Safe Place for a Dove

Before we begin, let me just say that the following should be filed under "things that probably mean nothing", because I certainly don't take my spirituality or theology from such signs - but then again, I keep them in mind, as well.

Recently we posted an article here in which, among other things, we noted that doves being released by the pope from St. Peter's were frequently killed by crows or other birds almost as soon as they were released.

In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI attempted to release a dove as a prayer for world peace. The dove refused to fly away and instead returned to Benedict's window. The same thing occurred in 2011, as well as 2010.

On January 29, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI released two doves from St. Peter's as part of the "Caravan of Peace" celebration on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The doves were supposed to represent peace. Both were viciously attacked by seagulls and barely managed to escape.

Enter Pope Francis. Following the turmoil in the Ukraine, Pope Francis and two Ukrainian children released two doves symbolizing peace in January of 2014. The doves were immediately attacked by a seagull, but managed to escape. However, after escaping from the gull they were set upon by a crow! Again, both managed to escape, though severely disoriented and somewhat mauled.

Anyone who has been to Europe knows that in places like St. Peter's where there are lots of tourists there are an insane amount of pigeons and seagulls. There is a perfectly natural explanation for these events; there's just a lot of mean birds around.

However, one cannot but be struck by the irony of it all. A Church, increasingly caught up in the affairs of the world, sets loose doves as prayers for world peace - and those doves are brutally attacked by predatory birds - birds which in the parables of Jesus represent the devil and his demons. A Church that increasingly compromises with the world and in many places refuses to make a clear stand on her moral teaching, especially in the wake of homosexual militancy.

But meanwhile, we have an embattled archbishop in San Francisco who, whatever his previous faults, is courageously standing up for the Church's moral teaching and taking tremendous flak for it. He has been offered zero public support from the Vatican. And, yet, at a picnic of support for Archbishop Cordileone held on May 16th, 2015, we see the following:

This probably means nothing. It's just an amusing coincidence. Right?

Right?

Well, at any rate, it has been said that the real Gospel is being found lived "at the peripheries". This may prove to be true, although not in the way many expected.

H/T to James Larson for making me aware of this story.

The Faithful Island Has Become a Harlot

"As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes" (Luke 19:41-42).

Our Lord spoke these words about the city of Jerusalem, but they could easily be applied to Ireland in the wake of its shameful referendum yesterday legitimizing homosexual marriage. 

The faithful isle has become a whore; the land of saints and sages has become drunk with the abominations of the nations and is reeling in its inebriation. Éire has betrayed St. Patrick. Éire has betrayed the Irish martyrs. Éire has betrayed its own constitution, which begins with the words, "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial..."

Yes, a disappointment to all Catholics, especially those who love the Catholic heritage of Ireland. Yet it is hard to tell what is more disappointing, the referendum results, or the lame excuses offered by the Irish Church's prelates. Rorate Caeli has documented how the bishops of Dublin and Derry offered the most mediocre, ambiguous, limp-wristed resistance to the vote, basically telling Irish Catholics that it was better to vote 'Yes' than to vote 'No' for the "wrong reasons."

After the vote, Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin placed the blame squarely on the Church, conveniently omitting any mention of the degenerate morals of his flock.

“I think really that the church needs to do a reality check, a reality check right across the board, to look at the things it’s doing well, to look at the areas where we really have to start and say, ‘Look, have we drifted away completely from young people?’ ” 

This reveals immediately the error in his thinking. If a reality check is needed, it is not because the Church has "drifted away" from young people - indeed, the Church doesn't drift away from people, people drift away from the Church - rather, the reality check needed is that this wishy-washy affirming dialogue centered nonsense that passes for Catholicism in most of the West is incapable of attracting young people. They're bored to tears with it. It means nothing to them. It's a fundamental failure of "modern" Catholicism.

But does the Archbishop recognize this? Nooooo. Of course not. The problem isn't that the Church has reformed; it's that she hasn't reformed far enough! More dialogue! More new language! More reaching out!

"It’s very clear that if this referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people, then the church has a huge task in front of it to find the language to be able to talk to and to get its message across to young people, not just on this issue, but in general.”

Somebody tell the Archbishop that the "language" needed to address this issue does not need to be "found." It has always been here in the Church's traditional moral theology, which has always taught that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity and that even the homosexual tendency is intrinsically disordered.

Yet, for Archbishop Martin, the problem is not the immorality of homosexual acts but rather hand-wringing concerns that the Catholic Church is becoming a "safe space for the like-minded." He dislikes the clear moral teaching proposed by the Catholic Tradition. Instead he prefers to lounge about in Satan's favorite area, the grayscale:

“We need to find...a new language which is fundamentally ours, that speaks to, is understood and becomes appreciated by others. We tend to think in black and white but most of us live in the area of grey, and if the church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it. But all of us live in the grey area. All of us fail. All of us are intolerant. All of us make mistakes. All of us sin and all of us pick ourselves up again with the help of that institution which should be there to do that."

Gray area indeed. This sounds like the realm of the lukewarm, and we know what Christ said about that. Is it not obvious that this is the voice of Satan speaking through this man?

He wraps up his interview with this gem:

“The church’s teaching, if it isn’t expressed in terms of love - then it’s got it wrong."

Of course, truth must always be spoken in love. The problem with these days however is that the truth isn't spoken at all. The Archbishop made the most equivocating, minimal resistance to the homosexual marriage referendum; and then, when it unsurprisingly passed, blamed the Church for "getting it wrong" and "drifting away" from the young and now calls for "a new language" to rectify the problem he helped create.

The solution for the problems created by the revolution is always more revolution, isn't it Archbishop Martin?

So, where are the angry counter protests? Where are heroic calls by the country's Catholic politicians and clergy for repeal? Where are the spirited vows that same sex so-called marriage will never be recognized by Catholic Ireland, regardless of the law of the land? Not a peep. Martin could care less. I personally believe the man is relieved that this issue is "settled", as he now has the luxury of throwing up his hands and saying, "It's the law of the land. What can I do?"

Indeed.

In the beginning of this post, I cited our Lord's lament over Jerusalem and suggested it could be applied to Ireland. In fact, it could probably be applied to western civilization in its entirety, which continues to decay because it does not know what will bring it peace. But if this passage does apply to western civilization, let us also remember how the passage ends:

"The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 19:43-44)

"See how the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness used to dwell in her- but now murderers!"(Isaiah 1:21)

The Mass is not the Faith and Other Items

Recently I posted an article in which I stated that "The Mass is not the Faith. The Faith is bigger than the Mass." I initially thought this concept would be readily agreed upon by my readership, but on our Facebook thread a rather sizable dispute erupted over the phrase. Some misunderstood this phrase to mean I was saying the Mass wasn't important, or that it did not affect our faith, or that it was disposable; others disagreed and argued passionately that the Mass and the Faith were identical. I wanted to take an opportunity to explore this phrase further and clear up some other issues from the last article.

