Secular Mindsets

Earlier this month, we posted a bit about the terror that Catholicism instills in secularists and why their professed fears are really just absurdities. It's very easy to think that this fear is grounded solely on the fact that the Church lays out some behavioral standards that a lot of people just aren't willing to accept. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet that far more people leave the Church due to their personal groin-centric issues than anything to do with the abuse scandal or a war on women. Is the "code of conduct" really the reason people are afraid of the Church, though?

There is an old cliche, one echoed many times throughout the realms of comics and sci-fi/fantasy, that people fear what they don't understand. I think this is precisely why secularists, including those within the Church, fear Her so much.

I think that the modern, secular mind cannot comprehend a religious view of the world, especially a Catholic one that includes the sort of submission to hierarchy like we see to the bishops and the Pope. Our society is one that promotes individual choice on everything from morality to convenience. Notions of the common good are fit in this mold as well (much to the apparent delight of Fr. Jenkins), with the path of least resistance held as sacrosanct, which is why abortion and contraception are so popular. That someone could submit their intellect and will to propositions that entail sacrifice and hardship, rather than ease and convenience, is unfathomable to the secularists.

Martyrdom has no place in such an ethos. When you hear people in the US praising a person who dies for a higher cause, what is that higher cause? Typically, they'll say freedom. Freedom basically translates to "license" in the modern vernacular. "He died so that we can live the way we want to live and do the things we want to do." Someone who dies for the directives of Divine Revelation are written off as barbaric. Naturally, I don't buy into Islam or the suicide bombings associated with its current incarnation, but the entire grasp of why the bombers do what they do seems to be lost on most Americans. It's far easier to just say they are primitive screw-heads than to figure out the mentality that makes one die for their god.

When the HHS mandate comes up in conversation, even Catholics will shrug their shoulders and wonder why it's such a big deal. Why would the Church in America choose this hill to die on? It's just some pills and some folks deciding not to have babies (or kill ones that they are having). "God said so" is not an adequate explanation because the person posing the question has either forgotten about God or remembers Him but doesn't care about His opinion all that much.

Protestants are actually somewhat better off from a social standpoint than we Catholics here. Public perception of Protestants is that they are still basically taking all this off of how they read the Bible (and the fact that they embrace contraception, so they've already got one foot in the secularist camp anyway). From the secularist perspective, that still is an operation of their individual choice. They read the Bible, their personal interpretation says that "x" is what they should live by, so they live by "x." Catholics don't have that luxury. We have human leaders in the form of the bishops and, of course, the Pope. The secularist ignores our free choice to follow these leaders and sees only bondage in our obedience. And so comes the horror.

What the secularist can't understand is the concept of Truth. Truth does not necessarily begin or end with one's choice or the satiation of one's groin, bank account, job, or whatever. In fact, denying such satisfaction is often demanded by Truth. That there is something above self, this is where the disconnect lies.

I'm reminded of the bit in Lord of the Rings where everyone is at Rivendell trying to decide what to do with the Ring. Taking it to Mordor with a small party like the Fellowship seems like madness at first. However, it's mentioned that Sauron would never look for the Ring in that kind of setting because he could never imagine someone wanting to destroy it. Why give up such power? The secularist can't imagine someone opting for the sort of submission of intellect and will called for by the religious mindset. Why give up such power, such autonomy? Why give up the ability to be like God?

[Y]our eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods

Genesis 3:5

Yeah, why would anyone give that up?

St. Augustine And Rorschach

Another thought from St. Augustine. This one regards the recent election

For I am aware that your Excellency has to encounter the most determined opposition from certain persons, who think, or would have others think, that Christian doctrine is incompatible with the welfare of the commonwealth, because they wish to see the commonwealth established not by the steadfast practice of virtue, but by granting impunity to vice. But with God the crimes in which many are banded together do not pass unavenged, as is often the case with a king, or any other magistrate who is only a man. Moreover, His mercy and grace, published to men by Christ, who is Himself man, and imparted to man by the same Christ, who is also God and the Son of God, never fail those who live by faith in Him and piously worship Him, in adversity patiently and bravely bearing the trials of this life, in prosperity using with self-control and with compassion for others the good things of this life; destined to receive, for faithfulness in both conditions, an eternal recompense in that divine and heavenly city in which there shall be no longer calamity to be painfully endured, nor inordinate desire to be with laborious care controlled, where our only work shall be to preserve, without any difficulty and with perfect liberty, our love to God and to our neighbour.

St. Augustine, Letter 137

When was the last time we heard Christianity described as the enemy of or a detriment to the State? Oh, yeah, pretty much every day for the last year or so, but especially in the last couple of weeks. This makes for another good example of how there's nothing new under the sun. Augustine saw a society that sought freedom by the destruction of virtue and the exaltation of vice. Whether it's killing babies, self-sterilization, legitimizing homosexual relationships, degrading the working man/defrauding him of his wages, we've pretty much made vice into an art. Not only that, but we give the prophets of these evils their own forums for promoting their filth (thanks to Haskovec for this lead).

When I read St. Augustine's comments and think about how things these days are so horrible, I'm reminded of why I'm so happy that God is God. Just imagine a more, shall we say, pragmatic deity, as might be described by Rorschach (a character from Alan Moore's graphic novel Watchmen and possibly the greatest literary character ever created):

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."

Yeah, Rorschach wasn't into the whole "grace and mercy" scene. Lucky for us, God is.

Everyone needs to take Augustine's advice to heart, though. We aren't abandoned. All of this is just another part of Providence. The worst thing anybody can do is succumb to despair. Even Rorschach admitted as much.

Nothing is hopeless...Not while there's life.

And he's not even counting the benefits of Divine Life either.

Church And State

Just a thought from someone way smarter than me:

Here also is security for the welfare and renown of a commonwealth; for no state is perfectly established and preserved otherwise than on the foundation and by the bond of faith and of firm concord, when the highest and truest common good, namely, God, is loved by all, and men love each other in Him without dissimulation, because they love one another for His sake from whom they cannot disguise the real character of their love.

