Friends of the Motu Proprio

Here are two threads on the recent SSPX news...

2009-02-23T17:10:00.003+01:00

On the Recent Controversy of the Reinstatement of the SSPX's Bishops in General and of Bishop Richard Williamson in Particular (circa February 18, 2009)

On the Lifting of the Excommunications, Etc. (circa February 23, 2009)

Hard to believe...

2007-09-21T06:14:00.000+02:00

I'm finding it hard to believe that it's been close to two years since this little project started! I would hate to see it go. I'm craving to contribute again to this little project; I decided to take a peek at the site again just for kicks and giggles and was saddened to see that early January was the last time I posted anything! I think that the Holy Father's Motu Proprio is the catalyst to get this thing going again.

The Holy Father's writings, before and after his election to the Papacy, are very timely. We live in a world that has lost an understanding of the basic premise of all conversation - religious, political or otherwise - the premise of Truth. Pope Benedict XVI understands the REAL problem that needs to be focused on, and I'd like to see this blog be dedicated once again to renewing the Catholic faith by expressing ideas that flow from the Holy Father's dedication to bring the world back to the basic question of truth. The world needs to come to grips with Pascal's Wager, the wager that asks the question, "what if?" Only then will any real change take place.

-Patrick Morris

2007-08-08T01:39:00.000+02:00

I like the change of title -how about we title it "Friends of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum"??? That way, this site will pull up when either the terms "motu proprio" or "Summorum Pontificum" are googled.

2007-07-22T22:48:00.001+02:00

The End of The Lidless Eye Inquisition, Etc.:

First announcement (circa July 6, 2007)

Final post (circa July 21, 2007)

Ultimately I hope what I noted in the final posting about Friends of La Nef will materialize:

For all of those who managed to glean something of value from this weblog, you made the efforts expended here worthwhile. In the meantime, the weblog Friends of La Nef which has similarly slowed down in production in the past year will hopefully pick up soon. I will try to resume contribution there occasionally as a role player. Admittedly for a group weblog I am involved in it is a somewhat odd situation for me to be in but one I do not mind at all. [Excerpt from The Lidless Eye Inquisition (circa July 21, 2007)]

Hopefully this weblog will pick up in activity soon.

Spiritual Lives of the Temperaments: The Melancholic

2007-01-03T06:05:00.000+01:00

“Wake me when it’s over…”

Of all the posts I’ve done on the topic of the temperaments, this one is going to be the hardest for me. Why? Because it’s my primary temperament! The ironic thing is this: Though we should all be experts when it comes to our own temperament, the topic that most every human being is blind to is, without a doubt,… themselves. So, here goes nothing!...

The very word “melancholic” conjures up images of its evil twin “melancholy.” Introversion, moodiness, brooding, self-deprecation and an innate ability to “feel” with an almost unnatural depth and intensity are all unique traits of this temperament. I would venture to say that most of us who are blessed (that’s right, “blessed!”) with this temperament spend most of our day in our heads. We are aware of our surroundings, but only lightly so. We are often so immersed in our thoughts that we miss a great deal of what goes on around us. This ability to think deeply and intensely can be a great gift; it is an ability responsible for some of the most beautiful works of art, music and literature that have ever graced the world. But, as with all things, the enemy knows how to twist this ability and use it to destroy the individual and everyone around him.

What, then, does the melancholic need to watch out for in the spiritual life? In the last post on the phlegmatic, we saw that the phlegmatic temperament shared a unique trait with the sanguine – a lack of follow-through. This trait that is shared by both of these temperaments makes the cure of their ills relatively the same. The same can be said when one compares the melancholic with the choleric. He shares with the choleric that “sin of sins”, the sin that is responsible for all other sins… Pride.

At first glance, the idea that Pride is at the root of the introverted melancholic’s self-abasement can come as a shock. But, once one understands what drives the melancholic, it all makes perfect sense.

The Bennett’s explain the situation this way:

“Pride, in the melancholic, does not usually manifest itself as an attempt to gain recognition or honor, as it might in a choleric. The melancholic does not seek overt praise or commendation. However, the melancholic does fear failure! Thus, his pride shows up in his desire to be perfect and in his fear of disgrace (emphases mine).” [1]

The reality is, behind all the melancholic’s self-abasement, worrying, scrupulous confessions, severe penances, and “high-ideals” for himself and others there lies a fear of disgrace cloaked in false-humility; a desire to be more than what he really is but knows desperately and acutely that he is not.

The desire for perfection is not necessarily bad. It is the trinity of “the good, the true and the beautiful” that ultimately drives the melancholic. But the melancholic, more than any other temperament, has a longing for perfection that he and the world around him just don’t live up to. So the melancholic, if left to his own to his own devices, easily falls into a downward spiral of brooding and critiquing in an attempt to make himself and his world “perfect.”

The cure for the melancholic, then, is very similar to that of the choleric. The melancholic needs the direction of others. Due to his high-ideals, the melancholic’s perception of himself, others and the world around him is often distorted and unrealistic. He needs a good spiritual guide who will “hold the mirror” up to him and pull him back to reality.

Along with this guidance, the most important part of the melancholic’s spiritual life will involve cultivating optimism and supernatural joy. These two traits that are innate in the choleric and sanguine temperaments are sorely underdeveloped in those with melancholic temperaments. He needs to learn to “look at the bright side,” go easy on himself and his fellow man and put his focus on that which really is perfect: Christ. Since he is so hyper-aware of the flaws and potential disasters that life is wrought with, he needs more than any other temperament to cultivate a trust in God’s Providence and paternal care. He needs to take his thoughts away from his own sins and failures and the failures of others and replace these with thoughts of peace, kindness, generosity and the like. This supernatural joy is the only antidote to the melancholic’s anxieties about life. Frequent prayer, reception of the sacraments and meditation on the scriptures – especially the Psalms and other scriptures that emphasize God’s mercy – are essential. In this way the melancholic can experience in his daily life an adequate taste of what he craves the most in the midst of life’s bittersweet symphony… “Heaven.”

Conclusion

Throughout these posts there has been one underlying theme common to all of them: that of finding “rest in God.” Though each temperament has different approaches to getting there, the goal is always the same. The only true cure for man’s ills, regardless of temperament, is rest in God and His Will.

In upcoming posts, I’ll discuss in more depth some of the adverse effects caused by untrained temperaments as well as a more defined and specific “battle plan” as to how one can bring themselves into that union with God that is the ultimate goal of everyone. See you then!

God Bless,
-Patrick

[1] (Bennett, 237)

Spiritual Lives of the Temperaments: The Phlegmatic

2006-12-21T05:23:00.000+01:00

To be honest, I had a hard time getting started on this post, which means I'm most definitely phlegmatic! My melancholic half mulled over in my mind what I wanted to say in this post, and my trusty phlegmatic other half thought, "Eh… I'll write it later."

The phlegmatic temperament is difficult to write about because this temperament almost seems "non-human." The detached, mellow, almost "hyposensitive" nature of this temperament seems better suited to a robot than a human. In fact, at least one spiritual writer I know of even questions the existence of this temperament. [1] However, all of us know people who fit the description of this temperament very well, so I think it's legitimate to write about it.

I think it's good to follow up the post on the sanguine temperament with a post on the phlegmatic temperament because the "cure" for both of these temperaments is pretty much the same. I like to think of the phlegmatic as a "sanguine on Lortab." The phlegmatic is generally friendly, values people over principles, and struggles with the same lack of follow-through as the sanguine, but without the "intense" personality one sees in a sanguine.

The primary problem for the phlegmatic is one of motivation. While a sanguine will be easy to motivate and act but soon lose interest, the phlegmatic has a hard time moving beyond interest to actual action. Though he will be dedicated to any project, he needs a little prodding.

The most important thing a phlegmatic can acquire to get him on the path to heaven is a regimen, especially a regimen of prayer. Much like the sanguine, he needs a structure that will keep him on the straight-and-narrow so that he will not become complacent in the spiritual life. Unlike the sanguine, however, he will actually enjoy this kind of structure. Structured prayers such as the Rosary or the Divine Office are tailor-made for phlegmatics. The only danger in these types of prayers for the phlegmatic is that he may become so absorbed with the routine that he stops growing. He needs to employ the imagination in his prayer life to avoid this kind of pitfall. [2] He needs to seek what God is asking of him in his prayer and meditation, otherwise the prayers will just become rote and no change of heart will result.

Along with a regimen of prayer comes the necessary accountability that will ensure a successful outcome. The phlegmatic needs to be accountable to others to keep him going. He also needs the guidance of others to develop a properly formed conscience and understanding. Like the sanguine, his placement of people over principles in the hierarchy of truths can lead him to become a "crowd-pleaser." He needs accountability to a spiritual director, prayer group or any other system outside of himself that will help pull him more toward the center.

Also, though he naturally hates conflict, he needs to learn to "let his 'yes' mean 'yes', and his 'no' mean 'no.'" Otherwise he will end up doing things simply to please others or to "shut them up" which is a sure recipe for resentment. Being accountable to others in his life decisions will help make sure this doesn't happen.

The great natural virtue that accompanies this temperament is "meekness." Almost everyone loves a phlegmatic. Their peacefulness and even-keel makes them great team players. With a little discipline, those of the phlegmatic temperament can find themselves on the fast-track to sanctity with little of the "inner resistance" that impedes the other temperaments.

God Bless,
-Patrick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Fr. Joseph Massman in his book "Nervousness, Temperament and the Soul" writes the following: "If a more exact determination of temperament is to be made, one has first to observe the basic disposition and then the individual variation and the excitability of his emotions. On careful examination of his basic disposition, the phlegmatic person will turn out to be shallow, cool and perhaps even hyposensitive. He will be distinguishable from the sanguine man only in coloration and in his excitability, and will thus represent no distinct temperament. I therefore regard the expression "phlegmatic, as denoting a temperament, as unnecessary" (emphases mine).

(Massman, 19)

First, Fr. Massman makes clear in his introduction to his book that he is not writing from a scientific perspective, so his opinion isn't set in stone per se. Second, I think the simple, time-tested observation of people has made clear that some people who fit the classical description of the phlegmatic temperament simply don't possess "sanguine" traits such as "flightiness" "superficiality" and "extroversion" which are typically and unmistakably sanguine. On the contrary, phlegmatics are often very deep, loyal and introverted. Therefore, I think Fr. Massman is wrong on this one, and that the classical understanding of four primary temperaments as presented by the Bennett's is the correct one.

[2] (Bennett, 246)

Spiritual Lives of the Temperaments: The Sanguine

2006-12-17T04:57:00.000+01:00

“Never a dull moment…”

“Moment” is an appropriate word when talking about the Sanguine, for this is the facet of life that the sanguine lives in! Of all the temperaments, the sanguine possesses a God-given ability to “stay in the moment.” The ability to stay in the moment keeps the sanguine focused on others and receptive and courageous in the face of challenges. These traits are indispensable.

“People” are probably the sanguine’s favorite subject. The sanguine LOVES people. Due to their extroverted, enthusiastic, cheerful and outward-focused nature, the sanguine is always the best MC. Unlike the choleric, they are very “team” oriented. It truly is a case of “the more… the merrier” when it comes to the sanguine.

It’s almost if the sanguine possesses the model Christian temperament. Their enthusiasm for others and their zest for love and life sound very close to what inflames the heart of every apostle we read about in the pages of Scripture. What then should the sanguine develop in order to bring themselves to Christian perfection?

It’s hard to talk about a “dark side” when speaking about the sanguine temperament, but with human nature being fallen as it is, the sanguine has difficulties that need to be overcome. There are three things that the sanguine needs to develop in their spiritual life to keep them from becoming “children of the world”: They are, control, consistency and perseverance.

The enthusiasm of the sanguine is infectious. This is a trait that easily wins souls for God. An energetic preacher always has an irresistible pull that can win over even the most hardened heart. The problem is that enthusiasm can trump proper reflection and the pursuit of truth. The sanguine needs to watch out for moments of unchecked enthusiasm that place more emphasis on the excitement of an activity or pursuit than on the “rightness” or “nobleness” of the activity or pursuit. Sanguines can become so enthusiastic about a project that they forget to take the time to think it through. One only has to think of the apostle Peter, most likely a sanguine, who became so excited at the sight of his Master walking on water that he immediately jumped off the boat to meet Him, only to quickly sink because of the ferocity of the waves around him! The sanguine, therefore, needs to learn emotional control. He needs to take time at the outset of any project or activity to think through what the project might entail. His first impulse is always going to be to jump in with both feet with no thought of how the project may impact others or himself.

Consistency and it’s companion, perseverance, also need to be practiced by the sanguine. Not long after the sanguine jumps into a project without thinking about it, he is soon distracted by the thousand other things he’d like to be doing. So, he abandons the project. This is especially dangerous in the spiritual life because moments of aridity in the faith-life of the sanguine can cause him to abandon his prayer life and commitments simply because he is not getting the same “high” that he originally had. The sanguine needs to realize that he has a tendency to be too attached to things simply because of their intensity. To combat this tendency, he needs to learn to persevere in his commitments and prayer life even when the “magic” isn’t being felt anymore.

The question is, of course, “how?” Big helps for the sanguine are activities that appeal to the senses and involve him with other people. For instance, if a sanguine is finding dryness in prayer to be a problem, he should make use of externals in his prayer, such as candles, the beauty of a chapel, or any other scene that adds a sense of beauty and aesthetic appeal to the moment. As far as his commitments are concerned, the sanguine needs to make himself accountable to others in his resolutions. This will compensate not only for a lack of follow-through, but will also ensure that the resolutions themselves are noble causes that the sanguine should pursue, rather than “whims” that are unworthy of the sanguines’ effort.

One last thought: The sanguine needs to learn to put his security in God alone, chiefly through prayer and the sacramental life. Sanguines (and as we shall see later, phlegmatics) have a tendency to be people-pleasers. Sanguines need to learn to overcome their tendency to follow the crowd. We all know how Peter, after his bold promise that he would die for Christ, denied Him when the pressure of the crowd crept in.

With a strong regimen of prayer and accountability the sanguine can learn to harness their energy and love for people towards winning souls for God. Their cheerfulness and zest for living is what the Church, in my humble opinion, desperately needs in an age of despair and dissatisfaction with life and a Church that at times fails to live up to what She proclaims and promises.

God Bless,
-Patrick

Spiritual Lives of the Temperaments: The Choleric

2006-12-14T05:43:00.000+01:00

Spiritual Lives of the Temperaments: The Choleric

"As a matter of fact, I do own the road…"

In previous posts, I talked about the necessity of discovering and working with one's temperament in order to grow spiritually. In this post I'll cover the Choleric temperament and the spiritual life.

My temperament (melancholic/phlegmatic) is innately introverted and hard to motivate. The ambition, perseverance and self-assurance of the choleric fascinate me. I've always admired – but have yet to cultivate - the quick-thinking, decisiveness and forthrightness of the choleric. However, these traits, as honorable as they are, can be the downfall of the choleric; they will make cholerics either "great saints…or great sinners." [1]

St. Paul for example has been said to have possessed this temperament. One only has to read in Acts how this great apostle before his conversion "laid waste" to the early church. For the choleric there is a fine line between becoming either "Paul" or "Saul." The blind zeal of the choleric can lead to either great acts of witness to Christ, or to complete destruction.

So, how does all this apply to the choleric's spiritual life? Well, there is one thing that the choleric needs to watch out for: The choleric is one who is very attached to self-will. He is never a follower, he prefers always to organize and lead. Most definitely, these traits can be of great benefit (or great harm) for any apostolate, relationship or, most important, family. Therefore, there are two things that need to be embraced by the choleric if he is to advance in the spiritual life.

First, the choleric needs spiritual direction. The self-will of the choleric will cry out in pain at such an idea, but it is essential. Cholerics by nature are very attached to their own ideas. Any idea of "direction" is repulsive to them, but it is the only thing that will curb the ill-effects that often come about from their unchecked zeal and ambition. The zeal of the choleric often makes them blind to prudence and, most importantly, to charity. The ambition of the choleric makes them hasty in their decisions. Only a wise spiritual director will be able to help bring the will of the choleric in line with the will of God. Cholerics have a strong need to feel that they have come to their decisions on their own, which is fine, but they need to learn to submit to the advice of others in the process.

Second, the choleric needs to cultivate a desire for unity. The choleric's first instinct is always to question, to argue and control. The choleric instead needs to learn to sacrifice his drive to "always be right" in order to foster unity. He needs to look at what is good for the "team" rather than what will satisfy his urge to dominate. This does not mean that the choleric should not seek to be a leader; he in fact, along with the melancholic, is the one who is best suited to leadership. Nor does this mean that he should sacrifice truth or principles for the sake of unity. He simply needs to learn to seek the best of everybody involved, and be willing to take the direction and input of others in his position of leadership.

In addition to all this is that one crucial element that is necessary for all temperaments: The Sacramental life. The choleric especially needs to find time to put aside his projects and spend time in reflection and prayer.

The best way to sum all this up can be put like so: the choleric needs to learn to "move from the head to the heart." The choleric's work, whether it be in the apostolate, the family or the business world needs to be made a matter of the heart rather than an exercise in intellectual warfare and "chest-thumping" that replaces true spirituality and discipleship. All of us in the apologetics field, especially in light of recent events, are all too aware of the destruction that can be caused when individuals of this temperament refuse to make their religion a matter of the heart rather than the intellect, and refuse to submit themselves to the direction of others. True spiritual progress and union with God can only occur when this temperament learns to let go of self-will and pursue true charity.

In short, cholerics need to admit the sad truth to themselves that, "No, you really don't own the road…"

God Bless,
-Patrick Morris

[1] (Bennett, 230)
[2] (Bennett, 230)]

What are the Temperaments?

2006-10-28T04:54:00.000+02:00

“Self-knowledge is so important that, even if you were raised right up to the heavens, I should like you never to relax your cultivation of it.”

(St. Theresa of Avila)

In my last post, I promised to start off my series on Catholic Psychology with a study of the Temperaments. The most important reason is this: Self-Knowledge is crucial for growth in the Christian life, as well as for basic, joyful Christian living. With this quote above from St. Theresa of Avila, we can see that the saints saw the importance of self-knowledge. Rather than being a product of narcissistic pop-psychology, self-knowledge – especially knowledge of our temperament - is crucial for understanding not only ourselves and others, but for growing closer to the Lord. Besides the witness of St. Theresa, we also have the witness of other spiritual behemoths such as St. Francis De Sales, Adolphe Tanquerey and Jordan Aumann, O.P. who have all given witness to the importance of understanding, and learning to deal with, one’s temperament.

I make this fuss in support of the temperaments because it is a topic that is ultimately psychological and I think many in conservative circles view psychology with suspicion. Psychology, like any other discipline, can be (and has been) abused. As destructive as some psychological principles have been to souls, I think the opposite is also true: The absence of sound, faith-informed self-knowledge and its accompanying psychological principles in a person’s life can lead to the very same self-destructive tendencies that bad psychology leads to. Human beings have an innate desire to understand things. No one can escape from themselves. Without self-knowledge informed by faith, a person is forced to suffer through an endless maze: He wonders why he is so prone to self-destructive tendencies even though he has sworn them off; he wonders why he is still so prone to sin, even after a regular habit of Confession and other spiritual exercises. In short, he wonders why his actions are so out of step with the faith he professes. He may have a lot of “head” knowledge, but he is blind to his own tendencies, insecurities and ways of reacting to life that are innate and, therefore, barely noticeable at times. Or, he knows what he is “supposed” to be doing, and how is he supposed to be living, but he doesn’t know “how” to do it. How many of us have ever questioned the fact that there may be something involved in all of this that we have never even considered; the fact that we each have underlying tendencies, tendencies given to us by God, that can either be our sanctification or downfall, regardless of how well we know our faith and regardless of how well we try to live it? The answer to this question lies in our temperament.

So what, exactly, are the temperaments? The authors of a newer book titled, “The Temperament God Gave You” (to whom I give credit to all that comes hereafter in this piece) give this definition coined by Aumann and Tanquerey:

“Within the Catholic Tradition, temperament is defined as the pattern of inclinations and reactions that proceed from the physiological constitution of the individual.”

(“The Temperament God Gave You”, Bennett, 6)

For those who find this definition a little too clinical and precise, the authors bring it down to earth in this way:

"We are each born with a basic temperament, which is the sum of our natural preferences; it shapes our thoughts, ideas, impressions, and the way we tend to react to our environment and to other people. It is our predisposition to react in certain ways, hardwired in us. It is not learned or acquired through contact with our environment." (emphasis in original)

(Bennett, 5)

In short, temperament is what “comes naturally.” Some people are naturally the life of the party, while others are more reserved and slow to warm up; some are natural leaders, while others tend to be followers; some are naturally optimistic, while others tend to always expect the worst, and so on.

Hippocrates (c. 460-377 B.C.) was likely the first to develop an idea of basic personality types. He based his theory on the idea that certain personality types have an imbalance of fluids in their body. The names which follow (and their associated body fluid) are based on this theory, and are still the names used for describing the temperaments in Catholic based works on the subject. These personality types are the Choleric (yellow bile from the liver), the Sanguine (blood from the heart), the Melancholic (black bile from the kidneys) and the Phlegmatic (phlegm from the lungs).

For all that may be lacking scientifically from this theory, what has been proven over and over in the centuries of research on the subject is that each human being does indeed fall predominantly into one of these four personality types. Researchers, especially from the last two centuries, are not in exact agreement as to how many combinations can be made from these four types, but what is certain is that everyone identifies strongly with at least one of them.

An overview of each temperament’s predominant traits is listed as follows:

Choleric: Quick to react, intense reaction of a long duration; leader; initiator; logical; pragmatic, person of action, forthright; pushes plans through; doesn’t display emotions easily, except anger; not given to anxiety; impetuous; eager to express himself; loves debate; can be defensive and prideful; persevering; self-confident; self-reliant; not a follower; driven to achieve goals; private; inclined to retaliation; extraverted; take-charge; argumentative; abhors sentimentality; logical; goal-oriented; decisive; intense; quick-tempered; optimistic; interruptive; needs acknowledgement; wants to be right; a doer; headstrong; competitive; looks for the positive; impatient; productive; makes decisions based on principles/ideas.

Melancholic: Slow to react, with intense reaction growing over time and of long duration; thoughtful; spiritual; deep; poetic; introverted; overly cautious; perfectionist; thinker; critical; doesn’t prioritize well; tends to discouragement and self-pity; worries over possible misfortune; can be a hypochondriac; easily hurt; slow and sometimes indecisive; pessimistic; moody; goal-oriented; detached from environment; few friends; exclusive; likes to be alone; second guesses; introspective; holds grudges; abhors injustice; is motivated by problems; looks at the down side; idealistic; self-sacrificing; sensitive; makes decisions based on principles/ideas.

Sanguine: Quick to react; reactions of a short-duration; relationship-oriented; doesn’t hold grudges; life of the party; funny; loves to be with people; optimistic; likes groups; talkative; popular; docile; follower; seldom embarrassed; loves variety; attuned to environment; likes clothes; can be faddish; enjoys shopping and eating out; high energy; quick to forgive; welcomes change; frank; talkative; sociable; less interested in follow-through; can be superficial; cordial; makes friends easily; self-assured; carefree; eager; likes to talk in front of groups; enthusiastic; prone to vanity; artistic and creative; spontaneous; sometimes forgetful; process-oriented; restless; makes decisions based on relationships/feelings; needs help in persevering; social butterfly.

Phlegmatic: Slow to react; doesn’t react intensely; reactions of a short duration; quiet; diplomatic; peaceful; makes decisions based on relationships/feelings; sensitive to others; dependable; procedural; dispassionate; dry wit; follower; introverted; calm under pressure; dutiful; likes structure; requires motivating; hates conflict; enjoys peace and quiet; well-liked by most everyone; peacemaker; reserved; homebody; constant; polite; prefers routine; process-oriented; patient; tolerant; not easily provoked; but feelings can be easily hurt; well-behaved; respectful; would rather please others than do what he wants; orderly; can be sluggish or in-different; unmotivated; low-key.

(Bennett, 263-264)

Most likely you found nodding in agreement while reading at least one of these lists! Most people are a combination of two with one being predominant. Though we all can identify with maybe one or two traits from each list, most people would find themselves identifying with almost all traits on one (or at most two) on the above lists.

What the Temperaments are NOT

We’ve seen briefly what the basic definition of a temperament is. At this point let’s look at what they are not.

First and foremost, temperaments are not an excuse. For those of you read the above lists, breathed a sigh of relief and said to yourself, “well, that’s just the way I am” you’ve missed the point. Rather than being an excuse for unsavory behaviors, attitudes, etc., study of the temperaments is an exercise in self-knowledge and humility so that you will be better able to discern what disciplines you must acquire in life in order to bring yourself into balance.

Second, temperaments are not character or personality. Character and personality refer to what a person has become, not what a person is. Character and personality are formed by behaviors and habits based on the decisions one makes in life. In short, character and personality are formed, not innate as is the case with the temperaments. Character and personality are formed by how we use or abuse our temperament. This is where study of the temperaments is crucial. By understanding our natural tendencies we can learn to work with them in order to bring about the best character and personality possible, given our own peculiar make-up.

Conclusion

What is immediately noticeable about the study of the temperaments is that the temperaments are based around one over-arching theme: Patterns of Reaction. Some of us are quick to react and our reactions last a long time, others of us are slower to react and tend to let things go rather easily; some of us focus more on principles while others focus more on people. Temperaments, in a nutshell, are a list of the ways people naturally react to their environment. This is why their understanding is so important for not only growth in spirituality but for basic enjoyment of life. If one does not understand that he or she has an innate, God-given way that they react to life then they will be lost as to how they can bring themselves into balance. Life is hard enough, and if there is to be any enjoyment in it then study of one’s patterns of reactions when it comes to life is crucial in living the abundant life that has been promised to God’s children.

Growth in the spiritual life is also, in my opinion, only possible with an understanding of one’s temperament. Some people are tailor-made for some forms of spirituality and prayer, while others will get nothing out of them. Our spiritual/prayer life needs to be based on what works best for our temperament. Spirituality can be like medicine: one man’s cure is another man’s poison. Spiritual works that focus on the topics of Hell, Judgment etc. may cause a destructive downward spiral in a doleful, self-deprecating melancholic, but it may be the cure for a prideful, rule-bending Choleric. Silent retreats may be great for a reclusive phlegmatic but may drive a talkative sanguine into a complete rut. The Choleric needs to learn how to control his anger, the melancholic his moodiness and self-doubt, the Sanguine his lack of follow-through and superficiality and the Phlegmatic his tendency to be complacent and apathetic. The trick is to discover your temperament and from there gather information as to what you need to do in your secular and religious life in order to get you to the ultimate goal of heaven with as few needless disasters as possible. In my next post, I will begin looking at each individual temperament separately and give some ideas as to what works and doesn’t work for each of these temperaments. My first post will cover the Choleric temperament.

For more information on the temperaments see: “The Temperament God Gave You”, Art and Lorraine Bennett, Sophia Press, 2005. Another good treatment is given by Fr. Conrad Hock, “The Four Temperaments.” This pamphlet can usually be found online.

Catholic Psychology 101

2006-10-16T04:14:00.000+02:00

Psychology is one of those topics that is often maligned in religious circles. I think that we as traditionalist Catholics are especially prone to bash psychology. A lot of this stems from the fact that there is, admittedly, a lot of bad psychology out there. Those of us who have taken a college or even high-school level psychology course know that there is a lot of the bad mixed in with what may be good.

So, why have I as a Catholic writer decided to write on the topic of Psychology? Well, it’s a long story but let me try to explain: First of all, I’ve struggled with bouts of anxiety and depression for most of my adult life. It was because of these issues that I recognized my need for a Savior. These trials have been blessings in that they awakened the sense within of a need to be “rescued.”

However, I’ve hit a wall this last year. Ironically, I’ve come to see that these psychological issues that drove me to Christ have also become the issues that take me very close to being separated from Him. I’ve come to notice in myself, and in many others who seek to be faithful Catholics, that these issues create barriers that prevent us from living the faith as fully, effectively and joyfully as it should be lived. I’ve learned, rather painfully, that book knowledge about the faith - knowledge that teaches us what we as Catholics are to believe, how are to live and why - can only get one so far. There is, in my opinion, another indispensable companion to all this knowledge that is often overlooked. That companion is sound mental health.

Sound mental health, and its relationship to the spiritual life, is something that has been underestimated – at least I underestimated it. In fact, I often wonder if most Christians of all stripes have a tendency to view poor mental health as some sort of virtue. I think that many of us, especially those with melancholic temperaments like myself, see a false humility in the self-deprecation and pessimism that accompanies poor mental health. I think we often have the impression that the more negative we see ourselves, our fellow man and the world around us, the more “pious” we really are. I would even go as far as to say that many of the heresies we as Catholics seek to eradicate have poor mental health as one of their roots. One only has to look at the impetuousness and gloominess of a Martin Luther to see an inseparable link between the way one thinks and the theology one espouses. There is a heavy danger in underestimating the impact poor mental health can have on our faith life. It will, subtly but effectively, distort your image of yourself, others and God, no matter how much “book knowledge” you have. Poor mental health will hamper your efforts at fighting sin, will ruin your prayer life and will mess with you in many other ways you could never imagine.

So, I’ve decided to write a series of articles on precisely this topic. The beauty of the Catholic faith is that she has 2000 years of experience in dealing with human beings and their problems. Sound mental health is a topic that the Saints and many spiritual writers have dealt with, and I think it’s time to once again re-discover the riches of sound advice that have been given on this topic.

I feel there is a real need to address this topic, especially in our day and age. We live under circumstances that by their very nature foster poor mental health. Some of us struggle more than others, but I would guess that many who seek to live a fully Catholic life are not doing so well, not because they are insincere or lazy, but because they lack knowledge and application of sound, Catholic psychological principles. Sound mental health is a topic that the Saints and many spiritual writers have dealt with, and I think it’s time to once again re-discover the riches of sound advice that have been given on this topic.

Some may still be skeptical as to whether or not this topic is worthy of any discussion. That’s OK. I just have a hunch that there are countless people of faith out there who are suffering needlessly because we as Catholic authors have not given the topic of sound mental health and its connection to the spiritual life enough exposure. I hope that what will be written here in the future will help not only the readers but also those of us whose responsibility it is to teach the faith to others. We cannot be effective evangelists unless we are able, through an understanding of how we and others “tick”, to meet people where they are at on their journey. The status of one’s mental health is seriously the point at where knowledge either bears fruit or becomes destructive.

My first posts will be a study of the Temperaments and their relationship to the spiritual life.

God Bless,
-Patrick Morris

2006-09-10T23:02:00.000+02:00

On Ecumenism and Clearing Up Certain Presumed Inconsistencies:
(A Response to John TOP)

Prefatory Note:

In light of Joe's recent piece on ecumenism and catechesis, I decided to respond to someone in the comments box of that thread by digging into my writing archives and pulling up some of the material I wrote years ago on the whole subject of presumed "magisterial inconsistencies" viz. Unitatis Redintegratio and Mortalium Animos. The material excepted below is from an essay drafted in early 2001 and published in September of that year. The words of my interlocuter in that writing (Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP) will be in fire coloured font whereas any sources I quoted in the text will be in darkblue with source citations noted and hyperlinked where applicable. My other words will be in blue font.

This has had several effects on the members of the Church. The first is that those things, which pertain to the extrinsic tradition and do not touch upon the intrinsic tradition, are ignored. This manifests itself in the fact that some ecclesial documents today do not have any connection to the positions held by the magisterium prior to the Second Vatican Council. For example, in the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents which deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions, viz. Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII or Mortalium Animos by Pius XI. The approach to ecumenism and other religions is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. Moreover, the problem is not just with respect to magisterium prior to Vatican II but even with the magisterium since the Council.

The approach to evangelization and inculturation before the Council of Trent was different than it was afterwards. The Church historically has made paradigm shifts in emphasis before and thus to postulate this as it occurs today as some kind of "problem" is to not be completely consistent. Ecumenism is conducted today differently for a reason: the Church is again in the mode of evangelizing nations and no longer playing the "Fortress Catholicism" mentality which set in after the Council of Trent. We no longer live in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries. As circumstances and situations change, the Church adapts her approach. This is by no means a novelty despite how it might appear. The pope has the right to set the tone for what is proper in our day and age as far as the approach that will be undertaken (much as his predecessors did before him in their respective periods). The self-styled 'traditionalist' though does not seem to understand this as they often confuse policy with doctrine consistently — which it seems at times that Fr. Ripperger does in this essay.

Between pre and post-Vatican II doctrinal teachings on ecumenism, there is nothing contrary. The difference is in emphasis. The Church handled herself as she always has done when approached with new philosophies and movements. The first step is negative in the sense that she outlines what is not acceptable within the given philosophy. This is usually in the form of condemning erroneous core doctrines in various philosophical approaches. (Pope Gregory XVI, Bl. Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII, St. Pope Pius X, and Pope Pius XI all did this.) Once the areas of a philosophy that are not acceptable are outlined, it is from there that the Church looks at what is acceptable. In doing this, she incorporates the acceptable elements along with principles that enable the good elements of the particular erroneous philosophy to be harnessed in the service of the Gospel. (Pope Pius XII, Bl. Pope John XXIII, Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II have all done this.) As this writer noted in his treatise on the subject of ecumenism:

Vatican II (VC II) defined the term "ecumenism" and outlined an acceptable policy for Catholics to follow in this endeavour: embracing what was good in the previous errors while reaffirming what was condemned. The core doctrinal teaching of Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos (MA) - that reunion cannot come at the expense of truth - was reaffirmed in the Decree. The errors outlined in MA §7 are worth noting in brief. Among them include (i) the idea that Our Lord's prayer for unity was merely an expression or desire that still lacks its fulfilment (ii) the opinion that the unity of faith and government, has hardly ever existed and does not currently exist (iii) that the unity of faith and government may one day be attained but in the meantime can only be regarded as an ideal. Further still, (iv) the Church either itself or its nature is divided into sections comprising of several churches or communities that remain separate, and though there are agreements on some doctrines and disagreements on others, that all of them enjoy the same rights (v) that the Church was one until the first Ecumenical Councils. Not only that but (vi) controversies must be entirely set aside and (vii) of the remaining doctrines "a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers" (cf. MA §7). Since every single one of these errors is directly opposed to the teaching of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, there is no reason to quote that encyclical letter in the Decree itself. (The policies of MA were modified because the Church unlike in the time of Pius XI was becoming an active partner in the ecumenical movement. However, the methodology of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio was far removed from the methodology of the Pan Christian methods condemned by Pope Pius XI.)