By the way, thank you for the thoughtful and (for the most part) charitable comments. I learn very much from them and never object to being disagreed with - it has not infrequently happened that a revolt in my combox has led me to reevaluate and change my position subsequently.

So, what is the Faith? What is the Mass? Why is it right to say that the Mass and the Faith are not the same thing?

When we speak about "the Faith", we typically refer to the Catholic religion in its totality. This would include everything a Catholic believers and everything he does. In the words of the Catechism, the Faith is "all that she herself is, all that she believes" (CCC 78). Let us examine what this entails.

First, the deposit of Divine Revelation, included both in the Sacred Scriptures and in the Sacred Tradition.

Second, all theological traditions and interpretations associated with the doctrines of Divine Revelation, as summed up in the Creeds of the Church and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

Third, all of the sacraments and liturgical functions and rites of the Church; how the Church worships.
Fourth, all of the Church's disciplinary customs (the Lenten Fast, no communion for divorced and remarried, etc.)
Fifth, the Church's hierarchical constitution.

Sixth, the spiritual heritage of the Church, from great prayers such as the Pater Noster and Rosary down to the smaller devotions that have come down to us.

Seventh, the heritage of the great saints who have all gone before us; the example of their lives, their profound writings, their contributions to doctrinal development, and their intercession from heaven.

Eighth, all of the Church's artistic heritage, both in her sacred art, sacred music and sacred architecture.

Ninth, the historical papal-magisterial corpus of writings.

We could probably include more - for example, great works of Catholic literature like the Divine Comedy or Everlasting Man; Hilaire Belloc, when writing on this question, tended to include European Christian culture as such - hence his famous statement, "Europe is the Faith; the Faith is Europe." But let us not cast our net too far abroad; everyone has their particular focus, but the above nine items would be the core of what I think most Catholics speak of when they refer to "the Faith."

It is a very broad thing, the Faith. It encompasses much more than a few propositions or ceremonies. It is a totality; it is in fact the fullest way of being human.

What is the relation of the Mass to the Faith?

The Mass is absolutely integral to the Faith. Remember the principle Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. There is an intimate union between Catholic belief, Catholic life and Catholic worship. The Eucharist, the heart of the Mass, is the "source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324). As such, it is the irreplaceable foundation from which Faith is built up and the end towards which it tends. It is difficult to overstate its intimate connection to the Faith. While it is possible to maintain the Faith without access to the Mass (like in Japan), the Faith without the Mass cannot long endure, at least not in its fullest form.

But the Mass is not the Faith itself. The Mass is to the Faith what a heart is to the body, or what an engine is to the car. It is integral. It is the center. The rest is of little value without it. It is that which gives vitality to the whole.

And yet, it is not the whole. Just as it would be foolish to present someone with a car engine and suggest you were giving them a whole car, or display a human heart and suggest you were displaying an entire human person, so it would be very reductive and inaccurate to suggest that the Mass itself is the Faith. Remember, the Faith can exist without the Mass. Did Cardinal Kung lose the Faith when imprisoned for 30 years without the Mass? Some of the Desert Fathers simply did not attend Mass because of their physical isolation. Nobody would accuse the founders of monasticism of not having the Faith. So the Mass is extremely important, but it is not the totality.

Msgr. George Agius in his 1928 classic Tradition and the Church states that the liturgy of the Church is the principal type of constitutive tradition. That is, of all the content that is uniquely passed on via Tradition, the liturgical rites of the Church hold a pride of place. This is because, while the Mass is not the Faith, the Mass sums up the Faith and itself instructs us in all of the fundamentals of the Faith.

Consider our list above. All of these are touched on in the ideal Mass. The Sacred Scriptures are read and expounded, the liturgy of the Church carried out for the glory of God; the Creed of the Church is professed and the Holy Eucharist is administered; the existence of the hierarchy is evidenced and the greatest spiritual treasures of the Church are demonstrated in the Pater Noster and other ancient prayers of the Mass. The saints are invoked and commemorated in an atmosphere of the Church's artistic and musical heritage. All is done in conformity with the Magisterial direction of the Church. All of this is summed up and offered with the most august sacrifice of the Son of God and presented to God the Father.

So the Mass touches on and sums up everything that is integral to the Faith. It reaches into every dimension of the Faith and incorporates each into its rites. It represents the core of the Faith, its most vital heart. But there is more content to the Faith than just the Mass. Yes, the Mass focuses in on those most essential elements and in doing so provides the most perfect form of instruction in the Christian faith. In a way, it crystallizes the most essential elements of the Faith for us in one singular, glorious act.

But the Faith in its entirety is not contained in the Mass. It would be absurd to try to claim, for example, that the entire historic papal Magisterium is some how included in the Mass. Or consider the sacraments - baptism, anointing of the sick, penance, all traditionally done outside Mass. Clearly, the Mass, though central, is not and was not meant to be all-encompassing. In fact, one complaint traditionalists have often made about the Novus Ordo rites is that it tends to try to make the Mass a "one-stop-shop" for everybody's spiritual needs. Baptisms, anointing, penance and everything else is incorporated into Mass, often (at least in the case of the last two) with deleterious results. The Mass was never meant to be a "one-stop-shop", and it is certainly not equivalent with the Faith itself, no matter how important.

It is therefore a little off center when Traditionalist Catholics focus on the Mass to the exclusion of everything else. There are a variety of ways this can happen; I don't want to cite examples for fear of possibly offending some other bloggers. But it definitely happens.

Can too much be made of the Mass? Well, yes and no. No in the sense that the Mass is the offering of Jesus Christ and has infinite merit; this cannot be emphasized too much. But yes if we give the Mass a position it was not meant to have, such as the "one-stop-shop" approach of the post-Conciliar era that is objected to by some traditionalists.

