This morning, millions of Americans will attend church for Easter Sunday. Church attendance today will be two to three times higher than an average Sunday, filling sanctuaries from coast to coast. Many dioceses are reporting record-breaking conversions at this year’s Easter Vigil. Newark saw 1,701 people join the Catholic Church, a 30% jump from last year. Oklahoma City recorded a 57% increase. Philadelphia’s cathedral overflowed with new catechumens.

Share

Yet if you walked through most of America yesterday, you wouldn’t have known Easter was approaching. No Easter movies dominated streaming services. No Easter music filled retail spaces. No multi-week cultural buildup. Americans will spend an estimated $24.9 billion on Easter this year, which sounds substantial until you realize Christmas retail spending surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in 2025. That’s a 40-to-1 ratio.

For Christianity’s most theologically significant holiday, Easter commands almost zero secular cultural real estate compared to Christmas. The contrast raises an interesting question about what happens when holidays follow different paths.

When Both Holidays Were Suspect

The divergence wasn’t inevitable. Christmas and Easter held roughly equal cultural weight for much of Christian history. But America’s early Puritan settlers objected to both holidays with equal suspicion. They saw feast days as dangerous times when social codes could be violated. Cotton Mather lamented how “the feast of Christ’s nativity is spent in reveling, dicing, carding, masking, and in all licentious liberty.”

Easter faced similar objections. For Puritans and similar Protestant groups, religious holidays smacked of Catholic ritual. The solution was treating all days as equally sacred rather than elevating specific feast days.

So what changed? In the 19th century, Christmas got reinvented as a domestic, family-centered celebration. Easter didn’t.

The Victorian Reinvention

The Christmas we recognize today is largely a Victorian creation. As historian Stephen Nissenbaum documented, the holiday was transformed into a bourgeois celebration centered on childhood and family. Popular writers created the modern template through what amounted to a cultural marketing campaign. Washington Irving’s 1822 Bracebridge Hall referenced “ancient” Christmas traditions that were actually Irving’s inventions. Clement Clarke Moore’s “The Night Before Christmas” appeared the same year. Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol followed in 1843.

These works reimagined Christmas as respectable and family-friendly. The holiday became accessible to people with varying levels of religious commitment. You didn’t need to believe in the virgin birth to enjoy a story about gift-giving and childhood wonder. The Nativity scene translated easily into celebrations of family. Nearly everything we associate with Christmas today comes from this 19th-century cultural renovation.

Easter received no such transformation. While it acquired some family-friendly additions like Easter eggs and bunnies, no equivalent cultural movement emerged. Historical analysis shows that at the dawn of the 19th century, English books referenced Christmas and Easter roughly equally. By the 1860s, Easter references had dropped to half that of Christmas. By 2000, Christmas was referenced almost four times as often.

Why Easter Resisted

The divergence reflects structural differences between the holidays. Christmas celebrates a birth, which translates smoothly into broader celebration. The story requires minimal theological commitment. Whether you believe in the virgin birth or not, you can appreciate that a person named Jesus was probably born, and births are worth celebrating. The imagery of mothers and infants works perfectly for a child-centered holiday.

Easter is about an adult man who was executed, then rose from the dead. The supernatural elements sit front and center. You either believe a man conquered death or you don’t. There’s less comfortable middle ground for casual participation.

The mechanics reinforce this. Easter is a moveable feast, varying within a 35-day range depending on lunar calculations. Retailers struggle to build sustained campaigns when the target date shifts annually. Christmas sits fixed on December 25, allowing multi-week buildups and predictable planning.

Gift-giving creates another difference. Christmas became synonymous with presents, which drove commercial investment. Easter has no equivalent gift-giving tradition. Without that engine, retailers had less incentive to invest in Easter’s cultural expansion.

The Paradox of Preservation

Here’s what’s interesting about Easter’s commercial failure. By resisting secularization, the holiday may have preserved something valuable. Father Dennis Gill, who oversees conversion programs for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, told the National Catholic Register that recent converts show unusual commitment. “I have noticed over the last several years that there is a greater commitment to conversion, a greater commitment to the Church, when they arrive.”

The record conversion numbers suggest Easter retains serious appeal precisely because it hasn’t been culturally diluted. While surveys show more people leaving the Catholic Church than entering overall, the conversion data reveals something else happening. “While we may see a decrease in cultural Catholicism, we see an increase in people becoming Catholics by personal choice,” said Father Juan Ochoa of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which expects a 54% increase in converts this Easter.

Easter’s cultural invisibility creates a different dynamic. If you’re celebrating Easter, you’re probably doing so intentionally. The broader culture isn’t pulling you along. There are no Easter bonuses at work, no monthlong marketing blitz making participation feel expected. The holiday exists for those who seek it out.

Edward Trendowski, director of the Office of Faith Formation for the Diocese of Providence, described unusual spiritual openness among people coming to the Church. “People seem to be more spiritually open,” he observed. “We know deep down that there’s something more. People are looking for something deeper.”

Multiple dioceses report that new converts skew younger, often in their twenties and thirties. Barbara Ferreris, director of faith formation at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Tampa, explained the pattern simply. “They have the career. They have the home, the car. They’re searching for more.”

These aren’t people who grew up with Easter as ambient cultural background. They’re coming to it deliberately, often after trying what secular culture offers and finding it insufficient.

