tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60868339959415259902024-03-18T15:16:08.202-04:00Unam Sanctam CatholicamBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger1351125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-57598270748914902232024-03-17T22:12:00.001-04:002024-03-17T22:12:04.794-04:00Do Not Reproach a Man Who is Turning Away from Sin<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSx_fcwpgvuftP0BLY4tqZhcfA-I0RCOWj81SZMoOVnYbvVJRRXtd0Qz7LfjXH2bwDWG_O0PMrtDA9pMz82RZdFTNEoutu1m0efudLtfZVncLb8U-lG9HxuV-m331wiWN_QMV1cTckSUuNrWCpL1cuSq5CF0ysOxoGshgMINorfdlVirbBi9e_glbZcMs/s1200/Saint-Jerome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="827" data-original-width="1200" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSx_fcwpgvuftP0BLY4tqZhcfA-I0RCOWj81SZMoOVnYbvVJRRXtd0Qz7LfjXH2bwDWG_O0PMrtDA9pMz82RZdFTNEoutu1m0efudLtfZVncLb8U-lG9HxuV-m331wiWN_QMV1cTckSUuNrWCpL1cuSq5CF0ysOxoGshgMINorfdlVirbBi9e_glbZcMs/s320/Saint-Jerome.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most unpleasant things I see online is whenever there is a news story about some celebrity who converts to Catholicism, Catholics will make snarky comments about the conversion. They will question the celebrity's sincerity, say it is just a fad, he's doing it for show, we shouldn't be happy about it until we know if it's "real," and in general belittle the story.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is so disheartening. Who knows whether one's conversion will last; our Lord Himself tells us that "other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away" (Matt. 13:5-6), so obviously this sort of thing will happen. But whether it does or not is anybody's guess; many people whose conversions do not seem promising later become steadfast, and many who seem streadfast fall away. It is impossible to judge the working of grace. You simply do not know. People questioned St. Paul's conversion as well, for "the disciples...were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is why we must never be too hasty to pass critical judgment on these things. Does not the prophet Zechariah advise us to not despise small beginnings? (cf. Zech. 4:10) Faith is <i>supposed</i> to begin the size of a mustard seed; it only grows with maturity. We are being ridiculous if we look at faith in its infancy and judge it by standards more appropriate to full growth. We would do well to be more lenient in our assessment of such things, "for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matt. 7:2). This passage should<i> terrify</i> us if we are being severe about the conversions of others. How wicked to look at people who have taken the first, fumbling steps of faith and scrutinize their intentions with hostility! Maybe they will persevere, and maybe they won't; that's not the point. The point is you don't know. You are entirely ignorant of what's going on in their interior life. In the Book of Sirach we read, "Do not reproach a man who is turning away from sin; remember that we all deserve punishment." (Sir. 8:5) Or, as Shakespeare put it, "Use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping?" (<i>Hamlet,</i> Act 2, Scene 2).</div><span style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you truly believe that a person's conversion is lacking, then pray for them. Unless you personally know the individual and can respond in a more direct way, prayer is the <i>only </i>responsible course of action. How jaded do you have to be to complain that someone's initial ascent out of the cave into the sunlight doesn't look exactly the way <i>you</i> would have it? Can you see the heart? Do you discern all ends? Of course not, "for who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Next time you hear a story about some celebrity conversion, instead of sniping, say with Paul, "in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice" (Php. 1:18) and pray for that person in all humility, thanking God for whatever good He has worked in them and lamenting your shortcomings. That celebrity may yet get into the kingdom of heaven even before you.</div></div></span></div></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-23114671967407488122024-03-09T00:17:00.017-05:002024-03-11T09:35:15.518-04:00Review of Angel Studios' Cabrini<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4gKVhRqCQhZB2NOqbpsA4KO0wt8MntjUSVq6Grb0m8jOuhmA_mNcyMrKLae9xcMo09-j2nMIEXjFcaz4z8jyvd0nR9V_jMrx11nzDx6_KZSLAQ_H3PUjL5rTbC7nY8_R85Cl0QliFieZNv6wAtCXqSbbedo5KTxVV1U3nhfnOP9paz5a1YbVB5pgN_p8/s3000/CABRINI.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1083" data-original-width="3000" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4gKVhRqCQhZB2NOqbpsA4KO0wt8MntjUSVq6Grb0m8jOuhmA_mNcyMrKLae9xcMo09-j2nMIEXjFcaz4z8jyvd0nR9V_jMrx11nzDx6_KZSLAQ_H3PUjL5rTbC7nY8_R85Cl0QliFieZNv6wAtCXqSbbedo5KTxVV1U3nhfnOP9paz5a1YbVB5pgN_p8/w640-h232/CABRINI.png" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Tonight I went and saw <i>Cabrini</i> with my teenage daughter. I just got back from the theater and am fulfilling a promise I made on the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/UnamSanctamCatholicam/" target="_blank">Unam Sanctam Facebook page </a>to post a review of it. This is going to be long, so I ask your forgiveness for the extensiveness, but I have a lot to say here.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's start with the things that are easy to praise...<br /><br />The visuals. The set-pieces, costuming and overall ambience was superb. I was constantly impressed with how well the film portrayed the late 19th century; everything from the furniture down to the gas lights was spot on. There was a crusty, creaking realism to everything. All if it looked completely authentic; if there were CGI sets in the film, they did a fantastic job of hiding them. I was fairly certain that everything I was seeing was real, and that is a tremendous accomplishment; aesthetically this film looked better than a big budget Marvel film with twenty times the budget. So, nice work on the visual, Angel Studios!<br /><br />The cinematography was also lovely. I was continually impressed with the quality of the shots and the way the photographers chose to shoot certain scenes. I was quite happy to find that, despite the dreary scenery of much of old New York, the film's color palette was vibrant and bright. For some ridiculous reason, modern films have a regrettable tendency to throw a layer of dull grays or blues over their shots (the recent disaster that was Ridley Scott's <i>Napoleon</i> had a putrid dull filter over everything; I also remember that <i>Solo: A Star Wars Story </i>was so shaded by a blue filter that many scenes were unintelligbly dark). Thankfully, <i>Cabrini</i> went back to the tried and true use of natural light, relying on filters only when the scene really called for it (like the dark sewer scenes). This was a real delight to see after watching so many artificially darkened films over the last several years. The particular shots the director chose to take were also superb; excellent use of blocking and interplay of the characters with the scenery. From a purely technical perspective, whoever made these decisions knew exactly what they were doing. I don't know what the budget for <i>Cabrini </i>was, but it didn't <i>feel</i> low budget at all and thus avoided a problem that has plagued religious films in the past.<br /><br />The score was also solid. I was so pleased they didn't take the cheap and easy way out by following the modern fad of simply taking an old classic rock song, slowing it down, and treating it like a soundtrack. There's lots of original music here, classical and operatic, deployed masterfully throughout the film for maximum effect at the most emotional moments. Well done here.<br /><br />I also liked hearing all the Italian; I'd say half of the film was in Italian with subtitles. This was such a nice touch as Italian is such a lovely language to listen to (I may be biased because I am Sicilian, but it's true : )</div><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;">I cannot speak to the historical accuracy of the film, as I am not well-versed in the history of St. Frances Cabrini, but this is not particularly important to me in a film of this nature. There's too many critics who dump on historical films because the historical details aren't exactly right. This has never bothered me; I don't care that William Wallace never actually impregnated the Queen of England per <i>Braveheart</i>, nor that Emperor Commodus wasn't killed in the arena; and I don't care whether St. Frances Cabrini ever addressed the Italian Senate or knew an opera star. The primary purpose of a movie is to be entertaining, so my judgement of <i>Cabrini </i>is based on whether is entertained me, not whether it was perfectly accurate. To be sure, sometimes historical inaccuracies can be so egregious as to ruin a movie (for example, if they'd have made Frances Cabrini a black lesbian); but even in these cases, the reason it would ruin the film is because it would destroy my suspension of disbelief and hence be unentertaining. Whatever liberties were taken with <i>Cabrini</i> were within the bounds of what is typically acceptable for artistic license. </div><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Was I entertained? Yes, to be sure. But we must understand that different types of movies go for different types of entertainment. In a horror film, one is entertained if it provokes sufficient anxiety. In a grand adventure like <i>Raiders of the Lost Ark</i>, you want to experience a sense of excitement. In a historical drama like <i>Cabrini</i>, what you want is inspiration—you want to root for the protagonist, sharing their joys and weeping at their sorrows. Personally, <i>Cabrini </i>hit the nail on the head for me here. I teared up a couple of times throughout the movie and got quiver-lip towards the end. It was sufficiently engaging and inspiring to touch me on an emotional level. And it successfully inspired me to consider how I could better serve the poor. Its success here is because it prudently followed the classical three act model. You have the first act establishing the conflict (Cabrini struggling to fulfill her vocation in the slums of New York), the second act's rising action (Cabrini starts making progress, building new institutions, and the stakes get higher), then the set back at the end of the second act (opposition from the city of New York leads to her project almost taking entirely), and the third act resolution (Cabrini succeeds against these new odds and wins the New York government over to her side). This is basic storytelling, and it is done well here. As with the cinematographgy, the storytelling was refreshing after the last few years of muddled messes Hollywood has been feeding us.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Okay, but you probably don't give a crap about cinematography, story structure, and music. You probably only care about the movie through a pietistical or theological lens and whether it was woke. Which, if that is the case, fair enough (but you're not really interested in film-qua-film is that's all you care about, but to each their own). Let us consider these in turn.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, let's talk about Cristiana Dell'Anna as Frances Cabrini. I liked this casting overall and I could definitely identify with her as Cabrini; in fact, the work ethic they give to Mother Cabrini in the film very much mirrors my own approach to life in general, so it resonated with me deeply. However, in a critique I'm sure our feminist friends will not appreciate, I wish Dell'Anna's Cabrini would have smiled more. The film did an excellent job portraying her struggles, anxiety, and poor health, but I wish they would have included more scenes of her smiling, laughing, and enjoying the company of her orphans and sisters. For a film about a woman's passion for orphans, I don't think there was a single scene of her spending time with her orphans. There is one street urchin named Paolo she has a few scenes with, but other than that we see very little of her with her children. There are too many scenes of her visiting the halls of power to ask for money and no scenes of her doing things like playing stickball in the street with her orphans, or teaching them in a classroom. The one motherly relationship she forms with anyone is with an adult character, a reformed prostitute named Vittoria. In order to really sell us on Cabrini as a caring mother to these orphans, we simply needed more scenes of her happy in their company. Imagine a film about St. John Bosco that barely showed him interacting with his boys, or a film about St. Francis that never showed him enjoying the beauty of the natural world and you will understand what an omission this is. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nevertheless, what they did choose to have Cristiana Dell'Anna do, she did well. Frances Cabrini's iron determination was communicated thoroughly; the supporting performances by David Morse and John Lithgow were solid as well (even if Lithgow as the cigar-smoking Mayor Gould did descend into schlock territory now and then, with Lithgow hamming it up in a way that barely stopped short of him twirling his mustache and wearing a monocle). Romana Maggiora Vergano as the reformed prostitute Vittoria was probably the best-developed character, as she was the only one that had a true character arc and a meaningful relationship with Mother Cabrini.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This brings me to my major critique of the film: the Frances Cabrini character doesn't undergo any development; there's no real character arc. You don't get the sense that she learns anything, and she is never forced to deal with any sort of moral dilemma. She applies the same methodology consistently throughout the film from beginning to end and gets the same results. It is circumstance that yields to her, never her to circumstance. To really play this story right, you need some sort of arc with a dilemma. Think of Robert de Niro's Rodrigo in <i>The Mission</i>. Rodrigo starts as a violent worldling, but guilt over murdering his brother prompts him to abandon his life of violence to embrace missionary life with the Jesuits after an emotional experience of penance, but then later Rodrigo finds he must choose whether he can remain faithful to his principles in order to save the people he cares about. Brilliant character arc. Chefs kiss. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Cabrini</i> lacks any similar character development or internal moral dilemma. All her challenges are external; there's no struggle that takes place <i>in the realm of her character </i>that challenges her. In truly great films, there is a beautiful symmetry between the character's internal and external struggles: the external struggle the protagonist faces is a kind of externalized version of an interior struggle they must fight. The real battle is always within. Tony Stark's conflict with Obadiah Stane in the original <i>Iron Man</i> is indicative of Tony's own war to rise above his narcissistic, utilitarian disposition to become a more altruistic person. The defeat of Obadiah thus represents Tony Stark killing the worst parts of himself. We see no parallel in <i>Cabrini</i>. Her character fights and succeeds, but there is no sense that she grows. This was the biggest missed opportunity of the film.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">That's not to say the film is bad; many good films can fail in this regard and are still good films. In <i>We Were Soldiers</i>, there's no indication that Mel Gibson's Hal Moore "learned anything" by the end of the movie; we simply see Hal fighting a battle for two hours and then going home, and that is your story. But that's all it's trying to be. In <i>Cabrini,</i> the film wants more; it wants us to be emotionally engaged with the struggles of Cabrini—and while I was to some degree (as I said, I got teary-eyed), it was much less than it could have been. Had they simply given St. Frances Cabrini some kind of internal struggle to grapple with that could be externally manifested in her fights with the city of New York, it would have elevated the film considerably. It is sad that it did not.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Was the film feminist? No. Well, not unless your definition of feminism is so broad as to basically classify any assertive female as a feminist. Yes, Cristiana Dell'Anna's Cabrini is assertive and determined. She continually displays the resolve to do whatever it takes to accomplish her vision and to get things done herself if the men she is surrounded by won't do it for her. The film makes a bit of a deal about her leading a foreign mission as a woman. But that <i>actually was</i> a big deal. And if you think that the assertive nun trope is feminist, then don't pretend to admire Mother Angelica, for it is the exact same tenacity she demonstrated. I will admit that now and then Dell'Anna hammed it up (I rolled my eyes when she said the world was too small for her plans), but sometimes hammy is fine; it's better to overact than to be a stiff piece of wood <span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #70757a; font-size: 14px;"> </span>à la<span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #70757a; font-size: 14px;"> </span>Bree Larson's Captain Marvel. The bossy nun is not a Hollywood trope; it's a <i>Catholic</i> trope, and if you don't think it is, you haven't read enough hagiography. Catholic history is overflowing with tenacious religious women who refuse to take no for an answer. If you doubt me, call your nearest convent and tell their vocations director your daughter is contemplating a vocation and see how obnoxiously pushy they can be. So, no, I did not find <i>Cabrini</i> feminist...unless you also find Mother Angelica and a score of other notoriously demanding women religious to be feminist icons.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />"But it got released on International Women's Day." So what? If anything, this is good, as it is deliberately proposing an alternative to the secular narrative of what women ought to be doing. To object to it being released on International Women's Day is so vacuous it approaches "All Saints Day is pagan because it happens on Samhain" levels of goofiness.<br /><br />Some have criticized the film for presenting a secularized version of Cabrini that systematically removes references to God, prayer, etc. from her story, offering us Cabrini the humanitarian but not revealing Cabrini the saint. I can absolutely understand this critique, but I do not think it is the fatal flaw some are making it out to be, for several reasons—<br /><br />First, it's simply not true. There is religious content in the film. Mother Cabrini leads prayer before meals. She threatens a pimp with damnation. We see her praying in the chapel during a critical moment. When her sisters are worried she quotes <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%204%3A13&version=RSV" target="_blank">Philippians 4:13</a> to them. On more than one occasion we see her lecturing uncaring plutocrats about human dignity because "we are all children of God." We see her organizing a Catholic funeral procession for a dead girl. Religious imagery is everywhere in her convent, including a few shots that deliberately linger on a Sacred Heart image in the background in moments when Mother Cabrini's compassion is being stressed. So it is simply not true that the film lacks any depiction of her spirituality. <br /><br />The problem isn't that the spiritual content isn't there, but rather that the writers failed to integrate it with Mother Cabrini's mission in any meaningful way. Her faith should have been portrayed as the source of her strength, the fount of her charity that made her impressive work possible. While her faith is displayed, it is done so in a way that almost seems on a parallel track apart from her charitable work. It would have been infinitely better to conjoin these two aspects of her character (as they undoubtedly were in real life) to demonstrate, not just that she possessed faith, but that her faith enriched her work by ennobling it with a supernatural orientation. We see her doing spiritual things, but seldom when it matters. Her faith is there, but it's handled awkwardly. <br /><br />But on another level, when considering the question of her spirituality, we have to step back and ask what this movie is even about. A lot of critiques I am reading on this point are saying something to the effect of, "For a movie about the life of a Catholic saint, there's not a lot of prayer." But the movie is not "about the life of a Catholic saint"—that is, the film is not a biographical account of St. Frances Cabrini's life; rather, it is a movie about her charitable work in New York City and her conflict with the city authorities. Its scope is quite specific. I would complain more about the spirituality if this movie purported to be a biopic, but it doesn't. It's about a very specific episode in her life that is focused on her external charitable works. <br /><br />To go back to <i>The Mission</i>: <i>The Mission</i> isn't just about "Jesuits in the Amazon." It's specifically about the Jesuits' attempts to save the Guarani from exploitation by the Spaniards. It therefore focuses on this specific aspect of the Jesuit missions. <i>The Mission </i>is also fairly devoid of explicitly spiritual content; we see Rodrigo crying in penance, but no indication it is because he is sorry <i>to God.</i> We get one scene of him reading the Bible with a voice over of 1 Corinthians 13, and that's about it. We never see Jeremy Irons' Fr. Gabriel preaching the Gospel, or catechizing the Guarani. We don't get any explanation of Ignatian spirituality. The emphasis is all on the temporal work of the Jesuits among the Guarani, not on the Guarani's spiritual conversion. At most, we see Fr. Gabriel at the end holding a monstrance, but there's no indication of what this means to him or how it gives him strength because there's no set up for this scene. But why do we still like the film? Simply because we understand that the spiritual stuff isn't the point of the film; <i>The Mission</i> is not about Ignatian spirituality or the Jesuits' community life, or the conversion of the Guarani. Those things are touched on only incidentally in service of the <i>real</i> story, which is a humanitarian story about protecting the Guarani missions from the Spanish slavers told through the character arcs of two different men. And because we know this, we allow our imaginations to fill in the blanks; because Fr. Gabriel is a well-written character, when we see him holding the monstrance at the end, we can <i>infer </i>what this means to him, even if it hasn't been demonstrated. We can infer the spiritual formation of Rodrigo even if there is only the most rudimentary attention devoted to it. The difference between <i>The Mission</i> and <i>Cabrini </i>is thus not in the amount of spiritual content, but in the writing—the script of <i>The Mission</i> was simply better written; its authors knew how to integrate this content better, precisely so that our imagination would do what it is supposed to in any good movie by filling in the gaps. The writers of <i>Cabrini </i>didn't, so the spiritual content feels more out of place, not as integral to the story.<br /><br />To get back to <i>Cabrini</i>: the spiritual content is there, but there could have been more of it and better integrated. There were several scenes where I thought, "This would be an excellent scene to show Mother Cabrini making the sign of the cross and praying," but instead she stares off blankly. There is a ton of footage of the sisters working in their community, but no scene of them praying the Office or attending Mass together. The film thus missed a phenomenal opportunity to show how the life of a religious community sustains its charitable work. I do not believe the film deliberately presented a "secular" version of St. Frances Cabrini, nor that it systematically removed any spiritual content; I do think it handled the spiritual content clumsily due to sloppy writing. Once again, it is not that this is bad but that it could have been better.<br /><br /><i>Cabrini </i>was a good movie, but far from perfect. It was like watching a really good Shakespeare production by a high school troupe: you know it could objectively be much better in different hands, but for who made it and the resources they had at their disposal, it's darned good. And <i>Cabrini</i> was <b>vastly</b> better than any of the B-grade, low-budget saint films you see in the <a href="https://loc.ignatius.com/movienights/all-movies.htm#tab--features__search--" target="_blank">Ignatius Press catalog</a>, including <i><a href="https://loc.ignatius.com/movienights/padre-pio-miracle-man.html" target="_blank">Padre Pio: Miracle Man</a>,</i> <a href="https://loc.ignatius.com/movienights/pius-xii-roman-sky.html" target="_blank"><i>Pius XII: Under Roman Sky</i></a>, and all the rest (I will except <i>Saint Teresa of Avila</i> and <i>Teresa of the Andes </i>from this blanket critique, but neither of these are movies, they are miniseries).<br /><br />I will close with a reference to another film that has been vastly formative in my life: Franco Zeferelli's 1972 <i>Brother Sun, Sister Moon</i>, on the life of St. Francis of Assisi. This movie is terribly dated in many ways; its soundtrack by Donovan and its horrible depiction of a <i>versus populum</i> hippie Mass in 13th century Italy are cinematic tragedies. But the things it gets right, it really gets right. To this day, I get moved to tears watching this movie, because certain parts of it resonate so deeply with me. It doesn't really matter that parts of it are cringe or unhistorical. It strikes the right chords where and when it needs to. So does <i>Cabrini</i>, and <i>Cabrini </i>gets a lot less wrong than <i>Brother Sun, Sister Moon </i>did. I thought it was a wholesome film and it succeeded in engaging me and inspiring me, despite its imperfections. <br /><br />Finally, the fact that a non-Catholic film company is interested in making positive depictions of Catholic saints should be an occasion for rejoicing. People are thirsty for role models and the saints are obvious exemplars. Yeah, <i>Cabrini</i> muddles a few things. But in the end, if it leads people to go research the real Cabrini, that's a win. <i>Brother Sun, Sister Moon</i> got a lot wrong, but it led me to read about the real St. Francis, and that made all the difference. If I had to assign <i>Cabrini</i> a grade, I'd give it an 84%. It's not perfect by any means, but it is way better than most crappy saint films you've choked-down and gaslit yourself into thinking were good. Go give it a watch. My 13 year old daughter absolutely loved it.<br /><br />Finally, if you'd like to read another review (shorter, and more critical), <a href="https://fatherofthefamily.blogspot.com/2024/03/woman-is-glory-of-man-critical-film.html" target="_blank">check out Rob Marco's take on it at his blog Pater Familias</a>. Rob and I both saw <i>Cabrini</i> on the same day and were texting back and forth about it and decided to publish our reviews simultaneously.</div></div></div></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-70809983985612281412024-02-18T16:38:00.007-05:002024-02-18T19:09:45.692-05:00In Memoriam: Bob Christian (1941-2023)<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">I'm breaking my <a href="http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2024/02/february-hiatus.html" target="_blank">February hiatus </a>from blogging to offer a eulogy to a mentor of mine who recently passed away, Mr. Bob Christian. Bob was a spiritual giant, one of the few people in life I've personally known whom I sstrongly suspect was a saint. I was graced to know him for 20+ years, from my infancy in the Church right up to the present day. In this post I will offer some reflections on his life and legacy.<span><a name='more'></a></span><br /><br />Bob Christian's influence on me was deep, but difficult to quantify. Some of my mentors (<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2020/08/in-memoriam-james-larson-1941-2020.html" target="_blank">like James Larson</a>) have nurtured me in an intellectual sense through their ideas and writings; but Bob's influence was by way of example. It was an influence entirely in the spiritual realm, for Bob was no public figure, left behind no writings, and never promoted any grand theory of anything. He was simply a man who deeply loved God and impressed this love upon everyone he met. While I am grateful for my intellectual mentors, Bob's passing reminds me of St. Paul's words in the Epistle to the Corinthians, "For though you have countless teachers in Christ, you do not have many fathers" (1 Cor. 4:15). The world is full of teachers, but to find a spiritual father, ah, that is another thing entirely.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Bob was right there when I began my journey into the Church in 2001. He was a regular fixture of my Novus Ordo parish, where he always sat in the front pew, generally by himself. His manner of assisting at Mass was edifying; he'd simply sit there with this look of subdued awe, like it was clear he recognized he was in the presence of an unfathomable mystery by his facial expressions. That was my first impression of him was as a man who deeply loved the Mass.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He must have been in his early sixties then, but he seemed aged beyond his years. Life had not been easy on Bob. I heard through the grapevine that he had once been someone important in the corporate world, that he had reached the pinnacle of wealth of influence. Success proved destructive, however, and Bob became an alcoholic. His habits cost him his family; his wife left him and he grew estranged from his children. Eventually he could no longer keep his career together either and he wound up a homeless addict, alone and tossed upon the stormy waves of the sea of life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What dark years these must have been for him. Eventually he came to the Lord—I know not by what means, for Bob seldom spoke of it how I wish I would have pried the story out of him during our long acquaintance!) Under the gentle impulse of grace, Bob ordered his life, put away his vices, and was able to reconcile to some degree with his family (though his wife never returned). He became a model Christian, and there were plenty of puns about his last name; he often introduced himself as "Bob the Christian." <br /><br />This was his state when I met him in 2001. He had a lumberjack sort of demeanor in those days, work slacks with a button down flannel shirt. His voice had a unique quality that is hard to describe to those that didn't know him; it was incredinly raspy and grinding, the way a pile of gravel would talk if it had vocal cords. He was a short, portly man, clean shaven save a broad mustache he wore most of his life. He had a subdued smile, wide face, and jowly cheeks that rippled when he talked, giving him an overall "Mr. Belvedere" appearance (<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Belevedere.jpg" target="_blank">here's a link for you Millennials and Gen-Zs who don't know who Mr. Belvedere is</a>). </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">But I am dwelling too much on the superficial aspects of Bob's character, for it was his spiritual insight that made him such a treasure. Bob would sit in on my RCIA classes, usually just listening while holding a cup of coffee, sometimes chiming in with his two cents. He genuinely loved the Church and loved the process of conversion, being intimately interested in the details of how people came to the Lord and why. I think he liked to frequent the RCIA lessons just to witness how grace was saving other people even as it had saved him. I first realized what a spiritual bulwark he was when he was asked to give a talk on spirituality for the RCIA catechumens. It was a brilliant talk, full of humility and salt-of-the-earth advice, but also deeply penetrating, reflecting the life of a man who not only knew the Beatitudes but lived them daily.<br /><br />A few years went by and I eventually switched parishes in favor of a more conservative church where I had recently been hired as DRE and Youth Director. I didn't see Bob for a few years and kind of forgot about him until he suddenly reemerged at my new parish under very coincidental circumstances. My parish is a small country whose rectory is a very large, old Victorian era farm house. The rectory was originally designed for four priests (imagine even a small country parish having four priests back in the day!), and our pastor found the upkeep of the rectory a bit much for him. He was somehow made aware of Bob and invited him to stay in the rectory as a kind of live-in housekeeper. I had no idea about this arrangement until one day I was walking into Adoration and saw Bob standing on the steps of the Church. It had been over five years since I'd seen him; he was considerably older, kind of stooped, with shaky old-man hands and gray hair, but he was as bright and jubilant as ever. And he'd adopted what I would call more "monastic" appearance—instead of work slacks and flannel shirts, he wore a pair of dark trousers with open toed sandals and a brown hoodie reminiscent of a Franciscan habit. He also wore a huge cross around his neck; and by huge, I mean, like maybe five or six inches? It was a simple wooden cross on a piece of twine. He wore this outfit consistently; for all intents and purposes, it was his habit.<br /><br />Talking with Bob was always instructional. A simple hello could blossom into a deep spiritual conversation. And it usually did, but it was never unwelcome. Bob never made himself a burden; if conversation turned deep, it was because his character was so attractive that it naturally drew you out, churning up the "secret places of the heart" (Ps. 51:6). And he never overdid it; some people—even the brightest and best—often suffer from not knowing when to end a conversation and weary their hearers with too much pontificating. Bob had a keen intuition of where this threshold was, and he always knew when a conversation had reached its natural termius. He was content to spend as much time as necessary planting his seeds, but he was attentive enough to know when the job was done. It was thus always pleasant and never burdensome to get caught in one of his spiritual conversations. You felt lucky afterwards.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />While at my old parish Bob was always eagerly in the front row, at the new parish he sat in the rear, in a chair against the back wall, hearing Mass with a Rosary wrapped around his hand. His eyes would often be closed, but he was never sleeping, for his lips were always moving, his fingers always sliding from bead to bead. I have mused on how different his demeanor of hearing Mass was between the two parishes, but how both were deeply reverent in their own way. After our parish began offering the Traditional Latin Mass in 2009, Bob would be found at the TLM as well. He loved the Traditional Latin Mass, but he would be equally found at either form. With Traditionalists, he decried the loss of things like Latin, Gregorian Chant, and the traditional liturgy, etc., but he also never seemed to be thrown off by having to sit through a new Mass. Quite simply, nothing phased him. He would give you his opinion if you pulled it out of him, but I never heard him complain. He had the same demeanor in Mass regardless of the form and you never got the sense that anything perturbed him. He was too focused on the spiritual realities to be bothered one way or another. As a man who had known the depths of worldly despair, to the end of his days he felt lucky to be at <i>any</i> Mass, no matter how impoverished. Perhaps you find it admirable, perhaps not, but it seemed to suit him well.<br /><br />His status as live-in housekeeper at the rectory made him an ideal person to keep an eye on the church, especially during Adoration. Bob was a universal back-up in case someone missed their Holy Hour; even if they didn't, he was generally there all the time anyway. He always signed up for the hardest hours, the 3:00 AM slots. There were times I showed up around 6:50 for a 7:00 AM Mass the day after Adoration and Bob was already there; I suspect he had been there all night. </div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">His piety was profoundly Christocentric. Any discussion with him always returned to the person of Christ—looking to Jesus, trusting in Jesus, imitating Jesus, recalling the words of Jesus. The man lived and breathed the Gospels. It was always refreshing, becuase a return to fundamentals is so often the balm we need. "I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready" (1 Cor. 3:2).<br /><br />Bob was also deeply eschatological, but not in a sense I found alarmist or unhealthy. When you ran into him, he was often carrying a copy of some old commentary on Revelation, or some saint's book of locutions, or some old beaten up TAN Book about the visions of some obscure blessed. He was keenly interested in understanding "what the spirit says to the churches" (Rev. 2:7) and there was always an eschatological bent to his insights. But whereas so many Catholics let their reason get warped when they immerse themselves in this sort of thing, getting too bogged down on details and prognostications, Bob apprehended it in a much healthier way, abstracting the general principles he found in common across multiple authors and using them to help him better understand the principles of the Gospel. He was able to seamlessly interweave the visions of the saints and texts of Revelation with both testaments of the Bible. He was one of the few Catholics I liked to discuss eschatology with and actually learned from. In this sense, Bob was really a model for how to read apocalyptic literature in an edifying way.<br /><br />Bob lingered around at our parish for several years before he decided it was time to prepare for his end. Around 2010 he took leave of us and relocated to the tiny town of Chassel in the Keweenaw Peninsula. For those unfamiliar with the Midwest, the Keweenaw is the most remote and inaccessible part of Michigan (at least from the perpsective of a Lower Michigander;<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Keweenaw.jpg" target="_blank"> it is the area in red on this map</a>).<br /><br />In 2012, some guys friends and I were talking about we missed Bob and two of us decided to make a pilgrimage up to the Keweenaw to visit him. It was no small feat; people often don't realize how big Michigan is, and the drive from where I live to Bob's place was about 9 hours. Just reaching Bob to let him know we were coming was a challenge; he intentionally kept his exact whereabouts on the down low, and only a few people had a way to contact him. In fact, you had to use an intermediary. You had to call a woman who lived up north near Bob, tell her that you wanted to get in touch with him and leave her your number, and she would go tell Bob, "so-and-so wants to talk to you," and he would call you. This was because he only kept an old-school flip phone, and he seldom turned it on unless he wanted to make a call. So if you just called him out of the blue and left a voice message, he wouldn't see your call until whenever he powered up his phone—which, for a septugenarian hermit, might be weeks.