The Second Vatican Council marked a definitive turning point in the realm of ecumenism wherein the Catholic Church "committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture" (Ut Unum Sint §3) and outlined the principles that would guide her in directly involving herself in the ecumenical movement. Pope Pius XI did not set any sort of policy but was instead aiming to condemn certain errors at the heart of the Pan Christian movement for unity. The core error of course was indifferentism - an error that Unitatis Redintegratio declared was "foreign to the spirit of ecumenism" (UR §11). However, Unitatis Redintegratio sought to formulate an active policy for working towards Christian unity. By contrast, Mortalium Animos took the approach of reiterating the same "come back to Rome" speech which is hardly an approach that had any hope of working as long as every jot and tittle of orthopraxy was treated as immutable. (Not to mention the clergy of the Church continuing the charade of blaming the non-Catholics for leaving without taking any responsibility for the schisms herself because of certain actions committed by prelates in the past.)

As long as self-styled 'traditionalists' continue to prooftext documents instead of actually reading them, they will continue to tilt at windmills ala Cervantes' "Don Quixote" and fight a figment of their own imaginations. [I. Shawn McElhinney: "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (c. 2000)]

The major paradigm shift at the Second Vatican Council on the subject of ecumenism was to take the ecumenical movement seriously after watching its progress for some time. That many have disregarded what the Council actually taught is unfortunate; however the recent Declaration Dominus Iesus was issued to correct these misunderstandings and assert the authentic understanding of VC II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Not surprisingly, the response to this reaffirmation was that the Vatican was "abandoning the ecumenical movement" for "pre Vatican II policies". Of course this was not true at all. Nonetheless, such outbursts did highlight just how far from the straight path that many people had actually tread. (Some of good will and others of repute that is more dubious.)

To touch on a pre-Vatican II example of ecumenism, the 1595-96 Treaty of Brest with the Ruthinian church comes to mind. Here was an Eastern church which presented their own "requirements" for reunion which Pope Clement VIII accepted. Consider some of those "requirements" as compiled by the Ruthinians:

3. That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.

4. That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we have served it until now, without any addition…

7. That we should not be compelled to take part in processions on the day of Corpus Christi - that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as our use of the Mysteries is different.

8. Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.

9. That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists…

22. That the Romans should not forbid us to ring bells in our churches on Good Friday, both in the cities and everywhere else.

23. That we should not be forbidden to visit the sick with the Most Holy Mysteries, publicly, with lights and vestments, according to our rubrics.

24. That without any interference we might be free to hold processions, as many as are required, on holy days, according to our custom. [Treaty Of Brest Document: "Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church" (c. 1595)]

Now Fr. Ripperger would probably claim that these were eastern "extrinsic traditions". However, any knowledge of Church history would reveal to him that these matters of western practice were still ones in which some in the west sought to impose on the east. (An example of untraditional theological and disciplinary uniformity which they sought to impose on the east for which the west should be ashamed.) This is one of the elements that led to the schism between east and west. It also fed into the polemical attitudes of many of our eastern brethren who speak so derisively of the traditions and practices of the west. They did not like having their liturgical, theological, and disciplinary "extrinsic traditions" expunged by the Latins and the resentment has reverberated as a result for over nine hundred years. (And it was a strong undercurrent behind the failure of the General Councils of Lyons II and Florence to reunite the west and east.)

And now we deal with the Latin obsession with legalities and find that since the Popes possessed the authority to make modifications to the various parts of the ceremonial (mass, sacramental forms, etc.) we find that the west modified the forms in accordance with the times, circumstances, and places. The east never saw this policy as a viable one for to them the "extrinsic tradition" was part and parcel to the Great Tradition as a whole. Consider the irony here for a moment.

The modification of various customs over time played no small part in the rift between west and east because in the east there is often not a distinction made between doctrine and practice. (Much akin to the problems in the self-styled 'traditionalist' movement as few make the kinds of distinctions that Fr. Ripperger is seeking to make here.) Bearing that in mind, we must apply these principles consistently. If the current magisterium is at fault for this than consistency demands that the magisterium in previous eras be chastised as well. Of course this will not be done by the self-styled 'traditionalist' for whom consistency is a foreign concept.

It does not take too long to unscramble these eggs if one reads with the eyes of faith and trusts that even if they do not fully understand the rationale that God protects the Church in these instances. That does not mean that the judgments made are necessarily the best ones but that can be said about any period in history where such modifications were made. There is no justification for presuming that the Tridentine modifications were the apex of disciplinary manifestation. And thinking that today's disciplinary provisions are superior would not constitute a de facto getting into bed with the Modernists either. On the topic of ecumenism this principle of altering the policy while reaffirming the doctrine comes to mind. Ecumenism as Vatican II defined the term was practiced at Brest. This differs markedly from the kind of Pan-Christian false ecumenism which the popes before Vatican II condemned (and which Vatican II and the subsequent popes have likewise condemned). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from the Essay Distinctions of Outlook (c. 2001)]

Epilogue:

I later on dealt with the issue of ecclesiology with greater precision in writing on various ecclesial models but at the time the above material was written, I did not have as precise an understanding in this area as I would later have. Nonetheless, what is revisited above hopefully dispels with the notion that there is any kind of doctrinal "reversal" or "correction" by Vatican II of post magisterial teaching.

The Blessed Mother in the Catechism

2006-09-09T05:07:00.000+02:00

If there was one statement contained within the entire Catechism that I feel best captures the heart and spirit of Mary’s unique role within the Church, it is contained in section 487: “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” It is imperative for Catholics to understand that everything we believe regarding our Blessed Mother is rooted and grounded in what we believe about Jesus, and the more we understand the person of the Blessed Mother, the more we will then understand about our Lord and Savior. If we do not have this firmly established in our mind and heart, we will miss the vital significance that Mary and Christ together share in what is revealed in the New Covenant and hidden in the Old.

If we get it wrong on Mary, we will inevitably get it wrong on Jesus. Christian history has proved this, as is most evident in the Nestorian heresy of the 5th century, in which a Marian heresy inevitably led to a Christological one. The Catechism sums this up perfectly in section 466: “The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son.” Opposing this heresy, the Church taught at the Council of Ephesus (as summarized by the Catechism), “Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.” In other words, Nestorius was falsely teaching that Mary was not the mother of God, but rather the mother of the man Jesus. Because he got it wrong on Mary, he in turn got it wrong on Christ. The Catechism continues, “For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb.” In defining the true role of Mary, the Council illumined the true nature and person of Jesus Christ.

Once we understand Mary as the Mother of God, we then can appreciate her role as the Mother of the Church. The Second Vatican Council magnificently wrapped up its dogmatic constitution on the Church with Mary being the cornerstone, since she is the Church’s Mother. The Catechism treats this amazing title in great depth from sections 963-975. I believe that after 2,000 years of continued doctrinal development, the Church has crowned her Mother with a glorious title that truly demonstrates to us Mary’s significance in the Christian faith. Quoting St. Augustine and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism notes in section 963: “The Virgin Mary...is clearly the mother of the members of Christ…since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head. Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.” Picking up what the Catechism noted in section 487, the Catechism lays out in section 964: “Mary’s role in the Church in inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it.” The biblical significance of this is rooted in the dogmatic truth that Mary truly is the Mother of God (as Ephesus declared, and as St. Elizabeth proclaimed in Luke’s Gospel), and since St. Paul writes in Colossians 1:18 that Christ is the head and we are His body, thus Mary in a deeply spiritual but very real way is our Mother as well. The passage in Scripture which best captures this is John 19:26, where our Lord, in His final breaths before He dies and descends into the lower regions of earth, tells St. John to behold Mary as his own mother. St. John represents the Church militant, keeping his eyes focused on his suffering Lord and never wavering in his faith, and thus the Church as a whole can now behold Mary as her Mother, directing us towards the author and finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ. Mary never wants devotion to end with her; rather, she always focuses it towards her Son. When Mary says, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,” she means it. When we see Jesus through the soul of Mary, we see the love and mercy of Christ magnified.

The Catechism notes in section 968: “Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.” Again, picking up on the theme laid out in sections 487 and 964, the Catechism notes in section 970: “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men…flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.”

Mary is the eschatological icon of the Church, meaning in terms of our understanding of the end times, Mary stands as our greatest image and symbol of what all true children of Christ will by His grace experience one day. Section 972 notes, “After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own pilgrimage of faith, and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey.” Thus, just as Mary’s role helps us better grasp Christ’s mission and nature, so too does Mary’s role help us better realize who we are and what we can look hopeful to as children on God and members of Christ’s Body.

Ecumenism and Catechesis: God's Plan for Unity

2006-08-11T10:29:00.000+02:00

Ecumenism and Catechesis

Introduction

I remember a time not too long ago in which I boldly declared that ecumenism was nothing more than repackaged indifferentism. It was due to this thinking that I wound up outside of Holy Mother Church, in schism, for quite some time. By the grace of God, and through our Lady’s intercession, I came to my senses and returned home to Rome. So the topic of ecumenism is of much interest to me. I spent many long hours devoting my time to studying Vatican II’s understanding of true ecumenism, drawn out most clearly in its Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint. Enlightened by the Spirit of truth, I came to realize that ecumenism, far from being a hindrance to my spiritual growth, was actually a blessed gift graciously given to the Church by God as a means of unification for Christians worldwide.

Catechesis is something which has been dear to my heart since I was first evangelized several years ago. Upon first receiving Christ into my heart, I immediately sought the need and developed the zeal to learn more about Him. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in this regard, became my best friend. Reading it alongside Sacred Scripture, I came to meet and experience Jesus Christ and His teachings in a very deep and profound way. The more I learned, the more my mind and heart thirst for more. Catechesis had such a profound impact in my life that I now volunteer a great majority of my time to teaching it at my local parish. I am convinced that good catechesis helps the believer to cherish our glorious faith even more. Of all the recent conciliar decrees dealing with catechesis, the two which to me stand out the most in magnificence are Pope Paul VI’s Evangelii Nutiandi and Pope John Paul II’s Catechesi Tradendae.

Understood correctly, catechesis serves ecumenism, and in turn ecumenism helps foster newer and fresher avenues of catechesis. The two are great helps to each other and, when utilized properly, form a tremendous tag team for evangelism. Evangelization is summed up in four words: winning souls for Christ. It is a tragic and unfortunate reality that in our world today division exists amongst those who call themselves Christian. This in turn becomes a stumbling block to global evangelization, which is what the Church has been calling all of us to more and more since Vatican II. Ecumenism and catechesis, then, offer a needed component. The purpose of the Church entering into the ecumenical movement is precisely to help foster unity and, in turn, greater advancements in evangelization. But ecumenism will only work to its full potential when Catholics begin realizing who is at the center of catechesis (Jesus Christ). When this is realized in the mind and heart, non-Catholic Christians, who typically stress the absolute importance of having a faith which is centered wholly and entirely on Christ alone, will realize that Christ Himself is the very center, heart, head, and foundation of Catholicism and all its doctrines.

In order for ecumenism and catechesis to serve their full purpose and reach their desired end in helping bring about world evangelization, we must first explore the definition of each so that no ambiguity or misunderstanding may cloud our perspective on what we are called to do as disciples of Christ. Only then can we more coherently put a structure together which demonstrates the harmony between the two.

What is ecumenism?

For a Catholic to understand the necessity of ecumenism in the life of the Church, one must first understand that Christian division is absolutely intolerable. It is not merely just a bad situation which we must put up with; it is literally something we can not tolerate as Christians. St. Paul is very clear to the Christians in his day that there must exist no divisions among them, and that they should be united in the same mind and the same purpose.[1] Jesus, in His prayer to the Father on the night before He dies, prays for unity among His followers; this unity, in the mind of Jesus, must be so well-knit that He equates it to the unity shared between Father and Son, who are one in nature.[2] Christians, then, must not only be one in purpose, but as St. Paul says they must be one in mind, and as Jesus stresses they must be one in their very nature. Jesus says that when this is achieved, the world will know that the Father sent Him. It is due to this modern day division that the plan of God to draw all men to Himself is frustrated.

Pope John Paul II, echoing the Second Vatican Council, notes that division openly contradicts the will of Christ (His will for unity is manifest in His prayer to the Father), provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on proclaiming the gospel.[3] How then does the Church, as the voice and Body of Christ on this earth, respond to this present reality of division? If we assume that the Body of Christ only exists in her visible elements which manifest themselves in Catholicism, then we will be blinded to the division which permeates the world. While the fullness of truth subsists with the Catholic Church, we also recognize that non-Catholic Christian communities are also ordered to the Body in some way, most evidently through the invisible elements which bind Christians together: faith, hope, and love. As such, the Church has both a visible and invisible element. Christians exist all over the world who are truly baptized Christians (and as such are united with us in some way), yet remain outside the visible confines of “the pillar and foundation of truth.”[4] While imperfect communion exists due to elements of sanctification and truth found in non-Catholic ecclesial communities,[5] it is nevertheless imperfect, and thus not the communion desired by Christ and urged by St. Paul. Communion with the Holy Pontiff and Rome is essential for full and visible communion.[6]

The Church’s response to the current division is her involvement with the ecumenical movement. Ecumenism, properly defined, is the movement promoting Christian unity.[7] Ecumenism is directed towards making partial communion grow towards full communion in truth and charity.[8] The Second Vatican Council made it clear that separated communities can be means of salvation[9]; even so, we can not remain divided. We must profess together the same truth about the cross,[10] for only then will the world believe that the Father sent the Son. All Catholics must be committed to the work of ecumenism in their daily lives. Committing ourselves to ecumenism does not mean compromising the faith, but rather articulating it in a way that reaches the hearts of those who have given their lives to Christ and yet still remain separated visibly from His Body. One of the great fruits of the ecumenical venture since Vatican II has been the realization of how much treasure we Catholics share with our separated brothers and sisters. This became very real to me recently in a History course I took at a local college. Our teacher (an ex-Catholic) was an avowed modernist and agnostic. He spent the better part of the semester trying to convince my fellow classmates the absurdity of clinging to any “organized religion,” most especially Christianity. Our classes eventually became sparring bouts between me and our professor. Midway through the semester, another classmate began backing me up and questioning our teacher as well. It was clear to the class that we were both an evangelistic tag-team. It was only after the semester had ended when I realized this classmate was a Protestant Christian, and he realized I was a Catholic Christian. We shared theological differences, but we had spent half a semester in full agreement on everything ranging from the person of Christ, monotheism, a personal God who is triune in nature, absolute morality, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. What united us was far greater than what divided us. This common ground then allowed both of us to delve deeper into those areas where we had disagreement. But with the foundation of unity and charity having already been laid, we were able to engage in positive dialogue as to our divisions. A bridge had been built, and we both knew whole heartedly that it was Christ who built it.

Ecumenism, then, is based on the realization that: 1. Christ desires unity; 2. the truth is what sets us free; 3. what we share in truth is immense and a gift of God; 4. love for truth is the deepest dimension of any quest for communion[11]; 5. we must dialogue with each other, asking for God’s assistance in bringing about full and uncompromised unity in those areas which separate us.

Our involvement in the ecumenical movement is thus grounded in the initial point: namely, that Christ desires unity… so we should desire it as well. Pope John Paul II stated it so well when he wrote, “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: Ut Unum Sint (That they may be one).”[12]

What is catechesis?

The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines catechesis as, “An education of children, young people, and adults in the faith of the Church through the teaching of Christian doctrine in an organic and systematic way to make them disciples of Jesus Christ.” Catechesis is best understood in its relationship to evangelization. The two work together but are distinct, for one flows from the other. Evangelization is the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The “gospel” can be best understood with this acronym: God’s Only Son Provides Eternal Life. This is the amazing proclamation of Christianity, which we are called to share with all who have ears to hear. What evangelization does to the heart, catechesis in turn does to the mind. But the more we learn about Christ, the more we are able to love Him. As such, catechesis also plays a role in affecting the heart as well. Evangelization proclaims the Gospel; catechesis seeks to explain it and make it understandable, in the effort to make the Gospel message grow and become even more alive in our hearts. Good catechesis will always make that glorious Gospel message ever fresh and ever new.
Pope Paul VI notes, “The intelligence… needs to learn through systematic religious instruction the fundamental teachings, the living content of the truth which God has wished to convey to us.”[13] In demonstrating the importance of catechesis in relation to evangelization, Frank Sheed makes some great insights: “While it is obvious that an ignorant man can be virtuous, it is equally obvious that ignorance is not a virtue; men have been martyred who could not have stated a doctrine of the Church correctly, and martyrdom is the supreme proof of love. Yet with more knowledge of God they would have loved him more still… each new thing learned and meditated about God is a new reason for loving him.”[14]

The definitive aim of catechesis is to put us in intimate communion with our Lord and Savior.[15] It is imperative that we realize what catechesis is and is not: it is the transmission and education, in a systematic way, of the person of Jesus Christ, and as such knows its boundaries and limits lie in everything He taught, and nothing less; it is not a platform for us to advance our own thoughts, ideas, or suggestions. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and as God it is against His very nature to lie.[16] Thus, everything He taught us forms the whole content of true catechesis. When we begin to mix in His infallible instruction with our feeble ideas, we no longer serve the role of catechesis but rather do immense damage to it. We dare not transmit our own teaching in catechesis, but rather we teach and proclaim the teaching of Jesus Christ.[17]

Pope John Paul II notes that the specific aim of catechesis is, “Developing understanding of the mystery of Christ in light of God’s word… the aim of catechesis is to be the teaching and maturating stage.” In other words, the Christian who has now accepted Christ into his heart now seeks to know more about Him, so that his life can continue to be transformed.[18] Catechesis is vital to the life of the Church. Indeed, the entire Catechism is a testament to the fruit of Spirit-guided catechesis throughout the 2,000 year history of the Church. To get to heaven, we are told that we must know, love, and serve God in this life. Thus, the more we know about Jesus, the more we love Him. As such, our initial encounter with Christ in our hearts through faith, and that amazing honeymoon stage that every believer experiences as a result, is made more full and complete as we continue to learn more about the God who suffered and died for our sins so that we might have eternal life. The more we fall in love with Christ, the more effective we will be in spreading the gospel to all nations.

Ecumenism and Catechesis: God’s Plan for Unity

As has already been stated, the goal of ecumenism is the unity of all Christians currently separated from Holy Mother Church visibly. The aim of catechesis is to teach Jesus Christ in a systematic way so that our hearts may long to be united to His even more. In the process of learning more about Christ, we encounter the Lord during His agony in the garden, in which He pleads with the Father that His followers may all be one. Catechesis, particularly the light it shines in regards to that dark night Christ suffered through, leads us to desire all that Christ desires, and He desires unity. A solid catechesis, then, will drive believers to make ecumenism central in their lives as His disciples. Catechesis serves ecumenism, since the more we learn about faith, the more capable we will be of sharing it and making it more understandable to Christians who are not in full communion with us. Many Christians leave the Catholic faith due to misunderstandings of what the Church teaches. Catechesis is a great tool in helping correct this situation.

Dr. Peter Kreeft, however, offers the greatest insight into how ecumenism and catechesis complement each other and work together to produce unity. He writes, “Our divisions will be undone only if sin is conquered. And only Christ can conquer sin. Reunion will come when all Christians put Christ’s will above their own. Only when all the musicians follow the conductor’s baton does the orchestra play in harmony. The key to ecumenism is the same as the key to all Catholic ideas: the lordship of Christ.”[19]

According to Dr. Kreeft, the key to unlocking the dividing puzzle is precisely He who brings about unity in place of division[20]: Jesus Christ. Sound simple? Yet how many of us have actually thought this through and all the implications attached to it? Bringing about unity will ultimately have nothing to do with our efforts, but will only occur once we give it up to Christ alone. How is He the key in accomplishing the goal of ecumenism, and how does the Church’s understand of catechesis play a role? Non-Catholic Christians typically oppose the Catholic Church because they sincerely believe that Catholicism has unnecessarily added to the “simple” gospel; they believe that Catholicism really does not depend on Christ alone. Many non-Catholic Christians realize that Christ alone suffices. They see the Mass, the Sacraments, Marian devotion, purgatory, etc. as subtracting from the one Mediator[21], and they challenge Catholics to shift their whole focus back to Christ alone.

The interesting thing is that non-Catholic Christians are exactly correct in their understanding: our faith must be centered on Christ alone. However, what most non-Catholic Christians do not realize is that no church on this planet believes or teaches that more forcefully than the Catholic Church. Once non-Catholic Christians are able to see this, it will be the key which removes their major stumbling block. Why do Catholics go to Mass? Because they believe it is the closest way to encounter Christ. Why do we receive the Sacraments? Because we believe they dispose us to the life of Christ. Why do we pray to Mary and the saints? Because their prayers lead us closer to Christ. This is where catechesis plays a very crucial role, and where it becomes the greatest servant to ecumenism. Catholics must not subtract anything from their faith; rather, they must learn to define it properly. Once they do, our separated brethren will be able to more clearly see that the only possible way for a Christian to consistently believe in sola Christus is to become Catholic.

In conclusion, I quote Pope John Paul II who sums this up more brilliantly than I ever could: “At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth… The primary and essential object of catechesis is, to use an expression dear to St. Paul and also to contemporary theology, “the mystery of Christ”… it is therefore to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God’s eternal design reaching fulfillment in that Person.”[22] Once we understood Who the object of catechesis is, we will then discover the key which unlocks the dividing walls of Christianity. Christ is the heart of catechesis, and as such in our ecumenical efforts with non-Catholic Christians, let us preach to them a Catholicism which they never knew but which has always existed: a Catholicism rooted in, sustained by, founded on, and strengthened through the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. Amen.
[1] 1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 2:2
[2] John 17:21
[3] Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, sec. 6; Unitatis Redintegratio, sec. 1
[4] 1 Timothy 3:15
[5] Ut Unum Sint, sec. 11
[6] ibid., sec. 97
[7] ibid., sec. 20
[8] ibid., sec. 14
[9] Unitatis Redintegratio, sec. 3
[10] Ut Unum Sint, sec. 1
[11] ibid., sec. 36
[12] ibid., sec. 9
[13] Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nutiandi, sec. 44
[14] Frank Sheed, Theology for Beginners, pg. 5
[15] Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, sec. 5
[16] John 14:6, Titus 1:2
[17] Catechesi Tradendae, sec. 6
[18] ibid., sec. 20
[19] Dr. Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, pg. 111
[20] Ephesians 2:14-16
[21] 1 Timothy 2:5
[22] Catechesi Tradendae, sec. 5

Encountering Christ in the Catechism

2006-07-23T02:34:00.000+02:00

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by the late Holy Father Pope John Paul II in 1992, is a brilliant summation of all that the Church is and teaches. If a situation were ever to present itself (as it often does in the life of every Catholic Christian) in which a Catholic was asked what forms the Church’s body of teaching, one could point to the Catechism for a sure answer. The Catechism presents to us the fullness and totality of the depositum fidei, the deposit of faith which was handed “once and for all to the saints,” (Jude 1:3) delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles, and then in turn to their successors, the bishops. While the totality of what we believe has been handed down definitively, with public revelation ceasing upon the death of St. John the Apostle, the fully developed understanding of that deposit continues to grow as the centuries pass on. But there is more to our faith than just the doctrines we are called to believe as being divinely revealed; there is the faith which is lived, in which those doctrines take root within the liturgies, prayers, councils, and life of the Church.

“Through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes (CCC 78, Dei Verbum par. 8).’ “Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (CCC 113).”

The Catechism captures the whole heart and soul of Catholic Christianity, presenting the faith undefiled and in its entirety, for the desired end of a more stringent unity among Catholics worldwide in both this age and in generations to follow. Indeed, our Lord’s commission to His Apostles to go into the world and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe what He commanded them (Matthew 28:19-20), is brought to amazing fruition with the promulgation of the first universal Catechism given to Christ’s faithful since the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Much has developed with the passing of over 400 years, not the least being a renewed desire to heed St. Paul’s charge that no divisions exist among Christians (1 Corinthians 1:10; as well, since Trent’s Catechism, at least three dogmas have been defined (the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal infallibility, and Mary’s Bodily Assumption). In that regard, the Catechism also serves the purpose of listening and responding to our Lord’s desire for unity amongst all His disciples and followers, that we might all be one (John 17:21). Pope John Paul II wrote, “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity (Ut Unum Sint, par. 9).” This desire for unity finds a helping hand with the promulgation of this Catechism, since it is the task of the Catechism to clearly proclaim the faith we hold to, and to do so in a coherent way so that bridges can be built between Catholics and other Christian communities which exist apart from the visible Body of Christ.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church is to serve the guardianship and the transmission of the deposit of faith. The Church has the duty, but also the right, to express the fullness, the riches and the beauty of the faith (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ratzinger and Schonborn, pgs. 56-57).”

The Catechism faithfully presents to the Christian faithful the teachings of Jesus Christ as they have been transmitted from generation to generation through apostolic succession, guided and sustained by the intervention and protection of God the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 2:2; John 16:13). The Catechism serves this transmission through clearly laying out all that the Church professes to be hers in matters of doctrine, discipline, and worship. All that Christ revealed to His flock is contained within the Catechism, as well as the fruit of 2,000 years of doctrinal development in relation to that revelation. As the Church grows, so too does her understanding and application of the teachings of Jesus Christ. “This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety (CCC 18).”

In reading through the Catechism, I humbly encounter the Risen Lord. Since Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition, and since it is the aim and goal of the Catechism to deliver only what has been entrusted through Tradition, then the person and message of Jesus Christ becomes more personal and intense upon studying this Catechism. “It is intended to stress that at the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth... the definitive aim of catechesis is to put people not only in touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ (Catechesi Tradendae, par. 5).” The purpose of a catechism is to faithfully and systematically present the teaching of the faith in its entirety in order to allow a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. This is precisely what Pope John Paul II notes has happened with the promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Fidei Depositum, no. 2). He declares it to be, “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion... a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine (Fidei Depositum, no. 3).”

In summary, the purpose of promulgating this Catechism is so that we may be presented with, “an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council [the great catechism of modern times] and the whole of the Church’s Tradition (CCC 10-11).”

2006-07-14T19:52:00.000+02:00

Myths or Misperceptions on the Liturgy:
(With Kevin Tierney)

[Prefatory Note: This text (except for a few minor tweaks) was written on or before June 28, 2006 and was posted to The Lidless Eye Inquisition yesterday. -ISM]

Recently, Kevin decided to respond to a response I wrote to one of his pieces some time ago. This will be an interaction with his latest response...his words will be in black bolded font, my previous words (as quoted by him) in blue font.

Popular Traditionalist Myths on the Liturgy
Posted: Friday, June 02, 2006
Last Update: Friday, June 02, 2006

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The law of prayer determines the law of belief. If there is one law in the Church worth preserving, it is this law. Prayer is not just discussion with God. Prayer calls to mind certain tenets of the faith that we reflect upon as we pray. This rule holds especially true with the Christian liturgy. Not only do we worship God, but the faithful are edified by instruction, and most importantly the Blessed Sacrament. The Council of Trent, when ruling against the vernacular, still noted that the Mass “contains great instruction for the faithful people.” (Session 22, Chapter VIII). This was confirmed by Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concillium, chapters 14-20.

I agree with everything in the above paragraph.

The reason this is important is because since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, a sharp decline has been evidenced in many things pertaining to the Catholic faith. Devotion to angels, strength of belief in purgatory, and Eucharistic piety took a steep decline, despite the constant affirmations (especially about Eucharistic piety) from Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. Some of these things also happened to be those things eliminated from the Classical Roman Rite when the New Mass was implemented.

This is true but (I would argue) a bit misleading. To unscramble this egg properly, one has to touch on more than just the liturgy since it can be argued that a lot of what we have seen would have happened anyway even if the liturgy remained untouched from what it was in the 1962 Missal. But that is a subject for another time and if Kevin would like to discuss it, he knows how to contact me.

Now to what degree this is the cause is debatable.

Agreed.

But to deny it is even a cause is to I think be blind to reality.

Not necessarily. There were deeper issues involved and the liturgical modifications were if anything pretty minor factors by comparison. Again, if Kevin wants to discuss this in more detail later on, I would gladly oblige him.

My colleague I. Shawn McElhinney is one who tends to favor this view, when he says such things as:

There is this tendency towards viewing the Mass as some kind of verbal theological treatise and feeling that if certain doctrines were more explicit in the rite that the problems of today would be corrected. With this view it is not uncommon to proclaim that a decrease in belief in the Real Presence or in other doctrines are the fault of the Council or of the Revised Missal. Unfortunately, the blame should go squarely on the shoulders of poor catechizing programs and the secular humanism of today which have had devastating effects on the Church. It is there that our focus should be, not the "tilting at windmills" approach where the naïve assumptions are made that if we just reinstate the Tridentine Missal and impose communion by mouth that all problems would subside. No matter how simplistic or complex a liturgy is, there will always be complexities that the text is capable of arousing. With the TM, many of its ambiguities were covered over by the Latin and properly explained through a prudent catechizing program. The PM, because it is predominantly in the vernacular, tends to have its ambiguities more readily noticable.

Those words were written by me over five years ago and I still stand by them in the context they were written in. For readers to assess that, they can read the essay in its entirety HERE.

While elsewhere Shawn has affirmed to this writer that his view is a bit more nuanced than this, I think the sentiment he expresses here is a rather common one in those who give critiques of the traditionalist movement. However, at the same time, I have never heard it seriously argued that the Mass is some sort of verbal theological treatise.

It is an argument that is made by implication Kevin, not one that is explicitly made. And everytime someone argues about the Classical Roman Rite{1} and tries to argue against its replacement with language that bemoans the supposed "reduction" of one doctrine or another in the liturgical text, the argument I noted is logically implied.

In regards to the second one (reinstate these things and the problems will go away) one is reading traditionalist critiques far too simplistically.

It depends on whom we are talking about. I remind my good friend that it is no more possible to define one particular viewpoint on this among the so-called "traditionalists" than it is to define pne particular viewpoint amongst any other group. If Kevin wants to claim that the so-called "traditionalists" should not argue in that fashion then fine but not a few who use that term to describe themselves do precisely that. Others are more nuanced but certainly it is not the "all or nothing" situation that Kevin presents it to be.

Simply judging by the content of the prayers, the Latin mass does more substantially touch upon several factors of the Catholic Faith.

Yes and it also obscures other factors. ALL liturgies do this.

However, the way in which it does this is a bit more subtle, precisely because most people are either not going to understand a theological treatise, or will simply be bored out of their mind in attempting to do so.

The reader is reminded that Kevin will now show the value of proper catechesis in his analysis which proves the very point I have made for many years now...

For example, constantly throughout the Latin Mass one is taught about the intercession of the saints. This is not done by explaining a Biblical basis for such a belief, or how they intercede, but by constantly imploring their intercession.

But the Classical Roman Rite fails to make a clear demarcation between hyperdulia and dulia. Whatever one says about the Revised Roman Missal, it does make this distinction clearly in a few spots.

Also, certain saints are named, as ones which the Roman Rite holds of special prominence. St. Peter and Paul are invoked numerous times throughout the classical liturgy. As the founders of the Roman Church, the first pontiff and “the apostle to the gentiles” the faithful are reminded of the very special and prominent place they hold in Christian thought. Today, they are not mentioned in the Revised Missal, unless the traditional Roman Canon is used. (And realistically speaking, this is maybe 5% of masses if one is lucky.) One goes from hearing about them every Sunday, to never hearing about them at all. Does the person holding the position outlined above mean to tell this writer with a straight face that there is no correlation whatsoever?

If Kevin wants to argue that the Roman Canon should be featured more prominently in its usage, I would not disagree. However, it is also important to remember that the Revised Roman Missal is more than just the mass of the city of Rome (which is what the Missal of Pius V was prior to 1570) but indeed is a universal liturgy. It embraces elements of all streams of the Great Tradition and not just the practices from the Roman dioceses prior to the Council of Trent. Readers who read my essay from which Kevin quoted above will see that I was making this same argument in that writing -albeit in much more detail than I intend to do here.

When the critic states that the fault lies with catechesis, not the liturgy, that position is more telling then they seem to realize. If the problem exists with the catechesis level and not the liturgy, did this problem exist before Vatican II? Everyone agrees this was the case. Then why were catechesis mainly ignored, and so much attention given to changing the liturgy?

The presumption seems to have been that things were generally speaking on a more solid footing than they turned out to actually be. To explain the liturgical changes it helps to remember that the liturgy had been the focus of a lot of critical studies over four centuries (post-Quo Primum) and there were areas which became clearer over time were deficient and needed to be tended to. I do not say "deficient" as if to imply that the liturgical usage was dangerous to souls or any of that garbage; however, there were some points which were not completely correct theologically viz how they were expressed. There was also the recognition of the problems of evangelization in areas of the world where the Classical Roman Rite and the use of Latin was foreign to the understanding of a large percentage of the world's population. Again, I dealt with this subject in the aforementioned essay and recommend giving the essay a read in its entirety to see what one of the motivating factors behind the liturgical reform was.{2}

While catechesis should never be ignored, this starts with the liturgy, and is continued elsewhere for more instruction.

The liturgy is easily misunderstood without proper catechesis.

Catechesis classes not everyone can attend. But Sunday Mass everyone will be at.

I hate to bring this up again but back in the "good old days" probably most people did not understand what was going on during the liturgy. This is one reason why using the liturgy as the first point of catechesis is never a wise idea unless one seeks to do so by implication at best.

When Pius XI wanted Christians to call to mind the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ in an increasingly secularized society, did he call for massive catechesis programs?

I will get to this in a moment.

While he did call for more learning on the subject, the primary way he did this was through the sacred liturgy, as he tells us in Quas Primas:

That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life…. The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent years have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold, the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, so that by means of solemn processions and prayer of eight days' duration, men might be brought once more to render public homage to Christ. So, too, the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was instituted at a time when men were oppressed by the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, which had made their hearts grow cold, and shut them out from the love of God and the hope of salvation.

Of course this was a reference to a new feast day in the calendar which is not (of course) limited only to the liturgy.

The most effective way to reach man is through the liturgy, according to Pius XI.

Pius XI was referring to the institution of feasts in the Church's calendar with the above phrasing. The word "liturgy" or its equivalents was used only four times in the encyclical and on all occasions it spoke of the insertion of the feast into the calendar for celebration on a Sunday during the liturgical year. Furthermore, Pius XI seemed to think the inclusion of this feast in the calendar would accomplish a lot of things and I know I need not remind Kevin that papal opinions are different from papal teaching.{3}

One doesn’t need advanced catechesis to understand the basics that the liturgy should be giving.

It depends on how basic a teaching we are talking about. Even the notion of Christ the King has more to it than meets the eye -as Pius XI noted in devoting an encyclical of moderate length to the subject.

Furthermore, could we not also argue that emphasizing these things briefly in the liturgy will spark man’s interest to attend additional instruction in regards to these things?