Different Paths, Different Outcomes

Christmas demonstrates what happens when a religious holiday gets thoroughly adapted for broad cultural participation. The culture embraced it, retailers invested in it, and it became a massive shared experience that accommodates everyone from devout believers to casual celebrants.

Easter shows what happens when a holiday remains primarily religious. The culture largely ignores it, which means the holiday stays weird, supernatural, and unavoidably theological. You can’t celebrate Easter casually the way you can Christmas. The resurrection is either true or it isn’t.

This makes Easter a different kind of test. The people filling churches this morning made deliberate choices. The converts joining the Church at Easter Vigils yesterday chose something the broader culture neither validates nor particularly notices.

As Americans return to work tomorrow, most won’t notice Easter has passed. The culture will move on without Easter parties or Easter retail analysis. But for those who marked today deliberately, that cultural indifference might be precisely the point. The holiday that never got commercialized retained the strangeness that makes religious claims compelling in the first place.

Both paths have value. Christmas reaches millions through cultural accessibility. Easter reaches fewer but demands more. The contrast reveals less about which approach is better than about what different holidays can accomplish when they take different routes through American culture.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a video on March 18 warning Catholics against antisemitic conspiracies and falsehoods. Archbishop Alexander Sample, chairman of the USCCB’s religious liberty commission, did not name any organization directly. He did not need to.

Less than 24 hours later, Catholics for Catholics, a Phoenix-based 501(c)(4) advocacy group, held its third annual “Catholic Prayer for America Gala” in Washington. The event featured a lineup including Candace Owens, Michael Flynn, Carrie Prejean Boller, and Joe Kent, a combination that brought renewed scrutiny to the group’s role in elevating figures accused of trafficking in antisemitic rhetoric or adjacent conspiracy politics under explicitly Catholic branding.

That sequence matters far more than the usual culture-war controversy. It illustrates a deeper institutional problem for the Catholic Church: organizations that present themselves as Catholic can operate outside formal ecclesiastical control, use opaque political funding structures, and platform speakers the bishops would never endorse, while still borrowing the authority and symbolism of the faith for their own purposes.

The Structural Problem

Catholics for Catholics operates as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, a designation that allows unlimited political activity and keeps donor identities private. Founded in 2022 and based in Phoenix, the group describes itself as “supporting frontline culture warriors who love God and the USA.” Their website features testimonials from President Trump (”your love of God and Country is evident in everything you do”) and Bishop Joseph Strickland, the Tyler, Texas bishop removed by Pope Francis in 2023.

The 501(c)(4) structure matters because it exists in regulatory space the Catholic hierarchy cannot directly control. Unlike a parish or diocesan organization that operates under clear ecclesiastical authority, Catholics for Catholics can claim Catholic identity while remaining financially opaque and institutionally untethered. The organization doesn’t need diocesan approval for its activities, doesn’t submit to USCCB oversight, and can platform speakers the institutional Church would never endorse—all while wrapping itself in explicitly Catholic branding.

This creates what one longtime observer of Catholic institutional politics called “scandal without remedy”: the Church’s canonical definition of scandal (leading the faithful into sin through public example) applies, but its traditional mechanisms for addressing scandal (episcopal authority, ecclesiastical censure) do not.

The Speaker List as Provocation

The March 20 gala featured Candace Owens, who nine months after converting to Catholicism told interviewer Tristan Tate that Judaism is a “pedophile-centric religion that believes in demons.” Also speaking: former Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn, former beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean Boller (removed from the White House Religious Liberty Commission in February after an anti-Zionist tirade at an antisemitism hearing), and Joe Kent, who resigned as director of the National Counterterrorism Center days earlier claiming the U.S. was driven to war by “Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU and Owens’ former employer, wrote her a 15-page letter in September 2024: “Whatever your motives, I cannot think of anyone in public life engendering as much suspicion of Jews, Zionism, and Israel as are you.” Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire parted ways with Owens in March 2024 after she queried on air whether “a very small ring of specific people” in Hollywood were “using the fact they are Jewish to shield themselves from any criticism.”

The Catholic Speakers Organization—which also represents Bishop Robert Barron and theologian Scott Hahn—added Owens to its roster after her conversion. When Canadian pro-life activist Amanda Achtman, herself Jewish-Catholic, expressed concern about sharing even a virtual platform with Owens, CSO founder Joe Condit declined Achtman’s application. The organization claims all speakers are “rigorously screened and vetted” and “diocesan approved.” The Diocese of Nashville, where Owens resides, confirmed to Catholic World Report it has no record of being contacted by CSO and has issued no letter of recommendation.

The Institutional Response

Archbishop Sample’s video was surgical in its implications without naming targets. “The Jewish community is attacked at a far higher rate than any other religious group in the United States,” he noted. “As Catholics, we are called to walk in the truth and so to reject the conspiracies and lies that lead to harassment and even violence against our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

The next morning, at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast (a different event), White House Domestic Policy Council director Vince Haley—a Catholic—closed his remarks with similar language: “Hatred toward Jewish people is ugly, despicable, an affront to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and surely an occasion of terrible grief for our Jewish mother, Mary.”

Neither man mentioned Catholics for Catholics. But Nathan Diament, executive director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, made the connection explicit to EWTN News: “The statement by Archbishop Sample on behalf of the USCCB could not come at a more important time with bad actors weaponizing Catholicism to spread antisemitic views.”