<br /><br />Thankfully we were able to touch base with him and made the 9 hour trek to the diminutive little town of Chassel where Bob had chosen to spend his final days. Small towns in the Upper Peninsula generally exist along a single main drag, and Chassel was no different. Bob lived in an old motel that had been renovated into apartments. He received my friend and I with kindness. By now the ravages of age had clearly taken their toll; he had lost weight, seemed even shorter than I remembered him, and had the mannerisms of a doddering old man. He took us into his apartment, which was about as big as a Holiday Inn suite with a kitchenette and looked no different; I mean, it was literally a converted motel. Its decorum was spartan; he'd been there for over a year but he owned so little it looked as if he was just a traveler passing through. Though his body was wearing down, his mind was sharp as ever, with the same gravelly voice, albeit a bit more wheezy. We pulled up chairs and started talking about the Lord. It was the same old message, but ever fresh, perhaps with more of an emphasis on holding close to Jesus during the dark times that would inevitably come. He also told us a bit about his daily routine: he said he woke up before sunrise to pray, and attended daily Mass at a parish within walking distance. And the rest of the day was spent in spiritual reading. It was a beautiful life for him, and it was clear that he intended to finish his days this way and die in obscurity. <br /><br />We talked for an hour. He gave me some books. We prayed together and parted ways. My friend and I visited some other sites in the Keweenaw and stayed the night in a hotel. The next day, we wanted to get an early start back since the drive home was so long, so we got up and left around 4:00 AM. Around 4:45 we passed through Chassel. Since Bob's place was on the main drag, we drove by it. His kitchen light was on. As we passed his apartment, I could clearly see him at his kitchen table, crucifix propped up against a pile of books, head resting against folded hands in prayer, aware of nothing but himself and the Lord.<br /><br />That visit was the last time I had any real conversation with Bob, although he clung on for another nine years. I saw him one more time when I vacationed up north the following year; he was house-sitting a friend's cabin on Lake Superior for the winter, just keeping the water running and utilities on. I talked to him for ten minutes; he said that he occupied his time alone reading and praying and catching mice. I asked how many mice he had caught so far that winter; he non-ironically said, "Not many. Only seventy-two."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />My parents actually stayed in touch with Bob closer to the end of his life. My mother had known Bob from the parish years and when she and my father would vacation up north they would stop in Chassell and see him. Bob made a big impressoion of my dad. My dad was a non-believer, an agnostic at best who was skeptical of organized religion. Bob took to him right away and would speak with him about spiritual things in a way that resonated with him. My dad used to praise Bob's insight, which is not surprising; Bob had a way of relating everything back to Jesus in a very easy, understandable way. In my dad's case, he really helped my father to grasp the "big picture" of world events, seeing them not merely as geopolitical happenstance but as manifestations of the struggle between the City of God and City of Man. My dad is no longer an agnostic; I'd call him a Catholic-friendly theist. He has committed to belief in God, and even in Christ, and I'd say he favors the Catholic Church above all other churches, but has not jumped the Tiber. He's still on his journey, though, and I think Bob's influence was a big part of that.<br /><br />Bob wanted to finish his life in obscurity and he did. His death was so obscure that I didn't even find out about it for months after the fact. He died back around Thanksgiving, but it took awhile for word to trickle back through his old acquaintances. By the time I found out, he'd already been in the ground for months. I found his sparse obituary in the <i>Detroit Free Press. </i>He never had any kind of memorial or viewing; "Bob requested no services be held," the obit read. <br /><br />Thus passed Bob Christian from this world at the age of 83. His example of humility, grace, and joy were always inspiring. His conversation was edifying, his manner of life wholesome. His prayers untiring; for the last decade of his life he lived a routine of continual immersion in prayer and study that no ascetic would be ashamed of. He was a model to me of what living the Beatitudes looks like. I can still hear his gravelly voice in my mind, and though I have many memories of him, I think I shall always remember him as I saw him at 4:45 A.M. that morning in 2012, leaning against his folded hands in prayer at his kitchen table. <br /><br />Requiescat in pace, old friend.<br /><br /><br /></div></div><p></p><p><br /></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-7870701943079814832024-02-05T13:45:00.001-05:002024-02-05T13:45:53.298-05:00February Hiatus<p style="text-align: justify;">Hey friends! I'm probably going to be taking a blogging hiatus for February. Don't worry, I am fine, not burned out or nothing like that (if anything, I've got more writing ideas swirling in my head than ever before). I have some professional matters I need to clear off my plate and some writing commitments for other platforms I need to attend to, so I'll be busy with that for awhile. <br /><br />Take it easy, folks. Catch up with you mid-Lent.</p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-33930927021177221652024-01-28T22:44:00.007-05:002024-01-29T06:54:25.946-05:00The Lord Weighs the Heart<p></p><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih6gyKvXIO4L6Mx7ftUkbpY4cIPXb2PFWxw7n2s77AtoVjbV7lra85S34OalN0HZBd1db-MmDkbwRwYSEZKw1TZQuwMBSDce9wBIvztPlsDvgHsT1HUkcCJ7GLuadzU3IMiM-KQD9s4q2xVUF2uJm80Z-GOjVgi-pM9Z46j5gdo_R7VxijJTCNhP_eqas/s1014/prodigal.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="487" data-original-width="1014" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih6gyKvXIO4L6Mx7ftUkbpY4cIPXb2PFWxw7n2s77AtoVjbV7lra85S34OalN0HZBd1db-MmDkbwRwYSEZKw1TZQuwMBSDce9wBIvztPlsDvgHsT1HUkcCJ7GLuadzU3IMiM-KQD9s4q2xVUF2uJm80Z-GOjVgi-pM9Z46j5gdo_R7VxijJTCNhP_eqas/w400-h193/prodigal.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />In the aftermath of <i>Fiducia supplicans</i>, I think one of the greatest tragedies we are witnessing is the obfuscation of the way grace draws us despite our weaknesses. There are two aspects to this obfuscation, the first relating to our real capacity to obstruct grace, the second relating to the ability of grace to reach us despite our sins. We will consider each in turn.<span><a name='more'></a></span><br /><b><br />I. Our Real Capacity to Obstruct Grace</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When we pray for grace, we are asking for God to render assistance to us in some way: perhaps by resisting a temptation, or by growing in a virtue, or for a favorable outcome for some affair, or for someone else. Since grace is the very participation in the life of God Himself (CCC 1997), God only gives us grace for purposes that facilitate drawing closer to Him. This is why you cannot ask for grace for objectively evil actions, and why prayers offered for evil intentions are not efficacious. "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions" (Jas. 4:3). St. Paul warns that even the Eucharist itself—the source and summit of our faith—will be of no help if we receive it amiss (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30).</div><div><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is an important principle, as it implies that we can choke off the conduit of grace by our sins. It is entirely possible that our evil deeds can constrict the flow of grace to such a degree that we harden our hearts against God's mercy. As St. Thomas says, "they alone are deprived of grace who set up an impediment to grace in themselves" (<i>Summa Contra Gentiles</i>, 3:159). We can become obstinate ("stiff-necked," in the words of the Scriptures), with hearts unregenerate, conscience dulled, and hearts corrupted. While God never ceases to call us to repentance, we can neglect the promptings of the Holy Spirit to such a degree that we commit the "unpardonable sin" and die outside of grace (cf. Mark 3:31).</div><br />This obstruction of grace is thus a real possibility, and Sacred Scripture gives numerous admonitions of what can cause it, all relating to willfully persisting in sin and error.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">It is here that I feel defenses of <i>Fiducia supplicans </i>are troubling, because they focus dispropotionately on God's free gift of grace while neglecting the fact that we are fully capable of closing ourselves off to God's help by willfully impeding the work of grace. This is why the argument that Traditionalists object to blessings being given to "sinners" is a strawman; we do not object that "sinners" receive the aid of the Church—every single one of us is a sinner and we <i>all </i>need help. The issue, rather, centers on this matter of willfulness or obstinacy, of blessing people who willfully persist in sin, obstinately refuse to amend their lives, and reflect this obstinance publicly. It would be one thing if such persons were asking for a blessing as part of an act of penance, as we all do when we say, "Bless me father, for I have sinned." But we do not see this; rather, we see a kind of blanket acceptance of every behavior and manner of living as just another step along the journey with God. Essentially, it is the idea that our movement is only ever in one direction—<i>towards</i> God, never away from God. The Church's task becomes to enlighten people about where they are <i>already </i>going rather than attempt to correct an otherwise errant course.<br /><br />As I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion about what <i>Fiducia</i> does or does not say or imply, I will simply say that my critique applies not to a text but to a general attitude held by those who are always lauding the path of accompaniment. This attitude does no service to the couple living in sin. If anything, it communicates that grace is cheap, and it severs the causal relationship between our actions and the grace we are able to appropriate. The whole concept of being properly disposed to grace is thrown out the window. In this view, grace is simply dumped on humanity without any reference to human action whatsoever. </div></div></div></div><br /><b>II. The Ability of Grace to Reach Us Despite Our Sin</b><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">This is a very dangerous idea. And in response to it, I have seen some Traditionalists adopting what I consider to be an opposing error. One thing that has consistently frustrated me about Traditional Catholicism over the years is its tendency to identify itself simply by opposition to whatever the prevailing nonsense is. If the progressives are affirming X, then Trads impuslively say -X, and when the libs argue Y, the Trads argue -Y, treating every disputed question like a simple dichotomy. I have seen this, too, on the matter of grace for sinners, where the above position is taken and simply flipped on its head: instead of arguing that God gives grace regardless of our actions, they act as if the flow of grace is entirely contingent upon our actions. In other words, they have become the caricatures Pope Francis thinks we are.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There can be a kind of Jansenist strain in Traditionalist thought, a temptation to look at problems around us and see them as fundamentally incompatible with the grace of God. We may see a man who is abusing recreational drugs, or a woman dressed immodestly, or an abortion rights advocate, and wonder, "How is it possible that the grace of God could work with people who are making such objectively wicked decisions?" We may come to feel that the sphere of activity where God's grace is operative is constantly shrinking, perhaps almost non-existent. We can come to view grace as something that is always a response to <i>us </i>instead of something we respond to.<br /><br />In 2021, I authored a piece called "<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2021/11/crises-of-faith-operation-of-grace.html" target="_blank">Crises of Faith: Operation of Grace</a>," wherein I addressed the objection of people who abandon the faith because grace does not seem operative in peoples' lives. I said:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>As I've reflected on this over the years, I've come to see it this way: people generally do the best that they can with the knowledge and gifts they have available to them. It is easy for me to say, "If you really had grace, you should have done X or Y in a given situation." But I can't evaluate a person's objective state on the spectrum of grace. Perhaps someone's behavior to me was a little off-putting; I don't know how much worse it would have been without grace. Maybe someone is a braggart and has always been a braggart for the last ten years you've known them, and despite all their communions and prayers, they are the same bragging fool as they've always been. Well, thank God they are the same bragging fool and not a worse one! That, too, is grace. Perhaps so-and-so comes to Mass dutifully every week, says little, contributes little, understands little, and makes little progress. But how do you know that simply maintaining this station does not require everything he has? Is not the meaning of the widow's mite parable that it's hard to judge the true value of a person's progress on mere externals?</blockquote></div><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words, we cannot assume that because a person's objective manner of life does not correspond to the Gospel that grace is not operative in his life. They may not be in a state of sanctifying grace, but that doesn't mean they are beyond the reach of grace. We must remember what St. Paul taught in Romans, that "Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more" (Rom. 5:20). Grace is an initiative taken by God; Christ died for us while we were still sinners (cf. Rom. 5:8). When man first sinned, God came walking in garden calling for Adam; He does not cease calling for us even now, in the midst of our iniquities. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">We must, therefore, avoid the Scylla of the progressives' cheap grace while steering clear of the Charybdis of a puritantical Catholic Jansenism. But what does the middle route look like? How can we say that objectively evil acts can close us off to God's grace while also insisting that grace can be operative in the lives of such people?</div><br /><b>III. The Principle of Willingness</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">This comes down to the principle of willingness, for it is the presence or absence of a willing heart that separates the obstinate from the well-disposed. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Most of us have had situations in our own lives where we were not living rightly, but we were doing the best we could—either because we were ignorant of anything better, or because we lacked the requisite virtues to overcome our vices despite our best efforts. For example, when I first came to Christ, I spent about two years as a Pentecostal Protestant before entering the Catholic Church. Pentecostal Protestantism is objectively a heresy and I was formally out of communion with the Church. Was grace inoperative in my life? No; on the contrary, I made great progress in virtue while simulatenously being drawn to the Catholic Church through my study. Grace was clearly working in me for such effects to be realized. One can never know for certain, but I suspect that this was due to the fact that even though I was in error, I was trying to do the best I could with the knowledge that I had. I was willing to follow the Lord's truth wherever it led me. In other words, I was wrong, but not obstinate. <br /><br />Anyone who reviews their own progress in the spiritual life will discern similar experiences: you struggled with some vice or embraced some error, but not with obstinancy; you were doing the best you could with the light you had. You were "faithful with little" so God increased your portion, that you might be "faithful with much" (Luke 16:10). You nourished the mustard seed that was dropped into the soil of your heart, and it grew into a great tree. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">When willingness is there, it creates an opening for grace to work despite the darkness we happen to be muddled in. There is a very helpful verse from 2 Corinthians that I have always kept near to my heart. St. Paul says, "For if there be first a willing mind, a gift is accepted according to what a man has, and not according to what he lacks" (1 Cor. 8:12). In other words, if we find ourself in a situation where we are trying to do good but our efforts are hindered by our own imperfections (whether we are aware of them or not), God will still work with us. We can make progress. The progress is not guaranteed, but it is <i>possible, </i>and God is there to help us. It is the principle of the talents: if we invest with whatever our Lord gives us, our allotment of grace gets multiplied.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One can see how this principle of willingness permits us to make a distinction between those who are humbly trying to do the best they can with what they have, and those who know the truth but obstinately refuse to submit themselves to the yoke of the Gospel. The same-sex attracted person, tearfully penitent after a momentary lapse back into a lifestyle they're struggling to separate themselves from, is fundamentally different from a same-sex couple who boldly celebrate their union as a statement against the Church's traditional praxis. The former leaves himself open to the working of grace, the latter choke it off by their obstinance. This is the distinction that is increasingly lost in today's discussions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,</div><div style="text-align: justify;">but the Lord weighs the heart. (Prov. 21:3)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br /></div></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-45213403631489132072024-01-17T17:10:00.001-05:002024-01-17T17:10:00.132-05:00A Segregated Church<p></p><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_QvN97dP9kbNbe-2rdMnNF-Oze4Z_w_uBaal0HtI0D9SDKRPvaUaDAy_q_ldOVzvgiAWr9nNDLUlNQ6E-pxkDeKfnM6WS_Xfe0CBM8KQfTUyP9LMJ-JNvyCKB_QTWTfiNG2DolLBsXi9vZ_1UdN1TVaCNLhG8FbTsqC7MFGP1MVFMmBHW2GWf58afCY/s960/FcvCzABWIAASDrP.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="960" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI_QvN97dP9kbNbe-2rdMnNF-Oze4Z_w_uBaal0HtI0D9SDKRPvaUaDAy_q_ldOVzvgiAWr9nNDLUlNQ6E-pxkDeKfnM6WS_Xfe0CBM8KQfTUyP9LMJ-JNvyCKB_QTWTfiNG2DolLBsXi9vZ_1UdN1TVaCNLhG8FbTsqC7MFGP1MVFMmBHW2GWf58afCY/s320/FcvCzABWIAASDrP.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Last month on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website, I <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/12/31/segregated-catholic-schools-in-new-orleans/" target="_blank">published a lengthy article</a> chronicling the segregation of the Catholic schools and parishes in the Archdiocese of New Orleans following the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), which called for separate black facilities as a means of more effectively ministering to the needs of black Catholics. It is quite an illuminating article for those interested in American Catholic history and how the hierarchy navigated the "color line" that was so prevalent in late 19th century America.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today I was reflecting on the draconian motu proprio <i>Traditiones custodes</i> and realized that the Church actually took <i>better</i> care of the spiritual needs of African American Catholics dealing with institutionalized racial segregation than it does for Traditional Catholics today.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When the Church adopted segregation, it was decreed that black Catholics were to have their own designated parishes and schools. Yet <i>Traditiones custodes</i> not only forbids the creation of new dedicated Latin Mass communities, but prohibits them from using existing parish churches. By contrast, black Catholics under segregation were required to have their own dedicated parishes to ensure that they had an ecclesial home. Yet even this concession is denied Traditional Catholics, who are relegated to parish centers and school gymnasia for their liturgies.<br /><br />Furthermore, under segregation, black Catholic parishes were staffed by their own dedicated pastors. Often men of religious orders who were recruited specifically for the "negro apostolate," Church authorities were solicitious to ensure that if black Catholics were forced into segregated facilities, they would at least have stable pastors to minister to them. This, too, is denied to Traditional Catholics, especially those who attend diocesan TLMs. These are at the mercy of the schedules of traveling priests who can "fit" a Traditional Latin Mass in as their schedule dictates. The DDW's restrictions of December, 2021 make this situation more acute by prohibiting bination, that is, celebrating the Usus Antiquior and the Novus Ordo on the same day. If a diocesan priest is forced to choose which rite he is going to celebrate on a Sunday, he is almost guaranteed to choose the Novus Ordo, as this is the rite most Catholics attend. The dictates of <i>Traditiones custodes</i> and the DDWs follow up legilation are meant to ensure that Traditional Catholics do not become a "Traditional apostolate" by making it nigh on impossible for them to have a parish home for their liturgies or a dedicated pastor. It is a policy meant to deliberately drive them to the margins.<br /><br />So, to those of you who are in power, especially those men of the cloth who are shutting down Traditional Latin Masses, please think very carefully about this: There is a lot of talk these days about learning from the past and being on the "right side of history." But right now, you are currently affording Traditional Catholics <i>less </i>consideration than African Americans were given under segregation. Those who were herding black Catholics into segregated parishes in 1895 were doing a <i>better </i>job of attending to their spiritual needs of their people than you are. Does that not alarm you? Is that where really where you want to be standing on Judgment Day?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-78989536712741455802024-01-15T05:00:00.001-05:002024-01-15T05:00:00.138-05:00Wisdom and Folly by Rob Marco<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwBPwDpqdrf4FqFBtuC_Zakz-d1O9ZKMgZFxGPRrvoD4cPD-FBcqU36PAgUmQLibsZv2O_2PH6sAC3KyM0AnmajXrgEDOSxDD7I3MCUhZhlvCWMwQuDMyjt-FPFPn5TSwZmbnZFd6XWgzOOt9fQrjGwIm8VFXzDTAOKa1n4WMEUirhyphenhyphenE6bHS0pvtNMV5M/s1350/FRONT%20COVER.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="924" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwBPwDpqdrf4FqFBtuC_Zakz-d1O9ZKMgZFxGPRrvoD4cPD-FBcqU36PAgUmQLibsZv2O_2PH6sAC3KyM0AnmajXrgEDOSxDD7I3MCUhZhlvCWMwQuDMyjt-FPFPn5TSwZmbnZFd6XWgzOOt9fQrjGwIm8VFXzDTAOKa1n4WMEUirhyphenhyphenE6bHS0pvtNMV5M/s320/FRONT%20COVER.jpg" width="219" /></a></div>If you read Traditional Catholic content, you've likely come across Rob Marco. Rob is probably best known for his blog, <a href="https://fatherofthefamily.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Pater Familias</a>, but he also publishes regularly in <i>Crisis Magazine,</i> and has also appeared in <i>Catholic World Report</i>, OnePeterFive, and various other outlets. Rob is also a friend and a longtime supporter of this blog—I actually first met him in the combox on my posts.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is therefore my pleasure to announce the publication of a new book featuring a collection of Mr. Marco's greatest essays entitled <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Folly-Essays-Everything-Between/dp/1957206217/" target="_blank">Wisdom and Folly: Essays on Faith, Life, and Everything in Between</a> </i>(Cruachan Hill Press, 2024), which I was privileged to edit and publish. I've always appreciated Mr. Marco's reflections, because they come from a place of deep personal wrestling. Like the Prophet Jeremiah, his writing emerges like a fire shut up in his bones, yearning to find expression. I find this particularly refreshing, when so much Catholic commentary today is just opinion, diatribe, and hot takes. So I deeply appreciate the sincerity and even vulnerability behind these essays.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Wisdom and Folly </i>is thus more about the journey than the conclusion, zeroing in on the nitty-gritty aspects of Christian discipleship, places where the rubber hits the road in our efforts to live the Gospel day by day. These essays are short, most of them under three pages, making this an ideal bedside table book that can easily be read piecemeal. The essays are arranged topically; there are sections on friendship, marriage, family, manhood, faith, prayer, the Church, writing, and more. If I had to identify a target demographic for this book, I'd say it is married men laboring to balance spiritual growth with the obligations of their state in life, so it is an excellent resource for Catholic husbands—although there is plenty of meat here that persons of every walk of life will find applicable. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I also want to mention the excellent foreword by Kevin Wells, author of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Priests-We-Need-Save-Church/dp/1644130327" target="_blank">The Priests We Need to Save the Church</a></i> (Sophia, 2019). Here Mr. Wells speaks glowingly of Marco's essays:</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The more deeply I waded into Rob Marco’s broad and often piercing considerations, I found myself being hand-led into what seemed an uncorrupted garden. In the same fashion a farmer must beat back earwigs, gophers, and nibbling rabbits from befouling his bounty, Marco leans on his philosophic bent, vulnerability, and ferocious love for God to ward off temptations to cede ground on illuminating the raw Truth of Christ’s pilgrim Church. These exceptional essays are a demonstration of pure grace, given by God to one of his humble writers.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Each of the essays herein seem to subliminally scream for readers to repent, to lay their heads against Christ’s heart, and to begin anew. As Marco himself has attained a settled peace after his searching years, he urges readers toward the same sacred blueprint of renunciation of self and total union with Christ into which he’s bought. A large part of sainthood demands humbling oneself and baring all, and the married father from Pennsylvania does this and more in these often nakedly vulnerable, raw, and penetrating essays.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I concur wholeheartedly with Kevin Wells' estimation. So, if you're interested in a down-to-earth approach to the nuts n' bolts of living the lay vocation in the midst of the Valley of Tears, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Folly-Essays-Everything-Between/dp/1957206217/" target="_blank">get yourself a copy of Rob Marco's <i>Wisdom and Folly</i></a>. Its an illuminating read that takes the principles of the Gospel and incarnates them into the workaday world of middle class America.<br /><br /><b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Folly-Essays-Everything-Between/dp/1957206217/" target="_blank"><i>Wisdom and Folly: Essays on Faith, Life, and Everything in Between</i> (Cruachan Hill Press, 2024), Paperback, 389 pages, $25.99 USD</a></b></div></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-69865471854268857442024-01-09T01:30:00.001-05:002024-01-09T01:30:00.133-05:00Recovering a Morality of Happiness<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVVLBiJd2YThWqF3sAUrHUh-ktX6RJLGbnt1nLlzfNPwY14Ksyccl1ZuPxQGElu_li6vUZqaEdC_qixpxKDOk8yluuYZzcZzSoE7SLiVpnW5X4UENHT-FHJzkrx5ttge_aVpNDzCY0oOleg63WX6YEP4PT5041gvliqc_GEF0n4shRuZY3t-eeu_0KTVo/s291/DOMINICANE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="291" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVVLBiJd2YThWqF3sAUrHUh-ktX6RJLGbnt1nLlzfNPwY14Ksyccl1ZuPxQGElu_li6vUZqaEdC_qixpxKDOk8yluuYZzcZzSoE7SLiVpnW5X4UENHT-FHJzkrx5ttge_aVpNDzCY0oOleg63WX6YEP4PT5041gvliqc_GEF0n4shRuZY3t-eeu_0KTVo/s1600/DOMINICANE.jpg" width="291" /></a></div>Recent events make it ever more obvious that the modern Church seems paralyzed when it comes to its moral teaching. There are so many today who openly dissent from fundamental principles of Catholic morality, many in the highest seats of power within the Church. This is old news. But even among those inclined to defend traditional morality, there seems a growing uncertainty about how to <i>explain</i> it. <span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Similarly, the Catholic laity are as little disposed as ever to live by them. I recall the complaint of the bishops in the Instrumentum Laboris of the 2014 Synod on the Family that a morality grounded in natural law is "incomprehensible" to most Catholics. Thus dissent and confusion are the order of the day. The chasm between Christian morality and the understanding of the average Catholic has widened to the degree that the bishops despaired of being able to breach it. And that was before <i>Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans</i>, and all the rest that has happened in the last decade.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As with many problems in the modern Church, this difficulty is bound up with an abandonment of the teaching of St. Thomas on morality. In order to build a solid basis for our moral teaching, we need to recover a Thomistic approach to morality. In this article, we will sketch St. Thomas's moral principles and contrast them with the presumptions of post-medieval moral theology. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Aquinas: Morality of Happiness</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The principle focus in the morality of St. Thomas is the question of human happiness. Thomas is not treading new ground here; in many ways he is simply following the classical tradition going back from Augustine to Aristotle and even Plato. Centering his thought on happiness establishes the ultimate teleological end of human actions and thus of our lives. Happiness ultimately consists in the vision of God. This is the overarching idea around which the questions of the <i>Summa</i> I-II and II-II revolve.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">St. Thomas goes on to treat of the voluntary act, the passions, and the principles or sources of our actions, in which he distinguishes between internal and external causes. An <i>internal cause </i>of a moral action is some habit or dynamic quality of the soul. The virtues fall under this category, which are habitual qualities of the soul disposing it to choose the good. These virtues are perfected by the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are an effect of God's grace upon human nature. On the other hand, an <i>external cause</i> of moral action is something external to us, the preeminent example being law—and here St. Thomas will go through the distinctions of the Old Law, New Law, eternal law, etc.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The New Law, however, is unique, in that we see aspects of internal and external causes joined. In the Gospel, the external principle of law becomes internalized. In the New Law, the grace of the Holy Spirit operates on the human heart through faith and charity to become a true cause of action, external in its origin but profoundly personal through the depths that it reaches within us. Thus is fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the nature of the New Covenant:</div><br /><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In book II-II, St. Thomas considers each of the virtues in particular along with the corresponding gifts of the Spirit and corresponding vices. He closes his section on morality with an examination of special charisms.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">We are here not interested in the particular questions Aquinas addresses as much as sketching out his general overview of the moral life. His view is profoundly synthetic in that it brings together the pagan contributions of Aristotle, Cicero and others who developed the doctrine of the virtues and fuses it with an authentically Christian teaching on the role of grace. These two heritages, pagan and Christian, are brought together at the fulcrum of the human desire for happiness. The natural virtues (the "good life" of the pagans) dispose the soul to receive the grace of God. Nature, elevated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, is able to attain its natural end which is the vision of God, in which perfect happiness consists.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, though obviously adapted by Christian theology, the morality of Aquinas is still representative of the classical tradition: it begins with the natural desire for happiness and goes from there to focus on virtues and gifts which enable nature to move towards its natural end, elevated by grace, in such a way that faith and reason, intellect and will, individual conscience and external law are all harmoniously worked together in man's pursuit of beatitude. This is why Aquinas' moral system has been called a morality of happiness.</div><b><br />The Moderns and the Moralities of Obligation</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The morality of St. Thomas Aquinas represents a harmony of principles characteristic of the medieval desire for intellectual synthesis. But following the political, social and religious upheavals of the 14th century, the men of the late Middle Ages found themselves increasingly unable—or unwilling?—to maintain the harmonious tension that the morality elaborated by Aquinas required.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">It began with William of Ockham's nominalism, which denied the existence of uniform "natures" and posited that what tradition called natures possessed no independent reality but were merely names (<i>nomen</i>), labels used for purposes of classification but possessing no intrinsic reality. Once the existence of "natures" was denied, it was no longer expedient to speak of a "natural end", a telos. This posed grave problems for any morality which was centered on the fulfillment of ends, such as Aquinas' morality of happiness.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">If we can no longer speak of a fulfillment of ends, on what basis do we ground moral action? For Ockham and his successors, it is the concept of <i>obligation</i>. St. Thomas certainly recognized the existence of obligation, but it was subordinated to considerations of virtue. But because Ockham does away with natural ends, all that remains is obligation, grounded in an arbitrary will of God who wills whatever He wants for whatever reason He wants—apart from all consideration of nature, natural ends, or any teleology. There is just the naked obligation of man before external law, and this law invades every aspect of moral theology. The theological treatises on morality that appeared in the late Middle Ages were focused not on the relationship between human acts, virtue and happiness (as in Aquinas) but rather on the interplay between liberty and obligation.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Ockham's thinking dominated European theology and philosophy in the 14th and 15th centuries. It is interesting to note that Luther was a professed admirer of Ockham, and he, too, suffered from an inadequate understanding of the relationship between law and grace. But it is not merely among the Protestants and other heretical movements that this shift was noticeable; even among Catholic theologians (who otherwise rejected some of Ockham's more radical positions) there was an increased focus on obligation.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">A classical example is the Jesuit Juan Azor (d. 1603), whose work <i>Institutiones morales </i>divides morality into two parts: fundamental moral theology and special moral theology. The former corresponds to Aquinas' introductory section on morality in the <i>Summa</i> I-II. Azor divides this section into four treatises: law, human action, conscience, and sin. If we compare this with Aquinas' <i>Summa</i>, we note that the consideration of happiness as the end of moral action is missing, as well as any systematic treatment of the virtues<span style="text-align: justify;">—</span>and that a treatise on conscience has been added. Conscience will increasingly come to dominate moral thought as we move into the modern period.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The second section of the <i>Institutiones</i> on special moral theology concerns itself solely with questions of conscience, examining in detail the laws concerning what is permitted and forbidden. Instead of Aquinas' conception of a freedom that generates moral actions aimed towards fulfilling a telos, we see rather a focus on law as an obligation that limits action.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Another notable shift from Aquinas is that grace has absolutely no treatment in Azor's moral theology. It is removed and relocated to dogmatic theology. Aquinas, on the other hand, chose to treat of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms in the context of morality.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Juan Azor was certainly not the most important moral theologian of the post-Tridentine period, nor were his <i>Institutiones </i>the only moral manual, but they did serve as a template for future moral manuals, including the more famous moral theology of St. Alphonsus Ligouri.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><b>Law and the Primacy of Conscience</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">For Aquinas,<i> freedom</i> is what enables us to move towards happiness; in post-tridentine thought, we are more likely to see <i>conscience</i> determining the application of law. Conscience is essentially neutral, evaluating our acts and applying the demands of law to them. This is important, as we are moving now from the universality of law to the particularity of individual actions. Each act is considered a case of conscience (by the way, this is where we get the word <i>casuistry</i>, the study of "cases"). Our readers will hopefully recognize in this the kernel of modern moral thinking.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Law became dominant throughout the entire domain of moral theology. This resulted in a twofold association: First, law being increasingly associated with the pure will of lawgiver, rather than the wisdom of the lawgiver. Second, and related to the first, freedom increasingly viewed as liberty from constraint rather than the ability to fulfill one's natural end. We have moved from freedom to excellence into the more modern concept of freedom from restraint. Certainly, a man may voluntarily use his freedom to submit to the law that God promulgates, but without a consideration of happiness and man's natural end, morality is reduced to being merely the spot where the freedom of man's will interacts with the freedom of God's will to legislate. One can see in this the origin of the libertarian "mutual consent" theory of freedom.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The manualists would typically include several "case studies" of conscience as demonstrations of how these moral principles are applied. Again, the focal point becomes the particular conscience of the individual in understanding his obligations and applying the demands of law, rather than the freedom of the individual as enabling him (through the exercise of virtue) to dispose himself to grace and attain his natural end, happiness in heaven in the vision of God.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: 700;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The Modern Descent</div></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">We are not talking about mutually exclusive systems here, but rather about emphases, focus and categorization. St. Alphonsus Ligouri certainly did not deny the existence of natures, or that man's natural end was happiness with God in heaven. But he does begin his moral work with a treatment of conscience and omits any treatise on happiness. Aquinas, on the other hand, begins his moral work with a treatment of happiness and lacks any treatment on conscience. So what we see in Azor, Ligouri and the moderns is not so much any heresy as much as a new point of departure that focused on the individual and his obligations rather than on human nature and its real capacity for happiness.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">St. Alphonsus was a brilliant enough son of the Church to work his morality within a perfectly Catholic framework, even if it was a framework narrower to the one worked out by Aquinas. Unfortunately, other moralists not as in tune with the <i>mens ecclesiae</i> as Ligouri would take the conscience-obligation based approach to morality and use it bring about the destruction of classical Catholic moral theology. How did this happen?