Common Sense Catholicism

Shame is Good

2011-08-21T12:42:00.000-04:00

Whenever discussions arise surrounding how to understand Blessed John Paul's Theology of the Body, the topic of shame frequently comes up. It is good this happens. The proper understanding of shame not only unlocks a proper understanding of the Pope's popular speeches, but unlocks the proper understanding of everything surrounding Christianity.

Unfortunately, shame is almost entirely presented in a rather negative way. Shame is something wrong, that occurs because we feel we have done something wrong. There are some writers and thinkers who have made a veritable cottage industry out of mocking the "shame" of those they disagree with, implying that the existence of shame demonstrates how backwards they are in the Gospel. Such an approach is misplaced and betrays a lack of familiarity not only with God's word, but human nature itself.

To acquire a better understanding of shame, we must turn our attention to the Wisdom literature of the Old Testament. I have in mind specifically the book of Sirach. In the fourth chapter (the verse itself varies depending on your translation), the wise man states:

For there is a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory and grace

For Sirach, shame is something that simply exists. It is not something you can do away with. Indeed, in this context, he speaks about the futility of trying to fight the current of a river. If one fights to eliminate shame entirely, one is engaging in a pointless battle. Since the fall of Adam, shame has existed, and will always exist on the earth.

Yet what does Sirach mean when he says that there is a shame that brings "glory and grace?" I submit the answer to this question comes in the key to all wisdom literature. King Solomon tells us, before any of his proverbs, that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom." While it might seem so, I am not exchanging one cryptic passage for another. Like shame, fear is something often misunderstood. Far from terror, the Bible understands this fear to be a sense of reverence and awe.

Take a young boy to a baseball game. He will stand in amazement at the green of the grass, the sheer size of the stadium. He might not understand the intricacies of the WHIP statistic (many adults don't), yet he can still just take the grandeur of the game in. When it comes to dealing with God, we are that little boy. The beauty and grandeur of his works are something so beyond us, we can simply sit there and stare, taking it all in.

The more you take in the great things that God gives, the more you come to a realization. That is a recognition of your own smallness. Man, being the progressive being he is, always wants to better himself. Yet this advancement only makes our limitations more apparent. King Solomon acquired more wealth than hundreds of his descendants could possibly spend, yet Christ tells us a simply lily flower was adorned even greater than the King in all his majesty.

The just and the wicked alike come to this conclusion. Both have that experience of shame within them. (Sometimes you may have to dig deep!) The question becomes: how does one respond to it? The shame which brings sin responds to such inadequacy through pride. Solomon magnified his status to an absurd degree (gold everything, 700 wives, etc). A man may see a woman of virtue reject his advances, and feel a sense of being diminished.. The shame that leads to sin tries to seize what needs to be offered as a gift by force. The idea he should be denied anything is absurd. Rather than recognizing the limits of humanity, they strive against them, believing they can change them. Even worse, those limits come to be viewed as a hindrance towards what you can truly be, so they must be dismissed.

So how does the shame which leads to grace come about? That shame comes from an acceptance of one's limitations, and of their smallness. Standing before what they perceive such a great mystery, they simply accept it. Indeed, to add anything to it of their own accord would just screw everything up. Only when this attitude is adopted can God begin the real work within. When such a person sins, they do not despair at it. Yet they do not ignore it. They realize all the better what they were called for, and how far short they fell. It is at this point grace is at its strongest.

That is why it is absurd to speak of doing away with shame, and being without shame. If one were without shame, one would be without humility. If one were without humility, one could not possibly love. As for a world without love, well, I think we see where this is going.

The Extraordinary Form: The Meaning of the Sanctus

2011-07-16T09:39:00.001-04:00

At the end of the Preface (depending on the Preface), various invocations of the angels and saints in Heaven are made. We are then called to join their song humbly. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is something very important to remember. When we begin the Sanctus, we are not simply saying it alone. We are moved outside of time, united to heaven in a very mystical way.

The Sanctus is a very rich prayer when we consider what exactly is going on. Two scenes are called to mind in this prayer, both of which were introductions. The first is from the Prophet Isaiah:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated: and his train filled the temple. Upon it stood the seraphims: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings: with two they covered his face, and with two they covered his feet, and with two they hew. And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory. And the lintels of the doors were moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: Woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that hath unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts.

And one of the seraphims flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom shall I send? and who shall go for us? And I said: Lo, here am I, send me.

I would like to submit that when Isaiah saw this vision, Isaiah saw the Mass. Remember, heaven cannot be measured via time, because it is outside of time. God is timeless. When he saw the angels in their chant, he was seeing yesterday, his present time, and several millennia later, right up to the present day. He states that he was in the temple. Temples are the place of sacrifice. The smoke from the incense filled the temple, and God himself was present. What he saw (but perhaps could not explain), was that God was present as both priest and victim. Recognizing the amazing event he witnessed, he saw how unworthy he was. Not only because he saw God, but rather that he saw God accomplish his ultimate plan, the salvation of the human race. As a result of this, an angel comes and purifies him, so that he can prepare worthily for the event he is about to witness.

The priest finds himself in a similar situation. After that purification (which we all receive in the Sacraments of Initiation), God asks for people to accept the calling of the priesthood. Not everyone will answer that call. When the priest does, he may ask, like Isaiah does, how long must he preach the Gospel? How long must he offer the Mass? The answer God provides is instructive:

Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land shall be left desolate. And the Lord shall remove men far away, and she shall be multiplied that was left in the midst of the earth. And there shall be still a tithing therein, and she shall turn, and shall be made a shew as a turpentine tree, and as an oak that spreadeth its branches: that which shall stand therein, shall be a holy seed

In short, the priest is meant to act until the end of the world. Likewise, from the saying of the first Mass until the end of time, there will always be a priest somewhere, at some hour of the day, fulfilling the Lord’s request throughout the earth. This call remains equally true to the faithful, albeit in a different way. The Sanctus is a reminder that we too must live according to the Gospel to the end of the earth. The worship of God was meant for all creation. If one iota of creation is not yet participating in it, the job of a Christian is never done. Like Isaiah, we must realize our unworthiness to partake in the mystery of God’s redemption. This task is perfectly suited towards God. God is Holy. His very name is called Holy. When something was said three times in ancient times, it was a very special confirmation of what was being said.

Yet what makes the Canon such a holy thing? It is more than just our participation at Calvary. Through the Roman Canon, Holy Week itself is retraced.

On True Holiness

2011-07-10T11:24:00.000-04:00

Stop me if you've heard this one before. (Actually don't, as this is my blog, I make the rules.) Whenever extolling someone, you hear "he is so holy!" This is one of the most dangerous statements around. If one doesn't understand what true holiness is, they are giving a false assessment, and that has the potential to mislead others. While some might view this a hard assessment, I would object.

The beauty about God is He has no desire to hide all of His works from His creation. Sure, some things might be clouded a bit in mystery, but he points us the way to something, and faith makes up for what we lack. So it is with holiness. We have seen many priests disgrace their priesthood. The shocked faithful always say "but he was so holy!" Perhaps we need to do a more in-depth examination of what holiness is.

Our first mistake is to define holiness as something we do. That is alien to the Biblical world. Rather, being holy was what we are. In being holy, we are set apart. Holiness is what we do to represent our being set apart. Through our bodies, we carry out certain actions, and these actions can be judged as to whether they are in accord with a state of being set apart from the ordinary. If they are not, and we are all too ordinary (like the world), that being set apart is used in our condemnation.

So in judging holiness, we must look at acts that are set apart from the "normal" ways of the world, or of our nature. Our nature was corrupted by sin. As a result, we stopped acting as if we were set apart to give God glory, and acted to the contrary. Right away this eliminates marks of being holy such as eloquence in speech, or the ability to repeat intellectual propositions that can be turned into talk points. The mouth can preach orthodoxy with great eloquence. Yet the heart can also use that mouth to manipulate, even under the appearance of orthodoxy. When Marc Antony spoke in Julius Caesar, he was assenting to the orthodoxy of the day from the powers that be. Yet through manipulation, he managed to undermine those very figures.

Likewise, when Satan approaches our Lord in the desert, everything he says is true and orthodox. He indeed was able to quote scripture with the best of them. Yet he was using orthodoxy to undermine proper practice, or orthopraxy. He was tempting Christ towards vanity and arrogance. If he hooked Christ on those things, he could break Him later on the orthodoxy stuff.

That is why when we are measuring holiness, we must look for those traits and virtues which are not "of this world." Anyone can speak with eloquence, but true Christian charity is hard to fake. Authentic Christian faith, hope, and charity cannot come from within. They can only come from externally. The world cannot fake these things.

We are given a second tool outside of these main virtues, in that they are measured by how we live our vocation. In the secular world, our profession defines who we are. A businessman is concerned with striking the balance of making their business efficient yet still profitable. To the extent they are both efficient and profitable, we can measure how successful a businessman they are.

God gives each and every human person a vocation, a calling. Those vocations have certain requirements to them. A priest is called to a life (if not always a vow) of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Poverty comes about in not relying on the things of this world, even if we have them. Chastity (by extension celibacy) is in accordance with the fact that they are living a life in anticipation of the Kingdom of heaven, a sign for all of us of our eventual destination. Finally, obedience is the recognition that they are priests of something other than themselves, so what they want is not always what is best.

Another vocation exists for the married life which people are called to. While many might not realize it, they have the same requirements, they just carry them out in a different manner. The life of poverty calls them to cling to their spouses, the greatest created gift God has given them. Material possessions should never take the place of primary devotion over their spouse. In chastity, they are called to realize that they can be with their spouse only, and no other. To the extent the eyes (and person) set themselves upon another, they are not living chastely. Finally they submit in obedience to their spouse by realizing that their needs are no longer of paramount importance. The benefit of their spouse is their business, and more importantly, the benefit of the family as a whole trumps all. A businessman who increases his own efficiency and profit at the expense of the company he works for will either find himself fired or in jail for fraud. Likewise a spouse who puts their own needs above that of the company he works for (their family) will place their souls in mortal danger.

Like those authentic virtues, they are incredibly tough to fake when viewed properly. They are something that must be continually done. They define who we are. One may be able to trick themselves into leading a double life. Yet they will be found out eventually by others, who can examine their actions over a lifetime. Since they are not living towards their vocation in their double life, they cannot be considered as practicing holiness, even if they do great things. Indeed, those great things become condemnations. A husband cannot practice marital chastity for long when he places the needs of himself as paramount. Eventually, those needs will lead to his own fulfillment. What does his wife think? Who cares! He is looking out for number one.

Likewise, a priest that spends his lifetime building up material possessions will eventually come to be defined by them. Without that character of poverty, he will not long have a character of chastity or obedience. In addition to being incredibly hard to fake long-term, they are inseparably linked.

Finally, when we look at holiness from this perspective, one thing comes to mind. Man is holiness hard! That is what we should always remember when we see someone stumble. If we look upon ourselves, we will find that, to greater or lesser degrees, we aren't following that spirit which leads to virtue. That brings us to humility.

Humility is the hardest of all of these, yet it is also the most necessary. If poverty, chastity, and obedience lead to faith, hope, and charity, humility is the glue that holds everything together. Humility is our reminder that if we do this on our own, we will fail. If we examine our consciences for but one minute each day, this will become blatantly apparent. Poverty and chastity reach obedience through humility. If one is not humble, he will have few of those virtues for long. Eventually the winds of this world will blow obedience away from chastity, or poverty from obedience. Like everything else here, the glue is something we cannot produce out of ourselves. It needs to come from somewhere else. That "somewhere" is a "someone." That individual is Jesus Christ. Later we will consider how this is to be so with a few analogies.

A Challenge to the Church of NFP

2011-07-09T11:04:00.000-04:00

Every now and then an article is written that doesn't so much as set the trend in the blogosphere but tells in public what many were thinking in private. As a result, serious discussion develops. Very few remember one sentence from Alice Von Hildebrand's takedown of Christopher West. What they do remember was that a lion of Catholicism had finally given some much needed fraternal correction to Mr. West. She said in her eloquence what many had been thinking.

I think Danielle Bean over at Crisis Magazine has done something similar. If nothing else, she causes me to think.

I remember several years ago I was on a first date with a lady. During that date, out of the blue, she asked "do you plan on using Natural Family Planning during your marriage?" From the love of baseball to thermometer reading and charting. This is an experience no (then) 23 year old should go through. In discussing the rather absurd and bizarre situation with a friend, he gave what was probably the best reply I've heard. "Me and my wife are firm believers in Natural Family Planning. I plan on hitting the lotto, then having my family naturally."

Like Ms. Bean, I do not intend to dog on NFP. It has always been permitted by the Church under certain conditions. My problem is with what I call "The Church of NFP", or when I'm in a slightly more polemical mood "NFP or Die."

For these individuals, NFP is not just something couples should consider prudently. To not practice NFP is to show a lack of prudence. In their mind, to not engage in NFP is to abandon "responsible parenthood." That they cannot cite one magisterial document which says every Catholic should practice NFP is irrelevant. They base their understanding on John Paul II's Man and Woman He Created Them. That John Paul II never said such a thing is once again irrelevant. (Like the defenders of the school of thought of Christopher West come to think of it!)

I cannot speak to all of the reasons Ms. Bean gives. I'm a single Catholic male, so I can't speak about "fertility symptoms", breastfeeding and all that jazz. Yet the other points she gave made me think about a lot of things.

First, those who are practicing NFP need to answer one question: Why? The Church is clear that if sufficient reasons are evident, NFP may (not must) be practiced. Yet I think Catholics should ask themselves honestly: is this really done? I would very confidently wager that answer is a negative. When they are considering economic needs, are they considering true subsistence style living, to where it would be near impossible to provide a child with basic necessities, or are they considering that they won't be able to pay a full ride at a four year university and grad school for all their children? Worse yet, are they doing it for their own selfish reasons, as having children will deprive them of worldly benefits? For mental and spiritual reasons, is there a genuine concern, or is there just uncomfortable feeling?

Better yet, are they discussing these matters with an independent third party, who can consider the spiritual reasons for why they are practicing NFP? In other words, how involved is a sound orthodox priest (preferably their spiritual director) in these discussions? People are masters at rationalizing their behavior. Sometimes we need an independent third party to tell us we are doing it wrong. Simply saying you are discussing it with your doctor isn't good enough. They may have the medical knowledge, but they do not have the knowledge of being able to provide spiritual direction. (Very few of them at least.)

If one is doing these things, these words aren't for you. If you've done these things and still arrive at the prudential consideration to employ Natural Family Planning, then such is your choice. All I'm saying is that somewhere along the way, people got the mistaken notion that to not practice NFP at all times was somehow the sign of a sinful Catholic couple.

I'd also like to talk about "responsible" parenting. Somewhere and I have no clue where, "responsible" parenting became about the number of children you have, rather than the quality of how those children were raised. Do you have ten children? Are all of those children raised in the Catholic faith, given access to the sacraments? Is a high emphasis placed upon education? Do you present your children with an environment and opportunity to practice authentic Christian virtues? Congratulations, you are doing "responsible" parenting, even if you live in a small house and the children wear hand me downs. This is just as true if you have even just one child.

On the topic of shame, Ms. Bean is even stronger. I personally do not need to hear about an individual woman's fertility cycle, mucus, etc. The only woman I will need to hear that about is when I'm married, and she is my wife. I've beaten this subject to death in the things I've written in regards to Theology of the Body/Christopher West, so I will be brief. Sharing these details so casually is a violation of the sacredness of the body and the marital embrace.

The final topic I would like to touch on would be a delicious irony, were it not so tragic. In pushing "sex is holy", the church of NFP makes it less holy. The marital embrace is only discussed about on the natural level. If husband and wife come together, there is a "risk" (oh how I hate such talk!) a child would be conceived. Many in the TOB crowd claim their critics focus too much on the pro-creative aspects of the marital embrace, and not the unitive. They rightly point out God created the marital embrace as a way of strengthening the bonds of marriage. Every time husband and wife come together, they are renewing their marital vows in a very special way. done properly, one could say it is a way of making present the grace one receives during the Sacrament of Matrimony. Out of such selfless love (where neither party seeks their own gratification), a new life is created through our participation in God's creative work.

With all the emphasis solely on child-bearing, the church of NFP robs the marital embrace of much of its power. Husband and wife coming together to renew their marital vows for their sanctification is viewed as a "failure" in abstinence. To engage in perfectly normal marital relations is not a failure. While we must always be careful to ponder our intentions (i.e. we must make sure we are not coming together for selfish reasons), it is truly scandalous that the church of NFP makes them think otherwise. Sadly, the author herself even falls into this trap. "Struggling with abstinence" in the married life is suggested as a struggle with purity. Now this may be the case. Yet why should one assume that a wife struggles with purity if she desires to engage in the marital embrace with her husband? Why should a husband be prohibited from renewing his wedding vows with the woman he has pledged to give up everything for? Because a chart says is a terrible reason. They are heeding, in a very special way, the call to become "one flesh." Now there may exist reasons and circumstances where periodic continence is advised. Yet such situations are meant to be temporary.

In the end, I fear we Catholics today have a fear of giving up control. We foolishly think we are in control of every aspect of our lives, including fertility. Yet this is nonsense. God is in control. He may choose to work through our voluntary free will in the marital embrace, but He is still in control. The idea a pregnancy should be viewed as a "surprise" or "unplanned" amongst married couples is shameful. By engaging in the marital embrace, one "planned" the possibility that a child may be born. Now one may wish to take prudent steps, in accordance with nature, to space births for various reasons, but our plans can and will go astray if God thinks the better of it. We shouldn't look at that as a bad thing. God might see the discipline and self control in a couple practicing NFP and go "You know, such restraint is a great quality in a parent, and even better in a child, so I will help them conceive."

How much of this enters the NFP discussion? Check the comments at the site of the article. All are worth reading.

The Extraordinary Form: The Lavabo to the Preface

2011-07-02T09:04:00.000-04:00

As we come to the end of the Offertory, a distinct tone begins to emerge. In the texts there is a growing sense of unworthiness on behalf of the priest and the faithful that they are participating in this event. The Mass is the very Sacrifice of Calvary, yet it is far more than just that. Through the Mass, heaven and earth become united, the covenant with the Father is renewed, and we partake, in our own certain way, in the mystical banquet of the Lamb’s Supper in Heaven. Sinful flesh that we are, we should be feeling a sense of unworthiness.

That sense begins with the Lavabo, which goes as follows:

I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of Thy praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works.

I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is filled with gifts.

But as for me I have walked in mine innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the direct way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord.

There are a few things to note about this prayer. The Psalm originates in a Psalm of distress. David’s claim of innocence is not a boastful claim. He feels a great moment of distress, and points to the fact that he has looked to please God in all he does. Confident of God’s mercy, he washes his hands amongst the innocent. Likewise the priest and congregation should feel a slight distress based on their current position. We are entering in a very special way into God’s presence. We are about to experience a deeply personal moment beyond those even Moses experienced with God. Our only response is to state we have looked to do God’s will to the best of our ability.

Following the Lavabo there is a final prayer to the Trinity which states:

Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee, in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honour of Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of these [the relics in the altar] and of all the Saints, that it may avail unto their honour and our salvation, and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord.

The sacrifice which is offered is of course first and foremost offered to the Trinity. Yet like all other offerings, the offering is also a commemoration of those who walked before us. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us to honor those who walked before us in the faith. Yet how does honoring a saint give glory to God? Are our Protestant friends correct when they assert the mere suggestion of including honor to the saints in offering to the Trinity is blasphemous, for only the Trinity is worthy of any honor?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of honor given. No saint in and of themselves is worthy of honor. Not even the Blessed Virgin. Only through Christ can anyone receive any honor or praise. It was only through Christ that the Blessed amongst women was preserved from sin. When we honor the saints, we honor God’s handiwork within them. (Eph 2:10-12) Since those in heaven are “the spirits of just men made perfect”, we ask for their intercession. God stated in the Old Covenant that “if even Samuel and Moses prayed for these people I would not listen” and help that sinful wicked generation. Yet we are Christians redeemed by the blood of the lamb alongside the saints, would not their prayers be of great benefit?

We then come to the Orate Fratres. Unfortunately, the modern understanding of the liturgy in many Churches has really damaged the significance of this prayer. In the extraordinary form, the priest is facing God in the tabernacle and the East (where the Risen Christ will come from) instead of the congregation. When this prayer comes, he turns to face the people, saying:

Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty:

In the context of the Mass, the priest normally turns to face the people in saluting them or blessing them. Yet this time instead he asks for their prayers. In this statement is a recognition that without their prayers, the priest will struggle going forward. One could further say, without the prayers of those individuals, something is lacking from the Mass. What could possibly be lacking from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ? The same thing that Paul states was lacking from the Sacrifice of Christ in Colossians 1:24. The sacrifice lacks in the degree of application, since Christ does not save against someone’s own will. Therefore we pray that hearts are turned, and that the Sacrifice of Christ be applied. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Father will accept the sacrifice of the Cross during the Mass. That sacrifice is always before Him. Yet there is a legitimate doubt as to how useful the sacrifice will be for the individual faithful due to lack of faith. That is why in response, we ask that the sacrifice be for “our benefit, and that of all His holy Church.”

What is a beautiful exercise in symbolism loses a lot of significance in the modern liturgical landscape. Since Mass is said facing the people, this is no longer an externally special moment. The appearance is no different than every other moment of the Mass in such a situation. If one needs a reason to return to saying Mass ad orientam, here is a strong one.

After praying what is known as the Secret (one of the propers which is made a final urgent supplication to God), the priest begins the Preface. Unlike previous salutations, the priest says Dominus Vobsicum still facing the altar and the tabernacle. One could say, in a mystical sense, he has begun his transition into acting in persona Christi. Christ acts through Him, so that the identity of the priest becomes less and less important. We are then called to sursum corda, lift up your hearts. Where are we lifting them up to? We lift them up to heaven! At this point in the Mass, we are entering (albeit in an imperfect way) into Heaven, or rather Heaven is coming to us. At this point in the Mass, I am no longer simply assisting at Mass at my local parish. I’ve entered into communion with all the saints and angels. This moment is truly timeless, for it is outside of time. Having entered into this blessed moment, the only acceptable response is thanksgiving towards God.

This understanding is vital for the next part of the Mass. If all of the Mass is holy, the Roman canon is the holy of holies within the Mass.

(Hopefully) My Final Words on the Corapi Affair

2011-06-21T12:35:00.000-04:00

What follows here are just some random thoughts.

There are those comparing Fr. Corapi to a Judas, a man who betrayed his vocation and calling. That's a little too outlandish. A better description can be found in the Old Testament in the figure of God's anointed, King Saul.

1 Samuel 15 gives us the relevant story. As they prepared for battle, God instructed King Saul that he was to completely raze everything his opponents had, to leave nothing alive or take nothing as loot. His victims the Amalekites were rich. Saul carried out the first part of God's command (route the Amalekites) but not the second. Instead of slaying the King, he made the King his vassal, and they made away with all the choice animals and loot. That of lesser quality they destroyed.

While God is furious with Saul for this, we have to realize one thing: what Saul did was entirely rational. Israel needed to survive, and she would survive with compliant subjects in other nations. He even rationalizes to Samuel that the choice animals wouldn't be used for personal gain, but sacrificed to God. As sacrifice is a good thing, certainly many sacrifices is great thing for him to do!

God's response through Samuel was unequivocal:

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being King.

Saul's sin was that he believed he knew what was best to please God. Instead, he should have simply been obedient to God, even if it didn't make much sense to him. It was this action that set him upon the path of becoming a tyrant who stood against God. Yet even then, David still called him "God's anointed" and wept bitterly at his death.

That is how I feel about Fr. Corapi. He may think he is doing good by what he is doing. He may feel that his actions and his ministry are vital to the flock today. Yet as the Bible shows, disobedience is not the way to go about this. It was blatantly clear his religious superior and his Bishop has authority over him. He has chosen to reject that authority, albeit it in a round-about way, and with the best of intentions. Hopefully he repents. He will always be a priest, even if he is made a layman again (the character of his soul cannot change in this regard), so one can hope and pray he returns to being a priest.

The story of Fr. Corapi further gives us instruction on how a priest remains faithful. In his podcast of June 20th, he says the following:

I'm still a priest. You can't take that away. No act of the Church can take that away. What they can remove is facultires; that is the public ability to administer the sacraments. I didn't do much of that quite honestly in the 20 years that I did minister. About 90% of what I did in the past did not require ordination.

He also describes his minsitry as not "within the sacraments" but "outside of them, that is, in conjunction with them." I submit here this is one of the key problems. His priesthood was not centered around the sacraments. He may have celebrated the sacraments on occasion, but they weren't by his own admission the most important parts of his ministry. Yet for faithful laymen and faithful priests, they hear these words and cringe. Anybody can preach on the Word. Quite frankly, many laymen do it better than priests. Yet only a priest can bring about the Eucharist. Only the priest can ascend the altar of God to offer the perfect sacrifice. Only a priest can give the assurance of God's forgivness and absolution in the sacrament of Penance. This is a staple of the modernists. They view social work more important than offering the Mass. Yet without the Mass, there can be no true social work.

Daily Mass, frequent offering of the sacraments, frequent benedictions and daily adoration is not something that is accidental to a priest's ministry, so the Servant of God John Hardon tells us. In his view, they are absolutely essential, and the primary reason a man is a priest. It is why in charity I do not think Fr. Corapi was being honest with himself when he made those remarks. In my view, he was trying to rationalize to himself the decision to become "the Blacksheepdog" and leave the priesthood. A priest who cannot offer the Mass and Sacraments is cut off from his very calling in life. The only other option is that Fr. Corapi was a liar all these years, and never really cared about the priesthood, it was simply a means to an end to make him famous. Yet anyone who has listened to the Fr. Corapi of the past would know that cannot be true.

That is all I really have to say on the matter. In the end, Fr. Corapi needs our prayers, as does everyone involved in this mess. I do not think he perceived just how hard the job of being an orthodox, obedient priest was. Fr. John Hardon gives us some absolutely excellent insight.

Every facet of the ministry is the exercise of such influence in the lives of others that no one under Heaven is more exposed to the temptation of pride than a priest. Perhaps some people, especially in academic circles, still wonder why the Church is suffering so gravely at the hands and lips of her priests. We need not wonder. Most of the chaos in the Catholic Church today is due to the pride of priests.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

In The World, Not Of It

2011-06-21T09:59:00.000-04:00

Like many others, I'll be wrapping up any further commentary on the Fr. Corapi matter. There really isn't that much more to say. His "fans" will believe what they want to believe, and his critics will only be convinced Fr. Corapi is doing the right thing when he submits to his superiors like a good Catholic priest is supposed to. In light of his recent posting (which I'm not going to link to again), it is obvious Fr. Corapi is very troubled right now, and in deep need of prayer. So with that in mind, I will touch upon one issue, and then a wrap-up post later concluding the whole affair, barring any major developments, and a new podcast is not a major development!

It is my hope (and hope springs eternal) that there is a silver lining in this entire fiasco. In the end, it is how important it is to pray for priests. It is also about how important a priestly character is to the life of priests. Fr. Jay Toborowsky offers a rather original analysis of the issue, and one I think that is compelling. A big problem in this entire affair had to do with property.

For those not aware, Fr. Corapi is very wealthy. A lot of the money came through winning a lawsuit (unrelated to his priestly functions), and a lot also came from his media empire Santa Cruz Media. One cannot fault a priest for reaping the fruit of their labor. Yet one can question the way that fruit is spent. I indicate here how Fr. Corapi spends his wealth:

During the course of the day, we learned that Fr. Corapi owns a home in northwest Montana which he paid for with a million-dollar lawsuit settlement. He drives a fast car with lots of horsepower and keeps a loaded .45 in the glove compartment. He also rides a fat boy Harley Davidson motorcycle, owns a boat of unspecified size, and vacations in Key West. He works out six times a week, twice with a female physical trainer, and has lost seventy pounds and increased his strength by a hundred percent in the past year. The weight loss prompted him, at his charitable best, to donate two large bags of “fat clothes” to the local Salvation Army. I can only assume that the donated clothes did not consist of old habits and clericals.

Some things need to be kept clear. Fr. Corapi did not take a vow of poverty. So he isn't violating any laws of his religious order by having such possessions. Yet one should question: of what need does a priest have for a sports car or a Fat Boy? Throughout the history of the Church, she has suffered the greatest when her priests and religious live like the world. The Church at the time of the Reformation is acknowledged even by Catholics to have been stupendously and scandalously corrupt. The Pope who condemned Luther (rightly in the doctrinal sphere) rode around Rome on a giant elephant and was one of the most extravagant spenders in world history, to say nothing of Church history!

Likewise, whenever a great reform movement of the Church happened, an emphasis was given on poverty. Even if one didn't take a vow of poverty, there was a basic understanding of simplicity. Priests dressed in simple black clerical garb with their Roman collars. They drove simple transportation. They weren't jet-setting to Vegas several times a year on "vacation."

When you raise these issues, you are called a socialist and envious. Anyone who knows my political views knows I am a proponent of capitalism in the private market economy. The priesthood of Jesus Christ is not the private market economy. The job of a priest is not to make money. It isn't even to go off on this or that conference marketing products. The job of a priest is to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. Fr. Corapi mentioned that the Mass and Sacraments were barely part of his actual ministry, so the suspension does not effect him. Whether or not he realizes it, he has just touched on the problem. He, like far too many priests, are too busy with the things of this world, rather than sticking to the important points of their priesthood.

According to his superior Fr. Sheehan, Fr. Corapi was offered to return to living amongst his brother priests, to where all his needs would be taken care of during the investigation. The only catch was, he would have to give up the sports cars, the boats, the hogs, and live in accordance with a stricter standard of discipline than he was originally living under (due to a previous agreement with his previous superior). He turned down that invitation and chose to leave the religious life and (wanting to) leave the priesthood. His "fans" constantly worry about "corrupt bishops" getting their greedy hands on all that money Fr. Corapi has. Here's my question: How much of an issue is all of this is Fr. Corapi instead lived a life not neccessarily of poverty, but simplicity? If instead of a sports car, he had a Focus? If he lived in a humble one bedroom apartment or two room flat? If instead of a Harley, he had a Schwinn? If the profits from his ministry (outside of administrative costs for himself, his staff and upkeep) went to the charity of his choice, even a private one? I suspect things would be a lot different.

We are currently in an era of reform-minded Popes. The great project of Blessed John Paul was on stressing greater fidelity to Catholic doctrine, especially in the seminaries. The great project of Benedict XVI has been to awaken the proper understanding of the liturgical life, especially amongst priests. Perhaps Benedict (or his successor) will next choose to focus on the quality of priestly life, secular and religious.

