De Profúndis

"Caritas in Veritate: But is Christ Still King?" - borrowed from The Remnant Newspaper

2009-07-23T13:52:00.002-04:00

This is a fascinating article on the hermeneutics of continuity and the Church's teaching on the social kingship of Christ...
~~~~

"Caritas in Veritate: But is Christ Still King?" - by Christopher A. Ferrara, The Remnant Newspaper
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0715-ferrara-caritas_in_veritate.htm

(Posted 07/22/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) In Caritas in Veritate, his long-awaited encyclical on Catholic social doctrine, Pope Benedict XVI insists that “It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar, differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new.” Caritas, n. 12.

The Pope’s application of his own “hermeneutic of continuity” to the Church’s social doctrine prompts a recollection of Church teaching on what Pope Pius XI, in Ubi Arcano Dei (1922), called “the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations.”

Recalling the Social Kingship Doctrine

Before the Second Vatican Council, the Social Kingship of Christ had been the paradigm of the Church’s social doctrine for centuries, especially evident in the long line of anti-liberal encyclicals issued by Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, and Pius XI.

But then came Dignitatis Humanae (DH), whose “on the one hand/on the other hand” ambiguity concerning “religious liberty” in contemporary political circumstances has produced endless contention over whether the Social Kingship doctrine “remain[s] still in full force,” as Pius XI insisted a mere 40 years before the Council, condemning the “moral, legal, and social modernism” of Catholics who suggested otherwise. Ubi Arcano, nn. 60-61.

Tellingly, DH itself begins by declaring that it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ”—that is, the duty of men and nations to profess the true religion and submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. This duty is the Social Kingship in its essence. DH had to leave this doctrine “untouched” because it is not some piously “triumphal” sentiment of a bygone era, nor even a matter of faith alone, but rather a dictate of reason informed by faith.

Respect for the rules of thought without which reason is impossible requires that he who says A must also say B, if B follows logically from A. To accept the premise while rejecting the conclusion is simply to refuse to think. Thus, if one accepts the premise that Christ is God Incarnate then it follows—as B follows from A—that the Church He established is “the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations.” So Pius XI declared only 37 years before Vatican II in Quas Primas (1925), echoing the words of the divine Founder Himself. Cf. Matt. 28:19-20.

Nor can it be argued logically that an omnipotent and infallible God would found a Church of unknown identity, or that it would lose its identity, divide into parts, or fall into error. The Church that God founded would have to be—and would declare itself to be—indefectible and infallible concerning what she actually imposes as binding in matters of faith and morals. Only one Church in human history answers to that description.

Moreover, if Christ is God then it follows—as B follows from A—that His kingdom cannot be limited by geography or the boundaries of human polities. Hence the kingdom includes, as Pius XI insisted, “not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.” Cf. Quas Primas, n. 18.

Nor, said Pius, “is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society.” Ibid.

In Him is the salvation of society. This is the doctrine of the Social Kingship in a single phrase. From which it follows—as B follows from A—that in the Church of Christ are the means by which not only men but societies are to be saved: the sacraments as channels of His personally and socially transformative grace; the Magisterium as the infallible preceptor of individuals and communities; and a hierarchy to govern a kingdom embracing all nations. For if Christ had failed to provide these means in His Church then He would not be God, but just another false prophet who left error and confusion in his wake.

From all of this three other conclusions follow as B follows from A, and all three were set forth by Pius XI in Quas Primas:

- First, that “the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ….”

- Second, that “she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state,” and

- Third, that “No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity,” but rather “the Church alone is adapted to do this great work” because she is “divinely commissioned to lead mankind” and thus “cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.”

A corollary conclusion—following as B follows from A—is that if men and nations reject the Social Kingship as exercised through the Church, the world will see all of the social, moral and economic problems Pope Benedict now seeks to address in Caritas. Pius XI lamented the resulting civilizational crisis:

The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them...

The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences…. bitter enmities and rivalries between nations… that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism… a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage… no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. Quas Primas, n. 24.

Whither the Social Kingship?

Where does the doctrine so conspicuously left “untouched” by DH stand today? It remains, of course, untouched, for the Church has no power to repeal her own doctrines, nor (as the First Vatican Council made clear) to reveal “new” doctrine contrary to “old” doctrine. Pope Benedict himself has insisted upon this since his pontificate began.

Yet the promises of Christ do not insure that Churchmen will forthrightly affirm the Church’s teaching on any given doctrine at any given time. So, in the face of “a rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ” that has reached a level not even Pius XI could have imagined, we are indubitably witnessing a timid retreat from the Social Kingship doctrine by the Church’s human element. The situation here is the same as with other “hard sayings” of Catholic doctrine contemporary Churchmen are loathe to mention for fear of the world’s mockery or persecution.

But what of Caritas in Veritate, which treats of the same civilizational crisis for which Pius XI prescribed the Social Kingship doctrine and which, moreover, insists upon the unity of faith and reason which underlies that doctrine? Cf. e.g., Caritas, n. 56-57.

First, it must be said that the encyclical is burdened by jargon the likes of which no previous Pope has ever employed, including “quotas of gratuitousness,” “a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation,” “new efforts of holistic understanding,” “a new humanistic synthesis,” and “a metaphysical interpretation of the ‘humanum’ in which relationality is an essential element.”

It is hard to believe such distinctly non-Magisterial locutions came from the Pope as opposed to the widely-reported drafting committee that clearly added words, phrases and probably entire paragraphs to the document. The facile objection “Well, the Pope signed it” hardly suffices to address the problems posed by poor draftsmanship, against which the Holy Ghost offers no guarantee. And it must be stressed that we have yet to see the official Latin text, absent which the English text must be viewed as tentative.

As it stands, however, the English text reminds one of an omnibus bill to which numerous congressmen have appended amendments. The encyclical covers everything from the Holy Trinity to microfinance and tourism in a long series of paragraphs which (especially in Chapter 5) combine unrelated subjects or jump from one topic to another without any logical transition.

Second, in the midst of all the verbiage, Caritas nevertheless presents important teaching on faith and morals concerning the sociopolitical effects of Original Sin, the natural law, the moral primacy of duties over “rights” (a long overdue statement), the sanctity of human life at all stages, “the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman,” happiness as the cultivation of one’s immortal soul, and—in a decisive setback for the propaganda campaign of “traditionalist libertarians”—a reaffirmation of the Church’s staunch opposition to the claim that the market economy is an “autonomous” entity exempt from the Church’s thoroughgoing moral scrutiny at every level.

Nevertheless, it must be said that the Pope’s teaching is weakened by an appeal to “human development,” “holistic development” and “the dignity of the person” as grounds for accepting these truths, with no reference to the eternal law, the divine positive law of Christ (and thus no mention of the radical evil of divorce), the Ten Commandments, or the eternal consequences of Original and personal sin. Original Sin is introduced with the almost apologetic phrase “in faith terms” (par. 37), as if it were slightly embarrassing.

Nor does there appear in the encyclical a clear offer of anything beyond human flourishing in this world as the fruit of “charity in truth,” when in the traditional Christian view “God’s eternity” is the goal that, as Charles Taylor observes in his monumental study A Secular Age, unites “ordinary time” with the “eternal paradigms” of divine revelation, giving humdrum earthly existence the “coherence we find in a melody or a poem,” the poem of Christian life with its liturgical year—a coherence that would be lacking in any attempt at “integral human development” only in “ordinary time” without a consistent theme of eternity and final beatitude. Which is to say nothing of the infinite value of beatitude versus the finite good of earthly “human development,” even if that development involves a certain noble cultivation of the soul. The mysterious post-conciliar boycott of the Four Last Things, admitted by John Paul II himself in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, continues. But what is more important to man’s progress and development than these very things?

Revelation itself is given a humanistic turn: “God reveals man to himself” says Caritas (par. 75), echoing Gaudium et spes. Of course this is true, if rightly understood, but is it not time to admit the utter failure of the Council’s verbal Jiu-Jitsu move in attempting to “flip” contemporary man into turning from his sinful ways by being “more human,” as opposed to simply repenting, being baptized, and receiving the grace of sanctification and justification? Was it not the Pope himself, writing as Father Ratzinger just after the Council, who accused Gaudium et spes of employing “a downright Pelagian terminology”? (Cf. Tracey Rowland, Culture and the Thomist Tradition, pp. 24-25). Might it not be prudent to remind a world on the brink of an apocalypse that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? (Cf. Psalm 111:10).

Third, Caritas also contains numerous vague prudential prescriptions for economic and sociopolitical problems. Chief among these is the Pope’s astonishing call (in par. 67) for “a true world political authority” with the power to compel nations to obey its decisions on such matters as “manag[ing] the global economy…reviv[ing] economies hit by the crisis… integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace… the protection of the environment and… migration.” There is no use denying that the Pope has called for the establishment of a world government, be it a reformed United Nations (as suggested in the same paragraph) or some newly created body.

A Pope has no divine authority to bind Catholics to a fallible prudential judgment of this sort. Quite the contrary, Catholics have every right respectfully but vigorously to oppose creation of a “true world political authority” on grounds that it would only accelerate an attack on the moral order that has already reached apocalyptic proportions, undermine legitimate sovereignty, and persecute the Church and her members, as we have already seen with the UN and the EU. Moreover, the idea of a world government that would “observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (par. 67) seems very nearly a contradiction in terms.

Fourth, and most important for this discussion, candor requires one to admit that the Social Kingship doctrine is nowhere to be found in Caritas. Consider that Pope Pius XI’s first encyclical on the Church’s answer to the civilizational crisis, Ubi Arcano, is subtitled “On the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ,” whereas Pope Benedict’s encyclical on the same crisis 87 years later is subtitled “On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth.” The radical change of terminology is as unsettling as it is revealing.

Caritas celebrates the teaching of Paul VI in Populorum Progressio (1967), which clearly reflects the “integral humanism” of Jacques Maritain. As the late great traditionalist writer Hamish Fraser noted during the reign of Pope Paul, “Giovanni Battisti Montini (the future Paul VI)… was so enthused and excited by Maritain that he volunteered to translate [Maritain’s] ‘Integral Humanism’ into Italian… Pope Paul is indeed a disciple of Jacques Maritain. So much so that when one reads a typically Pauline socio-political allocution, one might well be reading Maritain.” (Hamish Fraser, “The Kingship of Christ 1925-1975,” in Approaches n. 47-48 [February 1976]).

Maritain, writing just after the reign of Pius XI and during the reign of Pius XII, appeared to affirm the Social Kingship doctrine in advocating a “new age of Christendom.” But his description of this new Christendom is incoherent: “a ‘secular’ Christian civilization” in which the “Gospel leaven” will “penetrate the secular structures of civil life” while leaving intact a “personalist democracy” of “the pluralist type” in which “men belonging to very different philosophical or religious creeds… cooperate in the common task and for the common welfare of the earthly community” based on “assent to the charter and basic tenets of a society of free men.” (In The Social and Political Philosophy of Jacques Maritain, pp. 138, 189, 367).

Maritain was describing a “new Christendom” that is not corporately Christian but rather a pluralist democracy “leavened” in some vague way by Christian influences. The concept makes about as much sense as a “new square” that will have only three corners. Yet it sounds quite familiar today, when the “Gospel leaven” is failing catastrophically to produce the “new springtime for the Church” that both John XXIII and Paul VI (in their fallible prudential judgment) thought they were inaugurating by “coming to terms” with “the modern world” rather than preaching against it with grave warnings as every single one of their predecessors had done.

But, as Fraser observed at the time, “like Maritain, Pope Paul has the faith of Peter,” so that neither man was “a logical ‘integral humanist.” A logical integral humanist, Fraser explained, “rejects the social kingship of Christ and at least implicitly asserts that Christ’s empire does not include human society, and therefore that Christ is not omnipotent,” which amounts to “an implicit denial of the divinity of Christ, and must eventually lead to the transposition of the Catholic faith into the key of naturalism. Which is precisely what has already been done by the most logical ‘integral humanists’.”

Thus, as Fraser observed in 1975, “Paul is continually at war with himself. That is also why he is continually at loggerheads with the entourage he himself appointed. For though like him they too are enthusiastic ‘integral humanists,’ unlike him they are not similarly inhibited concerning ‘integral humanism’s ultimate implications.”

Hence it not surprising that Maritain ended up writing The Peasant of the Garonne to protest many of the “reforms” undertaken in the name of Vatican II, while Pope Paul “found it necessary to write Mysterium Fidei, the Credo of The People of God, Humanae Vitae, etc.” (Fraser, op. cit.). Both Maritain and the Pope he influenced so greatly wanted it both ways: an “updated” Church that remained nonetheless wholly orthodox. The tug-of-war between infallible Tradition and a fallible prudential accommodation to “the modern world” is the cause of the entire postconciliar crisis.

That tug-of-war is apparent throughout Caritas, which oscillates between “integral human development” as made possible only by divine grace, supernatural charity, Christian fraternity, and the Gospel as “fundamental” and “indispensable”—an indirect affirmation of the Social Kingship—and “integral human development” based on “fundamental values,” “universal values” and “reason open to transcendence,” all of which seem to be presented as available to non-Catholics and even non-believers of “good will.” Cf. Caritas, nn. 55-57.

Nowhere does the encyclical state clearly (although it faintly implies) what Pius XI and his predecessors affirmed explicitly: that only the Catholic Church can bring true peace, justice and charity to the world by uniting mankind in one faith and one baptism under Christ the King; that only Christendom, not any merely human alliance, can save a tottering civilization. From which it follows—as B follows from A—that those who say the restoration of Christendom is impossible are also saying that our civilization is in its death throes.

But, like Paul VI, Benedict XVI is not “a logical integral humanist,” even if Caritas employs integral humanist lingo throughout. One need only read the Pope’s closing exhortation to understand this:

Christians long for the entire human family to call upon God as “Our Father!” In union with the only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray to the Father and to ask him, in the words that Jesus himself taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living according to his will…. May the Virgin Mary—proclaimed Mater Ecclesiae by Paul VI and honoured by Christians as Speculum Iustitiae and Regina Pacis—protect us and obtain for us, through her heavenly intercession, the strength, hope and joy necessary to continue to dedicate ourselves with generosity to the task of bringing about the “development of the whole man and of all men.”

We are within our rights as members of the laity to state the obvious: Caritas is a Janus-headed document that tries to speak in two different voices in two different directions at once—to the faithful and to an unbelieving world—in an effort to persuade both audiences to make common cause for the salvation of human society (whose imminent self-destruction is barely hinted at lest the audience of unbelievers be offended).

But a radical civilizational crisis requires a radical cure, and the only one that exists is the one that Christ prescribes in the Gospel. Which is why, in rejecting as utopian the very notion of a pan-religious alternative to Christendom, Pope Saint Pius X declared in 1910: “[I]n these times of social and intellectual anarchy… society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO.” Cf. Notre Charge Apostolique.

Is Christ still King of all men and all nations? Reason itself tells us it cannot be otherwise, and nothing in Caritas is to the contrary. The answer to the crisis in the Church and the world lies, however, in what Caritas fails to say about the very doctrine the Fathers of Vatican II were at such pains to declare “untouched.” We will know the crisis is coming to an end when the untouched doctrine of the Social Kingship is proclaimed openly and boldly once again. The way things are going, humanly speaking it does not seem likely that that proclamation will occur before the world suffers the terrible witness of its rebellion against the King.

Brief Reflections on Love, Courtship, and Marriage

2009-02-22T14:19:00.008-05:00

I am biting off more than I can chew with this post so I am in quite familiar territory!

Ever since I ended my last relationship I have been in almost constant reflection about the meaning of love, dating, marriage, and the like. The Lord has truly revealed more things to me than I could possibly encapsulate in this blog, but I would like to touch on just a few.

For years as I have contemplated my vocation, the question has always been "Is the priesthood my calling?" It is a good question. But then, it is only half of the entire vocation question. Not until recently did I ask myself "Is married life my calling?" We may often think that the priesthood is for the very saintly and spiritually developed, and rightly so. However, why should not those called to married life be just as saintly and spiritually developed? Marriage is, in a different respect, a form of sacrificial priesthood as is that of the clergyman. The man and the woman, in total sacrificial love, give themselves to one another for the sake of creating children and furthering their unconditional love for one another, which is blessed by God. Likewise a priest gives himself totally to the Church in order to bear spiritual children and deepen in his own love of our Lord. The path is the same: sanctification and salvation.

The key words with regard to love, which is so lost in our society, are sacrifice and selflessness. While I have always been pained in some degree by the way that women in particular are harmed by frivolous dating relationships and the burdens of filling that God-shaped hole in our hearts, as of late it has become a most piercing pain in my heart. How I pray that women and men alike may grow to respect each other's dignity to the fullest, both in that Christian charity to which we must be witness with everyone, and in that more exclusive love reserved to those discerning marriage through courtship, and of course in marriage, which is the most exclusive of relationships in that it alone is procreative. What a beautiful sacrament!

Because marriage is sanctioned by our Lord as a sacrament and makes us co-creators with God the Father, any courting relationship must be centered on Him through prayer, mutual edification, and, most importantly, true Christian love. The number one priority must be the good of the other with a mind to how effective that relationship will be in the short-term as courtship and long-term with marriage. While there are certainly many beautiful emotions and feelings that could come with being with another who we love and seek to know better, the foundation of the relationship must be a very intelligent, almost objective knowledge that time is worth being consecrated to that person. Yes, that person may make you happy, may be fun to be around, and may even be very attractive, but those are secondary traits. We must ask ourselves questions like: is he/she strong in the Faith or aspiring to a deeper Faith? is he/she responsible and mature? is he/she aware of the profundity of the courtship process and the marriage bond? is he/she compassionate and selfness as opposed to self-seeking? etc. etc. Issues of "physical compatibility" must be avoided like the plague as they gravely cloud our judgment. The rule of thumb is to never do anything that you would be ashamed of recounting to your parents and, more importantly, to our Lord.

Above all, before even engaging in a courting relationship, we must know ourselves intimately, which comes first and foremost by knowing our Lord. Inasmuch as we know of His love for us, His expectations, His commandments, and His life on earth, we will know where we stand. We must most certainly be fully honest with ourselves. There is no reason to rush, but neither must we be complacent or slow to seek the answers we need. Only then, knowing who we are, can we offer ourselves to another fully and fearlessly.

1 Cor: 4-13
Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

From darkness to light: my pro-life journey

2009-02-02T00:31:00.001-05:00

Unto the end, a psalm for David, to bring to remembrance that the Lord saved him.
O God, come to my assistance; O Lord, make haste to help me.
Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek my soul:
Let them be turned backward, and blush for shame that desire evils to me: Let them be presently turned away blushing for shame that say to me: Tis well, tis well.
Let all that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee; and let such as love thy salvation say always: The Lord be magnified.
But I am needy and poor; O God, help me. Thou art my helper and my deliverer: O Lord, make no delay.
Ps 69:1-6

By the grace of God I have mustered the courage to write this forthcoming reflection which comes after a period of months that has greatly awakened me to a past blindness.

I have been blessed beyond measure by our Lord and His servants to have been drawn into pro-life activism in a way that I only wish I would have had the courage to do earlier. From the first moment I was told what an abortion is, I abhorred it and was troubled that such a thing could be legal. However could I have been so complacent?