Yes we could. Lest there is misunderstanding here, I am hardly saying there is no educational value in the liturgy. My point is that the liturgy is subject to misunderstanding in not a few areas for those who are not properly catechized. And if not for the appearance of denigrating the Classical Roman Rite, I would use it to illustrate this point in spades.{4}

No doubt this is the case. When the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, Eucharistic piety amongst the faithful soared, and learned theologians began to give wonderful developments on the teaching of such an august sacrament.

This is true.

Had they waited for catechesis programs, chances are they would still be waiting today.

It is not an issue of wait[ing] for catechesis programs as much as it is recognizing that the liturgy is not the perspicuous source of education that many presume it is. One can also consider how Pius XI in writing a lengthy encyclical on Christian education four years after Quas Primas devoted less than a sentence to mentioning the liturgy but mentioned other subjects pertaining to education far more frequently in that encyclical letter. The reason of course is that there are many ingredients that go into baking the cake of a solid Catholic education including the liturgy as well as art. But proper catechesis is indispensible if one is to understand the liturgy properly. I do not even see how this point is debatable but (of course) it apparently is in the minds of some people.

For those who likewise caricature traditionalist arguments by saying “you guys just think that if we restore the Latin Mass the problem will be solved” they are guilty of grossly oversimplifying the issue.

It depends on the party in question. Kevin is aware that there are a panopoly of self-styled "traditionalist" views and statements on this matter. With some this is not a caricature at all whereas with others it undoubtedly is.

The fact is, this argument has not been said.

See my previous comments.

What has been said is that either a greater promotion/restoration of the Latin Mass would be an important and prudent step in eliminating some of these problems.

This is probably true. However, it would reintroduce others that previously existed.

Some would be eliminated outright.

See my previous comments.

By restoring the discipline of the priest only distributing communion, the plethora of “Eucharistic ministers” (frowned upon by the Vatican) would vanish overnight.

I for one favour intincture for reasons I have stated more than once over the years. I also favour the re-establishment of the acolyte and the imposition of it only onto married men: something I will gladly explain my reasons for later on.

From there, we can work to what is proper participation on the basis of the faithful. One can agree or disagree with these sentiments. Such straw men serve no purpose in a fruitful discussion however.

I agree with Kevin except for the idea that straw men were introduced into this by me in anything I have written. Hopefully what is noted above amply explains my reasons for this.

Notes:

{1} I do like that terminology a lot better than the Traditional Latin Mass one: far less deceptive and far more exact.

{2} And one I might add which in my experience has rarely if ever been recognized or dealt with by those who claim to be "traditionalists."

{3} What methods are or are not best and most effective are by their very nature normative and therefore largely subjective.

{4} Not that the Revised Missal is free from such things of course: this is germane to all liturgical forms that have existed (or ever will exist).

Biology 101: Human Beings are Not Plants

2006-06-08T16:23:00.000+02:00

Biology 101: Human Beings are Not Plants

One of the arguments made by pro-lifers in the case of Terri Schiavo has once again been proven: so-called "persistent" non-reversible "vegetative" states are not the static, hopeless cases advocates of euthanasia portray. One does not know what treatments may become available and what God may accomplish through them or aside from them for such persons.

In the cases below, supporters of the diagnosis "persistent vegetative state" would have to say that these people went from being plants to being humans to being plants again. This kind of degrading language ("persistent vegetative state") comes straight from the pit of hell, exactly the sort of propaganda used by Nazis to create an image of disposability. It is a grave error to describe any person in terms that diminish his or her humanity in such ways. We need to eradicate the use of the term "vegetative" in conjunction with persons, period.

This is also the sort of "test" used by Peter Singer, of Princeton, to advocate infanticide (killing of infants: see http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp). If a person is not "sentient" (self aware) by Singer's subjective standards, he is not a person, and hence his life may be ended without concern or repercussion. It is all of the same, evil cloth.

We, as Catholics, must stand firmly and courageously with the irrefutable teaching of John Paul II (then Cardinal Wojtyla) in Love and Responsibility, a teaching that may be summed up by a slightly amended version of a famous line written by Dr. Seuss:

A person is a person no matter how small, ill or injured.

The essential dignity and worth of the human person; a composite of both body and spirit, is unalienable because the human person is created in the image and likeness of God. To deny our dignity and worth is to deny the dignity and worth of God.

Let us never weary of defending God's precious gift of life, from conception to natural death.

Michael Forrest

Sleeping pill wakes men in vegetative state

Sarah Boseley, health editor

Tuesday May 23, 2006
The Guardian

A drug commonly used as a sleeping pill appears to have had a miraculous effect on brain-damaged patients who have been in a permanent vegetative state for years, arousing them to the point where some are able to speak to their families, scientists report today.

The dramatic improvement occurs within 20 minutes of taking the drug, Zolpidem, and wears off after around four hours - at which point the patients return to their permanent vegetative state, according to a paper published in the medical journal NeuroRehabilitation. All three patients were men around 30 who had suffered brain damage in car accidents. Patient L had been in a vegetative state for three years, showing no reaction to touch and no response to his family. After he was given the drug, he was able to talk to them. Patient G was also able to interact with family, answer simple questions and catch a baseball. Patient N "was constantly uttering random screams". After he was given the drug, the screaming stopped, and he started watching television and reacting to his family.

Ralf Clauss of the nuclear medicine department of the Royal Surrey County hospital, one of the authors, said that clinical trials were now needed. He said the drug could have uses in all kinds of brain damage, including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's.

Fact of Life: At 3 weeks after conception, an unborn child has a heartbeat.

On Communion

2006-05-29T04:57:00.000+02:00

First off, let me say that I'm stoked to see the ensuing discussions with other fellow traditionalists as regards what constitutes "true" traditionalism. I think that those in our group, as well some outside, have enough objectivity and ability to think for themselves to ensure honest, frank and meaningful discussion about the issues Friends of La Nef hopes to make "non-issues" one day.

What I'd like to do in this post is give some insights from the Holy Father's Encyclical, "God is Love," that I think serve well as the substratum for any meaningful discussion of the issues facing traditionalists.

As I was reading through the Encyclical a couple of weeks ago, I ran across a passage that struck me. In speaking of the Eucharist the Holy Father writes:

... this sacramental "mysticism" is social in character, for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, like all the other communicants. (Deus Caritas Est, 14)
(emphasis mine)

The point I want to make is this: Though much time will be spent talking about the "licitness" of Masses, the subjective state of the adherents to these Masses, etc., if there is one underlying lynchpin to the whole discussion, the above quote says it all. The fact stands that through the Eucharist we become one with other baptized members of His Body, regardless of whether or not we like the person. To commit any kind of injury to another member of the Body will not only damage the other member, but the Body as a whole.

Why I am I bringing this up? As obvious as this all might seem, I think we tend to forget about it. We forget that, subjective motives aside, objectively we are sacramentally united with most of the folks we are going to "butt heads" against. I think keeping this simple but profound truth of sacramental communion in our minds will take us light-years ahead in our ability to treat others with charity as we seek to correct the negativity that has affected us all too closely in our involvement with Traditional Catholicism.

I really don't know that the Holy Father has "sibling rivalry" in mind when he speaks about sacramental communion in the above passage. But, I know that the issue is one close to his heart in virtue of his past post and all that it entailed. I pray that we'll all take to heart his words, which are certainly also his wishes.

God Bless,
Patrick Morris

2003 CIEL Proceedings now in print!

2006-05-23T15:27:00.000+02:00

After some unfortunate delays which couldn't be helped, I am pleased to bring you the following announcement:

The English volume of the Proceedings of the Ninth International CIEL Colloquium held in Paris in November 2003 entitled “Liturgy, Participation and Sacred Music” was launched in London yesterday following the annual CIEL-UK conference and a Pontifical Mass sung in the traditional rite at St James’ Spanish Place by the Bishop of Nottingham, the Right Reverend Malcolm McMahon, OP.

To order your copy contact: Sales@CIEL-UK.org

Price: £13.00

2006-05-23T01:14:00.000+02:00

On Liturgical Issues, the "Superiority" of Certain Liturgies, Etc.:
(With Kevin Tierney)

[Prefatory Note: This posting was originally started in January or so of 2006 at The Lidless Eye Inquisition, completed today, and blogged at that weblog a few minutes ago. Since Kevin posted his article to this humble weblog, it seemed appropriate to post my response here as well. -ISM]

This will be an interaction with part of a series that Kevin Tierney is working on at his website. But before getting to the parts I want to critique, it will be necessary to understand a difference in the manner whereby Kevin and I use certain terms. For example, we have obvious differences in how we approach the term "traditionalist" so briefly outlining those differences seems appropriate at the present time so I will do that starting with Kevin's definition as given in the first part of his series. His words will be in bold font throughout this post.

...I must define what I mean by “traditionalist.” More importantly, I am going to explain what it isn’t, and I won’t be defending.

I will not be including such people as the schismatic Society of St. Pius X as traditionalists here. It is my firm belief that the only way one can be an authentic traditionalist is unity with the Chair of Peter, the source of all ecclesial unity. Nor will I be talking about those who believe that, based on what they view a coherent theory (I for the record do not find it coherent or permissible to hold) that the Popes since Vatican II are not popes. (I.e. sedevacantists.)

On this matter, there is 100% concurrence between Kevin and myself.

Now that this is defined, we must state what a traditionalist is. A traditionalist is one who seeks either the restoration or the promotion of the “Traditional Latin Mass”, the Mass which existed in almost the same form throughout the Roman Rite for over 400 years before the Second Vatican Council. This is the unifying factor. There are many other common characteristics amongst traditionalists, but they are not as central as that of working for the Classical Roman Rite.

This is where Kevin and I part company viz. what we mean by this term. The manner in which I have always understood and utilized this term was explained in a disclaimer added to my first web writing on these subjects. To show the parallels and the divergences in understanding between Kevin and myself on the matter, I will quote it now before getting to the meat of this posting:

In this work you will see the use of terms such as ‘traditionalist’ and 'traditionalism' used oftentimes. As these terms and others like them have been so badly abused by many groups, I wish to quantify my use of them and their derivatives throughout this essay. I am in using the terms ‘traditionalist’ or 'traditionalism' going to usually preface them with qualifiers such as 'self-styled' or 'so-called' to indicate that I am referring to those who fraudulently apply these terms to themselves. In other situations I will simply refer to 'traditionalists' or some derivative in that manner and when I do that the same principle applies. Any and all attempts to refer to people or organizations who appropriate that term for themselves but who can do so honestly will be referred to either as 'Traditionalists' (note the capitalization) or as 'Tridentine Catholics'.

When I refer to 'traditionalists' I am most assuredly NOT speaking of any society or organization that has received the approval of the Roman Pontiff to offer the Old Roman Rite of Mass (aka Tridentine) and receive the sacraments in the norms which they were prevalent from approximately the fifteenth century until 1975. My reference is to those groups which claim to be ‘independent chapels’ or possess ‘independent priests’ and who in schism from the Apostolic See offer the Tridentine Mass illicitly and administer most of the sacraments illicitly (and some of them invalidly). These groups are not in communion with the Catholic Church although many of them lie and claim that they are to deceive the laity. Individually those properly referred to as self-styled 'traditionalists' would be those whom it could be reasonably deduced were formally adherent to these kinds of groups. (Judged based on their actions, attitudes, and of course their words.)...

In the above description, the reader can note a convergence in Kevin's definition and mine. Here is where we differ in our understanding of the term:

...[A]uthentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend, what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse, or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude. It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have the hallowed sanction of time. Nonetheless there are those who have a preference for the older rite of Mass and that in and of itself is of course just fine. The problem lies in how this preference is handled for it can be handled in an authentically Traditional manner or in a false serpentine 'traditionalist' way. This treatise will make the demarcation of these two terms clear for the reader. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' --Part I (circa 2000, rev. 2003)]

As readers can see, there is a significant difference in how Kevin and I apply this term. Essentially, my net is wider if you will because I do not look at the Church as synonymous with the Latin rites as Kevin's definition is. I am sure if pressed, Kevin would adjust it to account for the eastern rites too but once he does that, he has to reconfigure his approach to the term if we take it to its logical conclusion. But that is neither here nor there since this is not a matter of defined dogma or declared doctrine of course. Having noted that, let us move onto the next part of his definition:

Another central factor is their emphasis on tradition, whether ecclesiastical or Apostolic. In far too many circles of today’s Church, we constantly hear what new ideas we need too do, yet never do we hear about those before us.

In this area, Kevin and I agree also. If respect for the Great Tradition means all of its historical manifestations and not just selective slices of the pie (as I believe it does) that would have to include by logical extension the two century plus period prior to the Second Vatican Council too. Now that we have gotten those distinctions out of the way, onto the article itself...

YOU CAN'T SAY THE LATIN MASS IS SUPERIOR!

The source I am taking this text from is located HERE.

As the rallying symbol of traditionalists is the Classical Roman Rite before the Second Vatican Council, it is not surprising that many of the myths about traditionalists are found in this area.

Since I do not concur with part of Kevin's definition of what is and is not a "traditionalist", it should not surprise that I view the liturgical issue in some respects differently than he does.

For example, one very popular Catholic apologist compares even loyal traditionalists to modernist progressives by stating the following:

The liberals/modernists/so-called "progressives" want to de-sacralize the Mass by trivializing it, messing with the language and promoting mediocrity in liturgy, music, and architecture; the fundamentalist/"traditionalists" want to butcher it by denying that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid or vastly inferior to the Tridentine Mass; thus denying indefectibility.

I am confused. Based on the text above the "apologist" being cited appears to say that the so-called "traditionalists" want to butcher the mass by denying that the Novus Ordo (I really hate that term btw) vastly inferior to the Tridentine mass. Unless Kevin mistyped the quote, it seems to me that many who call themselves "traditionalists" assert that very thing if not explicitly than at least by logical inference. Nonetheless, there is an argumentation fallacy in the above statement by attempting to equate a view of the newer liturgical rite being inferior as being a denial of indefectibility. The two do not logically go together at all. Saying that something is free from error does not mean that it is necessarily presented in the best possible way. However, a lot of this is to get into the realm of normative questions and theories which frankly needs to be recognized up front by all parties involved.

While I would agree with him that one cannot say that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid, I must strongly object to the idea that one cannot say the Latin Mass is somehow “vastly superior” without denying the indefectibility of the Church.

As I noted above, this position is correct.

First, we must note the patently obvious. In announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve and the schism of the Society of St. Pius X, John Paul II said the following in Ecclesia Dei:

Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

It is therefore crystal clear that when it comes to the offering of the Classical Roman Rite, when it is performed under the auspices of the Bishop, Rome encourages this. Therefore, faithful Catholics are indeed given a choice between two liturgies. As a result, those faithful Catholics who are so inclined will have to give an examination of the two rites, and ultimately conclude that one is superior to the other for various reasons. Some may even say vastly so.

Provided that they recognize that such speculation is by its very nature generally normative (and thus subjective) certainly.

However, what this apologist does not realize is that the argument cuts both ways. He is forbidden to say that the Novus Ordo Missae is vastly superior to the Classical Roman Rite! Yet would he really want to indict Paul VI, who no doubt believed that the Rite was superior, and vastly so, as he promulgated it and passionately defended the liturgical changes he promulgated? If it’s valid for the Pope to say one is vastly superior to the other, it’s valid for us to say the opposite is.

This is true. As I noted already, these are generally normative issues and thus to a large extent subjective.

Recognizing the claim of the apologist for the utter nonsense that it is, I will now attempt to do precisely what he says I can’t; I’m going to state that the Classical Roman Rite, on the average, is vastly superior to what we currently have, and that I do not think the liturgical reform can be viewed an overall improvement.

Depending on how these positions are approached, I could either agree or disagree with Kevin at least in part. For example, I would agree that the manner in which the Tridentine liturgy is celebrated today is on average better than how the Revised Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI is celebrated. However, at the same time, I would argue (and have) that the liturgical reform on paper and in some parts theologically is a significant improvement in many areas; however, these have often not translated into actual practice yet for various and sundry reasons.{1}

There is something to be said of stability, especially in worship. Stability represents the timelessness of God, and hence the worship of Him is also timeless. It reflects of the transcendent. It is for this reason that the prayers of both liturgies are structured, with many parts of the Mass (known as the Ordinary) never changing, being the same every week.

True.

However, I feel on emphasizing the aspect of transcendence, the Classical Roman Rite far surpasses that of today’s Mass and what is on the books.

In practice this has shown itself to be true today. But when one compares today's liturgies to how the Tridentine liturgy was celebrated in most of the world prior to the Second Vatican Council, the comparison breaks down.

In saying the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has about 40 options of ways he can lawfully say Mass. This varies from parish to parish, as depending on the options one employs; the Masses will not be similar, except for maybe 5-10 minutes out of the entire hour. This can hardly be said to reflect stability.

But of course this is fairly standard throughout most of history. Different dioceses had variations, different religious orders, even sometimes different parishes. The degree to which the variations existed varied of course: something not assisted much by the propaganda of some so-called "traditionalists" like Michael Davies (RIP) and the counter-propaganda of those who take a view opposing his. But to go into that subject would be to get offtrack so we shall return now to Kevin's article.

(1) Whereas with the Classical Roman Rite, it is the same essentially no matter where one goes.

Which was itself a novelty of the post-Trent period -specifically the two hundred years prior to Vatican II.{2} Furthermore, this whole notion is problematical when one takes into account church history. Or to quote from my favourite western academic orientalist on the problem with the outlook Kevin refers to above:

Unfortunately, the overwhelmingly Western character of Catholicism for over 900 years makes it necessary for us to remind ourselves that variety within the Church is not only a fact, but that any other situation would be deplorable. There was a time not so long ago when some sort of proof for the universality of the Church was found in the false belief that, "Wherever a Catholic goes, he will feel at home when he enters a Catholic church because there he will find the familiar Mass celebrated in the common language of the Church." Not only is this untrue, but if it were true, it would be not the glorious thing we might have once imagined, but a chilling commentary on the narrowness we had imposed on the Body which Christ fashioned for all mankind. To impose one Rite on everyone does not render that Rite, or the Church, more universal. It only impoverishes the catholic expression of the Church’s life. [Fr. Robert F. Taft SJ: Excerpt from Eastern-Rite Catholicism - Its Heritage and Vocation]

This is far more proper and Traditional a view of liturgical issues than what Kevin appears to be proposing -and I say appears because I suspect there is more nuance to his position than his article involves at the present time.{3}

The only difference being that on some days, a priest may choose to follow one feast day over the other, and hence different Propers (those prayers which do change weekly) are used. The beginning is the same, the readings are always the same (2), communion is the same, etc.

Other than the part about the "readings are always the same", what Kevin notes in the above paragraph is correct. (I will deal with the readings issue later on.)

So on the issue of liturgical stability, I believe that the Classical Roman Rite far easily trumps the Novus Ordo Missae.

Perhaps so but the operative presupposition in that statement is that somehow a more uniformed liturgical approach is properly speaking "Traditional." History not only does not countenace this but the notion of a liturgical rigidity being more "authentically Traditional" is the exact opposite premise advanced by Counter-reformation Catholic apologetics against our Orthodox brethren. To quote from a points to ponder segment from The Lidless Eye Inquisition weblog (circa June of 2005):

The growing estrangement between East and West was accentuated by the diversity in national character, language, rites, and discipline. Since the time of Justinian the Great, the Eastern church had sunk into a state of stagnation and rigid adherence to the forms and traditions of the past; and because she adhered to them, she looked askance at those who did not; because she was stagnant, she was suspicious of those who moved. If she had been satisfied to hold onto her traditions, all might have been well; but she insisted on imposing them on the west too. Any ritual or disciplinary practices not in harmony with those in vogue in the East, she declared "contrary to the apostolic tradition" and therefore to be abolished. [John Laux: Excerpt from Church History pg. 291 (c. 1930) with Nihil Obstat from J. Scanlan, STD and Imprimatur from Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York (circa May 20, 1930)]

The above depiction was a standard one prior to the Second Vatican Council which Catholic apologists used as a kind of apologetical expedient against the positions of the Orthodox. However, when it came to the Protestants, the exact opposite approach was taken.{4} Consistency however would require (if Kevin is to not be purely arbitrary in his approach here) to recognize the approach taken by the Orthodox in opposition to Catholic liturgical innovations as authentically "Traditional" but this writer suspects he would not do that. Furthermore, what the Catholic apologists criticized in the Orthodox (uniformity of rites, rigidity of adherence to past practices) was then used against the Protestants in a classic case of violating the law of non-contradiction. For reasons I allude to in a footnote below, there seems to be a good reason why the garden variety counter-reformational view espoused against the Protestants is not infrequently taken as the truth by Catholic converts from Protestantism without looking at the broader picture and what it reveals.{5} But enough on that point for now.

Another area in which the Mass shines over its modern form is it emphasizes the distinctive “Catholic features” of our faith. The mass is full of invocations of the saints, prayers for the dead in purgatory (the sacrifice is asked to help remit the sins of the dead on two occasions), and strongly emphasizes repentance from sin. The Novus Ordo Missae not only emphasizes these tenets less, but in some areas, decidedly so.

I will deak with this in a moment.

Explicit devotion to St. Michael the Archangel, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and John the Baptist disappears from the New Mass. As Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome, it is very fitting that the Roman Churches liturgy pays homage to those mention explicitly, giving them special mention apart from the other apostles. Many have had varied reasons for this change, whether it be not wishing to offend our Protestant brethren, or reverting to the second century liturgical practices (when the Church was underground), the change is obvious. I happen to lament this “development”, and I believe even many strong defenders of the Novus Ordo Missae (who view it either superior or vastly superior than the Classical Roman Rite) should agree with me.

I will deal with this in a moment.

The efficacy of the sacrifice for the dead is mentioned only once in the Novus Ordo, and even then only implicitly. (3)

Okay, this seems the appropriate place to deal with this subject in general.{6} And the beauty of past writings is that I can do that without reinventing the wheel by quoting from my essay Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' where I interacted with an essay by Cardinal Alfons Stickler circa three years ago (TM and PM are references to the two liturgies in question here with TM being a reference to the Tridentine ritual):

[It] seems that the Cardinal is falling into a trap not at all uncommon to those who prefer the TM - even among the ones who are faithful to Rome: the misguided belief that Catholicity means uniformity.

There is this tendency towards viewing the Mass as some kind of verbal theological treatise and feeling that if certain doctrines were more explicit in the rite that the problems of today would be corrected. With this view it is not uncommon to proclaim that a decrease in belief in the Real Presence or in other doctrines are the fault of the Council or of the Revised Missal. Unfortunately, the blame should go squarely on the shoulders of poor catechizing programs and the secular humanism of today which have had devastating effects on the Church. It is there that our focus should be, not the "tilting at windmills" approach where the naïve assumptions are made that if we just reinstate the Tridentine Missal and impose communion by mouth that all problems would subside. No matter how simplistic or complex a liturgy is, there will always be complexities that the text is capable of arousing. With the TM, many of its ambiguities were covered over by the Latin and properly explained through a prudent catechizing program. The PM, because it is predominantly in the vernacular, tends to have its ambiguities more readily noticable. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' (circa March 4, 2001)]

Objectively, it is not the promoting of any liturgy apart from proper catechizing as if it is the solution to the problem. Indeed, Pope Pius V in 1566 (four years prior to the promulgation of his Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum) issued a papal brief authorizing the printing of a catechism called for by the Council of Trent. And popes subsequent to that time and despite the usage of the Missal revised by Pope Pius V nonetheless bemoaned at times the lack of catechesis amongst the faithful. And considering that there are several ambiguities in the older liturgy which are obvious when that text is approached at face value,{7} all this does is sustain the very assertion I am making here about the importance of catechesis and how the kind of arguing that Kevin is making above is problematical to his position.{8} Moving on...

As far as the issue of sin, many say that it was emphasized far too much during the Mass of the classical Roman Rite. I disagree, in that before our reception of the Eucharist, one cannot focus on our sins enough.

As with anything, a proper balance is required. Kevin's statement about "[not] focus[ing] on our sins enough" encapsulates the germ of the heresy of Jansenism.{9}

(It is after the reception of the Eucharist we should be in a mood of profound rejoicing.)

True.

In the area where one confesses their sins, it is only optional to emphasize one’s personal responsibility.

Okay, Kevin makes a good point about the subject of introductory options. The original reason for that was to provide for shorter masses on weekdays but the shorter options are often used today on Sundays and Holy Days where they were never intended to be used.

However, what he does not seem to realize is that there was a serious imbalance in all the ad nausium repetitions on the subject of sin. Or as my good friend Dr. Art Sippo once noted on with regards to a theological virtue that for a long time was not handled in a balanced fashion:

One thing I have to agree with the 16th Century Reformers on is that we need to encourage our Catholic people to be more confident of their salvation and God's good will towards them. The problem with some Catholic spirituality is that after a whole life of piety, it makes it seem like a crap shoot as to our final destination.

Any adult Catholic who has practiced the faith, kept the laws of the Church, made regular use of the sacraments and who dies with the full benefit of the Church's rites is virtually guaranteed to go to Heaven. Such a person does not need to be perfect. After all, Jesus came to help sinners, not the righteous. When we deny ourselves of the confidence that the means of grace gives to us, we do ourselves a disservice and we fail to avail ourselves of the theological virtue of Hope. [Dr. Art Sippo: Excerpt from His Article Catholic Soteriology (circa 2001-2)]

What Kevin sees as a "lessening" in this area could be viewed as an attempt to restore balance...the extent to which this was successful is (of course) a matter of legitimate debate.

(4) Gone is Psalm 42, which was also chanted by the Jews during the time of the offering of the sacrifice for sin.

And in its place was the restoration of the traditional Responsorial Psalm which varies from mass to mass. One of the intentions of the liturgical revisions was to restore the liturgy to "the pristine norm of the holy Fathers" and a liturgical addition in the eleventh century{10} would not generally be viewed as achieving that purpose.

The prayers Suscipe, Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi, Domine were changed radically, and in that change removed the references to sin and clemency, rather focusing on the bread and wine presented before God, not the reason for that offering.

It is debatable if this is reflected in the underlying Latin text or a product of mistranslation.

Others could be listed but I think one gets the point. When it comes to stressing the reality of sin, it is my contention that those of yesteryear, even if to a fault, definetly gave it better coverage than we see today.

The question remains if they did so to the detriment of certain other teachings which are supposed to be emphasized along with the teaching on sin....see what was noted above about the theological virtue of hope for one example.

So I’ve stated why I believe the Novus Ordo to be inferior, and why I believe in many instances vastly so.

Again, generally speaking Kevin has approached this from a normative standpoint which is subjective.

Now the question, am I within acceptable Catholic parameters by stating so? The answer is yes, for numerous reasons.

He is within his rights to believe that certainly.

1.) I nowhere state that the Novus Ordo denies the things I mentioned above. I do believe the emphasis was wrongly lessened, but that simply is a question of degree, not of kind.

Ok.

2.) I do not believe much of what we see today in the liturgy is what the Council Fathers of Vatican II had in mind.

The same could be said about the revisions to the missal under Pius V: that the final product may not have been what the Council Fathers (of Trent) had in mind either. Either way though, what happened happened and whatever any grouping of Council Fathers (be they the Fathers of Trent or the Fathers of Vatican II) had in mind is not really germane to this issue.

Indeed, when told that after Vatican II the Mass would be completely in the vernacular by a Bishop who was concerned about introducing the vernacular into Mass, the Bishops laughed at their brother Bishop. Within 20 years of him being laughed at, he was proven right.

Perhaps so but there was also lay approval of the vernacular far beyond what the Fathers expected. So much so that bishops began petitioning the Apostolic See for use of the vernacular and the application of the vernacular expanded probably significantly beyond what was originally envisioned.{12}

3.) Organizations such as Adoremus, while their criticisms might not be as strong as the one I outlined, are similar in kind, and hence they advocate a “reform of the reform”, which admits that the first reform was either botched or done in a fashion that was not as good as originally anticipated. (One should charitably favor the second idea.) Very few people would accuse men like Fr. Fessio of denying the indefectibility of the Church.

True.

In the end, while many of these people might mean well, by stating the claim that we cannot assert something is vastly superior, all they are doing is stifling what is a necessary debate on the liturgical reform.

Agreed.

As faithful Catholics have been given a choice in which Mass to attend lawfully, let the discussions be conducted in charity. If anything, people can learn from each other. Many times those who seek to reform the Novus Ordo Missae listen to the criticisms of traditionalists, and attempt to incorporate them into their plans for reforms. Likewise traditionalists listen to the concerns of those who attend the New Mass, and attempt to incorporate their concerns into making the Mass they celebrate better. Far from denying it’s indefectibility, in the end the Churches indefectibility can be emphasized even more.<

Well said.

Notes:

1.) Elsewhere I have argued that the way to get around this problem would be to make the permissible options only permissible on the diocesan level, where the Bishop sets the options used, and every parish must follow that option.

This is a reasonable idea and eminently traditional actually. The Bishop of the Dioceses is supposed to have some role in liturgical regulation after all.

2.) I mean the readings are the same in the following manner. Numerous times in the Lectionary of the Novus Ordo Missae (the readings of Scripture), the reader, at his own choice, may choose to omit certain parts of the passage lawfully. Normally brackets are included around the words he has the option to ignore/omit. In the Classical Roman Rite this is not so.

I do agree that the bracketing idea was better in the abstract than it has at times shown to be in reality; ergo, I am in favour of requiring the whole text to be read unless there is a significant reason not to.

3.) One could view this just as easily the prayers of the faithful are just as important if not more important than Christ’s sacrifice for the dead.

I disagree.

However, our prayers are only efficacious because of Christ’s sacrifice. The Classical Roman Rite leaves nothing to chance, since it says “Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.” While one could perhaps question the placing of this prayer, it explicitly references one of the effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass is for those souls in purgatory.

I promised I would not go into one of the objective theological problems with the older liturgical form; ergo I will not comment on the "offertory" prayer Kevin refers to above since they would encompass part of the aforementioned objections.

4.) I am also of the opinion that if this was made the one true option, this would be called an improvement over the Classical Roman Rite, as it talks about sins of omission and commission (in what I have done and what I have failed to do), something that the Older Rite did not emphasize clearly I believe.

I appear to be missing something since Kevin refers above to the confiteor whereas the footnote appears to refer instead to Psalm xlii. If I am wrong about this and I may well be--this wording will be changed to reflect what he is referring to at that point of the writing.

Notes:

{1} I have argued this point before to the silence of the Tridentine promoting gallery and do not intend to repeat myself here. Oh and to anticipate one possible objection to this point, this is not contrary to what I said about this issue being "generally normative" since what I am denoting here is an exception to the rule (and the exceptions I have in mind here are quite few and specific).

{2} Yes, I am aware that Quo Primum was promulgated four centuries prior to Vatican II but there was not liturgical uniformity for some time afterward. And though hardly the only place where this was a problem, it was nonetheless particularly acure in France where the decrees of Trent took about a century to be implemented and the post-council papal liturgical reforms longer still.

{3} One of the strengths of Kevin's writing style is its general brevity -and yes, before anyone snidely notes it in the comments boxes brevity is an area of weakness in my writing style admittedly. (Though I have improved in this area considerably over the years.) Nonetheless, a strength in my expository approach is greater nuance and precision which is difficult to achieve with more economical writing approaches.

{4} Perhaps one of the reasons why a significant number of those who prefer the Tridentine liturgy amongst Catholics are converts is this reason: they bought into the apologetical casting of the "uniformity" of the Catholic view vs. the "divergent", "contradictory", or otherwise "anarchic" traits common to the overall view of things expressed by various Protestant communities and theologies.

{5} See footnote four.

{6} More could be noted than this but for lack of time on my part.

{7} It is only for the sake of not wanting to make this posting longer than it already is (as well as time constraints) that I do not delve into these issues yet again at this time.

{8} The sacred liturgy...does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. [Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei (circa November 20, 1947)]

{9} This in no way whatsoever is an accusation of heresy either directly or proximately on the part of Kevin so readers are kindly asked to not waste my time, Kevin's time, or comments box space trying to make that connection.

{10} Before the Introit the Psalm "Judica me," the "Confiteor," the versicles "Aufer a nobis," the "Oramus te, Domine," were added; and, in Solemn Masses, the censing of the altar.

Psalm xlii. is indicated in the ancient Missals as a preparation for Mass since the eleventh century. It is well chosen for such an office; and the anthem "Introibo ad altare Dei," taken from the text of the Psalm, emphasizes, as is intended, the principal verse which usually determines the use of a Psalm.

The Confession of Sins before Mass is mentioned in the "Didache," and other ancient liturgical books. It is an apostolic practice. The formula here employed was the "Confiteor," in the form which prevailed from the tenth- eleventh centuries, and which had been used ever since, though with numerous variations. [Rt. Rev. Dom fernand Cabrol: From The Mass of the Western Rites from Ch. IX (circa 1934)]

{12} I am not about to go into the subject of whether or not this was a good thing: a subject which is by its own nature far too normative anyway.

Popular Traditionalist Myths

2006-05-11T08:19:00.000+02:00

Over the past year or so this humble journalist attempted to do what could be called “cleaning house” in the traditionalist movement. Along with several other loyal traditionalists, we began turning the guns on a lot of what we saw as negative problems within the traditionalist movement. Many viewed this as “selling out” and no long being a traditionalist. However, reports of my death were greatly exaggerated. What will follow in coming installments is an examination of popular misunderstandings (or in some cases blatant misrepresentations) about traditionalists. However, before we do so, I must define what I mean by “traditionalist.” More importantly, I am going to explain what it isn’t, and I won’t be defending.

I will not be including such people as the schismatic Society of St. Pius X as traditionalists here. It is my firm belief that the only way one can be an authentic traditionalist is unity with the Chair of Peter, the source of all ecclesial unity. Nor will I be talking about those who believe that, based on what they view a coherent theory (I for the record do not find it coherent or permissible to hold) that the Popes since Vatican II are not popes. (I.e. sedevacantists.)

Now that this is defined, we must state what a traditionalist is. A traditionalist is one who seeks either the restoration or the promotion of the “Traditional Latin Mass”, the Mass which existed in almost the same form throughout the Roman Rite for over 400 years before the Second Vatican Council. This is the unifying factor. There are many other common characteristics amongst traditionalists, but they are not as central as that of working for the Classical Roman Rite.

Another central factor is their emphasis on tradition, whether ecclesiastical or Apostolic. In far too many circles of today’s Church, we constantly hear what new ideas we need too do, yet never do we hear about those before us. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes could be said to represent the concerns of traditionalists in this area perfectly:

All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing. What is it that hath been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end. (Eccl 1:8-11)

All too often today we hear people labor about for the past 40 years of how the Church “needs to speak to modern man.” While there is nothing wrong with this necessarily, we must also remember that the Church speaks to all ages. When the Church teaches, her teachings are not contingent upon a certain age, but are for all. The trick is to speak to men of all ages, but at the same time to men of this age.