There is perhaps nobody in the Church who knows more about Tradition than Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP. Fr. Ripperger wrote the introduction to the modern reprint of Msgr. Agius' Tradition and the Church, which is admitted by all to be the pivotal work on the doctrine of Tradition. Fr. Ripperger has spoken and written copiously about tradition and has noted that it is a very common pitfall among Catholic Traditionalists to assume that faithful attendance at and devotion to the Extraordinary Form is an adequate substitute for knowledge of Catholic Tradition. In many cases, he says, so-called "Traditionalists" are entirely ignorant of the Tradition they profess to venerate. This is because they assign a role to the Mass it was never meant to have - i.e., assuming that the Mass suffices for everything, and that no further reading, study, etc. is necessary. Consequently they are woefully ignorant of Catholic tradition. You can listen to Fr. Ripperger's homily on this subject here, although the quality of the recording is very poor. His argument is that Traditionalists sometimes think mere attendance at the EF Mass is sufficient and that no further knowledge is necessary; or that mere attendance at such Masses imparts one all the knowledge of tradition they need.

Thus, the fundamental question: Should a priest who has been saying the Extraordinary Form Mass exclusively, upon being ordered to cease by his legitimate superior, obey this order?

I answer, absolutely. Yes. It may be an illegitimate order, but one must obey even illegitimate orders so long as they do not lead you to commit sin - and not saying an EF Mass is not a sin. If the legal channels are open to a priest to seek incardination elsewhere in a more friendly environment, that is a legitimate option open to him. In the meantime, a cleric is bound to observe any canonical penalties imposed by a superior - even if imposed errantly, or based on untruths. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that when a person is censured, even unjustly, "the censure has valid effects in that forum and must be observed externally, to avoid scandal and for good discipline." Therefore until the situation is resolved, or until that cleric becomes incardinated somewhere else, he is bound to observe the censure. 

What he ought not to do is declare that he is going to go off and keep on doing what he wants anyway because somehow the Old Mass just trumps everything no matter what. That is scandalous, to me at least. Am I not scandalized when bishops and members of the Magisterium crack down on good, faithful, traditional priests? Yes. I am horribly scandalized by it. Which is precisely why I do not want my scandal to be made worse by seeing these traditional priests play around with disobedience as a recourse to their difficulties.

Seeking transfer is a legitimate thing to do - in my last article too I stated that "it is certainly legitimate to seek legal redress to these problems through appropriate canonical channels." Even so, I don't think doing that is the most perfect form of obedience. The most perfect form would be to humbly and quietly submit to whatever was dished out to you, per the Apostle Peter:

"For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval...who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good? But if also you suffer any thing for justice' sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled" (1 Pet. 2:19-20, 3:13-14).

What do these passages from 1 Peter look like lived out in the life of a priest or order unjustly under attack for doing good? That is what I am trying to sort out. I think - especially since March, 2013 - we all are grappling with this. It will probably be sloppy. There will be a lot of collateral damage. But I do believe in my heart that the Church will not be saved by a bunch of people with the "I would like to be obedient, but" attitude.

I'm not bringing these things up because I "like" them or like thinking about them. But we are in strange times and we all need to sort these things out. May God be gracious to us all!

Synod Wrap Up

The farcical but epic event that was the 2014 Synod on the Family has now come to a close. What an astonishing two weeks it has been! Some were predicting fireworks, and others a hum-drum business-as-usual affair, but I don't think anybody could have predicted what we got - nothing short of a revolt of the global episcopate against the manipulation of Kasper, Baldiserri and Bergoglio. There's so much that can be said and that has been said; in particular I'd like to commend Rorate Caeli for their excellent coverage of the Synod and their wonderful articles, which will no doubt form an important component in the historical archive of this momentous event. I do not wish to retread ground already broken by other blogs, so let us be content with reviewing a few of the major points to consider coming out of this Synod.

1. First of all, to those of you who in the run up to the Synod were predicting it would be a non-event, boring, dull, nothing to get excited about, etc., etc., to you I say "Ha!" Not only was this Synod an extraordinarily dramatic event, but probably the most eventful ecclesiastical clash to happen since Vatican II. The Synod marks a turning point in the pontificate of Pope Bergoglio and has sent a clear message to progressives everywhere: it's not going to be as easy as you think. Therefore, regardless of what we think about the final documents of the Synod, we certainly ought not to neglect the importance of the Synod as an event. In Roberto de Mattei's monumental work on the Second Vatican Council, he notes that the fundamental failure of the traditional reaction in the 1960's was due to a narrow focus on the documents themselves and the inability of the conservatives to understand the Council as an event. We should not make the same mistake; focusing exclusively on the text of a document ignores the importance of this Synod as a watershed turning point.

2. Those who are now saying, "See, I told you the doctrine would not change because doctrine can't change!"...well, those people never adequately understood the issue to begin with. If you are one of these people, please stop, visit this link and attentively read the article, and then return here. Nobody ever seriously thought the doctrine would change. The concern was that the discipline might be undermined while on paper the doctrine remained in place. This would have been much more insidious. I think my friend Blake from Popin' Ain't Easy got it more accurate when he referred to this Synod as "Humanae Vitae II"; that is, a lot of effort to create the momentum and impression of an imminent doctrinal shift only to find that the tradition is reaffirmed, much to the chagrin of the idiotic progressives who were banking on "change." This is in fact what happened. However, despite the orthodoxy of the Relatio Synodi, a tremendous amount of damage was done because the impression was given that admitting the putatively "remarried" to communion and accepting homosexual so-called marriage are at least open for discussion. This is why Burke insisted so strongly that these particular topics be taken off the table altogether.

3. Though the final Relatio Synodi is not ultimately the most important thing to consider, it does merit some attention. The revolt of the bishops ensured that the final product we got was at least orthodox - although I should point out that it is still extremely wimpy and shot through with mushy Vatican II humanist vocabulary. But that is at least on par with what we have been getting for the past forty years. The bishops' revolt simply stopped the language from getting worse than it already would have been. Or, as Mundabor says, the document suffers from the Vatican II disease, but not the much more aggressive and deadly Bergoglio disease. Yes, the final Relatio could be stronger, but at least orthodoxy has been upheld and the document is not subversive. So Te Deum.

4. That the final Relatio Synodi is not a subversive mismash of Bergoglian gobbledygook and Modernist platitudes is due to the courageous protest of our bishops. They are the true heroes of the Synod, and a surprising bunch of heroes at that. Yes, I never thought I would say it, but I am proud of our bishops. Burke of course is worthy of the most praise as the leader of the reaction, but I also want to single out Cardinal Pell, who despite his waffling apparent implied denial of Original Sin in his debate with Richard Dawkins, redeemed himself by firing the opening salvo against Forte and Baldiserri. Cardinal Müller also deserves praise. Cardinal Mueller is a perfect working example of the concept of the grace of office. Though many Traditionalists had grave reservations about Gerhard Müller when he assumed direction of the CDF in 2012, during the Synod he functioned exactly as he was supposed to in his office - as a watchdog of orthodoxy. So yes, I am proud of these bishops. Are they ideal bishops? Am I ready to acclaim Müller, Pell and Napier as the vanguards of tradition? Of course not. But when it really came down to it - when their backs were against the wall - they stood up when it really counted, and for that we should all be grateful. Our prayers for our bishops, which we so often thought were offered in vain, were in fact efficacious.

