Greetings friends! My mind has been crowded lately with a lot of different subjects, many of which I will likely never get around to blogging about. So, time to clear my thoughts with a miscellany of half-formed ruminations. I might develop these into future posts, or not...who knows. Enjoy my brain dump!
The issue with the Church's stance on moral issues has never been about the sins themselves, but rather about how relate to those sins. We obviously know people are going to sin. That's fallen nature. The real issue is what we, as a society, make of these sins. For example, a man who commits adultery and knows he is committing a grave evil is in a bad spot, but not as bad as the man who justifies adultery by denying it is a serious sin. For former knows the truth and falls by weakness, the latter, in his arrogance, denies the very nature of truth. This is why our Lord had a preference for the poor and outcast. The whore knows she is morally compromised; she knows her lifestyle is filthy, and she has no pretensions about what kind of woman she is. Her sin is ugly, but she at least recognizes that it makes her ugly. And that recognition is the seed of humility, which leaves a door open for repentance. But an ideologue who has decided that "sex work" is a respectable occupation and whores (er, sex workers) should be accorded the same social status as librarians or realtors is categorically unable to recognize the ugliness of what he and his "sex workers" do. There is a fundamental denial of reality, which chokes off grace and closes the door on repentance. I prefer your run-of-the-mill sinner who knows he is a sinner over someone who wants to deny the very nature of sin. The former is merely human, while the latter is a destroyer.
In that vein, I remember a few years ago I was talking to a Catholic gentleman who was actively cheating on his wife. I didn't know him well; I'm not sure why he shared the information with me. Perhaps since we were practical strangers he felt a kind of security in my relative anonymity. Anyhow, he was having sex with another woman, and he knew he shouldn't be doing it, but he considered himself too weak to tell his mistress no and break it off. But I remember he told me how, throughout the entire affair, he had kept away from Holy Communion. I commended him for at least having the wherewithal to avoid adding sacrilege to his litany of sins. He responded with indignation at the suggestion he would do otherwise. "I might be sinning, but I'm not completely stupid," he insisted, reiterating that he would never ever take Communion in his current state. Assuredly I say to you, this fellow will enter the kingdom of heaven before the one who sins unrepentantly and boldly receives Communion anyway on the premise that "Jesus would want me to receive Him."
An interview with Andrea Grillo is making the rounds right now, in which Professor Grillo explains the mind of the current pontificate on the question of the Traditional Latin Mass. It is an eye-opening interview that everyone should read, as it demonstrates beyond doubt the derision in which Traditionalists are held by the powers that be. One thing that stood out to me was that Professor Grillo considers the ritual parallelism enshrined in Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum to be "a completely wrong judgment," "not theologically sound," with "neither a systematic nor a practical foundation"; Summorum is a document that "irresponsibly" created "anarchy from above." It is my belief, of course, that Grillo is entirely wrong on all these points; I have no intention of contesting him, as others more qualified have already rebutted this heresiarch. It should be pointed out, however, that if Pope Benedict was capable of making such a "completely wrong judgment" about something as integral as the Church's relationship to its liturgical heritage, there is no necessary reason why Pope Francis isn't equally as capable of getting it wrong. If a theologian of the caliber of Joseph Ratzinger can operate for years from a premise that is "not theologically sound," are we supposed to have confidence that Francis will do better? Grillo's argument that Benedict got the liturgy completely wrong only serves to establish that popes can be very wrong on their approach to the liturgy—and is Francis a more or less trustworthy theologian and liturgist than Ratzinger?
Speaking of how office holders relate to the policies of their predecessors, Francis's pontificate is drawing to a close, and many are hoping that his successor will repudiate the detestable policies of the Bergoglian era, with some sort of thundering denunciation amounting to a damnatio memoriae. Perhaps he will even be formally excoriated at some future ecumenical council. I find this all to be highly unlikely. While I do believe the next pontificate will represent a profound departure from the policies of Francis, I think any sort of public renunciation is unlikely. Executive institutions are generally protective of their own power, and this relates to how they interact with their predecessors' policies. A executive office-holder (like the pope) must be careful not to heap open scorn upon the legacy of his predecessor, for doing so establishes a precedent that may be turned against his own legacy by a future occupant. I once held political office in an executive position and was keenly aware of this problem. I was in deep disagreement with the policies of my predecessor, but I knew that taking a damnatio memoriae approach to her legacy would make it that much more likely that my successors would do the same to me whenever my opponents got the upper hand. I needed to find an approach that did not diminish the stability of the office I held and would ensure that at least some of my policies remained in place. In the end, though I still took a different path from my predecessor, my actions were couched in words of deference, continuity, and stability. I praised my predecessor's legacy with my mouth while actively shitting all over it through my actions. And I left some of the less-offensive things she did intact, even though I would have just as soon wiped her legacy from the earth. This is pretty much how all executive office holders behave towards their predecessors. It's why Pope Francis spoke so highly of Benedict while simultaneously dismantling his most notable achievements, or why (until recently) United States presidents refrained from attacking their predecessors who had termed out of office. Attacking your predecessor only weakens the institution itself. Ergo, I do not expect any public repudiation of the Bergoglian-era policies, much less any sort of condemnation of Francis himself. I expect, rather, the barque of Peter to make a slow but deliberate turn in a new direction without much heed being paid to Francis's legacy one way or another. He won't be excoriated so much as ignored.
