Neo-Nominalism

After experiencing my 3 billionth discussion with folks on the importance of dogma this past week, something occurred to me which has undoubtedly occurred to a lot of folks already.

The increased disintegration of religions based on dogma in favor of religions based on individuals is heavily influenced by nominalism. I realize that nominalism is unfortunately (and somewhat ironically) subject to certain variant meanings, so let me be clear that what I'm meaning is the denial of universals. In more plain speak, folks might regard this as rejecting the idea of a thing's essence (using the lay definition of the word). Romano Amerio talks a lot in Iota Unum about a confusion about the essence of things, but he spends a great deal of time explaining how people have mixed things up, rather than completely forgotten them. To break it down even further, while attempting to do as little violence to the term as possible, think of nominalism as basically saying that the only things that there are are things that resemble each other and that we apply the same label to. Apples are apples because they are red, round fruits that have a certain taste and that grow from a certain tree. There isn't a greater concept of "appleness" to any of them. There's just the individual characteristics and the common name that we slap on them. Likewise for everything else, including people.

For an example of the latter point, consider the Reformed position of total depravity, which said that our human nature was destroyed by original sin, which meant that we were hopelessly corrupt and capable of nothing but sin. This is why the Reformers opted for theories like imputed righteousness and forensic justification. With no human nature left that could be redeemed, the best deal we could get was having Christ's righteousness cover us over and God play make-believe that we were holy instead of just turds.

The way Christians have evolved, including a lot of Catholics, they clearly apply this same sort of reasoning to Christianity. Take an extreme example, like that of the Jehovah's Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians. They reject the divinity of Christ and reduce Him to being St. Michael. No, really. Is it therefore possible to say that JWs aren't Christians?

Well, duh-doy. This is an easy one. Or it should be.

Of an equally duh-doy stature is the new Modalism aka Oneness Pentecostals. Some of these folks have gotten to be rather famous as ostensibly Christian. Think of TD Jakes, who is obviously a Modalist until he goes on TV and then he doesn't talk about it. Anyways, given that they deny the Trinity, should Oneness Pentecostals be classed as Christians? Of course not.

The only way such groups can be classed as Christians is if we accept a nominalist view of what a Christian is. In other words, if you take a bunch of monotheists who claim that there was a guy named Jesus who had something to do with their being saved from sin, you can look at such a group and label them "Christian." Don't expect for their to be any real underlying "Christianity." It's just a bunch of groups that look and act the same.

I used pretty radical cases, but you can take it through several levels of gradation, I think. Really, this is a popular mindset because it allows for a great deal of comfort and convenience. Every time you hear someone say, "I'm a Christian. I just love Jesus. I don't get into all that dogma/doctrine/religion stuff," what they're really saying is "I've taken a label for myself. Anything beyond that is immaterial and could be something else if you talk to someone else who has claimed that label. Now, get away from me before you make me think."

What we're left with, then, is a Christianity that has been stripped of any real meaning. Just a name-tag to slap on our shirts so that we don't have to ask the tough questions about stuff like who God is, who Jesus is, what people are, and so forth.

A Thousand Pardons

The blog has been pretty vacant lately. Sorry about that. Life has a bad way of intervening on the stuff that you like to do with the stuff that you have to do. My sincere hope is that we will be able to return to our regularly scheduled ranting next week. In the interim, three things:

1. That blood-curdling screech you heard was probably Nancy Pelosi finding out that Bishop Salvatore Cordileone was appointed Archbishop of San Francisco. If you aren't familiar with his exploits, check out Rocco Palma's take. His Excellency certainly has his work cut out for him. Please offer him your prayers.

2. If you can spare a few, please pray for me as well. I am currently dealing with a number of personal and occupational stressors that are not of the most positive sort. God bless you all.

3. Go see The Dark Knight Rises.

It's St. Lawrence Of Brindisi Day

This is a bit of a repost from a few years ago, but the relevance is just as significant today as then. St. Lawrence is one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, though few have ever heard of him. Despite his obscurity in modern times, St. Lawrence of Brindisi was a genius by any measure. He mastered at least ten languages and was considered a brilliant theologian by everyone who knew of him. Sadly, I am unaware of any readily available (or even rare) compilation of his works, despite the fact that a twelve volume set was assembled by his Capuchin brethren. It's a shame that Catholics do not have better access to treasures such as these. But I digress.

Lawrence got to be really famous by preaching conversion among the Jews of his day. This was critical for him, and he had great success. He was so comfortable in Jewish settings and spoke the various Semitic languages so well that a lot of them actually thought he must have been a Jew himself. 

Lawrence was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Blessed John XXIII back in 1959. I would quote from the relevant encyclical, but the Vatican web site only has it available in Latin and my Latin sucks. How strange, though, that this Pope who is regarded as such a radical ecumenist would elevate a saint so devoted to the conversion of others to such a high station. I think it says a lot about Blessed John that he took such an action. In this age where you have Christians of all sorts who are content to leave Jews ignorant of the wonders of Christ, St. Lawrence provides an example of true charity, the sincere willing of the ultimate good (God Himself) for his fellow man.

St. Lawrence of Brindisi, pray for us!

More Discipline

In our prior post, we mentioned the problem of ecclesiastical discipline and how the lack of it has contributed to the Church's problems today. Rorate is reporting a couple of possible examples for us to consider.

First, we have two bishops resigning well before their time: one from Italy and the other from Canada. As in the other cases where this has come up recently, here for example, the dioceses involved aren't big name places, although the Italian Bishop Di Mauro had some Curial ties.