I was raised in a small country town named Ocala where life was always calm and we lived relatively peaceful lives. My parents moved us there so we’d be free from the troubles of city life and may God bless them for the choice. I heard repeatedly about abortion from my beloved priest at Mass but always trusted that others were working hard to do something about it, although in reality the question of what I could do about it never crossed my mind. I never knew anyone who had an abortion, nor did I ever see one, nor did I sense the urgency. I knew it is a great evil, but I went on living.

Upon coming to college, I faced a new world, a world where things I had never seen nor ever dreamt could exist were indeed present. This greatly troubled me and I was swept into this turbulent place trying to find some sort of reason. From the shelter of my home I wrote angrily against the moral depravity in the university and I even decried abortion in articles that I posted online and submitted to the newspaper. And yet I still did not find the courage to go out and do what so many of my friends were already doing- going to the front lines of the American holocaust and fighting for the lives of those who are silent. Abortion was just one of those many evils on that list of things that I abhorred and wanted nothing to do with. I was comfortable in my shell of self-fulfillment and spiritual discovery. I railed against the rampant apathy of America and did not even see sense my own spiritual anesthesia.

Frustrated by my spiritual pursuits but still dogged by an indomitable desire to seek the Good, I fell into the snares of the modernist university. Thinking myself on the path towards the Truth and content with my carefree life, I embarked on an academic search for things universal and profound. I found myself in the whirlwind of error, delving into evil and perverted philosophies of man and the society, indulging in impurity in my behavior, and all the while seeking to reconcile it with what I felt deep down to be true- that wisdom and grace imparted by that Church which I so longed to love. And yet I found no contentment in such teaching. I shunned the world but indulged in it. My mind was constantly tormented.

It is impossible to say what it was that ultimately drew me from this terrible snare placed by the Deceiver but I know that the Ghost was always moving, always inspiring, and often speaking to me through those I grew to love as friends. I saw myself in a futile pursuit of joy where I knew I could not find it. I sought to eradicate suffering from my life. It was not until I discovered the blessings that my sufferings had imparted to me that I realized how richly blessed I had been, how infinitely loved I truly was! So I embraced suffering, I submitted to the pain, and I grew to love my sadness, for in the measure that my heart was wearied by sin it was all the more exalted by the abundant mercy of my Lord. I had seen life as something to control, to conquer, to manipulate. It became something to behold, to experience, to absorb every minute of. It became a blessing. And thus I truly began to live through deepened prayer, through a truer adherence to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, and through a purer pursuit of what in my heart of hearts I yearned for as Truth. The troubles have still been there, as have the sufferings and the crosses of everyday life, and yet what solace have I encountered in that one Passion of the Cross. That most agonizing and glorious Passion!

Therefore when I was invited to pray before the local abortion mill by a dear friend in a most fortuitous manner, not a single stirring of fear or hesitation arose. I went and I beheld that awful place. I saw tears in my friends’ eyes. The hot burning candle wax of flames fading into the night pierced my soul. I could never turn my back again. After years of complacency I could never turn away from those evils which I so despise, which so wrenches my heart, which so torments that creation of God that is Man- apathy, despair, lust, pride.

How much evil has lingered because of my inaction? How many children have been murdered for my fear and apathy? How many souls have been lost for my deficiency of prayer?

Oh Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Do unto me as you will. Deign, in thine infinite mercy, to forgive so pitiful a sinner as I, and grant that I may never more dare to offend Thee, that I may once again live to Thee, that I may forevermore be only thine.

Ephesians 6: 11-20
Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints: And for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence, to make known the mystery of the gospel. For which I am an ambassador in a chain, so that therein I may be bold to speak according as I ought.

An excerpt from the Council of Carthage

2009-01-07T23:20:00.004-05:00

Having done a little bit of reading in order to refute the errant whims of a "Catholic" lover of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I stumbled (as I often stumble) on a bit of reading from the Council of Carthage (419). As with so much in our Catholic faith, if one is to seek the source of its authenticity we must look back to its beginnings. Even a cursory study of patristics, the earliest history of the Church, the compilation of the Bible, the early councils, etc. will convince even a hardened skeptic of her being the one true Church founded by Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Any man who seeks to belong to that Church which possesses the fullness of the Christian faith must pledge fidelity to the Church of Rome, with its roots on the rock that is Peter, the first Pope.

I do intend to endeavor a deeper a study of early Church history as it is absolutely fascinating and revealing. Here is a brief excerpt from one of the Canons of the Council of Carthage, regarding schismatic or disobedient priests:

Canon 11.
If any presbyter, inflated against his bishop, makes a schism, let him be anathema .

All the bishops said: If any presbyter shall have been corrected by his superior, he should ask the neighbouring bishops that his cause be heard by them and that through them he may be reconciled to his bishop: but if he shall not have done this, but, puffed up with pride, (which may God forbid!) he shall have thought it proper to separate himself from the communion of his bishop, and separately shall have offered the sacrifice to God, and made a schism with certain accomplices, let him be anathema, and let him lose his place; and if the complaint which he brought against his bishop shall [not] have been found to be well founded, an enquiry should be instituted.

LET HIM BE ANATHEMA! SIT SEMPER HERETICIS!

Most interesting still is the final definitive declaration of the Canon of the Bible, in effect a repetition of the exact same Canons declared by the Synod of Rome and the Council of Hippo. If Protestants believe in "sola scriptura" they have nothing on this Canon of the Council of Carthage. (Bold face added for emphasis)

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
- The New Testament.
  - The Gospels, iv. books.
  - The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
  - The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
  - The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
  - The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
  - The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
  - The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
  - The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Another Ugly-as-Sin "Church"

2008-12-19T23:20:00.004-05:00

It is a sad fact that most new Catholic churches today are a devastating affront to 2000 years of proud architectural and artistic achievement. From the smallest chapels to the most elaborate cathedrals to the majesty of St. Peter's Basilica, Catholics have always known how to construct edifices suitable to be called houses of the Lord, places where all worship and offer sacrifice in awe of God's majesty.

A fundamental belief of Catholicism is that we are both flesh and spirit, and while the spirit takes precedence in all things, the flesh manifests in an exterior way what the soul contains. Therefore, we dress modestly to reflect the sanctity of our human person and the fact that we are temples of the Lord. We stand when the Gospel is read in reverence and we kneel during the consecration at Mass in adoration. We build beautiful churches in which much time and energy has been invested so that they may be a lasting tribute to the glory of the Lord and the majesty of the Church.

God knows what went wrong in recent years. We went from beautiful and edifying to hideous and bland in the span of only 40 years. We've discarded a rich tradition of aesthetic beauty rooted in theologico-architectural synthesis in favor of an architecture, or lack thereof, that reflects the pathetically stripped-down sense of awe that we have of our Lord. Our bland, ugly, meaningless assembly halls of churches reveal quite adequately how little so many of the faithful really care about offering tribute to our God. Why? Because it is an affront to the poor? This is nonsense. For centuries churches have been sanctuaries, places of refuge for the poor. If a congregation can have both a beautiful and edifying place of worship as well as fulfill its mission to the poor, well, I see that as a wonderfully balanced Christian life. We've thrown out the aesthetic to save a few bucks. Look what we've got now:

St. Patrick's "Catholic" Church, Gainesville

This sad excuse for a church is disgusting to put it nicely. It looks like the public library in my hometown or like the community center in a retirement development. If an alien were to drop down and attempt to figure out what it is, he would say it looks little different from the other buildings he's seen.

Does this mean that we must build Notre Dames or St. John Laterans in every town and city across the world? Absolutely not. Even small and unimposing churches can be beautiful. What we see now is not beautiful. It shows little or no effort on the part of parishes or priests to disply some sort of care in the making of the house of the Lord.

We've gone from this:
...to this:

When our Lord told the rich man to divest himself of his goods and follow Him, he addressed himself to that one man, who wanted to more purely follow the Lord. He did not mean that entire groups of people should cast away all their possessions and thereby be incapable of providing for the ministry! What good is a materially and, worse, spiritually impoverished church going to do for those in need of sanctification? Obviously the notion of a place of worship was essential to our Lord. He taught frequently in the temple and promised that he would raise it up, meaning himself. The Lord himself is a temple. Should not our modern-day churches be reflective of that reverence which we owe our Lord, the temple of our souls?

Catholic Word of the Week - Orthodox

2008-12-19T12:22:00.002-05:00

Orthodox - (from Gk, orthodoxeia, "of right opinion, belief") signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man's salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

There is no such thing as a liberal or conservative Catholic. There are only true Catholics who are orthodox and then heretics, who reject one or more of the Church's teachings, either tacitly or overtly.

To be an orthodox, or right-believing, Catholic is not the same as to be a member of one of the Orthodox churches, which are heretical.

Our Lord teaching in the temple.

"Spem in alium"

2008-12-16T01:34:00.005-05:00

I have never heard anything so beautiful as "Spem in alium" by the great Thomas Tallis. As the sound sweeps around, you can imagine the gates of Heaven opening before you with choirs upon choirs of angels crying out in joy. The trumpets blare, the light dazzles before you, you approach the Lord our God in all of His divine majesty and splendor...
Words can not describe the sight.

"That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Cor 2:9

Spem in alium numquam habui praeter in te
Deus Israel
qui irasceris
et propitius eris
et omnia peccata hominum in tribulatione dimittis
Domine Deus
Creator coeli et terrae
respice humilitatem nostram

I have never put my hope in any other but in you,
O God of Israel
who can show both anger
and graciousness,
and who absolves all the sins of suffering man
Lord God,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
be mindful of our humility.

Euthanasia Legalized in Montana

2008-12-10T14:17:00.003-05:00

Today is Wednesday, December 10, 2006. On Friday, December 5, the state of Montana, or rather an activist judge in Montana, ruled that euthanasia is legal and protected by the state constitution. The news didn't come out in the AP until Saturday. I did not see it on the news until today. That this very troubling news has slipped under the radar is a frightening testament to our general moral anesthesia. You may not believe it but this is the beginning of what I guarantee will be a vast tide, a Satanic assault, against the dignity of life and the moral teaching of the Church as has been gay "marriage" and abortion.

Montana legalizes Euthanasia

The eugenic tide which began with birth control, has brought us abortion, and is now moving towards euthanasia is here. Whether we resist it and continue to affirm the dignity of all human life will be the moral test of our civilization, and one which will destroy us if we should say no. We can not take up the opinion that to kill a weak person who requests it is acceptable. We can not accept the lie that we should be allowed to murder those who are smaller than us, who are voiceless, who are weak, who are ill, those who most demand our love and care! For those who sympathize with this heinous crime, do not be so confident in thinking that it will not catch up to you. History is doomed to repeat itself.

"It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person or one suffering from an incurable disease or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life and an attack on humanity." Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980.

"Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists of putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to terminate pain constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded." cf #2277.

"Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 'over zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected." Ibid. #2278.

"Even if death is considered imminent, the care ordinarily owed to a sick person cannot legitimately be interrupted. The use of analgesics to alleviate the suffering of the dying, even at the risk of shortening his days, can be morally in conformity to human dignity if death is not willed, as an end to a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care constitutes a privileged form of disinterested charity. For this reason it must be encouraged." Ibid. #2279.

Catholic Word of the Week - Magisterium

2008-12-06T13:55:00.004-05:00

Magisterium - the living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture) or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals. (CCC)

While Scripture may be interepreted many different ways by individuals, as proven by the multiplicity of Protestant sects, it is by the teaching authority of the Magisterium that we know which interpretation is faithful to the original teachings of Christ and his Apostles.

Through the Magisterium, the Church infallibly carries on the teaching Tradition of Christ in our day and age.

"And it came to pass, that, after three days, [Joseph and Mary] found [Jesus] in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them." (Luke 2:46-50)

Sanctification and Salvation

2008-12-02T00:11:00.004-05:00

I often choose topics that are too big to chew but I can't resist. I'm only briefly touching the tip of an iceberg which is gloriously large.

What is the fundamental mission of the Church? The answer is simple: the sanctification and salvation of mankind.

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)

We often hear of the great things that the Church has done in the realm of social justice- alleviating poverty, ministering to prisoners, etc- and justifiably so! She has done her task well! And yet we hear nothing about the infinitely more important work which the Church fulfills in leading the Lord's flock to salvation. No other calling is more important. For,

...what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. (Matt 16:26-27, Mark 8:36*)

What profit do we have to be freed from poverty, to have the comforts of life, to be free from physical bondage, if our souls are still chained down by sin? All is dust but the soul is eternal. If we allow ourselves to replace the spiritual life with the charitable one, virtuous as acts of mercy and charity are, we put ourselve in grave risk of forfeiting our souls! And should we deny the priority of the spiritual life as Catholics over all other things without reservation, we effectively deny eternity and the salvation which is to come. Beware!

We have much to be thankful for and should be greatly inspired by the works of charity fulfilled by the faithful. Indeed, our Lord has commanded us to love our neighbor and to fulfill such works with zeal. And yet, the most important work that we as the faithful can possibly do is pray unceasingly. Pray for the faithfully departed. Pray to the saints that they may intercede on our behalf. Pray for the sanctification and salvation of mankind, for it is only by this that our Lord's Kingdom will come.

Remember the event in the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 2. The paralytic, gravely afflicted in the soul and flesh, is lowered down by four men through the roof before our Lord. In that moment, seeing the man ill from palsy, the Lord says to him, "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee" [italics added]. Witnessing this most grievous of physical maladies, our Lord Jesus Christ takes as priority the healing of this man's soul of its sins. This, likewise, is the mission of the Holy Mother Church.

My beloved priest once said in a sermon, "I only ever pray for one thing. You need only pray for one single thing: the sanctification and salvation of mankind." Should we pray for a lifetime and witness by that prayer the sanctification and salvation of one man, that singular act will be greater in weight than if we were to save 100 men from physical strife, only to see their souls condemned. So much so that we may come before our Lord and hear His glorious words: "Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (Matt 25:21)

Catholic Word of the Week - Host

2008-11-21T19:23:00.003-05:00

host - the unleavened bread destined to receive Eucharistic Consecration; sometimes used to refer to the consecrated species. From the Latin, hostia "sacrifice," also "the animal sacrificed," applied in Church L. to Christ

In the unbloody sacrifice (hostia) of the altar, Christ himself becomes manifest in the host as the Paschal Victim, just as Abraham, our predecessor, offered up a spotless Lamb in place of his son.

What happens at Mass?
Unde et memores Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis, nec non et ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in coelos gloriosae ascensionis: offerimus praeclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam † puram, hostiam † sanctam, hostiam † immaculatam, Panem † sanctum vitae aeternae, et Calicem † salutis perpetuae.

Wherefore, O Lord, we, Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, and also His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer to Thy supreme majesty from Thine own gifts bestowed on us, a pure † victim, a holy † victim, and unblemished † victim, the holy bread † of eternal life, and the Chalice † of everlasting salvation.

"By Grace You Have Been Saved"

2008-11-16T16:28:00.003-05:00

I just finished reading an article so impeccably written and succint that I will not do it the injustice of paraphrasing. I will simply place a link here to a fascinating blog which I discovered called "Nicene Truth", written by a Reformed Protestant (Calvinist) convert to Catholicism.

The particular article of interest is called, "By Grace You Have Been Saved", an in-depth discussion on such oft-employed terms as "justification", "grace", "salvation", "faith", and "works". Are we saved by faith alone or by faith and works? What is the role of grace? This article aptly captures the truth of the Catholic teaching on these questions and is deeply enlightening.

Tolle et lege!

The Armies of Perversion March!

2008-11-15T20:34:00.002-05:00

Anyone who thinks Christianity is not a persecuted religion only has to watch this video to see one of the most despicable and scandalous acts that I have ever seen- activist homosexual perverts cursing at an elderly woman, tearing away her Cross, and trampling it underfoot! Where are the police? Where is our government? Is this the mark of a civilized nation where freedom of speech is defended?

The people of California have spoken for the second time. Prior to the California Supreme Court justices telling the voters to take a walk, the voters voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Responding to the .01% of the population represented by the sodomite fringe, four treacherous justices ruled that the democratic vote was worth nothing and then gave gays and lesbians the "right" to legally sodomize. Now, the people spoke again and once again the dictatorial homosexual mafia is telling them to drop dead. Where is the goverment to disperse the mobs and restore our democracy? Nowhere!

We're witnessing not just the most essential functional unit of civilized society being torn to shreds but our very faith spit upon by radical hedonists who would stop at nothing to gain the legal right to do whatsoever they please. When will the rule of law be reestablished? When will a high-level political figure stand defiantly in defense of our most sacred beliefs and salvage our crumbling civilization? When?

Catholic Word of the Week - Heresy

2008-11-14T21:31:00.004-05:00

heresy - a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas; the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same --> heretic, heretical. From the Gk. hairesis "a taking or choosing," from haireisthai "take, seize," middle voice of hairein "to choose," of unknown origin.*

My Presbyterian friend denies the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, thereby committing grave heresy.

Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians are heretics in that they overtly reject the teaching of the Church on the sanctity of life at all stages.

A person unlearned in the Catechism and Sacred Scripture is easily susceptible to pervasively heretical ideas which so permeate our modern culture.

Heretics are really confused people.

Besieged

2008-11-12T22:28:00.004-05:00

For some strange reason the past several days have been fraught by religious discussions in which I have grown increasingly disillusioned by the errors that are out there. In one case I could sense the presence of the deceiver launching his attacks upon the Church. I have been deeply distressed to say the least.

It began this weekend when I found myself in a two and a half hour long conversation with a Protestant friend talking primarily about Calvinism, which she adheres to in the guise of "reformed theology". Whatever you call it, I was profoundly disturbed by the claims that were put out and made it clear. What a hopeless and concocted theology! It denies the entire loving nature of God and mires otherwise self-evident teachings in a "tulip"-laced morass of erroneous babble! I very effortfully defended our cherished belief in the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Faith, on the mystery of the Incarnation and of the Sacred Tradition which compliments the Scriptures among other things. And yet against the folly of Calvinism what can one do?

In addition to another chat about Calvinism two days ago, today at lunch I was sitting on the front porch of my workplace and overheard two guys "discussing" Catholicism, or their misperception of it, rather. In reality, one person was throwing out facetious, conjectural, and ultimately baseless claims about Catholic teaching and the other simpleton simply replied, "No way! I never knew that!" My blood was boiling and I regret not speaking up as I felt I should have.

Among the insanities uttered was the "Catholic belief" that by walking through the doors of St. Peter's Basilica, we're entering into a heaven-like place and thus are saved. There was the fascinating comment about how Catholics for 2000 years have completely missed the line in Matthew 23:9 saying that we must call no man on earth our father, and yet we call our priests "father", therefore the entire faith is a hoax. There was the profoundly disturbing statement that the Eucharist is just a symbol, that we're insane to derive from the Bible the belief that we can eat Christ himself, that it is ludicrous (at least he acknowledges that it is indeed a difficult teaching). His most erroneous claim was that there is absolutely no biblical basis for the doctrine of the Eucharist, which is absolutely unfounded. The list goes on. I felt like I was being fired at with spiritual cannon fire that was withering.