St. Augustine, Letter 137

Modernity finds this premise one of the most repugnant ever expressed.

However, one must wonder a bit. How many otherwise faithful Catholics would agree? How many would consider Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to carry more authority than the Doctor of Grace (not to mention the multitude of other Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Popes who have said likewise)?

Neither Jefferson, the Supreme Court, nor the Constitution itself, are magisterial. It amazes me how many think of them that way. Many think separation of church and state is a more sacrosanct idea than the Social Kingship of Christ. What a wretched age we live in.

Anglicans Reject Women Bishops. Again.

And Archlayman Justin isn't happy about it. We had mentioned earlier about how this was something he was going to push for. Maybe he expected that the Anglican hierarchy was exhausted with this issue and that he'd win in a walk. Whatever he thought, he's starting over from scratch now.

Let's look at the Daily Mail's bullet points for this story:

Senior bishops want to bring in professionals to sort out the chaos

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

My head is exploding from the enormous influx of jokes that can be made about that one sentence.

Church leaders have warned a fresh vote on the issue may not be possible before 2015, with changes not coming in until 2020

People, it's been 500 years. You've made it this long without women playing Bishop Barbie. Is another 3-8 years really going to make that much of a difference?

Cameron says the Church is at risk of looking dangerously out of touch

Well hell, if David Cameron said so, then it must be true! Just who does he think the Anglicans will be out of touch with by not doing this? The entire Global South contingent of the Anglican Communion? Catholics? The Orthodox? Sane people?

Right Reverend Justin Welby, called it a 'very grim day'

Sorry, Justin. I don't know what your expectations were, but I've got to say that this total and utter humiliation right out of the gate is so pathetic that it appears Rowanesque in its ineptitude.

And that was just the bullet points. Check out these other items:

Bishop Welby, who had a career in business before being ordained, is likely to acquiesce after warnings that the row could lead to the disestablishment of the Church, according to The Times.

David Cameron yesterday warned the Church of England to think again about its ‘very sad’ rejection of women bishops, as MPs called for Parliament to intervene directly.

Did you see that? Holy smokes! Henry must be rolling over in his grave! People are actually willing to disestablish the Anglicans over this. Parliament wants to get involved to force the issue. I would ask if things could get more bizarre than that, but given this is the Anglicans that we're talking about, I know the answer already.

Bringing in "professional mediators" (often translated as "lawyers") will, I'm sure, help out immensely. After all, isn't that what the Apostles did in Acts 15 to sort out their differences with the Judaizers? And who can forget Pope Leo the Great bringing in the attorneys to help reconcile the Church's position with that of the monophysites at Chalcedon? Yes, there is a deep tradition of junking orthodoxy for lawyer-forged compromise.

The Death March continues

Book Recommendation: Come Rack! Come Rope!

Come Rack! Come Rope! is a work of historical fiction by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson. Msgr. Benson had the distinction of being the son of Edward Benson, who was Archlayman of Canterbury from 1883 to 1896. It must have been a terrible scandal when Robert converted to popery but convert he did in 1903 at the age of 32. In this book, he gives an account of the recusant experience of Catholics during the reign of the genocidal usurper, Elizabeth I.

In an age of Cate Blanchett movies and other hagiographical references to "Good Queen Bess," it's probably a shock to a lot of folks to learn how blood-drenched England was while she was in power. This book does an excellent job of showing what our ancestors in Faith had to endure at the hands of Her Majesty and the rapist, murdering psychos she kept as pets (such as Richard Topcliffe, who features prominently in the story).

Other than correcting the historical whitewash of Liz's reputation, the book serves a couple of other purposes.

1. It shows what measures can be used to compel Catholics to abandon the Church. These can be financial pressures or outright torture. We should be familiar with both of these. The former is being experimented with now in the United States. The latter has been used in some of our neighboring countries (eg- Mexico) not that long ago. Who knows what the future holds here?

2. It demonstrates the lengths Catholics went to in order to preserve the Faith. A couple of saints even make appearances to be sure that we're paying attention. Needless to say, there was a tremendous amount of suffering just to attend Mass. Or, if you were a priest, just to offer Mass. The lack of priests was used as a weapon to drive the believers into despair. One can only imagine the psychological torment, but it's not necessary. Benson paints it in graphic tones.

3. It enhances the awareness of what will happen when everyone isn't faithful. The remnant will be betrayed by their "friends" and family members. They are destroyed by those closest to them and even the smallest act of kindness can result in exposure and condemnation.

I'm not going to say that Msgr. Benson is a fantastic writer. He sometimes tends to redundancy, and his dialogue can be choppy and vague at times. However, when he turns his attention from the actions and plot and focused on the longing of the people for the return of the Faith, he shines very, very brightly. He paints the picture of what was and what should have been so eloquently that the reader can feel his pain from England's wholesale turn to heresy and schism. Praise God that he was spared from seeing the modern wreck of Anglicanism.

Anyway, when the story hardens around the "why" of recusant suffering, you will begin to see what I mean.

I will conclude with a warning and a secondary recommendation. The warning is this: the last pages of this book are the most heart-wrenching literature I've ever read. So there, now you know.

When you are done with this, move on to Msgr. Benson's Lord of the World. Then meditate on current events with both of these works in mind.

A New Evangelization For Anglicanism

We've already talked about Rowan's successor as the Archlayman of Canterbury and the tremendous legacy of incompetence that he has to live down to. Somehow, we find ourselves in a tremendous disagreement with someone in the episcopacy over (a) the role of the current Spawn of Cranmer, (b) the identity of Anglicanism vis a vis Catholicism, and (b-1) Rowan's tenure as Archlayman.

