The Assumption: Not a Question of History

The Church's doctrine on the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is usually treated with scorn by Protestants, who of course do not acknowledge the unique role of Mary in salvation history. There are many objections: the doctrine is "not biblical"; it was "invented" in 1950; in makes Mary into a rival of Christ for our affection, etc. We are all familiar with these standard canards. Before I came back to the Church, I used to be skeptical of this doctrine; "Assumption? It sure is one giant assumption, since the Bible says nothing about it," I used to say to myself.

When you really dig into it, it is not the concept of an Assumption that is so problematic - Protestants of course acknowledge that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed alive into heaven, as the Scriptures state. The problem is not with the concept of an assumption, as much as whether or not one specific individual - Our Lady - was in fact assumed body and soul into heaven.

This question of fact is where I think the only strong objection to Our Lady's Assumption is found (by strong I only mean that it is the only objection that is really intelligent). This is the fact that, when we look back on evidence for belief in the Assumption in the patristic period, the writings are silent for the first several centuries. St. Epiphanius around 377 suggests the Assumption as a possibility; the first clear references we have to it come from the mid-5th century. There are many apocryphal works purporting to be from the pre-Nicene era, but my understanding is that none of these can be established with certainty before the 5th century, or maybe even the 6th. But if we look to the pre-Nicene era, we find zero references to the doctrine of the Assumption.

This at least is a real objection; it is based upon actual history and the lack of reference to a doctrine that Catholics believe is part of the deposit of faith. How can we believe a doctrine is apostolic if it is not mentioned in the apostolic or pre-Nicene periods? Indeed, even from 400 to 500 references to it are scarce; it is only in the period from around 550 to 700 that the doctrine comes into full light. This begs the question: If Mary truly was assumed bodily into heaven, would not the apostles have known about it and told others? Wouldn't news of such a miraculous occurrence be spread abroad fairly early on throughout all the churches? Wouldn't we have a clear testimony to its historicity, like we do with regards to Peter's martyrdom in Rome? Wouldn't someone before the 5th century have mentioned something about it?

These objections may seem formidable until we call to mind one simple fact that dispels them all: Belief in the Assumption is not based on historical observation; it is not a question of history. Let's look at what I mean by this.

Of course, the act of the Assumption was historical; I wouldn't deny that for a moment. It has been declared as divinely revealed dogma, and this guarantees the historicity of the event. But what we need to understand is that the Church does not believe in the Assumption because of some historical observation that was passed on from generation to generation. In other words, our faith concerning this dogma does not depend upon that somewhere in mid-1st century Palestine or Ephesus, somebody actually saw Mary's body assume into heaven and then went and told others about it. It is not based on any historical witness or observation.

In this sense, it is quite different from the Church's belief in our Lord's Resurrection, which was believed by the early Church because it had in fact been witnessed by many. Our Lord took great pains to make sure that many witnessed His Resurrection because He wanted the faith of the primitive Church to draw its source from this one, clearly historic event that was seen by numerable eyewitnesses. Mary's Assumption, on the other hand, might very well have been witnessed by no one. Suppose she died and was buried, and then her body was taken into heaven - who would have witnessed that? We do have that old story about the twelve apostles coming together to look at Mary's body one last time and upon opening the tomb finding her body gone, but I don't know of any scholar who accepts these Transitus Mariae narratives as historical, though they do reflect the pious beliefs of Christians in the late patristic period, who though they acknowledged that Mary was Assumed into heaven, were unclear on the details. Were Mary assumed into heaven, as the Church believes, it most likely would have been in obscurity and secrecy, unwitnessed by anyone.

Rather than an historical event that was observed and related, the Assumption is related to our belief in  Mary's sinlessness. The doctrine of the Assumption is implied in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception;  Corruption, of course, is part of the effects of sin, as we are told in Romans 6:23 and in the Psalms, where King David writes, "Therefore my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover, my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption" (Ps. 16:9-10). This is quoted by St. Paul in Acts 13:34-35 with reference to the Lord's Resurrection, where the Lord's "holy one" who is blameless is justified in His words by being freed from the corruption common to the sons of Adam.

Mary, because of her sinlessness, also shares this prerogative; the fact of the Assumption is implied from the reality of her Immaculate Conception. The two doctrines are linked; the latter leads us to confess the former, just as the justice of the Messiah means His Resurrection, since death and corruption are punishment for sin. Therefore, we do not believe in the Assumption because some dude two thousand years ago witnessed it and ran around the ancient churches saying, "Man, you'll never believe what I just saw over in Ephesus!" No; rather, it is a teaching which logically flows from our belief in the Immaculate Conception - and Mary's freedom from sin is clearly and explicitly taught in the pre-Nicene period. There is no Father who at any time suggests that Mary was a sinner; they all clearly teach her freedom from sin.

Therefore the Assumption is implied in the Immaculate Conception. Just like we say that belief in the Trinity is part of the deposit of faith even though it was not taught explicitly as such by the apostolic fathers, likewise can we assert about the Assumption. The Trinity is inferred by Christ's declaration of equality with the Father in the Gospels (along with many other of His words and actions), and the Assumption is inferred by the primitive belief in Mary's sinlessness.

Pius XII, when defining the dogma in Munificentissimus Deus, after relating different evidences of late patristic liturgies, iconography, and statements of the later Fathers (St. John Damascene, et al), goes on to say that belief in the Assumption is ultimately based on Sacred Scripture: "All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation" (MD, 38). Of course, Pius XII is here referring to a specifically typological reading of the Bible, though it he admits that sometimes theologians of the past were "rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption" (26). This is not a critique, however, but an endorsement of an interpretive method that wedded the mystical to the literal to gain insight into the truth.

The primary reason for belief in the Assumption, according to Pius, is "the filial love" of Christ for His mother (25). Note that it is a theological argument, not a historical one. He goes on to explain this filial love in terms of Mary's close unity with her Son:

"Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages" (MD, 40).

All of this comes from the data of revelation as found in the Scriptures, and therefore does Pius say the pious beliefs about Mary's Assumption are "based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation." Pius XII goes on to explain the importance of the later Fathers and early medieval liturgies as evidence for belief in the doctrine, but the doctrine itself is implied from the sinlessness of our Lady, which is found in the Scriptures and the pre-Nicene Fathers. It is part of divine revelation, albeit implicitly.

Of course, Protestants would not acknowledge this, as they read the Bible differently than we. But is important for us that we understand, and can explain that this doctrine does not depend upon a witness of history, although that does lend credence to a very ancient belief in the Assumption; rather, it exists in seed form along with the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness and is inferred from it. This is true whether or not there were Christians alive in the patristic age who could elaborate on it, and thus the lack of written evidence for the Assumption prior to the late 4th and early 5th centuries is not only not problematic but is actually irrelevant.

Related Post: Assumed or Resurrected?

"I am of Paul; I am of Apollos"

In the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we see Paul in two distinct places giving warnings to the Corinthian Church about boasting about their ministers. The Church in Corinth had been built up by St. Paul with the help of Apollos, an Alexandrian Jewish convert who was known for his erudition and powerful preaching. Shortly after the founding of the Church of Corinth, around 55 AD, dissention and schism broke out among the Christians there over sectarian disputes. It is regarding these disputes that Paul addresses the following passage:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?...For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void" (1 Cor. 1:10-13, 17).

 St. Paul returns to this same theme two chapters later in 1 Corinthians 3:

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal. For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk you not according to man? For while one saith: I indeed am of Paul: and another: I am of Apollos: are you not men? What then is Apollo and what is Paul? I have planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase...For all things are yours, whether it be Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. For all are yours. And you are Christ's. And Christ is God's" (1 Cor. 3:1-7,22-23).

