Thursday, December 31, 2015

Favorite Posts of 2015

Another year has passed us by. How amazing the vicissitudes of history are! How different the situation was in 1978 from 2005, and 2005 from 2007, and 2007 from now. The pendulum swings, back and forth. Good and evil, corruption and reform, light and dark, sin and redemption, and on and on until the end.

We hope you had a good year! This was a big year for me - I left the town I lived in for 35 years and relocated to another part of the state; my wife just gave birth to our fifth child - literally, like three days ago. Of course, things go on in the Church much as they have since 2013. To some degree I have disengaged from them, preferring to focus on more productive efforts like The Life of St. Columba project or writing other things of more permanent value. What goes on in Rome cannot take the Faith away from me. The biggest danger to the Faith, for me, is not Modernism but my own sins.

I want to thank everyone that helps contribute to this blog or lends a helping hand - Noah Moerbeek, my co-blogger - who, by the way, has been promoted within his order to the office of Preceptor of North America. Check him out there, right in the middle!

And here he is again on the left. Very proud of him!

Noah is obviously too humble to mention it, but he deserves hearty congratulations for the good work he does on behalf of the salvation of souls, both through his order and his occasional hosting of the Shield of Faith program on Radio Maria when he fills in for Matthew Arnold. He is a blessed friend and a worthy companion in the Lord.

Also my other contributors, Maximus and Wes Hunt, the former a graduate student of theology living in Rome, the latter a young convert from Protestantism to Catholic Tradition who has written some excellent pieces refuting various aspects of Protestant error on the USC website. These gentlemen are both blessings to me. And of course, Anselm, my co-blogger in absentia who posts about once every two years but who was instrumental in getting this blog off the group.

Also John Goodall who proofreads my website articles, A.R. Danziger Art & Design who does a lot of my graphic design stuff and book covers; Ryan Grant of Athanasius Contra Mundum, a very old friend who actually got me into blogging and who has done much to help me over the years by allowing me to write on his blog, interviewing me on his podcasts, turning my books into eBooks, and launching the wonderful and inspirational Mediatrix Press publishing venture. May God richly bless him and his family. Also thanks to Richard Aleman who welcomed me aboard the Distributist Review this fall.

Finally, thanks to all the readers, especially those on Facebook who share and comment on my posts regularly. Thank you, my friends. As we begin our ninth year year, it is amazing to think that this little effort has blossomed into such a lovely work, with over 1,650 articles spanning almost a decade of my life. God is good. Please pray for me, though. God has given me some measure of wisdom, and a strong faith, but my charity of often cold. I need His grace dearly. Remember my poor soul in your prayers.

Below are a list of my personal favorite posts from 2015. If you enjoy this blog, please consider signing up as a follower on blogger, or follow us on Facebook, where every article from both this blog and the website are posted regularly, as well as other interesting articles from other sources and great stuff from the USC archives.

Great Commission is Institutional: Christ's command to preach the Gospel to all nations was not only given to individual Christians, but the Church as such. No tribe or tongue is exempt from a Church's institutional mission.
Conservatives Failed Strategy: Why an orthodox conservatism has never managed to stem the tide of liberalism and never will.
The Age of Mercy: In what does true mercy consist, and how is this different from what Kasper proposes?
The Obedience of St. Athanasius: Appealing to St. Athanasius to excuse disobedience to ecclesiastical authority is unwarranted, as Athanasius was never disobedient.
The Curiosity of the Modern Encyclical: What role does the modern papal encyclical play in forming Catholic teaching, and how has this changed over the centuries?
Mercy, Annulments & Matrimony: Some sanity to the discussion on mercy and its relation to annulments; an annulment is a legal procedure, and as such cannot be "merciful" or "unmerciful", only more or less just.
Quinisext Council in Trullo and Priestly Celibacy: Getting to the root of the common but incorrect belief that a married clergy is the ancient tradition in the east.
Exquisitely Beautiful: Conversion is the most beautiful thing there is.
The Thief in the Night: Do you want to die listening to a song called "Kiss the Devil" like those unfortunate wretches killed in the Paris attacks?
Why is Masturbation a Sin? Answering common questions about the immorality of masturbation along with practical tips to help stop masturbating.
Not to Abolish, But Fulfill: What our Lord means when He says the Old Covenant has not been abolished by fulfilled.
Foot Washing: What's the Big Deal?: Getting to the heart of traditionalist objections to Pope Francis' Holy Thursday foot washing.
The Vice of Effeminacy: Effeminacy itself is a vice, even if one does not act out one's homosexual tendencies. It is not something that offers one special "gifts" or "perspectives."
Bishop Barron and the Evolution of Christ's Consciousness: Discussing the deep-seated Balthasarian Christology of Bishop Robert Barron.
Synod II Wrap Up: Our assessment of the final session of the Synod on the Family.
Balthasar and the "Faith" of Christ: Hans Urs von Balthasar's Christology is profoundly unorthodox, as he teaches Christ had faith and experienced positive error.
Is Easter Pagan? The Easter-Eostre Connection: Answering a common but ignorant canard about the celebration of Christ's Resurrection.
Christian Marriage Video Project: Helpful original videos explaining aspects of the Church's teaching on marriage and the family.
No Trad Magisterium: There is no one group that speaks for all traditionalists.
The Spirit blows where He will: Many people enter the Church every year; who can predict who will persevere?
Shepherds for the Whole World: Is the pope the pastor of the Church or the world?
Canonization Old vs. New Comparison: A side by side comparison of the differences between the old and new procedures for canonization.
Hagiography and a Populated Hell: The hagiographical testimony to the reality of particular souls damned in hell.
Authority of Rerum Novarum and Quadrigesimo Anno: Examining the Magisterial authority of these two cornerstones of Catholic social teaching.

That's enough, but there is so much more! Please visit the USC sister site for hundreds of in depth articles on all aspects of Catholic faith, liturgy, history, theology and more - or peruse the archives of this blog, which go way back to June of 2007.

Thanks for another great year! Ad multos annos!

Monday, December 28, 2015

Müller Explanation Fails

As we wrap up 2015 and move into the fourth full year of the Franciscan pontificate, we are offered a perfect example of why attempts to put an orthodox spin on some of Pope Francis' troubling statements are so disappointing.

Case in point: In November, 2015, the pope was approached by a Lutheran woman who was married to a Catholic man. She stated that she and her husband "greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord’s Supper together" and asked "What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?" 

