Assuming this is true, three cheers for Russia, Putin and St. Andrew! (Report that Russian will bury the Chechen Moslem terrorists in pigskin, thus, per Islamic belief, eternally defiling them.) May all Moslem terrorists be subjected to (what they perceive to be) this indignity!

Thanks to the proprietor of The Inn at the End of the World, who was kind enough to answer my question as to why traditionalists are often so vehemently anti-ecumenical. He mentions that ecumenism was proclaimed as the raison d’etre of changes to the liturgy. I have no reason to doubt that this was the case.

It’s yet another reason that the Ecclesia Dei indult should be applied more broadly than it has been to date. The attitude too-frequently displayed to those who are attached to the old liturgy is, frankly, out of place in the Church – especially in a Church that claims to be genuinely ecumenical. For the Church to be genuinely ecumenical, it must work to draw all those who seek Christ into one cohesive body. Forbidding and belittling any historically valid form of worship is tantamount to pushing some faithful people to the very edge of the Church. Too many who find themselves at the edge soon find themselves outside the Church. Ecumenism should never mean pushing one set of people out to make room for another. Time does plenty of that for us already.

Interesting that the readings for today both mention demons.

James Lileks is always worth reading. Today he outdoes himself. All I can say in reply is, “Jada, jada, jada, jada, jing, jing, jing.”

Apologies that blogger isn't accepting links in this post, so I'm trying a work-around. You can cut and paste into the "open" window to get at. Sorry for the inconvenience, but the blogger made me do it!

Some interesting points from (http://billcork.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_billcork_archive.html#83774609) Bill Cork in a discussion of the proper means for evangelization.

I’m in full agreement that it’s unlikely that anyone can argue someone into the Church, let alone into metanoia. At the same time, though, I seriously doubt that people who dissent from the Church on any high-profile issue are well-positioned as evangelists.

Bill is responding to (http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/BlogDetail.asp?ID=2545) Greg Popcak’s take on the Paulists’ site (http://www.bustedhalo.com) Busted Halo.

The Paulists have a set of ground rules for their discussion board that includes the following: “Healthy disagreement and personal experiences are naturally allowed. We'd like to encouage people to post their own thoughts and experiences and not simply spout off rhetoric or post links that describe someone else's opinion without stating their own. The orthodoxy of individual posters is not to be questioned and violators will be removed from the forum.”

People have posted rather odd things including these on the board: “Truth in and of itself is not absolute."; “From a strictly historical perspective the Church was founded by humans."; and "Once Jesus left the earth everything from there on in was imperfectly interpreted by the Apostles."

Not too surprisingly, some people (including Mr. Popcak) took exception to those statements (and others) and replied by expounding the orthodox position. The board administrators banned some orthodox interlocutors. Mr. Popcak spoke out on his rather popular blog against this practice. Mr. Cork criticizes Mr. Popcak for being overly insistent on orthodox dogma in bringing people into the Church.

I have to say I agree more with Mr. Popcak than with Mr. Cork this time. If one is presenting the Catholic faith to those who are seeking it, I’d have to say it’s best to do so honestly rather than to present “cafeteria Catholicism” as an option to get people in the door.

I agree with Mr. Cork that the best presentation of the faith is the imitation of Christ in action, not a sermon. There are times, though, when words are needed. At those times, the prospective evangelist must use due care to ensure that what he says is in keeping with the Deposit of Faith.

My turn at the Belief-o-matic:

1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)
2. Roman Catholic (100%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (96%)
4. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (90%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (86%)
10. Orthodox Judaism (71%)

I’d guess they listed the EO first due to being alphabetical.

I wonder what their understanding of the Mormon religion is. It’s ardently non-Trinitarian, so getting a high showing for Mormonism seems quite out of place given the several questions that got at the idea of the Trinity. Then again, very few of the beliefs listed after "Mormon" are Trinitarian.

The poem to which I alluded yesterday is found in full at: this site.

Don’t know if it’s just me, but I haven’t been able to access CAI since early yesterday. Yesterday afternoon I got Error 403, now I just get “Cannot Find Server”. I wonder which of the following (yes, it’s a list-filled day!) is the cause:

1. technical glitch;
2. CAI blocking my most frequent IP addresses;
3. CAI losing its hosting service for violating its TOS.

If anyone else can get in, that pretty much eliminates hypothesis #3, unless they’ve started up with a new hosting service.

Just a note, in case it is hypothesis #3 (which I’m not saying is the case as I don’t know definitively), being reviled in itself is not a blessed thing. Only being reviled specifically because of Jesus is blessed. If you’re reviled because you say vile things about people – even if you believe those things to be inspired by Jesus – chances are the reaction against you has nothing to do with Him and everything to do with what you’ve done.

UPDATE as of 5:10 pm MST, CAI's site is back. Looks like it was probably a technical issue. Then again, they could have switched hosting services -- whether on their own volition or not.

Apropos the candidate who “will fight for you”, I’d be for it if I could pick the opponent. For instance, could I specify that such a candidate have to take on one of the following?

Jesse Ventura;
Saddam Hussein;
A randomly selected detainee at Guantanamo Bay;;
Etc.

Panem et Circensem in lieu of whatever funeral rites would normally have been observed by the Wellstone family. (Warning -- linked article contains profanity.) I had mentioned last week that the party of the Clintons is no longer worthy of the name they once bore and that it was a topic for later. It’s later now.

The Democratic party in the mid-twentieth century was a party that could be characterized by a few general traits:

respect for local variations and input in programs (even the Medicaid program, whatever you think of it, was originally administered by counties);

ethnic and cultural diversity, and

focus on the economically disadvantaged.

In the past ten years, though, that party has become monolithic. When is the last time you heard of a nominal Democrat straying from the party line on abortion or gay pride laws? What party is it that pushed so hard to expand the federal role in public schools – effectually nationalizing the most local of all governmental institutions? What party is the party of the celebrities?

The principles, such as they are, of the party of the Clintons are also simple:

Put on a good show;

Lavishly reward your most ardent supporters (remember Bill Clinton's first act as President: a blatant political payoff to a powerful contributor group); and

Demonize your opponents.

The policies most favored are those that fit the celebrity lifestyle: promotion of consequence-free sexual license being chief of all policies.

The disgusting spectacle at the University of Minnesota last night was a star-filled extravaganza, a show to get out the vote and keep control of the Senate. Should the voters of Minnesota comply with the request of the Clintons, they’ll get what they deserve.

Like most of you, I’m sick of the political ads. This year seems to be an especially nasty one. No surprise there.

Too many of the worst candidates have ads out promising to “fight for you”. I wasn’t aware that there was a line on the ballot for Gladiator.

Most of the individuals who promise to fight are running for legislative offices. The key skill of a legislator is negotiation – getting what benefits his constituents by convincing enough other legislators that it will benefit their constituents. Occasional compromises are also required. Legislators who “fight” don’t tend to get great things accomplished. Of course most of them don’t seek great things either, but that’s for another time.

I hadn’t posted the Profession of Faith because of uncertainty as to the propriety of so doing without my full name. (My first post on this blog explains why I haven’t used my full name.) I’ve seen two other bloggers, though, post this pseudonymously, so here goes:
****
I, Gregg, with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the symbol of faith: namely,
I BELIEVE in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by Whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man: and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures: and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and He shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the resurrection of the dead: And the life of the world to come. Amen.

With firm faith I believe as well everything contained in God's word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the church--whether in solemn judgment or in the ordinary and universal magisterium--as divinely revealed and called for faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing that is proposed by that same Church definitively with regard to teaching concerning faith or morals. What is more, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.

****

I used the translation of the Nicene Creed that I learned as a boy, rather than the ICEL translation that I recite at Sunday Mass. Not meaning trouble by that. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the ICEL translation would be the only one expected for use in such a situation. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction.

Of course I don't have the same understanding of the meaning of the above words as I did when I first learned them..

BTW -- anyone get the reference in today's first post? It's not too difficult, is it?