It is in this aspect that I believe the traditionalist movement has been and will continue to be of great importance in the Church. As the Church begins to show how the “new ways” of speaking can be reconciled with the past, in many ways it was through the participation of traditionalists who knew of the things of the past. (Take for example Dom Basile Valuet of Le Barroux monastery whose work on the declaration on religious liberty is viewed as an essential explanation for what the mind of the Church is on this issue.) In this respect, traditionalists are not opposed to change, but we also want to make sure the change has reasons behind it, and that it can be reconciled with the past. As such it is a necessary school of thought within the Church, and essential for any talk about reform.

While not an essential unifying factor, traditionalists normally also favor what could be called “The Imperial Papacy.” It is generally accepted that the papacy is best when it is strongest, providing clear leadership and setting the tone, rather than relying on his brother bishops to set the tone. Here, it must be noted that this debate is far from settled in Church history, or now. Different circumstances have seen different applications. Saints like Irenaeus of Lyons, Pope St. Clement of Rome, St. Gregory the Great, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V and numerous historians such as Frs. Chapman and Rivington of the time surrounding the First Vatican Council could be said to hold to a view of a very strong papacy. Meanwhile, on the other side of the debate, Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Sts. Cyprian, Polycarp, and Chrysostom, and much of the Church following Vatican II tended to emphasize a far more localized notion of Church governance, where the Bishops took a lot of the initiative and leadership, with the Pope intervening only when necessary. (In showing the diversity within traditionalist thought for example, this humble journalist tends for the most part to favor the latter view.) Whatever view is taken, it is a papacy that clearly is a leader when situations warrant it.

While numerous other unifying factors could be considered, I believe these are the more important ones. Having defined the issue, in future installments we will go into the issue of popular myths that exist about traditionalists.

Math Anxiety

2006-05-11T03:38:00.000+02:00

I got this little email yesterday and it made me laugh. I figured I would share it seeing as that we're on a little liberal vs. conservative social commentary kick.

God Bless,
-Patrick

Yesterday I purchased double, non fat, decaf, extra hot latte at
Starbucks for $4.58.

The counter girl took my $5.00 & 8 cents. She stood there, holding the nickel & 3 pennies. While looking at the screen on her register, I sensed her discomfort & tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help.

While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and began to cry.

Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

Teaching Math In 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math In 1970:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

Teaching Math In 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math In 1990: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish, inconsiderate & cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living?

Topic for class participation after answering the question:
How did the birds & squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)

Teaching Math In 2006:
Un ranchero vende una carretera de Madera Para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?

*sigh...*

2006-05-05T01:51:00.000+02:00

On the History of Beer:

As I close in on my pre-summer weight loss goal, I find myself again thinking of beer...something I have not consumed any of since my trip to California back in mid-January. Anyway, with that in mind, the following is a history written by someone else. And though I obviously take issue with some of what they say{1}; nonetheless, this chronicling is hilarious and I felt like blogging it so here goes...

---- For centuries humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of the wheel and the invention of beer. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement." Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and the concept of democratic voting to
decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish, but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, Air Force pilots, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide how to redistribute the production. Liberals believe Europeans
are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in later, after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history and anthropology:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately.

This thread was originally posted to Rerum Novarum on April 24, 2006. -ISM]

Note:

{1} Particularly the notion that conservatives drink domestic beer and that beer should be drunk out of a can. I explain the correct understanding of these notions (and other beer-related ones) HERE and am not about to reiterate them anew at this time.

When Money And "Stuff" Come Before Family

2006-05-02T20:15:00.000+02:00

When Money and "Stuff" Come Before Family

This is a follow up to the piece I posted below: The Culture of Selishness Must Die

While this is specifically about Britain, the same patterns are clear enough in the rest of the West as well...

Michael

From the BBC:

Britons 'put fun before babies'

Britain's falling birth rate is being fuelled by a generation who would rather have fun and live comfortably than have children. The poll of 1,006 adults for the Guardian also suggested potential parents were forced to delay family life by career pressures.
Half of the adults quizzed said they found it increasingly difficult to find someone to have a family with.

It comes as French research suggests men's fertility fades after 40.
The data is absolutely clear that once women get to 35 their chances of conceiving fall dramatically. Allan Pacey British Fertility Society IVF experts looked at conception rates in nearly 2,000 couples at fertility clinics across France. They found a woman under 30 was 25% less likely to conceive if her partner was 40 or older than if he was of a similar age.
Writing in the journal Fertility and Sterility, they concluded that men's fertility declines after the age of 40, just as women's fertility does after 35.

The Guardian poll suggested that those quizzed were aware of women's declining fertility, but that they had to balance financial and work pressures against this.
However, most men (64%) and most women (51%) said it was more important for women to enjoy themselves than have children. A majority also said they believed doing well at work and earning money can count for more than bringing up children.

HAVE YOUR SAY

Children teach you something that no other life experience can Sally, Exeter
And only around a third of women believe people put children ahead of their careers.
When asked why the birth rate in Britain was low, people pointed to the cost of living and difficulty of combining work and family life. Among both men and women, two thirds say career pressures make it harder to bring up children.

While more than half said the cost of child rearing was a deterrent. Some 48% of people also blamed other social pressures such as less couples staying together than in the past.
While 37% thought that many people now leave it too late and miss the chance to have children.

Warnings

Fertility experts have repeatedly warned women not to wait until their fertility declines to have children. But over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and the average age of mothers is continuing to rise. Some experts claim infertility will double across Europe within the next decade.

A spokeswoman for the Family Planning Association said things had changed both for women and men, with more choices and opportunities open to both. "There are more things you can do in life, such as going off travelling and going to university. "But it's actually quite a responsible thing to do, to wait until you are financially secure before having a family so that you can provide for your children."

Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society and senior lecturer in Andrology at the University of Sheffield, said life was all about having fun and fertility experts did not want to spoil that, but he added that it was impossible to escape biology.
He said: "The data is absolutely clear that once women get to 35 their chances of conceiving fall dramatically. IVF doesn't necessarily work.

"There is also mounting evidence that men should be worried as well as this French research shows that when men go over 40 they are about half as fertile as men aged about 25."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4964396.stm

Published: 2006/05/02 11:37:56 GMT

The Marian Model, Part II

2006-04-19T01:49:00.000+02:00

In a previous column it was proposed using “The Marian Model” to discuss how a wife was to act in a marriage. I would like to continue that today and in future columns, by listing events from the Blessed Mother’s life, and how I believe they could apply under marriage.

First and foremost, one should look at the Annunciation, when the archangel Gabriel visited Mary and announced that she would conceive and give birth to the anointed one of Israel, the Messiah. When this series first began, one could remember it was discussed that the primary purpose of marriage was to glorify God, as is the purpose of everything in life. It means not just accepting the calling God gives us, but embracing it, knowing that this calling is how God will be best glorified. Certainly Mary had to understand that being the Mother of the Messiah would ultimately be a dangerous calling, and a very difficult one. It was not simply enough for her to accept the calling, which she did by stating “behold the handmaid of the Lord.” She embraced such a calling with the beautiful prayer the Magnifcat:

My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

One would do well to remember that this incident came right after being called blessed by Elizabeth. Rather than accepting the blessing towards herself, she directs that blessing towards God. The great role that had been bestowed upon her, she recognized that this role was for the service of God and nothing else. She is called blessed only because “he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid.” Just like her son, Mary viewed her very purpose for existence as giving God all the glory.

While it’s obvious such a principle would not exist in a secular concept of marriage, it is not excusable that such a principle seems absent from so many in the Church as well. Around me I always hear from people when it comes to relationships “what the person does good for me” or “what we have in common” whenever I ask why that person is good for them. Of course these things are important. Yet these things do not make a relationship within the Church. The relationship is centered upon God. Each spouse at times will have to do things that they get very little pleasure out of. What mother or father takes pleasure in changing a diaper? Everything the husband and wife have in common will make little difference in some situations, where it takes more than similarities to keep a bond united.

I submit it is through Mary’s fiat and the Annunciation that all can receive an insight into how to act in relationships, especially women, who are obviously going to identify with Mary more. In future columns other events from Mary’s life will be considered.

2006-04-05T20:47:00.000+02:00

On Egaliterianism in the Church:

This is a response to parts of a thread Kevin posted to this humble weblog back in February. His words will be in fire coloured font.

A very successful tactic of egalitarians in the Church was to hijack otherwise fine phrases and suit them to their agenda. Collegiality, which was meant to express the relationship between the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops (and the balance that is struck, so that the Bishop of Rome is not the popular caricature of some irresistible despot who makes every decision himself) has been perverted into the idea that not only can the Roman Pontiff not act individually on issues, neither can local Bishops, who are told to be “collegial” and go along with what other Bishops say. It is not enough for each to be recognized as a Bishop, some having different responsibilities and purpose. We must do away with the idea that Bishops are difference in any sense, all have equal authority (as in the Bishop of Rome is no more powerful than the Bishop of Detroit). Their next plan would be essentially to do away with any such distinctions, destroying the hierarchical nature of the Church.

Yes, there is a problem here with the understanding of collegiality, particularly when it is applied to bishop's conferences which is a misappropriation completely. Collegiality is a doctrine of the church and is rooted in what is of the church by divine institution. Thus, the totality of the episcopate in union with the pope is properly seen as "collegial" and is manifested most clearly at ecumenical councils. However, at provisional synods, it can also be represented if the synod's doctrinal judgments are given at least a tacit approval by the pope.

Ecumenical councils originated in the mind of emperors but the church chose to appropriate them as a useful means of defining doctrine and suppressing errors. Strictly speaking, they are simply more solemn gatherings of bishops than plenary synods the latter of which has Scriptural warrant (see Acts xv). But ecumenical councils are not of divine institution even though they are always in some sense magisterial. By contrast, bishop's conferences are also not of divine institution but they are also generally speaking not magisterial in any proper sense of the term. For that reason, the doctrine of collegiality (which implies a magisterial voice) cannot be applied to bishop's conferences as many are wont to do. Or as I noted in a commentary on certain parts of the code of canon law back in April of 2003:

It is important to note though that in order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops to constitute authentic magisterium "they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote" (Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos). Further still "[n]o body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium". (ibid.) Finally, "the Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it". (ibid.) Just as the pope cannot delegate his charism of infallibility to anyone, the conferences cannot delegate its magisterium to commissions or other legislative bodies. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2003)]

In other words, the pope's role in any authentically collegial action is required whereas the pope is not required to act with the consent of the college of bishops. Or as the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium noted in section 22 in defining the doctrine of collegiality of the episcopate:

[T]he college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §22 (circa November 21, 1964)]

This is why those who would whine about the pope electing to do certain things himself as not being "in the spirit of Vatican II" only show that they have no idea what they are talking about and need not to be taken seriously. This is in some sense related to the whol;e egalitarian question (since collegiality is often misappropriated to defend an egalitarian approach); ergo, I touched on it here in the context of this response.

A second issue where egalitarianism is all the rage is in liturgical studies. Here as well they have perverted words. Taking the word ‘presider’ (a term used by such Church Fathers as Justin Martyr to describe the priest who offers the Sacrifice of the Mass) to mean that the priest simply “presides” over the congregation, there is no difference in authority between the average priest and the layman.

That is a perversion of the term certainly.{1}

To add to this fact, it is becoming the increasing trend for the priest’s responsibilities to decline during Mass, the lay faithful doing more. This includes the reading of Scripture, the handing out of communion, the setting up for Mass, etc. Increasingly during each Mass, the priest is always surrounded by the lay faithful, just with more elaborate garments.

We do need to be careful here and not confuse what others can do with what they should do. For with the suppression of the minor orders, a lot of what the minor orders used to be allowed to do has passed onto the lay faithful. There is nothing wrong with this provided that it is kept in proper balance. Certainly nothing Kevin notes above is in and of itself problematical.

Heck, I used to set up for mass when I served the altar with the sspx and/or served as sacristan. Obviously more could be noted than what Kevin does but it suffices to say that this is an area where things can be carried too far.

It was not enough to say that the priest was a sinner just like we were (indeed why he faced the same direction as the congregation during Mass, one of those reasons at least) and that he had rights as a Catholic just like we do, but those rights must include he has no different purpose than the lay faithful.

We must be careful to not confuse the priest's sacramental functions with various liturgical roles. Believe it or not, the idea that the priest was to do everything at mass was nearly as imbalanced as the idea that the laity can do anything the priest can do. However, there are certain roles and functions that only the priest can perform and these need to be emphasized so that there is no confusion involved.

Since just about anyone can “preside”, the priest is there not because of his sacramental powers conferred upon him at ordination to offer sacrifice; the priest is simply our representative before God at Mass.

We should be careful to not presume that certain liturgical functions being done by lay people somehow implies this because that is begging the question. Is it possible that some of those who are involved in various functions take the view that Kevin notes above??? Sure it is but abuses should never be used in and of themselves to disprove a principle. Otherwise, we open up a whole can of worms which is best left closed if you know what I mean.

There seems to be no justification for altar service being permitted to females other than "well boys do it, so girls must be allowed to do this as well; otherwise we are subjecting girls to discrimination."

I disagree, justification could be made (for those who want to make it) that since the altar server role is by logical extension a sacramental, that for that reason girls need not be excluded from the role.

Yet most parents would not as soon dress their little boys up in dresses because "since girls wear them as well, boys must."

Nice retort :)

Furthermore, since as a Catholic they admit that women cannot be priests, then according to their logic, Rome is indeed discriminating by not allowing women to be priests.

I fail to see where this "logic" comes from or even that it is the logical progression from the idea of female altar servers in a church where there cannot be women admitted to the sacrament of Order.{2} Readers are asked to not infer from the above statements that I necessarily support altar girls...only that we need to be careful to not caricature the positions of those who do as my good friend Kevin (with all due respect and I would argue unintentionally) does above.

Notes:

{1} The Orthodox historian Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff explained the meaning of that term in the context of the subject of papal primacy in this fashion:

We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages...The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...

[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord...[Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff: The Primacy of Peter Ch. 4, pgs. 125-126 (c. 1992) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's Essay The Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Primacy (c. 2001)]

By corollary extension, if the term "president" and "presider" refers to the one who sits in the first chair and is the leader of a church (i.e. the bishop) then the priest who is the vicar of the bishop cannot be seen as merely one among equals in the eucharistic assembly. Instead, the priest heads up the assembly in the absence of the bishop and there is a marked distinction in authority between the priest and everyone else present.

{2} Bishops and deacons by logical extension due to the barring of women from the priesthood: the latter prohibition would seem to me to at least imply a barring from the sacrament of Order in all of its grades and not just the priesthood.

The Marian Model

2006-04-05T20:23:00.000+02:00

Given our culture’s severe misunderstanding of marriage (including, especially Catholic circles) in attempting to discuss marriage, I have covered many issues that may be considered tangential, but which I view the building blocks of any discussion. When discussing the man’s responsibilities towards marriage, it was essential to discuss the nature of authority, and the love which is required for that authority to function properly. I will attempt to do the same when focusing on woman.

We know from Ephesians 5 that the woman in a marriage represents the Church, just as the husband represents Christ. This always struck me as peculiar when I read Ephesians 5. For the husband there is a very personal representation that is the analogy has two persons, man and Christ. The woman on the other hand is compared to what is known in our minds as an object. Now while modern philosophers within the Church do in their writings speak of the Church as a person (and in a sense classical theology would understand this since the Church is the body of Christ), I’d like to take a different route. In a certain sense, we could describe the woman in relation to Mary.

Now before we start, a few things need to be explicitly understood. First and foremost, we are speaking in an analogical sense. We are not speaking in a literal sense, that Christ and Mary are married. Yet as Mary was, forgive the cliché and bad pun, “the perfect woman”, if we want to understand how a woman is to act, should we not look to our Blessed Mother?

However, the appropriateness of using the Blessed Virgin in this analogy not only corresponds with her being woman, but in relation to the Church as well. The Second Vatican Council recognized this insight. They devoted a lengthy section of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium to this relationship. I will only quote a few passages, but I recommend everyone, I don’t care who you are to read this section.

By reason of the gift and role of divine maternity, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with His singular graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united with the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in that of God's messenger. The Son whom she brought forth is He whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, namely the faithful, in whose birth and education she cooperates with a maternal love.

As one can see, there is ample reason to consider Mary for this discussion. Numerous virtues are mentioned that both the Church and the Bless Mother posses. If the wife is to be the model of the Church, one would need to consider these virtues as well. In future columns we will do just that. There is however one more way I’d like to consider this comparison, primarily by referencing a popular Marian devotion, which is to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

When one is a young bachelor such as this humble journalist, one is going to eventually end up discussing the marriage issue amongst friends, particularly those of the female persuasion. Even in Catholic circles, my constant reference to Ephesians 5 and the issue of subjection tends to draw quite a bit of anger from the females; however they rarely seem to understand it. So often I hear “there is no way I am going to be subject to a husband, I will never be in a marriage where he has 100% authority and I just do whatever he says.” While it is understandable the world sees the Catholic concept of marriage as this (failing to understand the mystical elements), it is far less forgivable that Catholics see it in this sense as well. We seem to underestimate just how devastating feminism has been in the Church today. We think like egalitarians. We think equality in dignity means equality in everything else. If man has authority in one aspect, he must have authority in domination in every aspect. It’s an all or nothing game for some today. There’s just one problem with this concept. It is as far from Catholicism as night is from day. In his landmark encyclical (and required reading for any study of marriage or the mystical union of man and woman before anything else) Casti Conubii Pope Pius XI, in developing the thought of Leo XIII (who wrote what could be viewed as the groundbreaking work on Christian Marriage Arcanum), had the following to say about the issue of “subjection” in Ephesians 5:

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

One could say that while the man clearly has authority in the household, there is indeed “the sphere of the woman.” Women by nature are far better at matters of the heart than us men. Whenever the child needs discipline, they are sent to the father. Whenever it is something deeply personal, that requires great care and love to talk about, the father is the last person that child dare approaches. We don’t handle these matters well, but the mother most certainly does. It could be said that in matters of the heart, the woman reigns supreme. It is her guiding influence in manners of the heart that keep the marriage along a safe course, and it could be said it is the principles of love and the heart which keep the head of the household in the right direction so that he may lead.

It is here the Heart of Mary may be reflected upon. Not tainted by original sin as the hearts of everyone else, Mary’s heart could indeed be viewed a heart of perfect love. That love manifests itself in two ways, in regards to Christ and in regards to the Church. Whenever a Catholic asks the intercession of the Mother of God, it can be said to be the classical principle of going “to Christ, through Mary.” Mary leads us always to her Son. She never uses her love for her own sake, for her own glory. That is the antithesis of love. Love has no room for narcissism. It always to someone else. It could also be said to function for the benefit of the Church as well. In all the Marian apparitions, whatever one thinks of them, it is always something similar that Mary appears to draw people to the Church. As a result, what logic and clever argument could not do, a Mother’s love would do in causing numerous conversions to the Church.

In what specific ways did the Heart of Mary act, and how can this relate to the issue of the action of women in marriage? Future installments will ponder this very relevant question.

Culture of Selfishness Must Die

2006-03-27T19:54:00.000+02:00

The Culture of Selfishness Must Die

The Culture of Selfishness Must Die By Michael Forrest The following articles by the BBC are amazingly candid. And they are also amazingly blind to the essence of the problem Western Society faces. America can look to Europe to see our potential future. There is no problem with Capitalism that a good dose of traditional Catholic morality cannot solve. Capitalism produces wealth like no other economic system. But it is a mirror of the values of the society that employs it. When we come to see wealth as an end in and of itself, we become idolaters. And this is the inherent problem with Capitalism: the wealth it creates tends to suck human beings into the delusional belief that they are so secure that there is no need of God. And the drive to please oneself becomes paramount. We become obsessed with possessions and money. This in turn leads to another self-defeating result: a devaluation of human life itself. The human person himself is increasingly seen as having subjective dignity and value while material possessions and accomplishments pursued by man are perceived as having the objective value. The order of existence has thus been turned on its head. Ironically, as we are seeing more and more, this disordered, selfish drive will eventually undermine the false security and satisfaction we pursue. Such excess wealth produces satiation, which tends to induce laziness and feelings of purposelessness. This loss of a sense of purpose leads to a whole host of maladies, not least of which are addictions (drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, shopping, etc.). Purposeless humans tend to pursue whatever will give them a rush to even momentarily escape the quiet desperation of their lives. And not surprisingly, this also stunts and kills our spiritual instinct: it would seem Jesus knew what he was talking about after all when he wrote that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. We're going to overrun the planet with too many humans! The way to family and societal prosperity is to have fewer children! …. Maybe not, after all? Motherhood: the greatest and oldest vocation of women.....still under attack. Family: the greatest and oldest societal unit....still under attack. The Culture of Selfishness, Death marches on and the effects are finally starting to be felt by at least some who are sleepwalking over the cliff. And so, what is the answer? Christ, as always! Mary, as always! If The West does not finally realize that charity begins at home, i.e. with children, we are doomed. And if we do not realize that our great wealth provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to evangelize the rest of the world through greater directed, prudent, charitable giving we will have sinned greatly, indeed. (Matt 25:24-30) We have an opportunity to show the rest of the world that material wealth alone will not satisfy them. We have an opportunity to affirm the value and dignity of the human person by spreading the love of Christ to the rest of the world and hopefully, lead them to do likewise to others. The choice is ours, but the clock is ticking...... BBC articles with my notes interspersed throughout: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm BBC NEWS: The EU's baby blues EU states are trying to understand why the birth rate is falling - and if anything can be done to stem the decline. All this week, the BBC News website is asking women in various countries how they feel about being asked to have more babies, and how easy or difficult it is to combine motherhood and work. Here, the BBC News website's Clare Murphy asks why governments are so concerned about the size of their populations. William The Conqueror was counting people nearly 1,000 years ago, and his European descendants are still at it. Small, today's politicians contend, isn't beautiful.Europe's working-age population is shrinking as fertility rates decline. In a fit of gloom, one German minister recently warned of the country "turning the light out" if its birth rate did not pick up. Efforts to encourage couples to breed have a chequered history and, for many, recall fascist pasts. Mussolini heavily taxed single men in his Battle for Births, Hitler awarded medals to women with large families in his quest for a superior German race. No-one is yet berating bachelors or mooting medallions for multiple births. But Europe's many governments are scrambling to find a solution. Who cares? Demographic decline causes anxiety because it is thought to go hand-in-hand with economic decline (My note: it is not thought to go hand in hand, it does go hand in hand) With fewer, younger workers to pay the health and pension bills of an elderly population, states face an unprecedented fiscal burden. (My note: we pay the piper one way or the other. If we want to play the "me first, few or no kids" game when we are younger, we will pay later because there won't be enough kids around to support us when we are old. We seem to have forgotten that the stock market, social security etc. still depend upon good, young able-bodied workers. The kids may not be taking over the family farm as in days of old, but the basic premise still stands, it's just a little less direct than it used to be.) The dependency ratio of those aged 65 and over to those of working age looks set to double from one-to-four to one-to-two in 2050. BIRTH RATES In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages: Ireland: 1.99 France: 1.90 Norway: 1.81 Sweden 1.75UK: 1.74 Netherlands: 1.73 Germany: 1.37Italy: 1.33 Spain: 1.32 Greece: 1.29 Source: Eurostat - 2004 figures How can Europe, which increasingly sees itself as a counterweight to US hegemony, claim equal status when it is being outpaced by American population growth?If current forecasts prove correct, then the US - which currently has 160m fewer people than the EU - will have equalled it by 2050. Increasing immigration is, in theory, one option for Europe, but most agree it is politically unfeasible in the current climate.Others stress that it would not in any event solve the problem in the longer term - the migrants would themselves grow old and their own fertility patterns would start to match those of the country which received them. Another option is to increase the productivity of the working population, drawing more people into the workforce - and more controversially - making them stay there longer. But moves to raise the retirement age tend not to play well with electorates.That leaves boosting birth rates. Some analysts believe the fears are exaggerated. It seems richly ironic, they argue, to be worrying about falling numbers of people and, at the same time, to be fretting about the drain on natural resources, and the jostle for living space. (My note: and richly silly. There is no lack of space....even in France, where I visited last year, there are VAST areas with virtually NO ONE living there. It's just that too many people insist on living in the cities and THIS is where it is too crowded). In addition, women's ability to control the number of children they have is a positive development, freeing them from a life of ongoing pregnancies. (My note: yes, the obligatory bow at the altar of contraceptives and abortion.....in spite of the obvious damage this is doing to society. It is hard to give up addictions!) Those who want to boost the birth rate do not necessarily disagree on this last point.But, they wonder, are women restricting the size of families through free choice - or because financial concerns and worries about their position at work prevent them from having as many children as they might like. (My note: Or could it be, perhaps, that women and men have become more and more materialistic and selfish as they have become richer, believing that they simply MUST live at a certain level, with certain possessions, a certain number of vacations, etc...or their children MUST have certain things, go to certain schools, to keep up with the neighbors....teaching children that their lives are only meaningful if they HAVE these things....better not to have kids if they can't keep up with everyone else, an implicit lesson on the value of human life?) Mixed messages Many European countries already have policies in place - some more explicitly pro-natal than others.Sweden, stressing gender equality rather than stating directly that it wants to boost birth rates, provides a mixed package of higher pay for women, flexible working for both parents and high quality childcare. (My note: Surprise! The answer of liberals is for THE STATE to raise children. Okay, not so much of a surprise after all......) France, meanwhile, is positively proud of its avowed pro-natalism, providing a series of tax and cash incentives for those having babies.Other countries have also started toying with the idea of straight payments. Poland, where the population has fallen by half a million in the last six years, has recently passed legislation that will see women paid for each child they bear. In Italy, where the population could shrink by as much as one third by 2050, one town has started offering couples 10,000 euros for each newborn baby.How successful cash is as an incentive is still unclear. One study suggests that, even when cash allowances are boosted by 25%, the fertility rate climbs just marginally - perhaps by as little as 0.6%. (My note: could it be because lack of money is not the underlying problem? Could it be that the persistent pursuit of material possessions and temporal accomplishments as ends in and of themselves has ultimately led to a relative devaluation of human life itself?) And the impact of generous maternity leave schemes and state-subsidised child care has also yet to be fully established. Swedish and French birth rates may be higher than in much of Europe, but despite their respective systems, both countries still lag behind the holy grail of 2.1 children per woman needed to keep a population stable. Europe is still feeling its way in this area, and may, some say, have to come to terms with the fact that there are women remaining childless or having small families by choice.Recent evidence from Germany suggests that women may actually want fewer children than the two so often seen as the desirable norm - indeed some are happy with none at all. ARTICLE #2: Isn't having so many women working outside the home good for the economy and society? http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4739154.stm BBC NEWS: Italian women shun 'mamma' role EU states are trying to understand why the birth rate is falling - and if anything can be done to stem the decline. All this week, the BBC News website is asking women in various countries about how they feel about being asked to have more babies, and how easy or difficult they find combining motherhood and work. Here, the BBC's Rome correspondent Christian Fraser asks why Italy - a predominantly Roman Catholic country that has always loved children - has stopped having them.The Italian population is getting smaller and it is also getting older. The fertility rate - at 1.33 children per woman - is one of the lowest in the Western world. And more than one in five of the population in Italy is now over 65. On current estimates there will be 14 million fewer Italians by the year 2050.The question is why? The answer is that many single women now work hard to avoid the responsibilities of childcare. An increasing proportion of educated women no longer want to be just mothers and wives. (My note: this is amazingly candid for the BBC. But notice the slap at mothers/wives: "no longer want to be just mothers and wives". Could part of the reason be that society has so devalued being a mother and wife that they almost feel ashamed of "just" being a mother and wife?) Ten years ago women represented only 22% of the work force here - now they are 47%. But there is another reason most young families decide against having children - they can't afford it. (My note: how is it that after women entered the work force en masse that families seem to have less money? Wasn't this heralded as a great economic boon?) The country spends just 3.8% of its GDP on child-related social spending compared with an EU average of around 8%. (My note: yes, let the state raise the children. We need more taxes to turn around and do the job of parents! That's the answer! Then we can educate the children to perpetuate this insane cycle!) Older mothers Laura Callura, 38, who lives in Rome says she is typical of many Italian women."I became a mother at 36 and that's not unusual here," she says. "A lot of my friends had their first child between the ages of 33 and 38. BIRTH RATES n Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages Ireland: 1.99 France: 1.90 Norway: 1.81 Sweden 1.75UK: 1.74 Netherlands: 1.73 Germany: 1.37 Italy: 1.33 Spain: 1.32 Greece: 1.29 Source: Eurostat - 2004 figures "Here in Italy we start life much later than people in northern Europe. University courses take longer to finish and it's harder for young people to get into the job market."I started my first job when I was 25 - but that is quite unusual. Most Italians don't start their career until their late 20s." Statistics show that an increasing number of 30-year-old Italians still live with their parents, unable to afford first-time housing (My note: or for perhaps other reasons..... )"I lived with my parents until I was 29," says Laura. Most of my friends stayed with their parents until they were married. "It is expensive to rent property particularly in the cities and most young people can't afford it. If you can't afford to live, you are not even thinking about children." Italy still trails behind most of Europe in providing affordable child care and family benefits. Maternity pay isn't bad - Laura had five months on full pay with her first child and six months on reduced pay. Baby bonus Compared with the US, where her husband comes from, she thinks that is fairly generous."We get tax break as well," she says "but there is no family allowance to speak of. Then, there are few nurseries. I wouldn't know how you get one of the few places in a public nursery - it is impossible. I would think you would have to pull some strings." I have a friend who is married to someone who didn't help enough around the house - she didn't cave in to having a second child until he promised to do more Laura CalluraAs for the private nurseries, they are far too expensive. "I am lucky because I have my parents, but without them it would be much, much harder to manage." Laura, who is now expecting her second child has a full-time contract. She says most people would not consider having two children unless they were in a stable "lifetime contract".And therein lies one of the other major problems. There is very little flexibility in the labour market here in Italy. Contracts are "for life", which explains why there is very little part-time work for those outside the system. (My note: Well, that rather challenges the liberal, anti-capitalists out there… lifetime work contracts a bad thing?)" I had considered asking my employer for more flexible hours," she says, "but I wasn't hopeful. I have considered stopping but financially that is a risk. You never know what sort of pressures you are going to face with a second child."Last year, the government introduced a "baby bonus" to try to encourage families to have more children. Since then, more than 600,000 mothers have each received 1,000 euros from the government towards the cost of their new-born babies.It's too early to say whether this new bonus is likely to have any dramatic effect on the birth rate here but there are many who think the money would be better targeted through the benefits system. Men's role Letizia Mencarini, a professor of demography at the University of Florence interviewed more than 3,000 mothers from five different cities across Italy to find out what would persuade them to have more children.She found the more involved the father became in household chores, the more likely his wife was to want a second baby. (My note: so she can work outside of the home herself?)" A lot of Italian men do nothing around the house," she says. "I would say career women in Italy work harder than any other in Europe when you factor in childcare and household duties."There is sufficient evidence to show that many women here are frightened of taking on the added work and responsibility that comes with a second child."Laura agrees: "I have a friend who is married to someone who didn't help enough around the house. She didn't cave in to having a second child until he promised - on his mother's head - that he would do more." Professor Mencarini says children are still at the centre of family life in Italy but many mothers said they had postponed the decision - sometimes until it was too late - because they were frightened of the financial implications." It's a complex problem as you have seen," she says. "There is almost a sense of pessimism that has grown in this country when it comes to having children." (My note: Pessimism. Sure, when you are focused so entirely on material well-being, you become obsessed with money, and fear you will lose it. No one is more obsessed with money than those who have a lot of it. Do we see rich families having so many more children? No. In these voluntarily small families, behind the fear, we are likely to find selfishness and lack of faith in God. And the objective value and dignity of the human person is subordinated to a disfugured, ephemeral goal of “happiness”.) "If the government really wants to encourage a positive environment for bringing up children then they have to put the provisions in place. That means far more flexible work, nurseries, children's services, and the sort of things that help young families to cope. (My note: Or perhaps trying to reverse the sick societal norm that has also devalued being a mother or a father?) ARTICLE #3: Has all the emphasis on economic/material prosperity made us too selfish to have children? http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/4813590.stm BBC NEWS: The rise of the 'childfree' All this week, the BBC News website has been asking women in various EU countries about how they feel being asked to have more babies, and how easy or difficult they find combining motherhood and work.Here, the BBC News website's Kathryn Westcott talks to those among a growing group who have chosen not to have children, and are fed up with the emphasis given to family life. Childless or childfree? Not so long ago, all women without children were known as childless, with its implication of a state of loss. Nowadays, a growing number of women are insisting on the term childfree - with its emphasis on liberation. (My note: just like the war over terminology on abortion: "choice". Find euphemisms to change the implications! Child-FREE....doesn't that sound wonderful? Yet how degrading to all human persons. This view of life is brazenly utilitarian: it only has value and dignity if it is of use to me personally.) An increasing number of women in their 30s are rejecting the job description that they believe comes with parenting - loss of freedom, reduced career prospects and financial burdens. (My note: And there you have it.....) Numbers are difficult to come by, but London School of Economics sociologist Dr Catherine Hakim has carried out some extensive research in this area.She has no doubt rising numbers of people are actively choosing not to have children."In many European countries around 10% of women reach the age of 45 with no kids," she says."Of that figure, there are those who have chosen to remain childfree, those who have delayed having a child and are experiencing problems, and those who are infertile. A UN fertility study says 2-3% will fall into that category."She believes the number without children will double in many countries to around 20% - except Germany, where the figure is already closer to 30%, partly because it is seen as having some of the most family unfriendly policies in Europe. (My note: Yes, like abortion on demand, contraception as a religion, looking down on motherhood?) 'Taboo subject" "The whole idea of the childfree lifestyle is beginning to be recognised by the media," says Dr Hakim. "Private feelings are being legitimised and people are beginning to feel that they are not being deviant in some way." Very consciously people are more confident in saying they have a different lifestyle."Despite that, in some countries where there are very strong pro-natal policies, such as France, the idea of women actively choosing not to have children is, to many, an anathema.Until recently, it was extremely difficult for men and women to undergo sterilisation in France."In France, it is difficult being a woman without any children," says 33-year-old Alexandra, who lives in Nantes." The subject is just taboo. There is no open debate. People refuse to believe you could not want to have children - they always think it's because you simply haven't met the right person." (My note: and France has one of the highest birth rates in Europe: perhaps at least France still has a chance to reverse the tide before it implodes....) Alexandra, who has a long-term partner, says that up until her mid-20s, she always thought she would have children. But, after changing her mind, she says she is confident that nothing will make her change it back again. Lifestyle choice She says that the assumption that it is only the work-mad who shun parenthood is far from accurate."I didn't make the choice for career reasons - it was a lifestyle choice. I only work part-time and I like to enjoy life," she says. (My note: but doesn't this undermine the claim that they are not having children because they don't have enough money? It would seem so.....that it is a choice to do what is selfish in the short term, rather than looking long term....) BIRTH RATES In Europe 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the population replacement level. These are national averages Ireland: 1.99 France: 1.90 Norway: 1.81 Sweden 1.75UK: 1.74 Netherlands: 1.73 Germany: 1.37Italy: 1.33 Spain: 1.32 Greece: 1.29 Source: Eurostat - 2004 figures Dr Hakim says that governments with "vague pro-natal attitudes" such as France, Sweden and Norway, claim that there is no such thing as voluntary childlessness in their countries.But Mariah who lives in the city of Linkoping, Sweden, says that over the past few years, she has met more and more Swedes who are opting for a childfree lifestyle.The 30-year-old says she has known that she never wanted to have children since she was a child herself. "I was sterilised at the age of 25. It's a choice I have never regretted," she says. "Once I had made the decision, I felt stronger as a woman. I have a long-term partner and he is happy with my decision." She says that in Sweden there is a lot of pressure from family and friends to have children. "It's the norm and Swedes really don't want to stand out in a crowd. But, in the past few years, I feel there have been more and more people questioning whether of not they having children is really for them. Waste "Some people simply have no maternal feelings - some are worried about how the world is going, some like to travel, some like to pursue their careers - we're not selfish people." (My note: me thinks thou dost protest too much.....who accused you of being selfish? But look at that list: "like to travel, pursue their careers...BUT WE'RE NOT SELFISH!" ) "Selfish and irresponsible," are words that 43-year-old Jane, who lives in London, is used to hearing. I've been called irresponsible for not having children but there are many couples who have had children without thinking seriously about the impact such a decision will have Jane, 43In the UK, the most commonly cited statistic is that by 2010, one in four will be either childfree or childless." I made the choice early on not to have children. I don't dislike them - I simply decided that I could not devote 100% of my time to someone else," she says."I have also been called selfish but I think that people who have three children are encroaching on the planet's resources - I can't believe the amount of waste that children produce."The world's population is still growing - it's only people in the West who are perceived to be not having enough children. People will always have children and the world will continue," she says. (My note: how convenient that this ideology fits so nicely with your selfish desires to spoil yourself!) 'Better deal' Jane, who works in the media, says there is an increasing tension in the workplace because many employees without children feel that parents get a better deal when it comes to time off.This is partly why Europe is now following the US with the establishment of active groups of the childfree, some of whom are demanding a better deal for their members. Jonathan McCalmont is the founder of Kidding Aside (The British Childfree Association), which was first set up on the internet to lobby for equality for people without children.He is fed up with the way the government is wooing parents with longer maternity pay, paternity leave flexible hours and family tax breaks. He describes the latter as "simply a middle-class tax break masquerading as social policy." He is angry at what he says is a redistribution of money from people without children to those with. He contends that childfree people who have other responsibilities - such as looking after an elderly parent - should get the same benefits."We believe it is up to the individual to decide what constitutes a family," he says. "It's not up to the state." (My note: yes, this is one of the things that inevitably happens when people stop having children, or at least many of them. The definition of "family" is undermined.)