The comments come from Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham (England, not Alabama) by way of Zenit. Let's take a look at what was said:

Archbishop Bernard Longley said: "I am delighted to hear the good news for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion that Bishop Justin Welby has been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury."

Ok, isn't it time that we come up with an alternate title for these guys? They aren't even bishops, much less archbishops, of anything. Moreover, even if they were bishops, they have zero right to being called the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Successor of St. Augustine. These are Catholic stations by right. This man is a heretical, schismatic usurper, who by the very nature of his continued pretendership is complicit in the theft of Church property. Call the guy "Reverend" or "Hey, dude" or something else. Don't play into the utter fabrication that he has any clerical status or jurisdiction.

"This will be good news too for Anglican-Roman Catholic relations, nationally and internationally, as the new Archbishop builds on the strong commitment and ecumenical legacy of Archbishop Rowan Williams."

By this, does he mean Rowan's efforts in allowing the Anglican Communion to so thoroughly destroy itself that its members sought refuge in the Barque of Peter? If that's the case, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Rowan might therefore be considered as one of the greatest ecumenists of the last century. This is why I listed the "Rowan's legacy" item as a (b-1). I'm not sure if this is a disagreement or not.

The Archbishop of Birmingham emphasised: "In Bishop Welby it will be good to have a strong ally in the work of evangelization that lies ahead of all the churches, especially during the Year of Faith when the Catholic Church is seeking an evangelization that is 'new in its ardour, methods and expression'".

Umm, ok. Should someone bring up that Anglicans lack the True Faith and therefore are opponents in a real evangelization? This is the same guy who recently said he was going all-in for women bishops. This is someone who is going to help with evangelization?

What is meant here by "all the churches"? Considering that the Church of England isn't even a church, this is a weird statement. 

I'm not sure what Archbishop Longley was trying to say. Maybe he was just trying to be nice. Holy smokes, though, there's a line between being nice and overboard.

Notice what Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church wrote to Mr. Welby:


Regrettably, the late 20th century and the beginning of the third millennium have brought tangible difficulties in relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The introduction female priesthood and now episcopate, the blessing of same-sex ‘unions’ and ‘marriages’, the ordination of homosexuals as pastors and bishops – all these innovations are seen by the Orthodox as deviations from the tradition of the Early Church, which increasingly estrange Anglicanism from the Orthodox Church and contribute to a further division of Christendom as a whole. 

Sure, he calls the guy a bishop too, but does it appear all that difficult to define things in terms of the problems, rather than some illusory contribution to evangelization that, by definition, isn't going to happen? Talking about what we agree on, which is precious little these days, wastes everybody's time and makes it easy to put real issues on the back burner. I understand that Archbishop Longley is part of ARCIC, so he might feel pressured to moderate his tone somewhat, but there's no need to pretend that it's all roses and rainbows either.

Fear Of A Catholic Planet

One of the more amazing narratives that has emerged in the post-election media blitz is of the intense, pervading terror that seems to have driven so many of the Obama supporters to the polls. Most of you know that I hang around the NDNation message boards here. It's been quite striking to follow the whole shpiel being offered for why the Republican candidate lost the election and why the entire party is finished at the national level.

Let me begin by saying that I don't identify myself as a Republican and haven't for quite a long time. This has far less to do with being a Republican as it does to demonstrate how believers are regarded by the public at large.

It is now apparently a commonplace view to be absolutely terrified of Christian voters. They are crazies and loons. They are intolerant and theocratic. They are anti-science extremists, worthy of being mentioned with white supremacist groups. They are screeching bigots. They are the knuckle-dragging American version of the Taliban. I quote from a variety of sources here, but if you really want to be depressed, you can also read the comment section from any mainstream site. Try CNN, for example.

So we must ask ourselves, what are these folks actually afraid of? If you believe their own statements, their list of nightmares include things like Six Days Creationism being mandated in public school curricula, contraceptives are banned, and homosexuality is a capital offense, as well as unbelief in general.

Of course, these weren't the only reasons for their political leanings. However, since many are practically begging for a re-alignment of the Republican Party that would exclude religious voters, it's safe to say that it factored at least a bit. As far as this goes, it's nothing to be shocked about. For people to want their political enemies to be weakened is nothing new. Hell, it's not like we're happy about their existence. Let's take a look at a different angle here, though.

When these individuals say they are afraid, are they being rational? To begin, consider the focus on evangelicals. The word "evangelical" is basically bereft of meaning now, except in the media lexicon of "religious Protestant who votes for Republicans." Second, when was the last time you heard anybody fitting this description as looking to deny woman access to contraceptives? Right away, we can see that there are some shenanigans going on with how the argument is being framed. I submit that Catholics are the real bogeymen here because it's the only way to get contraceptives into the argument. And make no mistake, contraceptives are the big prize here. More people are invested, so more people are afraid. The Church, naturally, is the only party engaged on this front. Painting evangelicals with the brush is just to benefit from the aforementioned loaded term of "evangelical." Aside from that, knowing that the Church will never give way here, there is a perpetual opponent to focus on.

Anyways, engage in the thought experiment where religious folk suddenly controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. What are the actual odds that any of the above-listed legislative platforms be engaged? Contraceptives? They don't even matter to the evangelical wing and Catholics are too split on the issue to care. The odds of faithful Catholics occupying this level of office to this degree is about as likely as the Kardashian sisters entering a convent.

Six Dayism? How? Considering just about every Republican candidate this time around wanted to liquidate the Department of Education, it's tough to imagine there would be anything associated with a national policy on this front. Not to mention, of course, that so-called "evangelicals" are hardly monolithic on this issue and Catholics really don't care. Facing that reality would spoil the narrative, so it has to be maintained despite its stupidity.

Finally, is it rational to think that homosexuals or unbelievers of any kind will be actually persecuted by an evangelical or Catholic majority? That Cardinal Burke, Ralph Reed, Bishop Jenky, James Dobson, Billy/Franklin Graham or whoever would condone these kinds of actions? I suggest that people willing to buy into the narrative at this fork are unhinged.