Here’s what makes this fascinating: the institutional Church is now reduced to issuing timed theological reminders because it cannot directly discipline lay organizations operating under 501(c)(4) structures. Sample cited the Council of Trent catechism (1566), which states that Christians bear greater guilt for Christ’s death than first-century Jews, and Nostra Aetate (1965), Vatican II’s declaration that “the Church... decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”

This is defensive catechesis—teaching doctrine not to form the faithful but to create distance from those claiming to speak for them.

The Historical Precedent Catholics Aren’t Mentioning

The closest parallel is 1930s Catholic social movements in Europe that merged nationalist politics with selective Catholic identity, operating just outside formal Church structures while claiming to represent authentic Catholicism. Pope Pius XI addressed this in his 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, which was smuggled into Germany and read from pulpits: “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State... and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God.”

The difference is that Pius XI could command every German Catholic pulpit simultaneously. The USCCB cannot command a 501(c)(4)’s donor disclosure, event cancellation, or speaker replacement. It can only clarify doctrine and hope the distinction registers.

What the Church Can’t Say Directly

The institutional Catholic response has been notably careful about how it condemns antisemitism—citing antisemitism’s threat to religious freedom generally rather than naming Catholics for Catholics as a scandal specifically. This is strategic ambiguity born of structural constraint: the USCCB cannot formally discipline a 501(c)(4), but it also cannot afford to be seen as impotent when organizations traffic in what Sample called “conspiracies and lies.”

What Sample and Haley achieved was creating a paper trail. When Catholics for Catholics hosts future events or when Owens speaks at Catholic venues, bishops can now point to explicit, timestamped statements of Church teaching issued the day before a controversial gala. It’s ecclesiastical documentation for future use—not immediate remedy, but evidence for the record.

The question is whether that’s sufficient when the scandal is ongoing, well-funded, and structurally immune to the usual mechanisms of Church discipline. Catholics for Catholics isn’t going anywhere. Neither is its 501(c)(4) status, which guarantees the USCCB will keep issuing carefully worded videos while the organization keeps hosting galas.

The ancient problem of scandal has met the modern problem of tax-exempt political advocacy. The Church has doctrine. It does not, apparently, have jurisdiction.

The passing of Chuck Norris on March 19, 2026, at the age of 86, has triggered a predictable wave of digital nostalgia, from viral “fact” memes to retrospectives of his 1980s filmography. Yet the reported death of the martial artist and actor marks more than the end of a Hollywood career; it signals the final closing of a specific American archetype: the analog hero.

Norris, alongside peers like Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, defined a “Golden Age” of American action cinema that thrived on a foundation of moral and physical certainty. In films like Missing in Action and Lone Wolf McQuade, the conflict was rarely structural or systemic. It was personal, physical, and resolved through individual competence. Unlike the protagonists of contemporary cinema, Norris’s characters didn’t rely on multiversal resets or high-tech exoskeletons. The resolution to any given crisis was located entirely within the hero’s physical discipline.

This “pre-ambiguity” era of heroism reflected a world where threats were understood as external and legible. In the 1980s, the “bad guy” was a recognizable silhouette—often a Cold War proxy or a cartoonish criminal syndicate. Norris represented a stabilizing myth: the idea that a single, disciplined individual could restore order to a chaotic map through sheer force of will and a roundhouse kick.

This onscreen persona eventually merged with a distinct political identity that positioned Norris as a Hollywood outsider. Though he began his career as a Democrat, he famously argued that the party had strayed “off the trail” of American values, leading him to become a foundational figure in a burgeoning conservative movement.

His close personal friendships with leaders like Ronald Reagan were an extension of his personal “Code of Ethics,” which emphasized loyalty to country and respect for authority. For Norris, these values weren’t just for the screen; they were essential for a republic he believed was built on the “God of our Founding Fathers” and the preservation of individual liberties.

The shift in American storytelling over the last two decades reveals a deepening discomfort with this model. Today’s cinematic heroes are increasingly specialized, tech-reliant, or burdened by “deconstruction.” From the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s reliance on nanotech and magic to the tortured interiority of modern “prestige” action, the hero has moved from being a pillar of certainty to a node in a complex system. We no longer trust the lone individual to fix the world; we expect the hero to be as confused by the system as we are.

This transition mirrors a broader institutional shift. The 1980s action star was a proxy for an era of high institutional confidence, where the “rules” of reality felt fixed. As that confidence has eroded, replaced by the fragmented information environment of the 2020s, the “analog” hero has become an impossibility. A hero who is “always right” now feels to many audiences like a relic—or worse, a provocation.

What we are mourning in the wake of Norris’s death is not just a celebrity, but the legibility he represented. He was a symbol of a time when the path from problem to solution was a straight line, and the tools required were ones a human being could actually master.

Something shifted in 2025, though you’d be forgiven for missing it. The most significant cultural movement of the year wasn’t on social media, it was the departure from it.

Not the dramatic kind. No manifestos, no announced Digital Sabbaths, no “I’m taking a break for my mental health” Instagram stories. Just… withdrawal. The kind where someone you used to follow posts less frequently, then barely at all, then you realize you haven’t seen their content in months. When you check, their account still exists, technically active, but abandoned in every way that matters.