The Fr. Corapi Affair Takes a Turn for the Worse UPDATED

2011-06-20T09:28:00.002-04:00

h/t Christopher Blosser

Fr. Gerard Sheehan, the religious superior of Fr. John Corapi has spoken with National Catholic Register. In the report (and in a promised forthcoming statement from the Society of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity, henceforth SOLT), Fr. Sheehan offers some evidence that is, to say the least, very disturbing.

1.) Fr. Corapi knew who his accusers are, in direct contradiction to his "BlackSheepDog" statement. He knew because he had originally paid them to sign a non-disclousre agreement, expressely prohibiting them from speaking about any activities during their employment with his company Santa Cruz Media.

2.) This action seriously compromised the ongoing investigation SOLT was conducting into the allegations of sexual misconduct and drug abuse raised against Fr. Corapi. As a result of it, many witnesses they wanted to speak to they could not. This very well could have created the uncertain proceedings Fr. Corapi complained about.

3.) In light of the allegations made, Fr. Corapi is now suing the accuser (who he claimed to not know of) for an alleged breach of contract, not for character defamation or anything else. This civil suit further complicated SOLT's investigation.

4.) Due to 1-3, SOLT attempted to conduct their investigation without speaking to any of the principal witnesses, which was almost impossible.

5.) Fr. Corapi was given an offer to return to his religious community and live with them in prayer, but declined. Fr. Sheehan states that such a move would have neccessarily involved Fr. Corapi giving up his lifestyle and not having access to a good portion of his wealth. One can also speculate it also meant no public ministry (speaking engagements or the like) for a long period of time.

6.) After this refusal, Fr. Sheehan attempted to meet with Fr. Corapi without success. Fr. Corapi's decision was made in a private letter "resigning" from the religious life and public ministry. SOLT has confirmed that if this is what Fr. Corapi wants, they will help facilitate that process.

7.) One can only guess that this also means he wishes to leave the priesthood and would be laicized shortly after.

I said in a previous post on the matter, I said it was very hard to presume Fr. Corapi's innocence in light of his statement. In light of these facts, the hill becomes Mount Everest. Could he be innocent? Perhaps. Yet paying off witnesses to enter into an NDA doesn't look like the behavior of an innocent man.

I also raised questions about the propriety of how funds were managed. In light of his celebration of 20 years as a priest, a substantial discount was offered on all merchandise. No doubt some money was also donated to Santa Cruz Media. If the individuals who contributed/purchased were doing so with the intent of supporting a good priest, that money should be immediately returned. Such questions are now intensified. One has to wonder, how much of the money used to silence these witnesses came from those donations? This isn't a matter of civil law, or maybe even canon law. It is a matter of moral law if such funds were used.

We have to continue to pray for all involved. Yet the revelation of these facts makes a happy ending near impossible.

UPDATE 4:17 PM

http://theblacksheepdog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/unleashed_ep106-20-11.mp3

Posted without comment. There's really nothing that can possibly be said in reaction to this.

UPDATE 9:42 PM

We now have the statement from his religious superior.

Highlights:

1.) The suspension was standard procedure, and they foresaw it would be lifted after the investigation

2.) The decision was made on June 3rd, by Fr. Corapi and Fr. Corapi alone, to leave the priesthood.

On Fr. Corapi: No Good Way to Look at it

2011-06-19T09:45:00.000-04:00

For reasons known only to himself and God, Fr. John Corapi seeks to leave the priesthood to which he was ordained. I say "only to himself and God" because I do not think his publicly released message really sheds much light on what he is doing. I'll hope to make that clear as I continue.

First, we must remember one thing: we cannot know if Fr. Corapi is innocent or guilty. We do not have all the facts. Second, he is obviously very bitter and frustrated. One gets a sense of weariness in his voice and words.

This does not make him innocent though. Speaking bluntly, he places his innocence on very questionable footing with the release of his statement. I'll be honest, the statement read to me like a politician. He gives the impression that this decision was forced on him by two factors. The first was an institutional Church that offers no protection for accused priests. There is some truth to that. The second is that it is because of the false accusations of a "deeply troubled" woman, or so he thinks.

That is the rub with this entire issue. As Fr. Corapi himself concedes:

The identity of the accuser is not revealed. You can guess, but you don’t actually know. Nor are the exact allegations made known to you. Hence, you have an interesting situation of having to respond to an unknown accuser making unknown accusations (unknown to the accused and his counsel).

He doesn't know who the accuser is. Yet he goes to great length to speculate to his listeners that it is a woman he has done more to "help and support her" than anyone he ever has. In turn, because she is a "demonstrably troubled person" she made "totally unsubstantiated, undocumented" allegations. Some will say he isn't looking to slime the accuser because he doesn't mention them by name. Whatever his motives, he has outlined a classic case of manipulating his audience. He wants his audience to view him as a White Knight, and his accusers as deeply troubled people. He wants himself to be portrayed as rational, whereas he wants the bishops arrayed against him to lack the characteristics of civilized societies. (Without of course knowing who those Bishops even are!) His fundamental civil and human rights are being violated by a nameless, faceless "they", being the Bishops.

If Fr. Corapi is innocent, this was the worst way to go about it.

There are those who are comparing him to St. "Padre" Pio. St. Pio suffered real injustice from false allegations, and lost several years of his public ministry because of it. The only difference is that St. Pio did not abandon his priesthood. Fr. Corapi said the only options available were to "quietly lay down and die" or "go on" as he sees fit. St. Pio gave an answer of defiance. That defiance was directed at the devil. He chose to soldier on, humbly subjecting himself to the injustice, fully confident in the end he would be vindicated. As a result, we call him "Saint" Pio. Fr. Corapi could indeed be innocent, but he is not taking the path of the saints that our Catholic tradition provides us.

He also gives every indication of continuing his public ministry in spite of the events that have transpired. I am not optimistic he will be able to do so. Many Churches will not host him. His EWTN ministry is obviously permanently shelved. The first thing that needs to be answered is a harsh question, but a valid one:

Did Fr. Corapi solicit support under questionable pretenses?

How long has Fr. Corapi known of his decision to leave the priesthood? On his website, he was offering things at reduced prices to celebrate his 20th anniversary of the ordination to the priesthood. People were buying things many times as a way of giving a "thank you" for his priestly ministry. A ministry he is now leaving. To avoid any sense of impropriety, Fr. Corapi should offer refunds if charitable contributions were given to his organization before this, or if merchandise was purchased by those looking to support a priest. I'm of the impression that this wasn't a long-standing idea. The video and speech were far too hasty to suggest that. I think this would be a beneficial act for him to take.

If his ministry does continue, he will be in need of some special graces and prayer. As a laymen, he may indeed be able to contribute in some form or another. Yet he is operating outside the "usual channels." There was a time when Catholic Answers and EWTN were outside those "usual channels." Yet a cult of personality didn't surround these individuals at the time either. One does surround Fr. Corapi. He may wish it not to be so, he may relish in it, we cannot know that. Yet we cannot deny it exists. His devoted fans will still see him as an authority figure. What if that authority conflicts with the Bishops? How can he put into practice the virtue of humble obedience given the circumstances? Fr. Corapi has exceptional gifts. I fear in public those gifts are compromised.

That is why in the end, for the good of all, Fr. Corapi should take a very extended leave of absence from any public ministry, be it as a priest (due to his suspension) or as a layman, or whatever is in between. Spend that time in deep prayer and with a spiritual director who will be fully honest with him. It is going to be very tough to continue to have a public life under these circumstances. He claims he does not want to be in an adversarial position with the Church and the Bishops. Yet if he continues under his new "persona" as "The Black Sheep Dog" communicating in public about matters of the faith or his own perceived injustice, such an adversarial position is inevitable. These matters would cause more harm than good.

Finally, this is a firm reminder about the dangers of the cult of personality. Many people are having their faith shaken by this event. It is a reminder for us all that we cannot place our faith and hopes in men. Even good men, whether they be laymen, priests, bishops, even Popes. We can only place our faith in the Lord. If it be His will, an innocent Fr. Corapi would have been vindicated. If it be His will, a new voice in the Church will fill the void left by him. In the end, even in spite of our attempts to obstruct it, the Church continues to nurture souls and Christ continues to save them. Inspired by that confidence, let us pray for Fr. Corapi, and for all priests. If this situation shows nothing else, it shows how much grace is required to be a faithful priest in today's world.

On Homeschooling and Our Sunday Visitor

2011-06-04T09:04:00.002-04:00

In the current issue of Our Sunday Visitor (OSV), Michelle Martin wrote what she no doubt felt was a balanced look at homeschooling and its relation to the Catholic Church. The article has touched off a firestorm on the site and in the blogosphere as a whole. I believe an objective reading of the article will show that it is not balanced, and that bias harms the work greatly.

1.) On Balance

When faced with criticism, Greg Erlandson of OSV responded to the criticism on Steve Kellmeyer's blog by stating:

No publisher likes to see calls to boycott his publication, but I appreciate the strong feelings engendered by our news story on the occasional gulf that appears between home school advocates and some in the institutional Church.

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than Mr. Erlandson makes it out to be. The article was clearly written by someone who looks down on homeschooling, or at least following an editorial position hostile to homeschooling, which has been the OSV viewpoint in the past.

While there is an "occasional gulf" such a gulf is hardly one-sided. The response towards homeschooling varies from diocese to diocese, even parish to parish. Some have widely developed homeschooling networks, and these people are an integral part of the parish. Some dioceses offer several "homeschooling Masses" a year. Finally some do indeed act like Bishop Vasquez, to their shame. The article quotes not one Church authority in favor of homeschooling. If one goes off the article alone, homeschooling is not "sometimes" opposed by Church authorities. It is always opposed. The dioceses where it is allowed, nothing is said about why they allow it, only that they "recognize" it as an option. As I intend to show, that position is the default Catholic position.

2.) Insufficient Evidence

In order to defend the idea that homeschooling is contrary to the Catholic faith, proponents of such a view have to give some pretty creative exegsis. So creative, it would get most students flunked out of a classroom. We will only deal with one of the "proofs" cited. Ms. Martin states:

But not all priests and bishops agree. At the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884, the bishops wrote that parents have an obligation to send their children to parochial schools, and some clergy members today say Catholic home-schoolers abrogate that responsibility.

Sadly, she left something out. Here is the exact text, emhaspsis mine:

Title vi, Of the Education of Catholic Youth, treats of (i) Catholic schools, especially parochial, viz., of their absolute necessity and the obligation of pastors to establish them. Parents must send their children to such schools unless the bishop should judge the reason for sending them elsewhere to be sufficient. Ways and means are also considered for making the parochial schools more efficient. It is desirable that these schools be free. (ii) Every effort must be made to have suitable schools of higher education for Catholic youth.

When one includes the entirety of the statement, one finds it is a lot less sweeping than was originally portrayed. Even judging solely on this text alone, the "obligation" is not an absolute one. First and foremost, the Bishop can judge it not neccessary. The price of the schools and the quality of them also must be taken into consideration.

Yet we cannot judge solely on this one piece of evidence. The Third Plenary Synod is but a local synod of American Bishops. Our Catholic faith teaches that such synods are not binding on Bishops, or even the faithful outright. In the end, the documents of Popes and Councils are far more important than that of a mere regional synod of a (at the time) small Catholic population.

As far as the Popes, not much is said about the nature of Christian education until Pope Pius XI. (Leo XIII touches on certain facets of education, but not the root itself.) According to Pius XI, there are three spheres of society, and all three have an importance in education: the family, civil society, and the Church. As Divni Illus Magistri makes clear, the first of these is the family. They possess the right of education from nature itself. The individual family unit existed before the State, and without the family, there can be no Church. Yet as families have obligations beyond themselves (to the common good and the Church), there are certain instances where they have a pre-eminence (but never trumping) of the family.

On matters of faith and morals, the family must be in union with the Church. Whereas the family has the right to educate their own children by nature, the Church has the right to educate souls by Divine Commission. Yet in keeping with the notion of subsidarity, the Church does not seek to usurp the authority of the parents. As the Pontiff states:

The fundamental reason for this harmony is that the supernatural order, to which the Church owes her rights, not only does not in the least destroy the natural order, to which pertain the other rights mentioned, but elevates the natural and perfects it, each affording mutual aid to the other, and completing it in a manner proportioned to its respective nature and dignity. The reason is because both come from God, who cannot contradict Himself

To emphasize that he is not kidding, the Pope states:

The family therefore holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate the offspring, a right inalienable because inseparably joined to the strict obligation, a right anterior to any right whatever of civil society and of the State, and therefore inviolable on the part of any power on earth.

That this right is inviolable St. Thomas proves as follows:The child is naturally something of the father . . . so by natural right the child, before reaching the use of reason, is under the father's care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice if the child, before the use of reason, were removed from the care of its parents, or if any disposition were made concerning him against the will of the parents.

And as this duty on the part of the parents continues up to the time when the child is in a position to provide for itself, this same inviolable parental right of education also endures. "Nature intends not merely the generation of the offspring, but also its development and advance to the perfection of man considered as man, that is, to the state of virtue

To end our lengthy quoting of Pope Pius, he discusses the relationship between the Church and the family when talking about education:

We have therefore two facts of supreme importance. As We said in Our discourse cited above: The Church placing at the disposal of families her office of mistress and educator, and the families eager to profit by the offer, and entrusting their children to the Church in hundreds and thousands. These two facts recall and proclaim a striking truth of the greatest significance in the moral and social order. They declare that the mission of education regards before all, above all, primarily the Church and the family, and this by natural and divine law, and that therefore it cannot be slighted, cannot be evaded, cannot be supplanted.

The Second Vatican Council confirms and even elevates this teaching when the Fathers state:

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators

And lest anyone say that the parent does not have a choice in where to educate their children (a la Father Peter Stravinskas), the Council states:

Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice of schools.

This is but a sample of Church teaching on the manner. It really matters little whether or not "all priests or Bishops agree." What matters is what the Catholic church says.

3.) Just Flat out Wrong!

Up until now, there have been certain statements which could at least be defendable from an evidentiary standpoint, and a standpoint of Christian charity. When we pass to the statements of Fr. Stravinskas, we cannot allow them to stand. For some reason, and we will not speculate, Fr. Stravinskas has a certain loathing of the concept of homeschooling, and this colors anything he writes about the topic of education.

First and foremost, he tells Ms. Martin:

There are several reasons to prefer Catholic schools, Father Stravinskas told Our Sunday Visitor, including that the Church Fathers made clear that catechesis is the job of the whole Church, with the main responsibility resting on the shoulders of the pastor, not the parents.

As we have seen from the evidence, this is wrong. The Church has a special responsibility beyond that of the family or civil society. As a "perfect society" she has a strength in her claims the family lacks. But the right of the Church to educate does not supersede the family. On the contrary, it strengthens it. As Pius XI noted, the family chooses to entrust their children to the Church. The Church cannot and does not seek to act contrary to the rights of the family.

Logically speaking this is flawed as well. Let us say there is a child in a parish Father Stravinskas is at. Said child ends up not being educated in the faith. He never comes to the Catechism classes, never seeks out Father privately, etc. This child grows up and remains in that parish, but still doesn't seek the education out. The individual dies in a state of mortal sin, and as a result is in hell. Father Stravinskas won't be faulted. Yet if the parents tried to say "well we offered him the chance to go to catechism classes" they will still be held accountable. They were the child's primary educators. They can't pass the buck off to someone else. That this child failed to receive an education would not be a failure of Father's priesthood. It would however be a failure of the parents in excercising their authority properly.

And Catholic parents who choose to home-school when there is a Catholic school available at least implicitly send the message that they do not trust the Church to educate their children properly, and the children get that message.

When I hear this statement, I am reminded of the rather blunt assesment Archbishop Fulton Sheen gave towards Catholic schools during his time. He stated that if a child wished to learn the faith, they were better off in a public school. At least they could fight to get faith, rather than be given modernism under the appearance of faith. Does Father Stravinskas think Archbishop Sheen was disobeying what the Church said? It is a simple fact that in many Catholic schools today in America, Catholicism is the last thing you will find. Nowadays, many of the teachers are laymen, not priests/religious. This is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it must also be kept in mind. Sometimes, they aren't even Catholic. They act in contravention of Church teaching in the classroom.

What Father Stravinskas sees is a reaction to a situation. Fix the situation, do not shoot the messenger. If you want Catholic schools to flourish, work towards re-affirming their Catholic identity, and ensure they teach the Catholic and Apostolic Faith without regret. One could also do well towards addressing some practical concerns.

If we remember the Baltimore Synod, they wanted Catholic education to be free. Today, education can cost even in "average" Catholic schools at $6,500 a student, per year. Let us say you are a family with four children, paying a mortage on a house. Between those four children, you will be spending at least $26,000 a year on Catholic schools. Good luck trying to accomplish that if you are middle class, or if the wife is a stay at home mother. If you have more children, this only becomes more prohibitive. In a rather perverse incentive, smaller family sizes are encouraged if Father Stravinskas' dictums are to be held. What about those families blessed to have 8 or 9 children? The days where most of the instructors were religious members (which helped mitigate cost somewhat) are gone. Combine that with a weakened economy, and Catholic schooling nowadays becomes unaffordable for those with large families. How much tuition assistance is Father Stravinskas urging Catholic schools to provide to these kind of people?

While these previous statements were bad enough, they pale in comparison to what he says next:

That leads to a subtle anti-clericalism, he said, because the children learn that priests cannot be counted on to hand on the faith. It shows in what he sees as a dearth of vocations from home-school families. “Why would you want to join the club if its members can’t be trusted to their jobs?” he said.

The "anti-clericalism" is so subtle, it only exists in the mind of Father Stravinskas. He "sees" a dearth of vocations in his own mind, not reality. He cites no evidence for this, because there is none. OSV tried to carry the water for him when one of their members posted the following in the comments section:

For those who wondered about the connection between home schooling and vocations to the priesthood -- interesting question!

I did some digging on the U.S. bishops' website, and found this statistic for all priests being ordained in 2011:

Only 4 percent of ordinands (5 percent of diocesan and no religious ordinands) report being home schooled at some time in their educational background. Among those who were home schooled, the average length of time they were home-schooled was six years

For the full report, go here: http://www.usccb.org/vocations...

When one goes to the report, it doesn't say what they want it to say. Nowhere does it say that homeschooling leads to less vocations. It simply says that out of those in the seminaries, 4% are homeschooled. What is the percentage of Catholics homeschooled at large? What is the percentage of those who go towards Catholic schooling (out of all those educated) who go onto the seminary? The report doesn't say, because it isn't interested in that. The report simply analyzed the backgrounds of those priestly candidates.

One also needs to keep something of context in mind. The home-schooling boom is rather recent; only within the last 10-15 years has it really taken off. To see such a small number would not be surprising. As homeschooling continues to grow, it is only natural you will see ordinations continue to grow.

There may indeed be evidence that homeschooling leads to a lack of vocations. OSV doesn't even try to provide it. They simply state it, and expect their audience to believe it, based on the authority of Father Stravinskas.

In the end, that's the problem. Father Stravinskas is setting himself up as the Magesterium. His personal opinions are ultimately irrelevant, as are mine. We have a Church who decides. What Father Stravinaskas says and the Magsterium says are two different things. Catholic parochial schools can be a very good thing. Yet they are one option amongst many a parent can use in educating their child.

If one would want to report on a real problem, I have one for OSV. Why is Father Stravinskas not being pastoral in trying to outline a variety of resources to help Catholic families fulfill their obligations under Divine and Church law? Why is he instead trying to force everyone to adopt his personal opinions? Perhaps Ms. Martin can get on that for us.

The God who does Big Things

2011-06-03T12:28:00.001-04:00

While Ezekiel was preaching his message amongst the exiles in Babylon, his contemporary Jeremiah was giving a similar message in Jerusalem itself. He condemned their idolatry, prophesied the coming destruction of Jerusalem, but also prophesied about Israel's future restoration. During that prophesy he says something that, thousands of years later, still says much about our relationship with God.

Therefore behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, 'As the LORD lives who brought up the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt', but 'As the LORD lives who brought up the sons of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.'

We can all recount the great things God did throughout salvation history. Do we spend much time reflecting on what he is currently doing and will do? Do we ask Him for something beyond fame and good looks? Jeremiah sees the time when that statement will be something done in the present. The Jews of that time would no longer have to look back to Egypt to see God's deliverance.

Furthermore, the action God undertakes is not something small. This isn't the God who helps me find a temporary job. It is the God who cleanses me of sin to allow me to live out my lifelong job. Do we view God as the God who delivers from promiscuity? Do we speak of "As the Lord lives who delivers America from Roe vs. Wade?" Does the traditionalist say "As the Lord lives who protected His integrity in the liturgy?"

All of these things seem far-fetched, but we are supposed to pray for precisely these kind of things. God is not limited towards acting in the trivial and mundane. It was precisely this attitude that led the sons of Israel to the other countries to begin with. If God provided anything, it wasn't something that important. The gods of the world provided far more immediate benefits. He may have acted in the past, but times are different nowadays.

This isn't blind optimism. It is central to our identity as Christians. Through the Incarnation, Jesus Christ became man and accomplished the biggest deal of all. He did not just save His people. He did not just restore His people to what they were originally meant to be. Such would make him no different than the great secular leaders of history, and perhaps even lesser. No, the biggest deal of all was through His sacrifice (the entire purpose of the Incarnation), man is given all these things, and an eternal reigning in heaven with Christ. No religion promises that. No secular ideology promises that. Indeed, the very notion of it can sound absurd.

Yet the notion is no more absurd than a few thousand exiles being freed from the strongest power in the world, sent back to their homeland under their own governance, and free to rebuild their destroyed temple. Yet we know that happened. No more absurd than the idea that Christ, who lived and walked physically on earth, ascended into heaven, and now rules all creation, inviting us to share in His rule. Yet we know that happened, and still happens today.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Restoration Begins

2011-06-01T13:32:00.000-04:00

With the Book of Ezekiel, this commentary enters into a new stage, juast as salvation history entered a new stage with Ezekiel. He begins what could be called the literature of the Exile. He was amongst the first wave of the Kingdom of Judah exiled to Babylon. To understand why this is important, we need to reflect on who Ezekiel is.

We know that the prophet Ezekiel was a priest, from an upper class family of priests. His job was to offer sacrifice. For sacrifice to occur, it was to be connected with the temple worship. Yet being in exile, he is deprived of that temple worship. Indeed, the temple (along with the entire city) is sacked, fulfilling Ezekiel's prophesy.

In addition to this, he is in a foreign land. He is essentially cut off from his vocation, his people, and his culture. During his prophetic ministry, he would suffer constant ailments and sicknesses, as well as the loss of his wife. Yet it was through these deprivations that Ezekiel came to understand the coming restoration, of which the heavenly temple symbolizes. He experiences the first signs of that restoration in a rather curious incident.

He describes four figures who appeared as beasts yet also men. These creatures are shown worshipping Yahweh. To the prophet, this vision would have been unmistakable. The four creatures represented the Assyrian karibu, the figures in statues portrayed guarding the royal palace. By showing them worshipping Yahweh, God is trying to communicate to His people that He is not limited to Jerusalem, an error the people frequently made throughout history. (One need only remember David's anguish over God not having a house of brick and mortar to dwell in.)

Yet there is something far more important towards this image. Being the karibu, these things would be pagan. They would be viewed as something to seperate from. Yet by this act, they are losing their "profane" character. The Incarnation is seen through this passage, where that which once rebelled against God now enters into God's service. Foremost amongst this is human flesh. Ever since the days of Eden, mankind had been in a state of rebellion against God. In the Incarnation, Jesus takes on human flesh and serves the Father instead of rebelling against Him.

This imagery is also a recognition of God's supremacy. If even the things of this world can be pressed into His service, what can thrwart his plans? This is key to the understanding of the entire book. In this book, Ezekiel makes some very bold predicitons in his claiming to speak for God. Certainly this image helped cement in Ezekiel's mind what was to be. These statues represented the regal authority of the King, and the strongest power in their known earth. And yet even they act according to His divine plan. Keep this in mind for later installments.

The Return of Friday Abstinence

2011-05-20T12:02:00.000-04:00

As many are aware, the Bishops of England and Wales have re-instituted abstaining from meat on Fridays. Many are also celebrating this. My intent here is not so much to focus on that particular decision (love it!) but to relate a story.

During a homily several years ago, a local retired priest talked about the changes after Vatican II. In his mind, all of those traditions before the council such as abstaining from meat on Fridays were a great thing. Yet he thought it was terrible the Church has laws for such. In his mind, the spirit of Vatican II was to renew the Church so people would no longer need to be told to fast, they would fast out of the willingness of their heart, and he encouraged us to do the same.

I remember reacting to the homily the same way I react to a Christopher West talk: Equal parts inspiration and revulsion, normally at the same moment. Such a view is utterly Pelagian. The Pelagian heresey (in a nutshell) denied original sin and its effects. Whether it be through discipline or just intellectual belief, man could eventually re-order his life without divine grace. He was strong enough to do it on his own, he needed no outside force to conform him.

The Scriptures tell a far different story. Even a just man like St. Paul proclaims for the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. This is called concupisence. As a result of original sin, there exists not only a tendency towards sin, but a tendency towards laziness. We know we should do something. Yet advancing in virtue is such hard work! Why not just stay where we are?

In a world unaffected by original sin, there would be no need for any law, civil or religious. Though James Madison wasn't Catholic, he was absolutely right when he stated that if men were angels, government would be unneccessary. This applies just as much in the ecclesial realm. There are indeed some who choose to do something simply out of a desire to do right. Yet very rarely wil they make that choice consistently throughout their entire life.

As one who has gone now 7 years abstaining from meat on Friday, at times it can be harder than you think. You do have to re-align your eating choices. You may have to change where you go out to eat. If a friend cooks for you, they may have to take that into consideration. That involves a lot of work. I might not be bound by a Church law to abstain from meat, though you are required to give up something.

These kind of laws server ultimately as guides. They remind people of penance, and our neccessity to perform penance. They encourage a cultural identity and unity amongst Catholics in a common goal. Without such "laws", chaos reigns.

One could consider it a "law" that when you pray the Hail Mary, you say the words of the prayer as people understand them. Can you imagine people gathering together in prayer for the Hail Mary and just making up the words as they go along? Would anyone be able to pray in such a setting? Yet the Hail Mary imposes on us certain words and phrases, which contain certain teachings. In reciting them, we call them to our mind, and reflect upon those teachings. Likewise with a "law" of fasting and abstinence: eventually, we should be pondering why the Church is having us to do this, reading her justifications for it. Through that act, we begin to ponder how this is related to our own holiness and the Gospel.

In public worship, we have rubrics that are followed in the liturgy. Knowing what the liturgy contains, we are able to dive deeper into contemplating said worship and entering into it. You can't enter into something you don't know about, at least not without great struggle.

This was the so called "Spirit of the Council" in a nutshell. That it had nothing to do with the actual documents is for the moment irrelevant. Thanks to an inflated sense of self-worth, far too many in positions of authority felt that everyone was good and holy enough to do the right thing on their own. Their faithful were better than St. Paul. We saw how that worked out.

I welcome reality beginning to reassert itself in the Church.

On Praise and Worship Music: A Letter to Kevin Symonds

2011-05-18T09:29:00.000-04:00

Note:

The following is a letter I wrote to my old friend Kevin Symonds about his article at Catholic Lane. Mr. Symonds has been an old friend and colleague. Indeed, he is the first of my writing colleagues. We began work together back when I was a fresh 17 year old convert. I think his article is certainly worth reading, as he makes some neccessary points about why some music is unsuitable for Mass.

Kevin,

Allow me to offer a slightly different yet I would argue complimentary view towards your latest column on rock music. For the purposes of argument, you divided between the “sacred” and the “profane.” This is a fine distinction, and a necessary one.

But as you can guess, I think the distinction needs to be made further. As much as I might not like it, a lot of your praise and worship is “sacred” music. It is, in a certain sense, “set apart” from the world and does its best to glorify God. It can easily join the wide patrimony of worship music that has Biblical precedent.

Some of the Psalms were solemnly prayed. Others were sung in a way that could be said to be the predecessor of chanting. Still others were played with a very loud and vibrant atmosphere. Trumpets, flutes, percussion, you name it, they utilized it. So when charismatics and others say that the Church needs to have a wider exposure to music outside of just Gregorian Chant/polyphony, they have a point.

Yet it is a point that is easily countered, and I think here is where we reach the crux of the matter. The issue isn’t really with “sacred versus profane” but “sacred versus liturgical.” Let us return to our examples from the Psalms. Some Psalms were of great jubilation. Yet others were of an equally great contrition. Foremost of the latter were the so called “Penitential Psalms.” While the classification was a later invention, we do know for a fact that certain Psalms were prayed only during certain settings. The sacrifice for sin had different Psalms than other sacrifices.

We should view that as instructive to our current controversy. One of the reasons (other than those you mention in your article) the Church has chosen such music like Gregorian chant is its inherent simplicity. One need not be a musical genius to do plainchant. Yet we have also had certain times during out liturgical history where music crept in that was beautiful, but not suitable for Mass. You do not hear Mozart’s Requiem when you go to a Requiem Mass, because Requiem was made for the orchestral hall, not the parish. Yet sometimes, people tried bringing this kind of music into the everyday life of the Mass. As a result, the Sacrifice of the Altar was obscured by everything else that was going on. As then Cardinal Ratzinger stated about this phenomena:

During the nineteenth century, the century of self-emancipating subjectivity, this led in many places to the obscuring of the sacred by the operatic. The dangers that had forced the Council of Trent to intervene were back again. In similar fashion, Pope Pius X tried to remove the operatic element from the liturgy and declared Gregorian chant and the great polyphony of the age of the Catholic Reformation (of which Palestrina was the outstanding representative) to be the standard for liturgical music. A clear distinction was made between liturgical music and religious music in general, just as visual art in the liturgy has to conform to different standards from those employed in religious art in general. (Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 148)

It is for these reasons I have always wanted to push greater exposure to praise and worship music, provided it stays outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Yet in order to do that, we need to ask ourselves a question: what is the point of liturgical music?

You touched on this a bit in your article. Yet I think most importantly, we must emphasize that true liturgical music draws attention to the altar and what is going on. The role of liturgical music is ultimately that of a supporting role, not a role of primacy. Does a loud and raucous “praise and worship” style of music do this? Or is the attention not on the artists themselves?

Have you ever noticed, from a musical standpoint (or vocal one), how “difficult” modern music can be? What is simpler to sing? Plainchant or Marty Haugen music? If you look at it structurally, it is the former. The simplicity of Gregorian Chant allows people to sing, but with a purpose of still focusing on the altar. Their music is a piece of the sacrifice, but not the sacrifice itself.