That being said, let's consider the flip side of this situation. Do the religious have any reasons to fear the rise of a secular government?

Well, I think it goes without saying that this is far more likely to occur than any kind of Catholic or evangelical majority.

What specific items should we be afraid of? Other than the HHS mandate which will shut down every Catholic institution from schools to hospitals, the demand for taxpayer-funded abortion in the Democratic platform, judges considering forcing Catholics to have abortions, federal grant funding being made contingent on providing abortion services, the Vice-President of the United States imposing a litmus test-that-isn't on Supreme Court judges, bishops being threatened with IRS investigations, and a host of other items, I'd say that our fears are much more rational and grounded in reality since, you know,

THEY ARE REALLY FREAKING HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

The hilarity of all this is how the secularists can watch all this happening and pat themselves on the back for having "tolerance" as their trademark position. Go back and read some of the articles I linked to, like this one. Not only do they see nothing wrong, they promote the idea that anyone with religious beliefs must be naturally subservient to the secular. And we should thank them for their magnaminity.

Yes, friends. What is truly needed is a government purged of all religious influence and founded solely on secular values like Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. That's worked well in the past.

Rowan's Successor

The new Archlayman of Canterbury will be Justin Welby. Despite what Rocco Palma says, Mr. Welby will not be occupying the chair of St. Augustine, but rather the Chair of Thomas Cranmer. Hey, at least Cranmer was a real bishop. Justin is just a guy playing dress-up.

What can we expect? It's almost unfathomable to think that he could be as incompetent as Rowan has been. Looking at the statements from Whispers, he claims to be a big fan of Rerum Novarum, as well as Benedictine and Ignatian spirituality. I'm going to guess that his admiration for Pope Leo's work somehow translates into the version of "social justice" that we're used to hearing about from liberation theologians and the LCWR. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anything Catholic that couldn't be screwed up in spades by the Usurper's spiritual progeny.

Let's give him credit for something, though. He's all-in for women's bishops, instead of just maintaining perpetual wobbliness on the issue as was Rowan's habit.

At the same time, not all the appointee's initial comments will make things easy across the Tiber. Welby signaled full speed ahead on the Church of England's long-simmering proposal to ordain women bishops, announcing that he will vote in favor of the plan at this month's General Synod.

What is Rocco talking about here? Seems like it will make things a lot easier. The more the Anglicans drop the facade that they're actually interested in anything resembling the True Faith, the easier it becomes to call them out for their heresy and schism. It also becomes way easier for any of the confused folk in the pews to realize that the shambling corpse of the Anglican Communion is animated more by shared stationary and letterhead moreso than shared faith. This will enable them to get a grip on reality and take advantage of the Anglicanorum Coetibus offer.

I can't come up with a downside here.

The Barque of Henry rolls ever on. Straight to the bottom.

Anybody Out There?

Sorry about that hiatus. You'll just have to take my word for it that it was necessary. Just yet another example of our collective need to submit to Providence no matter what the circumstances might be.

Which brings me to my point, given what is going to happen November 6.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that Obama is going to win. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this, but it will be for naught. In the spirit of what I wrote above, it seems to me that we should all focus on a couple of things.

1. Regardless of who wins, what is happening to the Church won't change much. Sure, the timetable might look different if Romney wins, but outside of that, we should all expect for Catholicism increasingly to be mocked, attacked, and isolated from what are regarded as mainstream values.

2. At some point, things stop getting better. Even if now isn't that time, and things just get worse for a while, how are we to complain? Our forerunners had to deal with Nero, Domitian, Decius, Diocletian, Julian, the rise of Islam, the Reconquista, Elizabeth I, the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the Cristiada, and so forth. Are we somehow better than them that we should be spared the same travails?

Regardless of what happens, God will bring forth some good, as He already has in the form of bishops developing a spine and Catholics waking up to political reality and the consequences of surrendering the Faith as surely as the traditors gave up the Sacred Scriptures.

3. Everything of the now is temporary. Eternal life is where it's at. Frequent the sacraments. Keep yourself and your family in a state of grace.

4. God is on top of things.

Easier said than done, right? Like I said, these are items to focus on, but being human, we'll slip up. Still, worthwhile items, I think, in light of folks' natural inclination let their passions get the better of them when things don't go their way.

Confirmed- Bishop Williamson Is Out

Rorate has the story.

Sad. I don't think anyone would be surprised if he went full-bore sede at this point. If you're at all familiar with his comments the last couple of years, he sounds like he's been there for a while without having made a formal declaration. Of course, he'll take many souls down this path with him. Read the Rorate comments. That so many Catholics would take pleasure in a bishop flaunting the virtue of obedience is repulsive.

All the more reason to pray.

SSPX News- +Williamson out?

If you want to know where the talks are, you can check out Rorate and the interview with Fr. Pfluger. In a nutshell, things are back to "square one." Damn shame.

All of that pales in comparison to this report I saw from Tancred wherein it appears that Bishop Williamson and the SSPX are about to split.

The break, indicated since October 2011 between Bishop Richard Williamson and the Society of St. Pius X has come to an end phase. The General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Bernard Fellay, should have issued an ultimatum to his English colleague in the office of Bishop. With the document he demanded that Msgr. Williason, within ten days, accept the legitimate authority of the General Superior. This was reported by Andrea Tornielli. Should Bishop Williamson continue to maintain his disobedience,separation would be the logical consequence.

Less trustworthy sources are indicating that Bishop Williamson is already gone. This is all very weird. I remember all the wailing and gnashing of teeth during the talks about Bishop Fellay opting for reconciliation and how it would fracture the SSPX, with +Williamson leading the exodus. Since then, we are back to the aforementioned square one, and the latter is still failing to acknowledge the fact that the former is his Superior.

