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

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.

An excerpt from the Council of Carthage

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.

"By Grace You Have Been Saved"

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!

Besieged

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

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.

2008 Presidential Election: Time for Foreboding

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

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

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

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

1) PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SOCIALISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the News, 14 June 2008

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!

Lunatics on Parade

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???

Beyond "Sola Scriptura"

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.