</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Once the center of morality is law or obligation and not happiness, a disconnect arises between the law and <i>why</i> one should keep the law. We could of course focus on the temporal or eternal punishments that inevitably arise when law is broken, but then the cause of moral actions becomes merely exterior; we lose the dynamic interiorization that Aquinas envisioned when nature, disciplined by virtue, is elevated by grace. Law comes to be seen as primarily restraining (as opposed to enabling), and without a morality of happiness, freedom is increasingly seen as only truly possible in the absence of law. This mentality is precisely why modern people associate morality with "rules."</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Since the advent of modernity, the centrality of obligation has only magnified the primacy of conscience, which<span style="text-align: justify;">—</span>as we can see in modern discussions of the Church's discipline on communion for divorced and putatively remarried<span style="text-align: justify;">—</span>becomes the dominating factor in moral discussions. Essentially, we have lost the ability to speak of universal moral laws aimed at elevating human nature as such; instead, we are left with a reductionist wasteland of full of cases of conscience, in which human nature is given short shrift and conscience is left as sole arbiter of right and wrong.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, the possibility of moral fulfillment that is opened up when we leave room for grace is entirely denied. This is reflected in modern Catholic assessments of the current moral "problems" faced by the Church; commentators frequently evaluate them in a purely naturalist manner, importing observations from psychology and sociology but leaving no room for the operation of grace. This is also why these sorts of assessments never to seem to consider that people can actually overcome their moral difficulties through prayer, penance and God's grace. Thus all that is left is to accommodate people where they are at; or in other words, the "age of mercy," "accompaniment," and all it implies</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the 2014 Instrumentum Laboris for the Synod on the Family was not that far off the mark when it speaks of modern "perplexity" at the concept of natural law, which many bishops said is "highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible" to contemporary man. If we hope to safeguard our disciplines surrounding marriage and communion, we need to recover a sound understanding of natural law, which can only come about by a new catechesis on nature, teleology, and a return to a Thomistic morality of happiness.</div><br />For further reading on this, I highly recommend Servais Pinckaers, O.P., <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Morality-Catholic-Servais-O-P-Pinckaers/dp/1587315157/unamsanccath-20">Morality: The Catholic View</a> and his larger masterwork, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Christian-Ethics-3rd/dp/0813208181/unamsanccath-20">Sources of Christian Ethics</a>. <br />Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-40146646583892091062024-01-06T22:59:00.002-05:002024-01-06T23:00:54.461-05:00A New Year and Epiphany Greeting <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqPxbL76fvowtZvw5pbuQPCc9G3nDN1CivLsHWTjFhQ0FoBxg_-6LgE3qlHlguUcGVirXAF6cmpVd8uEMhpEWRckvWE6c9s_k3bYIQyV2bw1mocDf2S91rz-q2a0trsL96xdwRQcg9D8EegluvleEAz_PCT7r-75ENNJaH-5FVfnZJf7xcut9Q4Zq-IrE/s266/images.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="266" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqPxbL76fvowtZvw5pbuQPCc9G3nDN1CivLsHWTjFhQ0FoBxg_-6LgE3qlHlguUcGVirXAF6cmpVd8uEMhpEWRckvWE6c9s_k3bYIQyV2bw1mocDf2S91rz-q2a0trsL96xdwRQcg9D8EegluvleEAz_PCT7r-75ENNJaH-5FVfnZJf7xcut9Q4Zq-IrE/w320-h229/images.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">This is the seventeenth year I have posted one of these New Years' posts. Typically I sum up the year in blogging and highlight some of my favorite posts and projects I was involved with, then offer some concluding thoughts on the year as a whole.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I did 43 articles on the blog this past year and was particularly happy with the writing; in fact, I think some of my personal favorites I've ever written came from 2023. I'd like to highlight my favorites:</div><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/01/farewell-reflections-on-benedict-xvi.html" target="_blank">Farewell Reflections on Benedict XVI <br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/04/statistics-on-motu-proprios-1978-present.html" target="_blank">Statistics on Motu Proprios 1978-Present<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/06/post-conciliar-turmoil-memorialized-in.html" target="_blank">Post-Conciliar Turmoil Memorialized in Stone<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/06/death-penalty-miscontextualizing-pope.html" target="_blank">Death Penalty: Miscontextualizing Pope Nicholas in <i>Fratelli Tutti<br /></i></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-cardinalates-80-year-rulea-critique.html" target="_blank">The Cardinalate's 80 Year Rule-A Critique<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/07/tucho-fernandezs-essentialist-view-of.html" target="_blank">Tucho Fernandez's "Essentialist" View of Scripture<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/08/stop-using-this-word-so-recklessly.html" target="_blank">Stop Using This Word So Recklessly </a>(spoiler: the word is "schism")<br /><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-churchs-historical-blindspot.html" target="_blank">The Church's Historical Blindspot<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-1971-proposal-for-revised-childrens.html" target="_blank">A 1971 Proposal for a New Form of First Confession for Children<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-last-gasp-of-our-akhenaten.html" target="_blank">The Last Gasp of Our Akhenaten<br /></a><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/11/in-what-sense-is-pope-above-canon-law.html" target="_blank">In What Sense is the Pope Above Canon Law?</a></blockquote><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I was also blessed to have a book of spiritual essays published by Arouca Press. Titled, <i><a href="https://aroucapress.com/the-way-of-life" target="_blank">The Way of Life: Spiritual Essays from Unam Sanctam Catholicam</a></i>, the book is a collection of spiritual essays published here over the years, along with a few original pieces, as well as contributions from dom Noah Moerbeek, CPMO. <br /><br />I was also busy on the<a href="http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com" target="_blank"> sister site,</a> with the publication of twelve new historical essays:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/01/17/father-anunciacion-rebukes-governor-luna/" target="_blank">Father Anunciación Rebukes Governor Luna</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/01/28/brigid-of-kildare-pagan-goddess/" target="_blank">Brigid of Kildare, Pagan Goddess?</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/02/05/king-davids-name-found-on-the-mesha-stele/" target="_blank">King David's Name Found on the Meshe Stele</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/03/06/twelve-notable-decretists-of-the-middle-ages/" target="_blank">Twelve Notable Decretists of the Middle Ages</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/04/23/the-ordeal-of-bread-and-cheese/" target="_blank">The Ordeal of Bread and Cheese</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/05/14/sung-catechisms-in-the-jesuit-missions/" target="_blank">Sung Catechisms in the Jesuit Missions</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/05/20/the-cursing-tablet-of-mount-ebal/" target="_blank">The Cursing Tablet of Mount Ebal</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/05/25/understanding-medieval-life-expectancy/" target="_blank">Understanding Medieval Life Expectancy</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/07/11/the-ballestero-case-the-problem-of-the-soul-in-conjoined-twins/" target="_blank">The Ballestero Case: The Problem of the Soul in Conjoined Twins</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/08/26/medieval-examination-of-conscience/" target="_blank">Medieval Examination of Conscience</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/10/08/capital-punishment-in-the-papal-states/" target="_blank">Capital Punishment in the Papal States</a></div><div><a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/12/31/segregated-catholic-schools-in-new-orleans/" target="_blank">Segregated Catholic Schools in New Orleans</a></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was also privileged to work on several new writing projects that came to fruition in 2023, <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/12/six-books-i-worked-on-this-year.html" target="_blank">a synopsis of which can be found here</a>.</div><div><br /><div><div style="text-align: justify;">So it's been a busy year for me personally! I'm surprised I still have so much enthusiasm for it all, given that blogs are increasingly becoming outdated as a medium of writing; seems everybody is switching over to the podcast or YouTube format these days (I have a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLWmrsuYUyXBAw95hfgmkaQ" target="_blank">YouTube channel, too</a>, if you're interested, but I only update it like, once a month). So, if you are still reading, <i>thank you!</i> In fact, why not drop a comment and let me know you're there, maybe mention how long you've been a reader here? I know some of you have been with me from the beginning!<br /><br />I have some great plans coming up for 2024. I'm going to have some stuff about missionaries in old Albuquerque, the neo-Gothic architectural movement, Cajetan's theory on what to do when there's a bad pope, and more cringe I dug up out of old issues of <i>Concilium</i>. If you find the sort of content I do here valuable and edifying, please consider making a contribution to this blog and website. Your contribution helps free up to the time necessary to research and create more such essays. <a href="https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=86AG2RPPFLEKU">Use this Paypal link to make a secure donation, one time or recurring</a> (Please note, donations will show as being made to Cruachan Hill Press, the company which owns the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website). Thank you in advance. And to those few of you (<i>very few</i> of you) who graciously set up recurring donations in 2023, I am so blessed by your kindness.</div><span style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">I spent an hour writing a few paragraphs about things from 2023 I wanted to kvetch about, but then I reread it and thought, "Eh screw that. This is Epiphany. I'm going to be joyful," so I deleted it all haha. Sorry, you don't get to read my gripes. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I'll just say, the following year is bound to be stupid, so hang in there<span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #202124;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">.</span></span> The answer is, as it always has been and always will be, is to start within, to turn the light on ourselves, and remember that "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God" (1 Pet. 4:17). These times are tought, and we are going to increasingly see people turning this way and that, some to the left, some to the right; many will move down paths that we will not go down ourselves. We will have to maintain our equilibrium. "Let he who is unjust be unjust still. Let he that is filthy, be filthy still. Let he who is righteous, be righteous still. Let he who is holy, be holy still" (Rev. 22:11). People will do what they do, and Serenity Prayer, though it is cliche, is cliche specifically because it holds a lot of truth. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Jos. 24:15).<br /><br />+AMDG+</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /></div></div></span></div></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-2119942368758532122023-12-31T18:38:00.002-05:002023-12-31T18:42:34.200-05:00"I Carefully Block My Ears With Wax": Marcel De Corte to Jean Madiran<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHtr3VK2EhJr2mfAUnvpathNvwRPNNznM5SLuLCh7Qg2sZiAAHp5PkzVhuVp82CFVUPt6C4UN2a65kea1VEcjBDGOJFgU-2WAOcchXt3BX6kQ_5aFTtpWzOfIsrlK3nFKJ_H1h6Qjv3l3fUmJDv_gBRwmqhP5px7wWJRSpCAmdpkCdfefGa7hYKppS4g/s486/CORTE.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="400" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpHtr3VK2EhJr2mfAUnvpathNvwRPNNznM5SLuLCh7Qg2sZiAAHp5PkzVhuVp82CFVUPt6C4UN2a65kea1VEcjBDGOJFgU-2WAOcchXt3BX6kQ_5aFTtpWzOfIsrlK3nFKJ_H1h6Qjv3l3fUmJDv_gBRwmqhP5px7wWJRSpCAmdpkCdfefGa7hYKppS4g/w230-h277/CORTE.jpg" width="230" /></a></div>Today is the final day of 2023. What a momentous year it has been, for better and certainly for worse. But rather than offer my poor commentary, I'm going to post a correspondance from the respected Belgian philosopher Marcel De Corte (1905-1994) to French journalist Jean Madiran. De Corte was a neo-Thomist who taught philosophy at the University of Liège, specializing in ancient philosophy and moral philosophy. Like many Catholic intellectuals, Marcel De Corte was deeply troubled by the reforms following Vatican II. In February 1970, he wrote a letter to his friend, the journalist Jean Madiran (1920-2013), who at that time was chief editor of the traditional Catholic journal <i>Itineraries</i>, which Madiran had founded in 1956 to combat the errors of progressivism. The following letter was published in <i>Itineraries, </i>wherein De Corte describes his disgust with the New Mass as he witnessed it's early implementation in Belgium in the fall of 1969 and his disillusionment with the pontificate of Pope Paul VI, whom he sees as a man of frustrating contradictions.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify;"><b>* * * * * </b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">I
must confess, my dear Jean Madiran, that on more than one occasion I was
tempted to leave the Catholic Church into which I was born. If I haven't done
so, I'm grateful to God and to the peasant common sense with which he graced
me. The Church—I'm whispering to myself at the moment—is like a sack of wheat full of weevils. As numerous as the parasites are—and from the looks of it, they're swarming!—they haven't sterilized all the kernels. A few, and their number doesn't matter, remain fertile. They will germinate. And the weevils will die once they've devoured all the others: Bon appétit, Messieurs: you're eating your own death.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the meantime, we're suffering from famine, famine of the supernatural. The number of priests distributing the bread of the soul is dwindling appallingly. In the Hierarchy, it's even worse. And at the summit, where we might have expected some comfort, it's a catastrophe.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I confess I was fooled by Paul VI for a long time. I thought he was trying to save what was essential. I kept repeating to myself Louis XIV's words to the Dauphin: "I'm not afraid to tell you that the higher the place, the more objects it has that cannot be seen or known except by occupying it." Being neither Pope nor even a cleric, I said to myself: "He sees what I cannot see, by position. So I trust him, even though I don't like most of his gestures, attitudes and declarations, and his perpetual (apparently perpetual) game makes my head spin. Poor guy, he's to be pitied, especially as he's obviously no match for me... But then, with God's help... "</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Only, and this is to the glory of the human species, there is no example in history of a deceiver who doesn't end up unmasking himself. By dint of wanting to appear other than what you are, you end up showing that you're not. Too much virtuosity is detrimental. Men will admit to a little deception, especially in the Italian style. But not beyond a certain measure, beyond a measure beyond which one is no longer a good actor, but the prisoner of one's character, entangled in one's feats of illusion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That moment came with the Holy Mass affair. Previously, you could be fooled, cheated, fooled. That was the ransom of the honors due to the powers that be. Now, no more "playing with me", as my old schoolteacher used to say (we were in the country, where greenness is quite natural, and he was much more energetic: Fr. Cardonnel, stuffed with literature and disgorging it at every turn, ignores this delightful spontaneity of language, this proud, male affirmation of a man who can't stand to be mystified for a single moment).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I say it very calmly, very calmly, with all the assurance of a man of peasant stock, where one is Catholic from father to son, where the supernatural is itself carnal, who has passed from the cultivation of the fields practiced by his forefathers (of which he is quite unworthy) to the cultivation of the spirits, from whom God has taken a son devoted to the Church, and who feels, from the root to the crest, implanted in the Church, I say it resolutely, without the slightest hesitation: "NO. I've had enough. I will no longer be taken for a ride, nor will I take bladders for lanterns and Paul VI for a new Saint Pius V, having undergone a very strong mutation, for the better of course, as befits our progressive times."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How dare anyone proclaim that this is not a "new Mass", that "nothing has changed", that "everything is as it was before", when there is little or nothing left of the Mass in which so many saints have fallen out of love, when the "experts" who have been employed in this demolition project for the public good have said over and over again that this is a genuine liturgical "revolution"? while the simple conscience of the faithful is shaken by this upheaval, and an old lady, leaving church on the first Sunday of Advent, after having been lamed with the "new rite" (the adjective comes from Paul VI, who juggles with contradiction), exclaimed: "We don't recognize ourselves in Mass anymore!" It was so true that the officiant had absent-mindedly or hastily omitted the consecration of the wine! How important can this be in a Mass where the notion of Sacrifice is by definition absent?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I won't repeat the trial of this new liturgy here. Others, enlightened, competent and confident, have done so, and done it well. When enlightenment meets common sense, there's no need to add a grain of salt. Everything has been said by illustrious experts, by tried and tested theologians and canonists, by priests and religious of solid piety, by a good woman of the people representing the most lively and profound protest of the Christian peasantry against this "mutation": "We don't recognize ourselves in it anymore." It's all there: "We don't recognize ourselves anymore." The faithful instinctively feel it: "There's nothing Catholic about it anymore."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[Cardinal Ottaviani said] "This Mass departs impressively, both overall and in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, as formulated at the XXth Session of the Council of Trent, which, by definitively fixing the canons of the ritual, raised an impassable barrier against any heresy that might undermine the integrity of the Mystery." There's no one in good faith who doesn't take these harsh words of Cardinal Ottaviani to heart, after studying the Novus Ordo Missæ and weighing up its every word. There's no one in good faith who doesn't feel their terrible truth after hearing, as we have in Belgium since November 30, the "new Mass" prefabricated by the technocrats of the faith, every Sunday and on Christmas Day: squeezed between a pompous, theatrical liturgy of the Word and a self-service liturgy of the Meal, the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, in other words the ESSENTIAL, is dispatched in the blink of an eye by a cleric who, nine times out of ten, in my experience, doesn't for a moment seem to believe in what he's doing.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I repeat: this has been shown and demonstrated, and in the face of these evidences and arguments, only serpentine rhetoric and jeremiads have been opposed. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">For
my </span></span><span style="line-height: 107%;">part, I carefully block my ears with wax; I hide at the back of the church behind a curtain whose thickness I increase by sitting on the lowest chair I can find; I read the Holy Mass in the Missal I received from my holy mother when the previous one she had already given me was in shreds; I read the <i>Imitation of Christ</i> in Latin during the spiel that today replaces the sermon; I participate wholeheartedly in the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary; I oblige the priest who takes communion from the hands of the "sheep" he has, by order, domesticated, to give me communion at the communion bench where I kneel, and, during the final din, I go outside to meditate, while praying to the Lord to make me more deaf than I am to the clatter of the world, both </span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">literally and figuratively.<br /><br /></span></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">I must say that it sometimes angers me to hear the cornichonnerie [lit: "pickle making," a French expression for something stupid] reach my ears, including this one, whose authenticity I guarantee: "Let us pray, my brothers, that between young men and young women brought together by a community of hair and garments (sic) there may henceforth be no difference of sex." But you can get used to anything, even the most bloated of vesanies [insanities]. "One must be sparing with one's contempt," Bloy rightly said, "because of the great number of the needy."</div><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's not hide it. Our refusal implies a judgment on the actions and words, on the person of Paul VI, towards whom we are obliged, in spite of ourselves, to practice that virtue of "fraternal correction" which Saint Thomas Aquinas sees as annexed to the virtue of almsgiving and the virtue of charity, and which he even says should sometimes be practiced, in a public way, towards one's superiors, after having exhausted the secret means of doing so (<i>STh</i>, II-II, Q. 33). It is safe to assume that an inferior as respectful of pontifical authority as Cardinal Ottaviani did not make his memorable letter to Paul VI public without using all the temporizing prudence we know. "If the superior is virtuous," writes a commentator on the <i>Summa</i>, "he will accept with gratitude the warnings that come to enlighten him; he will be the first to recognize that it is well to warn him and that he is not intangible in everything." And he adds, after St. Thomas, that the warning must be public, "when, for example, a superior publicly pronounces manifest heresies or gives great scandal, thus endangering the faith and salvation of his subordinates".</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Cardinal Ottaviani is certainly not alone in thinking that Paul VI, by his words and deeds, is "moving impressively away from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass." Indeed, the Pope cannot be suspected of having scratched the surface of such a crucial text, and of having carelessly put his signature to it. The Ordo Missæ and the New Mass, which we repudiate with all our might, are desired and imposed by Paul VI on all Catholics.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">How is such an attitude possible in a Pope at a dramatic moment in the history of the Church? I can't help asking myself this question. Nor can I withhold my answer. The cause at stake is too serious for the laity to leave priests of any rank to fight alone, without the help of a few faithful warned by them of the danger, against the "scandal" of the new Mass.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's not a question of indignation—although one is tempted to do so—but of understanding.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Paul VI is a man full of contradictions. He is the man who glorifies the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in grandiose, classical terms in his Credo for the Year of Faith, and then downplays it in the new Mass he is imposing on Catholic Christianity. This is the man who signs and promulgates the Council's official declarations on Latin, "liturgical language par excellence", and on Gregorian chant, a treasure to be zealously saved, and who repeatedly makes a public commitment to maintain them, and yet, on such an important matter as the mode of expression of worship to God, he reneges on his signature and his word by consulting only liturgical experts, some of whom are suspect, while others belong to dissident Christian communities. This is the man who disapproves the Dutch Catechism and tolerates the dissemination of the dogmatic errors it contains. This is the man who authorizes the French Catechism, whose errors, omissions and distortions of revealed truth are even more serious since it is intended for children, and who has the world investigate deviations from the faith. This is the man who proclaims Mary to be Mother of the Church, and yet allows the purity of her name to be profaned by countless clerics, high and low. This is the man who prays in St. Peter's and also in the Masonic-style Chamber of Reflection at the U.N. This is the man who receives in audience two actresses cleverly and publicly stripped down to miniskirts, and speaks out against the tide of eroticism in the world. This is the man who tells Pastor Boegner that Catholics are not yet mature enough to adopt birth control by "the pill," and who publishes Humanæ vitæ, while allowing the Encyclical to be contested by entire Episcopates.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is the man who proclaims that the law of ecclesiastical celibacy will never be repealed, and allows it to be discussed ad infinitum, while making it easy for priests to marry. This is the man who forbids Communion in the hand and yet allows it, even authorizing certain Churches, by special indult, to have the Holy Hosts distributed by lay people. This is the man who laments the "self-demolition of the Church", and who, being the head of the Church, does nothing to prevent its self-demolition, which thus passes through his own consent. This is the man who had the Nota praevia published concerning his powers, and who admitted at the recent Synod of Rome that it was considered obsolete and discarded, and so on.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The list of the Pope's contradictions is endless. The man in him is permanent contradiction and versatility, a fundamental ambiguity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, one of two things.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A man who is incapable of overcoming his own inner contradictions, and who flaunts them for all to see and hear, is incapable of overcoming the outer contradictions he encounters in governing the Church. He is a weak, irresolute Pope, as there have been others in the history of the Church, who conceals his swaying in a flood of rhetoric of which the emperor Julian, known as the Apostate, said, of the Arian bishops of his time, who wielded it with skill, said that it was "the art of taking away all importance from what is important, of giving it to what is not, and of substituting the artifice of words for the reality of things." Sometimes, in the same sentence of a pontifical address, white and black are associated and reconciled by a syntactical machination.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another hypothesis is no less likely: the Pope knows what he wants, and the contradictions he displays are simply those that a man of action, fascinated by the goal he wants to achieve, encounters along the way, and of which he is not the least bit concerned, carried away as he is by the momentum of his desire.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In this respect, we can presume, especially since the Novus Ordo Missæ and the new Mass, that Paul VI's intention is to unite clerics and laypeople of the various Christian confessions in the same liturgical action. Like all "politicians," the Pope knows that it is possible to unite in a common action men whose "philosophical and religious opinions," as we used to say at meetings in my youth, are fundamentally different. If this is so, we can expect to see further manifestations of pontifical ecumenical action in the near future, altered from political maneuvering.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's true that the two interpretations of Paul VI's behavior can be combined. The weak man runs away from his weakness or, more precisely, runs away from himself and rushes into action, where contradictions are only different moments of the change essential to the action itself. Such temperaments are obviously focused on the world, on the metamorphoses that the world implies and that have an impact on the action to be taken on it. It's easy to accept, then, that there's a "new catechism," irreconcilable with the catechism of old, "because there's a new world," as the French bishops say, and because, in the language of the world, "a new world" has nothing in common with the previous world, any more than a new fashion has with a previous fashion. It is therefore no longer possible," they add, "at a time when the world is changing rapidly, to consider rites as definitively fixed." So we've been warned: the new Mass is like the Permanent Revolution that all teenagers, and adults who haven't yet resolved their puberty crisis, are in love with, because it masks the contradictions they can't get rid of, and for good reason: they're part and parcel of them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's in the epigones [imitations] that this character trait is best seen, through exaggeration. Marx described history as comically repeating the tragedy of Napoleon I under Napoleon III. Likewise, a certain Belgian bishop, who I see as a sort of Paul VI reduced in size, has just been asked to present the new Mass to the astonished public: "This one," he declared in hilarious terms, "puts the first period to the liturgical reform underway since Vatican II." There will be, we are promised, a second period, then a third, and so on ad infinitum. The man who runs away from change never catches up, despite his sometimes buffoonish efforts.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">From this point of view, perhaps no two popes in history differ more radically than St. Pius X and Paul VI.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was recently re-reading the Encyclical Pascendi. On almost every page, I notice that what the former rejects, the latter admits, tolerates and accredits.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Saint Pius X is the rock of doctrine, the man who never abandons his post or his people in the storm, and who never shirks any of his responsibilities, as Paul VI confessed in his extraordinary address of December 7, 1968: "Many expect dramatic gestures from the Pope, energetic and decisive interventions. The only line the Pope believes he must follow is that of trust in Jesus Christ, to whom his Church remains entrusted more than to anyone else: it is up to Him to calm the storm."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">St. Pius X is not the man of the sole pastoral government of the Church claimed by Paul VI in his allocution of February 17, 1969, in which he said he was "open to intelligence and indulgence," but the Pope attentive to the example of his predecessors, who defended sound doctrine with extreme vigilance and unshakeable firmness, concerned to preserve it from all harm "remembering the Apostle's precept: "Keep the good deposit" (II Tim. I, 14, in Actes de S.S. Pie X, Paris, s. d., vol. III, p. 203).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For St. Pius X, "Jesus Christ taught that the first duty of Popes is to guard with jealous care the traditional deposit of the faith, against profane novelties of language" (p. 85), against "those contemptuous of all authority who, based on a distorted conscience, cause to be attributed to the pure zeal of truth that which is the work only of obstinacy and pride" (p. 89). It was not he who would have granted, as Paul VI repeatedly implied, that "truth is also to be found in the religious experiences" of other religions, and that the same God is common to Jews, Muslims and Christians (p. 103). He has never "paid homage to the coryphae of error" of the Chenu and Cie type, "thus lending the impression that what is meant to be honored by this is less the men themselves, not unworthy perhaps of consideration, than the errors by them openly professed and of which they have made themselves the champions" (p. 105).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Saint Pius X would never have claimed that "worship is born of a need, for necessity, need is, in the modernist system, the great and universal explanation". How many directly opposed texts by Paul VI could we not cite here, and in particular the sole reason he gives in his address of November 26, 1969, when he justifies the repudiation of Latin and Gregorian chant in the new Mass by invoking the need for the people to understand their prayer and participate in the Office "in their everyday language." It wasn't St. Pius X who approved of "the great concern of modernists to seek a way of reconciling the authority of the Church and the freedom of believers," as Paul VI constantly did. It was not he who professed "that pernicious doctrine which seeks to make the laity in the Church a factor of progress," nor who sought "compromises and transactions between the conservative force in the Church and the progressive force, so that the changes and progress required by our times may be realized" (p. 127). Nor does St. Pius X use the "purely subjective" process that leads modernists "to clothe themselves in the personality of Jesus Christ" and "not hesitate to attribute to him all that they themselves would have done in similar circumstances" (p. 133), as Paul VI does when, after having single-handedly decreed the use of the new Mass, he states that his will "is the Will of Christ, it is the breath of the Spirit calling the Church to this mutation," pathetically adding, to make it clear that his inspiration coincides with divine inspiration (although he makes it clear that this is not the case in his Creed) that "this prophetic moment which passes through the Mystical Body of Christ, which is precisely the Church, shakes her, awakens her and obliges her to renew the mysterious art of her prayer" (November 26, 1969). The most certain and assured thing," said St. John of the Cross, "is to shun prophecies and revelations, and if anything new were revealed to us concerning the faith—[the lex orandi is also lex credendi, and every manifest novelty in worship is novelty in the faith]—we should by no means consent to it" (Montée du Mont Carmel, 1. II, chap. XIX and XXVII).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, in the background of Paul VI's interventions in the great theater of the world, is there not the conviction, which Saint Pius X rejects as pernicious, that "the Kingdom of God will develop slowly in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the various environments it passes through, borrowing from them, by vital assimilation, all the forms...that may suit it?" (p. 141).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt, as John H. Knox observes in a penetrating article in the <i>National Review</i> (October 21, 1969), that "there has never been, and probably never will be, a pope who has tried so hard to please the progressives and who shares so sincerely so many of their convictions." And yet, in a supreme contradiction, Paul VI calls this progressivism modernismus redivivus!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In any case, Paul VI clearly shares the major concern of modernists to make the Catholic Church acceptable to non-Catholic churches and even to all atheistic regimes, as his recent Christmas address (and many other earlier attempts) suggest: China and Russia are now entitled to Catholic deference and esteem! Let's not forget his applause for the Chinese youth launched by Mao in the "cultural revolution"!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's a dream, a chimera, the vanity of which the Gospel itself tells us: no matter how aimable the Church makes herself, she will never be loved by the world. However cruel the diagnosis we must make of Paul VI, in the final analysis it must be said that, despite undoubted qualities of heart, the present Pope consistently sees things differently from how they are. He is a false spirit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like all false minds, he is unconsciously cruel. Whereas the contemplative is gentle, the man of action who, like Paul VI, places the end of action in a dreamlike perspective, has no pity for the poor men of soul, flesh, and bone whom it is impossible for him to see, or who, if seen, are obstacles for him. This explains the inflexible side of Paul VI's character, which at first glance is irreconcilable with his inability to govern the Church. The man of action is almost always inhuman, but when the man of action moves in a millenarian atmosphere and in a kind of spiritual triumphalism, then everything is to be feared... Paul VI will go ahead, without return, crushing all resistance...</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unless God opens his eyes... That would be a miracle.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All we have to do now is try to bring into our lives the obligation spoken of by Saint John of the Cross in one of his letters: "In order that we may have God in all things, we must have nothing in all things." The Church has entered the Night of the Senses and Spirit, the gateway to Dawn. Its state invites us to enter our own.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This eternal source is well hidden,</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And yet I have found its home,</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But it's by night!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;">Marcel De Corte, </div><div style="text-align: right;">Professor at the University of <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: right;">Liège.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>* * * * *</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">For more by Marcel De Corte, get a copy of Arouca Press's <i><a href="https://aroucapress.com/intelligence-in-danger-of-death#:~:text=Originally%20published%20in%20French%20in,closely%20to%20our%20contemporary%20society." target="_blank">Intelligence in Danger of Death</a></i>, translated by Brian Welter with an introduction by Miguel Ayuso</span></div></span></div></span></div><p align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;"><br /></p></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-92196521883203350882023-12-28T23:50:00.009-05:002023-12-29T08:19:07.767-05:00Bad Humanae Vitae Parallels <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCBI7PBHT39LH-AEiUgLZwcG6qERc4y0sbWnj3eXV8kXFKA65-zzKbI2teasIV4Ltfm1WSpERVQGqxnx2FBLTizgcMKz8b_PReznOOhKBJiOvsMCN8LigbjwqRaeBU_wd4jkP0SCyWTI5FKMvz7aCPjZDc4IKYZBEpTW10F1qA0GaP49kH5iBE6JvhCnQ/s1876/BANNER.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="841" data-original-width="1876" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCBI7PBHT39LH-AEiUgLZwcG6qERc4y0sbWnj3eXV8kXFKA65-zzKbI2teasIV4Ltfm1WSpERVQGqxnx2FBLTizgcMKz8b_PReznOOhKBJiOvsMCN8LigbjwqRaeBU_wd4jkP0SCyWTI5FKMvz7aCPjZDc4IKYZBEpTW10F1qA0GaP49kH5iBE6JvhCnQ/w400-h179/BANNER.