Another Reason Why The Church Fathers Are Awesome

Their ability to glorify God in everything.

This seems rather obvious, I suppose. What really rang the bell for me is the following that I found in reading through the works of Lactantius. The particular treatise in question is called On the Workmanship of God. What he's writing about here is how spectacular a creature man is, even when compared with the animals that seem so much more gifted than himself due to their strength, speed, or whatever. Naturally, he spends a lot of time on man's soul and reason, but he gives a great break-down on the parts of the body as well.

This was the part that really struck me:

For the parts of the intestines which receive the food and drink from the belly are more open than the other coils, and much more delicate. These entwine themselves around and encompass the bladder; and when the meat and the drink have arrived at these parts in a mixed state, the excrement becomes more solid, and passes through, but all the moisture is strained through those tender parts, and the bladder, the membrane of which is equally fine and delicate, absorbs and collects it, so as to send it forth where nature has opened an outlet.

A patristic writer describing the act of pooping. Not only that, but take a look at another passage:

How is it with respect to the other parts of the body? Are they without order and beauty? The flesh rounded off into the nates, how adapted to the office of sitting!

Translation: Our butts are engineering marvels.

I'm not making fun here. This is illuminating. When was the last time you were in such awe of humanity that you even noticed these kinds of things? Not only in awe, but finding that awe so great that you were drawn to reflection on God's majesty and how wonderful it was that He made things so?

Lactantius even contemplates God in examining those parts that he doesn't even know what they do.

As, therefore, we perceive that we hear with our ears, that we see with our eyes, that we smell with our nostrils; so assuredly we should perceive that we are angry with the gall, that we desire with the liver, that we rejoice with the spleen. Since, therefore, we do not at all perceive from what part those affections come, it is possible that they may come from another source, and that those organs may have a different effect to that which we suppose. We cannot prove, however, that they who discuss these things speak falsely. But I think that all things which relate to the motions of the mind and soul, are of so obscure and profound a nature, that it is beyond the power of man to see through them clearly. This, however, ought to be sure and undoubted, that so many objects and so many organs have one and the same office— to retain the soul in the body. But what office is particularly assigned to each, who can know, except the Designer, to whom alone His own work is known?

I think this is a good example of the extraordinary Faith of the Fathers. To see God in so much and to consider so many things as showing forth His glory. In an age where the body is chiefly considered as a means to pleasure and man, in general, is lowered to the same level as any other animal, this view is refreshing.

From Showgirls To Our Lady Of Guadalupe

Joe Eszterhaus has done a lot of growing over the last decade or so. He is now planning a movie based on Our Lady's appearance to St. Juan Diego.


With that in mind, I began thinking of the various Catholic epics that would freaking rule if they were ever given the appropriate big screen treatment. We used to be able to get away with this on a decently regular basis. Man For All Seasons and Becket come to mind. Sure, there's Passion of the Christ, but let's be real about it. Gibson got that one to be a big hit by promoting it to the Protestants. You aren't going to be able to make that sort of play with St. Thomas More and St. Thomas Becket.


Anyways, here are my top 5 wishes for good Catholic movies:


1. St. Pius V, Don Juan of Austria, and the Holy League at Lepanto

2. The Confessions of St. Augustine

3. The Council of Nicea

4. The Life and Times of Pope Pius VII

5. The Life and Times of Pope Leo the Great



What say you? What did I leave out?

Caritas in Veritate, Part 5

Rolling right along, we come to the chapter entitled "The Cooperation of the Human Family." I'll admit right now that this is where things seem to get a little weird.


The whole first section is about the poverty of isolation.


Poverty is often produced by a rejection of God's love, by man's basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself, thinking himself to be self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a random universe. Man is alienated when he is alone, when he is detached from reality, when he stops thinking and believing in a foundation.


This resonated with me on a big level, mostly because I'm currently going back through the works of Walker Percy (which I highly recommend). I just finished Lost in the Cosmos. The Pope here is still focusing his entire concept of development on the centrality of God and the supernatural.


Pope Paul VI noted that “the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking”. He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better understanding of the implications of our being one family; interaction among the peoples of the world calls us to embark upon this new trajectory, so that integration can signify solidarity rather than marginalization.

It's this kind of stuff that made Populorum Progressio so difficult to begin with and why this encyclical, to this point, has done such a good job in returning the emphasis to what Paul VI sort of left by the wayside. It seems to me that the world is in trouble because of a lack of faith. If you read what Pope Benedict has written thus far, even in the immediately preceding paragraph, he appears to be saying the same thing. All the metaphysics and theology in the world won't help without faith. After all, without faith, it is impossible to please God.


In this regard, reason finds inspiration and direction in Christian revelation, according to which the human community does not absorb the individual, annihilating his autonomy, as happens in the various forms of totalitarianism, but rather values him all the more because the relation between individual and community is a relation between one totality and another.


Again, this is all very good stuff as the encyclical consistently returns the issue of development to Divine Revelation and its indispensableness (assuming that's a word).


The theme of development can be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of all individuals and peoples within the one community of the human family, built in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace. This perspective is illuminated in a striking way by the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity within the one divine Substance. The Trinity is absolute unity insofar as the three divine Persons are pure relationality. The reciprocal transparency among the divine Persons is total and the bond between each of them complete, since they constitute a unique and absolute unity. God desires to incorporate us into this reality of communion as well: “that they may be one even as we are one”. The Church is a sign and instrument of this unity. Relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but be enriched by reference to this divine model. In particular, in the light of the revealed mystery of the Trinity, we understand that true openness does not mean loss of individual identity but profound interpenetration. This also emerges from the common human experiences of love and truth. Just as the sacramental love of spouses unites them spiritually in “one flesh” and makes out of the two a real and relational unity, so in an analogous way truth unites spirits and causes them to think in unison, attracting them as a unity to itself.


Here's some of the weirdness. The first sentence here talks about this human community being built on stuff like solidarity, justice, and peace. That sounds really nice, but it seems to completely contradict the underlying theme of the entire encylical, namely, that we're supposed to be building on supernatural values that order us towards God, rather than each other. The remainder of the section discusses the Trinity and how the Church is a sign an instrument of the unity desired by God of all people. However, this is precisely because the Church is based on those supernatural things, rather than the temporal ones described in the first sentence.


The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement.


Ok. We have the point here that the Church is superior to all other religions. This is good, though I cannot understand why we can't simply call such religions false. When you throw around comments about their being "of enormous importance" and how "some. . . do not fully embrace the principle of love and truth," the waters are considerably muddied. The fact is that if its the Gospel that is the only real path to "integral human development," which has been the point of the entire document up to now, these other religions are all impediments to that development. It should go without saying that all non-Catholic religions do not embrace the principle of love and truth. They are, by definition, false.


One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.


This bit clarifies some of the problems with the preceding paragraph, but the spectre of false religion still lingers. Picking this negative aspect out of all the others seems to dodge the main issue of their falseness and leave the potential interpretation that the falseness can be ignored as long as syncretism is avoided.


For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”, contains this very criterion within itself.


The problem continues. Indifferentism is bad. Discernment requires charity and truth. Development of peoples is at stake. We've already established that integral human development requires the Gospel. Discernment requires emancipation (whatever that means) and inclusivity.