How many saints have praised the virtue of humility as the bulwark of all the other virtues? When was the last time we saw +Williamson exhibit this virtue?

The Church In Italy Is To Be Taxed

The Telegraph has the latest story, which we had initially discussed here back in February. Nothing too surprising. Just another element of the Church vs. the World.

The Church currently pays tax on several properties it owns that are commercial enterprises but is exempt if at least some of the activities on the property are "non-commercial" - for example a chapel in a hotel.

"The regulatory framework will be definite by January 1, 2013 - the start of the fiscal year - and will fully respect the (European) Community law," Prime Minister Mario Monti's government said in a statement late Tuesday.

In February, the government had amended Italy's property tax law to end the Church's privileges amid rising calls for the Vatican to share in debt crisis sacrifices and in the face of intense scrutiny from the European Commission.

On Monday the Council of State, Italy's highest ranking court for administrative litigation, rejected the decree. But the government insisted everyone would pay property tax, Church included.

I'm sure President Obama, et al are taking notes. What will happen if the Church can't maintain all its charitable enterprises as a result of this new financial burden? Do you think that the EU cares?

Vatican II's Real Birthday

What most folks don't realize is that, while Blessed John XXIII did formally open the Council on October 11, 1962, the initial working session was October 13. On that day, the whole thing came unraveled. You can read the full account of what happened at our prior posts here and here.

The gentleman in the picture above could probably be regarded as the Godfather of the Spirit of Vatican II. He's Cardinal Achille Lienart of France. Most folks don't understand how Blessed John's original vision of the Council was shattered, largely thanks to this guy and his allies. As mentioned previously, the whole story is above, but for those looking for the nutshell version, a group of prelates, mostly from the Rhine area of Europe, essentially desired to change the Church's teachings on a plethora or issues. They knew that they would be unable to do so. With that in mind, they met in advance of the Council and formed a plan to overthrow all of the initial preparatory work initiated by Pope John.

In a blatant violation of the Council's rules of order, Cardinal Lienart took the microphone and demanded that all of the individual schema commissions be revisited and that new members of each commission be appointed. This was quickly seconded by Cardinal Frings and enough bishops followed along to pass the motion. The Rhine group block voted their way to power on the commissions, meaning they controlled the draft language to be submitted to the approving votes by the bishops as a whole. The plan at this point called for obfuscation and ambiguity so that, in the words of Dutch theologian Ed Schillebeecx:

We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.

Hence the Spirit of Vatican II was born.

This is all very important, though. There is a tendency to claim that the documents of Vatican II have nothing to do with the current crisis and that the "Spirit" promoted by the current crop of modernists is somehow a total fabrication. What we know from the actual conciliar events is that the documents are indeed part of the problem because they were drafted with the purpose of muddying the waters and making the "Spirit" defensible to the masses. Does this mean that the entirety of Vatican II is somehow bad or that there is no orthodox reading thereof? No. It means that the difficulties we've had with the interpretation of the Council was intentional and, as a result, we should be cautious in reading it.

Moreover, it calls us to focus on the fact that Vatican II lacks dogmatic character and infallible content except in the cases when it repeats content previously identified as infallible. If we were being objective, we'd have to acknowledge that VII is on the bottom rung for ecumenical council importance.  Yet somehow it is heralded by some as a "New Pentecost" and other such superlative titles. This is the perception fostered by the re-interpreters who must de-emphasize what came before and exalt what they are using as the foundation of their novelties.

There's been a lot of work done to fix all this, but the genie doesn't go back in the bottle so easily. For anyone reading the documents on their own, we can only recommend sticking to the text and considering the footnotes. If you think something sounds hope-and-changeish, consider why you think that and what other interpretation might be possible.

What are we left with at the moment? We are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Council is a failure. Sure, you can always point to some undefined period in the future when we'll all look back at the now and laugh because the conciliar fruit is so awesome. Until then, all we have seen is an enormous loss of faith, withering vocations, disco liturgy, etc. A good synopsis was furnished by Kenneth Jones back in 2003. And he's an ND grad.

Anyways, what makes the Vatican II situation so unique is that the content of the Faith and its attending disciplines are painted as their opposites. Nobody has ever said that Nicea said that Jesus wasn't of the same substance as the Father. Or that Chalcedon said Christ wasn't Divine. With Vatican II, you have folks saying the Council said things like:

1. Any religion can save you.
2. Latin should not be the language of the liturgy.
3. The Mass is just a communal meal.
4. Lay folk are the same as priests.
5. Personal conscience dictates morality.

These are the exact opposites of Catholic teachings. This is completely different from anything we've faced before. We know how it happened. The question is whether or not the "decomposition of Catholicism," as Fr. Bouyer called it, that was wrought in the post-conciliar era will be reversed anytime soon.

Not necessarily.

Luke 18:8

50 Years Later

No, we aren't going to talk about Vatican II. We'll talk about the opening of the Council on the day the Council really opened.

That wasn't today, no matter what folks want to remember.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 11

Picking up where we left off, we continue with the specific things that are actually brought up for revision by the liturgical constitution. Of course, none of these things call for a whole new Mass.

Both the rites for the baptism of adults are to be revised: not only the simpler rite, but also the more solemn one, which must take into account the restored catechumenate. A special Mass "for the conferring of baptism" is to be inserted into the Roman Missal.

Recall that the catechumenate was discussed here.

The rite for the baptism of infants is to be revised, and it should be adapted to the circumstance that those to be baptized are, in fact, infants. The roles of parents and godparents, and also their duties, should be brought out more clearly in the rite itself.

The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary, for occasions when a very large number are to be baptized together. Moreover, a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission lands, to be used by catechists, but also by the faithful in general when there is danger of death, and neither priest nor deacon is available.

In place of the rite called the "Order of supplying what was omitted in the baptism of an infant," a new rite is to be drawn up. This should manifest more fittingly and clearly that the infant, baptized by the short rite, has already been received into the Church.