You can't tell me how to worship!!!

2006-03-08T02:48:00.000+01:00

For us traditionalists, one of the most mind-numbing and frustrating exercises in discussion with those outside the traditionalist movement has to deal with the issue of liturgical worship. One constantly hears “Well I can’t participate in the Latin Mass, so I won’t go, I’ll worship God in my own way.” This seems to be something that you can’t criticize today, but we are going to do just that.

Now there is definitely a hint of truth to this assertion. Holy Mother Church has cherished and prized the diversity of worship throughout the years. There are numerous liturgical Rites within the Church for people to worship according to, and if they have been afforded those rights by the Church, they are free to use them.

As with most true statements, they have their limits. One of the most noted insights I’ve ever received from a friend was that in today’s crisis in the Church, almost all the problems have a hint of truth to them, but are taken way out of perspective. This legitimate form of diversity is twisted into the concept that worship is all about what we want, and God demands nothing, or next to nothing from people in worship. These two opinions are sorely mistaken.

All too often today we hear about what we want out of worship, but not what God wants. Worship for us is “getting fed.” If we are not “getting fed” then we are not worshipping correctly. It is the worship of self, and even those in the Church are obsessed with it.

The Christian journey has a goal in mind. We are to become less like this world, and conformed more to the image of the Son. As far as we deny our fallen natures and affirm Christ, one is walking the Christian path. Yet when we focus worship on what we want, and overemphasize it, this is opposed to the Christian Message. It is as different from Christianity as night is from day.

The problem one faces is that they must first figure out what God wants from worship, and how to conform ourselves to Him. It is not about what we, the created being, wants to give, but rather what the Divine Being requests from us. We see this principle very clearly in Sacred Scripture, where God gives very strict instructions for how the temple is to be built. Exodus 25 is very strict and precise about how everything should be built. It was not about what man wanted, but what God wanted.

Lest anyone attempt to say that the Old Covenant practices are no more under the New Covenant, in several places I believe this is reconfirmed. Hebrews 9 makes clear that the temples on earth are meant to be copies of the heavenly temples. Therefore, when one builds a temple (or Church as we view it) it’s not up to you to decide how you want it to look. While there can be some room for artistic license, Biblically speaking, you are confined to a certain set structure.

There are several reasons why the very structure of worship is fitted towards the heavens. One it is meant to remind us of our true destination, where we truly belong. When we worship at Mass, it I just a small taste of what eternity shall be. The other main principle is one so important, it deserves it’s own column, which we will do next week.

Kevin M. Tierney

Fighting the Lies of the Culture of Death

2006-03-01T23:25:00.000+01:00

Planned Barrenhood and Contraception

Planned Parenthood’s site “teenwire.com” has the following to say about contraception:

Your Question:
Dear Experts,
Is it true that birth control pills cause an abortion?
Sascha, 01.12.06

The Answer:
Dear Sascha,
No, this is not true. Abortion ends a pregnancy. Birth control pills, as well as the ring, the patch, the shot, and emergency contraception pills, prevent pregnancy before it happens. They work by preventing ovulation — the release of an egg — and/or the fertilization of an egg.Hope this information helps!
Take care,
teenwire.com® Editors
END QUOTE FROM WEBSITE

BUT IS THIS ANSWER CORRECT? Is prevention of ovulation the ONLY way that contraception works?

The following links prove conclusively that the pill does indeed work in two primary ways (and there are many more links that could be added):
1) by preventing fertilization and, if that fails, by
2) PREVENTING IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED EGG.

http://www.pilltruth.com/company.html

http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/publications/fact_details.php?fid=12

(Quote from the above, pro-contraception site):

“There are three possible ways EC (emergency contraception) might work:
by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, by altering sperm or egg transport in the fallopian tubes, and/or by altering the uterine lining to inhibit a fertilized egg from implanting. Current research indicates that in most cases it inhibits ovulation, which means that fertilization doesn’t take place. If a woman takes EC after ovulation, it may still prevent pregnancy through the other mechanisms. All three mechanisms take effect before a fertilized egg implants in the uterus.”

The second website supports contraception and emergency contraception. While the article is specifically about emergency contraception, the mechanism is exactly the same as those used in regular contraception. Proof? Again, from the pro-contraception link above:

"What Is EC?
In the United States, there is one brand of EC pill available: Plan B, a progestin-only pill. In other countries there are also EC options that contain combined estrogen-progestin pills. Both are regular birth control pills packaged in a different dose and with different use instructions "

Now, notice how those who favor abortion and contraception try to frame the argument. They try to change the definition of when human life begins from conception to “implantation” in the uterus. Is this valid? Exactly what IS a fertilized human egg? A very young human being, as you will see below according to modern scientific literature. The human life=implantation argument is dishonest and inaccurate.

Planned Parenthood is, once again, not telling the truth.

When does human life begin?

1) "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei ... and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning ... of a human being." (Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2.)

2) "Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

3) "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)

4) "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.)
*"The fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way to the uterus." (Carlson, Bruce M., Human Embryology and Developmental Biology. St. Louis: Mosby, 1994, p.3).

5) “From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals.” Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, MD 1967

6)“After fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste of opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. Discoverer of the Down’s Syndrome chromosome

7)“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” Professor M. Matthew-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

8)By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic

A good Traditionalist Catholic need not be afraid that science is his enemy. Real, honest science is very Traditional, indeed.

Late Addition: Planned Barrenhood lying again, claiming contraception lowers the abortion rates, USCCB takes them to task: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-041.shtml

Love of Neighbor

2006-02-20T04:38:00.000+01:00

All of us who bear the name Christian know (or should know) that the Greatest Commandment is the commandment to love God and neighbor. For most of us, however, this command is something that is simple and complicated at the same time. We have an internal conviction that the love of God and neighbor cannot be separated, but we have an extremely difficult time living out this command, even with the holiest of intentions.

I wanted to comment on some passages from the Holy Father's new Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) in order to harness some of his ideas as to how we as Christians can effectively live out this love of God and neighbor.

For most traditionalists, love of God doesn't seem to be much of an issue, or so we think. It seems we tend to think of ourselves as those who truly love God due to our emphasis on evangelism and a pious search for truth; always on the lookout for any hint of syncretism or relativism that might muddy the waters of truth. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with these sentiments. True discipleship rests in always seeking to follow all that Christ has commanded. But, it seems we often fall short in the love of neighbor that is to flow from this love of God. Consider the following from the Holy Father's encyclical:

If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be “devout” and to perform my “religious duties”, then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely “proper”, but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me.

(Deus Caritas Est, 18)

"...proper, but loveless." If there's anything most of "traddies" need to hear it's those words. We are so focused on knowing the truth and getting others to accept it that we often fail to see the pain in the lives of those who struggle to accept the truth, and the pain we can cause others through our words. I have yet to read in the Gospels the kind of tirades that most of us are capable of when it comes to presenting the "truth." We hold on to our belief (true as it may be) that we have some understandings that the "average joe" just isn't blessed enough to have, and instead of admonishing with love, we fall in love with not the truth itself, but merely our possession of it.

The Holy Father gives some good advice that all should heed in their pursuit to successfully love both God and neighbor. He emphasizes that:

Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern.

(Deus Caritas Est, 18)

Certainly, communion with Christ in the Eucharist is of paramount importance in attaining this communion, but there is an aspect that often gets overlooked - through the Eucharist, we who bear the name Christ have become "one" with Him through the Eucharist. To viciously attack another even with the noblest intentions of bringing them "truth" is a good way to put ourselves with the goats in the judgment scene of Matthew's Gospel. The same holds true for our attitude toward those who are outside the fold. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows us that our neighbor is not merely he who is part of the brotherhood, so to speak. I must see Christ in these individuals as well, and treat them accordingly.

This all might sound so obvious to us, but is it? Do we not have the temptation to forget that Christ loves others as much He loves us, and that He loved us even when we were locked in the ignorance that we so deplore in others? To be true evangelists we must constantly remind ourselves of the fact that Christ is in others, and on the other end of our words. We must adopt the hearts of apostles, who have deep communion with God. We cannot give what we don't have. We must constantly work on our communion with God so that we can truly love others. Then we will be able to truly be Christ to others, or as the Holy Father puts it:

Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave.

(Deus Caritas Est, 18)

God Bless,
Patrick

The Problem of "radical egalitarianism" in Catholic culture

2006-02-16T06:17:00.000+01:00

Continuing our study into a realistic look at Christian marriage, I believe it is appropriate to examine the issue of egalitarianism. If there is one problem that is widespread in the Church today, it is the egalitarian impulse. It is hostile to hierarchies by nature, so as a result, the fact that marriage comes under attack from such a pernicious doctrine is no surprise.

However, if we are to accurately tackle the issue, we must define our terms. What is egalitarianism? Egalitarianism in itself is not necessarily a problem. It simply desires justice and equality for all people, no matter their sex, race, religious background, etc. That’s really not a problem, and is probably essential to any institution if it is to survive long. As with many nice sounding ideas, they became hijacked into very pernicious ones. Nowadays, as the Honorable Robert Bork pointed out in his work Slouching towards Gomorrah in what he calls “radical egalitarianism” means the equality of opportunity is replaced by the equality of results. Radical egalitarianism in the Church states that it is not enough for people to be equal in dignity; they must be equal in responsibilities and authority as well. As this pernicious view infests more than just modern thoughts on Christian marriage today, it is necessary to outline other areas where this appears before turning our attention to marriage.

A very successful tactic of egalitarians in the Church was to hijack otherwise fine phrases and suit them to their agenda. Collegiality, which was meant to express the relationship between the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops (and the balance that is struck, so that the Bishop of Rome is not the popular caricature of some irresistible despot who makes every decision himself) has been perverted into the idea that not only can the Roman Pontiff not act individually on issues, neither can local Bishops, who are told to be “collegial” and go along with what other Bishops say. It is not enough for each to be recognized as a Bishop, some having different responsibilities and purpose. We must do away with the idea that Bishops are difference in any sense, all have equal authority (as in the Bishop of Rome is no more powerful than the Bishop of Detroit). Their next plan would be essentially to do away with any such distinctions, destroying the hierarchical nature of the Church.

A second issue where egalitarianism is all the rage is in liturgical studies. Here as well they have perverted words. Taking the word ‘presider’ (a term used by such Church Fathers as Justin Martyr to describe the priest who offers the Sacrifice of the Mass) to mean that the priest simply “presides” over the congregation, there is no difference in authority between the average priest and the layman. To add to this fact, it is becoming the increasing trend for the priest’s responsibilities to decline during Mass, the lay faithful doing more. This includes the reading of Scripture, the handing out of communion, the setting up for Mass, etc. Increasingly during each Mass, the priest is always surrounded by the lay faithful, just with more elaborate garments. It was not enough to say that the priest was a sinner just like we were (indeed why he faced the same direction as the congregation during Mass, one of those reasons at least) and that he had rights as a Catholic just like we do, but those rights must include he has no different purpose than the lay faithful. Since just about anyone can “preside”, the priest is there not because of his sacramental powers conferred upon him at ordination to offer sacrifice; the priest is simply our representative before God at Mass.

No more obvious is this trend present than in the usage of “altar girls” and “inclusive language.” The latter eliminates any reference to male or female, master or servant, and substitutes in its place language which has no distinction. (I.e. in the Lectionary, where the Latin is translated not as brethren but instead brothers and sisters or something to that effect.) This trend becomes absolutely absurd when during the Gloria it will be sang “Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to God’s people on earth.” (It is bad enough the translation, peace unto men of good will is changed to peace to his people on earth, but now they butcher it even further by refusing to acknowledge that we refer to God in the masculine.)

With altar girls, the change is just as absurd. As the priesthood is “a boy’s only club” for grownups, it is natural that the egalitarians would target it. They have consistently called for women to be priests. However, since this is impossible (due to that dogma being infallible and hence not open to change), the drive has been to still leave in the minds of people it is possible by having the altar servers be female as well. For 1990 years altar servers were men only, particularly boys. This was the excellent stage to form them for possible service in the priesthood. The altar boys assist the priest, would say prayers together with the priest, learn the motions of the Mass, and many other things that would lead to formation. This much is enough to dispel the myth that altar servers being male only was part of a “patriarchal” concept and that it involves discrimination against women.

There seems to be no justification for altar service being permitted to females other than “well boys do it, so girls must be allowed to do this as well; otherwise we are subjecting girls to discrimination.” Yet most parents would not as soon dress their little boys up in dresses because “since girls wear them as well, boys must.” Furthermore, since as a Catholic they admit that women cannot be priests, then according to their logic, Rome is indeed discriminating by not allowing women to be priests. It is a slippery slope the egalitarians planted well.

We now see the problem of egalitarianism. However, the most success they have had is in regards to the Christian teachings of marriage. As marriage is the fundamental organ of society, and is where the hierarchy is held at its most basic point, the egalitarians recognize that destroying this hierarchy is essential to destroying larger ones. We will analyze the ways in which they attempt to carry out this plan in the next column.

The Truth of Christian Marriage: A woman's worth

2006-02-14T21:03:00.000+01:00

Sometimes I have people asking me what gives me ideas to write my columns every week. As one who has over 180 columns on his website, this humble journalist is either very prolific, very verbose, or simply very opinionated who can't keep his mouth shut. (Or the more likely combination is a mix of the three.) Nonetheless, I do get ideas from a lot of people. Yet they normally come from a few people. Despite the largely male circle of friends and colleagues, most of my ideas come from women. Some people find this a little odd, yet I've always found that when it comes to insight and inspiration for ideas, I as a man naturally take these from women.

It is without a doubt true that us men have a fixation with women. Call it human nature or whatever you will, but it is a true fact. In a lot of ways, almost all we do is built around women. Whether it is serving as a husband, or a priest for the Church, which is viewed as our Mother. Now while many feminists might find this degrading and insulting, for the Christian this is without a doubt the way to virtue. When speaking of things we should do to increase virtue in Ephesians Chapter 5, St. Paul describes the way a husband should act towards his wife.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.

This passage will be continually returned to throughout our study, as typically the passage that causes much heartache for female culture today, no doubt influenced by feminism and egalitarianism. The idea of St. Paul is that the husband signifies Christ. Now while modern women take this to mean the husband is the one with all the authority and he should use such authority, I don't know if that's necessarily what St. Paul has in mind. No doubt the husband is the head of the household, but it is also equally true that it should not be looked at by the husband in an authoritarian way. I remember one time dealing with one of my traditionalist friends and he was arguing passionately against women wearing pants. (Another issue for another column but suffices it to say I am bucking the tide of a sizable amount in traditionalist thought by dissenting from this view.) He boldly proclaimed "I gladly invoked my authority as a husband to forbid my wife from wearing pants." I remember remarking to another person in the discussion "if he has to use his authority on such a trivial and stupid matter, there are far greater problems in that relationship than he realizes."

While the husband has the authority in the relationship as Christ, he also carries the responsibility of being the one who sacrifices representing Christ. I would refer to this principle as "God's sense of humor." God instructed man through Adam that he would be the one with authority between men and women. In using this authority, man spends his life chasing through hoops for the woman, giving up many things just to win her heart. Yet did not Christ do the same thing? Christ was of the royal lineage of David, a claim to royalty. His revolution could've been that of reclaiming the temporal throne of Israel, and living in luxury. As God in the flesh, the man could command and exert greatness if He chose to. Rather, out of a love for His bride the Church, Christ emptied himself in the form of a servant. He performed miracles so that His bride might recognize who He was. All His teaching was centered on doing everything for His bride. Ultimately, so that His bride may enjoy eternal happiness, He sacrifices Himself, putting the needs of the Church above His own. Putting machismo aside, do we men not do the same pursuing a woman? Do we not chase her? Do we not do things that at times defy reason and logic?

Even our materialistic world understands this concept. The woman is showered with gifts by the man; he does everything to make her appear high and lofty as is within his power of doing when she is in the presence of others. If the secular world takes this principle seriously, should not the Christian take this principle seriously in the spiritual as well as the temporal realm? Any authority exercised then should be exercised with a proper purpose. According to St. Paul, that purpose is for the sanctification of the spouse. That thought must sink in. If a husband is to utilize his authority as head of the household, it should be clear that the exercising of this authority would have an effect on the wife's sanctification. It is not for his comforts or his own reasons. He should not use that authority because he wants her to do this or that. That is using authority according to the world, where it is always about you. Rather, one uses authority because he loves the person and wants to see them reach heaven, preferably higher than himself.

However, today many take the issue of service just a bit too far. The very concept of the husband having such authority is frowned upon by people saying "well the spouses are equal in dignity; therefore they are equal in authority." Yet such is utter madness. It is egalitarianism, having nothing to do with the Gospel. It says that equality in one way necessarily equals equality in another. Anyone who works on a unit recognizes the absurdity of this position.

Imagine if you will for a moment a military. Those soldiers are equal in dignity. Yet there are ranks within that military. However, even amongst equals in the military, there is still a plan all must follow that they receive on high from command. If every soldier "did their own thing" would we see anything productive, or would not the army end up losing, normally badly? Likewise, man and woman might be equal in dignity, but they also must follow the plan from on high we receive from God in the Canonical Scriptures and the teaching of the Church.

No matter how equal people in that unit are, somebody has to be able to make the final decision, and others have to abide by it. Try as feminists might, they cannot do away with the fact that men by nature thrive on such decisions. Indeed he cannot become a man until put in such situations. One could attribute it to the fact Adam was created first and given dominion, to one's biological makeup, physical traits, whatever they wish, but any way you slice it this is a fact.

Yet possessing authority is not the same as using it wisely. For what leader would in his right mind make decisions apart from those he wills to lead? What leader would not consult those around him before acting? What leader worthy of the name cares for his needs and power, rather than the success of that unit together? A true leader rises above his petty natures. He recognizes that he is in command of something far greater than himself or any individual. The union of husband and wife is something that great. Any leader worthy of the name would then care not for his success, but the success of the marriage above all.

Permit me if I may to use a hockey analogy. Hockey is a very big sport down here in Detroit. The Red Wings won back to back championships, and it was done under the leadership of their captain Steve Yzerman. Yzerman was far from the best player on the team. There were at least 2 or 3 people better than him, age having taken its toll. Now some captains might be egocentric, demanding the spotlight. Yzerman knew that if the team was to succeed, this couldn't happen with Detroit. Despite the fact he was no longer the centerpiece of the team, he was without a doubt its leader. He gave up his person comforts for the greater good of the team, and that team went on to win the championship. Fellow players said that they would not have been able to win without Yzerman's understanding of what was best for the team, putting that good over that of him.

Such is how a husband is called to act in the Gospel. He is still no doubt the leader of that household, but every act he makes should have in mind the success of that marriage. Now granted, there will be slip ups. Nobody every said marriage was easy. It is a constant battle against the flesh, which shuns such sacrifice. This is why marriage is a sacrament, a means of grace so that people can fulfill these roles. Humanly speaking this is no doubt impossible. Did we not see such sacrifice in our recent Pontiff? One can say what they want about John Paul II, but those who praised him and those who criticized him alike recognized the sacrifices he made. It probably was not comforting to his ego to be as disabled as he was, suffering as highly as we was, and yet still continue on in doing what he felt best for the Church. At times the man mustered up all the strength in his body just to be able to say a few words. Normal people would've given up long ago. Yet John Paul II, for better or worse, was not an ordinary individual. He did love the Church, just as a husband should love his wife. He believed that those he was reaching out to in that disabled state, in that weakened state, would eventually be the people to bring the Church out of it's crisis into the "New Springtime" he so eagerly wanted. As a result, he places the needs of the Church and those he leads ahead of himself.

We may like to write off these concepts as hopeless idealism, never workable in reality. Yet one could cite example after example that shows this way of acting is not just possible, but obligatory. Yet in order for us men to assume this role, to speak bluntly, we need to start acting as men. That is something I will cover in my next column.

Bible Study on Proverbs, Part XI

2006-02-08T21:03:00.000+01:00

Hatred stirreth up strifes: and charity covereth all sins.

When one lives a life in hatred and in sin, it's often a very short life. To demonstrate that point, one could draw upon a character that America seems to be obsessed with, that of the Mafia man. The men in the Mafia almost always practiced deceit, villainy, about every bad trick in the book to gain power. And in the end, they almost always turn on each other. Normally when they turn on each other, it was for something extremely miniscule that happened in some cases decades ago. Since they lived by a principle of power and hatred, rather than charity and service, those wrongdoings laid under the service for quite some time, building anger. Eventually that anger would erupt in strife, normally a bloody one.

This is contrasted by those who practice charity. When charity is practiced, once bitter enemies can become friends, or at least develop a level of respect between the two of them. That charity overlooks those sins, and one isn't constantly living in a state of fearing revenge. To the Christian, revenge is something that should be abhorrent, and never carried out. While justice might demand punishment, revenge is never justice. We see that in Proverbs, it's not just living a life of virtue, when one follows such virtues, life is ultimately far simpler.

In the lips of the wise is wisdom found: and a rod on the back of him that wanteth sense.

Another way of saying this is the wise man does out of desire and service what others will only do through fear. Since they reject wisdom, normally in selfish pride, about the only way to get them to do something proper is if they are compelled to do so, either through incentives or force. The wise man needs no incentive other than to do what is right and just. The one who wants sense is normally taking the approach "Well what's in this for me?" or "How far along can I get away with doing this?" Normally, tying this to the verse before, it is he who lives a life by hateful standards who adopts such an approach, and the charitable one doing something because of love. As Christians, we never do something out of fear of hell. At least we shouldn't real as it is! Rather, the standard is to do something because one loves God first and foremost. The path to wisdom as Proverbs reports earlier is obviously through trusting in the Lord and employing charity.

Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the fool is next to confusion.

There are some who seem to imply that since wisdom is a gift of God, it is not a gift that needs to be nurtured or practiced. The wise man is wise for two reasons. One, he most certainly is blessed by God with the gift of wisdom. Second, he maintains and cultivates that gift. He dedicates himself to his studies and his disciplines without ceasing. In an irony, he is wise because he realizes he isn't. He recognizes his own limits, and learns from others. Rather than speak always, he knows when he should remain silent and learn.

This is contrasted with a proverb from Mark Twain. "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt." The fool doesn't feel it's necessary to practice discipline and cultivate the gift of wisdom. He always has something to say. Even intelligent people end up being the fool. They believe that since they have intelligence in some areas they have intelligence in all, rushing into a discussion attempting to wax eloquent, when in reality they should sit back and learn. According to the great spiritual master St. John of the Cross, it is because of a secret and sometimes not so secret pride. Speaking on the issue of pride in those walking the spiritual life, the spiritual master has the following to say in his masterpiece Dark Night of the Soul:

AS these beginners feel themselves to be very fervent and diligent in spiritual things and devout exercises, from this prosperity (although it is true that holy things of their own nature cause humility) there often comes to them, through their imperfections, a certain kind of secret pride, whence they come to have some degree of satisfaction with their works and with themselves. And hence there comes to them likewise a certain desire, which is somewhat vain, and at times very vain, to speak of spiritual things in the presence of others, and sometimes even to teach such things rather than to learn them. They condemn others in their heart when they see that they have not the kind of devotion which they themselves desire; and sometimes they even say this in words, herein resembling the Pharisee, who boasted of himself, praising God for his own good works and despising the publican.

2. In these persons the devil often increases the fervour that they have and the desire to perform these and other works more frequently, so that their pride and presumption may grow greater. For the devil knows quite well that all these works and virtues which they perform are not only valueless to them, but even become vices in them. And such a degree of evil are some of these persons wont to reach that they would have none appear good save themselves; and thus, in deed and word, whenever the opportunity occurs, they condemn them and slander them, beholding the mote in their brother’s eye and not considering the beam which is in their own; they strain at another’s gnat and themselves swallow a camel.

3. Sometimes, too, when their spiritual masters, such as confessors and superiors, do not approve of their spirit and behavior (for they are anxious that all they do shall be esteemed and praised), they consider that they do not understand them, or that, because they do not approve of this and comply with that, their confessors are themselves not spiritual. And so they immediately desire and contrive to find some one else who will fit in with their tastes; for as a rule they desire to speak of spiritual matters with those who they think will praise and esteem what they do, and they flee, as they would from death, from those who disabuse them in order to lead them into a safe road—sometimes they even harbour ill-will against them. Presuming thus, they are wont to resolve much and accomplish very little. Sometimes they are anxious that others shall realize how spiritual and devout they are, to which end they occasionally give outward evidence thereof in movements, sighs and other ceremonies; and at times they are apt to fall into certain ecstasies, in public rather than in secret, wherein the devil aids them, and they are pleased that this should be noticed, and are often eager that it should be noticed more.

After outlining what can rightly be labeled as the fool Solomon spoke of, the Doctor then contrasts the fool with the wise man:

Together with great tranquillity and humbleness, these souls have a deep desire to be taught by anyone who can bring them profit; they are the complete opposite of those of whom we have spoken above, who would fain be always teaching, and who, when others seem to be teaching them, take the words from their mouths as if they knew them already. These souls, on the other hand, being far from desiring to be the masters of any, are very ready to travel and set out on another road than that which they are actually following, if they be so commanded, because they never think that they are right in anything whatsoever.

As St. John of the Cross tells us, it is not an issue of who has or who doesn't have knowledge and wisdom. Many of the people who fall into the errors he describes have knowledge and wisdom, but they have no clue how to use it, and always believe they know what's best. Solomon (as I do believe him to be the author of proverbs) has this in mind, when after the proverb covered he tells us how to avoid such pride in one's wisdom:

The way of life, to him that observeth correction: but he that forsaketh reproofs goeth astray.

To supplement this proverb could come a proverb from what could be called "The Bible of Military Tactics", Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Speaking on how to win a war, he tells us: "The wise warrior seeks to win and then goes to war, whereas the foolish warrior goes to war seeking to win." I remember a recent dispute I was involved in with somebody over a controversial issue. He made thunderous objections to the fact that those I worked with always "worked in committee" before issuing responses, viewing it idle gossip to constantly talk about where his argumentation went wrong amongst others. I viewed the approach my colleagues were taking as one of wisdom. They recognized that their work could be extremely flawed, and wanted to develop a plan of action on how to proceed with their work, taking things into account that could happen. As a result, they would modify their work. Had they not, had they simply entered the dialogue expecting their position to win without thinking ahead, they would be prone to making embarrassing statements that would later need to be corrected. Since they accepted correction from myself and others, some of the more outlandish statements were dropped. When they did not seek such counsel, they normally found themselves in a mess with certain statements they had to retract later, making them look like fools. Furthermore, I wouldn't view this as a negative, but a positive if many minds were working together against me. It is a sign of respect from one's opponent, giving your work serious consideration. It proves he is not an ideologue looking to score points, but looking to have an honest dialogue. He takes correction and lays up knowledge. Those who are too proud to accept correction almost always end up looking like fools, trapped in a nest of confusions.

Authority and It's Role in Christian Marriage

2006-02-05T08:06:00.000+01:00

The topic I am going to cover here is not strictly related to marriage per se; however I think it has its own value. One of the most contested concepts in Scripture relating to marriage is the command of St. Paul for “wives, submit to your husbands as the Church submits to Christ.” I myself have never really seen a problem with this passage, but this seems to trouble so many “modern” Catholic women to no end. Poisoned by a feminist culture, many women nowadays look upon this not with love, but with scorn.

I have attempted numerous ways to tackle this issue so far, all of them failures. I would get to writing, and I just wouldn’t be convinced that what I was writing was coherent. As I began reflecting on this issue a little more in-depth, I believe I’ve come to the opinion that the reason this passage is so strongly objected to is not just a misunderstanding of obedience and submission, but also of the very nature of authority itself. This is not limited to women; I think Catholic men in many cases also may struggle with understanding the concept of authority.

What is the basis of authority in the eyes of many in the world and even the Church? Someone is given authority because “He has such a Charismatic personality, he can really fire up the crowds! He rules with an iron fist, nobody would dare oppose him! He has a commanding presence!” All of these are extremely good qualities. He who is charismatic can inspire people to his cause. Those who rule strictly normally have an order in the causes they lead. The commanding presence causes people to admire their leaders, and say that yes, this is the man God placed to lead us. Yet all of these traits, while good, are not the basis for authority for Christians. That is what the world measures authority by. Let us recall the words of our Blessed Lord, in Luke’s Gospel, Chapter 22:

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

As with so many things, Christ changes everything. He takes what exists before, and elevates it to something even greater. Notice the context here. This comes in light of Christ’s once again warning that he will be betrayed and be crucified. It was then the Apostles began to argue who would be the greatest. In light of their leader being killed, the Apostles were now vying for leadership of the group, craving authority, craving leadership. Yet according to Our Lord, like so many other times, the Apostles were acting no different than those of the world. It was the world which craved exercising authority. It was the world who boasts of that authority. They lord the authority over their subjects, many times using fear to “keep the locals in line.”

This was not to be the way of Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church. For those who desired to lead, Christ commanded them to become servants. Christ served his Apostles, yet He was their master. Rather than the Apostles washing the feet of Christ, Christ washes the feet of the Apostles. Christ lowered himself to service, and through service led the Apostles. It certainly is a radical, but common sense concept. Through that service, the leader strengthens those he rules. He teaches them humility that even the great leaders are human beings just like the rest of us. That humanity of Christ was demonstrated completely by the act of ultimate service, the Cross, and His command for us to take our crosses and follow him. As leader, He identifies Himself with those He wishes to lead.

In the Old Latin Mass, I think this is something brilliantly demonstrated by the priest facing the altar, not the people during Mass. Many scornfully say “Oh the priest is not caring about the people; he is turning his back on them.” Rather, he is facing the same way we are. He is leading by serving. He’s a sinner just like we are, and he approaches the Cross for the forgiveness of sins, just as we do. Several times at Mass, he turns to the people asking for their prayers. It is their prayers, not his strength, which continues him in his ministry. It is the prayers of others that cause God to pour down grace upon that priest. The priest views it as nothing of his own, but by the Grace of God he continues, in serving others.

For another example, think of what happens whenever a Pope pronounces something major for the Church. Did Pius XII for example say “I Pius, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff and Successor to Prince of the Apostles tell you…?” Of course not. Rather he says, “I Pius, Bishop, and Servant of the Servants of God, for an everlasting memorial.” He lowers himself to the servant of all who serve God. Through that service, what he will say endures.

We see the first aspect of authority under Jesus Christ is that of service. The other aspect I am going to reference is not more or less important than the first. Indeed, the act of love cannot be separated from service, nor can service from love. They are equal, and both vital. Just as faith cannot be separated from works, love cannot be separated from service.

A perfect example of the requirement of love in exercising authority comes from the always impetuous Apostle Peter. He identifies Christ, knowing who He is, but objects to Christ carrying out His mission. He boldly proclaims He intends to follow Christ unto death, only to abandon Him when Christ’s death fast approaches. In John’s Gospel, the Risen Christ appears, and Peter rushes to greet him, but then all of a sudden is back in the boat. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen speculated, a likely reason is because Peter was being impetuous. He ran towards Christ with all his zeal, to see Christ standing by a fire. That fire reminded Peter of His denial of Christ over the fire at the Court of the Sanhedrin.

Yet we also know it is here that Peter receives authority from Christ to “feed my lambs, feed my lambs, and feed my sheep.” The Greek words used indicate that through Peter, the lambs and sheep would receive spiritual nourishment and governance. Yet what was the basis for such authority? Was it Peter’s zeal? Was it the fact that Peter was the first to identify Christ? Rather, it was due to the fact Peter affirmed his love for Christ. It was only after Peter said “Yes Lord, I love you” that he was to feed the sheep.