I don't get it. If development requires the Gospel, then inclusivity should be the last thing on the list. Including these religions that are contrary to the Gospel is only going to obstruct development. I have no idea how to reconcile this with the rest of the encylical.


Granted, the last part seems to indicate again the Christianity is the only religion that can provide development, but that doesn't explain the "inclusivity" language.

And it doesn't stop there.

The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions.

Other religions? What happened to the Gospel and Truth being indispensable for integral human development? And if falseness prevents development, as has been stated/implied multiple times, shouldn't it be ok to suppress said falseness?

Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration for the progress of humanity.

I suppose it can, if such exclusion creates a greater evil than the toleration of the false religion allows. Still, this is all way too vague and, in some ways, completely inconsistent with the message thus far that I can't see it helping the cause very much.

Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous price to human development.

This would have been a lot better if it had specified the Catholic faith. I'm sure that's what Pope Benedict is referring to, but when it's mixed in with all this blander stuff, it's a problem. This is the kind of stuff that gets exploited by the whack-jobs out there.

Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human family.....

This is what gives rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family under the Creator's watchful eye.

This is, by far, the most problematic point of the encyclical. So far, I've mentioned a couple of times when things "seem" to be going off track from what I would call the major point of this document, namely, the subordination of temporal ideas of development to the supernatural.

Look at what happens here. The emphasis is now the opposite. The "divine plan" itself is defined by the secular goods. I'm going to ask some friends of mine to take a look at the Latin here. I'm convinced this has to be a crappy translation or something.

The next few bits of the encyclical are about subsidiarity.

By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. . . In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together.

Nothing much to see here, except that it leads to this part, which lays the groundwork for what others find to be the most controversial thing in the whole document.

Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.

Dum-dum-dum!

Not too much earth-shattering for while after that. He spends some time on solidarity, the need for equitable trade between countries (especially in allowing poorer countries access to markets), and the importance of respecting the cultures of developing countries. This latter lends itself to some quotable moments, especially in light of the willingness of so many to criticize the Church's evangelism efforts as arrogance.

The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal brotherhood and solidarity, for the advancement of global and community development.

You'd think I'd be happy with this. I probably should be. Maybe it's my greediness, but I'm not. Sure, we're back to focusing on the Faith again. That's good, though not entirely jiving with the immediately preceding sections. Ergo, more confusion.

The really bad part is that we've gone from the Faith as being necessary for growth and development and all that good stuff to just something that "can help." This seems to water down the prior statements.

Here, the Pope launches into a laundry list (and occasionally a weird one) of stuff that he feels needs some work. First, he says that richer countries should allocate more resources to helping poorer ones. What's significant about this? Check this out:

One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for development as well.

While I think this would freaking rule, I know there's not a chance in heaven, hell, or anywhere else that it's going to happen. Let's just note here that the Pope isn't necessarily giving practical or realistic ideas.

After this, we get discussion of education, tourism (huh?), human migration, unemployment, the need for workers to earn living wages, labor unions, financial markets, and consumer empowerment.

I'll be frank. I don't know why most of this stuff is in here. It's very odd. It all really comes down the principle of it's bad to screw people over. I think we all get that.

Anyways, I don't want to drop things so abruptly, but this is as good a place as any. I don't think there's much of a need to go into the laundry list with any detail. Plus, we've finally arrived at the infamous Section 67, so I'm looking at handling that as best as I can. That means starting fresh at the next post.

Later.

Is This For Real? You Be The Judge!

Every now and then, we find some articles that are so mind-blowingly stupid, we are forced to consider if the author was serious in the writing or if this is some bizarre form of journalistic fake vomit, something hurled into the public for the purpose of creating a stir of activity.

Such is the case with Ted Rosean's recent effort over on US Catholic. If the dumbness of this article of his registered on the Richter Scale, Mr. Rosean would have single-handedly destroyed all of North America.

Where to begin?

At one end of the archdiocese where I live, a Mass is held in a gymnasium every Sunday, and a group of lively folk musicians accompany the assembly through a relaxed and informal liturgy. The mood reflects the music. Because it's a gym, children seem to act less restrained, feeling free to roam a bit. Folding chairs are set up in a semi-circle around a portable altar that this group has used for many years.

There are no kneelers, of course, reflecting to some extent the impracticality of portable kneelers, but reflecting to a greater extent the theology of those gathered: These are "looking up to God in trust, not bowing down to God in fear" Catholics, nurturing a view of church and theology that was born at the Second Vatican Council.

You knew it was coming. The obligatory "Vatican II changed all that" reference. What's great is how he builds on this.

I know many of these Catholics and consider them to be very good people. Their liturgy is, I believe, a scandal.

But why? If it's reflecting all this Vatican II goodness, how can it be a scandal?

At the other end of the archdiocese, a priest adorned in shimmering vestments murmurs prayers in Latin, facing the tabernacle, his voice barely audible to the assembly of worshipers kneeling behind him. Many of these are silently and privately praying the rosary. At certain moments there is an exchange of words between the priest and the assembly. These words are in Latin.

The atmosphere is reverent, reflecting to some extent the mood naturally created by silence, candles, and Latin, but reflecting to a greater extent the theology of those gathered: These are "kneeling before God in awe, not back-slapping brother Jesus" Catholics, preserving a view of church and theology set aside at the Second Vatican Council.

"Set aside" at Vatican II? Where? Can you cite the relevant portions of Vatican II setting aside these views of Church and theology?

I know one of the people in the assembly to be one of the finest human beings alive-my father-but his liturgy is, I believe, a scandal.

A scandal. The Mass celebrated by almost every single saint of the Latin rite of the Church is a scandal.

Somehow, this is starting to remind me of something. Oh yeah. Now, I remember. Rosean does get to his point, though.

This is what makes these liturgies scandalous. They represent such polarized expressions of worship that they drift from the central purpose of liturgy as stated in the introduction of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: "to be a sign lifted up among the nations, to those who are outside, a sign under which the scattered children of God may be gathered together until there is one fold and one shepherd." A church practicing such divergent forms of worship will hardly unite the scattered children of God.

It's really awesome how this guy completely manufactures the meaning of this quote from SC. This citation has no context as "the central purpose of the liturgy." It's doubtful Mr. Rosean read past the introduction. If he had, he might have noticed something hitting a bit closer to that whole central purpose thing:

Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord's supper.

Currently we are many folds under a shepherd who last year stirred the pot with his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum (Of the Supreme Pontiffs), sanctioning wider use of the old Latin or Tridentine Mass. Besides allowing individual parishes to conduct Latin Masses at the pastor's discretion, secondhand reports suggest that Pope Benedict XVI would like to see a Latin Mass offered at every parish. Upon hearing this, I felt a rumbling that I'm certain was Pope John XXIII, who opened the Second Vatican Council, rolling in his grave.

So Pope Benedict is promoting schism. That's a shame. Not only that, but Blessed John XXIII would be upset with all this. Here's a newsflash for you, Ted. The current Traditional Latin Mass is offered according to the Missal of 1962. Guess who the Pope was who promulgated it?

The guy you portray as "rolling in his grave." That rumbling you felt must have been a bad burrito or something as it would make a bit more sense that Pope John was rejoicing from heaven at seeing his Missal being allowed common use again.