Subscribe now

I’ve been trying to understand why this feels different from previous waves of social media fatigue. The answer, I think, is who’s leaving, and what that signals about where cultural authority actually lives now.

The Numbers Hide What’s Actually Happening

The aggregate figures look stable, global social media users increased by 259 million between October 2024 and October 2025, reaching 5.66 billion identities. But that 4.9% annual growth rate represents a dramatic deceleration from the double-digit surges of the early 2010s. More revealing is what’s happening beneath the surface.

Engagement is collapsing. Average interaction rates on Facebook and X now hover around 0.15%. Instagram’s engagement dropped 24% year-over-year. Even TikTok, the platform that seemed immune to gravity, is plateauing. Roughly half of American adults now rate information on social media as unreliable, down from two-thirds a decade ago, yet they continue scrolling, not because they trust what they see, but because the alternative feels like exile.

That’s the key tension, social media has achieved something more elegant than addiction. It’s made non-participation a form of social illegitimacy, available only to those who can afford its costs. The worker who deletes LinkedIn excludes themselves from professional networks that exist nowhere else. The small business without Instagram watches customers drift toward competitors. The teenager who refuses TikTok can’t parse the vernacular that constitutes their peers’ shared language.

But here’s what the raw user numbers miss, while total adoption remains high, who uses these platforms and how they use them is changing. The American Psychiatric Association found that among 18-34 year olds, a significant proportion deliberately stepped away from social media in 2024, citing mental health. Newsletter platforms reported median time-to-first-dollar for new creators dropping to just 66 days, suggesting real money is flowing toward depth over virality. Substack and Beehiiv aren’t just growing, they’re attracting precisely the knowledge workers and tastemakers who made social media culturally mandatory in the first place.

Status Has Reversed Polarity

Twenty years ago, social media presence signaled cultural relevance. By 2026, absence increasingly signals the opposite, that you have better things to do than perform for algorithms.

This isn’t a moral judgment, it’s an observation about how status markers evolve. The people setting this pattern aren’t retirees or Luddites but precisely the class whose approval once made platforms valuable, writers, academics, professionals whose attention constituted endorsement. When they retreat to newsletters, podcasts, and private Discord servers, they take their cultural authority with them.

What remains is an increasingly bot-mediated wasteland. Research shows tens of thousands of AI-generated accounts flooding major platforms with engagement-optimized slop, vague inspirational quotes, AI-generated images like “Shrimp Jesus,” affiliate marketing disguised as advice. Average interaction rates fall while content volume explodes because what counts as “content” has fundamentally changed. It no longer means human expression, it means anything that generates clicks.

The feed has become a mood-regulation device, not an information source or social space. Scrolling is ambient dissociation, half-conscious scratching of an itch you can’t name. People know it’s fake, they just don’t care enough to stop.

Where the Conversation Moved

The successor to mass social media isn’t another platform, it’s a thousand micro-communities. Group chats. Paywalled newsletters. Discord servers. Federated instances of Mastodon and Bluesky where moderation happens through shared norms rather than algorithmic enforcement.

These spaces share a characteristic, they’re opt-in, not ambient. You choose to be there, and that choice creates accountability absent from algorithmic feeds. A writer with 10,000 devoted newsletter subscribers can earn more and burn out less than someone with a million passive Instagram followers because the relationship isn’t mediated by a black box optimizing for engagement over everything else.

Even major platforms sense the shift. Instagram emphasizes DMs now. X is pushing subscriber-only circles. TikTok experiments with private communities. Behind these moves sits an acknowledgment, the infinite scroll, stuffed with synthetic content, approaches the limit of what humans will tolerate.

What Comes After

Social media isn’t dying because we lack content, we’re drowning in it. It’s dying because the attention economy has exhausted our capacity to care. Novelty became noise. Outrage fatigues. Even virality cannibalizes itself.

The quiet exodus isn’t about rejection. It’s about rediscovery, that meaningful conversation requires shared context, that trust emerges from continuity, that some things worth having don’t scale. The people leaving aren’t giving up connection, they’re looking for it in places where it might actually exist.

When the White House posted a video mixing SpongeBob SquarePants with footage of U.S. military strikes during the ongoing Operation Epic Fury on Thursday, the response was intense and divided. But buried beneath the debate about taste and propriety is a number that tells a different story: the White House’s meme videos about the operation have been viewed over 160 million times on X alone.

One video alone—featuring Call of Duty game footage mixed with real strike footage—pulled over 50 million impressions on X. A SpongeBob mashup cleared 9 million across X and TikTok. For context, State of the Union addresses have been steadily losing viewers, with Trump's 2026 address drawing 32.6 million viewers—down from the roughly 36 million that tuned in to last year's address to a joint session of Congress.

The White House didn’t stumble into a controversy. It solved a problem that’s been plaguing government communications for two decades: nobody under 40 is paying attention anymore.

The civic engagement crisis didn’t start with memes. Presidential addresses have been bleeding viewers since the 1990s. Press briefings are clipped into 15-second segments for social media, stripped of context. Policy white papers might as well not exist—when’s the last time you read one? When the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans under 30 about where they get political information in 2024, traditional government channels didn’t crack the top ten. TikTok ranked third.

This is the problem the White House communications team inherited, whether we like their solution or not. Steven Cheung and Kaelan Dorr didn’t invent short attention spans or platform algorithms. They just acknowledged that competing for attention in 2026 means playing by rules that didn’t exist during the Obama administration, much less the Bush years.

