In my previous post, I tried to issue a challenge to my traditionalist brethren, and all Catholics really. While it focused on the issue of our relationship to the Jews, it really was about a lot more. I think we need to present a different front at times when dealing with those who aren't traditionalists, and do a far better job of creating a welcoming image. Taking the combox mentality into the Church at large isn't going to do a good job of appealing to potential allies, or even better, converts outside the Church.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Traditionalists, Anti-Semitism and Rebooting the Discussion
In the recent dustup surrounding the alleged infestation of Anti-Semitism within traditionalist ranks, I tried giving one consistent message to anyone that would listen, a view that was backed up by almost every traditionalist, even those who are staunch opponents of Anti-Semitism: that most traditionalists not only aren't Anti-Semites, the entire issue is completely foreign to all that they stand for.
The issue isn't then that traditionalists need to "clean their own house" on Anti-Semitism, as that house is more or less already clean. Ask the real Anti-Semites, they are sad that they have less of a home even in the SSPX, to say nothing of within the formal structures of the Church! Instead, the problem is more limited, and yet more widespread.
The issue isn't then that traditionalists need to "clean their own house" on Anti-Semitism, as that house is more or less already clean. Ask the real Anti-Semites, they are sad that they have less of a home even in the SSPX, to say nothing of within the formal structures of the Church! Instead, the problem is more limited, and yet more widespread.
New Column: Why Confess Sins to a Priest?
We discuss that question over at my latest on Catholic Lane. I try to avoid the common biblical citations and go with a few different common sense ideas.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Francis Emphasizes "Growth in Continuity"
Now some people went a little crazy with these remarks. For the life of me, I really don't understand why. I actually think there's some food for thought here that all Catholics (including traditionalists) should really consider.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
So That Reform of the Curia Thing is Totally Happening.....
Via Fr. Z:
So 8 Cardinals from outside the Curia are going to create a commission to give suggestions to Pope Francis about how to reform the Curia.
While Curia bashing has been a time honored tradition in the Catholic Church ever since the Curia came into existence, it really is totally warranted. High profile members of the Curia covered up sexual deviants. (Sodano with Fr. Maicel) Bertone was the ultimate insider who constantly hampered a lot of what Pope Benedict wanted to do. To put it mildly, traditionalists have no reason to cheer for Sodano, Bertone, or several other members of the Curia. Every trads hero (Cardinal Ranjith) sent many Curia members to hospitals with their toes being stepped on, and the feeling for him to leave Rome and head back to Sri Lanka was mutual. (Since his return, he has been an automatic win dispenser for awesome Catholicism.)
Will these guys be up to the job? It is hard to see how they could be any worse. Cardinal Pell is on that list. We know he is solid. Cardinal Pasinya was cited positively by Cardinal Francis George, another one of the good guys. Will they do everything good? Probably not. There will probably be some things traditionalists will not like. Oh well, loyal traditionalsits have that hard-wired into their DNA nowadays. Things happen we don't like, we remain loyal and soldier on. Yet there is also the chance for opportunity. Some real long-time enemies of the Latin Mass and of traditionalists in general could stand to be weakened.
Yet we need to get a grasp of the big picture. We need better Church leaders and better governance if we are ever to promote the Gospel properly. That is what we should be praying for above all. A proper Gospel and traditionalism go hand in hand.
So 8 Cardinals from outside the Curia are going to create a commission to give suggestions to Pope Francis about how to reform the Curia.
While Curia bashing has been a time honored tradition in the Catholic Church ever since the Curia came into existence, it really is totally warranted. High profile members of the Curia covered up sexual deviants. (Sodano with Fr. Maicel) Bertone was the ultimate insider who constantly hampered a lot of what Pope Benedict wanted to do. To put it mildly, traditionalists have no reason to cheer for Sodano, Bertone, or several other members of the Curia. Every trads hero (Cardinal Ranjith) sent many Curia members to hospitals with their toes being stepped on, and the feeling for him to leave Rome and head back to Sri Lanka was mutual. (Since his return, he has been an automatic win dispenser for awesome Catholicism.)
Will these guys be up to the job? It is hard to see how they could be any worse. Cardinal Pell is on that list. We know he is solid. Cardinal Pasinya was cited positively by Cardinal Francis George, another one of the good guys. Will they do everything good? Probably not. There will probably be some things traditionalists will not like. Oh well, loyal traditionalsits have that hard-wired into their DNA nowadays. Things happen we don't like, we remain loyal and soldier on. Yet there is also the chance for opportunity. Some real long-time enemies of the Latin Mass and of traditionalists in general could stand to be weakened.