In speaking with a non-Catholic friend recently about these passages, I  was surprised to hear them used by my companion as an argument against the Catholic Church's understanding of Apostolic Succession.  Here we see, says the non-Catholic, that St. Paul specifically condemns the practice of Christians boasting about who might have founded their local church or from whom they derived their baptisms. And yet, in the Catholic Church, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession depends upon this very principle; i.e., noting that our episcopal succession possesses authority and power precisely because we can trace its origin back to the Apostles. Thus, the non-Catholic says, Paul commands us not to say "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos" while the Roman Catholic Church says the opposite, proclaiming her Apostolic Succession by saying, "I am of Peter." Does not this passage of St. Paul clearly condemn the Catholic notion of the importance of a valid apostolic succession?

Before looking at the meaning of these passages, let us look at how the early Fathers valued the concept of Apostolic Succession. From the earliest times, we can see clearly that the Fathers laid great importance on who happened to found a particular local church. The apostolic foundation of a particular church was seen to be a kind of divine guarantor of the doctrine handed down in that church; doctrinal orthodoxy was connected with apostolic foundation - this apostolic foundation and doctrinal unity coalesced in the person of the bishop, the living face of the Succession and the source of each local church's unity.

This vesting of the church's unity in the person of a validly ordained bishop is laid out very clearly in St. Irenaeus' Against Heresies: 

"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion" (Book IV. 26:2).

Notice here the connection between "succession from the Apostles" and the "sure charism of truth"; conversely, those who have "no part in the primitive succession" are "held in suspicion." Orthodoxy is intimately linked with Apostolic Succession. This is why the primitive church placed great importance on from whom their bishops received episcopal ordination.

If we look at the fragments of the Roman presbyter Caius (c. 150), he makes the same argument. In debating the Gnostic heretics, he appeals to the apostolic foundation of the See of Rome as a strong point in favor of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Roman Church. Thus, to the Gnostics, he says:

"And I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you choose to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Road, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church" (Fragments of Caius, preserved in  Eusebius' Eccles. Hist., ii. 25).

The implication is clear. "You heretics think you hold the true Faith? Our Church in Rome preserves the true faith, because we were founded by the Apostles. If you don't believe it, go look at their tombs. What Apostles founded your church?" Again, a great importance is placed on the apostolic foundation of this particular church in connection with doctrinal orthodoxy.

Those who maintain that the identities of the founders of various churches were not important to the Fathers have to contend with statements like this one from St. Irenaeus. In arguing with the Gnostic heretics, he again appeals to Apostolic Succession as the sure means of gauging the orthodoxy of a particular church:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." (Against Heresies, Book III.2-3).

Reread the bolded passages and see the connection between the "preaching of truth" and the "faith" with "this succession"; the truth comes to us "by means of the succession of bishops." That phrase "by means of" is important; it tells us that the Apostolic Succession was not just a matter of historical interest, the way it would be to us, for example, if we were to visit the Episcopal Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia and note with passing interest that Robert E. Lee had once worshiped there. The importance laid on apostolic foundations by the early Christians was not one of passing historical fancy, but a key component in their understanding of how the Church lived and taught in the present. Apostolic Succession is the framework or the box within which the sure charism of truth was deposited in by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian, writing around 200, makes the same case in his Prescriptions Against the Heretics. Note again the connection between Apostolic Succession and doctrinal orthodoxy:

"But if there be any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind" (Prescription Against Heretics, 32).

The bishops are the "transmitters of the apostolic seed", and the confidence we have that this seed is uncorrupted is that, unlike the heretics who cannot "unfold the roll of their bishops", we have a clear succession of bishops going back to the apostles.

Clearly the identity of the men who founded the particular churches was of great importance to the early Church, for it was this Succession that ensured doctrinal orthodoxy. But what of the original argument, that laying this stress upon Apostolic Succession violates the teaching Paul, who commands us not to say "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas"?

I think the problem here is a misappropriation of the passage. Though it does clearly refer to contentions and schisms in the church relating to certain sects identifying themselves too zealously with their ministers, it does not bear on the question of Apostolic Succession. The early Church always considered Succession important, as we have seen, and even in the New Testament we see that preachers of the Gospel had to be specifically commissioned or ordained by the Apostles to do so. If being ordained or authorized by an Apostles was not important, St. James would not have written to the Palestinian Christians after the Council of Jersualem: "We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said" (Acts 15:24).

The 1859 Haydock Bible Commentary points out that these contentions were related to baptism - the Corinthian Christians seemed to be asserting that one baptism was of more value than another based on who had administered it. This is the root of the old Donatist heresy that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the worthiness of the minister. The Haydock Commentary says:

"That there is no schisms....contentions, &c. To hinder these, was the chief design of this letter; one saying, I am of Paul, &c. each party bragging of their master by whom they had been baptized, and made Christians. I am of Apollo, the eloquent preacher, and I of Cephas, the head of the apostles, and of the whole Church; whilst others, the only party not to be blamed, contented themselves with saying, and I am of Christ. --- Is Christ divided? Is not your salvation, is not your justification in baptism, and all gifts from him? Was Paul crucified for you? Though, says St. Augustine, brothers may die for brothers, yet the blood of no martyr is shed for the remission of a brother's sin." 

The last quote from Augustine is very pertinent. No matter how eminent Paul or Apollos or Cephas may have been, the efficacy of baptism comes from Christ, who alone was put to death for the remission of sins. Hence, Augustine is quoted to the effect that nobody else, not even a martyr, can shed blood to remit the sins of another. This prerogative belongs to Christ alone. Yet the Corinthians seem to have been arguing that, because Paul was a more eminent apostle, or Apollos, or whoever, that baptism administered by them was of greater worth, thus making baptism a function of Paul or Cephas' holiness and not of the redemptive work of Christ.

Though it is lengthy, I think it is also helpful to quote from St. Thomas Aquinas here, who goes into this question in some detail in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians, available online here. St. Thomas notes that the dissension referred to be Paul is not over who founded any given church but rather over schismatic sects developing within one local church; and furthermore, that the source of this contention has to due with the question of baptism and its effects. He first talks about the nature of schism and then goes on to elaborate the essence of this particular contention. Aquinas says:

"Properly speaking, there are schisms, when the members of one group separate into various factions according to their various beliefs or according to their various opinions about conduct...[Paul] urges them to seek perfection, which is the good of the whole. Therefore, he says: "but that you be united in the same mind", which judges about conduct, and "in the same judgment", which judges about belief. As if to say: These things will enable you to be perfect, if you continue in unity: “Over all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection” (Col 3:14); “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48).

...[A]nd the contention consists in this, that every one of you gives himself a name derived from the person by whom he was baptized and instructed, and says: "I belong to Paul, because he had been baptized and instructed by Paul"; another says: "I belong to Apollos, who had preached to the Corinthians" (Acts 19); still another says: and I belong to Cephas, i.e., Peter, to whom it had been said: “You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter” (Jn. 1:42). Now they made these statements, because they thought that they received a better baptism from a better baptizer, as though the virtue of the minister had an influence on the one baptized. Finally, others say: "I belong to Christ, Who alone give grace, because the grace of Christ alone works in Christ’s baptism: “He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). Accordingly, the baptized are called Christians from Christ alone and not Paulians from Paul: “Only let us be called by your name” (Is 4:1) (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1-2: 23-24).