I suppose it would be good to expand a bit on yesterday’s long post about traditionalists and ecumenism. I’m frankly baffled why it is that ecumenism tends to be such a big issue with so many traditionalists. There are many other things that have changed in the last five decades in the Church that haven’t often been for the better: catechesis, parochial education, public teaching on moral issues, the list goes on and on. (For the record, I’m not a traditionalist per se, but I have a great deal of sympathy for much of the traditionalist cause. I support the ready availability of the Tridentine Mass, though not its exclusive use. I agree that we need to maintain familiarity with the many treasures that the Church acquired before Vatican II. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Assisi meetings, although my objections are rooted in I Cor 10:24-33 and the desire not to cause offense to Christians who may not understand the motivation of the meeting. That being said, I find attacks on Vatican II and the recent popes to be uncharitable, lacking in the respect due those in authority and counterproductive.)

I understand that a case can be made that the Church had long eschewed cordial relations with outsiders, while I find that to be a gross oversimplification. However, even if one were to accept that position, how would one justify it in light of St. Paul’s approach to the Athenians in Acts 17. St. Paul would have been within his rights to condemn the idolatry and blasphemy of the Athenians. Had he done so, he would not have had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel to them. Instead he built on what he had in common with the Athenians. How is our situation different? Despite the fevered writings of a few, nothing the Church has said indicates that evangelism is over. There has been a change in methods and in how we are to “target” certain groups, that’s all.

One last point demands attention. In Mr. Michael’s recent post, he offers a catalog of quotes that are quite antagonistic to the Jews, on the basis of the assertion that they bear responsibility for the crucifixion.

No Catholic would deny that “in the sacrifice of the Mass they [priests] make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father. From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength” >Catechism 1566.

Why would Jews be condemned for the role of their ancestors in facilitating Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice while priests are commended for their role in perpetuating the same sacrifice?

Yesterday was one of the saddest days of the year for me. I knew it would be, but I didn’t know why.

I always find the first workday of standard time to be very sad. I’m most fond of having some daylight after work is over. Yesterday, had I worked a full day, I would have left work with it almost dark. It would have been dark by the time I got home. I don’t so much mind heading to work (or even arriving at work) before it’s light, so long as there’s “the golden evening brightens in the west”. (Special bonus points to the first reader who correctly identifies the not-too-difficult and oh-so-timely reference.)

However the sadnesses yesterday were of a different sort. Again I was pulled away from work to meet up with Dad at the hospital. This time he suspected a heart attack, but the tests showed nothing at all. My guess is that his nervous system is so shot that it’s giving him false reports of trouble.

Then I succumbed to a stupid and base temptation. Then the sadness started to lift as I didn’t get the satisfaction out of it that I had expected. So there was some light at the end of the tunnel after all.

Daybreak and a candle end.

Latest from CAI is another traditionalist rallying cry: “Semper Idem”. I don’t believe it would be useful to go through it line by line, but there are two major points worthy of mention.

Mr. Michael complains that the documents of Vatican II are susceptible to many interpretations. He then proposes that, if an item has been stated by “numerous popes and saints”, it is then an exemplar of what the Church has always taught and, thus, immutable. That definition is not only an invitation to intellectual dishonesty, as you could just go hunting for quotes that bolster your own preconceived notions, but it’s also the express lane to integrism. Many of our predecessors in the faith would have said things praising the practices of their own time (or even of previous more rigorous times). They couldn’t say anything about the future as, in nearly all cases, they had no knowledge of it. It then becomes quite simple to see the difference between past and present, find obiter dicta in support of past practice and conclude that present practice is wrong. (I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just the method used by Sungenis in support of geo-centrism.) Saints aren’t endowed with infallibility. Even papal infallibility has significant limitations on it.

The Church has always taught those things that are in the creeds. Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God is a more in-depth exposition of the Deposit of Faith. It isn’t comprehensive. The Catechism is more comprehensive.

The Church in her wisdom, though, has not deigned to attempt placing the entire Deposit of Faith in one document. Theology is a complex subject that isn’t best examined in blurbs of just a few sentences. That’s why the study of Theology is something that usually takes several years. Theological documents by their very nature are susceptible to many interpretations. The aphorism attributed to St. Augustine (and widely repeated by Bl. John XXIII) is most applicable here, “In essentials, Unity; in doubtful matters; Liberty; in all things, Charity”. The question then shifts to what is essential. I’d propose that the aforementioned Credo is a good compendium of the essentials.

The next point is that Mr. Michael joins many traditionalists in objecting strenuously to contemporary attitudes regarding the Church’s relationship to those outside the Church. This is usually supported by a list of citations to Mortalium Animos, a few other papal documents and an occasional medieval council. Mention is rarely made of Luke 9:50 or of the two greatest commandments. Could someone of a traditionalist bent please explain to my why so many traditionalists seem enamored of hostility toward those outside the Church?

Had the privilege and delight of attending the Mass for the 90th anniversary of the dedication of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. Either Bp. Gomez’ English is better or my perception is better. The musical setting (Schubert G major) was well suited to such a festive occasion.

I raked enough maple leaves this weekend I ought to get honorary Canadian citizenship! Then again, if I did, I’d probably become an Alberta separatist

Senator Paul Wellstone has died. I didn’t think well of him in life, for reasons like this, this, and this. Still, may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

I'm always pleased (and often humbled) when a blog -- especially a blog I like -- adds this site to the blogroll. In those rare cases, though, where the link doesn't work, I end up wondering whether it's just a typo (as I've had in too many links myself) or whether there's an ulterior motive. Then I remember the great quote "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by common incompetence."

My Comeuppance

Over at HMS Blog they’ve been asking us to submit things for which we’re thankful. I sent in that I was thankful for the enthusiasm of my dog. So last night, which was a late one, when I finally got home and to bed, I experienced the flip side of puppy enthusiam. He just had to get petting from me and the chance to lick my hands. I just wanted to sleep, but sleep doesn’t come to a man who has 85 pounds of dog insisting on his full attention. Still, the enthusiasm and affection are wonderful things.

So you think there’d be a market for this?

A few years ago, I was an anonymous restaurant reviewer for a free newspaper. It was a great gig. Three reviews per month, one of a cheap place, one of a mid-price place and one of a fine-dining house. Didn’t make much money at it, but I’d love to do it again. Alas, the publisher of the newspaper had a bee in his bonnet about what advertisers he’d accept. Remember, advertising was his only source of revenue. Predictably, the paper didn’t make it for a full year. Anyway, I established myself as a critic.

In the past five months, I’ve had the following hospital experiences:

June 14: intensive observation of a hospital emergency room (at “Hospital A:”) for a school project;

June 17 take Dad to emergency room at “Hospital B” for chest pains (the specific hospital chosen by his quack primary physician). Turned out to be a bruised rib (don’t know how he bruised it) and he was released the same day;

July 11 Mom is taken to “Hospital C” (the one closest to her, but not one I would usually choose) with multiple symptoms and dies six days later;

August 12 take Dad to emergency room at “Hospital D” with multiple symptoms resulting in ten day hospital stay followed by eight days in rehab;

September 3 admitted to “hospital E” for angioplasty, released next day;

September 16 Dad taken to emergency room at “Hospital D” by ambulance with deep vein thrombosis resulting in eleven day hospital stay followed by eleven days in rehab; and

October 24 take Dad to emergency room at “Hospital D” due to suspicion of another blood clot, turns out to be less serious reaction to anti-coagulants, return him home late that night.

So I could end up writing reviews of hospitals. Besides I’ve got lots of experience working in the healthcare system as well as graduate courses. Might as well try to find something good to get out of the amount of time I’ve spent around hospitals of late! (BTW: in Denver, St. Joseph’s, where I went on September 3, is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Dad doesn’t want to go there, though, as he’s partial to staying in the outlying areas. Arrgh.)

As the inimitable Robert Duncan/jesus gil points out, we’re already seeing all sorts of posts about how no one would ever suspect the sniper kid of doing such a thing. Similar stories about Mr. Muhammad are out as well. These stories are an insult.

No one is likely to say, “Yep. I knew that kid must have been behind all this.” If they did: (1) they’d get themselves in hot water with the police for not having come forward sooner; (2) they’d raise the ire of victims who, in this litigious society, might well sue them; (3) they’d set themselves up for a defamation suit by the accused in the event the accused is acquitted; (4) they’d make themselves targets for any criminally-minded admirers of the accused; and (5) few people would believe them anyway.

