Monthly Archives: May 2008

From Pope Leo XIII

From the encyclical On the Nature of True Liberty:

If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true
and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they
would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she
is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in
the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not
serve,” and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most
foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread
and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves
liberals.

On progressivism, from Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae:

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily
attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings
more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions
. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, is to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to
tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them.
It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if
the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to
mind. [emphasis added]

Later, he condemns “conscience” as the liberal teach it:

there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic
doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to
which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her
supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted
the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and
the trend of his own proper activity

On the idea that there can be multiple opinions on matters of faith and morals:

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

On vita activa versus vita contempliva:

Nor should any difference of praise be made between those who follow the active state of life and those others who, charmed with solitude, give themselves to prayer and bodily mortification. And how much, indeed, of good report these have merited, and do merit, is known surely to all who do not forget that the “continual prayer of the just man” avails to placate and to bring down the blessings of heaven when to such prayers bodily mortification is added.

Pope Leo discusses several attitudes among American Catholics: moral relativism, cultural relativism, the belief that their faith should not inform their public life, and the belief that they should not try to evangelize their non-Catholic neighbors. He condemns, collectively, these things as “Americanism”

Advertisements

From the Syllabus of Errors

Now, many try to argue that The Syllabus of Errors has been somehow abrogated by Vatican II–even some writings by Cardinal Ratzinger seem to read that way. However, there are several problems with this view. First, the errors Bl. Pius IX lists are just as wrong today as they were then. Second, the “syllabus” is itself a checklist of topics he discussed in other documents, many of which are difficult to find in English. He is specifically referring the reader back to the documents where he discusses these matters in more length. All of us have occasions to abbreviate into “sound bites” what we elaborate on more extensively elsewhere.

At present, I’m elaborating on such a “sound bite” of my own, and I’m excerpting from the Syllabus to help build my evidentiary case against the Progressive/Liberal/Liberation Theology movements.
(Remember that every statement is intended as a negative; he’s listing propositions that are false):

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the
light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9,
1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

This is one of the statements that some people will say Vatican II overturns. Let’s look carefully at what Bl. Pius says. First, he says, “Every man is free”; the question here is “from whom”? I’m going to assume that he’s not concerned about civil laws and that, in fact, he’s talking about God. The fact is that every person is not, ultimately, free to choose whatever religion he or she wants. If the person is “guided by the light of reason,” he or she will be led to Catholicism.

Yes, the Church teaches “individual conscience,” but conscience must always be informed. A person who tries to be guided by reason, and does what is best in accordance with his or her understanding, may possibly be saved through some extraordinary grace. However, a person who has been informed of the Catholic faith has an obligation to adopt it. See Karl Adam’s Spirit of Catholicism for an elaboration on this. Adam summarizes the principle as such: a Jew cannot be saved by Judaism. A Jew who *thinks* Judaism is true and doesn’t adequately understand Catholicism can possibly be saved by the grace of the Church, but not because of his own religion (you can substitute whatever religion you want).

So, the error of the progressives in this case is the attitude that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, or, as some people put it, “We’re all going to the same place in different boats.”

A person who uses reason to expressly reject Catholicism cannot get to Heaven.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal
salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov.
9, 1846

Discussed above. Nothing in Vatican II even suggests this teaching has changed, yet many who believe in the “Spirit of Vatican II” think it has changed, and that Dominus Iesus and related documents are reactionary.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all
those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto
conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc

Again, some people think this has changed. It has not. The operative word is “good hope”. The Church teaches that some who are not Catholic *may* be saved by some kind of extraordinary grace. That is not the same as “good hope.”

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian
religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic
Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

Again, if you actually read the documents, this hasn’t changed, either. See Dominus Iesus.

IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES,
CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in
the severest terms in the Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution
“Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8,
1849, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto
conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.

The fact that he refers to socialism as a “pest” should qualify as a ’nuff said.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly
bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as
dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the
Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

This is a common attitude of the “progressives”: “If it’s not dogma, I’m not required to believe it.” Wrong.