In his characteristic long winded, extempore manner, the pope said:

"It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what’s the difference?” — “Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.” Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. “One faith, one baptism, one Lord.” This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more."

There was much more to this statement, including some very troubling ecclesiology, but here was the crux of the matter - Francis essentially states that Lutherans' and Catholics' similar baptism provides a sufficient level of communion for the two to receive the Eucharist together, provided that one has "talked to the Lord" in good conscience and is comfortable to "go forward" - i.e., to receive Holy Communion. One Peter Five has a decent write up of the whole encounter, along with a complete text of Francis' comments and even video to get the situational context.

So, Francis characteristically says something that sounds confusing at best and heterodox at worst - and I want to remind everyone, this is not a "spin" that some media outlet put on his words. This is the actual text of the pope's statement, before any media outlet or huckster got to it.

In fact, the only real spin has come from those trying to explain Francis' comments in continuity with tradition. I am referring primarily to Cardinal Gerhard Müller's well-intentioned by unsatisfying attempt to square the papal circle here. In a statement "clarifying" what Pope Francis "really meant", Cardinal Müller resorted to the tired old defense that the pope was simply "misunderstood."

In an article published in the National Catholic Register in December, 2015, Edward Pentin reports on Cardinal Müller's explanation of the pope's comments. According to Pentin, Müller says that the pope did not suggest intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics was possible. Why didn't the pope suggest this? Here is Gerhard Müller's full comment on why the pope was misunderstood:

“That [the Pope’s visit to the Lutheran church] was a sign of hope, that the day would come when full unity of the visible Church in the profession of faith, of the sacramental signs of salvation and the episcopal constitution with the Pope as her head would be reached. Misunderstandings come up again and again because of a failure to take account of the fact that, unfortunately, there is actually a different understanding of the Church between Catholics and Protestants, and these differences are not only theological-conceptual, but of a confessional nature. But the most important object of ecumenical dialogue, which does not want to stick with the status quo (and use "colorful and nice" talk), is rather to lead the ecumenical movement towards its goal, namely the visible and institutional unity of the Church.”

If you missed the part where Müller actually addressed the pope's comments, you're not alone. Müller did not address Francis' troubling comments at all. He merely said there had been a "misunderstanding" due to a "failure to take into account" that Lutherans and Catholics believe differently. Pope Franics' theology of baptism as a ground for intercommunion was not addressed. His ambiguously problematic statement "Talk to the Lord and then go forward" was not addressed. His dismissal of the differences in Protestant and Catholic sacramental theology as "explanations" and "interpretations" was not addressed. His very radical statement that the shared Eucharist is not the goal of ecumenism but the means of getting there was not addressed. Essentially, Müller did not address or explain any of the pope's comments. He merely stated they were misunderstood without explaining how, and then reminded us that there are differences between Protestants and Catholics, without addressing why the pope is apparently dismissive of these differences.

In other words, 
Müller's explanation is no explanation at all. And that's fine; it's really not his job to go around cleaning up the pope's messes. Let Fr. Lombardi do that. But the problem is that certain Catholics will take this as if it were an explanation. When this issue of Luther-Catholic intercommunion is brought up again, neo-Catholics will retort that "the Vatican" had "clarified" the pope's statements and that it was all a "misunderstanding", and that therefore there is nothing to question.

A misunderstanding? How? Based on what? There mere fact Fr. Lombardi or Cardinal Müller or the Vatican or anyone else says there is a misunderstanding does not mean there is one. Any apologist for these sorts of comments - anyone who says the pope was "misunderstood" - is obliged to explain why and how he was misunderstood. Simply stating there was a misunderstanding does not in itself clarify anything unless you are going to explain what the pope's words actually meant. What did the pope actually mean when he said "Talk to the Lord and then go forward"?

And this neo-Catholics are unwilling to do - at least honestly - because the clear context of his words imply that he was telling Lutherans they could receive communion in a Catholic Church so long as they were alright with it in their conscience. There's no way an honest reading of his statements in context could yield any other interpretation.

Next time you question something the pope said, and you are told that it was simply a "misunderstanding" or that someone had "cleared it up", you really need to dig into it, because in many cases I'd be willing to bet nothing at all was cleared up. Sometimes I think the response to a papal gaffe is to simply say "You didn't hear that", and the papalatrous Catholic media take that alone as a sufficient explanation.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Merry Christmas from Pope Leo the Great

Merry Christmas, and blessings to you and yours going in to 2016. As we celebrate the Octave of our Lord's Incarnation, let us nourish our souls with the words of the very venerable St. Leo the Great, whose famous Letter 28 to Flavian of Constantinople, known as his "Tome", set forth the correct doctrine of our Lord's dual nature against the errors of the heretic Eutyches. It was upon hearing the words of this great pope that the fathers of the Council of Ephesus in 451 arose and exclaimed, "This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe!...Peter has spoken thus through Leo!”

"It was perhaps that [Eutyches] thought that our lord Jesus Christ did not have our nature because the angel who was sent to the blessed Mary said, "The holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most High will overshadow you, and so that which will be born holy out of you will be called Son of God," as if it was because the conception by the virgin was worked by God that the flesh of the one conceived did not share the nature of her who conceived it? But uniquely wondrous and wondrously unique as that act of generation was, it is not to be understood as though the proper character of its kind was taken away by the sheer novelty of its creation. It was the holy Spirit that made the virgin pregnant, but the reality of the body derived from body. As "Wisdom built a house for herself," "the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us": that is, in that flesh which he derived from human kind and which he animated with the spirit of a rational life.

So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours. By "ours" we mean what the Creator established in us from the beginning and what he took upon himself to restore. There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God.

It was the devil's boast that humanity had been deceived by his trickery and so had lost the gifts God had given it; and that it had been stripped of the endowment of immortality and so was subject to the harsh sentence of death. He also boasted that, sunk as he was in evil, he himself derived some consolation from having a partner in crime; and that God had been forced by the principle of justice to alter his verdict on humanity, which he had created in such an honourable state. All this called for the realisation of a secret plan whereby the unalterable God, whose will is indistinguishable from his goodness, might bring the original realisation of his kindness towards us to completion by means of a more hidden mystery, and whereby humanity, which had been led into a state of sin by the craftiness of the devil, might be prevented from perishing contrary to the purpose of God.