So item 274 on the wishlist of what ought to be changed about mass media in the early 21st century would be a moratorium on “I never would have thought [blank] could have done something like this” stories.

Strangers on a train

Yesterday afternoon while taking the train from work, I was standing next to a teenaged girl who was talking on her cell phone. Nothing too unusual there. She was rather loud, so I heard everything she said. Nothing unusual there either. She let fly with quite the string of obscenities. That, too, isn’t unusual. Then she said, “I can’t talk about that right now. There are people around.”

It was nice to see that she had some sense of propriety, especially in this age when society is expected to salute at parades celebrating sexual depravity. At the same time, though, I couldn’t help but wonder just what sort of thing was of a nature that a youngster with so little shame couldn’t mention in a public place.

This is horrific. “Encouraging” more doctors to perform abortions generally means requiring all doctors to do so – regardless of whether the physician just might have enough of a conscience to be averse to the idea. Oh yeah – same goes for hospitals. Hence the necessity of the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act -- vehemently opposed by the media and most of Congress -- which would recognize conscientious objection to providing abortions. The Clinton party (they really can’t be called Democrats anymore, but that’s for another time) wants to require all physicians and hospitals to jump into the abortion pool.

If ever the free exercise clause were to mean anything, it must mean something here.

Great post, even by his high standards, at Ad Orientam on “Like A Duck In a Noose”, which coincidentally enough, as mentioned here, spells “Ladin – an alternate spelling of the leader of good old al Qaeda.

The Inn at the End of the World is a good new blog, even if its proprietor has the gall to cheer on an American League team! ;-)

Ioannes est nomen eius.

Inexplicably, the above is the actual motto of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (You can check here.) I’d love to know why someone chose “his name is John”, probably from Luke 1:60, as the motto.

Anyway, John is also the name of the sniper. I’m surprised by that. I thought he’d be name Abdulaziz bin-Husayn or Achmed Mehdi or some such thing.

Oh, it’s John Mohammed. That makes more sense.

And, while we’re all relieved for the residents of the Potomac Drainage Region, there’s still the great humanitarian activities of the Chechen Moslems to address as well as Fatah, the longest-running operators of mass political terrorism.

And did I happen to mention al-Qaeda? How about the Baath?

One down, many to go.

The gloom and doom crowd in the Church makes its presence known often. Another quote from Bl. John XXIII’s opening address to Vatican II reminds us that this crowd pre-dates most of the things about which they currently grumble:

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen,
much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are
not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern
times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our
era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as
though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the
teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils
everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper
religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always
forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new
order of human relations which, by men's own efforts and even beyond their
very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God's superior and
inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the
greater good of the Church.

It is easy to discern this reality if we consider attentively the world of
today, which is so busy with politics and controversies in the economic
order that it does not find time to attend to the care of spiritual reality,
with which the Church's magisterium is concerned. Such a way of acting is
certainly not right, and must justly be disapproved. It cannot be denied,
however, that these new conditions of modern life have at least the
advantage of having eliminated those innumerable obstacles by which, at one
time, the sons of this world impeded the free action of the Church. In fact,
it suffices to leaf even cursorily through the pages of ecclesiastical
history to note clearly how the Ecumenical Councils themselves, while
constituting a series of true glories for the Catholic Church, were often
held to the accompaniment of most serious difficulties and sufferings
because of the undue interference of civil authorities. The princes of this
world, indeed, sometimes in all sincerity, intended thus to protect the
Church. But more frequently this occurred not without spiritual damage and
danger, since their interest therein was guided by the views of a selfish
and perilous policy.

I was thinking a bit about the difference between the Tridentine and Vatican II attitudes toward Protestants. The real turning point wasn’t in 1962. It was in 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia gave diplomatic and legal recognition to the ongoing existence of Protestantism. If that upsets you, you should take it up with the architect of the treaty, Cardinal Mazarin.

The segregation implicit in the original settlement (cuius regio, eius religio) didn’t allow for Catholics and Protestants to have much to do with each other on a day-to-day basis, but it clearly envisioned the eventual peaceful interaction that would develop between Catholic and Protestant communities, in contrast to the devastation wrought by the wars of the early 17th century. Over time, the separation of the communities broke down so that individuals of both backgrounds encountered each other.

In short, Vatican II doesn’t represent something particularly new – it expressed in an explicit fashion developments that had been centuries in the making. It isn’t surprising, then, that even the most ardent traditionalists have little quibble with the documents of Vatican II.

I agree with many, though, that the implementation of the council was generally disastrous. The comments by Hans Urs von Balthasar (usually not a big friend of the traditionalist crowd) recorded at Gerard Serafin’s site sum it up nicely.

I’d guess that rather few people who read this site also read VodkaPundit very often. After all, VP is irreligious, irreverent, irascible, bellicose, profane and lots of other things that just don’t fit the few folks that stop by here from time to time (who are, by the way, very much appreciated). Today’s post at VP, though, is worthy of your attention. He raises some good issues that don’t get a great deal of attention that follow in the wake of both the confrontation between the western world and Islam and the recent spate of sniper attacks in the DC area.

Oddly enough, a few years ago I started a screenplay that dealt with some of these issues. On 9/11 last year, I realized that the screenplay would never be finished as a movie about terrorism in the suburbs wouldn’t get made anytime soon – particularly if it came from little old me.

Fun for all at Pompous Ponderings where Dave Pawlak shares a quiz he used with the students he taught in a 3 year confirmation program. The quiz is nicely done. It points up many items that should be covered in such a class.

Way back when I was a kid, I was part of the first cohort in my Lutheran congregation to get one year of confirmation instruction (four days per week) rather than two years. Confirmation then took place near the end of 8th grade. I really like the idea of a longer period of instruction. It takes time for important truths to sink in. Also the idea of multiple instructors is good as it exploits the differences in learning styles that are part of human nature.

One of the horrible things about working in the healthcare business is that, on occasion, one is required to participate in something gravely sinful. Today I provided assistance on a project that turned out to be intended to support artificial fertility.

I hope that someday I get the opportunity to start a fully-Catholic fully-integrated heatlhcare system. Ideally it would contain a general acute hospital, generalist and specialist physicians, pharmacy, home health care and ancillary services all of which would be guided by actual Catholic teaching and love for the children of God. Anyway, now all 40 or so of you know why I'm going to grad school. Somebody has to run the business end of things. Besides, I get too squeamish around blood and guts to be involved effectively in a hands-on way.

Reading traditionalist materials as I have of late, it seems like there’s a real sadness that the Church doesn’t use the anathema like she did in the past. Even Vatican I proclaimed several anathemas.

From the start, though, Vatican II was to be different. I quote from Bl. John XXIII’s address opening the council:

We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them.

That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.

The anathemas of the Council of Trent were used to support a series of hugely destructive wars. Those wars reduced the influence of the Church and set the stage for the development of the ideologies of the French Revolution, which in turn developed into horribly destructive totalitarian schemes. The anathemas of the first Vatican council had little effect outside the Church, while the world outside the Church developed unprecedented material prosperity and incredible spiritual poverty. The fathers of Vatican II had lived through the devastation of the Second World War and were in the middle of the Cold War. While aware of the grave dangers they faced, they still held out hope. That hope seems to be vindicated, as totalitarianism holds sway over a smaller percentage of mankind than it then did.

The exhortation above was clearly taken to heart by the council fathers. The Church is acting like the father of the prodigal son. Who are any of us to act like the older brother?

Monday Mission! (courtesy of the delightful Kathryn Lively

1. Have you ever felt like you were expected to set a good example for others? Yep. Particularly when driving a car, where most people are consistently at their worst and most dangerous.

2. What keeps you on the right path? For example, why do you think you turned out the way you did as opposed to the nut ball sniper out there? I’ve got a deep appreciation for the brevity of life. Don’t want to waste it.

3. Sometimes things seem different than they really are. When was the last time you believed something to be one way only to learn you had it all wrong? Just yesterday. It seemed like Dad had completely lost his senses and gone around the bend. Turns out he was just being a little clumsy.

