgia, you see, is often at war with convenience.

I offer a very brief trip down memory lane. But for tl;dr scroll down to Welcome Part II.

It’s been almost 20 years since I put together my first website, hoping to share my thoughts on topics as diverse as fishing (specific to my 5km radius), and the 1980s courtroom drama, Matlock.

To create these early websites I, like many, used the free version of the template-based site builder, Tripod (which to my great surprise is still in operation). Was it intuitive? No. It took me hours to learn and was often buggy. Did I at least get a cool domain name? No. Our domain names back then were not snappy. If your custom built webpage ended in greenday82 you were doing well.

Many of the colour schemes in the mid-late 90s were absolutely wild. The closest samples still around are informational ghost, alien, or bigfoot sites.

Perhaps the idea was to introduce a complexity to the site, by way of illegibility. Why have a plain white background when it can be black, or red, or perhaps a loud, full blown radiation green? I want something a young person would look at and say “It’s giving Chicago hot dog relish.”

The font should not pair well. Yes, even though we want people to read all this. That Chicago relish background is asking for light purple text. Should it be 8pt, 10pt, or 12pt font? Yes to all, and I’ll have that at random, please.

Now I enter a new frontier. Something post-Tripod, even post-Wordpress. Heavens to Betsy, look at us.

This format is still new to me, and it feels that way. If I want to insert vertical and horizontal FRAMES onto my page I need remember to keep that desire to myself.

It’s all so much tidier now, isn’t it? The way we can share our thoughts on the worldwide internet database. Pristine. The way we do things is much more sensible and convenient.

But can I recover the warmth, the ineffable something special about the way things used to be? or is that a fantasy in the first place?

There we are again. Nostalgia fighting convenience, the former arguably less interested in productivity than the latter.

I think that may describe me, too.

***

Welcome: Part II

I want to welcome you, to thank you, to ask you to walk with me on this new Substack adventure.

For the most part, you will be reading the thoughts of a 40-year-old man who has stayed current in many ways, but whose soul and temperament is old. A wise friend observes that this, along with my Canadian-ness, informs much of my writing and speaking. We will see.

Here are some introductory points that I hope will help you form a decision on whether to subscribe or to watch from afar. I am ignorant of other options.

* I have called this publication “Dear Stu” because I would love for your questions and comments to be the primary driver of what I post, ideally in letter form.

* I am especially interested in grappling with deep questions: the meaning of life, faith and spirituality, and all things existential. We are not necessarily productive here, in the sense of attaining one thing in order to gain another.

* You can submit your questions or topic discussion requests to: dearstu@protonmail.com.

* Anything I post here that is addressed as “Dear Fergus” arises from the ether (i.e. I formed the question or brought up the topic unsolicited).

And so, dear reader, let us now begin our work of unravelling life’s greatest mysteries.

Peace and Gratitude,

Stu

Thanks for reading Dear Stu! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.