By the way, read this. It will remedy some of your ignorance on the Pope and his view of things.

The problem with the gym mass is not the gym, or the folk music, or even the lack of kneelers. The gym liturgies I've participated in mostly adhere to the rite promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. The scandal is the fact that 100 yards from the gym, a splendid church sits where liturgy is celebrated by the other 90 percent of the parish every Sunday.

Vatican II promulgated a rite? Where? And where in this alleged rite is the promotion of gymnasiums, folk music, and the removal of kneelers?

Or is Mr. Rosean just speaking from a lower orifice here?

And why is he participating in liturgies that he believes to be scandalous?

In the zeal that followed the council, many well-intentioned but liturgically ill-informed experiments cropped up in parish liturgies. Some progressive liturgies went too far and abused the intent of the council's changes.

Given that he's really ok with the gym liturgy thing, I wonder what he considers too far. I've noticed he hasn't really given anything as to what these Vatican II changes were or what the intent was.

Many of these alternative practices have fueled the reaction of extremists who now want to rewind church history and drop us all back into a Bells of St. Mary's world, as black and white as the cassock and surplice of a 10-year-old altar boy. At one end of our church, progressives dance to the beat of their very own drummer, while at the other end nostalgic traditionalists turn back the hands of time.

"Extremists." Does he use such polemical language to describe the gym liturgists? I don't think so. Even those who he admits crossed the line of propriety are called "well-intentioned." Clearly, if you wish to attend a reverent Traditional Mass, you are an enemy of the Church. If you want a liturgy that makes an abuse of the Pauline Mass, you are just swell, albeit misguided.

In my judgment, the progressive, alternative Masses are much less troubling than the return of the Tridentine Mass. As mentioned, gym liturgies are mostly faithful to the changes promulgated in the council. While they may cross the line at times, at least they seem to be reaching in the direction the council members were pointing us toward.

Hey, at least he admits it. It's too bad he's so dishonest on everything else. Does anybody honestly think that the Fathers of Vatican II were pushing us towards gym Mass? Maybe Rosean should try to find out what really happened at the Council. How is a gym Mass remotely similar to what Vatican II says.

Meanwhile, think of your patron saint. Unless you have an Easterner, your saint was nurtured by the Traditional Latin Mass. Your saint is the product of a "troubling" liturgy.

And let's face it, my generation, the flower-power gang, is, well, beginning to push up daisies. Progressive liturgies are fading away as the jingle-jangle of our tambourines increasingly exits stage left.

And isn't that a big honking shame.

What is scandalous about this practice is not the Latin. After discussing the issue with theologians and liturgists Keith Pecklers, S.J. and Mark Francis, C.S.V., both independently made the distinction between the Tridentine Mass, celebrated by Catholics between 1570 and approximately 1965, and the post-conciliar rite practiced in the Latin language.

The reformed liturgy is flexible enough to allow the use of Latin at times. Many parishes replace the "Lamb of God" and the "Holy, Holy, Holy" with the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus during the season of Lent. Besides being in complete conformity with the changes promulgated by the council, this appropriate use of the Latin can often deepen the spiritual tone of the liturgy and underline the gravity of the season. But limited use such as this is far different from a complete 180-degree nostalgic return to an outdated rite.

Ok. Remember this. It's not about the Latin.

The Tridentine Mass is not simply the current Mass (the one promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970) spoken in Latin. The Tridentine Mass, which dates from 1570, reflects a very different-and incomplete-understanding of the early church. Francis argues that "the 16th-century framers [of the Tridentine Missal] lacked adequate historical resources, as they were unable to refer to manuscripts dating earlier than the pontificate of Innocent III, around 1216."

Actually, Ted, your "experts" should have told you that the Traditional Mass actually goes back almost unaltered to about the 6th century.

The large text really makes it clear, though. The Pauline Mass is better because we are allegedly smarter than every single saint, Pope, and Doctor of the Latin Church who ever offered a Mass for 1500 years or so. Geez. Glad we aren't being arrogant or anything.

A church digging in its defensive heels at the peak of the Reformation developed the Tridentine Mass, taking shots at pagans, heretics, schismatics, and "perfidious" Jews. The rich revelation of the Old Testament is mostly absent, and the participation of the laity barely exists.

Here's an idea, Mr. Rosean. How about you tell us how the Tridentine Mass differed from the prior rite of Mass? I know that doing so will expose you as ignorant or a liar, but just give honesty a try.

The Second Vatican Council had some very good reasons to call for an end to the Tridentine Mass and to promulgate a new rite. More sophisticated research uncovered a fuller understanding of how liturgy was celebrated in the early church. Improved scripture scholarship developed into a new lectionary with a wider selection of readings. Better historical research removed fictional saints from the liturgical calendar.

Where did Vatican II call for an end to the Tridentine Mass? Where did it order the promulgation of a new rite?

Ted isn't very good with this honesty stuff.

Here's another item being ignored. The Eastern liturgies. Does the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which holds comparable antiquity to the Traditional Latin Mass, bear all that much resemblance to the Pauline Mass, much less a gym Mass? Or does it more closely resemble what you'd see in the 1962 Missal?

The fictional saints bit is simply untrue. All the saints from Christopher to Philomena are very much real. I'm not sure why Mr. Rosean thinks it's ok to say such things about people that God has accepted into heaven.

Perhaps most important for the average Catholic, the Mass was celebrated in the language of the people. Interestingly, while the Tridentine Mass began to be used in 1570, Masses were celebrated in Latin as early as A.D. 350. Originally, the Latin replaced Greek because people understood Latin, and using Latin allowed more people to understand what was going on. In 1965 the church once again came to the seemingly obvious conclusion that people should understand what is being said in Mass.

In other words, it really is about the Latin.

The stakes are high. We participate in the liturgy to praise God and to be transformed so that we can transform the world. We need to do this together. We cannot gather the scattered children of God together if we ourselves are scattered.

For all you Easterners out there, too freaking bad. Pope Ted has spoken. Your rites are scandalous, just like gym liturgies and Traditional Latin Masses. In fact, since they are old and actually involve reverence, they are probably worse than gym Mass. You do use the vernacular most of the time, though, so you aren't as bad as those FSSP extremist lunatics.

Ruthenians, Maronites, Chaldeans, Syro-Malabars, etc., you are called upon to abandon the horrors of your ways! Repent of your scandal! Pay no attention to Vatican II! The power of Ted compels you!

The Flowering Of Tradition

And the graying of the innovators.

Thanks to Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report for uncovering this one.

It's a New York Times piece about how the new nuns and priests are ethnically diverse, but united in their return to tradition.

A new study of Roman Catholic nuns and priests in the United States shows that an aging, predominantly white generation is being succeeded by a smaller group of more racially and ethnically diverse recruits who are attracted to the religious orders that practice traditional prayer rituals and wear habits.

“We’ve heard anecdotally that the youngest people coming to religious life are distinctive, and they really are,” said Sister Mary Bendyna, executive director of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. “They’re more attracted to a traditional style of religious life, where there is community living, common prayer, having Mass together, praying the Liturgy of the Hours together. They are much more likely to say fidelity to the church is important to them. And they really are looking for communities where members wear habits.”