5. If you think about it, this is the opposite dynamic as at Vatican II. At Vatican II, you had a cabal of Council Fathers drag the Council in a progressive direction in a manner unanticipated by the pope, who through weakness or indecision, failed to stop it. At the Synod you had the pope and a few fellow conspirators trying to push a liberal agenda against the will of the vast majority of bishops. This obviously puts Michael Voris in an awkward position. Voris had made a name for himself by following the "good pope, bad bishops" line of thought. The acts of the Synod run so contrary to that mantra that it may be a wake-up call for Voris; that is at least implied by this update from Rome Voris published the other night. It will be interesting to see how he takes all this. [UPDATE: Voris announced on Oct. 22nd that he had removed the above-mentioned article because he felt it incorrectly insinuated that he was criticizing the pope. See Voris' clarification here]

6. Voris' special report is entitled "Pope Harming the Church" and is a quote from Cardinal Burke's now famous Buzzfeed interview. More than any other Cardinal, Burke emerged as a clear and powerful voice in favor of orthodoxy and  tradition. Despite Burke's demotion, his leadership at the Synod may actually elevate him to the status of a papabile in the next conclave. How so? Apparently, the majority of Synod fathers are "furious and indignant with Pope Francis" for the manipulative tactics of the Synod - and these are not any bishops, but the most important bishops and cardinals in the world. It is highly possible that they are realizing that Francis is a huge disaster for the Church, and even those who may have cast a ballot for him might now be stepping back from the cliff after witnessing the auto-demolition of Catholic faith and morals almost accomplished this month. These "furious and indignant" bishops will most likely not be voting for a Bergoglian in the next conclave, but rather a man who can clearly, powerfully and charitably teach Catholic dogma. Burke has singled himself out for the job by his admirable performance in defense of orthodoxy before the whole world. We all prayed for Pope Burke in 2013; ironically, Burke may have a much greater chance post-Bergoglio. God may be preparing him for greater things during his exile.

7. If Burke's credibility unexpectedly went up, Kasper's was unexpectedly demolished. And I mean destroyed. Kasper is finished. What delicious irony! This event so carefully managed, so minutely choreographed, that moment in which Kasper expected to celebrate a supreme triumph ended up being the occasion of his ultimate humiliation and downfall. Profound, serene theology indeed! Kasper is a laughingstock and can never be taken seriously again, at least not by any of the bishops. "They make a pit, digging it out, and fall into the hole that they have made. Their mischief returns upon their own heads, and on their own heads their violence descends" (Ps. 7:15-16).

8. That being said, upon reading Kasper's infamous comments on the African bishops, I have to say that I did not find them racist or xenophobic. Condescending? Yes. Racist? No. Upon rereading his statements a few times, Kasper essentially made the argument that the African Church is in no position to lecture the western bishops on moral issues since the African Church itself struggles with its own unique moral problems, such as polygamy and "gradual marriages." It was a subtle way to say 'clean up your own house before you worry about ours.' This position, however, is extremely condescending, precisely because those Catholics who have to contest against perversions such as polygamy and gradual marriages have greater insight into the value of the Catholic family than we in the west. Their testimony is more valuable, not less, because they have a keener understanding of how important traditional marriage is. This is why Kasper's comments were so insulting. And his denial of making them establishes him as a liar, too. Other bloggers have opted to label these comments as racist; I mean no prejudice or disrespect to bloggers who have done so, but for me personally there is not enough evidence to meet my threshold of what constitutes a racist, so I choose to abstain from using that label for the time being.

9. I mentioned above that this Synod is a turning point in the pontificate of Pope Francis. Some have even narrowed this turning point down to Thursday, October 17th, shortly after 9:00am, when Cardinal Pell began the attack against Baldiserri's manipulation. This is a turning point for Francis because it may amount to a vote of "no confidence" in his leadership. No doubt Francis will spend the next twelve months exacting retribution on the members of the conservative backlash in preparation for Synod 2015. He may or may not be successful. But the point is, the breach has been opened. Things will never return to the status ante-bellum for Bergoglio.

10. On a final note, the Synod ended with the beatification of Pope Paul VI. Do not be surprised if sometime shortly - maybe a few months, maybe a year - new "evidence" emerges to strengthen the old accusation that Montini was a homosexual. Then the Church will be saddled with a homosexual beatus and the world will have a field day. I am not the only one predicting this.

In closing, this Synod revealed definitive evil intentions on the part of several actors, who were intent on lying and manipulating the proceeding to obtain their own desired ends. Whatever degree his involvement in the actual shenanigans, our Pontiff is definitely aligned with this group, which is profoundly disheartening. But the Synod was also an occasion of some tremendous moments of grace as bishop after bishop stood up and refused to go along quietly while the Catholic faith was dismantled. In this Synod, despite its huge problems, we all caught a glimpse of what would be possible if all the bishops of the world actually stood up for the Catholic faith. It was a small glimpse, a fleeting glimpse - a tiny crust of bread fallen from heaven - but enough to marvelously strengthen faith in the fidelity of God and the efficacy of all our prayers, rosaries, Masses and sacrifices offered for our bishops. Let us commit ourselves with renewed zeal to these pious efforts towards the restoration of Holy Mother Church.

The Distress of Burke

High ranking ecclesiastics are typically reserved people. It is not often that they speak with emotion or allow themselves to appear distraught.

Yet what I see here is a cleric who is profoundly distraught and at a loss for words at the implications of the Kasperite doctrine. His face...his voice...his choice of words...his body language...they all convey a sense of intense sadness at the betrayal he fears is unfolding before him. The man who as head of the Apostolic Signatura was the chief legal expert in the Catholic Church - whose very job was to sort out the definitions of things and the meanings of words - has no words to describe what is happening. The sadness in his eyes tells of his grief. Ultimately all he can do is plead that it stop and express that he does not know how he would be able to "digest" what could happen otherwise.

Dear Cardinal Burke, your expressions and emotions expressed in this short clip so perfectly sum up the experience of millions of suffering Catholics, who like you, don't know how we will be able to digest the things we see unfold before us.

Let us pray fervently for our dear, disgraced Cardinal.

