The Duty of the State to Honor God

In honor of the traditional Feast of Christ the King, we present this original video on the duty of the Christian state to honor God, produced by Unam Sanctam Catholicam. 

This video was originally produced as the final section in a five installment series addressing the problem of the state's recognition of homosexual so-called marriage. For the other four videos, please see the links below; Part I and II have been featured here before, but Parts III, IV and Part V (above) have never been published.

Part I: Homosexuality and the Bible
Part II: The Ends of Marriage
Part IV:  Why Homosexual Marriage is Not a Civil Right
Part IV: Christians and the Material Cooperation in Sin

Mercy, Annulments & Matrimony

Some reflections on the current state of things vis-a-vis matrimony, annulments, and mercy.

1. There has been a lot of talk about making sure the annulment process is merciful and compassionate. When people use this sort of language, they demonstrate that they do not understand what the annulment process is all about. The annulment process is primarily investigative; its purpose is to determine whether or not a putative marriage bond is valid or not. It has to do with research and investigation into the historical facts in a particular case. "Mercy" and "compassion" by their nature have nothing to do with such an investigative process. To say such a process should be "merciful" or "compassionate" is like suggesting an archaeologist needs to be more merciful when he is trying to figure out if there are ancient skeletons buried beneath a parking lot, or that a coroner doing an autopsy needs to incorporate compassion into his findings. If we told the archaeologist or the coroner this, they would rightfully look askance and wonder in what sense mercy was even relevant to their investigation. Investigation is about simply uncovering facts, and just as mercy and compassion are irrelevant to the facts of a scientific investigation, so they are irrelevant to the annulment process.

2. The annulment process is a legal process. Legal procedures can be just or unjust, but they cannot be merciful or unmerciful. It could be argued - because of the above point about the nature of investigative enterprises - that mercy has no place in legal proceedings. Mercy does have some place in legal proceedings when it comes to the prudence of a judge or magistrate in handing down a particular sentence. We may implore a judge to be merciful; there is a saying, to "throw oneself on the mercy of the court." But (and this is an important distinction) one is appealing for mercy regarding a sentence, not a procedural process. It is the sentence which elicits pleas for mercy, not the process of uncovering facts. A judge may be moved to mercy in issuing a sentence, but no judge would take seriously a plea that searching to uncover the facts of a case was unmerciful. So appeals to mercy are directed towards a sentence, not a process.

Furthermore, we appeal to mercy from persons, not procedures. A procedure can be more or less just, granted; but we do not make judgments about whether a system of procedures is merciful. Mercy is a moral act and can only be granted by a person, never a procedure. The talk about our annulment procedures being made more "merciful" is absurd.

3. It could be argued, of course, that an annulment is exactly that - a sentence. After all, the Tribunal issues a sentence at the end of the annulment process, and upon that sentence depends whether or not a previously contracted marriage is declared null. But the sentence is merely a sentence of fact, not a punitive sentence. The sentence is a statement that such-and-such are the facts of the case. One cannot appeal to mercy in such a judgment; it would make as little sense as saying that the judge's finding of fact that John Doe was spotted at the nightclub on the evening of July 25th is unmerciful. Facts are not merciful or unmerciful. They're just facts. And the annulment decree is a sentence of fact finding, not a punitive sentence. A person can argue that a fact is irrelevant, or needs to be understood in context, or that it is being understood errantly, but he cannot argue that a fact is unmerciful.

4. Finally, it is fascinating to me that there seems to be an eclipse of the concept of the sanctity of the marriage bond itself. For example, despite the great moral shift in the West, if you took a survey, most Americans would still say adultery or "cheating" is wrong. However, if you were to reword the survey and say, "Is it acceptable to have extramarital sex if your partner agrees to it?" we would see widespread agreement. If adultery is wrong, how could it be acceptable because a partner agrees to it? In other words, while many in the West still think adultery is wrong, they no longer understand why it is wrong. For most, adultery is wrong because it violates the trust of a spouse. This explains why so many will say it is acceptable in an "open marriage" situation or when the spouse assents to it. It is only wrong when the spouse has not consented. The betrayal of the spouse's trust is the real evil. Thus, the issue becomes whether mutual consent is violated - the Lockean libertarian principle applied to matrimony.

On the contrary, Catholic Tradition has always held that an extramarital affair is always immoral - even if the spouse consents to it - because it is an offense against the marriage bond. Of course violating trust is a bad thing, but it is not the only thing. The Catholic Tradition recognizes the marriage bond as something that exists objectively; it can be violated and sinned against by certain acts, even if both parties consent to them. But our culture no longer has any concept of an objective marriage bond; marriage is nothing other than consent - with consent, anything becomes permissible; without consent - a continuing consent - the marriage ceases to exist. Whereas Tradition sees the marriage bond as arising out of  a one-time act of consent, for the moderns the bond is nothing other than the consent itself. Thus, they do not understand why anything that is consented to can possibly be objectionable.

5. Finally, even if we could disregard all of the above and suggest that "mercy" should be applied in annulment cases, we ought to note that if "mercy" contradicts objective fact - that is, if in the name of mercy a declaration of nullity is issued that is not warranted by the objective facts of a case - well, this is not mercy; it is simply lying, which is an injustice.


We need to recognize as Christians that not only will our teachings be increasingly rejected, but they will not even be understood. When society cannot even understand that an objective marriage bond exists, the difference between a procedure and a sentence, an investigation of fact vs. a judgment, then the time has probably come to return to the deserts and lonely places and beat our breasts in prayer until renewal comes or the comes and smites the earth in flame.

Christian Marriage Video Project

Unam Sanctam Catholicam is proud to present an original series of videos on issues relating to homosexual so-called "marriage" and Catholicism. Unfortunately, many Christians, even those who support traditional marriage, have never been educated to explain the Christian opposition to homosexual acts beyond a vague conception that it is "wrong", "sinful", "against nature", or whatever.

These are all certainly true, but how many Christians can actually explain why it is against nature? Why is homosexual "marriage" not a civil right? How are laws seeking to ban same-sex marriage different from the old laws banning interracial marriage? If homosexual sex (as well as contraceptive sex) is wrong because it is closed to life, why is it not wrong when an elderly couple has sex or a married, infertile couple?

In my experience, most Catholics are totally unprepared to offer an answer to these sorts of questions. And - unfortunately - many in the Church's hierarchy are very hesitant to speak too boldly on this subject. This is truly a shame; the Catholic faithful are in desperate need of a logical and easy to understand exposition of the Church's rationale for its position, something grounded in the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. Instead, they have been fed nonsense about "religious liberty" and First Amendment rights, trying to make this a Constitutional issue instead of a theological issue - and when the Supreme Court tossed out those Constitutional arguments on June 26th, those Catholics who had never been educated in any other argument against same sex marriage were left in the lurch.

Here are out first two videos in the series: the first on homosexuality and the Bible, the second on the ends of marriage. It is important to note that these videos do not attempt to merely present talking points, nor force the question into an artificial paradigm of "religious liberty" and the First Amendment, as some American Catholics have tried to do. Rather, they approach the subject from the point of view of Catholic Tradition, theology and natural law. These videos are not meant to convince opponents but rather help Christians better understand their own tradition.

These videos were totally funded by donations. We currently have three more videos like these in various phases of production, on homosexual marriage and civil rights, material cooperation in sinful activities, and the duties of the Christian state. If you would like to help donate to this project, you can do so by clicking below:

Please share these videos and contribute if you believe this project is timely and necessary. Deo gratias.

Just Some Thoughts on Charter Schools

So...is anyone out there in the Catholic world still under the illusion that public schools are a suitable choice for their children's education?

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the State schools are increasingly centers for indoctrination with very substandard academics as well - yes, I know there are good teachers, yes, I know there are exceptions, but overall we should all be in agreement that things are bad.

This is not news.

What is surprising to me, as someone who has been in education for over a decade now, is the way in which conservative opponents of the public schools put blind confidence in charter schools, independent schools or private schools as a solution to the public schools, as if "more charter schools" will make things better.

For those who do not know, a charter school is a tax-payer funded entity (thus still technically a "public school") that operates under its own individualized charter and is typically administrated by a third party private company. This allows it to deviate from the norm on teacher wages, curriculum, and administration. This allows charter schools to follow a much more independent course; more variety.

I understand that charter schools give us an opportunity to do something better, and variety can be good. But variety for the sake of variety is not guaranteed to improve anything. Realistically it depends on the nature of the school. There are many charter schools where I live; some of them are essentially Christian schools with classical curricula; but some of them are basically Islamic schools with student bodies and faculty 95% Muslim.