Notice that baptism is still considered a big deal, unlike today when you can go to an RCIA class and be told that baptism isn't really that big of a deal and that it's a shame that we still baptize babies. Even though Vatican II thought enough about it to mention explicitly a new rite for infants.

And a new rite is to be drawn up for converts who have already been validly baptized; it should indicate that they are now admitted to communion with the Church.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What is this? Let me get this straight. There needs to be a new rite for folks already baptized. Why? To show that now they are admitted to Communion with the Church. Now, meaning, after they become Catholic, right? Which would mean that before they are Catholic, they excluded from communion with the Church. Right? Maybe someone should tell folks like Fr. McBrien about this, since he clearly thinks this is the sort of badness that Vatican II addressed (allegedly).

Except during Eastertide, baptismal water may be blessed within the rite of baptism itself by an approved shorter formula.

The rite of confirmation is to be revised and the intimate connection which this sacrament has with the whole of Christian initiation is to be more clearly set forth; for this reason it is fitting for candidates to renew their baptismal promises just before they are confirmed.

Confirmation may be given within the Mass when convenient; when it is given outside the Mass, the rite that is used should be introduced by a formula to be drawn up for this purpose.

I think it's pretty safe to say that if the new rite of Confirmation was help clarify what the sacrament is and does that it has been a colossal failure. How many times have you heard about Confirmation as the sacrament of "mature commitment" or some other such nonsense? I'm sure that would come as a surprise to Karl and our other Eastern brethren who confirm/chrismate infants. Either the rite failed miserably in its stated purpose or only about 1 in every 100 Catholics actually pay attention to what is going on, which would also, I think, be an indictment of the new rite.

The rite and formulas for the sacrament of penance are to be revised so that they more clearly express both the nature and effect of the sacrament.

Ditto what I wrote about Confirmation. If it were otherwise, one would expect the lines for confession to be much, much longer. Or just existent, for that matter.

"Extreme unction," which may also and more fittingly be called "anointing of the sick," is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as any one of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.

I know a lot of folks who really get in a twist about this part, but like with so many other things, I think they are usually thrown off by how it's been implemented rather than what the constitution actually says.

Note that it still requires that there be a danger of death, albeit not necessarily imminent. In other words, the wholesale provision of this sacrament to the masses isn't what was envisioned. If this wasn't the case, why would it indicate that the name "extreme unction" is still an appropriate name for the sacrament? True, "anointing of the sick" might be more fitting, but if it can also be called "extreme unction," doesn't that mean that there should be some, you know, extremeness going on?

In addition to the separate rites for anointing of the sick and for viaticum, a continuous rite shall be prepared according to which the sick man is anointed after he has made his confession and before he receives viaticum.

The number of the anointings is to be adapted to the occasion, and the prayers which belong to the rite of anointing are to be revised so as to correspond with the varying conditions of the sick who receive the sacrament.

This was just asking for trouble. Putting in the possibility of variation is a recipe for abuse, especially when left as vague as this. If someone might die, isn't that all you need? I'm reminded of a bit from A Few Good Men. Jack Nicholson is asked if the deceased Marine was in "grave danger." His response: Is there any other kind?

I will say this. At least they didn't mention that the new rite of anointing was supposed to clarify what was happening or the purpose of the sacrament. If they had, it would have been yet another epic fail, since the new rite de-emphasizes the principle goal of the sacrament, namely, to heal the soul from sin and prepare it for death.

Both the ceremonies and texts of the ordination rites are to be revised. The address given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the mother tongue.

When a bishop is consecrated, the laying of hands may be done by all the bishops present.

By "revised," they must have meant "eviscerated" if you look at what actually happened. Let me be clear that I think the new rite of ordination is absolutely valid. Look at what it says, though, or perhaps doesn't say. Multiple references to the sacrificial aspect of the priesthood are gone, along with those relating to absolution of sins. I highly recommend Michael Davies's book The Order of Melchisedech on this point. The differences are quite shocking.

Next up: Marriage (to be cont.)

Prayer For Parishioners By Parishioners

Something for us all to remember, courtesy of Rorate:

Prayer of a Parishioner 

Thank you, Lord, for the shortcomings of our Priests! If they did not have them, they would not be able to understand our own weaknesses.

I forgot that, when outside, they must greet everyone. I also forgot that they always have to welcome others with a smile on their lips, even when they are somewhat dead inside.

I ask you, Lord, that I may practice charity with our Priests, that I may understand that I have only one Priest to suffer, while he has to suffer us all.

And who would ever want to put up with all of us?

Guilty

So the Pope's butler has been sentenced to an 18 month prison term for his role in the whole Vatican leaks "scandal." Take a look at these comments:

Before the verdict was announced, Gabriele, wearing a dark gray suit, a white shirt, and a blue tie, insisted he was not a thief and that he had acted out of concern for the Catholic church and the pontiff.

“What I feel strongly inside me, is the conviction of having acted out of exclusive and visceral love for Jesus’ church, and for his visible leader. I repeat, I don’t feel like a thief,” he told the tribunal.

Arru (the defense attorney) had argued there was no theft, as Gabriele photocopied the documents and did not remove the originals.

She said he was driven by his faith, high morals and by motives that she hoped one day would be “recognized and rewarded” as he was pushed to do what he did by the “evil” he saw around him.

Reflect on that a bit and on some of the other things that we've reported on this incident and the Curial hijinks brought to light recently. Now, consider this report from the Telegraph:

Officers from the Vatican Gendarmerie found thousands of papers when they raided Paolo Gabriele’s apartment on May 23, acting on suspicions that he was the mole who had leaked highly compromising material to an Italian investigative journalist, who published it in a book.
The massive haul showed that Mr Gabriele had a keen interest in secret services, espionage, the occult, scandals involving the Vatican bank and the P2, a shadowy Masonic lodge whose members included prominent Italian politicians.