Wait a minute. I thought young people wanted Disco Liturgy and pizza parties. Something I've noticed is that, in all this talk about "Church youth," it doesn't seem like many people have asked the youth anything. Or, at the very least, even attempted to expose them to something other than the MTV Mass. It's sort of like the old yarn about how all older Catholics secretly loathed teh pre-conciliar Church because the Mass was in Latin. I still haven't found any of those people, and I've been looking for them for over a decade.

The article does mention retention problems:

Of women who recently entered religious orders, the average age is 32; for men, it is 30. But retaining new recruits is a challenge. About half of those who have entered religious orders since 1990 have not stayed, and almost all who left did so before making their final vows.

This actually doesn't bother me so much. The fact that so many are considering it in the first place is a big deal. Not to mention that most of the other reports I recall hearing have said that the recent surge in vocations overall wasn't until 2003-2006 or so.

Regardless, this is good news.

Completely Beyond Scientific Explanation

This is the description of Our Lady's image on St. Juan Diego's tilma in Guadalupe. Maybe someone can forward this story to Hillary.

Per CNA:

Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

A couple of examples:

However, eight years later, the copy of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was thrown away because the colors were fading and threads were breaking. In contrast, Orozco said, “the original Tilma was exposed for approximately 116 years without any kind of protection, receiving all the infrared and ultraviolet radiation from the tens of thousands of candles near it and exposed to the humid and salty air around the temple.”

Dr. Orozco then discussed the Tilma’s fabric. He noted that “one of the most bizarre characteristics of the cloth is that the back side is rough and coarse, but the front side is ‘as soft as the most pure silk, as noted by painters and scientists in 1666, and confirmed one century later in 1751 by the Mexican painter, Miguel Cabrera.”

There are some other items in the main article, so it's well worth reading, especially given that a lot of folks aren't aware that the tilma has undergone scientific analysis of any kind

Concern Over Division

In meeting with some of my fellow parishioners after Mass this past Sunday, I was given pause to think for a moment. I attend a Pauline Mass and basically always have. I've attended maybe 10 traditional Catholic liturgies in my lifetime. That's Traditonal Latin Masses and Eastern Catholic liturgies combined. I would attend one on a regular basis if it was offered.

That being said, I am still somewhat of an outcast in my own parish where I was baptized, received First Communion, was confirmed, and was married, simply because of my desire to attend a liturgy that is not a "banal fabrication" to use then-Cardinal Ratzinger's words.

I do understand, then, the concerns of many over how the liberation of the Extraordinary Form could result in "divisions" within a parish. For those who might not know what I'm talking about, check these articles out. I've been divided out of mine just for inquiring about it. For example, one of the above-mentioned parishioners was kind enough to inform several other members of our small church that promotion of the Traditional Mass was contrary to the wishes of the Pope and essentially rebellion.

Why don't we see these kinds of concerns when the Mass is explicitly divisive? Not even just divisive either, but purposefully so. How many parishes have a "Youth Mass" where the general norms of sacred music are scrapped in favor of Hair-Band Hymns? Such things are often encouraged and made the focal point of the ministry. Yet they are liturgies that are deliberately constructed (fabricated) for the tastes of some and the disregard of others. Somehow, this is ok. Even if we ignore the fact that it is a Mass catering to just a minority of individuals, is there no accounting for bad taste and irreverence? It seems not.

What a strange world where something as venerable and holy as the Traditional Latin Mass is feared and despised to the point where mere inquiries can get you labeled as a schismatic. Meanwhile, your run-of-the-mill Disco Liturgy is not just ok, but the most hailed event on the parish calendar.

Weird.

The Irrelevance Of Truth

I was listening to a Protestant pastor yesterday. He is probably not overly well-known right now, more of an up-and-comer in the charismatic movement.

He's one of these guys who regards himself and his congregation as above denominational labels and beyond religion. In fact, he presents religion as the biggest threat to Christianity today. Of course, he doesn't exactly define what religion is. At least, I've never seen him do so.

His comment from last night that most drew my attention was in the context of lamenting all the problems people have in the world today: depression, spiritual hunger, financial issues, etc. He then said that the worst thing around was for something "of God" to happen to help these people, while others refuse to be happy about the help given because "it didn't happen in their church or as part of their ministry."

He went on to say that if anyone just gets "one little itty-bitty-bitty-bitty bit better" that we should be happy for them regardless of the religious affiliation in which this betterness occurred.

What an asinine statement. Does that mean that I'm supposed to be happy if someone opts for Scientology over Christianity? Hey, it helped Tom Cruise's dyslexia. He got better. I guess that makes Scientology ok then. Or if someone is having financial problems and decides that a congregation that supports criminal activities is the way to go and his problems are solved, should I be happy? Who the hell cares if they are running drugs? The person is better now, right?

These statements sound extreme, but think about the logical extension of this pastor's foolishness. Truth has been sent to the back of the bus so that good feelings and apparent temporal success can sit in front. Who cares if the person is being taught that there is no Trinity? Or that Jesus was a space alien? Or that God is the God of the Eucharist?

As long as they are comfortable or feeling better, I suppose. I can't help but think of Matthew 7.

Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Feeling better or "doing good" doesn't cut it. Wouldn't a guy who said "I am the Truth" have a certain interest in the promotion of what is actually true?

Reactions To Pope John's Summons

Kicking this series off, we looked at the conciliar summons from Blessed John XXIII and how it is completely opposed to the caricature of him that many in the post-conciliar era have constructed.

Now, I’d like to take a look at what the reactions were by folks who were paying attention, or at least say they were. We’ll do this throughout the series, mostly from the following sources. I picked these because they are not only available without a whole lot of looking around, but they also represent a number of different perspectives. I want to point out now that I don't think any of the Catholic authors on this list would be considered as “radical traditionalists” or sedevacantists or any other epithet that gets thrown against anyone who questions the success of Vatican II. Our commentaries are:

1. Speaking for traditional Catholic doctrine, we have Iota Unum by Romano Amerio, a theologian for the original conciliar preparatory commission and a peritus (theological expert) at the council.

2. For the more “innovative” Catholics, there’s What Happened in Rome? by Gary MacEoin, journalist.

3. The secular view is represented by Paul Blanshard at Vatican II by Paul Blanshard, a journalist that many will recall is a bigoted jerk.

4. The Protestant theological perspective will come from The Ecumenical Revolution by Robert McAffee Brown, a Presbyterian theologian and one of the Protestant observers at Vatican II.

5. Finally, the most purely historical account is The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, priest and journalist, who was at least sympathetic to the views of “innovative” Catholics.

Just pointing out here that, with the exception of Amerio, these guys will disagree with me on most things Church-related. That’s why they make the best witnesses.

Anyways, let’s see what they think of Ad Petri Cathedram and the idea of a council.

Brown gives the encyclical a grand total of one citation, that bein on page 64. The substance?

"This in itself will provide an outstanding example of truth, unity, and love. May those who are separated from this Apostolic See, beholding this manifestation of unity, derive the inspiration to see out the unity which Jesus Christ prayed for so ardently from His heavenly Father."