4. Can you recall a time when being alert and observant kept you safe? Driving through the mountains last Friday, had to maneuver quickly to avoid a weaving speeding oversized pick-up truck.

5. Who in your personal circle of relationships do you think is smarter than you? Are they smarter in just one area, or overall? How do you feel about that? How do they interact with you? Sad to say, not really anybody. I’d like to associate more with some people of greater intellect. It would probably be good for my thinking and definitely for combating my pride.

6. Let's daydream a little: Describe in detail the most perfect lazy day, start to finish. Can’t do that. I don’t like lazy days.

7. Are you dressing up for Halloween? If so, what as? If not, how come? What is the most favorite costume you ever had? Probably will wear the King of Hearts costume to the office. Two faves: Santa’s evil twin (2 years ago) and Captain America (around age 7).

BONUS: Come on baby tell me what’s the word? Aeolian

Was pleasantly surprised at Mass yesterday to hear “render to Caesar” applied to “abortion, contraception, euthanasia, capital punishment and the upcoming war”. I was disappointed that artificial conception wasn’t included, as that is the area where pro-life activities tend to be the weakest and where there’s need for better awareness on the part of the laity. Artificial conception is not only an offense against God in that humans attempt to create life in a novel way, but it usually results in creating large numbers of people, only a few of whom will ever get the chance to be born. Artificial conception is opening the door to cloning – an evil of unimaginable proportions.

The latest MoDo [Maureen Dowd of what once was the New York Times, that is] nonsense has caused a bit of hubbub and consternation. (Maybe soon we’ll be fortunate enough to go from being a PoMo society to being a PoMoDo society.)

The nastiness, pettiness, disdain for logic and obsessive vendettas that mark MoDo’s work, though, aren’t unique to her or even to her compatriots of the left. Too often even those who see their work as exposition of the Gospel of Christ do just the same thing.

If you put MoDo’s work alongside most of what CAI has posted in the last few months, you’ll see similar styles and similar vitriol directed at the perceived “enemy”. Oddly, MoDo may have a slightly higher opinion of the Holy Father than some CAI writers. Jacob Michael, for one, has taken to filling his dispatches with buzzwords like “Vatican apparatus” and “Novus Ordo Ecclesiae” that usually are found in the works of sedevacantists. Mario Derksen claims that nearly all who claim to be Christian are actually apostate.

Just a definitional reminder – if you judge “the Vatican apparatus” to be in error, that would make you a Protestant.

Prayer of the week (attributed to Pope Pius XII):

Almighty and eternal God, may Your grace enkindle in all of us a love for the many unfortunate people whom poverty and misery reduce to a condition of life unworthy of human beings. Arouse in the hearts of those who call you Father a hunger and thirst for justice and peace and for fraternal charity in deeds and in truth. Grant, O Lord, peace in our days, peace to souls, peace to families, peace to our country and peace among nations. Amen.

A true story with a happy ending!
.
When we lived in California, we were quite close with a couple that my wife had met at her workplace – lets call her K and him T. We went to their wedding in 1996 and even took a weekend vacation with them. In 1997 K had a couple of miscarriages, so she was very cautious when she became pregnant in 1998. Even that caution, though, didn’t prevent the pregnancy from becoming a difficult one. Though she wasn’t due until late September, her doctor had her quit work in June.

The first Saturday after she was told to take it easy, we went over to their place so my wife – the paragon of hospitality – could fix dinner for them. When we got there, K was on the phone with the doctor as she wasn’t feeling right. After a short time, her husband took her to meet the doctor at the hospital, but told us they’d be back shortly as they’d been through this drill a few times before. Catherine tidied up their place and set about fixing dinner. Soon we got a call on the phone that we should eat when dinner was ready and that K&T would eat when they got home later in the evening. During dinner we got another call from T, asking us to stop by the hospital on the way home and bring the suitcase that was in their bedroom and to bring the video camera.

K gave birth early that Sunday morning to their little boy – 12 weeks early! We saw him that same day, the most helpless person I’ve ever seen. He didn’t even weigh 3 pounds. He couldn’t breathe on his own. He had 19 separate tubes and wires poking into him. Catherine is the boy’s godmother, even though K&T aren’t Catholic. The boy has a few lingering medical problems, but nothing very serious for the past few years. You wouldn’t know from looking at him that he was anything other than a perfectly ordinary little boy.

Last night, K, T and their little boy arrived for a visit. We hadn’t seen the little fellow in just over two years. He’s an absolute delight. I’ve never seen a child that age be so consistently good-natured and cheery, especially amazing when you consider he was in a strange house and got there pretty late at night – at least for him. He and our furry mutt hit it off famously, of course.

Hope your weekend is as good as mine promises to be!

Back to the Catholic themes of Luther’s 95 Theses, if only for a bit.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

Rejoice! The works of mercy get mention, and approving mention at that! Yes, the works of mercy are immensely important in the Christian life. In fact, they’re indispensable – just the point he’s making here. There’s not a sound basis for giving dispensation from the obligation to perform works of mercy.

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

Again, a great point. We grow closer to God by what we do in response to His love for us, or we grow farther from Him based on our lack of love. Pardon. Absolution is needful, but it’s not the end.

Bob, just because I feel like doing something nice.

Here’s an example of how you can cite another site on the Internet.

The educational page The History Place presents a table showing the Jewish populations of selected European states before and after World War Two.

BTW, the above also gives the lie to your Holocaust denial, as do the following: AISH, a more scholarly account at the U. S. Holocaust Museum, details about extermination camps can be found at About.com. I could continue, but I’m not sure there’s reason to do so.

Bob, if you could provide documentary evidence from the 1940s from a credible source, then you might provoke discussion rather than disgust. Until such time, though, your obstinate refusal to accept the facts as they present themselves demolishes any credibility you may have once had.

What a comedown! After reading the new Apostolic Letter this morning, I eventually read Bob Sungenis’ attack on Bill Cork. It’s like driving from the top of Pikes Peak to Death Valley in just a few hours.

This particular piece is around 35,000 words, although it is peppered with long quotes. I’ll try to be more concise.

The sixth paragraph starts, “Not only has CAI chosen to critique the goals of Zionism, but it has also critiqued the attempt by prelates in the Catholic Church to change the Catholic doctrine of salvation in order to accommodate the Jews.”

Now as to Zionism, it’s obvious that CAI’s relationship with Zionism is like that of Fatah or the UN – all of them want to eradicate the state of Israel and none can offer either a good reason to do so or any reasonable outcome for the Israeli people. Many anti-Zionists claim to be free from anti-Semitism, but the anti-Zionist failure to address these crucial issues makes their claims of freedom from anti-Semitism ring hollow. Mr. Sungenis claims, “Zionism's main goal, as expressed originally by David Ben Gurion in 1948 to the Israeli Knesset, is to retrieve the original land occupied by Israel in the time of Solomon.” If so, then Zionism isn’t very successful, is it? The state of Israel has only a tiny sliver of land next to the Mediterranean. Even if the Zionist goal were the acquisition of a larger piece of southwestern Asia, is Mr. Sungenis suggesting that people like Bashar Assad and Saddam Hussein would do a better job of governing those territories than would the only functioning pluralistic democracy in southwest Asia?

I’ve read some overheated traditionalist sites lately that are filled with claims that Vatican II established a new religion. Mr. Sungenis echoes this sentiment in claiming that the doctrine of salvation has been changed. If something so central to the Church were “changed”, it couldn’t’ be done by anyone but an ecumenical council or a pope speaking ex cathedra. Unless Mr. Sungenis can give evidence of an authoritative source changing a central doctrine of the Church, he’d be well-advised to stop the outrageous accusations he’s making.

Sungenis repeats his assertions that he copied Nazi material without knowing its origin – from a website he can’t even remember. That makes me wonder how often Bob culls material from websites he hasn’t carefully checked for accuracy. As he mentions later, anyone can publish anything on the internet. Doesn’t he hold himself to the standard of only posting that which he has good reason to believe is truthful?