The point is its really hit or miss. Just absent-mindedly advocating for more rights for charter schools is not, on its own, any sort of solution. Yes, it allows the formation of charter schools that are able to move in the right direction, but it's really a crap shoot. It's almost as if people have become so sick of the public schools that they have begun to assume that anything is preferable to the public schools and have begun to think that more alternatives, regardless of what they are, will better things.

Private, independent, or charter schools can be worse than public schools. For example, check out this little gem in Minneapolis. Make sure to browse around a bit, especially at the teacher biography pages. This is same school that recently came under heat for taking their students to a sex shop as part of their sexual education curriculum - without the permission of parents - something the Headmaster of the school is still unapologetic for.

We should know that the value of a charter school or private school is only as good as its particular charter or mission - and administration. The only Catholic private school I ever taught at had piss poor academics and terrible discipline.

Am I a charter school advocate? In one sense, no, because I don't just support "charter schools." I support particular charter schools, but it depends upon their particular charter. I suppose you could say I support charter schools insofar as more liberal allowances for the establishment of charter schools allows particular charters with classical curricula to flourish; but those same laws also allow Muslim charter schools and anything else under the sun.

I personally do not believe the future of education is with charter schools and certainly not with private. It is with homeschooling and family-managed educational cooperatives. I have no optimism that "school choice", more charter schools, or anything within the framework of the system will make anything better in the long run.

Corpus Christi and the Church of the World

The good ole days

This weekend my mother attended a Corpus Christi procession at a parish that is not her regular parish. She passed on to me the booklet the congregation used for the procession prayers, a composition called the "Litany of Lament for Sins Against the Body of Christ." As I read the prayers, I soon realized that these prayers were of such banal hilarity as to merit being the subject of a post. I should note, this came from a parish that is not known as a particularly progressive or dissenting parish; this is just your typical EWTN-watching, Fr. Barron-loving, Medjugorje-affirming fairly orthodox parish from American Novus Ordo Land.

I have omitted the customary prayers at the beginning of the litany (the "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, etc). I present, the "Litany of Lament for Violations Against the Body of Christ", followed afterwards by my comments.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE WORLD

For those times when we have failed to welcome the stranger or have been silent about immigration reform, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have been silent about political issues, especially those that threatened religious liberty, Lord have mercy. [Laughable, because these same priests who are bewailing being silent about political issues would rather walk on hot coals than criticize Obama or say anything even remotely contoversial]

For silence by too many members of the Church while fifty-five million lives wee lost to abortion, Lord have mercy.

For those times in our history when we have not spoken out against slavery, segregation, or persecution, Lord have mercy.

For those times and in those places we have ignored those in prison and the needs of their families, Lord have mercy.

For ignoring genocide in our world - by starvation, by brutal atrocities, and by civil and military actions, Lord have mercy.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST DUE TO ABUSE

For the sins of Church ministers who sexually abused children, Lord have mercy.

For the failings of those in hierarchy who failed to remove offenders from parish positions, Lord have mercy.

For the irreparable harm caused by victims of abuse, Lord have mercy. [one wonders if the harm is "irreparable", what is the purpose of this prayer of reparation?]

For all those times when any of us has failed to protect children, Lord have mercy.

Let us pray: Lord, we worship you living among us in the sacrament of your Body and Blood. May we offer to our Fathers in heaven our solemn pledge of undivided love. May we offer to our brothers and sisters a life poured out in loving service of that kingdom, where you live with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.

FOR OUR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST IS THE DOMESTIC CHURCH

For those times when we have failed to reach out to families who were experiencing difficulties, Lord have mercy.

For too quickly judging divorced and separated spouses, Lord have mercy.

For our failures to reach out and support mothers and fathers considering abortion, Lord have mercy.

For failing to use our resources to help the poor and unemployed, Lord have mercy.

For failing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have ignored the gifts of our youth and their contributions to the Church, Lord have mercy.

FOR SINS AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST

For all those times when we ourselves have failed to be instruments of reconciliation, Lord have mercy.

For not fully utilizing the gifts of women in the Church, Lord have mercy.

For being uncivil in our disagreements about liturgical practices instead of uniting in worship around God's altar, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have caused other members of the Body of Christ to suffer, Lord have mercy.

For perpetuating historic divisions among Christians, Lord have mercy.

For not recognizing our shared heritage with Orthodox and Protestant believers, Lord have mercy.

For those times when we have been intolerant of non-Christian believers and to those who profess no faith, Lord have mercy.

LITANY FOR THE COMMUNITY

For those who own businesses, may they be good stewards of their gifts, Christ graciously hear us.

For employees, may they reflect the Gospel of Jesus, Christ graciously hear us.

For those who frequent the businesses, may they be bearers of truth, Christ graciously hear us.

For those who visit, may they see the light of Jesus shining all around them, Christ graciously hear us.

For our leaders, may they be filled with justice, prudence, fortitude and temperance, Christ graciously hear us. [Why not faith, hope and charity, also?]

For our public officials, may they act according to the wisdom of God, Christ graciously hear us.

For our utility workers, may they persevere in joyfully serving the community especially in emergencies, Christ graciously hear us.

For all social workers, may know the peace of Christ, Christ graciously hear us.

For all school teachers and principals, may they reach the children they teach emotionally, spiritually, and academically, Christ graciously hear us.
For all hospital personnel...

[Here it goes on and on, mentioning medical workers, police, firemen, EMTs, charitable agencies, those who work with victims of domestic abuse, Salvation Army, postal workers, court workers and judges, prisoners, the "lost and confused", church ministers, senior citizens, foster care workers, those who are suffering from addictions, the depressed and suicidal, and finally, teenagers]

Let us pray: Lord Jesus, on the night you told us to take and eat your Body and Blood, you prayed to the Father that we may all be one as you are one with your Father. We too pray dear Jesus that we may all be one as you are one with the Father. Amen.

...[end]...

Whew. Okay. A few observations-

First and foremost, was there anything in this entire litany about the actual, sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, which is the whole rationale for the feast? No. Never is the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament mentioned, except for one vague allusion in the prayer "Lord, we worship you living among us in the sacrament of your Body and Blood," and the presence of the phrase "living among us" renders this prayer extremely questionable - as if we cannot worship the sacramental Lord without doing so mediately through the community who receives Him.

Second, I also noted that every intercession, without exception, is entirely worldly, focused on this side of heaven. No prayer for those in the hour of death. No prayer for the conversion of poor sinners. No reparation for offenses against the Sacred Heart or our Eucharistic Lord. No prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory. No prayers for the salvation of the non-believer or for the Church's missionary efforts. Whoever composed these prayers evidently envisions the Church's mission as completely earth-bound, about speaking up for immigration reform.

Third, it should be evident that the presence of Pro-Life sentiments is no longer and indicator of orthodoxy. Perhaps this was once otherwise; maybe back in the 80's and 90's. But the Pro-Life standard has become so ubiquitous within Catholic parish life that it has become kind of disconnected from any larger orthodoxy. This same litany which laments the holocaust of abortion and prays for mothers considering abortion simultaneously prays for greater recognition of the "gifts of women" in the Church (we know what that means), suggests that arguing about liturgical matters is "uncivil", and laments that we are "intolerant" of other faiths. In other words, we have reached a place where Pro-Life sentiments coexist comfortably with progressive theology. Being Pro-Life is no longer an indicator of legitimate Catholicism, and it can be arguable that it never was (related: Profile of a Theological Liberal).

Fourth, the incredible naivete! This "Litany of Lament" bewails the fact that there is not enough influence of women in the Church, that we are too intolerant, that our problem with Protestantism is that we have not sufficiently affirmed it, that we are too judgmental about divorced Catholics. So, women don't have a big enough role in the Church? Maybe whoever wrote this prayer has not seen some of our diocesan publications, or has never Googled "Director of Religious Education" on Google Images,  nor Googled images for "RCIA Director" - or for that matter, "Director of Faith Formation" or "Parish Administrator". Can anyone who has spent one year in a modern Catholic parish and done these basic image searches really be serious that women are not represented enough in the Church today? That the Church has not been sufficiently pro-illegal immigration? That divorced Catholics are treated too harshly? These people are living in fantasy land. But, as has often been pointed out, the solution for the problems caused by liberalism is more liberalism.

Catholics obviously think of the Church as merely an institution for the betterment of society - and when the Bishop of Rome says things like the greatest crisis facing the modern world is youth unemployment and then skips out of Rome's Corpus Christi procession so he can make a pastoral visit to a Calabrian prison, the situation is definitely not made any better. By the way, I also noted the "Litany of Lament" did not include any prayers for the Pope.