Pretty tame statement to focus on in light of the rest of what Pope John said. I have some doubts about whether Mr. Brown even read the encyclical, as the cited portion he gives is footnoted to a secondary source and is translated a bit differently than what we see in Section 62 in the Vatican version linked above.

Regardless, Mr. Brown focused very little on the formal conciliar summons, something that most folks would think was pretty important. He does, however, lavish a large amount of praise on Blessed John, mostly related to creating the Secretariat for Christian Unity and "releasing the ecumenical concern" which bore so much "good fruit" during the Council. In fact, the snippet above was made it "apparent that more could be expected than a perfunctory gathering of bishops to rubber-stamp ideas emanating from pope and curia, and that while the council was called primarily to deal with internal Catholic matters, its import would be ecumenical as well."

Thought experiment. Compare Ad Petri Cathedram to Iam Vos Omnes, the invitation by Blessed Pius IX to Protestants prior to Vatican I. See if you can find a whole lot of difference.

For a more frank assessment, we look to Mr. Blanshard, who was paying a lot more attention. Page 22 of his book remarks on the language of APC and Pope John's coronation as "strange" considering "John's later reputation as the greatest ecumenist of modern times." The encyclical itself was "ecclesiastically egocentric."

Amerio really doesn't go into the encyclical. Instead, he chooses to spend most of his time talking about the general expectations for the Council and other events in the lead-up. This is a bit disappointing, but not overly shocking, since he tends to focus on things that he views as problems, rather than what he agrees with. He does mention on page 59 those who "dare to attribute to John XXIII the intention of blowing up the Stalinist monolith of the Catholic Church from inside" are pushing a "catastophal" interpretation of the Council, which he defines as foreseeing and pursuing a "radical change in Catholicism." Such an idea, while "confused," was "embraced both at the popular level and in the activity of organized groups which imposed important elements of their thinking on the council."

So we are left with the question of who these groups were and what their motivations might have been. For that, we go to Fr. Wiltgen.

Fr. Wiltgen begins in his preface by commenting on the lament of Juvenal that Syrian culture had begun to pentrate that of ancient Rome.:

What happened in Juvenal's day on a cultural level happened in our own day on a theological level. This time, however, the penetrating influence came from the countries along the Rhine- Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and the Netherlands- and from nearby Belgium. Because the cardinals, bishops, and theologians of these six countries succeeded in exerting a predominant influence over the Second Vatican Council, I have titled my book The Rhine Flows Into the Tber.

The public has heard very little of the powerful alliance established by the forces of the Rhine, a factor which greatly influenced Council legislation.

Wiltgen quotes a great deal from APC without much comment, as is his habit throughout the book. As an aside, I think he is very good at leaving his own opinions out of the mix. Anyways, he does this as repitition and not part of a narrative. What is significant, however, is the reaction to the summons on the part of this Rhine group.

On page 15, Wiltgen describes the German bishops as already meeting in the residence of Cardinal Frings in order to discuss memberships on the Council's ten commissions that would be responsible for drawing up the schemas (draft documents) for consideration.

Considerable agitation was caused when someone reported that the Roman Curia had prepared a list of candidates for distribution at election time. To counteract this move, it was proposed that each national episcopal conference should be permitted to nominate candidates from its own ranks for each commission.

This idea was agreed upon by Cardinal Lienart of France, and "both cardinals agreed upon a plan of procedure for the opening day" of the Council.

This is all still just set-up, and I apologize if I move a bit slowly through all this. I think it is very important, though, to get a good picture of Pope John's intentions for the Council, what acts were done in preparation for the Council, how these things changed once the Council started, and who the parties were that were involved.

Our next two installments will be a discussion of the Council's own preparatory work, including the Synod of Rome, and of the Curia, who hold their own respective positions in the views of our commentators.

Stay tuned.

This Is What A Catholic Politician Sounds Like

And he's from Louisiana. Naturally, I've had a tough time finding this story on a mainstream news outlet.

Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, (R-New Orleans), the first Vietnamese-American congressman and a Catholic, announced this past weekend that, because of the “stealth mandate” for abortion still present in the Health Care bill, he prefers to “save his soul” rather than vote in favor of it. . .

“At the end of the day if the health care reform bill does not have strong language prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion, then the bill is really a no-go for me,” said Cao, who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit priest.

“Being a Jesuit, I very much adhere to the notion of social justice,” Cao said. “I do fully understand the need of providing everyone with access to health care, but to me personally, I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives,” he explained to the Louisiana newspaper.

Holy smokes. What is more shocking: an apparently orthodox Catholic politician or an apparently orthodox Catholic who spent time in formation to be a Jesuit?

“I know that voting against the health care bill will probably be the death of my political career,” Cao said, “but I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, ‘How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul.’”

Contrast this fortitude with guys like Kmiec.

On a somewhat side note, this whole thing reminds me of a great bit from Man For All Seasons. You'll need to go to the 3:50 mark or so:



How many these days are opting for not even so much as Wales?

Caritas in Veritate, Part 4

The next chapter of the encyclical is about “The Development of People, Rights and Duties, The Environment.” The discussion starts with the simple point:

Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone, except to themselves.

“I am my own man.” “Look out for number one.” “It’s hard out here fo’ a pimp.” Feel free to include your own clichés. What is needed, the Pope says, is for a redirection of emphasis.

Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence. On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world.

This is a point that we’ve made many time. Pontiffs for the last 200 years or so have been decrying the modern concept of “rights.” There’s no better example of this than the alleged “right” to homosexual marriage. Where does such a right come from? From God? Hardly. From the people? It doesn’t seem so given the fact that the vote in California has been blasted by gay-rights activists as somehow invalid. The simple answer is that it derives from the subjective desires of the individuals in question. This is hardly a basis for government, not to mention morality.

A link has often been noted between claims to a “right to excess”, and even to transgression and vice, within affluent societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan centres. The link consists in this: individual rights, when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do not become licence. Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness. Governments and international bodies can then lose sight of the objectivity and “inviolability” of rights. When this happens, the authentic development of peoples is endangered. The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights.

Remember when folks thought that certain rights were inalienable and granted by the Creator? I really wish Pope Benedict would have spent more time on this issue and been more clear that the rights we are talking about come from God. It’s pretty clear from the rest of the encyclical that this is the case, but too many secular humanist types will take this kind of stuff out of context and use it to justify the further elevation of man at the expense of God by rooting such rights in some sort of (still arbitrary) formula centered on man.

This is made more likely by the talk of “anthropological and ethical framework” lingo. I don’t really know what that means and its vagueness could be used against the Church. I realize that there are always going to be folks that twist the words of the Magisterium. I don’t know if it’s ever been as bad as in modern times, though.

This next part is interesting because the Pope basically takes the standard view of population growth and turns it on its head:

This is a very important aspect of authentic development, since it concerns the inalienable values of life and the family. To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view. Suffice it to consider, on the one hand, the significant reduction in infant mortality and the rise in average life expectancy found in economically developed countries, and on the other hand, the signs of crisis observable in societies that are registering an alarming decline in their birth rate. The Church, in her concern for man's authentic development, urges him to have full respect for human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of procreation. This would be to impoverish and disregard the deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be acknowledged and responsibly appropriated not only by individuals but also by the community. It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control.