Faction happens when there is a division about belief or conduct.  Aquinas, and Paul, condemn these "I am of Apollos" sorts of arguments from those who would use them in defense of their schismatic dissensions. But neither Paul nor Aquinas condemn the Church herself from citing her own apostolic foundations for the purpose of striving to maintain the bond of unity, for it was with an aim towards unity that the episcopal succession was established to begin with.

Besides, as we have said, this particular argument had to do with baptism. That is why Paul asks rhetorically, "Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Aquinas continues on this question of contention over this issue of baptism and offers three possible interpretations of what Paul is arguing here:

"[Paul]says, therefore: "I have said that everyone of you says, 'I belong to Paul'; from which it follows that Christ is divided. This can be understood in one way, as though he were saying: 'Inasmuch as there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, because He dwells only in peace: “His place is in peace” (Ps 76:3); “Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God” (Is 59:2). 

But it is better understood of him as saying: 'Inasmuch as you believe that a baptism performed by a better minister is better, it follows that Christ, Who principally and interiorly baptizes, is divided, i.e., differs in His power and effect, depending on the differing ministers.' But this is false, because it says in Eph (4:5): “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” An even better interpretation is to understand the Apostles as saying that inasmuch as you attribute to others the things that are exclusively Christ’s, you divide Christ by forming many Christs, which is contrary to what is stated in Matt (23:10): “One is your master, Christ”; “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other” (Is 45:22) (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 27-28).

So we see that the true meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 and 3:1-7 really does not concern the issue of Apostolic Succession at all, nor did the Fathers think so, since they were very quick to appeal to Apostolic Succession in defense of orthodoxy. St. Paul does warn against belief that baptism is more or less efficacious depending upon the minister; it is this belief which he refers to as "carnal" in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 when he says,

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as unto carnal. As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not able as yet: but neither indeed are you now able: for you are yet carnal. For, whereas, there is among you envying and contention; are you not carnal, and walk according to man?"

It is also worth noting that this passage in 1 Corinthians has great relevance with regards to how heretical movements tend to take on the name of the heresiarch who founded their sect. St. Irenaeus says:

"For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity" (Against Heresies, Book III.4:3).

We could also add the Lutherans from Luther, Calvinists from Calvin, Mennonites from Menno Simmons, Arians from Arius, and on and on. Whenever  a sect breaks away from the Church and takes the name of its founder, "they must be held in suspicion", as Irenaeus says. This is why our Church and our Church alone is called "Catholic." It alone derives its power and origin from Christ and the Apostles, holding firm to the "sure charism of truth" which resides in the succession of bishops, the successors of the Apostles, whom themselves maintain Catholic unity by their individual union with the Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

Thus, the non-Catholic's argument that 1 Corinthians 1 and 3 preclude any concept of Apostolic Succession are unfounded and based on a misapplication of the relevant biblical texts.

A federalist solution to abortion

When considering the gains and setbacks of the Pro-Life movement over the past thirty-eight years since Roe v. Wade, it seems to me that much of the movement has written off what could be a very viable option in eliminating abortion in this country. I am speaking of the federalist solution.

Having only really become cognizant of the abortion debate as an adult when I returned to the Church, I do not know what the "strategy" of the Pro-Life movement was in the first two decades after 1973, but it seems that the current strategy seems to be nothing other than a push for a nation wide ban on all abortion at the federal level. We could term this the federal solution, as opposed to the federalist solution, which I will explain later.

I do not think this is a bad idea, per se; I think it is the solution that comes most readily to mind, and the solution that would be most ideal. However, there are two major downsides to the federal solution: the first is the inconvenient fact that there is no possible way it will ever happen; the second is that those who have been proposing a federal solution for decades have often times come to see any other solution as unworthy of consideration and have even attacked those who question the federal solution as being not sufficiently Pro-Life.

For me, this discussion comes down to the following question: How should Catholics respond to proposals to return regulation of abortion laws to the states?

Among many in the Pro-Life movement, this suggestion is tantamount to actually supporting abortion, since returning control of abortion to the states would inevitably mean that some states would choose to keep abortion legal. Therefore, supporting return of abortion regulation to the states (which I call the federalist solution), is seen as de facto support for abortion. It is my contention that we ought not to make this inference, and that a federalist solution remains a viable option.

The fact of the matter is this: with a federalist solution, we are guaranteed that some states, at the outset, will keep abortion legal and some states will outlaw it; but, the possibility of a total elimination on a state by state basis will always remain an option that is at least possible in theory. As things stand now, no state is permitted to outlaw abortion absolutely, though they can place restrictions upon it. Thus, we would go from a situation in which abortion is legal in all 50 states to a situation in which at least half of the states could outlaw it entirely with a theoretical possibility that the remaining states could outlaw it eventually. Placing the issue in the realm of state law rather than federal makes change much more probable.

Of course, some will say that the third option is for an outright federal ban binding in all 50 states. Perhaps I am being pessimistic, but this will simply never happen. Case law and precedent have been going against this option for decades. Roe v. Wade has been reaffirmed at the federal level, especially in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Judges, presidents and most lawmakers have made it plain that, while they may support a reduction in abortion rights, very, very few are in favor of an absolute prohibition because it is too politically divisive. The only way a possible federal ban on all abortion could happen would be with a constitutional amendment - and there is no way anybody who knows American politics can place much hope in that happening.

The only places where there have been significant victories on the abortion front is on the state level. Many states, such as Nebraska, would outlaw abortion entirely if not for the federal law based on Roe v. Wade that forbids it. State law is where the victories are being won against abortion, and any empowerment to state law in this regard should be welcome.

We should also note that many Pro-Lifers adopt the maxim of aiming to reduce the amount of abortions by as much as possible, even if outright elimination is not possible. This thinking was brought forward to justify voting for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, although Bush favored abortion in cases of rape and incest. The argument was that Bush was "basically" Pro-Life, and that the election of Gore or Kerry in his stead would have represented such a victory for abortion advocates that a vote for Bush was acceptable because under his administration abortions were likely to be greatly reduced.

Now, a federalist solution to abortion is opposed on one hand because it would immediately make abortion entirely accessible in those states where no state restrictions currently exist, and it would open up the possibility of more abortion services in other states since there would be no federal law prohibiting it.

First, returning power of abortion to the states would not expand abortion in any state because states that want to encourage abortion are not prohibited from doing so now. Abortion is easily available in California now, and will continue to be so if power was returned to the states. Nothing is being enabled in these states where abortion is already accessible. So there is no net increase in the number of abortions, since such a transfer of power would not affect the availability of abortions in states where it is already widely available.

On the other hand, there would be a net decrease in abortions, however. If we look at states such as Nebraska, Michigan, Oklahoma and Texas, where state law already sharply curtails abortion services, a return of power to these states would result in outright bans. Michigan, which has 36,000 abortions per year, would go to having zero abortions per year. We could expect similar trends in other states. Thus, there would be no rise in abortions in states where it is already widely available, but a tremendous decrease in states that are already disposed to the Pro-Life position. Returning power of abortion to the states would leave us with a net decrease.

If we just take the six most Pro-Life states, according to Americans United for Life, which compares numbers of abortions relative to total population, we can see that a return of abortion regulation to the states (presumably resulting in outright bans in these six states) would decrease abortions by 166,500 abortions in these six states alone.

Texas - 86,000 abortions per year
Michigan - 36,000 " "
Louisiana - 15,000 " "
Nebraska-2,500 " "
Oklahoma - 7,000 " "
Pennsylvania- 20,000 " "

If we presume that more than these six "top Pro-Life states" would probably ban abortion, then factor in other states that will probably restrict abortion without outlawing it entirely, we can see that abortion would be easily reduced by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, per year.