We could go on, but why bother? 

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." ~Rev. 22:11

In Praise of Virginity? Anybody?

While the secular world continues its onslaught against the family with its relentless promotion of same-sex so-called marriage, the Church has been enduring a parallel attack against the discipline of celibacy. Both attacks are diabolical, both equally ferocious, and both based on the premise that human beings are absolutely and utterly incapable of moderating their sexual appetites.

On the homosexual question, conservative pundits, mostly Protestant and severed from Catholic Tradition, can offer no defense of traditional marriage grounded in natural law and largely stand by dumbly, protest on the grounds of biblical prohibitions, or else meekly acquiesce so they can be "on the right side of history." Similarly, as the discipline of celibacy is assaulted within the Catholic world, no one steps forward to boldly praise the ancient discipline. While liberal ecclesiastics clamor for its abolition, conservative clerics fumble about the practical difficulties of a married clergy or, even worse, meekly shrug and say "It's only a discipline. It could be changed," as if one of the Church's most ancient disciplines could be tossed aside with no consequences.

It is not surprising that the Faith is under attack; a reflective view of Church history reveals that the Faith is always under attack. But what is surprising with regards to celibacy is the lack of any truly zealous defenders of the discipline. Sure, we get apologetics and defenses of the reasonableness of celibacy, but when was the last time we really heard a bishop speak out boldly in praise of virginity, as the Fathers of the Church used to do? Arianism threatened the Church, and St. Athanasius opposed it with such rigor that the heresy was subdued; St. Augustine almost single handedly undid the Pelagians with his masterful exposition of the doctrines of grace; when Iconoclasm reared its destructive head, St. John Damascene slew the beast with his treatises in praise of holy images; St. Gregory VII, Anselm and Thomas Becket humbled kings and emperors who sought to define the Church as a functionary of the state, St. Thomas Aquinas put the nail int he coffin of Latin Averroism, and St. Francis of Assisi's life and message served as a stinging rebuke to the worldliness of his day, just as the holy life and teachings of St. Ignatius served as an antitode to the poison of the Protestant revolt and the bold defense of papal primacy made by Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X served to combat the errors of modernism.

Where, then, are the zealous promoters of celibacy who will rise up in this hour and glorify the Church's teaching on holy virginity? Where are those ecclesiastics who, with their teaching, will not only meekly defend the legitimacy of the practice, but will actually show forth its splendor and praise it? Where are those who will speak of the radiant beauty of the consecrated soul, the many spiritual and temporal benefits that virginity bestows upon him who practices it, and the immense merit consecrated virgins accrue before the throne of God?

The silence is appalling. Oh, don't get me wrong, we have plenty of folks out there defending celibacy. We have plenty of priests who are willing to explain its reasons and its legitimacy and point out the possible difficulties we would run into if we had a married clergy. But to defend the validity of a discipline is not the same thing as to praise it, and to coolly remind the hostile world of the reasons behind the discipline is not the same thing as to heap glory upon a custom that is universally praised in the eastern and western traditions.

When Tertullian and Cyprian and Augustine write in praise of virginity, their goal is not to explain virginity to a hostile world, but to laud virginity among other Catholics, helping them to see the mystical reality behind the discipline. When the Church Fathers praise virginity, the praise it as men who have seen a vision of something truly beautiful, something gloriously resplendent, a pearl of great price that they do not offer a defensive apologetic for, but rather a glowing hymn in praise of.

The modern apologists attempt to convince the intellect to accept the reasonableness of celibacy; the Church Fathers attempted to move the will in order that their hearers would personally embrace celibacy themselves as a positive good to be sought.

It is difficult enough these days to find someone who will rigorously defend celibacy, let alone attempt to convince their readers to take up the discipline. Yet this is how the practice was first introduced to the faithful, not as a practice that the Church should accept, but as an ideal way of life that is actually superior to matrimony.

There are many facets to the vocations crisis - there is the man-made aspect of it, in which the crisis is artificially blown out of proportion for the purpose of creating lay-run parishes; like the canard of "religious liberty", there is the fact that most American Catholics cannot offer satisfactory answers to critics of the discipline. But can the major problem perhaps be that we have lost sight of celibacy/virginity as a treasure to be cherished? That in fighting so hard to defend it against a hostile world without and a skeptical Church within, we have contented ourselves with defending the existence of celibacy alongside of marriage when we should have been praising it as a superior vocation to marriage? As is the case with so many other issues in the Church today, can our problem be not that we are expecting too much, but that we have been habitually aiming too low?

"As a Church living in expectation of glory to be revealed she will find ever greater strength to proclaim the value of celibacy that is lived for the Kingdom of God." (John Paul II, ad Limina Address, "The Church of the Millennium Bears Witness to Christ with No Fear of Displeasing the World," L'Osservatore Romano English ed., April 25, 1988, 5,8).

Apostolic Nuncio Viganò on Persecution and Martyrdom

Though it might have passed under the radar of many because of the hype leading up to the election at the time, on November 4th, 2012 the Apostolic Nuncio for the USA, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, addressed a conference on Religious Liberty at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. In this address, he made some interesting remarks on the question of religious liberty in the western democracies. His talk is interesting because of the analysis of the psychology of persecution and his observations about the public demands of the Christian witness. I did not reproduce the entire talk, but substantial portions of it are quoted below, with certain passages emboldened that I found of interest.

"As the papal nuncio to the United States, I realize that I speak from a distinguished podium at a great university. It is my intention to propose for your consideration the interrelated matters of religious freedom, persecution, and martyrdom that are, or should be, of vital concern to you – for these grave concerns exist not only abroad, but they also exist within your own homeland.

In order to establish a framework for my presentation, several key definitions are in order. I will first address the subject of martyrdom. What is it, and why is it relevant to you today? I am sure that most if not all of us are familiar with the martyrs of the Church – both past and present – who gave of their lives because they would not compromise on the principles of faith that accompany the call to discipleship. Theirs is the experience of great suffering that often includes torture and death. Some of the early martyrs of the Church experienced this through cruelty, often by slow means, designed to bring on death.

However, the intention underlying the objectives of the persecutor is important to understand: it was to eradicate the public witness to Jesus Christ and His Church. An accompanying objective can be the incapacitation of the faith by enticing people to renounce their beliefs, or at least their public manifestations, rather than undergo great hardships that will be, or can be, applied if believers persist in their resistance to apostasy. The plan is straightforward: if the faith persists, so will the hardships. In more recent times, martyrdom may not necessitate torture and death; however, the objective of those who desire to harm the faith may choose the path of ridiculing the believers so that they become outcasts from mainstream society and are marginalized from meaningful participation in public life. This brings me to the meaning of persecution.

Persecution is typically associated with the deeds preceding those necessary to make martyrs for the faith.While acts of persecution can mirror those associated with martyrdom, other elements can be directed to sustaining difficulty, annoyance, and harassment that are designed to frustrate the beliefs of the targeted person or persons rather than to eliminate these persons. It would seem, then, that the objective of persecution is to remove from the public square the beliefs themselves and the public manifestations without necessarily eliminating the persons who hold the beliefs. The victimization may not be designed to destroy the believer but only the belief and its open manifestations. From the public viewpoint, the believer remains but the faith eventually disappears.

In the context of martyrdom and persecution, the law enforcement branches of the state can be relied upon to achieve the desired goal. The state’s enforcement mechanisms were surely employed in the campaigns that brought the deaths of the early Roman martyrs. The legal mechanisms of new legislation and its enforcement in Tudor England were relied upon in the persecution and martyrdom of Thomas More and John Fisher. As one thinks about these two heroic individuals, you can see the multiple objectives of the state. The first, in their sequential order, were words and then deeds designed to encourage through pressure More and Fisher to accept the King’s and Parliament’s wills to agree with the divorce of King Henry from Queen Catherine. However, when Fisher and More remained resolved in their fidelity to the Church’s teachings about the validity of the marriage but discreet in how they did so, the state mechanisms designed to bring them and their views around were ratcheted up so as to increase the pressure on them. When they resisted the increased pressure, statutes were enacted and amended to make non-compliance a treasonable and, therefore, a capital offense.

At the core of this fidelity is the desire to be a good citizen of the two cities where we all live: the City of Man and the City of God. This kind of dual citizenship necessitates libertas Ecclesiae, i.e., the freedom of the Church. This freedom is essential to the religious freedom which properly belongs to the human person. And this freedom that belongs to the human person is simultaneously a human, civil, and natural right which is not conferred by the state because it subsists in the human person’s nature.