Now, I was actually taking detailed notes of the conversation because it was perfectly audible from where I was seated, as such I also noted their statements of erroneous Protestant doctrine. The most irksome and oft-repeated statements revolved around that most cherished of errors: the belief in sola scriptura. Here are the choice statements which I overheard:

"The Bible was written by God"
No. It was written by divinely-inspired men from the earliest Hebrews to the early Christians who devoted their lives, however perfectly or imperfectly to seeking God. They and their writing, however much inspired, was clearly affected to some extent by the context in which they lived along with the inspiration received.

"Everything that I believe is in the Bible"
The very belief of sola scriptura is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Thus this statement is false right off the bat. Belief finds its sources not just in written word but primarily from our life experience and that which we learn orally. Most importantly, our belief is also an effort in conformity to the true teachings passed down not just scripturally, but by the Holy Mother Church. That is, much of our belief is in fact extra-scriptural, which in its more refined form is referred to by Catholics as Sacred Tradition. It is exceedingly presumptuous to assert that one believes everything that is in the Bible, because our human flaws prevent us from grasping even so simple a command as "love thy neighbor".

"Keep reading, God will reveal things to you."
Using the logic of the above two quotes, I will contend that God has revealed everything that He has intended in the Bible. This is in accordance with sola scriptura. As such, any further revelation can not be possible, even that which may be stirred in us as we read Scripture. For God to continue revealing things in a extra-scriptural way must prove the existence of a sacred tradition rooted in and emanating from written and unwritten revelation.

What a vexatious past few days these have been. Lord have mercy. Pray for the conversion of those gone astray and for the unity of Christ's Church on earth.

Our Divine Mandate

2008-11-09T09:00:00.000-05:00

As of late I have been asking myself the same question quite frequently: why is it so difficult for us to speak absolutely about our faith? We fall so easily into the trap of relativism because we live in its framework, we are educated to think in a relativistic way, and we are expected to accept multiple options, multiple lower-case t truths, etc. Even if we utter in word what we aspire to believe as absolutely true, often our actions and our subsequent words do not back up this seemingly impossible stance. And yet…

The more I contemplate, the more I am truly convinced that Christianity- read, Catholicism, the only full and true faith revealed to the Church- is the one and only religion with a truly divine mandate, a heavenly bond, a direct call from on High. Both logic and faith confirm this.

No other religion so encapsulates both the fullest reality of our being and the deepest aspiration of every human soul. That we are born deeply flawed and yet yearn every waking day for something better, for a taste of the divine. That to be righteous and to obey the moral law set down by our Creator is perhaps the most difficult thing we can do, bringing with it frustration, vacillation, and persecution, and yet what bliss to follow the narrow path! No clearer sign is there than this: “Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.”

What of the other major faiths? For the Jews, at the time of reckoning, when the Son of Man descended in the deepest humility and was then hung on the Cross for our iniquities, they rejected him, preferring to retain their worldly laws and loyalties to cling to a hope which, unbeknownst to them, had just been fulfilled. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, led wars and insurrections and ultimately died in peace like many a worldly king. The Buddhists promise personal nirvana through individual contemplation, and yet quo vadis for the rest? And so forth. And yet, the one true God is worshipped and adored through His Son, who alone gave himself up in the lowest humiliation, in the purest act of sacrifice, through his terrible death on the Cross and his subsequent Resurrection. Just as the soldier is the only person who has truly fought for our freedoms, so too our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the only one who has truly died for our sins.

He died in fulfillment of the Greatest Commandment: “that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13, italics added). With what reluctance does humanity obey this call, with what vacillation! How difficult it is to fulfill, and yet how simple it is to fall to selfishness, self-fulfillment, impatience, and the like. Verily, this is a divine call, for such a mandate could not possibly have its origin in the selfish heart of man.

This was and is the revolution ushered forth by the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, that not by condemnation, nor isolation, nor hatred are we to live and serve our Lord, but by the heavenly grace that is love, the unconditional yearning for the good of another. And to this end we are to dedicate all in our being to seeing that our brethren be sanctified unto their ultimate salvation in the oneness of the Spirit, through the mercy of our Lord and King, from now unto the end of the world. Amen.

Catholic Word of the Week - Erroneous

2008-11-07T18:26:00.007-05:00

In order to arm ourselves with the vocabulary needed to fight heresy, I am going to begin posting choice lexicon from time to time with a contextual usage. Go forth into battle with edifying lingo! Enjoy!

erroneous - not true, correct, or right; containing error or errors. From the Latin, errare, to wander

The young man's erroneous perception of Catholic teaching led him to vote for a blatantly pro-choice candidate. Because of his error, he taught these false ideas to even more feeble-minded faithful, thus cementing his errancy. The most effective way for him to rectify his erroneous beliefs would be a committed study of the Catechism and pertinent Scripture passages.

The celebrant of this "Mass" has extremely erroneous ideas of what the liturgy should look like.

2008 Presidential Election: Time for Foreboding

2008-11-03T20:58:00.004-05:00

The Lord be praised- our long national squabble will be over within hours. What is the American obsession with such a painfully long election cycle? It is often heard that our elections last months on end because we are choosing the holder of the most powerful office in the world. Or maybe it is a period in which we engage in national soul-searching?

If in the end I were to learn nothing in this election save one tidbit of wisdom, it would be this: mankind is, without the slightest doubt, broken and corrupted to the core by sin. And yet, it is because of the sting of sin that we can experience God's purest love and obtain that courage by which we make His will be done. No one is free from this sting, no less in this most pivotal election.

I have seen the most despotic and dictatorial elements of our increasingly impatient, desperate, and reactionary society work with all of their strength to crush the voice of the minority, to silence the teachings of the Church, and to muzzle and ridicule those who disagree. While both sides of the political spectrum are guilt of this, no side is more to blame than the Left.

Dare to love your country, and you are called a backwards patriot.
Dare to love your God, and you are a zealot, a fool, an unintelligent oaf.
Dare to love your family, and you are just an old-fashioned relic of an oppressive past fading away.
Dare to stand up for the innocent, the unborn, and you are cursed, your efforts mocked, your signs and literature torn down and stolen, your name smeared!
Dare to stand up for your traditions and beliefs, and you are dismissed as an uneducated conservative.
Dare to work for your living, to be independent, to try to make your way in the world, and you are selfish!

We're living in a dictatorship! We don't need to wait for the next president to be chosen! Our beautiful country is being murdered by radical elements who hate it! Mark my words: the days are on the horizon where criticizing another element of society or the government will bring fines or other punishment. Where you will be forced to fund abortions, euthanasia, and social programs that encourage slavery through dependence with your tax dollars. Achievement will be frowned upon and even discouraged. Religion and traditional symbols of our Christian roots will be removed from public spaces with a degree of radicalism unmatched even by the Europeans. Independent thinking will be branded as bigotry, discrimination, backwardness, and ignorance and will be swiftly repressed by the brainwashed elements. Defending your nation and its sovereignty from incursions and enemies will be seen as isolationist and insular, vestiges of a primitive, medieval closedness. Private and church charities will be taxed or regulated to the point that the poor will have nowhere to turn but the government, which they will be forced support for their livelihood and will therefore never dare to question.

The list goes on and on! If we do not wake up and speak out against the despots and dictators in our midst, then there is no greater proof that these things will happen than the fact that have happened and are happening as we speak. We have seen this in our very own country, our neighborhoods, abroad, and right here in this town where I live!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

An intriguing thought experiment...

2008-11-02T00:40:00.004-04:00

I entered into a cognitive reverie yesterday and the most delightfully revealing thought experiment entered into my head. It has to do with drawing moral lines. By using the liberal arguments for amorality against a hypothetical proponent of gay "marriage", our proponent ends up hitting a wall.

So here's the thought experiment: a pro-gay "marriage" lad, who happens to be called Bob in my reverie, is taking a walk through a park where he runs into a most intriguing personage named Fred. Their discourse went as follows:

BOB: Hey, Fred!
FRED: Hey Bob, what's up?
BOB: Not much. Hey, are you voting for that gay marriage amendment on Election Day, you know, the one defining marriage as between both heterosexual and homosexual couples? It will finally let people who love each other get 'married' and give them the 'rights' they've so longed for!
FRED: Heck yea, man. Freedom from bigotry. True equality! But I don't think the amendment goes far enough. What if, like, a buncha' people love each other? Like, a buncha' dudes? Why shouldn't they get married? That's not fair.
BOB: Oh, well...Yeah. I guess so. Yeah, maybe they should be allowed to.
FRED: Yeah. You know what used to be 'in' and should come back? That thing where one guy has a bunch of wives. Yeah, polygamy!
BOB: Uh, well... That's a little weird.
FRED: Why's that weird? If they love each other, why not? I mean, why should only gays get to marry? Are you saying polygamists don't have rights? Are you imposing your morality on me?
BOB: Well no, dude. That's just a little weird, don't you think? I mean, gays should get rights but the polygamy thing is weird.
FRED: Why's it so weird? One man, many women! Why limit people? We're a nation of liberty! Stop pushing your morals on me, dude! I mean, if I love my mom that much, well, dude, why not?
BOB: You're joking, right? You're talking about in-...
FRED: Yeah man! Nothing is greater than love! We should be more open and inclusive, and less divisive. Why should your definition of love be pushed on me?
BOB: Well...No...It shouldn't. But, that's disgusting.
FRED: If I think it's ok, it's ok! Don't tell me it's disgusting you bigot! It's just different!

As we can see, the Pandora's box that Bob initially opened ultimately swallows him whole, as he finds himself in a moral no-man's-land where he can't say why incest is taboo and polygamy is disgusting, etc. He finds that his initial moral judgment has opened a can of worms and that it comes back to haunt him. He learns that his moral judgment is arbitrary and that he can consequently make no real moral judgments.

It seems that the only moral judgment that is not arbitrary with regard to marriage is that most natural one: that marriage is between one man and one woman in a union of love which alone is capable of bearing new life.

Case closed!

The Perverted Eternal Perspective

2008-10-29T20:21:00.003-04:00

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

2008-10-14T22:10:00.003-04:00

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

2008-10-06T00:34:00.008-04:00

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

On the mystery of faith

2008-09-28T22:39:00.003-04:00

The Spirit moved vigorously tonight as a group of my friends and I travelled down to Ocala once again to assist at the traditional Latin Mass. Today it was a sung Mass so we had the schola, of which I form part, perform the chants; it was mesmerizingly beautiful. Singing the Mass is a marvellous medium for prayer. But I would say that today's sermon was particularly exceptional.

The main theme of our priest's, Fr. Fryar's, sermon was actually a central epistemological question of our age: what is it know? Is faith knowledge? In today's Gospel, taken from St John, 4: 4-53, Our Lord states, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." What is the meaning of faith? Faith is pure trust in the Lord, and hope is the fervent desire to be with God. The last remaining theological virtue is charity. Trust necessarily demands an a priori condition of ignorance, or of surrendering oneself to someone or something about which we are uncertain. To have faith in God is to trust in Him without prior conditions, such as having seen signs, or needing proof, or having understanding. It thus, in a way, demands that we relinquish our reason, our deduction,and our knowledge. To believe does not require that we understand. Indeed, to understand, or to seek to understand, eliminates the need for faith. If we have our science and our reason, we give up our faith, but it is by faith that we are bound to God. In today's Gospel, when Jesus tells the ruler whose son is sick in Capharnaum that his son is healed, and before even seeing that this is true, by faith the man believes it to be true, and it is so. Had he seen proof before the Lord had said so, he would not have needed faith because his understanding would have satisfied him. And yet right there he would have severed the necessary link between his son's welfare and the grace and divine charity of our Lord.

The question made me contemplate significantly. I often try to understand everything, to try to encapsulate everything in my mind, even sometimes when it comes to my faith. And yet Fr Fryar spoke verily in saying that if we seek to understand we satisfy ourselves with that understanding, which can only ever be faulty and incomplete, rather than submitting ourselves to the knowledge that can be had only by faith, which is that bond with the divine. The temptation to want to understand, to proof, to be able to argue is tempting, particularly in our day and age. And yet we can not enter the Kingdom unless we rid ourselves of this vice, which is what it really is in the end.

There are no easy answers and no complete explanations. It is only by the blind eye of faith that we can truly see and know. What a winding and mysterious path towards God!

What is the pro-life cause?

2008-09-26T00:51:00.003-04:00

Pro-Life Week at the University of Florida is drawing to a close tomorrow and I feel compelled to offer a reflection the pro-life cause in light of a true blessing sent down to me from the Lord through one of his great servants.

While at a rehearsal of UF's Schola Gregoriana, a friend of mind told me that the campus pro-life group was doing a vigil before the local abortion mill and that I should come. Despite knowing I had a huge amount of very important work to do tonight, I strangely felt no hesitation whatsoever. Surely it was the Lord moving. So I went, and all I could think about before that dreadful building was "what is the cause for?" and "what should I do?" The only image running through my head was that of a murderous abortionist reaching into the sacred body of a woman to desecrate it with an atrocious act of murder and all I could think about was the bewildering paradox of everything surrounding its perverse justifications. The blatant injustice! The unmistakeable horror! And yet so few see it. I myself have suffered from the blindness and often still do.

So what is the pro-life cause towards which I have often gravitated with greater or lesser degrees of activity but have never flinched in supporting and loving in my heart of hearts? It is undoubtedly many things, but if we look at the history which predates its necessary emergence, it is a fight for the reclamation of our humanity, which is being ground up in the gears of modernity which we are so eagerly turning. Against a culture of control, domination, fleeting pleasure, the destruction of value and the human aesthetic, the pro-life activist, or rather the human pure and simple, champions submission before our beautiful and natural dignity, for true worth, respect, profound love of others, and a profound look at that which is Truth in a culture of lies. It is a fight against the death which has gripped us not just physically in the act- or lack thereof- of allowing abortion to continue, but also the death which grips the heart of modern man. In denying the burdens which have so colored humanity and seeking a life of base and valueless gratifications our culture has effectively murdered the human. We must reclaim it on every front, but the first must necessarily be in that place where we all first draw life- the womb.

The question remains: what then to do? Fundamentally, I believe the starting point is to work to lead those around us to a deep realization of their deep human worth and of the innate beauty of our divine purpose, which is to create, to sustain, to reverence. Anyone who truly acknowledges their own essence, who embraces their true humanity, can not possibly endorse the base act of murder which has gone unpunished so long in our land. Nor can they in any way tolerate the acts of euthanasia and contraception which are but indicators of our deeper despair and terror before the vicissitudes of life. And of course, the direct act of educating, reaching out, informing, and inspiring must play a major part.

For my part I have utilized my love of writing to a great extent, however failed at times, to try to be, at best, a voice. I confess my deficiency and deep cowardice, but deep down a longing stirs in me to devote myself ever deeply to this beautiful cause so inextricably bound up in our humanness.

Pange lingua gloriosi

2008-09-12T00:20:00.004-04:00

Pange lingua gloriosi. Sing, my tongue, the Savior's glory.

My most recent rumination may come across to some as odd, but I truly believe that it has much to do with what this blog is all about, which is seeking Christ in the depths of our existence. I will begin, as I often do, with a question.

What is language? There are manifold responses to this question, one of which, for my purposes, I will say is that language is truly a gift from God. Indeed, I think it is a stunning manifestation of the bewildering intellect of our Creator. What a beautiful treasure, that which we utter with our tongues! I have only come to appreciate this more and more as I undertake my studies of language and as I reflect upon the many doors that this pursuit has opened for me.

I feel that I can write volumes about this topic; truly I think it would take a lifetime or many lifetimes to delve into its profundity.

A language is a particularly magnificent faculty. We share our language with many others who, with no effort whatsoever, acquire its rules, its syntax, and its lexicon over the course of their youth. There are relatively few rules but many words, and we can fabricate utterances of limitless variety and degrees of expression with these modest tools.

What a moving experience to witness an orator deliver an eloquent address! What a profound stirring we feel in our heart upon reading the great works of literature. Likewise, what bliss to be moved to tears by the simple words of those who we love and who love us. Or to be reminded of the words of promise of the Lord, who Himself has been declared "the Word".

Undoubtedly there is something intangibly divine about our capacity to communicate, whether by word, by gesture, or even by music, the universal language. The most adept orator, the most fervent liturgist, and the most skilled playwright refine the art of language to strike a chord in a place deep in the heart of man that nothing else can touch.

Perhaps the Lord confounded the tongues of the builders at Babel not to sow division or confusion amidst mankind, but to teach a crucial lesson: that it is not by empty actions or purely material aspirations that we climb towards our Creator, but by the works of the spirit and of the tongue, by which we reach out to our fellow man in Christian love and approach the true face of God.

What a difficult world.

2008-09-08T00:42:00.005-04:00

If I may indulge my emotional whims for the moment, I must confess with both remorse and deep hope that we live in a most difficult world. Indeed the obstacles facing anyone aspiring to a life in Christ are numerous and treacherous. We live in a world where so many who are gravely wrong preach their lies as gospel, and those who know the Truth cower in fear or silence before this malicious onslaught. What was once good and proper has become evil and improper. The world is plagued by wars and famine and some people would prefer to sit down and count their money, or make plans to ensure that they will either gain more or lose as little as possible. Indeed the cathedrals of today are the football stadiums and the skyscrapers of big business, but our churches, increasingly unadorned and irreverenced, are a nagging testimony to the degradation of our age.

Our hearts are uplifted by the occasional stories of true Christian love that are manifest in this choppy and dark morass of confusion and uncertainty, and yet we often ask ourselves if we too will ever enjoy the blessing of such love, or if we will ever be so blessed as to share it. Our souls seek moments of peace and prayer; our bodies and minds are swept into a vortex of schedules, duties, expectations, appointments, tasks, worries, anxieties... If any one object bears greater witness to our age, it is the laptop by which you read this very account. At one click you can be in New York. At another, China. Dans un autre, en France. Con un otro, en España. You can read Chaucer, then Twain, then Mailer in the blink of an eye. You may be chatting with a friend somewhere- are they really your friend? Do you really know them? You tire. You open a new window, and then you repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Click. Click. Open. Close. Fly. Blur. With precision you open window to window, and yet you know not at all where you are at that very instant.

Our humanity is sucked into this whirlpool of innovation and velocity so rapidly that we have not even the time to look ourselves in the mirror. A brief reflection in the shards of a world spinning madly about us is as much as we truly get to see of ourselves, and yet it is but a minute reflection.

So where are we after all? Quo vadis?

Music in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses

2008-09-03T16:07:00.003-04:00

Following the block quote is a paper I just wrote for a class called "Music in the Catholic Church" highlighting the usage of music in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses. Since I wrote it at the last minute, considering that I just arrived from France a few days ago, it is not of excellent quality. All the same I am posting it, and I ask that anyone quoting it give me credit for the original as per copyright laws and the protection accorded this site, etc.

"It is as important today as ever that we carefully distinguish between simply religious music -- be it never so beautiful, artistic, and conducive to private devotion -- and that kind of music which the Church requires for her services. Outside of the Church each one may sing such melodies to religious texts as best satisfy his own pious mood; he may even indulge his æsthetic predilections in choosing his hymns. The house of God, however, demands an entirely different attitude; we must realize that we are there to pray, that we may not force our personal mood on our fellow Christians, but that, on the contrary, we must follow with devout attention and pious song, according to the will and in the spirit of the Church, the liturgical action at the altar. And, in according to the Church our filial obedience, we need entertain no fear mother and protector of the arts, that she, the venerable will assign to music a function unworthy of its powers."