So I think you’ve hit on a fascinating question. Yet in order for you to give it the best answer, I think you need to go back even further than I had suggested. Before we can ask ourselves “what is the point of liturgical music”, we must ask ourselves, what is the point of worship? I think the answer would surprise and enlighten your audience.

Let us Boast

2011-05-14T10:46:00.003-04:00

"Just Remember: The Holy Spirit is Still in Control?"

Let me be honest and say what I'm sure some are thinking: I hate when people say that! It ranks right up there with "At least you still have your health!" When I say I hate it, I do not deny the statement is true. I hate it because the person saying it is saying something utterly meaningless.

When I look at a liturgy full of abuses, I do not see the Holy Spirit at work and in control. When I see a men in respected Catholic circles treating the liturgy is one gigantic rock concert, I am not confident of the Holy Spirit's control. If this devastated vineyard is the best the Holy Spirit can do, why are we Catholic again?

Then I remember my sense of the Scriptures and Church History. I remember why the Holy Spirit is in control of the Church. Most importantly, I remember that still voice "Kevin, in order to be happy you must boast..... in the Lord."

Somehow we took the statement "let he who boasts, boast in the Lord" as "we should never boast period." When St. Paul used to write to various churches, he would boast of the fidelity he has encountered amongst other Christians, as a way of trying to make his audience even more faithful. The Psalmist states that his soul will boast to the LORD, and the humble will hear and be glad.

When we boast in the Lord, we boast that He is not a "god that sleepeth", as Elijah said in mocking the priests of Baal. Our God is an active one, who will not only defend Himself, but defend those who place their trust in Him.

So with this in mind, allow me to recount a story. I know a rather liberal parish near me. So liberal are they, it becomes a shock when they actually follow the rubrics. One time I assisted at Mass there, and we came to the final procession. The priest and two servers looked towards the tabernacle, and nodded their heads .0000000005% of a degree. That was their reverencing Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. No genuflection, not even a deep bow. Heck, not even a slight bow! When one sees things like this, it can be tough to remember that "The Holy Spirit is in control."

Then I saw another server, a young boy, probably only eight years old, or even younger. He lowered his head, and then dropped to one knee and stayed there, then slowly pulled himself back up. People were confused. Yet he did what he was supposed to do. Other times I see young altar servers going to say a prayer before the Blessed Sacrament after Mass before leaving. I realize these are our future priests. I hear the voice of God saying "remember those 7,000 who wouldn't bow the knee to the Baals in the form of a banal man centered religion? You are lookin' at em." At that point do I realize the Holy Spirit is in control.

When I see seminaries doing everything they can to make sure their future priests know nothing of the Extraordinary Form (directly contrary to the Pope's wishes), I find it tough to remember the Holy Spirit is in control. Then I notice seminarians are learning the Extraordinary Form anyway through a variety of sources. This immeasurable treasure of the Church will not be destroyed by man's ineptitude. At that point do I realize the Holy Spirit is in control.

When I see the churches closing around me, I find it tough to remember the Holy Spirit is in control. Then I realize those churches that are flourishing are those which emphasize Catholic identity, and they are full of young people. These young people are in the process of having quite large families. If even one-third of them persist in the faith and pass it down to their children and grandchildren, the liberals are screwed. I remember that in times of total apostasy, Israel was pulled back from the brink by one man named Elijah. He restored the Church of his day by himself against several thousand priests. At that point do I realize the Holy Spirit is in control.

Even when I see Benedict XVI, a pope whom I love, my first thought is not "the Holy Spirit is in control." Benedict is but one man, whom soon in the span of history (though not too soon!) will return to the Earth. What one man does, another can easily undo. Yet I look at the man he has made Cardinals like Cardinal Ranjith. I look at men like Cardinal Llovera, who runs the Congregation for Divine Worship. These men are "young" (in Church-speak) Cardinals whose influence on the future Church will last decades. When I see the long term layout like that, at that point do I realize the Holy Spirit is in control.

Any deity can make a perfect world through sheer force of will. Only God can tell those unleashing havoc that their time is numbered, for soon they will be replaced. Why?

Because the Holy Spirit truly is in control.

Universae Ecclesiae and the Seminary

2011-05-14T09:41:00.000-04:00

In paragraph 21, the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae says the following:

Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

If there is one letdown for traditionalists in the document, it is right here. The simple truth is that for far too many seminarians, to be a traditionalist is to be one in secret. Some seminaries people to local Extraordinary Form Masses to see if any seminarians are going to them. While those seminarians aren't retaliated against officially, they will be monitored more closely, talked to more frequently, and extra pressure will be placed to get them away from that Mass. Of course, it also goes without saying that the seminary will supply no training whatsoever for these future priests on learning that Mass.

Now if Fr. Z's exegesis of the Latin is to be believed (and being Fr. Z, it is), the vernacular translation of this paragraph is just downright awful.

Yet here is my question for everyone to ponder: Do you want these same liberal seminaries who have done their best to smother the Extraordinary Form out of existence to instruct people on how to say that Mass? The only real solution of this is to trust the power of demography to replace all these people who are setting themselves up in opposition to the Holy Father's wishes. Yet what can be done short-term?

Universae Ecclesiae and You

2011-05-13T15:05:00.001-04:00

Today the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei released the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae. (Fr. Z has the text here In layman's terms, it is an instruction about how Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificium should be understood and applied. What follows will be a few brief thoughts on it.

1.) Not much really changes with this document in my neck of the woods where the Extraordinary Form is concerned. I know of two churches by me that offer the EF more than once a week, and another that offers the EF at least once a month if not more, all within 35 miles of my apartment. For those who aren't spoiled rotten like this humble journalist, hopefully things will get better.

2.) The document reminds people that the motu proprio wasn't made just to placate a bunch of nostalgic curmudgeons. The Pope wanted to liberalize the Extraordinary Form because he felt it would be a great grace for the faithful, all the faithful. There have been some who were under the mistaken idea that since they didn't have an "SSPX problem", they didn't need to worry. The Instruction says otherwise.

3.) The "stable group" asking for the Extraordinary Form is not clarified by what it must be, but that it need not be certain things. It need not be people from the home parish. It need not be a sizable congregation. It need not be, etc etc. Furthermore, what constitutes a "qualified" priest is given. In short, do you have a remedial understanding of Latin that gives you the ability to pronounce the Mass and understand what is being said? Have you celebrated it before? Congratulations, you are qualified!

4.) For awhile, people have been under the mistaken understanding Bishops could still prohibit priests in good standing from celebrating the Extraordinary Form. The Instruction says otherwise. Any decision regarding these manners is made by the Commission Ecclesia Dei. To the extent a Bishop has a role, they should help facilitate the decisions from the Commission. This gives a nice reminder that while a Bishop has considerable local autonomy, he does not have such autonomy over the liturgy. If Rome has said that priests are free to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, and that it should be made as available to the faithful as possible, then Roma locuta est.

5.) Now onto the things I find interesting. First, the Motu Proprio constitutes an "important expression of the Magesterium of the Roman Pontiff." There are those who falsely believed that what Benedict was doing was simply disciplinary. This really isn't so. If we remember, the point of the Motu Proprio was to emphasize that:

What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful

The Council of Trent makes perfectly clear that when dealing with liturgical manners, doctrine is so intertwined, the issue of infallibility is certainly at play. While the Motu Proprio was far from an infallible statement, in matters regarding the liturgy, this is clearly more than just a simple prudential statement.

6.) Ironically enough, the Instruction puts to rest what used to be a "hot topic" amongst traditionalists: the status of the Extraordinary Form. Was it suppressed? The Instruction says no. It states:

The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificium was accompanied by a letter from the Holy Father to Bishops, with the same date as the Motu Proprio (7 July 2007). This letter gave further explanations regarding the appropriateness and the need for the Motu Proprio; it was a matter of overcoming a lacuna by providing new norms for the use of the Roman Liturgy of 1962. Such norms were needed particularly on account of the fact that, when the new Missal had been introduced under Pope Paul VI, it had not seemed necessary to issue guidelines regulating the use of the 1962 Liturgy.

I argued precisely this almost 7 years ago against a certain traditionalist back when I ran the weblog Restore the Church. It was this position that was part of me "selling out" and "moderating" my beliefs. Simply put, Paul VI didn't abolish the Extraordinary Form. Quite frankly, it is an open question if a Pope has the authority to abolish as forbidden something with over a millenia of usage in the liturgical tradition of the Church. (Being the principal form of worship in the Roman Rite to boot.) Paul VI and those behind the Ordinary Form could not conceive that people would be less than thrilled with the final product, and of all the abuses that crept in. Since this situation happened, the church had to address how the aspirations of these faithful Catholics should be met.

7.) After having received the approval from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will have the task of looking after future editions of liturgical texts pertaining to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

While the first instinct of the traditionalist is going to be a little leery of this statement, this really shouldn't be a surprise. The Extraordinary Form is not meant to be a "dead" liturgy. There have been saints since the 1962 calendar was put into place, and there could be other small reforms such as the additions of prefaces, etc. If this happens, let us just hope those in authority learned their lesson about organic reform this time.

8.) In paragraph 28, we are told that if there was something which is on the liturgical books that conflicts with the books in 1962, we can't use those practices in our celebration of the Extraordinary Form. Not shocking at all. Most of us don't want thousands of "eucharistic ministers", altar girls, Evita style cantors from the lectionary, etc, at our Mass. The Instruction simply makes sure we won't.

There are a few other things I left out (such as permission for the vernacular to be used during the readings at Low Mass), so go read the document for yourselves. In a future post, I'd like to focus on the issue of seminaries, and what to do from here on out. As always, Fr. Z gets it basically right.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Point of Worship

2011-05-06T14:46:00.000-04:00

I am sure we have all heard this a million times. Perhaps we have even said it to ourselves. “I am just not getting enough out of Mass.” The fallen away Catholic says this, and goes to look for a Protestant Church that “gives” them something. The ~~abomination of desolation~~ parish liturgical councils engage in elaborate planning to maximize what people “get” out of Mass.

Whenever this happens, we need to tell them in a not so polite manner “you are doing it wrong.” I would daresay that when we approach Mass like this, we are betraying not just the faith, but the very person of Our Lord Himself. Not only are we betraying Him, we are saying that His Incarnation is pointless.

Yes, I just said that. To all of you who are devising the latest way to make your liturgy creative, you deny the importance of the Incarnation. To those who feel that Mass is primarily about what they get out of it, we need to send you to a re-education facility.

The first lesson of that facility will be a question. Why did the Incarnation occur? We could say “so the Son of God could become man.” That is true, but that simply describes what occurred, not why it did. We could say “so He could die on the cross for our sins.” This again is true, but merely a description of events, not why they were necessary. In order to get to the truth, one must venture to the Psalms, as interpreted by the writer of the Hebrews:

For when he came into the world he said: Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, but a body thou hast fitted me. Then I said, behold I come. In the head of the book it is written of me, that I should do your will.

This was the reason for the Incarnation. First and foremost, the Incarnation was an act of worship to the Father. Christ became man so He could offer Himself on the Cross to glorify the Father.

Furthermore, the Incarnation allowed true worship to take place. The law had plenty of sacrifices and oblations to offer. Yet the New Covenant had to be something better. Christ shows what that “better” is. He offers Himself, holding absolutely nothing back. Not only did He not do this for His own sake, He expects us to do likewise. He demands of us that we take up our own cross and follow Him.

As an aside, this is one of the most powerful reasons for celebrating Mass ad orientam. The priest stands in the person of Christ, and with the authority of Christ in offering the sacrifice. The priest leads to the altar, we follow him. Let that sink in. We follow Christ in taking our own crosses to Mass.

Those own crosses are no doubt our sins. As such, we can never offer ourselves perfectly to the Father. There is always something within us holding us back, fallen humans that we are. Yet at the Mass, that perfect offering is offered. We “add” our own sufferings and flawed offering of ourselves alongside Jesus, asking Him to cleanse it through His blood. Not because we are “adding to the finished work of Christ.” Such is impossible. Yet we should still desire to do the will of the Lord, and the will of the Lord is that we hold nothing back of ourselves.

With this in mind, we can ask the question: Did Christ “get” anything out of the Incarnation? Did He feel “fed” by the Church of His day? The “food” He received was the food of blows to the face. He “got” betrayed by a member of His inner circle. The man He stated was a rock solid foundation upon which His Church would be built denied Him. The very people He tried to save ended up having Him executed.

Was the Incarnation then a failure? Was there something lacking from Calvary? On the contrary, this made the worship offered to the Father all the more efficacious. Anyone can say “Blessed be the Lord” in times of greatness. Yet to truly do the will of the Father is to say “Blessed be the Lord” in every moment, and to follow that up with your actions.

Perhaps that is why our worship is so abysmal today. In so many Churches, we demand these ~~abominations~~ pastoral committees be tailored around us. We suddenly think that everything should revolve around us. Even the supreme act of worship to the Father should be centered on us!

Yet what of the idea that worship is also a source of great instruction to the faithful? Do we not “get” something out of that? Here we come to the idea so thoroughly Western and so thoroughly wrong. This idea holds that only that which is in intellectual abstractions can be called “knowledge.” This has absolutely no basis in the Gospel.

Through reflection on our sins, do we not “learn” our unworthiness before God? In uniting ourselves to the Sacrifice of Christ, do we not “learn” that Christ’s sacrifice must purify our very unworthy offering to the Father of ourselves? Do we not “learn” the requirement of humility when we passively receive Holy Communion, as opposed to the grasping by force of the tree by Adam? I would say these things offer greater instruction than a thousand excellent homilies, or better yet, a thousand things we could “do” to make people “understand” Mass more. Before you complain about what you "get" out of Mass, perhaps you should question what you put into it.

Bishop who Creates Ordination Crisis Removed

2011-05-06T11:42:00.000-04:00

Over at Fr. Z's realm, he "rants" about the Vatican removing a Bishop from his diocese in Australia. In short, Bishop Morris of the Diocese of Toowoomba (my new favorite name for a diocese!) published opinions to the faithful that called for the ordaining of women and for recogizing Protestant "orders."

To any faithful Catholic surfing the web, Fr. Z is required reading. Me, I like to get my fix in doses of every few days, and just scroll through the page. This rant of his is no exception. He rightly points out that the Vatican took this action because there really was no other choice. Elsewhere on his blog, he makes a point I'd like to expand on.

Many of the Bishops' defenders (in such "catholic" publications as Natholic Catholic Reporter and the like) bewail the fact that Rome is cracking down on innovative ways to solve the shortages in Catholic priests. Like Fr. Z and others, I believe these people have lost any credibility on the issue. It was their liberalism that caused the crisis.

The Progressive "vision" of the Church has looked to "modernize" Christianity, making it not too different from the modern world. They presented people with a choice: the modern world, with all of its "fun", or Christianity, which believed as the modern world did, but every now and then had such things as obligations to go to "worship services", have a vague sense of guilt, and belong to an "institution." If there's one thing the modern world hates, it is "institutions."

They present Jesus Christ as just an interesting historical figure, if he even exists! In this sense there is nothing that special about Christianity. Just like other religions, with a few changes.

Not surprisingly, people haven't responded too enthusiastically to such a Church. The seminaries emptied, followed by the emptying of the individual churches once they received a liturgy that was bland. A sunday ballgame was far more "entertaining" that people "got something" out of. Faced with such a crisis, they conclude that the identity of Catholicism has not been watered down enough.

Those like Bishop Morris essentially want us to become Unitarians. Who cares if the man is a Protestant who denies the Eucharist, papal infallability, or even the Trinity! He has a "ministry" the Church should recognize, and invite him to excercise that "ministry" alongside them. I will be willing to grant their "ministry" the moment they grant the fact that those like Bishop Morris have a direct line of succession to the Apostles themselves and during every Mass offer up the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Father as a true and propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

If this were the case, a natural question would have to be posed to the Protestant "minister." Why aren't you doing this? If this thing called the Mass is truly a propriation for our sins and we truly receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, why are you denying your flock something this vital? Are your clever words or business models for evangelization really something better than the Body and Blood of Our Lord?

All throughout Christianity those who are looking to relativize are becoming irrelevant. Even amongst our seperated brethren the Protestants, the mainstream denominations are a shell of their former selves. Why? Because there is no reason to even bother going to Church. They try to make you feel good. Football provides more entertainment than their worship services ever could. Engaging in fornication or adultery makes you feel better in the short term than they ever could. Even worse, for today's generation doing nothing beats all of the above. Why even bother getting out of bed? And we should emulate these men?

Only when being a Christian means something do people follow. The Pentecostal movement might be a false version of Christianity in my eyes, but they offer something. It isn't just about the rock concert atmosphere. They offer the belief that the Holy Spirit is not only real, but actively involved in the lives of the faithful. (What we disagree about is the way they claim the Spirit works, we agree on the active part.) Other flourshing Evangelical Churches hold that the solas of the Reformation actually mean something, and change every aspect of their existence. In Catholicism, traditionalist seminaries run out of room they get so many applicants. Those dioceses that offer Catholicism as something substantially different and greater than the world have little trouble finding priests.

Yet ultimately this message requires the faithful, from Bishop to pew-sitter, do something of substance. It requires them to amend their lives and live as new creations. It requires them to tell the world that there is something we have which you could never in your greatest days hope to posesss. In short, we need a Catholicism that is not arrogant but still has a bit of swagger.

Catholic Exchange Reverts to Form

2011-05-04T12:02:00.000-04:00

During the debate surrounding the views of Christopher West which occurred in 2009, the popular website Catholic Exchange became “ground-zero” for a lot of the public debate. Your humble journalist played no small part in this occurring. Along with “dcs” and others, we turned this into a veritable populist revolt. Through our challenging, several people rose up to defend Christopher West from the criticism’s leveled by the likes of Dr. David Schindler, Dawn Eden, and others.

In their defenses of Christopher West, they promoted:

What sounded a lot like Christian Nudism,
The concession that their views had absolutely no precedent within the Church Fathers (in addition to stating the Resurrection was a sexual event),
Debunked the wild claim that traditionalists are closet Manicheans, (by someone who really had no clue what a Manichean actually was),
That the Church was “repressive” of sexuality for not talking at length about conjugal acts with pigs being wrong.

That was just the main articles. The comment boxes lamented the fact that I didn’t think about the sexual act during Mass, amongst other whoppers that are sadly no longer available since CE redesigned their website. These views confirmed our point. Amongst far too many commentators in the “TOB” commentariat, there were some views that were truly absurd.

Another problem they exhibited in spades was assuming the worst of intentions of their adversaries. According to Dr. Janet Smith, Dawn Eden’s thesis was some plan hatched to make her a quick buck and steal thunder from Dr. Smith’s lead role in the TOB Congress. According to another commentator (name being withheld out of a sense of decency that they never thought of showing), critics of Mr. West engaged in a deliberately deceptive campaign to con Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand, exploiting her illness and sickness, into joining the debate against Mr. West. Christopher West compares himself to Jesus Christ, and his critics are “Pharisees” and members of the religious right.

To such hyperbole and wild accusations can be added the name of Mrs. Erin Manning. When commenting on the use of NFP, she originally had a “caricature” of what she calls the “Theology of the Bawdy.” In her caricature, those who were for a far more limited practicing of Natural Family Planning essentially treated their wives as mere baby making machines and vehicles of pleasure. She swears this was originally just a caricature until reading a study, upon which she declared:

It struck me that the sort of man Deacon Kandra’s commenter describes, and the man who insists that it’s much, much easier for his wife to give birth to a dozen children than for him to have to suffer through periodic abstinence, are brothers in a way. Both are believers in the Theology of the Bawdy; that is, both think that sex within marriage is an absolute right, and that no considerations of his wife’s health and ability to care for their children on the one hand, or his wife’s immortal soul on the other, are good enough reasons for him to lay aside his own physical desires and subordinate his recurring need for sexual intimacy to a higher good. In a way, each is ready to objectify his wife instead of seeing her as a total person; the one wishes to exclude her fertility by means of a chemical or other artificial attack against it, while the other, deep down, thinks of her sufferings during pregnancy or her desperate need for space between baby number six and baby number seven as mere trivialities exaggerated by the female tendency to make a fuss about trifles.

This is a classic tactic of their school of thought. It was demonstrated when Christopher West viewed an equivalence between Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and “Puritans” who disagreed with him on one side, and John Paul II (in reality Christopher West) on the other. In this case, the hedonist who practices contraception is little different than the man who believes that children are a blessing from God, and we should be open to that blessing as much as possible, even if taken to excess.

Such is nonsense on stilts. The “Puritan” more often than not has his heart in the right place in opposing debauchery, yet lacking a solid formation; he ends up denying human nature. Likewise those who view NFP as “wrong” or are too dismissive of it have their hearts in the right place. They realize children are a blessing from God, and we should be open to that. Yet they must also remember that such gifts are to be exercised responsibly.

If there are genuine health reasons, genuine financial reasons, then yes, NFP should be practiced. Natural Family Planning can also be used in the positive way of helping to cause conception. By the understanding of fertility cycles and all that jazz, one knows precisely when the marital act has the greatest chance of leading to new life.

For the life of me, I do not know anyone who behaves as Mrs. Manning states. As a traditionalist, I am quite certain I have dealt with people who oppose NFP more than she has. Yet never once have those people (who are in error) behaved and acted as she thinks.

What is even more regrettable is that she could have gone with a positive message instead. She could have pointed out that yes; NFP requires periodic abstinence amongst those who follow it. Far from being a problem, this can be a moment for an immense grace for couples.

In today’s culture, men are taught not to deny their “ambitions” or “urges.” Blessed John Paul’s Theology of the Body teaches us that sometimes, we must do precisely this, even when we are lawfully entitled to such. “All things are lawful, but not all are expedient.”

Yet even outside of NFP, one should still have that mentality in their marriage. The condition and desires of the spouse should be put above your own, and most importantly, the condition of husband and wife as an inseperable unit of society should be considered above all else.

Just as there are those who have a skewed view of NFP on one side, there literally are those who view it “Catholic Contraception.” Any NFP class worth its salt recognizes this plain undeniable fact. And part of the purpose of those classes (and overall education on the Catholic view towards contraception) is to drive out the contraceptive mindset even from those who don’t realize they have it.

The beauty of the Churches true teachings can be given without looking to demonize those who disagree with you, even if they are mistaken.

Beyond Eden

2011-05-01T11:19:00.000-04:00

Central to the Mass, and indeed our entire existence as Christians, is on the nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary. When a Protestant hears of the Mass as a sacrifice, they think of it the same way as the sacrifices of the Old Covenant: they are rote, mechanical, and simply “solve” the problem of man’s sins, yet things stay fundamentally the same.

Unfortunately, many Catholics present it precisely this way, which is completely anathema to the true understanding of Catholics. In the crowd of Christopher West and friends, there is talk that Christ’s sacrifice allows us to “reclaim Eden.” The sacrifice of Christ in this view simply resets the balance. While our sin once barred us from Eden, now we can re-enter it through the merit of Christ’s sacrifice.

This is ambiguous at best. Luckily, those of us attending the Extraordinary Form have a prayer to reflect upon. During the Offertory, water is mixed with wine in the chalice, and the priest says:

O God, who in creating human nature, didst wonderfully dignify it, and hast still more wonderfully restored it, grant that, by the Mystery of this water and wine, we may become partakers of His divine nature, who deigned to become partaker of our human nature, Jesus Christ our Lord, Thy Son, who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God: world without end. Amen.

When speaking on this gorgeous prayer, Cardinal Ottaviani said the following:

The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment.

In this one paragraph, the entirety of the teaching of Christ’s sacrifice is mentioned. God is mentioned as the creator of man and woman, and that this creation was a good thing, nay, a wonderful thing! By the point it must be “restored”, we learn that man lost what he was given. Our faith tells us this happened in Eden. Yet the curious phrase is “et mirabilius reformasti.” In English, it could roughly be understood as “more wonderfully restored.”

Calvary was not simply pressing the reset button on the human race. Sacred Scripture teaches us that upon Christ’s death on the cross, the gates of Abraham’s bosom were opened, and souls (tradition stating the first being Adam) flocked to heaven as fast as they could. When Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, he showed us our true home, and the ultimate truth about Eden: there is nothing to reclaim. Christ offers something far greater than Eden could ever offer.

What is that he offers? The prayer makes it clear. The water mixed with wine is rich on so many levels. It calls to mine the mixing of two natures, just as Christ had a union of a human and divine nature. It recalls the blood and water which flowed from His side on Calvary, and that blood and water cleansed the Roman Centurion. (Whom tradition identifies simply as Longinus.) That water and wine will come soon to truly be the Blood of Christ, “the chalice of the New Covenant in My Blood.” Through the cleansing of Christ’s blood, we become “partakers of the Divine Nature.” We become united to God, sharing in His nature as a result of that Blood.

Eden was but a symbol of that which was to come, just as the sacrifices of the Old Testament were mere shadows of the true and ultimate Sacrifice of Christ. Like the Old Testament sacrifices, Eden had some efficacy. The paradise and providing of every physical need ultimately pointed toward the one who provided that need, the Father. The sacrifices in an imperfect way cleansed sin, but not necessarily the guilt of such sin. Furthermore, since the sacrifice died, for new sins you had to constantly offer a different animal. Though Christ died, He demonstrates His power over even death in the Resurrection. He is present always before the Father, and need not be killed again to offer Himself. He offers himself once in time, and that one offering extends outside of time. Through this one offering we are provided something Adam never had.

Indeed, we are provided by grace the very thing Adam and Eve attempted to grasp by force. As we remember from the beginning, they ate of the tree to become like God. They attempted to grasp something beyond themselves by force. Jesus Christ, who “though being equal with God did not consider that equality something to be grasped” gave us the example of resignation to God’s will and faith in the Father’s promise. When we are faithful unto the end, He gives that to us. A true irony in this entire situation is that all Adam had to do was ask and be patient, and it would have been provided.

Creation itself speaks of the consummation of this gift. St. John tells us (1 John 2) that “the old world passeth away.” If the old world passes away, something new is being prepared. When this age is consummated, a new heaven and new earth exist. Both are as far beyond the former as can be imagined, and then some. With that in mind, why on earth would we want to “reclaim Eden?” Why would we want to have what we had in Eden? We would sooner wish to go back to the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Yet the writer to the Hebrews makes one thing emphatically clear: one cannot return to the Old Covenant because there is nothing to return to. Likewise, Eden is in the past. Even now, we have something greater. Even the slightest experience with Christ and His sanctifying grace surpasses all the splendor of Eden, which had only that grace which existed in the created nature. To return to Eden would be to turn our back on the greater gift Christ gives us. Further still, once this age is completed, there will be something yet greater still. That is what we should direct our eyes to with anticipation. The liturgy draws our eyes towards this and gives us that path, as will be made clear.

All of this we know to be true, because we know the liturgy. Even in the Ordinary form, the totality of this symbolism exists. (If not the explicit formulation by words.) Those amongst the company of West and friends speak with great fervor about refusing to limit the power of Calvary. We should agree with them, and point out, using the liturgy, the incredible power of Christ’s sacrifice. On this “Mercy” Sunday, may we reach the destination this prayer of the Mass speaks of.

A Traditionalist on the Beatification of John Paul II

2011-04-29T15:28:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned in my previous column, I have taken what amounts to a 5 year break from the Catholic commentariat. Even when I am back in the swing of things with my writing, it tends to be on stuff I’ve wanted to write about since my conversion 11 years ago, less about the matters of the day.

I return to those “matters of the day” with what is happening this weekend. On what is known as “Divine Mercy Sunday” the one who instituted that celebration will be beatified. He will become Blessed John Paul II. Amongst my traditionalist friends, this is not a day for celebration, but of concern if not mourning. While it seems so long ago, traditionalists have never been too fond of John Paul II’s pontificate.

It is not my intention to re-litigate this history. Suffice it to say, there are ample reasons you do not hear “John Paul the Great” spoken by traditionalists. Yet with that being said, I look forward to speaking of him as Blessed, and counting on his intercession.

Even as a traditionalist, I am part of the “JPII generation” though I refuse to call it that. Amongst my fellow youths, we celebrate the faith no more or less than the youths of any age. (Being realistic, very few of us Catholics in our twenties celebrate our faith, I mean actually live it.) What is different is that nowadays those faithful Catholics youths are no longer silent. We recognize that if we want the Church to maintain her Catholic identity, it is pointless to pray for deliverance and then just do nothing. Following the maxim of St. Ignatius of Loyola, we “pray as if it depends entirely on God, and then work as if it depends entirely on us.” Is it a stretch to say that the Pope of “World Youth Day” might have had something to do with this?

No doubt many instances at World Youth Days were filled with nonsense, and resembled a rock concert more than a Catholic event. Yet think of those ten or twenty people out of thousands who used that time to make pilgrimages and adoration, using that week as a time of deep prayer and reflection, and who actually listened to what the Pope said, that their time for activism in the Church was now. Just as they are the minority amongst young Catholics at large, so they were then. Yet John Paul II appealed to them more than anyone else.

If you would say before his election as Pontiff that younger Catholics would lead the charge in the culture of life, you would be laughed at. Thanks to the devastated vineyard following the Council, the “youth” were more apt to join communes and sing kumbaya than protest an abortion mill or organize thousands of 40 Days for Life events across the country. Yet the same Pope who wanted people serious about their faith inside the Church demanded they spread it outside the Church as well. Ever the good Thomist, the Pontiff refused to believe the Gospel and the world were truly separate, never to meet. Rather, the Gospel had to form the world, starting with the hearts of the individual.

His papacy was also a papacy of great ironies. The Charismatic movement before John Paul II wanted to liberate the Church “in the spirit” from the chains of rosaries, novenas and adoration. Whatever your beefs with them in the celebration of Mass, go see a charismatic community, and see a community vibrant in its Marian devotion and Eucharistic adoration. Yet the biggest irony was his suffering.

John Paul II was a man who stood down one of the most vile and evil regimes in history, and smiled at the gunmen who tried to assassinate him. Yet the world watched this larger than life figure literally whither away in the last few years of his life. One of the great orators of Popes ended his last public appearance softly pounding his fist against the podium as he was losing his power of speech. Slowly but surely he was losing every one of his gifts. Yet he used them as opportunities of grace. He showed the world the redemptive dignity of suffering.

This was not to say the man was perfect. No pope ever was. (Though now is not the time to go endlessly over those shortcomings.) The first and greatest pope was also home to some of the first and greatest screwups as Pope. Had the Father allowed Peter’s weakness to win out, we would be worshipping at separate altars from our Semitic brethren. Even some of the holiest of men have made not so great popes. Yet it is the holiness that matters. Nobody doubts his personal holiness, or his impact on the world at large.