Sungenis tries to defend his Holocaust revisionism! "The statistics show us that there was no large difference between the number of Jews living in 1939 as there were living in 1948, " What statistics would those be, Bob? Or did you forget what website you got those from. The six million figure is to some degree an estimate, but it's an estimate rooted in objective facts. There were rolls kept at the concentration camps. There were family records of people who ceased to be. There were whole villages of people that were never heard from again. There may be a slight variation (on the order of, perhaps one-tenth of one percent) from six million, but to imply, as the above does, that the holocaust was a gross exaggeration makes it difficult to believe anything else you say. It also gives a very dark appearance to your motives.

He seems to claim that the internet is different from other media in terms of plagiarism and asks to see a legal definition for plagiarism. Plagiarism is like adultery, it isn’t a crime in the eyes of the law. That doesn’t make it any less of an offence. Reputable websites mention where they obtain information.

In the same vein, Sungenis makes the following unsubstantiated allegation: “From credible sources that I trust, it has been stated that about a third of the bishops in the United States are practicing homosexuals.” That statement might carry some weight with others if you provided a source – some means of verifying the charge. Instead we’re asked to take the word of someone who cites websites he can’t even remember and happens to inadvertently copy Nazi propaganda!

Bob’s next high point follows, “Mr. Cork's allegation [that Sungenis is anti-Semitic] is the most ludicrous and satanically originated lie ever perpetrated by someone purporting to be a Christian.” Strong words. They also imply that Bob somehow knows all the lies ever perpetrated by someone purporting to be a Christian – itself a tall order – but also that the lie was both ludicrous and initiated by Satan. We’re told that Satan is quite clever, and it seems that this must be the case. If Satan were the originator of this particular lie, then, one would expect for lie to be clever and subtle, rather than for it to be ludicrous. Then again, reason and consistency are sadly lacking from Sungenis’ recent writings.

Sungenis goes on to condemn various actions of several Israeli political leaders, apropos of nothing in terms of anything Bill Cork has said. He then talks around Mr. Cork’s objections to several ill-advised citations to papal documents having little, if anything, to do with relations between the Church and Jews. Bob concludes, “His [Pius XI’s] message of the kingship of Christ [in Quas Primas] was for the very purpose of thwarting their Zionistic goals. Perhaps you ought to take a closer look at Mortalium Animos.” Now I don’t see one thing in Quas Primas or Mortalium Animos to lead one to conclude that they were written in opposition to Zionism – modernism, indifferentism, even socialism and materialism. Not Zionism.

Sungenis goes on to critique Bill Cork’s excellent posts on this whole sordid affair. His critique is best summarized in this sentence, “Why does Mr. Cork insist on dropping names as his bases for his allegations? Has Mr. Cork disproved one assertion made by any of the above men?” Bob, it’s pretty simple. A writer’s choice of sources says quite a bit about the writer. If I were to quote Hans Kung, Rahner, Bultmann and Barth without making my disagreement with them clear, you’d be quite certain that I was a theological liberal. Similarly, your choice of sources is telling regarding your attitude toward Judaism and Jews. It does not appear to be the attitude of Nostra Aetate. If you missed where Mr. Cork disproved their allegations, I suggest you re-read his site, Bob. John Betts also does a nice job of it.

The last third of the piece gets worse. It’s well summed up in this quote, “I have learned a long time ago that, although some conspiracy theories are wrong, it does not apply to all conspiracy theories. In fact, there is a conspiracy from people like Mr. Cork to label things they don't want to hear as "conspiracy theories."” Bob, try to get some facts, verify them, and base your discussions off of them. You don't know what's going on in other people's minds.

Bob, this is very sad. You have some valuable talents. You obviously are consumed with zeal. I urge you to consider the real possibility that you’ve misread some things along the way and to seek reconciliation with the Church. The reason that you find so many people opposing you is that you’ve chosen to attack so very many things. As in any human endeavor, the more things you try to do at the same time, the less well you’ll do any of them. You may have some valuable insights to offer, but as long as you treat everything as having apocalyptic consequences and refuse to consider the possibility that you may have erred along the way, people aren’t going to listen to you.

Just read through Rosarium Virginis Mariae, the Apostolic Letter that's caused so much consternation.

I'm excited about the Mysterium Lucis and especially on the practice of praying them on Thursdays, so that now we will commemorate the institution of the Eucharist -- the source and summit of Christian life -- on every Thursday, just as we do things to commemorate the crucifixion every Friday and the resurrection every Sunday.

CAI has a new look (an improvement over the old one, in the main) and, to no one’s surprise, a new article condemning the as-yet unconfirmed report of the addition of new mysteries to the Rosary.

The article put me in mind of the old Saturday Night Live skit “Bad Theater, with Leonard Pinth-Garnell”. In Bad Theater, Dan Aykroyd (playing Mr. Pinth-Garnell) reviewed the worst possible theatrical displays like a critic would review a good play. This new CAI piece (“Semper Idem”) was undoubtedly one of the worst things I’ve ever read in terms of theology, composition and logic.

One of the most astounding assertions is that the new mysteries are part of a pattern of “protestantization” (as they may reduce the number of days on which one would meditate on the Assumption and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin). Sure, that’s it. The Pope is trying to make the Rosary into a Protestant prayer. I can’t imagine anyone who has more than a nodding acquaintance with either the Rosary or Protestants making that assertion, but that’s Bad Theater for you.

Traditionalist sites (like Pro Multis) have referred to St. Pius X’s letter on “the Sillon”, so I read it recently. Oddly the letter is only available at an ironically-named traditionalist site (www.the-pope.com) that “finds sedevacantism to be a reasonable position”. Disturbingly, the site uses the same format found on the Vatican site – making it appear that the letter is housed on the Vatican site. That being said, the style of the letter does seem consistent with other writings of St. Pius X that I’ve read. Another mark of its authenticity is its sharing of that time’s disdain for concise communication.

When I started to read the letter, I had no real idea what “the Sillon” was. I’ve found very little outside the letter to elaborate. It appears that the Sillon started in France as a Catholic youth movement near the beginning of the 20th century. It was dedicated to improving the social order – especially for the poor. Consequently, the saint says of them, “they are really professors of social, civic, and religious morals; and whatever modifications they may introduce in the organization of the Sillonist movement, we have the right to say that the aims of the Sillon, its character and its action belong to the field of morals which is the proper domain of the Church.”

The first salient point regarding Sillon is that it advanced a particular set of moral teachings and it appears that those teachings eventually came to contradict revealed truth.

Over time, the Sillon group expanded in geographic and social scope, taking in many people who did not share the foundational Catholic beliefs of the organization. Over time, the organization came to shift to cater to the new members. Clergy and bishops called for Sillon to return to Catholic orthodoxy, without success.

The saint continues: “Even if their doctrines were free from errors, it would still be a very serious breach of Catholic discipline to decline obstinately the direction of those who have received from heaven the mission to guide individuals and communities along the straight path of truth and goodness.”

The second salient point regarding Sillon is that it rejected the direction of ecclesiastical authorities.

And further, “they reject the doctrine recalled by Leo XIII on the essential principles of society”

The third salient point is their rejection of duly promulgated teachings of the Church.

“Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being.”

This is likely to be one of the quotes most ardently embraced by the traditionalist community. I heartily agree with this quote. Where the traditionalists and the contemporary Church part ways is in the method by which the Church is to express that zeal. (Much more to come on this topic in days ahead.) The fourth salient point regarding Sillon is that it appeared to evidence indifferentism.

Things continue to get worse: “this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions”

Sillon, it appears, was removed almost completely from its Catholic origins – advocating something akin to anarcho-syndicalism in the secular and religious realms. The fifth salient point is that Sillon set itself up as superior to the ecclesiastical authorities.

The last quote to which I direct your attention: “As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.”

I agree that we too easily look only at one attribute of Jesus – either His immense mercy or His perfect justice. In Him mercy and justice meet – a paradox too great for the mind of man. We know both that, like the woman caught in adultery, we are forgiven and that we are called to sin no more. We are given clear direction from Jesus as to what we are to do. St. Pius X gives four particular examples of what we are to do:
1. belong to His flock;
2. accept His doctrine;
3. practice virtue; and
4. accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.