So without leaving his Father's glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth. In an unprecedented order, because one who is invisible at his own level was made visible at ours. The ungraspable willed to be grasped. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant's form. The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death. By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without the guilt [of original sin]. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin's womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man."

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Book Review: "Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism" by Thomas McFadden

Some time ago I was graciously provided with a review copy of Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe by Thomas McFadden.

There are many resources out there addressing the question of evolution and its fundamental incompatibility with the Catholic Faith; Mr. McFadden's book, while broad in its scope and addressing many issues, centers in on the question of theistic evolution and Catholic teaching.

At the heart of Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism is the idea that, while theistic creation "works" for some Catholics, it certainly does not "work" for everybody. Because many mainstream Catholics have adopted the position that there's "no contradiction" between evolution and Catholic theology, it has become accepted to assume there are no real problems with theistic evolution. Consequently, there is little real discussion about the question, and Catholics who do not find an easy harmony between Scripture and evolution are left with little to go on.

It is into this breach that Mr. McFadden steps with his book. Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism is dedicated to examining the concept of evolution - especially theistic but also atheistic - addressing the issue from a point of view of science but also theology. The 149 page book is easy to read, broken up into seventeen chapters with many small subheadings addressing various points of science and theology. The Big Bang, DNA, vestigial structures, fossil remains, and much more are all covered, as are the theories of major evolutionary proponents, both Catholic and secularist. This alone would make this book very helpful, although it should be pointed out that none of these topics are covered in an extremely exhaustive manner; the author addresses them by summarizing the main arguments and then pointing to additional resources for further study.

Thus the book is a kind of helpful "go to" guide to find resources on each particular issue. It demonstrates that the fundamental problem is that most Catholics have adopted the premises of naturalism; even when engaging the Faith with an intent to defend it, they often begin with assumptions taken from naturalism (for example, Cardinal Pell's embarrassing exchange with Richard Dawkins). Naturalism has become a kind of monkey on the Church's back, related directly to a continued loss of faith. McFadden presents some convincing statistics demonstrating the relationship between acceptance of evolution and loss of faith. Again, it is clear that just because theistic evolution "works" for some does not mean it "works" for everyone; in fact, based on the statistics McFadden presents, it does not "work" for the majority of Catholics.

But I think the greatest asset of this book was in its chapter on Humani Generis. It is widely known that Humani Generis, Pius XII's 1950 encyclical, remains the last authoritative statement of the Magisterium on evolution. It is often repeated that this encyclical "allowed" Catholics to believe in theistic evolution of a preexisting human body so long as they maintained some other points (reality of original sin, special creation of the soul). This encyclical allegedly "opened the door" for the acceptance of theistic evolution within Catholicism.

Mr. McFadden strongly disputes this point. Through a rigorous analysis of the text and the meanings of different terms employed by Pius, he demonstrates that Pius XII never intended the broad acceptance of theistic evolution among Catholics, nor did he "permit" it to be held as a viable theory of human origins. I will not recapitulate Mr. McFadden's arguments here, but it suffices to say that it was refreshing to read something that actually dug into the text of Pius XII rather than just repeating what others have said.

The book is written in the form of a handbook. It is not what one would call publisher grade printing; it is a very hardy spiral bound, good for duplication, study, and note taking. Mr. McFadden has told me that he hopes this book will find its way into the hands of pastors and catechists - that is, that it will become a tool to be used at the parish level to equip those tasked with passing on the Faith with the answers they need to teach the Church's doctrine uncontaminated by naturalist assumptions. To this end, Mr. McFadden is making his book available at cost ($10 for a hard copy, $4 for a digital copy via CD); I do not know if he is making PDF versions available. There is no website for the book; it must be requested and ordered by contacting the author at: Mr. McFadden has also organized the book printing and distribution through a 501(c)(3) group called the Institute for Science and Catholicism, so donations for the book can be written off.

There's also a really nice appendix on John Paul II and the Galileo case, which McFadden believes (rightly, in my opinion) is one of the historical episodes that cripples Catholics and makes them too tentative to engage naturalism.

If there is one issue I took with the book - and I say this tentatively because there is so much other good stuff in here - it is that the author will often cite Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as a support for traditional Creationism against evolution. It is my opinion that McFadden misunderstood what Benedict is saying (which is easy to do, as Benedict is extremely nuanced in his verbiage). Benedict does oppose the kind of evolutionary compromise represented by Humani Generis; but this is not because Benedict supported Creationism, rather because he affirmed something more Teilhardian and more evolutionary than the Humani Generis compromise. Theistic evolution was not too evolutionary or Benedict; rather it was not evolutionary enough. We have documented this in our article Pius XII, Teilhard, and Ratzinger.

But, as the author pointed out to me when I discussed this with him, even if this is the case, the statements of Benedict against evolution still hold value on their own, even if Benedict's own position is problematic. Benedict is a potent adversary against a simplistic theistic evolution, despite his own theological baggage. I would certainly still recommend the book. Mr. McFadden has done the Church an excellent service. Anyone interested in the debate about evolution should get a copy of this work, especially those involved in catechesis at the parish level. I plan on hanging on to this book and have already pulled it out for reference in my private reading several times.

I also recommend our article Solemn Enthronement of Evolution, as well as James Larson's article The Quintessential Evolutionist.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

The Great Commission is Institutional

Some further thoughts on the Jewish-Catholic question, following up from my last post on the Holocaust and its influence on Catholic ecclesiology.

The new Vatican document, "The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable", is vexing many because of its apparent contradictions: while stating that there is not "two ways", not "two paths to salvation", it also states that Jews do not need to explicitly confess Christ and that they can have full access to God through their observance of the Old Covenant alone without Jesus.

I am not going to parse this whole document; it is very dense. Although to be fair, it says some good things. But it is also terribly flawed in what it insinuates. Let's look at this for a moment.

Point one:

"The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith."

Great. So let's be says that Jesus is the only path to salvation and that to claim there is a "second" path without Jesus "would...endanger the foundations of the Christian faith." So, it is established that Christ is the only way. This is clear from the document.

Now, point two:
"From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God."

So...for the record, after pointing out that Jesus is the only way to salvation, the document is clear that Jews "do not believe in Jesus Christ." Ergo, they do not believe in the one path to salvation. They reject Jesus' identity as the Messiah and Son of God.

Now...what is the appropriate Catholic response to a group of people - any group of people - who do not accept the one means of salvation? What should be the appropriate Catholic response? Point three:

"In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews."