See how many of your Obama-is-in-line-with-Church-thinking yahoos discuss this section in their attempts to tilt Church teaching in their direction.

Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs.

This has been discussed in much detail just about everywhere. A good portion of Western Civilization is contracepting itself into oblivion. Russia and China, too. Nobody really seems to care either. When you see groups amongst the Orthodox signing on to the contraceptive mentality (without censure and contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers), you know things have gotten bad.

I’ve seen a couple of sources that criticize the Pope’s apparent promotion of social welfare systems. This is another point where I don’t understand the hub-bub. It’s pretty easy to read this in pari materia with other Church statements on social justice. The State may, or will, occasionally have to intervene to correct certain societal problems, especially when the ower orders have failed. Granted, in the modern US context, much of our problems are attributable to the already pervasive higher level intervention, but again, we shouldn’t read papal documents as relating specifically to our situation unless the document itself says so. If this contradicts Centessimus Annus, I’m not sure how.

Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.

I know what you are thinking. Here we go again with the anthro-centric stuff that is going to create problems. A-ha, says the Pope. Not this time.

Much in fact depends on the underlying system of morality. On this subject the Church's social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is based on man's creation “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27), a datum which gives rise to the inviolable dignity of the human person and the transcendent value of natural moral norms.

Much better. I am greedy, though. What would have been really awesome is if the Pope would have continued his discussion of the heightened degree of human dignity brought about by grace and the sacraments. You can’t always get what you want, I guess.

As the encyclical moves (drags?) on, I am forced to admit that he loses me for a while. The next couple of sections discuss the formation of new business types that don’t look at profit as their end, but rather, profit as the instrument for helping people. Such businesses would then feed the creation of person-centered “development programs” in 3rd World-ish places. These sections have a lot of writing but I can’t derive a whole lot of meaning out of them.

I will include this next bit because it is easy to understand and applies just as much to the prior sections and the reliability of state action.

International cooperation requires people who can be part of the process of economic and human development through the solidarity of their presence, supervision, training and respect. From this standpoint, international organizations might question the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic and administrative machinery, which is often excessively costly. At times it happens that those who receive aid become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of funds intended for development.

So we’re back to man screwing things up again.

Speaking of screwing things up, we finally get to the much-ballyhooed environmental portion of the encyclical.

Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God's creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the fruit of God's creation.

Pretty basic stuff. I get that. Here’s what I get even more, though.

But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense.

Again, I’m greedy. It’s good to see the Pope pointing out that humanity is more important than the rest of the natural world. I wish he would have popped in a few more lines about the latter part on the incapability of achieving salvation by our natural powers.

This having been said, it is also necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation.

The weird part here is that it seems that this issue is a lot worse in less industrialized nations. You probably don’t see a lot of environmental protection concerns in India. China’s problems have been well-publicized.

Time for another bit of honesty. I was lost on the next few bits. The Pope talks about the problem of energy production and how more developed countries should lower their consumption and help out their worse-off neighbors. I’m not real sure what the deal is here. Preaching solidarity is one thing. I’m not real sure how wise it is to start laying out these kinds of guidelines. It’s not like a Pope condemning a specific activity like, say, the publication of pornography. That’s pretty basic. Energy production is a lot more complex than that and is the sort of thing that policy-driven reductions might make worse.

The rest of this chapter is equally confusing. The remaining few sections goes from problems associated with materialism to concerns about deteriorating crop lands to wars to embryonic research. Ultimately, I think he’s saying that the breakdown in our overall culture results in abuses of humanity and the rest of Creation. If that’s the case, I wish he would have just said that. Read it for yourself, then come back and explain it to me if I’m wrong.

He does salvage things a bit with this capstone, returning us to the real point of ordering things toward God and everything else working out as a consequence of that.

Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product; the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior to us and constitutes us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true development.

All that, and we’ve still got another 12 pages of stuff, and the most controversial stuff at that, to work through. I promise that we will, along with the next installment of the Vatican II series.

Persecution

Our brethren are dying. Same old enemies, too.

In Pakistan, it is Islam:
Muslims burn 6 Christians to death after false allegations

In Viet Nam, it is the communists:
Violence continues as authorities in Vietnamese city seek to create a ‘No Catholic Zone’

In India, though, a new problem has sprung up. We've documented the Hindu persecution of Catholics there in prior posts like this one and this one. Now, the Protestants there are trying to get in on the action:
Protestant intimidation in India holding back ‘flood’ of conversions to Catholicism, bishop says

If you are reading this, please offer a prayer to St. Michael and a Glory Be to the Holy Trinity for the protection of our fellow Catholics.

SSPX Talks Are Set To Begin (maybe)

Rorate Caeli with the story again.

Per Bishop Fellay:

There is not date set for the beginning of the dialogue, but we may assume that it will be in the autumn. I will be in Rome for that period, but there is nothing yet detailed. The Commission is already formed, by 3-4 people, but we cannot yet mention the names, even if to avoid any kind of pressure.

As to what he thinks of Vatican II compromises:

We will not make any compromise on the Council. I have no intention of making a compromise. The truth does not tolerate compromise. We do not want a compromise, we want clarity regarding the Council.

Clarity would be nice. Compromises, not so much. I can definitely agree with that, though His Excellency and I probably have different views on the subject.

And finally, a cause for optimism:

We certainly see in the Pope an authentic will to reach the core of the matter, and we cherish this with all satisfaction. We pray, and we hope, that with grace of the good God we will reach something that is good for the Church and for ourselves. . .

He is an upright man, who regards the situation and the life of the Church most seriously.

The Summons To Vatican II & The Unity Of The Church

In kicking off what is sure to be a mammoth series on the Second Vatican Council, I will begin at the "sort of" beginning. The conciliar summons, Ad Petri Cathedram, was issued by Blessed John XXIII back on June 29, 1959. Fifty years ago this June. Long time, yes?

Originally, I wasn't going to start here, but after seeing the Rorate Caeli treatment of the subject, I changed my mind. For a bit of a primer, I also invite readers to check out our prior run of posts on Blessed John.

Now that that's out of the way, let's hit a few of the high points that a lot of the "spiritists" of Vatican II either intentionally forget or never knew about in the first place.

As We have said, it is possible for us to attain natural truth by virtue of our intellects. But all cannot do this easily; often their efforts will result in a mixture of truth and error. This is particularly the case in matters of religion and sound morals. Moreover, we cannot possibly attain those truths which exceed the capacity of nature and the grasp of reason, unless God enlightens and inspires us. This is why the word of God, "who dwells in light inaccessible,"in His great love took pity on man's plight, "became flesh and dwelt among us,"that He might "enlighten every man who cometh into the world"and lead him not only to full and perfect truth, but to virtue and eternal happiness. All men, therefore, are bound to accept the teaching of the gospel. For if this is rejected, the very foundations of truth, goodness, and civilization are endangered.

A couple of things present themselves here. First, we see the natural/supernatural distinction that so many have sought to blur and the Pius XII tried to protect in Humani Generis. Second, we have Pope John presenting the Gospel as the last, best hope for the world, and no hope of grasping God's Truth without God's grace.