Second, the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru has now been officially declared as being neither pontifical nor Catholic. This is interesting given the prevalence of liberation theology there and how so many people freaked out over Archbishop Muller's appointment to the CDF, given his ties with Gustavo Gutierrez. This action against the school is definitely another blow to those who wish to promote such doctrines as being within the bounds of orthodoxy. Like say, the Superior General of the Jesuits.

The latter event is undoubtedly a positive thing. I have no idea about the former. I am completely unfamiliar with these guys. Maybe they were both in poor health or were forced out in some Curial shenanigans. Maybe it was a disciplinary move. There's no way of knowing, but at least the move in Lima shows that the Church can still enforce its authority.

Well, That's Over With

By now you've heard that the SSPX-reconciliation thing appears to be over. Rorate has published the reports on this. In a nutshell, nothing is happening. The door isn't completely closed forever, but whatever was in that last missive from Cardinal Levada appears to have effectively ended what I guess could be called this "round" of talks.

Now, this is all very disconcerting, but I wanted to focus on a viewpoint that I've seen expressed in a couple of different places, Fr. Z being the most prominent.

It would be a mistake to think Benedict’s patience is endless...


I used to talk with Card. Ratzinger pretty frequently, years back. I’d pick his brains. I’d talk to him about horrible things written about him. I would challenge and disagree and demure. I never saw him angry. I haven’t really heard of him showing strong anger either. I know people who know Papa Ratzinger better than I. Everyone who knows him affirms that His Holiness is kind, and calm, and patient and sweet-tempered guy. He has the level-head and level-spirit that allows the workings of the theological virtues and the fruits of the Holy Ghost.


I can imagine, however, that if he got to the point where he was actually angry at someone or about something, there could be instant and sharp consequences.


The fact is, even level-headed and holy men get angry...


The Holy Father is about the last man on earth who would need anger management. I fear, nevertheless, that the SSPX will manage to make him angry.


I read statements from the SSPX leadership and watch the temporizing and listen to their musings about “Eternal Rome”, as if they were the lone true ones, being truer to a thruthier Church than Pope Benedict could ever fathom, and I can well imagine Pope Benedict getting more and more annoyed...


I long to say to them, “If you vex Benedict enough - BAM! You guys are going to learn what it means to on the business end of schism.”


I hope they don’t slap Benedict’s outstretched hand away. The other hand won’t be so nice.

This actually gets to the heart of the Church's problems far better than the indirect manner of the "doctrinal discussions." Consider all the other things that the Church is, and has, gone through in the last several decades. You can pretty much do a quick survey of this blog or any Catholic news site or just about any mainstream news site, and you'll find plenty of stories reflecting the "auto-demolition" of the Church (as Pope Paul VI described it). Let me just venture to say that, if this stuff isn't enough to tap the sort of angry response envisioned by Fr. Zuhlsdorf, then nothing will. Take the most recent Assisi fiasco. It's not like what happened was a major shock. It was standard operating procedure for such events. Yet the Pope went ahead and did it anyway. Or just take any of the stories mentioned above. There is a huge irony here that seems to be utterly lost on everyone.

THE SSPX ACCEPT VATICAN II FAR MORE THAN ANY OF THESE OTHER PARTIES.

This strikes me as pretty obvious but overlooked at every angle. What exactly would it mean if Pope Benedict lashes out at the SSPX, while these other bodies are left alone? Even the LCWR investigation has been little more than an extended dialogue. If the Pope -BAM- declares the SSPX to be in schism, what will follow for others, who are doing far worse? I'm not sure we can affirmatively say that the Society has been leading souls toward damnation since we can't even say they're in schism. Take a look around at what bishops, priests, and religious are saying all over the world that is most definitely placing souls in danger. Who is committing the greater offense? And yet the SSPX might be the ones to suffer some kind of canonical penalty? It sounds absurd.

This post isn't about the SSPX being right or wrong or whether the Holy Father is handling it correctly. It's about this new wave of speculation regarding Pope Benedict getting fed up and bringing the hammer down. It wouldn't make a lick of sense. If the Pope can handle the NeoCatechumenal Way with patience, the SSPX shouldn't be all that taxing.

Why Bother With The LCWR?

I had a guy ask me recently why the LCWR is even on the papal radar screen for a restructuring/takeover/crackdown/whatever you want to call it. After all, I'd just made the point to him that the dissidents represented by the LCWR are dying off and being replaced by the more vibrant, orthodox orders. Given the contribution of the LCWR sisters to "social justice," he wondered why they couldn't just be left alone until they faded away.

This is a very good question, especially coming from a non-Catholic who probably has gotten the bulk of his news on this topic from the standard media sources. FWIW, I believe the gentleman here identifies himself as Methodist.

First, I made the point that "social justice" is apparently a very flexible term in LCWR-speak. From what's been admitted by the participants themselves, "social justice" includes promoting the murder of the unborn, which is neither social nor just. This is an oft-forgotten element of the social justice crowd. Everyone deserves justice except the most helpless.

Second, I pointed out that, in the interest of keeping as many souls out of hell as possible, something needed to be done. He seemed satisfied with this answer, though I doubt he found it convincing. This is cause for reflection. As mentioned above, these nuns do seem to occupy an older demographic. Their time is short. At the very least, they have broken their vows of obedience. In a worst case scenario, they are in heresy and schism, whilst encouraging others to sin.