STOP. If we admit that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and we admit that Jews reject Jesus Christ, how can this statement possibly be justified? How can the Church admit that a certain group does not have Jesus Christ but reject any efforts to bring Him to those people?

Point four:

"While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah."

So...Christians are encouraged to "bear witness" to Jews privately, but the Church rejects doing so in an "institutional" framework? What does that mean?

Does this mean that what is good for individual Christians can be bad for the Church as a whole? How can that be possible? If it is bad for the Church to promote something institutionally, how can it be good privately? And if it is praiseworthy and encouraged privately, why will the Church not support it institutionally?

And, if individual Christians are encouraged to witness Christ to the Jews, isn't that still "the Church" doing it? "Now you are the body of Christ, and members of it individually" (1 Cor. 12:27). When Christians are corporately encouraged to do something - even being told they are called to do it - that is still "the Church" doing it.

Unless we reduce "the Church" to merely the hierarchy. That would be an ironic example of crass clericalism! But even if so, it brings us back to the above point - if it is good for particular Christians to witness to Jews, why doesn't the hierarchy embrace it? And how can it have a "principled rejection" of such a mission, which it "neither conducts nor supports", while simultaneously reminding Christians that they are "called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews"?

And - and - does the Church not have a mission to all men? An institutional mission? There's this Bible verse I seem to remember from somewhere...oh, yes, here it is:
"Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:19-20).

The Great Commission. Preach the Gospel to all nations. Not just all people individually, but all nations - every tribe, tongue, race, religion.

Was the Great Commission an institutional commission? Of course it was. It was made to the Apostles, who are the foundations of the Church's institutional hierarchy. If it is an institutional commission, the Church is breaking the very commandments of Jesus Himself. If it is not an institutional commission, then please dig up an exegete who can explain why a command of Jesus Christ to the Apostles, the foundation stones of the Church (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) does somehow not qualify as an institutional directive.

I will accept that the Church has no institutional mission to the Jews the day you can convince me that the Great Commission is not an institutional commission.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Rom. 1:16)

By the way, there is an excellent blog called St. Corbinian's Bear that has a series of post on this document. It is one of my favorite new blogs; I have linked them up on my blog roll.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

The Holocaust and Its Shaping of Catholic Ecclesiology

You may have never heard of Enzo Bianchi. He is the lay "prior" of the so-called "interconfessional monastery" of Bose in Biella, Italy. The Bose community contains over eighty "brothers" and "sisters" from various Christian denominations. In 2012 Mr. Bianchi was named as a peritus to the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization; in 2014 the pontificate of Pope Francis elevated Mr. Bianchi to be Consultor of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Bianchi has gone of record in the past with his belief that the 1917 Fatima apparitions are a "swindle." The reason? Because Fatima does not specifically predict the Holocaust. "A God who thinks in 1917 that there will be a persecution of Christians, but does not speak of the Holocaust and the six million Jews annihilated, is not a credible God", said Bianchi, the quote coming from La Repubblica.

The French leftist dissident Dominican Jean Cardonnel, a friend and supporter of Bianchi, expanded on this theme, stating that, "A credible God, I repeat Bianchi, the God of Catholic racism who cares only for his family, for his Catholic race, while the kin of Jesus may fall prey to oblivion." 

Vittorio Messori, author of the famous Ratzinger Report, summed up the positions of Cardonnel and Bianchi: "Even God must - if he wants to speak to us through Mary - recognize the Shoah and especially curse it, otherwise he is not a credible God."

The blog Eponymous Flower has an excellent refutation of this absurd line of thinking - as if God cannot speak on whatever subject matter He wants at any time! I highly recommend the article, where you can also find all the sources for the above citations.

The phenomenon I want to comment on is this fixation on the Holocaust in contemporary Catholic discourse. The Holocaust was undoubtedly one of the most horrendous events in human history - not the first genocide, and not even the biggest, but certainly horrendous nonetheless. Still, the Holocaust - like the Norman Conquest, Reformation, or Civil War - is ultimately only a historical event. While the will of God unfolds throughout history, and while grace can be found in any event, the Holocaust possessed no special eschatological or salvific significance. The Holocaust is not an article of faith that must be continually referenced and paid special tribute to.

It is fascinating to see how the Holocaust has slipped from the realm of history into a theological context. In fact, as we shall see, the obligation of memorializing the Holocaust has become a theological linchpin in the contemporary Church's approach to Judaism.

* * * * *

Let us begin with the document "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah", the 1998 letter issued by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews under John Paul II. This letter establishes the principle that the Holocaust cannot be considered as a mere historical event, but deserves a kind of "religious memory":

"The very magnitude of the crime raises many questions. Historians, sociologists, political philosophers, psychologists and theologians are all trying to learn more about the reality of the Shoah and its causes. Much scholarly study still remains to be done. But such an event cannot be fully measured by the ordinary criteria of historical research alone. It calls for a "moral and religious memory" and, particularly among Christians, a very serious reflection on what gave rise to it."

Certainly moral lessons can be drawn from any historical episode; but not every historical episode calls for a special "moral and religious memory." In taking this approach, the Magisterium of John Paul II seemed to be saying that the Holocaust must be elevated beyond other historical events, not in terms of its importance, but in terms of what sort of phenomenon it was. It makes sense to say that Civil War was a more important historic event than the War of Jenkins' Ear in terms of its magnitude and consequences; but here we are just moving along a spectrum of magnitude on the axis of historical events. What We Remember is saying is something different; it says not that the Holocaust is a more important historical event than other historical events, but rather that it should not be understood as merely a historical event at all - rather, it merits "moral and religious memory." It is a difference of quality, not just magnitude.

* * * * *

By allowing the Holocaust to bleed over from the historical into the religious, this historic event can now be considered as a kind of theological criterion for understanding Church teaching. The introductory letter by Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy in the above mentioned document demonstrates the attempt to move the Holocaust from the historical into the theological. He wrote:

"In the Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate,n. 4, published on 1 December 1974, the Holy See's Commission recalled that "the step taken by the Council finds its historical setting in circumstances deeply affected by the memory of the persecution and massacre of Jews which took place in Europe just before and during the Second World War". Yet, as the Guidelines pointed out, "the problem of Jewish-Christian relations concerns the Church as such, since it is when "pondering her own mystery" (Nostra Aetate, n. 4) that she encounters the mystery of Israel." 