Pastoral Applications in Concrete Circumstances

There are many spiritual dangers that abound in the world today. Indeed there are so many that at times it feels like one is walking through a mine-field. Perhaps this is an appropriate image to use; after all, the Church Militant is engaged in a real war "against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph. 6:12). In this war there can be no neutrality, no compromise, no quarter given and none received. Falsehoods must be destroyed by the light of truth, and sin by the power of holiness. There is no other way, and our eternal salvation is on the line.

So yes, dangers abound. Materialism. Atheism. Modernism. The sexual "revolution". Indifferentism. Every -ism that has ever reared its demonic head against the authority of God and His Church. The Church, of course, stands firm upon the promise of Christ, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This promise is perpetuated and guaranteed by the special grace of infallibility granted to the successors of St. Peter, by which we understand that the Catholic Church, united under Peter and his successors, will never teach error. This guarantee is from Christ Himself, ratified in heaven by God the Father and upheld by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, we can rest easy, correct? Since Peter's successors will never fail, and since the Church will never teach error, we have no reason for concern about any of the troubling news coming from various quarters of the Church today, right? Everything we see going on around us is just par for the course, isn't it?

My friends, if we think so, we gravely delude ourselves. Yes, dangers abound. But these -isms are not the primary danger. The Church is guaranteed that she will never be ultimately teach these errors as truth. The real danger is not that the Church will teach error as truth, but rather, that the Church will tolerate error and allow deviations from Catholic discipline because it feels like it can't stop them anyway. Thus, the teaching will remain "on the books", so to speak, but like obsolete laws in many American states that ban drinking on Sundays but have not been enforced for decades, the teaching of the Church will remain a dead letter while aberrations and dissent will be accepted as the norm.

This is especially relevant to the Church's moral teaching. We can already see this line of reasoning rearing its head. It is not hard to find.  It can be found anywhere you hear a bishop or theologian saying that, while Church teaching has not changed, "pastoral applications in concrete situations", may have to be devised to "deal with" current realities. That is the code phrase - pastoral applications in concrete situations. What this means in practice is that people who find Catholic moral teaching too difficult for modernity will be given a pass on their behavior in the name of being pastoral, i.e., keeping them showing up to Mass on Sunday. It has the benefit of being able to leave doctrinal element intact, but destroy its application through appeal to "actual circumstances". Let us examine three examples:

(1) Homosexual Relationships: We have already seen plenty of examples of this. Without changing or denying Church teaching, some have stated that active homosexuals should be welcomed in the Catholic Church and even encouraged to participate in parish ministries. The Church does not approve of their sinful lifestyle, but nobody should ever act as if this is the case. This is seen to be an appropriate "pastoral response" to the "actual circumstance" or homosexual couples seeking to get engaged in parish life without renouncing their sin. Thus, the formal condemnation of such behavior is rendered meaningless by a refusal to act as if this condemnation means anything practically. We call to mind for our readers the example of Cardinal Schoenborn, who in 2012 overruled one of his parish priests and permitted a man in an active homosexual "domestic partnership" to serve on parish council.

(2) Divorce and Remarried Reception of Communion: The Church's position on the intrinsic impossibility of divorce and consequent sinfulness of any putative "remarriage" is well known. Because a putative "remarriage" is nothing other than adultery, those living in such unions are in an objectively sinful state and cannot receive Holy Communion. However, given the very, very large number of Catholics living in this state, it means many Catholics are barred from receiving Holy Communion. This may cause them to become "discouraged" and "leave the Church" (nevermind that a person who persists in a state of objective sin has already left the Church in their heart). Therefore, to keep them at least showing up to Mass, pastors should grant exceptions to this rule when "particular circumstances" demand it. Consider the teaching of Prof. Paul Zulehner, theologian and professor emeritus for Pastoral Theology at the University of Vienna. In an opinion published in 2010, he stated, "In principle the church bars divorced and remarried Catholics from the reception of communion, but in concrete situations it can and should act pastorally, like a caring head of a household." He then went on to cite a pastoral letter of the Austrian bishops, which states, "“According to the traditional practice of the church, they cannot participate in the full sacramental life, except when there are special circumstances that in each individual case will need to be clarified further in a conversation with an experienced priest.” So, "in principle" nothing has changed, but in actuality, anyone who can claim "special circumstances" in "concrete situations" may convince the priest to "act pastorally" by giving them Holy Communion despite Church teaching!

(3) Cohabiting Catholics: This is so common as to not need much comment. Catholics who are cohabiting are seldom challenged from the pulpit. Catholics who are cohabiting and present themselves for marriage are given a pass, if the priest even bothers to inquire about their living arrangements. With Bishops pressuring parish priests about falling "numbers" of weddings and baptisms performed, many priests are fearful of causing a problem in the Diocese and choose to look the other way and marry cohabiting couples rather than risk causing a breach which may lead them to marry in a Protestant Church or before a judge. Thus, while the official teaching has not changed, the Church's condemnation of cohabitation comes to mean absolutely nothing in the practical sense.

In each of these three situations, we see some common threads:

(1) Prioritizing keeping these people physically coming to Mass at all costs, based on an unhealthy focus on the "numbers" of people attending Mass and receiving sacraments.

(2) A disassociation of doctrine from the practical moral consequents that necessarily flow from that doctrine.

(3) A misguided notion of bringing order to the Church by means simply approving abuses; legalizing or at least sanctioning illegal acts "restores order."

(4) A definition of "pastoral" that means keeping people feeling good about the Catholic Church, as opposed to the traditional notion of "pastoral" as meaning leading people to eternal salvation.

The Bishops of the State of Kansas addressed this division between doctrine and practice in a 1998 letter on the subject of cohabitation, in which they stated that, if cohabitation was in fact morally wrong, that parish priests were obliged to actually act as if this were the case. They summarize the problem of the current approach appropriately:

"How can the priest preach the word of God and uphold the church's teaching on chastity and premarital sex with any integrity while at the same time allowing an unmarried couple to live together as if there is nothing morally wrong with that arrangement?" (Letter of Kansas Bishops on Cohabitation)

Actions are a manifestation of attitude. We cannot maintain that something remains morally wrong while refusing to confront it. To do so is to act "as if there is nothing morally wrong", and results in a practical nullification of the teaching. If something is wrong, we must not only profess it to be wrong in principle, but act as if it were wrong "in concrete circumstances." The same document goes on to correct misguided notions of "compassion" by reminding priests of the unity of compassion with truth, of pastoral principles with dogmatic principles

"Some priests sincerely feel they are acting out of compassion for the cohabiting couple, knowing how difficult it might be to challenge them to live apart. Compromising the full truth of the Bible, however, is really a disservice because Jesus teaches that the truth will set us free no matter how difficult the sacrifice may be."