But what about the other states where abortion would remain perfectly legal with no restrictions? Can we tolerate a system in which this is permissible? I would say (a) we are already tolerating it now and (b) at least in the scenario I am proposing, we have the potentiality of one day overturning abortion laws in these states, as opposed to now, where the Supreme Court guarantees the right to abortion and it is enforced by the highest law of the land.


Can we not see that abortion laws in these states would be on much weaker footing if such laws were in the hands of the states rather than in control of the federal government?

In our current situation, the government would basically need to establish a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion federally in all fifty states. In my scenario, grassroots efforts on a state by state basis could establish the same. What has more a likelihood of happening? No matter how you look at it, there is much more probability of success getting laws enacted at the state level than in waiting around for a Constitutional amendment - and it would take an amendment. Overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return power of abortion to the states; to actually ban it federally, a Constitutional amendment would probably be needed; either that, or an about-face on the part of the Supreme Court that has not been seen since the aftermath of the Civil War.

It may be said that the prohibition of abortion at the state level will never be as certain as a federal ban, since state laws are more easily changed.

To this I say, "Amen! State laws are more easily changed, which is why we have a greater chance of outlawing abortion on a state by state approach than on a federal one." But once abortion is banned at the state level, will not pro-abortion advocates redouble their efforts to overturn these laws?

This is possible of course. But I would say let us at least settle for a state ban before we start arguing about the certitude of the ban. Ultimately, our efforts at ending abortion cannot rely on enforcement by the Rule of Law alone. If we have a population that is 55% in favor of abortion, we cannot simply pass laws against abortion and expect the 55% to be content. The key, in conjunction with passing laws, is to change our culture to the point where the majority of the populace no longer views abortion in a positive light.

This is possible working in the framework of a federalist solution. A great example is corporal discipline of students in the public school. As we all know, it used to be widely condoned for teachers and administrators at public and private schools to beat pupils who were unruly or disobedient. My father tells me stories of how his high school teachers used to send troublesome students down to the wood shop where they would be told to cut out a huge paddle, which they would hand over to the principal and be told to "grab their ankles" while the administrator whacked their rear end so hard it would bring tears to your eyes, or so my father tells me.

In most school districts around the country these laws have since been superseded. I don't know of any state or school district that still allows beatings of students. The culture has changed to such a degree that society would no longer tolerate it; whether this change is for better or worse I leave to you, but the fact is that a systematic change in the culture led to an abolition of this practice on a state by state level. Even in those states where these laws are still on the books (and Michigan is one), they are not enforced. Corporal punishment in school is gone and is never coming back anytime soon, as it needed no federal action. A simple change of disposition on the part of the public, coupled with grassroots efforts, sufficed.

A similar extinction of abortion would be possible in a federalist solution. The Pro-Life movement could refocus its efforts to state laws, and through a gradual effort that would take much prayer in addition to activism, hopefully the culture would gradually come to see abortion as unacceptable almost as surely as slavery and corporal punishment in school are seen as unacceptable. Some may scoff at the idea of changing the culture in such a way; but I say, if it be impossible to change the culture through our prayers and deeds, to what end do we labor? Do not all our prayers and labors presuppose that such a national change of heart is possible?

A final objection could be that a federalist solution to abortion would render the Union into two hostile camps - Pro-Life states and Pro-Choice states - not too dissimilar to that tragic and divisive separation which characterized our nation in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Such a hostile division would weaken our national unity rather than strengthen it.

While I grant that our nation may indeed have another civil war, I doubt it will be solely over abortion, although abortion may be part of it. Yet, even if so, the issue of slavery in this country was not settled save by Civil War; it was only after 1865 that a federal solution to the question of slavery could be found. If there is a way in which abortion can be banned at the federal level, it will only come through either a near miraculous conversion of the entire country or else in the aftermath of a dreadful civil war. I doubt whether the Pro-Life movement has the backbone for a civil war, especially after painting themselves into a corner by definitions of just war and self-defense that are so narrow as to practically necessitate an aggressor be on top of you stabbing you to death before you are allowed to retaliate; even so, if a federalist solution to abortion leads to a further polarization of the country, I say so be it.

To sum up: while it is admirable to push for a federal ban on all abortions, such a ban is not likely to ever materialize. We will have a much better chance of getting rid of abortion by first returning abortion legislation to the power of the states and then attacking it state at a time. This not only will not increase the amount of abortions, but will actually result in a net decrease. Meanwhile, the Pro-Life movement can work on attacking the remaining state strongholds of abortion and changing the cultural dialogue about abortion until the time comes when abortion is as little tolerated as slavery or corporal punishment in school. Since this is the case, those who are in favor of the federal ban/Constitutional amendment approach ought not to denigrate those who propose other solutions, nor should the Pro-Life credentials of candidates be questioned who propose returning the power of abortion legislation to the states. It is a viable option and should be regarded as such, in my humble opinion.

Places that should be Catholic: Holy Isle and the Cave of St. Molaise; Arran, Scotland

In Scotland's Firth of Clyde, between the Kintyre Peninsula and mainland Scotland, lays the small, quiet island known as Arran. Arran is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful places in the world. I was fortunate enough to have been able to visit it and bike around the island back in 1998, an experience I shall never forget. It's winding country lanes, lonely castles and beautiful seascapes are forever etched in my memory as the  loveliest places in a country that already abounds with loveliness.

Slightly off the east coast of Arran sits an even smaller island, which locals simply call the Holy Isle. The tiny island is only 1.9 miles around and can easily be passed over as just another one of western Scotland's thousands of tiny islands. Holy Isle, however, was once the home of one of Scotland's early saints, St. Molaise of Leighlin, also known as St. Laisren or St. Laserian.

St. Molaise was an Irish monk of Iona; details of his early life are non-existent but it is possible that he was a disciple of St. Columba. He most certainly met Pope St. Gregory the Great, for he was ordained bishop by the great pope during a trip to Rome sometime around 600 and later returned to Iona as Gregory's legate to the foundling Scottish churches, supporting the Roman doctrine on images against certain Celts who had iconoclastic tendencies. He also argued for the Roman calculation of Easter against the Celtic practice.

Not much is known of the life of St. Molaise. He spent much of his time as a hermit on the Holy Isle, praying in a cave on the hill of Mullach Mòr. He is the subject of the early Celtic tale the Vision of Laisren, one of the first pieces of Christian Scottish literature. In this tale St. Molaise (called Laisren or Laserian) is terrified by a vision of hell in order that he might return and warn his brother monks who were living in half-hearted obedience to their rule. St. Molaise died in 639 and his feast day is April 18th. According to a bizarre legend of questionable authenticity, his death came as the result of plucking out some sort of cursed hair from the eyebrow of St. Sillán. This hair had the strange property that anyone who looked upon in the morning it would die; having plucked it and looked upon it in the morning, Molaise immediately died. This legend has all the fantasy and tragedy of the classic Irish-Celtic sagas (the Death of Diarmid, for example).

Regardless of the historicity of the legends surrounding St. Molaise, he was clearly an important individual in the development of Christianity in Scotland. As a bishop ordained by St. Gregory who argued in favor of the Roman practices, and as a possible convert or disciple of Columba, he is an important link between the primitive foundation of the Scottish church and the later episcopal establishment we read about in Bede.

Thus, it is especially sorrowful that the Holy Isle, and the hermit cave of St. Molaise, have passed into the possession of the pagans. This island and the cave where St. Molaise passed countless nights of lonely penance is now in the hands of the Samyé Ling Buddhist Community. The Buddhists have set up a "Centre for World Peace and Health on the island where they host retreats initiating people into Tibetan Buddhist meditation techniques. The road up the island off the ferry is decorated with Tibetan prayer flags and stupas.