Yet it cannot be denied that scores of Catholics awoke during his papacy from their slumber. The Church had not been overcome by the gates of hell, but a majority of its members were sleeping. Majorities still are, and probably always will. Yet there are a few who responded to his wakeup call. That is what he will be remembered for more than anything, he who reminded Catholics everywhere they were meant to be both Catholic and relevant.

With that I can confidently implore ora pro nobis.

The Meaning of Easter

2011-04-23T09:59:00.001-04:00

To the secular world, our celebration of Easter Sunday is an odd event. In their eyes, we celebrate a corpse rising from the dead, and they really can’t figure out why.

St. Paul understood this well. He described the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as a “stumbling block” to the Jews, and “folly” to the Greeks. Yet he also understood that this was the most important moment in human history. Yet why is this so? Why was the Resurrection such a “game-changer?” It is one thing to say “Jesus has conquered sin and death.” Yet what does that really mean for our lives?

While Christ’s rising from the dead provides life, it also provides death to certain things. First amongst those is fear. Fear, combined with pride, is what led to our downfall in Eden. The eating of the Tree proved all too clearly we were not gods. Our death is an all too frequent reminder of that fact as well. If we are mere creatures of flesh and bone, there exists certain finality to it all.

The world operated according to a far different standard during this time. Rome was the pre-eminent power of the time of the Bible. Behind the propaganda of stability and “peace”, a far different reality existed. The conquered had the view of a British warlord:

To theft, slaughter, and rape they deceitfully name Empire; and even where they make a desert, they call it peace.

If nothing else, the Romans were brilliant at wanton slaughter of those who resisted them. For the pagan culture, there was a relative finality on this earth after death. Notions of an afterlife were relatively vague, and certainly not something that one strived for in preference for life. The Romans exploited this to the maximum. Faced with certain death or Roman service, many chose Roman service. Yet for all their success, there was a tiny sect with whom this arrangement had little to no success: an obscure loose collection of the mainly poor known as “Christians.”

To the Christians, it was not enough to say they were not afraid of death, and death was a fact for practitioners of an illegal religion in the Roman Empire. When Caesar threatened with death, the response of the Christian was the response of Tertullian (though perhaps without the bombastic nature):

But go zealously on, good presidents, you will stand higher with the people if you sacrifice the Christians at their wish, kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent. Therefore God suffers that we thus suffer… Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us. The oftethe blood of Christians is seed.ner we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow;

Ignatius of Antioch (late first early second century), after begging Roman Christians not to use their influence to save his life, described his martyrdom as follows:

Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ…. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him…

Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.

The earliest Christians saw their deaths as a test of their ultimate fidelity. If they were faithful unto the end, death would not be the last word. It was not the last word for Christ, and He promised the same for us if we endured to the end. It is for this reason we speak of Rome as an era of the past, yet near two millennia later, we speak of Christianity as that which ultimately conquered Rome. Just as the people of the age cried “His blood be upon us and our children”, they did not realize what they were doing. The blood indeed was upon their descendants, bringing them to everlasting life.

While this changed the world as a whole, far more profound was the change upon the individual. If death truly held no power over Christ, death holds no true power over his disciples. If something as powerful as death was powerless against him, what are we to say of the smaller things? Have people not transformed every aspect of their lives over this fact? Temptations, addictions, none of these can hold sway over the individual if they remember Christ conquered these things. We need only follow the command He gave after rising to his friends: Follow me.

Standing up for the RIGHTS of Catholics

2011-04-21T14:03:00.000-04:00

In addition to it being the holy Triduum this weekend, I am coming across another “anniversary”, something I’m not normally used to. This Saturday marks 6 months I’ve been in a relationship. Every now and then people ask what has changed with me in the relationship. If one looks at the amount of posting I’ve done, that’s an obvious change. I’ve got less time to read the blogs and the web to pick up stories. I think that’s a good thing. People nerd-rage far too much on these issues.

Yet blame a boring day at work for this coming post. With nothing to do and a column already written on the Offertory, I decided to check out the blogs. Apparently over the past week there’s been some controversy surrounding lay Catholic commentator Michael Voris. While I normally avoid the nerd-rage of those like Mark Shea and others, I think it is instructive. If anyone wants a glimpse as to why the Church has been through so much trouble recently, this tempest is a perfect example.

Apparently a bunch of liberal earth-hippies wrote a letter to Catholic Bishops. The memo suggest using the homilies during our Holiest days of Christianity (From the evening of Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday) to talk about Earth Day. As opposed to, you know, speaking about the Sacrifice of Christ, our salvation, and our ultimate Heavenly home because of the Resurrection.

In a video that went viral amongst the Catholic world, Michael Voris suggested that if your parish priest so much as talks about Earth Day during the homilies, Catholics should leave that parish and attend elsewhere. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what’s wrong with that statement. Many Catholics have been confined to a prison of stupid homilies by liberal prelates over the years. I went to a Stations of the Cross on Good Friday once. The priest turned those meditations on the Passion of Our Lord into a call for social action against the “rich” and how the real lesson of Christ’s sacrifice is how we are to fight against “economic inequality.” I used every bit of my strength to not shout “you can’t be flippin serious!” I simply walked out.

The “conservative” intelligentsia of American Catholics have predictably gone into full nerd-rage mode. Mark Shea accuses Michael Voris of trying to act like a Bishop. Elizabeth Scalia comments “the Church is not a democracy” and states that Michael Voris is a “wolf in sheeps clothing.” She compares him to Fr. Michael Pfleger, that wildly dumb and heretical priest out in Chicago.

When I read this stuff, I am reminded of why I am a traditionalist, and why I can’t take these people seriously. To put it bluntly: Michael Voris is simply saying what everyone actually believes deep down. Give the man a medal.

As far as “The Church is not a democracy” this is true but irrelevant. Apparently in the face of such flagrant liturgical abuses, the Catholic in the pew should just keep his mouth shut. Canon law says differently. The Congregation of Divine Worship says Catholics have a “right” to a liturgy free of such nonsense. Finally, last time I checked, I am a Catholic. If St. Jahosphat burns down tomorrow, I don’t lose my faith. I can simply go to another Catholic parish. Likewise, when every parish around me was rife with liturgical abuses, I was free to attend the Extraordinary Form at St. Jahosphat, which was free from such abuses.

There seems to be an idea that Catholics are required to “obey” something here. Where has the Church commanded that we must sit through liturgical abuses? Where has the Church said that we are not free to choose which parish (of those in communion with the local Bishop) we attend? On the contrary, the CDW has said that a liturgy free of abuses is owed to the lay Catholic by their rights as being a Catholic:

For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.

On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum)

That is what we are supposed to be obedient to. If priests are depriving the rights of faithful Catholics, they should be called out. Yet in addition to that, if there is a parish down the road that goes out of their way to make sure your rights as a Catholic are accommodated, one is free to attend that parish.

Far from being disobedient, we are doing precisely what the Pope wanted. When he released Summorum Pontificum, he envisioned the Extraordinary Form enriching the liturgical life of the entire Church, instead of just being a concession to a few cranky traditionalists. Part of this enrichment is one sees how a liturgy is supposed to be carried out. If Catholics are given every opportunity to choose between a liturgy that is done by the books and with reverence, and a liturgy which has neither, most faithful Catholics will want the former. They may not want the Extraordinary Form, but they will rightly ponder why their current parish doesn’t follow such reverence. So they start looking for a parish that does, and go there. If the other parish wants to stay open, eventually they will have to start improving their liturgy. The liberal parishes are growing older and smaller, whereas the parishes which have a more traditional bent are growing younger and larger. As to the rest, the law of nature takes its course.

Which makes me wonder: why on earth are these people so upset? Why are they comparing someone who wants politics driven out of the Mass with someone for whom the Mass should be linked to a political campaign? Why are they so upset at those who want reverence in the liturgy, and absolutely silent on those who deprive Catholics of their rights? Let us remind our critics that the Church indeed is not a democracy. Their opinions on what Catholics should suffer through are absolutely irrelevant. The Church has spoken, and that should be enough for them.

The Extraordinary Form: The Offertory

2011-04-21T12:41:00.000-04:00

Following the Creed, we enter into what could be viewed the second “part” of the Mass. In classical terms, this section of the Mass is known as the Offertory. If you want to find an area where people criticized the Extraordinary Form, it was this part of the Mass. If you wanted to find an area that was also overlooked in the hearts of many, it was the Offertory.

More often than not, the Offertory was viewed as “fill in” time between the proclamation of the Gospel and the Eucharist. That the majority of the prayers were carried out by the priest in an inaudible tone did not help, so the critics said. In the modern liturgies of today, there really is no Offertory. A few prayers are said while the collection plate is passed around, and faster than one can blink, you are into the Canon.

Yet if one wants to understand what is really going on in the Extraordinary Form, you really need to understand the Offertory. The prayers contained here are almost unparalleled within the liturgy as far as doctrinal content and symbolism. Far from a “filler”, the Offertory should be that final moment where we prepare ourselves to participate in an action so august it truly is timeless.

With that said, let us define our terms. Some people mistakenly say that “Offertory” means “offering”, as in the impression is given that the sacrifice of the Mass is offered during these prayers, instead of the canon. Like so many problems, it is a misunderstanding of language. The word comes from the Latin offertorium, which could be understood as a place where the gifts to be sacrificed were brought. More importantly, it is the time where the offering is prepared

This makes sense. Before anything is offered in Sacrifice, it is prepared for Sacrifice. Before His arrest, Christ was anointed with oil by the woman, an act He praised, and said all would remember her for. Likewise when we give someone a gift, we never just give them the gift. We wrap it, we adorn it. When we give clothes, we make sure those clothes aren’t wrinkled and clean. While an imperfect analogy, it still holds I believe. During the offertory, we take something of common use, and prepare it for sacred purposes.

In the terms of a sacrifice, the offering is first presented to God before it is offered. The bread and wine are dedicated to God’s service. The priest prays that this offering may atone for his “countless sins and offenses”, that this also be done for every Christian present, and indeed the entire faithful “living and dead.” The ultimate ends of this offering will be that a “means of salvation” is afforded to humanity.

Here the true mystery of Christ’s atonement is outlined. While it is certainly true that Christ died for each and every human being throughout the ages, not every human being receives the fruit of Christ’s sacrifice. This prayer gives the understanding that the application of Christ’s sacrifice is limited, even if it is offered for all. If one wants salvation, one must accept Christ’s sacrifice. One must implore that the mercy we receive because of Christ’s sacrifice be applied to them. Here the priest asks that precisely this happen. The priest (and by representation all the faithful) make this request.

Even if we do not verbally speak these words, we must associate ourselves with them. One of the ways this is done is indeed through our monetary offerings during this time. In addition to our prayers, we offer the fruits of our own labor. We do not do this under the illusion that our offering of a few dollars is somehow equivalent to Christ’s sacrifice. We don’t even do it expecting a reward. Like Christ’s sacrifice, it is ultimately a sacrifice of love. Christ did not sacrifice Himself because He was compelled to by any outside force. He offered Himself because He loved us. We sinful humans can never hope to match that level of offering. Yet we can offer what little we have at this point. That physical offering of the fruits of our labors represents our own selfless giving to the Church. Most importantly, it is our own little way of uniting ourselves to Christ’s sacrifice. Whether we are rich or poor, that is our ultimate intention here.

Far from wasting time, this introductory prayer in the Offertory sets the essential stage for what is about to transpire.

The Extraordinary Form: The Creed

2011-04-10T11:11:00.001-04:00

It is said that Christianity becomes different from other religions in that we are a religion of a "person", not a creed. That being said, creeds are still incredibly important. We get "creed" from the Latin credo, which stands for "I believe." For this part in the series I would like to do two things. I would like to discuss the significance behind "I believe", and also deal with some of the problems facing a proper understanding of the Nicene Creed today.

If there is one thing that defines modern man and the world, it is their indifference. Pope Benedict XVI speaks of this as the "dictatorship of relativism" where the only truth is that there is no truth. The corollary is that those who believe in absolute truth must be treated as the outcast. If truth even exists, it is the product of the rationalization of the individual. It never comes from an external force (i.e. an objective truth.)

The Nicene Creed is a rejection of that understanding. If one wishes to presume themselves a follower of God, they must hold to these truths. All other truths of the faith flow from these central truths (even if they are not explicitly spelled out.) The Creed is ultimately a statement in monotheism (credo in unum Deum). In addition, it is a statement of belief in the Holy Trinity (in the three "sections" of the Creed the 3 persons of the Trinity are explained), and in Christ's role as the Savior of mankind.

These words should never be a rote repetition. Every time we speak those words, we are submitting ourselves to God. We submit ourselves to His truth, made possible by the gift of Faith, itself made possible by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We cannot have this faith however without the Holy Spirit, who enlightens the minds of the faithful. Our very recitation of the Creed is only possible through the constant action of the Holy Trinity.

Today, at least in English speaking countries, this experience has been hampered by the translations of the liturgy. Words were translated in ways that were not necessarily false, but did not fully express the significance contained within the Latin, and in the Churches belief of these doctrines. Thankfully, new translations are set to take place with the start of the next liturgical year. (The First Sunday of Advent) Since the Creed is identical in both forms of the Roman liturgy, I hope the following will be of instruction to all Catholics.

In today's Creed in the vernacular, it begins with the statement "We Believe" as opposed to the Latin translation of "I believe." The translations no doubt wanted to stress the importance of the community. It is certainly true that as Catholics, we do believe certain things.

Yet the existence of these truths was independent of the group. Some try to say that the faith of the Church comes about as a result of the belief of the community. If the "community" (typically a bunch of dissenting liberal hippies) does not believe something, it is not the faith of the Church. The Catholic answers this charge with "Credo", I believe. While the community is important, God's calling is at first to the individual. He did not call the Chaldean's as a person to be the father of many, but He called Abraham. While God did indeed call entire nations (and all of humanity) to a certain vocation, the Bible was equally clear that one was not righteous or wicked on the account of others. One was righteous or wicked on the account of the individual. In the fullness of revelation, one is righteous or wicked to the extent he personally denies himself and follows Christ in all things.

There is also a general structure of the Mass being followed. Up until the Creed, the action is very community centered. The people pray as a community, they hear the Scriptures as a community, etc. The Creed is a distinct shift. We are transitioning from the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, culminating in our ultimate participation in Holy Communion. This is a distinctly personal event. While the Eucharist provides grace to the Church as a whole, the most importance grace is the chance for union with Christ Jesus through the Church.

The next part of the Creed tells us God the Father is the creator of all things visibilium et omnium et invisibilium. The English lackadaisically translates this as "of all things seen and unseen." A story best explains the difference. It may be apocryphal, if so, it should be true. Cardinal Francis Arinze was discussing with a Bishop about this very clause, and the Bishop wondered what the big deal was. During this bewilderment, Cardinal Arinze got up and ducked behind a chair. He replied "I am unseen, but I am not invisible."

When we express these words, we express faith in the truth that there is more than just this physical world. While our bodies may tell us much, they cannot tell us everything. More importantly, that which they do tell us leads to something that cannot be seen by sight, or even fully comprehended by human reason. That is why we say visible first. We move from the visible to the invisible. Both are good, but the latter is clearly superior. The liturgy itself uses visible actions to reveal the invisible realities they signify, mainly God's union with us. The cross did the same. The visible realities of Christ's suffering revealed (though only in a partial sense to dulled human reason) the length of obedience to the Father. That perfect and unyielding obedience is why salvation is available to us. While seen and unseen can signify this, it is done so in a far less powerful way.

That powerful way is again encountered when we come to the focal point of the Creed. In the English, we bow and state "by the power of the Holy spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." The Latin uses a phrase of far greater precision: Et Incarnatus est, de Spiritu Sancto, ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. "By the power of the Holy Spirit he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man. The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed in all it's splendor. While Christ certainly had a "birth" in the "natural" order (He did not just appear in this world out of nothing!), it was entirely different from the birth you and I experienced from our mothers.

"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, but a body thou hast fitted me" says the Messiah in the words of the Psalmist. One could say that in Christ becoming man, He assumed the role, that body, which had been prepared for Him by the Father not only from the beginning of time, but beyond the existence of time as we know it. As a result, every moment in history before led up to the Incarnation, where Christ, whom Heaven and Earth could not contain, enthroned Himself within the tiny womb of what, to the world, was an irrelevant peasant teenage girl. (In the culture of that time, the three adjectives would only reinforce the seeming irrelevance!) All time since that moment is due to that moment.

Again, one could get this from the word "born", but not as easily. As one can see, these words are not chosen because of they sound more formal and liturgical, but because the express intimately what exactly is the truth. When professing something as central to human existence as the Trinity and the Incarnation, precision is not just important, it is paramount.

The Extraordinary Form: God Speaking to You

2011-04-03T11:07:00.000-04:00

A consistent theme throughout this series is about how, in our participation of the Mass, we are choosing Christ over the world. This is reinforced when we come to the conclusion of what has been called "The Liturgy of the Word" by many. (This classification having been so popular the Ordinary Form now explicitly calls the first half of the Mass this.)

I also think it is one that tends to be frequently overlooked. For the average Catholic at Mass (whatever his persuasion), the proclamation of the Scriptures are just another part of Mass before Father's homily, which they hope will be something other than awful. There is the classic stereotype that when it comes to the Scriptures, Catholics really don't pay that much attention. While false, all stereotypes have a hint of truth to it.

We must remember, the Scriptures are not simply some human book. Rather, as Leo XIII pointed out, they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, having God as their author. All forms of worship have a section to where words of wisdom are recalled upon and reflected. Christianity (and Judaism) is unique in that this section is the very words of God himself.

First we have a reading known as the Epistle. The Epistle is frequently a selection from the New Testament (outside of the Gospels) but can refer to anything outside of the Gospels. They are almost always connected to the other prayers of the day, looking to give us some practical insight how to practice what we have heard so far. (For this and the Gospel, it is typically custom for them to be read in Latin and in English in the Extraordinary Form.) Between the Epistle and the Gospel, the following prayer is said by the priest in preparation:

Cleanse my heart and my lips, O Almighty God, Who cleansed the lips of the Prophet Isaiah with a burning coal. In Your gracious mercy deign so to purify me that I may worthily proclaim Your holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

If you take one thing from this prayer, take this: What is about to happen is not a mere human action. Unworthy as we may be, we can speak the words of an Apostle without the need for purification. With the Gospel, we are about to speak the very words of Jesus Christ. Not only must the priest be purified, but we must elevate our minds and prepare for such an event.

We are reminded of the Old Testament prophet Isaiah, who had to have a burning coal placed on his lips before announcing God's words and judgement to the Kingdom of Judah. The burning coal is ultimately God's grace cleansing us. At this point, the priest stops speaking with the authority of himself, and begins speaking with the authority of God.

Our Lord confirms this in His discourse with the Pharisees when the following is said:

And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God... (Matt 22:31)

One cannot take the words about to be spoken as simply the words of your parish priest. If one wishes to learn how to follow the Cross (our purpose so far here at Mass), only God's actual words will suffice.

There are times when there needs to be additional information that will lead to our understanding of the Scripture. It is for this reason the Homily exists. While not technically a part of the Mass, it is something which is so commonplace it might as well be for our purposes. Sometimes the homilies are, to be honest, atrocious. This need not be.

All too often, the homily ceases to be effective when the priest makes the homily about himself, rather than Christ's words. They will frequently make the homilies about their own pet projects they feel the congregation needs to hear about. As great as this or that devotional practice/private revelation/take your pick may be, it isn't Holy Scripture. On the other side of the spectrum, priests will frequently inject their own political causes into the homily. I once heard a Good Friday homily about how the passion of Christ was meant to be interpreted as a call to overcome class inequalities. Even if one were to agree with the priest's pet theory, it holds little application for everyday life.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is primarily about how the truth can not only be known (through Him, who is truth), but that it sets us free from sin. Our Lord did not come to give talks on systematic theology or geopolitical theory. He came to proclaim how man in his everyday life can be made right with God, and how to get to Heaven. Anything that focuses on something other than those words for the day belongs outside of the Mass. Parish bulletins are made for a reason. Perhaps if this was included instead of just your run of the mill announcements of raffle ticket sales, people might actually read them.

On Devotion to St. Joseph

2011-03-20T11:51:00.000-04:00

Yesterday we celebrated the Feast of St. Joseph. If some of our friends across the Tiber find devotion to Mary appalling and offensive, they find devotion to St. Joseph maybe not as offensive, but even stranger. How do we Catholics venerate a man we “know” so little about? We never once hear him speak in the Scriptures. He leaves no great prayers such as the Canticle of Zechariah or Mary’s Magnificat. Indeed, once the “action” in Christ’s life begins, Joseph is absent, and assumed dead.

I would counter that while there is little knowledge of the events of Joseph’s life, there is a lot of information we can glean from his character. The biblical evidence is overflowing with details of the kind of man Joseph was, and this information is incredibly relevant for Catholics today, especially men. As centuries passed, the Church started to come to an even greater understanding of these facts which have been plain to see, having “once for all been delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3) Far from being unhealthy, the devotion to St. Joseph calls us to emulate those aspects of his character.

What are these aspects? Let us first consider how the Scriptures introduce Joseph. St. Matthew’s Gospel tells us:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit: and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins…..” When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the lord commanded him, he took his wife…

There has been great debate throughout history how old Joseph was. I will avoid this debate, and only point out that his age, while an interesting historical discussion, would not change the “facts on the ground” as it were. While Protestants might find the perpetual virginity of Mary unheard of, such was not unheard of in Israel at the time. Women took vows of virginity, even becoming married. (Jewish exegetes understood the “afflicting” of Numbers 30:14 to be able to refer to total abstinence in marriage.)

The scriptures first describe Joseph as “a just man.” Let us ponder that statement. Joseph, as one who was to be Mary’s wife, could have had several emotions and thoughts upon learning about Mary’s pregnancy. He could have viewed it as a sign of infidelity, since she had been with another man before marriage. (And even being engaged to him while doing this!) He could have viewed her vow of virginity worthless. He could have worried about the harm done to his own person and reputation. The child could be viewed as his, and Joseph would have been engaged in fornication, something they could both die for.

We hear instead that Joseph resolved to put her away quietly. He wanted to deal with this in private, and make sure that Mary was not shamed in the process. Even when he may have had power to exercise by right (Joseph could have exposed her and shamed her in public, and nobody could have faulted him given the knowledge of the facts at the time) but yet he chose to be merciful. He exemplified the statement of St. Paul “all things are lawful, but not all are expedient.” (1st Cor 6:12)

While patiently considering his options, we find in Joseph the trait of obedience. After he receives word from God to take Mary as his wife (that indeed what was happening was God’s design) Joseph does so without asking any questions. Had he resolved all the internal questions he had? It is impossible to say. What we do know is that even if such conflicts existed, he was willing to trust in God. He readily subjected himself to God, even knowing the risk this posed.

We know elsewhere from Scripture that Joseph was known as a carpenter, and that he used his trade to support a young Jesus. If we remember from Genesis, part of the curse inflicted upon Adam was that of back-breaking toil. Yet Joseph takes this curse and turns it into a blessing. He restores the original purpose of “work.” Adam was given charge by God to till the Garden of Eden. One could say that Adam was meant to uphold God’s creation. When he was working, he was working in God’s service. Joseph uses every ounce of work he does to see to it that Jesus is cared for and loved.

This patience and obedience are reiterated when Joseph flees to Egypt to protect the child. We know that Joseph was of the House of David. His ancestors were the great kings of Israel, though they had long lost their power and mandate to rule. With his flight to Egypt, a man who was born into a royal household must abandon everything of his homeland and hide in a strange country. He had to risk giving up his income with his job. He placed himself and his entire family at great personal risk traveling through a dangerous land. Yet we never see him questioning the command from God. He has a job to do. He must protect Jesus with his own life if need be. His very purpose in life is to raise the boy in the ways of the Lord. His other purpose is to protect his wife at all costs. His needs and desires are a distant third. The proclamation of St. John the Baptist could also be applied here: He must increase, I must decrease. (John 3:30)

I believe there are also a few speculative reasons we have such a devotion to St. Joseph. I say speculative because the information is far less available, but nonetheless true. In Joseph’s situation, we find our own. We are joined to Christ “not by flesh, or by the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13) Christ and Mary were united in the way that a child takes physical traits and characteristics from their parent. Joseph was united to Christ solely by the will of God. Likewise, we Christians are joined to Christ solely through grace. We could never approach Christ and say “See what I have done, by rights I deserve to be counted amongst your family!”

Through Joseph we can best fulfill the commands of Holy Scripture. We are called to give everything we have to Christ as a “spiritual sacrifice.” (Romans 12:1) St. Joseph did this in offering everything in dedication to the child he was placed over. An additional command comes from the Blessed Virgin, when she prophecies that “from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed.” (Luke 1:48)

What better way to show her honor than by imitating the man who was her husband? Who knows how to honor a woman better than her spouse? In the Wisdom literature, Wisdom was presented as a woman for precisely this reason. The authors understand (through the Inspiration of the Spirit) that a man will sacrifice everything for a great woman, and will use everything in his service to honor her. Do we think that Joseph did any less to his wife? What is the highest praise that you pay towards a godly woman? You speak highly of her husband. As Leo XIII rightly points out in Quamquam Pluries, devotion to St. Joseph is certainly one of the best ways to bless Our Lady (outside of adoration towards her Son, the Savior of the human race.)

This is why we invoke St. Joseph as the “Patron of the Universal Church.” No human outside of Jesus and Mary understood the plight of the people of God better. And no male outside of Jesus can better show us how to properly honor the Father in Heaven in obedience to His divine command regarding His Son and the Blessed Virgin. Like the child Jesus, may we always place ourselves under the patronage and protection of the "just man."

Sancte Ioseph, ora pro nobis!

For further reading on St. Joseph, one may read John Paul II's Redemptoris Custos and the masterful work of Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries

The Extraordinary Form: Dominus Vobiscum

2011-03-05T09:27:00.001-05:00

The topic which I am covering today I believe is never really given much thought to the average Catholic attending Mass. Sadly, many abuses have crept in throughout the liturgical landscape today when used outside of the Extraordinary Form. Yet I submit even those Catholics who follow rubrics (of whichever rite) faithfully, they do not give much thought to this statement.

At several points during the Mass, the priest kisses the altar and then turns to face the people. He then announces the words Dominus vobiscum or The Lord be with you. The congregation replies Et cum spiritu tuo which means And with thy spirit. There are I believe several misunderstandings here regarding this.

For some, they believe that this is a request, a prayer. This leads to the rather silly moment in many celebrations of the Ordinary Form when the priest, standing in his typical posture, extends his hands while saying this phrase. Some people in turn, open their hands and extend their arms towards the priest when saying it back. They act as if somehow they are able to impart the blessing on the priest, making the priest just another person in the congregation, albeit one with a flashier wardrobe.

This prayer is not so much a request/imparting of blessing as it is a reminder. The Scriptural basis for this prayer brings this to light. In the book of Ruth, Boaz salutes the harvesters by proclaiming "The Lord be with you!" The harvesters reply "The Lord Bless you!" We should call to mind during this prayer that we are likewise harvesters in the farm that is Earth. We are the laborers engaged in the work of God.

Yet in order for this salutation to be of any benefit to us, we must indeed be engaging in the work of God. In the Second Book of the Chronicles, the prophet Azariah announces to the King:

Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The LORD is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; but if you abandon him, he will abandon you

The call is a reminder of the union that we are all called to in Christ with the Father, and that is obligatory as a Christian.

We know that this comes through Christ by the actions of the priest. Before giving this exhortation, he kisses the altar. The first altars of the Mass were the tombs of the martyrs. They offered the Sacrifice on these tombs connecting their sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, upon which all of our offerings depend upon for any efficacy. The altar is also intimately connected with the Cross, as that was Christ's altar.

So the priest, when kissing the altar, pronounces what I am about do do I do only through the power of the Cross. To all the congregation, let us remember the Lord is with us when we follow Him. Inspired by this confidence, let us unite ourselves to the Cross. This exhortation occurs right before the Collect. The Collect is the first audible prayer the priest pronounces. It is pronounced right before the Gospel, calling us to an intimate union with Christ who is now speaking to us through the Holy Scriptures. It is said before the Offertory, as we unite ourselves to the Cross in preparation for Calvary being made present to us. It is said before the Our Father, as we call to mind the perfect union with God that this prayer signifies. It is said after we receive our Lord in Holy Communion, that the unity which we desire may always be present in us. Finally, it is said as we depart from the Mass, a reminder that once outside the building of wood and stone, we must always remain united to Christ.

In these four simple words is also a reaffirmation of everything we have discussed up until now. By our mere attendance at Mass, we are choosing to serve God over the world. Yet such service is pointless unless done in union with Christ.

The Extraordinary Form: The Kyrie and Gloria

2011-02-10T10:49:00.000-05:00

What we cover today is one of the oldest aspects of any liturgy. After reciting the Introit, the priest returns to the center of the altar, and says the Kyrie: a triple repetition of the phrase Kyrie Eleison, followed by triple repetitions of Christe Eleison, then another Kyrie. Translated, it is the statements Lord Have Mercy, Christ Have Mercy, Lord have Mercy. In a symbolism of the Holy Trinity, all three persons are addressed three times.

Many will say that this is an imploring of the Trinity for the forgiveness of sins. While true in a certain sense, a deeper meaning is missed. In the Confiteor, we asked for the forgiving of our sins and everlasting life. To limit this simply to asking for forgiveness would be a pointless repetition. To better understand the real importance of the plea, a little bit of background is needed.

In the early days of Christianity and the liturgy, the dominating cultural influence was the Roman Empire. The Empire was led by Caesar. As the Empire grew and strengthened, Caesar started taking on quasi-divine (in the case of Julius Caesar) to divine attributes even during their life. The very honorific of Augustus implied divinity. As the cult surrounding the Emperor grew (especially in the Eastern parts of the Empire), people began to declare “Caesar Kyros!”, or Caesar is Lord. The Kyrie became an imploring for Caesar’s favor towards the person making it.

As we have seen in earlier parts of our discussion, the beginning of the Mass has a very strong structure between it: unlike the nations, we have chosen God to rule over our lives and hearts. I submit it is this context in which the Kyrie is best understood. Like the world, we implore whom we believe to be our Deity for favor. Yet we explicitly invoke Christ as the Lord and King of creation. In addition to being forgiven of our sins, we ask that Christ’s favor fall upon us. To have the favor of the God and King of creation is a great blessing indeed.