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">In the wake of scores of bishops rejecting <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> globally, popesplainers have resorted to comparing <i>Fiducia Supplicans </i>to <i>Humanae Vitae </i>as a way to deflect criticism of the document. The hyperpapalist website Where Peter Is <a href="https://opend.site/x1Wr" target="_blank">has said</a> that critics of <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> "need to be reminded of the reception of <i>Humanae Vitae</i>...before asserting that the public reactions to magisterial documents are markers of its "failure.'" Then there is <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/LOFTY.jpg" target="_blank">this little gem</a>, which was followed by a piece from the same influencer on all of the similarities between <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> and <i>Humanae Vitae</i>. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The line of argumentation seems to be that it is irrelevant how many bishops reject <i>Fiducia Supplicans, </i>because <i>Humanae Vitae </i>was broadly rejected as well, and yet we all acknowledge the authority of this document. Therefore, <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> cannot be judged based on its reception or rejection by the global episcopate. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Four Reasons <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> Should Not be Compared to <i>Humanae Vitae</i></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This line of reasoning is erroneous for several reasons:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the first place, <i>Humanae Vitae</i> was rejected by the heterodox while it was embraced by the orthodox. <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i>, on the other hand, is being rejected by the orthodox while it is embraced by the heterodox. This little detail kind of matters. <br /><br />Second, the bishops who rejected <i>Humanae Vitae</i> did so because it reaffirmed Church praxis, whereas the bishops rejecting <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> are doing so because it appears to depart from Church praxis.<br /><br />Third, <i>Humanae Vitae</i> and <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> are two completely different types of documents. <i>Humanae Vitae </i>was a papal encyclical that some theologians consider infallible, while <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> is a Declaration of the DDF. While both are authoritative, we would be wrong to attribute the same level of authority to each. This contrast becomes more stark when we recall <a href="https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/07/revealing-interview-with-archbishop.html" target="_blank">Pope Francis's statements</a> that he wishes the DDF to be understood not as a body whose purpose is to guarantee orthodoxy, but to "promote thought and theological reflection in dialogue." These two documents are clearly not equivalent in terms of their doctrinal weight.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Fourth, while it is true that favorable reception of a document is not a reliable indicator of whether it contains true or false propositions, reception certainly does matter when we are talking about a legislative document that requests the clergy to positively <i>do</i> something. <i>Humanae Vitae</i> is a doctrinal document reaffirming something the Church believes; <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> is a pastoral document asking the clergy to perform certain specific actions. In the latter case, reception of the text does matter, because a legislative act cannot be properly executed if it is rejected—and if it cannot be implemented, it is not a good legislative act. Anyone who has ever studied law knows that one of the fundamental characteristics of a good law is that it is capable of being enforced. In the Church, a law that a substantial number of bishops will not implement is not capable of being enforced and hence not a good law. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The great Dominican theologian Tommaso de Cajetan commented on this aspect of law in his 1514 <i>Apologia de comparata auctoritatis papae et concilii</i> ("Apology Concerning the Power of the Pope Compared With That of a Council"). While admitting that the pope had the autority to promulgate any law he wished, Cajetan distinguishes between <i>promulgation</i> of law and the <i>stability </i>of law. The former comes from its being issued by an authoritative lawgiver (the pope, Church, etc.), the latter from its peaceable reception by those to whom it is meant to bind. Cajetan is here discussing the place of consent in ecclesiastical law and opines that consent applies to stability but not to promulgation:<br /></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">If laws are instituted when they are promulgated, the pope, promulgating the law to the whole Church, institutes it without its consent. Therefore he alone can institute a law over it. Stability, however, depends on the consent of those observing it, on account not of authority, but execution. This is proved from the fact that even a decree of an entire ecumenical council is confirmed by the consent of those observing it, such that it does not bind when it is weakened by the dissent of those not observing it...Instability of laws arises from the dissent of those not observing them, even from the legislators themselves negatively, insomuch as they dissimulate by tolerating [practices contrary to them] and implicitly revoke what they have done. Rightly so, because law, it is said, in<i> Erit</i>. [Dec. 4, c. 2], should be suitable to the country, the place, and the time. [1]</blockquote><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Such promulgations, when resisted, cannot be uniformally enforced and therefore do not edify the Church, which is the purpose of ecclesiastical law. Cajetan therefore concludes that such partially-enforced laws "would not be expedient":</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">It is granted, therefore, that the pope can, on the basis of the authority of his power, exercise an act of jurisdiction even over the rest of the Church against its will, but it would not be expedient if it did not edify. [2] </blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I realize <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> is not a "law", and this is not to say that ecclesiastical laws only become valid by the consent of the Church or anything of that nature. But it is to say that how a text is received does matter. It is not irrelevant how a promulgation is received, especially one that requires the recipients to execute some action. A wise legislator promulgates laws he knows can be enforced through their peaceable acceptance, thereby giving "stability" to the law, as Cajetan says. If massive swaths of the Church reject a piece of legilsation, it creates "instability of law," which cannot be edifying for the Church and hence "would not be expedient." So we cannot say that reception by the episcopate is simply irrelevant for this type of promulgation. It matters immensely. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Fifth, Cardinal Fernandez, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256384/fernandez-its-proper-for-each-bishop-to-discern-regarding-fiducia-supplicans-application?fbclid=IwAR1BsVRzrDwhHmsRz2bFwoKfo7pbqjHOZXV0gLdUKOmbsndW0tM8LyZvNhg" target="_blank">recently commenting</a> on the global reluctance to accept <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i>, stated that "it's proper for each local bishop to make that discernment" on whether to offer the new blessing authorized by the declaration. Paul VI, on the other hand, offered no such room for <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, telling bishops "it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice" (<i>HV,</i> 28). Cleary Paul VI was insisting on a degree of uniform acceptance of <i>Humanae Vitae</i> that Fernandez is not for <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i>, otherwise he would never suggest it was "proper for each local bishop" to discern how to apply it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><b>The Thing Must Be Championed!</b><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The popesplainer may say, "Very true, but none of this is relevant, because in the end, both <i>Humanae Vitae</i> and <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> were resisted, and that is all that matters." I am sure they probably believe this argument is a <i>coup de grace</i>, but it is not the victory they think. In arguing thus, the popesplainer reveals that for him all that matters is raw obedience; the content of the documents are entirely irrelevant. He cares neither for tradition nor even for logical continuity with previous statements; all he cares about is that Pope in Current Year says the Thing, and the Thing must be embraced with the unwavering mental obeisance of a crusading zealot. Had Pope Paul's <i>Humanae Vitae </i>altered Church praxis by "enlarging" the defintion of sexual activity, they'd be apologists for that as well. They applaud Paul VI and Francis not because they did what was right, but because they said a Thing and the Thing must be championed!<br /><br />Unlike <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i> is being resisted because of its novelty, not its orthodoxy. Unlike <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, it is being championed by the progressives, not the orthodox. It lacks the authoritative weight of <i>Humanae Vitae</i> and is a different kind of document altogether. Fernandez himself has admitted that bishops may exercise discernment in whether to apply it, a leeway Paul VI never offered with <i>Humanae Vitae</i>. And, unlike the doctrinal affirmations of <i>Humanae Vitae, Fiducia Supplicans </i>makes very practical demands on the clergy. <br /><br />I have not attempted with this article to argue any specific take on <i>Fiducia Supplicans</i>, much less advocate for any course of action. I merely insist that it is not comparable to <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, and that insisting otherwise focuses an undue emphasis on raw obedience, recklessly detached from any kind of discernment or theological context. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * *</p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Tommaso de Cajetan, Apologia, Cap. VI, in <i>Conciliarism and Papalism</i>, ed. by J.H. Burns and Thomas Izbicki (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1998), 240<br />[2] Ibid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-23160231972744419822023-12-17T21:38:00.005-05:002023-12-18T06:24:46.033-05:00Six Books I Worked On This Year<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Happy Advent brethren! I wanted to take this opportunity to draw your attention to several excellent new books I've had the privilege of working on this year in an editorial capacity. Some of these are original works, others reprints of Catholic classics, but all are excellent additions to any Catholic library. These were all published through my publishing imprint <a href="http://cruachanhill.com" target="_blank">Cruachan Hill Press</a> over the course of 2023.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK7v5gJ0sbSl9CBpZF3kx8shmScb7rmag261gPo63XgstvHy-o2MD3pXwkvckUJhZ7wH5SVs2vNdSEuxJJHx5GK4FWDxs_GagE5yQguxOar9qr0JIddHd_gda5mVx-b5zte6vvV0i0A65qnoJDiV9PTps_ngx1rgfGtZQex8xX4U84FQ_8bOOILdRFJ1k/s640/Promo-Pic-1.jpeg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK7v5gJ0sbSl9CBpZF3kx8shmScb7rmag261gPo63XgstvHy-o2MD3pXwkvckUJhZ7wH5SVs2vNdSEuxJJHx5GK4FWDxs_GagE5yQguxOar9qr0JIddHd_gda5mVx-b5zte6vvV0i0A65qnoJDiV9PTps_ngx1rgfGtZQex8xX4U84FQ_8bOOILdRFJ1k/s320/Promo-Pic-1.jpeg" width="240" /></a></div>THE ST. JOHN OGILVIE PRAYERBOOK</i></b>, <i>by Dr. Joseph Johnson, Foreword by Athanasius Schneider</i>. Those of you who have followed me for awhile know that I feel very strongly about the tragic bastardization of the Celtic Catholic heritage of Ireland and Scotland. What passes for Celtic Christianity today is generally just New Age gobbledygook with a thin veneer of Christian vocabulary. It is a shame, because the Celtic Catholic tradition is so incredibly rich. I have tried to redress this by publishing new editions of the lives of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-St-Columba-Told-Adomn%C3%A1n/dp/1957206055/" target="_blank">St. Columba</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Life-St-Brigid-Kildare-Cogitosus/dp/1957206071/" target="_blank">St. Brigid</a>, as well as with various essays (see <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/01/28/brigid-of-kildare-pagan-goddess/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://catholicexchange.com/irish-christianity-needs-an-intervention/" target="_blank">here</a>) addressing the matter. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I feel blessed, therefore, to have had the opportunity this year to work with Dr. Joseph Johnson on the publication of the <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1957206179" target="_blank">The St. John Ogilvie Prayerbook</a>,</i> a compilation of prayers, rituals, rites, seasons and events that reflect a spiritual vision that is both Celtic and authentically Catholic. This book is stuffed with resources! The annual calendar includes not only the usual feast and fast days, but highlights specifically Celtic saints usually forgotten. The daily office includes Lauds, Terce, Sext, Nones, Vespers and Compline with occasional quotes from Celtic saints; traditional language and Scripture texts are from the Douay-Rheims Version. There are occasional prayers and daily prayers in English, Latin, and Scots Gaelic. The seasons and days section highlights traditional and Celtic customs from the blessing of bonfires, Beltane blessings, toasts for a ceilidh, prayers for the sick and dying, against evil, Epiphany house blessing, etc. <span style="text-align: left;">Nihil Obstat of Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone (now retired, but of the Diocese of Charleston).<br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is also a foreword by His Excellency Athanasius Schneider with some high praise for Dr. Johnson's work. Bishop Schneider wrote:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>With the <i>St. John Ogilvie Prayerbook,</i> Dr. Joseph Johnson has created a
masterpiece of a synthesis of Catholic doctrine, prayer and spirituality
against the background of the authentic Celtic Catholic tradition. The
Catholic Celtic tradition is a shining example how the Catholic Faith
transforms and purifies the natural cultural richness of peoples and elevates it to be an efficient instrument of proclaiming and living the Faith.
I very much recommend the <i>St. John Ogilvie Prayerbook</i>. May it be a
great help to many Catholics, and especially to the Scottish Catholics of
our day, so that the power of faith and of prayer will protect and transform their lives.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One final note: We are working on a hardcover version of the book, which I expect to be available by February. When it is available, I will update this post with the appropriate link. In the meantime, you can <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/1957206179" target="_blank">click here to purchase the paperback matte cover version</a> (paperback, 355 pages).<br /><br /></div><div><br /><span style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifatGIjxRX01dCIaEO2wd5AvQf1BlkUScURvOljDWLiMSszK69Gi3Zb19L4Y-bCmvgdNzqDY6hM8HbdZ7J32rpG__HorwEN8nOGvM-gYSlCS3iBFmB6QAbPHt19KmC1HTghTxa5KVR74adYN6MmBiy5_-6Kw6kjXty0IA1gH2p43Ft4zdzgi8AdyH5v4E/s2016/Promo%20Image.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1512" data-original-width="2016" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifatGIjxRX01dCIaEO2wd5AvQf1BlkUScURvOljDWLiMSszK69Gi3Zb19L4Y-bCmvgdNzqDY6hM8HbdZ7J32rpG__HorwEN8nOGvM-gYSlCS3iBFmB6QAbPHt19KmC1HTghTxa5KVR74adYN6MmBiy5_-6Kw6kjXty0IA1gH2p43Ft4zdzgi8AdyH5v4E/s320/Promo%20Image.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i style="font-style: italic;"><b style="font-weight: bold;">THE POPES AND SCIENCE, </b>by James J. Walsh, Foreword by Gerard Verschuuren</i><i>. </i>Dr. James J. Walsh (1865-1942) was a Catholic American physician and author from New York who served as Dean and Professor of nervous diseases and of the history of medicine at Fordham University school of medicine. He wrote numerous works on medical history, specifically concerning the medieval era and the Church's contributions to scientific development.</div></span></div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Dr. Walsh's <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Science-History-Relations-Middle/dp/1957206209/" target="_blank">The Popes and Science: The History of Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time</a></i> is a reprint of his classic apologetical text demolishing the myth of papal suppression of science. Written to counter attacks of anti-religious skeptics, Walsh argues that, far from hindering scientific inquiry, the Roman pontiffs have been among the greatest patrons of the sciences. With consummate erudition, Walsh debunks several myths about the Catholic Church and science, covering the disciplines of anatomy, chemistry, mental health, and more. Walsh demonstrates command of an enormous mass of facts, ordering them with logic, force, and literary ease. <i>The Popes and Science</i> convicts the Church's opponents of hasty generalization, if not outright anti-clericalism. Contains an original foreword by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Verschuuren" target="_blank">Dr. Gerard Verschuuren</a>.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Latin scholars will be interested to know that the appendices contain original Latin texts of several papal bulls, including <i>De sepulturis</i> of Boniface VIII, and <i>De crimini falsi </i>and <i>Super illius specula</i> of John XXII. The full English translation of the bulls are found in the main text as well. Paperback, 410 pages. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Science-History-Relations-Middle/dp/1957206209/" target="_blank">Click here to purchase</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeKrusJzoxjTj3PLhY_HTcsGBpjmgVr_rBBElyA6rZafcgdEKq2YG_BCcwwQSHHVqH02m_9_7RXloP3iYSKPJM0v8KLxaVDad8nij8g86j4Ql0KZ2PUqcRdAIiDL4Ip-J4fjUBpKpTKafF06Ebmgh9ZjXmXIHr96gGxynRIIAyxqB9w4x4RpMX2LI8MyQ/s1350/FRONT%20COVER.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1350" data-original-width="924" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeKrusJzoxjTj3PLhY_HTcsGBpjmgVr_rBBElyA6rZafcgdEKq2YG_BCcwwQSHHVqH02m_9_7RXloP3iYSKPJM0v8KLxaVDad8nij8g86j4Ql0KZ2PUqcRdAIiDL4Ip-J4fjUBpKpTKafF06Ebmgh9ZjXmXIHr96gGxynRIIAyxqB9w4x4RpMX2LI8MyQ/s320/FRONT%20COVER.jpg" width="219" /></a></div>WISDOM AND FOLLY</i></b>, <i>by Rob Marco</i>. If you are a fan of traditional Catholic content, you've probably run across Rob Marco, either from his blog <a href="https://fatherofthefamily.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Pater Familias</a>, or from any one of the many other venues that have featured him, such as Catholic World Report, <i>Crisis Magazine</i>, One Peter Five, Catholic Stand, and The Coming Home Network, among others.<br /></div><div><div style="text-align: start;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rob is also a friend of mine, and it has been an honor to publish his first book, <i><a href="https://www.cruachanhill.com/products/wisdom-and-folly-by-rob-marco" target="_blank">Wisdom and Folly: Essays on Faith, Life, and Everything in Between</a></i>. In a world inundated with opinion, diatribe, and hot takes, Rob Marco's <i>Wisdom and Folly </i>takes a different approach, presenting the ruminations of a Catholic husband wrestling with life's most important topics, sifting through each with wit and common sense illumined by faith. A book more about the journey than the conclusion, <i>Wisdom and Folly </i>tackles issues surrounding friendship, discipleship, marriage, family, manhood, faith, prayer, the Church, writing, and more. Marco generously shares his own thoughts and those from other virtuous people who can be guides on this journey. A book not for the saintly but the works-in-progress, <i>Wisdom and Folly</i> presents a challenging yet edifying commentary on life as a Catholic man in the workaday world. At 375 pages it is a substantial text, but very readable, structured as a series of short, reflective essays organized topically. </div></div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Currently <i>Wisdom and Folly </i>is only <a href="https://www.cruachanhill.com/products/wisdom-and-folly-by-rob-marco" target="_blank">available on pre-order through the Cruachan Hill website</a> (at a discount, I should mention!) Books are expected to ship early February.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpX0Bwnfv_Hjn3Lz2q-ozrN9MP9M9ovdQQgFgH29uh-3u7GdclD2FbZ-BMUIdeVIoHIzn3Jf1dIYk7VZ07nLSqxzrbUCukjmGlFlghw6HBejzi82atfHFuj4pZ1VnzZJ1kT-lCUXEjC-7Eo4h8pEdDGUX0Rsrr-csIdBETyJfX1w-MazQksjcPjva8u1E/s833/Front%20cover.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="833" data-original-width="548" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpX0Bwnfv_Hjn3Lz2q-ozrN9MP9M9ovdQQgFgH29uh-3u7GdclD2FbZ-BMUIdeVIoHIzn3Jf1dIYk7VZ07nLSqxzrbUCukjmGlFlghw6HBejzi82atfHFuj4pZ1VnzZJ1kT-lCUXEjC-7Eo4h8pEdDGUX0Rsrr-csIdBETyJfX1w-MazQksjcPjva8u1E/s320/Front%20cover.jpg" width="211" /></a></div>THE FATHERS OF NEW FRANCE</b>, by John O'Kane Murray</i> (Volume 4 in the "Catholic Heroes and Heroines of America" series). John O' Kane Murray was a late 19th century Irish-American Catholic historian. He attempted to counter the surge of the Protestant American histories being produced during the Victorian era with Catholic histories of his own, stressing the contributions of Catholic men and women to the settlement of the Americas. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">I have been republishing Murray's texts for a few years now (I have done <a href="https://www.cruachanhill.com/products/lives-of-catholic-heroes-and-heroines-of-america-series-2-books" target="_blank">volumes on Columbus, Ojeda, Balboa, and Cortez as well, which can all be purchased as a set</a>), and this volume on the founders of New France is the latest. It offers readers concise yet engaging biographies of Samuel de Champlain, St. Isaac Jogues, and St. John de Brebeuf. Murray begins with Champlain's struggles to establish a French colony along the St. Lawrence, tracing the development of the missions of New France through the work of its two most exemplary missionaries, the Jesuits St. Isaac Jogues and John de Brebeuf. Filled with stories of adventure, faith, and martyrdom, John O' Kane Murray's <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fathers-New-France-Catholic-Heroines/dp/B0CK3MXRDN/" target="_blank"><i>The Fathers of New France</i> </a>is a superb introduction to the Catholic luminaries who laid the foundations of Canada. The text is copiously illustrated and ideal for high schoolers or adults seeking to learn more about the Catholic origins of Canada. It also contains a lengthy original introduction by me discussing the geo-political situation in New France in the 17th century, the various native and European alliances, and the role the missionaries played in the settlement of Canada. Paperback, 161 pages. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fathers-New-France-Catholic-Heroines/dp/B0CK3MXRDN/" target="_blank">Click here to purchase.</a><br /><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI-mhi6d6ZtKsST1Q1KBz7UPpI-fuoJIYsBMXtIK8wDjzYuq7OQaNA_ngNkh5mTlNrbetjGeuAyXQTci-mLT4hornT0bCdteZlbwsXmKep2Du0w1n7KHjesm7Upbw6l2eZeamLRFkDnh-BXS8ZnHXY-_5H38Uu2ttsq3fYZ1BuqQuH5f4YyKZZlAGv9QE/s2775/Front%20Cover.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2775" data-original-width="1875" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI-mhi6d6ZtKsST1Q1KBz7UPpI-fuoJIYsBMXtIK8wDjzYuq7OQaNA_ngNkh5mTlNrbetjGeuAyXQTci-mLT4hornT0bCdteZlbwsXmKep2Du0w1n7KHjesm7Upbw6l2eZeamLRFkDnh-BXS8ZnHXY-_5H38Uu2ttsq3fYZ1BuqQuH5f4YyKZZlAGv9QE/s320/Front%20Cover.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>FOR GOD AND SPAIN: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SPANISH WAR</b><b style="font-style: italic;">, </b><i>by Hugh de Blácam</i>. Hugh de Blácam was an Irish journalist during the 1930s who was sent to Spain to cover the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). In <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/God-Spain-Truth-About-Spanish/dp/1957206101/" target="_blank">For God and Spain</a></i>, de Blácam argues that the nationalist rebellion that ushered in the Spanish Civil War was a defensive movement in response to years of unchecked Communist aggression. Focusing on the years 1923-1936, de Blácam chronicles the outrages committed by Red agitators against the Catholic Church that led to the Francoist response. A slim volume at only 73 pages, <i>For God and Spain</i> provides a solid introduction to the causes of the Spanish Civil War, highlighting the anti-Catholic and anti-clerical nature of the Republican ideology. It is an excellent introductory text for those who are unfamiliar with the details of this epoch. Illustrated.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />I should also say, this was by far the most popular book on my table at the Catholic Identity Conference this fall. It sold out on the first day! Paperback, 73 pages. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/God-Spain-Truth-About-Spanish/dp/1957206101/" target="_blank">Click here to purchase</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9L4J5b_eJysgzwY8fq-DpbhwyHY6lQ1Lo_OW45TMd0jLcY7W4Wj18QVwM5vjl_T4gWYaHaWRlr2KWeJ5Uoi9HwXiRffJUmVhN3vQ0OBTMiLKIJUT_51yX_MYmOGSVZIWP8cH7RHWiM2csNtMZ8Y_soUTcZa2vBnihIGOBTcJbK6PF1lwCS-Bgcmyo_NI/s1490/Front%20Cover%20Only.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1490" data-original-width="1001" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9L4J5b_eJysgzwY8fq-DpbhwyHY6lQ1Lo_OW45TMd0jLcY7W4Wj18QVwM5vjl_T4gWYaHaWRlr2KWeJ5Uoi9HwXiRffJUmVhN3vQ0OBTMiLKIJUT_51yX_MYmOGSVZIWP8cH7RHWiM2csNtMZ8Y_soUTcZa2vBnihIGOBTcJbK6PF1lwCS-Bgcmyo_NI/s320/Front%20Cover%20Only.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>THE WAR AGAINST BEING AND THE RETURN TO GOD</i></b>, <i>by James Larson. </i>The late James Larson was a very influential thinker in my own intellectual development as a traditional Catholic, as he was for many. I was blessed to know the man personally in his latter years (I <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2020/08/in-memoriam-james-larson-1941-2020.html" target="_blank">wrote a eulogy for him</a> on this blog back in 2020 when he passed).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After his passing, Mr. Larson's estate asked me to oversee the publication of a manuscript he had left behind, which was the genesis of this book,<i> <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Being-Return-God/dp/1957206160" target="_blank">The War Against Being and Return to God</a></i>. Mr. Larson is best-known for his website of the same name (which is <a href="https://waragainstbeing.com/" target="_blank">still live to this day</a>), and his sister-site, <a href="https://rosarytotheinterior.com/" target="_blank">Rosary to the Interior</a>. Larson's original website was voluminous, with over 50 expansive essays on subjects of theology, philosophy, history, and spirituality. The manuscript Larson left behind was meant to be a streamlined version of his most central thesis—that the crisis in the Church is not primarily liturgical, but philosophical, resulting from an abandonment of the Thomistic-Aristotelian synthesis the Church achieved in the 13th century. Thus <i>The War Against Being </i>book represents "the essential Larson." It is ideal reading for anyone interested in philosophy, as well as those who want a take on the Church crisis that is not so focused on liturgy. <i>The War Against Being</i> is an excellent introduction to Larson's thought; it also contains an original foreword by yours truly, as well as Larson's self-narrated coversion story. Paperback, 372 pages. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Being-Return-God/dp/1957206160" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">Click here to purchase</a><span style="text-align: left;">.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * * </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to all the wonderful authors I was privileged to work with in 2023, and especially to His Excellency Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Gerard Verschuuren for gracing these books with their forewords. Happy Advent everybody!<br /><br /><br /></div></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-64243047742613331962023-11-26T07:00:00.002-05:002023-12-17T21:41:41.175-05:00How to Tell Christian Prayer from New Age Meditation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbio_6fb_75d3o8lv-ayE9uZUVGlz9rqA9VuGIkwp55uJyJmprJvQ_x-PSP-xEwZ1KzgTlEMLEE_5ngxrd5j87UdVlOSvaSqV5fUT4TYdVXMwWYA2lOq1qratWNq515oxLAz_ur6gmyJHsm_ajjHfq9E1ZqjLKhCbZPWbVE87pUyuxwi_fM4THhS7RL5A/s493/boomers.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="362" data-original-width="493" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbio_6fb_75d3o8lv-ayE9uZUVGlz9rqA9VuGIkwp55uJyJmprJvQ_x-PSP-xEwZ1KzgTlEMLEE_5ngxrd5j87UdVlOSvaSqV5fUT4TYdVXMwWYA2lOq1qratWNq515oxLAz_ur6gmyJHsm_ajjHfq9E1ZqjLKhCbZPWbVE87pUyuxwi_fM4THhS7RL5A/w400-h294/boomers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>A "Centering Prayer" group, encrusted with Boomers as to be expected</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />We live in a world which rejects Catholic tradition while simultaneously professing great interest in spiritualities influenced by the New Age. Christians have been traditionally reluctant to embrace such practices, as they contain elements that are fundamentally opposed to the most basic tenets of Christianity. Some, however, have merged various elements of eastern mysticism and New Age neo-paganism with traditional Catholic spirituality, thrown in some Christian vocabulary and are now peddling these practices as compatible with Catholicism. For example, the method of "Centering Prayer" promoted by the late Cistercian monk Basil Pennington is a good example, but there are others. These practices are promoted as Christian forms of "contemplation", and Catholics are encouraged to participate. In this article we will look at how to discern whether a spiritual practice is authentically Catholic or just New Age esoteric mysticism in a Christian veneer. We will use the 'Centering Prayer' spirituality developed by Fr. Thomas Keating and Basil Pennington as an example, but what we will say can be applied to any questionable spirituality.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This will call for shrewdness, as these New Age practices often adopt Christian vocabulary; their promoters fabricate Christian pedigrees to make them more palatable to a Christian demographic. Therefore it is not sufficient to simply look at what sort of words they use or whose name they drop; you really have to dig in and get to the theological and philosophical roots of the practice to judge it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In my opinion, there are five basic criterion against which you can measure such practices:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Does the practice originate within the Catholic Tradition or is it influenced by pagan, New Age, or Asian religion?<br /><br /></li><li>Does it focus on the person and life of Jesus Christ or does it emphasize a pantheist-deist "Absolute"?<br /><br /></li><li>Is the purpose of the technique holiness through union with God, or is it self-realization/self-enlightenment?<br /><br /></li><li>Does its content consist of meditation on the life and teaching of our Lord and the Saints, or is it preoccupied with breathing techniques, mantras, etc?<br /><br /></li><li>Does the spirituality sufficiently value the role of grace and mortification in spiritual progress or does it claim to be a "short cut" for people to "get in tune with God" with relative ease?</li></ul><br /><b>From What Root Hath it Sprung? </b></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, when presented with a plan or program of contemplation, it is very helpful at the very outset to research where this technique originated. Let us go back to M. Basil Pennington and Centering Prayer. According to Pennington and apologists of the method, Centering Prayer is can trace its derivation from late Catholic medieval mystical works like the <em>Cloud of Unknowing</em> and ultimately from the Jesus Prayer of the Orthodox tradition. However, a little bit of research reveals that this pedigree is fabricated; the origins of Centering Prayer goes back to a few Trappist monks in the 50's and 60's and their interactions with members of the Zen Buddhist school in the United States. Fr. Thomas Keating, the originator of Centering Prayer, developed the method after consultation with Buddhist and Hindu teachers. The purpose of these consultations was to discover what was attracting young westerners to Eastern religions and then Christianize it. Centering Prayer was the result. Basil Pennington's books, while speaking a vocabulary of Christianity, also direct the reader to Mahesh Yogi and the Vedic traditions.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">We could go on, but the point is clear. If the spirituality comes from a source outside of the Christian tradition, then it is to be held in extreme skepticism. In the case of Centering Prayer, the "Absolute" of the Asian tradition is pantheistic and completely incompatible with Christianity. In Pennington's theology, the determining factor in our spiritual growth is not grace but "psychic energy," and the focus of our prayers are on "the Lord present <em>within us</em>" (1). A spirituality that encourages us focus intensively on God's presence "within us" treads dangerously close to <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2022/02/before-you-call-something-gnostic.html" target="_blank">Gnostic pantheism</a>, while its omission of the concept of grace in favor of "psychic energy" renders it totally incompatible with classical Catholic spirituality.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">But one does not need to go through all the theological exercises to figure this out. As a very reliable rule of thumb, if the practice has its origin in or was formulated in imitation of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism or any other Asian spirituality, it ought to be rejected as incompatible with Catholicism, inasmuch as the spiritualities of these theological traditions are fundamentally at odds with the Christian revelation. "A good tree does not produce bad fruit, and a bad tree does not produce good fruit" (Luke 6:43).</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">As mentioned above, you will have to be discriminating here. Many New Age "contemplation" methods claim to be derived from old Catholic spiritual traditions. The orthodox Jesus Prayer, the <em>Cloud of Unknowing</em>, and the works of Evagrius Pontus are often cited as sources. Usually these works are appealed to erroneously, and further investigation reveals that the advocates of neo-pagan spirituality are actually distorting what the <em>Cloud of Unknowing</em> says or misunderstanding the purpose of the Jesus Prayer. In other situations their practices do share real similarities with something in Christian history, but with a deviant interpretation of that spiritual tradition. This is the case with spiritual practices based loosely on the writings of the 14th century Dominican mystic Meister Eckhart or the 12th century abbot Joachim of Fiore. Again, do your research.</div> <br /><b>Centrality of the Life and Person of Jesus</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Prayer in the Catholic Tradition never occurs outside of the context of the life and person of our Lord Jesus Christ. All prayers are offered in His name. The mysteries and sufferings of His life and death are the content of Catholic meditation. Catholic prayers are centered on the person of Jesus, such as the <em>Anima Christi</em> or the Litany of the Sacred Heart. The end purpose of Catholic spirituality is to become Christ-like by transformation in the Spirit. Thus, any true Catholic spirituality will give pride of place to the life and person of Jesus Christ.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Spiritualities influenced by the New Age, however, tend to push the person of Christ into the background in favor of pantheistic or deistic terms like "Absolute", "Divinity", "God", "Spirit", etc. This is because these spiritualities are ultimately pantheist; they view God as immanently present in every person and in the world. This means that mankind needs no mediator between God and man because God is already intimately present in man; all man needs to do is realize this truth. The importance of the person and redemptive work of Jesus fades into the background.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Understand that the question is not whether or not the name of Jesus is used; advocates of Centering Prayer propose the name "Jesus" as a "sacred word" for meditation, as we shall see below. What needs to be examined is whether the <em>focus</em> of the meditation is the person of Jesus Himself, or whether the name Jesus is merely being used as a mantra to clear the mind. </div><br /><strong>What is the Purpose of Meditation?</strong><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">It has been noted that meditation techniques inspired by Eastern or New Age spiritualities have a different purpose from Christian meditation. We have stated above that an authentically Christian meditation is inseparable from the life and person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. All authentically Christian meditation seeks an increase in holiness through deeper union with Christ as its end. However, given that pagan-influenced spiritualities usually downplay the importance of Jesus in favor of union with "the Absolute" or a generic "God," union with Christ is no longer the end purpose of these meditative techniques.</div><br />What then, is the purpose of spiritualities influenced by the New Age or Asian mysticism?<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">No matter what label it is given<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px; text-align: justify;">—</span>Centering Prayer, Enneagram, or whatever<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px; text-align: justify;">—</span>and no matter how its proponents try in vain to attach it to some legitimate Christian custom, these New Age spiritualities cannot get away from their pantheist origins. This means the end of these techniques is ultimately going to be unity with the Absolute that is found "within us," to use the words of Basil Pennington. The focus in these practices will always be on the subject, not on a transcendent God or His laws. Learning to commune with God within you. Attaining self-enlightenment or facilitating self-development. Becoming in tune with one's own personality type. These are common phrases used by proponents of these practices. However it is worded, the core idea is that the ultimate end of meditation ought to be a more thorough understanding of the <em>self</em>.</div></div><div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">If the ultimate end is a more perfect self-realization, the secondary end is the <em>emptying of the intellect</em> as a means to facilitate self-realization. All New Age inspired spiritualities share a profound mistrust of the intellect as a means of apprehending the divine. The intellect is not something that grace builds upon or elevates; rather it is seen as an obstacle that must be overcome. Thus these techniques will advocate the "emptying" of the mind, the "stilling" of all thought, the "return" of the mind to a place of relaxation and peace with the purpose of attaining a cessation of all intellectual activity. A perfect stillness, a blank tablet of the mind to create a space for an encounter with the divine within us.