We live in an age where most, but not all, of your fellow countrymen still share in the conviction that Americans are essentially a religious people. While current data suggests a progressive decline in religious belief across the western world including the United States, there still appears to be deference given to the importance of religion. But as I have just indicated, there are those who question whether religion or religious belief should have a role in public life and civic affairs. The problem of persecution begins with this reluctance to accept the public role of religion in these affairs, especially but not always when the protection of religious freedom involves beliefs that the powerful of the political society do not share. Thus we are presented with the pressing question about whether the devoted religious believer, let us say the Catholic, can have a right to exercise citizenship in the most robust fashion when his or her views on civic concerns are informed by the faith. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution more than suggests an affirmative answer to this question. But we should not be satisfied with this recognition. After all, important figures, some of whom hold high public office, are speaking today about the right of freedom of worship, but their discourse fails to acknowledge that there is also a complementary right about the unencumbered ability to exercise religious faith in a responsible and at the same time public manner.

Let me address the concerns that I see about this fundamental and non-derogable right, on your home front. When Catholic Charities and businesses owned by faithful Catholics experience pressure to alter theircherished beliefs, the problem is experienced in other venues. In short, the menace to religious liberty is concrete on many fronts. Evidence is emerging which demonstrates that the threat to religious freedom isnot solely a concern for non-democratic and totalitarian regimes. Unfortunately it is surfacing with greater regularity in what many consider the great democracies of the world. This is a tragedy for not only the believer but also for democratic society.

If George Orwell were still alive today, he would certainly have material to write a sequel to his famous novel 1984 in which the totalitarian state, amongst other things, found effective means from distancing children from their parents and monopolizing the control of educational processes especially on moral issues.

But we must not forget the other perils to religious liberty that your great country has experienced in recent years. Once again, we see that the rule of law, in the context of your First Amendment and important international protections for religious freedom, has been pushed aside. Let me cite some examples of these other hazards. A few years ago, the Federal courts of the United States considered the case of Parker v. Hurley in which a number of families were alarmed over the curriculum of the public schools in Lexington, Massachusetts (ironically one of your cradles of liberty!) where young children were obliged to learn about family diversity as presented in a children’s book that elevated as natural and wholesome same-sex relations in marriage. The Parker family and other families, who are Judeo-Christian believers, wished to pursue an “opt-out” for their children from this instruction. However, the civil authorities and the Federal courts disagreed with, and thereby denied, the lawful claims of these parents who were trying to protect their children from the morally unacceptable. If these children were to remain in public schools, they had to participate in the indoctrination of what the public schools thought was proper for young children. Put simply, religious freedom was forcefully pushed aside once again.

More recently, we recall the federal court review of Proposition 8 in California. In the legal proceedings surrounding this initiative dealing with the meaning of marriage, Judge Vaughan Walker said this about religious exercise – a freedom enshrined in your Constitution: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” This “harm” cited by the judge became the basis for devising a mechanism used to minimize if not eradicate the free exercise of religion which includes the vigorous participation of the religious believer in public and political life.”

“…[W]e have observed influential members of the national American community – especially public officials and university faculty members – who profess to be Catholic, allying with those forces that are pitted against the Church in fundamental moral teachings dealing with critical issues such as abortion, population control, the redefinition of marriage, embryonic stem cell commodification, and problematic adoptions, to name but a few. In regard to teachers, especially university and college professors, we have witnessed that some instructors who claim the moniker “Catholic” are often the sources of teachings that conflict with, rather than explain and defend, Catholic teachings in the important public policy issues of the day. While some of these faculty members are affiliated with non-Catholic institutions of higher learning, others teach at institutions that hold themselves out to be Catholic. This, my brothers and sisters, is a grave and major problem that challenges the first freedom...

“Catholics have, in the past, experienced and weathered the storms that have threatened religious freedom. In this context, we recall that Pope Pius XI took steps to address these grave problems in his 1931 encyclical letter Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with religious persecution of the faithful by the fascists in Italy, and in his 1937 letter Mit Brennender Sorge addressing parallel threats initiated by the National Socialists in Germany. In the context of Germany during the reign of National Socialism, we recall that the Oxford Professor Nathanial Micklem examined and discussed the persecution of the Catholic Church is Germany in his 1939 book entitled "National Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church." The problems identified by Micklem over six decades ago that deal with the heavy grip of the state’s hand in authentic religious liberty are still with us today.”

Religious Liberty? A Secular Answer to a Secular Problem

All across the nation this year, rallies have been popping up in protest of the Obama Administration's HHS mandate, which would require Catholic employers to pay for insurance plans that would cover abortions and contraception, thus forcing Catholics to sin by contributing to the sin of others who will use these plans to get abortions or obtain contraception.

The United States bishops have made an admirable stand against the mandate. The level of organization and the vehemence of many of their statements of opposition have been impressive. The rallying cry the bishops have settled on is the principle of "Religious Liberty" - that the mandate forces Catholics to violate their conscience by compelling them to act against their religion and hence violates the First Amendment, which guarantees every citizen the right to practice their religion freely without hindrance from the government.
 

This approach of the bishops was largely strategic. By choosing "religious liberty" as their rallying cry, the United States bishops were attempting to ground the protests within the framework and vocabulary of the First Amendment, part of a secular Constitution written by pseudo-Protestant deists. Presumably the point of grounding the argument on religious liberty in general rather than on the specific teachings of the Catholic Church in particular is that it universalizes and Americanizes the debate, allowing for other parties besides Catholics to join in the protest. By making this about religious liberty, the message is sent that this is not just a Catholic problem.

This is actually part of the modern Church's larger Grand Alliance of All "Moral" People Against Secularism, by which Catholics are supposed to ally with Protestants, Jews, Muslims and all religious people against the onslaught of atheist secularism, which threatens all religions alike. I do not think this is a biblical approach to our modern problems, and I have written against it here.

But the real problem with the "religious liberty" rallying cry is this: the behavior the HHS mandate compels is sinful and contrary to the teaching of the Church. That is the issue - not religious liberty. Religious liberty is certainly involved, but we can't stand on the pillar of religious liberty and be consistent.

Why not? Well, suppose we expend all this time and effort arguing that this is "not just a Catholic problem" and that this is ultimately about "religious liberty." Now suppose the government decides to attack or proscribe the practices of another religious group, but a practice which is, in fact, contrary to Catholic teaching. If this is really about religious liberty, then the Church would be in the awkward position of having to defend practices that are contrary to the truth revealed in Christ on the principle of religious liberty. In other words, arguing against the HHS mandate on the grounds of religious liberty is ultimately arguing that every religious practice is worthy of state support and protection.

This time, the issue is the HHS mandate. But if we argue against this based on the grounds of religious liberty, what about when the government tells the Native American tribes of the west that they cannot use Paiute in their private, religious rituals? If the issue with HHS was religious liberty, then we have to affirm the duty of the state to sanction and protect the "right" of these folks to use illegal controlled substances for their religious worship. We have to allow for protection of Santeria practitioners to sacrifice small animals. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with orthodox Jews in Germany who are arguing against a ban on religious circumcision (even though the Council of Florence taught that circumcision for religious purposes is a grave sin).

But, if we argue against HHS on grounds of liberty, what grounds do we leave ourselves to argue against the legitimacy of any other practice? Seventh Day Adventist gatherings on Saturdays where the Catholic Church is attacked and blasphemed as the Harlot of Revelation and Jehovah's Witness mock "communions" and everything in between all becomes equally licit and permissible and worthy of state protection because, according to the Bishops, we all have the liberty to persevere in whatever religious error we happen to be enmeshed in. The religious liberty objection really says nothing about the objective truth or falsity of the religious practice in question; it simply appeals to the fact that the practitioner believes their opinions to be true and that this should be respected. Is entirely subjective.

Thus, when the Jews or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Voodoo folks come complaining about religious liberty being violated in any of their cases, how can the Catholic Church respond? Will we not have boxed ourselves into a corner where we are compelled to advocate religious liberty for these practices as well once we advocated it for our own?

Don't we see that defending one religious practice in the name of "religious liberty" means defending all religious practices absolutely?

This objection to the HHS mandate on the grounds of "religious liberty" is ultimately a weak, secular objection to a very strong secular challenge. As they used to say in sales training, we need to "find the real objection"; if we do not object to HHS on the grounds of religious liberty, upon what grounds do we object to it that will not lead us into the inconsistencies I described above?

