The Perverted Eternal Perspective

Lately a great many things have been profoundly disturbing me. Granted, I live in a perpetual state of being disturbed by much that I see around me in the world, and yet, by the grace of God, I have much hope that such lunacy will not persist forever.

Perhaps the most troubling thing that I have heard recently came from reading a message written by someone who I don't even know, but who I do know is a "pro-life but pro-Obama 'Catholic'". Now, the expression "pro-life, pro-Obama, Catholic" is a rare case of a triple oxymoron, where it just doesn't make sense. It's about as sickening as a so-called "pro-choice Christian". Anyways, with regard to the preborn, our "pro-choice Catholic" began with the usual qualifier "while I am personally pro-life..." and then continued by saying: considering that the murdered preborn will go straight ahead to heaven and be with God anyways, we should focus our resources on alleviating the suffering of the post-born since, from an eternal perspective, this does the most good. It's a frighteningly twisted pragmatic argument that has a most perverted moral basis. It completely skirts every possible logical argument and defies all reason.

Why? Point-blank, you murder the baby to satisfy an end that is not remotely "eternal" but entirely mundane and sinister. It is inherently secular. Where does the word "secular" come from? It comes from the Latin word, saecula, "age" or "epoch", such that secularization means the elimination of the "eternal perspective" in favor of a now-obsessive preoccupation with the here and now. "Having this baby will ruin my career which I am planning for now." "I am not ready to have this baby now". The laundry list of excuses goes on. So, our "pro-choice Catholic" essentially negates her own belief system to begin with. More gravely, still, the logic can be applied in many troubling cases that we are already witnessing.

"We should put the old man out of his misery [through euthanasia] so he'll be with God now".
"I don't have the financial resources right now for this baby so leave it out to die [through infanticide] once it is born. Fortunately, he'll be with God."

This is a diabolical sugar-coating of the worst sort. The fact of the matter is that it is indeed virtuous to work for the alleviation of the living through works of mercy and charity. However, to sap the life of those who we believe may lead a difficult life, or who are leading difficult and/or pained lives, is the ultimate denial of hope, the most blatant expression of a eugenic desire to purify the world of all plight, and the most despicable perversion of Christian charity that I can think of.

"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.
And I said: Ah, ah, ah, Lord God: behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child.
And the Lord said to me: Say not: I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee: and whatsoever I shall command thee, thou shalt speak.
Be not afraid at their presence: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord.
And the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth: and the Lord said to me: Behold I have given my words in thy mouth:
Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations, and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant. (Jeremiah 1:4-10)

Traditional Hymns in the Post-Vatican II Era

This is a brief commentary that I just submitted for a music class which I am taking. I am not particularly proud of the prose but I believe that it succinctly captures the meaning which I intended to convey.

---

“Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful.” – Tra le sollecitudini, Pope St. Pius X[1]

Among the various styles of music that have gained prominence in the post-Vatican II era, the traditional style, which is least vulnerable to the great innovations of this period and shows the greatest continuity with past musical tradition, has shown the strongest adherence to the general instructions of the Vatican throughout the past century. Traditional hymns such as Lift High the Cross, Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones, and Holy God We Praise Thy Name, drawn from repertoires decades old, are relatively immune to the folk and populist influences so common in newer church music and can be justifiably qualified as sacred and edifying. However, the music which should have “pride of place”- Gregorian chant- is relatively rare in Catholic churches.

As suggested by Pope Pius X’s seminal motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini, Gregorian chant must be used as the standard against which all sacred music is compared. Insofar as most traditional hymns are not overtly anthropocentric- perhaps one of the greatest flaws of post-Vatican II music- and are lyrically directed to divine worship, these compositions are praiseworthy. Being composed in older, more classically-oriented styles, traditional hymns preclude the congregation from excessive participation and innovation.

However, the implementation of Gregorian chant in the traditional sphere, with the exception of its use during solemn seasons, has been at best condescending in that it is widely considered as an exceptional embellishment of Masses where newer music otherwise predominates. In the May 1998 edition of the New Oxford Review, author William J Abbott described the new trends of the Catholic Church as follows: “The Church seems to be choosing to represent herself to the world - and to her worried children like me - as in decline not just artistically, but liturgically and inspirationally. The Catholic Church - for the first time in history - seems to have gone tone-deaf.”[2] While Gregorian chant is very much rooted in Scripture, even traditional hymns are mainly traditional poems or the acclamatory praises of individuals set to music. As such, they may not be as effective in edifying the faithful through scriptural exposure than would be chant.

Objections aside, compared to the widespread folk and ethnically-oriented music typical of the post-Vatican II era, the hymns and chants of decades past are perhaps the last remaining anchors to the greater tradition of sacred music that can be found, with the major exception of Gregorian chant.

---

[1] http://www.adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html#anchor40142047

[2] Abbott, William J. "Post Vatican II "La La La" Music: Unworthy of the Catholic Church." New Oxford Review May 1998.