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits
of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in
defining matters of faith and morals. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10,
1851.

This is, of course, the Kennedy Heresy, perpetuated by just about every Catholic Democrat and many Catholic Republicans: “The Church has no business telling the State what to do.”

This one should interest Pio Nono-hating liberals:

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military
conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either
of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress,
especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. — Letter
to the Bishop of Monreale “Singularis nobisque,” Sept. 29, 1864.

In other words, Pius IX is anti-draft.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent
discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of
its acts. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

I’d like to confirm this by seeing the original letter, but I’m assuming by “national councils,” he means “councils of bishops” and not civil legislatures. If so, he’s saying that councils of bishops, such as the USCCB, do not have absolute teaching authority, and it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the decision of a national bishops’ conference (as, for example, did St. Thomas More). Since most progressives in the US rely on the documents of the USCCB to back up their position that “social justice” outweighs moral absolutes like contraception, divorce, homosexuality and abortion, this is an interesting principle.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and
interests of society. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution
“Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.

This is, of course, the implicit teaching of Kennedy Catholics, who say that the Church’s teachings on contraception and abortion cannot be enforced in America.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church,
but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. —
Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

Again, this is the position of Kennedy Catholics: “We are politicians; therefore, the Church can’t tell us what to do.”

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from
the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

This is one commonly pointed to as being “changed” by Vatican II. Key words, however, are “ought to be,” as opposed to “may be.” It’s the question of “freedom of religion” versus “freedom from religion.” He’s condemning the Jeffersonian “wall of separation,” as did Pope Benedict when he came to the US in April and said that a free society should allow people to speak about their religious beliefs in public, and that politicians must express their religious beliefs in their political offices.

66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract
and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial
Rbenediction alone. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

This is interesting. These days, because of rampant divorce and annulment abuse in the US, people whine about “I had a real marriageThak!” Often, they’re told, “Well, an annulment doesn’t say anything about the marriage, just the sacramentality of the marriage.” Sorry, nope. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. A marriage is a marriage. If there wasn’t a valid contract, there wasn’t a valid marriage.

Related:

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many
cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. —
Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Lastly,

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to
terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum
cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

Trojan Horse in the City of God

Sometime in the early 1970s, a reviewer in L’Osservatore Romano said that every priest, and every layperson concerned with the state of the Church, should read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s Trojan Horse in the City of God. Christoph Cardinal Shonborn is quoted as saying, “Trojan Horse has lost none of its relevance. We have not yet surmounted the crisis.” Bishop John Myers of Peoria (who once boycotted the National Catholic Education Association Conference due to Sr. Joan Chittister being a speaker): “I encourage all Catholics to profit from the profound insights of this great philosopher.” The late John Cardinal O’Connor: “We can ask whether von Hildebrand’s critique of distorted interpretations of the council is still valid today. I believe it is, because so many of his warnings were ignored and even ridiculed in 1967.”

Primarily, the book concerns how the philosophies of Marx and Hegel underly the “progressive” movement in the Church. He establishes his argument on the idea of incomplete truth. An incomplete truth is not a lie.

The Catholic Church has, and has always had, the complete deposit of God’s Revelation. However, in practice, that deposit is usually expressed incompletely. Not everyone can really know everything there is to know about divine revelation. And people tend to express what needs to be expressed in different situations.

The Church prior to Vatican II, he says, was in such a state of “incomplete truth”. The Church was promoting nothing “false”; just neglecting to teach or emphasize certain aspects of the full Truth.

However, many who were dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the Church before Vatican II went to the other extreme. Rather than simply expanding the range of the Church’s teachings, as Bl. John XXIII intended, the progressives adopted the idea that everything “pre-conciliar” was bad, outdated, and reflective of a “Catholic ghetto.” In their zeal to correct what was “wrong” with the Church (and that wrongness being a deficiency, not a corruption), they instead adopted ideas that were completely wrong.