Unfortunately, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, even this document ends up waffling on the issue in the end. When addressing what a priest should do if he asks a cohabiting couple in marriage preparation to separate:

"If the answer to the question asked above is "No, we choose to not separate before marriage," then further considerations must be made. If the couple has shown that they are living together for the reason of convenience or financial benefit, and the engaged couple is planning a formal marriage, then the priest will explore with the couple on a deeper level the meaning of the sacrament in the marital bond and the commitment to permanence and stability."

It is unfortunate that the document does not simply say, "If they refuse to separate, then they cannot be married in the Church."

The problem of pleading "pastoral applications in concrete circumstances" as a means of avoiding the unpleasant implications of doctrine is another wonderful example of modern teachings proclaimed "ex voce", in other words, teachings we are meant to imbibe by a kind of unofficial osmosis; teachings not communicated through official, authoritative channels, but nevertheless truly communicated in low-level pronouncements, in the manner in which bishops act and what they choose to emphasize, and to the pastoral actions priests take (or do not take) when confronted with these situations. It is a subtle way to communicate new approaches to theology and morality without formally changing anything. Nothing has changed, but everything has changed.

In a 1994 document on the question of communion for divorce and remarried Catholics, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that "authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth" (source). Discipline, though logically distinct from doctrine, is nevertheless intimately related to doctrine and flows from it. As the world slides further and further into chaos, and as humanity continues to throw off all moral restraint, will we respond by insisting ever more firmly on the Church's morality and challenge Catholics to exemplify it, or will we respond the same way we responded to female altar servers and communion in the hand, by "baptizing" the abuse and calling it a day?

"Pastoral applications in concrete situations." Be on guard.

Athanasius Schneider: Clarification of Vatican II Needed

The Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has become the most recent bishop to speak up on ambiguities and problematic texts in the documents of Vatican II and speak up in favor of an authoritative interpretation or clarification of these documents in continuity with Catholic Tradition.

His comments came in the context of a lengthy interview with Michael Voris of Church Militant TV, who caught the Bishop in Rome and somehow got a 34 minute interview out of him. Click here to check out Michael Voris' interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider; it is long, but well worth it if you have the time.

This is not the first time Schneider has made such comments; in 2010 he called for a "Syllabus of Errors in Interpretations of Vatican II" (see here); but in his comments to Voris he goes further and explains what he specifically objects to in some of the Council documents and what sorts of clarifications are needed.

Bishop Schneider begins by stating that the biggest error relating to the Council is a basic approach to the Council itself that sees it as a rupture with Tradition. In this, he echoes the words of Benedict XVI, who popularized the phrase "hermeneutic of rupture" in his now famous 2005 homily. Schneider notes that this presumption of rupture can be "liberal or traditional", though as his subsequent comments explain, he sees the liberal rupture as much more grave than any potential traditionalist rupture. His proposition for remedying this is a formal declaration that the Council should be interpreted in continuity with Tradition and that the Council Fathers had not no intention to make a break with the past.

Like Cardinal Kasper, Schneider notes that it is not simply a problem with interpretation of the Council, what Benedict XVI called the "council of the media", but with the some of the documents themselves. He states that "majority of the texts of the Council are very rich and traditional", but some are "controversial or ambiguous" and suffer from a "lack of precision." Some of these documents are "open to different interpretations" (what Kasper called "compromise formulas"). Thus, following Kasper, he admits an ambiguity in the documents.

During the interview he is asked about Kasper's comments, and far from denying or contradicting them, he states that Kasper's comments are correct and need to be officially stated by the Magisterium. He calls for an official clarification of the documents of Vatican II, a sort of authoritative interpretative key to ensure that the documents are understood in continuity with Tradition. He states that the Church needs to offer "some clarifications or some indications of the misinterpretations...because we have to be very, very concrete" and suggests perhaps an explanatory note, as Paul VI offered for Lumen Gentium.

By the way, I had proposed a similar concept a few weeks back - that an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II was needed.

Whereas Schneider does not follow Kasper in discussing the intentionality of these ambiguities, he does discuss some very concrete examples of specific passages he finds problematic and asks for the Magisterium to "give us clear, very clear, interpretations of some very specific subjects." He suggests that this clarification should come from the Pope himself.

So, what ambiguities does the Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider find problematic?

His first example is the doctrine of collegiality found in Lumen Gentium. Without citing any passages in particular, he opines that the document teaches the headship of the Pope in an "insufficient" way and that the document can be read to mean that the Pope is a first among equals who has only a of primacy of honor, ignoring or downplaying his actual jurisdiction and role as episcopus episcoporum. Schneider does not cite a text directly so I will not comment any further except to say that the view of collegiality that Schneider finds "insufficient" is very common manner.

Staying in Lumen Gentium, he spends quite a bit of time with Lumen Gentium 16, which he forcefully says  "needs and explanation." The problematic passage he cites is the sentence which states that "the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God." His specific problem is which the last sentence, which states that Muslims and Catholics together adore the one God. Schneider says that this statement is extremely clumsy and admits of  "two substantial different levels" of interpretation. He goes on to make a phenomenally important distinction between belief in one God according to natural reason and the supernatural virtue of faith, which alone is pleasing to God:

"We adore God always as a Trinity...our adoration is an adoration of supernatural faith. To worship God as Creator only or one God only, there is no need of faith. The use of your reason is sufficient. This is a dogma of the First Vatican Council, that every human person is able only by his reason, natural light of reason, without the light of faith, to recognize the existence of one God as Creator. Consequently, to worship Him according to his knowledge of natural reason. These are the Muslims - they have no supernatural faith and therefore they have no supernatural act of worship. Even the Jews who rejected Jesus as God, as Trinity, they rejected Him they have no faith. Therefore their worship is also natural, not supernatural."

The Muslim worship of Allah is not the same as the supernatural worship of the Trinity, which alone is pleasing to God. Thus, even if they claim to worship the same God based on a certain historic pedigree, their worship is fundamentally different from Catholic worship and cannot be pleasing to God because they lack the supernatural virtue of faith. When Voris mentions that Cardinal Timothy Dolan recently encouraged Muslims to keep their faith and said that we worship the same God, Schneider dryly says, "The Cardinal was referring to this expression of the council. Now you observe why it is necessary to strengthen this essential distinction."