Keeping in mind that our main concern is souls, how can the Pope not intervene? These women have put their salvation in danger. Not only that, but they are leading other souls to hell as we speak. In many ways, this entire situation is a microcosm of the post-conciliar era's problems. Church leaders have shown a surprising degree of callousness in correcting those who, rather than obedience, have opted for revolution against God. Declaring "Non serviam!" bears its ultimate price and very little has  been done to do try and course correct those headed into the abyss.

Now is as good a time as any to try and fix this. Hopefully, the Curia will be next.

No News Is...?

By now, you've probably heard that the SSPX General Chapter upheld the exclusion  of Bishop Williamson from the proceedings. Other than that, there really hasn't been a whole lot of news. I don't know if that's good or bad.

While I Was Out

It looks like a hell of a lot of stuff went down. A quick recap before we return to our regularly scheduled blogging:

The SSPX General Chapter is underway, with Rorate posting a La Croix report that maybe 1/3 of the SSPX is fighting Bishop Fellay on cutting a deal with Rome. Pray.

Muslims are killing Christians in Africa (Nigeria specifically). Nobody cared. You can probably substitute Syria, Iran, Egypt, and half a dozen other countries and the story still works. Pray.

Or Communists for that matter, since China hasn't given up. Now, they've apparently taken Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daquin after his decision to leave the schismatic Patriotic Church and be faithful to God instead. Pray.

Oh, and they consecrated another schismatic bishop, too. Pray.

And, of course, Archbishop Muller was appointed head of the CDF. Not even going to touch that one, as I'm still too disappointed that it wasn't Cardinal Burke. Pray.

In positive news, after reports about various groups of Protestants looking to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon, the Presbyterians put the brakes on the movement that we had previously reported here a few years ago was gaining traction.

Members of the nation's largest Presbyterian denomination on Friday voted against a proposal that would have created a path to same-sex marriage ceremonies in the church.


After more than three hours of debate at the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s biennial General Assembly in Pittsburgh, voters struck down a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, 338-308; no voters abstained.
The proposal would have changed the church's Book of Order to define marriage as between "two people." It would have required approval by a majority of the church's 173 presbyteries, or regional governing bodies, in order to become final.


Following Friday's vote, the church will keep its definition of marriage as being a union between "a man and a woman."

So they got that going for them.

Pray anyway.

Shocking Development

A federal judge has blocked the Mississippi abortion law from going into effect.

Mississippi's only abortion clinic was open Monday after a federal judge temporarily blocked a law from being enforced that the clinic says could regulate it out of business. 


The owner of Jackson Women's Health Organization said it was "business as usual" and the clinic's two physicians will continue to see patients and do abortions unless a court orders them to stop. 


"Mississippi is still part of this country and still does have to abide by the Constitution," Diane Derzis told reporters inside the clinic as several abortion opponents prayed and sang hymns outside.


U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan issued a temporary restraining order Sunday to stop Mississippi from enforcing a law requiring any physician doing abortions at the clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. The order came the same day the law was to take effect. 


Because of the judge's order, the state Health Department canceled an inspection it originally planned to do Monday to see if the clinic is complying with the new law, a department spokeswoman said. 


The two physicians who do abortions at the clinic have applied for hospital privileges but haven't been granted them. Derzis said she doesn't expect them to be given the access, partly because she believes hospitals don't want abortion protesters outside on their sidewalks.

In other words, we're about to find out if the murdering children is granted greater legal status than a state's ability to regulate the practice of medicine within its borders.

Stay tuned...

Some Good News

I'll say something about the Supreme Court ruling later. For now, consider that Mississippi may soon be free of abortion clinics. And they are doing without apologies:

Mississippi soon could become the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic as a new law takes effect this weekend. Critics say it would force women in one of the country's poorest states to drive hours to obtain a constitutionally protected procedure or carry unwanted pregnancies to term. 


Top officials say limiting abortions is exactly what they have in mind. 


Republican Gov. Phil Bryant says he wants Mississippi to be "abortion-free." The law takes effect Sunday. 


Abortion rights supporters have sued, asking a judge to temporarily block the law from taking effect. So far, that hasn't happened. 


The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state's only clinic to be a doctor with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there travel to the clinic from other states. 


Michelle Movahed of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights is one of the attorneys representing the clinic. She said Friday that several states -- including Mississippi, Kansas and Oklahoma -- have tried in the past few years to chip away at access to abortion. 


"One of the things that has really been surprising about Mississippi is how open the legislators and elected officials have been about their intentions," Movahed said. "They're not even pretending it's about public safety. They're openly saying they're using this law to try to shut down the last abortion provider in the state."   

Yeah, how dare they do such a thing? I mean, who do these democratically-elected representatives of the people think they are, passing laws and stuff? Notice they aren't saying it's unconstitutional. Yet. Which is our segue into the Obamacare discussion. What if this is an "undue burden" on the right to abortions under the Casey analysis? Can a hospital be forced to give privileges to an abortionist? And if they can be forced to give privileges to the abortionist, maybe it's an undue burden for the hospital not to provide abortion access to anyone who asks.

Since the Court can now make laws into things that they aren't, where are the limits now?

Keep praying, friends. Deus vult!

So Bishop Williamson Is Out(?)

That's what the latest document on Rorate is saying. Granted, this can be taken a number of ways, but that just makes the question one of how big the deal is rather than if it's a big deal at all. It's huge.