The strategy follows a brutal logic—if you can’t beat the algorithm, become the algorithm. Memes generate engagement (shares, comments, quote-tweets) that platforms interpret as importance, pushing content to more feeds. Outrage from opponents actually helps by increasing distribution. Every news article about the White House videos extends their reach. The criticism becomes part of the marketing.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly made this explicit, saying the administration would “continue showcasing” military successes “in real time” despite objections. The phrasing is telling—”showcasing” is creator language, not government language. They’re not informing the public; they’re producing content that performs well on platforms designed for entertainment.

This isn’t the first time a president has been accused of degrading the office by adapting to new media. Franklin Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” horrified critics who thought radio was too informal, too commercial, too intimate for presidential communication. John F. Kennedy’s mastery of television sparked similar concerns—were we electing leaders based on camera presence rather than substance? Ronald Reagan’s background as an actor raised questions about whether politics had become performance art.

Each time, the answer turned out to be yes, sort of, and it didn’t matter because the medium had already won. Television presidents replaced radio presidents replaced print presidents.

But there's a difference this time. Previous medium shifts expanded the audience—more people could access presidential communication via radio than print, via television than radio. The meme strategy fragments it. It reaches certain demographics extraordinarily well—internet-minded people who grew up on gaming culture and meme literacy, who might otherwise tune out entirely.

The White House isn't trying to speak to everyone anymore. They're optimizing for specific audiences on specific platforms, potentially getting young people more interested in politics and world events than traditional addresses ever could.

You can see this in the choice of references: Halo, Top Gun, Dragon Ball Z, Call of Duty. The White House isn’t building a national consensus; they’re building a coalition of people who speak the same internet dialect.

The shift raises questions about what government communication looks like when traditional channels no longer reach most citizens. The veteran who posted on X that “war isn’t a video game” is right. The White House communications director who knows video game aesthetics will reach more potential recruits than somber Pentagon briefings is also right. The fact that both things are true simultaneously reveals the tension at the heart of modern governance.

We're left with a choice that isn't really a choice—a government that speaks in memes and reaches millions, or a government that speaks with formal gravity and reaches a fraction of that audience. The republic wasn’t designed for this trade-off. But here we are, watching SpongeBob explode over footage from Operation Epic Fury, trying to figure out whether 150 million views constitute effective adaptation or something else entirely.

The Sound of Music spent four-and-a-half years in continuous theatrical release before leaving cinemas on Labor Day 1969. Not sporadic re-releases across decades, like Gone With the Wind. Not a limited “classic screening” series. The same movie, in the same theaters, week after week, for longer than an undergraduate degree.

Subscribe now

To understand how strange this is: in 2024, the average theatrical window was 32 days. A film that opens in March is streaming, on a platform you already subscribe to, watchable in bed, by April. The Sound of Music opened exactly 61 years ago today, March 2, 1965, and you could still buy a ticket to see it in a theater in September 1969. The movie outlasted the Johnson presidency.

This wasn’t an accident. It was infrastructure.

The Roadshow Model

Fox released The Sound of Music as a roadshow presentation — reserved seats, advance tickets, premium pricing, two performances daily. The 174-minute runtime included an intermission, like a stage production. Theaters installed six-track stereophonic sound systems specifically for 70mm prints. You didn’t “catch” The Sound of Music. You planned for it.

The roadshow format meant fewer daily screenings, but each screening was an event. This sounds inefficient until you realize the film topped the box office for 30 of 43 weeks and sold nearly 142 million tickets when the U.S. population was 194 million. The statistical impossibility suggests extraordinary repeat viewing, audiences returning not for plot twists they’d missed, but for ritual.

In some cities, ticket sales exceeded the entire local population.

What Gets Built When Movies Stay

Here’s what I’ve been trying to understand: What kind of shared culture emerges when the same artistic experience occupies the same physical space for four consecutive years?

Modern distribution optimizes for velocity, maximum revenue extraction before content disappears into the streaming catalog. Films don’t stay anywhere long enough to become destinations. They appear on Netflix, get watched (or added to lists that never get cleared), then sink beneath algorithm-surfaced recommendations for the next thing.

The 1960s roadshow model optimized for presence. A film wasn’t content to consume; it was a destination to revisit. Theaters became pilgrimage sites. This created something streaming architecturally cannot: true cultural commons. When a movie stays visible in physical space for years, it becomes infrastructure itself, a known landmark, a reliable gathering place, a conversation everyone can enter because everyone has had time to arrive. Streaming offers infinite choice and zero shared coordinates.

The Collapse

The roadshow model died with the 1970s multiplex revolution. Why hold one theater hostage to a single film when you could split the building into six screens? The math made sense. Revenue per square foot increased. Consumer choice expanded.

But we traded depth for breadth. The four-year movie became impossible not because audiences lost interest, but because the infrastructure that supported sustained attention — reserved seating, premium formats, event-style exhibition — gave way to throughput optimization.

The Sound of Music didn’t just occupy theaters for four years. It was allowed to, by an exhibition system that believed some things deserved to stay.

In the main square of Cortina d’Ampezzo, where the 2026 Winter Olympics just concluded, there stands a sculpture of an elegant woman clutching a Dior handbag and skis. She appears carved from ice, translucent and wintry. Touch her, and you discover the truth: She is plastic.