As a confidence of the reception of that favor, the priest then intones the Gloria. During a High Mass, he chants”Gloria in Excelsis Deo.” After receiving God’s favor, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this fact by giving him that glory. His favor does not rest on us through our own merits. If we could accomplish this by our own merits, there would be no reason to implore his favor. There would be no need of even coming to Mass if we could do everything on our own merits.

Once the Gloria is intoned, the statement et in terra pax homnibus, bonae voluntatis is used. Modern translations have rendered this “and peace to his people on earth”, which can barely even be called a transliteration. It is more a simple imagination. The actual text implies far more.

The Latin could be roughly translated as “and on earth peace be to men of good will.” Note well what is said there. In order to receive God’s favor, one must be of good will. A baptized Christian, by virtue of his baptism, is one of “God’s people.” Yet we know that God does not just grant his favor to anybody. You must be properly disposed to receive that favor. You cannot claim God’s favor and live a life of sin. Keeping with the overall flow of the Mass, we can only be of “good will” if we recognize our dependence on God, and choose to serve Him. To all who proclaim Christe Eleison with a sincere heart and a desire to serve God, He will grant them His favor. We say it aloud as proof of that claim. Anyone can claim to wish to serve God privately. The liturgy demands that such a declaration occur in public.

Filled with this knowledge, let us always be of that good will.

The Extraordinary Form: Why Incense?

2011-02-06T12:26:00.000-05:00

What I am covering today is something that sadly many will not get to see when they attend the Extraordinary Form. This is the inclusion of incense into the Mass, and the various prayers assorted with it. As a result, I will be somewhat jumping around throughout the liturgy for this piece.

Many mock incense as part of the empty “smells and bells” of the Catholic faith: a religion so focused on externals, they have forgotten the deeply internal relationship the soul is called to have with God. With this line of thought, those making this claim have introduced a separation which is central in our faulty understanding of the liturgy.

In short, it separates the liturgy from the Incarnation. When incense is first used in the Mass, the priest prays Be blessed by Him in whose honour thou art burnt. The Mass is not just a worship involving the mind, or even just of the person. All of creation is offered in the service of God, since He created everything. This was the purpose of the Incarnation. Through Christ becoming man, He would draw all that was created back to the Father. Man was given dominion over the created order, and inevitably used that created order for the worship of himself instead of God. This prayer at the Mass is a reversal of this trend. To worship with the mind alone is not sufficient. We worship with our mind, soul, and body, and all that they create.

At this point, the incense, blessed by God, consecrates that which is holy to God. The original meaning of “holy” is that which is set apart, dedicated to one sole purpose. During Mass, we see the altar, the Gospel, and even ourselves incensed. It is a reminder of our original calling in this world (to know, love, and worship God) and that we are called to that original calling above all else.

The offering of incense also carries numerous other symbolic overtones. When the incense is burned, the smoke rises towards the heavens. In the Old Testament, the Psalmist prays that his prayer may be directed as “incense in Thy sight.” The Apocalypse of St. John tells us that in heaven, the incense rising to God is the prayer of the Saints. We are meant to follow that incense in elevating our minds above the things which are passing, and towards that which is eternal.

The mass also treats incense as part of an exchange. When incense is used during the Offertory, the priest says:

May this incense, which Thou has blessed, O Lord, ascend to Thee, and may Thy mercy descend upon us.

The offering of incense is ultimately a sign of confidence. When we offer everything we have to God, holding nothing back, He will not withhold His mercy. He will grant all that we need and desire when we fulfill the purpose for which we were originally created.

Finally, the flame that burns the incense is compared to God’s love:

May the Lord enkindle within us the fire of His love, and the flame of everlasting charity. Amen.

Here we are reminded of the cleansing power of God. The writer of the Hebrews refers to God as a “consuming fire.” The flame which burns the incense directs what is left of it (the smell) towards heaven. The consuming fire of God’s love burns away the impurities of our souls, and raises us to Heaven, our true home.

As one can see, far from creating a barrier to the internal relationship with God, the use of such things as incense is a powerful reminder of that calling. In the Mass, the Church uses all of creation and what it represents not only in God’s service, but in a powerful sign that directs us to God. It should then be no surprise that our current Pope once complained that the majority of Catholics “worship themselves” instead of Christ at Mass. In many of these Churches, they have done away with the “smells and bells.”

Like the smoke which rises, may we always be focused on our eternal calling and home.

The Difficulties of "The Apologetic Mindset"

2011-01-25T10:23:00.000-05:00

In the January issue of First Things, David Mills writes about the issue of apologetics. What he said has so far triggered quite a bit of discussion. He states the following:

I think Mark is right about this. Culture precedes apologetics—or maybe it would be more accurate to say apologetics only matters for the believer when it leads him to a greater comfort with or confidence in the culture that has formed and continues to form him, freeing him from doubts so that the culture can mold him more deeply. (Critical reflection on that culture and argument is the job of theology, and theology may, of course, suggest doubts. It’s complicated, as they say in movies.)

Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees might apply to many of us, cut rate Gnostics that we are, who assume—partly, perhaps, because we like to argue and think we’re good at it—that knowledge and particularly success in argument is the essence of the Faith. We could easily be found praying “Lord, I thank you that I am not like that poor guy over there with his holy cards, who wouldn’t know what to say to Richard Dawkins,” when he is having a lively and intimate conversation with Our Lord, His Mother, and several saints with whom we are not yet on speaking terms.

Pride goes before a fall, as Proverbs notes. Accepting an argument is not conviction, even when you think the argument final and conclusive. You may change your life or your life may be changed and suddenly the argument doesn’t seem so final and conclusive any more. We can all think of obvious cases when someone made a moral choice, usually sexual, that led him to reject beliefs he had believed with all his heart and mind, and should assume that we might be equally affected by choices more subtle and harder to see. That you can defend a doctrine now and win does not mean you will believe it tomorrow.

Anyone who has read my works over the years has known I have talked about a similar problem. I’m grateful to see this getting a far wider exposure. I’d like to return to this theme today.

I have never been an “anti-apologist.” I think the apologetics movement within Catholicism in the last 35 years is one of the most important trends in the Church in the 20th century. The apologetics movement has provided a valuable frontline defense against those who seek to attack the Church. St. Peter tells us that we must be able to give a reason for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15), and the apologetics movement is just one way of doing this.

That being said, there are some difficulties. Many Catholic apologists in this age of social networking and the blogosphere have long ago stopped writing about actual apologetics. They feel their expertise in apologetics (an expertise earned) makes them relevant on various other matters as well, some of which aren’t even remotely religious. (One could read Mark Shea’s rants on foreign affairs and “torture” and one realizes there’s really nothing pro or anti-Catholic about them, they are simply an attempt to use alleged Church teachings to mask his political beliefs.

This trend has proven quite disastrous when many of the apologists started wading into matters where Catholics of good will could take varying prudential stances. With a few notable exceptions, the apologetics movement had some of the harshest critics of those who were attached to the Latin Mass and various approaches to handling the faith. It wasn’t enough to accept Vatican II as a valid ecumenical council whose decrees are binding upon the faithful. It had to be “the highest form of thought the Church has ever had.” (To paraphrase Dave Armstrong in a dispute I had with him in the past.) To say that John Paul II did some good and some not so good things is indeed beyond the pale. If you don’t refer to him as “John Paul the Great”, it is evidence you are resisting the Holy Ghost. These are prudential matters that cannot be solved by the intellectual formulations of apologetics. Catholics of goodwill are free to take a variety of positions on these and countless other issues.

I think it goes without saying that many in the apologetics movement have well overstepped this boundary. Part of the problem is what I call the curse of “Career Catholicism.” For many of them, defending the faith is not just their vocation, but their occupation. They need to put food on the table through it for their families. The only problem with this is unless you are really good at what you do; you can only beat a dead horse so many times. If you’ve been writing apologetics at least once a week for 3 years, you’ve basically demonstrated all that is wrong with Protestantism. Yet your children still need to eat. So people start going into other areas they really have no business being in, but attempt to speak with the same level of authority. In the secular world, this is known as the mentality of “publish or perish.”

These issues, while problematic, can be easily managed. It simply requires a greater humility (never a bad thing) and knowing your limits. The problem I wish to outline next does real damage, and ties back into the point Mr. Mills made.

The mindset prominent amongst many apologists today is that of what I have derisively called “sola intellectua.” In this mindset, the Catholic Church is simply a proposition of intellectual formations. Provided one demonstrates an intellectual belief in a given doctrine or principle, that is the height of catholicity. This is obviously wrong. As Fulton Sheen famously said, “Catholics do not submit a dogma. They submit to a person, Jesus Christ.” The intellectualism problem infects all circles of Catholicism. One can see it particularly on display in the debates surrounding Christopher West. It is practically a belief of “sola fide” in Theology of the Body, and one will be cured from all the ills of this vale of tears.

This approach is in error because Jesus Christ engages more than just our intellects. Our reason and intellect are of great importance, but we cannot stop there. Jesus Christ engages us in every aspect of our life. Understanding the pedagogical mission of the Church might be great for a lecture or a thesis paper, but what does it tell you about living the everyday aspects of your faith? Not much.

These sorts of things have dropped to the wayside. Rather than placing apologetics against culture, we need to make sure that instead, the work of apologetics flows from the greater Catholic culture.

The Extraordinary Form: The Confiteor

2011-01-22T09:34:00.001-05:00

After expressing our hope in the Lord to forgive and restore us, the priest begins the Confiteor, or public confession of sin. Why do we do this still at the foot of the altar? In saying this confession, there is a reminder that we are entering Sacred Ground to offer sacrifice for our sins. One should never approach such a duty on a whim. Rather, we need to be fully conscious of our sins.

What makes this different from your standard confessions is the audience. The priest confesses his sins before the entire heavenly host. He states:

I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to you, brethren [when the servers recite it back, father is used] that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, [here the priest strikes his breast three times] through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault

Sadly, most of these invocations have been removed in the liturgical reform. (An option remains to include the Blessed Virgin.) Why do we mention these individuals by name? Put simply, outside of God, they should be amongst the most important individuals in our lives. I would like to talk briefly about them.

With Mary and John the Baptist, we have the premier witnesses of covenants. Christ stated that in his time, there was no man born of a woman greater than John the Baptist. (Matthew 11:11, Luke 7:28) He was the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, and was Christ’s herald. Through John the world learned the identity of Christ.

For the New Covenant, we mention God’s greatest creation in the Virgin Mary. Before the world was created, God had decreed that she would be the mother of God incarnate. Because of this role, she was preserved from the stain of sin during her conception. When she gave birth, her virginity remained, even during the moment of birth. She is the greatest advocate of the Church, her children. She demonstrated the way to fulfill the way of the Cross par excellence, for she remained at the foot of the Cross even until the end.

With St. Michael, we acknowledge his role as guardian of all Christians. The book of Daniel speaks at length of how St. Michael the Archangel is the one who defends the people of God. In the Apocalypse of St. John, it is St. Michael who wages war against the devil and casts him out of heaven. Yet he does nothing by his own power. Faced with the Devil, he only declared “The Lord rebuke you!”

Finally, we implore the intercession in particular of Sts. Peter and Paul. We implore their intercession because they were, in their particular ways, the two chiefs of the Apostles. St. Peter was the rock on which the Church was built, and St. Paul was the greatest of her early teachers and evangelists. Most importantly, they were the founders of the Church of Rome. The Gradual and Offertory for their feast day refers to them as ”principes super omnem terram”, princes over all the earth. If we belong to the Roman Rite, we belong to the specific Church they founded. If anything is to be done in our Church, it should be done in accordance with how they willed it.

Now there will be some who would get the false impression that by “confessing” our sins before these individuals, it is they who forgive sins alongside the Father. This however is a clear misunderstanding. For right after their witness is requested, the following appears:

Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and you brethren [or father] to pray for me to the Lord our God.

We see clearly from this text it is God who forgives our sins. We are simply asking that these chief witnesses of the Catholic Faith pray to God alongside us, interceding for us daily for that forgiveness granted by God. We ask John the Baptist to pray to the Lord he declared before the world for us, and remind us always of that confession of faith he made. We ask the Blessed amongst Women to pray for us with her powerful intercession before her Son, and most importantly that we always remember her command “do whatever he tells you.” We implore Saint Michael for his intercession and also to be led in God’s army by him as we ourselves wage in our own spiritual combat with the forces of darkness, as we wage against sin. We ask for Sts. Peter and Paul because of their special connection to us as Catholics of the Roman Rite, and that we not dishonor that Church they founded.

Let us never fail to seek the intercession of these most powerful witnesses of our faith.

The Extraordinary Form: The Altar of God

2011-01-19T00:00:00.000-05:00

After signing themselves in the name of the Trinity, the priest and servers begin the Mass. The Mass starts with the proclamation of Introibo ad Altare Dei. I will go unto the altar of God. The servers respond "To God that giveth joy to my youth."

In this short exchange one could see the entirety of salvation history. We rejected the joy that God gives in the Garden of Eden. In varying degrees, that joy is rejected any time we sin. We prefer the "joy" we provide for ourselves (which can never truly satisfy) rather than what God willed for us.

Christ came to change this situation. Through His sacrifice, that joy is once again given to humanity. Yet like before, we can choose to reject it. Contained in that statement is our own reversal of the devil's original offer to our first parents. While the world seeks their own desires and needs, we seek God's mercy.

Imploring that mercy, we ask to be judged according to that mercy. This is done by the priest and servers alternating responses in Psalm 42:

Judge me O God, and dinstiguish my cause from the nation that is not holy, deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

For Thou art God, my strength: why hast Thou cast me off? and why do i go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?

Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.

And I will go in to the altar of God: to God who giveth joy to my youth.

To Thee o God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp; why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?

Hope in God, for I will give praise to Him: the salvation of my countenance and my God.

What is requested is the sanctifying of the Church, a sanctification in the classic sense of the term. When something was sanctified, it was set apart. While everything else had multiple uses and functions, that which was sanctified was meant for one purpose, and one purpose only. The priest in saying this prayer is reminded of the fact that his very vocation was meant for the offering of the Eucharist. The faithful are reminded of their own priestly nature by baptism where their job is to offer their very existence to the Father.

Due to sin, we will stray from that vocation from time to time. Yet when that happens, we must always remember our job as Catholics: to approach the altar of God. The true altar is the Cross. Sometimes sacrifice is offered on the altar. Sometimes, the sacrifice of a contrite heart is offered as we approach the altar. Other times, it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving that is presented to the altar for the priest to offer. One way or another, our job is at the Holy Cross.

To remind us of our sinful nature and our refusal to be mastered by it, a verse from Psalm 123 is then recited:

Our help is in the name of the Lord
Who made heaven and earth

Only through God's help can we expect to perform the job that is our calling, our vocation. Only through God can we receive true joy that comes about from fulfilling what we were created for. We are a people of the Cross, and only the Cross.

The Extraordinary Form: The Sign of the Cross

2011-01-17T00:00:00.000-05:00

During the 4th century, there was a Roman general by the name of Flavius Constantinus. Like all powerful generals of his time, Constantinus had imperial ambitions. Being one of the four rulers of the entire empire was not enough. He desired to be sole Emperor. As civil war (a very frequent occurrence in the Roman world) erupted, it is said this pagan general was visited in a dream by who he perceived to be a great Spirit.

That great Spirit identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, and instructed Constantinus to have a new standard for his troops to march under. Shaped in what they would perceive to be a Cross, the general was told "in this sign shall you conquer." He complied with the vision and prepared for battle, the troops marching under this new sign. Despite being outnumbered (some reports say that his foe had double his forces), his forces won a decisive victory. Constantinus entered Rome and became known from that day forth in the history books as the Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, and one of the greatest Caesars Rome ever had.

We may never know the truth of what happened that day. Yet this story is instructive, for it provides I believe the attitude we should have as we approach the altar at Mass when it begins. For we mark ourselves with that same sign as Mass begins.

As the priest enters the sanctuary, he goes to the foot of the altar. Before even ascending the steps, he marks himself with the sign of the cross saying the words: "In Nomine Partis, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen." In English, we know them as "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." While Constantine may have done this with aspirations of victory in physical combat, the priest (and all faithful) mark ourselves with this sign as we enter spiritual warfare. We know that through the Holy Cross, the Devil was conquered. We remind both ourselves and him of that fact when we begin the Mass. It is during the Mass this conquering is made present to the world.

Through this sign we also indicate whom the Mass is offered to. The Mass, and all of our lives, is meant to be offered to the Holy Trinity. Each distinctive person of the Trinity plays a particular role in the Mass. By signing ourselves by their name, we should call to mind those roles. We call to mind the Father who created us and desired union with us. We call to mind the Son who redeemed us when we rejected that offer of union. Finally, we call to mind the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us through the merits of Christ's sacrifice and leads us on the path towards that union. In that pledge, our dedication to the Three in One is renewed.

The Extraordinary Form: Praying the Mass

2011-01-16T09:48:00.002-05:00

Continuing in our series on the Extraordinary Form, I have attempted to outline several approaches that I feel are necessary for truly understanding the Mass. A popular caricature of the Latin Mass is the priest speaking silently to himself while everyone just fumbles through their rosary beads during Mass. That the faithful were at Mass could almost be viewed as irrelevant in such a scenario.

Like all caricatures, there is a hint of truth to them. There are times when people will pray the Rosary during Mass in times past. This is almost non-existent nowadays, but there is some benefit at times. To associate with holy thoughts during the Sacrifice of Calvary is never a bad thing. To meditate especially on the Sorrowful Mysteries during this event cannot be faulted.

Yet I believe Holy Mother Church calls us to something far greater. This individual in such a scenario would be "praying at Mass." St. Pius X called us to "pray the Mass." He states:

The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar. [1] If you wish to hear mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the Altar. Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the Altar. When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.

We find in this quote the beauty of the Mass. The Mass is not just the function of the priest and the servers at the altar. If if is that way in our parish and in our hearts, we are doing it wrong. Every person should be truly participating in the Mass. How can one expect the grace of the Eucharist to be fruitful if received by a soul that is not fully involved with the Eucharistic sacrifice?

Many people have twisted this perfectly noble concept however. To them, participation means "doing something" almost always in the vocal and emotive. People are called to clap their hands, move around, play guitars and drums, and do just about everything in the mass as lay people except consecrate the hosts themselves. (Alas; The Holy Spirit places a check on our narcissism here thankfully.) Yet this was not participation to St. Pius X. For St. Pius, active participation implied an interior involvement manifested by the exterior.

Our souls can perceive the symbolism because our eyes follow the symbols. Our souls perceive the wisdom of the words of the prayers because our intellects are focused on the words being said and desiring to learn from them. The soul is lifted up to heaven through the smelling of the incense that rises to the heavens. our souls taste the spiritual sweetness that is the Eucharist through the reception in our mouths. And when these senses are not sufficient, faith elevates above them.

This is the beauty of the Catholic Mass. The Church engages the entire body and soul of the Christian. If our faith should teach us anything, it is that prayer occurs numerous ways. Sometimes prayer involves saying words. Sometimes pray involves doing actions. And other times, prayer involves being completely passive and letting God do His work. From this it follows is that it is the obligation of every Catholic to pray the prayer that is the Catholic Mass. We may not be able to offer the Eucharist to the heavenly altar the way the priest can, but we can offer ourselves towards the Father, and the Cross purifies that offering of ours and makes it truly acceptable to God.

It is through this understanding that the motions of the Extraordinary Form make sense. Whether we kneel, stand, sing, speak, stay silent, these are all part of the prayer the entire people of God offer to the Trinity that is the Catholic Mass.

Note:
When we say "repeated" we do not mean a second sacrifice, or that Christ is still suffering on the Cross. Rather, it is repeated in our perspective, bound by time. Calvary is re-presented to us on the altar.

The Extraordinary Form: Silence is Golden

2011-01-16T00:00:00.001-05:00

When my girlfriend began attending the EF, she told me how the biggest "difference" for her was the inclusion of silence in the Mass. With the Ordinary Form, silence depends on how reverent the Church is. With the EF, that silence is built right into the Mass, and with very good reason.

"But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him" says the prophet Habakkuk. Today we live in a world where this kind of thinking is anathema. When you are in the presence of one you respect greatly, you defer to them. You give them the honor that is due to them, and you would want nothing you do to detract from their rightful honor. One could say that our current liturgical consciences are infected with this sickness. We must always have some sort of noise going on at Mass, since we try to make ourselves the center of attention. Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following about the way modern man approaches the Mass and the Eucharist:

How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words!

There are those who will have things running simply as "background noise" for to sit in silence is abhorrent. It is in silence that we truly "hear" our souls. With no distraction, we will end up reflecting on ourselves and on those things around us. We will recognize the pointlessness of so much minutiae. Hopefully, we learn to listen to God in place of these disturbances. Elijah did not perceive the presence of God until he perceived the "stillness" in the air.

Finally, silence is an affirmation of our human weakness in the sight of God's majesty. Nothing we understand can fully comprehend the mysteries of God. As Alice Von Hildebrand said of such instances "silent adoration is the only response."

That silence at Mass is most profound during the canon of the Mass, where almost all of it is prayed in silence by the priest. Such silence is meant to be a signal for us that something very important is transpiring. Up until this point, the liturgy could be called a work of man. At the consecration of the Eucharist, it becomes a work of the Holy Spirit. Only through the Holy Spirit does the change in substance take place. I could walk up to the altar and say those words all I want, but it would still remain just bread. Only in the priest (who receives the Holy Spirit in a very particular manner to offer said sacrifice) can the consecration occur. Even then, it is not the priest who is saying these words, but Jesus Christ acting through the priest. (The Latin refers to it as in persona Christi, in the person of Christ.)

What could we possibly add to this with our noise?

The Extraordinary Form: "Facing the Lord"

2011-01-15T12:39:00.001-05:00

Outside of the use of Latin, one of the most striking differences in the Latin Mass is the orientation of the priest. In popular criticism, the priest “has his back turned to the people.” There are those who think that this creates a barrier between the priest and the congregation, and that the priest is even “hiding” what he is saying. Even those who recognize this as utter nonsense still I think fail to perceive the reasons for the priest facing the altar.

In the minds of eminent liturgical scholars like Msgr. Klaus Gamber and Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), there was no change more damaging in the liturgical reform than the change in which the priest now faces the people from behind the altar. When one considers this, I believe one finds that this is not the ranting of reactionaries, but a very insightful and principled stand. There are numerous reasons the priest faces the direction he does in the Extraordinary Form. I would like to focus on a few.

One is no doubt symbolic. In many Churches, the altar was constructed facing the east. This was because the Scriptures describe Christ as returning from the East. As we face east, we anticipate the return of Our Lord. His descent during the consecration of the Eucharist is a shadow of his eventual return in full splendor and glory at the end of the age. The knowledge of this tradition and symbolism sadly faded in the consciences of many Catholics.

When we lost this knowledge, we began to lose our understanding as a people of the Resurrection. While the Mass is indeed the making present of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, that Cross means nothing without the empty tomb. St. Paul tells us that if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is meaningless. Implied in the Resurrection is that we will also rise again. During the Mass, we add ourselves to Christ’s sacrifice. We join ourselves to the Cross, for without the cross nothing we do can be efficacious. Yet we also express our hope in this Resurrection by directing our attention to where Christ is expected to return.

Another way of describing this orientation would be to say we are “facing God.” In the EF and in the Roman tradition (this one going back many centuries), the tabernacle was front and center on the altar. Within the tabernacle Catholics profess is Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Let me emphasize this. Catholics believe that God Incarnate exists within the tabernacle: body, blood, soul and divinity.

When we converse, we view it a common courtesy to face the person. To look away would be to imply disrespect. Those who defend Mass facing the people will jump on this. Yet they fail to understand this one simple fact: The Mass is not addressed to man. It is addressed ultimately to God. We are witnessing in a miraculous way the offering of Christ to the Father that occurs outside of time. Since our King is present on the altar, He takes the position of prominence, not a man.

Finally, we may look at the orientation of the priest as a symbol of unity. Far from the priest “turning his back” on the people creating division, the orientation of the priest is a very powerful sign of unity. The priest is a sinner, just like the people in the pews. He as well must implore God’s mercy. Though he may take a place of prominence amongst those in that respective Church, he must do the same as we do. He humbly leads his faithful towards their encounter with God.

In a rich display of this symbolism, the priest addresses the congregation right before the canon of the Mass and says:

Orate fratres, et meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem.
Pray Brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty

Right before the most important part of the Mass, the priest turns to the people and implores their aid. He is offering Mass for the benefit of the faithful, himself included, even if the faithful are just the altar servers. The priest begs our prayers and implores us to unite our sacrifices with that which he is prepared to offer. When the priest is always facing the people, this moment loses its significance. It becomes one moment amongst many.

One could multiply the times this rich symbolism is diluted by having Mass facing the people. No longer is God the center of attention, but His servant the priest. No longer is there that rich and true egalitarianism of the priest going in the same direction as the people. Instead, he becomes the focus of attention, which the people must gaze upon. In almost all cases, the tabernacle has been removed from the place of primacy that is deserved. Instead, it is placed normally off to the side, almost as an afterthought in the liturgy. The altar no longer becomes the throne of our Blessed Lord.

Have we not lost the sacrificial understanding of the Mass today? Do not many just view it as a mere meal, rather than the making present of the sacrifice by which we granted eternal salvation as a gift from the Father? Are we not more reliant than ever on there being a priest who does the Mass properly, since so many do not? Is there not a higher demand for the “creativity” of the priest, since after all he is now the center of attention?

The entire tone of the EF is set by this simple positioning in the beginning. Let us also set ourselves accordingly.

Understanding the Extraordinary Form: Introduction

2011-01-15T11:41:00.000-05:00

As readers of this weblog are aware, Common Sense Catholicism really is a free-flowing project. I frequently take the blog into new projects and directions. Sometimes, this is because your not so humble correspondent has a very scattered mind. Other times, it is because I feel there really needs to be a better presentation of the faith from a wide variety of topics. The latter is the cause of this next project.

I’d like to talk about the Extraordinary Form (henceforth EF) of the Roman Liturgy, better known as the “Traditional Mass”, “The Latin Mass”, “Tridentine” Mass (for reasons I do not care to go into at the time I despise this term), and so on. In writing on this topic, I hope to correct an imbalance I perceive.

In traditionalist thought, there is plenty of type over why the Extraordinary Form is superior to the Ordinary Form. (Sometimes known as the Novus Ordo, Pauline Mass, Mass of Paul VI, etc.) Yet amongst modern minds, there is little energy spent on pointing out with precision why the EF is superior on it’s own merits. This is my goal. I will do so by going through the prayers used in the EF, and giving commentary on them.

Before we do that, I would like to point out a few noticeable differences Catholics will encounter when assisting at Mass in the EF.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Fall of Judah

2011-01-15T10:25:00.000-05:00

Immediately following the death of Hezekiah, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Kingdom of Judah was in great shape. The Kingdom of Samaria had ceased to exist. The Assyrians had been beaten back, and were beginning to crumble. When he finally passed, Hezekiah gave to his son a peaceful and one could even say flourishing Kingdom. Most importantly, the worship of the True God flourished under his reign. The young King Manasseh would also have the prophet Isaiah to guide him just as he guided his father.

All of these assumptions, while logical, ended up being tragically mistaken. Manasseh is now remembered as one of the worst kings in the Biblical record. Normally when the writer of Kings (whom many presume to be Jeremiah the Prophet) spoke of a wicked King, he speaks of their cruelty in as short of terms as possible, states they did “wicked in the sight of the Lord” and moves on. With Manasseh, he spends considerable time detailing what he did. This I believe would imply that even amongst bad kings (of which there were several) Manasseh outdid them by far:

Restore the High Places throughout Judah, eliminating the centrality of worship in Jerusalem according to the law.
Installed pagan altars within the temple, even in place of the altar where sacrifice to Yahweh was offered
Built a grove in his palace for the worship of idols
Offered his son as a human sacrifice to idols
Promoted heavy use of the occult (wizards, soothsayers, divniation, etc)
Built a giant idol in the court of the temple and commanded worship of it
Murdered those who supported his fathers reforms
Is traditionally held as the one who ordered the execution of the Prophet Isaiah, who died by being sawn in half

In the biblical accounts, Kings were condemned as “wicked” for far less. Because of these things, the Kingdom of Judah is sent on a course for which it will never recover. For because of his actions, the Kingdom of Judah would be destroyed. The first part of this involves the punishment of Manasseh directly. Assyria invades Judah (again), and this time they capture the King. We know from historical accounts that the Assyrians were particularly brutal towards Kings that they captured, and it can be implied that Manasseh was tortured grievously.

Eventually, Manasseh repents and begs for deliverance from the God he had done so much to profane. God accepts this repentance, and he is released from captivity and restored to the throne. The remainder of his rule is spent attempting to clean the mess he had propagated for decades. This did little in the end, since the people never turned their ways. Once he died (and he was buried in the same pagan grove he had installed in his own house), his son continued his father’s wicked reign, yet refused to repent.

Josiah’s reign is far different than his father or his grandfathers. At the young age of 16 (according to the biblical accounts) Josiah begins to worship God, and begins his program of reform. Most likely this was also the time he could assert the throne without (much) interference from regents. A decade later, he discovers the book of Deuteronomy and is stunned. Let us ponder that a bit.

One would think that even if they lacked the physical book, Jews should have known the laws prescribed in the book. One would think they would know about the Sabbath and all that entails. Even if they weren’t practiced perfectly throughout times, they were known. In the time of Hezekiah, these things were completely unknown to the King. An inference would be that the successive reigns of Manasseh and Amon were so thorough in their cleansing of the religion of God that there was almost no knowledge left of it. Even those who wanted to follow Yahweh would have had no little clue how.

Inspired by the law, Josiah undertakes a massive reform. Paganism is banned, the high places are destroyed, the prostitution cults are expelled from the Kingdom, and many festivals were celebrated for the first time in centuries during his reign, despite them being in the law as obligations to celebrate. He listened to the counsels of wise priests, and was greatly assisted by his strongest defender, the prophet Jeremiah.

Sadly, all he did was buy the Kingdom of Judah time. The regional situation was rapidly shifting, and successive Kings did away with almost all of Josiah’s reforms. Within 25 years, the Kingdom was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon.

I mention this history for the purposes of painting the general background of future installments. This is also mentioned to show the providence and mercy of God, paradoxical as it seems. As was the case all too often, sinful man chose to serve himself above God. Yet even with this situation, God provides a way for the people to turn to him. Whether it was righteous Kings or prophets, there would always be a way for the Jews to find their way back to God. This will be expanded upon later, as we begin to see the theology of the Incarnation start to take concrete form.