Also on Schneider's naughty list is Gaudium et Spes 12, which begins with the statement "all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown" (finis et culmin). In his analysis of this passage, :

"I think this expression is very ambiguous. It is not correct because all the things which exist on earth have their finality in God and have to glorify God as their summit...all things that exist are created for the glory of God and for Christ, through Him and for Him. Christ is the end of all created things. The aim of this expression was that God created all non-rational things for the service of man, and that man is the ruler or king of this creation because God gave man such a dignity. But I think we cannot say this in this manner. We have to stress, even so, the created things on earth are created for man, but not ultimately for man...so we have to explain this also, otherwise it is an anthropocentrism, and this is all part of the crisis of this past fifty years, this anthropocentric vision. And not only vision, but practice, also, Christian life, liturgy and theology. Very anthropocentric. And this is the biggest danger of humanity, for the Church to be anthropocentric, because this was the first sin of Adam and Eve. This is very dangerous, and such expression of our Council texts can be used for such things and therefore need more explanation."

When it comes to ecumenism, Schneider has a strong criticism of the tone of the document Unitatis Redintegratio. The document on ecumenism teaches that God can use even the non-Catholic communities as means of salvation. Schneider opines:

"This could also be interpreted in a wrong manner, in a way of the Anglican Branch theory that there are several branches of Christianity who are all means of salvation. Therefore we also have to clarify this expression. We have to say perhaps, nevertheless, God can use other Christians, but individually because they are baptized...Remember what St. Augustine said, what the non-Catholics have, they took from the Church. He even said they have stolen it from our house. What they have, this is Catholic, not theirs. Therefore, we have to explain this. Otherwise, it could be understood wrongly."

In other words, individual non-Catholic Christians, by virtue of the valid baptism they share, can certainly be means of grace; it was a Protestant who first shared the Gospel with me when I was a pagan teenager, and this became a means of grace that was the first step in my whole conversion. But Schneider points out that we cannot attribute this to sects or denominations collectively, as if God wishes to utilize groups in material heresy as some kind of "sub-churches" alongside the Catholic Church. Whatever good individuals do or bring to the table, they bring it by virtue of what they retain from Catholicism. These denominations, on the other hand, owe their very existence to the fact that they reject Catholicism. So the fact that an individual Protestant may be a blessing or be instrumental as a grace-bearer does not legitimize Protestantism as such.

There is much more and I encourage you all to watch the full interview if you have time. But it is important to note that Schneider is the latest voice added to a growing trend: clerics who are admitting that the documents of Vatican II themselves have ambiguities and problems that ought to be rectified. Benedict XVI himself was perhaps the first to raise these objections when he noted some Council documents were "dense" and "weak" (see here) and rectified the subsistit in problem of Lumen Gentium by issuing an interpretive document; more recently we had Kasper's candid admission on intentional ambiguities in the conciliar texts. Now we have these refreshingly honest comments by Schneider about some legitimate problems with several key Conciliar documents.

As we move further from 1965, it is becoming increasingly acceptable to note the existence of ambiguities and problems in the Council documents, and that this can be done without calling into question the legitimacy of the Council. This is a significant shift, as in previous years there were only two possible positions on the Council: the documents were perfect, the Springtime of the Church had to be affirmed unhesitatingly, and any problems were due not to ambiguities in the documents but to liberals who were twisting the documents, hijacking them, as it were. Or, if you denied any of these assertions, the only alternative was that you were a schismatic who was questioning the legitimacy of the Council and dissenting from the Magisterium. The comments of Benedict, Kasper and Schneider demonstrate clearly that it is possible to have an intelligent conversation about the documents that admits of their weaknesses without in any way being unfaithful to the Church. Indeed, the most recent comments of Schneider show us that this sort of discussion is not only possible, but necessary.

Kasper Admits Intentional Ambiguity

Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano this past Friday. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper,  L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)

In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.

Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.

But Kasper does more than just admit that "the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict"; he goes on to state that these ambiguities, these potential conflicts, were part of an intentional program. He does not simply say the texts will bear various interpretations, but that these ambiguous passages were "compromise formulas" brought forth to placate two opposing sides, in such a way that they can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, but just as easily can be twisted by the progressives to lend seeming support to their mischief.

These are what the late Michael Davies called the "timebombs" in the conciliar texts. Davies wrote, "These 'timebombs' were ambiguous passages inserted into the official documents by the liberal periti or experts - passages which would be interpreted in an untraditional, progressivist sense after the Council closed." (Michael Davies, Liturgical Timebombs, Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 2004, pg. 23). Davies borrowed the phrase "timebombs" from Archbishop Lefebvre's book A Bishop Speaks, which had basically put forward the same argument. In Kasper's interview, we have nothing less than an admission that there were not only timebombs, but that they were placed there intentionally, and in this he and Lefebvre are in agreement. This is a stunning admission.

Kasper made many other interesting statements that undermine other aspects of the conservative narrative of the Council. For example:

“For most Catholics, the developments put in motion by the council are part of the church’s daily life. But what they are experiencing is not the great new beginning nor the springtime of the church, which were expected at that time, but rather a church that has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis.”

This is contra to the prevailing mantra from the JPII era that we are experiencing a 'new springtime" and a candid admission that there is in fact a crisis, despite the fact that some, such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan, continue to deny this plain truth. This simple admission of fact, that the Church is in crisis and is not experiencing the promised post-conciliar springtime, is of considerable importance in moving forward, and whatever else we may think of Kasper, I appreciate his sincerity here.

Speaking of the confusion that ensued after the Council, Kasper said:

"For those who know the story of the twenty councils recognized as ecumenical, this [the state of confusion] will not be a surprise. The post-conciliar times were almost always turbulent. The [Second] Vatican, however, is a special case."

This important admission, which I have also stated elsewhere, really debunks the conservative Catholic talking-point that what we are experiencing in the modern Church is normal, since there is 'always confusion after a Council.' That may be true, but Kasper notes that the confusion that followed Vatican II is "a special case", different from the turbulence of previous periods. This, too, is a point that is often made by Traditionalists, who see in the Second Vatican Council not just another ecclesial event with the standard level of confusion after the fact, but rather a new kind of ecclesial event that cannot be so easily classed alongside the Councils of the past.

Cardinal Kasper affirms the positions of Michael Davies, Lefebvre and the Traditionalists? These are strange times, indeed.

There is a paraphrase of Kasper's comments here, or you can read the original through Google translate at this blog. As of yet, the L'Osservatore Romano Englsih site has not posted the articles from the previous week, but I will link it up when it becomes available.

Like this article? Please follow us on Facebook or consider subscribing to this blog!

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.”

Schönborn closes 75% of Vienn'a parishes

This has largely passed unnoticed in the western media, but it was reported last month that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, plans on closing an astounding 75% of the parishes in his diocese over the next ten years. This will reduce the number of Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Vienna from 660 down to 150.