Furthermore, I inform all members of the Chapter that, in virtue of Canon 2331 § 1 and 2 [of the revoked 1917 Code of Canon Law] (nc [Code of Canon Law in force] 1373), the Superior General has deprived Bp. Williamson from the position of capitulary due to his stand calling to rebellion and for continually repeated disobedience. He has also been forbidden to come to Écône for the ordinations.

The rest of the message is pretty grim. If accurate, it basically says that Cardinal Levada pulled a Darth Vader (Cardinal Levader? Darth Levada? The possibilities are limitless!) and altered the deal and left Bishop Fellay saying he couldn't accept (and yes, praying that he didn't alter it any further, unless it's to put it back the way it was).

So the deal is still on hold and the General Chapter approaches. Stay tuned. And pray.

Levada, Out? Bishop Williamson, Something?

First, we've got Tornielli claiming that Cardinal Levada is resigning (which we already new was coming) and that Bishop Muller is still in the lead to take his place. Which could be true. Then you've got Tancred at The Eponymous Flower less than a month ago was circulating stories that it was Cardinal Burke who was in  line for the CDF job.

No offense to any Germans here, but I'll take Cardinal Burke for that job.

On to the big honking deal. I'm asking for info about this one. I got a communication about Bishop Williamson's status in the SSPX being shaken up, but they provided no evidence for this claim. I did some looking, and there was a thread at AngelQueen about it, but it isn't there anymore. If anybody here is aware of documentation to this effect, please let us know.

Celebrating The Reformation?

What kind of world is it when this can even be considered or thought of?

Somebody apparently thought that the CATHOLIC CHURCH should celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017. I assume somebody else brought it up because I certainly can't think of any other reason why Cardinal Koch would bother making a statement about it:

There is no reason to celebrate the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, in 2017, in the opinion of the "ecumenical cardinal" of the Vatican, Kurt Koch. He pleads for, not an anniversary, but a "reformation memorial", said the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on Tuesday night (04/24/2012) in Vienna: "We cannot celebrate a sin." On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther published 95 theses on the state of the Church, which started the Reformation and led to the secession of the Protestant churches.

How about next year we do a 450th anniversary celebration of the final session of Trent instead? I think that's a capital idea for a couple of reasons. First, this year is the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II. Remembering that Trent is still very much a source of dogma, while VII is not, would probably be a good exercise for everyone. Second, it would probably be fun to see the media reaction at the Holy See celebrating an event that the secular world holds in such contempt. You can pretty much bet that, whatever "memorial" gets put together for the Reformation, we'll be treated to an over-emphasis (by the Catholic participants!) on Catholic corruption and Luther's "genius," rather than the sin that Cardinal Koch mentions.

The Church's Problems Explained In 18 Minutes And 25 Seconds

Check this out:



I just saw this over at Fr. Z's place. The conversation doesn't last all that long, but it encapsulates pretty much all the Church's problems. Notice how the priest is approached with all these claims about how the Church is wrong, about how Vatican II is getting ignored, how the laity are who decides what is right and wrong, etc.

Then notice how quickly the dissenters here flee from the discussion when he brings up inconvenient things like facts. Sure, they are more than willing to bring up the sex abuse scandal, Vatican II, and so forth, but the moment the priest begins to refute them, they quickly announce that they "aren't here to talk about those things, even though they brought them up in the first place.

What you have, though, is the whole gauntlet of nausea-inducing crap that one might expect from the LWRC itself, which all culminates in this nice lady's announcement that there isn't just "one Truth" but instead a whole hosts of Truths depending on who you talk to. In other words, Truth is dependent on me.

Of course, the main spokeswoman here proclaims her authority to speak about things because she has a bunch of theology degrees while simultaneously declining to answer any of the priests questions because she "isn't prepared or trained to do so." Here's a suggestion for anyone in this kind of situation. Don't bring stuff up and portray yourself as knowledgeable about it, whether it's Vatican II or fixing cars, unless you are prepared to either (a) defend what you are saying or (b) admit that you might be wrong. Notice that at no point does she concede that she might be wrong. She's ignorant of the topics, but she is secure in her ignorance that she's right.

How bizarre. It reminded of something a wise man once said:

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. Being in intimate contact with consciences they know better than anybody else, and certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist - nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen they use both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it pleases - they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise.


Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

This priest deserves our prayers and praise for handling this the way he did. He certainly didn't seem to know this was coming. In the face of an ambush, he met the enemy with charity and good will. He didn't get rattled, and once he hit his stride, the enemies knew they were outmatched.

Bravo, Father! Keep up the good fight!

Cardinal Bertone With Some Weirdness

If you've been following the saga of all the Vatican leaks stuff, you know that one of the names that pops up a lot is that of the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. And by "popping up," we mean "the subject of a conspiracy to have him removed." Cardinal Bertone's reaction to all this, per Zenit, is to blame the media.

In regard to the way that some of the media have engaged in aggression against the Pope and some Vatican officials, the secretary of state said: “Many journalists play at imitating Dan Brown. They continue to invent fables and re-propose legends.”

Really? This is the media's fault? This reminds me of another old Chris Rock routine, but I won't link to it here because of the vulgar language. A lot of you probably know the one I'm talking about, anyway. So what does His Eminence think about the apparent inter-Curial war going on?

Basically, he says the butler did it.

And he assured that there is no “involvement of cardinals or of fights between ecclesiastical personalities for the conquest of an imaginary power...”