Walk beyond the square, and the metaphor deepens. Ski lifts ascend mountainsides of bare rock and brown grass, servicing narrow white strips—the only snow visible against the Dolomites’ winter landscape. Generators growl near the Boite River, where black pipes siphon 25 gallons per second to feed snow cannons roaring upslope. The stench of diesel mingles with mountain air. This is what 380 Olympic swimming pools worth of water looks like when converted into the appearance of winter.

The Milan Cortina Games required roughly 250 million gallons of water for artificial snow production alone—enough to supply 1.3 million people for a year. Around 95% of Italian ski resorts now depend on snowmaking technology, with more than 70% of slopes covered entirely by manufactured snow. The system works brilliantly. Fan-like cannons spray atomized water into cold air; droplets freeze mid-flight and fall as snow; grooming vehicles compress it into competition-grade surfaces indistinguishable from nature’s version. The International Ski Federation has refined this into “technical snow”—data-driven, tablet-controlled, optimized to exploit the coldest weather windows with adjustable density and quality.

Subscribe now

This technological triumph raises an uncomfortable question: When reality becomes unreliable, should we manufacture it?

The physics are straightforward. The implications less so. Cortina’s 500 ancient larch trees survived two world wars but not Olympic preparations—felled to clear space for a bobsled track that Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini insisted must remain on Italian soil rather than using Austria’s existing facility. When chainsaws arrived, Italian cellist Mario Brunello sat on a stool playing classical music while the forest crashed down behind him, creating what one witness described as “dramatic and extraordinary contrast.”

Environmental assessments were skipped for more than 60% of the 98 Olympic construction projects. Water is extracted from Alpine rivers at rates that may deplete mountain aquifers. Snowmaking accounts for 30-40% of total energy consumption at Italian resorts—annual costs between €50 million and €100 million, roughly equivalent to Milan’s entire domestic electricity use for a year. Across the Alps, artificial snow production demands around 2,100 gigawatt-hours per winter season.

These costs could be justified as necessary adaptations to climate change. The Italian Alps have experienced a 10% decrease in cold days and cold spells over three decades. Resorts around 1,000 meters elevation have largely abandoned consistent operations. Skiing in the Apennines—once central Italy’s winter destination—has effectively shut down. Technology provides a bridge until conditions improve or alternatives emerge.

But that framing assumes adaptation rather than something more concerning: the normalization of manufactured reality as superior to natural variability.

Consider what “technical snow” actually achieves. Modern systems produce surfaces more controllable and durable than natural snowfall. Operators adjust quality and density via tablet, creating conditions better than authentic winter. This isn’t making do with second-best—it’s engineering improvements that eliminate weather’s inconvenient unpredictability. The artificial becomes preferable.

This logic extends far beyond Alpine slopes. We’ve become civilizations that instinctively reach for technical solutions to maintain desired experiences rather than adapting expectations to changing realities. Social media curates identities more compelling than messy authenticity. AI-generated content replicates creative output without the friction of human limitation. Deepfakes manufacture events indistinguishable from documentation. The plastic ice sculpture isn’t an aberration—it’s emblematic.

The danger isn’t that these interventions fail. It’s that they succeed so completely they delay recognition of underlying unsustainability. Economists call this “lock-in effect”—each successful adaptation justifies continued investment in the same trajectory, making alternative paths progressively harder to pursue. Italian ski pass prices have increased 40% since 2021, transforming winter sports into luxury experiences requiring constant capital infusion to maintain the illusion.

Share

Some manufacturers now demonstrate snow production at ambient temperatures up to 20°C—a technological breakthrough that reinforces the narrative that innovation alone solves fundamental limits. This mindset treats climate change as an engineering problem rather than a signal requiring different frameworks entirely. The slopes stay white, bookings remain strong, and winter tourism continues generating €11 billion annually to Italy’s economy. Why question a system that appears to work?

Because metre by metre, the slope is getting steeper. When artificial snow eventually becomes unviable at certain altitudes—not tomorrow, but within foreseeable horizons—the transition will be abrupt. Resorts will face stranded assets, communities will experience sudden economic shocks, and regions will discover they’ve spent decades and billions optimizing a system with a climate-driven expiration date instead of developing alternatives.

This isn’t about condemning technology or romanticizing natural snowfall. It’s recognizing that successful short-term adaptation can masquerade as viable long-term strategy. The plastic sculpture captures something true: We’ve grown comfortable inhabiting spaces where the real and the manufactured become indistinguishable, where maintaining appearances feels more achievable than accepting changed circumstances.

Cortina’s elegant Dior lady stands in the square, translucent and beautiful, fooling nobody who touches her. The snow on the mountainsides above works differently—white and pristine, perfect for racing, sustained by infrastructure most visitors never see. That difference matters. One announces itself as representation. The other succeeds so completely that questioning it feels unnecessary.

Until someone checks the water bill.

Today marks the first day of Lent, which means roughly three-quarters of Americans won’t notice. Only 26% of U.S. adults observe the season anymore, a figure that has barely budged since 2016 but represents a dramatic collapse from the 1970s, when Lenten practice was culturally ubiquitous across much of the country. What’s curious isn’t just the decline—it’s what emerged to fill the space.