Nor has the cave of St. Molaise been spared from being decorated by the heathens. This sacred spot is now decorated with Tibertan Buddhist prayer flags, ostensibly to honor St, Molaise (as if the prayers of the saint and the meditations of the Buddhists have anything in common), but in my opinion they actually insult the saint and offend God in this.

The cave of St. Molaise on Holy Isle, defiled by the prayer flags of Tibetan Buddhists

This brings up an interesting question - to what degree, if any, does it honor Christ when His saints are honored by pagans? Some, upon hearing this story, may say that it does us honor that even the pagans acknowledge the holiness of one of our saints; should we not rejoice at this? I disagree; I believe it is offensive to the saints when they are honored by pagans in the manner described above.

There are two ways a non-believer can attempt to honor a saint; one is by honoring something in the saint that they believe approximates to their own false religion; the other is by being so impressed with the saints devotion to the Catholic religion that they give a reluctant honor in spite of the fact that the saint is Catholic and they are not. In the first case, the saint is honored not because he is a Catholic but because he is (erroneously) believed to approximate to a pagan; in the second case, he is honored as a Catholic. I believe that the first type of "honor" is offensive to God and to the saint while the second does justice to the saint. Some examples are in order.

Let's take St. Clare. She is often honored by atheist feminists. These feminists honor her, not because she was a devoted, Catholic saint who loved God, but because she disobeyed her father's wishes in a patriarchal society and blazed a trail for feminist revolt by assuming a role of leadership in a world dominated by men. Obviously, this view is skewered, but the point is that they do not honor Clare because she is Catholic; they honor her because they believe that she has something in common with them - that she is a sort of proto-feminist, in whom modern feminists can find something to look up to. Of course, Clare's life and teachings are obscured and twisted to fit this mold, but this necessarily happens when non-Catholics attempt to honor Catholic saints for something other than their Catholicity. Clare is here not being honored as a Catholic, but as some sort of feminazi. This is an example of the first way that a non-believer can honor a Catholic saint, and I believe this sort of "honor" does not truly honor the saint and is offensive to God, because it disregards what is most important about that saint (their identity as a Catholic) and misconstrues what that saint's life revolved around. Clare might have been a powerful woman leader, but she would have had nothing to do with modern feminism had she been acquainted with it.

If we took our first example from Clare, let us take our second example from St. Francis. Now I will speak of the second manner in which a non-Catholic or pagan can honor a saint, and in this manner they can do him justice. Let us recall Francis' memorable journey to the holy land and his conference with the Sultan of Egypt in the Muslim camp outside Damietta. There is exposition of the faith and willingness to die for it so astounded the Sultan that he gave Francis a grudging respect and honor. The Little Flowers of St. Francis, which embellish the story somewhat, relate it this way:

St Francis standing before him, inspired by the Holy Spirit, preached most divinely the faith of Christ; and to prove the truth of what he said, professed himself ready to enter into the fire. Now the Sultan began to feel a great devotion towards him, both because of the constancy of his faith, and because he despised the things of this world (for he had refused to accept any of the presents which he had offered to him), and also because of his ardent wish to suffer martyrdom. From that moment he listened to him willingly, and begged him to come back often, giving both him and his companions leave to preach wheresoever they pleased; he likewise gave them a token of his protection, which would preserve them from all molestation (XXIV).

In this case the Sultan honors Francis precisely because of what is most important about him - his identity as a Catholic; he marvels and honors him "because of the constancy of his faith." Unlike the example above of the feminists honoring Clare, here Francis is honored by a non-Catholic not in spite of his Catholicism, but because he is such an exceptional Catholic.

Note, too, that the response of the Sultan is different. He does not choose to honor Francis with the implements of Muslim worship; on the contrary, he encourages the spread of Christianity and later in the story even professes a wish that he could convert! He honors Francis because he is a Catholic and honors him in a way that Francis would approve of. He does not honor Francis because Francis in any way approximates to anything found in Islam; he honors Francis because Francis is so unlike what he has known in Islam.

We could also cite, in this vein, the tale of Naaman the Syrian, who though a pagan, marvels at the power of Elisha to heal him. He honors Elisha by asking for earth from Israel so that he can honor the true God and expresses sorrow that he must still participate in the external worship of the state gods of Syria. He says:

"Let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the LORD. But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this” (2 Kings 5:17-18).

Again, Naaman honors Elisha not because Elisha reminds him of something good in his own paganism, but because Elisha has demonstrated the power of the true God where the pagan gods have been dumb. It is because the God of Israel is so unlike Rimmon that Naaman marvels.

So, how are we to understand the prayer flags at the cave of St. Molaise? I believe this is a case of the first example, where the pagans are honoring St. Molaise, not because they appreciate him as a Catholic saint who loved our Lord Jesus Christ deeply, but because they see in him a "holy man" in whom they think to find some approximation to their own tradition of contemplation and meditation. In Molaise the hermit they see (errantly) a proto-Buddhist, and as such they honor him not as a Catholic but with the implements of their own false religion.

I think this misconstrues the life and work of St. Molaise, does no honor to the saint and is offensive to God. I don't know how this cave and island came into the possession of the Samyé Ling Buddhist Community. I do not know why the Catholic Church in Scotland could not get a hold of it; probably because the Catholic Church in Scotland is too busy just trying to stay in existence. It is a tragedy. This place should be a Catholic shrine in the hands of Catholics. If nothing else, some Catholic zealot should go there and tear those prayer flags down, even as Gideon tore down the altar of Baal in his village. Will not someone rid Holy Isle of these troublesome prayer flags?

Pray for the restoration of Holy Isle and the cave of St. Molaise to the Catholic Church! St. Molaise, ora pro nobis!

Related Article: St. Boniface and the Zeal of Gideon

Requiescat in Pace, Dr. Warren Carroll

Dr. Warren Carrol, died. July 17th, 2011. No further information except that he has passed away.

Oprah and the New Age

Oprah Winfrey is a well known proponent of mystical, New Age ideologies. There is nothing new about celebrities being involved in New Age mysticism, but in Oprah's case it is especially dangerous because she is such a well-respected figure, commanding the admiration and I would even say obedience of millions around the world.

I have spoken before on the tragedy of Oprah's falling away from the Christian faith due to a tragic but simple misunderstanding of the phrase "I am a jealous God" from the Old Testament; at least, this is the reason she herself cites for her apostasy. But how did she go from baptist skeptic to New Age ideologue, and what exactly are her current New Age connections?

According to Oprah, this transition happened because of a book entitled Discover the Power Within You by "Unity" minister Eric Butterworth. The Unity Church movement, like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, uses your standard Christian vocabulary - God, Christ, the Bible, etc. - but means things totally different by these terms than orthodox Catholics or even conservative Christians would understand by them. For example, "Christ" means the divinity in all people; the historical Jesus is a great teacher who exemplifies the full expression of what it means to discover the "Christ" within you. Prayer is seen as a rejection of negative energy, and so on and so forth.

Oprah, upon reading this book, said, "This book changed my perspective on life and religion. Eric Butterworth teaches that God isn't "up there." He exists inside each one of us, and it's up to us to seek the divine within." This universal immanence of God within all of us, excluding His transcendence or any moral demands upon the human subject of God's indwelling, inform all of Oprah's spirituality. 