According to the secretary of state there is a “relentless and repeated attempt to separate, to create divisions between the Holy Father and his collaborators, and between the collaborators themselves.” 


There is a desire to “strike those who are dedicated with greater passion and also greater personal toil for the good of the Church.” 


The Secretary of State confirmed the gravity of the “publication of a multiplicity of letters and documents sent to the Holy Father, by persons who have the right to privacy,” which constitutes, as we have confirmed many times, an immoral act of unheard of gravity.”

This is problematic for me. Let  me be clear that I'm not in the camp who thinks that Cardinal Bertone is a villain in all this. All I've done is acknowledge that there are factions and that the interests of the Holy Father are being ignored by all sides. The difficulty I have here is that, regardless of his intentions, Cardinal Bertone is doing the exact same thing. When he denies that there is Curial infighting, he sounds like Baghdad Bob. I'm not sure that such a statement would be true in all of Church history.

How about leaving those kinds of comments off the record or something? Not only does he deny the maneuvering going on, but in the same interview, he pretty much admits that the documents from the leaks are legit. I'm not sure how these two propositions (1. Curia is one big happy family & 2. the leaked stuff is genuine) can both be true. Are we to believe that the people writing in their private letters were lying so that the documents could be leaked? That's an even bigger conspiracy than what folks are talking about now. I hate to say it, but these comments look more like a guy trying to demonstrate that his own position is secure, rather than someone who has Pope Benedict's back in all this.

Given where this situation is now, I don't think anybody would bat an eye if +Bertone or the Pope himself came out and said that there are some major issues, that the Church has enemies, and that, yes, some of those enemies are nestled in the heart of the Church.

Can An Atheist Be Sanctimonious?

According to the Dictionary app on my phone, sanctimonious means "excessively or hypocritically pious." I suppose these days that I most often hear the word used by atheists to describe religious people. Let me give you the typical scenario.

Someone asks a question regarding the religious person's belief system. In this particular case, let's say that the query involves the morality of homosexual conduct. Let's also assume that the religious person's beliefs would consider such conduct to be sinful. The religious individual provides the answer, "My faith teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful." The atheist, whether they were the questioner or not, takes the conversation on a path of mockery, perhaps mentioning flying spaghetti monsters or invisible men in the sky or some other such caricature of the theist.

This is a tactic currently being advanced by some of the more prominent atheists in the world. I find that it is often coupled with accusations that the theist is some sort of smug, morally superior jerk. Again, these accusations are usually in response to nothing more than the theist providing a description of what they believe. Perhaps they elaborate. Perhaps they don't. The discussion unfortunately will proceed in the same direction, regardless.

I know plenty of atheists. Many of them are not jerks. However, I've noticed a growing tendency amongst even them that leans towards malice in discourse. When I bring this up to my colleagues and friends, they are usually somewhat embarrassed and understanding that such comments are out of line, but they fail to provide a reason for why the fuse is so short. The weird part is that they don't see how they are behaving exactly in the sort of manner that they claim to hate so much in Christians and other religious.

Smug condescension doesn't win folks over to your point of view very much, so I would hope that Christians wouldn't act that way. I'm not even sure atheists want to convince anyone of their perspective. At least the Christian jerk is ostensibly trying to convert somebody. Even if their argument is as simple as "you're going to burn in hell," it's still an argument based on a hypothetical threat of damnation. The atheist jerk doesn't even try and argument anymore. As Richard Dawkins advises in the above link, the atheist's only participation is to mock the other party. If that's the case, why even talk about it in the first place? And, in the case where the atheist asks the initial question, why ask if all you're going to do is call someone names?

Notice that nowhere in here do I claim that Christians are immune from being sanctimonious d-bags. I freely admit it. The difference is that there often seems to be a bizarre presumption that atheists can't be sanctimonious d-bags.

Edit: Upon further reflection, it seems to me that the atheist is not actually sanctimonious at all since he does not even have the appearance of any sort of piety. Given the above definition, he is therefore only a standard-issue d-bag. My apologies for any confusion the previous paragraph might have caused.

Cardinal Burke On The SSPX Situation

 From Rorate. But definitely worth 2 minutes or so of your time.

Boniface Says It Better Than I Do

I don't think the SSPX is in schism. However, pretty much everything else he says in this selection at Unam Sanctam is dead-on. I wanted to add something that's been brought up before but that seems to be getting ignored as focus seems to be shifting from IF there's an agreement to WHEN there's an agreement.

If the SSPX truly want to advance the Faith and help to heal the places where the Church is hurting the most, then staying in a situation that gives people an excuse not to listen to them is either absurd or cowardly. This cry of "the modernist episcopacy will destroy us if we're regularized" sounds weird from a bunch of folks who I'm sure would claim the courage to die for the Faith if necessary. It's almost despairing to assume that God will just let them be annihilated in such a fashion. I often hear SSPX folks compare their cause to St. Athanasius. As many times as he was exiled, I don't recall him deciding never to come back because he was afraid of all the Arians running around. It just doesn't make sense, so you have to start wondering when egos are beginning to trump the good of the Church. 

Admittedly, this is talk from the outside looking in, but a lot of the arguments I'm hearing against regularization don't make any sense at all.

Re: The SSPX

Rorate has updates pouring in. From the looks of things, the only thing we can be sure of is the Bishop Fellay went to the Vatican. That's it. Everything else seems like a bunch of speculation right now, and we're trying to avoid that. People need to pray. Focus on that. Providence will take care of the rest.