Contrast that with the five points showing how the Sillon was in error
1. advocating moral teachings that were not in keeping with revealed truth;
2. rejecting the guidance and direction of ecclesiastical authorities;
3. rejecting specific duly promulgated teachings of the Church;
4. evidencing indifferentism; and
5. deeming itself superior to the ecclesiastical authorities.

There’s a pretty clear contrast between Sillon (or, for that matter, a number of other dissenting groups who can be fairly characterized with one or more of the five traits of Sillon) and the faithful Church. That difference doesn’t comprise an attack on Vatican II’s teaching of the relationship of the Church with outsiders, which I hope to detail in the days ahead.

I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Spiritual Lesson from a Big Furry Mutt for October 15, 2002

This morning was the coldest morning we’ve had since early spring. One of my mutt’s contributing breeds is husky. Needless to say, the dog was quite exuberant this morning. He had more spring in his step than usual. When he’d pause to sniff something, he’d then leap forward to the next thing. May God grant me the grace to freely rejoice at even the littlest things.

Thanks, Chris, for the kind mention.

More traditionalist-inspired posts to come!

I’m not usually that caught up in what other people wear to Mass, but yesterday I saw a young man in a shirt that gave me pause. The front of the shirt said “I got Lei’d . . . “, the back continued “At Eros 2002”. I don’t know which is worse, the shirt or how much it bothered me.

When I was an undergrad, I wrote quite a bit of poetry. I haven’t written nearly so much in recent years. When I do write poetry, I tend to like rhyme and meter. The other day, though, this just sort of popped into my head. Thanks for your kind indulgence .

An autumn morning:

Above a mottled gray obscures
The blinding brilliance behind
So mortal eyes may wander upward
In wonder.

The long soft song of the leaves
Now modulates from major greens
To minor golds, oranges, reds,
Crescendoing until their rustling rale
Releases and returns them to the earth.

Then in the open field we walk in wind
That chills, dries, scours and wakens all that live –
Propelling all men to their final end:
The One who has come and shall come again.

Ad Orientam is the first site on the blogroll, as the roll is alphabetical. The post on a previous Nobel peace prize winner shows why this particular Mr. Sullivan’s site is worthy of frequent visits.

Prayer of the week:

Is attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux:

Jesus, hope of the penitent,
How good You are to those who seek;
How kind You are to those who ask.
What must You be to those who find?

Probably not a lot of posting for the next few days. Busy times both at work and school. Be back soon.

If you have seen episode 3 of The Sopranos this season, you may find the following amusing. If you haven't, it just doesn't make sense. (Warning: this link is not for the queasy or the easily offended.) Link. (Had to see if links would work better anyway.)

Apropos of absolutely nothing, in the past two days I have seen two pregnant women who are amazingly aglow and so I rejoice.

I'm quite frustrated with the glitch in blogger that's gumming up my links. I have several posts with links that don't function in the main page but show without error in the edit screen.

Any other bloggers have any suggestions?

Thanks!

Tom at Pro Multis has asked the “neo-Catholics” (as he calls those who don’t share his degree of traditionalism) to reconcile the decree on Jews from the 19th session of the Council of Basel with contemporary attitudes of the Church toward Jewish people.
I would suggest that the decree of the Council of Basel has been superceded by Nostra Aetate. I particularly draw attention to the following: “Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. . . . We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God.“
There’s no excuse to call for the reinstitution of the ghetto, of making Jews wear “distinctive badges”, denying them admission to educational institutions or requiring their attendance at lectures.
Other decrees of the Council of Basel have been expressly superceded by subsequent decrees. Take, for example the decree of the 23d session regarding the number of cardinals. It was changed by Pope Sixtus V in the 1580s and changed again by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II.

As is well known, priestly celibacy was not mandatory throughout the entire history of the Church. For some time, neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary were taught as dogmas of faith. Now all of those are binding on all Catholics, and rightfully so.

Similarly, the relationship of the Church to the people of the Old Covenant is a matter that has changed substantially since the days when Jesus prayed in the temple. I do not pretend to know how it may change in the future. I know, though, that this divinely-instituted Church led by the infallible magisterium will not lead me astray.

(I am not in this post stating or implying agreement with the “Reflections” document which is, after all, apparently meant as an instigation to discussion among bishops and theologians. I have not been asked to, nor have I, examined the “Reflections’ document in sufficient detail to comment on it.)

Some folks who challenge the hierarchy are upset at certain terms used to describe them.

One term that’s found objectionable is “RadTrad”. It’s of course short for “radical traditionalist”. Let’s see how dictionary definitions might apply.

Radical – “marked by a considerable departure from the usual”; “tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions”;
Traditionalism – “the beliefs of those opposed to modernism or liberalism”

For those who (a) want to scrap Nostra Aetate (and possibly other documents of the recent council) and (b) declare the Novus Ordo Mass to be “objectively inferior”, it would seem that they are indeed disposed to make extreme changes in existing conditions and are opposed to modernism or liberalism. If there’s any reason for objection, I don’t know what it could be other than an aesthetic objection to the abbreviation.

I’ve also seen objection to the characterization of some RadTrads as being or approaching schism. The Catechism defines schism as follows:

2089 – “schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The Catholic Encylopedia elaborates:

“Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church . . . Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. . . . the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the Holy See”

Those who set themselves up in judgment over the authorities of the Church and accuse members of the hierarchy of apostasy or heresy can rightly be said to be nearing schism. Some, such as the SSPX, have gone into formal schism, while others are testing the boundaries and may avoid formal schism.

In looking at some of the comments on Pro Multis, I noticed multiple invitations to read Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mortalium Animos. I’m glad I took the time to read it.

The first several sections deal with modernism and indifferentism. Good stuff, too. Indifferentism is indeed a serious problem for many people within the Church and without it. It’s been so for a very long time and is sadly likely to continue as such for a very long time.

Since Tom and his commentators tend to be very critical of the Assisi meeting, the attention was likely drawn by these three sentences from §2: “For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.”

I’m not completely sold on the idea that Pope Pius XI specifically condemned the Assisi meeting as, so far as I know, that meeting never so much as implied that the parties “agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life” or that it ever promoted “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy”. To me those heretical ideas are the crux of what is condemned in §2 – not in the idea of a meeting with people who have different beliefs that is not specifically and explicitly evangelical in nature.

I’m more interested, though, in some quotations from later in the encyclical.

In §10 we see, “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." That is a rather serious rebuttal to those who believe the current Church is filled with apostasy. Pope Pius XI uses very strong and clear language to remind us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

There’s more, though, in §11 we are reminded, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” The culture of dissent that attacks from every side may recognize, but it doesn’t do much for accepting or obeying. Obedience is a difficult virtue, which makes it all the more valuable for all of us.

In §12 Pope Pius (speaking of the Orthodox and the Protestants, but his words could well be applied to certain others whose disputes with the hierarchy are of more recent provenance) says: “Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is ‘the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,’ not with the intention and the hope that ‘the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’ will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government.” Dissenters of all stripes would do well to heed this advice.

I grew up in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. When I was around 10 years old, that denomination went through a nasty dispute. As with most human disputes, it quickly expanded from the initial question, which in this case was the questioning of the mechanism by which God communicates to people through Scripture. Eventually a large number of people took the Protestant tack and left to start their own denomination. The oddity about this dispute was that it was the “moderates” that left, leaving the “conservatives” with the pre-existing institution.

Even so, there were some folks who thought the purge didn’t go far enough. They’d write things that boiled down to their own 19 points as to why your ostensibly conservative LCMS church would smell like sulfur and look like a handbasket because of the latest outrage – such as a seminary professor suggesting that the book of Jonah may have been a parable rather than a description of actual events.

Many of these prophets of gloom seemed to take delight in the idea that those who were wrong would be condemned. When they said “Many are called, but few are chosen”, they seemed equally happy for the damnation of their opponents as they were for their own (oh-so-certain) redemption. They described themselves as the truest of Protestants, and they were as they seemed duty-bound to denounce their own ecclesiastical authorities and light out on their own, as a “remnant” church.

That didn’t seem to fit with the picture of Jesus I saw in the gospels. That Jesus welcomed repentant sinners, even when to do so scandalized those who were conspicuously righteous. The Jesus of John chapter 3 talked of redemption as a gift for everyone and even rejected the notion of condemning “the world”.