She has used her fame and the forum of her television program to promote this spiritual vision; in fact, if one takes a topical look at all of the guests on her show over the years, it could be argued that the majority of them have been dedicated to promoting this New Age vision. Take the example of Gary Zukav. Zukav was a physicist who began delving into New Age spirituality in the 1980's, culminating in his best selling book The Seat of the Soul (1989), which taught that the human being was evolving to a point where the existence of the soul would be known and felt empirically - that just as humans evolved to use reason, so they would evolve, and were evolving, to master the powers of the soul. The utilitarian "use" of the souls powers would be as natural as the use of sight or speech. Zukav claimed to be able to possess this ability and taught that others could as well through "moving beyond the limitations of the five senses." 

Zukav was first featured on Oprah in 1998 and since then has appeared on her show 35 times, which is more than any other guest. Oprah says Zukav's book is her favorite book of all time "except the Bible"; by her own admission, Oprah keeps a copy of this book by her bedside. Another favorite New Age author of Oprah is Eckhart Tolle. Oprah summarized Tolle's teaching as about religious experience primarily, "God is a feeling experience and not a believing experience. If your religion is a believing experience, then that's not truly God." (source). In her insistence on religious experience over objective religious fulfillment in any beatific vision, and her belief in universal divine immanence in all humanity, Oprah is nothing other than a New Age modernist.

With her audience of 22 million, mostly female, adherents, Oprah's propagation of these views has tremendous consequences. Christianity Today once called her one of "America's most influential spiritual leaders" (source). For most of you, this is old news; but is important to know, especially if you know a Christian friend who is taken by Oprah. She is a false messiah and a very dangerous priestess of modernism.

Related: Oprah and the Big Questions of Life

Austria's "Call to Disobedience"

Latest news out of the troubled land of Austria: 300 out of Austria's 4,200 priests have pledged to take part in an effort known as the "Call to Disobedience", as reported by Catholic Culture and the National Catholic Reporter. Here is what the signatories to the "Call to Disobedience" website are pledging:

•to pray for Church reform at every liturgy, since “in the presence of God there is freedom of speech”

•not to deny the Holy Eucharist to “believers of good will,” including non-Catholic Christians and those who have remarried outside the Church

•to avoid offering Mass more than once on Sundays and holy days and to avoid making use of visiting priests--instead holding a “self-designed” Liturgy of the Word

•to describe such a Liturgy of the Word with the distribution of Holy Communion as a “priestless Eucharistic celebration”; “thus we fulfill the Sunday obligation in a time of priest shortage”

•to “ignore” canonical norms that restrict the preaching of the homily to clergy

•to oppose parish mergers, insisting instead that each parish have its own individual leader, “whether man or woman”

•to “use every opportunity to speak out openly in favor of the admission of the married and of women to the priesthood”

Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna weighed in on this in a July 7 letter, saying, "This open call to disobedience shocked me...Christian obedience is a school of freedom; it is about the concrete translation into life of what we pray in every Our Father, when we ask the Father that His will be done in heaven and on earth … This willingness is made concrete in religious obedience to the Pope and bishops.” He went on to say that those who persist in disobedience would do better to simply leave the Church altogether.

When I first heard about this and read the Cardinal's statements, one thought crossed my mind: There are only seven dioceses in Austria, and Vienna is by far the largest. Schönborn has been Archbishop of Vienna since 1995, but he was an Auxiliary Bishop in 1991 - that's 20 years in this Archdiocese. There is a good chance that Schönborn personally ordained many of these 300 dissenters. What kind of formation did they have? And if they had poor formation (which it seems evident they did), how did the Cardinal let  them go on for 20 years without trying to rectify the problem? Did this Cardinal, who in the wake of the sex abuse crisis suggested there needed to be "unflinching examination" in the "issue of priest's training" himself fail to recognize the seeds of dissent in these priests? Ths sort of dissent does not just come out of nowhere, though the "shocked" disposition of Cardinal Schönborn would seem to suggest that he at least may think it does. If 300 priests in your diocese suddenly rise up in formal, united dissent, the Ordinary of the diocese who probably ordained a lot of these guys is certainly not blameless.

If he knew this sort of dissent was brewing in his prebyterate, he was negligent in not addressing it. If on the other hand, if he has been there for 20 years and really had no clue this was the temperament of his priests, then he demonstrates an exceptional degree of cluelessness. I grant it may not be so simple; after all, being a bishop in this day and age is a very complex thing, something a layman like me could not possibly understand.

Furthermore, if Cardinal Schönborn insists on personally celebrating Masses like  this and explicitly approves functions like this one, can he really be surprised that he reaps the fruits of disobedience? When he sets this tone for his diocese, on what grounds is he so "shocked"?

Since my co-blogger at large, the illustrious Anselm, lives in the great land of Austria, I would be more than interested to hear is take on this.

Related: The controversy over Cardinal Schonborn's balloon Mass

Reliability of the Fathers (part 3 of 7)

Continuing this long and in depth series on the reliability of the Church Fathers as guides to Christian belief and practice, we return to the objections of my scholarly Protestant interlocutor, who had argued that the Fathers were an unreliable source for determining true doctrine, essentially saying that modern, critical biblical scholarship should be preferred before the testimony of the Christians of the first four centuries. He had many objections, the first on the allegation that the Greek and Latin Fathers were "insensitive" to different "cultural horizons" and could not possibly understand the Jewish Scriptures correctly (refuted here) and the argument that the transition from a Jewish Church to a Gentile Church also caused a transition in the Church's theology further away from biblical principles (refuted here).

The next fact the interlocutor cites in favor of his view is the following:

The evolution of Christianity as a progressive and subversive challenge to social structures into Christianity as an upholder of said social structures.

Thus, because Christianity went from being illegal and subversive to legal and supportive of the imperial structure under Constantine and his successors, the objectiveness of the Fathers in intepreting the content of revelation was somehow impugned. Basically, it is the same argument has the last one but rehashed - an external transformation in the Church's socio-political station is taken as grounds to assume an inner evolution in the life of the Church - presumably, an evolution away from the Truth rather than towards a deeper understanding of it.

This proposition rests on three assumptions, which I think are all ungrounded: (1) That the political categories of "progressive" and "conservative" are rightly applied to the Church of Christ (2) That Christianity was "progressive" before the conversion of the empire and "conservative" after its conversion (3) That the changes in the post-Constantinian Church represent not just developments but breaks with the apostolic past. Let us examine and break down these assumptions one at a time. I ask your forgiveness ahead of time for the length and depth of this post, but it is a complex issue that requires a complex answer.

1) Political categories applied to the Church?

It is a constant temptation, especially in modernist or liberal ideologies, to see the Church in political terms: progressive or regressive, liberal or conservative, supporting the oppressed or serving as a tool of the oppressors. Such blanket judgments about the Church's relation to existing social mores should always make us pause. The Church is not a political body and does not fall into political categories; she is a supernatural reality that transcends them all. The Catechism, quoting Gaudium et Spes, reminds us of this: "The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendental character of the human person" (CCC 2245).

Since the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, the Church will be in different relations to differing political institutions in the context of this mission. Hence, she appears conservative to some and progressive to others; in reality, she is both because she is neither. She is neither conservative as the political conservatives mean it, nor is she liberal as the political liberals mean it. When a political ideology denigrates some long-held teaching of the Church, then the Church appears conservative for adhering to tradition. The Church also appears progressive when it challenges society to have more care for the poor, the fatherless and the widow. and to turn away from the snares of imperialism, consumerism and unchecked capitalism.

So, in the first place, we must recognize the supernatural character of the Church and her transcendental mission. This reality means that, although words like "conservative" and "liberal" might help in understanding the Church's position on certain specific matters relative to the culture at large, but these political categories are of no help in coming to understand the Church's inner reality.

If political categories are inadequate, how can we best describe the Church? Pope Pius XII answers this for us: "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" (Mystici Corporis, 13). All of these theories that we are debunking fail in that they refuse to see the mystical reality behind the institution.