It is clear that We are discussing a serious matter, with which our eternal salvation is very intimately connected. Some men, as the Apostle of the Gentiles warns us, are "ever learning yet never attaining knowledge of the truth." They contend that the human mind can discover no truth that is certain or sure; they reject the truths revealed by God and necessary for our eternal salvation.

Such men have strayed pathetically far from the teaching of Christ . . .

Anyone who consciously and wantonly attacks known truth, who arms himself with falsehood in his speech, his writings, or his conduct in order to attract and win over less learned men and to shape the inexperienced and impressionable minds of the young to his own way of thinking, takes advantage of the inexperience and innocence of others and engages in an altogether despicable business.

This last paragraph is a good synopsis of why Fr. Jenkins and the President should have been roundly condemned for their speeches at ND.

Some men, indeed do not attack the truth wilfully, but work in heedless disregard of it. They act as though God had given us intellects for some purpose other than the pursuit and attainment of truth. This mistaken sort of action leads directly to that absurd proposition: one religion is just as good as another, for there is no distinction here between truth and falsehood. "This attitude," to quote Pope Leo again, "is directed to the destruction of all religions, but particularly the Catholic faith, which cannot be placed on a level with other religions without serious injustice, since it alone is true." Moreover, to contend that there is nothing to choose between contradictories and among contraries can lead only to this fatal conclusion: a reluctance to accept any religion either in theory or practice.

How can God, who is truth, approve or tolerate the indifference, neglect, and sloth of those who attach no importance to matters on which our eternal salvation depends; who attach no importance to pursuit and attainment of necessary truths, or to the offering of that proper worship which is owed to God alone?

When folks start rambling about Pope John as the Prince of Ecumenists rather than as the Vicar Christ, introduce them to the above quote. I've been challenged many times to produce the source of the statement and been met with complete shock upon doing so. It's amazing that such a basic tenet of the Faith could cause such a reaction and for no other reason than heretics have constructed a fake Blessed John for the world to admire.

The next few bits of the encyclical go through some social justice themes, ranging from harmony in the home to peace on Earth. Of course, all of these things are tied to the acceptance and practice of the Gospel. Having discussed unity across these other realms, he then turns his pen to the unity of religion. What sort of unity might that be?

When the Divine Redeemer founded His Church, there is no doubt that He made firm unity its cornerstone and one of its essential attributes. Had He not done this—and it is absurd even to make such a suggestion—He would have founded a transient thing, which in time, at least, would destroy itself. For in just this way have nearly all philosophies risen from among the vagaries of human opinion: one after another, they come into being, they evolve, they are forgotten. But this clearly cannot be the history of a divine teaching authority founded by Jesus Christ, "the way, the truth, and the life."

But this unity, Venerable Brethren and beloved sons, must be solid, firm and sure, not transient, uncertain, or unstable. Though there is no such unity in other Christian communities, all who look carefully can see that it is present in the Catholic Church.

Take note. Unity already exists. It is the Catholic Church alone that possesses it. There is no "convergence of religions" or "meta-Christianity" Frankenstein Monster to be forged by cobbling together Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and whoever else into some of of syncretist fantasy. This is probably even more strongly worded than Cardinal Ratzinger's words in Dominus Iesus. Yet how much wailing and gnashing of teeth did we hear on that one? Weeks worth.

Yet Pope John's words are forgotten. He doesn't even stop there.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished by these three characteristics: unity of doctrine, unity of organization, unity of worship. This unity is so conspicuous that by it all men can find and recognize the Catholic Church.

It is the will of God, the Church's founder, that all the sheep should eventually gather into this one fold, under the guidance of one shepherd. All God's children are summoned to their father's only home, and its cornerstone is Peter. All men should work together like brothers to become part of this single kingdom of God; for the citizens of that kingdom are united in peace and harmony on earth that they might enjoy eternal happiness some day in heaven.

That's right. He just told everyone separated from the Holy See that they are defying the will of God by remaining in such a state. Note also that it's "this single kingdom of God." There aren't any others lurking in the bushes out there.

The Catholic Church teaches the necessity of believing firmly and faithfully all that God has revealed. . .

Whenever a man has wandered from this path, the Church has never failed to use her maternal authority to call him again and again to the right road. She knows well that there is no other truth than the one truth she treasures; that there can be no "truths" in contradiction of it. Thus she repeats and bears witness to the words of the Apostle: "For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth."

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark.

Note that dissent is only for those things open for discussion. Pope John is nice enough to tell us what things aren't open for discussion, namely, that which is "contained in sacred scripture and in the oral and written tradition that has come down through the centuries from the apostolic age and finds expression in the ordinances and definitions of the popes and legitimate Ecumenical Councils."

This makes me wonder what Blessed John's reputation would be these days if he had written Humanae Vitae, rather than Pope Paul.

At this point, Pope John turns his full attention to the non-Catholics of the world. Ask yourself what would happen if Pope Benedict wrote something like this. Especially consider what your own priest, bishop, and/or fellow Catholics might say:

We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See. May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished, as well as the prayers and entreaties with which she begs God for unity, stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest.

May We, in fond anticipation, address you as sons and brethren? May We hope with a father's love for your return?

When We fondly call you to the unity of the Church, please observe that We are not inviting you to a strange home, but to your own, to the abode of your forefathers. Permit Us, then, to long for you all "in the heart of Christ Jesus," and to exhort you all to be mindful of your forefathers who "preached God's word to you; contemplate the happy issue of the life they lived, and imitate their faith."

There is in paradise a glorious legion of Saints who have passed to heaven from your people. By the example of their lives they seem to summon you to union with this Apostolic See with which your Christian community was beneficially united for so many centuries. You are summoned especially by those Saints who in their writings perpetuated and explained with admirable accuracy the teachings of Jesus Christ.

We address, then, as brethren all who are separated from Us, using the words of Saint Augustine: "Whether they wish it or not, they are our brethren. They cease to be our brethren only when they stop saying 'Our Father.'" . . .

The peace, then, which we must seek, which we must strive to achieve with all the means at our disposal, must—as We have said—make no concessions to error, must compromise in no way with proponents of falsehood; it must make no concessions to vice; it must discourage all discord. Those who adhere to this peace must be ready to renounce their own interests and advantages for the sake of truth and justice, according to the words: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice."

The only ecumenism ever envisioned by Pope John was the return of those separated to Rome and the Successor of Peter. No compromise. None.

Finally, I add this last bit because I think there is some Caritas in Veritate foreshadowing:

There is never any need, therefore, to turn to proponents of doctrines condemned by the Church; for they only draw men on with false promises and when they obtain control of the state, try boldly and unscrupulously to deprive men of their supreme spiritual goods—the Christian commandments, Christian hope, and Christian faith. Those who adhere to the doctrines these men propose, minimize or eliminate all that our present age and our modern civilization hold dearest: true liberty and the authentic dignity of the human person. Thus they attempt to destroy the bases of Christianity and civilization.

All, therefore, who wish to remain Christians must be aware of their serious obligation to avoid those false principles, which Our predecessors—especially Popes Pius XI and Pius XII—have condemned in the past, and which We condemn once again.