The objection should be this:

We will not comply with the HHS Mandate because we are Catholics loyal to the Magisterium and the Traditions of our Faith. Our Faith teaches us that abortion and contraception are grave sins. Not only are they grave sins, but supporting them or enabling others to partake in them are sins as well. We will not comply with a mandate that forces us to betray God by sinning against Him, even to uphold the law. Catholics are good citizens and see no dichotomy between choosing between Caesar and Christ, each with their own proper sphere of authority; but in this mandate you have compelled us to choose between the two, and we shall choose Christ over Caesar.

This response does not make the problem about the First Amendment. It does not force us into an awkward alliance with every religious group out there. It makes this about the world versus the Catholic Church, and choosing between Caesar and Christ, because what Caesar commands is sin. This response does take into account the objective evil of what Caesar commands and makes the issue a religious question, not a political question about what religious "liberties" we have under the Constitution. It does not force us into a position where consistency requires Catholics to uphold the "rights" of non-Catholics to participate in or promote practices or doctrines that are contrary to Catholicism and damaging to people's souls.

The "religious liberty" objection is a profoundly secular objection to a secular problem. We cannot fight secularism with more secularity. We cannot use the enemy's weapons against him; we cannot ourselves use the Ring to defeat Sauron. The religious liberty rallies are a uniquely American solution to an American problem; but it is not an ideal Catholic solution.

The Alleged Catholic "Obsession" with Homosexuality and Abortion

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) has predictably found some serious defects in the LCWR's role of representating the women religious of the United States. The crux of the CDF's statement is that there are "serious doctrinal problems which affect many in Consecrated Life. On the doctrinal level, this crisis is characterized by a diminution of the fundamental Christological center and focus of religious consecration which leads, in turn, to a loss of a “constant and lively sense of the Church” among some Religious."  In other words, women religious no longer see themselves as Brides of Christ.

From this "diminution of the...Christological center" of religious life comes other inevitable diminutions and omissions, especially as regards the Church's teaching on life issues. The document says:

"[W]hile there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the Bishops, who are the Church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose."

So the positions of the LCWR with regards to the Church's life issues are deficient, and hence, they are rightfully chastised by the CDF for it, among other things. Yet, when the CDF exercises its rightful function of passing judgment on whether a Catholic organization is following Catholic dogma, we instead hear the accusations from the progressives and modernists that the Church is in error for condemning these trends among the LCWR and that the CDF's statement reveals how "obsessed" the Church has become with the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

This nonsense about the Church "obsessing" over life issues and sexual sins is quite a common refrain among the enemies of the Catholic faith. It is protested that Catholics are singling out abortion and homosexuality as worse sins than others. "If the Church would devote the time and resources it uses attacking homosexuality to combating alcoholism, poverty or child abuse, the world would be a much better place." The Church's single-minded, obsessive focus on the "life issues" distracts her from adequately loving the poor and attending to other important corporal works of mercy. Anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality have become the Church's core teachings, our opponents suggest.

The tactic of playing social justice issues against life issues is a stupid false dichotomy, as any devout Catholic or anyone who actually does love poor people and the unborn at the same knows. But this argument about the Church's "obsession" with life issues is interesting. It is true that the Church in the United States probably spends more time and money defending traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn than on any other issues. But does this fact mean that we Catholics are "obsessed" with these issues and see them as the most important Catholic teachings?

Here's the thing. YES, there are lots of other Catholic teachings, and YES, there are lots of other sins; alcoholism, poverty and child abuse are certainly very serious problems that need to be addressed. But (and this is a very serious but), no one is out there trying to redefine the evils of alcoholism, poverty and child abuse and trying to turn them into positive goods. There are no such groups as the "Society for the Promotion of Alcoholism" or the "Child Abuse Supporters Network." There are no mass protests of people chanting, "More poverty! More poverty!" No one is redefining theft as a virtue, or advocating for lying as just one of many acceptable forms of communication, or touting the benefits of drunkenness. In none of these cases is society moving to redefine sin into goodness or vice into virtue. The secular world, by and large, still understands alcoholism, child abuse, et al to be evils, or at least socially undesirable.

But, supposing for the sake of argument that there was a massive public outcry to promote child abuse; suppose that there did exist numerous large, national organizations, well staffed and well funded with important political connections, who were lobbying for tax-payer funded liquor for alcoholics or the abolition of laws against perjury and the promotion of lying as an acceptable form of communication. Suppose we lived in such a world where such things were common. If that were the case, then you can be sure, the Catholic Church would be in the forefront of the fight against such social evils. Bishops would be speaking out against drunkenness, there would be homilies on the virtue of honesty, a whole slew 501 (c) 3 lay organizations dedicated to promoting the welfare of children and combating the pro-child abuse crowd, and there would be a whole market created for pro-sobriety bumper stickers. If these sorts of vices were being redefined as virtues in the manner that abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia are today, then I am positive that Catholics individually and the Church collectively would counter this assault on truth with a campaign as equally vigorous as the one being waged against abortion in this country.

But of course, nobody is proposing to promote drunkenness or redefine lying as a virtue. But people are in fact doing this with abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia, three acts that the entire Western Tradition has seen as gravely evil and depraved until relatively recently. In these cases of the life issues, we do in fact have a society-wide attempt to redefine as positive goods things that were unanimously understood to be evil.

Thus, it is certainly not that the Church is "obsessed" abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia; on the contrary, it is our corrupt culture that is obsessed with redefining the morality of acts that have always been viewed as evil. The Church is not attacking a particular point with any special vehemence; it is simply putting its finger in the dyke at the point of the leak, or deflecting a specific blow aimed at a specific spot on the Body.

If the society will stop redefining immoral acts as moral, I'm sure the Church would stop "obsessing" over the redefinitions. If the state would stop legislating on matters that are ultimately moral and not at all political, then the Church would happily "stay out of politics." But unfortunately, the redefinitions continue and legislation in favor of popular support of immoral actions continues, and so the Church must continue to fight and educate on the life issues and stand firm to maintain its right to pass judgment on the morality (or immortality) of actions of government. What people presume is a Church attack from one direction is really a Christian counter-offensive to a secular onslaught from the other; and society is too blind to see it.

Church renovations in the 11th century and today

One of the truly lamentable signs of the times that we live in is the notable lack of beautiful Catholic churches in the western world. Other than the great edifices of the medieval and baroque eras that have somehow managed to escape dismantling and remain standing, there are precious few examples of beautiful modern Catholic church architecture. This is especially true in the United States, where modernist architecture is the norm and where there are no medieval cathedrals or baroque basilicas to offset the disturbing truth that, for a Church whose philosophical tradition has equated Beauty as interchangeable with Goodness and Being itself, there is a woeful dearth of beauty in Catholic church buildings.

The truly tragic thing is that the absence of beautiful church architecture in America is a part of an agenda perpetrated by an ideologically driven minority, as Michael S. Rose has aptly documented in his indispensable book The Renovation Manipulation: The Church Counter-Renovation Handbook. Rose shows in his book how this small cadre of modernist intelligensia, mainly operating under the guise of upholding the 1978 non-binding and non-obligatory document Environment and Art in Catholic Worship put out by the US Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, have constructed a systematic plan for the destruction of traditional Catholic architecture in order to replace it with architecturally minimalist styles that are thought to better convey (you guessed it) the 'Spirit of Vatican II.'

Interestingly enough, those who promote the architectural "wreckovation" will attempt to mask the blatant destruction of Catholic tradition by appealing to history - one architectural form has always given way to another, they say. Did not Gothic give way to Baroque? Furthermore, there is always this kind of change after an ecumenical council - look at the great changes in painting and architecture that we associate with the Counter-Reformation, which was the fruit of the Council of Trent. As the Church develops and Vatican II puts our theological emphasis in a new place (community over sacrifice), our buildings need to reflect this change.

On the one hand, these arguments are correct - it is true that in history, massive renovations have happened to Catholic church buildings. It is certainly true that even the most well constructed cathedral or solid basilica is still a structure made of ultimately temporary materials that will in time erode and fall apart. Though we ought to do everything we can to preserve the great Catholic monuments of our tradition, we do need to recognize that sometimes it is necessary to take down or deconstruct a church whose physical life has come to an end. Also, there is a legitimate variation in style as one architectural style organically gives way to another. There is a very clear line of development from the classical, secular structures of the late Roman Empire into the Romanesque, the Gothic and then the Baroque and neo-Classical. Certainly styles change and nobody denies this. Ecclesiastical events and ecumenical councils can even prompt some of these changes.