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">If the spirituality in question seems to focus on self-enlightenment obtained through practices aimed at completely stilling all intellectual activity, it is highly suspect. The purpose of the intellect is to discern the true from the false; this is inherent in human nature. Thus the active cessation of intellectual activity in these sorts of spiritualities in effect "lets the guard down" over the soul. It exposes its practitioners to all sorts of spiritual influences without the discerning faculty provided by the intellect.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Authentic Catholic spirituality has never denigrated the intellect; it embraces the intellect while understanding that under the influence of grace, God often will take the mystic <em>beyond</em> the realm of the intellect. But to go beyond or to build upon is not to negate. God uses the intellect as a stepping stone to touch our souls in a manner consistent with our nature and elevate us beyond where it could take us on our own. This means a fundamental disposition that is God-focused, not self-focused. A Christian contemplation can never be solely focused on self-enlightenment. We occasionally engage in introspection<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px;">—</span>such as during an Examination of Conscience or discerning the inspirations of the Soirit<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px;">—</span>but it is ultimately for the purpose of making ourselves pleasing to a transcendent God. Pagan-inspired spiritual proponents will agree with Catholics that union with God is the end goal of meditation, but further discussion will reveal that they only assert this in an indirect way; union with God is attained by means of the path of self-enlightenment. Thus the focus of activity remains the self. The will is focused on ourselves instead of God. This should always be a red flag. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Self-realization itself does not constitute holiness. This kind of introspection is only valuable to the degree that it helps us realize our need for divine grace and orient our wills towards God, who, while He may be experienced within us as He wishes, is ultimately outside of us and beyond us. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><strong>Content of Meditation</strong><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Pagan inspired prayer techniques are also recognizable by their content. While the content of these prayers may contain Christian language, the manner in which this vocabulary is used is quite different than what most Catholics throughout the centuries have been used to. Being that the aim is to empty the mind, most New Age inspired meditation makes use of a <em>mantra</em> to accomplish this end. A <em>mantra</em> is a word that is selected as an "anchor"; this word is dwelt on slowly and intentionally to help "center" the heart. Fr. Keating, the founder of Centering Prayer, says, "<span data-mce-style="text-align: left;">Whenever you become aware of anything (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, associations, etc.), simply return to your sacred word, your anchor" (2). The sacred word can be anything</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px; text-align: justify;">—</span>Jesus, Abba, Lord<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, FreeSerif, serif; font-size: 16.5px; text-align: justify;">—</span>as long as it signifies the desire of the soul to be united to the divine, it will suffice. Thus the <em>mantra</em>, the interior or exterior repetition of sacred word is the method by which the requisite emptiness is attained.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">Please note, the people will not use the word mantra; Basil Pennington calls it a "love word". It is ultimately irrelevant what name it is called by; the fact is that it is a special phrase repeated for the purpose of negating any intellectual activity, and this is a mantra, regardless of what anyone may say. Also note, the use of a repetitive word to clear the mind in and of itself is not problematic; the Jesus Prayer and even the Aves of the Rosary could be said to perform a similar function. Rather, it is the use of the mantra <i>in conjunction with these other criteria</i> that should raise red flags about a spiritual practice.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>A Shortcut to Mortification?</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">In the Catholic Tradition, grace is freely available but holiness necessitates that a believer dispose himself to grace by acts of penance and self-denial. This self-denial is known as mortification. As the believer mortifies his passions and disciplines himself, he gradually enters into a more intense relationship with His Lord. Though this development is punctuated by occasional periods of desolation (St. Ignatius) and even by the dark night of the soul (St. John of the Cross), ultimately the believer who is faithful will be brought through these trials of faith to a place of union with God in the spirit.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Do these New Age inspired spiritualities emphasize self-denial, penance or mortification? Do they acknowledge with Acts 14:22 that "with many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God"? Too often these spiritualities do not adequately stress the penitential aspect of the Christian life. More importantly, they often ignore the fact that communion with God, truly deep, unitive communion, takes a lot of time and effort. There is no "easy way" or "shortcut" for people to achieve union with God; it certainly cannot be boiled down to a few talking points in a best-selling book or a fifteen minute appearance on Oprah. If the spirituality you are looking at boasts that it is a "shortcut" or "easy way" for "anyone" to experience deep union with God while making no mention of mortification, it is most likely incompatible with Catholic tradition.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The connection is very logical: New Age spirituality is about discovering the self, which is basically good and only needs to be recognized as such. That being the case, repentance for sin or acknowledgement of our own sins is not emphasized in these practices. Consequently, mortification, self-denial, penance, joyful acceptance of suffering, etc. really have no logical place in this system.</div><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">A Catholic who is truly steeped in Catholic spiritual tradition should intuitively recognize the incompatibility of these neo-pagan practices with the Catholic faith. Taking into account its roots in Buddhist, Hindu or New age sources, its diminishing of the unique, salvific importance of Jesus Christ, its focus on self-enlightenment instead of personal holiness, its use of mantras to still intellectual activity and its marketing as a 'short cut' or 'easy path' to communion with God, Catholics should avoid Centering Prayer and all similar sorts of neo-pagan spiritualities, whose end purpose is ultimately the glorification of self rather than God.</div><br />NOTES <br /><br />(1) http://imagodeicommunity.ca/on-spiritual-issues/on-centering-prayer-by-fr-basil-pennington/<br />(2) Thomas Keating (2009), "Intimacy with God: an Introduction to Centering Prayer," 17 </div></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-18473013444297380742023-11-23T19:02:00.019-05:002023-12-02T22:45:46.375-05:00In What Sense is the Pope Above Canon Law?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgGZkjZ0tZ8NnK2tAQEYfNczi9Enmr_H8_SdL_aRGWeS_-y6xqWXIyKlYpp2ipd8hRIjiUKGZIsBejvgMh5OeFdSlrfaLWL-d5uu5dgwrn21gOLO7-HhMl_H9BhPkrOHbub0XZOzAa5C-ufEkqMbP0sU9vIn4A4bWMu8BVXwFMwRlHxBj6lLLYgkyVB0/s750/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="750" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgGZkjZ0tZ8NnK2tAQEYfNczi9Enmr_H8_SdL_aRGWeS_-y6xqWXIyKlYpp2ipd8hRIjiUKGZIsBejvgMh5OeFdSlrfaLWL-d5uu5dgwrn21gOLO7-HhMl_H9BhPkrOHbub0XZOzAa5C-ufEkqMbP0sU9vIn4A4bWMu8BVXwFMwRlHxBj6lLLYgkyVB0/w400-h225/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.750.422.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">A common refrain when from hyperpapalists when the pope disregards canon law by his actions is, "So what? He can do that. The pope is not bound by canon law." </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">It is, of course, true that the pope is not bound by any human law, including ecclesiastical law. Not only is this due to the pope's status as the supreme juridical authority within the Church, but also because the pope himself is a source of canon law. Since canon law is subject to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, it is clear that is cannot be bound by it in any coercive sense.<br /><br />Does this literally mean, however, that the pope can break canon law at will as a normal exercise of his authority? When the pope violates canon law, is this to be understood as a legitimate exercise of his juridical authority?<span><a name='more'></a></span><h3><br />Cicognani's Five Powers of the Pope <i>vis-a-vis</i> Canon Law</h3><br />To answer this question, let us turn to the commentary of Amleto Cardinal Cicognani (1883-1973), Professor of Canon Law <span style="text-align: left;">in the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law at St. Apollinare, in Rome and one of the mid-20th century's most noted canonical jurists. Cicognani's career began under St. Pius X and culminated in becoming Cardinal Secretary of State under John XXIII (1961-1969) and Dean of the College of Cardinals under Paul VI from 1972 until his death. <br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 1934, Cicognani published an exhaustive commentary on the 1917 code, simply called <i>Canon Law</i>. I will be working from the 2nd edition, translated by Rev. Joseph M. O'Hara & Rev. Francis Bennan (Dolphin Press: Philadelphia, 1935).</div></span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Cicognani addresses the pope's relation to canon law in his section on the sources of human ecclesiastical law, where he lists the Supreme Pontiff as one of four sources of such laws (the other three being Purely Apostolic Law, the Apostolic See, and the Councils, both ecumenical and particular). He begins by summarizing the traditional formulation of the pope's jurisdiction over the Church and his exemption from all human restraint:<br /></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The Roman Pontiff is, by the will of Christ, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the foundation, the head of the entire Church, and is endowed with primarcy of jurisdiction, which from the very institution of the Church was established and determined by the Divine Founder Himself as supreme and universal power to rule others...</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Pope's plenary, absolute, and strictly monarchical jursidiction, manifesting itself in the exercise pf judicial, administrative, and especially legislative power, is restricted by no human authority. Accordingly, the Pope's primacy of jurisdiction over the Church of Christ is not circumscribed by General Councils, by the College of Cardinals, by any group of bishops, nor, for stronger reason, by the faithful, or by civil rulers, or by any human power whatsoever. (pg. 71)</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><span>Well and good, but what does this imply</span><i> vis-a-vis </i>canon law? Cardinal Cicognani says that the pope's universal jurisdiction is exercised through five specific powers. This enumeration can be found on pages 72-73 of Cicognani's <i>Canon Law</i>. According to Cicognani, the pope's supreme jurisdiction over canon law gives him the authority to:</span></div><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1. <i>Make New Laws, Both Universal and Particular</i><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;">The pope's jurisdiction implies legislative power, which means the pope can make new laws, binding upon the universal Church or particular churches or institutes. "Hence," says Cicognani, "the fact that a pope enacts new laws, according to the circumstances and necessities of the times, should not be regarded as something strange." And hence we see popes regularly exercising this authority by making amendments to the Code of Canon Law. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Does the pope's legislative authortiy extend to the content of tradition? Yes and no. Cicognani of course exempts divine traditions (whether dominical or apostolic) from the purview of the pope's powers. Regarding other traditions, however, he says "purely apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, since they form part of human law, may indeed be changed, but since they have some relation to divine law, they are not easily subject to change; in point of fact, they have always been held in great esteem" (p. 103). He then cites St. Paul and Chrysostom on the value of preserving tradition intact (cf. 2 Thess 2:15, <i>Hom. in 2 Thess</i>, IV, n. 2; PG, XLII, 488).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Essentially, Cicognani says the pope is the supreme lawgiver in the Church and can alter law as he pleases, although he should do so with extreme reticence in the case of laws hallowed by tradition because "they have some relation to divine law." In other words, he rightfully recognizes that the separation between so-called "big T" and "small t" tradition is not as cut and try as popularly believed. Even "small t" traditions are interwoven within the larger branches of divine law and should not be recklessly changed (see also: "<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-church-as-barnacle-encrusted-ship.html" target="_blank">The Church as a Baracle Encrusted Ship</a><span>"). For this reason there is a strong institutional resistance to their alteration, which is fitting.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. <i>To Interpret the Laws, Both Ecclesiastical and Divine</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />As the supreme juridical authority in the Church, the pope enjoys the prerogative of interpreting the sense and meaning of the Church's law, "for he is the Universal Doctor and Supreme Teacher." The pope may do this directly, or through the various dicasteries and congregations of the Holy See, such as the Roman Rota.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. <i>To Safeguard Laws and to Enforce Them<br /></i><br />For the Church's canonical legislation to have integrity, its supreme lawgiver must insist on observance of the Church's laws, "for he must be their defender against attacks." In western democracies where we have divided branches of government, we are not accustomed to thinking of the legislative authority as being tasked with enforcing and defending law, but such has always been the case in every monarchical system. In fact, one of the most frequent gripes against poor monarchs of the past (such as King John) was that they failed to defend the laws; royal coronation liturgies frequently included promises to defend the laws. Papal coronation oaths, too, contained promises to defend the Church's customary laws and usages (see Dr. Kwasniewski's talk "<a href="https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-popes-boundenness-to-tradition-as.html" target="_blank">The Pope's Boundedness to Tradition</a>" for excerpts from these oaths).<br /><br />4. <i>To Abrogate, Derogate, and Change Human Ecclesiastical Laws</i><br /><br />While the first point pertains to the pope's ability to create new law, this point concerns his relation to preexisting laws. Cardinal Cicognani specifies that the pope is not bound to the prior legilsation, "whether they be the laws of his predecessors (since 'an equal has no dominion over an equal') or the laws of ecumenical or particular Councils, or even those of the apostles." The pope can abolish previous legislation (indeed, almost all papal legislation contains explicit clauses repealing prior decrees); he can modify the procedural methods by which legislation is understood or enforced, and he can make alterations to the legislation of his predecessors. <br /><br />5. <i>To Grants Dispensations, Privileges, and Indults</i><br /><br />This flows from the third point concerning the pope's role as enforcer of ecclesiastical law. It is within his purview to issue relaxations of law to persons or entities in view of special circumstances. Here Cicognani quotes an interesting passage from Boniface VIII, that "the Roman Pontiff has all laws in the archives of his heart" (<i>in scrinio sui pectoris</i>; c. 1, "De Const.", in VI).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">The Pope Ought Not Violate Canon Law (Gratian, Aquinas, Cajetan)</h3><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus are the five powers of the pope which flow from his status as the Church's supreme lawgiver. The discerning reader will note something conspicuously absent from Cicognani's list, however: the ability to <i>break</i> canon law. Cicognani acsribes to the pope the powers of creating laws, interpreting laws, altering laws, enforcing laws, abrogating laws, or dispensing from them, but not breaking them. This is because it would be ridiculous to assert that one of the prerogatives the pope enjoys as supreme lawgiver is the power to break the law. Rather, when we speak of the Supreme Pontiff as "above the law" or "not bound by the law," it simply means that the pope has the authority to change the law if he wishes. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, "the sovereign is above the law, in so far as, when it is expedient, he can change the law, and dispense in it according to time and place" (I-II, Q. 96, Art. 5, ad 3). If the pope is unhappy with some aspect of canon law, he should amend the code; but <i>changing</i> the law is fundamentally different from <i>breaking</i> it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />From the perspective of simple logic, it is a contradiction to assert that the breaking of law is an exercise of judicial authority. It would be akin to saying that adultery is an exercise of marital fidelity, or embezzlement is an aspect of fiscal responsibility. Simply considered terminologically, the phrases "breaking the law" and "judicial authority" cannot be deduced from one another. This is not to say someone in judicial authority can't break the law; we see that all the time, just like people who pledge marital fidelity still commit adultery and people in positions of fiscal responsibility still embezzle. We may certainly say that people do things contradictory to the spirit and demands of their state; but we cannot<i> </i>say that law breaking is <i>derived</i> from judicial authority, that it flows from juridical authority as a consequent. In other words, if the pope breaks canon law, we cannot appeal to his supreme jurdical authority as the justification for his violation. He violates canon law <i>despite</i> his juridical authority, not by virtue of it.</div></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, to assert that one of the pope's powers is breaking the Church's law would undermine the integrity of canon law itself. If the pope can simply violate canon law whenever he wishes, we are justified in asking what is the point of having canon law at all? The rules only exist until the rule-giver gets tired of them and sweeps them away by sheer force of will. The whole concept of law becomes a charade, a facade of legitimacy erected to mask what is ultimately an exercise of raw, aribtrary power. We know that papal authority was <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/11/strict-consistency-with-past.html" target="_blank">never meant to be wielded arbitrarily</a>, but this is the reality we are left with if we grant that the pope is justified in violating canon law on a whim. The integrity of any law suffers when the law giver breaks his own laws. <br /><br />Let us recall, as well, that one of Cicognani's five juridical prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff is the obligation to defend and enforce law. If the pope does not uphold the law by his actions, he undermines not only the law but his own role as its defender and enforcer. This would result in a nonsensical situation where two different exercises of the pope's juridical power undermined each other (i.e., if the pope is obligated to uphold the law, then he undermines law by acting against it; but if the pope can act against law as he pleases, then he cannot effectively uphold it). In that case, in what sense could the pope's power be "plenary and absolute" if it could not even be exercized <i>in totu</i> without undermining its own legitimacy?</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">That the pope should obey canon law is a principle well enshrined in the Church's canonical tradition. We can find this in the <i>Decretum </i>of Gratian. Gratian's <i>Decretum</i> was the supreme authority for <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2023/03/06/twelve-notable-decretists-of-the-middle-ages/" target="_blank">legal opinions</a> in the Church throughout the Middle Ages, much of it surviving into the modern codes. It is the most authoritative canonical text in the Church other than the official codes promulgated by the pontiffs. In the <i>Decretum</i>, we find the maxim of Pope Gelasius that, "It befits no see more than the first to carry out an enactment of the universal Church" (Causa 25, q. I, c. I). The import of the passage is that the dignity befitting the Apostolic See demands that the pope and his church should be the <i>first</i> in obeying the laws of the universal Church, by way of modeling obedience to Christians everywhere and honoring the special dignity of the Roman see. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">St. Thomas Aquinas says the same. Aquinas's <i>Summa</i> considers the assertion that rulers are free from the law under the statement, "The sovereign is exempt from the laws. But he that is exempt from the law is not bound thereby. Therefore all are not subject to law." Aquinas finds this line of reasoning deficient, and replies on the contrary:</div><br /><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">The sovereign is said to be "exempt from the law," as to its coercive power; since, properly speaking, no man is coerced by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence on him, if he acts against the law...But as to the directive force of law, the sovereign is subject to the law by his own will, according to the statement that "whatever law a man makes for another, he should keep himself. And a wise authority [Dionysius Cato, <i>Dist. de Moribus</i>] says: 'Obey the law that thou makest thyself.'" Moreover the Lord reproaches those who "say and do not"; and who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but with a finger of their own they will not move them" (Matthew 23:3-4). Hence, in the judgment of God, the sovereign is not exempt from the law, as to its directive force; but he should fulfil it to his own free-will and not of constraint. Again the sovereign is above the law, in so far as, when it is expedient, he can change the law, and dispense in it according to time and place. (<i>STh</i>, I-II, Q. 96, Art. 5, ad 3).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words, while canon law cannot bind the pope in a <i>coercive</i> manner, he is not exempt from its <i>directive</i> force, that is, as a guiding principle dictating how the pope should act. He who does otherwise risks the reproach of Lord levelled against those who "say and do not" (cf. Matt. 23:3-4).</div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The same principle is cited by the great Thomas Cajetan in his 1514 anti-conciliar tract <i>De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii </i>("The Authority of the Pope and Council Compared"). Cajetan appeals to the responsibility of the pope to obey the laws of the universal Church specificaly as a response to the Conciliarist assertion that the pope's power is arbitrary and unchecked (<i>De comparatione</i>, Cap. VIII). The rhetorical use of Cajetan's argument is important—the Conciliarists claimed that an Ecumenical Council must be above the pope, otherwise the pope's power is unchecked and he will have license to ruin the Church. Citing Gratian, Cajetan responds by noting that the pope's freedom from coercion does not mean the pope disregards law, for it is fitting that the Holy See be the first and most exemplary model of canonical observance.<br /><br />Cajetan reinforces this argument in another work, the <i>Apologia</i>, in which he takes up the same theme against the Conciliarist Jacques Almain of Paris. Here again he says that the pope's superiority from the coercive power of eccesiastical law does not mean he is free to discard it. Even if they don't bind the pope legislatively, they bind him on pain of mortal sin. Therefore, given his exalted station, it is especially fitting for the Roman Pontiff to observe the laws of the Church:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>It is obvious that it is improper [for a pope] to annul the decisions of a council, even a provincial one: how much more those of a general council, whose decrees bind even the pope in the forum of conscience no less than his own do. Therefore, according to the sacred canons, it behooves the Roman pontiff especially to observe the statutes of the fathers (<i>Apologia</i>, Cap.VI).</blockquote><br />These two works of Cajetan are excellent references for this discussion. I am not aware of an unabridged English online version of <i>De comparatione </i>or <i>Apologia</i>, but I recommend the text <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Conciliarism-Papalism-Cambridge-History-Political/dp/0521476747/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Conciliarism and Papalism</a></i>, edited by J.H. Burns and Thomas Izbicki, which also contains the<i> responsa</i> of Cajetan's adversaries, Jacques Almain and John Mair).<br /><br /></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">When the Pope Violates Canon Law</h3><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Neither Cajetan, Cicognani, nor any of the other authorities I am familiar with suggest that a pope's acts in violation of canon law lack juridical force or become <i>ipso facto</i> invalid. In a coercive sense, the pope is only bound by divine law in his government of the Church, and hence his actions—even outside of canonical norms—still possess binding power so long as they do not contravene divine law. But we need not argue such acts are invalid to rebut the hyperpapalist claim, for the original statement we set out to examine is that the pope can legitimately contravene canon law when he wishes <i>by virtue of his supreme authority</i>. This is manifestly false. The sources suggest that when a pope violates canon law, it is not an exercise of his authority but an abuse of it. When a police officer brutalizes an innocent civilian, we would never say he was acting by virtue of his law enforcement responsibilities, but in violation of them. Similarly, when a pope violates canon law, he is not acting by virtue of his supreme juridical authority, but in violation of it. He not only abuses his juridical authority, but undermines the integrity of canon law and degrades his own role as <i>defensor legis. </i>He fails to lead by example, brings the Holy See into disrepute, and (according to Aquinas) merits the reproach of our Lord. The pope possesses all power necessary to revise canon law as he wishes; that he wields such a plentitude of power and would still choose to simply disregard the law makes it that much worse, like King David killing Uriah to take Bathsheba when he could have had any woman in Israel.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />What is the proper response when the pope violates canon law? We should be gravely concerned. We should strongly but charitably remind any who would listen that ecclesiastical law exists for a reason and that breaking the law is not one of the prerogatives of papal authority. It certainly is not an exercise of his supreme juridical authority, but an abuse thereof, which the faithful should not only not defend, but should pray to be delivered from, as one prays to be delivered from a tyrant. And we should certainly not celebrate it, nor make apologies for it by arguing, "So what? The pope is not bound by canon law." The pope's exemption from the coercive power of canon law was never meant to imply that the pope can violate it at will, and those who argue otherwise are undermining the very foundations of ecclesiastical law by doing so.</div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-53380300023032697632023-11-12T15:09:00.000-05:002023-11-12T15:09:11.173-05:00"Strict Consistency with the Past"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicsZXZpsT3ai349daUMsfLRJbHzMpBqr-WX1AjVyjip4KeQa1NfK4w35U-dr-W4d2clyX-4bcDn3yqmFovKuIa80Kt_vRd2gn-pRGRgJrlq3_CAR8uULdolzg_vRmHsQShGUbiOdN2E0DHs3Z9MDk1Iiv3Xn0oLVMSgHKln3aWHFHDTN0ffR_DSjnSwcU/s640/dicktionary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicsZXZpsT3ai349daUMsfLRJbHzMpBqr-WX1AjVyjip4KeQa1NfK4w35U-dr-W4d2clyX-4bcDn3yqmFovKuIa80Kt_vRd2gn-pRGRgJrlq3_CAR8uULdolzg_vRmHsQShGUbiOdN2E0DHs3Z9MDk1Iiv3Xn0oLVMSgHKln3aWHFHDTN0ffR_DSjnSwcU/s320/dicktionary.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Whilst casually flipping through my old copy of the 1929 <i>New Catholic Dictionary</i>, I looked up its entry for "Pope" and found an interesting little nugget. After a rather boiler-plate explanation of papal authority (universal, immediate, perpertual, etc.), it addresses the question of whether pontifical power is to be understood in an absolutist manner. After discussing the pope's practical dependence on the curia for his governance, the article answers the question in the negative: <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"In no way, therefore, is the pope's exercise of power absolutist or arbitrary. Besides the check of his own conscience, he is guided by the spirit, practice, and tradition of the Church, its ancient statutes, customs, and precedents, its council; in a word, by <b>strict consistency with its past </b>and by a pious regard for its pastors and the faithful." (1)</blockquote><p></p><div><div style="text-align: justify;">While the pope has no earthly superior, he is clearly not meant to operate indepdent of any checks whatsoever, and the <i>New Catholic Dictionary</i> rightly stresses the pope's accountability to Sacred Tradition, to "strict consistency with the past," which functions as as another "check" on his actions, in addition to the pontiff's own conscience.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is how all absolute monarchies function. Historically, even rulers who are legally absolute must exercise their power judiciously, with deference to legal precdent, the opinons of learned men, and the customs of their people. The same holds true for the pope who, though he has no earthly superior, must nevertheless hold himself accountable to the "spirit, practice, and tradition of the Church"— at least if he is not to be perceived as a tyrant.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Funny how this was just common knowledge in 1929.<br /><br />________________<span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">(1) "Pope," in <i>The New Catholic Dictionary </i>ed.<b> </b>Condé B. Pallen & John J. Wynne (London: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1929), p. 774. Imprimatur Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York</div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-15857809720818960832023-11-05T22:57:00.015-05:002023-11-08T22:37:49.833-05:00The Last Gasp of Our Akhenaten<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm80eYyeVb-9m8R9zSB36mnvsE8KaxvxSPokHH5RF10dVeNSW2_gnV5a22hU9CuvutxAtduHb0A1I7gZ6B-3WLKOlP9N5uNeNPWYvK3knxsT6k9d76Jq7jyeHU3gnndq4e2WoZNXWbCTaHIEo9zMJZFWUWq4U5EkNBYyjFFzBCh4YbwbFtLEaoLZWZHEE/s3093/akhenaten.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3093" data-original-width="2500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm80eYyeVb-9m8R9zSB36mnvsE8KaxvxSPokHH5RF10dVeNSW2_gnV5a22hU9CuvutxAtduHb0A1I7gZ6B-3WLKOlP9N5uNeNPWYvK3knxsT6k9d76Jq7jyeHU3gnndq4e2WoZNXWbCTaHIEo9zMJZFWUWq4U5EkNBYyjFFzBCh4YbwbFtLEaoLZWZHEE/s320/akhenaten.jpg" width="259" /></a></div><br />Pope Francis's new motu proprio <i><a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255887/pope-francis-calls-for-paradigm-shift-in-theology-for-world-of-today" target="_blank">Ad Theologiam Promovendam</a></i> has called for a "paradigm shift" in Catholic theology, citing the "profound cultural changes" of the modern world as the justification. The pope insisted on a "courageous cultural revolution" within Catholic thought, calling for our theology to become "fundamentally contextual." Among other things, he called for theology to be primarily "inductive," focused on "dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian confessions and different religions, openly engaging with everyone." He contrasted this new approach with "abstractly re-proposing formulas and themes from the past," which the pope characterized as "desk bound theology." <span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Francis argued that his new approach to theology is appropriate for a synodal Church. <span face="Inter, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #2f222a; font-size: 18px;">“</span>A synodal, missionary, and ‘outgoing’ Church can only correspond to an ‘outgoing’ theology," he said. What are the characteristics of this "outgoing" theology? For one thing, it is "transdisciplinary," that is, part of a “web of relationships, first of all with other disciplines and other knowledge.” This engagement requires theologians to utilize “new categories developed by other knowledge” in order to “penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today’s languages, with originality and critical awareness.” Priority is to be given to "common sense," which Francis claims is a "theological source in which many images of God live." This is what he calls "popular theology" and wants this "pastoral stamp" to be impressed upon all Catholic theology.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Regarding theology's place within the Church, he said “Theology places itself at the service of the evangelization of the Church and the transmission of faith, so that faith becomes culture; that is, the wise ethos of the people of God, a proposal of human and humanizing beauty for all."</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">(As of the writing of this article, <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i> is <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255887/pope-francis-calls-for-paradigm-shift-in-theology-for-world-of-today" target="_blank">only available in Italian</a>, so I am relying on snippets of the English translated and published by the <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255887/pope-francis-calls-for-paradigm-shift-in-theology-for-world-of-today" target="_blank">Catholic News Agency</a>. I have, however, read the entire document using Google Translate, though due to the imprecision of some of Google's renderings, I will be restricting myself to commenting only on the translated portions published by CNA)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I pondered these comments for several days, hoping to write something comprehensive on the matter, but there's so much stuffed into this document that I despaired of coming up with any cohesive essay that could tie it all together. Therefore, I am opting instead to present a miscellany of reflections occasioned by <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i>. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * * * * </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First off, this is simply the worst papal document I have ever read. This is worse than reading John Paul II <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000321_wadi-al-kharrar.html" target="_blank">asking John the Baptist to bless Islam</a>. This is worse than reading Benedict XVI gush about a one world government with coercive authority (see <i><a href="https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dpv.htm#bh" target="_blank">Caritas in Veritate</a></i>, 67). I would venture to say it is even worse than the Vatican's 2009 "<a href="https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2007/06/19/0335/00905-1.html#V.%20The%20Christian%20virtue%20of%20drivers%20and%20their%20%E2%80%9CTen%20Commandments%E2%80%9D" target="_blank">Ten Commandments for Drivers</a>." Yes, <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i> is worse than them all—the worst in its revolutionary import, in its shocking hubris, in its disregard for Catholic tradition, in the embarassing display of simping for modern culture.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * * * * </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div></div></div></div><span style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span>Yes, hubris I say, not only because Francis seeks to unilaterally revise how the Church has handled theology for two millennia (which is bad enough), but because he cites <i>no authority to do this other than himself</i>. The motu proprio cites only three texts, all from Francis: he cites <i>Laudato Si',</i> his 2018 Apostolic Constitution <i>Veritatis Gaudium</i>, and a 2013 speech he gave to the Roman curia. This last text provides the cringey citation with which Francis opens his motu proprio: </span>"What we are experiencing is not simply an era of change, but a change of era." How indicative of the Bergoglian approach to things!<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * * * *</b></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;">This is, indeed, a call for revising how the Church does theology, as it constitutes a profound shift from the objective to the subjective. Francis wants Catholic theology to be "fundamentally contextual" and "inductive." What does he mean by this? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Theology is traditionally <i>deductive</i>; that is, we start with an objective body of truth (divine revelation, i.e., the "deposit of faith") and deduce applications from that body of truth. Theological development thus constitutes a kind of "clarification" or "deepening" of this primal deposit, such that theologians of later centuries have <i>greater </i>clarity on the truth, as each step of theological progress is deducted logically from the steps before it. Francis, however, wants an inductive method based on contextualization. Inductive reasoning means we construct theories based on concrete observations; in this case, Francis wants these theories contextualized based on "common sense," "popular theology," and "other disciplines"—in other words, the lived experience of individuals in the context of contemporary culture. This rotates the axis of theology 180 degrees, moving us from deductions derived from objective principles to theories constructed around the subjective experiences of people. It is a complete inversion of how theology has traditionally been done.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Those familiar with this blog will recognize in this an echo of Archbishop "Tucho" Fernández's "essentializing" approach to Sacred Scripture, which we <a href=" https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/07/tucho-fernandezs-essentialist-view-of.html" target="_blank">discussed previously</a>. In that article, I opined:<br /><span style="background-color: transparent;"><br /><blockquote>This is, of course, just a variation of process theology, the theological approach that emphasizes "event," "occurrence," or "becoming" over substance and being. And it absolutely eviscerates any concept of an objective divine revelation. According to this approach, revelation is something mankind continually discovers through the historical process.