This needs a bit of parsing. The memory of the Holocaust provides the "historical setting" for the Council's discussion of the Church's relation with non-Christian religions, specifically the Jews. The relationship is bound up with the Church's own self-understanding, since in "pondering her own mystery" the Church inevitably confronts the "mystery of Israel." In other words, the question of Jewish-Christian relations is central to the mystery of the Church, and the "historical setting" by which this question must be framed is the Holocaust. The Holocaust thus becomes a point of departure for theological considerations relating to the Church's own identity.

The modern context for Catholic ecclesiology is the memory of the Holocaust, at least in considering relations with Jews. This one historic event is thus elevated to the level of a meta-historical act whose import is religious, similar to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. It is the theologizing of the Holocaust.

* * * * *

It is well-known that the enemies of the Church are fond of blaming Christian civilization for creating the atmosphere of European anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible. Pop-Catholic apologists have spent a great deal of effort refuting this position. What these pop-apologists might not be aware of is the modern Magisterium itself is in agreement with these claims. In We Remember, the Magisterium of John Paul II unambiguously endorses the view that centuries of negative Christian attitudes towards Jews bear some responsibility for the Holocaust. The relevant points are worth citing at length:

"The fact that the Shoah took place in Europe, that is, in countries of long-standing Christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards the Jews.  The history of relations between Jews and Christians is a tormented one. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has recognized this fact in his repeated appeals to Catholics to see where we stand with regard to our relations with the Jewish people. In effect, the balance of these relations over two thousand years has been quite negative.
Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status." 

The letter goes on to make a distinction between "anti-Judaism" and nationalist "anti-Semitism", convicting Christians of the former but not the latter. It points to Naziism as a neo-pagan ideology that was also anti-Christian as well as anti-Jewish, in attempting to draw a historical separation between the two types of anti-Jewish hostility. But the document goes on to ask:

"But it may be asked whether the Nazi persecution of the Jews was not made easier by the anti-Jewish prejudices imbedded in some Christian minds and hearts. Did anti-Jewish sentiment among Christians make them less sensitive, or even indifferent, to the persecutions launched against the Jews by National Socialism when it reached power?"

While making mention of Christians who helped persecuted Jews, the document goes on to condemn the attitudes of the majority of Christians who "were not strong enough" in their opposition to National Socialism:

"Nevertheless, as Pope John Paul II has recognized, alongside such courageous men and women, the spiritual resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ's followers. We cannot know how many Christians in countries occupied or ruled by the Nazi powers or their allies were horrified at the disappearance of their Jewish neighbours and yet were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. For Christians, this heavy burden of conscience of their brothers and sisters during the Second World War must be a call to penitence. We deeply regret the errors and failures of these sons and daughters of the Church."

Thus, while anti-Judaism is logically and historically distinct from "pagan anti-Semitism", the earlier Christian anti-Judaism aided anti-Semitism in a fashion by deadening the responses of Christians to the horrors of the Holocaust.
* * * * *

We Remember references John Paul II. The reference in questions is from John Paul II's 1997 Address to the Symposium on the Roots of Anti-Judaism, in which the pope specifically says that alleged Christian indifference to the Holocaust proceeded directly from the pre-modern Christian hostility towards the Jews:

"In fact, in the Christian world — I do not say on the part of the Church as such — erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people. They contributed to the lulling of consciences, so that when the wave of persecutions inspired by a pagan anti-Semitism, which in essence is equivalent to an anti-Christianity, swept across Europe, alongside Christians who did everything to save the persecuted even at the risk of their lives, the spiritual resistance of many was not what humanity rightfully expected from the disciples of Christ."

Among the "erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament" that John Paul II references is presumably the belief that the Church has replaced the Jews as the true Israel, as well as the perennially held Christian assertion that the Old Covenant, on its own, is no longer salvific. He does not suggest this explicitly, but it is easily inferred by the fact that the pope cites Romans 11:29 ("the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable") in the conclusion of his address, a verse consistently but erroneously invoked by those who argue that the Jews have "their own covenant" with God outside of Jesus Christ. 

It is baffling how John Paul II could say these teachings were never taught "on the part of the Church as such", since the Council of Florence Cantate Domino specifically and unambiguously taught the very thing John Paul II seems to consider "erroneous and unjust":

“[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”

Thus, John Paul II seemed to think that the traditional ecclesiology of the Church vis-a-vis the Jews was in fact responsible for a deadening of feeling and an indifference among Christians that helped facilitate the Holocaust.

* * * * *

We Remember states that the religious import of the Holocaust is understood in terms of a binding commitment of future generations to let the Holocaust serve as the starting point for a new beginning with the Jewish people. In the following extraordinary statement, notice the admission of Catholic guilt and repentance for Christian failings in facilitating the Holocaust, coupled by the assertion that this repentance calls for a "binding commitment" to develop a "new relationship" with the Jewish people for the purpose of eliminating "anti-Judaism":

"At the end of this Millennium the Catholic Church desires to express her deep sorrow for the failures of her sons and daughters in every age. This is an act of repentance (teshuva), since, as members of the Church, we are linked to the sins as well as the merits of all her children. The Church approaches with deep respect and great compassion the experience of extermination, the Shoah, suffered by the Jewish people during World War II. It is not a matter of mere words, but indeed of binding commitment....
We pray that our sorrow for the tragedy which the Jewish people has suffered in our century will lead to a new relationship with the Jewish people. We wish to turn awareness of past sins into a firm resolve to build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Judaism among Christians or anti-Christian sentiment among Jews, but rather a shared mutual respect, as befits those who adore the one Creator and Lord and have a common father in faith, Abraham."

Notice the use of the term "anti-Judaism." Given that the document went to lengths earlier to distinguish between "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism", we must presume an internal consistency in the term's usage. This would infer that the elimination of "anti-Judaism" is referring to, not nationalist anti-Semitism, but rather "the erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament" that John Paul II referred to - in other words, the teaching that the Jewish covenant taken on its own is not salvific and that Jews need Christ. The traditional position suddenly becomes problematic because it infers that the Jews are not alright just where they are - that their condition is not enviable, that they need Jesus Christ. This position is untenable to the modern Magisterium.