2) Was the Church always "progressive" before Constantine?

But now that we have dealt with the issue of our language and categorization of the Church, let us examine the question of the Church's societal role prior to the advent of Constantine. It is generally assumed that the pre-Constantinian Church was progressive and subversive of Roman culture while the post-Constantinian Church was conservative, oppressive, and upheld the status quo. An group is said to be "progressive" or "subversive" if it undermines accepted mores by insisting on a loosening the bonds of tradition; hence, support of homosexual marriage is said to be "progressive" because it proposes loosening the bonds of traditional mores and weakening the power of tradition. A group is said to be "conservative" or "regressive" (or even "oppressive") if it seeks to uphold the power of traditional mores and represented by the status quo. Hence, proponents of traditional marriage are called "conservative" because they believe in upholding and strengthening the traditional understanding of marriage.

Unfortunately for my interlocutor's view, we see the Church prior to Constantine being quite conservative on many issues. For example, while the sanctity of marriage was basically a joke in the late pagan empire (with adultery common and divorce rampant), the Church insisted on a extraordinarily rigid marital code - marriage only once and no such thing as divorce. Old Republican Rome had strict marital mores as well, but they were about 400 years extinct by the time the Church was large enough to influence Roman society. It was an amazingly regressive position to take socially, as if we were to suddenly today to insist on the etiquette of the court of Louis XIV as the social norm. Yet this was prior to Constantine. Here we see the pre-Constantinian Church as definitively conservative.

Abortion is another example. While ancient and Republican Rome allowed infanticide for deformities (see Table IV of the Twelve Tables), Roman tradition strictly condemned abortion. The early Roman view of abortion is summed up in the Sentences of the Roman jurist Paulus, who wrote: "Those who administer a beverage for the purpose of producing abortion, or of causing affection, although they may not do so with malicious intent, still, because the act offers a bad example, shall, if of humble rank, be sent to the mines; or, if higher in degree, shall be relegated to an island, with the loss of a portion of their property. If a man or a woman should lose his or her life through such an act, the guilty party shall undergo the extreme penalty." Yet this law had become a dead letter by the time Paulus wrote it, for beginning in the 1st century BC, abortion became more and more acceptable, so much so that Augustus had to order all bachelors in Rome to marry and have children because they were aborting themselves out of existence!

And yet here again we see Christianity exerting a conservative influence, not a progressive one. The Church had always opposed infanticide as well as abortion, despite the trend of Roman society to embrace contraception and abortion. It was the Church that called Rome back to its ancient discipline through her exemplary moral virtue.

Likewise, we could point to examples of Christian progressiveness after the age of Constantine. If the post-Constantinian Church really was only a tool of the state, we would not expect it to subvert any of the power structures of the state. Yet we see the abolition of slavery in the Christian empire, that very institution which the pagan empire was built on. Another example is the ending of the gladiatorial games and of the Olympics, the removal of the Statue of Victory, the continued exodus of men to the monasteries who in prior ages would have been diverted to the military. In all these movements the Church exercised a progressive influence upon the post-Constantinian empire.

Not to mention the moderating effect that Christianity had upon the monarchy. Roman monarchy after Constantine was abundantly better than monarchy before Christianity. There are no more tyrants like Caligula, Nero or Caracalla in the Christian age. Plus the imperial throne became more stable, despite the fact that the empire itself became less so. From 217 to 313 there were 30 emperors, almost all of whom died violently. But from 313 to 410 there were only 12 western emperors, almost all of whom died naturally. Add to this the  role the Church had in confronting and condemning emperors who overstepped their bounds, as when St. Athanasius confronted Constantius II about the latter's support for Arianism or when Theodosius was rebuked by St. Ambrose. No noble of the age of Nero or even Hadrian would rebuke an emperor in such a way; this freedom of expression (called parrhesia) had a truly progressive effect on the empire. Check out this this post here for more on parrhesia.

The Church before Constantine prayed for and supported the pagan emperors just as the Church after Constantine prayed for and supported the Christian emperors; pre-Constantinian apologists like St. Justin wrote rebukes to emperor's for their immorality just as post-Constantinian bishops like Athanasius and Amrbose rebuked Christian emperors. When looking at the patristic Church, the one constant is that it was always jealous to guard its own prerogatives.

So what does all this have to do with the Church Fathers? If nothing else, it at least demonstrates that the Church cannot be said to be "progressive" pre-Constantine but "conservative" post-Constantine. It is not that clear-cut of a break. In fact, as we will see below, there really was no break - and if there is no break, it is that much more difficult to establish a break down in the quality or reliability of patristic thought during the period.

3) The development of the 4th century was not a rupture

We have it on the authority of the illustrious Cardinal Newman that, if we see hints or traces of a dogma in earlier phases of Church history, we ought to interpret those dogmatic seedlings in the context of the fully formed dogmas they later became. Newman says, "The fact of such early or recurring intimations of tendencies which afterward are fully realized, is a sort of evidence that those later and more systematic fulfillments are only in accord with its original idea" (Essay on the Development of Doctrine, II:V.5.1), thus, though a systematic Mariology was not worked out until the middle ages, we have Ireneaus, for example, teaching that Mary is the "cause of salvation" by untying the "knot of Eve's disobedience" (Adv. Haer. 3:22:24). Though Irenaeus' statement does not contain anything like the systematic fullness of medieval Mariology, because the rude patristic Mariology was followed by that of the medievals, it makes sense to see statements like that by Ireneaus as representing the true precursor of the later development.

Thus St. Ireneaus' statement on Mary is always placed as one of the most important Mariological texts of the patristic era, though Protestant commentators, because they do not accept Newman's principle of definite anticipation, fail to see any connection between the Mariology of Ireneaus and that of, say, Bernard of Clairvaux. But, if we are to make sense of the doctrinal development that occurred in the Church from the patristic to the medieval period, we must understand that earlier doctrinal seeds should be interpreted in light of what they eventually grow into, just like a sapling or an infant is cared for with an aim towards what it will eventually become.

If we understand this principle, we see that what happened between 313 and the early medieval period was not a rupture, but a continuation of that development which had already been going on uninterrupted for centuries. It is very important to note the circular reasoning in the interlocutor's accusations: In order to postulate a huge doctrinal break between pre-Constantinian and post-Constantinian Christianity, one has to adopt the assumption that Catholicism of the 5th and 6th centuries was errant. "Obviously there was a drastic change after Constantine because the Church in the 5th and 6th centuries started teaching that Mary is the Mother of God and that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church on earth!" This only seems like a rupture if you have predetermined that these doctrines are errant. But to those who accept the Catholic Faith and understand that these doctrines which Protestants assume "appeared" in the 4t, 5th and 6th centuries were actually developments from earlier ideas present even in apostolic Christianity, there is no rupture, only a glorious unfolding and a seamless continuity.

This rupture, attributed to a supposed influence of Greek philosophical and Roman pagan thought on the Church's doctrines during this time, is what Mark Shea has rightly referred to as the Pagan creep Theory - that throughout the patristic age (but especially after the time of Constantine), the Church, in order to accomodate the world, allowed pagan influences to "creep" into the Church, eventually perverting the Gospel to such a degree that it would be unrecognizable to Christ and the Apostles.