The encoded documents were sent from the Vatican Secretariat of State to papal nuncios, or ambassadors, around the world.

There are other claims, including that some of the documents had been marked for destruction. Oh, and allegedly these reference stuff far enough back that even Roberto Calvi is mentioned.

The point is that you've got a guy, who by all accounts seems very loyal to the Holy Father. This man is going to prison, still claiming that what he did was for the Pope and the Church. The contents of the documents he was copying showed where his main interests were. It stands to reason then that there were lots of documents actually referring to these topics. It's also fair to assume, I think, that these are the things that Mr. Gabriele felt were so dangerous to the Pope and the Church.

Recall that, sometimes, there really is a conspiracy, then draw your own conclusions.

Here's A Question

Since we're letting all these married Anglicans come over and be ordained without a whole lot of problems, does this mean we can dispense with all the foolishness about keeping Eastern rite priests from being married?

Please?

The New Project

Make sure you visit and bookmark Boniface & Company's (including yours truly) new project at the Unam Sanctam Catholicam web site. It's good stuff on a whole host of Church-related issues, ranging from history to theology to movie reviews. Most folks here should have some exposure to the kind of content I'm talking about thanks to prior linkages to Boniface's blog, which can be found here.

Unam Sanctam Catholicam!

One More Thing Re: Bees

You can read Fr. Emile Warre's book on bees here. Fr. Warre invented the hive design that carries is name. It is a simple beekeeping method that most anyone can probably do.

His book is just excellent though.

I Love Bees

I got my own beehive back in March of this year. I'm not looking to become a honey magnate or anything. It's just something I've always been intrigued by and finally found myself in a position to work on as a hobby.  There's also the fact that my kids find it interesting, so it gives us something to do together.

Even if you're a single guy, though, I highly recommend this.

If I may delve into corniness for a moment, bees make very good teachers. You know that bit from the Gospel about the ravens and the lilies and how God takes care of them? The first thing I learned about beekeeping was that all I was going to do is mess stuff up if I tried to "fix" something for the ladies of the hive. They didn't want or need my help. Eventually, they got the message across.

I have to say that they do have one thing over the lilies/ravens. When it comes to laboring, sowing, etc., the ladies of the hive are about as impressive a force of nature as I can imagine. It's not the destructiveness of hurricanes and tornadoes. Think of the creative opposite. Thousands of tiny little cogs, all whirring around the central axis of the queen, simultaneously fulfilling their duties without gripe or complaint. It's an almost symphonic display of work. They take care of themselves and each other. They don't know violence, except in defense of their own, at which point they will offer their own lives for the common good. Of course, there's also the fact that their work sustains the entire ecosystem by assisting plants with pollination. What a wonderful creature!

Seriously, you can sit and watch them for hours without getting bored.

Anyway, since this is a Catholic blog, I felt obligated to mention how the Church has paid homage to the ladies. If you were at Easter this year, you heard the return of bees to the Exsultet:

On this, your night of grace, O holy Father, accept this candle, a solemn offering, the work of bees and of your servants’ hands, an evening sacrifice of praise, this gift from your most holy Church.

But now we know the praises of this pillar, which glowing fire ignites for God’s honour, a fire into many flames divided, yet never dimmed by sharing of its light, for it is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.

A pox on whoever thought it was a good idea to edit that out for the last how many decades.

More than that, there is a wonderful speech that Venerable Pius XII gave to some beekeepers back in 1948.

Your presence in such large numbers, your desire to assemble before Us, beloved sons, is a real comfort: and so We express our heartfelt gratitude for your homage and your gifts, both particularly pleasing to Us. Beyond its material and technical importance, the work which you represent, by its nature and significance has a psychological, moral, social, and even religious interest of no small value. Have not bees been sung almost universally in the poetry, sacred no less than profane, of all times?

Impelled and guided by instinct, a visible trace and testimony of the unseen wisdom of the Creator, what lessons do not bees give to men, who are, or should be, guided by reason, the living reflection of the divine intellect!

Bees are models of social life and activity, in which each class has its duty to perform and performs it exactly—one is almost tempted to say conscientiously—without envy, without rivalry, in the order and position assigned to each, with care and love. Even the most inexperienced observer of bee culture admires the delicacy and perfection of this work. Unlike the butterfly which flits from flower to flower out of pure caprice; unlike the wasp and the hornet, brutal aggressors, who seem intent on doing only harm with no benefit for anyone, the bee pierces to the very depths of the flower's calix diligently, adroitly, and so delicately, that once its precious treasure has been gathered, it gently leaves the flowers without having injured in the least the light texture of their garments or caused a single one of their petals the loss of its immaculate freshness.

Then, loaded down with sweet-scented nectar, pollen, and propolis, without capricious gyrations, without lazy delays, swift as an arrow, with precise, unerring, certain flight, it returns to the hive, where valorous work goes on intensely to process the riches so carefully garnered, to produce the wax and the honey. . (Virgil, , 4, 169.)

Ah, if men could and would listen to the lesson of the bees: if each one knew how to do his daily duty with order and love at the post assigned to him by Providence; if everyone knew how to enjoy, love, and use in the intimate harmony of the domestic hearth the little treasures accumulated away from home during his working day: if men, with delicacy, and to speak humanly, with elegance, and also, to speak as a Christian, with charity in their dealings with their fellow men, would only profit from the truth and the beauty conceived in their minds, from the nobility and goodness carried about in the intimate depths of their hearts, without offending by indiscretion and stupidity, without soiling the purity of their thought and their love, if they only knew how to assimilate without jealousy and pride the riches acquired by contact with their brothers and to develop them in their turn by reflection and the work of their own minds and hearts; if, in a word, they learned to do by intelligence and wisdom what bees do by instinct—how much better the world would be!

Working like bees with order and peace, men would learn to enjoy and have others enjoy the fruit of their labors, the honey and the was, the sweetness and the light in this life here below.