The desire for change was integrated with the philosophies of history of Hegel and Marx. Von Hildebrand’s exposition of the failures of trying to combine Marxism and Catholicism is profound. Unfortunately, I can’t find my copy to quote anything directly, but it is a must read for anyone concerned about the Church, the Culture Wars and what John Paul II repeatedly called the greatest spiritual battle in the history of the Church.

My problems with the "Catholic Left" and "Liberation Theology", Pt. 1

I was born in one of the most liberal cities and diocese in America, Erie, PA. As liberal as Bishop Donald Trautman is, compared to his predecessor, Michael Murphy, he’s downright conservative (Murphy wanted to have a dance stage in front of the altar of the Cathedral). Erie is the hometown of Joan Chittister and Eleanor Schmiel, the US base of the falsely named Pax Christi.

My parents were “Reagan Democrats.” Politics confused me, but I knew a few things: Reagan was good, abortion was bad. I didn’t understand the Mass, but I knew there was something special going on there. I couldn’t see, so it mostly bored me. What I *did* know was tha tthe processions, the incense, the statues, the stained glass, the gothic architecture and the organ music spoke to the depths of my soul. On the other hand, when adults gave me vague explanations of the Incarnation and the Eucharist, I didn’t understand. However, First Communion changed all that. I fell in love with the Eucharist. I avidly read the saint books and “first mass books” I got for first Communion–over and over for years.

In fifth grade, I read The Chronicles of Narnia. Then, in 1988, we moved to South Carolina, and I was introduced to fndamentalism. Like Flannery O’Connor, I found that Evangelicalism spoke to the heart of what one experiences in the Eucharist, the saints, the traditional liturgy and in Gothic architecture, that somehow the attitudes and daily practice of Catholics seemed to contradict with the absolute demands and substance of their faith.

I cut my theological teeth on the writings of Karl Keating, Thomas Merton and C. S. Lewis, as well as a thorough study of hagiography, popular devotions, and Marian apparitions.

Catholic high school nearly destroyed my faith, but nourished in that I read almost every theological and spiritual book in the school’s library and the public library: John Cardinal O’Connor, Etienne Gilson, The Code of Canon Law, St. Augustine’s Confessions, The Imitation of Christ. . . .

Meanwhile, what I encountered in both parish and school during my Catholic school years was some superficial worldly corruption of Catholicism: the liturgy that so moved me as a child–and, even more, the traditional liturgy that haunted me when I heard and read about it–was replaced with Gather and Glory and Praise. I was taught that the statues and stained glass that so enraptured me and called me to heaven were to be stripped away. I was told that saints were irrelevant to modern Catholicism. I was told that money was more important than unborn babies’ lives. In my childhood, I thought it would be cool to be a priest because of the cool outfits they wore, and the cool stories that the priests who visited our home would tell about their and other priests’ encounters with the Devil. I looked in awe on nuns in habits. I read about St. Catherine of Siena, St. Clare of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of Lisieux, and I wished God had made me a girl so I could be a nun and wear a cool habit.

In my teen years, I found nuns wearing “fashionable” clothing and speaking against the Holy Father. I found priests shunning clerical garb and preaching a lowest common denominator.

I heard them preaching about helping the poor and oppressed. Yet I saw how they actually treated those in our parish, myself and others, who were disabled.

I knew from my readings that the Eucharist was the most important thing in our faith, that it was important to have a living relationship with Jesus in the Host. I did not see this in many of the priests and religious I knew then. They emphasized “community meal.” They downplayed Eucharistic devotions and ridiculed the members of the parish who participated in Adoration.

Among clergy, religious and laity alike, many people liked to talk about “social justice.” They proudly supported the Democratic Party and talked about how “social justice” and “Catholic social teaching” were more important than saving babies’ lives. Yet I knew, from my reading, that abortion and contraception were the most horrible evils facing the world.

I saw that those spoke about “social justice” were least likely to actually want to encounter the poor. My dad’s brother used to call him every day with the latest from the New York Times, and my dad said, “When was the last time you actually had a black person or a homeless person to your home?” He never bothered my dad with the New York Times again.