~~~~

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, music as a conduit for prayer has been an indispensable and crucial part of the liturgy. Before even Latin became the central language of the Church, Christians were united by the universal language that is music, which alone touches the deepest recesses of the human soul. So much so that St Augustine was prompted to write:

"Music, that is the science or the sense of proper modulation, is likewise given by God's generosity to mortals having rational souls in order to lead them to higher things."

(Epis. 161. De origine animae hominis, 1, 2; PL XXXIII, 725)[1]

While for a significant portion of the Church’s- and coincidentally Western civilization’s- history the primary mode of sacred musical expression was the Gregorian chant, developments since the 1960s in the Church have prompted a move in a different musical direction, appealing to some and troubling to others. The nature of this distinction is the focus of this brief work.

The primary liturgical forms in current practice in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church today are what are referred to as the Tridentine Mass and the Mass of Paul VI, in this paper referred to as the Novus Ordo Mass. The Tridentine Mass, named after the city which hosted the Council of Trent (Tridentium), came out of the reforms of that council, held from 1545 to 1563, themselves a response to the abuses emerging in the wake of the Protestant Reformation[2]. It was the predominant liturgical rubric in place in the Church until the Second Vatican Council, held from 1962 to 1965.[3]

One of the primary goals of the Tridentine reform was to provide a uniform format for all churches to implement as a means of abating the post-Reformation confusion that had gripped the faithful with regard to doctrine and practice. Among other measures, one of the primary unifying forces in the liturgical reform was the maintenance of the Gregorian chant as the musical vehicle of the Church.

In the context of the Tridentine Mass, the usage of chant is divided into two forms: the Accentus and the Concentus. The Accentus is never accompanied by any instrument and is sung only by the sacred ministers. The Concentus consists of that which is sung by the choir after the intonation of the Accentus, and is comprised of the Ordinary, which are sung at every Mass, and the Propers, which are particular to every day of the year. For example, the Credo is a part of the Ordinary and begins with the Accentus “Credo in unum Deum…” (I believe in one God) and is followed by the rest, which is the Concentus (…patrem omnipotentem…). The Proper could consist of, for example, the readings appropriated for a particular Sunday[4]. In sum, the various chants and prayers comprising the music of the Mass make for an enduring tradition which has formed the backbone for all Western music since its origins. It also proves to be a stark contrast from the novel musical tradition that has emerged with the Novus Ordo.

Following the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which were in part destined to make the Mass more accessible to the faithful, a noticeable shift occurred in the nature of Catholic liturgical music. While pre-Vatican II music could be considered predominantly classical in nature, employing Gregorian chant as frequently as possible, church music since the 1960s has for the most part relegated chant to an inferior role and has switched to contemporary or folk-style compositions. It has also been characterized by widespread use of inclusive language. Unlike in Tridentine Masses, particularly High Masses, where significant parts of the Mass are sung, especially the main readings, this is done infrequently in Novus Ordo liturgies. An obvious difference is the prevalence of music in the vernacular in the post-conciliar period, as opposed to the period before during which music was sung in Latin.[5] A major difference seen as beneficial in the Novus Ordo period is the increased participation of the faithful in the performance of the music, with compositions considered simpler to sing and join in as contributing to the spiritual development of Mass-goers.

An important point worth discussing regarding the difference in liturgical music before and after Vatican II can be made by asking the question: to whom is the music directed and why? While many levels of analysis can be made with this topic, a simple look at the lyrics of compositions from both periods reveals much in itself. Among the most famous Gregorian chants that initially come to mind are Pange lingua gloriosi (Sing, my tongue, the Savior’s glory); Veni, Creator Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit, Creator); and Te Deum (We praise thee, O God). It can be convincingly argued that the lyrics of most if not all Gregorian chants are wholly directed towards God, either in praise or supplication, but rarely if ever directed, at least not primarily, in any way towards the people. The trend differs, on the other hand, with some of the more popular contemporary Catholic hymns such as “On Eagle’s Wings”, “Here I Am, Lord”, and “You are Mine”. A brief comparison of a hymn from both periods proves representative of the general trends then prevalent.

Pange Lingua Gloriosi: Sing, my tongue, the Savior's glory, of His flesh the mystery sing; of the Blood, all price exceeding, shed by our immortal King, destined, for the world's redemption, from a noble womb to spring.

On Eagle’s Wings: And He will raise you up on eagle's wings/ Bear you on the breath of dawn/ Make you to shine like the sun/ And hold you in the palm of His Hand.

Both hymns chosen are considered among the most popular or well-known from both periods. It is evident that the focus of the lyrics differs in each hymn. Pange lingua tells of the glory of the Lord and of the salvation and redemption at hand. On Eagle’s Wings tells of a more immediate salvation or consolation, as well as the glorification of the individual in the words “Make you to shine like the sun.” Such refrains are wholly absent in the canon of Gregorian chant.

The instrumentation of liturgical music differs in both periods, as well, and is reflective of the nature of public worship in each era. Prior to the reforms of the 1960s, there is no dispute that the pipe organ was the instrument of the liturgy. According to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 120, “In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.”[6]

There is no denying the recollection of that which is sacred in the common conscience upon hearing the sound of an organ.

Interestingly, in the second paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a dispensation is accorded permitting other instruments provided that they be “suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful”. Among instruments commonly used in the post-conciliar period are pianos and guitars, however, all manner of instruments, including percussion sets and even electric instruments, are known to be used. One can argue that the organ has almost always been used exclusively in a sacred setting. Indeed, even for “secular” organ performances musicians must often play in churches! As such, the music of the organ has always been equated, at least subconsciously, with a religious function. The same can not be said for the piano, much less for the guitar or percussion set, which are regularly employed for profane settings such as bands, pop concerts, or even intimate settings wholly foreign to that of worship. In this regard, the trend in post-conciliar music has been to wrest the exclusivity of sacred music from the organ and to make it accessible to a variety of different instruments, in a way providing for a sort of democratization of instrumentation or, as some might argue, a removal of the sacred and exclusive from the liturgical function.

Nonetheless, despite all of the arguments for or against the liturgical music of either period in recent Church history, one argument is irrefutable: music has not ceased to be a crucial aspect of the worship of the faithful. Be it Gregorian chant, a majestic classical Mass by a classical composer, or even a simple hymn sung by the faithful at the beginning of the liturgy, the engagement of the faithful in song and music has ever been seen as the most profound means of engaging the divine and offering a spiritual oblation at the Mass.At the height of what many consider to be a period of near-revolutionary change during the Second Vatican Council, the drafters of Sacrosanctum Concilium described the beauty of the Church’s musical tradition best in writing:

“The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy.”[7]

The question in our current time is: will we continue in the direction of a greater “vulgarization” of liturgical music by implementing contemporary styles, lyrics, and instrumentation, or will there be a return to the ancient traditions of chant and classical composition in the Mass? Whatever the answer, the primacy of music in the Catholic Mass will assuredly never be challenged.

[1]Musicae Sacrae, The Vatican: Pope Pius XII Archives, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/

[2] Council of Trent, New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

[3] The 21 Ecumenical Councils, New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

[4] Music of the Mass, New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10001a.htm

[5] http://www.tommcfaul.com/escritaria/litmusic.html

[6] Sacrosanctum Concilium, The Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

[7] Sacrosanctum Concilium, The Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Chapelle de la Médaille Miraculeuse

2008-08-20T16:28:00.004-04:00

Today I was blessed with the wonderful opportunity to go visit a Marian shrine right in the heart of Paris- la Chapelle de la Médaille Miraculeuse (Chapel of the Miraculous Medal). Most of the time when people hear the words "Marian shrine" and "France" they think of Lourdes, but lo, there is indeed one in Paris. Once upon a time the chapel was in a village in the countryside near Paris. It has obviously been swallowed up since then!

Anyways, it is a very powerful experience to go to a place where we know Mary was present. For me, I think my visit to the shrine marked a turning point in my Marian devotion. Oddly enough, being Hispanic, I heard the name Mary uttered all the time growing up- mostly in the frustrated interjection "Ave Maria!- however, even upon beginning to live the Faith, my religious focus has always been on Christ and Christ alone. With time I began praying to various saints. I have had trouble developing a profound devotion to Mary, which for years I have been told is highly beneficial and carries with it many blessings.

Why the obstacles? It may seem counterintuitive for some, especially in our protestantized culture, to picture how devotion to Mary is a profound expression of faith in Christ. And yet, today in the chapel of the Miraculous Medal, everything seemed to fall into place. Mary is, in and of herself, the embodiment of our spiritual journey and the physical manifestation of our metaphysical faith in the Lord. This is what the Rosary is all about- meditating on Mary to better understand Christ.

The altar in the chapel depicts very beautifully what I am talking about. Above the tabernacle is a majestic statue of Mary with arms outstretched. She stands upon the serpent and towers over the globe in a protective motherly manner. As I looked at the altar and the tabernacle, it was clear to me that Mary was and is the first tabernacle, the ark of the new covenant, which is Christ our Lord. She was the first to be saved, and her direct spiritual journey to the Kingdom of Heaven through her glorious Assumption is the perfection of what is for us an imperfect journey which we must all endure.

Mary is also an example of perfect submission to God's will, which in the end won her the greatest exaltation. This is what we are all called to as Christians. Such a profound paradox, as Pope John Paul II stated, is a sign of God's presence. By denying ourselves and accepting God's will, as well as the yoke of our mortal toils, we ultimately achieve the promised salvation. Mary gave herself up totally and completely to the Spirit, and in this way she became the living tabernacle of our Lord, just as we become, in a way, living tabernacles everytime we worthily receive our Lord in Holy Communion.

And just as Christ's body was pierced for our iniquities, Mary's heart was pierced by the most bitter sorrows of a mother viewing her son die for all of humanity. In this way, Mary, like Christ, shares in our deepest sorrows and understands them, such that she is our most trusted advocate before Christ.

The Miraculous Medal really is just that. It is such a simple thing, and yet reflecting on its symbols and meanings along with the overall meaning of Mary in our lives can bring us to a profound appreciation for our heavenly mother.

For my part, I have by no means reached any sort of summit in my devotion to Mary. I will say, though, that the journey ahead looks beautiful. If you find yourself frustrated in your Marian devotion or are unable to really immerse yourself in it, do not worry. All things transpire in God's time. Be patient in prayer and persevere knowing that, no matter what, our Blessed Mother smiles lovingly upon us.

About the Miraculous Medal

How dark were the Dark Ages? (Addendum)

2008-08-16T13:22:00.003-04:00

If you were sad that I didn't put my pictures of Amiens Cathedral up yet, weep ye no longer! Below I am posting a link to an album of pictures that I took in this beautiful city, including, of course, some shots of the cathedral. Enjoy!

AMIENS, région Picardie (Picardy), France

Pray for Georgia

2008-08-11T17:24:00.006-04:00

I have spent the past couple of hours reading dozens of articles and viewing videos regarding the terrible war that has been raging in Georgia since Friday. I prefer to avoid politics in my blog but I genuinely feel in this case that the Georgian people are victims of a despicable and overt manipulation and invasion by their powerful neighbor to the north- Russia. As it is right now the Russians have moved beyond the separatist regions and are occupying Gori, a Georgian city only 76 km from the capital. They are also launching attacks all around the country and have reportedly cut the country in half by capturing the only east-west highway. Georgian troops are surrounding Tbilisi to repulse the invaders. This is a terrible crisis bred of the worst treachery by Russia, particularly for the innocent civilians who have to see their homeland torn to shreds around them.

What we are seeing is a war for the rich being perpetrated in the lands of the poor. This show of incredibly disproportionate force and violence merits no justification, even considering the initial offensive by Georgia in its own territory to reclaim South Ossetia, a separatist region.

I simply ask, in the name of justice, that you pray for the people and country of Georgia, for mercy upon the aggressors, and for a swift peace. As one of the very first kingdoms in the world to adopt Christianity, which is still strong there, I feel a particular calling for our prayers.