* * * * *

It all begins to come together. Because of the horror of the Holocaust - and guilt for perceived Christian numbness to Jewish suffering - the modern Magisterium has lost the fortitude to tell the Jews that they are in need of salvation through Christ. Any suggestion that the Jewish religion is not a complete and integral salvific system are taken as a type of "anti-Judaism", for such a position necessarily finds fault with the current status of the Jews. Never mind that the Nazi remedy to the Jewish question was extermination whilst the Christian remedy is conversion; if the Church is sufficiently to distance itself from the Holocaust, it must no longer insist that there is anything lacking or objectionable in Judaism. The Holocaust is the event - at once historical, religious, and moral - that has become the historical context for this change in direction. And the obligation to continue in this trajectory is a "binding commitment" on Christians. This is why we will only ever see more waffling from the Magisterium when it comes to the question of Jews and salvation.

A case in point is the horrible new document "The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable" (2015). This document will go further than any other Magisterial statement in teaching the Jews do not need conversion to Christ and the Church for salvation. Note the title is taken from Romans 11:29, the same verse John Paul II cited against the "erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament", as found in the Council of Florence. It is eminently schizophrenic, suggesting that "From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God." Apparently the principle of non-contradiction has been replaced with Folgers Crystals, as Steve Skojec so tartly put it.

But yes, the document repudiates the centuries old teaching that the Church is the true Israel, even though admitting that this teaching was "the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism" from the patristic era and for the entirety of the Church's tradition, "only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council...with its Declaration Nostra aetate", which has replaced the 2,000 year tradition with a new "constructive dialogue relationship." What crass arrogance to so blatantly "defuse" what the document admits is the universal tradition!

But look at how evangelization to the Jews is said to be a no-no and the Shoah is invoked:

"In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah."

It goes on about "the dark and terrible shadow of the Shoah", and encourages Christians to "reflect anew" upon this tragedy as a point of departure for Christian-Jewish relations. Following John Paul II, it speaks of a moral "duty of Christians" to remember the Shoah. This language is truly amazing; strictly speaking, the only historical events we have a moral duty to recall are those that are part of salvation history: the great stories of the Old Testament, the events surrounding the life, death and Resurrection of our Lord, the miraculous founding of the Church, Of course we commemorate many saints and other historical events, but nobody ever speaks of a grave "duty" to remember Lepanto or tells us we have a "binding commitment" to never forget the Investiture Controversy. The only historical events we have any binding commitment to remember and honor are those which are integral parts of salvation history.

And this is precisely the role many would like to assign to the Holocaust. The Church's "new relationship", her new "constructive dialogue" with Judaism exists as a kind of theological response to the Shoah, which is put forward as an event of such meta-historical importance that it justifies abandoning 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition.

* * * * *

I recall once when I was in college I was taking a philosophy course by a professor who was a fairly decent Catholic but who was unfortunately an ardent disciple of Von Balthasar. He was discussing changes in Catholic theology, art, architecture, and literature in the wake of World War I, and how all these changes were prompted by a desire of Catholic intellectuals to "respond" to the horrors of the war. I raised my hand and asked why Catholicism had to "respond" at all? Why could not the Church simply address the horrors of the modern world by continuing unperturbed on its ageless mission, without turning to the left nor to the right? Instead of "responding" to the modern world, why not call the modern world to respond to the timeless Gospel? The professor kind of hemmed and hawed; the thought had apparently never occurred to him.

I have often mentioned Alyssa Lyra Pitstick's book Light in the Darkness, which is mandatory reading for those interested in learning what an outrageously heterodox theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar was. In the introduction to her book, Pitstick notes that modern theologians who put forward novel theories often are driven by the desire of these thinkers to "respond" to the horrors of the modern age; to allow their thinking to be "conditioned" by the times. She makes this point with reference to theories about Christ's death, but it is just as applicable to our discussion:

"In particular, the face of death in the twentieth century - conditioned by philosophical and social alienation, the great wars, and atheism - often figures noticeably in the new interpretations of Christ's death...However, as Vatican II suggests, such pastoral exigencies can only be adequately met with God's revealed truth, proclaimed anew to a changed audience, not by the molding of doctrinal content to the image of human horror in any age" (Pitstick, Light in the Darkness, pg. 3)

Is not the contemporary Church's refusal to say anything remotely challenging to the Jews an example of doctrinal content being molded in response to the Holocaust? Indeed, it is the elephant in the room; because of some kind of collective guilt over the Holocaust, the Catholic Church has lost the ability - or rather the will - to tell them they need to convert to Christ. Instead of proclaiming the timeless truth of Christ to a modern audience, we are allowing our "response" to the horrors of the 20th century to alter the truth.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

Break the Teeth of Our Enemies

I am positive that by now most of our readers have heard about the shootings in my area. I live in Jurupa Valley, San Bernardino is about 40 minutes north of me, Redlands about 20 minutes, and Corona where one of the shooters lived is about 20 minutes away. 
There are those in the media mocking prayers after such an event, when in reality prayer is the greatest and best thing we can do. What can a soul do unless Providence puts him at the place of violence or you are personally involved in law enforcement, the military or federal agencies to affect the situation? 

Today is the feast of St. Galgano, who is a patron in the brotherhood that I belong too, the Militia Templi. I have written about St. Galgano here, and also have worked with Ryan Grant of Mediatrix Press on a book project, and an audiobook available here. St. Galgano was a knight chosen by God to lead a life of prayer. His asceticism was so great that it certainly rivaled or exceeded any bodily exertion he could have done in training at arms. When he became a hermit, St. Michael told him that he had joined the Heavenly Militia. 

For hundreds of years after his death, his head remained incorrupt. It was St. Galgano who the locals and people up and down Italy and into France invoked in times of danger to offer prayers to God for deliverance, prayers which were many times answered as have been recorded, and are recorded in both the book and Audiobook above. The Lord our God is mightier than any weapon, and stronger than any shield. David was able to slay the mighty Goliath not because he was stronger or better equipped, or because of political maneuvering. He defeated Goliath because the Lord was with him. But even a mighty warrior does well to pray before going into battle. I would rather be saying prayers than murmuring cheap political slogans; at the hour of death, I would rather call upon God then hum Imagine. St. Galgano effected much good, even after his death, and that goodness came through prayer. 

I hope that you will join me in praying that our Lord breaks the teeth of our enemies, Psalm 3:7 as the church not only prays in Her Psalter but also invokes on the feast of St. Pius V in his collect. I also pray that he grants all the just who died quick deliverance from their purgatorial cleansing, thanksgiving that the violence was not worse, and that this reminder of death and how close we always are to death brings souls to repentance through Our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered: and let them that hate him flee from before his face." Psalm 68:1

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Christ Before Family

The Roman Martyrlogy is always read in anticipation for the next day at Prime in the 1962 divine office. For today there is a section that I think will find enlightening to those who are going to be encountering people who may have apostatized from the faith, or perhaps have deliberately excluded them from their thanksgiving celebrations and wrestle in their minds if they have made the right decision. 