Catholic Voters: The Moral Basis of Our Vote - PART ONE

The 2008 Presidential Election is fast upon us and I am choosing to take some time to address a very contentious topic that has been circulating, that of supposed single-issue politics on the part of pro-lifers, particularly many of my Catholic pro-life friends (which is a redundancy; all real Catholics are pro-life). We can take as axiomatic that nobody should vote for a pro-abortion/”right-to-choose”/pro-choice politician at all, least of all a CATHOLIC. I am actually not arguing for that point- it is crystal clear already. I am going to argue that there are many other issues, not as grave as the abortion one, that nonetheless must command a Catholic’s attention. While issues pertinent to life must be the primary reason motivating our vote, our moral framework does not exclude other important areas. I’ll address them by the catchwords by which we often hear about them in the news.

I’ll be referring heavily to Canon Francis Ripley’s definitive book, This is the Faith. This will be written in installments.

1) PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SOCIALISM

The Church has held, since time immemorial, the right to private property as essential for the good-functioning of society. As Moses states in Deuteronomy 19:14:

Thou shalt not take nor remove thy neighbour's landmark, which thy predecessors have set in thy possession, which the Lord thy God will give thee in the land that thou shalt receive to possess.

Because we are endowed with an intellect and free will, by our nature we must have private property by which to manifest these capacities and to achieve the work for which God has created us. We cannot work land unless we have a plot that is ours. And if it is not ours and we work on it, we are expected to receive a wage which is in itself a form of private property which can be converted into other things like food, land, an investment, etc. This too is a natural right, viz., to be able to convert our labor for a wage and vice versa.

So, enter socialism, which by its pure definition denies the right to private ownership of productive goods. Socialism to some minor degree exists everywhere. It could be argued that the tax system in its most fundamental form is a form of socialism in that the resources of the many (taxes) are pooled into a common, social depository which is the federal government. It then uses that money as it sees fit for the social good, as outlined in the US Constitution, primarily through national defense and the regulation of commerce. We must agree that, fundamentally, the system of taxation is a form of theft from the populace, but that a majority of people would agree that it is morally imperative for all to see after the means of their defense and the safeguarding of the conditions necessary for the economic welfare, i.e., unfettered commerce. These are necessities which we most certainly agree upon as vital and common to all.

And so arrive at our contemporary period where we often hear about such ideas as socialized medicine, welfare, affirmative action, government bailouts, and the like. Of recent interest is the government bailout of Wall Street which, perhaps surprisingly, warranted the ire of the American people. What was this bailout? Once we lift the political baggage, it is clear that the government took money that was given to it by the people for their good and given to corporations the owners of which abused their rights to private property with excessive risk-taking and ultimately menaced the whole economy. So who is to pay? By the simple premise of personal accountability they, along with their companies, must bear the responsibility for their actions. However, the government saw it more fit to take taxpayer money entrusted to it and to give it over to save these private property-owners. This is, by definition, socialism- more specifically, the privatization of profit and the socialization of losses. This goes against the personal accountability which forms the entire backbone for our moral fabric as Catholics. We must account for our own sins and nothing that anyone else save the Lord does can absolve us of this culpability.

Do you therefore take courage, and let not your hands be weakened: for there shall be a reward for your work. (2 Chronicles 15:7)

Logically, if we do not work, we will not be rewarded. Now, even if we work hard and reap fewer benefits than may be desired due to the misfortunes that are inevitably a part of life, the government can not be called upon to alleviate the difficult conditions which are a natural part of life. Firstly, these can be minimized to a degree but to eliminate them altogether is impossible. Such attempts have led to the utopian social projects which have been historically to blame for great suffering. Secondly, the belief that government can alleviate the difficult conditions of life imbues government with those qualities which can only be ascribed to God and to our Faith, and thus lead to the sort of atheistic and socialist ideologies which have so ravaged Europe’s moral fabric along with more extreme cases like North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 2425: “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’”.

History, particularly the history of the 20^th century, has shown that government promises to alleviate those vicissitudes which have always been a natural part of our existence have always transpired as: 1) a bold promise for change, 2) an attempt at a sweeping change with occasional success virtually always ending in, 3) great expectations (often met with disappointment) among the people vis-a-vis the government due to their desire for further change. The government may either be toppled, capitulate, or blame their failures or inadequacies on certain elements of the population or even other political parties as a pretext to continue its social projects. Often we hear of the "need" to press on towards the future. A fitting example from recent history is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. In its attempt to unify the nations of Europe economically, the EU has sought to focus its energy on agricultural policy through a system of intensive subsidization. While ambitious and promising in the beginning, this socialist system has led to an exacerbation of the inequalities which were the original target. While the wealthier countries of the EU such as France, Germany, and Belgium enjoy considerable prosperity and cheaper food prices, less well-off countries like Italy and Greece suffer from stagnated development, artificially high food prices, and even major environmental problems. Subsidization has killed production.

Thus, as Catholics determined to work for a greater justice in the world, we must ask if it is better to allow our resources to be taken from us for the “common good” or if perhaps we ourselves are better stewards of these resources. As rightly-guided faithful, we would know better where our resources will be deposited in a moral sense than the government, which most often does not share our cherished beliefs. It is upon private property in the expanded sense of our controlling these resources personally that the Church has always placed its moral weight and confident approbation.

Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris: On Socialism