We know that many of Our children who live in want or great misfortune often protest that the social teachings of Christianity have not yet been fully put into practice. Private citizens, and more particularly public officials, must take steps to see that the Christian social doctrine which Our predecessors have often clearly and wisely taught and decreed, and which we have confirmed, is really given full effect. Although this will have to be done gradually, no time should be wasted.

Pretty neat, I think. If you want some other references to Church unity, check out Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum. Ad Petri Cathedram quotes Pope Leo about 8 times, I think, so Blessed John seems to have thought highly of him, and since he freaking rules anyway, you should give it a look.

Anyways, we're going to go through the other precursors to Vatican II, as well as the comments of its contemporary witnesses. We'll hit all 16 documents and take a close examination of what each says and doesn't say, as well as what it actually means in light of the footnotes and other Church teachings. Please join us and tell us where we're wrong.

In Old News . . .

Old Call to Action to break with Catholic Church

There's a big freaking surprise. Not sure how I missed this one when it happened.

In January, ex-Jesuit Robert Blair Kaiser, co-president of TakeBackOurChurch.org, formally announced the American Catholic Council, “aimed at creating a new kind of Church, both Catholic and American.” The proposal for such a council goes back to the summer 2007 newsletter of the Association for the Rights of Catholic in the Church – ARCC.

Ok. That's no big deal. This group of heretics and schismatics really broke away a long time ago. The article here isn't particularly well-written as it tends to discuss more of the roots of this situation and the related groups making up the schism, rather than details of the schism itself. Given that this is just manifesting what was already reality, I understand taking this angle. I just wish it was expressed more clearly.

Here's the best part, though.

Being American and therefore, presumably, holding democratic ideals as a cultural birthright, this new, American Catholic “church” would elect its bishops and write a constitution for itself “that carefully puts aside the Rome-based secretive, half-vast, culturally-conditioned legalisms codified in canon law in return for the kind of servant Church envisioned at Vatican II.”

Kaiser and Miller say there will be nothing schismatic about creating an American Catholic Church, modeled after all on “the Maronites, the Melchites, the Byzantines, the Copts and sixteen other autochthonous churches in the Middle East that are loyal to the pope, but glory in their own governance, their own married cl ergy, and their own liturgies.”

I'm sure Karl and our other Eastern brethren love being compared to these jokers. Personally, I'm wondering where they are getting their "loyal to the Pope" part. Maybe it's somewhere else in the article:

None of the autochthonous churches they mention, however, comes with the “ordination” of women and the rejection of diverse Church teachings on a broad range of issues such as contraception, marriage, and homosexuality, etc., which have been part of Call to Action’s platform for decades. And an open letter from Leonard Swidler, one of the people behind the American Catholic Council, suggests that the 1976 Call to Action–Liberty and Justice for All – seeking these changes – be used as the resource document for the ACC.

Or maybe not. In fact, despite committing themselves to "radical inclusivity," something utterly abhorred by the Eastern Rite Churches, there are certain folks that the schismatics have deemed undesirable, namely, anyone who is actually Catholic,

This qualification decision was made to ensure that groups committed to a pre-Vatican II restoration of a clerical, hierarchical Church or who rejected the roles and responsibilities of all baptized did not attempt to co-opt or abort the Council. We realized that the importance of Vatican II was often lost on Catholics born after the 1950s—but we decided that we could articulate the principles of Vat ican II without focusing on the Vatican Council itself.

"Principles of Vatican II without focusing on the Vatican Council itself." How interesting. Yet another admission that justifying heresy is a lot easier if you just make stuff up about VII, rather than reading what it actually says.

Caritas In Veritate: A Different Application

We might be seeing this whole "charity in truth" thing becoming a bit of a motto for the Benedictine Vatican.

Cardinal Canizares, the new top guy at the Congregation for Divine Worship, dropped the term in reference to dealing with ostensibly Catholic politicians who vote pro-abortion.

It's on LifeSiteNews.

"Politicians should become aware and they should be helped to become aware of the gravity of their conduct," the cardinal said at his offices in Rome. "When they approve laws against life, in favor of abortion or euthanasia, priests and bishops should say this."

He said that the principle that should be applied is the one that gives the title to the latest encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, "Caritas in Veritate."

"This principle, caritas in veritate [love in truth], should be the principle used, first by politicians when they come to Communion, and second it should be the rule for bishops when they decide whether to give or to withdraw Communion."

In other words, let's be honest. The Church is about saving souls. Providing you politicians with assistance in damning yourselves kind of runs contrary to that. You are loved so much that nobody wants to contribute to your going to hell. Who can argue with that?

Canizares explained that according to Catholic teaching those who insist upon receiving Communion in a state of serious sin are in grave spiritual danger and emphasized that the withholding of Communion is meant for the person's spiritual salvation.

He said, "I think that the strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, 'he eats his own condemnation'. This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement."

Between this and the recent comments by Archbishop Burke, the margin for being able to "loophole" around prohibiting communion would seem to be shrinking. The most striking example of this is then-Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of 2004. Cardinal Canizares seems to think it's pretty clear:

Cardinal Canizares pointed to two documents that bishops can use for guidance on how to deal with politicians who refuse to reform their consciences - the encyclical of the late Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae and the document produced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2004 when Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect. That document stated clearly that pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass.

More On The Underground Church In China

There have been a number of folks who took the Pope's letter to Chinese Catholics back in 2007 as some sort of white flag to the Communists. As is the case with most distortions of papal documents, such people either didn't read it or are liars. The Cardinal Kung Foundation has done a good job of combatting the local propaganda on this point.

Now, Cardinal Zen has done likewise. His Eminence has never been one to hold back on what he's thinking, and CNA has him going with both barrels:

"The most serious misunderstanding of the guidelines given by Benedict XVI concerned - again, in Cardinal Zen's view - the question of official recognition on the part of the communist authorities. Many interpreted the Pope's letter as a binding order to the ‘underground’ communities and bishops to come out of hiding and ask for government recognition."

Cardinal Zen maintains that the "fundamental reality is that the government has kept its policy substantially unchanged, a policy that aims at enslaving the whole Church. That is why we have to witness such a painful spectacle: bishops and priests who, thinking they are obeying the Holy Father, make enormous efforts to come to terms with the government; many of these, faced by the unacceptable conditions imposed by the government, draw back."

"The government, on its part, has presented itself as an enthusiastic executor of the will of the Pope, declaring itself the promoter of [Church] unity, evidently a unity under the total control of the government inside the iron-tight structure of an independent Church," Cardinal Zen says.

By now, I think everyone acknowledges that there is no reason to believe anything the Chinese government says about anything. Given that the article also mentions their efforts to suppress circulation of the letter, I wouldn't be surprised if the Commies hadn't released a fake version that has photoshopped pictures of Pope Benedict bowing before a statue of Mao.

You can read Cardinal Zen's whole shpiel here.

However, just saying that we know not to believe them is easy for us. We haven't been living in persecution for the bulk of the last century. Read the letters of Cyprian of Carthage and see what our ancestors in the Faith went through under the Romans. There's not much difference with what's going on in China. Modern persecutions are just a more "private" affair. Pray that God will have mercy on these people, including the lapsed.

Grant Mercy, O Lord,
To Those Brothers And Sisters
Who Chose To Be Separated From You,
May They Return
To The One Fold And One Shepherd.