"In Persia, the holy martyr James, styled the Dismembered, a famous martyr. In the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, to please King Isdegerd, he denied Christ, wherefore his mother and his wife held aloof from him. Then he bethought himself, and went to the King and confessed Christ, and the King in wrath commanded him to be cut limb from limb, and his head to be cut off. At that time countless other martyrs suffered there also." The Roman Martyrlogy

I have not heard to many orators whether clerical or lay teaching on the importance of that part of the Gospel found in Matthew 18, that after multiple admonishments that we should treat a person as a gentile or a tax collector. That of course does not mean we treat them with cruelty, or that we continue to admonish them (which will only harden their hearts: "Rebuke not a scorner lest he hate thee." Proverbs 9:8), but that they be treated as both someone who is not one of us, as Christ referenced to the gentile, and as someone we keep at distance, as the tax collector. For a more in depth look at this, please look at my brother Bonifaces article on Christian Shunning.

Let us not also forget that to deliberately choose the company of those who scoff at the Catholic religion was viewed as an occasion of sin and an injury to faith.    It certainly can be a test of faith, because we cannot be silent in the name of peace while Our Lord who is everywhere present is cruelly treated at the table we eat at. 

Our Lord warned us that our enemies would be that of our own household (Matthew 10:36), and that we must love Him more to the point of our love for our families appearing to be hatred when compared to the love of Christ (Luke 14:26). Family get togethers should not seek some type of false unity where everyone gets a long.  What of a family where one relative is a satanist, another is living in sin, and another devout, while all started Catholic.  How would it be possible for such a gathering to dwell in peace?

This excerpt from the Martyrlogy shows that holding a person in aloof who has denied the faith can both serve as a means of admonishment, and that it was effective to the point of making a man both returning to the faith and suffering a horrible, but glorious death.  It also shows that when we put Christ first before our family ties, as St. James the dismembered's wife and mother did it is true love and charity, if we truly love others we can do no less. 

Strength and courage my friends, do not hesitate to defend Christ, to be aloof from those who have abandoned the faith, or to exclude scoffers. May thanksgiving to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is to be put first always at all of our tables.  Christ before family, Christ before friends, Christ before country, Christ before everything.  May we never prefer anything to the Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Happy Thanksgiving. 

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Bishop Barron and the Evolution of Christ's Consciousness

I don't wade into wars in the blogosphere very often; I find them stupid and unedifying. But the little rift over One Peter Five's recent article "The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron" by Maureen Mullarkey caught my attention. Mullarkey found fault with Barron's lackluster approach towards Islamic terror. This prompted an indignant response from blogger Brandon Vogt, who called Mullarkey's post "exaggerated polemics" and "misleading", devolving into "baseless speculation." If you wonder why Vogt got so huffy over Mullarkey's post, I would imagine it is because he is "Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries", so he has a vested interest in defending Barron. This is unfortunate because, as we will see, Robert Barron adheres to a Modernist view of Jesus Christ's identity.

There are many things Bishop Robert Barron can be criticized for. I have raised concerns before about his promotion of Hans Urs Von Balthasar's theory that hell might be empty. But I honestly had no idea until recently what a thorough-going Balthasarian Bishop Barron actually is. He not only promotes the empty hell thesis, but has also adopted Von Balthasar's extremely unorthodox Christology.

For years we have attempted to demonstrate that Hans Urs Von Balthasar is not an orthodox theologian, not only due to his controversial theory of a potentially empty hell, but just in terms of his basic Christology. Catholics need to understand that it is not just one theory that makes Balthasar questionable, but a whole slew of bizarre novelties. We recommend reviewing our previous articles "Balthasar's Denial of the Beatific Vision in Christ" and "Balthasar and the 'Faith' of Christ" on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website,  which both deal with Balthsar's unorthodox Christology, as well as "The Heresies of Balthasar" on this blog, which reveals Balthasar's absurd position that sin has its own ontological reality.

One staple of Balthasarian Christology is his teaching that Christ only gradually came to understand His messianic identity, and that this did not happen by any infused knowledge by virtue of the Incarnation (Balthasar strongly rejected the idea that Christ had any knowledge given directly from God about His mission). Instead, Christ had to "learn" that He was the Messiah, basically through regular human intuition. It kind of slowly dawned on his consciousness as He grew.

The Catholic Tradition is that Christ had infused knowledge of His own identity and mission. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia sums up this teaching
when it states that "the knowledge in Christ's Divine nature is co-extensive with God's Omniscience" and that "since the time of the Nestorian controversies, Catholic tradition has been practically unanimous as to the doctrine concerning the knowledge of Christ" (source). Christ had infused knowledge of everything that pertained to His mission - and clearly who He was pertained quite centrally to that mission! The article says that

"It is almost universally admitted that God infused into Christ's human intellect a knowledge similar in kind to that of the angels. This is knowledge which is not acquired gradually by experience, but is poured into the soul in one flood. This doctrine rests on theological grounds: the Man-God must have possessed all perfections except such as would be incompatible with His beatific vision, as faith or hope; or with His sinlessness, as penance; or again, with His office of Redeemer, which would be incompatible with the consummation of His glory" (ibid).

This is the view of traditional Christology. But Bishop Barron chooses instead to promote the heretical novelty of Balthasar that Christ had to learn about His identity through a gradual enlightening of His consciousness. For example, in his Lenten Meditations, then-Father Barron offers this commentary on the Baptism of the Lord:

"Jesus has just been baptized. He has just learned his deepest identity and mission and now he confronts—as we all must—the great temptations. What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?"

Jesus has "just learned his deepest identity and mission" at His baptism, implying that He was in positive ignorance of his identity and mission before this moment?