Subscribe now

The same Americans who skip Ash Wednesday are increasingly likely to participate in “Dry January,” a month-long alcohol abstinence challenge that has exploded from 15% participation in 2023 to 33% in 2025. They’re purchasing products from a global “detox” industry projected to reach $95 billion by 2030, growing at over 6% annually. They’re joining the 43% of adults who’ve intentionally reduced screen time in the past six months, often describing it as a “digital detox.” They’re booking wellness retreats specifically advertised as technology-free zones, a trend significant enough that 27% of travelers now say they plan to reduce social media use during trips.

The pattern is striking: structured periods of self-denial, reset rituals, and purification practices haven’t disappeared. They’ve been rebranded, stripped of their theological context, and sold back as lifestyle optimization.

Consider the shape of what remains. Dry January mirrors Lent’s temporal structure almost exactly—a defined season of abstinence bracketed by normal life, typically lasting between 28 and 40 days. The detox industry’s language echoes pre-modern humoral medicine and Christian ideas of bodily purification, now repackaged as “removing toxins” and “cleansing.” Digital detox retreats function like secular monasteries, temporary withdrawals from the overstimulating world. Even the marketing sounds liturgical: “reset,” “renewal,” “starting fresh,” “cleansing your body and mind.”

What these secular substitutes preserve is Lent’s fundamental anthropological insight: humans periodically need structured breaks from their habitual consumption patterns. The 40-day framework wasn’t arbitrary. It emerged from centuries of observation about how long behavioral interruption requires to feel meaningful without becoming unsustainable. Modern “detox” programs seem to be rediscovering this timeline through trial and error—most Dry January participants complete the month successfully (72%), but those who fail typically quit in weeks one or two, suggesting the practice is calibrated correctly for habit disruption.

But notice what’s missing in translation. Traditional Lenten practice wasn’t primarily about self-improvement or optimization. Fasting from meat on Fridays or giving up luxuries for 40 days wasn’t marketed as a path to better sleep, clearer skin, or improved productivity. The discomfort was the point—a deliberate identification with suffering, an acknowledgment of mortality and dependence, a recognition that humans aren’t the center of their own story. The fast ended with a feast celebrating resurrection, not with Instagram posts celebrating your “glowing” complexion.

The modern substitutes, by contrast, are relentlessly instrumental. You detox for better health metrics. You do Dry January to sleep better, save money, or “prove you can.” You digital detox because screen time makes you less productive. The self remains at the center; the practice serves the self’s flourishing. There’s no corresponding feast, no narrative arc beyond personal optimization. January ends and you… resume normal life, perhaps with marginal improvements.

This shift reveals something about what we’ve preserved and what we’ve lost. The wellness industry has correctly identified that humans need periodic resets, structured self-denial, and temporary withdrawal from consumption. The $95 billion market exists because these are genuine human needs, not invented ones. The explosion of “Damp January” (reducing rather than eliminating alcohol) suggests people are hungry for frameworks that acknowledge they’re consuming too much of something, even if they’re not ready for total abstinence.

But frameworks for periodic self-denial without an animating purpose beyond the self tend to collapse into either consumerism (buying your way to detox) or neurotic self-monitoring. Which might explain why Lenten observance has remained stable at 26% despite massive cultural change—those who’ve retained the practice may have something the substitutes can’t quite replicate.

The most telling data point might be this: 48% of Americans say they plan to drink less alcohol in 2025 following their Dry January experiment, and 47% believe alcohol will be viewed more negatively over the next two decades, similar to cigarettes. These secular reset rituals are changing behavior. They work, up to a point. The question is whether frameworks for human flourishing designed without reference to anything beyond human flourishing can sustain themselves—or whether they’re borrowing capital from older structures while slowly discovering why those structures looked the way they did.

Yesterday marked Galileo’s birthday, and somewhere on the internet, someone deployed him in an argument. They always do. He’s become the perfect projectile—hurl him at your opponent and claim the mantle of persecuted truth-teller. Flat-earthers cite him as proof that consensus can be wrong. New Atheists invoke him as science’s martyr to religious obscurantism. Catholics claim him as a faithful son of the Church who was technically correct all along. Political dissidents of every stripe see themselves in his story.

The strange thing is that almost none of them know what actually happened.

I’ve been trying to understand why the Galileo myth persists with such tenacity, and I think I’ve found the answer: the real story is so much weirder than the myth that our brains reject it. We want heroes and villains, science versus superstition, a clear narrative arc. What we get instead is ecclesiastical politics, philosophy of science disputes, and a man who probably didn’t believe what he was prosecuted for disbelieving.

Share

Let’s start with what didn’t happen. Galileo was not tortured. He was not imprisoned in a dungeon. He spent exactly one day in actual custody before being moved to villa arrest in his comfortable home outside Florence, where he continued his scientific work until his death nine years later. The legendary moment when he muttered “And yet it moves” after renouncing heliocentrism? A romantic invention. If he’d actually said that, the automatic penalty would have been death. Galileo, whatever else he was, wasn’t suicidal.

The trial itself lasted a single day. One day. This supposed 17-year persecution that’s become shorthand for religion crushing science? It was a non-event in 1616—just a warning, no charges—followed by 16 years of silence, then a one-day proceeding in 1633. The sentence was deliberately light: a regimen of penance and house arrest that was commuted almost immediately. For a heresy trial during the Counter-Reformation, this is roughly equivalent to getting a parking ticket.