Yet we need to get a grasp of the big picture. We need better Church leaders and better governance if we are ever to promote the Gospel properly. That is what we should be praying for above all. A proper Gospel and traditionalism go hand in hand.
Are you a Shepherd or a Mercenary?
In the Extraordinary Form, today we celebrate what is known as "Good Shepherd Sunday", based on the fact that the Gospel reading is Christ's discourse in John 10 about being "The Good Shepherd." As St. Augustine tells us (Tractate 46), Christ emphasizes the word "Good" Shepherd to contrast from the "bad Shepherd", the hireling. In the English language, we think of "hired help", which is true enough, but doesn't really capture how the term is understood during the time of Christ. The Latin Vulgate translates hireling as "mercennarius", which I think does a far better job of understanding the concept.
From mercennarius we get the English word mercenary. When we think of mercenaries, we think of ruthless killing machines, going to war solely for profit. In a far simpler form, a mercenary is one who simply is out for himself in the work he does. Both are given a task from their master. The Father gives the flock to Christ, just as owner of the flock appoints a mercenary to watch over his flock.
What makes the two different? Christ as the Shepherd is there primarily for the benefit of the flock and love for His Father. The mercenary is simply there for his own benefit. He uses his gifts for his own reputation, ego, wallet, etc. When looked at in this light, not only is this passage an affirmation of Christ's identity, but it provides a stark choice for every single one of us, whether priest or laymen.
Like both the shepherd and the hireling, we are appointed a task by God. How do we approach that purpose? As a blogger, am I using my work to promote my own name, is it solely to increase the amount of traffic on my site, am I looking for this or that audience, money etc? Do I instead simply look to present the truth and look to help others along their journey to discover the truth? To make things clear, this is not to say that we cannot receive rewards for the work that we do. The question has more to do with the interior character. Likewise for the leaders of the Church, are they serving their own interests or those of Christ?
This is not just an academic question. When a mercenary is outmatched, he will likely leave to collect another paycheck or another accolade. The religious mercenary will shy away from stepping up for the truth when it isn't convenient for them. They will become reluctant to condemn injustices if they stand to profit from the existence of said injustices. I think when Pope Francis condemned the "spiritual worldliness" of Catholics today, this is what he had in mind. Since we are so focused on the ways of the world (even within our Church walls), we become reluctant to make the hard sacrifices necessary of standing up for Christ in season when it benefits you, and out of season when it does not. This affliction the Church suffers from will be the primary impediment to true reform. While some might limit this to just the various institutions of the Church in need of reform, I would wager this holds just as true for individual Catholics. Considered from this perspective, there arises a burning question. How are we to distinguish from the two? How can we tell the difference between the voice of the Mercenary and the voice of the Good Shepherd? Are we to look at the gifts they have, their followings, their titles or their wealth? Augustine directs us to St. Paul's declaration that the false Apostles seek their own honor instead of Christ's. Seeking our own honor leads to all of these things. St. John Chrysostom provides what I believe to be the most persuasive answer. In his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, He asks us if the voice (and personal conduct) of the individual points us to the Beatitudes. Does their work and conduct emphasize humility and self-denial? Such is the voice of a shepherd, and he is worthy of being followed. Is the voice instead promoting arrogance and self-affirmation? Such is the work of a mercenary, and they are to be avoided. I submit in the end that this is the defining mark of a Christian. Let us pray and examine our consciences so that we may be like the shepherd and not the mercenary.
From mercennarius we get the English word mercenary. When we think of mercenaries, we think of ruthless killing machines, going to war solely for profit. In a far simpler form, a mercenary is one who simply is out for himself in the work he does. Both are given a task from their master. The Father gives the flock to Christ, just as owner of the flock appoints a mercenary to watch over his flock.
What makes the two different? Christ as the Shepherd is there primarily for the benefit of the flock and love for His Father. The mercenary is simply there for his own benefit. He uses his gifts for his own reputation, ego, wallet, etc. When looked at in this light, not only is this passage an affirmation of Christ's identity, but it provides a stark choice for every single one of us, whether priest or laymen.
Like both the shepherd and the hireling, we are appointed a task by God. How do we approach that purpose? As a blogger, am I using my work to promote my own name, is it solely to increase the amount of traffic on my site, am I looking for this or that audience, money etc? Do I instead simply look to present the truth and look to help others along their journey to discover the truth? To make things clear, this is not to say that we cannot receive rewards for the work that we do. The question has more to do with the interior character. Likewise for the leaders of the Church, are they serving their own interests or those of Christ?