Chesterton talks somewhere about how we “love everyone” but hate our next door neighbors. The liberals who preached “justice for the poor” in the abstract had no interest in the poor and suffering in their midst. It was the conservatives I knew growing up who actually went out of their way to help those who were disadvantaged and rejected by society. I learned quickly that liberals only wanted socialism as a way to ease their own consciences, so they could go on enjoying their luxuries.

Usually, “liberal” and “progressive” Catholics will at least claim to be pro-life. They just claim that other issues are more important, and they don’t really believe the Republicans are pro-life (I’ve always doubted that the Republicans are pro-life, and it’s been proven in the past few years, but then, I’ve cast most of my votes for third parties).

However, it’s on other issues where the liberals (and many “conservatives”) show their true stripes. Talk to them about contraception, “Gay rights,” divorce, “women’s ordination”, and so on. . . .

There’s always at least *something*. Allegiance to the “progressive” ideology ultimately leads to some kind of heterodoxy. I’ve known extremely few exceptions to this rule. And, most assuredly, those who are “progressive” tend to balk at traditional liturgy, popular devotions, devotion to Saints, devotion to the Blessed Mother, or, worse, devotion to the Eucharist. They emphasize Mass as a “Communal meal.” They sing songs about how “We are the Body of Christ,” and how this “Blessed Bread” is supposed to inspire us to go out and serve the poor.

Occasionally, I’ll read something that makes me challenge my understanding of Catholicism. For example, I once read some of the writings of Rembert Weakland, and they had a certain internal consistency that really shook me to the core. Then I read some passages of John of the Cross, and found that he said exactly the opposite of Rembert Weakland: that the purpose of our faith is not to serve the poor; the purpose of serving the poor is to facilitate a deeper union with God.

The Mystic Doctor writes that we search for contemplative union, and that the vita activa is merely a means to that end. Once contemplative union is achieved, vita activa is no longer necessary. This is reiterated throughout the saints. In one of Flannery O’Connor’s favorite passages, St. Jerome condemns a priest who has left desert life for pastoral life in the city.

Even Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, perhaps one of the most brilliant examples of vita activa and “concern for the poor” in the history of the Church, is also known for the following words:

You see, in the final analysis,
it is between you and God; It was never between you and them anyway.


C. S. Lewis condemns what he calls “Christianity and . . .” Any time the agenda becomes more important than Christ, there’s a problem. And what I saw, growing up, among liberal/progressive Catholics was that their political agenda superseded their faith.

At the time, I did not see that as much with conservatives. Again, I saw that conservatives had a genuince concern with actual charitable giving, with helping those around them in need, and with not just giving hand-outs but hands-up. It’s like this joke, which I originally read on a priest’s blog.

In college, I read Russell Kirk, Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Ven. Pius XII called “The Twentieth Century Doctor of the Church” even before he did some of his greatest work), and I discovered EWTN, Crisis, Ignatius Press, and Adoremus. For most of my life, I’d felt alone. I knew what I’d read in books. I knew what sense of my faith I got from the saints’ lives and writings and from Marian apparitions. I knew what sense I got from good liturgies. But I found that most people thought I was a kook for having those beliefs. Now, I found that I was actually right on.

Liberals always say “read the Church’s social teachings,” yet every Magisterial document I’ve read leads me all the more to support the ideas of Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes. Nowhere do I see anything that supports the socialistic policies of the Democratic Party. Of course, by “Magisterial,” I mean conciliar and papal documents, not necessarily USCCB guidelines or teachings of particular bishops.

In short, the problem with progressives is that their priorities are upside down. For them, Christianity is a means to social change. Social change is the end for them, when it should be the means to the end of personal union with Christ.

We’re officially in the 1850s

I’ve said it over and over. The history of our current culture war is the same as what happened in the culture wars of the mid-1800s.
Then, it was slavery, alcohol and abortion. Today, it’s abortion, bioethics, and marriage.