Christ of course knew the answer. I think, out of the Apostles, it very well could be that Peter loved him the most, but just, as some would say “had a real funny way of showing it.” He loved Christ, wanted to die for Christ, had unbelievable zeal, but he at the same time also lacked service. He was not willing to submit to the decrees of Jesus Christ. He wanted to have things his own way. He wanted Christ as King but not Christ as Victim. He wanted to die for Christ, but on his own time schedule. Yet at this exchange Peter understood. That because he loves Christ, he feeds the sheep. Because Peter loves Christ, he becomes the servant to them feeding them. He does not demand that they feed him.

This is the basis for authority. That of love, and service. You cannot claim to love someone if you do not serve them. Nor can you claim to truly serve someone unless you love them.

The Haunted Faces

2006-02-01T19:18:00.000+01:00

Four years ago today, my professional life as a canonist changed when I became aware of what was breaking in Boston. Unlike other professional crises, this one affected my personal life in that I was just getting use to being a father. I spent part of this morning reflecting on this experience in a column I write for a local webzine.

A Realistic Look at Christian Marriage

2006-02-01T01:42:00.000+01:00

I’ve come to a sort of revelation over time. That revelation is that no matter how hard I try, I can never be a hopeless romantic. I’ve always had an aversion to pure idealism, but I think in this area my aversion is at its peak. It is especially prevalent I feel amongst many of my fellow Catholic youth today. As a result, over the next few columns this 23 year old bachelor will talk about marriage, and what I hope will be a realistic look at the union of husband and wife.

Once you start hitting the age I am at now as a Catholic, marriage starts becoming a huge issue. So many friends around you get married. My heart rejoices for each and every one of them, and if anyone is in my prayers, they most certainly are. Yet along with that rejoicing is worry. Many of them I know are not ready for such commitments. They have not really studied what the Church believes marriage to be. Naturally when they announce to me they are getting engaged, I speak to them about these things. Many times I get a blank stare and silence, followed by “Well we love each other and that’s all that matters, our love will make it work.”

This is the idealism I can’t stand. Part of the reason is because experience has taught me otherwise. Love is essential to a marriage. Nothing can happen without love. Yet here we expect the bare minimum. I love the person, therefore we should marry is the same concept I feel as rewarding someone for not smoking crack. Congratulations for doing what you are supposed to do! While no doubt love should lead to marriage, it cannot be the sole reason. I know this for a fact because nobody doubted my parents love when they married. Nobody doubted their love during their 23 years of marriage. Yet at the same time, their marriage was a failure, like so many other marriages today, ending in divorce. Love was not enough. I believe the failure came from (and is the same in most failed marriages) a misunderstanding of what marriage is.

What is the ultimate purpose of marriage? Is it our satisfaction and happiness? Is it the children born as a result of that blessed union? I submit these are important reasons, and the ends of marriage, that of procreation and conjugal love. Yet at the same time, it is not the ultimate purpose of marriage. For those things mentioned above, while ends of marriage, are means in and of itself to the primary purpose. The purpose of marriage is the purpose of everything else we are here for in this life. It is to know and glorify God. All that we do on this Earth and in heaven is for the purpose of glorifying the Holy Trinity. I always hear about how great the person is, how sweet they are, how good of a kisser they are, how much they love them, but when discussing their future spouse, very rarely do I ever hear about how that person helps them glorify God. The children we have and the love we share with the spouse is itself an offering to God in praise to Him for the glory of His name. Rather today, we make marriage about us, as to how that person makes us feel, or we keep marriage on the natural level, and never talk about how God is glorified by that marriage.

Another purpose of marriage is our sanctification so that we may better serve the Lord. It is fitting because matrimony is a sacrament. The person you are united to, that union is a means of grace, strengthened by every act of love. Yet as with all sacraments, we need to co-operate with that grace provided, or else it means nothing. People seem to think that just receiving the sacrament will make them holy. That isn’t the way God has ordained things. Do we really ponder our imperfections and vices, and wonder how the love of the spouse not only offsets them, but transforms them into a virtue?

Now it is true, that classically speaking, this would be tied into love. Like so many things in the Catholic faith, that one foundation has numerous ramifications. So it is with love. Yet I think the finer points of love are sometimes glossed over, and rather we focus on the happy experience. As with so much today, experience trumps truth. Yet for so many today, love is an emotional feeling or a physical feeling. Love is not just a feeling. Nor is it involuntary. It is a conscious act of the will to love someone. I think our Holy Father realizes this. While there are so many things he could cover in his upcoming encyclical next week, love is what he has chosen. What is true love, what is the purpose of love, its means, its ends, etc?

These are just the basics many hopeless romantics and idealists fail to consider nowadays. However, I believe these aren’t the only things, and in future columns I will touch upon those.

2006-01-25T21:34:00.000+01:00

A Trip Down Memory Lane, Etc.

I just discovered something that I found rather spooky when doing an online search for an out-of-print book. Here is the link I stumbled across:

LOST IN THE LITURGICAL COSMOS: A Catholic Family's Odyssey

I should note upfront that posting the link does not mean I endorse the site or even the contents of the article per se. What I found spooky was not even the mention of my current parish (Blessed Sacrament) in the article or even this part which mentioned my former SSPX parish:

The more convenient time and location, and community life drew us to Mass at the Society of St. Pius X chapel in Edmond. The chapel is fairly plain, but has several large polychrome statues. It has also preserved a section of the old altar rail from St. James, which is now a cathedral-in-the-round. We have made friends here. Some of them, too, must come great distances to Mass, as do the priests, who fly in from Post Falls, Idaho. Although we can justify our attendance, due to the irregular situation in Seattle, under Cannon 844.2, among other Catholics we expected to hear ourselves personally called schismatics. So far, no such luck though was hear the Society called disloyal to the Pope, fanatics and so on. Some at the chapel, for their part, speak of the Novus Ordo as invalid, and are suspicious of other changes from the preconciliar period. Some also frown on indult Masses, believing that indult priests have already made concessions to the Novus Ordo. Personally, I miss the sung dialogue Masses, but these, too, are thought to lead to innovation.

But instead, this part of the text:

Recently a private Mass brought together some of the families from Blessed Sacrament and the St. Pius X chapel. It was celebrated by a priest of the Confraternity of St. Peter, in a home about 25 miles north of Everett, graced by a restored antique altarpiece and statues. Although I had expected the families from St. Pius X to express some reservations about Fraternity Masses, I was pleasantly surprised to find that some of them knew the priest, that he had baptized their children, and that they were enthusiastic about the possibility of a Fraternity priest in this area. Negotiations for such a Mass had been underway even before Seattle's Archbishop Murphy died, and then were put on hold. When the new archbishop is named, negotiations will resume, and it is hoped that the archdiocese will grant permission for a Fraternity Mass. If so, however, it may mean the end of the Masses at Blessed Sacrament.

I found this spooky because I was at the mass she refers to!!! If you consider that I have attended about four Fraternity masses in my entire life, the odds of one of them being mentioned in an online article are miniscule at best. I remember that day well actually (i) it was in 1997, (ii) the presider was Fr. John Rizzo who used to be the pastor at the Edmonds chapel mentioned in the first paragraph and was my pastor and confessor at one time (iii) the mass took place in Arlington, Washington, (iv) it was at the home of Pat and Kathy Kennedy, former parishoners at the SSPX chapel who had left a couple years earlier for reasons I do not feel I can publicly talk about (v) it was attended by both my parents, my sister, and myself, (vi) there was a kind of potluck afterwards, and (vii) a good time was had by all.

Anyway, I hope you pardon my trip into nostalgiaville at the moment but all of those memories came to mind when I read that paragraph of the text. Oh, and btw, there was an Indult granted by the new archbishop mentioned above...it was granted in 2001 and I was one of those who worked to get it put in place. One of these days I may even attend it but things at Blessed Sacrament are much better now than they were then. Oh and the priest she spoke of who celebrated the old Dominican rite at Blessed Sacrament at the time...

Here in the Seattle area, only one Mass compares. The Dominican Rite Mass at Blessed Sacrament has a Latin choir, and a priest who loves the traditional Mass and attends to the needs of traditionalist families. However, he is quite old, and the Dominicans clearly are committed to the Novus Ordo, and seem to wish the old Mass would go away. It was moved from 8:30 to 6:30 a.m. and was made a private Mass, which means no collections. Some families we know continue to attend but quietly wonder what they will do when their priest is gone.

...was Fr. Joseph Fulton who was remembered a couple of years ago in a homily by the Dominican who took over pastor duties from him and who was since transferred to another parish in the Western Province:

Remembering Fr. Joseph Fulton (Fr. Reginald Martin OP)

Anyway, just felt like talking about those things and this weblog of the ones I contribute to seemed the most appropriate one for it.

DEUS CARITAS EST: Pope Benedict XVI's first papal encyclical

2006-01-25T16:52:00.000+01:00

The wait is over! Here is the link to Pope Benedict XVI's first papal encyclical, released today! God is love

God bless,
Joe Moreaux

Sometimes Timing is Everything

2006-01-25T00:28:00.000+01:00

Sometimes Timing is Everything

After Mass at St. Joseph's parish in New Hampshire, I experienced that sudden influx of information and understanding that the Lord sometimes graciously gives to us while our minds and spirits are calm and quiet in His presence. I don't claim to be an expert on this particular subject, but I believe there is something fundamentally important and useful in the story I'm about to relay, and so, here it is…..

As I was praying in front of a tabernacle after Mass, I noticed the intricate design of a tree covering its front. The Lord used the image of the tree to remind me about our first parents and, subsequently, our grave responsibility as parents to our own children.

The image of the tree on the tabernacle obviously brought to mind the tree of life but it also made me consider the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden. My mind's eye could almost "see" Adam and Eve in the garden: sinless, innocent. And yet, something was not yet complete about them. While they appeared to be fully formed, a "finished product", they were not yet entirely so. I recognized that at least three things were still a work "in progress"; things that God intended to form over time and through the experience of living: their wills, knowledge and understanding.

In his eternal hatred of God, Satan perceived Adam and Eve's temporary vulnerability and shrewdly plotted to wound God in the most despicable way possible while he had the chance: by killing His children. Satan knew firsthand what it meant to be cut off from God through the sin of pride and disobedience and in his vileness he decided to spread the deadly virus to God's children before their "immune system" was powerful enough to easily fight it off.

When Adam and Eve abused their free wills by choosing to believe Satan's lie that God had purposely withheld something good from them to their detriment, they were wounded in at least three initial ways that would subsequently lead to the evil, suffering and disorder all humans experience in the world.

First, their immature wills were damaged and predisposed toward future disobedience. Disobedience is not something that one "gets out of one's system" by trying it. It is more akin to an addiction, whereby one is drawn more and more deeply into its deadly grasp. One may eventually escape it, but only with great difficulty and the grace of God. This wound to the will, this infection, has been spread from our first parents on throughout all generations of man and is called "original sin", and its symptom is called "concupiscence", the tendency to continue to sin.
Second, man was doomed to live life dealing with the terrible consequences of possessing little understanding and wisdom while simultaneously possessing an abundance of knowledge.

Scripture is filled with examples and warnings regarding the severe consequences of such a gross imbalance. Decoupled from sufficient understanding and wisdom, knowledge leads to arrogance, to pride. And we all know where pride leads. Such "knowledge", of course, is foolishness in reality.

Third, a seed of distrust of God took root in man. By accepting Satan's lie and then acting upon it rather than resisting and rejecting it, this seed of distrust toward God was sown deeply in the soul of man. We doubted His unconditional love for us. We no longer trusted Him.

While there was obviously nothing evil about the tree of knowledge itself because God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, made it, something as potentially "good" as knowledge became an agent of evil because it was gained too early and in the wrong way.

Does this sound familiar to you in today's world? My mind immediately jumped to modern man's obsession with teaching "sex education" at earlier and earlier ages. When we allow our children to be exposed to such information before they are prepared, before they are sufficiently mature, we cause an injurious imbalance to exist that will have ramifications for the rest of their lives. This is true even if the information presented is essentially "true". How much more damage is done, then, by allowing such powerful information to be framed and presented by those who have neither wisdom nor understanding themselves? Furthermore, just as in the garden of Eden, it can foster distrust of one's parents. Why didn't Mom and Dad tell me all this? What else are they hiding from me that I should know? And if parents give in and teach what most of modern society would have us teach and when they would have us teach it, we directly wound our children ourselves, even if our children may not perceive it. How in the world were we ever convinced that this was a good idea?

Well, it would seem we can blame this blindness on our first parents. And we can also thank the Father of Lies, of course. He really doesn't have that many tricks, but they are certainly good ones, and he doesn't hesitate to use them over and over. He knows that we are innately susceptible to such deception. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The good news, of course, is that we have a Father who immediately put into place a perfect plan to heal our wounds, strengthen us and to restore our relationship with Him. That perfect plan has a Name: Jesus Christ.

By His perfect love, Christ transcended the curse man was powerless to escape by himself. His unblemished sacrifice both satisfied the infinite demands of God's perfect righteousness and justice and also merited a superabundance of grace for us all that we may be transformed into children of God in and through Christ. And by his wounds, by meekly accepting the most cruel and unjust punishment for our sakes, sweet and mild Jesus even healed the painful, vile wound a child ought never suffer: doubt about the unconditional and complete love of its father.

Miraculously, marvelously, God took Satan's maniacal but pathetically predictable and perpetual drive to destroy man and made use of it as a tool in Christ's hands, to test, fully form and strengthen the very target Satan attacked: man's will. With Christ's grace, if we resist our weakened, confused flesh and the evil urgings of the Adversary, our wills become stronger, more and more perfectly aligned with the will of God. Eventually, our free wills become so strong that we become trustworthy, like our Father. When we meet Him after our death, He will look upon us and be able to recognize us as His own: "Welcome home my child!" And what a homecoming it will be!

To begin the journey home, all God asks is that we make a small positive act of the will: simply say "yes" to Him. And yet even here He provides the grace, the power to perform the task if we only will agree to it. Give Him permission to save you and then cooperate with the rescue, don't resist. Just keep saying, "yes", don't be afraid. He has proven that He is trustworthy.

We must all pray for the ability to clearly discern the attacks of Satan. While his particular approaches may vary somewhat, they all have one thing in common: a vile, execrable desire to completely destroy our relationship with God. Mother Mary, pray for us. St. Michael, protect us. Holy Spirit, teach us.

Michael Forrest

Election Day in Canada

2006-01-23T21:13:00.000+01:00

Please keep us in prayer

A Short Rant

2006-01-18T05:34:00.000+01:00

Since I've just started school, and have less time to devote to my comments on some of the Holy Father's works, I'm going to preach to the choir, so to speak, and stand on my soap-box here for a little rant.

For those of you who don't know, (which is hard to imagine considering the world-wide attention this story has got) Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller, who is also a Toyota dealership owner and movie theater owner here in Salt Lake, has pulled the movie "Brokeback Mountain" (or "Bareback Mountain," as I've come to unaffectionately think of it) from his movie theaters.

Of course, we first have to address the issue of hypocrisy which has come from the liberal bastion here in Salt Lake. For instance, isn't is hypocritical for Mr. Miller to show such films as "40 Year-Old Virgin" while at the same time banning "Brokeback Mountain" from his theaters? Well, sure. I can't disagree with that sentiment. But here's the rub: Is the hypocrisy of Mr. Miller really the problem for these folks? I would have to say, "No."

You see, many people, without really recognizing it, see the banning of a movie as a threat to their agenda. Is it really that hard to see a correlation between the hypocrisy of Mr. Miller and the same hypocrisy exhibited by liberals with their outcry of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ?" Were these not the same folks who criticized the "bloodiness" of Mel Gibson's film out one side of their mouth while they were crying for "freedom of expression" out the other side?

In short, the liberal cry for "tolerance" and "freedom of expression" only is applicable when it suits their agenda. If the banning of a movie gives people the right to "give the finger" to Christian "freedom of expression" then, and only then, does intolerance become acceptable. Open-mindedness becomes merely a phantom when the business decisions of a theatre owner become labeled as "bigoted," "immature," and the like. The only things that are truly bigoted and immature are the rejection of values with no honest discussion of the implications that the homosexual lifestyle, and the movie that glorifies it, have for society as a whole.

Patrick Morris

Proverbs of Wisdom

2006-01-18T01:53:00.000+01:00

We now reach the section in proverbs that most people know well. It is where the wise sayings are recounted over the next 20 chapters, 10-30. We notice a shift in the writers focus once we reach chapter 10. For the first nine chapters, we read the description of Wisdom, and how all should seek her out, as opposed to the falsities of the world.

The focus now is quite different. Rather than describing wisdom and other virtues, the writer (whom this column will presume to be King Solomon, following Jewish and Christian tradition, though the author if officially unknown) now begins saying different phrases, and not saying what they mean. It is assumed that once the person comes to know Divine Wisdom, the answers will be clear. The time for beginner’s instruction is over. No longer giving the children milk, he now moves them on to solid, a constant refrain throughout Scripture, most notably in the writings of St. Paul.

A popular literary device used here is to give the proverb dual focus. It demonstrates the virtue of following Wisdom on one side of the Proverb, and then demonstrates the negative aspect of rejecting Wisdom in the following section of the Proverb. Hopefully this will be made clear. We will cover this chapter by chapter, including all of the sayings of wisdom in that chapter.

A wise son maketh the father glad: but a foolish son is the sorrow of his mother.

We begin already by showing the contrast between the wise and the foolish. Upon reading this text some may wonder “Do not the mother and father rejoice and mourn equally with a wise or foolish son?” To this I would answer they do, but not in the sense Solomon wishes to convey. For the first part, it is right to consider the role and duties of the Father.

Biblically speaking, the Father is the head of the household. As such, it is he who instructs the son in the ways of wisdom and the ways of God. He would teach the son how to work in business, how to act towards others, etc. Being a young man, the son will look for examples of how older men act, and that example was to be his father. If the father became ill, the son would assume duties of the family that were his. When the father passes on to his eternal reward, his legacy would continue through his sons. While both parents share a special bond that is deeply personal, the bond father and son share is one in many instances of teacher and student, master and apprentice. It can also be said that when one succeeds, the one most proud of the person is their teacher. For the student received the wisdom of the teacher with joy, applied it, and used it to become successful. As a result, the legacy of the one instructing is furthered thanks to the wisdom of the student. In this sense, the father becomes exceedingly glad when his son applies the wisdom he gives.

We now turn to the mother. There are those women today who view the concept “women are more emotional and personal than men” with scorn and contempt. I do not think this should be the case. Yes women are more emotional and personal, yet it is through a mother we best learn the concept of love. It is through the mother we learn the rules of how to interact with others morally. It is the mother who puts aside her personal feelings, and sacrifices much to raise a child, and to do so with love. The bond that is formed from carrying that child and giving birth to the child is immense. Even more so I would argue when that child is a boy. Men, by their makeup, for some reason have a lot harder time learning love and compassion than a woman. It is through the mother they learn these necessary virtues. That is the wisdom the woman of God imparts to her son. Many times the father counsels the son to learn justice, and the mother counsels the son to learn love. Since love is something far more personal than justice, when the person spurns love, the wisdom the mother taught, her pain is deep. Also there is the fact that she brought the fool into the world. Her love may never wander, but there is a sense of shame that her son refused to listen to the wisdom imparted by the family.

Treasures of wickedness shall profit nothing: but justice shall deliver from death.

There are many in Hollywood and the corporate sector that would seem to disagree with the first part of this saying. For their wickedness, they have amassed quite a bit of profit. Yet that isn’t Solomon’s point. Rather, does that profit really mean anything long term? What eternal consequences does that profit have? Contrasted here are the pragmatist and the man of God.

The pragmatist believes that profit comes before justice. It matters little if great evil occurs in the generation of that profit, for the profit is to be desired above all else, so the end (success) justifies the means used to get there. Society without the light of God has always admired the pragmatist. Even more so does a secular society. Since there is no life after this worth meaning, we are counseled to get all we can in this life. That is how we can live forever, by acquiring everything we can, no matter what the cost. Then forever will we be remembered. However, this is a fantasy world the pragmatist creates. When he meets reality, he will not find success, but emptiness. He will find nothing. That is what hell is. Hell is not just fire and brimstone and torture. Hell is emptiness. It is fatalism, where all you wish is that the emptiness would go away. Yet it never does. It is an eternity absent of love, absent of purpose, absent of justice. It is the apex of evil, deprived of any good.

Combined with this eternal consequence, the temporal life of the pragmatist tends to be short. For as they attempt to destroy anything in its path, no matter the consequence, they will soon find others seek to do the same to them. The pragmatist nowadays is ruthless when benefiting himself, yet the minute pragmatism benefits others he cries foul. There are businesses that have sought to destroy all competition no matter what. Yet when someone sets its sights on them, they go running to the federal government demanding that market be regulated, all in their favor of course. It is a life of paranoia, believing everyone is out to get you. Once you acquire that power and success, the only thing that matters is holding onto it. All pragmatists who gain power worry about only one thing, losing that power. As such, normally they become even more depraved and pragmatic than before. It is a tragic life with a sad ending.

Contrasted with the pragmatist is the man of God. When dealing with others, the man of God seeks fairness and justice in all he does. Success is not his primary goal, justice is. He reasons a business known for its fairness is ultimately more important in the long run than a business known for it’s deceit, which has no loyalty save the bottom line. He normally rejects the concept “its business, nothing personal.” As business takes place between two persons, in a sense business most certainly is personal, and therefore you must deal accordingly to their rights as a person, created in the image of God.

I believe that not only does this form of living save one from hell, it saves one from misfortune having too much an impact. No matter what we may do, misfortune will hit us. Yet the man who seeks justice, many times others will remember that justice, and will aide the man when he now suffers. Churches will be far more willing to give to a man of justice than a freeloader who thinks only of himself. Furthermore, God will remember the way he dealt with others, and deal with him in kind. All throughout Scripture this principle is enunciated. Christ tells us that if we do not forgive the sins of others, our sins will not be forgiven. He tells us to judge fairly, or judge not lest we be judged. The letter of James counsels us to seek judgment by the law of liberty, rather than a law of condemnation. God pays attention to the actions we do towards others. It is in these actions our devotion to God are demonstrated. While the man of God normally does not compare to the pragmatist in success short run or on Earth, in the long run and in heaven he enjoys true riches and success.

The slothful hand hath wrought poverty: but the hand of the industrious getteth riches.

We see here an exhortation to productivity. While we are here on this earth, we might as well make the best of it. Many times the issue is not that of who experiences and who doesn’t experience hardship and problems. Hardship does not discriminate according to class or persons. It indeed was the first equal opportunity employer. The question becomes what one does once they experience that hardship. Do they sit around and whine how bad things are? Or do they roll up their sleeves, sacrifice their goods and their pride, and begin rebuilding? That rebuilding process can mean taking a job one finds degrading. It may mean doing things previously one would never do. It means at times denying you comforts, and rather working with necessity. Such an attitude and enactment of such attitude more times than not leads to success.

For the slothful it is a different story. Constantly he whines about his plight, and blames everyone but himself. He sits along waiting for someone to come bail him out. He waits for charity, he waits for the Church, and he waits for the ultimate giver today, the government. Government will solve his problems. You may give up your independence, your freedom, and the creativity God gave you to overcome adversity in doing so, but for you, the bailout is all that matters. The slothful is a man of pride. He waits around lazy, believing everyone else should fix the problem for him. The industrious realizes that no matter how he got into the situation, whether he put himself in it or other circumstances did, it will ultimately be himself who pulls through it. That requires using the creativity and wisdom God gave him.

He that gathered in the harvest is a wise son: but he that snorteth in the summer, is the son of confusion.

Here we see the contrast between those who have vision, and those who don’t. The vision in this sense is since we do not know what the future brings, we should prepare for it accordingly. When the crop was plentiful, the wise son gathered crops for those around him, so that when the crops were not there, they could eat. Likewise, those who prepare themselves for hardship by saving up for example, hardship is a lot less devastating. And for those who are prepared, opportunity knocks far more often. As the old saying goes, chance favors the prepared mind. For he who prepares for things, when opportunity comes, he has a head start, rather than preparing for the opportunity, then acting upon it right when opportunity comes.

For the son of confusion, he is confused because he does not see beyond his own two eyes. He does not look ahead. Therefore, when hardship comes, he is overwhelmed, not sure what to do, that lack of vision now leads to further indecisiveness. He instead chooses to “live for the moment.” How many times do we go “I’m just going to forget about my worries, my cares, and act on instinct, act on what’s in front of me, and not worry about the future!” Success matters little in this instance. Rather, the person is reckless. He might get lucky once, but if he continues that pattern, it will catch up to him. Furthermore, success teaches him nothing, since all he looks at is the present. He does not remember what he did to get there, nor will he look at what is in the future. Some may find an approach “bold”, living life to its fullest. The way I see it, you had better “live it to the fullest” because you won’t be around long to enjoy it.

In the first 5 verses we see a very consistent approach to wisdom, and a very consistent approach to foolishness. The path to wisdom remembers what he is taught, seeks fairness in all he does, is creative in applying that wisdom, and prepares for the road ahead. The fool remembers nothing, seeks fortune over justice, is lazy, or is too impulsive. Many of these seem to contradict each other. I do not think that is chance. When you do not follow the consistent path of wisdom, you follow just about every other path thinking it is the path to success. As G.K. Chesterton once remarked something along the lines of “When you stop believing in God, it’s not that you believe in nothing, it’s that you’ll believe in anything”. The path of the Lord is one that is a sure guide. The path of this world is a path of confusion, ultimately leading to death.

God Bless,
Kevin M. Tierney

Forgivenss of Sins for Non-Catholics

2006-01-14T18:33:00.000+01:00

A Dialogue on the Forgiveness of Sins of non-Catholics

Dear Michael,

This regards the salvation of non-Catholics. I have copied here, verbatim, question #121 of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism No. 4, along with the brief answer and the detailed eight paragraph explanation of the answer: 121. Question. Are all bound to belong to the Catholic Church? Answer. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved. Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never-even in the past-had the slightest doubt of that fact-what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if he ever committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister-not being a true priest-has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition-that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven.

If a Catholic-with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts-might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God's friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter. I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, again. The above is the entire explanation of the answer to Question #121. The Baltimore Catechism No. 4 was written in 1891, had two sets of approvals, in 1891 and again in 1921, and the endorsement of twenty-seven cardinals and bishops. Would you please comment? Thank you. Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote: >>Hello. This regards the salvation of non-Catholics. I have copied here, verbatim, question #121 of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism No. 4, along with the brief answer and the detailed eight paragraph explanation of the answer: .... Hello, again. The above is the entire explanation of the answer to Question #121. The Baltimore Catechism No. 4 was written in 1891, had two sets of approvals, in 1891 and again in 1921, and the endorsement of twenty-seven cardinals and bishops. Would you please comment? Thank you. Jim>>

I'm going to need you to be more specific than that, Jim. One could potentially write an entire book on this topic. What, exactly, do you want to know? I'll be glad to help when you nail it down a bit more for me.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thanks for your response. I find the Baltimore Catechisms, all four of them, to be very good and clear. The #4 is extremely helpful, as it was intended to be, because it includes the explanations. Being now in my late 50's, as a boy I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism when I attended Catechism classes on Friday afternoons after public school classes ended. Regarding Question #121 and its answer and explanation. I see very clearly the beliefs and logic to the explanation, and it makes a lot of sense to me. It is basically saying that the Catholic 'model' is the way for Christians to be saved. If a person is not Catholic, then, nonetheless, he needs to be free of mortal sin after baptism, and at death to attain Heaven. Also, there is reference to the 'thoughts' that might come to a person that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, that the person must follow these thoughts and check-out Catholicism. Otherwise, as I see it, he's rejected an actual grace sent by God to him, to question his own religion, and to investigate Catholicism.

So, it's not merely a 'thought' that he's rejected, but an actual grace- probably quite a few of them. I guess that I'm saying that the entire explanation seems clear and makes sense to me. That there is actually very little room for a nonCatholic to attain salvation. I would like your comments and opinion on the validity of what is said. This question #121 is the sort of pre Vatican II belief, clear and unambiguous, that, I believe, most orthodox Catholics would agree with. I continue to have disagreements with my liberal Catholic friends who seem to believe that many belief systems lead to God, and to salvation. Priests, nuns, relatives, etc. Our Catholicism is being watered down to a common denominator with other, Christian beliefs.

At this rate, it'll continue to be watered down to another common denominator, to be common with ALL belief systems, such as, I believe, the Pope has done in praying with pagans. So, what am I asking? I'm asking for your comments upon the validity of the explanation to #121. I'm looking for someone who agrees with it, actually, because to not believe it as true Catholic beliefs is to lower Catholicism to something else.
Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

So, what would I say? I don't think I can do any better than Pope Pius IX:

"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. "Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, religions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains 'we shall see God as He is' (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." (Singulari Quadem)

I tend to heed his warning at the end, Jim. And I say that to those on "both sides" of the equation: to those who believe anyone can be saved equally well regardless of their faith (a la "hell may be empty") and those who react to this error by trying to spell out the strict limitations of God's mercy. It is my belief that both are on dangerous ground (albeit to different extents).

I believe the answer is simple. Christ gave us a command to go out and preach the Gospel.....period. We are to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....period. It is blatantly wrong to suggest that we don't need to help people to convert to Catholicism anymore.

But the Scriptures are also clear that judgment is for God alone, and we have no business deciding and spending too much time thinking about who is going to hell. We step on the Almighty's toes when we do that. So, while I agree with the basic reasoning of the Baltimore Catechism (#121), I'm not completely convinced that Fr. Kinkead's in-depth analysis is completely appropriate and helpful.

If anyone asked me if Protestants can be saved, I would need to determine the context of the discussion, first of all. But then I would say that it is possible, but that this matter is God's business, and my business is to do all I can to make their path as sure as possible, and that can only be accomplished within the visible confines of the Catholic Church. I hope I answered what you were after, Jim.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thank you again for your answer. Your answer focused upon invincible ignorance, and quoted a warning concerning proceeding any further. Please read the following. In the EWTN Frequently Asked Questions, regarding the topic of Outside The Church There Is No Salvation, an encyclical is quoted.

In the encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of 10 August 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, Pope Pius I said: "It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin."

Michael, I read from the above, four specific requirements stated by Pope Pius I, for a non-Catholic to attain eternal life: 1) invincible ignorance of the Catholic religion, 2) observe carefully the natural law and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, 3) be disposed to obey God (and) lead an honest and upright life, 4) not of his own free will fallen into sin.

As I read the Catechism (#1955-1957), the principle precepts of the Natural Law are expressed in the Ten Commandments, and the Natural Law is in the heart of each man. So, 1-4 is saying that a person must have followed the Ten Commandments, never freely committed a mortal sin, and been invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion. I'm taking the words literally.

Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

>>Your answer focused upon invincible ignorance, and quoted a warning concerning proceeding any further.>>

Actually, my answer focused both on invincible ignorance and on the criteria for actual sin aside from invincible ignorance (and the forgiveness of sin). However, apparently, I didn't express it sufficiently.

I have always agreed with QCM. As is so often the case on these types of issues, the issue is the actual application of QCM. Fr. Kinkead's explication of the hard and fast facts of QCM and Singulari Quadem (which I quoted previously) and the extent to which they apply is his opinion, not a fact.

For instance, in regard to the number of people who may or may not manage to live outside the visible bounds of the Church without sinning mortally (which only God is capable of judging), Fr. Kinkead says, "I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects.....I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter."

God alone knows whether such a case is "rarely found", not Fr. Kinkead. And I believe he overstates his certainty here. Regarding his statement that "salvation is an extremely difficult matter"; I consider that to be of marginal use as well. ALL salvation is "an extremely difficult matter". I believe it would have been more helpful, and accurate, to state this in the positive, rather than the negative....something along the lines of:

"Only within the visible bounds of the Catholic Church may an individual find the fully sure path to salvation. To the extent that an individual is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, he faces greater burdens and obstacles to his salvation. However, ultimately, God alone can judge such matters. Our commission is to help God bring as many as possible into full and practicing communion with His Church."

I don't believe it is necessary or generally helpful to go beyond that, because one enters further into personal conjecture if one does go further.

Another example is Fr. Kinkead's reference to the forgiveness of sins committed by those who are not visibly Catholic. He speaks of perfect contrition as the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven (without the Sacrament of Penance). I agree, and this is plain fact. However, he goes beyond this and speaks factually of the unlikelihood that such Protestants will ever truly express perfect contrition. This is pastoral/applicational speculation on his part (and of questionable value, IMO), and while it is also only my opinion, I think he underestimates the capacity of baptized Christians to express true remorse for love of God. Regardless, it is his opinion (and mine)....only God knows for sure. (Note: I would add that "Jim's" and Fr. Kinkead's comments about one's culpability in relation to not becoming Catholic and rejecting actual graces are subjective as well. This is another area in which we should tread carefully, IMO).

I tend to believe this tendency to be subjectively constrictive with the application of God's mercy is one reason why many individuals have overreacted and gone in the opposite direction...."hell may be empty"..."rules don't matter" etc. We must be very careful to make clear distinctions between our opinions/possibilities and that which is hard and fast Catholic FACT.

So, in conclusion, I don't disagree with the "four requirements" (with the addition that if a Protestant DOES sin, He must seek and receive forgiveness through perfect contrition....of which, only God can judge). I just believe we need to make distinctions between the "four requirements" which are not negotiable and black and white, and their application, which IS negotiable and is not so black and white. I don't see enough recognition of that fact in Fr. Kinkead's explanation or in yours, personally.

God bless,
Michael Forrest

Michael,
Thanks again, for your response.
Jim

Dear Jim,
You're welcome. Just to be clear......I understand your concerns and echo them to a very large degree. But I have also often witnessed a very common phenomenon......action-reaction or error and over-reaction to error. I want to be careful that I don't allow the excesses of liberals who would like nothing better than to gut the faith to push me in an opposite direction. I may be wrong, of course, but I don't think so. God bless, Michael

Dear Michael.
I hope that it's ok for me to ask you questions. As a way of explanation, I am trying to be a devout Catholic. To me this means to have no unconfessed mortal sin on my soul, and to learn and do that which God wants me to do. I left the Catholic Church and did not go to confession for exactly forty years. I now go when needed, which is pretty frequent. I want to stand-by our Faith. In your recent response concerning salvation of Non-Catholics, you rightly mentioned perfect contrition. You note that it's plain fact that, without the Sacrament of Penance, perfect contrition is the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven.