</blockquote></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />This is precisely what Francis is talking about here: revelation understood in the context of cultural progress. Culture becomes the bellweather for the development of theology. Rather than seeking to apply "abstract formulas and themes" to culture, the process must be reversed; the discerning theologian will recognize the Spirit of the Lord moving through culture and develop theology appropriately. This is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_9Q3fbqYM" target="_blank">what they call "recognizing the signs of the times"</a> (this language is used in <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i> 8 where Francis says the theologian needs to let himself be challenged by reality, and thus discern the "segni dei tempi"). The reader is encouraged to review my article from 2013, "<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2013/10/pastoral-applications-in-concrete.html" target="_blank">Pastoral Applications in Concrete Circumstances</a>" for more on this approach.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * * * *</b></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">One thing that is clear from all this is the degree to which Francis and Fernández truly despise the discipline of theology. We have, of course, witnessed other attacks on specific branches of theology; for example, the <a href="https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-dismisses-entire-membership-of-pontifical-academy-for-life/">gutting of the Pontifical Academy for Life</a> (2016) and the <a href="https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/09/23/farewell-to-the-pontifical-john-paul-ii-institute-for-studies-on-marriage-and-family/">systematic dismantling of St. John Paul II's Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family</a> (2017), part of <a href="https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/07/francis-has-systematically-dismantled.html">Francis's overthrow of John Paul II's legacy</a> on family life and sexual ethics as encapsulated in <i>Familiaris Consortio</i>. But in <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i>, Francis undermines not this or that branch of theology, but rather seeks to overhaul the entire discipline of theology itself. Francis's contextualist vision for Catholic theology fundamentally eviscerates the vocation of the theologian by turning him into little more than an intepreter of the popular will. In this "dialogic" theology, the theologian recognizes the movement of the Spirit in "profound cultural changes," and looking upon the works of men's hands, proclaims that they are good.<br /><br />In case you think I exaggerate how offensive this is to authentic theology, let us recall that in 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that the theologian's role "is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church. He does this in communion with the Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith" (<i><a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html" target="_blank">Donum Veritatis</a></i>, 6). The source of theology, then, is divine revelation, as found in the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The vocation of the theologian is to deepen the Church's understanding of this revelation. But Francis says that "common sense" is itself is now a source of revelation; in <i>Ad Theologiam Promovendam</i> 8, we read that "common sense...is in fact a theological source" that theologians need to give primary attention to when doing theology. I can hardly think of a bigger afront to the entire discipline of theology than to tell theologians that common sense and "concrete situations" are now to be considered theological sources. This is akin to telling a PhD in math that he is no longer to teach math based on the fundamental principles of arithmetic, but based on feelings.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * *</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The autonomy of theology is also eviscerated, as Francis insists that theology become a "transdisciplinary" science. By this, he explains that theology should be viewed as part of a "web of relationships, first of all with other disciplines and other knowledge," drawing on the insights of other branches of knowledge, most notably science. This undermines the autonomy of theology. While it has always been understood that theology may draw on secular learning for ancillary and illustrative purposes, it has never been asserted that theology itself need be understood as linked in a "web of relationships" with other disciplines, to which its conclusions are now subject. And should there ever be any incongruity between theology and one of these other sciences in the "web of relationships," I think we know which discipline will be expected to yield. In the days of the Schoolmen, philosophy was the handmaid of theology. But now theology must receive the input from every other science, not even as a handmaid, but as a whore, receiving deposits from every other branch of human learning while having minimal agency of its own. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>* * * * *</b></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many people will no doubt say, "More modernist garbage!" While I understand the sentiment, I do think we need to stop using the words "modernist" and "modernism" to refer to this sort of thing. For all their heresy, the original Modernists were highly intelligent, precise thinkers. Fr. John Augustine Zahm was a sophisticated, complex thinker who wrote compellingly. Alfred Loisy was an erudite scholar whose theology, for all its errors, was systematic and articulate. The Modernists were a small coterie of intellectuals who were, if anything, <i>too</i> educated for their own good. The gobbledygook coming out of the Synod on Synodality is, by contrast, characterized by its banality, its vacuousness, and its sheer incoherency. The Synod even found it necessary to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=359675016401584&set=a.275407231495030" target="_blank">recommended forming committee</a> to define what Synodality even means. This is not Modernism; Modernism is at least coherent. This is something worse, something even lower than Modernism. I'd call it <i>Sub-Modernism</i>.<br /><br />One other interesting observation: the Modernists never proposed touching the liturgy. For them, the traditional liturgy retained its value as a symbol-system, where what evolved was not the rite itself, but the subjective meanings people derived from the ritual symbols. As we recently saw with o<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/09/another-older-catechism-on-capital.html" target="_blank">ur examination of the 1967 Dutch Catechism's teaching on the death penalty</a>, we are living in a bizarro time when older erroneous documents nevertheless contain clearer expressions of truth than contemporary expositions of the Faith.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">* * * * *<br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">"Development of doctrine" is invoked so universally that it has become a phrase that means nothing. It has no definition, being used too euphemistically. The deposit of faith, of course, cannot develop; theological insights based on that deposit can and do develop, and this is typically what is meant by "development of doctrine." But we must recall that development of doctrine—as famously <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/05/newmans-development-of-doctrine.html" target="_blank">expounded by Newman</a>—does not develop without direction. Rather, it develops in a specified pattern according to certain principles. But the current zeitgeist does not see doctrine developing towards a clearer understanding of the Faith, but rather devolving into states of ever greater confusion. This is not "development" at all. Development has ceased to mean the refinement and clarification of doctrine and instead means anything and everything the God of Surprises wants to foist upon us in current year.</div></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * *</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>There certainly have been "paradigm shifts" within Catholicism, and it would be historically blind to deny this. It is not, therefore, prima facie incorrect to say that the Church can experience a paradigm shift. I would argue, for example, the Church experienced a paradigm shift between the 10th and 12th centuries when Catholicism decided it was no longer willing to tolerate lay administration to degree it had previously. These sorts of shifts are why Tridentine Catholicism looks different than medieval Catholicism, which in turn looks different than patristic Catholicism. Obviously core truths and practices remain unchanged, but there is still a wide degree of variability to how it all looks.</div><div><br /></div><div>What is profoundly wrong, however, is to take the historical development of Catholicism and extrapolate that we can therefore <i>manufacture</i> development on the spot in whichever direction we choose. In all this talk about "contextualizing" the faith for the modern world, "development" of the religion, finding new ways to "appeal" to modern man, etc., there is never any acknowledgment that the historical development of the faith happened <i>organically</i>—that is, the most important developments in Catholicism were not top-down affairs resulting from bureaucratic diktat, but from the slow process of Catholic thinkers, religious, and laity responding to the needs of their times over many years, sometimes centuries. This is why you can't pinpoint one exact moment or place when the ancient orders of penitents were replaced by personalized penances assigned from penitential books, or when the pallium came to be seen as a grant of archepiscopal authority, or when servers started holding up the hem of the priest's chasuble at the elevation. That's because these developments all emerged organically over time, through incremental changes arising from the needs of the Church assessed across many years; they were not imposed based on someone's ideological vision of where the Church needed to be. There needs to be a realization that organic development takes a long time, and that there is a huge difference between observing that a paradigm shift happened in the past and calling for one in the present. In other words, organic development ≠ development by bureaucratic decree.</div><div><br /></div><div>And you’d be hard pressed to show me any paradigm shift in the Church’s past that was pushed through by a single man. </div><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * *</div><br />I love ancient Egyptian history. The ancient Egyptian culture was so enduring, so remarkable, and so conservative that its always a joy to study. Truth be told, I often immerse myself in Egyptian studies when I am burned out on Church stuff or current events. There's something tranquil about studying 4,500 year old architecture or reading about the Abydos inscriptions that helps soothe the mind, like history ASMR for my brain.<br /><br />Once there was a Pharaoh called Akhenaten, who reigned c. 1353-1334 B.C. during the New Kingdom. Though Akhenaten was a contemporary of the Old Testament Judges, Egyptian civilization was already very old in his time, having almost 2,000 years behind it. Over those long centuries the priesthoods of the various Egyptian gods had amassed considerable influence, not only in their prestige as religious leaders, but in lands, wealth, and political power. The most influential of these cults was the priesthood of Amun-Ra, centered in the city of Thebes, in Upper Egypt. The cult of Amun-Ra was so old and entrenched in Egyptian society that no pharaoh could expect to be successful without its support.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The pharoahs had always existed in a symbiotic relationship with the priesthoods, where pharoah supported the cults and the cults in turn lent divine gravitas to the pharonic office. Akhenaten, however, bristled under the oppressive weight of this tradition and sought instead to free himself from the religious hierarchy by reforming Egypt's religious structure. He moved his capital to the newly created city of Amarna, refusing to dwell in the traditional capital under the watchful gaze of the Amun-Ra priesthood. Once in Amarna, he overhauled the religious system by proclaiming a new god, Aten, who was declared superior to all other gods. Not content to merely rival the old ways, he proscribed the ancient gods entirely, ordering their names removed from monuments. He suppressed the other cults (especially the cult of Amun-Ra) and "demonetized" them by seizing lands and requisitioning their treasury. He even promoted a new style of art, known as the "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=579693776&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS928US928&sxsrf=AM9HkKk8pcMGSEKDeap7Hud2ffAgkNFMdQ:1699237949946&q=characteristics+of+amarna+style&uds=H4sIAAAAAAAA_-MK52LzzE1MTy0Wkk_OSCxKTC5JLcosLslMLlbIT1NIzE0syktUKC6pzEk1YLNik2LhYuJgKiKkdAcjoxEhNQB6qu3vegAAAA&udm=2&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEuZTTqq6CAxUHnWoFHdQxB2QQtKgLegQIChAB&biw=1536&bih=739&dpr=1.25" target="_blank">Amarna style</a>," which featured elongated, exaggerated caricatures. The Amarna style deviated considerably from the traditonal Egyptian canon of sculpture, demonstrating Akhenaten's desire to differentiate himself from the past aesthetically as well as doctrinally. As the pinnacle of his reform, Akhenaten centralized all religious power in himself by proclaiming the pharoah to be the <i>only </i>mediator between the Egyptian people and Aten. He thus undercut the traditional intercessory role of the priesthoods by making himself the sole oracle of the divinity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />During his reign, of course, Akhenaten was obeyed as throngs of bureaucratic sycophants fanned out across Egypt to chisel the name of Amun off a thousand obelisks and see that the pharaoh's will was enforced, for this was to be a revolution that would last a thousand years. Were we able to query Akhenaten, he doubtless would have told us that "there's no turning back," that the dusty formulae of the past had been shorn of their power, that the future was with Aten. The pharoah even gave the name of the new deity to his son and heir, Tutankaten, that there should be no doubt about the destiny of Egypt.<br /><br />Eventually Akhenaten went the way of all flesh. His body had scarcely been embalmed when the old cults were reestablished. Their lands, wealth, and prerogatives were restored. The army of scribes who had busied themselves defacing the old monuments were now employed doing the opposite, striking the names of Akhenaten and his god from the Two Lands (he would be remembered as the "Heretic Pharaoh"). The new captial of Amarna was quietly abandoned, the hastily created priests of Aten skulked back to their previous occupations, and even the Amarna style of art was chucked in a return to sculptural orthodoxy. As for the heir Tutankaten, he removed <i>Aten</i> from his name and replaced it with with the traditional <i>Amun</i>, becoming the famous Tutankhamun. Within a few years, the "paradigm shift" Akhenaten had worked so hard pushing was naught but a fading memory, a bad dream, so thoroughly rejected that the very location of Amarna was forgotten and soon buried beneath the sand where it would remain undisturbed, unremembered, and unmissed for three thousand years.<br /><br />Pope Francis has been compared to many characters from history; my friend Kevin Tierney has made a compelling case that he resembles Maximilien Robespierre. I, however, am inclined to consider him as our own Catholic Ahkenaten in the last gasp of a legacy already sinking beneath the sands of time, a man whose quixotic crusade to remake Catholicism in his own image and likeness will, in the end, face the same fate as Akhenaten, and the same obscurity as Amarna. The only difference is, three thousand years from now, people will still be interested in Akhenaten.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-91025420649955534582023-10-16T00:04:00.009-04:002023-11-05T20:40:17.278-05:00A 1971 Proposal for a New Form of First Confession for Children<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZq4sw53BaInmQ7qWZGXOEqDXVK32WiSSAzW6dL5DMOE96RB8xnlTguZbNHhMXwKTI5f0ce-XTbjhitfxz6ACtNN2ZfAG7H0OxmTm93n6Rjopv2l30RoDp7kODWv3F7VuLsYiPvjMcNKLCLLoQQ5S2NzIDOJ5YTkNqtiAcA_RCdCpd0_g-K1MD2cj1yII/s236/Moors.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="231" data-original-width="236" height="313" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZq4sw53BaInmQ7qWZGXOEqDXVK32WiSSAzW6dL5DMOE96RB8xnlTguZbNHhMXwKTI5f0ce-XTbjhitfxz6ACtNN2ZfAG7H0OxmTm93n6Rjopv2l30RoDp7kODWv3F7VuLsYiPvjMcNKLCLLoQQ5S2NzIDOJ5YTkNqtiAcA_RCdCpd0_g-K1MD2cj1yII/w320-h313/Moors.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Bishop Pieter Jan Antoon Moors of Roermond, who in 1964 became one of the first bishops to revise how the Sacrament of Penance was administered to children</i>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[Oct. 15, 2023] Franz Heggen (b. 1930) is a Dutch theologian who was a <i>peritus</i> for Bishop Pieter Jan Antoon Moors of the Diocese of Roermond, Netherlands. Before the Second Vatican Council had even ended, Bishop Moors (1964) issued directives in his diocese for a reevaluation of how penance was administered, asking priests to consider preparing children for confession in stages through prayer and song rather than traditional catechesis (1). Franz Heggen was a part of these discussions and an advocate for a restructuring of the sacrament in such a way that absolution was conferred collectively in order to stress the communal character of the sacrament.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />In the years after the Council Heggen devoted considerable energy to promoting a revision of the Sacrament of Penance, particularly regarding to children. The year after the Council closed, he was tasked with revising the administration of the sacrament for the Diocese of Roermond and published the German language instruction <i>Age-Appropriate Children's Confession: Guidelines and Paths to Child-Appropriate Confession Practice in the Diocese of Roermond</i> (<i>Altersgemäße Kinderbeicht: Richtlinien und Wege zur kindgemäßen Beichtpraxis in der Diözese Roermond</i>). The text would appear in a collection of religious education texts printed by Herder and Herder in 1967. <br /><br />In 1971, Heggen authored an essay for <i>Concilium </i>proposing the adoption of new models of penance, chiefly for the purpose of giving a more "communal form" to the sacrament (2). Like many progressives, Heggen found the Church's traditional practice too individualistic, but also eschewed returning to patristic disciplines because they were too harsh. He therefore advocated for the "creation of rites of penance whichare adapted to contemporary needs"; i.e., freely invented. (3) Heggen was particularly interested in linking children's First Confession with the Easter Triduum, believing the Good Friday itself was an ideal occasion for First Confession (though he does not stipulate the service below <i>must</i> occur on Good Friday). In his <i>Concilium</i> essay entitled "The Service of Penance: A Description and Appreciation of Some Models," Heggen proposes a model penance service for First Confession. I present Franz Heggen's ideal penance service in its totality, as it appeared in the pages of <i>Concilium</i>, No. 61 (1971), pp. 141-145, and drawn from his work in the Diocese of Roermond:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * *</div></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">The service itself should take place in a quiet room or building, such as a church. In the sanctuary (if the church is used), a decorated cross is placed on the left and a lighted paschal candle on the right. Between them, there must be room for the priest and six children, who have been specially instructed beforehand, so that they know what to do during the service. The children who are not in the sanctuary sit down in the front pews of the church. Each child is given a candle. These small candles could have been decorated by the children before the service and could afterwards be given, for example, to the sick as an Easter gift. In any case, fruit or other gifts are brought forward by the children towards the end of the service, to be later given to the sick or other people.</div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">The priests conducting the service comes with the six children from the sacristy. The six children light their candles from the paschal candle and form a semicircle with the priest in the center. </div><p>1. <i>The Priest’s Opening Address</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">“We have come together today and are gathered around the cross and the candle because we belong to Jesus. It is his cross and it is his candle—his light. During Lent and especially on Good Friday, we think about how much Jesus suffered. Let us sing then—"</p><p>2. <span style="font-style: italic;">Song</span><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span>3. </span><i>A Teacher Now Reads</i><span>, preferably from a children's Bible, such as that by J. Klink, </span><i>Bible for Children</i><span>, New Testament, Volume II, the story of the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:45-46; Mark 15:33-39; Luke 23:44-56), stressing the darkness which covered the earth when Jesus died. After this story, the paschal candle is extinguished and there is a short period of silence for personal prayer.</span></div></span><p></p><p></p><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. <i>Priest</i>: “It was dark. Not because of an eclipse of the sun, but because Jesus had been put to death—Jesus who was such a good man to everyone. This was very bad for his murderers and very bad for everyone. Every time a good man is murdered, the night comes—it becomes dark. Think of America. It was a terrible pity about the murder of Martin Luther King. It was a terrible pity about the man who shot Robert Kennedy—very bad, a pity for him and very bad, a sin for the whole of America, the whole of the world. Every time men do something very wrong there is less light in the world. It becomes darker. It is a great pity, very bad, for the people who do wrong, and very bad, a sin for others. Listen to some stories about things that people do which are very bad for themselves and very bad, a sin, for others."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. <i>The Six Children</i> standing with their burning candles in a semicircle around the priest now say, in turn, one of the following texts in a quiet but clear voice and emphatically.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 1</i>: “Two nations live side by side. They ought to live together in peace, but they wage war. It is a terrible pity, very bad for those people. It is very bad, a sin for the world. There is less light now in the world.” (The child blows his or her candle out.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: "Forgive us, Lord. We make the world dark around us."<br /><br /><i>Child 6</i>: (The child standing on the outside of the semicircle on the opposite of child one): “There are so many vegetables grown in our country, but the growers often say: “We can't get the prices we want,” and throw the food away on dumps—while so many people are starving in the world. It is a terrible pity for the people who dump the food and it is very bad for the poor starving people, a sin. There is less light now. (The child blows his or her candle out.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: "Forgive us, Lord. We make the world dark around us."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 2</i>: "An old man has been saving money all his life. Thieves break into his home and steal all his savings. It is very bad for the thieves and a sin, and very bad, for the old man. There is less light." (The child blows his or her candle out.)<br /><br /><i>All</i>: "Forgive us, Lord. We make the world dark around us."<br /><br /><i>Child 5</i>: "Two families quarrel. They can't stand each other. They are always upsetting each other and thinking the worst of each other. What a sin for those two families and what a pity for their friends. There is even less light. (The child blows his or her candle out.)<br /><br /><i>All</i>: "Forgive us, Lord. We make the world dark around us."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 3</i>: "A man makes his wife very unhappy. He has the chance to put it right again but he doesn't do anything. What a pity. It is so bad for the husband and so bad for his wife. Even less light." (the child blows his or her candle out.)<br /><br /><i>All</i>: "Forgive us, Lord. We make the world dark around us."<br /><i><br />Child 4</i>: "People often work terribly hard to make other people happy, but no one thinks of thanking them. How wrong of those other people and what a sin it is for all of us. Less light..." (The child blows his or her candle out.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. <i>Priest:</i> "Boys and girls, all the candles are out now. There is much less light. It is darker all around us. When this happens, people feel miserable. They feel especially miserable when they know that it is their own fault—when they know that<i> they</i> have made the world dark around them and others. They are sorry about it. But it is never completely dark in the world around us, because Jesus's message to every person in the world is always there—whatever has happened, it is always possible to be forgiven.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. <i>Song</i><br /><br />8. “Let us now honestly confess our faults, our sins. Let us all tell God that we are sorry for the wrong things that we have done.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Confession of guilt: “I confess to almighty God...etc.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. <i>Teacher</i>: “Who will save us? Who will take away the darkness? Who will be the light of the world? Who will help us to be light in the world? Listen to this Bible story about Jesus." (The teacher here reads, again preferably from a children's Bible, such as the <i>Bible for Children</i> by J. Clink, Volume II, the story of the meeting with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24: 9-32, stressing the Christians' despondency after Jesus's death, then their hope and finally their certainty that he is with them. This story can also be enacted in mime by several of the children, again stressing the same elements. Finally the paschal candle is lit again.)<br /><br />10. <i>Priest</i>: “The paschal candle is a light again—Jesus 's death was not the end. He has risen again. He is alive! He brings light to all people. But He also says—Do as I did, do good to everyone and forgive other people who have done wrong things to you. Then God will forgive you as well. That is why I can, in the name of Jesus, say to you: may almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to everlasting life.<br /><br /><i>All</i>: “Amen.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Priest</i>: “May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Amen.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. <i>The six children</i> now say, in turn, one of the following texts and then light their candles again:<br /><br /><i>Child 1</i>: “Jesus is alive. He is the light of the world. Luckily there are people who hear His message and make the world light around them. (The child lights his or her candle again from the paschal candle and goes back to his or her place.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Help us, Lord, to make the world light around us.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(During the following readings, a few children can enact what is said in simple mime—carrying a heavy load, helping mother, perhaps by washing up, in the family, reading to a blind person, doing first aid.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 6</i>: “There are people who notice at once if someone else needs help—they run forward at once to help him carry a heavy load. They make the world light for others. (The child lights his or her candle again from the paschal candle and goes back to his or her place.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Help us, Lord, to make the world light around us.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 2</i>: “there are people who like helping mother in a busy family. They get down to work straight away. They are a light for others. (The child lights his or her candle.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Help us, Lord, to make the world light around us.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 5</i>: “there are people who visit a blind person every week and read the newspaper aloud to him, so that he can have company and keep in touch with things. They bring light too. (The child lights his or her candle.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Help us, Lord, to make the world light around us.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 3</i>: “there are people who give other people first aid, bandage their wounds, try to lessen their pain and to comfort them if they are depressed. They are a light for others in the world. (The child lights his or her candle.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>All</i>: “Help us, Lord, to make the world light around us.”</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 4</i>: “We have brought something here for sick people.” (Children from the class bring a basket of fruit or other gifts or some decorations that they have made themselves.) </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Child 4</i> (After having lit his or her candle): “We want to make these people happy and bring a little light into their lives.”<br /><i style="text-align: left;"><i><br />Priest:</i> “Boys and girls, Jesus wants his light to be spread
further over the world. We can help to do that and we can show each other that
we are going to help to spread Jesus light over the world. Bring your candles
forward now and receive the light of the Paschal candle—Jesus's light."</i></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div style="text-align: justify;">(The class now comes forward from the pews. They form a large semi-circle, or
several smaller semi-circles, opposite the semicircle formed by the priest and
the six children. The six children go with their lighted candles to the others
and let them light their candles. They may for example say: “May your light
shine everywhere.” When all the candles are alight, the priest resumes.)</div>
<br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Priest</i>: “Children, Jesus will help us to be a light for others in the world
around us, just as he was. He wants to give us something of his light. But he
hopes that we will go out with that light, along the street, to school and
home, to bring a little light whatever we can. Then Easter will be a really
happy feast for us and for other people."</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">12. <i>Song</i>: (The children may perhaps be able to sing verses
that they have composed themselves on the theme of light).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * *<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Was this liturgical monstrosity ever actually used? Sadly, this seems to be the case. After introducing the text, Franz Heggen comments:</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">This is, in my opinion, one of the best services of penance that I know which is especially composed for children <b>and is available at present.</b> The text is particularly well-adapted for the needs of children<i style="text-align: left;">—</i><span style="text-align: left;">the point of departure is the child's concrete experience and the word of Scripture is placed within this context. The children are encouraged to take an active part in what is happening. (4)</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Some observations:<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The reader will notice that Heggen has the recitation of the Act of Contrition has replaced any individualized confession; six representatives of the class recite generalized accounts of social evils, say the Act of Contrition, and then receive absolution without any particular confession of sins. This is in keeping with the progressives' hatred of private confession (which will be explored in future articles). This is also specifically goes against the teaching of the Council of Trent, which said:</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>For it is manifest, that priests could not have exercised this judgment [of administering absolution] without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the said faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather specifically, and one by one. Whence it is gathered that all the mortal sins, of which, after a diligent examination of themselves, they are conscious, must needs be by penitents enumerated in confession (5)</blockquote></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, the traditional enumeration of personal sins for which penitents are personally culpable has been replaced by the idea of "collective sin" or "societal sin"; i.e., instead of confessing individual sins, penitents are invited to reflect on the collective moral faults of society. Rather than repent (indeed, there is no mention or even inference of repentance), children are encouraged to make the world a better place by resolving to right social ills through good deeds. There is no mention of the atoning power of Jesus's death; in fact, it is Christ's death is only mentioned as a moral evil, not as a source of salvation. Forgiveness is promised based on the children's resolution to imitate Jesus's good deeds by actively counteracting the societal evils. It is a view of redemption that is profoundly naturalistic and Pelagian.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, we cannot help but notice the banal, pandering tone of the text. Fr. Zuhlsdorf used to joke that if the reformers had their way, liturgical prayer would be reduced to, "God, you are big. Real big. Help us to be big like you." Yet Heggen's texts approximate to this level of vapidity:</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"Every time men do something very wrong there is less light in the world. It becomes darker. It is a great pity, very bad, for the people who do wrong, and very bad, a sin for others. Listen to some stories about things that people do which are very bad for themselves and very bad, a sin, for others."</blockquote><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Heggen would dethrone the Church's traditional rite of penance for <i>this.</i> The analogy of exchanging one's birthright for pottage has never been more applicable.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: 700; text-decoration-line: underline;"><br /></span></div><u style="font-weight: bold;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>Notes</u></div></u><br />(1) Heggen Franz. "The Service of Penance: A Decsription and Appreciation of Some Models." <i>Concilium </i>61 (1971), 137</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(2) Ibid., 135<br />(3) Ibid., 145<br />(4) Ibid<br />(5) Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chap. 5</div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p> </p><div><br /></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-67677103942490903812023-09-24T22:59:00.008-04:002023-09-29T21:58:08.238-04:00Another Older Catechism on Capital Punishment<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbvd9UYSlozQuEpuFqqxfDcxbHrSEI_gzmSSyXx_X0d2MjId8mlYwWvvEf2pBlL3jMhsEL79xvHHIGz55teQdBbeenLAUF6WDO1YfIrwdkZDYFlkv9c4sRdihWavePgqtFt4ItMlQSs686IDJ1H0f_-pzDG4bzyUBA2-VJ9xnJJlP4vC7LXBakVoE9Yoc/s1325/FRANIE-UNO.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="693" data-original-width="1325" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbvd9UYSlozQuEpuFqqxfDcxbHrSEI_gzmSSyXx_X0d2MjId8mlYwWvvEf2pBlL3jMhsEL79xvHHIGz55teQdBbeenLAUF6WDO1YfIrwdkZDYFlkv9c4sRdihWavePgqtFt4ItMlQSs686IDJ1H0f_-pzDG4bzyUBA2-VJ9xnJJlP4vC7LXBakVoE9Yoc/w400-h209/FRANIE-UNO.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">[Sept. 24, 2023] Back in June of 2019, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski published <a href="https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/06/what-good-is-changing-catechism.html" target="_blank">a piece at Rorate Caeli</a> exploring on how pre-Vatican II catechisms treated the subject of capital punishment. Entitled "What Good is a Changing Catechism?", the article demonstrated a consistent teaching on the liceity of the death penalty going back to Council of Trent at least. I also published an article on the subject ("<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2022/07/02/pre-vatican-ii-catechisms-on-capital-punishment/" target="_blank">Pre-Vatican II Catechisms on the Capital Punishment</a>") arguing the same. These collections of pre-Conciliar catechism quotes are important pieces of evidence displaying an indisputable continuity of the Church's teaching across the generations.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I recently came across another catechism pre-dating the modern <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> that addressed capital punishment. I was surprised to see how much attention the subject was given and wanted to share the passage in full, as I think it adds an interesting twist to the discussion. The passage reads—</p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><p></p><blockquote><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">There are two situations where it has generally been held from time immemorial that it is lawful to take human life: in self-defense (which would include many wars) and in the infliction of judicial sanctions (capital punishment).</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">If I willfully threaten the life of another—when the choice therefore has to be made between the aggressor and the victim—then the other may take my life. It is on this principle that the permissibility of fighting in war is deduced. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">As regards to capital punishment, the traditional arguments for it are based on the notion that the community has powers which an individual has not. Such powers have never been extended to include the killing of the innocent. But they are said to include the killing of the guilty. This sanction includes elements of retribution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But how Christian is all this? Christ did not condemn war or capital punishment in so many words. The Gospel would have certainly recorded it had He done so. But this does not mean that they are normally Christian, any more than slavery, which is also not abolished in the New Testament. Christ brought no organizational changes for which society was not yet morally or psychologically or organizationally ripe. But He implanted a spirit which would cause such changes to come about. It is our duty to work together with all our power for Jesus' doctrine of equality before the Father, of turning the other cheek, of love of enemies<span style="text-align: left;">—to make it more and more concrete and real in milder and juster laws and institutions.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Very often, no doubt, the Church has been so closely identified with the established political order that it lacked the enterprise and energy to make war and judicial sanctions evolve as they might have. The time is perhaps more than ripe to cast judicial sanctions in a different mould. The element of retaliation should be excluded more and more from all "punishments," according to the Christian notion. But here we must be alert to the fact that the element of retribution at least treated the delinquent as a responsible human being. If he is merely given "treatment," he is treated as a sick man, and this can very soon mean that he is deprived of his human rights.