Schönborn stated that the reason for the drastic reduction was a severe decline in the number of churchgoing Catholics as well as the "priest shortage." The new parishes, he stated, would each be service by four or five priests with a senior pastor reporting directly to the Archbishop. He also noted that the new parishes would be collaborative efforts where priests and lay persons run the parishes together.

This is essentially a 75% downsizing of the Church in Vienna. That is a massive, massive cut. Will the Austrian Church survive? Benedict XVI has called for a smaller, stronger "remnant Church," but what sort of remnant will be left? Here are a few things to consider:

First, Austria was recently the scene of a shocking display of priestly disobedience. 300 of Austria's 4,200 priests upheld a pledge known as the "Call to Disobedience" in which they promised to work towards the establishment of a radical progressive agenda in Austria (see here). Since Vienna is the largest diocese in Austria, it stands to reason that a large number of these dissenting priests are probably from Schönborn's own Archdiocese. If he is going down to only 150 parishes, how many of those parishes will be in the hands of these dissenting, radical priests? Even if only half of the 300 dissenters are from Vienna, that would mean, on average, each parish would have one dissenting priest teaching and preaching there. This can't be a positive outcome.

Second, it is certain that a vast amount of historically significant structures are going to fall into neglect. I have seen this before. The parishes that survive or emerge out of this will be the parishes with the modern amenities; newer structures built in the round that can accommodate a large volume of people and have ample parking spaces, etc. These newer, larger structures will be preserved as functional parishes while the small, beautiful historic country parishes that dot the Austrian countryside will be shut down as parishes and left to the uncertain care of local historical preservation societies to operate more as museums than real centers of devotion (like the parish church in Phoenix, Michigan). If you have ever been to Austria, your heart will break because you know what I am talking about; small parish churches and chapels spring up from the landscape there like flowers. Austria will lose much of what makes it beautiful.

We could also comment on the fact that the Cardinal seems to be adopting the attitude that the priest shortage and lay-managed parishes are a fait accompli; the priest shortage simply cannot be stopped. I have written about this attitude elsewhere, and while I admit that I am certainly no bishop and don't know what it is like to manage a diocese, I do know that the fact that the priest shortage is artificially contrived is well-documented and that dioceses that simply return to the traditional approach to vocation development have no difficulty attracting well-formed, qualified men to the priesthood. To close 75% of the parishes in a historic diocese without making any real attempt to address the priest shortage in an effective manner is...well...it just seems like Schönborn is caving in a bit too quickly and eagerly here. The priest shortage is manufactured as a tool to starve dioceses into accepting lay-run parishes and it by no means inevitable.

I remember an anecdotal story about the ultra-liberal Bishop Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, MI. Untener was a promoter of married-priests, and when he heard that the Vatican was not as willing to entertain the concept of married priests as he had hoped, he said, "Well then, I will just reject all our applicants to the seminary and cut off the supply of new priests until I can starve them into accepting a married priesthood."

I don't know what is going on in Vienna, but this is tragic news indeed. The Catholic leaves that flourished and covered the land of Austria in beauty and piety are withering and falling from a dying tree in the onset of a new winter of unbelief. This is hardly a new Springtime!

LCWR and the Reapers

The following article is by Hilary White and is taken from LifeSite news:

"If they are not prepared to assert a more distinctly Catholic identity, the Vatican is prepared to oust the largest umbrella group of American nuns and sisters as the official representative and liaison with Rome, one of the Pope’s closest advisers said in a rare interview.

If the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) refuses absolutely to cooperate with the Vatican’s attempt at reform, said William Levada, the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, they will force Rome to reconsider their position in the Church.

“If you look at the Church as a hierarchical structure—whether you see that as benign, or something else—ultimately, the Pope is the superior,” Levada said. “I suppose if the sisters said, ‘OK, we’re not cooperating with this,’ we can’t force them to cooperate. What we can do, and what we’d have to do, is say to them, ‘We will substitute a functioning group for yours,’ if it comes to that.”

Levada told US journalist John Allen that it is “premature” to imagine that the current LCWR leadership is to address the “substantive issues” brought up by a doctrinal assessment issued in April. Allen stressed the point, asking, “So if the response is not satisfactory, the result could be decertification of LCWR?” “It could be,” Levada responded.

LCWR is the organization, founded in the 1950s, that officially represents about 80 percent of the 57,000 religious sisters in the U.S. Their membership is not growing, however, and the average age of most of the sisters in the US is about 74 with many of the LCWR represented groups amalgamating or shutting down altogether.

Levada, an American prelate with decades of experience in US Catholic politics, knew that in addressing the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), the leading journalistic organ of the American Catholic left, he was directly addressing LCWR and their lay supporters.

Despite their claim to be “stunned” by it, the CDF’s doctrinal assessment, he said, was not sprung on them unawares. The CDF’s process started four years ago and LCWR’s leadership has been in close contact with Rome throughout."

This is good news, my friends. We can decry a lot of what is going on in the Church and world, but I am happy that Benedict has turned his eye towards the state of the women religious in this country. It is a very ancient strategy, dating back to Gregory the Great and Augustine of Canterbury and even earlier to the Irish monk-saints: get the religious life of a nation in order first and then the Church and people will fall into line afterward. Properly ordered religious communities have done more throughout history for the spread of the Gospel than anything else. This is a wise strategy on the pope's part - and, if I may say, this is the sort of thing that desperately needed to happen under John Paul II, who basically let this stuff go on and fester for decades. It is a good sign that the pope is pursuing this action.

This also followed up with the message Benedict delivered to the Church this week when he used the story of Judas to illustrate the point that it is better for Catholics who do not really believe the Church's teaching to just be "honest" and leave the Church altogether. Levada is not insinuating that he hopes the nuns of LCWR will leave the Church, of course, but he does state that if the LCWR will not do the job, they will substitute them with a group that will. That's awesome.

There is a great sorting out going on here. It is getting tougher and tougher to be a wishy-washy Catholic. The faithful are being sifted from the unfaithful. Liberal Catholicism is wilting with the passing of the baby boomers and turning into something that cannot even remotely be considered Christian. It reminds me of the parable of the sower, and the angels who come to reap the harvest, gathering the wicked and the elect. Here, through this process of sorting, the LCWR and their kid are being reaped out of the kingdom.

And it is bigger than just what is going on with LCWR or even liberal Catholicism in general. I'd venture to say it is a movement of the Spirit that is eschatological in nature, although we are witnessing only the first stirrings.

"So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, "Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?"

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, "Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?"

But he said, "Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

...The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt. 13:27-30, 38-43).