I've read a bit on perfect contrition, and asked questions of the EWTN website. The Catechism (#1452) says about perfect contrition: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (51) Ref. 51 is Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

It occurs to me, in examining myself, that there is a foundation, a level of piety that is needed for a person to attain such love of God. That there would necessarily be a level of Catholic (Christian) maturity where one has this level of love for God. Simply put, I do not have this level of love for God that would allow me to make a Perfect Act of Contrition. At best, I have imperfect contrition. So, my question is this: Can a person simply muster-up at will, this love for God and produce an Act of Perfect Contrition? Or, is the ability to make a Perfect Act of Contrition the result of a well developed piety, a maturity in one's Faith?
Thank you.
Jim

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

>>Michael. I hope that it's ok for me to ask you questions. >> I'm glad to help in any way I can. >

First of all, let me congratulate you for your deep desire to be the best Catholic you can be. That is unusual in this day and age. But, please bear with me a little here, Jim. I don't intend to read too much into your words, but I believe I may be picking up a bit of a pattern in your expression over these past emails that conveys something deeper. In your previous emails and even this last sentence, it seems to me that you are more focused on the letter of the law, more in the Old Testament spirit of "thou shalt not", rather than the New Testament spirit of "thou shalt". The first thing you expressed above in relation to being "devout" was having "no unconfessed mortal sin" on your soul and second to "learn and do that which God wants" you to do.

Our primary call is to love and serve God, and also one another. This is a higher demand, actually, than the negative of "being free of unconfessed mortal sin". When we cultivate that love and respond to the grace we have been given in order to love, we begin to transcend the Old Testament dynamic wherein we are more akin to slaves or hired servants and move toward becoming genuine friends.....children of God. (Gal 3:26, John 15:12-15)

In this, I am absolutely not saying that standards have been thrown out the window. Sin is still sin. But the nature of our relationship with God is different, and ought to be perceived differently, than that of a Jew before the days of Christ. We need to be careful not to simply create a New Testament version of the Old Law prescriptions in our minds.

(Jim) I left the Catholic Church and did not go to confession for exactly forty years. I now go when needed, which is pretty frequent. I want to stand-by our Faith. >>

Your own 40 years in the desert, Jim? Welcome back, praise God!

(Jim)>> In your recent response concerning salvation of Non-Catholics, you rightly mentioned perfect contrition. You note that it's plain fact that, without the Sacrament of Penance, perfect contrition is the only means by which mortal sin can be sufficiently forgiven in order to enter heaven. I've read a bit on perfect contrition, and asked questions of the EWTN website. The Catechism (#1452) says about perfect contrition: 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible. (51) Ref. 51 is Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

It occurs to me, in examining myself, that there is a foundation, a level of piety that is needed for a person to attain such love of God. That there would necessarily be a level of Catholic (Christian) maturity where one has this level of love for God. Simply put, I do not have this level of love for God that would allow me to make a Perfect Act of Contrition. At best, I have imperfect contrition. >>

First, Jim, I don't believe you have a fully balanced and fair grasp of what constitutes Perfect Contrition. Perhaps the word "perfect" may be giving you the impression that this contrition must be so pure as to be untainted by anything short of godly perfection. This is not accurate. In regard to man, "perfect" is not that absolute. For instance, when Christ commands us to "be perfect", he knows full well that on this earth, true, complete perfection (i.e. always doing that which is the best, not even just what is very good, and also avoiding venial sin) is impossible for us. ["If we say we do not sin, we are deceived and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8) ]

Fr. John Hardon offers this in relation to perfect contrition:

"In perfect contrition, the sinner detests sin more than any other evil, because it offends God.....Its motive is founded on God's own personal goodness and not merely His goodness to the sinner or to humanity. This motive, not the intensity of the act and still less the feelings experienced, is what essentially constitutes perfect sorrow. A perfect love of God, which motivates perfect contrition, does not necessarily exclude attachment to venial sin. Venial sin conflicts with a high degree of perfect love of God, but not with the substance of that love. Moreover, in the act of perfect contrition, other motives can coexist with the perfect love required. There can be fear or gratitude, or even lesser motives such as self-respect, self-interest, along with the dominant reason for sorrow, which is love for God."

Now, as to whether you have previously or ever will express perfect contrition, I cannot say for certain. This is a question only God can answer for sure (and a good spiritual director.....well-balanced in the faith.....can certainly be very helpful). However, I can call your conception of what constitutes such perfect contrition into question, because I believe it is overly strict.

First, one must always keep in mind that every good thing we do is only enabled by God's grace. Even faith is a gift of God. I am sure that you know this in your mind, but sometimes keeping that straight in our practical life is a different matter. Therefore, it is never possible for anyone to "simply muster-up at will" anything that is pleasing to God. We may only respond to those graces which we are given. And these graces may be of different essences and different magnitudes. They may be a simple as receiving a helpful word from a friend (who was prompted by the Spirit) or as direct and powerful as that which St. Paul experienced on the road to Damascus. That said, we do know that God does supply sufficient grace for all to come to repentance. And we will be responsible before God in relation to our response to those graces. However, ultimately, it is God alone Who knows the extent to which we responded and whether he is pleased or not by it. Even St. Paul confided that he didn't judge himself (and warned others to avoided judging such things as well), but left that to God (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Now, the Scriptures are clear, "to whom much is given, much is required". So, generally speaking, those of us who have received and practiced the fullness of the faith may well be judged with a stricter standard than, say, a non-Catholic who was raised his entire life believing that the Catholic Church is from the pit of hell.

Yet, we must always keep in mind the dynamic of father and child in this equation. Christ told us to call the Father "Abba"....most literally "Papa" or "Daddy" and for good reason. He is not best viewed as our judge, just waiting for us to fail and condemn us, but as a loving father making every effort to aid his stumbling child in walking upright. And a father may certainly rebuke and chastise, and may even be forced to eventually disinherit those who first turn their backs on him. But He is best understood as a good father....THE Good Father is the Hound from Heaven, pursuing us in His great love.

Anything we can do to foster piety based on this understanding is good. And the more fully we genuinely understand and are conformed to this truth, the easier it should be to move away from fear-based contrition toward a more perfect contrition based on love.
God bless,
Michael Forrest

Bible Studies and Traditionalism do mix!

2006-01-14T01:44:00.000+01:00

Yet all too often, I think they are neglected. We are very well versed in knowledge of the medivals, ecumenical councils, papal statements, but not as much Scripture study it seems. Despite the fact that Scripture has received lavish praise and encouragement of it's reading by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII, where are your treatments of Scripture in many traditionalist publications or apostolates? (Jacob Michael and his work notwithstanding.)

With that in mind, I wanted to bring that element to Friends of La Nef. At my website recently I've been doing a bible study on proverbs, and I'd like to include that here as well. As the Traditional Catholic Faith is about far more than just the Mass or Vatican II, numerous members of this blog have proved that. Here's my contribution to that effort.

Party of Christ of Church of Jesus Christ? : Part Three- The Body of Christ

2006-01-09T04:55:00.000+01:00

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…

(I Corinthians 12:12-13a)

The description of the Church as being “the body of Christ” is an aspect of ecclesiology that has been forgotten in the minds of many modern Catholics. I think that we all hear this term so often that we’ve forgotten – or have never truly understood – what it means to be part of the body of Christ. Often, we limit this understanding to that of a “community” in which we are all “members.” Though the idea of community is certainly inherent in the concept of the Church being a body, the New Testament passages that cover the institution of the Eucharist shed more light on what is meant by the term, “body of Christ.”

The Holy Father, in Called to Communion, gives his exegesis of New Testament passages that describe the foundation of the Church, the link between this foundation and the institution of the Eucharist, and the implications of this institution on our understanding of what it means to be the body of Christ. To quote the Holy Father at length:

“The Our Father was the first stage on the way toward a special communion of prayer with and from Jesus. On the night before his Passion, Jesus took another decisive step beyond this: he transformed Passover of Israel into an entirely new worship, which logically meant a break with the temple community and thereby definitively established a people of the “New Covenant.” …both the Synoptics and John’s Gospel, though each in a different way, make the connection with the events of Passover…With Passover and the Sinaiatic covenant ritual, the two founding acts by whereby Israel became and ever anew becomes a people are taken up and integrated into the Eucharist. …
(emphasis mine)

(Called to Communion, pgs. 26-27)

The implications for how we must understand the institution of the Eucharist is as follows:

“The sense of all this is clear: “Just as the old Israel once revered the temple as its center and the guarantee of its unity, and by its common celebration of the Passover in its own life, in like manner this new meal is now the bond uniting a new people of God.”

(Called to Communion, pg. 27)

The Holy Father drives home the fact that the institution of the Eucharist is more than just an event which we are to re-enact in order to “remember Jesus” and to celebrate the fact that we are His “community.” The deeper aspect of this event is revealed in its Old Testament parallels with the institution of the Passover Meal: Jesus, in His role as the new sacrificial Lamb, is establishing an event in which the new body of believers will establish their unity; Jesus, as the sacrifice, has moved the center of unity from Temple worship to Himself. Just as the Passover Meal was so central to the founding of the nation of Israel, likewise, the Eucharist is central to the foundation of the people of the New Covenant – The Church.

But there is also an even deeper aspect we can glean from this by use of the Old Testament texts. The Holy Father goes onto to explain what is meant by the Church’s description of herself as the “ecclesia”:

“The Greek term that lives on in the Latin loanword ‘ecclesia’ derives from the Old Testament root ‘qahal,’ which is ordinarily translated by “assembly of the people.” Such “popular assemblies,” in which the people was constituted as a cultic and, on that basis, as a juridical and political entity, existed both in the Greek and the Semitic world…

This typically biblical conception of the popular assembly is traceable to the fact that the convocation on Sinai was regarded as the normative image of all later such assemblies; it was solemnly reenacted after the Exile by Ezra as the refoundation of the people. But because the dispersion of Israel continued on and slavery was reimposed, a ‘qahal’ coming from God himself, a new gathering and foundation of the people, increasingly became the center of Jewish hope. The supplication for this gathering – for the appearance of the ‘ecclesia’ – is a fixed component of late Jewish prayer.”

It is thus clear what it means for the nascent Church to call herself ‘ecclesia’. By doing so, she says in effect: This petition is granted in us.”

(Called to Communion, 30-31)

In short, the Church becomes, in effect, the New Israel.

The glue that holds all this together is St. Paul’s treatment of the topic of the Body of Christ. There are some certain conceptions that this apostle, being a true Israelite, would have had in mind in his understanding of what he meant by the term “body.” The Holy Father spells these out as follows:

“In the first place, the Semitic conception of the “corporate personality” stands in the background; this conception is expressed, for example, in the idea that we are all Adam, a single man writ large…the Pauline formula has in addition two more concrete roots. The first lies in the Eucharist…the Lord becomes our bread, our food. He gives us his body, which, by the way, must be understood in light of the Resurrection and of the Semitic linguistic background of Saint Paul. The body is a man’s self, which does not coincide with the corporeal dimension but comprises it as one element among others. Christ gives us himself – Christ, who in his Resurrection has continued to exist in a new kind of bodiliness. …Hence, Communion means the fusion of existences; just as in the taking of nourishment the body assimilates foreign matter into itself, and is thereby enabled to live, in the same way my “I” is “assimilated” to that of Jesus, it is made similar to him in an exchange that increasingly creaks through the lines of division. This same event takes place in the case of all who communicate; they are all assimilated to this “bread” and thus are made one among themselves – ‘one’ body.

The second of the two “concrete roots” the Holy Father speaks of is the idea of “nuptiality.” After quoting Genesis 2:24 the Holy Father comments:

“One flesh – hence, a single new existence. Paul also takes up this idea that man and woman become one flesh in a bond at once spiritual and physical in the First Letter to the Corinthians, where he states that this word is fulfilled in communion: “He who cleaves to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (I Cor 6:17)

(Called to Communion, pg. 38)

In describing the conception of the Body of Christ in these terms, the Holy Father makes it clear that our communion with Christ and each other through the Eucharist is no less significant than the intimacy expressed by a married couple. This is why the divisions within the Church are so scandalous. Rather than looking at the intimate connection we have through the Eucharist, we instead focus on our agendas that, in the long-run, completely ignore the foundational and nuptial aspects of the Eucharist cited above. Along with a renewed focus on what Jesus meant by the phrase, “The Kingdom of God” we also must recapture a true sense of what we are as a Church in the Eucharist. We are, quite literally, the Body of Christ. We are assimilated into Him, and He into us. Any “reform” that would seek to undermine these foundational and nuptial aspects of the Eucharist and replace it with a mere “communal gathering” understanding in which all parties of all stripes mold the Church according to their whims rather then receive the Church does a great disservice to the message of the New Testament text and, not least of all, to the Lord in Whom we are incorporated. Just as we did no create but, instead, received Christ, we also cannot create but can only receive, and be incorporated into, His Body, the Church – and it is He, not we, who He defines what the Church is.

I’ll wrap with some of the Holy Father’s words expressing the intimacy of our union with Christ through the Eucharist:

“…Christ and the Church are one body in the sense in which man and woman are one flesh, that is, in such a way that in their indissoluble spiritual-bodily union, they nonetheless remain unconfused and unmingled. The Church does not simply become Christ, she ever the handmaid whom he lovingly raises to be his Bride who seeks his face throughout these latter days.”

(Called to Communion, pg. 39)

Musings on Vatican II

2006-01-04T01:57:00.000+01:00

Well everyone knew it wouldn't be long before I tackled this subject. Indeed, how could I not? The controversies over Vatican II have been highly charged, and is generally viewed by Traditionalists in a rather negative light. I wish to break from that voice somewhat, but at the same time, those who uphold and defend Vatican II vehemently need to be put in their place. To put it bluntly, the so called "Conservative" Catholic interpretation of Vatican II does nothing but make them the useful idiot of the modernist.

If there is any phrase that people have objected to me using in the 6 years I've been writing on Catholic issues so far, it's been the phrase "useful idiot." People imply that the term means stupidity. However, this was not the context in which it was originally used. The most "useful" of idiots was an intelligent one. They were those in the West who, while not openly endorsing the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia and the horrors of Vladimir Lenin, championed many causes, but refused to acknowledge themselves as communists. What they didn't realize is that their opposition to Leninism was in name only. Their actions, their causes did nothing but strengthen the Communist position. Likewise, the "Conservative" view of Vatican II, while claiming to be opposed to the false "spirit of Vatican II" buys into many of it's premises, and ultimately furthers that "spirit."

The problem with most interpretations of Vatican II is the following. It creates not only a distinction, but an outright hostility between the Church before and after Vatican II. "Conservatives" frequently lament the fact traditionalists pick up on this reading, not realizing that by their very interpretation of the Council, traditionalists are just taking them at their word. That yes Vatican II created a new Church, and that the old customs and traditions before Vatican II had not just lost their effectiveness due to other factors, but were indeed grave blights upon the Church, that Vatican II had to do away with. At the same time, they say "people need to receive the Council." What faithful Catholic wants to receive a Council that is perceived as rebuking their fathers? Furthermore, what faithful Catholic will have confidence that their traditions and customs mandated at Vatican II will not be demonized by a later Council, if the "conservative" view of Vatican II is correct?

A classic case study of this view is the way the "conservative" view of the liturgy is done. Before the Council they reason, Catholics had just empty faith, and were nothing but like the Pharisees in Scripture, who loved their outward actions, but on the inside were not only lacking in spirituality, they were downright stupid. The Latin Mass, which Cardinal Newman said he could participate at for 24 hours a day and still be amazed, was rather a hindrance to Christian piety, and this was somehow not recognized until Vatican II.

Besides spitting on the graves of Catholics who walked before us as we proclaim "if the prophets walked in our generation we would not have killed them", this interpretation falls short for several reasons. Most importantly is when they are forced to defend the liturgical changes. Whatever reason one wants to put to it, following the liturgical reform, what occurred was not a deepening of faith in the liturgy, but an almost abandonment of it by far too many Catholics. Indeed, it is today the case could be made people just sit in the pews, not taking the importance of the liturgy to heart, simply going through motions. When faced with such empirical evidence that is impossible to deny, the "conservative" states "Well we don't need to change the liturgy, but rather change the way people view it with better catechists." They do not realize it, but they have just sawed off the branch they were standing on. For they looked down upon those outward signs that Catholics frequently showed before the Council, and said they had to be changed. They believed that the way to get people away from just following rubrics to participating with their heart was more emphasis on rubrics.

I believe they miss the point of what Vatican II had in mind. Rather than frowning on such external actions and piety, the Council wished to reinforce them. Due to the works of St. Pius X at the turn of the century, a renewed interest had sparked in getting more out of the liturgy. While incremental grounds had been made since the last major reform at the Council of Trent, St. Pius X made this crusade (and the crusade against modernism) his own. It was not that everyone was completely ignorant of the liturgy, but rather that the Christian faithful yearned to continually elevate their knowledge and love of the liturgy. To place those external actions in the context of a more dedicated Christian life, which every Christian can always improve.

Vatican II's goal was not "here's what we can change" but rather how can we help the Christian faithful come to a deeper appreciation of the liturgy. For those external acts of piety, how can we get the Christian to understand those acts deeper? Even such simple acts as genuflection have profound significance, and they can be probed deeper and deeper. This deeper knowledge and love will most certainly lead to deeper reverence. Deeper knowledge and love of the liturgy would lead to the diminishing of undesirable practices. For those that persisted, the Bishops were to act strongly in safeguarding the liturgy, and any time they were to act it is for this purpose. This is a view that rejects Vatican II as a "ground zero", but rather as a call to continually enhance and develop the Christian life. Countless imprudent decisions were made on all levels of authority for neglecting this outlook, and rather choosing the change for changes sake outlook. (Indeed, the de facto suppression of the Latin Mass, the original draconian restrictions placed upon it, and the outright hostility towards people who desired this liturgical celebration only compounded the problem.)

So yes, my "conservative friend", the problem with Vatican II is that the teachings of the council are not received by the faithful. However, you are a primary reason they are not, and if the crisis in the Church is ever to abide, your view of things must be cosigned to the dustbin of history.

God Bless,
Kevin M. Tierney

Party of Christ or Church of Jesus Christ? – Part Two: The Kingdom of God

2006-01-01T00:51:00.000+01:00

In the last post, we talked about the three methods of exegesis that the Holy Father feels have contributed most to the modern understanding of what it means to be Church. Two of these methods, the liberal and the neo-liberal/Marxist, have been used to destroy the authentic understanding of Catholic ecclesiology. As promised earlier, I now want to dive into the Holy Father’s exegesis of specific biblical texts in order to help clear up some of the confusion that has been created by the liberal interpretations we mentioned in the last post.

One of these interpretations, the liberal/Marxist, has tended to paint the seemingly contradictory contrast between clergy and laity as a “class struggle.” The Kingdom of God, according to this understanding, is not made up of any institutions but is instead a society that is meant to tear them down. Jesus, rather than being the liberator from sin, becomes instead the liberator from institutions and the seeming oppression that these institutions create. In this viewpoint, the Gospel is no longer a message of redemption and salvation from the power of sin, but is instead is a message of redemption and salvation from the power of unwanted authority.

One might wonder, “But, this is the message of Jesus, is it not? Does not the Lord spend a great deal of time in the Gospels chastising the authority of His day?” The answer is, of course, “yes.” But what gets missed in this question is this: Christ, in His rebuke of the religious leaders of His day, is not abolishing the concept of authority or structure within His Kingdom, but is instead rebuking an authority that has abused its power. This is obvious from at least two New Testament texts that come to mind.

The first is the classic Petrine texts of Matthew 16:18-19. Just, before this encounter at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus had warned the disciples regarding the “leaven” of the Pharisees and Sadducees; a leaven which the disciples discerned to be the “teaching” of the Pharisees and Sadducees. However, a mere seven passages later, Jesus solemnly declares to Peter (as He will later to the rest of the apostles) that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This precept, which is given to Peter and the apostles only, shows that the rabbinical authority of “binding and loosing” was to be given to a select few of his disciples, therefore denoting a special place of authority within His new Kingdom.

The second passage is the passage regarding ‘Moses’ Seat’ in Matthew 23:2-3. Despite His rejection of the religious leaders of his day, Jesus still reminds his disciples and the crowds that, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; …” One can safely infer from this passage that even when the authority that has been placed above you becomes morally corrupt, that authority is still God-given and does not lose force as legitimate authority.

In light of these passages, how do we demonstrate what is peculiar to Jesus’ message about the establishment of the Kingdom of God? Does Jesus intend to set up a Church that is devoid of a hierarchy - an authority of the masses? The Holy Father tackles this question in an honest (and somewhat humorous) manner.

First, the Holy Father emphasizes:

“To begin with, we must take note of the fact that community of Jesus’ disciples is not an amorphous mob. At its center are the Twelve, who form a compactly knit core. This core, according to Luke (10:1-20), is then flanked by the group of seventy, or, as the case may be, seventy-two."

(Called to Communion, pg. 24)

What is the implication of this grouping of disciples numerically? The Holy Father continues:

“The symbolic value of the Twelve is consequently of decisive significance: twelve is the number of Jacob’s sons, the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. In constituting the circle of the Twelve, Jesus presents himself as the patriarch of the new Israel and institutes these twelve men as its origin and foundation …. The group of seventy, or seventy-two, of which Luke speaks supplements this symbolism; seventy (seventy-two) was, according to Jewish tradition (Gen 10; Ex 1:5, Dt 32:8), the number of the non-Jewish peoples of the world.”

(Called to Communion, pg. 25)

Jesus, rather than abolishing the old, has come, of course, to fulfill it. In selecting twelve apostles, Jesus is saying something very specific, namely, that He is building a “foundation.” Any Israelite would understand this significance of the number twelve. The very nation of Israel itself was “founded” on, and comprised of, twelve tribes. What we as church need to re-capture is this understanding of “foundation.” Twelve just isn’t a nice number, it is rather a very symbolic expression emphasizing that this Kingdom He has come to establish has a structure, a foundation, that is meant, ultimately, to embrace all the nations (i.e. the “seventy” or “seventy-two”).

The “mob rules” mentality that parades itself as authentic Christianity is exactly what needs to be rooted out of our parishes if there is to be progress towards unity in the Church. It’s almost as if we’ve developed an understanding in the modern Church that unity will only come about by democracy. As can be seen from our own two-party system here in the US, however, that idea is nothing more than a dream.

Does this mean that there is no room for disagreement or expression? Of course not. What it does mean is that there is a structure within the Church that has authority to render judgment on these matters of disagreement and expression; an authority that comes not from the Church herself, but instead from her very Founder – again, from outside, not from within.

In the next post we will cover the Holy Father’s thoughts the institution of the Eucharist, its parallels with Old Testament Israel, and how these affect our understanding of what it means to be Church.

God Bless,
Patrick Morris

Answering The Door

2005-12-27T20:45:00.000+01:00

Today I received a special Christmas gift. It was in the form of an email and I would like to share some of the contents. I don't want to elaborate on the situation to protect the person involved. This gift was not found "under my tree" as Pete has pointed out in his article. I was asked for a special favor from someone, and I responded with a " Yes" to this request. I thought it was a small sacrifice, but a special way to give a gift to Christ on Christmas Day. I felt good about being able to give Him something meaningful on His birthday. I prayed hard during Advent and tried especially during that season, even though I was tired and busy, to give my time in prayer (that extra effort God deserves). I realized that all the time I spent in the practice of special devotions , that it was the smallest thing I did that meant the most. This email I received was a "Thank You" for helping an individual and her child, do something that would not have been possible, if I had not been able to answer, "Yes " to them. I did not know that they had been praying and hoping that I would do what I had done for them, and just how much it meant to them. It was such an easy thing for me to do, and so simple for me to do. I never thought that this simple sacrifice could be so meaningful to someone, with so little effort on my part. Sometimes we look for such big things to make a difference when all we need to do is something so simple. The impact was evidently enormous for them and so much appreciated. I feel I was given some insight into my own life and what I take for granted. I believe Christ gave me this gift in return. He showed me some very precious people in my life, and not to miss opportunities to answer "Yes" to someone's request. I believe Jesus Himself was "knocking" and I am very glad I "ANSWERED THE DOOR".

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-25T20:56:00.000+01:00

I'm sure I speak for Peter, Michael, Pat, Shawn, and the rest of the gang at Friends of La Nef when I say that I wish everyone a very blessed Christmas day and the rest of this season. (Remember for us Catholics, the Christmas season DOES NOT end today!)

God bless,
-Kev

The Gifts Not Under the Tree

2005-12-24T14:31:00.000+01:00

The Gifts Not under the Tree

Pete Vere

Every Christmas, my thoughts turn to my friend Raymond Levesque. Along with our friends Dan, Jan, and Suzanne, Raymond and I have a long-standing conversation about “the gifts that are not under the tree.” This expression goes back to an article that appeared one December in New Covenant. While the magazine is no longer in print, during its run, New Covenant offered a fresh orthodox perspective on Catholic spirituality.

Struggling to Discover a Catholic Identity

Raymond and I first met through our local Latin Mass community. I was a teenager who had been catechized during the late seventies and early eighties. Thus in addition to the usual angst of adolescence, I was struggling to discover my identity as a Catholic.

Raymond was a high-school language teacher approaching retirement. He was also a founding member of the local Latin Mass community and an old salt within the Catholic charismatic renewal. The Holy Spirit had blessed him with an almost supernatural patience and he had a gift for working with teenaged boys who came from a difficult family background. In fact, he had taken several young men into his home throughout the years and straightened them up as best he could.

Because of the depth of Raymond’s experiences, our parish priest asked him to take me under his wing and help me discover the riches of Catholic faith. Raymond agreed to Father’s request. We subsequently spent countless evenings listening to Gregorian Chant and discussing the adventures of St. Francis of Assisi. Raymond opened my eyes to the Eastern Catholic Churches and the beauty of the Byzantine liturgy. He introduced me to Western monasticism and together we visited the Benedictine Monastery of St. Benoit du Lac so that I could experience my first silent retreat.

A Mutual Source of God’s Grace

What Raymond shared cannot be found under a Christmas tree. First he gave me the gift of Christian friendship. Second, he shared the gift of true zeal for the Catholic faith. Third, he showed me the virtues of Catholic manhood.

Let us begin with the gift of friendship. Acquaintances are common in today’s world, but friends are rare. Like most folks, I socialize with a great many people. Yet only a friend like Raymond shows genuine interest in my relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.

Raymond taught me that friendship is a mutual source of God’s grace. Through our friendship we help each other come closer to our Lord. Eternity is a long time and the saints tell us that many souls will be lost to the fires of hell. As a true friend, Raymond wants me to spend eternity in our Lord’s presence. Thus he often inquires about my prayer life as well as other things affecting the state of my soul. Like St. Paul, Raymond encourages me when I remain steadfast in Christ and he admonishes me whenever I deviate from Church teaching. Thus Raymond’s concern for my spiritual well-being is the gift of a true friend.

Secondly, Raymond taught me true zeal for the Catholic faith. Prior to knowing Raymond, I found Catholicism both stuffy and boring. I knew what I was supposed to do as a Catholic, but I never understood the why. Raymond answered many of my questions about the Catholic faith. He explained to me each action performed during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, how it came about, and why it was vital to our understanding of this Most Holy Sacrament.

Raymond evangelized and catechized with a warmth and enthusiasm that everyone around him found contagious. “God save us from sorrowful saints,” he often quoted from St. Theresa of Avila. He also encouraged me to evangelize others, so that they too would come to love the Catholic faith. Raymond’s zeal for the Catholic faith is another valuable gift one does not find under the tree.

Neither Barbarians or Effetes

Lastly, Raymond gave me the gift of Catholic manhood. In today’s emasculated culture, young men often find themselves divided into barbarians or effetes. The former find their maleness confusing, whereas the latter are ashamed by it. Such a state of affairs among young men of my generation is one of feminism’s most bitter fruits.

Raymond helped me to understand the meaning of Catholic manhood. More importantly, however, he taught me that it is OK to be a man. “We need to rediscover Christian manliness,” Raymond reminded me during a recent conversation. “A Catholic man is neither a macho animalistic bully nor an effeminate wimp. He uses his strength to assist orphans and widows. He has the courage to live by his convictions even when under fire. He does not seek conflict, but he does not shy away from it whenever it becomes necessary. Rather, he follows Christ to the Cross and is willing to lay down his life for the Truth.” Although one will never find it gift-wrapped under a tree, understanding Catholic manhood is one of the most valuable gifts one can offer a young man.

My wife and I will probably spend this Christmas with my folks. While visiting my hometown, I hope to meet up with Raymond. Of course we have purchased a small gift for one another like we do each Christmas. Nevertheless, it is the gifts not under the tree that I most look forward to exchanging. Therefore, as you gather with your loved ones to celebrate the birth of our Lord, I pray that you, too, may be blessed with the gifts not found under the tree.

It is urgent that we strive to re-Christianize holidays and popular customs. It is urgent to keep the public from being faced with the dilemma: either overpious or pagan. Ask our Lord to provide laborers for this urgent work which could be called the "holiday apostolate.” (St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, 975).

Pete Vere is a canon lawyer and a Catholic author. He recently co-authored Surprised by Canon Law: 150 Questions Catholics Ask About Canon Law (Servant Books) with Michael Trueman and More Catholic Than the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor) with Patrick Madrid. He lives with his wife and two daughters in Sault Ste. Marie, Canada.

This article originally appeared in Challenge magazine and is used by permission of the author.

Four MUST READ Articles

2005-12-23T18:59:00.000+01:00

The Holy Father and Cardinal Schoenborn Shine:

Today, I came across four articles that strike me as "must reads". The first, by Pope Benedict, addresses the wide-spread misinterpretation of Vatican II (written December 22). It seems the Holy Father is building a case for some reason, and I think we may all suspect that reason (hope?).

The next three are all by Cardinal Schoenborn on Evolution. I have included three links to these articles/essays . His response to a critic of a piece he wrote in the New York Times is absolutely brilliant and so profoundly necessary in this day and age (link #2 below, the actual body of the article is below all of the links in this post).

The sad fact is that Evolution, as currently taught, has been incredibly destructive of traditional, orthodox, Catholic faith. Surveys regularly prove that so many people have come to the logical conclusion that if Evolution is true as currently taught, then traditional Catholic teaching cannot be true. In fact, a disturbing number of Evolutionists are quite open about their desire to prove exactly this conclusion. And it is high time that we fight back cogently against this powerful tool of atheism. Catholics must follow the lead of Fides et Ratio and bridge the gap that has grown between faith and reason, proving once and for all that they are not at odds, neither are they unrelated, but rather, they are in full harmony with one another.

The good Cardinal shines a very bright light on this "faith bludgeon" called Evolution, revealing its serious inadequacies and internal contradictions as currently propounded. He very potently exposes the reality that so much of what passes for science today is truly religion posing as science. I cannot praise his work highly enough and I implore you to read it and pass it on to as many people as possible.

I have pasted the body of the article from the first link, below, for your convenience.

Michael Forrest

1) -- Zenit coverage: Vatican II texts were misinterpreted, says pope
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=82067

2) -- Cardinal Schoenborn: The design of science (First Things)http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0601/articles/schonborn.html

3) -- Cardinal Schoenborn: Creation and evolution: to the debate as itstands (Archdiocese of Vienna)http://stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/10/14/a9347

4) -- Cardinal Schoenborn: In the beginning God created (Archdiocese ofVienna) http://stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719

The Designs of Science

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

Copyright (c) 2006 First Things 159 (January 2006): 34-38.
In July 2005 the New York Times published my short essay "Finding Design in Nature." The reaction has been overwhelming, and not overwhelmingly positive. In the October issue of FIRST THINGS, Stephen Barr honored me with a serious response, one fairly representative of the reaction of many Catholics.
I fear, however, that Barr has misunderstood my argument and possibly misconceived the issue of whether the human intellect can discern the reality of design in the world of living things.
It appears from Barr’s essay—and a number of other responses—that my argument was substantially misunderstood. In "Finding Design in Nature," I said:
• The Church "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things."
• "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
• Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: "The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."
• Again quoting John Paul II: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
• Quoting the Catechism: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."
• Referring to the Church’s teaching on the importance and reach of metaphysics: "But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the nineteenth century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the ‘death of God’ that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers."
My argument was based neither on theology nor modern science nor "intelligent design theory." In theology, although the mind’s ability to grasp the order and design in nature is adopted by, taken up into, and elevated to new heights by the faith of Christianity, that ability precedes faith, as Romans 1:19-20 makes clear. In science, the discipline and methods are such that design—more precisely, formal and final causes in natural beings—is purposefully excluded from its reductionist conception of nature.
Instead, my argument was based on the natural ability of the human intellect to grasp the intelligible realities that populate the natural world, including most clearly and evidently the world of living substances, living beings. Nothing is intelligible—nothing can be grasped in its essence by our intellects—without first being ordered by a creative intellect. The possibility of modern science is fundamentally grounded on the reality of an underlying creative intellect that makes the natural world what it is. The natural world is nothing less than a mediation between minds: the unlimited mind of the Creator and our limited human minds. Res ergo naturalis inter duos intellectus constituta—"The natural thing is constituted between two intellects," in the words of St. Thomas. In short, my argument was based on careful examination of the evidence of everyday experience; in other words, on philosophy.
Many readers will no doubt be disappointed. It seemed that, right or wrong, my original essay was all about science, about real, tangible, factual knowledge of the material world. But now I admit to be speaking in the language of natural philosophy, that old-fashioned way of understanding reality which quickly faded into the intellectual shadows after the arrival of the new knowledge of Galileo and Newton. Philosophy continues, it is said, only as a meta-narrative for modern science and contains no positive knowledge of its own. In short, I seem to have admitted that my essay was a meaningless or at best subjective form of argument from a discarded and discredited discipline.
It is my sincere hope that for readers of FIRST THINGS I need not respond to this modern caricature of philosophy. Philosophy is the "science of common experience" which provides our most fundamental and most certain grasp on reality. And, clearly, it is philosophical knowledge of reality that is most in need of defense in our time.
Today, spirit-matter dualism dominates Christian thinking about reality. By "spirit-matter dualism" I mean the habit of thought in which physical reality is conceived of according to the reductive claims of modern science (which is to say, positivism), combined in a mysterious way with a belief in the immaterial realities of the human and divine spirits as known only by faith (which is to say, fideism).
But human reason is much more than just positivistic "scientific" knowledge. Indeed, true science is impossible unless we first grasp the reality of natures and essences, the intelligible principles of the natural world. We can with much profit study nature using the tools and techniques of modern science. But let us never forget, as some modern scientists have forgotten, that the study of reality via reductive methods leads to incomplete knowledge. To grasp reality as it is, we must return to our pre-scientific and post-scientific knowledge, the tacit knowledge that pervades science, the knowledge that, when critically examined and refined, we call philosophy.