St George, patron of Georgia

How dark were the Dark Ages?

2008-08-03T18:30:00.004-04:00

How dark were the Dark Ages? We reply reflexively that, once upon a time, there were castles and lords and then there were peasants and their fiefs: ignorant, backwards country folk. Thus were the Dark Ages. Then came the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. I must wonder if anyone ever stops to ponder how it is that the Dark Ages were dark. My big question is: are we more or less ignorant now than we were back then in the Middle Ages?

I was inspired to ponder this question yesterday when I went to see the awe-inspiring cathedral of Amiens in northern France. As I beheld the splendor and breathtaking beauty of this architecturally immaculate wonder, I began to ask myself if people were really so ignorant back then in terms of their understanding of the world and their place in it. Just imagining the rationality and purpose behind every element of the cathedral revealed to me in stunning terms the intimate knowledge and profound respect for the sublimity of God that people in that epoch surely had.

As I prayed in the adoration chapel, I looked up and noticed a beautiful vertical panel of stained glass which, upon close scrutiny, I noticed depicted the entirety of the history of Christ's Passion. It was unmistakeable. The beauty of the illuminations reveal the simple truths of the Gospel, and yet leaves the spiritual impact of our Lord's self-sacrifice to the heart of each individual believer. Every single part of the cathedral had a purpose. The floors were paved with labyrinth patterns to reveal the mesmerizing and intangible path towards the divine. The sheer massiveness of the nave left me breathless, and yet it depicted but a microcosm of God's immensity! And in the sanctuary-the holy of holies- cordoned off by a jube and beautiful choir stalls, even the most ignorant of persons could gather that in that place the most sacred of events- the consecration- transpires at every Mass.

I could not help but ask myself and reconsider the meaning of the word "ignorance". From where do our intellectual pursuits originate and whenceforth are they to lead us? I do not feel that it was merely the impressive beauty of the cathedral Notre Dame d'Amiens that truly brought forth this question in me. Rather, it was the perception of the simple sense of ordered purpose in that space wholly directed towards one goal: the glorification and revelation of our Lord's essence, which is beyond us. It is beyond me to divine how that space was so elegantly erected. It is beyond me to understand what drove otherwise simple people to gather together and build it up from nothing. And yet, in that cathedral, I understood that somehow, even in that allegedly most ignorant of epochs, there was manifest a profound and reasoned understanding of the unintelligible. So much so that, even lacking what we consider in our modern times to be the signs of advancement and progress, there could be witnessed a true sense of direction and, most importantly, faith.

The central questions, which I feel are really quite simple to answer are: have we truly progressed since then? Are we more or less ignorant?

Link to album of Amiens, including beautiful shots of the cathedral. Below are shots taken from Google.

Catholic Social Teaching à la Française

2008-07-14T14:59:00.003-04:00

I do not believe I have written much on social teaching before so I feel that some recent ruminations on the social situation in France provide a suitable backdrop for some thought on the Church's stances.

As my reader(s)- if there are any- know, I am currently in Paris, France working in the beautiful Eglise de la Madeleine. I have long been enamored with French civilization and am very familar with it. So, when some news about proposed changes in the social system crossed my ears, I began to look at it in terms of Catholic social teaching and I also began to ask myself some questions. In all frankness, some of the thoughts I have entertained have been less than content, because I am troubled by some of the things I hear.

It is known throughout the world that the French have a very entrenched and relatively effective social system whereby the citizens come under numerous regulatory protections, among them a universal healthcare system which reimburses (now most, not all) medical expenses as well as stringent labor regulations. Now, I am politically conservative and not altogether in accord with the idea of universal healthcare for my own reasons but that's not what I want to discuss. Here're the recent developments that raise some question marks in my head.

One of France's well-known labor regulations is the 35-hour workweek and mandatory vacation per year. In the US we have a 40-hour workweek but, as we all know, there're people who work well above that. Recently, President Sarkozy has expressed a desire to lift the cap on the workweek to 40 hours in order to cope with the current economic slump. So, here're my thoughts:

-France's productivity and economic capacity are strongly comparable to those of other Western industrialized nations, even with a shorter workweek. And who would think that having such long vacations, lunch breaks, and a shorter week would actually not harm productivity! Therefore, my question is: is it really necessary to extend the workweek, to redo the system because of what is a relatively brief economic malaise? If the people do not need to work more, why should they? Now, I understand full well the value and necessity of work, but to what extent?

-Another thing that I ask myself is: what should be the main focus in our lives? In the Western world, the concern is in large part work and economic survival, I must confess. However, I really think the focus should be, first and foremost of course, our obligation to the Lord and then to ourselves, i.e., to self-enrichment through activities that properly better our lives, like hobbies, exercise, reading, etc. Again, if our means are sufficient, as individuals and on the scale of nations, is it necessary to work even more when we could be focusing on other, more enriching things? Now, according to the Protestant work ethic prevalent in the US and Britain, work is in itself enriching and a service to the Lord. To an extent I agree that work can be healthy and enriching, however, is it the same situation that in which a person says a Rosary while going for a jog or walk, rather than stopping and actually focusing on the prayer? I think not.

This brings me to my last rumination. Another change in the air in France is the opening up of Sunday as a workday. Visitors to Paris see very clearly that the city turns into a ghost town on Sunday; everything closes save a couple cafés here and there. It is dead. From a Christian perspective, this is a very good thing. Has it not been commanded that we rest on Sunday? I've heard dozens of attempted rationalizations back at home for doing some kinds of work on Sunday, that it must not be servile labor, that it must not be overly physical, etc. Again, these are rationalizations that in effect skirt the Commandment. I have heard the same here in France, as well. So, like I've reitarated before, is it really necessary to work on Sunday and open up shops to make the Lord's Day like any other? I do not believe so. (By the way, no comments from smart alecks who say that Saturday is really the Lord's Day, let's not make such inane points please).

Parlez-en!

The Sun Rises in the East

2008-06-21T22:59:00.003-04:00

I've often wondered why it is that while the Western world as we know it is collapsing under our feet due to the decay of its moral foundation, Catholicism is flourishing and booming in the East, particularly Asia and Africa. Of course, there're many possible explanations that can be elucidated. Among them could be listed the following:

-Traditional family structure
-Respect for elders and tradition
-Rebellion against oppression
-Strong degree of importance placed on liturgical practice and community
-Deep-rooted reverence for the sacred
etc...

There're dozens of reasons that I could post with a little thought. It would be an injustice, however, to oversimplify, considering the vast diversity of the many nations turning their hearts towards the Lord and His Church.

Many signs are coming forth from the East indicating the rise of a renewed Church there. The vocation crisis has ended in large part because of the booming number of vocations in Africa, in particular. Churches are popping up everywhere. People across Asia and Africa are resonating with the Gospel. It is truly inspiring. Whenever I get discouraged at the deterioration of religion in the West, in general, I just remind myself of how the people in these relatively poor regions are placing their trust in Christ. It truly puts my life in perspective. Why do I whine when I have a bad day? Why do I get frustrated about unimportant things? Why don't I place my full trust in God when things are tough?

I'm curious to know what my readers think about the flourishing Church in Africa and Asia. I think it is a worthy topic to discuss...

In the News, 14 June 2008

2008-06-14T09:56:00.006-04:00

Good morning, Anthony reporting for the De Profúndis News Service! We have a thrilling line up of beutifully Catholic-leaning news articles to discuss with you so let's get started! (Deo gratias!) (Fair and balanced reporting is for wimps).

The first story comes to us from the Catholic News Service: Baltimore Archbishop explains suspicion of Legionaries.

Now, this is quite a shocker, to begin with. The Archbishop is not just suspicious of the Legion, but he also plans to kick it ot of his archdiocese! Of course, I clearly respect whatever decision an archbishop makes because, well, he's an archbishop. But why would he be so suspicious of such a reputedly orthodox and faithful order as the Legion of Christ? Could there be some link here with the anti-Catholic left? Perhaps. When I first considered the vocation, I contacted the Legion and was overwhelmed by their kindness and devotion. I almost packed my bags and left before even graduating high school! However, such fervor often kindles suspicion among the less-faithful, who see such true faith as troubling. When I first mentioned the Legion to a certain nun subscriber to cox.net, incidentally the domain name with the most hits on my page (go figure!), I was told that the Legion was bad, that it was overtly militant in its language, and that it should be avoided. This coming from a person well-known to espouse grievously heretical views which I will not state here. I rest my case.

In other news, President Bush visited with the Pope yesterday and there are strong rumors that he may be considering converting to Catholicism! In some other articles I read, the President has clearly admitted that he finds greater depth and richness in the history, traditions, and theology of the Catholic Church as opposed to "evangelism"! Despite disagreeing over the Iraq War with the Pope, both men have agreed strongly on just about every other point. However, consider that earlier this week the President repudiated his earlier bravado rhetoric vis-à-vis the war as harmful. Does this spell a shift towards a more peaceful demeanor? Will President Bush follow Jeb's steps and become Catholic? We shall see. Pray for him.

Moving on, praise God, the good old Irish held strong. Yesterday the Irish people rejected the EU's Lisbon Treaty by a national referendum, striking a blow to the measure and putting heavy pressure on Britain to hold its own referendum. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property- a really awesome group- stated the reasons why such a measure's destruction would be so crucial.

Apart from effectively eradicating whatever remains of Europe's Christian civilization, the Lisbon treaty would destroy the national sovereignty of its member states including Ireland- which is still staunchly Catholic and pro-life- and would impose the voice of a relatively tiny and quasi-dictatorial body known as the European Union in Brussels and Strasbourg. Of course, the EU is raving mad about the opportunity to destroy any remaining pro-life resistance to its message of death and replace it with its "progressive" framework of indiscriminate abortion, contraception, euthanasia, pornography, etc. So, God bless Ireland.

Well, that's all for today from the De Profúndis News Service. My name's Anthony. Have a great weekend!

Beyond the Pale

2008-06-12T19:39:00.003-04:00

Two and a half weeks have passed my beloved grandfather passed away and it has taken just as long to collect my thoughts and feelings on this loss. I consider this to be a difficult topic to talk about, as my insufficient words can do no justice to the man who, for all intents and purposes, raised me and taught me true goodness. I would like to reflect a bit on his passing on what it has meant to me in the context of my faith.

My family spent almost the entire duration of my grandfather's two week stay in the hospital in prayer and in strong hope. I did my best to go as often as I could. He had been in the hospital a month before for swelling of the legs and water in his lungs. My grandfather had always been so strong before, so we were not overly worried even when we learned that there was a lymphoma in his stomach. Unfortunately, due to the medical bureaucracy, or perhaps pure negligence, his chemotherapy did not begin until the 2 weeks before he died.

My mother and I accompanied my grandparents to the oncologist’s office on Wednesday the 14^th of May. My abuelo dressed his best in a fine guayabera so as to hide the signs of his illness on his body. I couldn't stand to see my grandfather so worn out. After a long wait he went in, only to come out half an hour later with his clothes half off, a look of intense pain on his face, and his appearance disheveled overall as my grandmother escorted him to the restroom. My mother emerged from the room next with tears in her eyes saying, “El no va durar…He has cancer all over his body.” I was crushed and said little in response. A while later I went in to rub my abuelo’s back. He said in a low voice, “After so many illnesses, so many troubles…” I felt he was losing hope, and I had to fight back my tears. My grandmother urged him to maintain optimistic thoughts. Following a bone marrow exam in his spine, we decided to admit him to the hospital to undergo chemotherapy there.

Even though his spirits were sunk, my abuelo maintained his sense of humor, poking fun at a nurse who had come to prick him yet again for blood. So it always was with abuelo- always the most light-hearted person in the room. Being in his presence was uplifting in itself. He was the epitome of joy with life. I always told myself, and we all believed that, he would live to be at least 100, such was his vigor and strength.

I could never see my grandfather as a cripple, bent low by infirmity. Before going to the doctor, my father procured a walker for my grandfather. I watched in sadness as my abuelo stood up and tried it out. In my mind I knew he would never use it; it wasn’t in his nature. As it turns out, I was right. He only used it that once.

We were incredibly hopeful and optimistic when it came time for my abuelo to finally begin chemotherapy a week after his admission. The doctor had been busily giving him intravenous proteins, lipids, and sugars to rebuild his emaciated body and it worked. He was ready for chemotherapy and accepted it well, not experiencing any of the usual reactions to the first time.

On Sunday the 25^th of May, I was at the hospital again. We had to wear masks in the hospital room since my abuelo’s immune system was crippled by the chemo. He was weak but moving. The medicine was doing its work and all of our hopes were high. That day was considered the low point, after which his bodily would gradually recuperate from the medicine’s shock. Just before I left for Gainesville, the doctors gave my abuelo some painkillers- he was writhing in pain from his kidneys working on overload to flush out all of the dead cancers.

So I returned home in a mellow mood, but confident that, given my grandfather’s good acceptance of the therapy, he would be alright. That is, until I got a call on Tuesday morning of the 27^th from my mother telling me to hurry to Ocala. My abuelo’s vitals began to plummet and the nurses knew that he would not be able to hang on much longer.

We were allowed in the hospital room without masks this time, which troubled me as I felt it a sign that there was no more chance of recovery for my abuelo. My grandmother was in her chair by my grandfather’s bedside as she had been non-stop since he went in. She too had been suffering silently from the agony of seeing him the way he was. We had to give her medicine to calm her nerves. I feared as much for her as for abuelo.

Upon arriving, I sat at my grandfather’s side and read him the 23^rd Psalm and the Our Father in Spanish. I don’t think he heard me; he had been asleep for two days, gasping for air in short bouts. Again I felt like crying, but I held in my tears. All day long, asking myself why we were there, I told myself, “We are waiting for my grandfather to die”. I almost wish I didn’t have to go through that. The pain of having to repeat that all day is still with me. I never wanted to say good-bye to my abuelo, much less to have to wait patiently for his inevitable departure.

My father and I prayed fervently for abuelo in his last moments. I sat by his side and said a rosary while holding his cold but strong hand, which was clasping a string of sacrifice beads. I then pointed out the story of St. Lazarus’ resurrection in the Gospel of John, which my father read to my grandfather in Spanish. My grandmother had fallen asleep. It was quiet in the room. A bit later, once my father finished, he fell asleep with his head reposing on my abuelo’s bed. I stepped out into the waiting room to work on solving a jigsaw puzzle of a beautiful mountain and lake. How fitting that at the moment of my grandfather’s death, the consummation of a great mystery which we can barely understand, I should be piecing together a puzzle with my mind in a flurry of thought and anxiety.

A little while after working on the puzzle, my father appeared in the doorway and told me to come quick, as something had happened. “He’s not breathing!” he cried. My heart skipped a beat and I followed him. My grandfather had indeed stopped breathing. Panicking, I ran out of the room and yelled, “Nurse!” She came in and listened to his heart. The nurse took off her stethoscope, faced my father, and said, “I am sorry.” I looked to my right and my grandmother had a surprised look on her face as she had just woken up from the commotion. I did not know what to feel- I simply covered my face with my hands and beheld my grandfather in shock. Never before had I experienced death, and here I was with the man who I loved so much and who had always been there, who was no more.

I remember the moments following my abuelo’s death vividly, and they have haunted me. I ran to get my brother and mother in the next room and they came in. My brother burst into tears. I had been calling for a priest all morning and no one ever came, so I grabbed my phone and angrily berated the church for delaying so long in coming. Fortunately my grandfather had received Last Rites the week before, but I was so angry all the same. I embraced my grandmother and kissed her head as she wept, saying “El quería vivir…él quería vivir…” (He wanted to live). I lay across my grandfather and whispered into his ear that I loved him. That I had not told him before fills me with shame! At that moment two priests burst into the room and the first one cried out with great drama his prayers over the dead. I looked at him incredulously. My mind was in a storm of confusion. As he led my family in mournful prayer, I went over by the wall, turned away, and wept bitterly for my grandfather.

Just before my grandfather expired, my father had been by his side reading him the story of the resurrection of Lazarus again. He then lay his head down and dozed off. What awoke him was a voice in his head exclaiming “Cordero de Dios!” (Lamb of God!). At that moment he opened his eyes and saw my grandfather draw his last breath.

I think that all of us really knew, deep down in our hearts, that my grandfather was with God at that very moment. His life was spent in beautiful simplicity and deep faith. My abuelo was a man of little scholarly education, however I consider him to have been one of the most intelligent men I’ve ever known because he truly knew how to live. In his earthly life he had a deep love for all of us, especially his nietos, his grandchildren, and constantly asked about us. I know that he loves us still more in death. My grandmother said repeatedly that my grandfather wanted to live, and I think that, in a very real way, God answered his and our prayers. There is no fuller life than that spent in the presence of the Lord.

In the weeks following my grandfather’s death, in my thinking I have discerned two things of paramount importance that I have learned from this earth-shattering experience. The first thing that I learned stemmed not so much from a confused sense of nihilism in the void left by my abuelo’s passing, but rather such a radical re-prioritization of what I used to hold as important that it seems that I believe in far less now. That it to say, I realized most profoundly, witnessing the moment where my grandfather’s soul left his body and joined its Creator, how little so many things really matter, to the extent that almost nothing which we consider important really matters at all in the face of our Lord. As to what matters and what doesn’t is itself an important matter consisting of a lifelong pursuit of wisdom through prayer.