But where this weak analogy breaks down is in trying to draw an equation from the fact of change in the past to the type of change that we are currently experiencing. The architectural changes of the Church's tradition have always been organic changes, changes based on existing custom and tradition, and most importantly, changes that were thought to better reflect the theological and liturgical life of the Church. The changes being implemented in the past four decades are completely artificial, inspired not by Catholic tradition but by modern art, deconstructionism and minimalism. They are also being imposed authoritatively from above, by committees and bureaucracies not in line with the tastes of the people, most of whom prefer the beautiful designs from tradition, which are more easily understandable.

To further demonstrate this difference between current renovations and other advancements in church architecture from our past, let us compare everything we know about the current "wreckovation" to a famous passage from the chronice of Rodulfus Glaber, a Burgundian chronicler writing around the turn of the first millennium of the growth in new church buildings in France:

"When the third year after the millennium dawned, churches were to be seen being rebuilt all over the earth, but especially in Italy and Gaul; although most of them were very well constructed and had no need of rebuilding, each Christian community was driven by a true rivalry to have a finer church than that of its neighbors. It looked as though the very world was shaking itself to take off its old age and to reclothe itself in all areas in a white cloak of churches. Thus, almost all the churches of episcopal sees, the churches of monasteries dedicated to different saints, and even the little chapels in villages were rebuilt more beautifully by the faithful (Rodulfi Glabri Historiarum Libri Quinque; Rodulfus Glaber, The Five Books of the Histories).

New churches were being constructed, it is true, but why? Because communities had a true rivalry to have a "finer church" than its neighbor; now dicoeses seem to compete to have the ugliest buildings. Glaber clearly states that the new churches were "rebuilt more beautifully" than the old churches. True architectural progression in church design aims to take new methods and technological advancements and put them at the service of beauty and the mystery of the faith. Hence, the Gothic is more complex and beautiful than the Romanesque, and the Baroque takes the artistic and scuptural advances of the Renaissance and puts them at the service of beauty - and yet, each style need not be in competition, for since they are all the best efforts of the men of that age to put art at the service of beauty, they each have their own sort of beauty proper to that style.

Nowadays, unlike what Glaber describes as a charitable rivalry in outdoing one another in beauty, parish wreckovators are intentionally dismantling and destroying every vestige of beauty. See this post on one priest who sees the Novus Ordo Mass as practically demanding a total demolition of churches built in the traditional style, that the new mass may be celebrated in its "fullness."

Finally, Glaber says that these new, beautiful churches were built "by the faithful." The new churches of old were built in keeping with the piety and desires of the faithful, who many times carried out the physical construction of the buildings. Modern church renovations are seldom carried out at the will of the people. Michael Rose says in his book that usually a parish considering renovation makes the fatal mistake of inviting some committee or group of "specialists" out to look at the facility and make recommendations - before the priest knows whats going on, a total renovation is underway, designed and implemented by an outside agent working from a flawed interpretation of USCCB documents with an aim of uglifying the church as much as possible. From start to finish it is a top-down affair that barely engages the faithful at all. This is not always the case, of course, but according to Rose it is the norm.

To sum it up, we ought not to be silenced by arguments that architectural change and progression of styles have always been a part of the Church's history. This is true - but it is also true that these legitimate, organic modifications in style over time have nothing in common with the minimalist, modernist, authoritarian nonsense that passes for renovation in the modern church.

.

Mass Marketing Mysticism

A while back I came across this very excellent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Ross Douthat entitled "Mass Market Epiphany" on the way in which Americans have taken mysticism, which is the most interior and personal element of religious experience, and turned it into a mass market phenomenon. With clarity that is unusual in the mainstream media, this columnist states quite plainly that what currently passes for mysticism in America is no substitute for true, radical mysticism; true mysticism is intense and transcendent, while ours tends to be "a pleasant hobby rather than a transformative vocation." Perhaps I am giving this columnist too much credit for his insightfullness; after all, he is basically repeating what Luke Timothy Johnson said in "Commonweal" in a February 2010 article called "Dry Bones" on the struggle between the exoteric and esoteric religious traditions in Christianity, Islam and Judaism (here). At any rate, it was refreshing to see somebody outside of the Catholic circle make this observation.

Both Douthat and Johnson accurately state that mysticism is engaged in a "war" with what could be termed the more exoteric (or, activist) elements of religion - those elements that are centered on the world, this life and charitable deeds; what traditional Catholics have described as the "horizontal" approach to the Faith. It is undeniable that this has been the trend in Christianity for the past several decades - even longer in the Protestant traditions. Johnson says, "Bit by bit Christianity has succumbed to the worldview of modernity, which rejects and even ridicules the notion that a life of renunciation can be a pilgrimage toward God. With the collapse of a miracle-saturated world comes the loss of a robust sense of future life counterbalancing our present “Vale of Tears.” In the eyes of modernity, the very concept of self-renunciation appears as a form of psychopathology."

This is interesting because, despite this obvious movement away from true mysticism in Christianity (and in religion in general), polls consistently reflect that Americans consider themselves far more spiritual today than ever before. While only 22 percent of Americans reporting having a "religious or mystical experience" in 1962, that number has jumped to 50% today. Even as numbers for church attendance drop across the spectrum,  more and more Americans, many of them ex-Catholics, are describing themselves as "spiritual but not religious." How are we to understand the apparent contradiction of less and less of a connection with traditional religious piety while more and more people are describing themselves as spiritual?

The answer must be that people are fooling around with spirituality outside of the traditional religious channels - they are pursuing the experiential element of religion without reference or context to the great traditions of the Church and the Christian mystics.

But this begs the following question: If people are seeking mystical experience apart from the traditional forms of piety, how can they have the sought after experience since the traditions of the Faith provide the framework and the necessary ascesis for how to become a mystic? Obviously, they can't - you can't become a Christian mystic without the framework of Christianity standing behind the experiential. To the degree that people do pursue mysticism apart from traditional dogma, the result is a shallow, flighty esoteric that also perverts the exoteric. Johnson says:

"In Christianity, the “new Gnosticism” espoused by devotees of labyrinths and self-realization workshops eschews the dogmas of Christianity as “underevolved.” Such deracinated forms of mysticism remain oddly superficial precisely because they draw no nourishment from the great exoteric traditions...Christian mysticism that finds no center in the Eucharist or the Passion of Christ drifts into a form of self-grooming. In a paradoxical fashion, it was the exoteric frame that enabled the esoteric to dig into deep soil rather than float off into vaporous fantasy."

So the exoteric and the esoteric stand in need of each other; the latter needs the former to keep from drifting into "vaporous fantasy" while the former needs the latter to ensure that it does not become an empty formalism, a simple "plan for organizing society" with purely worldly ends.

Unfortunately, Americans have tended to do to mysticism what they have done with everything else: "democratized it, diversified it, and taken it to mass market" says Douthat in his New York Times piece. If you walk into any Barnes & Noble, you can go to the religious section and find books that give practical guidance on how to develop your "spirituality" and become a mystic, as if becoming a mystic was a matter of reading a book in your spare time and adopting a few surface changes to your routine rather than a life-changing effort that requires God's grace and the wisdom and experience that can only come from years of struggle and insight, and often suffering. The mystics of the Christian tradition attained their stature by cultivating an extraordinarily rich interior life of contemplation, something that could never be taught in a single book let alone mass marketed to the general populace; even the mystical books of our saints like Interior Castle or the Ascent of Mount Carmel do not claim to be some one-size-fits-all program for those desiring to be mystics; they are rather reflective interior journals of the trials and experiences of individual souls. If general rules can be drawn from them, well and good, but the saints would have been horrified at the thought of someone using their life and experiences the way we use a Julia Child cookbook.The few books that do claim to be a general programme for the spiritual life, such as the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, require a level of commitment and discernment that one cannot cultivate without a deep grounding in prayer and Christian orthodoxy.

Besides, as any saint would tell you, the greatest sign that one is not worthy or fit to be a mystic is a strong evidence of the desire to be one. None of the saints wanted to have "mystical experiences"; they wanted to love God, and the experiences followed as unsought after, but welcome, consolations. Furthermore, because their faith was not about having these experiences, they did not suffer loss of faith when the experiences dried up. Rather, the removal of tangible consolations often served to refine and deepen their faith. Compare this to a modern yuppie, bourgeoisie "mystic", who will most likely quit any spiritual endeavor after a brief period if they don't "get anything" out of it.

Modern Christian mysticism (and by this I mean mysticism divorced from tradition and discipline) is wimpy and completely divorced from its complement: asceticism. No Christian saint has attained mysticism without asceticism, yet this is precisely what modern Americans are trying to do: have a mystical experience without  any ascesis. Douthat says in his piece, "The closest most Americans come to real asceticism is giving up chocolate, cappucinos or meat for lunch in Lent...by making mysticism more democratic, we've also made it more bourgeois, more comfortable, more dilettantish."