Instead, how often, alas, they spoil the better and more beautiful things by their harshness, violence, and malice: how often they seek and find in every thing only imperfection and evil, and misinterpreting even the most honest intentions, turn goodness into bitterness!

Let them learn therefore to enter with respect, trust, and charity into the minds and hearts of their fellow men discreetly but deeply; then they like the bees will know how to discover in the humblest souls the perfume of nobility and of eminent virtue, sometimes unknown even to those who possess it. They will learn to discern in the depths of the most obtuse intelligence, of the most uneducated persons, in the depths even of the minds of their enemies, at least some trace of healthy judgment, some glimmer of truth and goodness.

As for you, beloved sons, who while bending over your beehives perform with all care the most varied and delicate work for your bees, let your spirits rise in mystic flight to experience the kindness of God, to taste the sweetness of His word and His law (Ps. 18:11; 118: 103), to contemplate the divine light symbolized by the burning flame of the candle, product of the mother bee, as the Church sings in her admirable liturgy of Holy Saturday: (For it is nourished by the melting wax, which the mother bee produced for the substance of this precious light.)

Yeah, I reproduced the whole thing, but that's because it's awesome. 

Finally, there's actually a blessing of bees, which I will definitely have done next year on the feast of St. Benedict.

O Lord, God almighty, who hast created heaven and earth and every animal existing over them and in them for the use of men, and who hast commanded through the ministers of holy Church that candles made from the products of bees be lit in church during the carrying out of the sacred office in which the most holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ thy Son is made present and is received; may thy holy blessing descend upon these bees and these hives, so that they may multiply, be fruitful and be preserved from all ills and that the fruits coming forth from them may be distributed for thy praise and that of thy Son and the holy Spirit and of the most blessed Virgin Mary.

Anyways, if you have any kind of yard at all where you live, look into beekeeping. As far as hobbies go, it's not that expensive, it will conform to any vocation or lifestyle.

St. Ambrose, patron of bees, and St. Benedict, patron of beekeepers, pray for us.

An Observation On The Presidential Election

With all the new flak over Mitt Romney and his comments about the 47% (or whatever it is) who don't pay income tax, a not-very-funny thing occurred to me.

On one hand, you seem to have a campaign, whether directly attributable to Romney or not, that seems to be all-in for stirring up feelings of greed and/or selfishness among the electorate.

On the opposing side, you have a push, whether directly from the President or not, that is apparently hell-bent on fanning the flames of envy.

Are we supposed to feel comfortable with either of these choices? Granted, one side is basically the party of Moloch, but this appeal to dueling Deadly Sins isn't giving me any comfort regarding the future of our nation.

This illustrates a problem with our modern form of government. With an electorate that doesn't understand the problems the nation faces, much less the solutions, it's way easier to just lob stuff toward the baser instincts and wait for the fish to start biting. Let us reflect again on the words of St. John Chrysostom to understand why a deficit of charity is incurable by the government and, as we can see from the present election, is probably only something that the government will make worse.

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich man's gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone?

Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combine both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion; a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people's hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

Encouraging Blasphemy

That's on the program for the Mother Teresa Catholic secondary school in Ontario. They are setting up a prayer room for Muslims in the school. And, of course, they're tremendously proud of it.

"They're members of our school community. We want to ensure that all our students feel welcome, that they feel that they belong," said Principal Ana Paula Fernandes.

The prayer room, expected to be completed by the end of September, is located on a busy stretch on the second floor, just metres from the school's large chapel.

"That was very important to ensure that it was included in the main building, and not tucked away somewhere," Fernandes said.

Yeah, it's important that we set up places the false worship of religions that are essentially based on blasphemy. And why are they facilitating the blasphemy?

Grade 12 student Amir Farhi, 17, was part of the group that led the push for the prayer room.

"We do have quite a bit of Muslims in this school who find it hard to practice their religion," he said. "Having this prayer room, it's easy for them to do their Friday prayers."

Though Muslims pray facing Mecca, Saudi Arabia, five times a day, the room will mainly be used Fridays, the holiest day of the week in Islam.

Administration and students are working with a local imam, a leader of Islamic worship services, to create guidelines governing use of the room.

"We just want to come together as a community, exchange our beliefs, sharing our ideas and helping grow this school with its values," said Farhi, who applauded school officials for moving so quickly to create the room.

What values?  One would think that a Catholic school would number the propagation of Truth as a value. Apparently, though, Truth is a secondary concern to providing a forum for the worship, beliefs, and ideas that lead souls away from God. Of course, we all remember the stories from the Bible where the Apostles set up altars to false gods, right? Right? Something about what kind of concord there is between Christ and Belial. Or maybe this:

What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing?  But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

1 Corinthians 10:19-20

I wonder if they will wind up making the leap from setting up rooms for Mohammedan prayer to wiping out space for Christian worship.

I know, I know. I'm just being all mean and unirenical.

Thank You, American Idol

I've been watching your show for several years now, trying to stop, but always getting pulled back in by the sheer incredulity of watching you force a bunch of worthless crap music on society and watching it be assimilated repeatedly, even as your "stars'" careers often fall off into oblivion.

Now, you've given me ample reason to stop. You've decided to give Nicki Minaj a job. For those who don't know, Minaj gave a well-nigh Satanic performance at the Grammys a while back and did so with all the impunity that money and fame can give. I can only hope that her arrival on American Idol will result in the complete destruction of the show and all those associated with it. 

Oh, and if the singing didn't suck.

Catholic Eschatology

This is one of the things that is most overlooked in the Church today, and Boniface at Unam Sanctam has done a good job of breaking down the problems. Since I wholeheartedly agree with him on this point, especially as it relates to the current dominance of preterist Scriptural interpretations, I felt obliged to link to it here.

Watch the video, then keep watch for the signs. Really, there's nothing wrong with that.