The second thing which came to light in my mind is not so much a teaching but a calling. I realized that the best way that I could honor my grandfather’s beautiful memory would be by emulating his wonderful example of living in my own life. My grandparents have been happily married for 57 years, and loyal to one another without fail. Rarely was there a time when anyone would see them apart. My grandfather was an incredibly hard worker. He would never be satisfied sitting still. As a carpenter he fashioned beautiful objects out of wood and as an entrepreneur he lived out the American dream in his pursuit of success in various small businesses. He was, and is, the unifying force for my family. All of us, near or far, have felt a great loss because that was my grandfather’s nature- he touched anyone who was blessed to see him in life. He loved to dance and to listen to music. His joy, smile, energy and love of life were infectious. He cared tenderly for his animals and his farm as did the great St. Francis. Most of all, he had a limitless compassion for our family and strangers alike and never hesitated to give a hand in help whenever anyone would need it, even in his moments of want.

Most importantly, my grandfather was a firm believer and a true Catholic. Often at table he would say, “Gracias a Dios todopoderoso!” (Thanks be to God Almighty). In the weeks before his death, he would not allow himself to be separated by a crucifix and a rosary that he wore constantly around his neck. In prayer he would hold out the crucifix and adore the image of Christ Crucified on it.

I do not feel that I can even remotely begin to live out the unparalleled example of my grandfather, but I think that in working to do so I honor his life. I am deeply grieved by his loss, and yet his peaceful death after a long and well-lived life is more than any of us could possibly ask for, as well as a sure sign of God’s deepest love for my grandfather, Ramón, his most humble servant.

Abuelo Ramonin, requiescant in pace… You are always in my heart.

Que descanse en paz, querido Abuelo

2008-05-27T22:01:00.007-04:00

Ramón Eulalio Piferrer Catalá
July 14, 1926 - May 27, 2008

Que en paz descanse, querido Abuelo. Te quiero con todo mi corazon ahora y para siempre. Tú me enseñastes como vivir feliz. Tú me mostraste tu verdadera fe en Dios. Ahora entre en la felicidad y la gloria del Señor, quien tanto amaste durante tu bellísima vida, donde no hay sufrimiento, solo alegría, no hay muerte, solo juventud.

Ps 129
DE PROFÚNDIS CLAMÁVI ad te Dómine;
Dómine exáudi vocem meam.

Fiant aures tuae intendéntes
In vocem deprecatiónis meae.

Si iniquitátes observáveris Dómine:
Dómine quis sustinébit?
Quia apud te propitiátio est
Et, propter legem tuam sustínui te, Dómine.

Sustínuit ánima mea in verbum eius;
Sperávit ánima mea in Dómino...

Condoms in Place of Food

2008-05-24T11:48:00.005-04:00

What in the name of...Do these people have no shame? Where is the humanity?

UN sends condoms to starving people in Myanmar
Bangkok, May. 23, 2008 (CWNews.com) - In answer to the grave humanitarian crisis among cyclone victims in Myanmar, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is sending nearly 250,000 condoms.

"We don't want regular use of contraception disrupted," a spokesman for the UNFPA told reporters. The UN agency is also providing oral and injected contraceptives.

More than 2 million people in Myanmar face an urgent need for food, clothing, medication, and shelter.

So, people are starving to death by the tens of thousands but, God forbid they start having unprotected sex! Because when people are dropping like flies from starvation all they want to do is have sex, right? This is despicable! Where is the humanity? This is lunacy. I just can't conjure up the words to describe this depravity.

PS (May 25) On the lighter side, after some thinking, I realize that the UN probably mistakenly delivered condoms instead of something else due to a linguistic error that I myself have committed. See, France handles a large amount of UN activity as do Anglophones. Once when I was in Paris I commented that the food was so delicious and that it undoubtedly had very few préservatifs, to which my colleague began laughing at me. Little did I know that this false cognate actually is the French word for CONDOMS. So I said that my food had very few condoms in it. The word I was looking for was conservateurs for preservatives. Surely, this mix-up would explain why the UN so erroneously shipped such a massive quantity of condoms to Myanmar instead of preservatives to help their food stocks last longer. Yep, that's right... (I had to lighten up such a grim piece of news).

"If" by Rudyard Kipling

2008-05-22T11:27:00.002-04:00

Few things make me as happy as a good poem, especially a poem by Robert Frost. However, I'm posting here the poem "If" by Kipling because it is a beautiful poem and has many good lessons in it. Enjoy!

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

--Rudyard Kipling

Open Letter from a Concerned Parishioner

2008-05-20T23:50:00.004-04:00

If you have not yet read my post of today, "Lunatics on Parade", please read it before reading this post as it explains the duress by which I am driven to write this letter.

This is the text of a letter which I have just finished to the pastor of the church in my town where I go to confess often. I have ceased attending Mass there due to heretical activities in blatant disobedience to the Bishop and the Church. I have not yet submitted it to the church but will do so soon.

May 20, 2008

Dear Father,

I am writing to you regarding a matter of great concern which I have witnessed occurring in St. Augustine’s parish for some time and about which I have put off writing for many months.

Father, as a very devoted Catholic and parishioner I am always troubled by circumstances in the church environment which hamper the devotion and respect for Church teachings demanded in a Catholic parish. While I have noticed many illicit activities of varying gravity through the years, I will limit myself to one right now, namely, the activities of the Women’s Book Group, which has proven affiliations with groups and individuals either in dubious standing with the Church or who have been fully excommunicated by virtue of their actions. On a similar note, I wish to address a grave error published in the bulletin of May 11, 2008 which I hope will be rectified.

1) The Women’s Book Group has expressed time and time again controversial feminist tendencies as well as overt declarations of support for female ordination- both grave violations of Church teaching. While I fully respect the right for any group to engage in study of books that will further appreciation for their particular callings in God’s plan, the outright endorsement of contrarian beliefs which challenge the teaching authority of the Church should not be supported by a parish of the Roman Catholic Church.

2) This group has also been actively affiliated with illicit groups and has invited speakers teaching positions directly contrary to Church teaching. As indicated, in a manner indicative of scandal, in the bulletin of 11 May, the group has direct connections to the Wild Iris Bookstore in Gainesville and even receives discounts from this store. The very publishing of this fact in the bulletin, which could, by virtue of mere curiosity, expose unsuspecting parishioners to the seriously immoral materials of this store, is remorsefully scandalous. If you are not aware, Father, this store is reputed, as evidenced by its website, to actively promote New Age, feminist and female divinity, LGBTQ- in a word- gravely sinful doctrines.

The current book selection of the group, written by Richard R Gaillardetz, is titled By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful. As indicated by the title and by further research, the book is an attack on the primacy of the Magisterium with regard to the deposit of faith, written by a confessed critic of the Church.

The group has also invited Robert McClory, an errant priest openly critical of the male celibate priesthood as well as an affiliate of Call to Action, yet another organization devoted to opposing established and unflinching Church teachings.

3) On March 29, 2008, according to the website of Bridget Mary, an illicit female “priest” in Florida, members of the Women’s Book Group attended a “mass” celebrated illicitly by the aforementioned, who belongs to a group called the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, whose original members have been summarily excommunicated latae sententiae for grave disobedience to a Vatican order to cease heretical activities.

4) In the bulletin of May 11, 2008, however much I lament having to refer to this fact yet again, was published a prayer which features a deceptively placed line which seriously contradicts the theological position of the Church regarding the nature of God. The prayer begins with, “God, our Father and Mother” and ends with, “May God, who is mother as well as father bless you”. For the average Sunday schooler for whom this entry was intended this error would be virtually unnoticeable and thus poses a very grave perversion of Church teaching with respect to a vulnerable audience. This fact is repeated throughout the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly in sections 238 through 242 on the nature of God the Father. It is regrettable, to say the least, that such a fact was willingly overlooked as indicated by its repetition!

Father, I do not feel that I need to continue listing the reasons why this issue is of deep concern to me and many of my fellow parishioners. There should be no reason whatsoever for this group to continue meeting as an official part of St Augustine’s parish without any significant change in their behavior and renunciation of past affiliations. They, and any other groups preaching doctrines in overt contradiction to established teachings, have no right to be acting under the auspices of a Catholic church in good standing with the diocese. Likewise should there not be any reason for the church to allow blatant errors regarding authorized theological positions of the Church to be published in so public a medium as the church bulletin, where it poses the risk of confusing the ignorant and imparting incorrect teachings to the faithful.

Father Gillespie, I write this to you out of filial respect and concern as a parishioner of St. Augustine’s in good standing with the Church. I would greatly appreciate a response from you regarding this issue as I am unaware of whatever measures may be in place to prevent such serious problems from continuing. I pray that you will address these very important points soon and I patiently await your gracious response.

I am,

Yours in Christ,
Anthony M. Piferrer

Here is a link regarding why God is our Father and not our Mother. Click here.

Let the Crusade begin!

Lunatics on Parade

2008-05-20T22:16:00.003-04:00

Thus far I have prided myself on fairly professionally-toned entries and aurally-palatable verbage becoming of a level-headed college upperclassman. I will thus take the liberty to suspend this trend this once, and likely not for the last time, because I'm just fuming right now. First off, kudos to my friend Jon Knox for his recent entries on the feminist invasion of the Catholic Church. They're my springboard.

What is with these feminazis, these liberals? Why, for goodness sake, can't they just live and let live? Everything has been turned into a parade, a mockery! First they began by infiltrating society, then they moved to destroy the family, and now they've turned their sights on the moral and intellectual pillar and heart of Western civilization: the Roman Catholic Church. Let's face it, nobody out there is remaining as steadfast with what has really held up Western civilization for the past two millennia as the Catholic Church in these, I daresay, apocalyptic times. Family values, a sense of reverence for authority, religious fervor, tradition, etc. The list goes on. Why can't these feminazis just go off to some island somewhere and make their heretical fantasies come true there where no one can see them?

I'm going to spell this out really clearly for all of the rebels out there right now. God has revealed Himself to us as the FATHER, that is, as a MALE figure. Jesus was not black, nor oppressed by racist Romans, nor, heaven forbid, a female! And here is the pill that you either swallow or leave on the plate and go join some hippy Protestant church: if you do not agree with Catholic teaching, you are not a Roman Catholic, nor a Roman Catholic in good standing; you are a Protestant, perhaps an apostate, but definitely a heretic! So keep your heresy out of my beloved Church! You can not support abortion at all and call yourself a Catholic, much less a Christian. You can not support feminism (feminazism) and call yourself a Catholic. You can not hold the delusion that the Eucharist is a symbol, rather than the true substance and Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and call yourself a Catholic. You can not pick and choose your favorite teachings that fit your pre-chosen agenda and call yourself a Catholic. You can not support homosexual "marriage" and call yourself a Catholic. You can not support destructive genetic research and call yourself a Catholic. Really, this is quite simple. You're either in or you're out. You can't have your arm in Heaven and your leg in Hell.

I'm having a lot of trouble containing myself. This is a masquerade, really, this parade of feminazis who think that they have been so gravely wronged, that the big bad Roman Catholic Church has deprived them of the right to become priestesses. I really think that these people live the most dismal lives ever experienced in the span of human history. There's no other explanation for why they'd hitch a ride on the lunatic fringe bandwagon and adopt the illusion that they're oppressed just to make themselves feel like they're righteous, like they're one with the early Church leaders who were truly persecuted.

These people make a mockery out of everything we have ever held dear. And here we have to take their crap, watch them destroy our Church traditions and Western civilization? If it were up to me they'd all be excommunicated by now and I'd already be propping the stake up in front of the church. They sicken me! They're the most deluded people in the history of humanity and yet they parade as the progressive and enlightened of our time! What in the world is going on here. Does anyone see what is going on here???

The Rock and Roll Morality

2008-05-12T15:45:00.005-04:00

I am writing in great humility with regard to the writing of a great thinker of our past half-century in such a way as to render this text as a commentary more so than an actual personal production of real creative ingenuity. In fact, so humbled am I by the profundity of what I would like to discuss here that I feel a greater temptation to adulate the author rather than to dare comment at all. I will simply leave the commentary to the reader’s own spiritual turnings and disturbances.

At present I am reading a book which I have longed to read for quite some time called The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. It is, as stated on the back cover, an argument that “the social/political crisis of 20th-century America is really an intellectual crisis.” Thus far he has touched on a multitude of topics and approaches, from relativism to religion to music, the great works of literature, etc. The list is already endless.

Anyways, today I read the chapter titled, “Music”, and was stunned by the fluidity and coherence of Bloom’s argument and observation on our current moral state and how it pertains to our obsession with music. He states that the entire nature of music, as well as its purpose, has changed. If I may sum it up in my own (potentially incorrect) terms, where music was once a means of conveying meaning, a message, and only acutely a form of expression, music as it is manifest in its most popular form today- rock- is now mostly a means of expression with the end of creating an effect, a feeling, and a predominantly physical sense of pleasure.

Before I quote Bloom, I will ask, “Why does this matter?” It matters because music and our relationship to it are intimately tied, as Bloom argues, to our spiritual condition. This should come as no surprise to a Catholic, who knows the centrality of music to the liturgy. And yet, the flux which our musical and, consequently, moral expression has undergone has been virtually overlooked and its effect and reflection of our moral state for the most part ignored. What does all this have to do with “sex, drugs, and rock and roll?”

“Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later.” (73)

“In alliance with some real art and a lot of pseudo-art, an enormous industry cultivates the taste for the orgiastic state of feeling connected with sex, providing a constant flood of fresh material for voracious appetites. Never was there an art form directed so exclusively to children.” (73-4)

This fosters a sense of rebellion against authority, that rebellion so emblematic of the era of sex, drugs, and rock and roll that was the 1960’s.

“The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that represses it. Selfishness thus becomes indignation and then transforms itself into morality. The sexual revolution must overthrow all the forces of domination, the enemies of nature and happiness. From love comes hate, masquerading as social reform. A worldview is balanced on the sexual fulcrum. What were once unconscious or half-conscious childish resentments become the new Scripture. And then comes the longing for the classless, prejudice-free, conflictless, universal society that necessarily results from liberated consciousness—“We Are the World,” a pubescent version of Alle Menschen werden Brüder, the fulfillment of which has been inhibited by the political equivalents of Mom and Dad. These are the three great lyrical themes: sex, hate and a swarmy, hypocritical version of brotherly love. Such polluted sources issue in a muddy stream where only monsters can swim. A glance at the videos that project images on the wall of Plato’s cave since MTV took it over suffices to prove this. Hitler’s image recurs frequently enough in exciting contexts to give one pause. Nothing noble, sublime, profound, delicate, tasteful or even decent can find a place in such tableaux. There is room only for the intense, changing, crude and immediate, which Tocqueville warned us would be the character of democratic art, combined with a pervasiveness, importance and content beyond Tocqueville’s wildest imagination.

Picture a thirteen-year-old boy sitting in the living room of his family home doing his math assignment while wearing his Walkman headphones or watching MTV. He enjoys the liberties hard won over centuries by the alliance of philosophic genius and political heroism, consecrated by the blood of martyrs; he is provided with comfort and leisure by the most productive economy ever known to mankind; science has penetrated the secrets of nature in order to provide him with the marvelous, lifelike electronic sound and image reproduction he is enjoying. And in what does progress culminate? A pubescent child whose body throbs with orgasmic rhythms; whose feelings are made articulate in hymns to the joys of onanism or the killing of parents; whose ambition is to win fame and wealth in imitating the drag-queen who makes the music. In short, life is made into a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy.

This description may seem exaggerated, but only because some would prefer to regard it as such…” (74-75)

Bloom introduces a moral sociopolitical aspect to his critique of the new musical phenomenon a few pages later:

“It is interesting to note that the Left, which prides itself on its critical approach to ‘late capitalism’ and is unrelenting and unsparing in its analysis of our other cultural phenomena, has in general given rock music a free ride. Abstracting from the capitalist element in which it flourishes, they regard it as a people’s art, coming from beneath the bourgeoisie’s layers of cultural repression. Its antinomianism and its longing for a world without constraint might seem to be the clarion of the proletarian revolution, and Marxists certainly do see that rock music dissolves the beliefs and morals necessary for liberal society and would approve of it for that alone. But the harmony between the young intellectual Left and rock is probably profounder than that. Herbert Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man he promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual, a sort that the bourgeois moralist Freud called polymorphous and infantile. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common. The high intellectual life…and the low rock world are partners in the same entertainment enterprise. They must both be interpreted as parts of the cultural fabric of late capitalism. Their success comes from the bourgeois’ need to feel that he is not bourgeois, to have undangerous experiments with the unlimited. He is willing to pay dearly for them. The Left is better interpreted by Nietzsche than by Marx. The critical theory of late capitalism is at once late capitalism’s subtlest and crudest expression. Anti-bourgeois ire is the opiate of the Last Man.” (77-8)

The Beauty of Family Values

2008-05-06T00:22:00.004-04:00

I ran into this really cute video on YouTube made back in the day as a tool to teach kids to appreciate their parents. Although it seems like something that hearkens back to a better time, these are values that have been treasured for generations and that should be held for many more to come.

Appreciating Your Parents - Honoring Your Father and Mother

All that is necessary in life is family and faith in God and His Church; all else is secondary.

On politics and religion

2008-04-30T13:10:00.006-04:00

It has been some time since I last posted an entry of interest. Hopefully this atom bomb of a post-combining two taboo topics in one- will not come as too much of a shock.