Many years later I found myself in the Anglican church. I saw the institutional leadership of the U. S. Episcopal church running away from most of the historic moral teachings of Christianity. I started to explore the “continuing” Anglican groups. Again I saw some of that sense of delight at the thought that the misguided would eventually find themselves in eternal perdition. They claimed, as had the original Protestants, that their church had fallen into such apostasy that it was necessary to separate themselves from it for the sake of maintaining what they deemed to be the only pure doctrines and practices.

By the grace of God, today I find myself in the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Sadly, I see some people who have that same attitude I noted among the ardent Protestants. Now I’m less surprised by it than I had been, of course.

This bit of reflection is brought to you courtesy of Christopher Ferrara of The Remnant. Even the name of the publication conveys the basic idea. Here, though, the stakes are a bit different. Protesting from a Protestant background is intellectually congruent. Protesting that the entire hierarchy (or very near the entire hierarchy) of the divinely instituted Church has gone astray is the initiating act of Protestantism.

Ironically, the people who make themselves out to be the most faithful of all Catholics, by virtue of their fervor for what they perceive to be the true doctrine and practice of the pre-conciliar Church are by their actions separating themselves from that holy body founded by Christ Himself.

Our Church faces many pressing problems (as it always has and, so long as it is on this earth, it always will). May God grant us all the grace to contribute our efforts more to the solving of those problems than to their exacerbation.

More bloggers have quit this week than is usual. Then again there are more bloggers than there were in the past, so that shouldn’t be a big surprise.. Tim Drake’s valedictory seems to call the very legitimacy of blogging into question.

Tim rightfully points out that blog activity can feed pride on the part of the blogger. No doubt that this can be true. I realize that my blog has not been and isn’t likely to ever be as popular as Tim’s or many others , so perhaps I’m not the most well-positioned to discuss the advisability of blogging. Nevertheless, one of the great things about blogs, though, is that they are rather undefined. The blog can be what the blogger wants it to be. Most blogs are part conversation and part journal.

The name of one particular blog is, I think, an apt description of all blogs – Perpetual Ephemera. Because blogs are out there on someone’s server and we don’t know just who might cache or archive something, there is a degree of permanence to them. At the same time, they tend to be filled with the ephemera that occupies so much of our consciousness in the moment – things that might be hard for us to remember at some point in the future.

For a few years, I carried on a near-daily e-mail correspondence with a friend. The messages were, like a blog, part conversation and part journal. I’ve saved some. Looking at them years later reminds me of parts of my past that might otherwise be lost to me. Looking at them helps me to better know my friend too.

A few years ago I found a letter my father had written to his family from occupied Austria in the summer of 1945. He had forgotten not only the letter, but many of the sentiments and plans he mentioned. That letter, though, helped me to see a side of him I could not have known any other way. I’m grateful for that glimpse into him.

The same can be said for blogs. True, we don’t know every detail of our fellow-bloggers. I have neither the need nor the right to do so, nor would I want other bloggers to know absolutely everything about me. What comes across, though, is usuually not only the public face of the writer, but quite a few of the unguarded moments in which we speak without pretense. This is especially true of the comment feature that makes blogs so conversational.

Just as in any other group, there are some bloggers I like more than others. That’s just part of our human nature. Sure I like to hear people agree with me and give me positive feedback. That’s part of human nature too. But better yet is to come to know other people and share in a community with them. Blogs allow that.

Just as it’s wrong to use a hammer to beat someone over the head, but right to use a hammer to build a house, so the blog can be used for good or for bad. May God grant me grace to use the blog for good purposes and not for self-aggrandizement.

I’m sure others will do better than me at this, but still it’s important that I point out a few things. I received an email from a man named Tom. He has this blog. He mentioned a challenge at his site. The gist of the challenge was to distinguish Bob Sungenis’ anti-semitism from (mostly unspecified) statements and actions of (mostly unspecified) past saints and popes.

A few points are in order, Tom, pertaining to the statements and actions of saints and of popes.

When the Church declares a person to be a saint, the Church is not endorsing everything ever done or said by that person. Even saints do things that are either mistaken or sinful.

The only actions or declarations of a pope that are infallible are matters of faith and morals that are declared ex cathedra. St. Pius V’s expulsion of the Jews from the Papal States, for instance, was not an ex cathedra statement of faith or morals. It could be regarded as a mistake. It certainly was regarded as a mistake by his successor, Clement IX, who reversed it less than 30 years after it happened.

I do find this papal declaration that appears to be an ex cathedra statement regarding faith and morals specifically regarding Jews that pre-dates St. Pius V:

“Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have besought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors we command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights, and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear any new badges, and they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians."
Martin V (1419)

Seems to me that inaccurate and derogatory statements about Jewish customs (the Talmud, for instance) would violate this decree of Pope Martin V.

Tom adds a note about the Council of Basle. He neglects this sentence from the beginning of his own source on that council: “Some historians doubt the ecumenicity of the first 25 sessions at Basel.” Not a strong argument, Tom.

This past Sunday’s Gospel reading (the parable of the wicked servants) got me to thinking some about Bob Sungenis.

As Bill Cork pointed out so eloquently last week, Bob Sungenis teaches that God came to reject those who had been His chosen people in favor of the Church – the new chosen people.

The end of the parable, though, sticks in my mind. It’s said that the landlord will put the wretched men to a wretched death. It doesn’t mention anything at all about the families of the sinners. There’s no bloodguilt. There’s simply a set of consequences for the people who committed one horrible act.

There’s a later change in the tenancy, but that doesn’t require that all relatives of the previous tenants be kept away. Looking at history, we see that the institutions that actively opposed Jesus during His earthly ministry came to an end long ago – indeed the institution He founded is one of very few institutions to have survived so long on earth. We also learn from Scripture and Tradition that God loves all people He has created.

May God grant me the grace to resist the temptation to believe that anyone is beyond His mercy.

Another of the 95 Theses:

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
The previous thesis said that no man was certain of the sincerity of his own contrition, yet here Luther pretends to know that few other people are truly penitent. (Luther’s perception that true penitence is rare could have something to do with later developments in his doctrine of justification.)

I can’t presume to determine whether anyone else is penitent, and it wouldn’t be proper for me to attempt to do so. Regardless of how penitent or impenitent anyone else is, it is incumbent upon me to be penitent for my own sins.

I’m short on time today, so just one note about CAI. The site.lists a feature called “Heresy of the Month”. Since I’ve been looking, the heresy has be Ebionism – so they don’t really change it every month. No big deal there.

The choice of Ebionism, though, is quite odd. The only people who currently hold tenets similar to the Ebionists are Seventh-Day Adventists, who aren’t likely to have much truck with Catholic apologists due to other of their doctrines.

Ebionists, though, were those who believed that Christians were bound by Jewish ritual law – with few exceptions, it’s been dead for about fifteen centuries. To point out the heresy of Ebionism as opposed to one of the many heresies that are popular today (Gnosticism, for instance, or even Arianism) seems to be a sign that someone may a bit of a fixation with things Jewish and condemning them.

Corrections can be both easy and fun, even in cases where you've said really stupid, hurtful and false things that happen to have been plagiarized. (Thanks to Amy Welborn. Of course any similarity between the plaigiarism/disparagement above and any other issues mentioned on this blog is left to your own judgement.)

The latest CAI post points out where Bob Sungenis is heading. His associate Albert Cipriani writes a revealing piece entitled, “A Case for Catholicism”.

In the second paragraph he mentions “the mud hole our apostates [sic] bishops have driven us into. “ He doesn’t how the bishops are apostate, though. Seems like that would be a rather significant point, doesn’t it? That’s particularly true since he’s attempting a case for Catholicism apart from the Church’s duly established hierarchy.

A few paragraphs further down he says, “The one worthy reason to believe in Catholicism today is the self-same reason there's always been to believe in Catholicism, and that is that it's the most rational religion in the world.” I’d differ. There are at least two better reasons:
#1 It’s TRUE, and
#2 It’s the only religion that offers humans hope of a better life both now and for ever.