The Pope's Enemies

As the leak scandal continues to roll on, one positive is that we're getting a better picture of who the Pope's enemies are and where their priorities lie. Consider this recent report from Rorate. The relevant portion shows the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, giving the Holy Father a letter from some Bushwood-types (the Brenninkmeijers) who wanted to complain about the new Archbishop of Utrecht. After all, everybody knows that the top criteria for selecting bishops is whether or not they appeal to Dutch millionaires.

The Brenninkmeijers do not accuse anyone by name, except in one case. After maintaining that in Europe there are growing numbers of informed believers who are separating themselves from the hierarchical Church without, according to them, abandoning their faith, and after lamenting the lack of "non-fundamentalist" pastors able to guide the flock according to modern criteria, the two spouses manifest to the pope not only their own discouragement, but that of many laypeople, priests, religious, and bishops over the appointment of the new archbishop of Utrecht, Jacobus Eijk. ...

To the Church's good fortune, the Holy Father has a different idea this sort of stuff. The letter doesn't seem to have done any good. Of course, the fact that Superior General Nicolas is involved in this does raise some concerns. I guess we can be all in favor of preferential options for the poor just so long as there is a preferential option for the rich in intervening with the Pope's selections to the episcopacy.

Wait, what am I saying? We all know that there is nothing wrong with the Society, especially with Fr. Nicolas.

Granted, this is a minor issue (pardon the pun), when compared with the very public letter sent by the provincials of the Franciscans in the United States in support of the LCWR. There is apparently no concern for the problematic positions taken by these sisters over the years and a complete freak-out over the very idea that anyone would dare to question them. I'm not going to reproduce  it here, since there really is no point. In a nutshell, the word "dialogue" is used about four times. The word "Truth" isn't mentioned at all. The general tone is that things are just too by-golly complicated for Church teaching to be understood or presented in the simple terms of acceptance or rejection. Instead of the sort of instruction that a teacher gives a pupil, what's needed is a dialogue, which implies equality of position.

Just file this with all the other AmChurch items.

Both of these instances are pretty crazy, but each revealing in their own way. My recommendation to both the Brenninkmeijers and the provincials above is that Utrecht might indeed contain the answers to their problems. I'm sure Dollinger's schismatics would welcome them with open arms.

Viva Cristo Rey!

I saw Cristiada (aka For Greater Glory). My first impression was that I've never seen a movie quite like it. Or, if I have, it's been a very, very long time.

First, let me get a few things out of the way. There are some technical problems with the film. There were some moments with weak dialogue and the script needed some work in fleshing out the context of what was going on. My wife, for example, was unfamiliar with the overall story of the Cristiada and wound up confused over some of the events. These issues were compounded by mediocre editing, especially in the first half. There was a lot of jumping around to and from scenes that didn't even  last five minutes and added nothing to the plot. In a movie that was pushing two and half hours, these scenes could have been cut. The result would have been a much tighter plot and maybe even less of those aforementioned weak script items.

So there you have the problems. The good news is that none of these problems changes the fact that it's a great movie. The casting was excellent, and I'm not leaving this to the famous people like Andy Garcia or Peter O'Toole. I thought Oscar Isaac was fantastic as El Catorce. Lots of people are talking about the kid who plays Blessed Jose Luis Sanchez and with good reason. He's way better than, say, the kids in Gran Torino, a much more well-known show.

Let's talk about the story-telling, though. It's a tale of war, so you can figure on a lot of battle scenes. They were there, but thankfully they don't drag on. The story here is about the people, and the narrative stays with them. People going in to see a high body count and watch some Catholics kicking butt might be disappointed. Sure, there is that, and it's admittedly welcome to see Catholics willing to fight for the Church. It's why they're fighting that's important. Blood isn't what makes one a martyr; faith does. That means you can't just focus on the shooting. When the time comes for the gear to shift from gunplay to emotion, Cristiada makes the transition without losing any power at all.

I've had a lot of people ask me if it's historically accurate. The answer is "sort of." Some liberties are taken, of course. You don't see some of Fr. Vega's indiscretions and one character's death is far from what really happened. Those things aside, the history is pretty solid. You see the Cristeros do bad things, so it's not like there's white-washing going on. The martyrdoms that took place are probably toned down in the movie in terms of how horrific the tortures were in reality. On the plus side, the St. Joan of Arc Brigades got a lot of much-deserved screen time. The most shocking thing was that the film didn't flinch from showing how the United States was an accessory to the crimes against the Church. Morrow and Coolidge were willing to sell arms to the criminals in the Calles government as long as it helped secure US oil interests.

One downer here: no mention of where Calles enmity towards the Church really came from. In other words, the Masonic connection was ignored. That's a shame but nothing to dwell on.

You're going to hear a lot of folks claim that Cristiada is propaganda or maybe too hokey or melodramatic. What's funny about this is that the true events are even more melodramatic than what was portrayed in  the movie. Consider that the Mexican federales often charged into battle shouting "Long live Satan!" Recall that Calles's armies regularly raped nuns and impressed them into duty as camp followers. The Cristeros went into battle singing hymns. The mother of several Cristeros commented that she did her part by offering up four of her sons for the honor of Christ the King, but the Almighty came up short on his end. He only took two of them. Imagine what the response would have been like if these realities had been shown.