Why have I chosen to touch on this right now? Well, it is an election year, and a particularly volatile one at that. For weeks I have heard so much spoken about politics and religion side-by-side along with varying viewpoints on this relationship- some flawed, some spot-on, others distorted. I address this mostly to my fellow Catholic brethren in the hopes of enlightening them about this essential relationship.

The question of politics, religion, and their relationship to each other has been the defining question of my academic career as a political science student thus far. How do I reconcile my firm religious convictions with the necessity of engaging others who hold conflicting beliefs in varying systems and approaches? This is a FUNDAMENTAL question which we should all ask. Many Catholics, sensing the futility of political pursuits, simply shrug it off in frustration- my original temptation. This comes, perhaps, from a misunderstanding of what exactly the "political" is.

Hannah Arendt, one of my favorite philosophers, said that while philosophy is the study of Man, political theory is the study of Men, which is why the latter interested her much more. We live in the world not in isolation, but amongst others. All the same, we have moral decisions and choices to make each and every day for which we ourselves are held to account. How do we as individuals situate these obligations? Since the dawn of time, and I believe until the end of time, people will situate their existence in the framework of faith, faith in God, who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, in a word, the summation of all things. To flesh it out just a bit, we could say that while philosophy and political theory exist relatively independently of one another, strictly speaking, religion is a unification (an essential unification) of the two.

The great tragedy of modernity, particularly of secularism, is the fatally flawed view that we can look at humanity through a lens that estranges, and ultimately discards, religion as a fundamental aspect of our existence. The same goes for the belief that religion must be divorced from our politics.

Every major political philosopher from Plato to Arendt has had to grapple, in some way or another, with the question of religion vis-á-vis the political. For Plato, the purpose of the political was to give mankind access, in some way, to the Good, which Christians later called "God". Augustine saw the world as divided and in tension between two "cities"- the city of God and the city of Man, out of which the former would ultimately triumph. Machiavelli and Rousseau proposed the idea of a "civil religion", the earliest ideas of state religion as legitimizing the governing order. Burke, the father of modern political conservatism, saw religion and the state as coinciding, with the state defending the church and the church sanctifying the state. Marx saw religion as "ideology" born of the fetters of man that sought to anesthetize man to the conditions of his existence. And so on.

So why must we not fear to let our religion guide us in the realm of the political? The word "politics" is derived from the Greek word polis meaning "city". The political is that which deals with the affairs of the city, of the people. How do people influence one another? How do they interact and make decisions that buttress their social order and manage their limited resources? That is the realm of politics. As you can see, everything that we do is to some extent political, and what we hold in faith through our religion is the source (hopefully) of our political impetus. In an age where religion is increasingly pushed to the side, we must engage our national polis all the more and assert the force of moral authority where it is severely lacking. We must not fear allowing God to guide us in our politics, that is, in our dealings with our fellow men. In a democratic society, the need for religion as a guide for our political decisions becomes all the more essential. Where once politics was reserved for the elite and far-off rulers, now the commonplace is political. As such we can not help but make our religion an integral part of our political decision-making, in large part because of the need for moral responsibility as individuals and as a society.

St. Augustine warned Christians to avoid over-involvement in public affairs as detrimental to the spiritual life. All the same, to sustain our democratic society as a righteous and morally-guided one, we must not fear to assert our faith in Christ and His Church and cherish the guidance that faith gives to our lives and to our dealings with others.

Welcome to the US, Pope Benedict!

2008-04-16T10:06:00.005-04:00

Ladies and gentlemen, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romanus, Vicarius Christi, Patriarcha Occidentis, Primas Italiae, Archiepiscopus et metropolitanus provinciae ecclesiasticae Romanae, Princeps sui iuris civitatis Vaticanae, Servus Servorum Dei

The coolest thing in the world: Seeing a Marine Honor Guard bearing the Vatican colors. AMAAAAAAZING!!!! The Catholic Church reigns!

A message from our Holy Father, HH Pope Benedict XVI

2008-04-10T11:29:00.004-04:00

April 8, 2008
The Vatican

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the United States of America,
The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you! In just a few days from now, I shall begin my apostolic visit to your beloved country. Before setting off, I would like to offer you a heartfelt greeting and an invitation to prayer. As you know, I shall only be able to visit two cities: Washington and New York. The intention behind my visit, though, is to reach out spiritually to all Catholics in the United States. At the same time, I earnestly hope that my presence among you will be seen as a fraternal gesture towards every ecclesial community, and a sign of friendship for members of other religious traditions and all men and women of good will. The risen Lord entrusted the apostles and the Church with his Gospel of love and peace, and his intention in doing so was that the message should be passed on to all peoples.
At this point I should like to add some words of thanks, because I am conscious that many people have been working hard for a long time, both in Church circles and in the public services, to prepare for my journey. I am especially grateful to all who have been praying for the success of the visit, since prayer is the most important element of all. Dear friends, I say this because I am convinced that without the power of prayer, without that intimate union with the Lord, our human endeavors would achieve very little. Indeed this is what our faith teaches us. It is God who saves us, he saves the world, and all of history. He is the shepherd of his people. I am coming, sent by Jesus Christ, to bring you his word of life.
Together with your bishops, I have chosen as the theme of my journey three simple but essential words: "Christ our hope." Following in the footsteps of my venerable predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II, I shall come to United States of America as Pope for the first time, to proclaim this great truth: Jesus Christ is hope for men and women of every language, race, culture, and social condition. Yes, Christ is the face of God present among us. Through him, our lives reach fullness, and together, both as individuals and peoples, we can become a family united by fraternal love, according to the eternal plan of God the Father.
I know how deeply rooted this Gospel message is in your country. I am coming to share it with you, in a series of celebrations and gatherings. I shall also bring the message of Christian hope to the great assembly of the United Nations, to the representatives of all the peoples of the world. Indeed, the world has greater need of hope than ever: hope for peace, for justice, and for freedom; but this hope can never be fulfilled without obedience to the law of God, which Christ brought to fulfillment in the commandment to love one another. Do to others as you would have them do to you, and avoid doing what you would not want them to do. This "golden rule" is given in the Bible, but it is valid for all people, including non-believers. It is the law written on the human heart; on this we can all agree, so that when we come to address other matters we can do so in a positive and constructive manner for the entire human community.
Dirijo un cordial saludo a los católicos de lengua española y les manifiesto mi cercanía espiritual, en particular a los jóvenes, a los enfermos, a los ancianos y a los que pasan por dificultades o se sienten más necesitados. Les expreso mi vivo deseo de poder estar pronto con Ustedes en esa querida Nación. Mientras tanto, les aliento a orar intensamente por los frutos pastorales de mi inminente Viaje Apostólico y a mantener en alto la llama de la esperanza en Cristo Resucitado.
Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends in the United States, I am very much looking forward to being with you. I want you to know that, even if my itinerary is short, with just a few engagements, my heart is close to all of you, especially to the sick, the weak, and the lonely. I thank you once again for your prayerful support of my mission. I reach out to every one of you with affection, and I invoke upon you the maternal protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Que la Virgen María les acompañe y proteja. Que Dios les bendiga.

Planned Parenthood budget passes $1 billion despite negative publicity

2008-04-07T11:04:00.005-04:00

I am working to jump-start a topic series on "Bioethics and the Dignity of Life" on this blog in hopes of incorporating it into the overall discussion on Catholicism and Catholic values (where it forms a most important part as it is). I'm really looking forward to devoting my skills as a writer to furthering knowledge of this issue. The following is a very revealing article recently published that puts the economic exploitation of the unborn by the murderous corporation, Planned Parenthood, into startling perspective.

~~~
Washington, Apr. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Planned Parenthood Federation of America reported income of over $1 billion for the 2006-07 fiscal year, showing an 11% increase in funding driven by over $335 million in subsidies from American taxpayers.

The heavy government funding for Planned Parenthood-- up $31.4 millon over the previous year's figure-- came despite the heavily negative political impact of stories linking Planned Parenthood offices to failure to report statutory rape and to racist fundraising appeals.

Planned Parenthood is America's leading abortion provider, accounting for 289,650 abortions in the year 2006. The group has sold 1.4 million "emergency contraception" kits during that year. But while the organization claims to support a woman's "right to choose," only about 2,400 pregnant women were referred by Planned Parenthood to adoption agencies.

Douglas Scott, Jr, the president of Life Decisions International, noted that Planned Parenthood showed more than $100 million in "excess revenue over expenses" for the fiscal year. Although Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, Scott noted, that figure represents what is "known to regular people are profit." The group had net assets of nearly $1 billion, he noted, in what is "essentially a savings account."

Beyond "Sola Scriptura"

2008-04-03T11:13:00.009-04:00

During my last trip to our nation's capital, I came across a charming (and tiny) little book at the National Basilica gift shop titled Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters. I couldn't help buying it. Just some preliminary skimming and I was thoroughly impressed. What do we do in an incredibly post-sola scriptura world? What do we do beyond the light of Biblical inerrancy? I will attempt to conjecture a few points.

In our "postmodern" era (as if the modern era wasn't bad enough!) we are faced with the tenet of modernism which, in part, rejects the inerrancy (lack of error) in the Bible, as if it was just another book written by a bunch of humans. What has been accepted by the knowledge of faith, i.e., that God can not err in His revelation is now, as with everything else, questioned.

In Timothy, it is written that all Scripture is useful for teaching- not all-sufficient- but useful. When a Catholic needs further clarification or further teaching on a scriptural point, he or she turns to the teaching authority of the Church, from whence came the Bible itself and which has amassed the knowledge and doctrine of God's revelation- scriptural and extra-scriptural- throughout time. In this way, Catholics as a body have a "catholicity"- uniformity- of belief, unlike the diaspora and multitude of Protestant sects. What happens, then, if a Protestant sees the Bible as deficient, if a Catholic sees the Bible as deficient and errant or, worse, if a Catholic sees the Magisterium as bunk?

The usual recourse nowadays is to books written by a variety of authors with wildly varying beliefs (made possible by lack of imprimatur or nihil obstat) or even, particularly among more academic works, anti-Christian rhetoric. We live in an era of Christian self-help books. Unfortunately, more often than not, one begins with Christian self-helpers, then just plain self-helps, and then eventually one begins to believe that the Bible just isn't necessary, nor is "anybody else telling me what to think or do" (because I'm such a genius, God has spoken to me personally, and I'm the boss of me, &c.). Among Christian academics and students who often fallaciously reject biblical inerrancy and/or the religious teaching authority of the Church, I have noticed recourse to writers across the spectrum- from Rousseau to Kant and- far, far worse- Nietzsche (the self-proclaimed anti-Christ), Marx (an atheist Jew), Sartre (another atheist), &c. When I express concern about reading such works as a means to spiritual enrichment (depletion, really), I am simply told that it is good to read such authors to deepen in faith (by cultivating doubt, I may add).

Well, I confess I have read Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, and Marx- for academic means as I am a political scientist. I have very easily noticed their grave attacks on religion, in general, and have noticed the dangers of using such books too often for the purpose of one's spiritual pursuits.

If Christ gives us all things, why do we insist on asking for more? For the dissatisfied and faithless, behold, the descent of the modernists...

("The Descent of the Modernists", by E. J. Pace, first appearing in his book Christian Cartoons, published in 1922.)

Think you are stronger than that? Do not have so much faith in yourself as I once did. I nearly fell down the path before realizing my immense foolishness.

The Vocation Sensation (Abridged)

2008-03-31T23:11:00.003-04:00

I have received no comments nor do I believe many people have endeavored to read my last blog entry. As such here is a slightly abridged version which I hope will be easier to read, and I encourage my readers to read it as it is a very important topic. AP

~~~

I have read quite frequently lately about the hot topic amongst many Catholics which is the question of priestly vocations. I intend to try my best, with the help of the Spirit, to shed some light on this.

As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on. I used to worry about this question quite a bit but now I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.

Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.

(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in more underdeveloped countries. Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. Many parishes in secular France have at least 8 priests for tiny parishes. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood?

(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages.

(3) The number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000)- one sixth of the world population. That is not the number of practicing Catholics, the ones who most call upon the presence of a priest, which is surely quite a bit less. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again.

There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.

I have consulted graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which I'll describe here (to see the graphs, go to the original blog). In the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramatically if not more as with the men.)

How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. The overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.

Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question since it seems to have done immense harm as the "reforms" have crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.

O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.

The Vocation Sensation

2008-03-28T17:33:00.007-04:00

I have read quite frequently lately from a number of people, sources, websites, etc. about the hot topic amongst many Catholics which is the question of priestly vocations. With it comes the anti-Church quick-fix: female ordination and/or married priests. I intend to try my best, with the help of the Spirit, to shed some light on this.
As most of us may well know, there has been a shortage of priests in recent years as well as a decline in the number of vocations. Some parishes do not have a resident priest and do not take Holy Communion as often as other parishes do. Other parishes have closed down. The whole doomsday scenario goes on.

I used to worry about this question quite a bit. It still causes me an acute bit of anxiety but I've tried my best to confide in the Lord and surrender my qualms to Him because, in the end, He will see His Church through. Correction: He is seeing His Church through.

Here are the facts that many in the women ordination/end-priestly-celibacy camp won't tell you.

(1) The fact that priestly vocations have declined in the US does not mean they have declined all over the world. We like to project our problems here and think they are global in scope since, after all, the US of A is the center of humanity as we know it, right? Right?... No. While priestly vocations have declined precipitously in the Western, secular, increasingly irreligious, capitalist, economic powerhouse world, they have either remained steady in number or increased in "second" and especially Third World countries. In the poorest countries of the world God is calling the loudest for the children of the poor to shepherd His flock. Somehow this does not surprise me at all.

Relatively modernized countries like Poland and Ireland actually have priest surpluses and are "exporting" priests around the world to help. During my time in France, it was not uncommon to find parishes with 8 priests and up for dwindling parishes. So the argument that the number of Catholics is skyrocketing and the number of priests is dwindling is only an iota correct. Every area has its own situation. Consider this: statistically speaking, would it not make more sense that in a more strongly Catholic area where there are large numbers of true faithful, there would also be a comparatively adequate number of pure vocations to the priesthood? In Europe, despite its radical secularism and assaults on religion, there are still steady numbers of vocations to the priesthood. They're not as high as they used to be but they are there. Thanks be to God.

(2) Although unfortunate, it is not the end of the world if a parish goes without Holy Communion from time to time. There are countries in the world where parishes only take the Eucharist once or twice a year at most due to supply shortages. In the city where this was written (Gainesville, FL) the Eucharist is taken on at least 54 occasions PER WEEK. And this is in the South where Protestantism is strong. Consider that before you whine and complain.

(3) Throwing out data is one thing. Interpreting it is another. As we all know, 47% of statistics are made up! All the same, this we do know: the number of Catholics in the world right now is a bit over 1 billion (1,000,000,000). That is one sixth of the world population. That number is primarily compiled from parish registrations, which are required by churches. Now, any one Catholic could be registered in more than one church at any time. I am one of those. Any Catholic could also register at a church and then never go to Mass or practice his or her faith at all. Assessing the number of practicing Catholics is trickier than just looking at registrations and it is they who most call upon the presence of a priest. So when someone says that there are well over a billion Catholics in the world, and that there are way too few priests, and that there simply aren't enough priests to deal with the massive population of Catholics- think again. Yes, it would be nice to have more priests who can go out and evangelize, bring people back, etc. but at this time there aren't. This is not a bad thing. We make do with what we have and let God work His wonders.

There are many groups and dissident factions within the Church today who have created a sort of doomsday sensationalism regarding the vocation question such as FutureChurch and Call to Action which have been plotting to bring down our sacred tradition and who have waited patiently for the moment to strike during which to push their divisive agenda. They scored a minor victory in Vatican II but the Church stood firm.

Allow me to show you exhibit one: graphical data from the Georgetown University Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. I have been yearning for some time now to locate this data and see if my suspicions regarding the trends in the 20th century were true. They proved true.

As you can see from the below chart, in the period where the Catholic Church in the US really got momentum going from 1899 all the way up to the period around 1956-1965, the number of religious priests and brothers rose dramatically. The rate of growth did not begin to seriously decelerate until the '65-'76 period- right in the wake of Vatican II. Then, shockingly, in the 1976-1985 period, the number begins to plummet. (Incidentally, while many pro-women ordinationists would like to say that there is an ample supply of women to be priestesses, the fact is that the number of women religious has plummeted just as dramtically if not more as with the men.)

(If you can't see these charts, click them)

Below, exhibit two: women religious trends.

How does one account for these trends? Well, there are many reasons to explain the gradual decline in vocations in the post-WWII period- the rebellious spirit of the times, the rise of secularism in the US, the sexual "revolution", the overall assault on traditional authority and morality, etc. However, the plummeting of vocations in the period around 1975-1985 can be most easily explained by the changes enacted during Vatican II and the Protestantization of ministry with an overemphasis on the laity. If the laity are made to think that they are equal in authority as the priest, that they can perform many of the same functions as the priest, and that they do not need ordination to engage in the ministry of the Church, what reason do they have to go through the trouble of ordination? The Novus Ordo Mass in itself does not require much particular skill or expertise to perform. If I dare speak of appeal, the appeal of the post-Conciliar priesthood is not as strong as it once was, when being a priest was something exceptional, loftier, requiring a deeper spiritual retreat from the world and commitment to prayer that has been greatly de-emphasized in our modern times. Is this to say that all post-Conciliar priests are bad? NO! Nonetheless, the overall emphases made in the "spirit of Vatican II" create the impression that being a priest is not as necessary as just doing your duty. Let us not forget that the practice of receiving a tonsure in the pre-Conciliar Church and having strictly altar boys (who were in that position as potential seminarians) contributed greatly to the number of vocations.