It gets worse. If anybody doubts what a devoted Balthasarian Bishop Barron is, you really need to read his book The Priority of Christ (with an introduction by Cardinal George). You will be astounded by the outpouring of novelty and just plain weirdness that comes out of Barron. In this passage, Barron is speaking about the Blessed Virgin:

“She is this the symbolic embodiment of faithful and patient Israel, longing for deliverance. In John’s Gospel, she is, above all, mother – the physical mother of Jesus and, through him, the mother of all who would come to new life in him. As mother of the Lord, she is, once again, Israel, the entire series of events and system of ideas form which Jesus emerged and in terms of which he alone becomes intelligible. Hans Urs von Balthasar comments in the same vein that Mary effectively awakened the messianic consciousness of Jesus through her recounting of the story of Israel to her son. So in the Cana narrative, Mary will speak the pain and the hope of the chosen people, scattered and longing for union” (Robert Barrion, The Priority of Christ, p. 73).

Notice, he links up his own idea that through Mary Christ “becomes intelligible” with the Balthasarian heresy of Christ not knowing who He was until sometime later. Christ learns who He is by listening to stories about Israel! Barron does not dispute Balthasar - rather, he uses him to bolster his point.

Here is another gem that is key to understanding Barron's position. Barron disagrees with the likes of the modernists Kung and Schillebeeckx on many things, yet he says this:

“Like the ‘Jesus as symbol” approach, the ‘historical Jesus’ Christology is rooted in elements and intuitions of the classical tradition. Kung and Schillebeeckx are quite right in the insisting that Christianity must never devolve into a generic philosophy of life or symbolic system, that it must, on the contrary, maintain its clear and unambiguous connection to the very particular first-century Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, The Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the first kerygmatic proclamations, the sermons of the earliest missionaries, the creeds and dogmatic statements of the patristic church all depend upon and circle around this Jesus. Therefore, in brushing away certain encrustations and obfuscations in the Christological tradition and focusing our attention on the irreplaceable character of Jesus, Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service. Furthermore, in insisting that the high dogmatic claims of Christology should be consistently informed by a biblical sensibility, the historical critics have compelled Christology to abandon mere flights of speculation and to remain, thereby, truer to its proper origins and ground. The ‘Jesus of history’ can indeed function as a sort of check on unwarranted theological exploration” (p. 42).

"Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service." This phrase should send up red flags (Kung was stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology because of his heterodoxy and has also been praised by Freemasons for "lifetime service to the Craft"); also alarming is Barron's promotion of "the 'Jesus of history' as a "sort of check" on certain aspects of Christology. But, what are these “encrustations and obfuscations” in the Christological tradition? Where is there a problem with “high Christological claims" today or in the 20th century? What exactly are these claims? He does not say, but if he is following the school of Balthasar, then he is probably referring to the Christological teachings of the 5th century during the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies, developments in theology which Balthasar (and by implication, Barron) implicitly reject.

Barron goes on with a reflection on how tradition and the development of doctrine fit into his rejection of "
encrustations and obfuscations in the Christological tradition" and a focus on the "Jesus of history." This will be Barron's attempt to square the circle:

“John Henry Newman felt that the fully grown plant is far more revealing of the nature of the organism than is its seed, and that the mouth of a river is far more interesting and deep than its source. In a similar way, the literarily, spiritually, and theologically evolved portrait of Jesus is more instructive than any historical core, however carefully recovered. The Catholic instinct is not so much to assess the development by the origin as to appreciate the development as the full flowering of the origin. (pg. 43).

Of course, Barron's major point here is correct; the full grown, developed organism is more revealing than the seed. Otherwise, we would fall to the error of Archaeologism-Antiquarianism. But the language Barron uses to make the point is curious; the portrait of Jesus "evolved", in distinction to some "historical core"? So the Gospels are an evolution beyond the “historical core?” What is the relation of the core to the evolved portrait?
It is somewhat ambiguous, but is seems to suggest that the spiritual and theological portraits of Jesus are inconsistent with the historical core. Almost as if he is saying that “Yeah, the real history is sometimes different than what we find in the Gospels and subsequent spirituality and doctrine, but that’s okay because the evolving Church illuminates Christ. Even if X isn’t in the historical core it is still helpful for us.” If so, he is taking a middle position between the Catholic and the Modernist view of the Gospels.

It could be that he is simply saying that the Church's understanding of who Christ is is radically greater than anything that could be revealed by some futile search for the "historical Jesus." That would be a more orthodox interpretation of his words - however, given his paean to Kung and the historical-critical method and his rejection of tradition Christology as full of "obfuscations" and "encrustations", we are not remiss or hasty in positing the former interpretation as possible.

This is exemplified in the earlier passage about Christ’s consciousness; here is another which casts suspicion on Barron's comments about the "evolved" portrait of Jesus:

“The author of John’s Gospel stresses this dimension when he puts in the mouth of Caiaphas the words ‘You do not understand it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed’” (p. 105).

The author of John? Puts into his mouth? If this is any indication, Barron appears to buy into some of the errors of the historical critical method (e.g., that the Gospel of John was not written by John) while not going as far as say, Kung – that is to say, he is definitely a Balthasarian.

So, these words that "the author of John's Gospel" had "put" in the mouth of Caiaphas are an example of a "literarily" evolution, since he claims it didn't happen historically.

If we use that as a reference, then it appears he is claiming that there are indeed theological evolutions, not contained or even implied in the "historical core." What would these be?

Given Barron's earlier statements about Christ having His "messianic consciousness awakened" and having "learned his deepest identity and mission" only at His baptism, we can only conclude that the Catholic doctrine of Christ knowing his Messianic duty is one of these "encrustations" not found in the "historical core." It is, seemingly, a denial of a doctrine and at the same time and affirmation of some level of the Modernist's principle of the evolution of doctrine. There is certainly something bizarre going on here and that it he denies Christ's knowledge, which affects the doctrine of His Beatific Vision.

Bishop Barron's book appears to oscillate form orthodoxy to heterodoxy to error, back and forth; it makes one’s head hurt. There is much more in this book, much more, that is either erroneous or just bizarre. Barron's words, like those of his master Balthasar, are easily manipulated, and a demonstration that the New Theology is inept at communicating theology, always intentionally or unintentionally laying traps so that orthodoxy is restrained and error and heresy goes free.

Bishop Barron is not a bastion of orthodoxy. Like Balthasar, he says some things that sound good when compared to progressive liberalism. But taken on their own merits, Barron's teaching is very troubling. One Peter Five - and all Catholics who love our heritage - are right to be suspicious of him. And those who defend Bishop Barron (like Vogt) need to address these glaring errors in Barron's work.

Special thanks to reader Alexander for drawing my attention to these abnornmalities in Barron's work.

Follow this blog and website on Facebook!