This is not just an academic question. When a mercenary is outmatched, he will likely leave to collect another paycheck or another accolade. The religious mercenary will shy away from stepping up for the truth when it isn't convenient for them. They will become reluctant to condemn injustices if they stand to profit from the existence of said injustices. I think when Pope Francis condemned the "spiritual worldliness" of Catholics today, this is what he had in mind. Since we are so focused on the ways of the world (even within our Church walls), we become reluctant to make the hard sacrifices necessary of standing up for Christ in season when it benefits you, and out of season when it does not. This affliction the Church suffers from will be the primary impediment to true reform. While some might limit this to just the various institutions of the Church in need of reform, I would wager this holds just as true for individual Catholics. Considered from this perspective, there arises a burning question. How are we to distinguish from the two? How can we tell the difference between the voice of the Mercenary and the voice of the Good Shepherd? Are we to look at the gifts they have, their followings, their titles or their wealth? Augustine directs us to St. Paul's declaration that the false Apostles seek their own honor instead of Christ's. Seeking our own honor leads to all of these things. St. John Chrysostom provides what I believe to be the most persuasive answer. In his commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, He asks us if the voice (and personal conduct) of the individual points us to the Beatitudes. Does their work and conduct emphasize humility and self-denial? Such is the voice of a shepherd, and he is worthy of being followed. Is the voice instead promoting arrogance and self-affirmation? Such is the work of a mercenary, and they are to be avoided. I submit in the end that this is the defining mark of a Christian. Let us pray and examine our consciences so that we may be like the shepherd and not the mercenary.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Anti-Semitism and a Chance for Unity: Guest Post by Jeffrey Stuart
Kevin's note: At my request, Jeffrey Stuart wrote the following. My thoughts tend to line up with his almost perfectly on the matter. We want the same thing as many of our friends across the way want. We just propose a different way of getting to it.
Anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial. Not very good things in the slightest. For a Catholic, the former is to deny our spiritual roots. The later simply shows a lack of historical knowledge. So up front, allow me to condemn those views outright. And for individuals that hold such views, they are either ignorant or possessed with a hateful streak, both of which warrant fraternal correction and prayer. But to be clear, let me say again, I condemn both of those viewpoints.
Anti-Semitism. Holocaust denial. Not very good things in the slightest. For a Catholic, the former is to deny our spiritual roots. The later simply shows a lack of historical knowledge. So up front, allow me to condemn those views outright. And for individuals that hold such views, they are either ignorant or possessed with a hateful streak, both of which warrant fraternal correction and prayer. But to be clear, let me say again, I condemn both of those viewpoints.
The Purpose of Chastity
Karee Santos has written a review of Christopher West's latest book Fill These Hearts. Now I haven't read the book, so I won't comment too much on what is or isn't in it. The comboxes got a little interesting as I engaged Mrs. Santos on a few issues. I'd like to use these things to springboard into another discussion.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Why We are All Irrelevant Scrubs
The following message is hard to hear, but it is something that needs to be said. The blogopshere is abuzz with the issue of Anti-Semitism in traditionalist circles since Dawn Eden helped the issue go viral amongst the Catholic blogosphere. Some wish that more prominent voices would get involved in this, and that traditionalists all over would see what a problem Anti-Semitism is in their circles.
I feel the approach that many are taking right now is flawed, and it stems from the fact that they suffer from an information disadvantage. Allow me to explain.
When I say information disadvantage, I mean that we lack certain knowledge that others have. We don't lack it because we are close-minded. We lack it because we live in a bubble. This happens in politics all the time, where someone is surprised that evil creep won an election when everyone they knew voted otherwise. Traditionalists had this problem with the Mandatum issue. They were horrified over the Pope "setting aside" a liturgical law. To most Catholics, even Orthodox ones, they didn't know such a law even existed, or why it exists. To try to explain the subtleties of laws to people who aren't even aware they are laws, you will just look like a fool. Should they know? Yes. Yet they don't, and you gotta deal with that.
So, you are asking, how does this relate to the problem of Anti-Semitism and traditionalists? I'm so glad you asked!
When confronted by such vile Anti-Semitism, many traditionalists have acted with horror and revulsion, condemning the words. Yet we also remind people that this kind of stuff is a minority within the traditionalist movement, and it is virtually non-existent in most parishes. In short, what you see on the Internet is not representative of the whole. The current response to this has been..... to point out nasty things people are saying on the Internet.
Why is this a problem? Those who write and read blogs are a pretty small minority of the overall Catholic population. They tend to be highly motivated individuals who take their beliefs seriously, for better or worse. The majority of traditionalists and Catholics in general are blissfully ignorant of this entire dustup. Even the most known of Catholic personalities online are probably only known by maybe 5% of the Catholic population. An even smaller number of that 5% actually read them on a regular basis. The kind of problems the blogosphere deals with are not the problems that exist in the majority of parishes or that we experience.