As far as it being propaganda goes, so was Casablanca, but I haven't heard anybody complain about that. Cristiada isn't even really propaganda or it would have left out some of the Cristeros bad behavior. The real problem for reviewers is that they can't stomach a movie about Catholic stuff that doesn't show the Catholics as either stupid or the bad guys. Or they could be like Roger Ebert, and just be a dumb-ass. It's worth reading his comments, given that they are somewhat common in the reviews I've seen so far.

One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war.

Yeah, Rog, the film "seems" to approve of martyrdom. Believe it or not, going to heaven as a martyr is kind of a big deal. Maybe you missed the part at the beginning where it's explicitly stated that there's no greater glory than dying for Christ. Or perhaps you're just a douche. This next bit is even better:

If it had not hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other religions, it is lacking something.

What the crap is this supposed to mean? Ebert seems to have missed the minor point of these events taking place in 1920s Mexico. What other religions were there? Who else was targeted by the Calles law? Maybe the script should have included a scene where the Cristeros find a hidden valley full of Messianic Jews who fled a mythical set of laws preventing them from using a shofar or something. That way some more religions could have been included. Of course, this would have been complete idiocy. Let's just take the comments at face value and admit that Ebert is either stupid or reaching for things to find wrong with the film.

This brings me to my final points. Every Catholic should see this movie. In a day and age when people are willing to sign Protestant statements of faith just so their kids can belong to trendy, hipster social groups, something needs to remind them that the Faith is worth dying for and that it's not "just words" to sign oaths of heresy and schism. Catholics should also watch this movie while recalling the following:

1. There are people (like Roger Ebert) who are going to watch this movie and think that the Cristeros, and all Catholics by extension, are stupid.

2. There are people who are going to see the scenes with Fr. Christopher (Peter O'Toole) and Blessed Jose (Mauricio Kuri) and then make jokes about the sex abuse scandal. Given how the scenes are framed, this is repulsive. It's also the only thing people think about the Church anymore.

3. There are people who will see Cristiada and feel that the actions taken by Calles are justified. Whether it's the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, or the Stalinist liquidation, Catholics must understand that there are positive historical perspectives of these things and they aren't terribly hard to find. I've had good friends comment that the Church deserved what it got in the French Revolution because of Her "meddling" with government affairs. He probably thinks the same thing about the Cristeros.

4. The most telling line in the movie is when a character is told that he can save his life simply by saying "Death to Cristo Rey; long live the Federal Government." As Cardinal  George has recently suggested, we might not be all that far from hearing such a demand ourselves. And it will be people like those in #1-3 that applaud when it happens.

So there's my review. Now, go see this movie.

PS- Stay through the credits. It is extremely moving.

A Proof-Text Pet Peeve

Have you ever heard someone say that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"? That gets thrown around a lot at funerals, usually as a demonstration that the deceased is in heaven. Occasionally, you'll hear it as a proof-text against purgatory as well, but that's not nearly as often.

The quote is a paraphrase of St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8:

But we are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body and to be present with the Lord.

If you check that in the KJV, it's:

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

In the New American Standard, it's:

[W]e are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 

The problem is obvious. What is typically presented as an unqualified statement of "Absent from body" = "Present with the Lord," is actually nothing of the sort. St. Paul is quite clearly saying that, given his druthers, he would RATHER BE absent from the body and present with the Lord. One doesn't necessarily entail the other, although I can certainly see why most people would share Paul's preference here.

Rant over. It's just a weird thing that probably bothers me way more than it should.

Cardinal Bertone Knew We Had Mentioned Him

He didn't grant our request for an interview, but he did take a couple of super-duper hard hitting questions on the recent leak issue. From the NCR:

Q: It was inevitable that the media would look at these three days in Milan with special attention, also for the coincidence with an internal Vatican inquest which everyone is talking about, and which is seen as a great test of transparency for the Vatican …

Bertone: This is also true. I remember that Saturday night, while we were returning from Bresso Park, from the huge event that night, toward the cathedral of Milan. I was with Cardinal Scola in the car. We saw the stained glass windows lit up, and we immediately commented: ‘This is the church, an illuminated house, notwithstanding all the defects of persons within the church.’

Transparency, however, is about commitment, solidarity one with the other, and trust. It’s not a matter of cynicism or superficiality. It’s not enough to become aware of some documents, or to publish partial documents, in order to know the full truth. Often, this is exactly what happens: Clarifications are the fruit of a work of dialogue, of personal relationships and conversion of the heart, which don’t come just from paperwork or bureaucracy. Papers are important, but personal relationships are much more so.

What’s most sad in these events and these situations is the violation of the privacy of the Holy Father and his closest collaborators. I would like to say, however, that these have not been, and aren’t now, days of division but of unity. I would also like to add that they are above all days of faith, or firm serenity, also in the decisions being made. It’s a moment of cohesion among all those who truly want to serve the church.

Q: A final question, which is the one everyone would like to ask. How has the Holy Father experienced this affair? Should we think, as someone has written, that there are inferences which have been instrumentalized in order to attack the church and the pope?

Bertone: There have always been instrumental attacks, in all times. I remember, for example, speaking of my personal experience of the church, of the times of Paul VI, which aren’t so far away. This time, however, it seems the attacks are more carefully aimed, and sometimes also ferocious, destructive and organized.

I would like to underline the fact that Benedict XVI, as everyone knows, is a mild person, of great faith and great prayer. He doesn’t allow himself to be frightened by attacks, of any sort, nor by the hard accumulation of prejudices. Those who are close to him and work by his side are sustained by the great moral strength of the pope. Benedict XVI, as I’ve said on other occasions, is a man who listens to everyone, he’s a man who keeps moving ahead faithful to the mission he’s received from Christ, and he feels great affection from the people. Especially in these days [in Milan], he’s felt complete affection from the people around him, from young people and families with children, who applauded the pope frenetically. It seems to me that the trip to Milan gave him extra strength.