Somehow I get the feeling that persisting in the modernist liberalization of the Church will not really help the vocation question. It seems to have done immense harm since the "reforms" crept in during the past 40 or so years. Perhaps a return to the traditional theology and teachings of the Church is in order. Perhaps doing things the way we did for so many centuries is the solution. If the Church enters and becomes of the world, it loses its moral authority and its source of strength and sanctity that has so drawn the many religious to its ranks for centuries. This is why priestly celibacy, the deepest sign of a priest's complete commitment to his supremely vital labor and his bride, the Church, must be retained. Regarding "priestesshood", I reiterate the millennial position of our Holy Mother Church that we have only male priests because Christ only chose men to be his Apostles. Men, by virtue of their bodies (as explained in JPII's Theology of the Body) and their scriptural role as the stewards of God's Creation, are the initiators of the sacrifice, they have been chosen throughout history to be God's priests. They are not superior to women nor are women, thus, inferior. Men are ordinate and women subordinate. This is in Scripture (1 Corinthians: 1-16, Ephesians 5:21-33). This is not oppression nor an expression of a lesser worth on the part of women nor even the blind assertion of social practice. Men and women have distinct roles- this is what makes society run. Rather than bicker all day about "liberation" or "rights", why don't we get to work doing what we are called to do, either as men or as women, each called in unique ways to serve God the Father. There is much work to be done. There is no time to waste on this frivolous debate.

O Holy Spirit, Spirit of wisdom and divine love, impart Your knowledge, understanding, and counsel to youth that they may know the vocation wherein they can best serve God. Give them courage and strength to follow God's holy will. Guide their uncertain steps, strengthen their resolutions, shield their chastity, fashion their minds, conquer their hearts, and lead them to the vineyards where they will labor in God's holy service.
Amen.

An explanation for the male priesthood
Priestly celibacy
Vocations Blog (Very interesting)

Happy Easter

2008-03-23T20:31:00.003-04:00

A very blessed and happy Easter to all, in commemoration of the Resurrection of our Lord, which opened the doors of Heaven to humanity and sealed our fates to our discipleship to Him and His Church.

Et cum transisset sabbatum Maria Magdalene et Maria Iacobi et Salome emerunt aromata ut venientes unguerent eum 2 et valde mane una sabbatorum veniunt ad monumentum orto iam sole 3 et dicebant ad invicem quis revolvet nobis lapidem ab ostio monumenti 4 et respicientes vident revolutum lapidem erat quippe magnus valde 5 et introeuntes in monumento viderunt iuvenem sedentem in dextris coopertum stola candida et obstipuerunt

6 qui dicit illis nolite expavescere Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum surrexit non est hic ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum 7 sed ite et dicite discipulis eius et Petro quia praecedit vos in Galilaeam ibi eum videbitis sicut dixit vobis 8 at illae exeuntes fugerunt de monumento invaserat enim eas tremor et pavor et nemini quicquam dixerunt timebant enim 9 surgens autem mane prima sabbati apparuit primo Mariae Magdalenae de qua eiecerat septem daemonia 10 illa vadens nuntiavit his qui cum eo fuerant lugentibus et flentibus

11 et illi audientes quia viveret et visus esset ab ea non crediderunt 12 post haec autem duobus ex eis ambulantibus ostensus est in alia effigie euntibus in villam 13 et illi euntes nuntiaverunt ceteris nec illis crediderunt 14 novissime recumbentibus illis undecim apparuit et exprobravit incredulitatem illorum et duritiam cordis quia his qui viderant eum resurrexisse non crediderant 15 et dixit eis euntes in mundum universum praedicate evangelium omni creaturae

16 qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur 17 signa autem eos qui crediderint haec sequentur in nomine meo daemonia eicient linguis loquentur novis 18 serpentes tollent et si mortiferum quid biberint non eos nocebit super aegrotos manus inponent et bene habebunt 19 et Dominus quidem postquam locutus est eis adsumptus est in caelum et sedit a dextris Dei

Chat With an Anglican & What is Community?

2008-03-19T21:42:00.009-04:00

(This is very long, but I beg that you will read it all attentively).

I will begin my post saying that I spent about two and a half hours this evening having come across, quite fortuitously, a devout Anglican with whom I had perhaps the most enriching, profound, and just plain amazing conversation about faith and Catholicism that I've had in eons. It goes beyond words how great it was. Conversations like that are few and very far between. Part of our conversation involved a chat on the meaning of community, which I'll get to in a bit.

As I was doing my barista work at the Christian Study Center, this good gentleman, about 50 years old or so, happened to come in to purchase a coffee and casually asked me what the Study Center was. I don't know how it began but we got into a preliminary chat on theology. We quickly realized who we were and our stances on this and that and the conversation took off from there.

I was stunned to find that on virtually every single point on theology, traditional Catholicism, the liturgy, in a word- everything- we were in perfect agreement. I daresay I have spoken so candidly about my Catholicism with few if any Roman Catholics. Why is this man an Anglican you ask? Well, he was raised Catholic, but left the Church to become an Anglican because after Vatican II, the Church was simply not that Catholic anymore. The traditional Anglican Church, so it seems, has maintained virtually intact so many practices and beliefs, &c. &c. that its brand of Catholicism, per se, is more "Catholic" than that which emerged from the chaos of the 60's post-Vatican II.

Take a moment and digest that.

Wait, you mean, a Protestant thinks the post-Vatican de facto Church is not Catholic enough?! Now, hold your horses! Don't go running off to Westminster now! All is not lost in Rome. In fact, nothing is lost! The reforms of Vatican II were just hijacked by, dare I say, ideological flappers that just took off into Kumbayah land such that it really, really looks like all hell and happy-holding-hands-quasi-Protestantized-Catholicism has broken loose. In many ways it has, but fear not! The gates of hell will not prevail and Sacred Tradition will triumph! It is already happening! I desist.

Why am I so excited about the long and exciting chat I had with this gentleman? I am excited because it gives me hope- profound hope. It gives me hope that the Church will reunify, not in the ridiculous ecumenical way whereby everyone descends into a sort of least-common-denominator Christianity, which really has no semblance to Christianity, and which ultimately will spell the doom for what Catholicism has stood for for 2000 years. NO! The body of Christ will reunify into one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when all Christians the world round come to the realization of the Gospel Truth (can I hear an Amen?) that is professed and safeguarded by the Holy Catholic Church as it has been all these centuries past. It will be, once again, a genuine, unified, body of believers in true community, i.e., in true COMMUNION with Christ the Bridegroom.

Can I hear an amen?

That brings me to the coup de grâce: what is community? Why do I suddenly decide to talk about this? You shall see.

The man with whom I spoke, named Ed, is an architectural historian. He is about to write a book on the liturgical functionality of traditional churches; quite fascinating, I'd say. Anyways, as we all know, one of the developments in contemporary churches is the abandonment of traditional church architecture- the Latin cross form, the altar is smack in the middle and nothing obstructs its view, etc.- for a more "open" and "liberal" architecture. One predominant form is the circle, whereby a church is designed in such a way that the congregation surrounds the altar and forms a circle with the priest, who faces them. "This is," Ed stated, "quite a communistic arrangement."

Whoa! Communism? Yes. Communism. Not the Fidel Castro kind, but rather the "we're all equal and we're happy holding hands" etc. This begs the question: isn't a community formed of a group of equals, all together and loving each other. Well, yea, but that's just a super tiny aspect of it.

Ever since the dawn of humanity, human societal organization, from the most primitive hunter-gatherers to the most advanced societies, have been characterized by a number of shared characteristics. Here are the big ones:
~Shared customs, practices, beliefs, ideals, etc.
~A common language or communicative symbology
~Sacred places and/or dwellings/places of gathering
~A leader (uh-oh...)

Just think a little bit and see that it is virtually impossible for a human society to function without these things. Is not a religious denomination organized thus, as well? Catholicism sure is! We have shared customs and beliefs, etc. that define us and distinguish us as Catholics. We share a common language of worship, be it the literal language which, traditionally, is Latin, or be it the vocabulary of the faith. We have sacred places set aside for special purposes called CHURCHES to which we invest much time and energy to make beautiful and useful in keeping with their extraordinary purpose. Lastly, we have a leader/leaders. Our Leader is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. We are led by bishops and by priests, who lead us in prayer. When one or more of these things is absent, community degenerates into a mob, or at best a gaggle (since mobs often have leaders, too!).

Armed with these weapons, we now proceed to take a good look at our contemporary situation. The "spirit of Vatican II" has caused a (fictitious) shift in the Church's thinking from a more individualistic notion of salvation to a more socialized one. Therefore, we throw around the word "Church community" quite a bit and forget what that means. Point blank: this is false. Why? Well, if everyone is allowed to believe whatever they want to believe (shopping at the cafeteria, being "open-minded"), criteria number 1 breaks down. Suddenly, we are no longer united in belief and such. Then, every church in the world is allowed to use its own vernacular, such that an American Catholic going to an Ethiopian Catholic church has no idea what the heck is going on in terms of language. He is not a part of that community. Criteria 2 has been shot down. Don't even get me started on how 3 has been chiseled away with these hideous modern megachurches, or outdoor "camp" masses on the grass, etc.

The kicker is with number 4. It is anthropologically impossible for a human society, on whatever scale, to exist without at least a rudimentary degree of leadership. And we wonder then how it is that liberal Protestantism has shamed Christianity with this indescribable multiplicity of beliefs and sects. Why has this happened? There is NO leadership of any sort. Anyone who says that they can be in a church community or a legitimate religious denomination without a spiritual leader is absolutely off their rocker! Is a church pastor who preaches day in and day out a leader to his flock? NO! Somebody who stands in front of you and talks to you is not leading you. They are talking to you. Now, is a person, specially set aside for a particular purpose- as a military officer is set aside with a distinct uniform, distinct responsibilities, and a distinct role- a leader? Yes. A leader is not a God-like figure, although if they do well they can be a beautiful manifestation of God's presence. He does not have to be divine or all holy, although an extraordinary degree of exemplarity is a prerequisite to leadership. Who on earth plays such a role in the ordinary Catholic Church adherent to the true Faith?-- a priest. A priest, like a person driving a car, faces his back to the group not because he does not care about them, but because he is leading. (Who ever saw a general run into battle with his troops running backwards on his horse? I mean, seriously). He has exceptional knowledge in his role, appears slightly different, etc. but has the same innate essence as those he leads. THIS IS TRUE COMMUNITY. United behind the priest, the Catholic parish offers itself up as a group in the purest form of community, most especially while taking Holy Communion (communion = come + union), in a specially set-aside place, with a set of shared practices and beliefs, and with a common language. Nothing comes closer to community than this. The parishioners in this community understand that from among them is a person chosen to perform special different roles in order to help preserve their community. They come to him for advice, address their grievances and troubles to him, and trust in his expertise in his specially-assigned role, reserving judgment of his capacities to a more competent authority higher than him out of humility, reverence, and respect for a fellow man.

I can not stress any more strongly how profoundly the traditional faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the purest and most beautiful manifestation of human community united in love of God in Christ ever witnessed on the face of this earth. Nothing else competes at all.

Thou shalt not...pollute your backyard?

2008-03-11T10:30:00.005-04:00

A top Vatican official just recently "updated" the old list of sins by adding in such things as polluting the environment, genetic manipulation, and (my favorite) extreme inequality as exemplified by the quote: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It seems that the modern legalistic spirit of wanting to get away with anything that is not expressly forbidden has necessitated that the Vatican spell things out.

The hallmark of a liberal moral conscience, and by that I mean an unrestrained one (not a hippy one, although those come close), is the usage of moral laws only when they are to one's moral benefit. For example, freedom of speech is essential! (but it must exclude religious talk in schools). Freedom of assembly is crucial! (but churches must keep wholly on their own property and not demonstrate publicly). Killing is evil! (unless I need to abort my baby because of my own irresponsibility). See the inconsistency?

The same sense of moral exploitation, if you will, rears its head when it comes time for an examination of conscience before confession. One of the main definitions of a mortal sin is that it is a grave and wanton violation of God's law. More often than not, the benchmark for God's law is the Ten Commandments. Ok, let's begin there. Now, (to borrow names from the Baltimore Catechism), Felonius may egg on a buddy of his to view pornography but, since Felonius is such an angel, he refrains from doing so while his friend does. Confession times comes about. Felonius says, "I didn't commit the sin by watching the pornography so I don't need to confess!" Well, yeah, that's right, Felonius, you didn't watch the pornography. But you forgot one minor detail: you drove your neighbor to sin, and to sin quite gravely. The Pharisees had a similar logic when they felt that by paying Judas to betray Jesus they would have no blood on their hands. And yet, even they accept their own guilt when the blood money is returned and they do not place it in the temple coffers. This act of leading someone else to sin is called "scandal" and it is indeed mentioned in the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." In this case, scandal spiritually kills by driving another to sin. It could be said that one who commits scandal is a particularly nasty opponent of God's will, an accomplice of Satan one might say.

Allow me to venture a bit further on my scandal tangent. Now, what about free will? The dude who watched the pornography could easily have just not done so. True. We do not know the circumstances by which, let's call him Jasper, was driven to view pornography. All the same, Felonius was what the Church calls an "accessory to sin". Had Felonius not egged Jasper on the chances of his viewing pornography on his own may have been far less or even nonexistent. Maybe he used such Satanic poetry as "Oh, it's not that bad! You have to release your sexual urges somehow! EVERYONE DOES IT!"

Right there before your eyes is an examination of conscience over one sin- a particularly grave one. Contrary to the legalistic cognition of our time, things do not need to be spelled out all the time for us to know that they are immoral. If we approach confession and sin in terrible fear of the Judgment, like we ought to, we would not be so lax in our "interpretations"- another lovely word from Satan's opus.

The Vatican is to be commended for being well abreast of the times as it has always been and reiterating the need to look between the lines when it comes to examining our moral conscience. The need to care for our environment, avoid genetic manipulation, and fight economic inequality are perennial Christian virtues with a slightly different look but with all the same essence.

"Si iniquitátes observáveris Dómine: Dómine quis sustinébit?"

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/vatican-updates-thou-shalt-not-list/20080310151509990001

De profúndis clamávi...

2008-03-07T19:13:00.001-05:00

Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice. Let thy ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication. If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities: Lord, who shall stand it? For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word: My soul hath hoped in the Lord.

From the morning watch even until night, let Israel hope in the Lord. Because with the Lord there is mercy: and with him plentiful redemption. And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

From the depths we cry to thee, O Lord, from this valley of tears, this burdensome world! How we long to be united with Thee, how we so desire the pure joy and love that only Thee may furnish. Be attentive with Thine merciful ears, behold our humble pleas for your infinite mercy. We pray, hear us!

I am overjoyed to finally begin this blog which I seek to devote to my manifold ruminations, thoughts, praises of, etc. regarding my beloved faith, the faith of the ages and of all time- my Roman Catholic creed. There has never been a more joyful time in the history of mankind to be Catholic because never before have so many challenges emerged and never before have the stakes been higher. To us, the new generation of Catholics, has been entrusted the most solemn of obligations- to love, cherish, and defend the Sacred Traditions and the Divine Revelations of Scripture from the gates of Hell, which our Lord promised us would never prevail. The profound Truth that our Blessed Lord has passed to us through His Apostles, us, most unworthy and most sinful, lights our way, and we will never stray should we keep our eyes set on His Divine Grace.

May we never forget, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Blessed are those who hold the narrow path, for the broad one leads to Gehenna, but those who are true to the difficult and burdensome one will see the light of salvation.

Lord, bless these chronicles of Your revelation in my heart and may they be a light for all to see, a light to guide all to the fullest truth of Your Church on Earth.

What I intend to write by the guidance of the Spirit on this blog is hidden from my eyes as yet. Whatever I feel worthy to publish, however, I will do so with unflagging devotion and, if necessary, unabashed frankness. Many were the words of Our Lord that comforted and inspired. Equally many were His words that turned away the weak and faithless and brewed fear in the hearts of the unworthy. My heart trembles with fear of the Lord, for His forthcoming wrath on the Day of Judgment is terrible indeed, but boundless is the love by which we are saved. And yet, woe, so often do I forget my place, that I am but a speck of sand, that I am but a sinner! So often do I wander onto the broad path and spurn the sweet tender love and guidance of my Heavenly Master. I pray that all that is written in this blog will be ad majorem Dei gloriam and that it will bring the doubtful and the faithless to sincerity and truth.

For the more technical aspects of this blog, I have a few things to say.
1) I will not tolerate anonymous posts. I GREATLY encourage posts. All the same, if you are so cowardly as to not even identify yourself when you write, especially a sharp retort, I will not consider your opinion. I will delete it without so much as looking at it.

2) Any comments as to things anyone would like to see here, things I can improve, etc. would be greatly welcomed. Your prayers, most especially, are always very much welcome.

3) If I ever err in any way in terms of dogma, Church teaching, etc., I urge you to alert me immediately so my errors may be amended. I adhere as faithfully as possible to the teachings of the Church, but I admit that I am by no means perfect.

4) For you, PRAY. ALOT. It is good for your soul and pleasing to the Lord to communicate often with Him.

God bless everyone,
Anthony