Why the Incarnation Matters: "Whom You Knew Not"

2011-01-07T14:24:00.000-05:00

After prophesying of the future universal Kingdom of Israel, Isaiah then gives a bit of insight as to how this Kingdom will come about. Ironically (or so it would seem!), some of these foundations are laid by a man outside of the nation of Israel. Isaiah declares:

Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, and to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee, and will humble the great ones of the earth: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and will burst the bars of iron. And I will give thee hidden treasures, and the concealed riches of secret places: that thou mayest know that I am the Lord who call thee by thy name, the God of Israel. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have made a likeness of thee, and thou hast not known me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God, besides me: I girded thee, and thou hast not known me:

The Cyrus mentioned is Cyrus the Great. He was the great Persian King who conquered the Babylonians, along with countless other Kingdoms. In doing so, he freed the Israelis from their exile, and sent them back to their native land to rebuild their temple. In Jewish Culture, he is the only gentile to be referred to as a Christ, an anointed one who delivers God’s people. What he did is not in dispute. Yet how did he pave the way for that future Kingdom. Most importantly, why should we care?

In the culture surrounding Israel at the time, the King was portrayed as divine, or at least the personal messenger of a divinity. The Persians practiced proskynesis. This was a system of submission as a way of placing the King above everyone else. Varying social ranks had to perform different acts of submission. The lower you got, the more one humbled themselves. For the lowest on the ladder, they were required to be completely prostrate before the King. The full title of Cyrus was King of Aryavrata, King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the four corners of the World. In shorthand, the Persian King was referred to as the King of Kings.

Even with all of this claimed authority, Yahweh claims that such a man is His anointed. In the choosing of these words, God is claiming authority over the reign of even foreign kingdoms. He is establishing Himself as the source of all ruling authority here. The idea that such a King would be pressed into the service of a foreign god would have seemed absurd. Yet Yahweh is proclaiming precisely this.

We can also gain much insight when we ponder the type of kingdom that Cyrus ruled over. To put it mildly, it was quite different than most Kingdoms of the past and future. Though an absolute monarch, he rarely dealt in the affairs of his subject. Instead, he relied on satraps, those who had pledged their service to him. They had a considerable amount of autonomy to run things as they saw fit. This was in remarkable contrast to the Babylonians, who ruled with an iron fist frequently their vassals.

On religious matters as well, Cyrus’ approach was far different than the previous great rulers of the region. Though divinity was inseparable from kingly authority, Cyrus followed a policy of religious tolerance. He frequently portrayed himself as the servant of local gods in propaganda to establish his rule. He allowed people to worship as they pleased, provided they kept in their prayers the Emperor (a shadow of this is seen in the book of Ezra). Most famously, he is known for the Edict of Restoration, the proclamation which gave the Jews the order to rebuild their temple and places of worship.

These policies gave the Jews a new lease on life. Returning from their exile (of which we will speak more of later), they were in a sense a purified remnant. They were allowed to practice their faith and develop their traditions in almost complete and total safety during Persian rule. The governor of Jerusalem was even the grandson of the last legitimate King of Judah. Without the actions of Cyrus, there would have been no Israel. We see God working behind the scenes, slowly laying the landscape for the Incarnation. The Incarnation literally was an act millennia in the making.

St. Joseph and the Holy Innocents

2010-12-28T14:54:00.001-05:00

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents. These were the infant children of Bethlehem massacred by King Herod in an attempt to wipe out Christ, whom he perceived as a future rival. This act ultimately was inspired by the devil.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, three magi are led to a manger to adore the Word made Flesh. In a real way, they are proclaiming the value of life. Under the inspiration of the devil, Herod proclaims death. This situation has remained with us today. Today's massacre is the outrage of abortion, where millions of innocents have been sacrificed under the direction of the evil one.

Both have the same purpose, the destruction of the innocent. Many people ponder Satan's conflict and think his battle is only with God. His battle is against all God has created. When Herod massacred the innocents, the devil intended to send a shot across the bow to all creation: there is no length he would not go to in his goal of warring against God. Anyone who thinks they can be "neutral" is sadly mistaken. These babies were as "neutral" as could be (most of them infants, lacking the ability to even choose good or evil at this point) and they were slain, partly out of a vain hope that Christ would be amongst the slain, and partly just out of rage by Herod.

Yet we do know that Christ survived. He survived thanks to St. Joseph. We know from today's Gospel that Joseph was told by an angel to flee Bethlehem and go into Egypt where he would be safe. At this point, St. Joseph gave up his entire livelihood and smuggled Mary and Christ out of Israel. By this very act, he was signing his death warrant. Even with all the risk, Joseph does all of this without complaint.

Perhaps we should start imploring his aid today. Just as he protected Christ from the devil, is he not also willing to protect all of us, as he is our patron?

Why the Incarnation Matters: The House of David Continues

2010-12-26T13:32:00.000-05:00

After a bit of a break, I would now like to continue our series on the Incarnation and its understanding throughout salvation history.. Today, we come across what could be viewed as the most important of the “Emmanuel” prophecies of Isaiah. Indeed, we Christians have recently celebrated the fulfillment of this prophesy at Christmas. We are told “Behold, a woman shall conceive a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel.”

While this prophesy ultimately points towards Christ, I believe there are certain aspects of it that we miss, and these are vital for why this was such a comforting prophesy to the Jews. We must remember, the prophets were not simply there to tell news of the distant future. The immediate context is quite different.

If we remember from our previous discussions, the Kingdom of Judah was a vassal of the King of Assyria. A vassal is one who is forced to be in submission to a stronger power, for the sake of their own survival. The King of Assyria had almost complete domination of this region. In addition to Judah, the Kingdom had forced into servitude the Kings of Damascus and Samaria (amongst many others) as well. As with any vassal, rebellion was a common occurrence. People hate to be under forced submission for long. The moment they get an opportunity, they will likely rebel to assert their own independence.

This is precisely what was happening. The Samarians and Syrians declared their independence from Assyria. In such rebellions, the retaliation of the overlord is normally swift and brutal. If the Assyrians let this go unpunished, their other vassals may likely follow suit. Once they declared their independence, Damascus and Samaria immediately prepared for war. They also did their best to recruit other vassals of Assyria to likewise follow in their footsteps. The most obvious choice was the Kingdom of Judah.

For various reasons, Judah rejected this overture. They felt their interests were not served by a rebellion. They were historical enemies of Damascus. (Within the very generation of this event, Syria launched a failed siege of Jerusalem) They originally submitted to the Assyrians to save their necks from Samarian aggression. Barely a century before, they had been the vassal of Omri, King of Samaria.

For the anti-Assyrian coalition, this rejection was unacceptable. They needed all the manpower they could get in defending their lands from the coming Assyrian invasion. Furthermore, if Judah stayed loyal to Assyria, the Assyrians could easily use the realm of Judah for their own ends. Their troops could be resupplied, and they would have easy access to launch invasions on both fronts. For their plan to work, Judah had to go along with them.

With this in mind, they devised a plan. They would invade Judah and depose King Ahaz. In his place, they would place their own puppet ruler. This ruler was not of Ahaz’s direct line, and would be gladly follow along with this plan if it meant he could secure the throne. The armies of Judah would then join with Damascus and Samaria to prepare for the Assyrian invasion.

Whatever one thinks of King Ahaz, he was no fool. He knew that joining this coalition would not work. The Assyrians would respond, and respond brutally. (Such was their history.) Even if it did, Ahaz would not find his kingdom independent. Syria would no doubt attempt to bring them under their umbrella. At least with the Assyrians, they were far enough away to where Ahaz had a degree of autonomy, provided he did not rebel. Yet this distance was also a curse. Ahaz reasoned the Assyrians would not arrive in time to save him most likely. He could not stand against the might of both Damascus and Samaria. The situation looked hopeless.

God announces that He will not let this stand. He made a promise to David that one of his descendants would remain on the throne. This plot went directly against that plan. In addition to announcing His opposition to this, God declares to Ahaz He will perform a sign to that effect. The God of the universe intends to show a sign of good faith in His defense of Judah.

Ahaz rejects this overture, claiming He has no desire to tempt God. While sounding noble, perhaps there is something more at work. We know that Ahaz was not a noble man. The book of Kings describes him as doing “what was evil in the sight of the Lord, like the Kings of Israel.” In a sense, he was even worse than the Kings of Israel. The last time he felt threatened, he offered his son as a burnt offering to his pagan deity. He desecrated the altar in the temple; making it identical to a pagan altar he was awestruck by when he visited Damascus.

When Ahaz rejects a sign, he does so out of a rejection of the God of Israel. In his eyes, Yahweh was not supreme. He was just another god. Any god could give a sign. His humility is entirely false. God delivers an angry response, stating that this rejection shows Ahaz wishes to provoke Him as well as the nations.

Yet God will still show a sign, yet not for Ahaz’s sake. Just as He defended the wicked Samarians from the Syrians because they insulted Him (1st Kings 20:23-28), He would defend Judah for His own sake. If the royal line died, God would have broken His promise.

This is the context for what was said. Isaiah announces that a woman shall bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel. He also predicts a true golden age for the people of Israel as a result of this son.

Christians and Jews have debated for centuries if the prophesy is to be understood in light of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet what we do know is that this birth would be a sign. What was that sign? If a true golden age of the Davidic Kingdom would be launched by this son; this means the Davidic line would survive. This would mean that the schemes of Damascus and Samaria would have to fail. They would not be deposing Ahaz, for one of his sons would reign over a true golden age of Judah according to God. Considering that at the time Ahaz had no direct heir, this cemented the deal.

In the immediate sense, the people would have seen this prophesy fulfilled with Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. Hezekiah was one of the greatest Kings of Judah. Under him they did gain independence from Assyria. Judah ended up rebelling anyways later in Hezekiah’s life, but for their own freedom. When the Assyrians invaded, they suffered a humiliating defeat. Though the Assyrians attempted to spin it as a victory (Sennachrib in his memoirs uses propaganda to boast of humbling the “puny” King of Judah, even though he retreated with a significantly smaller army and never again attempted to make them submit), their hegemony over Judah had ended. Hezekiah also launched bold religious reforms, helping Judah to return to the worship of Yahweh.

While a certain case can be made for Hezekiah to be the fulfillment of this prophesy, I submit Isaiah has much more to say on the matter. In chapter 9 Isaiah expounds on what kind of child this servant will be. The prophesied child shall be called “Father of the World to Come”, the “Prince of Peace”, and one whose “empire” would be “multiplied.” Illustrious though his reign was, Hezekiah did none of these things. There had to be someone else.

Whoever this applies to, the message is clear. Even in their darkest hour, God stands beside them, for the sake of His covenant. Man may plot and scheme all they wish, their plans will not come to fruition when they conflict with God’s.

When Did Continence Become a Dirty Word?

2010-11-25T11:38:00.001-05:00

When I introduced the concept of the "Death of the Catholic Male", one commenter was quite perturbed that I claimed many Catholics have contributed to it through their incomplete presentations of the Gospel. I stand by this assertion, and I believe that a recent article vindicated my assertion.

In an essay over at Catholic Exchange, Bill Donaghy wrote:

We were not made for law; we were made for love. However, when it comes to living out our eros, our God-given passion for all that is good, true, and beautiful, it seems many of us don’t even equate it with Christianity anymore. We feel that eros is less than holy, and are content with continence, not consummation – so we divorce passion from purity and just tough it out, trying to stay clean, in a kind of legalistic contract with God that will keep us on the “Big Guy’s” good side.

In a certain sense, Mr. Donaghy is certainly correct. One of the greatest problems inherent in human nature is our refusal to embrace what we were called to be. St. Cyprian of Carthage (along with Augustine) talk about how one of the greatest difficulties to embracing the Gospel was that they were holding themselves back from becoming what God truly wanted them to become. Once they came to the light of the Gospel, they were tormented by their sins and indiscretions, and would not advance forward. They finally realized that God says "I will remember their sins no more", he meant what he said.

Yet God was never content with a mere forgiveness of their sins. In addition to forgiveness, God brings about a restoration. Yet that restoration can be hard to accept. We are indeed called to the eternal consummation of all things in Christ. So if we understand Mr. Donaghy's words in this sense, he is indeed correct.

Yet I believe he is missing a vital part of the story. Is there really meant to be the separation between "continence" and "consummation" that Mr. Donaghy talks about? I submit it is precisely this distinction in the world and the Church at large that is one of the greatest reasons for a decline in not only an authentic understanding of our masculinity, but an authentic understanding of the human person in general. One cannot reach the point of consummation without continence.

Ironically, Mr. Donaghy cites all we should need for this understanding, but misses the point entirely. He quotes John Paul II's Novo Millennio Ineunte, where the Pontiff said the following:

“It is a journey totally sustained by grace, which nonetheless demands an intense spiritual commitment and is no stranger to painful purifications (the “dark night”). But it leads, in various possible ways, to the ineffable joy experienced by the mystics as “nuptial union.” How can we forget here, among the many shining examples, the teachings of Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila?”

A brief understanding of history tells us that these individuals understood continence quite well. John Paul II engaged in "the discipline" of bodily mortification and intense fasting. St. John of the Cross underwent intense purification in the natural and supernatural realm. Near the end of his life, the majority of it was spent in a very cruel captivity by his rivals. He died of injuries that his captors refused to treat. Mr. Donaghy treats the Christian spiritual life as a life of enjoyment. These individuals would disagree sharply. While one receives great spiritual consolations at times, other times the soul receives an intense feeling of loss and suffering. Both are used by God in purifying the soul. This spiritual purification is inevitable. We will go through parts of it now, and we will undergo it in Purgatory.

In their coverage of the Theology of the Body, many popular commentators almost entirely ignore the Theology of the Cross. Put simply, we are fallen creatures. As a result of that fallen nature, we have sinful tendencies, especially in regards to selfishness, that we understand as concupiscence. As a result of original sin, this will always stay with us. Even though Christ has indeed redeemed us, our selfish natures remain, albeit (hopefully!) in a diminished form. As we are conformed to the Image of Christ, the effects of concupiscence are slowly but surely defeated.

Why is it slowly defeated? When we are restored in Christ, we are restored to our original calling. We were indeed called to the consummation, but original sin did a lot of damage to our participation in that calling. Instead of directing our hearts towards union with God, we direct them towards increasing our own power, fulfillment, etc. The remedy for this is the Cross, and only the Cross. "Whoever does not deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me cannot be My disciple." So says our Blessed Lord. While sin and concupiscence exist, the Cross tells us they need not be our masters. We can deny the influence they have over our lives through that same Cross.

Yet in order to do this, we must begin to renounce that past life, and live a life towards our calling. Sometimes, we even renounce those things that are good normally, because they might not be fitting to our new calling. Earthly food is good, helps nourish the body physically. Yet at times, we are called to fast and abstain from certain foods, as an ultimate reminder that "not by bread alone" does man live. Our true food is that of the love of God, given to us on earth principally in the Blessed Sacrament. Where is this understanding in the thought of Mr. Donaghy? He would seem to counsel us to eat and drink, since all food was made clean by God and given for our benefit!

So why does this lead to a decreased understanding in authentic masculinity? God knew we would need help. One could say He wired the desire for discipline and sacrifice into our very natures. Even in the secular sphere, our politicians and athletes sacrifice constantly. Very few athletes like watching film for several hours a day. They'd rather be out playing, or enjoying their time away from the field, "living the good life" as it were. If they could have it their way, many of them probably wouldn't like having to live such a strict diet and exercises regime. Yet they understand they have to do it if they want to succeed. St. Paul himself compares the Christian life to that of the athlete, who brings his body into subjection to compete, lest he find himself disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Take away continence, and you take away part of man's nature. He also will never find true fulfillment. Indeed, he is rejecting the very language written into his mind, body, and soul if he thinks continence is not necessary, if he has somehow passed beyond it. That will not occur until we have finished the race. Acting as if you have won the race before you actually cross the finish line is a sure way to lose it.

Why the Incarnation Matters: Isaiah the Universalist

2010-11-16T21:47:00.001-05:00

After exhorting the Kingdom of Judah to righteousness, Isaiah begins what could be called the “Messianic” Prophecies. While they certainly do foretell the coming of the Chosen One, I think we must look deeper. We must consider how they would sound to their initial audience.

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways, and that we may walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples…

While this is a very inspiring text, the average Jew of that time would’ve looked at it in one of two ways. He would’ve viewed it inspiring, or thought of Isaiah as a madman. We must consider the context in which this was written. Isaiah lived during a time of great unrest. The King of Judah was a vassal of Assyria. It was the King of Judah who requested the aid of the Assyrians, which eventually led to the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. The Jews of this time were lowly vassals, and a divided people. The prophet speaks of a time when not only are the children of Jacob united, but the entire world is united under the faith of Yahweh.

Contained in this call is the call to their original purpose, and something even greater. It is frequently noted that the original purpose of the nation of Israel was to be a “priestly” nation, bringing the light of Yahweh to the nations. Yet I submit that Isaiah is going even further. In these “latter days”, they will be a lot like the first days.

From creation through Abraham, there was no “Jew” or “Gentile.” In the earliest times of creation, man was of one mind and language. Once again remembering our history, we remember how bad we human beings corrupted that initial vision. Far from changing that vision, God reaffirms it. If the successive covenants God established with man looked to be an accommodation to man’s weaknesses, the foretelling of the “latter days”, we see something entirely different. All the people of the world are God’s people.

Already we see in this calling a promised new covenant. Under the Old Covenant, there were distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. Under the Old Covenant, the law had evidence of man’s weakness and sin. Many in Israel had no desire to learn the ways of Yahweh, much less the nations! Isaiah follows his prophecy with an indictment of precisely this fact. Trusting in their own devices, man has perverted the initial purpose of the Kingdom, and they will suffer as a result.

Yet why does Isaiah prophecy of such a time? Such a vision would be almost impossible to reconcile with the facts. I would say, that’s the point. God will do this not because of Israel’s merits. Their only merit is destruction for their acts. In the beginning of this series, I spoke about how God called us to union with Him. Even though we rejected that call, the call is still made, and that call will come to fruition. Yet we need help.

I believe the Scriptures point to this help, albeit in an indirect manner. After giving the “lay of the land” so to speak, Isaiah recounts a vision he has. In this vision, he appears right before the throne of heaven itself. Faced with such majesty, Isaiah recognizes his utter unworthiness. At that time one of the Seraphim places a hot coal upon his lips.

If one ever tries to eat something that is too hot, one gets a burning sensation in their mouth, and we immediately recoil. We talk about how that ruins our taste buds. Well think of placing a burning coal on your lips and inside your mouth. Such would destroy any trace of our taste buds. So why did this occur? Man needed to have his spiritual taste buds burned away. In that act, the angel states that his guilt is removed, and is cleansed from his sin. All of those impurities are removed by God, so the prophet can fulfill his ministry.

Likewise, we must do the same. If we look to aspire to this calling Isaiah gives, we too must be purified. Our senses have not only been darkened, but they have been perverted. Elsewhere in his prophesy he states “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!” It is only through God’s gift that we can be purified, and become able to fulfill our original calling. Once we have been cleansed, we must then learn of what our true calling is. Isaiah gives us that in our next section.

What Happens When you Abandon Tradition?

2010-11-04T19:23:00.001-04:00

This is what happens:

Should We Look Away Or Not Lust?

For those keeping score, one remembers that a constant refrain from critics of Christopher West's interpretation of Theology of the Body is that it did not give sufficient weight to the greater Catholic tradition. Without those clear safeguards, ideas would begin floating around that have absolutely no basis within Catholic tradition. This article showcases this in spades. Without the benefit of tradition, people are twisting Pope John Paul II to say things that the good pontiff would have found absolutely abhorrent. That Catholic Exchange would run this is even more saddening. In the comments section of the article, Senior Editor Mary Kochan defended running this article by stating:

This is not my opinion and I don’t feel compelled to defend it. When Steve Pokorny put this article in, he put it in under the CE Editors name — our author field is glitchy and he might have been having trouble with it. I did not even realize that he had done that until this morning and so I fixed it.... But I think it is better for this article to be here and be brought to light and argued against so well, then for it to be isolated on some TOB site where they only discuss it among themselves.

While I am sure that myself, dcs, Wade St. Onge and others are only too happy to point out the errors of this article, some things you should never have to point out on a Catholic site. Popes in times past condemned some thoughts as "offensive to pious ears." Offensive is not a strong enough word. Many times people believe that we are interpreting Mr. West and his defenders wrong, they really don't believe the crazy things we attribute to them. If that's the case, how does one explain this work? Let us see why.

Mr. Simons begins his article by retelling a story. Now we have no clue if it's accurate or not, but such need not concern us, only his ideas contained therein matter. Allegedly, a question was asked of Mr. West that if one saw his friends wife naked, what should he do? Should he turn his eyes? West allegedly stated that what was most important was that the individual not lust. This is central to Mr. West's doctrine of "mature purity" which posits that as one begins to understand the Theology of the Body and apply it to their lives, they are able to overcome situations others would find an occasion of sin.

This sounds harmless enough, and could even be defended on a certain level. It goes past that point when Mr. Simons says the following:

But West was pointing out that what was required was that the man not lust, whether or not he looks away.

With all due respect to Mr. Simons, why is this even under dispute? The answer is we should do both. We should both turn away our gaze, and not lust. Put simply, a man does not have the right to see a woman naked not his wife under normal circumstances. Nudity between two people implies a certain intimacy. Vulnerability is implied. They see you in a state everyone else does not. If that intimacy is not there, it is an invasion of that person's intimacy, privacy and dignity to see them in the state only their spouse should see them in.

This is the core of modesty. Even if there were no lust, we would still keep ourselves covered. It is fitting that we be covered, as an external manifestation of the inward dignity we are called to possess. In heaven, we possess that dignity in the fullest. We are not "naked without shame" in heaven. Instead, we are clothed in white robes. To defend his truly absurd pet idea, Mr. Simons demonstrates that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." He has proven his ability to cite historical examples, but not understand them. Let us see how this is the case when he states:

If it were wrong for a man to look at a friend’s naked wife, then the early Church would never have demanded that men, women and children be baptized naked in each other’s presence.

When one looks at the early Church, one indeed does find that people were baptized in the nude. Yet if one actually comprehends what was occurring, Mr. Simons should take no comfort in the real story. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, there existed the office of the "deaconess" in the Early Church. Her roles were as follows:

“There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. It is probable that this was the starting point for the intervention of women in many other ritual observances even in the sanctuary. The Apostolic Constitutions expressly attribute to them the duty of guarding the doors and maintaining order amongst those of their own sex in the church, and they also (II, c. 26) assign to them the office of acting as intermediaries between the clergy and the women of the congregation; but on the other hand, it is laid down (Const. Apost., VIII, 27) that “the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon”, and there can be no doubt that the extravagances permitted in some places, especially in the churches of Syria and Asia, were in contravention of the canons generally accepted. We hear of them presiding over assemblies of women, reading the Epistle and Gospel, distributing the Blessed Eucharist to nuns, lighting the candles, burning incense in the thuribles, adorning the sanctuary, and anointing the sick (see Hefele-LeClercq, II, 448). All these things must be regarded as abuses which ecclesiastical legislation was not long in repressing.” (H/T DCS and Steve Kellmeyer)

Women were not baptized by men when they were naked. This was done out of a sense of "propriety", or, if you prefer the modern term, modesty. Mr. Simons seems to imply that this attitude of respecting modesty is being "suspicious" of the heart, and Manichean. (If one remembers, Mr. West's editor stated this outright when attributing this attitude to the Spiritual Master St. Frances De Sales). Since under certain circumstances a layperson can baptize, this makes sense.

Now as the sacramental theology behind baptism developed, baptismal garb started to become more common. This was done not to "repress" nudity, but to signify the purity the person has at the moment of baptism. At the moment of baptism, all of their sins are washed away. They also wear white to remind them, and everyone present, that they are called to be pure like the saints in heaven are pure. There was not some hidden sexual agenda behind the manner of baptism. It smacks of impiety and offensiveness to even suggest such.

Mr. Simons continues this lack of wisdom when he states:

If it were wrong for a man to look at a naked woman, John Paul II would not have celebrated Mass with almost totally naked women participating. Nor would he have condoned nude models posing for life art students, male doctors delivering babies, or nudity in general where the climate and culture allowed for it. Men all over the world are able to see naked women and not lust. Why can’t we?

If there is one thing the audience will notice, nowhere does Mr. Simons actually cite John Paul II to justify these views. If one actually reads John Paul II, they will find something entirely different. Forgive me for quoting the Pontiff at length, but this needs to be said:

We tried to understand the difference between the situation—and the state—of original innocence, in which "they were both naked, and were not ashamed" (Gn 2:25), and, subsequently, between the situation—and the state—of sinfulness. In that state there arose between man and woman, together with shame, the specific necessity of privacy with regard to their own bodies.

In the heart of man, subject to lust, this necessity serves, even indirectly, to ensure the gift and the possibility of mutual donation. This necessity also forms man's way of acting as "an object of culture," in the widest meaning of the term. If culture shows an explicit tendency to cover the nakedness of the human body, it certainly does so not only for climatic reasons, but also in relation to the process of growth of man's personal sensitivity. The anonymous nakedness of the man-object contrasts with the progress of the truly human culture of morals. It is probably possible to confirm this also in the life of so-called primitive populations. The process of refining personal human sensitivity is certainly a factor and fruit of culture.

Beyond the need of shame, that is, of the privacy of one's own body (on which the biblical sources give such precise information in Genesis 3), there is a deeper norm. This norm is the gift, directed toward the very depths of the personal subject or toward the other person—especially in the man-woman relationship according to the perennial norms regulating the mutual donation. In this way, in the processes of human culture understood in the wide sense, we note—even in man's state of hereditary sinfulness—quite an explicit continuity of the nuptial meaning of the body in its masculinity and femininity. That original shame, known already from the first chapters of the Bible, is a permanent element of culture and morals. It belongs to the genesis of the ethos of the human body. (General Audience April 22)

The Pontiff notes here that as culture advances, the covering of the individual becomes necessary, not just for climatic reasons, but to protect and highlight the individuals dignity. Indeed, it is one of the sure signs of advanced civilization that a society protects the nuptial meaning of the body by covering nudity. So in the theoretical case of Mr. Simons, we could simply answer, with John Paul II, that the culture in which this occurred is not advanced in the realm of understanding the need to protect and promote the nuptial meaning of the body. Such might be politically incorrect to say so, but it is nonetheless true.

Mr. Simons next example is in regards to an artist. Certainly if an artist can draw nude models, that means we are called to look upon a naked person just as they do, right? Wrong, according to John Paul II. When speaking about nudity in art, the Pontiff states:

The artistic objectivation [sic] of the human body in its male and female nakedness, in order to make it first of all a model and then the subject of the work of art, is always to a certain extent a going outside of this original and, for the body, its specific configuration of interpersonal donation. In a way, that constitutes an uprooting of the human body from this configuration and its transfer to the dimension of artistic objectivation—the specific dimension of the work of art or of the reproduction typical of the film and photographic techniques of our time.

In each of these dimensions—and in a different way in each one—the human body loses that deeply subjective meaning of the gift. It becomes an object destined for the knowledge of many. This happens in such a way that those who look at the body, assimilate or even, in a way, take possession of what evidently exists, of what in fact should exist essentially at the level of a gift, made by the person to the person, not just in the image but in the living man. Actually, that "taking possession" already happens at another level—that is, at the level of the object of the transfiguration or artistic reproduction. However it is impossible not to perceive that from the point of view of the ethos of the body, deeply understood, a problem arises here. This is a very delicate problem, which has its levels of intensity according to various motives and circumstances both as regards artistic activity and as regards knowledge of the work of art or of its reproduction. The fact that this problem is raised does not mean that the human body, in its nakedness, cannot become a subject of works of art—but only that this problem is not purely aesthetic, nor morally indifferent.

When an artist portrays someone in the nude, there will always, by nature, be a certain objectification of the person. One has to approach the subject detached. You know nothing of the person, nor is such knowledge relevant to the task at hand. Sometimes, this may indeed be required, but one should always tread carefully, and make sure that the limits of shame are not crossed.

Yet the Pope's point is that we are not meant to look at such a person all the time this way. We cannot reduce people to their bodies. The same goes for situations with medical examinations. (Indeed, the Pope mentions these as "special circumstances.") A doctor is not looking to understand the meaning of a woman's naked body when he is operating on her. No, he must approach the woman as detached as possible to save her life. Does Mr. Simons think this is how individuals should treat each other?

Bad as the article has been so far, Mr. Simons plunges the nose of the plane right into the gutter next:

The professor would have had to look at his friend’s naked wife if she were a model in an art class he was enrolled in, or if she was his patient and he were an M.D., or if they were vacationing at a nude beach and were chatting with each other. As long as he looked with love, he needn’t be worried about lust, which is a violation of love.

Note well what is said here. Mr. Simons finds no problem with nudism. If they had "mature purity", there's nothing wrong with being on a nude beach having friendly conversation! This is where we have come ladies and gentleman. He has taken Christopher West's views about "mature purity" to their logical, if logically absurd, conclusion. If the only reason modesty in appearance exists is to protect from lust, then the removal of lust should make modesty in appearance frivolous. Since Mr. West applauds the "bishop who did not turn his eyes" (in a horribly distorted story on St. Nonus) from a "half-naked prostitute", and since we are called to have a "holy fascination" with the naked body, then what is wrong with nudism?

Cardinal Ciriaci, at the behest of Pope Pius XII, stated the following when talking about modesty:

"Everyone knows that during the summer months particularly, things are seen here and there which are certain to prove offensive to anyone who has retained some respect and regard for Christian virtue and human modesty . On the beaches, in country resorts, almost everywhere, on the streets of cities and towns, in private and public places, and, indeed, often in buildings dedicated to God, an unworthy and indecent mode of dress has prevailed. Because of this, the young particularly, whose minds are easily bent towards vice, are exposed to the extreme danger of losing their innocence, which is, by far, the most beautiful adornment of mind and body. Feminine adornment, if it can be called adornment, feminine clothing, 'if that can be called clothing which contains nothing to protect either the body or modesty.' (Seneca) are at times of such a nature that they seem to serve lewdness rather than modesty . What we are discussing here is obviously most serious, since it vitally concerns not only Christian virtue but also the health and vigor of human society . Well did not the ancient poet say of this matter: 'Vice necessarily follows upon public nudity' (Ennius)."

In giving a speech on athletics and gymnastics, Pius XII said the following:

"There is, moreover, in sports and gymnastics, in rhythm and dance, a certain nudism which is neither necessary nor proper. Not without reason did an impartial observer remark some decades ago: 'What is of interest to the masses in this field is not the beauty of the nude, but the nudity of beauty.' The religious and moral sense places its veto on such a manner of practicing gymnastics and sports. In a word, gymnastics should not command and dominate, but serve and help. This is their duty and in this do they find their justification."