But here’s where it gets genuinely interesting: Galileo was prosecuted for violating an agreement not to teach heliocentrism as proven fact, and at his trial, he insisted—under oath, with the threat of torture hanging over him—that he didn’t actually believe in heliocentrism. He claimed he’d simply been showing off his rhetorical skills by making the stronger argument for a position he personally rejected.

Was he lying to save his skin? Probably. But we don’t actually know. Henry Kelly, who spent years examining the trial transcripts, notes that “we can only guess at what he really believed.” Galileo in his later years continued to publicly affirm geocentrism. The Church made a point of announcing that he’d always been orthodox. Everyone involved had reasons to obscure the truth.

This is not the tidy morality play we’ve been sold.

The deeper puzzle is why the Church prosecuted him at all. The standard answer—that religion fears science—collapses under scrutiny. Copernicus published his heliocentric theory in 1543, and for 73 years the Church... did nothing. It was taught in Catholic universities. Clergy read it. When the Church finally banned it in 1616, the prohibition was temporary and required only minor edits presenting heliocentrism as hypothetical rather than proven. By 1620 it was allowed again.

The Church’s objection wasn’t that heliocentrism was scientific. The objection was that Galileo was claiming it was proven when the scientific evidence of the era didn’t support that conclusion.

This sounds absurd to us, but it wasn’t absurd then. The heliocentric model contradicted the only comprehensive physics that existed: Aristotle’s. It required believing the Earth hurtled through space at enormous speed without anyone feeling the motion—a genuine conceptual problem before Newton’s laws of motion. Most damningly, no one had observed stellar parallax, the apparent shift in star positions that a moving Earth should produce. Tycho Brahe, the greatest observational astronomer of the 16th century, looked for parallax and couldn’t find it. That’s why he rejected heliocentrism.

The scientific consensus of Galileo’s era treated Copernicus as a useful calculating device, not a description of physical reality. When the Church examined heliocentrism in 1616 and deemed it “foolish and absurd in philosophy,” they were essentially endorsing the scientific mainstream. Historian David Lindberg puts it bluntly: “Those astronomers and natural philosophers who rejected heliocentrism did so not because of blind conservatism or religious intolerance, but because of their commitment to widely held scientific principles and theories.”

So what changed by 1633? Politics and philosophy, not astronomy.

Cardinal Maffeo Barberini—a Galileo fan who’d praised his work—became Pope Urban VIII in 1623. He gave Galileo permission to write about heliocentrism with one condition: treat it as hypothesis, not established fact. The Pope’s reasoning was philosophically sophisticated, anticipating what’s now called the underdetermination thesis in philosophy of science. Any given set of observations could be explained by multiple theories. Tycho Brahe’s geo-heliocentric model accounted for Galileo’s telescope discoveries without requiring a moving Earth. How could Galileo claim certainty?

Galileo proceeded to publish a book that clearly—though not explicitly—argued for heliocentrism as physical truth, while making his opponents sound like idiots. Worse, he put the Pope’s own philosophical argument into the mouth of a character named Simplicio, which in Italian sounds exactly like “simpleton.” Whether this was deliberate mockery or catastrophic misjudgment, the effect was the same: a personal insult to a Pope whose power was already diminished by the Reformation and who was fighting the Thirty Years’ War. The trial of Galileo was launched at the exact moment the war reached crisis point. Coincidence?

The trial focused not on whether heliocentrism was true, but on whether Galileo had violated his agreement with the Church. It was, in essence, a breach of contract case. And because this was the Counter-Reformation, it had a subtext about authority that matters more than the astronomy: who gets to interpret Scripture? Galileo, in his 1613 letter defending heliocentrism, had used standard Augustinian arguments about scriptural accommodation—God spoke in ways ancient peoples could understand, so the Bible shouldn’t be read as a physics textbook.

This was orthodox theology. But Galileo was a layman instructing the Church how to read the Bible, and that looked uncomfortably Protestant. The conflict wasn’t science versus religion. It was Catholic versus Catholic, in an era when that distinction could get you killed.

Here’s what’s genuinely worth understanding about the Galileo affair: it reveals how institutions process disruptive information. The Church had interpretive tools for reconciling Scripture with natural philosophy—the doctrine of accommodation, the distinction between saving appearances and physical truth. It had procedures for updating when evidence became overwhelming. What it didn’t have was a mechanism for handling a charismatic figure who claimed certainty before the evidence warranted it, while simultaneously appearing to challenge institutional authority during an existential crisis.

The Church’s error wasn’t rejecting science. It was demanding certainty about the wrong things—demanding Galileo prove heliocentrism to a standard the evidence couldn’t yet meet, while simultaneously demanding he defer to institutional authority about matters where evidence should have been determinative. The framework was sophisticated; the application was catastrophic.

Three centuries later, in 1992, Pope John Paul II acknowledged the Church had persecuted Galileo unfairly. The books were removed from the Index of Forbidden Works in 1835. Heliocentrism was officially acceptable in Rome by 1822. The gears of institutional error-correction turn slowly, but in the West, they do turn.

The real Galileo story isn’t about religion suppressing science. It’s about what happens when personal politics, institutional anxiety, and premature certainty collide during a civilizational crisis. Which, come to think of it, might be why everyone keeps invoking him.