Moreover, I’d like to underline a word that he’s repeated many times, including just before his departure from the Archbishop’s residence in Milan: It’s the word ‘courage.’ He said it to others, to the young, to young people who seek to form a family. He said it to families in difficulty, he said it to the civic authorities, and he says it to the whole church. He speaks this word because he’s convinced on the inside, because it’s the strength that comes to him from faith and from God’s help, and thus he says it to all: ‘Courage!’ He said it also to the victims of the earthquake. I repeat: I’d like us to interiorize this word alongside the pope, and under the guidance of the pope.

Doesn't sound like a guy under a lot of pressure. Whether you support Cardinal Bertone in this or not, he makes the correct analysis about who is suffering the most from all this.

"The Sad And Unjust Conditions..."

The Church which, from the day of Pentecost, has been destined here below to a never-ending life, which went forth from the upper chamber into the world endowed with the gifts and inspirations of the Holy Spirit, what has been her mission during the last twenty centuries and in every country of the world if not, after the example of her Divine Founder, "to go about doing good"? (Acts x, 38) Certainly this work of the Church should have gained for her the love of all men; unfortunately the very contrary has happend as her Divine Master Himself predicted (Matt. x, 17, 25) would be the case. At times the bark of Peter, favored by the winds, goes happily forward; at other times it appears to be swallowed up by the waves and on the point of being lost. Has not this ship always aboard the Divine Pilot who knows when to calm the angry waves and the winds? And who is it but Christ Himself Who alone is all-powerful, who brings it about that every persecution which is launched against the faithful should react to the lasting benefit of the Church? As St. Hilary writes, "it is a prerogative of the Church that she is the vanquisher when she is persecuted, that she captures our intellects when her doctrines are questioned, that she conquers all at the very moment when she is abandoned by all." (St. Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate, Bk. VII, No. 4) 


If those men who now in Mexico persecute their brothers and fellowcitizens for no other reason than that these latter are guilty of keeping the laws of God, would only recall to memory and consider dispassionately the vicissitudes of their country as history reveals them to us, they must recognize and publicly confess that whatever there is of progress, of civilization, of the good and the beautiful, in their country is due solely to the Catholic Church. In fact every man knows that after the introduction of Christianity into Mexico, the priests and religious especially, who are now being persecuted with such cruelty by an ungrateful government, worked without rest and despite all the obstacles placed in their way, on the one hand by the colonists who were moved by greed for gold and on the other by the natives who were still barbarians, to promote greatly in those vast regions both the splendor of the worship of God and the benefits of the Catholic religion, works and institutions of charity, schools and colleges for the education of the people and their instruction in letters, the sciences, both sacred and profane, in the arts and the crafts.

Pope Pius XI, Iniquis Afflictisque

Are These Leaks Supposed To Impress Us?

Rorate is reporting on the latest round of Vatican documents being leaked. This time, the leaker has included a bizarre letter basically proclaiming how awesome and omniscient he/they are since he/they have "hundreds of documents" that could be unleashed at any moment. The most recent leak contains a letter from Cardinal Burke to Cardinal Bertone regarding the approval of the NeoCatechumenal Way statutes that we reported on a good while back. He wasn't real happy about it.

The first is a "top secret letter" addressed to Bertone by the Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal for the Apostolic Signatura [Card. Burke], and that deals what is branded as "the shameful event of the Neocatechumenals, on which there is a long note written by hand by Benedict XVI himself."

The other letters are from the Pope's personal secretary, Msgr. Ganswein, but the actual text is deleted.

The mole explains: "We will not publish it in a complete fashion to avoid offending the Person of the Holy Father, already put under great stress by his close collaborators." And he warns: "In order to be fair, we reserve the unabridged publication in case they persist in hiding the truth of the facts". He then concludes: "Drive out of the Vatican those truly responsible for this scandal: Mons Gänswein and Card. Bertone".


So let's review what we know:

1. Our earlier theories about "the butler did it" being a sham seem to be true.
2. Cardinal Bertone is still listed as the target.
3. The leakmeister claims to be acting in the Holy Father's best interests but has a weird way of showing it.
4. Very few of these leaks seem like they contain anything that's all that damaging.

Let's consider #4 for a second. It's a bizarre thing that is even noticeable in the mainstream media coverage of all this. The very fact that such coverage is scant (at best) is a good indication of how scandalous the information is to the secular world. In fact, when it's being reported, the story seems to be more about there being leaks at all than what is actually being leaked.

So the Curia is a bunch of back-stabbers? Woo-de-damn-hoo. Cardinal Burke doesn't like the NeoCatechumenal Way? Yeah, that's a big freaking shock. Nobody saw that coming.

I'm to the point now where I am very tempted to call BS on the leakers here. What they are doing isn't something that is going to affect change, and I have to believe that, if they had any trump cards, they would have played them by now. To refrain from doing so would seem an act of tremendous injustice given their claim that the butler is being framed (which, again, I think is likely anyway). Whoever is behind this is coming off as nothing more than a rabble-rouser with no real pull who is just looking to embarrass people. And regardless of their intentions, it seems more and more like the only person really being adversely affected is the Pope. I haven't seen any signs of Cardinal Bertone scrambling around or panicking.