I am really mystified by the Trad objections to Bl. Carlo Acutis's beatification, and more so by their gripes about his official iconographical depiction. While I might object to the speed of Bl. Carlo's beatification—I personally believe a twenty-year waiting period should be observed before beatification—I have nothing whatsoever against the fact of his beatification. I spend most of my professional life working with young people, and I can tell you that Bl. Carlo definitely has a real cultus among Catholic youth. They love him, look up to him, and are eager to learn more about him; there is an authentic spirit of piety in their approach to him that is organic and wholesome. I'm very happy the Church, in her wisdom, has given us a new beatus whose life is resonating with young people. Much less do I care that they have chosen to depict him in a red blazer. Was this motivated by a desire to make the young blessed "look cool"? Perhaps. More likely, however, this was just due to the fact that this is how Bl. Carlo is recognized, due to the popularity of the photograph upon which it is based. Since the advent of photography, it has been common to depict saints iconographically based on popular pictures, along with the clothes they were wearing. Bl. Louis and Zelie Martin are depicted with the regular clothes French people of their estate would have worn. Bl. Pier Giorgio is often depicted in his mountaineering outfit. St. Gianna Molla is depicted in her white doctor's coat. These pieces of clothing become iconographical identifiers, and if Bl. Carlo is identified by his red blazer, who cares? If I was ever canonized (God forbid), I certainly would not want to be depicted wearing a suit or something; I'd probably be depicted with a cardigan and cabby-hat, being the items I actually wear in real life.
The Trad subculture is interesting. There's a lot of great stuff there, but also a lot of weirdness. One of the most disturbing corners of Trad subculture is when Trads get going about romantic relationships and "courtship." There's so much nonsense, cringe, and just weirdness in the way Trads talk about this subject. I've sat down to blog about it a hundred times but each time I do the sheer amount of content I want to cover is so immense I throw my hands up. Maybe I'll get to it in the coming months.
Things are bad. Real bad. But there is zero justification for converting to Orthodoxy. Nothing going on in the Church has made the case for Orthodoxy any more compelling than it ever was. In fact, I can think of few things less compelling to me than the arguments for Orthodoxy. I would be about as likely to join the Mormons as to join the Orthodox (obviously the Mormons and Orthodox aren't on the same level; but I am equally less likely to convert to either and that is the point). To my Orthodox friends, no offense meant, but there's no way I'm ever going that way.
That's all for now. May you all be blessed abundantly!
3 comments:
Please dont place the Mormons on the same level or above the Orthodox.
My experience is they have a special loathing for celibacy and consecrated religious. They despise the prayers of the Rosary, and believe blasphemies regarding the term "brethren" -considering James and Jude actual blood brothers of the Lord, the list goes on and on....
However- knowing someone is Catholic- they wont let on as to these despicable beliefs until they go in for the "kill" and try to inject their poisonous ideas after working the turf for years..as long as it takes; and beware, they especially are trying to bring down Catholics. They also communicate amongst themselves as to the "Progress" of their prey. BEWARE of the Mormons!!!
Did you know they built a "Temple " in Rome? One of the recent popes met with them- big mistake.
PS and then their is their ridiculous, outlandish Book of Mormon (BS)
A random thought -- people sometimes talk about certain periods having their characteristic sins, and it's often struck me that the characteristic sin of the present day is perversion. Not just sexual perversion (although obviously that's a big, and highly visible, part of it), bit also what we might call affective perversion. Thus we have politicians who favour criminals over the law-abiding, foreigners over citizens, and so on; Churchmen who treat heretics and infidels with more respect that the members of their own flock; and so on. In all cases, the natural affections which we ought to feel are upended.
If I was ever canonized (God forbid), I certainly would not want to be depicted wearing a suit or something; I'd probably be depicted with a cardigan and cabby-hat, being the items I actually wear in real life.
Meanwhile, if I'm ever martyred, I intend to wear my full academic dress, so future iconographers have to depict me in that.
"obviously the Mormons and Orthodox aren't on the same level; but I am equally less likely to convert to either and that is the point"
Post a Comment