When speaking about certain people's nudism in Goa, India, a member of the Pontifical Council for Migrants (under John Paul II), stated that:

There should be an intensive educational programme through talks and audio-visuals to conscientise people against the evils of drug addiction, nudism, etc.

Near the end of the article, Mr. Simons bemoans the plight of the women at Franciscan University of Stuebenville. Allegedly, men were so afraid of lusting, that they "turned their eyes" merely at the sight of a woman. Having made several visits to Stuebenville over the past 10 years, I find this highly unlikely. He then looks to give counsel to those college men, as well as all of us men:

But back to the women on campus: these women needed the men to be their brothers in Christ. In the men turning away, the women felt that their beauty, something they had no control over, had become a curse from God. They felt that there was something very wrong about the way God had made them because the men would look away when they would pass by on the walkways. They felt that they weren’t women, but problems for men instead. Is this love? Is this the behavior of a gentleman?...... If men were taught to really see all women as persons of equal dignity, they would not lust and they would not look away. They would look with love and see God revealed through his artistry.

Of course, if we think that the only option is to look away since lust is the normal response of a man to a woman (aren’t we really just animals after all?), then we will never embark on the journey to purity of heart. If it isn’t possible to be pure, why break our backs trying? It is so much easier to lust or look away. Of course we can’t blame ourselves for our problems. It is really the women. The women that God put on this Earth with us. And isn’t it ultimately all of His fault? We wouldn’t sin if it weren’t normal. But Christ calls us to so much more. He tells us that in the beginning it wasn’t so. Yes, yes, we’ve heard that all before. We know all about concupiscence and that is why we have to look away now.

I find it interesting that in the entire essay, he only mentions concupiscence once, and only to dismiss it. Much is talked about having a "perpetual suspicion" when it comes to lust. Allow me to propose an alternative. I say this knowing full well that it is highly likely that it doesn't go down the way Mr. Simons describes it.

Why are we so quick to attribute lust to these men? What of women? Are they free from struggling over lust? Certainly not! There could be a thousand reasons why they weren't checking the ladies out. Or maybe, just maybe, these Catholic men have manners. It isn't polite to stare. When one stares, you are objectifying someone. Whether or not someone is lusting in their heart during this, it's still wrong to just sit there and stare. When I see an attractive woman, I do not stare at her. I might glance, she might glance back, but you don't stare. Doing so makes you a creep. Mr. Simons claims to be against objectifying women. Yet the remedy is to stare at the woman when you notice she is attractive, hoping to see God's artistry. Ever wonder how the woman feels? Or how her boyfriend feels at you gawking at her?

Notice something here? It's all about the individual. Never about the responsibility towards the other. It is selfishness. What we have here is a self-serving rationalization to gawk at a woman. It is the very opposite of the gift. Yet like so many popular presentations by certain speakers on the Theology of the Body, they promote the precise opposite of what John Paul II intended. This is what happens when you depart from tradition.

St. Frances De Sales and Christopher West

2010-10-24T12:20:00.000-04:00

Earlier this year, I had went to lunch with a friend and his girlfriend before a baseball game. At another table near us sat around 5 or 6 very attractive women our age. My friend was fixated on them the entire time. I could tell his girlfriend was not too thrilled about it. When he stepped away for a smoke, I followed and we talked about it. When I expressed dismay at his behavior, his response was telling:

Were you not looking at them as well?

I tried pointing out to him the difference between a single person noticing them in passing, and someone committed to another staring at them. This was lost on him. Of course, my friend is not Catholic, so I'm a bit more indulgent with him. (Though not too much of course!)

I mention this story because I believe it sets the tone properly for the discussion I wish to have. My friend would honestly fit in right at home with my friends across the aisle in their defense of Christopher West. In civil society, my friend was being a pig. Yet if he only knew the truth of the Theology of the Body (according to Christopher West) he could simply tell his girlfriend "relax baby, I'm simply admiring the beauty of woman as God created them!" Some may think I'm exaggerating. I believe the evidence will be with me though. After establishing that evidence, I would like to focus on what I believe is something Mr. West cannot overcome: the teachings of St. Frances De Sales. Indeed, to some of West's defenders, St. Frances' admonitions smacked of prudery and "suspicion." (See this thread, where Mr. West's editor and a very vocal lay defender of him state precisely this.)

First, let us go to the evidence, we will be discussing the story of the "two Bishops" as Mr. West presents it, and a certain incident that Mr. West claims happened to him at Holy Mass. In discussing "mature purity" as opposed to mere "continence" Mr. West gives the following "historical" example.

The following story illustrates what mature Christian purity looks like. Two bishops walked out of a cathedral just as a scantily clad prostitute passed by. One bishop immediately turned away. The other bishop looked at her intently. The bishop who turned away exclaimed, “Brother bishop, what are you doing? Turn your eyes!” When the bishop turned around, he lamented with tears streaming down his face, “How tragic that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.” Which one of those bishops was vivified with the ethos of redemption? Which one had passed over from merely meeting the demands of the law to a superabounding fulfillment of the law? (Theology of the Body Explained, Revised Edition, page 215)

When I first read this passage, I thought "certainly West isn't asserting that a holy man is to spend his time looking at a half-naked prostitute!" Apparently I was the "other bishop" in this story. Claiming a fascination with a prostitute's (half-naked in West's eyes) body is a path to holiness doesn't sound right. Yet this is exactly what Mr. West is saying:

...It is generally reported that upon seeing the half-naked Pelagia parading through the streets of Antioch while his brother bishops turned away, Bishop Nonnus looked upon her with love and great delight. She noticed his look of love and was eventually converted through his counsel and preaching. She is known as St. Pelagia of Antioch.

In short, when you see a woman, stare at her, become fascinated with her body. Of course, do so with purity. Who knows, she might notice and convert! If this sounds silly and absurd, it is. While it might seem like an interesting story, it is only that, a "story." The real life example of St. Nonnus happened nothing like this. As Dawn Eden relates in her masters thesis:

In a footnote, West cites Helen Waddell’s account of Nonnus and Pelagia in The Desert Fathers. However, the story she relates, translated from Eustochius’s Latin version of James
the Deacon’s Greek account, differs from his own on many key points. Nonnus’s tears are not
because “such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.” Rather, the bishop feels ashamed upon
witnessing the effort that the harlot puts into preparing her appearance for men, for he believes
he has not put nearly so much effort into his appearance before God. Returning to his chamber,
he flings himself upon the floor and repents to Christ: “for a single day’s adorning of a harlot is
far beyond the adorning of my soul.”

The original story also counters West’s implication that casting a look of “mature purity”
upon a “scantily clad prostitute” may cause her to notice the loving gaze and so discover God’s
love. Pelagia, in Waddell’s account, does not notice that Nonnus looks at her on the street; her
conversion comes about afterwards, when she hears him preach. Most significantly, when
Pelagia then writes to the bishop and asks to see him, he agrees only on the condition that there
be other bishops present. “[S]eek not to tempt my weakness,” he writes.

Mr. West continues his very curious views when he relates a story that occurred during Mass. He discusses an experience where he felt a rush going through him during Mass at the sight of a beautiful woman not his wife and her hair. In prayer, he believes God told him that such attraction was given to point Mr. West to the power of the Eucharistic sacrifice. (The account is told at length in TOB Explained, 398.)

I'm not going to comment at length on this particular incident. Speaking personally, I find it highly unlikely, if not outright laughable. Yet that's just me, and if someone seriously made that connection and this caused a far higher bit of reverence at Mass, more power to them! Color me suspicious. While West indeed notes that if people are impure, they shouldn't be thinking these things, he believes his purity gave him the power to do so.

Here's my only question: Where was his wife during all of this? What does she think about Mr. West and others who claim that the best way to overcome impurity is for her husband to constantly stare at another woman at Mass? Mr. West nowhere expresses sorrow for this incident. Rather, it was incredibly revealing for him he says. Fr. Thomas Loya gives similar instruction when he tells someone who struggles with impurity:

Alright Look at her!! That's right, look at her! Look at her butt, her breasts, but don't stop there. Look at every aspect of her magnificent femininity! Take her in completely and say "How many are your works O Lord, in wisdom you have made them all!" (Psalm 103)

I speak only as a brother who has a sister. If someone told a man in an audience to learn who my sister is as a woman by staring at her butt and breasts, we would be having some problems! If I were in that audience, I honestly would probably say something along the lines of "be glad you are a priest."

Is my repulsion evidence of some nascent prudery or disgust with the human body? To answer this and the story above about Mr. West, I bring forth St. Frances De Sales. In writing on marriage, St. Frances says the following in his masterpiece Introduction to the Devout Life:

The first effect of this love is the indissoluble union of your hearts. If you glue together two pieces of deal, provided that the glue be strong, their union will be so close that the stick will break more easily in any other part than where it is joined. Now God unites husband and wife so closely in Himself, that it should be easier to sunder soul from body than husband from wife; nor is this union to be considered as mainly of the body, but yet more a union of the heart, its affections and love.

The second effect of this love should be an inviolable fidelity to one another. In olden times finger-rings were wont to be graven as seals. We read of it in Holy Scripture, and this explains the meaning of the marriage ceremony, when the Church, by the hand of her priest, blesses a ring, and gives it first to the man in token that she sets a seal on his heart by this Sacrament, so that no thought of any other woman may ever enter therein so long as she, who now is given to him, shall live. Then the bridegroom places the ring on the bride’s hand, so that she in her turn may know that she must never conceive any affection in her heart for any other man so long as he shall live, who is now given to her by our Lord Himself.

So I ask again: Where was his wife? Was Mr. West honoring the wise counsel of this great spiritual master? What does Fr. Loya say to the married man who took his advice? In light of this wise teaching, would it be okay to do this simply if the girl were single, since before the foundation of the world, a man was made for her if her vocation is marriage? It should be a blatantly obvious truism that a man looks upon his wife differently than other women. Of what purpose and benefit is another woman to him? God did not make that woman for him and his sanctification, only his wife. What compelling reason is there to reject the sound principles of St. Frances here?

There are those who will read this statement, and will respond "this is impossible." They will reason that men, as visual creatures, will always turn their gaze towards that which is around them. There is indeed a certain truth to this. Yet even if true, it is not to be commended. We are fallen creatures. While we make such oaths, nobody ever fulfills them perfectly. While a man's gaze might in passing notice a woman not his wife, he should not focus his gaze in this instance. If by chance he finds himself focusing his gaze on her, he should immediately call to mind the oath that he made which was signified by that ring. He should then also immediately call to mind the pearl of wisdom St. Gregory of Nazianzen teaches: you cannot expect your spouse to fulfill obligations you yourself are refusing to fulfill.

We should never set the standard aside because we view it impossible. With God, all things are possible. Mr. West often declares he refuses to limit the power of the Cross in transforming our desires. I will agree with him. For those who find the counsel of St. Frances impossible, grace makes it possible. In the end, a true love illuminated by divine grace makes up for our shortcomings, we fulfill our obligations through that love.
I would say this is the tradition of the Church in these matters. It is impossible to understand the mystery of "man and woman He created them" apart from this tradition. Those who say likewise may indeed "know" the teaching, but they do not fully understand or comprehend it.

Why the Incarnation Matters: Isaiah's Call

2010-10-23T09:14:00.000-04:00

When pondering the lives of the prophets, we can do no higher than pondering the life of Isaiah. We will be spending several posts on this prophet's message, because he was a prophet without equal in the Old Testament.

He lived during a time of great peril and great change in the world. It was during his time that the Kingdoms of Judah and Samaria first came into conflict with the mighty Assyrians. During his time, the Kingdom of Samaria was actually destroyed by the same Assyrian Empire. The Kingdom of Judah was originally meant to serve as God's way of bringing the light to the nations. During this period, that light is about to be extinguished. Isaiah appears to not only comfort his people, but also to remind them of their calling.

By the time he walked the earth, Judah had indeed fallen far from their calling. After the righteous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, Ahaz ascended to the throne. Ahaz turned away from God, and committed sins even greater than that of the people of Samaria. He sacrificed his (at the time) only son to pagan idols. He removed the altar of God from the temple, and replaced it with a copy of the Syrian altar in the great temple of Damascus. In his desperation, he swore allegiance to the King of Assyria becoming his vassal, begging the King to bring vengeance upon Samaria. (In a true irony, what he relied upon for salvation ended up nearly becoming his doom.)

This was the time during which Isaiah lived. We know from the introduction that he was the son of Amoz, a man of high nobility. He was born during the reign of Uzziah, and promoted the true worship of Yahweh during his reign. No doubt he had fallen out of favor with the powers that be during the reign of Ahaz. Yet it is during this time that he begins to build his reputation.

What is this reputation? He indicts with great rhetorical power the sins of Judah. The first chapter is full of a seething condemnation of Judah for her sins and hypocrisy. Their hypocrisy if anything makes them worse than the pagans. The pagans knew no better. Judah had the truth, and they had turned their back on it. Here the prophet calls on them to forsake this path in what could be called the summation of Isaiah's entire message:

Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

This is a prophecy of restoration. He calls them back not only to the practices of the previous Kings, but to their original calling from Adam, to Abraham and to Moses. They must not only put away the evil they did, but learn to do something in place of it. Many times the people of Judah and her kings would repent of the evil they did, but they continued to do it. There was no real change in their behavior. If anything, the sacrifices they offered were being used as an excuse for loose living. The prophet points out that God does not accept the sacrifices offered unless a real change of heart occurs.

Instead, we must replace our evil with that which is righteous. If we do so, God will bless the land and leave them in security. His message was a great challenge to the people. His next prophesy gives us insight into the fruits of this repentance and conversion. May we likewise repent of our evils and experience true conversion in our hearts and souls.

The Hermeneutic of Suspicion

2010-10-21T16:43:00.000-04:00

In many of the discussions surrounding Christopher West's interpretation of "Theology of the Body", West invokes John Paul II talking about the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion." I'd like to offer a very brief outline of this understanding.

As anyone who studies Church history knows, the Church has dealt with various heresies. Sometimes, those heretical concepts colored the judgement of even good and honorable men, some even saints! St. Hippolytus was an anti-pope. Tertullian died outside of the Church due to his Montanism. St. Cyprian through his rigorous orthodoxy at times lacked Christian charity towards the lapsed, and Pope St. Stephen rebuked him for it.

That this mindset has also colored the worldview of some Catholics throughout the years in the battle to present an authentically Christian view of sexuality is not surprising. We know that the Manichean influences that Augustine was once associated with at times led to some problematic statements he made regarding sexuality. While one should be very careful in substantiating the charge, there are those throughout Church history, even saints, who had a very dismissive view of sex and sexuality. This is why we must take great care to understand their statements in a wide context. Charity requires that we first attempt to reconcile their statements with the greater Catholic tradition.

I believe the precise opposite has happened with the debate surrounding Christopher West and those who defend him. A classic example of this occurs in the comboxes at Sr. Lorraine's blog. After what was a fairly boilerplate discussion, the topic turned to the importance of the marital embrace within marriage. Some were arguing that it was the "central" and "fullest" way of understanding the "spousal meaning of the body." Wade St. Onge objected to this line of thought, and used St. Frances De Sales to buttress his claims:

Married people ought not to keep their affections fixed on the sensual pleasures of their vocation, but ought afterwards to wash their hearts to purify them as soon as possible, so that they may then with a calm mind devote themselves to other purer and higher activities. (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 39: “The Sanctity of the Marriage Bed”)

The response of Sr. Lorraine was telling.

Well, Wade,it seems to me that the quote from St Francis de Sales perhaps has a bit of the attitude of suspicion, as John Paul might call it..... But when he says "wash their hearts to purify them" he seems to imply that they were somehow made impure by conjugal union. But authentic conjugal union marked by love is not an impure activity, so why would they need to be thereafter purified? Even some of the saints had traces of Manichaean attitudes, as probably most of us do still have them in some ways.

I find this troubling in a number of ways. Most importantly, she's accusing a Doctor of the Church of Manichean tendencies. Not just any doctor, but one of the great spiritual masters of the Church, of whom Pope Pius XI said the following:

What is more, it appears that Francis de Sales was given to the Church by God for a very special mission. His task was to give the lie to a prejudice which in his lifetime was deeply rooted and has not been destroyed even today, that the ideal of genuine sanctity held up for our imitation by the Church is impossible of attainment or, at best, is so difficult that it surpasses the capabilities of the great majority of the faithful and is, therefore, to be thought of as the exclusive possession of a few great souls. St. Francis likewise disproved the false idea that holiness was so hedged around by annoyances and hardships that it is inadaptable to a life lived outside cloister walls. (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem )

I submit it is quite imprudent to charge one of the great spiritual masters with Manichean tendencies, unless you have some real evidence. Sister Lorraine provides none. While some may find the quote Wade cited troubling, reading the context helps give a far better understanding of the text in mind. I submit that not only is the great Doctor assured of his spiritual orthodoxy, but he provides a large problem for the partisans of Mr. West.

There is one problem with the quote: depending on which version you have, it will or will not exist. An interesting discussion for scholars of St. Frances, but we need not bother ourselves with this debate. The context of the discussion surrounds that of over-indulgence. In giving his advice on the marriage bed, St. Frances says the following:

The marriage bed must be undefiled, as the apostle says, that is to say, kept free from uncleanness and all profane filthiness. Holy wedlock was first instituted in the earthly paradise, where as yet there never had been any disorder of concupiscence or of anything immodest.

We see here that St. Frances talks about the divine origin of marriage. God instituted marriage, and it is something that helps the spouses grow in holiness. There are those who take their warped views into the bedroom, and give us all kinds of perversity. (A popular example is Dr. Gregory Popcak's "one rule" which states that almost anything goes in the bedroom, provided contraception isn't used and the spouse's fulfillment is in mind.)

He then goes on to point out that like anything else, humans can abuse what was given to us by God. He demonstrates how to eat is holy, but people abuse eating into gluttony:

Just as to eat, not for the preservation of life, but to keep up that mutual intercourse and consideration which we owe to each other, is a thing in itself both very just and lawful, so the mutual and lawful compliance of the persons united in holy marriage is called by St. Paul a debt. But it is a debt so great that he allows neither of the parties exemption from it without the free and voluntary consent of the other....

After talking about the varying degrees of which indulgence is permitted (provided the primary purpose of marriage not thwarted), St. Frances says:

In truth, nuptial commerce, which is so holy, just and commendable in itself and most profitable to the commonwealth, is yet in certain cases dangerous to those that exercise it. Sometimes it causes their souls to be seriously ill with venial sin, as in cases of simple excess. Sometimes it kills it effectually by mortal sin, as when the order appointed for the procreation of children is violated and perverted. In this latter case according as one departs more or less from this order, the sins are more or less abominable, but they are always mortal. The procreation of children is the first and principal end of marriage. Hence no one may ever lawfully depart from the due order that that end requires.

Let us remember that above all, St. Frances was a pastor of souls. He understood well that sexual temptation is a serious issue, even in marriage. Even in marriage, even in the just, there can still be the temptation to use and exploit another person for your own ends. The more one focuses on the sensual, the greater that danger is, just as the more one focuses on the pleasure food provides, the greater the risk of gluttony and over-eating. It is in this context that the quote from Wade is given. St. Frances continues afterwards:

In this advice consists the perfect practice of that excellent doctrine which St. Paul gave to the Corinthians: "The time is short," said he, "it remaineth that they also who have wives be as though they have none." According to St. Gregory,' that man has a wife as if he had none, who takes bodily consolation with her in such a manner as not to be diverted from spiritual demands. What is said of the husband is understood likewise of the wife. "Let those that use the world," says the same apostle, "be as though they used it not".... We should enjoy spiritual things but only use corporal. When their use is turned into enjoyment, our rational soul is also changed into a brutish and beastly soul.

St. Frances is not saying that the marital embrace is unholy. Quite the contrary. He is telling people to exercises it properly, and to never let it interfere with your spiritual duties, especially those towards your spouse. Good as the marital embrace may be, it is not the epitome of marriage. Though it is a readily available sign of the union of husband and wife that they are "one flesh", one can think of even greater signs. (Indeed, St. Joseph did not partake in marital relations with the Blessed Mother, yet in John Paul II's eyes they practiced the spousal meaning of the body par excellence.)

Now is St. Frances saying that one can take no enjoyment from the marital embrace? Certainly not. What he is saying is that the said enjoyment of yourself should never be the main focus. How many people do we know, even in marriage, who are only thinking of themselves and their "needs." The more one focuses on their needs, the more likely they will start neglecting their spouse. If indeed the marital embrace is supposed to provide (however faint) a glimpse of the enjoyment we spend in heaven, should we not afterwards stay focused on what that is, instead of what gave that enjoyment?

I believe I have demonstrated that on this area, and so many others, the great doctor is truly above "suspicion." The question becomes: Why is he not taken at his word? I believe that if we do take this great spiritual master at his word, the positions of Mr. West and his associates are quite hard to justify, as I intend to prove another time.

Dr. Smith Issues a Response to Dr. Von Hildebrand

2010-10-18T15:48:00.001-04:00

http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/18/139211/

For what it's worth, the tone is leagues better compared to her previous response to Dawn Eden. Dr. Smith said she would be taking that into account, and she deserves commendation for it. I may write a little bit more on this later, but will simply make a few brief points as I read the article today:

1.) The Philosopher and Evangelist

Dr. Smith states:

She is ferociously loyal to those she loves and the ideas she champions. With most audiences, she is a terrific hit. Some, however, observe that she may not fully appreciate what truth there may be in false philosophies or why so many are drawn to error.

I think one needs to consider the audiences. Dr. Von Hildebrand's work was not meant as an analysis for why people feel the way they do, at least from what I can tell. The focus of her work was to contrast two different approaches, and why she feels the approach of Christopher West ultimately falls short. Those of our friends on the other side of the aisle have stated time and time again that West is meant to be the one who takes Church teaching and makes it accessible, that he's not a theologian. I would say the Dr. Von Hildebrand's of the world are necessary to challenge the likes of Mr. West and others to make sure their thinking is consistent. Make the message accessible no doubt, but make sure that both that the "wounded" can benefit from it, even the redeemed wounded. (I've never really cared for this connotation. We are all wounded in every aspect of our lives by sin, even if we have been redeemed by Christ. It smacks of the idea that West's critics are just a bunch of Pharisees, in need of no physician, while West is going to those in need of healing.)

I have taught three courses for the Theology of the Body Institute, which also promotes the work of Christopher West.

If nothing else, I think this once and for settles the debate. Dawn Eden's critics generated what many of us felt was a storm out of nothing over her assertion that the TOB institute promotes the works of Christopher West. It was rather self-evident. Putting seriousness aside for the moment, I hope Christina King and friends read this statement. :)

There is one troubling theme I note throughout Dr. Smith's essay, and I do not feel she is being consistent. One on hand, she claims Dr. Von Hildebrand doesn't cite evidence. On the other, Dr. Smith:

Criticizes those who have she claims have never read TOB, and yet use Dr. Von Hildebrand's essay to go after West
That Dr. Von Hildebrand's essay is in essence corrupted by the influence of certain people who criticize West, one could say even implying that someone else wrote parts of the essay!

Nowhere does she cite any actual evidence of either instance. She just leaves the charge out there hanging. I do not think this is fair treatment, especially since Dr. Smith decries this alleged offense in her critics.

On "Junk Food"

Dr. Smith finds shock that anyone would view pornography as something other than "junk food." Today for lunch, I had what could be called "junk food." I had myself a double cheeseburger meal large sized with onion rings from Burger King. While not ideal, the food has some nutrients in it, and is okay in moderation. Pornography is never okay, and there are no nutrients in it whatsoever. As Dr. Von Hildebrand said, it is poisonous. That Mr. West opposes pornography is to be commended. Yet in describing these things the way he does, it has been the assertion of his critics that the issue is confused.

The same could be said about one who eats out of the dumpster. There are those who through homelessness have been forced to eat out of the garbage can. They are doing so out of desperation, yet are still being fed with nutrients. While one might question what they are doing, to do so is not sinful. Viewing pornography is again, always sinful. While some may turn to it out of desperation, some people willingly turn to it. West makes little mention of this in his presentations. Everybody is just wounded and unable to find healing because of prudery. Dr. Von Hildebrand was simply pointing out that some people know no limits in their depravity, and it is simply foolish to think it is just because of prudery.

On "Hefner"

When Dr. Von Hildebrand mentions West's praise for Hugh Hefner, Dr. Smith find astonishment that anyone would find fault with this. She left out a few important points. The way in which he praised Hefner was by comparing him to John Paul II, and viewing them as both opposing prudery. The image was given in essence that they would be on the same side. As James Akin pointed out, that is preposterous. As I have mentioned elsewhere, prudery stems from a noble sentiment, yet a lack of balance. There is nothing noble about what Mr. Hefner has done. One could make a far easier case that his warped views on things came not from prudery, but his grandfather being a pedophile. Elsewhere, Mr. Hefner was constantly cheated on by women. If one is putting on their psychoanalysis hat, it was these things, not prudery which led him to what he did. Of course, one could also say that Mr. Hefner is a very depraved man, with a complete hatred for women. (This is demonstrated by the fact that the founder of playboy boasts of the fact he has always refused to sleep with intelligent women, because he has no clue what to do with them.) Yet since Mr. West views everything through the lens of prudery, he overlooks these facts.

On "Tragic"

When one thinks of "tragic", even in the Greek world, it is more than merely a "great man has knowingly performed a very wrong action" as Dr. Smith states. Many of the great tragedies of literature and cinema (including in the Greek world) involve the hero doing a grave evil despite having the best of intentions. Great artists have throughout the centuries looked to portray the ills of this pragmatic impulse through telling these tragedies. What noble intention exists in pornography? I submit there are none, and that is why it is so heinous, not "tragic." One watches The Godfather and notices the "tragic" nature of Michael Corleone: he is a man who, out of a desire to protect his family, committed evil. As the years went on, that noble intent to protect his family was gone, and all that existed was a cruel monster who orders the murder of his own brother.

The story of David and Bathsheba, there was no noble impulse David was looking to satisfy when he committed adultery, and then ordered the murder of her husband so he could not take revenge. That is what made the sin so heinous. There was no justification for it, and nothing that could reconcile the compounding of an even graver sin upon an already grave one. Such a tale is a caution for even the just: the inordinate desires of the flesh are never fully extinguished, and if we aren't careful, they can lead us to a very dark place. Luckily, David repented. We should not be so presumptuous about ourselves.

On "Intent" and "This isn't Central."

In far too many places to count, Dr. Smith protests that critics are reading West the wrong way, and how what we are criticizing "isn't essential." Whether or not Dr. Smith realizes it, she has just proven the point of Dr. Von Hildebrand, Dawn Eden, and others.

If issue after issue is merely "tangential", how long before someone notices a trend? You demonstrate how the tangential leads to serious problems. Like the original heroes in the tragedies, they make a decision that is certainly "tangential" at first, but ends up leading to greater problems. It is the assertion of Mr. West's critics that these problems which are indeed tangential reveal some even bigger problems in his methodology as a whole.

The alleged phallic nature of the paschal candle is a perfect example of how West's overall presentation is far too sexualized. There is something sexual in absolutely everything, from the marital embrace to the Hail Mary to the Eucharist. Dr. Smith is correct that in TOB, JP II rarely uses "sex" to refer to the verb, but rather the noun, our creation as male and female. The question is: does Mr. West?

I might develop some of these thoughts individually in later writings. Dr. Smith's essay provides food for thought. There is no surprise I disagree with it, yet I think she has finally managed to enter this discussion in a civil manner. Hopefully now, 6 months later, we can finally get to the actual evidence, a debate I know many of us across the way are more than happy to have.

Why The Incarnation Matters: Back to the Future

2010-10-16T09:48:00.001-04:00

Having covered the prophets Elijah and Elisha in previous installments, we now make our way to the group known as the “Major” Prophets in the Old Testament: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. With these individuals, the Incarnational aspect of our faith undergoes considerable development. In modern language, when many people see “prophet” they think of someone telling the future. I would suggest the meaning is far deeper than this.

While these men do indeed predict the future, I would say they also spend time on the past. They remind Israel of their sins. For the future, they attempt to point Israel back to their initial calling. One could even say that there is precious little “new” about their ministry. The “newness” comes from the fulfillment of that original calling, and how will be carried out.

The prophets, despite living millennia ago, also live during a time which is quite relevant for our reflection. In one sense or another, they all lived during a time of apostasy. Those who were meant to act as custodians of the faith of Yahweh allowed the faith to weaken, whether through negligence or an active persecution of the true faith. In their varied walks of life, they used the understanding gained from these experiences to confront those leaders.

Is this not what we see today? The errors of the world have in many cases infected many Christians, even those whose job it is to guard the faith. In the world at large, they have not simply turned their back on God. Rather, they turn to face him, and raise their swords. This is a war man cannot win.

Like our heroes of old, God sends prophets into the world even today. Not in the sense of giving new revelation, but in the sense I described above. These prophets are meant to call the Church and the world back to what they were meant to be. They are meant to point out the folly of idols, whether they are actual “gods” or the self. Yet many times a fair question can be asked: where are today’s prophets? It seems that the Church grows weaker and weaker by the day, because there are no prophets to guide her message.

If one is upset over this state of events, we can blame nobody but ourselves. We are called to be today’s prophets. Through our baptism (of which we will discuss more in the future), we become citizens of Christ’s Kingdom, His Church. We are meant to proclaim God’s truth about man’s calling and destiny to both the secular and the religious. It is for this reason that we must turn to these great heroes.

Unfortunately, today’s Church frequently neglects the Prophets. They are viewed in two ways. Firstly, as those who were relevant millennia ago, and only dealt with issues particular to their time. Others look at the Prophets solely in light of prophesies about the Messiah. With those prophesies fulfilled in Christ, their value for the Christian today is minimal. Both are tragic, and nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is their message timeless, their message takes on a higher meaning in Christ. He never did away with their message, since He came to fulfill, not destroy. Indeed, the Incarnation of Our Lord elevates this message to an entirely new level. We read the message of the prophets in light of Christ’s elevation of their work.

It is with this understanding that we shall continue our study, beginning with the one known as the greatest prophet of them all, Isaiah.