Our reason is much too limited to understand much of anything about He who has made us, even when He’s told it to us Himself. God’ mercy – the heart of Christianity – certainly isn’t a rational act. So how can Catholicism be suddenly the paradigm of rationality?

He goes on to say that any theist who believes in a communicative God must believe in Catholicism. (A relatively big jump in reasoning, but not worth addressing right now.) Then the kicker: “Of course the 5 billion non-Catholic inhabitants of this earth would disagree. And probably 999 million of the 1 billion ostensible Catholics would disagree to boot. The truth is always outnumbered.” So, per Bob and Albert, there aren’t many more than one million actual Catholics in the world today. What, pray tell, separates the 999 million “ostensible” Catholics from the chosen few?

In summary, there are unspecified charges that the bishops (either some or all, no specificity here) are apostate, an insistence on maintaining pure reason and the accusation that nearly all “ostensible” Catholics aren’t worthy of the name. Bob, remember that Jesus said He would be with us always and that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. The words of Jesus must take precedence over your opinion (or mine) of how things ought to be. Please take this chance to re-assess your growing rift with the institutional Church. Just as God is merciful, so are His followers. There will be great rejoicing at your return to the fold.

NB: the brief exceprts quoted from CAI’s website above are for the express purposes of comment and criticism. Anyone who wants to see the full contexxt of the remarks should go here.

News from Bill Cork, including an e-mail he received from Bob Sungenis. In my opinion (experienced in working with the law and even in investigation and trial preparation for a high-profile libel case in the early 1990s, but still not an attorney), one item in the Sungeins e-mail could rise to the level of libel.

Bob Sungenis says that “About Mr. Cork: He is a liberal Catholic who denies some of the most basic doctrines of the Catholic faith.”

"Liberal Catholic" probably doesn't mean the same thing to any two people, so it's a well-nigh meaningless epithet. On the other hand, to say that Bill Cork “denies some of the most basic doctrines of the Catholic faith” is (1) false (as far as I can tell); (2) meant to denigrate the readers’ opinion of Mr. Cork; and, if we’re counting Mr. Cork as a public figure, (3) it was in all likelihood made by Mr. Sungenis with either knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. That makes it libel. All Mr. Cork would have to do is prove some damage to his reputation. (That could be the hardest part given the beating that Mr. Sungenis’ credibility has taken in recent weeks.)

If Bob Sungenis has some solid evidence that Bill Cork denies ANY basic doctrine of the Catholic faith, I’d be very interested in seeing it, as I’m sure Mr. Cork would be too. If nothing else, maybe we can find out what Bob Sungenis thinks are basic doctrines!

It’s especially sad to see Bob Sungenis sink to stating that Mr. Cork disagrees with him because Mr. Cork has some Jewish ancestors.

Bob, on the off chance you read this and don’t take it as a personal attack, please take a moment to consider the possibility that the people who are criticizing you are not doing so to ruin you personally or because they’re wrong, but because they care about the Body of Christ and fear that some of the things you’re currently doing are not in the best interest of that sacred Body.

As you no doubt know Amy Welborn asked her many readers to mention what was done in their parishes to commemorate Respect Life Sunday yesterday. Even before I read her site, I wanted to post about my parish.

I am gravely disappointed in my pastor. I’ve had differences with him before about things, but in all of them I’ve realized that the differences spring from our differences as people and that he generally loves the people of the parish.

Yesterday’s lessons, while not specifically chosen for the Life theme, certainly fit well into a Life theme. Instead, there was a rather predictable homily on pride. Now I understand that pride is a major issue in my life and I expect it is in the lives of many other people in the parish. I also remember roughly two homilies on pride every month this year. Another homily on pride isn’t going to challenge the people much, is it?

There was a brief mention in the intercessions that “we are to protect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death”. That was it. The bulletin could have been from last week (or next). There was one announcement regarding a winter coat drive – certainly a worthy cause, but not one of quite the same gravity.

At this point, we really do have to concentrate on the “Respect” part of “Respect Life”. Too many priests (not just my own pastor) just ignore life issues. One otherwise respectable Catholic blogger (who shall remain nameless) last week made light of other Christians’ concern for life issues.

Just think, if it were 50 million openly homosexual men being killed each year, would these same folks deride efforts at stopping the carnage? For that matter, what if it were 50 million of any group of people that had already been born? (If someone were to call for the execution of 50 million Moslems in retaliation for the terrorism practiced by some Moslems, most Catholics would be rightly outraged. How, then, is it acceptable for 50 million unborn to be killed every year?)

Respecting life of the unborn means we have to have more respect for ourselves and our own sexuality. It means that we aren’t mastered by lust. It means that we have to love our neighbors – every one of them, especially the ones that inconvenience us.

On a related note, I noticed that Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood is seeking a new President/CEO. I ardently hope that the position has become available due to the previous one developing a conscience.

Still can't get the purportedly great features of Blogger Pro to work.

I'm considering not only dropping Blogger Pro, but trying a whole different service, such as the BloggerZone mentioned the other day by Blogger emigre Instapundit. Just don't know if I want to spend $10/mo on it. Then again, you get what you pay for.

Folks are doing the Star Trek character selector. I went to it from Bill Cork.

Fittingly I was least like Riker (only because annoying Wes Crushee wasn’t an option!). My top five seem a bit disjointed:

1 Spock
2 EMH (the doctor on Voyager)
3. McCoy
4 Tuvok
5 Scotty

Two vulcans, two hysterics and a fix-it wizard. Fascinating.

Spiritual lesson from a big furry mutt (October 7, 2002)

Saturday my wife and I were in and out with running several errands. When we left together in the early afternoon, we were a bit surprised that the dog didn’t follow us to the garage door, like he usually does. My wife thought he was enjoying the beautiful weather in the back yard, which made sense to me.

When we came home about five hours later, though, the dog didn’t greet us – very odd indeed. I went into the back yard, to see if he was ill or injured. I couldn’t find him at all. My wife heard him crying in the basement. Before we left, he must have followed me into the basement without my noticing, only he didn’t get out of the basement before I closed the door. He didn’t make enough noise about it right away for me to notice where he was.

The dog did something good in following me, but he didn’t follow me enough. The same is too often true of my relationship with my Master. I don’t follow enough. I follow only a little and end up stuck in dark basements rather than experiencing the joy and freedom for which I was created.

May God grant me grace to follow Him more.

Prayer of the week:

(This was a part of the St. Francis Novena, but it's worth attention on its own too.)

May the power of Your love O Lord,
fiery and sweet as honey,
wean my heart from all that is under heaven,
so that I may die for love of Your Love
You who were so good as to die for love of my love.
Amen.

Kathryn Lively continues the follow-up to one hit wonders. Not being one to skip such an opportunity:
TSOB (The Sound of Baltimore) M F S B
The Boys Left Town Again Thin Lizzy
You Stole the Light From My Life
When You Left, You Schmuck, You Debbie Boone
I Don’t Like Tuesdays, Either Boomtown Rats
In a Yadda-Yadda-Yadda Iron Butterfly
Na Na Hey Hey, Kiss Yourself Goodbye! Steam
Closing Time at the Oasis Maria Muldaur

The mighty Eve Tushnet supplied this link with a very interesting in-depth story of one soul’s journey. The man in question has been in some very odd places, including extensive participation in this San Francisco Episcopal church I first learned of from Fr. Bryce Sibley’s wonderful site in its day. I pray that Huw will find that which he seeks, the only place where any human heart may rest.

Tonight, to celebrate St. Francis’ day, we’ll go to the Great American Beer Festival. (Of course the fact that it only happens 3 days a year has a little to do with why we’re going tonight too!) I’m hoping to get a chance to give a good feisty message to the Sam Adams rep.

Today I had to drive through the hinterlands.

The Home Brew Supply store has moved. Until recently it shared a building with AA. While I suppose the move is for the best, I’ll miss the irony.

Last night I ordered Blogger Pro. There’s a 30 day guarantee. If performance doesn’t improve, I might have to invoke it.

Mark Shea has a great note on the latest wtih Bob Sungenis. (I had tried to post on the PetersNet icon dropping around 6 this morning, but that post never made it.)