Stephen Barr criticizes me for confusing two very different things: the modest scientific theory of neo-Darwinism (which he defines as "the idea that the mainspring of evolution is natural selection acting on random genetic variation") and what he calls the "theological" claim that evolution is an "unguided, unplanned" process. "This," he asserts, "is the central misstep of Cardinal Schönborn’s article."
Let us assume for the moment that I indeed made a mistake. Is there any excuse, any basis for my error? Barr, treating Darwinism with great delicacy, says nothing. But there is much he could have said. He could have listed quotations from Darwinian scientists going on dozens of pages in which they make such "theological" assertions, in bold and completely unqualified ways, assertions that evolution by means of random variation and natural selection is an unguided, unplanned process.
Many of those assertions are in textbooks and scientific journals, not just in popular writings. I will leave it to others to compile a complete account of such quotations. I made a small contribution of three quotations in my recent catechesis on creation and evolution in the cathedral church of St. Stephen’s in Vienna. Here is one of those three examples, a quotation from the American scientist Will Provine: "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable."
Barr argues that such "theological" claims are separable from a more modest science of neo-Darwinism. I agree that there is a difference between a modest science of Darwinism and the broader metaphysical claims frequently made on its behalf. But which of those two is more properly called "neo-Darwinism" in an unqualified way, as I did in my essay?
For now, I happily concede that a metaphysically modest version of neo-Darwinism could potentially be compatible with the philosophical truth (and thus Catholic teaching) about nature. If the Darwinist, taking up Descartes’ and Bacon’s project of understanding nature according only to material and efficient causes, studies the history of living things and says that he can see no organizing, active principles of whole living substances (formal causes) and no real plan, purpose or design in living things (final causes), then I accept his report without surprise. It is obviously compatible with the full truth that the world of living beings is replete with formality and finality. It comes as no surprise that reductionist science cannot recognize those very aspects of reality that it excludes—or at least, seeks to exclude—by its choice of method.
But how successful is modern biology, seeking to be true to its founding principles, at excluding the rational consideration of final cause? One way to grasp this problem is to examine the question of "randomness" and the role it plays in modern evolutionary biology.
The notion of "randomness" is obviously of great importance. The technical error at the heart of my analysis of neo-Darwinism, says Barr, is my misunderstanding of how the term "random" as used by Darwinian biology. "If the word ‘random’ necessarily entails the idea that some events are ‘unguided’ in the sense of falling ‘outside the bounds of divine providence,’ we should have to condemn as incompatible with Christian faith a great deal of modern physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, as well as biology," he wrote.
This is absurd, of course. The word "random" as used in science does not mean uncaused, unplanned, or inexplicable; it means uncorrelated. My children like to observe the license plates of the cars that pass us on the highway, to see which states they are from. The sequence of states exhibits a degree of randomness: a car from Kentucky, then New Jersey, then Florida, and so on—because the cars are uncorrelated: knowing where one care comes from tells us nothing about where the next one comes from. And yet, each car comes to that place at that time for a reason. Each trip is planned, each guided by some map and some schedule.
I certainly agree with much of what Barr says, and I appreciate his delightful example. I would like to suggest, however, that he may be overlooking something when it comes to modern biology. First of all, we must observe that the role of randomness in Darwinian biology is quite different from its role in thermodynamics, quantum theory, and other natural sciences. In those sciences randomness captures our inability to predict or know the precise behavior of the parts of a system (or perhaps, in the case of the quantum world, some intrinsic properties of the system). But in all such cases the "random" behavior of parts is embedded in and constrained by a deeply mathematical and precise conceptual structure of the whole that makes the overall behavior of the system orderly and intelligible.
The randomness of neo-Darwinian biology is nothing like that. It is simply random. The variation through genetic mutation is random. And natural selection is also random: The properties of the ever-changing environment that drive evolution through natural selection are also not correlated to anything, according to the Darwinists. Yet out of all that unconstrained, unintelligible mess emerges, deus ex machina, the precisely ordered and extraordinarily intelligible world of living organisms. And this is the heart of the neo-Darwinian science of biology.
Be that as it may, let us return to and extend Barr’s license plate example and see what we might learn. Suppose the Barr family sets out on a trip southward from their home in Delaware—and, while hearing a brief introductory lecture on the proper meaning of randomness, the children start writing down the state of each passing license plate. After hours have passed, the children, pausing at their work, provide the following report: While each individual car’s license plate does indeed seem uncorrelated to the previous and next, or to anything in the immediate environment, there may nevertheless be a pattern in the data. At first, almost all the license plates were from Delaware. A little later the majority shifted to Maryland. A few hours after that there was a big upswing of District of Columbia plates, mixing in near-equal proportion to the Maryland plates. A short time later the majority became Virginia plates. Now they see a dramatic shift to North Carolina plates. Is there a pattern here? Is there a reason one can think of for that pattern?

The Darwinian biologist looking at the history of life faces a precisely analogous question. If he takes a very narrow view of the supposedly random variation that meets his gaze, it may well be impossible to correlate it to anything interesting, and thus variation remains simply unintelligible. He then summarizes his ignorance of any pattern in variation by means of the rather respectable term "random." But if he steps back and looks at the sweep of life, he sees an obvious, indeed an overwhelming pattern. The variation that actually occurred in the history of life was exactly the sort needed to bring about the complete set of plants and animals that exist today. In particular, it was exactly the variation needed to give rise to an upward sweep of evolution resulting in human beings. If that is not a powerful and relevant correlation, then I don’t know what could count as evidence against actual randomness in the mind of an observer.
Some may object: This is a pure tautology, not scientific knowledge. I have assumed the conclusion, "rigged the game," and so forth. But that is not true. I have simply related two indisputable facts: Evolution happened (or so we will presume, for purposes of this analysis), and our present biosphere is the result. The two sets of facts correlate perfectly. Facts are not tautologies simply because they are indisputably true. If the modern biologist chooses to ignore this indubitable correlation, I have no objection. He is free to define his special science on terms as narrow as he finds useful for gaining a certain kind of knowledge. But he may not then turn around and demand that the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self-limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality, such as the clearly teleological nature of evolution.

Let us return to a telling word of Barr. He refers to my allegedly over-broad understanding of neo-Darwinism as unwarranted extension of the theory into the realm of "theology." Does his use of that term mean that we can only know that teleology is real in the world of living beings by reference to revealed truth? Does it mean that unaided human reason cannot grasp the evident order, purpose, and intelligence manifested so clearly in the world of living beings? Does it mean that we worship an unjust God who, as Romans 1:19-20 teaches, punishes people for their failure to abide by natural law, a law St. Paul says they cannot fail to recognize through the manifest order in the nature world?
Barr’s essay addresses at some length the question of design in biology, but does not clearly affirm that reason can grasp the reality of design without the aid of faith. If my reading is correct (and I hope I am wrong), in that respect Barr has followed the overwhelming trend of Catholic commentators on the question of neo-Darwinian evolution, who gladly discuss its compatibility with the truths of faith but seldom bother to discuss whether and how it is compatible with the truths of reason.
Perhaps now that the role of fideism is in view, I can profitably return to the question of the essential meaning of the term "neo-Darwinism." If, as many seem to think, neo-Darwinism serves as a valid "design-defeating hypothesis" at the level of human reason but is rescued from any ultimately improper conclusions only by the intervention of theology, then it seems that my expansive definition is fully vindicated. If reason is incapable of grasping real teleology in living things and their history, then neo-Darwinism—which obviously is incapable of taking into account theological truths—can truly be said to be a theory that asserts, in the words of my original essay, that evolution is "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." What so many Catholics seem to be saying is that, so far as we can determine with our unaided human intellects, according to even the "metaphysically modest" version of neo-Darwinism, there is no real plan, purpose, or design in living things, and absolutely no directionality to evolution; yet we know those things to be true by faith. In other words, a "metaphysically modest" neo-Darwinism is not so modest after all. It means a Darwinism that does not conflict with knowledge about reality known through faith alone. In the debate about design in nature, sola fides takes on an entirely new meaning.
Modern science alone may well be incapable of grasping the key truths about nature that are woven into the fabric of Catholic theology and morality. And theology proper does not supply these key truths either. Prior to both science and theology is philosophy, the "science of common experience." Its role in these crucial matters is indispensable.

Let us return to the heart of the problem: positivism. Modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes, then investigates nature under the reductive mode of mechanism (efficient and material causes), and then turns around to claim both final and formal causes are obviously unreal, and also that its mode of knowing the corporeal world takes priority over all other forms of human knowledge. Being mechanistic, modern science is also historicist: It argues that a complete description of the efficient and material causal history of an entity is a complete explanation of the entity itself—in other words, that an understanding of how something came to be is the same as understanding what it is. But Catholic thinking rejects the genetic fallacy applied to the natural world and contains instead a holistic understanding of reality based on all the faculties of reason and all the causes evident in nature—including the "vertical" causation of formality and finality.
Some may object that my original small essay in the New York Times was misleading because it was too easily misunderstood as an argument about the details of science. As a matter of fact, I expected some initial misunderstanding. Even had it been possible to state in a thousand words a highly qualified and nuanced statement about the relations among modern science, philosophy, and theology, the essay would likely have been dismissed as "mere philosophy," with no standing to challenge the hegemony of scientism. It was crucially important to communicate a claim about design in nature that was in no way inferior to a "scientific" (in the modern sense) argument. Indeed, my argument was superior to a "scientific" argument since it was based on more certain and enduring truths and principles.
The modern world needs badly to hear this message. What frequently passes for modern science—with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism—is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, "ideology, not science." The problems caused by positivism are especially acute in the broad anti-teleological implications drawn from Darwin’s theory of evolution, which has become (in the phrase of Pope Benedict XVI, writing some years ago) the new "first philosophy" of the modern world, a total and foundational description of reality that goes far beyond a proper grounding in the descriptive and reductive science on which it is based. My essay was designed to awaken Catholics from their dogmatic slumber about positivism in general and evolutionism in particular. It appears to have worked.
(In next month’s issue of FIRST THINGS, Stephen Barr returns with a general essay on Intelligent Design.)
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Case for Traditional Principles, Part IX: Salt of the Earth

2005-12-20T21:08:00.000+01:00

The principle I am going to cover today is important because it was through this principle that Christendom was built. Without this principle, Christendom would never have been established, and indeed the Church would not exist. The Christian has many callings, but none are more important than this calling. When Christ spoke the famous Sermon on the Mount, he says the following in Matthews Gospel:

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Our Lord here chooses a curious analogy, but one that is of course incredibly fitting. When one uses salt, they use it to add flavor to something, and in older days, preserve it. That is the job of Christians in this world. We make this world better, and we preserve that around us from that which defiles the Earth. This would make perfect sense to a Jewish audience. If we remember, God's role for Israel was that of bringing God to the nations. To instruct them in the ways of righteousness and the precepts of Yahweh. This was the very purpose of King Solomon's great wisdom, to teach others the ways of God. One of the ways this was done was by what is known as an Incarnational approach to the things of this world. It is an often missed concept in today's society, but it is what Christendom flourished on, since it applies the great mystery that is the Incarnation to this world.

In the early Church, there were those who believed matter was evil. That since man used the created world for great evil, the created world and all it's matter itself was evil. The Churches response to this idea (mainly pushed by heretical sects such as the Gnostics and the Docetics) was to point to the reality of the Incarnation, where God himself became man. If matter was evil, God could not become something evil. Rather, that matter is something good, and made for service to God, but it is just corrupted by sin. When the light of God's power shines upon that matter, however great things can come about it.

A way in which this was applied (though not necessarily with matter) was through what was known as "seeds of the word." What this involved was taking the concepts of the pagan philosophers and applying them to the coming of Jesus Christ. With men such as St. Justin Martyr, they used this knowledge, and believed that God was preparing the intellectual world for the coming of his son. Such an approach was rejected by men such as Tertullian, believing that the concepts of Christ should have nothing to do with the concepts of man, that man was unable to even reach the knowledge of God. St. Justin in many ways based his view of things according to the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

For the Greeks (The Gentiles), according to St. Paul, certain things of God were manifested to them. They had some pieces of the puzzle, and it is with the fullness of the Gospel and the Catholic faith that all those pieces of the puzzle finally come into place. This interpretation eventually won over the Church, though the debate in many ways still rages on today.

One example of the early Church operating this way was through taking pagan holidays, and replacing them with Christian ones. The days which were used originally to serve false Gods were now transformed into service of the one true God. The Church sprinkled it's salt and the flavor increased. They took the matter of this world, the gold, the wood, the metal, and constructed magnificent churches and cathedrals from them. Gold that was originally used to fund wars of conquest and slavery were now used to fund the worship of the one true God, the God of true peace and freedom.

While we might not be able to build a cathedral or be a philosopher, we too can follow this principle by the simple things of this life. Did one ever think the job you labor at every day could prepare you for salvation? That job teaches you discipline and focus, acceptance of responsibility, and gives you property to provide for those around you. (that is money.) Those principles can then be used in service to God in many great ways. We should take ordinary things people pay little notice to, and use them in God's service. For those around us may see such dedication and sacrifice, and wonder just what it is they are sacrificing themselves for. While many nowadays frown on those grandiose cathedrals, preferring a "church of poverty and evangelizing, rather than money" they seem to forget that many times those cathedrals were tools of evangelizing! The majesty of such builds no doubt caught the interest of ordinary people of the world, and, knowing the principle of sacrifice already in their heart, came to learn to give sacrifice to the one true God.

In conclusion, whatever one does in life, one should always think "how can I take the things of this world and give glory to God with them. How can I take that little principle of good, and make it great in service of God?

God Bless,

Kevin M. Tierney

2005-12-19T21:56:00.000+01:00

Family Dynamics: The Jews, Christians and God

By Michael Forrest

The issue of "the Jews" seems to be ever-present, doesn't it? How is it that this relatively miniscule group of people and their tiny country manage to persistently elicit such strong, visceral reactions, both pro and con, and to remain so firmly entrenched on the world stage? Is this just a coincidence? Or is it perhaps a sign of something else?

Lately, it seems that the Jews are drawing an increasing amount of attention, if that is possible. A recent article by Yitzchok Adlerstein addresses a case in point ("google" his name and mainline Protestantism). Although I do not agree with everything written in the article, I think it is at least accurate in relation to the unfortunate and increasing hostility of liberal, mainline Protestantism toward the Jews and Israeli Jews in particular. Of course, there are also many other groups and individuals with various animosities toward them as well. Perhaps these sad developments are caused largely by the Adversary prompting a classic "two for one" error as he is wont to do (encouraging an initial error which spawns a subsequent error in over-reaction to the initial error): absolute, unequivocal support of Israel as veritable angels in certain quarters igniting a converse reaction in other quarters which posits the Jews/Israel as quasi-demons, Christ-haters or the perpetrators of every kind of conceivable conspiracy. And it seems that either extreme disposition in regard to the Jews and/or Israel unites people who may have little else in common.

I believe we must strive not to over-react in either direction. We should reject either automatic, unequivocal approval or knee-jerk hostility and animosity toward the Jews and/or Israel. Unfortunately, I have seen both dressed up to appear as honest opinions formed by independent, objective scholarship and/or investigation when in reality it's just a matter of someone with a predisposition regurgitating back the work and opinion of a few others because those others are saying what that person already believes. In doing so, such individuals try to pass themselves off as authorities and experts. Then others pick up the same pseudo-research and scholarship and use it as well. Before long, a whole network of self-anointed "experts" and followers may find each other, really believing they have independently happened to reach the same conclusions. I've experienced a great deal of this battling in the pro-life movement, from abortion to homosexual "marriage". One can always find someone who has written a book or article that fits one's agenda and preconceptions, unfortunately. Of course, there are even those who make little pretense at fairness and objectivity, too. Those are at least easier to spot.

But in the particular case I mentioned first, I think it would be incredibly unfortunate if this negative disposition emanating from mainline Protestantism (anti-Jew, anti-Israel) infected Catholic circles in the same way that other liberal, mainline Protestant ideas have (liberal Scriptural exegesis, moral theology, ecclesiology, etc.). Sadly, I believe there is a disturbing amount of strong anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiment in many Traditionalist circles. As Catholics, we have a rich and balanced tradition from which to draw and it doesn't make sense to substitute a deficient counterfeit for the real thing.

In addition, while I certainly do not claim to be an expert or scholar on this issue (although I have done a fair amount of research and discussion on the topic) I disagree with the idea of what might be termed extreme, absolute supersession, i.e. that the Jews, as Jews, no longer play any role in God's design for man's salvation and that the Catholic Church has entirely and utterly replaced the role of the Jews in every way in regard to promises, eschatology, etc related to Israel. It seems to me that there is a typical, Catholic "both/and" going on here. The Church is certainly the "New Israel" in a very real sense (as both Scripture and the Fathers attest), and a Jew who becomes Catholic is more deeply and authentically Jewish than one who is not Catholic.

But the Jews, as Jews, also continue to be dear to God's heart "for the sake of their fathers" as St. Paul puts it in Romans 11. They are the "natural branches" irrespective of whether they become expressly Catholic, as St. Paul also makes clear in the same chapter. Gentiles are adopted, "wild branches" that are "grafted" into the tree and the Jews are the "natural" branches that were cut off, but who may be readily grafted back in (even more readily than we, the gentiles, the "wild branches", again Romans 11).

God still pursues "earthly Israel ", if I may use that phrase, in part because of their identity, their lineage. There is a special relationship, a history there that cannot be erased. Of course, there is no reason for gentile jealousy as this relationship is inferior (in the theological sense) to that of a baptized Catholic, but it is real and persistent, nonetheless. This relationship that "earthly Israel" has with God is, of course, a shadow of the ultimate relationship which is consummated in Catholic baptism, when the natural branch is grafted back onto the tree. The first covenant flows by birth and is exclusive to "earthly Israel", but the second is solely by adoption and is open to all, including earthly Israel. No one is "born a Catholic."

I do believe the Jews have a unique role to play, as Jews, in our day and age and in prophecy, including what I tend to believe will be an unusual conversion/restoration of some sort in the future, an occurrence that I believe St. Paul references (again, Romans 11 and many Fathers, saints, orthodox theologians, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and a Pope expressly refer to this. I have compiled many of these quotes in the past and have subsequently found a few more without expending great energy. I suspect such quotes could be multiplied).

For instance, Pope St. Gregory the Great saw in St. John's description of his and St. Peter's arrival at the tomb a foreshadowing of the restoration of the Jews (which flowed naturally from his understanding of Romans 11). St. John (representative of the Jews) ran ahead and reached the tomb first (as the Jews received the Gospel first), yet he did not enter first, rather, St. Peter (representative of the Gentiles) did. Subsequently, of course, the Pope notes that John did eventually enter. I also find it noteworthy that Pope St. Gregory the Great believed that Romans 11 referred to an unusual return of the Jews and treated this belief as common knowledge among Catholics, not some novel opinion at which he had arrived (both in his commentary on the Gospels and also the book of Job). There is much more, of course, but I would also note that I am not aware of a single direct denial or refutation of this belief from the Fathers or saints, which one would expect if it were not widely accepted as it is certainly far from an isolated view that could easily have been overlooked.

Of course, in balance, there is also reference by relatively fewer Fathers to the notion that Antichrist will be of Jewish extraction as well. However, if the second proposition is accepted (Jewish Antichrist), I believe there is even more evidence to support the first (some kind of unusual restoration of the Jews, beyond a trickle-remnant, to faith in Christ in the future). In my opinion, it would be illogical and odd to readily accept the second and reject the first, as a few do.

I find the very existence of the Jews as a distinct, recognizable people in spite of having no place to call "home" for almost 2,000 years nothing short of miraculous. No other people have maintained their identity under such incredibly adverse conditions. The others have been absorbed, annihilated or a combination of both. Of course, Hitler tried to annihilate them and failed in spite of what many believe to have been a demonically driven and orchestrated attempt. I cannot easily slough these things off as mere inconsequential coincidence and I have never been persuaded by those who do. By this, I am not at all suggesting that God has been uniformly pleased with the Jews and Israel and that their story is one of blessing alone over the past 2,000 years. Far from it. It seems to me there is only one thing that has remained constant through both blessing and curse: God's continuing concern for them as a people, as His first-born.

I would end by noting that any Catholic who decides to be hard on the Jews of today for not expressly accepting Christ ought to be even harder on Protestants if they are to be consistent. Yet this is most often not the case. The Protestants of today are far closer in time to the fathers of their schism than are the Jews to theirs. And while one might argue that at least Protestants "accept Christ", we may also counter the selective rigorist who holds the Jews to absolute, unyielding standards with the fact that rejection of the Church is also rejection of Christ (Luke 10:16 ). I would suggest we ought to give both groups the benefit of the doubt as a whole and assume basic good will combined with ignorance rather than an informed, bad will.

The only certain, consistent combination of full knowledge and bad will of which I am aware is at work in the spiritual realm, prowling the earth in search of human souls to devour. I'm reluctant to cede either group to him so fully and in such a black and white way. And through my experience in reaching out to our Jewish brothers (several of whom I have helped come to their own Messiah in the Catholic Church) I have never seen a single one brought to the fullness of the faith by the proposition that they were in league with Satan, Christ-haters or the like. In fact, I have found remarkable openness among today's Jews about Christ, especially if a relationship of respect and trust is first established. I believe this can be directly attributed to the widespread lowering of imprudent, heated and unproductive rhetoric over recent decades. Ditto for Protestants. We can certainly thank John Paul II for much of this.

Now, certainly, there are some individuals or groups in each camp that may require a harsher response at times (like the ADL or professional Protestant anti-Catholics like Jack Chick). But they are not nearly the majority in my opinion. And to begin posturing, accusing and negatively broad-brushing either group could threaten to destroy the very real progress that has been made. This would be a tragic development. Of course, I am in no way suggesting, as some do, that we remain silent about the truth of Catholicism in order to not offend, only that we use the wisdom, prudence, patience and discernment that naturally flows from authentic, Catholic charity in our evangelism.

This is not unlike my experience in the pro-life movement. There was a time when I tended to assume that all people really understood the issues very well, whether the issue was abortion or homosexual "marriage". And in my incorrect, self-righteous judgment, I lacked the patience and kindness necessary to reach those I might have. When I eventually learned that the majority of people on the wrong side of these issues only THINK they understand them in depth, I changed my approach. Don't misunderstand. Such people can still be amazingly stubborn and maddening. And as they become informed, they may yet purposely choose evil. But they may not. And by the grace of God, without giving an inch on the fundamentals, my passion has increasingly become compassion, and I have found that compassion is capable of bypassing barriers that passion can only crash against in futility.

My prayer is that God will rid all of us, Traditionalist and non-Traditionalist alike, of the pride that hardens our hearts and makes them unwilling to bleed and suffer for every soul He desires, whether Jewish or Gentile. Until then, I pray we continue to do the best we can with what we have and humbly trust in His ability to do great things with even the most flawed work when trustingly placed in His hands.

The Case for Catholic Principles, Part VIII: The Importance of a "Positive" Worldview

2005-12-16T04:28:00.000+01:00

The concept I am attempting to outline today in this column is probably the most important for any Catholic, and I feel is a concept all too often neglected. There is a tendency amongst Catholics today to define themselves not by what they represent and advocate, but rather what they oppose. This line of thinking infects numerous schools of thought.

For the Traditionalist, all too often they are not putting forth a positive case for the Traditions of Catholicism, but rather an attack upon how what we have today contradicts that tradition. For the Charismatic, it is not a positive exposition of how the Holy Spirit should work in the life of a Christian (unless it is doing what they themselves do) but rather how every other line of thought in Catholicism "inhibits the spirit's work." For those involved in social concerns such as abortion, they are not as much as pro-life as they are anti-abortion. Ask them to put forth a coherent ethic surrounding questions of life, and one gets a blind stare. For the so called "Conservatives" (in the religious sense, not the political) their love affair with the Second Vatican Council is based not so much on demonstrating it's teaching and it's continuity with tradition, but rather it's demonizing of everything before Vatican II. (Interestingly enough, here they become the useful idiots of the modernists favoring woman priests, contraception, and a host of other issues "in line with the Spirit of Vatican II.")

Attempt to call them on this, and people get offended. They like their fixation with negativity. To be able to point out what is wrong with things is a basic element in humanity, and necessary for the cause of discernment. However, to most past the negativity and put forth a positive worldview in place of it, that takes hard work and co-operation with grace. A perfect example of the type of worldview to embrace for example would be in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians:

To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth. Wherefore putting away lying, speak; ye the truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another. Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger. Give not place to the devil. He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need. Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ.

For St. Paul, it was never enough to simply point out what we were to avoid, or what he was against. Rather, something must be put in it's place. For the thief, not only should he no longer steal, but he should devote himself to labor, primarily to understand the high value of the property he used to steal from others. Not only are we to avoid obscene speech, but our speech should only be for the purpose of edification. If one's speech does not edify another, even if it is not inherently evil, it should be avoided. Let bitterness and rage give way to kindness and charity.

Following St. Paul's example, we should discern the negative, and definitely focus on it when the time is proper. However, once the negative has been pointed out, we must then progress past that, to working to put something else in it's place. For the Traditionalist, who fled to the Indult to avoid what they viewed liturgical anarchy, let their attendance at the Latin Mass teach them how to appreciate the liturgy, and how to get more out of an ordered and stable Mass. For the Charismatic, let them understand a greater appreciation for how the Spirit works in all Christians, not just your life and how others inhibit Him. The same can be said for other groups as well. It is the culture of death and the religion of self that is defined by it's rejection, namely it's rejection of God. The Culture of Life and religion of Christ should be modeled upon what it endorses.

God Bless,
Kevin M. Tierney

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos Interview

2005-12-13T18:13:00.000+01:00

The entire interview, below, is very edifying and interesting but I've hilighted a few passages that struck me as particularly noteworthy with respect to the situation with the SSPX and also for all Catholics, Traditionalist or not.

To be clear, my intention in conveying this information is not to take a stand in support of what Monsignor Lefebvre did, but only to pass on insight as to the status of things in regard to the SSPX and to possibly glean some lessons for all Traditionalists.

Michael

After the Pope’s audience with the Superior of the Saint Pius X Fraternity

Rapprochement by unhasty stages, but not too slow either

Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of Ecclesia Dei, on relations between Rome and the Lefebvrians
Interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos by Gianni Cardinale

The Holy Father Benedict XVI this morning received, in the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, who had requested it. The Pope was accompanied by the Most Eminent Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei". The meeting took place in an atmosphere of love for the Church and of desire to reach perfect communion. Albeit aware of the difficulties, the wish to proceed by stages and in reasonable time was shown. In these words a communiqué of the Press Office of the Holy See on 29 August last gave news of the first contact between the new Pontiff and the Fraternity that, as the Vatican Radio bulletin of the same day reminded us, was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died on 25 March 1991.

The news of the audience granted by Pope Benedict XVI, though not published by the "Our News" feature of L’Osservatore Romano, appeared, however, in a short paragraph at the bottom of page 4 in the official newspaper of the Holy See dated 31 August. 30Days asked Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos about the hearing of August 29, at which Don Franz Schmidberger, an old collaborator of Monsignor Lefebvre and well known to Pope Ratzinger, was also present. Since April 2000 Cardinal Hoyos has been President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Vatican body concerned with relations with the variegated traditionalist world, and has also, since 1996, been head of the Congregation for the Clergy.

Q: Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?

DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.

Q: Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

Q: Then there was no more official contact up to the Great Jubilee of 2000.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: As President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, learning that they were on a pilgrimage to Rome, I invited the bishops ordained by Monsignor Lefebvre to lunch, for an informal meeting, to get to know each other. Since then I have had many meetings with His Excellence Monsignor Fellay and with other members of the Fraternity. Meetings that have always taken place in a very positive atmosphere. So much so that at a certain point I believed we were really very close to a full rapprochement.

Q: Was the Pope aware of these contacts?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: John Paul II was constantly informed of them all. Not only that. The Pontiff himself received for a brief meeting in his private chapel Monsignor Fellay and Don Michele Simoulin, then Superior of the communion of the Fraternity of Albano Laziale. There was no true and proper dialogue, but on that occasion the Pope expressed the wish that dialogue could be taken up by imparting his blessing.

Q: Earlier you suggested that at a certain moment you thought that rapprochement was imminent; then what happened?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: I got the impression, from His Excellence Monsignor Fellay, and from his collaborators, of something like fear, as if Rome were laying a trap for them. As if the Holy See intended to absorb them so as then to close off the possibility of celebrating the mass of Saint Pius V and clamping down on their critical remarks on some developments and interpretations following Vatican Council II.

Q: So there was no rapprochement, but dialogue has continued. In this context, in 2001, there was, however, rapprochement with the Brazilian group close to the Fraternity, the one now headed by Monsignor Fernando Arêas Rifan, who was elected in 2002 by the Holy See as bishop and titular of the personal apostolic administration of San Giovanni Maria Vianney in Campos.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: There the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves "auxiliaries", in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by fifty or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese. When Monsignor Castro Mayer died, one of the priests was consecrated bishop by the Lefebvrian bishops. Thanks be to God this bishop, Monsignor Rangel, and his priests, amongst whom the current bishop administrator apostolic Monsignor Rifan, at the moment of asking for rapprochement, distancing himself in this from the bishops of the Fraternity, recognized that the conditions that Monsignor Lefebvre in his time called "of necessity", no longer existed to justify the consecration of bishops without apostolic mandate. And this because the Pope had manifested his wish of granting them the use of the Tridentine rite, recognizing their particularity. On their side there was the recognition of the validity of the new rite of the Mass and of the legitimacy of Vatican Council II, though proposing to keep up respectful and honest discussion on some less clear Council texts, on some interpretations of those texts and on some developments after Vatican II.

Q: Do you think the solution adopted in Campos successful?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The facts confirm it. Thanks be to God, the faithful and the priests of the diocese and of the administration co-exist in fraternal fashion, the two bishops meet frequently for the necessary coordination. Not only that. A dozen bishops from Brazil have already signed conventions with the administration to help the faithful of their dioceses who love the old liturgy.

Q: But it was a solution that didn’t please the leaders of the Fraternity…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Yes, the Campos solution was a delicate moment. Because the Fraternity was annoyed. Whereas for me it was something providential because it showed a possible way for a wider solution of the question.

Q: Your Eminence, let us go back to the audience of 29 August. How was it organized?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience was requested by Monsignor Fellay through the normal channels, through me as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of «Ecclesia Dei», given that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is a priestly body composed of priests validly ordained even if in an illegal way. The request was passed to the Pope. And the Pope decided to grant the audience. Ratzinger the theologian, Cardinal Ratzinger, with his great duties, had always kept up with the question and knew the question and the persons involved in the dialogue well. Pope Benedict XVI could add to that the special presence of the Holy Spirit guaranteed by the fact of having become Peter’s Successor.

Q: What can you tell us of the audience?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: It was a meeting under the sign of charity, in the theological sense, of love of God and of His Church. It was a conversation among brothers who desire, with the help of God, to knit back the fabric of full unity. The Pope let those present speak: Monsignor Fellay, Father Schmidberger and myself. And then the Holy Father spoke, making a strong appeal for unity and expressing the wish that future rapprochement come by unhasty stages, but not too slow.

Q: What observations were made by the Superior of the Saint Pius X?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Monsignor Fellay, but this was known even beforehand, was able to express his fears on the state of the Catholic Church in the light of the abuses, not only liturgical, that have occurred since Vatican Council II. I believe that critical contributions of that sort that can come from the Fraternity can be a treasure for the Church, when expressed under the charisma of Peter and in charity among brethren. In the Church in fact we are all free to formulate critical observations on what doesn’t concern dogma and the essential discipline of the Church itself. On that subject I can testify that Cardinal Ratzinger was already fully convinced of the need for theological dialogue on the difficult points. In full unity there is more light to be found for studying these sensitive points.

Q: After the audience an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called "empty throne" people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.

Q: It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished. As for liberalization, I remember that under the pontificate of John Paul II there was a meeting of all the department heads of the Roman Curia, in which the vast majority were not against such a request. It would be dangerous to create opposition between the old rite and the new. The liturgy cannot be a battlefield. As priest, as cardinal and as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, I feel great pain in seeing the unacceptable language at times used of the wish of Jesus to give his own body and blood, and to entrust them to his Church. And this is true of some spokesmen of the Saint Pius X Fraternity, but not only them.

Q: Are many bishops against?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At times the pastoral anxiety of a bishop leads him to think that granting permission to celebrate the Tridentine mass in his diocese may create confusion among the people of God. And when believers who ask for this type of celebration are very few, the perplexity can be understood. Whereas when it’s a more substantial group wanting the mass, it’s up to the Pontifical Commission «Ecclesia Dei» to remind the bishop, honestly and kindly, that the wish of Peter’s Successor is to be generous in responding in favor of these believers. And I see with joy that, day after day, there are ever more who so respond.

Q: You are well acquainted with the traditionalist world. How do you judge the personal piety of the priests who belong to it?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Many traditionalist priests I have known have made an excellent impression on me: they have a sincere love for the mystery. Unfortunately there can also be fanatics who are bound to the old liturgy as one can be bound to a mathematical formula of which one doesn’t even understand the value in depth.

Q: Do you think they represent the legacy of a past in any case on the way to extinction?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: At the World Day of Youth in Cologne there was a considerable group of young people attached to the traditional mass. The echoes have been positive. And it shows how short-sighted it is to consider the traditionalist phenomenon as on the way to exhaustion. Not least because in the traditionalist world, in proportion, the number of priestly vocations is decidedly superior to that of many diocese in the Church.

Q: In September 2001 John Paul II, in a speech to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship, praised the very fine prayers in the Missal of Saint Pius V. The speech was published with unusual delay by L’Osservatore Romano and has never been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, though it usually prints papal speeches to the plenary assemblies of the Roman departments. When you then, on 24 May 2003, celebrated, for the first time after the post-council liturgical reform, a Tridentine mass in a patriarchal Roman basilica, that of Saint Mary Major, L’Osservatore Romano totally ignored the event. What do you think of these two acts of "censorship"?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: I prefer to judge facts rather than intentions and I don’t know what the cause of the two missing notices is, which, however, had ample repercussion.

Q: Do you think that the above-mentioned speech of John Paul II may be finally published in the Acta?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: If it wasn’t the explicit wish of the Pope not to publish that speech, even when it was he who made it, I think it’s a serious thing not to have done so.

Q: The title of a piece in Corriere della Sera of 26 August, anticipating the audience of three days later, described relations between the so-called Lefebvrians and the Holy See as "the impossible peace".

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The newspapers can say that and a great many other things. Luckily, and I stress luckily, newspapers are not infallible.

Q: Your Eminence, a last word for those who reproach the Fraternity with using rough language, at times verging on irreverence, towards the Holy See.

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: It can cause distress, but at bottom I’m not surprised by the fact that words, articles, letters may appear that use a rather crude language. Including some statements attributed to His excellency Monsignor Fellay. Until there is full unity, and so full mutual charity, one can’t be scandalized if there is still some verbal intemperance. It’s always well to keep in mind Augustine’s saying: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360

Here is another link regarding the interview, also very interesting:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/051212