It is for that reason I disagree with one point of Simcha Fischer's otherwise excellent work. Outside of the nonsense I run into online, I haven't encountered any Anti-Semitism. Since the majority of Catholics (including traditionalists) don't really spend much time on trad blogs, I can say with confidence that the idea that "If you're a traditionalist and you hang out with other traditionalists, then sooner or later, you will run into Anti-Semitism" is actually a load of crap, and only someone who is a blogger would make that statement. I know that I've migrated between 3 different traditionalist communities over a decade, and Anti-Semitism wasn't in one of them. My experience is also what a lot of traditionalists are trying to say. So we are lucky that it isn't in our neighborhood.
That isn't to say this is all much ado about nothing. No, the problem is real. Even if it exists in just a few corners of the Internet, it can have a lot of far-reaching conclusions. That small bit of Anti-Semitism can damage our ability to witness. Furthermore, we want those people on the Internet who read blogs. They take things passionately, and they are serious about our beliefs. Like any movement, traditionalists can use more serious individuals. Yet they aren't going to give us a second look if they don't see that we really and truly oppose this crap.
If we are wondering what we can do to make others stand up, we need to do more to show that this kind of stuff actually has an impact, and the damage it creates is real, because to the majority of Catholics, they look at us the same way. We really are a bunch of irrelevant scrubs who are talking about issues they have no clue about. Such a message isn't appealing to the ego, yet if you want to be an effective witness, the first thing you need to do is tell your ego to knock it off.
I feel the approach that many are taking right now is flawed, and it stems from the fact that they suffer from an information disadvantage. Allow me to explain.
When I say information disadvantage, I mean that we lack certain knowledge that others have. We don't lack it because we are close-minded. We lack it because we live in a bubble. This happens in politics all the time, where someone is surprised that evil creep won an election when everyone they knew voted otherwise. Traditionalists had this problem with the Mandatum issue. They were horrified over the Pope "setting aside" a liturgical law. To most Catholics, even Orthodox ones, they didn't know such a law even existed, or why it exists. To try to explain the subtleties of laws to people who aren't even aware they are laws, you will just look like a fool. Should they know? Yes. Yet they don't, and you gotta deal with that.
So, you are asking, how does this relate to the problem of Anti-Semitism and traditionalists? I'm so glad you asked!
When confronted by such vile Anti-Semitism, many traditionalists have acted with horror and revulsion, condemning the words. Yet we also remind people that this kind of stuff is a minority within the traditionalist movement, and it is virtually non-existent in most parishes. In short, what you see on the Internet is not representative of the whole. The current response to this has been..... to point out nasty things people are saying on the Internet.
Why is this a problem? Those who write and read blogs are a pretty small minority of the overall Catholic population. They tend to be highly motivated individuals who take their beliefs seriously, for better or worse. The majority of traditionalists and Catholics in general are blissfully ignorant of this entire dustup. Even the most known of Catholic personalities online are probably only known by maybe 5% of the Catholic population. An even smaller number of that 5% actually read them on a regular basis. The kind of problems the blogosphere deals with are not the problems that exist in the majority of parishes or that we experience.
It is for that reason I disagree with one point of Simcha Fischer's otherwise excellent work. Outside of the nonsense I run into online, I haven't encountered any Anti-Semitism. Since the majority of Catholics (including traditionalists) don't really spend much time on trad blogs, I can say with confidence that the idea that "If you're a traditionalist and you hang out with other traditionalists, then sooner or later, you will run into Anti-Semitism" is actually a load of crap, and only someone who is a blogger would make that statement. I know that I've migrated between 3 different traditionalist communities over a decade, and Anti-Semitism wasn't in one of them. My experience is also what a lot of traditionalists are trying to say. So we are lucky that it isn't in our neighborhood.
That isn't to say this is all much ado about nothing. No, the problem is real. Even if it exists in just a few corners of the Internet, it can have a lot of far-reaching conclusions. That small bit of Anti-Semitism can damage our ability to witness. Furthermore, we want those people on the Internet who read blogs. They take things passionately, and they are serious about our beliefs. Like any movement, traditionalists can use more serious individuals. Yet they aren't going to give us a second look if they don't see that we really and truly oppose this crap.
If we are wondering what we can do to make others stand up, we need to do more to show that this kind of stuff actually has an impact, and the damage it creates is real, because to the majority of Catholics, they look at us the same way. We really are a bunch of irrelevant scrubs who are talking about issues they have no clue about. Such a message isn't appealing to the ego, yet if you want to be an effective witness, the first thing you need to do is tell your ego to knock it off.
Catholic Lane Column: Why There is a Crisis in the Confessional
It isn't just liberal priests, I'd wager it is because even we aren't looking at the sacrament like we should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)