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />This passage is found on pages 423-424 in the English translation of the 1968 text, <i>A New Catechism: The Catholic Faith for Adults</i>, better known under its more infamous title "The Dutch Catechism," the first catechism written after Vatican II. <i>A New Catechism, </i>authored by the Dutch bishops and published by Herder & Herder, <span style="text-align: justify;">was widely panned as heretical and banned in many dioceses. <br /><br />Yet even this catechism, deficient as it is, still affirms the fundamental right of the state to inflict capital punishment. The traditional teaching is stated: that "from time immemorial" it has been considered licit for the state to inflict the death penalty by the legitimate authority. It also (correctly) identifies a retributive aspect to this penalty. It correctly notes that this is fundamentally different from the killing of the innocent, which would be murder. <br /><br />It then raises the question of whether the death penalty exemplifies the spirit of Christian charity. Ethically, the Dutch Catechism locates the death penalty alongside slavery as a practice permitted in Scripture but which nevertheless fails to reflect the perfection of charity to which Christ calls us. It admits that there is no strict prohibition of the death penalty in the Gospel, but says this is because of the imperfect moral development of society at the time. Even as individuals grow in Christian maturity, so should society develop to become more humane, gradually reducing recourse to the death penalty in order to better reflect the gentleness of Christ. <br /><br />Finally, the Dutch Catechism quite interestingly observes that, while motives of vengeance should be purged from judicial punishment, this does not imply that retributive justice is evil per se, as retributive justice recognizes the inherent moral quality of human actions and assigns responsibility accordingly. We are warned that, while the retributive aspect of justice should be minimized, we must be wary of viewing punishment too clinically, in such a way that would deny the moral nature of human actions.<br /><br />Now, this take is obviously very flawed. Y</span>ou can tell by its tone that it admits the traditional teaching only grudgingly, barely convinced of the historical teaching that it wants men to outgrow. <br /><br />Furthermore, it makes the common mistake of ignoring or forgetting that the death penalty was positively commanded by God, instituted by Him after the Flood. In other words, God did not merely <i>tolerate</i> the death penalty; He <i>instituted</i> it by positive decree—which puts the death penalty in a different category than slavery, as God never instituted slavery. The comparison to slavery thus fails (for more on the biblical institution of the death penalty, see my 2015 piece, "<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-reminder-about-capital-punishment.html" target="_blank">A Reminder About Capital Punishment</a>").<br /><br />Also, retributive justice isn't equivalent with "vengeance," nor is it necessary to remove all aspects of retribution from criminal punishment. I refer the reader to my essay "<a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2022/06/26/death-penalty-retributive-justice/" target="_blank">The Death Penalty and Retributive Justice</a>" for more on the subject of retributive justice.<br /><br />So the presentation of the Dutch Catechism is obviously bad. In the end, however, what it ultimately says is that while the death penalty remains a legitimate option, we can do better and we should try to do better. <br /><br />The great irony here is that the teaching of the heretical Dutch Catechism is far more orthodox than what is found in the current<i> Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>. The Dutch Catechism at least states the traditional teaching and its justification; the new CCC passage does not. The Dutch Catechism at least admits that nothing in the Gospel prohibits the death penalty; the new Catechism teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible "in light of the Gospel" (CCC 2267). The Dutch Catechism at least recognizes that the right of the state to execute is not contrary to human dignity because the state possesses powers it wields on behalf of the community that could not be exercised by private citizens; the CCC says "it is an attack on the inviolability of the dignity of the human person." The Dutch Catechism at least recognizes the fundamental difference between the killing of the guilty and the killing of the innocent; the CCC ignores this distinction entirely.<br /><br />What a strange time to be alive when the Dutch Catechism hits closer to the mark on something than the official <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>.<br /></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-83989367029527890802023-09-14T19:34:00.005-04:002023-09-16T19:32:42.485-04:00An Injustice from the Beginning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ6IQFmqn7A4xtH5LX1CulCVacol6xpWf1k9eqNiRPhXr9wbRylm-QdtN5EY-lkXwMQJnn1GG4NTF5fwah-0cTcQ58tuIOLXb4XD4n9w1VTbl0AyX9CZJjhaAKz6mCfF9j38OJ-FLZERMeOQaqSerHUXM1kPOAGjN9zvwpUbmZt8UXNbOdqPsyctzFmM8/s960/RCIA.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ6IQFmqn7A4xtH5LX1CulCVacol6xpWf1k9eqNiRPhXr9wbRylm-QdtN5EY-lkXwMQJnn1GG4NTF5fwah-0cTcQ58tuIOLXb4XD4n9w1VTbl0AyX9CZJjhaAKz6mCfF9j38OJ-FLZERMeOQaqSerHUXM1kPOAGjN9zvwpUbmZt8UXNbOdqPsyctzFmM8/w400-h225/RCIA.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[Sept. 14, 2023] I was baptized Catholic as a baby in an ethnically Catholic household (Sicilian-Irish-Polish), where getting children baptized was just what one did. But I never saw the inside of a Catholic Church, nor received any instruction or sacraments as a child. I had, in every respect, a totally secular upbringing.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Years later, as a young adult, the Lord Jesus found me in His mercy and I was introduced to the Christianity I had never had as a boy. After some years of bouncing around, I gravitated towards Catholicism. I attended a few Masses at a local parish, but what drew me in was the literature—I <i>read</i> my way into the Church, by authors both pre and post-Conciliar, a combination of contemporary Catholic Answers grade apologetical books mixed with pre-Conciliar authors like G.K. Chesterton ane Karl Adam. I didn't notice any different ecclesiology between the two sets of authors; I honestly wasn't even aware of a rupture at Vatican II, simply because I assumed the Mass I was seeing <i>was</i> the historic Mass, so I interpreted everything I read through that assumption.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />When it was time to become formally reconciled with the Church and receive sacraments, I asked a Catholic friend for advice and he suggested a parish a little further away from my home where he said I'd get better formation. The choice of this parish was fortuitous. The RCIA program was incredibly orthodox, and very well managed. Some of the catechists were workers for the late Servant of God, John Hardon, S.J. (one of my teachers had been Fr. Hardon's personal secretary). Another was the guy was the media producer for Robert Sungenis, who, it will be remembered, much more mainstream back then. Fr. John Corapi, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and Dr. Scott Hahn all did events at the parish. We had regular visits from the <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/redemptorist-father-pablo-straub-1932-2013-528fzngy" target="_blank">late Redemptorist father, Pablo Straub</a>, and there were a few families there who had known Mother Teresa personally. The parish priest said the Latin Novus Ordo and was unflinchingly orthodox. The parish was home to a thriving community of homeschoolers and young families. I was reconciled with the Church on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi in the year of Our Lord 2002 in a thoroughly orthodox (Novus Ordo) environment that I am still thankful for. Thinking back on it today, not only did I have a solid RCIA formation, but probably one of the <i>best </i>RCIA formation experiences that was available anywhere in the American Church at that time.<br /><br />And yet, it was still a grave injustice, all of it, from the very beginning.<br /><br />Because of this one simple fact—<br /><br />It was mere <i>happenstance</i> that I wandered into a solid, orthodox parish for RCIA. What if I would not have asked my friend's advice on where to go to RCIA? Or what if my friend would have named a different church, say, the heterodox parish twenty minutes away run by the Jesuits? What if I would have simply signed up for RCIA at the geographically closest parish, which was considerably more sketchy? And what happened to the likely ten or twenty or fifty other people near me who were probably equally interested in Catholicism that year and walked into clown-mass parishes or the dens of heterodoxy instead of the orthodox parish? What formation did they receive? What became of their faith?<br /><br />In other words, the wonderful formation I had was mere coincidence. I had, in fact, happened to stumble into the <i>one </i>solid parish in my entire vicariate. Had I walked into literally <i>any</i> other parish my experience would have been drastically different. For the many other people that year who went to RCIA and chose another parish, their experience likely <i>was </i>very different, and probably not for the better. What made me so different than them? There's no reason discernible except coincidence.<br /><br />Now, I am speaking from a human perspective here; obviously, we must factor in the Providence of God, who disposes all things as He wills and had a hand in this entire affair. He has His reasons. But those reasons are shrouded to us, and we cannot speculate. And of course, God's grace works behind the scenes aiding people in finding where they belong. All I know is that from a human perspective, it was an injustice that I got a good formation <i>by accident</i>. In a Church called Catholic ("universal") where there is supposed to be unity of doctrine and praxis, it is an injustice that those who, by happenstance, selected a different parish for RCIA likely did not receive the sound formation I did. It is an injustice that the difference between a spiritually enriching formation and a heterodox formation comes down to doing well at "What's behind door number one?"<br /><br />Obviously, in retrospect, there are certainly ways to discern a good parish from a bad one. But does a catechumen possess the skill to do this? Unlikely. I wasn't even aware there was a difference betwen pre- and post-Conciliar Catholicism. How could I possibly be competent to take such things into account when selecting where to take RCIA? (oop, sorry, I forgot it's <i>O</i>CIA now, silly me). <br /><br />And, furthermore, yes, even if everyone was on the same page, there would still be a diversity of experiences in formation, some parishes doing it better than others. But the difference should not be so grave that Person A gets the Catholic faith because he happened to walk through the doors of Parish X while Person B gets heterodoxy because he walked into Parish Y. So much should not depend on such a random thing that the average catechumen is absoltuely not equipped to sort out.<br /><br />Yes, I received a wonderful formation and a solid parish with excellent role models of faith who taught me the Catholic religion about as well as anybody could. But it was still an injustice because the truth is, from a human perspective, I merely got <i>lucky</i>. And luck should not determine whether one gets bread or a scorpion when asking faith from God's Church.<br /><br /><br /></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-27095180840247505202023-09-03T21:01:00.003-04:002023-09-09T21:14:35.739-04:00Book Review: Blosser & Sullivan's Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0LizRItCfkg7IP6cgjxCmW0af1pOFVn9WIEYkiVTlOtVI62_Mo-xkqjyjuNkuLBY0CUGYQe16dJsj6k5g1S4k1qSqgdLQTJEmoNBb6I-kTFh5O6tQn2VKXClQyy8RqWAHnP_LiGb4C-LNi8_WGk4_u08zFvHKK7oeRES7FOl23gzNcBWot8WQWEt48ok/s618/Blosser-book.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="618" data-original-width="412" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0LizRItCfkg7IP6cgjxCmW0af1pOFVn9WIEYkiVTlOtVI62_Mo-xkqjyjuNkuLBY0CUGYQe16dJsj6k5g1S4k1qSqgdLQTJEmoNBb6I-kTFh5O6tQn2VKXClQyy8RqWAHnP_LiGb4C-LNi8_WGk4_u08zFvHKK7oeRES7FOl23gzNcBWot8WQWEt48ok/s320/Blosser-book.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[Sept. 3, 2023] It is getting tougher and tougher for me to get around to book reviews these days what with the sheer quantity of material that people send me, not even counting my own voluminous "to-read" pile that seems to grow larger no matter how much reading I accomplish. But when I received the book that is the subject of today's post, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Tongues-Historical-Examination-Redefinition/dp/1666737771" target="_blank">Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination</a>, </i>by Philip Blosser and Charles Sullivan, I knew I had to make the time for it. <i>Speaking in Tongues </i>(published by Pickwick Publications) is the first in a three volume series dealing with the subject of tongues. Volume 1 is subtitled <i>The Modern Redefinition of Tongues </i>and concerns how the understanding of tongues has been revolutionized in modern Christianity.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Before I dig into the meat of the book, I want to give some preliminary remarks:<br /><br />(1) This book is not an attack of Charismatic-Pentecostalism, nor is it any kind of hit-piece on Christians who speak in tongues. The tone is extremely scholarly and narrowly restricted to the question of how Christians have understood the gift of tongues, especially in the last three centuries. Those who are looking for a hit-piece on Charismatic Christianity will be disappointed, while those Charismatics who are worried precisely that this is a hit-piece need not be. It offers no arguments against nor critiques of Charismatic Christianity as a spirituality one way or another, choosing instead to stick to an analysis of historical texts and their interpretation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Since both Catholicism and Protestantism have charismatic subcultures, this book has an ecumenical appeal. It is not a "Catholic" book, per se. In fact, one author is Catholic (Philip Blosser) and the other Protestant (Charles Sullivan). The book has no confessional "angle." It could be read with equal value by a Protestant or a Catholic.</p><p>Now, on to the synopsis:<br /><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Volume 1 in the <i>Speaking in Tongues </i>series essentially explores the genealogy of an idea—the modern concept of "speaking in tongues" as found in charismatic Catholic parishes and Protestant pentecostal churches around the world today (for the sake of simplicity, for this review I shall use the words "Pentecostal" and "Pentecostalism" to refer to <i>all</i> Christians who "speak in tongues," whether Catholic or Protestant, even though technically the term has a much more Protestant connotation). Blosser and Sullivan begin by looking at how tongues are conceived of today and work backwards to see how we arrived at the contemporary perspective. </div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Dominating contemporary discussion on tongues is the concept of <i>glossolalia</i>, a modern term (coined by the Anglican theologian Frederic Farrar in 1879) identified with the "private prayer language" or "heavenly language" through which contemporary Pentecostals contextualize their experience. In the Bible, Pentecostals identify <i>glossolalia</i> with the phenomenon St. Paul discusses in 1 Cor, 14. This is distinct from <i>xenolalia</i>, a term that denotes the miraculous speaking (or hearing) of other human languages, as witnessed on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.<br /><br />The miracle of tongues as <i>xenolalia </i>is well established in Church history, both within Protestantism and Catholicism. In fact, as Blosser and Sullivan demonstrate, prior to the late 1800s, no theologian anywhere in any Christian confession identified tongues as anything other than <i>xenolalia</i>—the miraculous, intelligible speaking (or hearing) of previously unlearned human languages. From whence, then, did we get the concept of tongues as an incoherent "private" language as denoted by <i>glossolalia</i>?<br /><br />Here Blosser and Sullivan do some excellent historical sleuthing, tracing the evolution of the idea back through the revivals of Topeka and Azusa Street to the <a href="https://charlesasullivan.com/1826/the-irvingites-and-the-gift-of-tongues/" target="_blank">British Irvingite movement </a>and the Second Great Awakening. Modern Pentecostalism grew out of the apocalyptic stew of these various movements, which all shared in common the notion that God was going to "restore" the Church in the "latter days" to more closely resemble the Church of the New Testament. The problem was most mainline Protestant denominations after the Reformation had rejected the continuation of miracles (a position known as Cessationism) in reaction against the multitudinous Catholic miracle stories of the Middle Ages. But the New Testament clearly teaches that miraculous <i>charismata </i>are meant to continue in the Church. The early Proto-Pentecostal movements thus sought to find a way to reintroduce the miraculous into their congregations to mimic the New Testament Church, or at least their vision of it. Hence the advent of modern tongues<i> </i>(beginning with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Ozman" target="_blank">Agnes Ozman</a>, the first person to "speak in tongues" in the contemporary sense in 1901) as a "restoration" of the spiritual gifts to the Church.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What Blosser and Sullivan's book amply demonstrates, however, is that early Pentecostals like Charles Parham, Agnes Ozman, William Seymour, et. al. did not consider their experiences to be <i>glossolalia</i>. Rather, they believed they were experiencing <i>xenolalia</i> i.e., miraculously speaking other human languages. For example, after Agnes Ozman received the so-called "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and spoke in tongues, she was personally convinced that she was speaking Chinese and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=562407229&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS928US928&sxsrf=AB5stBi0JH-sLJj5SUcr3snXdYc3Zgpsvg:1693788966466&q=agnes+ozman+tongues+writing&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibrq7N34-BAxV6lWoFHdqGA1oQ0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1536&bih=739&dpr=1.25" target="_blank">allegedly wrote in Chinese</a> as well (the writing turned out to be meaningless scribbles). But the point is that these early Pentecostals did not believe they were uttering a "personal prayer language"; they believed their rapid speech-like syllables that lacked any objective linguistic structure were, in fact, other human languages.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />With admirable erudition, Blosser and Sullivan document how these early revivals led to a burst of Pentecostal missionary activity. It was believed that the "restoration" of tongues would do away with the need for missionaries to spend years learning foreign languages. Emboldened by the Holy Spirit, Pentecostal missionaries set sail for the distant mission fields of China and India, believing whole-heartedly that they would be able to speak their utterances to foreign peoples who would miraculously understand them. They were shocked and disappointed to find that their utterances were completely unintelligbile—we can only imagine the confusion of a Chinaman or Hindi-speaker at hearing the incoherent utterances of these strange westerners. These experiences were a source of profound disillusionment for early Pentecostals, triggering what Blosser and Sullivan refer to as the "Tongues Missionary Crisis" of 1906-1909. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Tongues Missionary Crisis was essentially a rude-awakening for Pentecostals as they came to see that, whatever they were experiencing in their churches, it was not the <i>xenolalia</i> of the Day of Pentecost. This resulted in a quiet redefinition of "tongues." Influenced by the theology of the German Higher Critics, Pentecostals began to interpret their ecstatic utterances as the<i> glossolalia</i> postulated by Frederic Farrar, that is, a "private" or "personal" prayer language that had no lexical intelligibility—a kind of "heavenly" speech whose purpose was to edify the speaker. Throughout the 20th century, this understanding of tongues came to dominate scriptural commentary, not just in the Protestant world, but within Catholicism as well. <br /><br />Volume 2 of Blosser and Sullivan's series (which I have not read yet) chronicles how Christians have viewed tongues throughout history. The forthcoming Volume 3 is exclusively devoted to the tongues of Corinth mentioned in the New Testament, answering the question, "If the tongues of Corinth were not <i>glossolalia</i>, what were they?"<br /><br />While Blosser and Sullivan's book is critical of contemporary biblical exegesis about tongues, it is not, as I said, critical of Pentecostals themselves and makes no judgment upon their spiritual lives. It is a work of historical theology, exploring the "genealogy" of a theological definition. <i>Speaking in Tongues </i>Volume 1 is an excellent resource for understanding the theological development of this practice which, whatever you think of it, has become so ubiquitous in Christianity today. I highly recommend anyone with an interest in this subject get a copy of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Tongues-Historical-Examination-Redefinition/dp/1666737771/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Volume 1</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Tongues-Critical-Historical-Examination/dp/166673778X/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Volume 2</a>.<br /><br />Incidentally, I sat down with the authors recently and recorded an <a href="https://youtu.be/iVTL0rEb_2I " target="_blank">audio interview with them, which you can listen to on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam YouTube channel </a>(which you should also subscribe to : ) </div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-80341609145468988642023-08-26T16:39:00.006-04:002023-08-30T18:49:08.337-04:00The Church's Historical Blindspot<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2AuIV08tlekdb6c5PI1CzO7PsGsfBxinZYwgfOR6Ckr_0ffutT6nl23S5smFaFp7vyzy1X6ssOEoVPKOFbNSGP2lcQbG0cU_U5GeEkdl9ZELmO9fXl2u9f6rfmmknMbYcQ6x1zPVzXSG8EAyi2wG_68yBHUUAatAoWrOsYFqp27oSYrvzwQevhIQKSdg/s293/Dissent.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="180" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2AuIV08tlekdb6c5PI1CzO7PsGsfBxinZYwgfOR6Ckr_0ffutT6nl23S5smFaFp7vyzy1X6ssOEoVPKOFbNSGP2lcQbG0cU_U5GeEkdl9ZELmO9fXl2u9f6rfmmknMbYcQ6x1zPVzXSG8EAyi2wG_68yBHUUAatAoWrOsYFqp27oSYrvzwQevhIQKSdg/w123-h200/Dissent.jpg" width="123" /></a></div>[Aug. 26, 2023] If you have never read it, I highly recommend my readers pick up a copy of the British historian R.I. Moore's 1977 book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Origins-European-Dissent-R-I-Moore/dp/0631144048/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">The Origins of European Dissent</a></i>. Moore's book focuses on the emergence of heresy in Western Europe between 1000 and 1200 and chronicles the Church's attemps to respond to the rising tide of heterodoxy, with emphasis on how the increasing challenge posed by heterodox sects went beyond the ability of local bishops to manage, leading to the eventual interventions of the papacy and civil authorities. It is a very scholarly work that I think is integral to anyone interested in the origin of medieval heresy.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Though its focus is on events nigh on a thousand years ago, <i>The Origins of European Dissent</i> contains a an insight that I think is key to understanding our current situation. Moore argues that, at critical moments, the institutional Church has often failed to grasp the true nature of a crisis because of the deep-seated Catholic tendency to interpret contemporary events through the lens of the past. This means the Church sometimes has a "blindspot" when it comes to identifying new threats. In Moore's book, he amply demonstrates that the ecclesiastical authorities of the 11th and 12th centuries fundamentally failed to understand the nature and allure of the Cathar movement because of their tendency to characterize it as "Manichaeism." While it is true that the Cathars and Manichees were both dualists, their commonality ended there. In fact, their differences were actually much greater than their similarities: they possessed distinct spiritualites, manners of organization, made different sorts of appeals to the masses, and professed different soteriological and cosmological systems. Despite these differences, bishops and theologians latched on to the superficial similarity of dualism and treated the Cathars as Manichees. They even referred to them as "Manichees" in contemporary literature and took up the texts of Augustine to find arguments to refute them. This failure to comprehend the nature of the Cathar movement hindered ecclesiastical efforts to stall the heresy in its infancy. (Incidentally, if you like reading about Cathar weirdness, I humbly refer you to my article on <a href="https://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2022/05/12/cathar-apocalypticism/" target="_blank">Cathar Apocalypticism</a>, which you may enjoy). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Moore's book focuses on Catharism, but the tendency he mentions is exhibited elsewhere in Church history. John Cavidini's book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Last-Christology-West-Adoptionism-785-820/dp/0812231864/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">The Last Christology of the West</a></i> on the Spanish Adoptionist controversy of the 8th-9th centuries argues persuasively that the Adoptionist controversy in Spain was based on a fundamental inability of Carolingian theologians to understand Spanish Adoptionism on its own terms, prefering instead to conceive of it as revived Nestorianism. Spanish Adoptionists such as Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel argued for something entirely different than the Adoptionists of the early Church, predicating the term <i>adoptivus </i>only of Christ's human nature, whereas ancient Adoptionism argued that Christ's divine nature was adopted (that Jesus was a mere man who who underwent an apotheosis to become the Word of God). The Spaniards' Carolingian opponents—men like Alcuin of York and Agobard—fundamentally misunderstood what the Spanish were arguing for. They made little effort to understand, either, choosing rather to interpret the Spanish position as revived Nestorianism and arguing against it accordingly. Cavidini argues that even Pope Hadrian I's official condemnation of Adoptionsim demonstrates this misunderstanding. Again, the preoccupation with interpreting the present in light of the past stifled any attempt at a fruitful exchange between the two parties, leading to generations of misunderstanding that would ultimately result in the (unjust) attempts of Pope St. Gregory VII to suppress the Mozarabic Rite.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">We could also cite the Protestant Reformation. While the Church was not slow in condemning the errors of Luther et. al., it seems to have not considered how the printing press and the rise of ethno-nationalism changed the dynamics that charactized the events of the early 1500s. Writings from the early years of the Reformation seem to suggest the Church viewed the Protestant movement as a kind of neo-Hussite/Wycliffian sect and followed the strategies it had pursued a century earlier. Obviously Hus and Wycliffe both shared certain tenets in common with the Reformers, such that they are often called precursors of the Reformation or "proto-Protestants." Even so, the world of 1517 was not the world of 1414 nor of 1380, and the approaches of those former centuries were insufficient to meet the changed conditions of the 16th century. It was only with the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation that the Church developed a methodology tailored specifically to the Protestant crisis. Of course, by then half of Christendom had been sundered from the Church. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Church was "slow" to respond to the Reformation; this is, I think, a myth, one that I address in my book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Heroes-Heretics-Reformation-Phillip-Campbell/dp/1505108705/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Heroes and Heretics of the Reformation</a></i> (if anyone cares to support a starving author : ) The Church reacted to Protestantism immediately, but the <i>nature</i> of the initial institutional reaction reflected the condition of the 14th or 15th century, not the 16th.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In some sense, it is natural that Catholics would do this in troubled times. Our religion is a historical religion, where the deeds of God unfold upon the stage of human history. That is why we speak of <i>salvation history</i>; God works out the salvation of mankind through the providential unfolding of human history. Christ became incarnate at a certain, specific point—"in the fullness of time"—"in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; in the year seven hundred and fifty-two since the foundation of the City of Rome; in the forty-second year of the reign of Caesar Octavian Augustus," as the Christmas Proclamation says. Christ died "once and for all" (cf. Heb. 7:27), and the Church hands on the deposit of faith entrusted to it by Our Lord. In certain respects, it is a sign of a healthy <i>sensus catholicus</i> that we should look to the past for light.<br /><br />The utility of this has its limits, however. It is one thing to want to learn from the past or stay faithful to the tradition. It is another thing to ignore changed circumstances or new dangers because we are too quick to say, "Oh yeah, <i>this</i> is just like <i>that</i>. The Church has been here, done that." Such an approach may give us the illusion of security by providing a historical framework within which to contextualize a crisis, but that doesn't necessarily help us understand what's really going on, especially if certain aspects of the crisis are unprecedented.<br /><br />This brings us to our current state. If Moore's thesis is correct (and I think it is), it follows that it is profoundly dangerous to interpret the modern crisis in light of prior crises. Our situation today often invites comparisons to two prior periods, that of the Arian ascendancy of the mid-4th century, and the Modernist crisis of the early 20th. To be sure, there are similarities—the widespread doctrinal corruption of the episcopacy on one hand and the refashioning eternal truths into subjective concepts on the other—but neither experience provides a suitable context for understanding what is happening today. It is shortsighted and reckless to look at our current crisis and say, "Yeah, we've been here." We have emphatically <i>not</i> been here. We can certainly look to earlier ages for inspiration, guidance, and insight, but we cannot reduce the post-Conciliar debacle to a rehash of some earlier episode (e.g., "There's always a period of confusion after an Ecumenical Council!").<br /><br />What does this mean practically?<br /><br />I am not competent to advise anyone on what they should do, save to say that, while not denying certain similarities between today and previous ages, we must not blind ourselves to the way that today's crisis is qualitatively <i>different</i>. We should not shirk from a clear assessment of what's going on because we prefer the illusory security of contextualizing our current troubles in light of some prior era—this applies not only to our assessment of what is wrong, but also our prescriptions for how to respond. We should, at least as a first step, be aware that this blindspot exists. </div></div></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-91166228616721562272023-08-13T11:03:00.003-04:002023-08-13T16:27:31.137-04:00On the Superior Merit of the Traditional Mass<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_Y_h2sgnew22aQxXJaMakiqRH-pQpsYfeVkbCsZZzSW3-CGxFT7ENCwbiYofoidArKHtcLYBhu2Dn-DeKw8vNi4mRvRQlVpkSa2BYmSTkCBj3_h8wQHC-Fj_I8L4PaDk-DLzhZ4pUJvRgKJ77TLuM6fhSev2u2gATDQLgMEV5p5YDbaDgLVFNmZb2quM/s2997/Nat-Latin-Mass-top-1-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1097" data-original-width="2997" height="234" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_Y_h2sgnew22aQxXJaMakiqRH-pQpsYfeVkbCsZZzSW3-CGxFT7ENCwbiYofoidArKHtcLYBhu2Dn-DeKw8vNi4mRvRQlVpkSa2BYmSTkCBj3_h8wQHC-Fj_I8L4PaDk-DLzhZ4pUJvRgKJ77TLuM6fhSev2u2gATDQLgMEV5p5YDbaDgLVFNmZb2quM/w640-h234/Nat-Latin-Mass-top-1-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">[Aug. 13, 2023] I just reviewed an old article by Fr. Chad Ripperger entitled <span style="text-align: justify;">"</span><span style="text-align: justify;">The Merit of a Mass</span><i style="text-align: justify;">."</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><span style="text-align: justify;">The article originally appeared in the Summer 2003 edition of the</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span><i style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/">Latin Mass Magazine</a>.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The article concerns the question of the "merit" of the two forms of the Roman rite. Fr. Ripperger concludes that the Traditional Rite of Mass is objectively more meritorious. He argues that<br /><blockquote>Since one of the primary obligations of those in authority in the Church is the glory of God through the salvation of souls, they have the obligation to encourage, and, in some cases, require the ritual of the Mass which is most efficacious.<span><a name='more'></a></span></blockquote>Before anyone panics, let me add that Fr. Ripperger basis his conclusion upon a clear distinction between the <i>intrinsic </i>and <i>extrinsic</i> value of a Mass. The intrinsic value a Mass refers to the value in the Mass as a work of God, particularly in the <i>ex opere operato</i> graces present in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is therefore infinite, since it is Christ's own infinitely valuable sacrifice to the Father. Intrinsically, then, the New Rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the traditional rite or as any other valid rite, inasmuch as the infinite value of the Eucharistic sacrifice is present in both forms.<br /><br />That is not the only consideration, however, for we must account for the extrinsic value of the Mass. The extrinsic value or "merit" pertains to what mankind brings to the Mass and is finite. This extrinsic value can vary tremendously. This is so because man, a finite creature, is incapable of receiving infinite effects. That is, the fruit of any particular Mass (the benefits derived from its being offered) can be more or less depending on a number of different things, which Fr. Ripperger goes on to enumerate:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />A) <i>The Church</i>: The Mass is the public sacrifice of the Church as a whole, and since the holiness of the Church depends (in part) on the holiness of her members, the less holy the Church is in her wayfaring members in any given epoch, the less (<span>extrinsically)</span> meritorious is the sacrifice She offers. "The moral and spiritual depravity of this moment in history has gravely affected this aspect of merit in the Church. This is why the pope and bishops have a grave responsibility for moral reform of the clergy and laity."<br /><br />B) <i>The Priest as Public Servant of the Church</i>: The priest acting <i>in persona Christi </i>can gain fruit for those for whom he offers the Mass regardless of his personal sanctity. <br /><br />C) <i>The Priest as Private Person</i>: Neverthless, the holier a priest is, the more efficacious will his prayers be. (cf. James 5:16). "This is why the holiness of the clergy has a direct impact on the life of the Church...This is also why the faithful have a certain sense that it is better to have a holy priest rather than an unholy priest offer the Mass for their intentions. The fact is that the Mass said by a good priest is better and more efficacious that the Mass said by a bad priest." This does not relate to the validity of the sacraments in a Donatist sense, but rather to degree of efficacy of the priest's prayers and intentions in offering the Mass. The prayer of a holy priest praying, "vouchsafe to send Thy holy Angel from heaven, to guard, cherish, protect, visit and defend all that are assembled in this place," will be more fruitful than the same prayer uttered by a lackadaisical priest. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />D) <i>The Faithful</i>: As for the priest as private person, so for the faithful. The holier the congregation, the more they will be able to benefit from the Mass. This refers to the way the faithful receive grace <i>ex opere operantis</i>, that is, according to their own dispositions. A pious, attentive Catholic prepared for communion by prayer and fasting will reap much from their communion. The reverse, though, is also true. "If [members of the congregation] are receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, they detract from the goodness of the Mass extrinsically and in this way affect everyone else...The fact that the vast majority of Catholic couples are either using or have used contraception as well as the general moral and spiritual decay among the faithful in virtually all areas has left this aspect of merit regarding the Mass anemic, to say the least."<br /><br />E) <i>The Decora</i>: "If we use objects that do not fit the majesty and the exalted nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we can actually detract from the extrinsic merit. Ugly things please God less and thus merit less." In other words, the right aesthetics better dispose us to prayerfully contemplate the heavenly realities of the Mass, and as the aesthetical qualities of a traditional liturgy are better than the Novus Ordo, the traditional liturgy facilitates a better disposition and hence makes greater merit possible. (I highly recommend Fr. Ripperger's article "God and Aesthetics"<i> </i>addressing the cogency of the argument that the Old Rite is more pleasing to God than the New Rite based on its superior beauty. It is available in the Fall 2002 edition of the <a href="http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/"><i>Latin Mass Magazine</i></a><span>.) Simply put, the aesthetics of the Traditional Mass are better crafted to elevate the heart and mind.</span></div><span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">F) <i>The Merit of the Ritual Itself</i>: One of the ways in which "one ritual can be more efficacious than another is that it is offered with greater solemnity or, as Gihr puts it, "pomp." The solemnity and pomp give greater glory to God, and are eminently suited to Him since He is the Majesty or Ruler of the whole universe. He is greater than any earthly king and therefore deserves a greater ritual than any earthly king." Another way in which one ritual can be better than another is the degree to which it flows from the virtue of charity: "The ritual of the Mass ought to be ordered to God and not to man, except insofar as man is served in order to worship God. In other<span> </span><span>words</span>, God is the end of the ritual, not man. This follows from the order of charity in which we love God and our neighbor for the sake of God. The ritual should not have man for its finality, but God, for if it has man for its finality, it goes contrary to charity, which has God as its end. It will also go contrary to justice since one will not render to God through the prayers of the ritual what is due to Him." We could also include here the vast amount of prayers included in the old Mass that are absent from the new. If we believe that prayer actually matters and yields objective results, then the reduction of prayers in the Novus Ordo is an objective detriment to its merit. The converse is also true: the prayers retained by the Traditional Mass render it more objectively meritorious. "Ask and ye shall receive" (Matt. 7:7).</div><br /></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span>Taken together, Fr. Ripperger concludes that the rite of the Traditional Mass is structured in such a way as to enable a greater disposition of prayerfulness and piety, which in turn means the graces we reap from the traditional Mass can be objectively greater than those available in th</span>e Novus Ordo—without denying the validity of the New Mass, nor calling into question that "Christ is there" in the Eucharist of the Novus Ordo. One need not question the validity of the Novus Ordo to understand that, objectively, the framework of the traditional Mass opens up the possibility of a greater merit when considered extrinsically.