I have said it before - what we desperately need today is radical renunciation. In the 13th century St. Francis, appalled by the worldliness and greed of his environment, decided that what was needed to truly reform society and return souls to God was a very radical sort of poverty that had not been practiced in the West before the rise of the Mendicant orders. Francis believed that a radical, extreme example was needed to shock 13th century Assisi out of its mercantile, bourgeois slumber. And his formula proved effective,;effective enough to revivify the Church in Italy and across Europe and usher in the greatest period of Catholic history in Christendom.

Here is my recipe for renewal today: We need men who are willing to renounce everything and go into the wilderness, like the hermits of old. Faithful, orthodox men who, without joining a religious order or attaching themselves to a certain diocese, renounce all their possessions, wear their beards long and their hands dirty, and go out into the wilderness, eking out a penitential life of bare subsistence on isolated hillsides, in wooded freeway medians and other out of the way places. These men need to be radical in their commitment to God and to renunciation - absolutely devoted to prayer and the interior life, making a living only by begging and scavenging - a new breed of mendicants inspired by the zeal of the Desert Fathers. Their habits will be filthy, their hair disheveled, their eyes wild and the love of God burning in their hearts. They need to be living rebukes to the materialism and activism of this age, even the activism of some of the established religious orders. When one encounters them we ought to feel like we are running into something from the Middle Ages. I say we need hundreds, if not thousands, of men to take up this kind of life. We need radical examples to remind us of what true renunciation is - it is essential for all of us to have these examples - even our ordinary belief must in some way depend on the presence of extraordinary exemplars.

Without examples of radical renunciation, Douthat says, "faith can become just another form of worldliness, therapeutic rather than transcendent, and shorn of any claim to stand in judgment over our everyday choices and concerns." If we get back a spirit of true renunciation we will find a return to true Christian mysticism - only then will the exoteric and the esoteric, the contemplative and the active, be harmoniously joined again for the building up of the whole Church.

Santa Claus and Vicarious Faith

I was reflecting yesterday upon the modern phenomenon of "Santa Claus" in our culture. It is not at all surprising to me that people have such traditions; most cultures do have some Santa-like folk tradition. If you wanted to take an anthropological view of Santa's origin, you could connect him to many eastern European traditions in which some sort of sprite or elfin creature comes by yearly to reward the honest and punish the wicked. Sometimes the creatures are propitiated not by the moral uprightness of the individual but by the degree to which the individual placates the sprite - think of brownies, who are reputed to help farmers who leave them food and offerings but destroy the crops of farmers who fail to do this (like offering Santa milk and cookies? Hmmm...)

At any rate, I am not so much interested in the anthropological basis for Santa Claus; of course, we know the historical basis is loosely centered on the life of St. Nicholas of Myra, a Greek saint of Asia Minor who lived at the time of Nicaea. In this reflection I am more interested in the pragmatic or utilitarian view of Santa Claus: why is it that people, even in this most sceptical of all ages, continue to promulgate the Santa Claus lore? What psychological or social function does Santa Claus fulfill for the modern world?

The first thing to acknowledge is that belief in Santa Claus is not the same as belief in, say, the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. In the latter cases, even though parents will go along with the game and hide Easter baskets or sneak in to their childrens' rooms after dark to replace a tooth with a coin, there is a somewhat implicit understanding on the part of all concerned that these are just farces done for amusement. I don't know any child, either now or in my own youth, who mistook these games for reality; i.e., who really and actually believed in a literal tooth fairy or Easter Bunny.

Santa Claus is on a higher plane than these two other folk beings. Parents really go to extremes to convince their kids that there is indeed a Santa Claus. First there is the hiding of the presents and putting them out Christmas Eve with tags that say "From Santa." That in itself might be no different than the parents pretending to be the tooth fairy. But it can go further - parents eat the cookies and drink the milk to give the impression Santa was there; they may go to other elaborate lengths, as my father did when he had a friend dressed up like Santa come to our house Christmas Eve when I was young so as to show me that Santa and my dad could not be the same person. Some parents fabricate sleigh tracks on the yard in the morning or go to other extremes of trickery to convince their kids that Santa is literally real. There is a constant verbal reinforcement, too. "Don't listen to what those older kids say, Billy; of course Santa is real!" People do not do this with the Easter Bunny; does anyone out there know of any parents who drop little rabbit turds around the house in an effort to convince their children that the bunny is a literal reality?

But if you want the most convincing evidence of the bizarre way in which belief in Santa is treated in our culture, try going up in front of a group of kids and even in the slightest way insinuating that Santa Claus is not real. Be prepared for the ensuing firestorm (of which I have an unfortunate experience). Telling kids that there is no Santa is sure to bring down the wrath of outraged parents upon you, and they will no doubt say that you have no right to rob their children of their innocent belief. I agree with this, by the way; whether or not a family "does" Santa is between the parents and the kids. My point here is not to denigrate belief in Santa, but to demonstrate that it is in fact a true belief people try to instill in their kids and not just a simple game or fairy tale like the tooth fairy. Nobody gets angry if you tell them the tooth fairy isn't real. Santa is in a category all to himself.

So why does culture put him there? And I mean not just Catholic culture, but secular culture at large, for Santa is a multicultural phenomenon. The belief in Santa that parents attempt to instill in their children is a type of faith. They want their kids to have faith in Santa's existence and take joy in seeing this faith lived out every Christmas. I would venture to say that there is something vicarious about the way parents enjoy their children's faith in Santa. Perhaps in a world when so many have lost faith or suffer from an inadequate faith, adults get a vicarious experience of childlike faith by witnessing it at work in their kids when they talk about Santa. Perhaps the type of faith that children have in Santa is the type of faith adults wish they could have about God. Perhaps in an age where faith in God is attacked from every front and it takes heroic virtue just to maintain fidelity to the fundamental moral teachings of the faith, those who find the struggle bitter also find that the simple, sincere belief in Santa exhibited by children is like looking back into Eden, a lost epoch of personal innocence that can never be experienced again, only relived vicariously in the innocence of others.

One young person I talked to about this stated her observation that literal belief in Santa was more strongly instilled in families where the practice of the faith was weakest; conversely, in families of strong faith there was less of an emphasis on the Santa myth. Thus, (in her opinion) the zealous belief in Santa in some families is a compensation for a lack of robust faith in God, a kind of sentimental, natural replacement for the theological virtue of faith. I think this is too broad a statement to be of much value, for surely there are faith-filled families who "do" Santa and faithless families who don't. But I did at least find it an interesting attempt to come up with a psychological and spiritual cause for the Santa phenomenon.

It is interesting to note that all the Santa films do place an emphasis on pseudo-faith; that is, on the act of believing over the object in which belief is placed. Kids are urged in these films (The Polar Express, The Santa Clause) to maintain faith in Santa or the "spirit of Christmas" above all else, as if the faith itself is the most important thing; one could contrast this with a Christian view, in which faith terminates in seeing and is a means to an end. A study of faith in Santa films could be an interesting post in and of itself, but I bring it up here only to point out the element of pseudo-faith (or perhaps sentimental faith) these films exemplify. In Christianity, there are certain things we hold to be objectively true, and thus we believe in them; in the Santa films, it is inverted to where the belief of the child somehow is connected with the reality of the object of belief. Take The Polar Express, where the child can only hear the bell if he "believes" he can hear it. Those who lack this amorphous "belief" cannot hear. If The Polar Express was a Christian film, the miraculous wringing of the bell would be heard by believer and non-believer alike, as glorious and unapologetic before an unbelieving world as the tilma of Juan Diego or the Shroud of Turin. People would come from miles around to hear the bell and it would ultimately wind up in a shrine somewhere with its own chapel and gift-shop attached.

Please don't mistake my intent here. I too often find on this blog that when I am simply trying to explore or discuss an issue I get blasted for "condemning" something or taking sides. I'm not taking sides on Santa here; in my house, we go along with the Santa myth but my children also know it is only a myth, and that the real Santa was a Saint. I just think it's interesting that Santa is so sacrosanct in our culture that people will get quite angry at you if you insinuate to their kids that it is not true and will go to elaborate lengths to convince their kids otherwise. Is it a type of vicarious faith that substitutes for authentic faith? I don't know, but I do know that the true meaning behind all of our Christian holidays tends to get obscured by more popular folk traditions that have little to do with the Faith. As for me, though we do go along lightheartedly with the Santa myth (and I mean lightheartedly, as in, they know its not real), we make sure that Santa is unambiguously kept subservient to Jesus, just as the real St. Nicholas was subservient and humble before his Lord and Saviour.