Then, you had the Whig Party, divided between religious “fundamentalists” and rich laissez-faire capitalists, against the pro-slavery, pro-states’ rights Democratic Party.

Then, you had some Catholics who were abolitionists, and you had some Catholics who were pro-South, but not pro-slavery, saying that the South represented Catholic “social teachings”, even if it was wrong on slavery.

Today, you have some Catholics who want to stop abortion first and foremost, and other Catholics who supported the Democratic Party, claiming that it is more in keeping with Catholic “social teaching,” even if it’s wrong on abortion.

Both times, the Democrats rallied support by saying that the Whigs/Republicans were trying to establish a theocracy.

In 1852, the tendentious alliance of the Whig Party was fractured over the slavery issue. Many abolitionists pulled out of politics altogether for a while. In 1860, the abolitionists joined together as the Republicans, and Lincoln won in a 3-way split.

It may be that this year will turn out to be the 1860. If religious conservaties–many of whom are talking about abstaining altogether–were to rally around Dr. Alan Keyes, he could actually have a shot at winning.

However, too many people have already signed on to the McCain camp. Most pundits are now saying McCain is doomed to lose. America is very likely doomed to 4 years of tyranny under Barack Obama, who will not allow diversity of thought in his administration. Bush has certainly laid the groundwork for presidential tyranny.

However, if history repeats itself–as it has been throughout the Bush administration–2016 should be the year. Obama will win, and will prove to be the worst tyrant in US history. The First Amendment will be all but repealed by Hate Speech laws. Various UN declarations, such as the World Court, that Republicans have successfully kept at by for 20 years will be passed in a matter of months. All sorts of “Gay rights” legislation will be passed. Federal funding of abortion and contraception will skyrocket. Laws will be past penalizing people from having children, if not an outright 1 or 2 child policy. Medicine will be socialized, and people will have to wait in line just to see a cardiologist or get an echo, much less open heart surgery. Those of us with more severe health problems will be “triaged” out of the system. Euthanasia will be legalized to take the burden off the government health plan.

Taxes will go through the roof to fund the new health mandates.

And, once it’s too late, people will wake up and realize the mistakes they’ve made. A new party will form, in 2012 or 2016, maybe even 2020, but it will form. And it will win. There will very likely be another civil war within the next generation. But it won’t be a war between the states. It will be outright anarchy between at least four factions: Michael Moore Anarchists, Religious Conservatives, African Americans and Hispanics.

Pope Benedict: It’s our duty and right to convert people

From Matthew, chapter 28:

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even
to the consummation of the world.

What’s really scary about the "Kmiec" isse

Now, I never even heard of Douglas Kmiec until his endorsement of Barack Obama created buzz some weeks ago, yet everyone’s talking about his long-standing pro-life record, as if he’s Judie Brown or Joseph Scheidler or somebody. Let’s take that for granted, though, and here’s an interesting comment that’s been circling the blogosphere, by someone named Darwin:

The other mildly disturbing thing about all this is that Kmiec seems to be
dealing almost entirely with an Obama that exists entirely within his own
head.

Apparently, before endorsing Obama, this Kmiec guy endorsed Romney. Some people are calling it a contrast, but it isn’t, really, since Romney isn’t really pro-life, either, and merely changed his position nominally to try and get votes. Romney and Obama are actually a lot alike.

Anyway, I think most Obama supporters are supporting an Obama that exists only in their heads. He says, “I’m the Candidate of Hope. I’m the Candidate of Change.” They insert what their hopes are, or what they want to change, and follow the Pied Piper.

If Kmiec is the respected Catholic scholar and pro-lifer that he and everyone else claim, then to suddenly turn his support to such an obviously evil candidate (and really two obviously evil candidates), and then to use subtlty and sophistry to justify that support, and to try to promote others to join him in the cause, show that he must be one or more of three things:

1. Mentally ill
2. Possessed
3. brainwashed by a cult

Any one of which should also say something about the candidate he supports.