<br /><br />This is why we should never simply shrug our shoulders about the restriction of the Traditional Mass. Its disappearance has and will continue to have objective negative consequences in the order of grace.</div><span><br /><div style="text-align: center;">_____________________________________________________</div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">If you'd like to get a copy of any back issues of the Latin Mass Magazine, email your request to them at admin@latinmassmagazine.com. This article is an expansion of a smaller piece Dr. John Joy wrote for this blog over a decade ago. </div></div></span><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-7475674635284620952023-08-10T09:28:00.204-04:002023-08-10T10:48:56.107-04:00Stop Using This Word So Recklessly<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5yVB4-u4JtzZwFV1Mt05ipRuQ0DV23jU3fAak6-YnEy5em1TEVCjQve5rk4LTvhVMI-tAE_a4ZDSMlyqOx61aA72ChGnexktM_pHGl_ia01SM3EMFqOgJTbS6arVkCjgCi1pFz7XieOIMbtle7-2UENfUk0nEalZc0FFItr8KT4O-ymCs7g6bItb_VM/s900/peter.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO5yVB4-u4JtzZwFV1Mt05ipRuQ0DV23jU3fAak6-YnEy5em1TEVCjQve5rk4LTvhVMI-tAE_a4ZDSMlyqOx61aA72ChGnexktM_pHGl_ia01SM3EMFqOgJTbS6arVkCjgCi1pFz7XieOIMbtle7-2UENfUk0nEalZc0FFItr8KT4O-ymCs7g6bItb_VM/w400-h266/peter.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[August 10, 2023] Imagine the spectacle of members of the laity proclaiming, based on their own convictions and by their own authority, that Pope Francis has lost the papacy or is not the validly elected pope. How ridiculous! How arrogant! How absurd! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now imagine, if you will, the spectacle of members of the laity proclaiming, based on their own convictions and by their own authority, that certain fellow Catholics (who have never been censured or labeled as such by the Church) are in the canonical state of schism and under anathema. How equally ridiculous! How equally arrogant! How equally absurd! <span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And yet, more often we are seeing such authoritative pronouncements on social media from lay people declaring that various traditionalists have become schismatics—and generally on ridiculous terms.<span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"> </span>So-and-so is a schismatic because he is speaking at a conference where a Sedevacantist is also speaking. Such-and-such is anathematized because he has expressed sympathy towards the SSPX. That person is schismatic because he allows Sede comments on his YouTube channel, this one because he shared a video questioning the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />Would I personally speak at a conference with a Sedevacantist? No. Would I promote content calling into question the validity of the Novus Ordo? Absolutely not. Do I offer public sympathy to the SSPX? No. Do I allow Sede comments? No. But do any of these actions place one in the canonical state of schism? Certainly not. Do they give lay people the right to condemn other Catholics publicly as schimastics? Even less.</div><br /><b>The Sin of Schism and the Canonical Status of Schism</b><p></p><p></p><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Schism is both a sin and a canonical status. As a canonical status, only a bishop or the pope could declare a specific person or group in the canonical state of schism—it certainly cannot be declared authoritatively by lay people, just like lay people cannot simply decide that a pope has lost his office, just like a layman cannot decide that his marriage is invalid apart from the decision of the Tribunal. These things all require some kind of judgment in the external forum from competent authority. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, we may be personally convinced that someone has committed the <i>sin</i> of schism, which <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm" target="_blank">Aquinas says</a> is a sin against charity and ecclesial charity (<i>STh</i>, II-II, Q. 39, Art. 1). But recognizing the sin of schism and assessing the canonical status of schism are two different things. This is similar to how, while we may recognize objective heresies in the writings of a certain author, assigning the label "heretic" is something that properly belongs to the external forum of the Church's authorities. I can say that there are heresies in the writings of Fr. James Martin or Hans Urs von Balthasar, but unless Martin or Balthasar has been censured for heresy by the Church authorities, I cannot technically label them heretics in the canonical sense. </div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">People are tossing around the word schism far too recklessly; Catholics in good canonical standing are written off as schimastic based on comments in Youtube videos and who they are "associated" with. In acting such, these people are demonstrating far more severity than the Church herself. </div><b><br />An Example of How Schism is Assessed</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">The canonical state of schism is assessed according to a juridical process. An example is furnished by the 2016 case of the Universal Christian Church of the New Jerusalem (UCCNJ). The UCCNJ began in 1947 in Italy, centered on the apparitions made to a certain Giuseppina Norcia. As often happens in such cases, the content of the apparitions was bizarre, but the strange millenarian doctines of the UCCNJ do not concern us here, save one: their denial of papal authority based on their view that the UCCNJ constitutes the "real Church" and the Catholic Church is not recognized by God (<a href="https://magnuslundbergblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/bambino-gesu-finished4.pdf">source</a>).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After <i>decades</i> of back and forth, on July 5, 2016, the Ordinary of the Diocese of Sora, Gerardo Antonazzo, declared the group in schism. In a formal communication from the diocese, which was read from every pulpit, Bishop Antonazzo wrote "in order to safeguard the integrity of faith, ecclesial communion, and the pastoral action of the Church for the people of God", the initiatives of the "pseudo-religious organization" of the "self-styled new Jerusalem" are declared "completely against Catholic doctrine, and have nothing to do with the grace of faith and salvation that Christ entrusted to the Church founded on the rock of the apostle Peter." The statement also invoked Canon 1364, stating that "all the faithful who this 'self-styled Church' are punished with latae sententiae excommunication for the canonical crime of schism." (<a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/33996/schismatic-sect-in-italy-incurs-excommunication">source</a>). <i>This </i>is what the assessment of the canonical state of schism looks like. It follows juridical procedure emanating from ecclesiastical authority. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">But do we <i>need </i>such a solemn judgment before assessing that someone is in schism? Not necessarily. Someone, for example, someone who adheres to a Sedevacantist sect which as an institution denies the authority of the pope can be presumed to be in this state, given the nature of the sect. But YouTube comments? Guilt by association over who is speaking at a conference? Being chummy with the SSPX? We ought to be much more restrained here. Not even Pope Francis, with his well-known disdain for traditional Catholics and penchant for name-calling, has called anyone schismatic. We ought not jump to do so, either. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br /><b>Not all Disobedience is Schimastic</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">While schism arises from disobedience, not all disobedience is schismatic. It has become too common to accuse Catholics of schism when the most they can be charged with is disobedience. Let us review the canonical idea of schism; as I am no canonist, I will defer to authorities in the field and attempt to stick as closely to their opinions as possible.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Canon 751 defines schism as "the refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." The Latin word for refusal is <i>detrectactio</i>, "detraction," as in the removal or taking away from. Canonist Cathi Caridi <a href="http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/06/03/when-does-disobedience-constitute-schism/" target="_blank">notes</a> that this phrase suggests something beyond a momentary or situational disobedience; rather, it pertains to an ongoing attitude, or removal of obedience, such that the action itself constitutes a blatant denial of the pope's authority. Disobedience alone does not constitute schism; if it did, every Catholic who had ever disobeyed a command from their legitimate superior would be <i>ipso facto </i>schismatic. It is fully possible to break a law or disobey a command without denying ecclesiastical jurisdiction or removing oneself from communion with the Church. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">"Refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff" is more akin to a general withholding of the submission rightfully due to the pope; this is analogous to when a noble would withhold his submission from a king he intended to rebel against. It was not merely an singular act of disobedience, but a denial that royal jurisdiction applied to him at all. Similarly, schism is not necessarily a momentary refusal to obey a particular order (althought it <i>can</i> be if that refusal to obey a particular order itself was predicated upon a denial of the pope's authority to command). It is entirely possible to reject the command of an authority while still acknowledging the legitimacy of that authority. Fr. John Beal's <i><a href="https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Beal,%20John%20P_/New%20Commentary%20on%20the%20%5B1983%5D%20Code%20of%20Canon%20Law%20(7252)/New%20Commentary%20on%20the%20%5B1983%5D%20Code%20of%20Canon%20-%20Beal,%20John%20P_.pdf" target="_blank">New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law</a></i> observes that, in cases pertaining to heresy, apostasy, and schism, "what is envisioned
is the offender's persistent, deliberate refusal to
comply with an authoritative warning" (pg. 1581). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Obviously when disobedience crosses the line into "persistent" and "deliberate refusal" is somewhat subjective. This is why these matters are so circumstantial. Singular acts of disobedience <i>can</i> be schismatic, but they are not necessarily so. Am I excusing disobedience here? Certainly not. But I am drawing an important distinction—even if we see Catholics apparently engaged in an act of disobedience, that alone does not make them canonically schismatic. <br /><br />And this doesn't even address the question of circumstances when disobedience may be justified!</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">As an aside, it is interesting that Cardinal Ratzinger taught that not even dissent necessarily put one outside the Church. In the 1990 CDF document <i>Donum Veritatis</i> on the vocation of the theologian, Ratzinger addressed the problem of "the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching" (DV, 28). So we have a theologian who believes he has "wellfounded" reasons for rejecting magisterial teaching. Is he anathematized and excommunicated as a heretic and schismatic? Far from it. Ratzinger said:</div></div><blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;">It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.</div></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. (DV, 31)</div></blockquote><div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span></p></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ratzinger actually shows a surprising amount of compassion for the dissenter. One may retort that this only applies to those who deal with their trouble "in silence and prayer," not those who boldly proclaim their dissent on social media. That may be true, but it proves the point that it is not the dissent alone which incurs penalty, but the obstinacy and vociferousness with which it is proclaimed. Similarly, it is not disobedience alone which makes one schismatic, but the obstinacy and flagrancy which equate to a practical denial of the pope's authority. <br /><br />Because this is all so circumstantial, the state of schism is considerably more difficult to identify without an official declaration than, say, whether a proposition is heretical. Given this, we should absolutely not be tossing out blanket-statements that a Catholic's perceived act of disobedience has put him into the canonical state of schism. It depends on the circumstance, and for that reason, we really require a judgment of the Church's external forum before we can label anyone schismatic.</div></div><br /><b>Is it Schismatic for "Canceled" Priests to Continue Ministry?</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">In July, <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/new-apostolate-will-connect-canceled-priests-with-scattered-latin-mass-communities/" target="_blank">Lifesite news reported</a> that a new organization called Protect Our Priests had been formed for the purpose of "connecting stable groups of Catholics across the United States with priests willing to provide for their spiritual needs." The priests in question are being drawn from the ranks of the Coalition for Canceled Priests. The very existence of the organization was immediately decried as schismatic by the usual suspects. While enabling priests with no canonical faculties to celebrate Mass is problematic (and for the record, I reject the arguments used by the SSPX to justify disregarding canonical suspension), the fact is, not every priest who has been "canceled" has been deprived of faculties. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, being "canceled" is not a canonical term; it refers broadly to priests who are "persecuted or insufficiently defended" by the Church (such is the definition offered by the <a href="https://www.canceledpriests.org/about-us/" target="_blank">Coalition for Canceled Priests</a>). We must not, therefore, assume that a priest who has been "canceled" has been deprived of his faculties and is forbidden from exercising any ministry. Each priest's situation requires a case by case assessment. For example, Fr. Michael Suhy, a member of the CCP who was canonically removed as pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel in the Archdiocese of Detroit, retains full faculties. The <a href="https://aod.app.box.com/s/251cj18nl8t0a4cmcmvuoshn6aapkjve " target="_blank">archdiocesan statement</a> on his status specifically states that "there are no restrictions on his priestly ministry." Fr. James Altman, on the other hand, <a href="https://thedeaconsbench.com/bishop-issues-decree-father-altman-is-no-longer-allowed-to-preach-or-celebrate-mass-publicly/ " target="_blank">has had his priestly faculties removed</a> and is forbidden to say Mass for anyone save himself and his parents. Meanwhile, the last update on the status of Fr. James Parker of the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois, <a href="https://www.rockforddiocese.org/pdfs/Father%20Parker%20Recourse%20update%2023nov2021.pdf" target="_blank">does not state that he has lost faculties</a>, but merely says that he will not receive another parochial assignment until some concerns are cleared up with the bishop. There are thus varying degrees of "cancellation."</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Each "canceled" priest is in a unique situation, and the mere fact that they have been removed from parish work does not mean they are under canonical censure. Many have simply been left in limbo without an assignment, like Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Unless a priest has been formally deprived of faculties and refused a celebret (like Fr. James Altman), he is still permitted to exercise priestly functions outside of a parochial assignment and it is in no way schismatic to try to connect such men with communities of the faithful in need of pastoral care. I understand that <i>some</i> members of the CCP are suspended and cannot exercise legitimate ministry, and I am not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing is that the ministerial status of a "canceled" priest needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis; consequently, Protect Our Priests cannot be labeled schimastic based on an assessment of its overall mission alone.<br /><br /><b>The Bugbear of Canon 1373</b><br /><br />It is common to see Canon 1373 invoked against Traditional Catholics who criticize the actions of the Church. This canon says:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities of hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.</blockquote>Again, I am not a canonist so I must refrain from indulging too much here, but I will draw on John Beal's <i>New Commentary </i>to make a few observations, sticking as closely as I can to Beal's text.<br /><br />First, "animosity," "hatred," or "incitement" are all extraordinarily vague and fluid concepts; assessing when someone's indulgence in such actually crosses the line into meriting punishment is even more so. On this canon, John Beal's <i>New Commentary</i> says the following:<br /><blockquote>One can appreciate the legitimate concern to
protect the unimpeded exercise of church authority, which is essential to the common good. However, this canon's concern to repress destructive
hostility to church institutions must be interpreted judiciously. Otherwise a responsible expression of opinion regarding their effectiveness
might be arbitrarily curtailed (pg. 1583)</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words, we need to be very careful in applying this canon, lest the legitimate right of Catholics to express their opinions on the Church "be arbitrarily curtailed," such as by reactively leveling this canon against anyone who critiques the Church for any reason. Beal here also cites eminent canonist James Provost's opinion that "ongoing critique of the law is integral to Church reform" (ibid). The take away is that this canon should be construed narrowly, so as not to stifle the rights of Catholics to critique the Church. We ought err on the side of caution before invoking this canon.</div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Second, criticism of the Holy Father or the bishops does not itself constitute animosity or hatred. I do not doubt there are some who hate the Holy Father and merely wish his injury; most Trads, however, criticize not because they hate the Church or the papacy but because they love them. If, God forbid, our position is motivated by hatred of Pope Francis, then we certainly err. But in most cases this is far from the truth; one need not hate a man to critique him, nor to recognize him as an ideological opponent, at least in certain respects. I think what happens is that Catholics have varying degrees of comfort criticizing the Church; those who go further than we ourselves would go are accused of stirring up hatred, because we see them push the envelope beyond our own comfort level.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Which brings us to the third point—because of the inherent fuzziness of when the line is crossed into open hatred and animosity, the Church's "just penalties" merited by such actions are <i>ferendae sententiae</i>. Beal notes that Canon 1373 is part of a collection of canons dealing with matters of obedience and which all require direct, prescriptive penalties on the part of the Church (<i>ferendae sententiae</i>) to take effect (ibid). This is contrasted with a <i>latae sententiae</i> penalty, which a person assumes ipso facto. In contrast, no penalty for violating Canon 1373 exists unless it is positively decreed by ecclesiastical authority. Because the context of applying Canon 1373 is so circumstantial, it requires a clear, positive act of the Church before penalties are incurred. <br /><br />This means no one is actually penalized under Canon 1373 unless ecclesiastical authority says they are. Ergo, one cannot simply trot out Canon 1373 and slap Trads upside the head with it just because they say things you believe go too far.<br /><br />Finally, what constitutes "incitement"? Anyone following the legal fiasco surrounding the events of January 6 knows what a subjective assessment this can be. Beal says that "public incitement" implies that the animosity results in actual, demonstrable disobedience. Addressing the double cases of "animosity" and "disobedience" mentioned in the canon, Beal says:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>In both instances the
canon <b>requires a certain success of the conspiratorial efforts</b>. Thus hostility to church authority
must be generated in the first case, and actual disobedience must occur in the second instance. (ibid).</blockquote><br />In other words, it is not enough that the perpetrator be expressing animosity or hatred; it must be demonstrated that his expressions are actively causing others to do the same. In the case of disobedience, it is not sufficient for the perpetrator to talk about disobedience; he must commit <i>actual</i> disobedience. This is prudent; if you are going to charge someone with treason, one ought to show they have actually committed the treason of which they are accused. In a Catholic context, this means there is a big difference between saying, "We should fight back if the bishop tries to close our TLM parish," and <i>actually resisting </i>the bishop's attempt to close the parish when he tries. <br /><br />This is important, as Trads who discuss strategies for resisting presumed future total bans on the TLM are commonly attacked for being schismatic. But merely discussing hypothetical responses to future scenarios falls far short of the situation envisioned by Canon 1373. "Public incitment" implies that there has been "a certain success of the conspiratorial efforts." It penalizes action, not talk. <br /><br />In short, if there is any canon that should not be haphazardly invoked by lay people in diatribes about the propriety of certain online discourse, it is Canon 1373.</div></div><div><br /><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">There's much more that could be said here, but the bottom line is that the word schism is being thrown around much too loosely. Besides being uncharitable, it lessens the import of the word "schism," turning it into just another -<i>ism</i> that is bandied about so recklessly that it ultimately becomes meaningless. It ignores important distinctions (does the situation involve laymen or clerics, is it an act directly against the church's governing structure or a critique of a particular abuse of power, etc.). Like progressives' use of the word "racism," it ends up meaning whatever its user wants it to.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">And at the end of the day, lay people don't have the authority to simply decide that another Catholic is in the canonical state of schism any more than a lay person has the authority to decide that the pope has lost his office. You may be personally convinced that someone is guilty of the </span><i style="text-align: left;">sin</i><span style="text-align: left;"> of schism, but that is not the same as the canonical state, and such persons cannot be called "schismatic"—and even so, the principle of "first remove the beam from your own eye" comes into play when discussing the hypothetical sins of others.</span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />If you are one of these people bandying about the word schism everytime a Trad says something you think goes too far, please exercise some restraint, charity, and common sense. <br /><br /></div></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-28097091572905884862023-08-08T12:01:00.006-04:002023-08-09T08:47:57.703-04:00"The Pope's Authority is Bound to the Tradition"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbQJHW57QFduvW7557zih1whuZ-d-6SRf19FpiDUJQVbYBS7Koy-aVQYRaomTHtSldpzQG1gSQ_WjHtjFpJM0pa5SOK-2Oq0kim3-lafeNmkXZoP68afOnU3VXv0ZZb4E6bWX2BsNwwGH3v7mW7vElUlS-MFV1FKNIBTXKqiRJm1SLmhqapeoBxxnHMVU/s640/benedict.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="640" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbQJHW57QFduvW7557zih1whuZ-d-6SRf19FpiDUJQVbYBS7Koy-aVQYRaomTHtSldpzQG1gSQ_WjHtjFpJM0pa5SOK-2Oq0kim3-lafeNmkXZoP68afOnU3VXv0ZZb4E6bWX2BsNwwGH3v7mW7vElUlS-MFV1FKNIBTXKqiRJm1SLmhqapeoBxxnHMVU/w400-h274/benedict.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">[Aug. 8, 2023] Just a friendly reminder that the idea of the pope's boundedness to Sacred Tradition is not some invention of Trad Catholic bloggers. Going back 23 years to the publication of Joseph Ratzinger's pivotal work <i>The Spirit of the Liturgy</i>, we find the following:<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>With his Petrine authority, the pope more and more clearly took over responsibility for liturgical legislation, thus providing a juridical authority for the continuing formation of the liturgy. The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and limits of his authority, which, of course, as such had never been considered. <b>After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council</b>. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that <b>one cannot do with it what one will</b>, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, <b>the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy</b>. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. <b>Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity</b>....[I]t would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental intuitions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned. <b>The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition</b>. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy. The greatness of the liturgy depends—we shall have to repeat this frequently—on its unspontaneity (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, <i>The Spirit of the Liturgy</i>, Ignatius Press, 2000, pp. 165-166).</blockquote></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Raztinger says the idea that the pope can do anything in liturgical matters, even "on the mandate of an ecumenical council," is merely an "impression," which the Cardinal goes to explain is erroneous.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He says it is incorrect to view the pope as an "absolute monarch" who can do whatever he wishes with the Church's liturgical patrimony. "The authority of the pope is not unlimited." He is, in fact, bound in his authority as a trustee or "guarantor" to the Word of God. The received Tradition constitutes the boundary of his power, "and this also applies to the liturgy." </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ratzinger teaches that the pope must respect the "integrity and identity" of the liturgy, of which he is a "humble servant" of its lawful development. The idea that the liturgy can simply be manufactured is a sign of its degeneration, in no way "compatible with the essence of faith and the liturgy."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You can disagree with Cardinal Ratzinger here, as of course this is merely his opinion as a private theologian. But you cannot assert that these arguments are mere Traddy talking points concocted by bloggers to justify disobedience. The pope's boundedness to tradition, that the pope is not an absolute monarch with unlimited powers, that the liturgical tradition must be respected by the pope, etc. were all points recognized as fundamental by the man who was the chief doctrinal authority in the Church for deacdes under St. John Paul II, who is widely recognized as one of the modern Church's greatest liturgical thinkers, and who enshrined these ideas in the teaching of his pontificate. We are not quasi-schismatics for insisting on the very points that Ratzinger held as central to authentic liturgical renewal.<br /><br />It's sad this has to be stressed, but the quality of discourse on such matters is at an all-time low with a garbage dump of nonsense being posted on this subject almost daily.<br /><br /><br /></p><p> </p><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-84859739280745340472023-07-29T20:51:00.009-04:002023-08-02T08:16:45.057-04:00The Obedience of St. Padre Pio<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW5bQjcS8U8VQoZz5LsaeDO38kBjXQYddJZQ3K4GrSS5Zi7aH57eqy3OCFYUGwvtlXC4RrLxUzNl_hXoacf59RKBdyMTVwHy2Je6_FgZE1pNTLQZP6ofnQv0-URymIZTHa30BEWjfpGkG4iIeTvhBmprfO3x_rUuNkZkJTZft-tE_gdi1eX45_yhVRjCk/s459/pio.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="459" data-original-width="369" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW5bQjcS8U8VQoZz5LsaeDO38kBjXQYddJZQ3K4GrSS5Zi7aH57eqy3OCFYUGwvtlXC4RrLxUzNl_hXoacf59RKBdyMTVwHy2Je6_FgZE1pNTLQZP6ofnQv0-URymIZTHa30BEWjfpGkG4iIeTvhBmprfO3x_rUuNkZkJTZft-tE_gdi1eX45_yhVRjCk/w258-h320/pio.jpg" width="258" /></a></div>[July 29, 2023] I was recently privileged to publish a book entitled <i><a href="https://tanbooks.com/products/books/wounds-of-love-the-story-of-saint-padre-pio/" target="_blank">Wounds of Love: The Story of St. Padre Pio</a></i> (TAN Books, 2022). <i>Wounds of Love</i> is a dramatized historical fiction novella about the life of the great St. Pio of Pietrelcina, written for teens but enjoyable for adults as well. I spent months immersed in the life and writings of Padre Pio and learned a ton about this amazing modern saint. Padre Pio has been in the news a lot lately with the release of Abel Ferrara's smutty and underwhelming film; for anyone looking for a more wholesome and spiritually edifying dramatization of Pio's life, I humbly recommend getting a copy of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wounds-Love-Story-Saint-Padre/dp/1505123194/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Wounds of Love</a> </i>(here is an <a href="https://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/2023/04/padre-pio-for-new-generation-of-young.html" target="_blank">excellent review of the book on Gloria Romanorum</a> if you'd like to learn more). It does a good job of covering the major points of Pio's life while introducing readers to his deep spirituality in a narrative format.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Anyhow, I have done a lot of promotional spots on radio and podcasts for the book, and I have noticed that every interviewer asks me to comment on the obedience of Padre Pio. Pio had many virtues, but I am never asked to comment on any others; nobody asks about his chastity, nor his patience, only his obedience. The tenor of these questions seems to indicate they are seeking some kind of reassurance or a lesson—as if to say, "There is a lot of disobedience to the Church today; explain how Padre Pio gives us an example of true obedience." Of course, unless an interviewer makes their position on the "Liturgy Wars" explicit, I have no way of knowing where they stand on current events nor what their own conception of obedience is, but I have learned through studying Pio's life that there is more nuance to his obedience than people often realize. Thus, when I am asked to comment on the subject, after praising St. Pio for his exemplary virtue, I sometimes offer the following observations, which I think bring balance to the question:<br /><br /><b>I. There are Gradiations of Obedience</b><br /><br />First, the obedience that sworn religious owe to their superiors is not a model for the kind of obedience that lay people owe ecclesiastical authority. There are gradiations of obedience within the Church. The vow of obedience sworn by a religious is a vow to observe a specific way of life within the context of a particular order; by extension, it applies to the prudential decisions made by superiors within said order. Because a religious rule is meant to guide its observants towards evangelical perfection through regulating their daily routine, this obedience can extend to very minute matters and it is expected that it be yielded to with docility. The obedience of a dicoesan priest to his bishop is different still; the priest makes no solemn vows, only promises to obey the bishop in his administration of the diocese. In this case, the promise is made to the bishop (not to God), and it is more restricted, applying to those things pertaining to diocesan jurisdiction, not to the minutiae of daily life, as would be the case of a religious vow. Lesser, still, is the obedience of lay people, who are expected to cultivate a disposition of docility and deference towards their shepherds but without any vows or promises.<br /><br />Therefore, while it is certainly edifying to read about the examples of obedience from professed religious, we would be wrong to take these stories as actual templates for our own obedience as lay people. Padre Pio was a professed Capuchin with solemn vows of obedience; while his acts of obedience are spiritually edifying to contemplate, they are not meant to be normative for lay people, just like the radical poverty observed by St. Francis is not meant to be duplicated by lay people. There are gradiations of obedience proper to one's state in life. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>II. Pio was Shrewd and Knew How to Work the System</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">St. Padre Pio always obeyed every legitimate command of ecclesiastical authority and encouraged others to do the same. The story of how he grabbed the Mayor of San Giovanni Rotondo by the scruff of the neck and rebuked him when the former had published an accusatory editorial against the bishop in the local paper is well known (the 2000 movie <i>Padre Pio: Miracle Man</i> incorrectly depicts Pio slapping the Mayor). <br /><br />But we should not assume that Padre Pio was a doormat who simply allowed himself to be trampled by ecclesiatical authority without protest. Pio was shrewd and had a keen sense of when someone was out to injure him. In these situations, he rendered obedience in what we might term a "legalistic" fashion: he interpreted directives narrowly, obeying the letter of the law and refusing to go beyond what was strictly necessary. This sometimes took the form of "foot-dragging," the kind of procedural obstinance practiced by those who know how to work a system to their advanatge.<br /><br />Case in point, the 1920 visit of Agostino Gemelli, the famous Franciscan physician and founder of the Missionaries of the Kingship of Christ. Gemelli was a renowned Roman physician who would go on to be the first President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His area of expertise was in neuropsychology and he enjoyed the patronage of Pope Benedict XV, during whose pontificate he became a kind of unofficial chief Doctor of the Vatican. It was to Agostino Gemelli that the Vatican authorities turned in 1920 when word of Pio's alleged stigmata had begun to stir up controversy throughout Italy. Gemelli was already skeptical of Pio and eager to examine the stigamata for himself in hopes of discrediting him. He was directed by none other than Secretary of State Cardinal Merry del Val himself to travel to San Giovanni Rotondo and make a complete medical and psychological analysis of Padre Pio. But when Gemelli arrived at San Giovanno Rotondo and explained the purpose of his visit to Pio and the Father Superior, Pio refused to allow Gemelli to look at him unless he produced an official letter of authorization from Merry del Val's office. Gemelli was indignant; he was the most respected physician in the Vatican there on business for the Holy See; the implication that he would lie about a directive from Merry del Val was personally insulting. But Pio held firm; without a letter of authorization, he refused any access to Gemelli, a position backed up by Pio's Father Superior. Gemelli returned to Rome in fury, procured the requested letter, made the trip a second time and was finally allowed to see Pio. But Pio's obstinacy turned Gemelli against the Capuchin saint; Gemelli's scathing report called Pio "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath"; this document was instrumental in turning the new pope, Pius XI, against Pio.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Pio must have known it was highly unlikely that a man of Gemelli's status acting on orders of Merry del Val would have been lying about his directive. Could Pio have not given him the benefit of the doubt? Furthermore, given that Gemelli had traveled almost 250 miles by rail from Rome to San Giovanni Rotondo, could it not be argued that charity demanded that Pio be more amenable? Neither consideration changed Pio's resolve; he steadfastly refused to yield to Gemelli without a written letter and sent the man all the way back to Rome.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />This is certainly not disobedience by any stretch, but it does demonstrate that Pio was not docile in the face of deliberate attempts to discredit him. He could and did utilize tactics of bureaucratic obstruction to stifle the efforts of his opponents.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>III. Pio Protested When the Integrity of the Rule was Compromised</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />There is also an interesting occasion where we see Pio protesting against a directive of his superior when he believed the integrity of the Franciscan commitment to poverty was threatened:<br /><br />When Padre Pio was old and famous throughout the Catholic world, one of the Capuchin's lay benefactors, seeing how badly the brothers sometimes suffered from the Italian heat in their oven-like cells, donated an air conditioning unit to the friary. Delighted with the device, the Father Superior soon ordered similar units to be installed in all the friars' quarters. Knowing Pio would protest, the Superior had the unit installed in Pio's room when he was away. Pio, however, returned while the work was in progress and interrogated the workers. When they told him about the directive, Pio groaned and said, "What would our Seraphic Father say?" and protested that he had not joined the Capuchins for a life of ease. These words were reported to the Superior, who removed the unit and gave Pio a dispensation from his order. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In this case, believing the installation of an air conditioner compromised the manner of life proscribed by Rule of St. Francis, Pio objected to the project, despite the fact that it had been directly ordered by his Father Superior. He considered his Superior's order to be compromising the integrity of the Franciscan way of life and thus complained.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Conclusion</b><br /><br />I do not wish to suggest that Pio's obedience was imperfect or that he was in any way lacking in this virtue. Neither of the examples discussed are instances of disobedience, and I do not cite them to argue otherwise. I cite them to clarify the <i>nature </i>of Pio's obedience. It was more nuanced than people assume. There is no example of Pio deliberately disobeying any order of his superiors, but he should not be viewed as a pious doormat who acquiesced docily in the face of attempts to discredit him or compromise the Capuchin way of life. His obedience was not unthinking, nor divorced from the pursuit of the good, as he understood it. <br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are other tales of this nature, but I think this suffices. The stories above are both found in <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Padre-Pio-Fransiscan-Friars-Immaculate/dp/1601140096/unamsanccath-20" target="_blank">Padre Pio: The Wonder Worker</a></i>, an anthology published by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (New Bedford, MA, 1999). And please consider picking up a copy of <i><a href="https://tanbooks.com/products/books/wounds-of-love-the-story-of-saint-padre-pio/" target="_blank">Wounds of Love</a></i> from TAN Books.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><br /></div><p></p>Bonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.com4