On Dr. Smith's "Revised" Response

2010-10-06T21:01:00.003-04:00

It must be nice being able to be able to choose where you will publish something. I’m sure this thought had to have crossed the mind of Dr. Janet Smith. True to her word, she has revised her hit-piece on Dawn Eden, and this time posted it in a different venue. Instead of Catholic Exchange, she has it up at the Catholic Education Resource Center. Unfortunately, there’s no comments section at that site like there was at CE. Probably best for Dr. Smith, as now people cannot interact with what she said right in public. The last time the plebeians were allowed their say, it didn't end well. Nonetheless, she prefers the “old media” style of publishing where people cannot interact right away with it, and it takes a more academic tone. Such is her right.

Such is the right of her critics, however, to point out that she still really hasn’t engaged with much of the evidence. I also think she did a little bit of whitewashing the record, and I think this should be pointed out. The article on Catholic Exchange is still there, at least for now.

Unfortunately, I might just be doing an exercise in futility. Dr. Smith hints of even further revisions:

While it may merit even further revision, I need to get on to other projects. In the end, I believe the substance of my critique is sound.

Is it that hard for Dr. Smith to refrain from writing until she is relatively certain what she is writing won’t need to be changed? Why isn’t that caveat also with her main work? Is this meant to inspire confidence in the reader? “The substance is sound” is classic double-speak for leaving enough wiggle room should you end up getting proven wrong yet again. Perhaps Dr. Smith should have never gotten involved. She certainly would’ve saved a lot of people the trouble for trying to figure out if what she says today will be the same as what she says tomorrow!

Ironically enough, Dr. Smith starts out her essay with a footnote, in which she says:

In my initial version of this critique, I critiqued Eden's tone first, simply because as a thesis reader, I work my way through a piece step by step. But I found in presenting the critique publically, readers took my comments on her tone to infer that I focused on the "accidental" features of Eden's work and did not pay enough attention to the substance. The approach also served to display such frustration with her tone that readers were less able to assess fairly my critique of the substance of the work. Indeed, I committed the same offense I accused Eden of: "biasing" the reader before a critique was offered. Mea culpa. I have deleted some portions on tone and added a few general comments. So in this version, I begin with substance, since it is unarguably more important than tone. I do turn to tone at the end, because it, too, is important.

I will only speak for myself. It wasn’t the tone; it was the substance of how she critiqued the tone. Confusing? Allow me to elaborate.

I for one think at times, we are far too genteel a society. Whenever someone comes up with a stinging criticism, it is automatically dismissed as a personal attack. If one reads the great masters of rhetoric throughout history (even the Catholic ones!) they recognized at times that a less than cordial approach was required. When dealing with the followers of Marcion, Tertullian stated the following:

But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! (Against Marcion)

St. Jerome stated of Helvidius:

If I choose to say, the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome, or (as I certainly might) Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death, must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says In sheol who shall give you thanks?

Lest someone think this was just against a heretic, Jerome answered much the same way during his dispute with Augustine. Sometimes rhetorical wit can prove an argument better than any genteel discussion ever could. St. Frances De Sales knew this well. His The Catholic Controversies was many times a masterpiece of rhetoric. Even in the academic world, then Cardinal Ratzinger worded responses to Cardinal Kasper that many found surprising for a break in the rather genteel decorum such disputes normally have. Neither took it personally.

Their very combative tones never prevented them from being rightly lionized as Catholic heroes. If Dr. Smith wanted to take a combative tone against Miss Eden’s thesis, such is her right. Indeed, if it were as bad as she says it is, such a response would probably be merited. Whenever one employs rhetoric, we must ask ourselves: does it further making your point?

To this I ask:

1.) Does stating your opponent lacks any shame (since essentially they disagree with your assessment) further the discussion?

2.) Does stating they lack any humility or docility further the discussion?

3.) Does insinuating she whines further the discussion?

4.) Does stating that she had a hidden agenda of using her thesis to turn her from an obscure graduate student into a big name on the lecture circuit to get rich further the discussion?

The problem wasn’t tone. The problem was, in making her assessment, she engaged in pure character assassination. There was absolutely no point to any of her charges, other than to sling as much mud as possible. While she may have done this in anger or haste, that does not change it for the fact of what it was. Something tells me if Dr. Smith had alerted her readers to this, they would tend to think rather lowly of her work. As I said, it must be great to be able to choose your own venues!

Dr. Smith starts out her revised critique not looking to assassinate this time, but rather provides personal testimonies of why Mr. West’s work is great. For someone who begged her opponents to engage in an academic discussion, I find this line of argumentation curious.

All the personal references in the world can’t prove a thing one way or the other. I am equally certain Dawn Eden could mention the people whose lives have been changed by her works or talks. I myself am aware of a few personally. Yet does that make her thesis any more or less worthy of belief from the standpoint of the truth? Of course not. No doubt Caesar could say the women around him had their lives transformed and improved. This didn’t take away from the fact that Caesar was still a womanizer and serial adulterer.

While obviously dealing with lesser circumstances, all the personal stories in the world will not make what Christopher West is doing right or wrong. If anything, appealing to emotion is a sure sign you aren’t winning the discussion. After Dr. David Schindler delivered stinging critique of Christopher West, Drs. Smith and Waldstein, a long with Matthew Pinto, essentially made their main argument “but look how many people are change?” This is not a compelling argument.

While watering down her criticisms, Dr. Smith still poisons the well. She keeps the line that, if she were so inclined, she could refute Miss Eden’s entire thesis. If you aren’t going to do it, don’t say it. Stick with the facts you intend to interact with.

As for the majority of the essay, my original work still stands. I refer the reader specifically to parts II through IV. I would like to talk about very briefly one of the subtle but serious changes she makes: the discussion about the Latin in previous works where a sexual nature is discussed.

As readers of this blog were aware, the door was blown wide open on her original argument. It was mocked by many as lacking all seriousness, and rightly so. In short, her original argument stated that since two works had mainly been written in Latin when discussing sexuality, it was evidence of repression from the faithful.

As I and others demonstrated, the work she cites was never meant for the average Catholic faithful. In the preface, the author specifically rejects the idea his work is meant for edification. It was meant for very specific instances of assisting priests in the confessional on how to deal with issues of moral theology.

The only area that was in Latin dealt with sins contrary to nature. One of them listed was bestiality. As Steve Kellmeyer noted (in a mocking tone that Dr. Smith deserved every bit of):

Are lay Catholics being repressed when they are not offered a discussion of how to hear the confession of someone who has had unnatural relations with livestock?

Dr. Smith has changed the argument a bit. Shockingly, she has managed to make it even less scholarly:

Undoubtedly there were some good reasons for that practice, but it suggests some "repression" to me. I believe it is not only because fewer priests today can read Latin, that passages about sex are no longer written in Latin; certainly a willingness to talk about matters of sexuality more openly today, has also led the Church to stop that practice.

In short there is repression because……. Repression because……. Dr. Smith says so, that’s why! She fully concedes now there were good reasons to keep it in Latin. Yet it still suggests repression? She offers no evidence for why this is the case. She just asserts it. If anyone is thinking Dr. Smith is letting her bias show, go to the head of the class.

I’d like to broaden my original argument I made about the sources she cites even further. Since Dr. Smith has provided the link, I was able to do some fact-checking. In the sections that are in English, the following is mentioned:

1.) There is a section on incest and why it is wrong

2.) There is a section on rape, and why it is wrong

3.) “Venereal pleasure” is talked about 6 times, and when it is, and isn’t sinful

4.) “Dirty talk” has a section as well as “immodest touching.”

5.) Finally, a discussion about a dispute amongst theologians on impure touching and kissing, and the gravity of sin associated with it.

What honestly is repressed here? Is Dr. Smith upset that a moral theologian, writing a moral theology manual, didn’t talk about sex in extremely explicit or popular phrases? As I stated before, it’s obvious she didn’t read what she cited. She just saw an area on impurity in Latin, automatically thought that the book was trying to hide the truth from the faithful, and ran with it. In her original, she at least had an argument: Latin equals repression. Now, in her revised work, she doesn’t even have any evidence, it just “seems” repressive. Or maybe, just maybe, Dr. Smith has blinders on. We could just as easily take a page from the playbook of the man she defends. Dr. Smith, if you find this work problematic, perhaps you should ponder deep in your soul and see what hang ups you have that cause you to view a work approved by two august bishops as evidence of repression.

There is one more issues that needs to be commented on. Dr. Smith states:

In fact, if Eden is still confident that her work exposes serious errors in West's work and that he is a danger to others, I believe she has a moral obligation to submit her concerns to bishops (perhaps the committee on catechesis would be a place to start) and they can decide whether they need to challenge the imprimaturs and endorsements that have been given by members of their own rank.

Many have asked me for my thoughts on this, and I will repeat what I told them. There’s no reason to go to the Bishop’s on this. One goes to the Bishop’s when somebody is denying doctrine. For the majority of people in this debate, they are not stating that Mr. West is some heretic. Miss Eden never even implies such in her thesis. Instead, on several occasions she notes the precise opposite, and notes, with Dr. Schindler, that West would “jump in front of a bus” for the Church.

Such a move would poison the well in regards to this. In the eyes of the public, such a move would certainly be interpreted that Mr. West is in doctrinal trouble. Even if he were in the end vindicated, his livelihood would be ruined during the endless investigations, inquiries, appeals etc. Nobody wants to see a faithful son of the Church dragged through such a process when it is not warranted.

No, what we have here is quite different. Since both sides profess to believe the same thing (JP II’s Theology of the Body must be interpreted alongside previous Church teachings), the question is how to achieve that. We have two rival schools of thought on the manner. Church law gives even lay Catholics the right to have these discussions (Canon 212). How much more so for theologians? If the work is really as poor as Dr. Smith alleges, let the readers compare the work of Dawn Eden and Christopher West. So far, the mere fact that Dr. Smith felt the need to become involved tells you how that one is playing out.

However, the reverse of this is that people are also under no obligation to do anything in regards to the Bishop, except obey if one gives a ruling that is within their competence to give. (No such thing has been given.) Even if they did find him denying doctrine, they are free to denounce him in public all they want. To say one is under a moral obligation, is to say that someone is committing a sin of omission by refusing to step up. Church law says nothing of the sort.

Besides, during an on-going inquiry, would not charity require that both sides not speak on the manner until such a formal judgment was reached? If one were to say the intent of some were to sweep this thesis under the rug and engage in damage control, this would be an ideal situation. The Bishops would eventually not become involved or state “West is not a heretic.” Partisans of various ideological persuasions can then spin it into a victory, when it was the wrong battle all along. This is a smokescreen, plain and simple. Provided people engage in this discussion with charity, there need not be one dogmatic way to approach a subject. I myself am comfortable with this approach. I get the feeling our friends across the way are not. If that’s the case, let them write to the Bishops conferences (which really have no authority to settle the question) then to Rome herself.

That’s really all that can be said. Dr. Smith’s work, instead of being an outright class in character assassination, is now an attempted instructional in how to do it with subtlety. The only problem is that she falls short on both accounts. Furthermore, in her attempt to “tone down” her arguments, she leaves them even more lacking in scholarship than before.

Since she isn’t going to say anymore on the matter, I don’t think either side should, until Mr. West himself speaks. Nothing much has changed. His defenders still have not engaged the actual evidence, try though they might. There’s a reason for this. In the end, the majority of what Miss Eden says in her thesis I believe cannot be assailed. Truth is the best defense.

Dr. Janet Smith: Back to the Drawing Board

2010-10-04T21:08:00.000-04:00

http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2010/10/01/in-all-things-charity/#comment-1769459

Probably for the best that she re-write it.

However, a note to Catholic Exchange. This is twice now that you've invited someone to engage Miss Eden's thesis, and twice it's wound you in hot water requiring later modifications (or in the case of the first one, you removed it from your site entirely.)

I think you guys need to hire another editor, or at least someone who can go over these works as a "hostile witness." Will save you lots of embarrassment, because you can bet several of us are saving the original copies. :)

Hopefully Dr. Smith also apologizes to Dawn Eden personally as well. In the end, we are "all on the same team." It would be good if our friends across the way remember that. I promise we will here in this small Kingdom.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Divine Kingmaker

2010-10-03T09:53:00.000-04:00

Concluding the studies on the prophets Elijah and Elisha, let us accomplish two things. The first will be a very brief recap of the events in their lives, and how these events will shape the future for God’s people.

Elijah appeared during what could be called one of the darkest times in the entire region for God’s people. Paganism was wide-spread. Though the Kingdom of Judah during this time was undergoing something of a religious revival (under the good kings Asa and Jehoshaphat), they Kingdom of Judah soon become little better than vassals of Samaria. (Omri’s intermarriages with Judah gave his house brief control over Judah even.) Pagan worship flourished.

Elijah challenged the pagans boldly, and won at Mt. Carmel. During one of his (many) forced exiles from Samaria, he receives God in a cave atop Mt. Horeb. God tells him:

“Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint as King over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. And him who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay, and him who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba’al, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:15-18)

When people look at this text, they see God putting kings in place to execute his wrath upon the house of Ahab. I would like to take a step backwards. On what basis does God make these claims? While one can understand why Jehu would be interested in securing the support of Elijah (through his successor Elisha), of what good is an Israelite anointing a Syrian king?

God can make these proclamations through His universal kingship over the entire Earth. In his treatise on the Incarnation, St. Athanasius the Great likened God to a King, and the Earth to a city he founded. The areas of the Earth were ruled by the temporal rulers in his mind as regents. If their work was poor, God could choose to dismiss them at His will. Even in those areas which reject His authority, this does not change God’s dominion over these lands. If he wills a new ruler to be installed, such is His right.

In addition to the two Kingdoms, God reveals two more players in this “game.” Elisha will become the successor to Elijah. There can also be seen a prophecy in the final sentence from God. He states 7,000 would be left in Israel who has not been stained by the idolatry rampant around them. If they are left, implied is that the others wouldn’t be. Here we see the destruction of the Kingdom of Samaria foretold I believe. With the 7,000, we see the beginnings of the Church in a certain way.

This prophesy also has much to say for the Kingdom of Judah, though we may not realize it at first. Those 7,000 exist in Samaria, in the world. They are not part (at least by their original nature in birth) of the Davidic Kingdom. Yet we know that the Davidic Kingdom would reign forever once the Messiah became King. I believe the only way to explain this anomaly is through what is known as the Social Kingship of Christ.

When we say the Kingship of Christ, it is not meant in terms of an earthly theocracy, ruled by the Pope acting in the person of Christ. While at times this has been how it appeared, it really is much deeper than this. With Christ as King, He claims dominion over all of heaven and earth. Though there continue to be earthly princes and rulers, they are called to acknowledge Christ’s superior Kingship over them, just as a vassal may be left with full autonomy, yet he is still required to acknowledge who his lord is.

Those 7,000 are his heralds. They are the ones who call upon the people and rulers of nations to acknowledge the supremacy of this ruler. Is this not the Catholic Church? Are we not made up from the world? Yet do we not serve the eternal King of David’s house? Do we not make disciples of all nations to follow and serve this King?

Yet who is this ruler? What will he be? How will he rule? The prophet Isaiah provides the most exhaustive prophecy concerning the rule of the anointed King of Judah, as such he will be our next figure.

The Response to Dr. Smith

2010-10-02T15:08:00.000-04:00

For easier navigation, the now 5 part response to Dr. Smith's article that critiques Dawn Eden's Master's Thesis

Part I: On "Tone" and Poisoning the Well

Part II: On "Substance", Anachronistic Interpretation, Misquoting the Pope, and "Repression"

Part III: More on "Repression" (reader discretion is advised)

Part IV: Addenda to Response

Part VI: Where are we Now? An Appeal to Restore Civility

The TOB Debate: Where are we Now?

2010-10-02T09:09:00.003-04:00

In an attempt to be a bridge builder, Wade Michael St. Onge has written his latest. He repeats his thesis from before in an attempt to find common ground on both sides of the aisle in the TOB debate that was sparked by Dr. Schlinder's critique of his former student, as well as escalated by Dawn Eden's Master's thesis on the issue. He re-states part of his thesis as follows:

West's approach is good for the particular audience he is catering to. However, West's approach is not suited to the “spiritually mature” or those with a firm grasp of Catholic doctrine. These Catholics can get some good things out of it and enjoy it, but they can also be rightly bothered by some of the things he says and see them as problematic.

While this might have some merit, in the end I believe the objective reader is forced to reject this thesis. The key to why this is so I will attempt to explain. I fully concede I may be viewed as a biased observer, having worked on this issue with Dawn Eden, Steve Kellmeyer, and others. I make no apologies for my work. For the most part, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have noted my civil yet tenacious tone in this debate.

1.) "Mature" Audiences

Wade's thesis ultimately falls short for one simple reason: Mr. West and his defenders (outside of perhaps Sr. Marianne Lorraine Trouve) reject this characterization of Mr. West's work. They would not hold that their work is of little value to the "spiritually mature." Whenever we hear that Mr. West's work is not that of a theologian, but an evangelist, there is never a discussion of how his work can be harmonized with the more allegedly "advanced" material for Catholics "eating out of the banquet" instead of the dumpster. Instead, we are told that for the ones in the dumpster, there are the talks and lectures of Mr. West. For the more spiritually "mature", there is Heaven's Song and Theology of the Body Explained, both books by Mr. West. For the one "mature", there is the Theology of the Body Institute, an institute that if not the catholic equivalent of an intellectual shell company for Christopher West, is dominated by his influence and his school of thought nonetheless.

The "mature" works are where the focus of a lot of criticism is. I have noted that I find Mr. West's exegesis of Sirach which he used in Theology of the Body Explained troubling, amongst other issues. In her thesis, Dawn Eden finds his treatment of continence and virtue in TOB explained problematic. Many of us objected when the "mature" audience at the TOB Congress advocated calling God a stalker, and stating that before John Paul II, the Church was in darkness in regards to sexuality. (As Fr. Loya famously said.)

2.) What are we?

I believe the second problem is that of our critics assessment of us and our positions. Speaking bluntly, they do not view us as "spiritually mature." When Catholic luminary Alice Von Hildebrand spoke up against Christopher West, the general consensus of her critics was that she is an old out of touch prude. Dawn Eden's thesis has been lampooned as the work of someone with a vendetta against Christopher West at best, a cynical marketing ploy to make herself rich by tearing down faithful Catholics and Bishops at worst. (As Dr. Janet Smith recently said in her response to Miss Eden.) Miss Eden is also viewed as obstinate, with a blatant refusal to acknowledge she is wrong.

On the other side for the most part, we have been willing to grant them much. Dawn Eden spoke at length in the introduction to her thesis about the positive influence Christopher West was in her own life. She talks about how he is to be applauded for bringing souls to the Church. Fr. Angelo spoke about how the problem of prudery in the Church is real, and the difficulties in presenting something so philosophically rich to a popular audience. (In short, one can be more forgiving in this arena.) Now some of my friends across the aisle will point to the works of Steve Kellmeyer, who could be called highly polemical in his works against Christopher West. Yet if one looks at his works, one finds in the comments section those on his side who have had a gentleman's disagreement with him in regards to tone.

For the record, I believe that Mr. Kellmeyer's tone is no worse than that of Christopher West. In fact, I will say it is better, for reasons I will expound upon later. Mr. Kellmeyer's role is the one who rallies the troops. Most of his audience already agrees with him. He is the provider of "red meat." It certainly isn't for everyone. Yet if anyone comes there from the opposite side in charity and attempts to have a dialogue with him (As Christina King has done), one sees a very civil discussion going on. His last three posts on the issue have lacked a lot of the polemical tone that previous ones have.

Why do I say that his behavior is better than those of my opponents across the aisle? In the eyes of Mr. West, those who disagree with him are part of the "religious right." We are Manichean's. We are prudes. In the eyes of Dr. Janet Smith, we are those who seek to "repress" the truth about sexuality, and are guilty of hidden agendas, to say nothing of launching a campaign against Bishops "known for their fidelity to the Magesterium." They are the Optimates, we are the Populares. (1)

I for one have heard nobody across the aisle step up and condemn this kind of argumentation. Even Sr. Lorraine, who has attempted to provide a civil forum for discussion of these manners (and has been a model of civility), has not issued (at least in public) any criticism of this approach. How do these examples encourage a civil debate?

For what it is worth, I do not think my friends across the aisle are being deceptive. I do not believe they are engaging in grandstanding to score points in some debate. They really believe what they say. They think their critics have Manichean tendencies, and are full of hidden agendas. As long as this is the case, there is a wide chasm that I believe cannot be bridged.

I am not sure if the first issue can be resolved. I am however certain the second issue can. I believe my friends across the aisle are mistaken on certain things. Yet I have never doubted their sincerity. I believe at times their passions get the best of them. Such happens to even the best of men. When Dr. Smith found herself guilty of this, she had the integrity to admit it, and deserves the utmost of commendation for this. (3) They believe a good man is being unfairly criticized, and have rallied to his defense. Such is understandable, even laudable. I hope should I ever find myself in controversy in the future, I can have such zealous allies.

When commenting on this issue, Mr. Brian Killian stated the following:

My impression from following this debate is that everyone is partially right and partially wrong.

What everyone should do is stop the merry-go-round of criticizing the other person, and sit down and look for what is wrong in their own approach or their own content. Each person in this debate should find one thing that their critics are right about. That should move the discussion forward a bit!

Maybe we should set up a group blog where everyone involved in the debate can discuss matters in a civil and charitable manner.

I am skeptical that such a group project would have any fruit. Yet I can get completely behind a call for civility. I write this post with the hope that my friends across the aisle can see where their critics are coming from. Small though my voice may be, I invite them to engage in charity. Do not doubt our motives, our agendas. As they are so fond of saying, we are all "on the same team." Provided charity is upheld, we can then move onto the issues of substance. I am not sure if they can be resolved as I said earlier. However, I do think that if done in a civil and cordial manner, everyone can learn.

*Updated*

In the interest of fairness, Mrs. Christina King commented in the comboxes below, protesting some of the things that I had said. One of the statements I did not have the full information on (I really could not have known), and the other, I believe while the case can be made, really distracts from the issues at hand, and has the potential to turn things into mud-slinging. To try and keep the bridges built, I have removed these two specific charges from the article. I regret and apologize for any misunderstanding that arose as a result of incomplete information, and I expect to be held accountable to keep the dialogue going with civility. Anything that contributes to the opposite I hope to avoid.
Notes:

1.) In the final days of the Roman Republic, the defenders of the Senate viewed themselves the Optimates, or "good men." They viewed their opponents as populares, many times little better than an angry mob who, if given any authority, would ruin Rome.

2.) What comes of this of course is hard to say. The charges are still up in her essay that she now admits were uncharitable. She has however promised that she has an essay forthcoming analyzing Dr. Von Hildebrand's criticism of Mr. West, and promised a far more irenic tone. I for one look forward to reading this.

To Part V, Addenda

Return to Response Index

Addenda to Response

2010-10-01T07:01:00.001-04:00

Dr: Smith has stated the following in the comments section of a series of responses in regards to her original critique of Dawn Eden's thesis:

Dear Dr. Nadal,
I agree that the debate over CW’s work has become too polarized. I am afraid that I may have contributed to that. While I believe my criticisms of Eden’s thesis are justified, I also think they may be overdone. I needn’t have pointed out so many instances of objectionable tone, for instance. By doing so, I committed the very error that I found in her work. I set a tone of unrelenting opposition to Eden and defensiveness about West’s work. That is ironic and humbling!

I was puzzled about how to respond to Eden’s work; I wanted to make my response not too long but nonetheless effective. I generally find it takes on the average 5-10 sentences to correct one erroneous claim! All of us have limited time and critiquing a master’s thesis for which I am not a reader is not an item high on my agenda. But I know people who are using Eden’s thesis and Alice Von Hildebrand’s critique of West to pressure priests and organizations not to use West’s work. That is a real shame in my view and merited my involvement. I have been on the circuit for years and I don’t know if I have ever seen anyone who is as successful as West in converting people away from sexual immorality. Perhaps he has made missteps but they are not of the sort to seriously vitiate his work.

I do hope that those of us who are engaged in the debate about the merits of West’s work can find a more generous and civil way of conducting our arguments. I will soon be posting a critique of Alice von Hildebrand’s critique of West; I hope I get the tone right there.

Yours,
Janet Smith

For the record, that should be pointed out. She has recognized that she was a bit out of line with some of her remarks. That takes integrity to do so. My small voice would simply request that the entire paper be re-worked. The latter section of her essay contributes something to the debate (even if people might disagree with the conclusions) and deserves a fair hearing. The first portion takes a tone of simply looking to bury Dawn Eden. While you can't "unring the bell", one can stop further damage. In my mind, there is no doubt Dr. Smith's contribution, far from providing an opportunity for spirited yet civil debate, has absolutely poisoned the well. Left as is, I believe it will do far more harm to her "side" than good, though all sides would suffer as a result.

There is more to say about that, but I think everyone should wait and see how this plays out.

Return to Response Index

Return to TOB Index

Return to Common Sense Catholicism

Part III of Response to Dr. Smith: "Repression"

2010-09-30T19:35:00.003-04:00

In her article on Dawn Eden's masters thesis, Dr. Janet Smith says the following:

She does not argue that it is false that there was at one time and may be even now in some places, a tendency to teach the Church’s teaching about sexuality in a repressive fashion. I believe it would be difficult to contest that claim and in fact Eden notes West’s characterization “no doubt resonates with certain members of his audience” (ET, 63).

Let me note that when some ancient texts and moral theology textbooks were translated into English the portions on sexual morality were left in Latin. (e.g., Chapter 10 of Book II of The Instructor by: Clement of Alexander: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02092.htm and Part VI, Chapt III of A Manual of Moral Theology by Rev. Thomas Slater, S.J.: http://www.archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1/MN5034ucmf_1_djvu.txt). That suggests some “repression” to me.

Not all teaching about sexual morality has been marked by repression and certainly such instruction was a misrepresentation of the Church’s magisterial teaching.

I noted this before in my previous response, but I would like to return to it for a fuller treatment. As Steve Kellmeyer noted in his excellent analysis on this issue, there is nothing "repressive" about the fact that the universal language of the Church is used. I would like to only point out a few more things.

As I noted in my previous response, let me again cite the preface to Fr. Slater's "A Manual of Moral Theology":

Here, however, we must ask the reader to bear in mind that manuals of moral theology are technical works intended to help the confessor and the parish priest in the discharge of their duties. They are as technical as the textbooks of the lawyer and the doctor. They are not intended for edification, nor do they hold up a high ideal of Christian perfection for the imitation of the faithful. They deal with what is of obligation under pain of sin; they are books of moral pathology. They are necessary for the Catholic priest to enable him to administer the sacrament of Penance and to fulfil his other duties ; they are intended to serve this purpose, and they should not be censured for not being what they were never intended to be. Ascetical and mystical literature which treats of the higher spiritual life is very abundant in the Catholic Church, and it should be consulted by those who desire to know the lofty ideals of life which the Catholic Church places before her children and encourages them to practise. Moral theology proposes to itself the humbler but still necessary task of defining what is right and what wrong in all the practical relations of the Christian life. This all, but more especially priests, should know.

Dr. Smith finds in these sources "tendency to teach the Church’s teaching about sexuality in a repressive fashion." The author states that teaching the Catholic truth on morality is not his intended goal. His intended goal is simply to point out, in a clear and precise manner, what is "right" and "wrong", so that priests may be better assisted in the confessional in assigning penance and sound spiritual advice. For one who wants the "lofty ideals" about Catholic morality (including the truth about Catholic teaching on sexuality) the author recommends they go elsewhere.

This work certainly wasn't "repressing" the truth from the average lay Catholic, since it was never intended for the average lay Catholic to begin with. A simple "fact check' in the preface would bear this out. The work was not concerned much with presenting the Magesterium's truth about sexuality to an accessible audience, the audience was the parish priest who had a robust seminary training, which included understanding very complex and very technical concepts. If the average individual went through Westlaw, they would understand few if any of the legal cases cited, and would draw few inferences of importance. (Those they might draw would get them laughed out of a courtroom.) To the trained lawyer who is skilled in understanding precedent and courtroom procedure, Westlaw can provide an inestimable benefit. The same principle applies here.

Yet what of the fact that the teaching surrounding sexual morality is left in Latin? This would be in a sense true, but incomplete. The chapters Dr. Smith cites are dealing with something very specific: sins against the 6th and 9th commandments. Primarily, it deals with the sin of sexual impurity. As noted before, this is not meant to give an in-depth teaching about sexual ethics, but rather simply pointing out what is wrong under pain of sin.

One need not be an expert in Latin to figure out what the author is talking about. The specific section Dr. Smith referenced is called "De Peccatis Consummatis contra Naturam." In short, it is dealing with sins of sexual impurity that are contrary to nature. Two of those sins are named as "De Sodomia" and "De Bestialitate." Take one guess what those mean. Does Dr. Smith really think Catholics need an in-depth presentation on why conjugal acts with animals are wrong? Personally, I think that, in order to protect the modesty of pious ears, there should be as little talk about this as possible amongst faithful Catholics. Speak about it as little as required, and no more. About the only one who really needs to know how to handle these things when regards to the confessional is the priest.

Why is this? I submit because we are dealing with something of the utmost sensitivity. The manual also mentions that both bestiality and sodomy are punished severely under the Code of Canon Law. (The 1917 Code) Whenever you cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law, expect there to be a healthy dose of Latin. In the case Fr. Slater sites, canons 2357 and 2359 are mentioned, which outline specific penalties for individuals guilty of sins contrary to nature.

Ironically enough, for everything else that is not dealing with something contra naturam regarding purity, English is the language used. The English talks about when a priest should or should not question a penitent regarding sins of impurity, mentions the intent of people engaging in these acts (as part of the measurement of the gravity of the sin)

Dr. Smith is an expert in classical languages. One would have to think she at least read what she was citing. This took but a few hours of fact checking. As far as I'm aware, none of her supporters bothered to fact-check her on this. Since Dr. Smith is an expert in classical languages, she should certainly know these circumstances. In an essay over 6,000 words, one would think she would be able to spend a few hours fact-checking her work. If a seminarian turned in something this shoddy, would Dr. Smith give him a passing grade?

What is the reader to make of this? I do not think malicious intent is necessary. Dr. Smith had a case of "Ready, Fire, Aim!" So focused was she on refuting Miss Eden's thesis, she was looking for anything, anything, that might confirm her views. When doing this, people will frequently jettison discpline and fact-checking first, and to their peril. So far, this is par for the course in those who have attempted to engage Miss Eden's thesis. They have missed quotes, engaged in ad hominem, and engaged in anachronistic interpretation time and time again. I repeat my call I made frequently at Sr. Lorraine's blog: Let us focus on the evidence at hand in a calm and rational manner. Let us reason together, and see who has the facts.

I think that's enough, and if my audience needs a shower after reading this, I completely understand.

To Part IV: Where are we Now?

Return to Index