This Pagan Creep Theory is widely accepted as fact in the Protestant world; indeed, I myself once touted it as truth. But there are many huge problems with it, which Mark Shea points out in his excellent book By What Authority? According to Shea (whom I second here), the Pagan Creep Theory requires us to believe some principles which would be considered quite absurd by the principles of secular history (that is, if we were dealing with any other subject besides the catholic Church). The Pagan Creep Theory forces us to believe the following "schizophrenic absurdities" about the Church Fathers:

• That these presumably apostate successors of the apostles were both promulgating alien pagan dogmas in direct defiance of apostolic teaching and simultaneously undergoing suffering, persecution, and fearful deaths with an avowed determination to bear witness to the Faith of the Apostles. 

• The these same Fathers were allowing pagan ideas en masse into the Faith while at the same time contending vehemently over the subtelties of Trinitarian and Christological theology, like the difference between homoousios and homoiousios.

• That not one single Christian anywhere was willing to oppose this apostasy, even though many Churches were apostolic and had the apostolic preaching "ringing in their ears."

• And that while all this was going on, all of these supposed apostates and heretics (the Fathers), these lax stooges of paganism who perverted Scripture, were all still willing to vehemently defend Scripture against the paganizing attacks of other heretics, such as Marcion and Montanus (see By What Authority, pp.148-151).

When confronted with the contradiction we must believe to hold this Pagan Creep Theory, we can see how absurd it truly is.

But if the explosion of Catholic dogma appearing in the writings in the 4th and 5th centuries is not due to a copromise with the world or the accommodation of paganism, to what do we attribute it?

I would attribute it simply to the cessation of the persectuions. Anyboy who has really read the Fathers, even without acknowledging Newman's principle of definite anticipation, can see that even the pre-Nicene Fathers hold many peculiarly Catholic dogmas - the Real Presence, consecrated virginity, monasticism, the priesthood, episcopate and even indulgences are clearly and undeniably found in the pre-Nicene Fathers. But, as the pre-Nicene Fathers practiced the discipline of arcana (secrecy) because of constant persecution, we ought not to be surprised that they did not write more and only alluded to certain dogmas in less precise terms than we would like, since many of their treatises were not so much theological as apologetical or pastoral. Once the persecutions ceased, the Church could come out in to the light and begin to truly develop a systematic theology, expounding on those truths she had always professed, but which the necessity of secrecy due to persecution had always kept partially obscured. Thus, the developments of the 4th and 5th centuries can be seen in this light to be nothing other than the mature theoloical blossoming of a garden whose seeds were firmly planted in the apostolic and pre-Nicene age.

To sum up - it is not true to simply assert that the Church went from being subversive to conservative; the reality is more complex than that. But even given this complex realities, there are better historical solutions to the developments of dogma in the 4th and 5th centuries than to simply assert that the political changes in the Church's status vis-a-vis the empire changed its doctrine substantially, as exemplified by the absurdities we fall into if we adopt the Pagan Creep Theory. What accounts for the astounding development of dogma in the generations after Nicea is the cessation of persecution which allowed a freer and more open development and a real systematic theology, which though it certainly became more refined, nevertheless preserved and built on the Faith of the apostolic age.

Until next time, when we look at the influence of the development of the hierarchy and the monastic movement.

Requiescat in Pace, Otto von Hapsburg (1912-2011)

This week marked the passing of Archduke Otto von Hapsburg, the eldest son of  Blessed Karl of Austria, head of the House of Hapsburg and last crowned prince of the venerable Hapsburg family.Otto passed away in his sleep on July 4th at the venerable age of 99.

Otto was born in 1912, only two years before the Austro-Hungarian empire would be engulfed in the First World War. He became Crown-Prince of Austria in 1916 when his father took the imperial throne but was forced from Vienna after the war when the Austro-Hungarian empire. When Blessed Karl died in 1922, Otto assumed the leadership of the Hapsburg house.

From 1922 to 1961 he tirelessly advocated for the the restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy and claimed the throne of Austria; at the same time, he opposed Nazism, Communism and worked for pan-European cooperation. Otto was a devoted Catholic and believed that, after the horrors of two World Wars and the spectre of Communism looming over the world, the greatest way to ensure peace in Europe was through a pan-European association based loosely on the old Holy Roman Empire. To this end, he served as Vice President (1957–1973) and President (1973–2004) of the International Paneuropean Union, and served as a Member of the European Parliament for the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU) 1979–1999.

Shamefully, Otto was banned from his homeland of Austria after World War II and the establishment of the Austrian Republic. Despite his heroic opposition to Hitler during the thirties, the Austrian Republic continued to ban Otto from his homeland, leaving him stateless (he was, however, granted honorary citizenship in over 1,300 Austrian towns, was an Knight of Malta and was even offered the throne of Spain by Francisco Franco in 1961). The Austrian authorities took the Hapsburg ban very seriously; if it was rumored that Otto was in the country, police would be dispatched to search for him, as he was labeled an enemy of the state. 

Finally, in 1961, Otto signed an agreement with the government of Austria formally renouncing all his claims to the throne and promising to stay out of Austrian politics in exchange for Austrian citizenship. This was only a gesture on Otto's part, something he did "for purely practical reasons" and never agreed with; he stated, ""This was such an infamy, I'd rather never have signed it. They demanded that I abstain from politics. I would not have dreamed of complying. Once you have tasted the opium of politics, you never get rid of it." Many progressives in the country were wary of allowing Otto back in - it was not until 1966 that Otto was finally issued his Austrian passport.

From 1966 until the death of his wife in 2007, he worked tirelessly in European politics. He went into seclusion after the death of his wife Princess Regina in 2007.

I was blessed to have the opportunity to meet Otto von Hapsburg in October of 2003 when he came to visit the students of the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria. He was robust and energetic, surprisingly so for someone who at that time had just turned 91. He gave a short speech on European politics and the (then) escalating conflict in Iraq. I got a chance to address him personally during the question and answer session and asked him his opinion on the role of John Paul II on the fall of Communism. He replied that he believed John Paul II was absolutely instrumental in the collapse of Communism in Europe and that the media did not understand the cultural role the Church, and the Pope, played in this struggle.

Some other anecdotes from other students' questions:

• He insisted that we all understand that the Kurds in Iraq were not actually Iraqis, but Turks who migrated into northern Iraq generations ago. He told us that in his day they were called "Mountain Turks." He insisted that we view Iraqi sectarian violence as ethnic and not religious.
  
  
• He told us that his mother, Empress Zita of Bourbon-Parma, began teaching him the complex Hugarian language at age two, saying that he needed to master Hungarian as well as German in order to rule two peoples. He asked his father, Blessed Karl, if he could learn English. Blessed Karl told him that he had to learn seven other languages before he was allowed to learn English, because, in the words of Blessed Karl, "English makes you lazy and you won't want to learn other languages after that." He then told us that at that time (2003) he was working on learning Tibetan, which was about the 19th language he knew.
  
  
• Somebody asked him what he thought about smoking. He replied that the U.N. had declared an annual smoking awareness day where everybody was supposed to give up smoking; he then stated that on that day he always made sure to light up a huge cigar. This got the crowd laughing.
  
  
• When somebody asked him who he thought the most influential European of the 20th century was, he said immediately that it was Pope Pius XII. He stated that Pope Pius XII was not only a great leader but a saintly man who deserved more recognition than he got.

A lifelong Catholic and believer in the vision of Europe united under Catholic monarchy, Otto will be sorely missed by all faithful Catholics. Sadly, his passing in Europe seems to have barely been noticed. Here is a photo of his coffin laying in state at the chapel of Poecking on Lake Starnberg in Bavaria. Notice the number of persons in attendance:

Archduke Otto von Hapsburg, last of the great Hapsburg monarchs, the first rulers of Christendom, requiescat in pace.

Related: Duke Henri of Luxembourg stripped of his power for opposing abortion.
             "Good night, good prince" by John Zmirak