Western Civilization: Catholic and Conservative Approaches

Western civilization is something that is dear to the heart of any orthodox Catholic. A large part of the crises of the modern world consists in the fact that our civilization seems to have forgotten its heritage and in a sense committed cultural suicide. It is interesting to note that if you spend any time reading conservative publications or listening to conservative pundits, you will hear the phrase "Western civilization" thrown around a lot as well. On the surface, these conservatives say a lot of things about "Western" civilization that a Catholic could agree with: that it is a good, that it must be protected, that it transmits everything valuable from our forefathers, that there is a culture war on today, etc.

But further reading and digging into what exactly is meant by "Western" culture reveals that the Western culture the political neo-cons are so gaga about is not really the same Western culture the Catholic is concerned with restoring. Many of the secular defenders of "Western civilization", such as Mark Levin and Sean Hannity for example, see Western tradition as being embodied in the principles of the United States and having their origin in the Enlightenment. The source of our civilization, for these pundits, is not Catholicism or the united Christendom of the Middle Ages but the ideals of men like Rousseau, Jefferson, Locke and Thomas Paine. Occasionally there is a reference to Greece and Rome as important contributors, but by and large you will find the opinion that the greatness of Western civilization begins with the modern period.

Lest I make this observation without properly giving examples, let us consider three. The first time I noticed this emphasis on the Enlightenment as the origin of Western civilization was in the famous book Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom (1987). In this book Bloom points out the degenerate nature of modern culture and the bankruptcy of American institutions in truly educating students. He blasts relativism and modernity unrelentlessly and according to some fired the first shot in "culture wars" of the past several decades. Yet if Bloom calls the modern American lifestyle degenerate and our educational system bankrupt, what is the standard to which he is comparing it? One finds this standard in the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom Bloom quotes extensively throughout as one of the founders of Western cultural thought.

Though he cannot really be called a conservative, another critic of the modern age who adopts this idea is famed cultural historian Jacques Barzun, who penned his famous From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life in the mid-1990's when he was close to ninety years old (by the way, he is still alive and is 102). This book purports to trace the fate of Western civilization from its origin to, in barzun's opinion, its collapse into mediocrity in the modern age; hence the title, From Dawn to Decadence. Where exactly does Barzun put the "dawn" of Western civilization? Not at the Enlightenment, but with Martin Luther at the Protestant Revolt. Thoug Barzun, like Bloom, will go on to see Western cultural blossom and grow during the Enlightenment, he sees its origins in the ideals of the Protestant Revolt, specifically with Luther's rejection of ecclesiastical authority and the idea of religious liberty (which is ironic because those of us who know Luther know that he was no fan of religious liberty). For Barzun, Western civilization emerged out of the mire of the Middle Ages during the Reformation, grew into maturity at the Enlightenment and fell into decadence in the period after World War I. Everything good about the world (including reason, scientific advancement, political ideals and capitalism) Barzun attributes to the Enlightenment.

As a third example of this conservative idea of Western civilization as being embodied in the Enlightenment, we could quote any one of the string of conservative professors and speakers who are regularly featured in the publication Imprimis, which many of you are probably familiar with. Imprimis is a monthly publication put out by the ultra-conservative Hillsdale College of Hillsdale, Michigan, only an hour south of me. It boasts a readership of 1.8 million and is given out for free to anyone who signs up for it.

This month's issue featured an article by Hillsdale professor Dr. Victor David Hanson, a Distinguished Fellow in History at the college. In his article on "Western warfare" in the 21st century we find some interesting definitions of what he means when he talks about "Western civilization" and the future of "Western culture". Notice what he omits in his definition of our cultural heritage:

[W]hat do we mean by the West? Roughly speaking, we refer to the culture that originated in Greece, spread to Rome, permeated Northern Europe, was incorporated by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, spread through British expansionism, and is associated today primarily with Europe, the United States, and the former commonwealth countries of Britain...(source)

Wait a minute, where did it come from? Let's look at that again: we refer to the culture that originated in Greece, spread to Rome, permeated Northern Europe, was incorporated by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, spread through British expansionism. Was there not any other stages between the Anglo-Saxons and British expansionism? The Anglo-Saxon tradition, at best, can be said to be dominant from the 6th century to the 12th century, and British expansionism didn't begin in earnest until at least 1600. That leaves out everything from around 1100 to 1600; i.e., the Middle Ages.

Notice also the Anglo-centric view of Western civilization - why does he say the culture of Greece and Rome "permeated northern Europe" and then went into Britain? What about Spain, France and Italy? Didn't they share in Western civilization? I think it is ridiculous to speak of the Western tradition as "permeating" northern Europe while leaving out any mention of France and Italy. Those, of course, were the countries most wedded to Catholicism in the Middle Ages.

He also defines Western ideals based largely in the context of the Enlightenment:

And what are Western ideas? This question is disputed, but I think we know them when we see them. They include a commitment to constitutional or limited government, freedom of the individual, religious freedom in a sense that precludes religious tyranny, respect for property rights, faith in free markets, and an openness to rationalism or to the explanation of natural phenomena through reason (source).

Not all of these are bad or anything a Catholic would necessarily disagree with, but we cannot deny that they are all ideals associated with the Enlightenment. Constitutional government? Free markets? Rationalism? These are not the characteristics of the Middle Ages, to be sure. Like many other conservatives, Dr. Hanson sees the origin of Western civilization as bound up with the ideals of the 17th and 18th centuries, the same period that gave us the French Revolution, anti-clericalism, Deism and ant-supernatural rationalism. For many conservatives, this period of the glory of Western civilization.

So why is this important? Maybe it's not, but it is of interest, especially if we find ourselves standing shoulder to shoulder at times with conservatives in defense of "Western" ideals. So what is so valuable about Western civilization to these conservatives? I mentioned Mark Levin earlier; on his show he regularly discusses the blessings that Western civilization has brought about, which he sees as concomitant with capitalism. Some of these blessings of Western civilization are the abundance of wealth in the world today, the high standard of living, the technological advancements of the modern age, and the "liberty" enjoyed by Americans. In other words, these are all purely material benefits. Many of these "benefits" I do not even think are unqualified benefits at all. The highest level of prosperity ever seen in the history of the world? Also the highest level of materialism, which no one can deny is a result of consumerism. Sometimes, when I hear Levin talking about what his ideal of "Western" civilization has procured, I think that some of these things are responsible for the cultural quagmire we are now in.

Then what is Western civilization, from a Catholic viewpoint? For me the glory of Western civilization is not in the writings of Locke and the principles of the Constitution but in the courts of Charlemagne and the cathedrals of Chartes and Notre Dame; it is not found in the radical liberty proposed by Martin Luther but by the harmonious relation between faith and reason as found in Aquinas; it is not in the cold rationalism of the Deists but in the mystic spirituality of the saints; not in the imposing neo-classical hulks of Washington D.C. but in the splendid gothic works that still dot Europe.

For the Catholic, the Middle Ages embodies Western civilization, which is a religious and cultural ideal;, complete with the union of throne and altar; for those mentioned above, Western civilization is a reaction against that ideal. For the Catholic, Western civilization declines with Luther; for the political conservative Western civilization begins with him. For the Catholic, everything bad about the world comes after 1500 while for those above, everything valuable is found in those unhappy centuries after Luther. For one the standard is a united Christendom under the popes; for others it is the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment principles of government. For one it is a religious ideal, for others a secular and political one. For me, Western civilization means nothing other than Christendom. For some, Western civilization is what is built up on the ruins of Christendom.

I think this distinction is very important, and we need to keep it in mind. Those who advocate a return to "Western" tradition are not really our friends if they are referring to this secular concept of the West as found in the Enlightenment. This view of Western civilization is completely divorced from Catholicism, as evidenced by Dr. Hanson referring to the largely pagan nations of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as "Western" also because they have adopted "Western ways"; i.e., capitalism. I for one am not praying and fighting to save the anti-Christ ideals of the Enlightenment, but to promote Christianity and a Christian culture, poltically, socially and economically. I refuse to allow "Western civilization" become a code-phrase for American capitalism.

But let us remember that there is no civilization at all without religion, no culture without cult, and no Western civilization without Roman Catholicism. Our point of reference should not be the Enlightenment, one of the most decadent and wicked periods of human intellectual history, but in the beautiful unity of spiritual and temporal that was the glory of the Middle Ages.